MEDIA LIES REGARDING SYRIA [PART 2]
SELECTED EXCERPTS OF OBSERVERS’ MISSION REPORT
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/02/03/text-of-leakd-arab-league-mission-report-reveals-media-lies-regarding-syria/
Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria. December 24, 2011 to January 18, 2012
Relevant Excerpts of the Report are indicated below: bold added, Scroll down for Complete Text of Observers’ Mission Report):
“The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol. This development on the ground can undoubtedly be attributed to the excessive use of force by Syrian Government forces in response to protests that occurred before the deployment of the Mission demanding the fall of the regime. In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.
…
In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.
…
28. The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.
29. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.
According to their latest reports and their briefings to the Head of the Mission on 17 January 2012 in preparation for this report, group team leaders witnessed peaceful demonstrations by both Government supporters and the opposition in several places. None of those demonstrations were disrupted, except for some minor clashes with the Mission and between loyalists and opposition. These have not resulted in fatalities since the last presentation before the Arab Ministerial Committee on the Situation in Syria at its meeting of 8 January 2012.
…
Some observers reneged on their duties and broke the oath they had taken. They made contact with officials from their countries and gave them exaggerated accounts of events. Those officials consequently developed a bleak and unfounded picture of the situation.
Arab and foreign audiences of certain media organizations have questioned the Mission’s credibility because those organizations use the media to distort the facts. It will be difficult to overcome this problem unless there is political and media support for the Mission and its mandate. It is only natural that some negative incidents should occur as it conducts its activities because such incidents occur as a matter of course in similar missions.
…
75. Recently, there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups.
…
Since its establishment, attitudes towards the Mission have been characterized by insincerity or, more broadly speaking, a lack of seriousness. Before it began carrying out its mandate and even before its members had arrived, the Mission was the target of a vicious campaign directed against the League of Arab States and the Head of the Mission, a campaign that increased in intensity after the observers’ deployment. The Mission still lack the political and media support it needs in order to fulfil its mandate. Should its mandate be extended, the goals set out in the Protocol will not be achieved unless such support is provided and the Mission receives the backing it needs to ensure the success of the Arab solution.”
====================
COMPLETE TEXT (WITHOUT ANNEXES)
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF THE LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES OBSERVER MISSION TO SYRIA. DECEMBER 24, 2011 TO JANUARY 18, 2012
[relevant sections of this report have bewen highlighted in bold]
Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria for the period from 24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012
The complete leaked report of the Arab League Observers Mission with annexes (pdf)
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
“We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to carry it, and were afraid of it; and man carried it. Surely he is sinful, very foolish” [Qur’an 33:72]
domingo, 5 de febrero de 2012
MEDIA LIES REGARDING SYRIA [PART 3]
MEDIA LIES REGARDING SYRIA [PART 3]
LIES AND DOUBLE STANDARDS: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: SYRIA OR THE US?
Russia and China Veto Syria Resolution
- by Stephen Lendman - 2012-02-05
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29080
Shortly before 1PM EST, February 4, Reuters headlined, "Russia, China veto UN resolution telling Assad to quit," saying:
The diplomatic "setback" came the day after "Syrian opposition (elements) accused Assad's forces of killing hundreds of people (in) Homs, the bloodiest night in the 11 months of upheaval in the pivotal Arab country."
Like other pro-Western media, Reuters pointed fingers the wrong way. Throughout the conflict, Assad was blamed for Western-backed externally generated violence. In fact, he's more victim than villain, but don't expect media scoundrels to explain.
Shortly before the Security Council vote, Obama called the Homs violence "unspeakable," demanded Assad step down immediately, and urged Security Council action against his "relentless brutality."
His public statement falsely claimed:
"Yesterday the Syrian government murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children, in Homs through shelling and other indiscriminate violence, and Syrian forces continue to prevent hundreds of injured civilians from seeking medical help."
"Any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern."
Since 1991 alone, Obama, Bush I and II, as well as Clinton, murdered millions of Iraqis, Serbians, Kosovars, Afghans, Libyans, Somalis, Yemenis, and many others ruthlessly and maliciously.
Today, Obama supports atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, as well as Israel's decades-long war on Palestine. Major media scoundrels ignore them. Instead, they cheerlead imperial US wars. Power takes precedence over truth and full disclosure.
John Pilger once called journalism the first casualty of war, adding:
"Not only that: it has become a weapon of war, a virulent censorship (and deception) that goes unrecognized in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission, whose power is such that, in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries...."
In their book titled, "Guardians of Power,” Davids Edwards and Cromwell explained why today's media are in crisis, putting free societies at risk. It's because fiction substitutes for fact. News is carefully filtered, dissent marginalized, and supporting wealth and power replaces full and accurate reporting.
For over a century, The New York Times notoriously served as America's lead print propaganda instrument. On February 4, it headlined, "Russia and China Block UN Action on Syrian Crisis,” saying:
Hours before the Saturday Security Council vote, "the Syrian military attack the ravaged city of Homs in what opposition leaders described as the bloodiest government assault" so far.
Hours later, "(t)he Security Council voted 13 to 2 in favor of a resolution backing an Arab League peace plan for Syria, but the measure was blocked by Russia and China (as a) potential violation of Syria's sovereignty."
In fact, calling for "further measures" if Assad failed to comply gave Washington and rogue partners enormous wiggle room for military intervention. It also largely pointed fingers one way, absolving Western-backed insurgents.
Current Security Council members include the five permanent members plus Azerbajan, Colombia, Germany, Guatemala, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa and Togo.
On February 4, Russia Today (RT.com) reported:
"Russia and China were the only permanent Security Council members opposing the draft, reminding others that it was not their place to intervene in another country's domestic affairs."
Under international law, it's illegal. Russia's UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said:
"The co-sponsors of the resolution have not, in the wording of the draft, taken into account that the Syrian opposition must distance itself from extremist groups committing acts of violence or called on states with the ability to use their influence to prevent such acts."
As a result, "(t)he Russian delegation was forced to vote against this draft resolution. We seriously regret this outcome of our joint work."
Attending a Munich security conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov diplomatically condemned the resolution for making false accusations and "taking sides in a civil war."
In response, US envoy Susan Rice said she was "disgusted" by vetoes "prop(ping) up desperate dictators." French ambassador Gerard Araud said "history will judge (Assad supporters) harshly."
In Munich, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a notorious war goddess, said, "To block this resolution is to bear the responsibility for the horrors on the ground in Syria."
Throughout his tenure as UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan was a notorious imperial tool. So is Ban Ki-moon. He called vetoing the Security Council resolution "a great disappointment to the people of Syria and the Middle East, and to all supporters of democracy and human rights."
He said doing so "undermines the role of the United Nations and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people."
Ban serves at the behest of Washington. He hasn't disappointed supporting years of imperial crimes, as well as Israel's against Palestine. No wonder Gazans pelted him with shoes during his February 2 visit.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) UN director Philippe Bolopion called last October's vetos by Moscow and Beijing "irresponsible," but today, "after weeks of Russian diplomatic game-playing and in the middle of a bloodbath in Homs, they are simply incendiary."
More often than not, HRW speaks for power, not human rights. Amnesty International also falls far short of its founding principles. Urging Russia's anti-Assad support, it called on Moscow to back Security Council actions against him instead of blaming perpetrators, not victims. It also falsely accused Gaddafi of Western-backed crimes. Libya's now ravaged. Will Syria be next? Veto power does little to stop it.
A Final Comment
On Press TV Saturday, this writer said Washington prefers diplomatic cover for planned aggression. However, with or without it, imperial wars aren't deterred. In 1999, it bypassed Security Council approval against Serbia/Kosovo. It claimed NATO authorization alone mattered.
Obama plans regime change in Syria and Iran. As a result, expect a similar scenario to unfold.
Perhaps a false flag incident will precipitate conflict. What Washington wants, it gets, using whatever pretext fits the plan.
With major media support, getting away with murder is simple as bombs away. Expect it.
-------------------------
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
LIES AND DOUBLE STANDARDS: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: SYRIA OR THE US?
Russia and China Veto Syria Resolution
- by Stephen Lendman - 2012-02-05
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29080
Shortly before 1PM EST, February 4, Reuters headlined, "Russia, China veto UN resolution telling Assad to quit," saying:
The diplomatic "setback" came the day after "Syrian opposition (elements) accused Assad's forces of killing hundreds of people (in) Homs, the bloodiest night in the 11 months of upheaval in the pivotal Arab country."
Like other pro-Western media, Reuters pointed fingers the wrong way. Throughout the conflict, Assad was blamed for Western-backed externally generated violence. In fact, he's more victim than villain, but don't expect media scoundrels to explain.
Shortly before the Security Council vote, Obama called the Homs violence "unspeakable," demanded Assad step down immediately, and urged Security Council action against his "relentless brutality."
His public statement falsely claimed:
"Yesterday the Syrian government murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children, in Homs through shelling and other indiscriminate violence, and Syrian forces continue to prevent hundreds of injured civilians from seeking medical help."
"Any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern."
Since 1991 alone, Obama, Bush I and II, as well as Clinton, murdered millions of Iraqis, Serbians, Kosovars, Afghans, Libyans, Somalis, Yemenis, and many others ruthlessly and maliciously.
Today, Obama supports atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, as well as Israel's decades-long war on Palestine. Major media scoundrels ignore them. Instead, they cheerlead imperial US wars. Power takes precedence over truth and full disclosure.
John Pilger once called journalism the first casualty of war, adding:
"Not only that: it has become a weapon of war, a virulent censorship (and deception) that goes unrecognized in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission, whose power is such that, in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries...."
In their book titled, "Guardians of Power,” Davids Edwards and Cromwell explained why today's media are in crisis, putting free societies at risk. It's because fiction substitutes for fact. News is carefully filtered, dissent marginalized, and supporting wealth and power replaces full and accurate reporting.
For over a century, The New York Times notoriously served as America's lead print propaganda instrument. On February 4, it headlined, "Russia and China Block UN Action on Syrian Crisis,” saying:
Hours before the Saturday Security Council vote, "the Syrian military attack the ravaged city of Homs in what opposition leaders described as the bloodiest government assault" so far.
Hours later, "(t)he Security Council voted 13 to 2 in favor of a resolution backing an Arab League peace plan for Syria, but the measure was blocked by Russia and China (as a) potential violation of Syria's sovereignty."
In fact, calling for "further measures" if Assad failed to comply gave Washington and rogue partners enormous wiggle room for military intervention. It also largely pointed fingers one way, absolving Western-backed insurgents.
Current Security Council members include the five permanent members plus Azerbajan, Colombia, Germany, Guatemala, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa and Togo.
On February 4, Russia Today (RT.com) reported:
"Russia and China were the only permanent Security Council members opposing the draft, reminding others that it was not their place to intervene in another country's domestic affairs."
Under international law, it's illegal. Russia's UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said:
"The co-sponsors of the resolution have not, in the wording of the draft, taken into account that the Syrian opposition must distance itself from extremist groups committing acts of violence or called on states with the ability to use their influence to prevent such acts."
As a result, "(t)he Russian delegation was forced to vote against this draft resolution. We seriously regret this outcome of our joint work."
Attending a Munich security conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov diplomatically condemned the resolution for making false accusations and "taking sides in a civil war."
In response, US envoy Susan Rice said she was "disgusted" by vetoes "prop(ping) up desperate dictators." French ambassador Gerard Araud said "history will judge (Assad supporters) harshly."
In Munich, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a notorious war goddess, said, "To block this resolution is to bear the responsibility for the horrors on the ground in Syria."
Throughout his tenure as UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan was a notorious imperial tool. So is Ban Ki-moon. He called vetoing the Security Council resolution "a great disappointment to the people of Syria and the Middle East, and to all supporters of democracy and human rights."
He said doing so "undermines the role of the United Nations and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people."
Ban serves at the behest of Washington. He hasn't disappointed supporting years of imperial crimes, as well as Israel's against Palestine. No wonder Gazans pelted him with shoes during his February 2 visit.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) UN director Philippe Bolopion called last October's vetos by Moscow and Beijing "irresponsible," but today, "after weeks of Russian diplomatic game-playing and in the middle of a bloodbath in Homs, they are simply incendiary."
More often than not, HRW speaks for power, not human rights. Amnesty International also falls far short of its founding principles. Urging Russia's anti-Assad support, it called on Moscow to back Security Council actions against him instead of blaming perpetrators, not victims. It also falsely accused Gaddafi of Western-backed crimes. Libya's now ravaged. Will Syria be next? Veto power does little to stop it.
A Final Comment
On Press TV Saturday, this writer said Washington prefers diplomatic cover for planned aggression. However, with or without it, imperial wars aren't deterred. In 1999, it bypassed Security Council approval against Serbia/Kosovo. It claimed NATO authorization alone mattered.
Obama plans regime change in Syria and Iran. As a result, expect a similar scenario to unfold.
Perhaps a false flag incident will precipitate conflict. What Washington wants, it gets, using whatever pretext fits the plan.
With major media support, getting away with murder is simple as bombs away. Expect it.
-------------------------
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
miércoles, 1 de febrero de 2012
THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS “DEAD”: THE ILLUSION OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY
THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS “DEAD”: THE ILLUSION OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29000
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/02/01/the-american-economy-is-dead-the-illusion-of-economic-recovery/
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts | Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Last Friday (January 27) the US Bureau of Economic Analysis announced its advance estimate that in the last quarter of 2011 the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.8% in real inflation-adjusted terms, an increase from the annual rate of growth in the third quarter.
Good news, right?
Wrong. If you want to know what is really happening, you must turn to John Williams at www.shadowstats.com.
What the presstitute media did not tell us is that almost the entire gain In GDP growth was due to “involuntary inventory build-up,” that is, more goods were produced than were sold.
Net of the unsold goods, the annualized real growth rate was eight-tenths of one percent.
And even that tiny growth rate is an exaggeration, because it is deflated with a measure of inflation that understates inflation. The US government’s measure of inflation no longer measures a constant standard of living. Instead, the government’s inflation measure relies on substitution of cheaper goods for those that rise in price. In other words, the government holds the measure of inflation down by measuring a declining standard of living. This permits our rulers to divert cost-of-living-adjustments that should be paid to Social Security recipients to wars of aggression, police state, and banker bailouts.
When the methodology that measures a constant standard of living is used to deflate nominal GDP, the result is a shrinking US economy. It becomes clear that the US economy has had no recovery and has now been in deep recession for four years despite the proclamation by the National Bureau of Economic Research of a recovery based on the rigged official numbers.
A government can always produce the illusion of economic growth by underestimating the rate of inflation. There is no question that a substitution-based measure of inflation understates the inflation that people experience. More proof that there has been no economic recovery is available from those data series that are unaffected by inflation. If the economy were in fact recovering, these date series would be picking up. Instead, they are flat or declining, as John Williams demonstrates.
For example, according to the government’s own data, payroll employment in December 2011 is less than in 2001. Meanwhile, there has been a decade of population growth. The presstitute media calls the alleged economic recovery a “jobless recovery,” which is a contradiction in terms. There can be no recovery without a growth in employment and consumer income.
Real average weekly earnings (deflated by the government’s CPI-W) have never recovered their 1973 peak. Real median household income (deflated by the government’s CPI-U) has not recovered its 2001 peak and is below the 1969 level. If earnings were deflated by the original methodology instead of by the new substitution-based methodology, the picture would be bleaker.
Consumer confidence shows no recovery and is far below the level of a decade ago. How does an economy recover without a recovery in consumer confidence?
Housing starts have remained flat since 2009 and are below their previous peak.
Retail sales are below the index level of January 2000.
Industrial production remains below the index level of January 2000.
To repeat, the only indicator of economic recovery is the GDP deflated with an understated measure of inflation.
The US economy cannot recover, because the US economy depends on consumer expenditures for more than 70% of its activity. The offshoring of middle class jobs has stopped the rise in middle class income and caused a drop in consumer spending power.
The Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan compensated for the absence of US consumer income growth with a policy of easy credit and a policy of driving up home prices with low interest rates. This policy allowed people to refinance their homes and to spend the inflated equity in their homes that Greenspan’s policy created.
In other words, an increase in consumer indebtedness and dissavings drove the economy in the place of the missing growth in consumer incomes.
Today, consumers are too indebted to borrow, and banks are too insolvent to lend. Therefore, there is no possibility of further debt expansion as a substitute for real income growth. An offshored economy is a dead and exhausted economy.
The consequences of a dead economy when the government is wasting trillions of dollars in wars of naked aggression and in bailouts of fraudulent financial institutions is a government budget that can only be financed by printing money.
The consequence of printing money when jobs have been moved offshore is an inflationary depression. This catastrophe could begin to unfold this year or in 2013. If Europe’s problems worsen, flight into dollars could delay sharp rises in US inflation until 2014.
The emperor has no clothes, and sooner or later this will be recognized.
--------------------------
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research
-------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29000
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/02/01/the-american-economy-is-dead-the-illusion-of-economic-recovery/
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts | Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Last Friday (January 27) the US Bureau of Economic Analysis announced its advance estimate that in the last quarter of 2011 the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.8% in real inflation-adjusted terms, an increase from the annual rate of growth in the third quarter.
Good news, right?
Wrong. If you want to know what is really happening, you must turn to John Williams at www.shadowstats.com.
What the presstitute media did not tell us is that almost the entire gain In GDP growth was due to “involuntary inventory build-up,” that is, more goods were produced than were sold.
Net of the unsold goods, the annualized real growth rate was eight-tenths of one percent.
And even that tiny growth rate is an exaggeration, because it is deflated with a measure of inflation that understates inflation. The US government’s measure of inflation no longer measures a constant standard of living. Instead, the government’s inflation measure relies on substitution of cheaper goods for those that rise in price. In other words, the government holds the measure of inflation down by measuring a declining standard of living. This permits our rulers to divert cost-of-living-adjustments that should be paid to Social Security recipients to wars of aggression, police state, and banker bailouts.
When the methodology that measures a constant standard of living is used to deflate nominal GDP, the result is a shrinking US economy. It becomes clear that the US economy has had no recovery and has now been in deep recession for four years despite the proclamation by the National Bureau of Economic Research of a recovery based on the rigged official numbers.
A government can always produce the illusion of economic growth by underestimating the rate of inflation. There is no question that a substitution-based measure of inflation understates the inflation that people experience. More proof that there has been no economic recovery is available from those data series that are unaffected by inflation. If the economy were in fact recovering, these date series would be picking up. Instead, they are flat or declining, as John Williams demonstrates.
For example, according to the government’s own data, payroll employment in December 2011 is less than in 2001. Meanwhile, there has been a decade of population growth. The presstitute media calls the alleged economic recovery a “jobless recovery,” which is a contradiction in terms. There can be no recovery without a growth in employment and consumer income.
Real average weekly earnings (deflated by the government’s CPI-W) have never recovered their 1973 peak. Real median household income (deflated by the government’s CPI-U) has not recovered its 2001 peak and is below the 1969 level. If earnings were deflated by the original methodology instead of by the new substitution-based methodology, the picture would be bleaker.
Consumer confidence shows no recovery and is far below the level of a decade ago. How does an economy recover without a recovery in consumer confidence?
Housing starts have remained flat since 2009 and are below their previous peak.
Retail sales are below the index level of January 2000.
Industrial production remains below the index level of January 2000.
To repeat, the only indicator of economic recovery is the GDP deflated with an understated measure of inflation.
The US economy cannot recover, because the US economy depends on consumer expenditures for more than 70% of its activity. The offshoring of middle class jobs has stopped the rise in middle class income and caused a drop in consumer spending power.
The Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan compensated for the absence of US consumer income growth with a policy of easy credit and a policy of driving up home prices with low interest rates. This policy allowed people to refinance their homes and to spend the inflated equity in their homes that Greenspan’s policy created.
In other words, an increase in consumer indebtedness and dissavings drove the economy in the place of the missing growth in consumer incomes.
Today, consumers are too indebted to borrow, and banks are too insolvent to lend. Therefore, there is no possibility of further debt expansion as a substitute for real income growth. An offshored economy is a dead and exhausted economy.
The consequences of a dead economy when the government is wasting trillions of dollars in wars of naked aggression and in bailouts of fraudulent financial institutions is a government budget that can only be financed by printing money.
The consequence of printing money when jobs have been moved offshore is an inflationary depression. This catastrophe could begin to unfold this year or in 2013. If Europe’s problems worsen, flight into dollars could delay sharp rises in US inflation until 2014.
The emperor has no clothes, and sooner or later this will be recognized.
--------------------------
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research
-------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
ANY TALK OF VALUES IS A JOKE
ANY TALK OF VALUES IS A JOKE
By George Galloway
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30384.htm
January 30, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- HILLARY Clinton said - that the slaying of apparently unarmed, barefoot, skinny Afghan youths by armed US Marines who could hardly wait to urinate on the deceased was "inconsistent with American values".
Inconsistent? What, with the values of Wounded Knee? With the values of distributing smallpox-infected blankets to the native Americans to ethnically cleanse them from their lands so the settlers could steal it?
Inconsistent with the wholesale slaughter of the USA's aboriginal people, the enslavement of millions of others until the 1860s on account of their faces being the color black?
Inconsistent with the fact that Barack Obama's house was built by black slaves and his own father couldn't have urinated in the same public lavatory as a white man until the 60s?
Inconsistent with the American values of the Vietnam War? You know... the smell of Napalm in the morning? The Agent Orange chemical weapons, the massacre of millions of Vietnamese peasants?
Truth is, what your Marines did is absolutely consistent with the values you have projected ever since the last honorable shot you fired back in 1945.
--------------
COMMENTS Open the website above.
1. William
The Smirking Chimp and war criminal Bush destroyed what little was left in America of "values". Under the guise of a war on terror, neatly put in place by the 911 attacks on America by very high levels of the US government and Israel, goons working in the name of America kidnapped, tortured and even murdered people who had nothing to do with 911. All for the Khazar trash in Israel and their moneyed surrogates here in America.
2. Bob Jones
It is most certainly not inconsistent with Hillary's or for that matter Bill's values. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, Elian Gonzalez, Whitewater and on and on, such wonderful people.
3. Re-firex
IT IS UNFAIR AND WRONG TO COMPARE ISRAEL TO THE NAZIS.
THE CORRECT COMPARISON IS THAT OF THE NAZIS TO THE ISRAELIS:
THE NAZIS JUST COPIED THE JEWISH "MANUAL" POINT BY POINT
a.
DEHUMANIZE and then EXTERMINATE ALL NON-MEMBERS:
I became curious about the basis of the Jewish "claim" to Palestine, how they were always saying "God gave it to us", so I read their claim. Their "claim" to Palestine is based entirely on War Crimes and GENOCIDE.
Numbers c.21 v.03 Canaanites
Numbers c.21 v.24 Amorites
Numbers c.21 v.33-35 Bashan
Numbers c.31 all Midianites
Numbers c.32 v. more Amorites
Deuteronomy c.2 v.34 People of Heshbon
Deuteronomy c.3 v.6 really the whole chapter. threescore cities
Joshua c.12
A list of victims of Israeli GENOCIDE
Where are THEIR "holocaust" Memorials!
OCCUPY YOUR VICTIM'S DWELLINGS/LAND
Numbers c.21 v.25
Numbers c.32 v.39
Numbers c.33 v.53
(just to name a FEW)
GENOCIDE CODIFIED IN THEIR RELIGION
Numbers c.33 v.31-34
Deuteronomy c.7 v.2
Deuteronomy c.12 v.28-30
Deuteronomy c.20 v.11-16
TERRORISM CODIFIED IN THEIR RELIGION
Deuteronomy c.2 v.2
Deuteronomy c.7 v.1
Jews SELF-anointed "The CHOSEN People of GOD"
Nazis SELF-anointed "The GENETICALLY CHOSEN People of God".
b.
I became curious about the basis of the Jewish "claim" to Palestine, how they were always saying "God gave it to us", so I read their claim. Their "claim" to Palestine is based entirely on War Crimes and GENOCIDE.
IT IS UNFAIR AND WRONG TO COMPARE ISRAEL TO THE NAZIS.
THE CORRECT COMPARISON IS THAT OF THE NAZIS TO THE ISRAELIS:
THE NAZIS JUST COPIED THE JEWISH "MANUAL" POINT BY POINT
KILL THE SICK and CRIPPLED
Numbers c.5 v.2-4
KILL HOMOSEXUALS
Leviticus c.20 v.13 well, really the whole chapter
KILL ALL DISSIDENTS:
Exodus c.32 v.27
Numbers c.11 v.1-2
Numbers c.16 all
Numbers c.21 v.5-6
Numbers v.26 v.10
KILL anyone who engages in "DIVERSITY" or "INTEGRATION"
Numbers v25 v.4-8
Deuteronomy c.14 v.2
continued...
-------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
By George Galloway
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30384.htm
January 30, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- HILLARY Clinton said - that the slaying of apparently unarmed, barefoot, skinny Afghan youths by armed US Marines who could hardly wait to urinate on the deceased was "inconsistent with American values".
Inconsistent? What, with the values of Wounded Knee? With the values of distributing smallpox-infected blankets to the native Americans to ethnically cleanse them from their lands so the settlers could steal it?
Inconsistent with the wholesale slaughter of the USA's aboriginal people, the enslavement of millions of others until the 1860s on account of their faces being the color black?
Inconsistent with the fact that Barack Obama's house was built by black slaves and his own father couldn't have urinated in the same public lavatory as a white man until the 60s?
Inconsistent with the American values of the Vietnam War? You know... the smell of Napalm in the morning? The Agent Orange chemical weapons, the massacre of millions of Vietnamese peasants?
Truth is, what your Marines did is absolutely consistent with the values you have projected ever since the last honorable shot you fired back in 1945.
--------------
COMMENTS Open the website above.
1. William
The Smirking Chimp and war criminal Bush destroyed what little was left in America of "values". Under the guise of a war on terror, neatly put in place by the 911 attacks on America by very high levels of the US government and Israel, goons working in the name of America kidnapped, tortured and even murdered people who had nothing to do with 911. All for the Khazar trash in Israel and their moneyed surrogates here in America.
2. Bob Jones
It is most certainly not inconsistent with Hillary's or for that matter Bill's values. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, Elian Gonzalez, Whitewater and on and on, such wonderful people.
3. Re-firex
IT IS UNFAIR AND WRONG TO COMPARE ISRAEL TO THE NAZIS.
THE CORRECT COMPARISON IS THAT OF THE NAZIS TO THE ISRAELIS:
THE NAZIS JUST COPIED THE JEWISH "MANUAL" POINT BY POINT
a.
DEHUMANIZE and then EXTERMINATE ALL NON-MEMBERS:
I became curious about the basis of the Jewish "claim" to Palestine, how they were always saying "God gave it to us", so I read their claim. Their "claim" to Palestine is based entirely on War Crimes and GENOCIDE.
Numbers c.21 v.03 Canaanites
Numbers c.21 v.24 Amorites
Numbers c.21 v.33-35 Bashan
Numbers c.31 all Midianites
Numbers c.32 v. more Amorites
Deuteronomy c.2 v.34 People of Heshbon
Deuteronomy c.3 v.6 really the whole chapter. threescore cities
Joshua c.12
A list of victims of Israeli GENOCIDE
Where are THEIR "holocaust" Memorials!
OCCUPY YOUR VICTIM'S DWELLINGS/LAND
Numbers c.21 v.25
Numbers c.32 v.39
Numbers c.33 v.53
(just to name a FEW)
GENOCIDE CODIFIED IN THEIR RELIGION
Numbers c.33 v.31-34
Deuteronomy c.7 v.2
Deuteronomy c.12 v.28-30
Deuteronomy c.20 v.11-16
TERRORISM CODIFIED IN THEIR RELIGION
Deuteronomy c.2 v.2
Deuteronomy c.7 v.1
Jews SELF-anointed "The CHOSEN People of GOD"
Nazis SELF-anointed "The GENETICALLY CHOSEN People of God".
b.
I became curious about the basis of the Jewish "claim" to Palestine, how they were always saying "God gave it to us", so I read their claim. Their "claim" to Palestine is based entirely on War Crimes and GENOCIDE.
IT IS UNFAIR AND WRONG TO COMPARE ISRAEL TO THE NAZIS.
THE CORRECT COMPARISON IS THAT OF THE NAZIS TO THE ISRAELIS:
THE NAZIS JUST COPIED THE JEWISH "MANUAL" POINT BY POINT
KILL THE SICK and CRIPPLED
Numbers c.5 v.2-4
KILL HOMOSEXUALS
Leviticus c.20 v.13 well, really the whole chapter
KILL ALL DISSIDENTS:
Exodus c.32 v.27
Numbers c.11 v.1-2
Numbers c.16 all
Numbers c.21 v.5-6
Numbers v.26 v.10
KILL anyone who engages in "DIVERSITY" or "INTEGRATION"
Numbers v25 v.4-8
Deuteronomy c.14 v.2
continued...
-------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
CALLS TO STOP SYRIA 'KILLING MACHINE' AT UN AS RUSSIA, CHINA SLAM SANCTIONS
CALLS TO STOP SYRIA 'KILLING MACHINE' AT UN AS RUSSIA, CHINA SLAM SANCTIONS
http://rt.com/news/syria-un-security-council-211/
Published: 01 February, 2012
United Nations Security Council meets at U.N. headquarters in New York January 31 (Reuters / Mike Segar)
SEE VIDEO CLIPS: open the website above
A major diplomatic battle over the fate of Syria has begun at the United Nations, with Russia and China the only permanent Security Council members challenging the UN's right to ‘meddle’ in sovereign states’ internal problems.
Proponents of the West-sponsored draft resolution are calling for Syria’s President Bashar Assad to step down, the release of all prisoners and the withdrawal of troops from Syrian cities, among other things.
Numerous accusations of crimes against its population were leveled against the Syrian regime, justifying the rallying cry of “Assad must go,” which has been voiced by Western countries and their allies for several months now.
‘SYRIAN KILLING MACHINE AT WORK’
Speakers at the meeting constantly accused the Syrian regime of unconscionable violence, with the Qatari PM emphasizing that if the Syrian 'killing machine' is not stopped, it may come to commit 'crimes against humanity.'
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed that Assad’s forces ‘clearly initiate most of the attacks on civilians’ in Syria, and called for an end to Assad’s ‘brutal, failed dictatorship.’
Meanwhile, the British delegate declared that if the Assad regime does not cease its violence, the UNSC would consider 'harsher measures.'
DEFENSE LINE
In the hope of convincing Russia and other resolution opponents to change their minds ahead of a vote later this week, speakers supporting the draft resolution repeatedly maintained that there would be no Libya-style scenario in Syria.
“I know that some members here are concerned that we are headed toward another Libya,” Hillary Clinton said. “That is a false analogy. Syria is a unique situation that requires its own approach, tailored to the specific circumstances on the ground.”
Russia remains unconvinced and maintained its line on the issue, saying that the international community should not “meddle” in Syria's domestic conflict. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated that sanctions could risk heating up the conflict, and called for both sides to cease violence.
Moscow “rejects any sanction approaches, any attempts to use the Security Council instruments to fuel the conflict, to justify a military intervention,” the Russian ambassador said. “The Council cannot dictate parameters for an internal political settlement; it has no authority for it.”
China backed the belief that further sanctions would only complicate Syria's situation, with the Chinese delegate stating that the Syrian people’s request for reforms must be respected – but with the involvement of both sides in the conflict.
Russia also invited representatives of both the Syrian government and opposition to Moscow to discuss their national agenda without any restrictions, an offer received warmly by the Syrian government. Deputy spokesman for the US State Department Mark Toner called such a meeting less important than “to hold the regime’s feet to the fire.”
‘DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN’
The Chief of the Arab League and the Prime Minister of Qatar briefed the Security Council on their standpoint on Syria, saying that the whole Arab world is looking forward to a clear resolution. Qatari PM Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim added that there is no demand for regime change in Syria, as it is 'up to the Syrian people' to decide what happens next.
Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said the Arab League observers' report on Syria is part of a massive 'disinformation campaign' against the country, reminding those present that Syria had offered the observer mission an extension, while the Arab League turned the idea down.
Jaafari accused the resolution's backers of ‘aggressive interference’ in Syrian internal affairs and of pushing for colonialism's return to Syria, maintaining that Syrians are capable of dealing with their ‘decisive challenges,’ on their own.
UN RESOLUTIONS 'POUR FUEL ONTO THE FIRE'
Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, told RT that the only thing UN resolutions can do is “pour fuel onto the fire.”
“That is the whole idea of these resolutions,” he explained. The real thrust of any resolution on Syria would be regime change, he added: “It begins with sanctions. It goes into embargoes, blockades. But ultimately, the quest is to remove a dictatorship, and install a US regime even if it happens to be a dictatorship.”
And Ali Rizk, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, believes Russia's firm stance on the issue – and its veto power in the UNSC – will keep President Bashar Assad's enemies from toppling his government.
“I think we are heading towards people taking into consideration the Russian proposal of power-sharing, with Bashar Assad staying in power,” he told RT.
embed video
Neil Clark, a journalist and contributor to the Guardian, believes that Russia's stance on Syria has much more international support than one may assume.
“IT WOULD BE MISTAKE FOR THE RUSSIANS TO THINK THAT THEY ARE ISOLATED,” HE SAID. “THEY ARE NOT, THEY HAVE WORLD OPINION. IT’S JUST THE WEST WHICH SHOUTS THE LOUDEST. BRITAIN, FRANCE, AMERICA, ISRAEL, A FEW ARAB STATES BACKED BY THE WEST – THIS IS NOT THE WORLD. THIS IS NOT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.”
-------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
http://rt.com/news/syria-un-security-council-211/
Published: 01 February, 2012
United Nations Security Council meets at U.N. headquarters in New York January 31 (Reuters / Mike Segar)
SEE VIDEO CLIPS: open the website above
A major diplomatic battle over the fate of Syria has begun at the United Nations, with Russia and China the only permanent Security Council members challenging the UN's right to ‘meddle’ in sovereign states’ internal problems.
Proponents of the West-sponsored draft resolution are calling for Syria’s President Bashar Assad to step down, the release of all prisoners and the withdrawal of troops from Syrian cities, among other things.
Numerous accusations of crimes against its population were leveled against the Syrian regime, justifying the rallying cry of “Assad must go,” which has been voiced by Western countries and their allies for several months now.
‘SYRIAN KILLING MACHINE AT WORK’
Speakers at the meeting constantly accused the Syrian regime of unconscionable violence, with the Qatari PM emphasizing that if the Syrian 'killing machine' is not stopped, it may come to commit 'crimes against humanity.'
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed that Assad’s forces ‘clearly initiate most of the attacks on civilians’ in Syria, and called for an end to Assad’s ‘brutal, failed dictatorship.’
Meanwhile, the British delegate declared that if the Assad regime does not cease its violence, the UNSC would consider 'harsher measures.'
DEFENSE LINE
In the hope of convincing Russia and other resolution opponents to change their minds ahead of a vote later this week, speakers supporting the draft resolution repeatedly maintained that there would be no Libya-style scenario in Syria.
“I know that some members here are concerned that we are headed toward another Libya,” Hillary Clinton said. “That is a false analogy. Syria is a unique situation that requires its own approach, tailored to the specific circumstances on the ground.”
Russia remains unconvinced and maintained its line on the issue, saying that the international community should not “meddle” in Syria's domestic conflict. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated that sanctions could risk heating up the conflict, and called for both sides to cease violence.
Moscow “rejects any sanction approaches, any attempts to use the Security Council instruments to fuel the conflict, to justify a military intervention,” the Russian ambassador said. “The Council cannot dictate parameters for an internal political settlement; it has no authority for it.”
China backed the belief that further sanctions would only complicate Syria's situation, with the Chinese delegate stating that the Syrian people’s request for reforms must be respected – but with the involvement of both sides in the conflict.
Russia also invited representatives of both the Syrian government and opposition to Moscow to discuss their national agenda without any restrictions, an offer received warmly by the Syrian government. Deputy spokesman for the US State Department Mark Toner called such a meeting less important than “to hold the regime’s feet to the fire.”
‘DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN’
The Chief of the Arab League and the Prime Minister of Qatar briefed the Security Council on their standpoint on Syria, saying that the whole Arab world is looking forward to a clear resolution. Qatari PM Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim added that there is no demand for regime change in Syria, as it is 'up to the Syrian people' to decide what happens next.
Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said the Arab League observers' report on Syria is part of a massive 'disinformation campaign' against the country, reminding those present that Syria had offered the observer mission an extension, while the Arab League turned the idea down.
Jaafari accused the resolution's backers of ‘aggressive interference’ in Syrian internal affairs and of pushing for colonialism's return to Syria, maintaining that Syrians are capable of dealing with their ‘decisive challenges,’ on their own.
UN RESOLUTIONS 'POUR FUEL ONTO THE FIRE'
Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, told RT that the only thing UN resolutions can do is “pour fuel onto the fire.”
“That is the whole idea of these resolutions,” he explained. The real thrust of any resolution on Syria would be regime change, he added: “It begins with sanctions. It goes into embargoes, blockades. But ultimately, the quest is to remove a dictatorship, and install a US regime even if it happens to be a dictatorship.”
And Ali Rizk, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, believes Russia's firm stance on the issue – and its veto power in the UNSC – will keep President Bashar Assad's enemies from toppling his government.
“I think we are heading towards people taking into consideration the Russian proposal of power-sharing, with Bashar Assad staying in power,” he told RT.
embed video
Neil Clark, a journalist and contributor to the Guardian, believes that Russia's stance on Syria has much more international support than one may assume.
“IT WOULD BE MISTAKE FOR THE RUSSIANS TO THINK THAT THEY ARE ISOLATED,” HE SAID. “THEY ARE NOT, THEY HAVE WORLD OPINION. IT’S JUST THE WEST WHICH SHOUTS THE LOUDEST. BRITAIN, FRANCE, AMERICA, ISRAEL, A FEW ARAB STATES BACKED BY THE WEST – THIS IS NOT THE WORLD. THIS IS NOT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.”
-------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
PETRODOLLAR PUMPING US POLICY ON IRAN, BACKFIRE LOOMS
Petrodollar pumping US policy on Iran, backfire looms
http://rt.com/news/iran-attack-us-allegations-243/
Published: 01 February, 2012
As tensions between the US and Iran heat up, author Michael T. Winter believes the main reason behind America’s harsh stance is Tehran’s move to seek an alternative to the dollar as an oil currency.
¬
Economic sanctions, spearheaded by the US and, less willingly, the EU could have a disastrous effect on both of their respective economies. If Iran cannot sell their oil to Europe, there are plenty of customers waiting in the wings, and if they come bearing not petrodollars, but gold and sovereign currencies, then all the better for Iran. These sanctions, if enforced, will in effect place a serious dent in the power of the petrodollar.
Any rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the insistence on crippling it is nothing more than a US attempt to force regime change for one more receptive to maintaining the hegemony of the petrodollar.
The world now knows the truth about the US and how they conduct their affairs. US hostilities toward Iran have nothing to do with nuclear weapons development. If that were the case, then North Korea and Pakistan would be facing similar sanctions and threats, but they aren’t. The difference of course is in what lies beneath the ground – oil. Iran has it and the other guys don’t.
At the heart of the issue is not Iran’s dubious attempt to build nuclear weapons, or even oil, but how that oil is paid for. In 1973, Richard Nixon promised King Faisal of Saudi Arabia that the US would protect Saudi Arabian oilfields from any and all interested parties seeking to forcefully wrest them from the House of Saud. It’s important to remember that in 1973, Saudi Arabia didn’t have a fraction of the military and ground forces it possesses today (almost exclusively US manufactured weapons) and the USSR was very much a threat.
In return Saudi Arabia, and by extension OPEC, agreed to sell their oil in US dollars only. As if that weren’t sweet enough, as part of the deal, they were required to invest their profits in US treasuries, bonds and bills. The real zinger is that all countries purchasing oil from OPEC had to do so in US dollars, or ‘petrodollars’.
This strengthened the US dollar, resulting in a steady US economic growth cycle throughout the 80’s and 90’s. Countries purchasing OPEC oil started buying US treasury bills, bonds and securities to ensure they could continue purchasing OPEC oil. This worked fine for the US until 2001.
NO PLAN, HOWEVER WELL FORMULATED, FUNCTIONS SMOOTHLY INDEFINITELY.
2001, enter Saddam Hussein. He floated a plan to sell oil for European currencies in lieu of petrodollars. Shortly after Iraq was ‘suddenly’ found to be seeking and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction – allegations spearheaded by the US. The world knows what happened, suffice it to say that Saddam is dead and Iraq is ‘back on track’, selling its oil for petrodollars once again.
Muammar Gaddafi harbored the Lockerbie Bombers and allowed various terrorist organizations establish training camps in Libya. He tried to buy a nuke from China in 1972. In 1977, he approached Pakistan, then India. He sought nerve gas from Thailand. In spite of well over fifty failed assassination attempts on Gaddafi by Israel, the US and the UK, Libya was left to its own devices for the most part. Seeking nukes and harboring terrorists is one thing, but threatening the petrodollar is quite another. Gaddafi made a fatal error when he decided to move away from the petrodollar in favor of other currencies. This simply was not tolerated by the US. Having already played the WMD card in Iraq, something new was pulled from the US ‘regime change’ grab bag. Within a year, ‘internal’ elements rose up in rebellion against Gaddafi and now he is dead. Long live the petrodollar.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), suggested last year that the Euro would be a more suitable oil reserve currency than the US Dollar. Within three months of that statement, allegations of rape ruined his career, derailing his bid for the French Presidency in the process. Soon thereafter, all charges were dropped, but of course, le dommage était fait – the damage was done. Christine Lagarde, DSK’s replacement as head of the IMF sees no reason to change the current arrangement, naturellement.
The Iran situation is a little trickier. The US has sought to dismantle Iran’s regime ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, so this round of hostilities, while not new, reflects a new level of intensity. Why, after thirty years of hostility, has the US ratcheted up its rhetoric? As Obama stated in his recent State of the Union address, when it comes to Iran and the insistence they dismantle their nuclear program, “no options are off the table”. By stating ‘no options’ this would include nuclear deployment as a deterrent.
The answer of course is that Iran is now seeking to disengage itself from the petrodollar dynamic. In 2005, Iran sought to create an Iranian Oil Exchange, thus bypassing the US controlled petrodollar. Fear that western powers would freeze accounts in European and London banks put an end to that plan.
But that was not the end of their attempts, and Iran sought other ways to get around the petrodollar noose. There are rumors that India, which imports 12% of their oil from Iran, has agreed to purchase oil for gold. Energy trade with China, importing 15% of its oil and natural gas from Iran may be settled in gold, yuan, and rial. South Korea plans to buy 10% of their oil from Iran in 2012, and unless Seoul sides with American and European sanctions, it is likely to use gold or their sovereign currency to pay for it. Also, Iran is already dumping the dollar in its trade with Russia in favor of rials and rubles.
Iran is breaking the back of the petrodollar. Others have tried, but Iran is succeeding. To understand how disastrous this is for the US, one must have a basic understanding of how critical a role the petrodollar plays in the economic health of the US.
Through King Faisal, Nixon elevated the US to supreme economic ascendency, not unlike Damocles in his desire to rule. Sitting on the (economic) throne of the world is great, but Nixon was either unaware of the sword dangling over the US economic system, or chose to ignore it in favor of reaping the rewards of the moment.
By creating the petrodollar paradigm, the US economy soared, as all countries of the world were required to amass US currency to purchase oil from OPEC nations. Sales of T-bills, securities and US bonds soared. US coffers fattened. With the US dollar as the world’s oil currency reserve, economic fortune favored the US. But with great reward comes great risk. While other countries exchanged their currency for the dollar, (forfeiting value in the process) the US simply printed more money to match their needs and purchase their oil – essentially for free. The best example is that while gasoline in the US cost $3.00 per gallon, in Europe that same gallon costs $6.00 or more.
Herein lies the danger. If Iran is successful in its bid to set up their own bourse, or oil exchange, then what need does the world have for all those US dollars? The answer is none at all. As Iran creating gold and sovereign currency partnerships with India, China, South Korea and Russia, the hegemony of the petrodollar will be destroyed.
The resulting sell-off of US dollars, T-bills, securities, bonds and assets will flood the already swollen world economy with even more useless dollars, ultimately devaluing it into a position where hyper-inflation becomes a risk.
So, while the US government sabre-rattles and prattles on and on about nuclear weapons and the threat Iran poses to the Middle East, the thin veneer of lies spouted by the elite controlled media is being stripped away, revealing the truth of their warmongering rhetoric.
The US, by their foolish insistence on enforcing embargoes and sanctions against Iran, is hastening the end of the petrodollar and ushering in the age of US dollar hyper-inflation. A practical example: One loaf of bread in a healthy economy is $1.00. In an inflationary economy it’s $1.75. In a hyper-inflationary economy, $500.00.
BULLIES MAY BE LARGE AND DANGEROUS, BUT RARELY ARE THEY INTELLIGENT.
Damocles wisely vacated the throne of Dionysius before the sword fell upon his head, but the US is foolishly refusing to step down from their economic dais in spite of the catastrophic effect current policy direction will mean for US citizens and the world economy.
¬
Michael T. Winter
-----------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT nor of Nueva Democracia
-----------------
http://rt.com/news/iran-attack-us-allegations-243/
Published: 01 February, 2012
As tensions between the US and Iran heat up, author Michael T. Winter believes the main reason behind America’s harsh stance is Tehran’s move to seek an alternative to the dollar as an oil currency.
¬
Economic sanctions, spearheaded by the US and, less willingly, the EU could have a disastrous effect on both of their respective economies. If Iran cannot sell their oil to Europe, there are plenty of customers waiting in the wings, and if they come bearing not petrodollars, but gold and sovereign currencies, then all the better for Iran. These sanctions, if enforced, will in effect place a serious dent in the power of the petrodollar.
Any rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the insistence on crippling it is nothing more than a US attempt to force regime change for one more receptive to maintaining the hegemony of the petrodollar.
The world now knows the truth about the US and how they conduct their affairs. US hostilities toward Iran have nothing to do with nuclear weapons development. If that were the case, then North Korea and Pakistan would be facing similar sanctions and threats, but they aren’t. The difference of course is in what lies beneath the ground – oil. Iran has it and the other guys don’t.
At the heart of the issue is not Iran’s dubious attempt to build nuclear weapons, or even oil, but how that oil is paid for. In 1973, Richard Nixon promised King Faisal of Saudi Arabia that the US would protect Saudi Arabian oilfields from any and all interested parties seeking to forcefully wrest them from the House of Saud. It’s important to remember that in 1973, Saudi Arabia didn’t have a fraction of the military and ground forces it possesses today (almost exclusively US manufactured weapons) and the USSR was very much a threat.
In return Saudi Arabia, and by extension OPEC, agreed to sell their oil in US dollars only. As if that weren’t sweet enough, as part of the deal, they were required to invest their profits in US treasuries, bonds and bills. The real zinger is that all countries purchasing oil from OPEC had to do so in US dollars, or ‘petrodollars’.
This strengthened the US dollar, resulting in a steady US economic growth cycle throughout the 80’s and 90’s. Countries purchasing OPEC oil started buying US treasury bills, bonds and securities to ensure they could continue purchasing OPEC oil. This worked fine for the US until 2001.
NO PLAN, HOWEVER WELL FORMULATED, FUNCTIONS SMOOTHLY INDEFINITELY.
2001, enter Saddam Hussein. He floated a plan to sell oil for European currencies in lieu of petrodollars. Shortly after Iraq was ‘suddenly’ found to be seeking and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction – allegations spearheaded by the US. The world knows what happened, suffice it to say that Saddam is dead and Iraq is ‘back on track’, selling its oil for petrodollars once again.
Muammar Gaddafi harbored the Lockerbie Bombers and allowed various terrorist organizations establish training camps in Libya. He tried to buy a nuke from China in 1972. In 1977, he approached Pakistan, then India. He sought nerve gas from Thailand. In spite of well over fifty failed assassination attempts on Gaddafi by Israel, the US and the UK, Libya was left to its own devices for the most part. Seeking nukes and harboring terrorists is one thing, but threatening the petrodollar is quite another. Gaddafi made a fatal error when he decided to move away from the petrodollar in favor of other currencies. This simply was not tolerated by the US. Having already played the WMD card in Iraq, something new was pulled from the US ‘regime change’ grab bag. Within a year, ‘internal’ elements rose up in rebellion against Gaddafi and now he is dead. Long live the petrodollar.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), suggested last year that the Euro would be a more suitable oil reserve currency than the US Dollar. Within three months of that statement, allegations of rape ruined his career, derailing his bid for the French Presidency in the process. Soon thereafter, all charges were dropped, but of course, le dommage était fait – the damage was done. Christine Lagarde, DSK’s replacement as head of the IMF sees no reason to change the current arrangement, naturellement.
The Iran situation is a little trickier. The US has sought to dismantle Iran’s regime ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, so this round of hostilities, while not new, reflects a new level of intensity. Why, after thirty years of hostility, has the US ratcheted up its rhetoric? As Obama stated in his recent State of the Union address, when it comes to Iran and the insistence they dismantle their nuclear program, “no options are off the table”. By stating ‘no options’ this would include nuclear deployment as a deterrent.
The answer of course is that Iran is now seeking to disengage itself from the petrodollar dynamic. In 2005, Iran sought to create an Iranian Oil Exchange, thus bypassing the US controlled petrodollar. Fear that western powers would freeze accounts in European and London banks put an end to that plan.
But that was not the end of their attempts, and Iran sought other ways to get around the petrodollar noose. There are rumors that India, which imports 12% of their oil from Iran, has agreed to purchase oil for gold. Energy trade with China, importing 15% of its oil and natural gas from Iran may be settled in gold, yuan, and rial. South Korea plans to buy 10% of their oil from Iran in 2012, and unless Seoul sides with American and European sanctions, it is likely to use gold or their sovereign currency to pay for it. Also, Iran is already dumping the dollar in its trade with Russia in favor of rials and rubles.
Iran is breaking the back of the petrodollar. Others have tried, but Iran is succeeding. To understand how disastrous this is for the US, one must have a basic understanding of how critical a role the petrodollar plays in the economic health of the US.
Through King Faisal, Nixon elevated the US to supreme economic ascendency, not unlike Damocles in his desire to rule. Sitting on the (economic) throne of the world is great, but Nixon was either unaware of the sword dangling over the US economic system, or chose to ignore it in favor of reaping the rewards of the moment.
By creating the petrodollar paradigm, the US economy soared, as all countries of the world were required to amass US currency to purchase oil from OPEC nations. Sales of T-bills, securities and US bonds soared. US coffers fattened. With the US dollar as the world’s oil currency reserve, economic fortune favored the US. But with great reward comes great risk. While other countries exchanged their currency for the dollar, (forfeiting value in the process) the US simply printed more money to match their needs and purchase their oil – essentially for free. The best example is that while gasoline in the US cost $3.00 per gallon, in Europe that same gallon costs $6.00 or more.
Herein lies the danger. If Iran is successful in its bid to set up their own bourse, or oil exchange, then what need does the world have for all those US dollars? The answer is none at all. As Iran creating gold and sovereign currency partnerships with India, China, South Korea and Russia, the hegemony of the petrodollar will be destroyed.
The resulting sell-off of US dollars, T-bills, securities, bonds and assets will flood the already swollen world economy with even more useless dollars, ultimately devaluing it into a position where hyper-inflation becomes a risk.
So, while the US government sabre-rattles and prattles on and on about nuclear weapons and the threat Iran poses to the Middle East, the thin veneer of lies spouted by the elite controlled media is being stripped away, revealing the truth of their warmongering rhetoric.
The US, by their foolish insistence on enforcing embargoes and sanctions against Iran, is hastening the end of the petrodollar and ushering in the age of US dollar hyper-inflation. A practical example: One loaf of bread in a healthy economy is $1.00. In an inflationary economy it’s $1.75. In a hyper-inflationary economy, $500.00.
BULLIES MAY BE LARGE AND DANGEROUS, BUT RARELY ARE THEY INTELLIGENT.
Damocles wisely vacated the throne of Dionysius before the sword fell upon his head, but the US is foolishly refusing to step down from their economic dais in spite of the catastrophic effect current policy direction will mean for US citizens and the world economy.
¬
Michael T. Winter
-----------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT nor of Nueva Democracia
-----------------
HUNDREDS OF SLAUGHTERED CIVILIANS ISN'T A 'HUGE NUMBER' FOR OBAMA
HUNDREDS OF SLAUGHTERED CIVILIANS ISN'T A 'HUGE NUMBER' FOR OBAMA
http://rt.com/usa/news/drones-civilian-death-obama-187/
Published: 31 January, 2012
---------------
United States, Washington: US President Barack Obama participates in an interview with YouTube and Google from the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC, January 30, 2012. (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
---------------
On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama became the first president to host a virtual town hall live on the Internet.
While that might be a feat worthy of the record books, President Obama did something else during his address that America has become accustomed to: he lied to the world.
Speaking Monday during a live web-chat hosted by Google, the president took on a series of issues submitted by the American people. Over the span of 45 minutes, President Obama addressed the Stop Online Piracy Act while refusing to side with either end of the argument, admitted to the world that he isn’t all that swell of a dancer and took a query from a professional puppeteer. In between ignoring the real issues or offering any sort of solid solution to the nation’s biggest problems, the president did put something rather important out for the world to ponder: America’s ongoing drone missions aren’t really all that bad.
If you ask anyone outside of the Oval Office — or especially America — they might tell you otherwise.
Tackling a question posed on drone strikes, President Obama defended the ongoing missions on Monday, saying they were necessary to target terrorists in a most effective manner. "For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we're already engaging in,” the president said on the topic of drones. While an argument could easily be made that operating drone missions in lieu of putting boots on the ground is best for the US Armed Forces, the president put a lot on the line Monday when he downplayed the result of the strikes.
Those drone attacks, carried out by unmanned aircraft controlled thousands of miles away, don’t do a lot of harm, said the president. According to Obama, drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and he added that it’s "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”
How small is that not-so huge number? If you ask anyone outside of the American intelligence community, they’ll tell you it is in the hundreds.
BUT WHAT’S A FEW HUNDRED CIVILIAN DEATHS, RIGHT?
Obama suggested that continuing the drone program would not be detrimental to the safety of foreign citizens, but studies conducted outside of the US say otherwise. Last summer, the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism argued that since America began drone strikes, at least 385 civilians had been executed in US-led attacks. Of those statistics, the Bureau added that around half of the dead were children under the age of 18.
If you don’t take the word of foreign reporter’s, even American intelligence can confirm that the “not a huge number” statistic might be a bit of an exaggeration. One senior US official speaking on condition of anonymity added to CNN last year that CIA drone strikes had taken the lives of 50 civilians in all. As drone strikes go unreported and deaths unaccounted for, the actual number, unfortunately, is probably much higher than what either the CIA or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can come up with. In a single strike last March, 26 Pakistanis were killed during a US strike over Islamabad. Once all deaths were accounted for, it was revealed that over a dozen of the deaths in that single raid were suffered by innocent civilians.
When the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released their findings last year, they said that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the US was actually reporting. Between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.
WHICH, IF YOU ASK PRESIDENT OBAMA, IS NOT A HUGE NUMBER.
If 775 isn’t a huge number, than 56 is practically a fraction. That’s the number of children executed by US drones in the first 20 months of the Obama administration.
“EVEN ONE CHILD DEATH FROM DRONE MISSILES OR SUICIDE BOMBINGS IS ONE CHILD DEATH TOO MANY,” responded Unicef to the news at the time.
In 2009 alone, almost 600 civilians were killed on the ground in Afghanistan, and the United Nations put 60 percent of that figure as a direct result of airstrikes, drone or otherwise. In Pakistan, civilians say they are terrified of the robotic planes and the damage that they have already done. “There was not a single Taliban militant in Pakistan before 9/11 but since we joined this war, we are facing acts of terrorism, bombing and drone strikes,” Movement for Justice leader Imran Khan told the press in 2011.
In Libya, where the United States never even engaged in an official war, according to Obama, American troops launched 145 drone strikes in an attempt to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in a matter of months. As with most drone missions, the Department of Defense has not released any official statistics on what casualties were caused by the strikes.
Regardless of what damage a drone strike can have on enemy insurgents, experts say that the toll visited on civilians is several times that of militants. In a 2009 report from the Brookings Institute, Senior Fellow Daniel L Byman wrote that “for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.”
In Pakistan where drone strikes have become practically commonplace, civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. Saadullah, a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes. Asghar Khan, an elder in Islamabad that also spoke to BBC, said three of his relatives were also shot down in airstrikes.
"MY BROTHER, MY NEPHEW AND ANOTHER RELATIVE WERE KILLED BY A DRONE IN 2008," SAID KHAN. "THEY WERE SITTING WITH THIS SICK MAN WHEN THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE. THERE WERE NO TALIBAN."
A decade after the US began so-called cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, anti-American sentiments continue to grow as do the number of casualties. "When we intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us,” counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen tells the Brookings Institute.
Now as the US puts surveillance drones over the skies of Iraq even after that war has officially ended, yet another country is becoming concerned that drones will drop bombs on their own civilians. “We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists,” 37-year-old café owner Hisham Mohammed Salah told the New York Times just this week. “Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext.”
Under the Pentagon’s new revised budget, the US will phase out around 100,000 military staffers while adding droves of drones to its already established arsenal of robotic planes. Will drones soon become the United States’ not-so-secret weapon and phase out its Armed Forces personnel entirely? It’s not out of the question. After all, a drone strike authorized by Obama last year led to the death of two American citizens with alleged terrorist ties.
Don’t worry, though. Obama says these things are kept on a tight leash. Who actually pulls on that is as good of a guess as anyone’s, though. In November, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the “signature” strikes that account for most of the CIA’s drone missions only end up on the desk of the president after they are carried out. The US must only inform Pakistan of those strikes, by the way, if they believe the death toll will exceed 20.
WHICH REALLY ISN’T THAT BIG OF A NUMBER EITHER.
------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
http://rt.com/usa/news/drones-civilian-death-obama-187/
Published: 31 January, 2012
---------------
United States, Washington: US President Barack Obama participates in an interview with YouTube and Google from the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC, January 30, 2012. (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
---------------
On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama became the first president to host a virtual town hall live on the Internet.
While that might be a feat worthy of the record books, President Obama did something else during his address that America has become accustomed to: he lied to the world.
Speaking Monday during a live web-chat hosted by Google, the president took on a series of issues submitted by the American people. Over the span of 45 minutes, President Obama addressed the Stop Online Piracy Act while refusing to side with either end of the argument, admitted to the world that he isn’t all that swell of a dancer and took a query from a professional puppeteer. In between ignoring the real issues or offering any sort of solid solution to the nation’s biggest problems, the president did put something rather important out for the world to ponder: America’s ongoing drone missions aren’t really all that bad.
If you ask anyone outside of the Oval Office — or especially America — they might tell you otherwise.
Tackling a question posed on drone strikes, President Obama defended the ongoing missions on Monday, saying they were necessary to target terrorists in a most effective manner. "For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we're already engaging in,” the president said on the topic of drones. While an argument could easily be made that operating drone missions in lieu of putting boots on the ground is best for the US Armed Forces, the president put a lot on the line Monday when he downplayed the result of the strikes.
Those drone attacks, carried out by unmanned aircraft controlled thousands of miles away, don’t do a lot of harm, said the president. According to Obama, drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and he added that it’s "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”
How small is that not-so huge number? If you ask anyone outside of the American intelligence community, they’ll tell you it is in the hundreds.
BUT WHAT’S A FEW HUNDRED CIVILIAN DEATHS, RIGHT?
Obama suggested that continuing the drone program would not be detrimental to the safety of foreign citizens, but studies conducted outside of the US say otherwise. Last summer, the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism argued that since America began drone strikes, at least 385 civilians had been executed in US-led attacks. Of those statistics, the Bureau added that around half of the dead were children under the age of 18.
If you don’t take the word of foreign reporter’s, even American intelligence can confirm that the “not a huge number” statistic might be a bit of an exaggeration. One senior US official speaking on condition of anonymity added to CNN last year that CIA drone strikes had taken the lives of 50 civilians in all. As drone strikes go unreported and deaths unaccounted for, the actual number, unfortunately, is probably much higher than what either the CIA or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can come up with. In a single strike last March, 26 Pakistanis were killed during a US strike over Islamabad. Once all deaths were accounted for, it was revealed that over a dozen of the deaths in that single raid were suffered by innocent civilians.
When the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released their findings last year, they said that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the US was actually reporting. Between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.
WHICH, IF YOU ASK PRESIDENT OBAMA, IS NOT A HUGE NUMBER.
If 775 isn’t a huge number, than 56 is practically a fraction. That’s the number of children executed by US drones in the first 20 months of the Obama administration.
“EVEN ONE CHILD DEATH FROM DRONE MISSILES OR SUICIDE BOMBINGS IS ONE CHILD DEATH TOO MANY,” responded Unicef to the news at the time.
In 2009 alone, almost 600 civilians were killed on the ground in Afghanistan, and the United Nations put 60 percent of that figure as a direct result of airstrikes, drone or otherwise. In Pakistan, civilians say they are terrified of the robotic planes and the damage that they have already done. “There was not a single Taliban militant in Pakistan before 9/11 but since we joined this war, we are facing acts of terrorism, bombing and drone strikes,” Movement for Justice leader Imran Khan told the press in 2011.
In Libya, where the United States never even engaged in an official war, according to Obama, American troops launched 145 drone strikes in an attempt to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in a matter of months. As with most drone missions, the Department of Defense has not released any official statistics on what casualties were caused by the strikes.
Regardless of what damage a drone strike can have on enemy insurgents, experts say that the toll visited on civilians is several times that of militants. In a 2009 report from the Brookings Institute, Senior Fellow Daniel L Byman wrote that “for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.”
In Pakistan where drone strikes have become practically commonplace, civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. Saadullah, a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes. Asghar Khan, an elder in Islamabad that also spoke to BBC, said three of his relatives were also shot down in airstrikes.
"MY BROTHER, MY NEPHEW AND ANOTHER RELATIVE WERE KILLED BY A DRONE IN 2008," SAID KHAN. "THEY WERE SITTING WITH THIS SICK MAN WHEN THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE. THERE WERE NO TALIBAN."
A decade after the US began so-called cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, anti-American sentiments continue to grow as do the number of casualties. "When we intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us,” counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen tells the Brookings Institute.
Now as the US puts surveillance drones over the skies of Iraq even after that war has officially ended, yet another country is becoming concerned that drones will drop bombs on their own civilians. “We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists,” 37-year-old café owner Hisham Mohammed Salah told the New York Times just this week. “Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext.”
Under the Pentagon’s new revised budget, the US will phase out around 100,000 military staffers while adding droves of drones to its already established arsenal of robotic planes. Will drones soon become the United States’ not-so-secret weapon and phase out its Armed Forces personnel entirely? It’s not out of the question. After all, a drone strike authorized by Obama last year led to the death of two American citizens with alleged terrorist ties.
Don’t worry, though. Obama says these things are kept on a tight leash. Who actually pulls on that is as good of a guess as anyone’s, though. In November, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the “signature” strikes that account for most of the CIA’s drone missions only end up on the desk of the president after they are carried out. The US must only inform Pakistan of those strikes, by the way, if they believe the death toll will exceed 20.
WHICH REALLY ISN’T THAT BIG OF A NUMBER EITHER.
------------------
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Nueva Democracia
------------------
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)