IN AMERICA, TV WATCHES YOU: CIA TO SPY ON PEOPLE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ITEMS
http://rt.com/news/cia-spy-people-petraeus-795/
Published: 17 March, 2012
With a growing number of ‘smart gadgets,’ spying on homes may start to become much easier. In fact, CIA Chief David Petraeus admitted that Americans were effectively bugging themselves and making it easy for spy agencies to peek in on their lives.
¬
Speaking at a summit for In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm, Petraeus noted that new devices that link ‘dumb’ home appliances such as refrigerators, ovens and lighting systems to the Internet could “change our notion of secrecy.”
“‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies, particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft,” Petraeus noted.
“Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation Internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Petraeus explained. “The latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.”
In the meantime, the biggest microchip company in the world, ARM, presented new processors that can be implanted into nearly any household appliance and connect it to the Internet so that the appliance could be remotely controlled in tandem with other applications. The company described the concept as the “Internet of things.”
And the National Security Agency is already building a gigantic supercomputer to process this gigantic amount of information. It’s a $2 billion Utah-based facility that can process yottabytes (a quadrillion gigabytes) of data, according to the Gizmondo technology blog. It will be the centerpiece for the Global Information Grid and is set to go live in September 2013.
These latest announcements paint a somewhat Orwellian picture of the future, with TV’s spying on their viewers and beds recording the dreams of those sleeping in them. Perhaps this data would then be sent to the Utah supercomputer, which would assess the person’s pros and cons. And what if the computer uses statistics to decipher the likelihood that that person will commit a crime? A score could land you in jail – for a crime that had not yet happened.
But even now we see how people are being arrested for posting online or clicking the wrong button in the privacy of their own home. A British teenager is set to appear in court on charges of racially aggravated assault after posting comments about six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
sábado, 17 de marzo de 2012
THE BIG BROTHER NSA SPY THE LIFE OF EVERY US CITIZEN
THE BIG BROTHER NSA SPY THE LIFE OF EVERY US CITIZEN
NSA UTAH ‘DATA CENTER’: BIGGEST-EVER DOMESTIC SPYING LAB?
http://rt.com/news/utah-data-center-spy-789/
Published: 17 March, 2012
The biggest-ever data complex, to be completed in Utah in 2013, may take American citizens into a completely new reality where their emails, phone calls, online shopping lists and virtually entire lives will be stored and reviewed.
¬
US government agencies are growing less patient with their own country with every month. First, paying with cash, shielding your laptop screen and a whole list of other commonplace habits was proclaimed to be suspicious – and if you see something you are prompted to say something. Then, reports emerged that drones are being fetched for police forces. Now, the state of Utah seems to be making way in a bid to host the largest-ever cyber shield in the history of American intelligence. Or is it a cyber-pool?
Utah sprang to media attention when the Camp Williams military base near the town of Bluffdale sprouted a vast, 240-acre construction site. American outlets say that what's hiding under the modest plate of a Utah Data Complex is a prospective intelligence facility ordered by the National Security Agency.
¬
Cyber-security vs. Total awareness
The NSA maintains that the data center, to be completed by September 2013, is a component of the Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative. The facility is to provide technical assistance to the Department of Homeland Security, collect intelligence on cyber threats and carry out cyber-security objectives, reported Reuters.
But both ordinary Americans and their intelligence community were quick to dub it “a spy center.”
The highly-classified project will be responsible for intercepting, storing and analyzing intelligence data as it zips through both domestic and international networks. The data may come in all forms: private e-mails, cell phone calls, Google searches – even parking lot tickets or shop purchases.
“This is more than just a data center,” an official source close to the project told the online magazine Wired.com. The source says the center will actually focus on deciphering the accumulated data, essentially code-breaking.
This means not only exposing Facebook activities or Wikipedia requests, but compromising “the invisible” Internet, or the “deepnet.” Legal and business deals, financial transactions, password-protected files and inter-governmental communications will all become vulnerable.
Once communication data is stored, a process known as data-mining will begin. Everything a person does – from traveling to buying groceries – is to be displayed on a graph, allowing the NSA to paint a detailed picture of any given individual’s life.
With this in mind, the agency now indeed looks to be “the most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever,” as Wired.com puts it.
William Binney, NSA’s former senior mathematician-gone-whistleblower, holds his thumb and forefinger close together and tells the on-line magazine:
“We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.”
¬
‘Everybody is a target’
Before the data can be stored it has to be collected. This task is already a matter of the past, as the NSA created a net of secret monitoring rooms in major US telecom facilities – a practice that was exposed by people like William Binney in 2006.
The program allowed the monitoring of millions of American phone calls and emails every day. In 2008, the Congress granted almost impecible legal immunity to telecom companies cooperating with the government on national security issues.
By this time, the NSA network has long outgrown a single room in the AT&T building in San Francisco, says Binney:
“I think there are ten to twenty of them. This is not just San Francisco; they have them in the middle of the country and also on the East Coast.”
Binney suspects the new center in Utah will simply collect all the data there is to be collected. Virtually, no one can escape the new surveillance, created in the US for the War on Terror.
Some data, of course, would be crucial in the anti-terrorism battle: exposing potential adversaries. The question is how the NSA defines who is and who is not a potential adversary.
“Everybody is a target; everybody with communication is a target,” remarks another source close to the Utah project.
¬
Breaking the unbreakable
Now, the last hurdle in the NSA’s path seems to be the Advanced Encryption Standard cipher algorithm, which guards financial transactions, corporate mail, business deals, and diplomatic exchanges globally. It is so effective that the National Security Agency even recommended it for the US government.
Here, the Utah data complex may come in handy for two reasons. First: what cannot be broken today can be stored for tomorrow. Second: a system to break the AES should consist of a super-fast computer coupled with a vast storage capabilities to save as many instances for analysis as possible.
The data storage in Utah, with its 1 million square feet of enclosed space, is virtually bottomless, given that a terabyte can now be stored on a tiny flash drive. Wired.com argues that the US plan to break the AES is the sole reason behind the construction of the Utah Data Center.
The eavesdropping issue has been rocking the US since the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, when domestic spying was eventually outlawed. Nowadays, a lot of questions are still being asked about the secret activities of the US government and whether it could be using the Patriot Act and other national security legislation to justify potentially illegal actions. The NSA’s former employees, who decided to go public, wonder whether the agency – which is to spend up to $2 billion on the heavily fortified facility in Utah – will be able to restrict itself to eavesdropping only on international communications.
NSA UTAH ‘DATA CENTER’: BIGGEST-EVER DOMESTIC SPYING LAB?
http://rt.com/news/utah-data-center-spy-789/
Published: 17 March, 2012
The biggest-ever data complex, to be completed in Utah in 2013, may take American citizens into a completely new reality where their emails, phone calls, online shopping lists and virtually entire lives will be stored and reviewed.
¬
US government agencies are growing less patient with their own country with every month. First, paying with cash, shielding your laptop screen and a whole list of other commonplace habits was proclaimed to be suspicious – and if you see something you are prompted to say something. Then, reports emerged that drones are being fetched for police forces. Now, the state of Utah seems to be making way in a bid to host the largest-ever cyber shield in the history of American intelligence. Or is it a cyber-pool?
Utah sprang to media attention when the Camp Williams military base near the town of Bluffdale sprouted a vast, 240-acre construction site. American outlets say that what's hiding under the modest plate of a Utah Data Complex is a prospective intelligence facility ordered by the National Security Agency.
¬
Cyber-security vs. Total awareness
The NSA maintains that the data center, to be completed by September 2013, is a component of the Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative. The facility is to provide technical assistance to the Department of Homeland Security, collect intelligence on cyber threats and carry out cyber-security objectives, reported Reuters.
But both ordinary Americans and their intelligence community were quick to dub it “a spy center.”
The highly-classified project will be responsible for intercepting, storing and analyzing intelligence data as it zips through both domestic and international networks. The data may come in all forms: private e-mails, cell phone calls, Google searches – even parking lot tickets or shop purchases.
“This is more than just a data center,” an official source close to the project told the online magazine Wired.com. The source says the center will actually focus on deciphering the accumulated data, essentially code-breaking.
This means not only exposing Facebook activities or Wikipedia requests, but compromising “the invisible” Internet, or the “deepnet.” Legal and business deals, financial transactions, password-protected files and inter-governmental communications will all become vulnerable.
Once communication data is stored, a process known as data-mining will begin. Everything a person does – from traveling to buying groceries – is to be displayed on a graph, allowing the NSA to paint a detailed picture of any given individual’s life.
With this in mind, the agency now indeed looks to be “the most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever,” as Wired.com puts it.
William Binney, NSA’s former senior mathematician-gone-whistleblower, holds his thumb and forefinger close together and tells the on-line magazine:
“We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.”
¬
‘Everybody is a target’
Before the data can be stored it has to be collected. This task is already a matter of the past, as the NSA created a net of secret monitoring rooms in major US telecom facilities – a practice that was exposed by people like William Binney in 2006.
The program allowed the monitoring of millions of American phone calls and emails every day. In 2008, the Congress granted almost impecible legal immunity to telecom companies cooperating with the government on national security issues.
By this time, the NSA network has long outgrown a single room in the AT&T building in San Francisco, says Binney:
“I think there are ten to twenty of them. This is not just San Francisco; they have them in the middle of the country and also on the East Coast.”
Binney suspects the new center in Utah will simply collect all the data there is to be collected. Virtually, no one can escape the new surveillance, created in the US for the War on Terror.
Some data, of course, would be crucial in the anti-terrorism battle: exposing potential adversaries. The question is how the NSA defines who is and who is not a potential adversary.
“Everybody is a target; everybody with communication is a target,” remarks another source close to the Utah project.
¬
Breaking the unbreakable
Now, the last hurdle in the NSA’s path seems to be the Advanced Encryption Standard cipher algorithm, which guards financial transactions, corporate mail, business deals, and diplomatic exchanges globally. It is so effective that the National Security Agency even recommended it for the US government.
Here, the Utah data complex may come in handy for two reasons. First: what cannot be broken today can be stored for tomorrow. Second: a system to break the AES should consist of a super-fast computer coupled with a vast storage capabilities to save as many instances for analysis as possible.
The data storage in Utah, with its 1 million square feet of enclosed space, is virtually bottomless, given that a terabyte can now be stored on a tiny flash drive. Wired.com argues that the US plan to break the AES is the sole reason behind the construction of the Utah Data Center.
The eavesdropping issue has been rocking the US since the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, when domestic spying was eventually outlawed. Nowadays, a lot of questions are still being asked about the secret activities of the US government and whether it could be using the Patriot Act and other national security legislation to justify potentially illegal actions. The NSA’s former employees, who decided to go public, wonder whether the agency – which is to spend up to $2 billion on the heavily fortified facility in Utah – will be able to restrict itself to eavesdropping only on international communications.
miércoles, 14 de marzo de 2012
ISRAEL-IRAN: THE WAR HAS BEEN POSTPONED, NOT YET RESOLVED
WAR vs PEACE BETWEEN ISRAEL n IRAN
HUGO ADAN. Part 2
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
THE SITUATION NOW: THE WAR HAS BEEN POSTPONED, NOT YET RESOLVED
America is now facing the cost of wrong policy actions regarding the “issue” of “a nuclear-armed Iran” (a faked issue since US Intelligence and Hans Blix –ex-head of the IAEA- made it clear that there was no such threat of “nuclear-armed-Iran). Our policy was wrongly oriented. It was designed to prepare a military action against Iran. Our diplomacy was not a real one, it was a diplomacy of war based on distortion of facts, intimidation, and verbal islamofobic aggression against Iran.
This wrong policy failed when the Russian (and China behind) intervened first at diplomatic level inside the Security Council of the UN and then, militarily inside the region, by displacing to the shores of Syria advanced weaponry to respond a possible attack against those countries. Russia declared -with actions that spoke lauder than words- that SYRIA AND IRAN BELONG NOW TO THE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR-DETERRENCE-PROTECTIVE-SHIELD.
The US is now obligated to re-evaluate their policy and re-design a new one. Israel, however, remains stubbornly lined to the pro-war policy against Iran. Israel has demanded the state of the art banker-busters (a kind of mini-nukes full of depleted uranium) from the US, even when they don’t know where the assumed Iran’s nuclear silos are located.
MEANING: THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAS BEEN POSTPONED
UNTIL:
a) the attack by Israel on Iran takes place with the mini-nuke bombs requested by Israel to US. When those bombs are given to them (they already demanded the right to a pre-emptive strike) the war will take place;
b) when the US decide to initiate the war -either unilaterally or with the supports of their puppets in the UN- an initiate the carpet bombing on Iran-Syria. This will be responded by Russia (first strike may be Dimona stockpile of nuclear weapons with similar banker-busters and key sites with ballistic missiles already placed against Russia). This will spark a nuclear confrontation, as it was intended since the time of Kissinger’ proposal of limited nuclear war, [far back in the 1958]. Such Plan was updated by Wolfowitz in 1992 in his “Defense Planning Guidance” to take advantage of the collapse of the USSR., with explicit intention of taking control of the oil in the East. To Wolfowitz the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia was clear: "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
This plan was incorporated into the neo-cons proposal known as "The Project for the New American Century" (PNAC), a plan endorse by Bush’s regime since the year 2001. As suggested the previous year, 2000, in PNAC (Section V) by Paul D. Wolfowitz the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" will be preceded by a "catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". It really happens a year later, in September 11, the infamous terrorist attack. In 2005 Bush tried to go back to the initial proposal of attacking Iran, but it was late, Putin already reconstruct Russian nuclear power and made the first secret agreement with the Iranian regime: for tactical reasons Iran should suspend for two years the uranium enrichment.
Recently the monsters incorporated (neo-cons) inside the Obama regime revived the old project and this regime put in motion the continuation of Bush strategy: the control of oil from the Caspian see and Muslim nations by bombing them. It barely succeeded in Libya but is definitely stopped in Iran.
c) when Russia and China declare –with actions too- that they will not allow the embargo against Iran on-refined gasoline imports. There are many ways to retaliate this announced aggression against Iran. That is clear so far is that a brief cut of the flow of oil & gasoline will result in aggravating their current crisis. A brief closure of the Strait of Hormuz –among them- will be, according to Bloomberg Businessweek last issue, “will be enough to turn the nascent recovery into a recession”.
The blackmail of Israel. Makes more real the nuclear confrontation
The fact is that the US -by accepting the blackmail of Israel- left implicit their intentions against peace. Patronizing Israel blackmail is evidence of complicity in a terrorist threat against the international community. However, the world is more interested in peace than in the prospects of new Hiroshima and Nagazakis, maybe this time in American soil, in Israel and Russia. The world will not accept the brutal crash of one more nation with impunity as it happens with Libya. They will salute the counter attack of Russia and China. Israel will be accused of starting this new war. That is the meaning derived from the terrorist blackmail against the world when declaring “We have the right to start a pre-emptive strike against Iran”.
PERSPECTIVES:
The challenge for America is to start an active policy for peace and nuclear disarmament worldwide, starting in the Middle East region. The US allies, especially Israel, should be disarmed and Iran should be prevented to acquire a bomb. Russia and the US should agree on this basic policy and once the Middle East is disarmed, the proposal should be advanced to India and Pakistan and North Korea.
Later on the Security Council should take the initiative to create an executive international government elected by all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to be in charge of dismantling the big nuclear power (today members of the UN Security Council). That is the only way to make a farewell to nuclear arms.
Last year Gorbachev said that nuclear disarmament is unrealistic at best and risky utopian dream at worst. The fact is that disarmament policy became a real urgent need and moral imperative when recently people in the Middle East faced the fear of nuclear confrontation looming on their heads or when in the sixties Americans couldn’t sleep also because of similar feeling during the Cuban missile crises.
Cuban people were wrongly punished for being passive part of such story, today Israel is instead rewarded for being active promoter of nuclear confrontation.
Disarmament will continue be a risky utopian dream if we don’t put a finger on those who profit from these type of terrorist threats. The British companies and some Zionist are the main ones who commercialize oil and got millions of dollars from the last disruption on market prices. It was enough to say that Israel is going to bomb Iran unilaterally, to cause such disruption. It caused higher prices in basic commodities and car-gasoline for common people.
McNelly -in the last issue of Bloomberg Businessweek- suggested indirectly that
Israel threat could have ended up in the biggest geopolitical disruption in the history of the global oil market.
Regarding cost and benefits of such adventure: how much it cost to common American the display the war machinery of the US to the borders of Iran and Syria?. And who profit from the selling of banker busters to Israel? Are they going to pay really?, or they are going to charge more to the US for stock piling those additional weapons in that country.
Today disarmament is neither unrealistic nor utopian dream if we will to initiate its process. That process could imply the following steps.
1) banning the enrichment of Uranium beyond the limits of peaceful purposes in Iran. This country will continue their plan to get electricity from nuclear power if is willing to be open and transparent to the IEAE (reformed, meaning: non pro NATO inside) and demonstrate its peaceful intention
2) suspending the current economic sanctions against Iran. This carries implicit a possible economic repair the damages already caused to their civilian population.
3) abandoning in the part of the US-NATO the current war diplomacy of aggression-intimidation against Iran and instead negotiating in good faith with the current regimen (before it goes to the Ayatolas) and by promoting a non-nuclear zone in the middle east.
4) abandoning US-NATO intention of regime change via wars. This implies full recognition to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Muslim regimens. It also implies the recognition of the State of Israel and Palestine, according to the initial borders set by the UN to the creation of Israel (Jerusalem should have special status like the one given to The Vatican, though here the authority will be 9 members (3 from each religion) with a 10th mediator member nominated by the International Court or new the International Government)
5) total respect of sovereignty of nations to decide the type of regimen they want and the right to solve their internal conflicts alone, prohibiting foreign mercenaries interference inside and respecting Geneva convention on humanitarian principles. The New International Government will be the only peace-guarantor.
6) dissolving NATO and any other war coalitions. Their arms and infrastructure should be transferred to the new International government.
7) dissolving the UN or reformed radically, if continue disrespecting the sovereignty of nations by favoring US-NATO policies. The UN should be a deliberative form of Government (like a senate) and should convene twice a year to design rules to solve international problems.
8) in the meantime the US-NATO on one hand and the Russia-China on the other, should understand the legitimate security fears of Israel and Iran and their need to be protected by either power block. However, both regimes (Israel and Iran) should agree that the only peace solution to their fears is their consented nuclear disarmament via signing the NPT and the IAEA (this one, reformed of course, we do not want there pawns of one sector of the superpowers). Once Israel-Iran sign the NPT and both agree on non-nuclear armas and peaceful solutions to their differences, both deterrent protective shields, the US-NATO and Russia should remove their troops and weaponry from the surrounding areas. The stockpile of nuclear weapons from Israel will be dismantle and transferred to a committee of current powerful deterrent shields until the new International government is set.
9) The US-NATO should criminalize any blackmail that foster nuclear confrontation and or disturb peace among nations. We should also criminalize the inside and outside warmongering and islamofobic attitudes spread across by the western corporate media.
10) bot nuclear deterrence blocks -the Russia-China and the western NATO- should agree to impose sanctions against Iran and Israel if they do not accept the NPT and IAEA checks. This means that immediately Israel should join to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and accepted their inspectors. Otherwise both nuclear deterrence blocks should impose economic sanctions against Israel.
======================
HUGO ADAN. Part 2
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
THE SITUATION NOW: THE WAR HAS BEEN POSTPONED, NOT YET RESOLVED
America is now facing the cost of wrong policy actions regarding the “issue” of “a nuclear-armed Iran” (a faked issue since US Intelligence and Hans Blix –ex-head of the IAEA- made it clear that there was no such threat of “nuclear-armed-Iran). Our policy was wrongly oriented. It was designed to prepare a military action against Iran. Our diplomacy was not a real one, it was a diplomacy of war based on distortion of facts, intimidation, and verbal islamofobic aggression against Iran.
This wrong policy failed when the Russian (and China behind) intervened first at diplomatic level inside the Security Council of the UN and then, militarily inside the region, by displacing to the shores of Syria advanced weaponry to respond a possible attack against those countries. Russia declared -with actions that spoke lauder than words- that SYRIA AND IRAN BELONG NOW TO THE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR-DETERRENCE-PROTECTIVE-SHIELD.
The US is now obligated to re-evaluate their policy and re-design a new one. Israel, however, remains stubbornly lined to the pro-war policy against Iran. Israel has demanded the state of the art banker-busters (a kind of mini-nukes full of depleted uranium) from the US, even when they don’t know where the assumed Iran’s nuclear silos are located.
MEANING: THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAS BEEN POSTPONED
UNTIL:
a) the attack by Israel on Iran takes place with the mini-nuke bombs requested by Israel to US. When those bombs are given to them (they already demanded the right to a pre-emptive strike) the war will take place;
b) when the US decide to initiate the war -either unilaterally or with the supports of their puppets in the UN- an initiate the carpet bombing on Iran-Syria. This will be responded by Russia (first strike may be Dimona stockpile of nuclear weapons with similar banker-busters and key sites with ballistic missiles already placed against Russia). This will spark a nuclear confrontation, as it was intended since the time of Kissinger’ proposal of limited nuclear war, [far back in the 1958]. Such Plan was updated by Wolfowitz in 1992 in his “Defense Planning Guidance” to take advantage of the collapse of the USSR., with explicit intention of taking control of the oil in the East. To Wolfowitz the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia was clear: "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
This plan was incorporated into the neo-cons proposal known as "The Project for the New American Century" (PNAC), a plan endorse by Bush’s regime since the year 2001. As suggested the previous year, 2000, in PNAC (Section V) by Paul D. Wolfowitz the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" will be preceded by a "catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". It really happens a year later, in September 11, the infamous terrorist attack. In 2005 Bush tried to go back to the initial proposal of attacking Iran, but it was late, Putin already reconstruct Russian nuclear power and made the first secret agreement with the Iranian regime: for tactical reasons Iran should suspend for two years the uranium enrichment.
Recently the monsters incorporated (neo-cons) inside the Obama regime revived the old project and this regime put in motion the continuation of Bush strategy: the control of oil from the Caspian see and Muslim nations by bombing them. It barely succeeded in Libya but is definitely stopped in Iran.
c) when Russia and China declare –with actions too- that they will not allow the embargo against Iran on-refined gasoline imports. There are many ways to retaliate this announced aggression against Iran. That is clear so far is that a brief cut of the flow of oil & gasoline will result in aggravating their current crisis. A brief closure of the Strait of Hormuz –among them- will be, according to Bloomberg Businessweek last issue, “will be enough to turn the nascent recovery into a recession”.
The blackmail of Israel. Makes more real the nuclear confrontation
The fact is that the US -by accepting the blackmail of Israel- left implicit their intentions against peace. Patronizing Israel blackmail is evidence of complicity in a terrorist threat against the international community. However, the world is more interested in peace than in the prospects of new Hiroshima and Nagazakis, maybe this time in American soil, in Israel and Russia. The world will not accept the brutal crash of one more nation with impunity as it happens with Libya. They will salute the counter attack of Russia and China. Israel will be accused of starting this new war. That is the meaning derived from the terrorist blackmail against the world when declaring “We have the right to start a pre-emptive strike against Iran”.
PERSPECTIVES:
The challenge for America is to start an active policy for peace and nuclear disarmament worldwide, starting in the Middle East region. The US allies, especially Israel, should be disarmed and Iran should be prevented to acquire a bomb. Russia and the US should agree on this basic policy and once the Middle East is disarmed, the proposal should be advanced to India and Pakistan and North Korea.
Later on the Security Council should take the initiative to create an executive international government elected by all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to be in charge of dismantling the big nuclear power (today members of the UN Security Council). That is the only way to make a farewell to nuclear arms.
Last year Gorbachev said that nuclear disarmament is unrealistic at best and risky utopian dream at worst. The fact is that disarmament policy became a real urgent need and moral imperative when recently people in the Middle East faced the fear of nuclear confrontation looming on their heads or when in the sixties Americans couldn’t sleep also because of similar feeling during the Cuban missile crises.
Cuban people were wrongly punished for being passive part of such story, today Israel is instead rewarded for being active promoter of nuclear confrontation.
Disarmament will continue be a risky utopian dream if we don’t put a finger on those who profit from these type of terrorist threats. The British companies and some Zionist are the main ones who commercialize oil and got millions of dollars from the last disruption on market prices. It was enough to say that Israel is going to bomb Iran unilaterally, to cause such disruption. It caused higher prices in basic commodities and car-gasoline for common people.
McNelly -in the last issue of Bloomberg Businessweek- suggested indirectly that
Israel threat could have ended up in the biggest geopolitical disruption in the history of the global oil market.
Regarding cost and benefits of such adventure: how much it cost to common American the display the war machinery of the US to the borders of Iran and Syria?. And who profit from the selling of banker busters to Israel? Are they going to pay really?, or they are going to charge more to the US for stock piling those additional weapons in that country.
Today disarmament is neither unrealistic nor utopian dream if we will to initiate its process. That process could imply the following steps.
1) banning the enrichment of Uranium beyond the limits of peaceful purposes in Iran. This country will continue their plan to get electricity from nuclear power if is willing to be open and transparent to the IEAE (reformed, meaning: non pro NATO inside) and demonstrate its peaceful intention
2) suspending the current economic sanctions against Iran. This carries implicit a possible economic repair the damages already caused to their civilian population.
3) abandoning in the part of the US-NATO the current war diplomacy of aggression-intimidation against Iran and instead negotiating in good faith with the current regimen (before it goes to the Ayatolas) and by promoting a non-nuclear zone in the middle east.
4) abandoning US-NATO intention of regime change via wars. This implies full recognition to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Muslim regimens. It also implies the recognition of the State of Israel and Palestine, according to the initial borders set by the UN to the creation of Israel (Jerusalem should have special status like the one given to The Vatican, though here the authority will be 9 members (3 from each religion) with a 10th mediator member nominated by the International Court or new the International Government)
5) total respect of sovereignty of nations to decide the type of regimen they want and the right to solve their internal conflicts alone, prohibiting foreign mercenaries interference inside and respecting Geneva convention on humanitarian principles. The New International Government will be the only peace-guarantor.
6) dissolving NATO and any other war coalitions. Their arms and infrastructure should be transferred to the new International government.
7) dissolving the UN or reformed radically, if continue disrespecting the sovereignty of nations by favoring US-NATO policies. The UN should be a deliberative form of Government (like a senate) and should convene twice a year to design rules to solve international problems.
8) in the meantime the US-NATO on one hand and the Russia-China on the other, should understand the legitimate security fears of Israel and Iran and their need to be protected by either power block. However, both regimes (Israel and Iran) should agree that the only peace solution to their fears is their consented nuclear disarmament via signing the NPT and the IAEA (this one, reformed of course, we do not want there pawns of one sector of the superpowers). Once Israel-Iran sign the NPT and both agree on non-nuclear armas and peaceful solutions to their differences, both deterrent protective shields, the US-NATO and Russia should remove their troops and weaponry from the surrounding areas. The stockpile of nuclear weapons from Israel will be dismantle and transferred to a committee of current powerful deterrent shields until the new International government is set.
9) The US-NATO should criminalize any blackmail that foster nuclear confrontation and or disturb peace among nations. We should also criminalize the inside and outside warmongering and islamofobic attitudes spread across by the western corporate media.
10) bot nuclear deterrence blocks -the Russia-China and the western NATO- should agree to impose sanctions against Iran and Israel if they do not accept the NPT and IAEA checks. This means that immediately Israel should join to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and accepted their inspectors. Otherwise both nuclear deterrence blocks should impose economic sanctions against Israel.
======================
lunes, 5 de marzo de 2012
SYRIA & IRAN ARE NOT OUR ENEMIES
SYRIA & IRAN ARE NOT OUR ENEMIES
Hugo Adan . March 5, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
Part 1
THE SYRIAN REGIME IS NOT OUR ENEMY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS
1- The so called “Assad dictator” is really an elected president, then he is not a dictator. If we use such adjective on him, then we should accept the thesis that some elected presidents could be called dictators not if they breach their own Constitution but if they do not accept the rule of Western-Nato allies over the UN. The fact is that Assad did not violate the supreme rule of his nation and he want to reform the Law peacefully via Referendum. In regards to US-Nato rules, “Assad may not be a good dictator” to them as it was Mubarak in Egypt, or the convicted Fujimori in Peru. However, the Syrian Assad regime is being considered a democratic one by their own population who overwhelmed voted against war and is in favor of pacific transition to further democratize the nation by limiting the presidential periods.
2- The Zionist of Israel is the ones who labeled Syrian regimen as dictator and there two reason for such distortion.
The first is of economic nature and the second is a political reason. The first has to do with the success of an economy that is not implementing the neoliberal frame set by Israel in the region (with the banks and enterprises ruled by Zionists). Syria has an economic growth of 5% yearly and its success derives from resisting Zionist imperialism. The success of Assad policy is clear: Syria is now a debt free nation and will not allow any Rothschild Jewish banks to do their nasty business inside. There are still some McDonald’s, Pizza Huts, Victoria Secrets and other secrets of subsidiaries or big companies run by Zionists. But is forbidden in the Syrian territory some internationalist Zionist-funded corporations, especially those who deal with nasty banking speculation tricks and the secrets of arms-dealers, their money laundry and its similar. That infuriates more the Zionist is that they cannot privatize and Judaized any business inside Syria as they do in Arab countries members of Arab League. Because of the Assad’s independent, self-directed, economic development he has been accused by the Zionist of destabilizing the region. Is the same accusation they posed on the Gadhafi regimen. Now the question is who is really the destabilizer of the region, Assad or the zionists?
The second reason revolves around the myth of “selected nation by god”, a myth that one scholar said it was brought from Egypt when the Jewish migrate there (The Egyptian culture existed 3000 years before the Judeo-Christian bible and it is from this culture that many myths have been reproduced almost literally in our holly book). If there is no other rational principal to unite a nation, and submit them to a brutal royalty or dictator, a religious myth & faith provide the cheap glue. If a nation’s ruler is bless by god his ruler can do in his name anything starting by stealing lands and building imperia at the cost of human disaster inside the invaded territory. The Zionist are the political masters in art of manipulating old myths, they have the control of the big corporate mass-media for such endeavor and institutional webs for doing so. With them, their melting of state, religion with business succeeded better in Israel than in any Muslim and Christian fundamentalist nation.
In modern times we are still using the myth of selected race or nation by god as cheap reason to divide and conquest. The Nazis used against the Jews; Bush used against the Muslims before invading Irak and bombing Afghanistan, and the Zionist against Palestinians and neighbors. The Zionist of Israel cannot say that the Jews are the superior race but they can claim the supremacy of being masters in stealing land and in doing nasty banking and other nasty secrets. They have created the Zionist Master Plan for a Greater Israel that will extend its borders from Tel Aviv to Tehran and from the Nile to the Euphrates. How they plan to do that? by fragmenting Israel’s bordering nations into competing militias and warlords and by using the military power provided from the US and using also soldiers of our nation as their pawns. Check what they are doing now with Syria and ask yourself a key question: who are the best allies of the US, nations that wanted to create a real democracy with the Arab spring or the Zionist of AIPAC and the rulers of Israel who are thwarting these attempts? And check today nasty beating of war-drum in their corporate media against Syria.
3- From the above statements we should conclude that the Syrian regimen and their nation is not our real enemy and we should not engage in any military action against them. Syria neither has WMD nor is threatening our National Security, nor is bombing nor invading any nation in the region. The argument that the Syrian regimen is hurting OUR VALUES by massacring their civilian population is just a total-sided distortion from NATO-allies of what really happens inside Syria.
4- The real fact is that both, the mercenaries supported by NATO allies and the Syrian army response to them, is what creates the human rights disaster inside Syria. It was stated clearly by the Observer Mission sent to Syria by the Arab League (AL) which stated in PARAGRAPH 75 (suppressed by State bureaucrats members of the AL in the Report sent to the UN Security Council and to western media), and I quote: “There have been incidents that 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”
5- The other argument: the “humanitarian” one, is only a story tell for those who didn’t know what happens in Libya. The free zone for humanitarian aid was used to further arm rebels or mercenaries and the no-fly zone (the one that now Lieberman said we should imposed on Syria), both ended up in the worst recent “humanitarian disaster” we create in the middle East. Nobody who has ethical principals will swallow such stories. They hide bad intentions. There was not ethics at all in the “humanitarian bombing” of Libya and it won’t be in Syria either. Instead, the further escalation of this war by sending troops to Syria will be another nasty mockery of people’s values in the US and their rejection of more wars abroad. Besides, this war will crease more loses of American soldiers since Syria is armed by Russia and China. This war will only benefits the usual profiteers of war, the manufacturers of bombs inside plus the AIPAC and the Zionist in Israel.
6- Syria is a sovereign nation and has the right to design their own economic policies and make alliances with whatever foreign nation in the world. They made economic ties with Russia & China as the US and other western nations have it. And Syria made also military agreements with them to defend their nation against armed foreign intruders, that is the case of the mercenaries smuggled inside Syria with the complicity of NATO members (US, Britt’s, French and German mercenaries). As a sovereign nation, Syria has the right to reject any UN mandate manufactured inside doors by Western allies that infringe basic principles and statutes on which the UN was created and is based on. That is the principle of non-interference on the sovereignty of nation members. The US should also respect it.
=================
Hugo Adan . March 5, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
Part 1
THE SYRIAN REGIME IS NOT OUR ENEMY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS
1- The so called “Assad dictator” is really an elected president, then he is not a dictator. If we use such adjective on him, then we should accept the thesis that some elected presidents could be called dictators not if they breach their own Constitution but if they do not accept the rule of Western-Nato allies over the UN. The fact is that Assad did not violate the supreme rule of his nation and he want to reform the Law peacefully via Referendum. In regards to US-Nato rules, “Assad may not be a good dictator” to them as it was Mubarak in Egypt, or the convicted Fujimori in Peru. However, the Syrian Assad regime is being considered a democratic one by their own population who overwhelmed voted against war and is in favor of pacific transition to further democratize the nation by limiting the presidential periods.
2- The Zionist of Israel is the ones who labeled Syrian regimen as dictator and there two reason for such distortion.
The first is of economic nature and the second is a political reason. The first has to do with the success of an economy that is not implementing the neoliberal frame set by Israel in the region (with the banks and enterprises ruled by Zionists). Syria has an economic growth of 5% yearly and its success derives from resisting Zionist imperialism. The success of Assad policy is clear: Syria is now a debt free nation and will not allow any Rothschild Jewish banks to do their nasty business inside. There are still some McDonald’s, Pizza Huts, Victoria Secrets and other secrets of subsidiaries or big companies run by Zionists. But is forbidden in the Syrian territory some internationalist Zionist-funded corporations, especially those who deal with nasty banking speculation tricks and the secrets of arms-dealers, their money laundry and its similar. That infuriates more the Zionist is that they cannot privatize and Judaized any business inside Syria as they do in Arab countries members of Arab League. Because of the Assad’s independent, self-directed, economic development he has been accused by the Zionist of destabilizing the region. Is the same accusation they posed on the Gadhafi regimen. Now the question is who is really the destabilizer of the region, Assad or the zionists?
The second reason revolves around the myth of “selected nation by god”, a myth that one scholar said it was brought from Egypt when the Jewish migrate there (The Egyptian culture existed 3000 years before the Judeo-Christian bible and it is from this culture that many myths have been reproduced almost literally in our holly book). If there is no other rational principal to unite a nation, and submit them to a brutal royalty or dictator, a religious myth & faith provide the cheap glue. If a nation’s ruler is bless by god his ruler can do in his name anything starting by stealing lands and building imperia at the cost of human disaster inside the invaded territory. The Zionist are the political masters in art of manipulating old myths, they have the control of the big corporate mass-media for such endeavor and institutional webs for doing so. With them, their melting of state, religion with business succeeded better in Israel than in any Muslim and Christian fundamentalist nation.
In modern times we are still using the myth of selected race or nation by god as cheap reason to divide and conquest. The Nazis used against the Jews; Bush used against the Muslims before invading Irak and bombing Afghanistan, and the Zionist against Palestinians and neighbors. The Zionist of Israel cannot say that the Jews are the superior race but they can claim the supremacy of being masters in stealing land and in doing nasty banking and other nasty secrets. They have created the Zionist Master Plan for a Greater Israel that will extend its borders from Tel Aviv to Tehran and from the Nile to the Euphrates. How they plan to do that? by fragmenting Israel’s bordering nations into competing militias and warlords and by using the military power provided from the US and using also soldiers of our nation as their pawns. Check what they are doing now with Syria and ask yourself a key question: who are the best allies of the US, nations that wanted to create a real democracy with the Arab spring or the Zionist of AIPAC and the rulers of Israel who are thwarting these attempts? And check today nasty beating of war-drum in their corporate media against Syria.
3- From the above statements we should conclude that the Syrian regimen and their nation is not our real enemy and we should not engage in any military action against them. Syria neither has WMD nor is threatening our National Security, nor is bombing nor invading any nation in the region. The argument that the Syrian regimen is hurting OUR VALUES by massacring their civilian population is just a total-sided distortion from NATO-allies of what really happens inside Syria.
4- The real fact is that both, the mercenaries supported by NATO allies and the Syrian army response to them, is what creates the human rights disaster inside Syria. It was stated clearly by the Observer Mission sent to Syria by the Arab League (AL) which stated in PARAGRAPH 75 (suppressed by State bureaucrats members of the AL in the Report sent to the UN Security Council and to western media), and I quote: “There have been incidents that 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”
5- The other argument: the “humanitarian” one, is only a story tell for those who didn’t know what happens in Libya. The free zone for humanitarian aid was used to further arm rebels or mercenaries and the no-fly zone (the one that now Lieberman said we should imposed on Syria), both ended up in the worst recent “humanitarian disaster” we create in the middle East. Nobody who has ethical principals will swallow such stories. They hide bad intentions. There was not ethics at all in the “humanitarian bombing” of Libya and it won’t be in Syria either. Instead, the further escalation of this war by sending troops to Syria will be another nasty mockery of people’s values in the US and their rejection of more wars abroad. Besides, this war will crease more loses of American soldiers since Syria is armed by Russia and China. This war will only benefits the usual profiteers of war, the manufacturers of bombs inside plus the AIPAC and the Zionist in Israel.
6- Syria is a sovereign nation and has the right to design their own economic policies and make alliances with whatever foreign nation in the world. They made economic ties with Russia & China as the US and other western nations have it. And Syria made also military agreements with them to defend their nation against armed foreign intruders, that is the case of the mercenaries smuggled inside Syria with the complicity of NATO members (US, Britt’s, French and German mercenaries). As a sovereign nation, Syria has the right to reject any UN mandate manufactured inside doors by Western allies that infringe basic principles and statutes on which the UN was created and is based on. That is the principle of non-interference on the sovereignty of nation members. The US should also respect it.
=================
GOP LOSERS: DEFEATED in SENATE & WILL BE DEFEATED IN NOV ELECTIONS
GOP LOSERS: DEFEATED in SENATE & WILL BE DEFEATED IN NOV ELECTIONS.
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo Adan. Nov 6, 2012
It is clear that the US is a dominant secular society and women will defend here their rights even if they were transitionally kidnapped by medieval conservative’s speeches against women rights. Women are at the front line of secularism in this country and they will defend their rights with the Constitutional law at hand, not matter what ideological religious hurdle is placed by the conservatives in their minds. The GOP will be defeated in Nov as the Blunt Amendment was defeated last week in the Senate and Santorum in the primaries of Michigan.
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women said it clear: The Blunt amendment is totally illegal "is an anti-contraception, anti-birth-control provision. It simply says that any employer could strip any healthcare service from the employer’s healthcare plan based on any undefined religious or moral conviction. It was clearly aimed, however, at birth control, and it would allow employers to strip birth control from health plans. ITs CLEARLY ILLEGAL. Courts have spoken very specifically that it’s not—it is not OK, under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to discriminate in the provision of healthcare services in a healthcare plan. And this is clearly discrimination, sex discrimination "
Terry O’Neill suggested that GOP conservatives will not succeeded in such endeavor. Women won’t vote them. They are condemned to failure.
“The polls show—you know, Rick Santorum was poised to win the Michigan primaries by a substantial margin. He lost women in droves because of his anti-birth-control stance. And believe me, Mitt Romney, who is clearly anti-birth-control, who is very willing to enact laws restricting birth control, he is going to lose women if he becomes the nominee in the general election”.
Terry O’Neill, the President of the National Organization for Women in DN
--------------------
SENATE NARROWLY DEFEATS ANTI-CONTRACEPTION
Bill as Reproductive Rights Come Under Sustained Attack
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/2/senate_narrowly_defeats_anti_contraception_bill
DN March 02, 2012
The U.S. Senate has narrowly rejected an effort to vastly expand conscience exemptions in President Obama’s new birth control coverage rule that already allows exemptions for religiously affiliated institutions. The Blunt Amendment, sponsored by Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, would have let any U.S. employer deny contraceptive health coverage on religious or moral grounds, but it failed in a 51-48 vote largely along partisan lines. "What’s really surprising to me about the Blunt Amendment is that it did not fail 99 to one," says Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "It’s appalling that politicians really think they can get away with restricting birth control." In other reproductive rights news, a Virginia bill mandating ultrasound exams for women seeking abortions has cleared its final legislative hurdle and is expected to be signed into law. "I can’t think of any other area, in the 20 years that I’ve been practicing medicine, where I’ve been forced by the government, someone who has no medical training or background, to use a particular test or to inform a patient about information," notes Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion provider and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Senate has narrowly rejected an effort to vastly expand conscience exemptions in President Obama’s new birth control coverage rule. The mandate already allows exemptions for religiously affiliated institutions. But the so-called Blunt Amendment, sponsored by Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, would have let any U.S. employer deny contraceptive health coverage on religious or moral grounds. The measure failed in a 51-48 vote largely along partisan lines. Maine Senator Olympia Snowe was the only Republican to vote against the amendment.
SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: With respect to the Blunt Amendment, I think it’s much broader than I could support. I think we should have focused on the issue of contraceptives and whether or not it should be included in a health insurance plan and what requirements there should be.
JUAN GONZALEZ: That was Senator Olympia Snowe, who has announced she will be retiring from the Senate.
The Obama administration’s mandate has spawned passionate debate over whether women should have free access to contraceptive care, either from their own employers or insurance companies. On Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ignited a firestorm among his rank and file when he said he was against the Blunt Amendment.
MITT ROMNEY: I’m not for the bill. But look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and wife, I’m not going there.
AMY GOODMAN: After the interview, Romney’s campaign quickly said he actually did support the amendment. That hasn’t stopped Democrats and Republicans alike for blasting his comments. Republican Presidential contender Rick Santorum told supporters at a rally in Georgia, quote, "We saw an insight into what’s in the gut of Governor Romney yesterday."
In other reproductive rights news, a Virginia bill mandating ultrasound exams for women seeking abortions has cleared its final legislative hurdle and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell. It includes an exception for victims of incest and rape, provided they report their assault to police. Proponents of the bill argue ultrasounds will help inform women about the pregnancies they wish to abort. But critics contend patients will be subjected to emotional blackmail, logistical hurdles and legalized bullying. The Virginia ultrasound bill is just one of several measures around the nation. Texas already has an even stricter bill on its books, and Alabama Republicans would like their own vaginal ultrasound bill passed soon.
For more, we’re joined now by two guests. Here in New York, Dr. Willie Parker is with us. He’s a physician and abortion provider and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. And in Washington, D.C., we’re joined by Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Terry O’Neill, let’s begin with you. Talk about the Blunt Amendment.
TERRY O’NEILL: The Blunt Amendment is an anti-contraception, anti-birth-control provision that was actually made a lot broader. It simply says that any employer could strip any healthcare service from the employer’s healthcare plan based on any undefined religious or moral conviction. It was clearly aimed, however, at birth control, and it would allow employers to strip birth control from health plans. It’s clearly illegal. Courts have spoken very specifically that it’s not—it is not OK, under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to discriminate in the provision of healthcare services in a healthcare plan. And this is clearly discrimination, sex discrimination.
So, it’s—what’s really surprising to me about the Blunt Amendment is that it did not fail 99 to one. That should have been the vote. It’s appalling that politicians really think they can get away with restricting birth control. I mean, it’s one thing for the Catholic bishops to rail against birth control. It’s another thing for an elected official. Those elected officials, believe me, who voted for the Blunt Amendment will not be holding their jobs very much longer.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, well, as you say, Catholic officials rail against it, while 98 percent of Catholics use birth control. Your sense of why this enormous—this close vote on an issue like this?
TERRY O’NEILL: Well, the Republican leadership seems to have decided that attacking women’s health is somehow politically a good idea. They clearly need to divert attention away from the improving economic situation. That is not good for them politically. They’re trying to paint President Obama as having failed on the economy. But I cannot explain, honestly, why the leadership believes that attacking women’s health is good for them. The polls show—you know, Rick Santorum was poised to win the Michigan primaries by a substantial margin. He lost women in droves because of his anti-birth-control stance. And believe me, Mitt Romney, who is clearly anti-birth-control, who is very willing to enact laws restricting birth control, he is going to lose women if he becomes the nominee in the general election.
AMY GOODMAN: It was quite something to see the complete turnaround, within a couple of hours, of Mitt Romney first saying, of course, he’s for the amendment, and then that he was against the amendment. But I wanted to ask you, Terry O’Neill, about Rush Limbaugh, who made headlines on Wednesday after calling a student reproductive rights activist a "slut" for campaigning in favor of contraception coverage for women. Limbaugh made the comment during a rant on his radio broadcast.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? Makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
AMY GOODMAN: Limbaugh ratcheted up his rhetoric Thursday, saying the student, Sandra Fluke, should post an online sex video if taxpayers are forced to pay for contraception.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: So, Ms. Fluke, and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.
AMY GOODMAN: Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student and a member of the group Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. She was barred from testimony at an all-male panel on contraception on Capitol Hill last month. The day after she wasn’t able to give testimony, Fluke appeared on Democracy Now!
SANDRA FLUKE: I strongly believe that our government has to legislate for reality, not ideology. So, if we don’t provide contraception coverage and healthcare, that’s not going to stop anyone from having sex, whether they should or should not be. And we really have to take care of women’s healthcare and not worry about policing their moral choices.
AMY GOODMAN: That was third-year Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. Terry O’Neill, your response?
TERRY O’NEILL: You know, I first read Rush Limbaugh’s comments before I saw and heard them. In reading them, my reaction was, this is the rant of a 12-year-old. I haven’t seen—I actually haven’t seen that kind of language since I was in junior high school. But when I then looked at it, when I saw the video, here is a grown man being extremely—honestly, the sense that I got was it was more than bullying. It was really calling on his listeners to become belligerent towards women. It was calling on his listeners to belligerently attack younger women who use birth control as sluts and prostitutes, as women—and, you know, we know that violence against women in the sex trade is statistically much higher than violence against women elsewhere. So, it was, frankly, very dark undertones to this. I have called for Rush Limbaugh to be taken off the air as a result. And Sandra Fluke is, frankly, my hero.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, we’re also joined by Dr. Willie Parker. You were shaking your head as you were listening to that Rush Limbaugh rant. Could you—your reaction to it?
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, as a women’s healthcare provider, as a man, but more importantly, as a human being, I was just taken aback that he would feel empowered to use that kind of language to refer to someone who simply disagrees with his way of seeing the world. And I think if we have tolerance for that, under the guise that it’s free speech, I think we’re on a slippery slope, if you can say anything you want. You can injure with sticks and stones; you can also injure with words. I had a great sense of shame as a man that he would use that language at that bright and courageous young woman.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Parker, can you talk about the whole controversy in Virginia, this whole idea of, first, the vaginal ultrasound probe, and then how that was changed to be just the ultrasound? But explain what is being legislated around this country. Start with Virginia.
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, what’s being legislated is, in my opinion, an attempt to parse away at the right to confidential legal access to abortion services for women. Since there’s no real option for overturning Roe, the goal is to parse it away such that, in application, it really has no role. When women have barriers placed by rules that impede their access to abortion care or rules that are burdensome by forcing them to interact with information that does not improve their decision making, it really is an under—it’s an attempt to undermine the basic access to the healthcare that is abortion.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And how would this ultrasound requirement work?
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, first of all, mandating rules by the government has no place in the doctor-patient relationship. That relationship is based on trust and confidentiality. I can’t think of any other area, in the 20 years that I’ve been practicing medicine, where I’ve been forced by the government, someone who has no medical training or background, to use a particular test or to inform a patient about information. It violates the very notion of informed consent. Consent means that you have the option of receiving information or not. And this rule would require us to—it would force us to have patients or women to interact with information that we would use, in a clinical sense, for the purposes of coercion.
An early ultrasound, before 12—early, before 12 weeks, the main use of ultrasound is to accurately date the pregnancy and to establish that a woman has normal anatomy, and maybe the number. Outside of that, it has no useful information that would inform a woman about making her decision. Women, when they have an ultrasound and when they permit for abortion care, they already know that they’re pregnant. The ultrasound is not going to improve on them knowing that and then making the decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
AMY GOODMAN: And the difference between the ultrasound and then originally what the Virginia law—the law would have mandated, the probe? What are these different devices?
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, a vaginal probe is an instrument used in ultrasound that allows the person doing the ultrasound to, by placing the probe inside, to get closer to the object that you want to view. So, for example, the vaginal probe allows the ultrasound’s transducer, or part that collects the signal, to be right next to the uterus so that you can get a clearer image with more information. That is most useful in the extremely early stage of pregnancy. So the information that you gather from a vaginal probe ultrasound doesn’t give you any more information than what you would get out of a six-weeks transabdominal. And in fact the main use for a vaginal probe ultrasound is to locate the pregnancy, to rule out the presence of an ectopic pregnancy, which is a life-threatening condition. But it does not provide additional information that allows a woman to determine whether or not she is going to continue a pregnancy.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And Terry O’Neill, the implications of this Virginia law in terms of, across the country, efforts again to have the government intrude into the health—women’s own healthcare?
TERRY O’NEILL: Sure. And these ultrasound laws really are part of a coordinated campaign at the state level to produce what we are calling humiliation, ritual humiliation laws. The only purpose of these laws—they mandate medically unnecessary, non-consensual, extremely costly procedures, in which not only does the ultrasound have to be done, but the woman is forced to, in some states, view the ultrasound, and the doctor is forced to tell the woman whether there’s a heartbeat. And in Alabama, for example, Mr. Scofield, who introduced an ultrasound law, actually said that he had taken the transvaginal probe—he made an exemption for that, so that a woman—he said, "I want a woman to have a choice whether to have this ultrasound by a vaginal probe or externally." So, in other words, his choice—and he actually used that word—for the woman is: shall I be humiliated with a vaginal probe, or shall I be humiliated with an external ultrasound? They’re completely outrageous.
And they really are part of—as the doctor said, they are part of this coordinated campaign to chip away at women’s ability to access ordinary healthcare. One in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime. And it’s a really common, necessary part of women’s reproductive healthcare. But these laws are making it harder and harder for physicians to provide standard medical care, because they are so hemmed in by all different kinds of requirements.
AMY GOODMAN: And Dr. Parker, the use of contraceptives for actual medical care, not to stop conception, but—actually, when Sandra Fluke was on our show, the Georgetown law student, she talked about one of her friends at school who needed it to treat a condition, and because she wasn’t able to get it, she ended up having a hysterectomy, because she wasn’t able to treat at an early stage what she needed to.
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Sure. We, all the time in medicine, use drugs or medications that come to market by FDA approval for a primary indication, and then there’s secondary. The non-contraceptive benefits of hormonal contraception are as prevalent and, for many women, as important as the ability to prevent an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. For example, women who suffer serious and debilitating symptoms with their menstrual cycle, or PMS, as it’s commonly known, simply by being able to regulate her menstrual cycle, she can be relieved of debilitating symptoms and continue to be functional.
The patient stories are the best ones. And I think what’s at risk if we paint with a broad brush and lose the ability to have women have access to contraception pills for non-contraceptive benefits—I think of a patient I had by the name of Ashley, 14-year-old prodigious soccer player in the ninth grade who, in the early part of her menstrual cycle, had very irregular periods and sometimes would bleed down to anemia. Her mother brought her in to see me to find out what we could do. Early, oftentimes, when women first start their menstrual cycles, they’re very irregular. So Ashley, who was not sexually active, wanted to have some way of not interrupting her ability to play soccer. So, in consultation with her mother and her, we figured out the best way to regulate her menses was to start her on birth control pills. Now, if Ashley’s purse falls on the floor and her pills fall out, people will assume that she’s sexually active. But there are other contraceptive benefits. And that’s what would be lost if we paint with a broad brush and allow contraception to be politicized, such that everyone loses their access that should be able to use it.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both very much for being with us, Dr. Willie Parker, physician, abortion provider, board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.
-----------------------
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, V-Day founder Eve Ensler on women’s bodies as battleground and on the first anniversary of the City of Joy in Congo for rape survivors. Stay with us.
===================
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo Adan. Nov 6, 2012
It is clear that the US is a dominant secular society and women will defend here their rights even if they were transitionally kidnapped by medieval conservative’s speeches against women rights. Women are at the front line of secularism in this country and they will defend their rights with the Constitutional law at hand, not matter what ideological religious hurdle is placed by the conservatives in their minds. The GOP will be defeated in Nov as the Blunt Amendment was defeated last week in the Senate and Santorum in the primaries of Michigan.
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women said it clear: The Blunt amendment is totally illegal "is an anti-contraception, anti-birth-control provision. It simply says that any employer could strip any healthcare service from the employer’s healthcare plan based on any undefined religious or moral conviction. It was clearly aimed, however, at birth control, and it would allow employers to strip birth control from health plans. ITs CLEARLY ILLEGAL. Courts have spoken very specifically that it’s not—it is not OK, under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to discriminate in the provision of healthcare services in a healthcare plan. And this is clearly discrimination, sex discrimination "
Terry O’Neill suggested that GOP conservatives will not succeeded in such endeavor. Women won’t vote them. They are condemned to failure.
“The polls show—you know, Rick Santorum was poised to win the Michigan primaries by a substantial margin. He lost women in droves because of his anti-birth-control stance. And believe me, Mitt Romney, who is clearly anti-birth-control, who is very willing to enact laws restricting birth control, he is going to lose women if he becomes the nominee in the general election”.
Terry O’Neill, the President of the National Organization for Women in DN
--------------------
SENATE NARROWLY DEFEATS ANTI-CONTRACEPTION
Bill as Reproductive Rights Come Under Sustained Attack
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/2/senate_narrowly_defeats_anti_contraception_bill
DN March 02, 2012
The U.S. Senate has narrowly rejected an effort to vastly expand conscience exemptions in President Obama’s new birth control coverage rule that already allows exemptions for religiously affiliated institutions. The Blunt Amendment, sponsored by Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, would have let any U.S. employer deny contraceptive health coverage on religious or moral grounds, but it failed in a 51-48 vote largely along partisan lines. "What’s really surprising to me about the Blunt Amendment is that it did not fail 99 to one," says Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "It’s appalling that politicians really think they can get away with restricting birth control." In other reproductive rights news, a Virginia bill mandating ultrasound exams for women seeking abortions has cleared its final legislative hurdle and is expected to be signed into law. "I can’t think of any other area, in the 20 years that I’ve been practicing medicine, where I’ve been forced by the government, someone who has no medical training or background, to use a particular test or to inform a patient about information," notes Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion provider and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Senate has narrowly rejected an effort to vastly expand conscience exemptions in President Obama’s new birth control coverage rule. The mandate already allows exemptions for religiously affiliated institutions. But the so-called Blunt Amendment, sponsored by Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, would have let any U.S. employer deny contraceptive health coverage on religious or moral grounds. The measure failed in a 51-48 vote largely along partisan lines. Maine Senator Olympia Snowe was the only Republican to vote against the amendment.
SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: With respect to the Blunt Amendment, I think it’s much broader than I could support. I think we should have focused on the issue of contraceptives and whether or not it should be included in a health insurance plan and what requirements there should be.
JUAN GONZALEZ: That was Senator Olympia Snowe, who has announced she will be retiring from the Senate.
The Obama administration’s mandate has spawned passionate debate over whether women should have free access to contraceptive care, either from their own employers or insurance companies. On Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ignited a firestorm among his rank and file when he said he was against the Blunt Amendment.
MITT ROMNEY: I’m not for the bill. But look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and wife, I’m not going there.
AMY GOODMAN: After the interview, Romney’s campaign quickly said he actually did support the amendment. That hasn’t stopped Democrats and Republicans alike for blasting his comments. Republican Presidential contender Rick Santorum told supporters at a rally in Georgia, quote, "We saw an insight into what’s in the gut of Governor Romney yesterday."
In other reproductive rights news, a Virginia bill mandating ultrasound exams for women seeking abortions has cleared its final legislative hurdle and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell. It includes an exception for victims of incest and rape, provided they report their assault to police. Proponents of the bill argue ultrasounds will help inform women about the pregnancies they wish to abort. But critics contend patients will be subjected to emotional blackmail, logistical hurdles and legalized bullying. The Virginia ultrasound bill is just one of several measures around the nation. Texas already has an even stricter bill on its books, and Alabama Republicans would like their own vaginal ultrasound bill passed soon.
For more, we’re joined now by two guests. Here in New York, Dr. Willie Parker is with us. He’s a physician and abortion provider and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. And in Washington, D.C., we’re joined by Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Terry O’Neill, let’s begin with you. Talk about the Blunt Amendment.
TERRY O’NEILL: The Blunt Amendment is an anti-contraception, anti-birth-control provision that was actually made a lot broader. It simply says that any employer could strip any healthcare service from the employer’s healthcare plan based on any undefined religious or moral conviction. It was clearly aimed, however, at birth control, and it would allow employers to strip birth control from health plans. It’s clearly illegal. Courts have spoken very specifically that it’s not—it is not OK, under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to discriminate in the provision of healthcare services in a healthcare plan. And this is clearly discrimination, sex discrimination.
So, it’s—what’s really surprising to me about the Blunt Amendment is that it did not fail 99 to one. That should have been the vote. It’s appalling that politicians really think they can get away with restricting birth control. I mean, it’s one thing for the Catholic bishops to rail against birth control. It’s another thing for an elected official. Those elected officials, believe me, who voted for the Blunt Amendment will not be holding their jobs very much longer.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, well, as you say, Catholic officials rail against it, while 98 percent of Catholics use birth control. Your sense of why this enormous—this close vote on an issue like this?
TERRY O’NEILL: Well, the Republican leadership seems to have decided that attacking women’s health is somehow politically a good idea. They clearly need to divert attention away from the improving economic situation. That is not good for them politically. They’re trying to paint President Obama as having failed on the economy. But I cannot explain, honestly, why the leadership believes that attacking women’s health is good for them. The polls show—you know, Rick Santorum was poised to win the Michigan primaries by a substantial margin. He lost women in droves because of his anti-birth-control stance. And believe me, Mitt Romney, who is clearly anti-birth-control, who is very willing to enact laws restricting birth control, he is going to lose women if he becomes the nominee in the general election.
AMY GOODMAN: It was quite something to see the complete turnaround, within a couple of hours, of Mitt Romney first saying, of course, he’s for the amendment, and then that he was against the amendment. But I wanted to ask you, Terry O’Neill, about Rush Limbaugh, who made headlines on Wednesday after calling a student reproductive rights activist a "slut" for campaigning in favor of contraception coverage for women. Limbaugh made the comment during a rant on his radio broadcast.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? Makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
AMY GOODMAN: Limbaugh ratcheted up his rhetoric Thursday, saying the student, Sandra Fluke, should post an online sex video if taxpayers are forced to pay for contraception.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: So, Ms. Fluke, and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.
AMY GOODMAN: Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student and a member of the group Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. She was barred from testimony at an all-male panel on contraception on Capitol Hill last month. The day after she wasn’t able to give testimony, Fluke appeared on Democracy Now!
SANDRA FLUKE: I strongly believe that our government has to legislate for reality, not ideology. So, if we don’t provide contraception coverage and healthcare, that’s not going to stop anyone from having sex, whether they should or should not be. And we really have to take care of women’s healthcare and not worry about policing their moral choices.
AMY GOODMAN: That was third-year Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. Terry O’Neill, your response?
TERRY O’NEILL: You know, I first read Rush Limbaugh’s comments before I saw and heard them. In reading them, my reaction was, this is the rant of a 12-year-old. I haven’t seen—I actually haven’t seen that kind of language since I was in junior high school. But when I then looked at it, when I saw the video, here is a grown man being extremely—honestly, the sense that I got was it was more than bullying. It was really calling on his listeners to become belligerent towards women. It was calling on his listeners to belligerently attack younger women who use birth control as sluts and prostitutes, as women—and, you know, we know that violence against women in the sex trade is statistically much higher than violence against women elsewhere. So, it was, frankly, very dark undertones to this. I have called for Rush Limbaugh to be taken off the air as a result. And Sandra Fluke is, frankly, my hero.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, we’re also joined by Dr. Willie Parker. You were shaking your head as you were listening to that Rush Limbaugh rant. Could you—your reaction to it?
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, as a women’s healthcare provider, as a man, but more importantly, as a human being, I was just taken aback that he would feel empowered to use that kind of language to refer to someone who simply disagrees with his way of seeing the world. And I think if we have tolerance for that, under the guise that it’s free speech, I think we’re on a slippery slope, if you can say anything you want. You can injure with sticks and stones; you can also injure with words. I had a great sense of shame as a man that he would use that language at that bright and courageous young woman.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Parker, can you talk about the whole controversy in Virginia, this whole idea of, first, the vaginal ultrasound probe, and then how that was changed to be just the ultrasound? But explain what is being legislated around this country. Start with Virginia.
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, what’s being legislated is, in my opinion, an attempt to parse away at the right to confidential legal access to abortion services for women. Since there’s no real option for overturning Roe, the goal is to parse it away such that, in application, it really has no role. When women have barriers placed by rules that impede their access to abortion care or rules that are burdensome by forcing them to interact with information that does not improve their decision making, it really is an under—it’s an attempt to undermine the basic access to the healthcare that is abortion.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And how would this ultrasound requirement work?
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, first of all, mandating rules by the government has no place in the doctor-patient relationship. That relationship is based on trust and confidentiality. I can’t think of any other area, in the 20 years that I’ve been practicing medicine, where I’ve been forced by the government, someone who has no medical training or background, to use a particular test or to inform a patient about information. It violates the very notion of informed consent. Consent means that you have the option of receiving information or not. And this rule would require us to—it would force us to have patients or women to interact with information that we would use, in a clinical sense, for the purposes of coercion.
An early ultrasound, before 12—early, before 12 weeks, the main use of ultrasound is to accurately date the pregnancy and to establish that a woman has normal anatomy, and maybe the number. Outside of that, it has no useful information that would inform a woman about making her decision. Women, when they have an ultrasound and when they permit for abortion care, they already know that they’re pregnant. The ultrasound is not going to improve on them knowing that and then making the decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
AMY GOODMAN: And the difference between the ultrasound and then originally what the Virginia law—the law would have mandated, the probe? What are these different devices?
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Well, a vaginal probe is an instrument used in ultrasound that allows the person doing the ultrasound to, by placing the probe inside, to get closer to the object that you want to view. So, for example, the vaginal probe allows the ultrasound’s transducer, or part that collects the signal, to be right next to the uterus so that you can get a clearer image with more information. That is most useful in the extremely early stage of pregnancy. So the information that you gather from a vaginal probe ultrasound doesn’t give you any more information than what you would get out of a six-weeks transabdominal. And in fact the main use for a vaginal probe ultrasound is to locate the pregnancy, to rule out the presence of an ectopic pregnancy, which is a life-threatening condition. But it does not provide additional information that allows a woman to determine whether or not she is going to continue a pregnancy.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And Terry O’Neill, the implications of this Virginia law in terms of, across the country, efforts again to have the government intrude into the health—women’s own healthcare?
TERRY O’NEILL: Sure. And these ultrasound laws really are part of a coordinated campaign at the state level to produce what we are calling humiliation, ritual humiliation laws. The only purpose of these laws—they mandate medically unnecessary, non-consensual, extremely costly procedures, in which not only does the ultrasound have to be done, but the woman is forced to, in some states, view the ultrasound, and the doctor is forced to tell the woman whether there’s a heartbeat. And in Alabama, for example, Mr. Scofield, who introduced an ultrasound law, actually said that he had taken the transvaginal probe—he made an exemption for that, so that a woman—he said, "I want a woman to have a choice whether to have this ultrasound by a vaginal probe or externally." So, in other words, his choice—and he actually used that word—for the woman is: shall I be humiliated with a vaginal probe, or shall I be humiliated with an external ultrasound? They’re completely outrageous.
And they really are part of—as the doctor said, they are part of this coordinated campaign to chip away at women’s ability to access ordinary healthcare. One in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime. And it’s a really common, necessary part of women’s reproductive healthcare. But these laws are making it harder and harder for physicians to provide standard medical care, because they are so hemmed in by all different kinds of requirements.
AMY GOODMAN: And Dr. Parker, the use of contraceptives for actual medical care, not to stop conception, but—actually, when Sandra Fluke was on our show, the Georgetown law student, she talked about one of her friends at school who needed it to treat a condition, and because she wasn’t able to get it, she ended up having a hysterectomy, because she wasn’t able to treat at an early stage what she needed to.
DR. WILLIE PARKER: Sure. We, all the time in medicine, use drugs or medications that come to market by FDA approval for a primary indication, and then there’s secondary. The non-contraceptive benefits of hormonal contraception are as prevalent and, for many women, as important as the ability to prevent an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. For example, women who suffer serious and debilitating symptoms with their menstrual cycle, or PMS, as it’s commonly known, simply by being able to regulate her menstrual cycle, she can be relieved of debilitating symptoms and continue to be functional.
The patient stories are the best ones. And I think what’s at risk if we paint with a broad brush and lose the ability to have women have access to contraception pills for non-contraceptive benefits—I think of a patient I had by the name of Ashley, 14-year-old prodigious soccer player in the ninth grade who, in the early part of her menstrual cycle, had very irregular periods and sometimes would bleed down to anemia. Her mother brought her in to see me to find out what we could do. Early, oftentimes, when women first start their menstrual cycles, they’re very irregular. So Ashley, who was not sexually active, wanted to have some way of not interrupting her ability to play soccer. So, in consultation with her mother and her, we figured out the best way to regulate her menses was to start her on birth control pills. Now, if Ashley’s purse falls on the floor and her pills fall out, people will assume that she’s sexually active. But there are other contraceptive benefits. And that’s what would be lost if we paint with a broad brush and allow contraception to be politicized, such that everyone loses their access that should be able to use it.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both very much for being with us, Dr. Willie Parker, physician, abortion provider, board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.
-----------------------
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, V-Day founder Eve Ensler on women’s bodies as battleground and on the first anniversary of the City of Joy in Congo for rape survivors. Stay with us.
===================
domingo, 4 de marzo de 2012
THE BEST GOP TO BEAT OBAMA IS RON PAUL
THE BEST GOP TO BEAT OBAMA IS RON PAUL
Hugo Adan. March 4, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
1st, Because Ron Paul is against the wars abroad that are draining the US economy. All other contenders in the Rep party and their rival Obama are pro-war.
It means that the others are supporting the current economic and political structure ruled by the military-industrial complex and their team from CIA and FBI. The military-industrial complex is the only ones who profit from wars abroad and they are putting now the whole nation at risk with their plan to invade & destroy Syria and Iran.
The current US war strategy is based in the old and wrong thesis that Israel is our best ally in the Middle East since they help to contain the advance and independence of the Islamic fundamentalists.
The fact is that the Arab spring showed a clear lesson: that Muslims are more sympathetic with western democracy and freedom than the old royalties and dictators we supported before. Even these rulers in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Tunisia and other prove to be not our worse enemies as Israel depicted.
In other words, the Zionist in Israel neither help to contain the uprising of Muslims fundamentalists (instead these arm-dealers are suspected to be the ones who armed and hired the Al Qaeda mercenaries that destroyed Libya and were operating in Syria until they were defeated a week ago) nor the Zionists were in favor of democracy in the Arab spring. They were supporters of Mubarak in Egypt and other Muslim dictators in the region.
The worse, the Zionists are suspected to had close ties with the Saudi royalty and the Bin Laden family and Bush family who run together the now illegal Carlyle Foundation. This one is suspected of providing the money to hire the fundamentalist Muslims involved in the Sept 11 attack. So the Zionists are suspected of being accomplices of such terrorism. That may explain why the Israeli Primer Minister cancelled his visit to the US before that day. In short, the Zionist of Israel should not be our allies anymore. They are suspected to be our worse enemy inside.
Besides, the Zionists are the ones who are creating trouble with Muslims in their region, misusing the military mighty we gave to them and violating UN resolutions and committing war crimes that makes the US accomplices of their policies. We need to stop their abuses in & out the US.
Ron Paul is not anti-Israel and is not in favor of Israel abuses against Palestinians and other neighbors. I don’t think Ron Paul is in favor of the Zionist speculator-mafias inside Wall Street and the mafias who run the black market of arm-dealing world-wide and so the money laundry world-wide. We need to investigate if their money-laundry is already behind the super-pack that are corrupting our democracy.
We need to go deep in research already done by independent journalists on all these issues, starting with the monopoly of the mass-media in the US.
The only one who won’t oppose a prophylactic policy on this regard is Ron Paul. He is the only one who is not corrupted and that makes the difference between Ron Paul and the rest. Ron Paul is the only one who warrants putting an end to the Zionist war monguerism in our corporate media.
2nd, Ron Paul is also the person who best know the causes and solutions for the current economic crises. His position in the Senate and his consistence in denouncing the wrong neoliberal policies and the hidden hand of plutocrats, the real dictators of the US, the ones that evade taxes (like Mitt Romney who paid only 13.9 while most American pay more the 30%) makes Ron Paul the best candidate in the coming elections.
One question remains however. What is Ron Paul doing inside a conservative party that has already kidnapped American’s mind-set with the old feudal anti-women conservatism?. The rights of women (starting with abortion) have been rhetorically wiped out by the three other candidates in the GOP. In doing so, in a country that is 50% secular they alienate the GOP from women vote and that is the way of helping Obama to be re-elected. Young women will vote Obama in the hope of defending with his support their rights.
In addition, their cannibalism in these primaries feed Obama’s party too. They already converted Obama in the candidate that can beat either Romney or Santorum, the front runners. The only one that cannot be beaten by Obama is Ron Paul. But Ron Paul cannot be the winner if he remains inside the corrupted GOP game.
Ron Paul has to create the alternative for tomorrow change, he has to pave the rode for a 3rd option with Nader and other, so that they can run candidates in different states and try to cope the House and the Senate, then they should press for a Parliamentary democracy.
Thanks to Romney and Santorum, Obama is the virtual winner of this election, but the real victory could go to the 3rd option. That is the best chance for Ron Paul to make history and to be consistent with his speeches and his traditional honesty.
--------------
The Rasmussen poll released in March 2 was right, this poll is run by honest Jewish people. According to such pull Ron Paul can beat Obama. That is another reason why he should get out of the GOP and cold for a united peoples front against the neo-nazis that control the bi-partisan system and the obsolete neoliberal economy. That is the only way for Ron Paul to make history.
================
RON PAUL BEATS OBAMA
http://rt.com/news/blogs/contrarian-view/ron-paul-beats-obama/
Published: 02 March, 2012, 16:16
¬
Last Tuesday night Mitt Romney won the Arizona and Michigan primaries and once more “electability” was the issue. Almost one third of voters said it was their main reason for choosing Romney. According to interviews with the national media, some voters held their noses and voted for the former Massachusetts governor on that issue alone. But as readers of this blog will know, they needn’t have held their noses. The man who shares Obama’s banker, Goldman Sachs, thinks that Syria has an opening to the sea and whose wife drives two Cadillacs, (presumably one at a time,) is not the most electable after all.
A Rasmussen poll released that same day says that Texas congressman, Ron Paul is the most electable. Paul tied Romney and beat all other Republican candidates in match ups with Barack Obama. If the definition of news is “man bites dog,” a phrase coined by Alfred Harmsworth, then one would think that this poll would get a mention. But the media has avoided the story like the plague.
RASMUSSEN POLL
Romney 45% Obama 43%
Paul 43% Obama 41%
Obama 45% Santorum 43%
Obama 49% Gingrich 39%
COMMENTS ON RASMUSSEN POLL
1. A more reliable poll shows that Ron Paul is in 2nd place. Ron Paul Supporters start waking up now? Also to all Republicans, although I agree that Mitt isn't a perfect candidate. He is the one most likely to appeal to independents and get Obama removed from office. Isn't that more important than any other consideration?
Rasmussen Reports is an American media company that publishes and distributes information based on public opinion polling. Founded by pollster Scott Rasmussen in 2003, the company updates daily indexes including the President's job approval rating, and provides public opinion data, analysis, and conservative commentary, along with coverage of business, economic, and lifestyle issues. The company claims to have the "most comprehensive public opinion data" and uses the slogan, "If it's in the news, it's in our polls".
OPEN THE WEB SITE ABOVE , DON’T MISS A GREAT CARTOON
Pamela Silver sent a great cartoon. It was drawn by the talented Steve Morgan.
Hugo Adan. March 4, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
1st, Because Ron Paul is against the wars abroad that are draining the US economy. All other contenders in the Rep party and their rival Obama are pro-war.
It means that the others are supporting the current economic and political structure ruled by the military-industrial complex and their team from CIA and FBI. The military-industrial complex is the only ones who profit from wars abroad and they are putting now the whole nation at risk with their plan to invade & destroy Syria and Iran.
The current US war strategy is based in the old and wrong thesis that Israel is our best ally in the Middle East since they help to contain the advance and independence of the Islamic fundamentalists.
The fact is that the Arab spring showed a clear lesson: that Muslims are more sympathetic with western democracy and freedom than the old royalties and dictators we supported before. Even these rulers in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Tunisia and other prove to be not our worse enemies as Israel depicted.
In other words, the Zionist in Israel neither help to contain the uprising of Muslims fundamentalists (instead these arm-dealers are suspected to be the ones who armed and hired the Al Qaeda mercenaries that destroyed Libya and were operating in Syria until they were defeated a week ago) nor the Zionists were in favor of democracy in the Arab spring. They were supporters of Mubarak in Egypt and other Muslim dictators in the region.
The worse, the Zionists are suspected to had close ties with the Saudi royalty and the Bin Laden family and Bush family who run together the now illegal Carlyle Foundation. This one is suspected of providing the money to hire the fundamentalist Muslims involved in the Sept 11 attack. So the Zionists are suspected of being accomplices of such terrorism. That may explain why the Israeli Primer Minister cancelled his visit to the US before that day. In short, the Zionist of Israel should not be our allies anymore. They are suspected to be our worse enemy inside.
Besides, the Zionists are the ones who are creating trouble with Muslims in their region, misusing the military mighty we gave to them and violating UN resolutions and committing war crimes that makes the US accomplices of their policies. We need to stop their abuses in & out the US.
Ron Paul is not anti-Israel and is not in favor of Israel abuses against Palestinians and other neighbors. I don’t think Ron Paul is in favor of the Zionist speculator-mafias inside Wall Street and the mafias who run the black market of arm-dealing world-wide and so the money laundry world-wide. We need to investigate if their money-laundry is already behind the super-pack that are corrupting our democracy.
We need to go deep in research already done by independent journalists on all these issues, starting with the monopoly of the mass-media in the US.
The only one who won’t oppose a prophylactic policy on this regard is Ron Paul. He is the only one who is not corrupted and that makes the difference between Ron Paul and the rest. Ron Paul is the only one who warrants putting an end to the Zionist war monguerism in our corporate media.
2nd, Ron Paul is also the person who best know the causes and solutions for the current economic crises. His position in the Senate and his consistence in denouncing the wrong neoliberal policies and the hidden hand of plutocrats, the real dictators of the US, the ones that evade taxes (like Mitt Romney who paid only 13.9 while most American pay more the 30%) makes Ron Paul the best candidate in the coming elections.
One question remains however. What is Ron Paul doing inside a conservative party that has already kidnapped American’s mind-set with the old feudal anti-women conservatism?. The rights of women (starting with abortion) have been rhetorically wiped out by the three other candidates in the GOP. In doing so, in a country that is 50% secular they alienate the GOP from women vote and that is the way of helping Obama to be re-elected. Young women will vote Obama in the hope of defending with his support their rights.
In addition, their cannibalism in these primaries feed Obama’s party too. They already converted Obama in the candidate that can beat either Romney or Santorum, the front runners. The only one that cannot be beaten by Obama is Ron Paul. But Ron Paul cannot be the winner if he remains inside the corrupted GOP game.
Ron Paul has to create the alternative for tomorrow change, he has to pave the rode for a 3rd option with Nader and other, so that they can run candidates in different states and try to cope the House and the Senate, then they should press for a Parliamentary democracy.
Thanks to Romney and Santorum, Obama is the virtual winner of this election, but the real victory could go to the 3rd option. That is the best chance for Ron Paul to make history and to be consistent with his speeches and his traditional honesty.
--------------
The Rasmussen poll released in March 2 was right, this poll is run by honest Jewish people. According to such pull Ron Paul can beat Obama. That is another reason why he should get out of the GOP and cold for a united peoples front against the neo-nazis that control the bi-partisan system and the obsolete neoliberal economy. That is the only way for Ron Paul to make history.
================
RON PAUL BEATS OBAMA
http://rt.com/news/blogs/contrarian-view/ron-paul-beats-obama/
Published: 02 March, 2012, 16:16
¬
Last Tuesday night Mitt Romney won the Arizona and Michigan primaries and once more “electability” was the issue. Almost one third of voters said it was their main reason for choosing Romney. According to interviews with the national media, some voters held their noses and voted for the former Massachusetts governor on that issue alone. But as readers of this blog will know, they needn’t have held their noses. The man who shares Obama’s banker, Goldman Sachs, thinks that Syria has an opening to the sea and whose wife drives two Cadillacs, (presumably one at a time,) is not the most electable after all.
A Rasmussen poll released that same day says that Texas congressman, Ron Paul is the most electable. Paul tied Romney and beat all other Republican candidates in match ups with Barack Obama. If the definition of news is “man bites dog,” a phrase coined by Alfred Harmsworth, then one would think that this poll would get a mention. But the media has avoided the story like the plague.
RASMUSSEN POLL
Romney 45% Obama 43%
Paul 43% Obama 41%
Obama 45% Santorum 43%
Obama 49% Gingrich 39%
COMMENTS ON RASMUSSEN POLL
1. A more reliable poll shows that Ron Paul is in 2nd place. Ron Paul Supporters start waking up now? Also to all Republicans, although I agree that Mitt isn't a perfect candidate. He is the one most likely to appeal to independents and get Obama removed from office. Isn't that more important than any other consideration?
Rasmussen Reports is an American media company that publishes and distributes information based on public opinion polling. Founded by pollster Scott Rasmussen in 2003, the company updates daily indexes including the President's job approval rating, and provides public opinion data, analysis, and conservative commentary, along with coverage of business, economic, and lifestyle issues. The company claims to have the "most comprehensive public opinion data" and uses the slogan, "If it's in the news, it's in our polls".
OPEN THE WEB SITE ABOVE , DON’T MISS A GREAT CARTOON
Pamela Silver sent a great cartoon. It was drawn by the talented Steve Morgan.
jueves, 1 de marzo de 2012
LOS MERCENARIOS ARMADOS DE EU Y FRANCIA HAN SIDO DERROTADOS EN SYRIA
LOS MERCENARIOS ARMADOS DE EU Y FRANCIA HAN SIDO DERROTADOS EN SYRIA
Pero es solo una guerra, la batalla final está en camino.
MERCENARIES ARMED by NATO & US DEFEATED IN SYRIA
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo Adan. Marzo 1, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
La oposición al gobierno de Assar esta dividida. Según la BBC el sector mas grande de la oposición armada no quiere aceptar el comando ni subordinación al Bureau Militar impuesto por los EU y Francia y menos aun aceptar el Gobierno en el exilio que aquellos han montado : el llamado “Syrian National Council (SNC), por sus siglas en ingles.
Esto es evidencia –según la BBC- de que la oposición armada está totalmente dividida. Se trata de estrategias totalmente diferentes e irreconciliables como la ocurrida entre Sendero Luminoso y el MRTA en Perú. Alli el ejercito estatal los derroto con el apoyo de los EU y fue sin reparar en DH ni costo social alguno. Hoy el ejercito estatal de Syria esta apoyado por Rusos y Chinos y EU se apresta a invadir ese país con la excusa de DH y usando como cobertura a las UN que esta hoy bajo el control de los aliados de NATO.
Es posible que los mercenarios del Free Syrian Army (en cuyas filas hay musulmanes de Al Qaeda) no quieran luchar contra sus hermanos de fe en Syria y muy posible que hayan firmado un pacto con los militares del Ejercito de Assad, como lo indica una reportera de la BBC. Si es así, lo único que les queda a los EU y sus aliados en NATO es sacrificar sus propios soldados en un país del cual tendrán que retirarse pronto, apenas se instale el nuevo gobierno civil-militar que tomara la posta de Assad con respaldo de Rusia y China.
La de Syria será una guerra de invasores contra pueblo-ejercito unidos y bien armados los dos, como no ocurrio en Irak, Afghnsitan ni Libya. Assad ha ganado ya el apoyo de la población civil contra la invasión extranjera a partir del referéndum. Es muy posible que en la elecciones que vienen –si antes no ocurre un auto-golpe militar- el partido de oposición civil a Assad, el Frente Popular por el cambio, haga parte del poder central como jamás antes ocurrió.
Assad podría tener así garantizada su inmunidad “carcelaria” dentro del país como lo tuvo en Peru Fujimori y Pinochet en Chile (mis dictadores hijos de puta, pero solo mios, dijeron los Pdtes del Norte que los apoyaron). Lo mismo podría ocurrir hoy con Assad en Syria para quien EU está pidiendo un tribunal fantoche de la ONU. Para que eso ocurra tendría el ejército invasor en Syria que ganar esta guerra en Syria y es muy difícil que eso suceda.
Es más posible que una nueva asamblea General de la ONU instale un tribunal similar al de Núremberg pero con los vencedores de la guerra en Syria. Si es asi, serían los criminales de guerra de EU y los NATO quienes tendrían que poner sus cabezas bajo la guillotina del Nuevo Tribunal post-Núremberg. Los Chinos y los Rusos podrían decir entonces que Assad es nuestro hijo de puta y le darían también privilegios especiales a reos similares.
El pueblo de Syria está convencido de que ningún ejército invasor podría brindarles protección. Por esto pidieron a los del Free Syrian Army que se vayan. La mejor protección que reclama el pueblo es QUE SE VAYAN TODOS, incluyendo Assad y LOS MERCENARIOS de EU y NATO. Assad tiene que retirarse y pronto, ya sea creando un Gbno Transitorio civil-militar encargado de las Elecciones o generando un auto-golpe para el mismo fin. Si los invasores de NATO ingresan, estarán yendo contra la corriente -como el salmon de rio- a dejar sus hijitos queridos allá arriba, donde nace el rio popular de Syria.
Al parecer el Frente Popular de Oposicion que rechazó la intervención militar extranjera y se negó a participar en el circo de Tunez (la conferencia de los amigos de Syria) ha ganado ya su influencia en el pueblo. Se unieron al clamor general “solución política y pacifica” para Syria. NO a una insurrección armada de los mercenarios pagados por los criminales de guerra de EU, Francia e Inglaterra y por esto tienen bien ganado su derecho a hacer poder dentro del nuevo gobierno que viene.
Si los dos brazos intervencionistas de EU y NATO, uno armado de metrallas asesinas y el otro del verbo venenoso llamado Diplomacia de guerra y falso amor por los DR, si estos están divididos desde el inicio, es porque no hay cerebro que los una, ni la claridad de objetivos precisos que requiere esta empresa. Y si se empezó mal, mal se termina.
Si se piensa invadir Syria cuando Israel bombardee Irán, deben también esperar una respuesta simultanea de los Rusos y Chinos. Por lo pronto estos no solo han brindado armas, y dólares, sino también apoyo técnico y político-militar a Syria porque saben que adonde apunta NATO es a Iran y luego a ellos. Si el ataque simultaneo a Syria e Iran es también respondido con un ataque simultaneo al poder económico-militar de la alianza NATO, es muy posible que la UE se separe de EU y se disuelva NATO. A esto apuntaría la respuesta simultánea de Rusos y Chinos. No creo que la UE esté dispuesta a aceptar que le vuelen el cordon balístico-nuclear que EU ha instalado en suelo europeo contra Rusia y China.
Y si no se llega a esos extremos, el triunfo del reciente REFERNDUM en Syria y el entrenamiento que viene recibiendo el pueblo para defenderse de la posible invasión, más la radicalización de los pueblos rebeldes de la primavera arabe y la organización de comandos suicidas por la “hermandad musulmana” que irían mas alla de la frontera africana y esta vez apuntarían a objetivos económicos del imprio a nivel mundial, todo eso indica que esta guerra en Syria –si se la mantiene en los niveles de Irak, Afganistán y Libia- esta podría ser no una guerra de dos o tres días, sino una larga guerra que igual terminaría drenando la bases económica y politico-militar de los asociados de NATO.
Lo que viene entonces es claro: la mayor derrota de NATO primero en Syria e Irán y luego a nivel global.
------------------------
SYRIAN REBELS PULL OUT OF BESIEGED HOMS
http://rt.com/news/syrian-rebels-retreat-homs-607/
Published: 01 March, 2012
“France, US arming Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles – report: A general in the opposition militia known as the Free Syria Army has told journalists that the rebels have received French and American military assistance, amid reports of worsening violence in the stricken nation.” Published: 29 February, 2012. “France, US arming Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles”. http://rt.com/news/syria-arms-us-france-531/
Syrian rebels have been ejected from the Baba Amr district of Homs, promising revenge as they retreat. Syrian authorities allow humanitarian aid to those left in need in the city is to be delivered Friday.
Most rebel troops were pushed out of the area by President Assad’s forces on Thursday, AP reports. The Baba Amr brigade says it pulled back in order to allow some 4,000 civilian residents who had remained in their homes during the siege to escape to safety, and warned that the government will pay dearly for “targeting the civilian population in Homs.”
“We urge the international community and Muslim and Arab states to intervene immediately to prevent a potential massacre in the coming hours against tens of thousands of children, women and elderly people,” the Syrian National Council said.
The BBC reports that the rebels' withdrawal may have been made in accordance with some agreement with the government. But online reports on behalf of the Baba Amr brigade say the rebels didn’t have enough arms to protect the people in Homs.
And getting ready for further bombardment, the Syrian opposition made another strategic move to unify its various armed resistance factions, pushing the country further down the road to civil war.
"The revolution started peacefully and kept up its peaceful nature for months, but the reality today is different – and the SNC must shoulder its responsibilities in the face of this new reality," said the leadership of Syrian National Council.
Syrian authorities said they're up against armed gangs and terrorists in Homs. The Syrian Red Crescent has been allowed to provide humanitarian aid to the civilian population under siege there, who are in dire need of food and medical supplies. Al Arabiya described the situation there as “extremely worrying.”
“The ICRC and the SARC will go on Friday to Baba Amr to deliver humanitarian aid and evacuate the wounded,” ICRC spokesman in Damascus Saleh Dabbakeh told AFP.
Meanwhile, the UN Security Council together with Russia and China urged Assad’s government to grant access to the UN's humanitarian chief.
-------------------------------
RELATED NEWS: See here extracts
SYRIAN REBELS WITHDRAW FROM HOMS, SYRIAN ARMY TAKES OVER.
By Kristina Chew.
March 1, 2012
http://www.care2.com/causes/syrian-rebels-withdraw-from-homs-syrian-army-takes-over.html
“BBC‘s Jim Muir said that the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA)’s withdrawal is “obviously by agreement between the two sides, as has happened elsewhere in Syria, to avoid a final showdown.” According to a statement posted online in the name of the Baba Amr brigade of the FSA, the fighters did not have enough weapons to protect the remaining 4,000 residents of Bab Amr. The statement also warned the government not to take revenge on the civilians who remain in Bab Amr.”. [...]
“The exile political opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) announced that it is forming a military bureau. However, THE FSA, WHICH IS THE LARGEST MILITARY GROUP, IS REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE SNC’S AUTHORITY IN A SIGN, says the BBC, OF “EVIDENCE OF DEEP SPLITS WITHIN THE OPPOSITION.”
==============
BBC News - SYRIA REBELS LEAVE BESIEGED BABA AMR DISTRICT OF HOMS
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17223472. March 1, 2012
The Syrian rebel force fighting government troops in the besieged city of Homs says most of its fighters have left the Baba Amr district in a "tactical" withdrawal.
Dire conditions: A few fighters remained behind in Baba Amr to cover the retreat, the FSA said. A statement posted online in the name of the Baba Amr brigade of the FSA said the fighters did not have enough weapons to defend the civilians.
The BBC's Jim Muir, in neighbouring Lebanon, says the FSA's withdrawal was probably by agreement between the two sides, as has happened elsewhere in Syria, to avoid a final showdown.
=================
Pero es solo una guerra, la batalla final está en camino.
MERCENARIES ARMED by NATO & US DEFEATED IN SYRIA
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo Adan. Marzo 1, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
La oposición al gobierno de Assar esta dividida. Según la BBC el sector mas grande de la oposición armada no quiere aceptar el comando ni subordinación al Bureau Militar impuesto por los EU y Francia y menos aun aceptar el Gobierno en el exilio que aquellos han montado : el llamado “Syrian National Council (SNC), por sus siglas en ingles.
Esto es evidencia –según la BBC- de que la oposición armada está totalmente dividida. Se trata de estrategias totalmente diferentes e irreconciliables como la ocurrida entre Sendero Luminoso y el MRTA en Perú. Alli el ejercito estatal los derroto con el apoyo de los EU y fue sin reparar en DH ni costo social alguno. Hoy el ejercito estatal de Syria esta apoyado por Rusos y Chinos y EU se apresta a invadir ese país con la excusa de DH y usando como cobertura a las UN que esta hoy bajo el control de los aliados de NATO.
Es posible que los mercenarios del Free Syrian Army (en cuyas filas hay musulmanes de Al Qaeda) no quieran luchar contra sus hermanos de fe en Syria y muy posible que hayan firmado un pacto con los militares del Ejercito de Assad, como lo indica una reportera de la BBC. Si es así, lo único que les queda a los EU y sus aliados en NATO es sacrificar sus propios soldados en un país del cual tendrán que retirarse pronto, apenas se instale el nuevo gobierno civil-militar que tomara la posta de Assad con respaldo de Rusia y China.
La de Syria será una guerra de invasores contra pueblo-ejercito unidos y bien armados los dos, como no ocurrio en Irak, Afghnsitan ni Libya. Assad ha ganado ya el apoyo de la población civil contra la invasión extranjera a partir del referéndum. Es muy posible que en la elecciones que vienen –si antes no ocurre un auto-golpe militar- el partido de oposición civil a Assad, el Frente Popular por el cambio, haga parte del poder central como jamás antes ocurrió.
Assad podría tener así garantizada su inmunidad “carcelaria” dentro del país como lo tuvo en Peru Fujimori y Pinochet en Chile (mis dictadores hijos de puta, pero solo mios, dijeron los Pdtes del Norte que los apoyaron). Lo mismo podría ocurrir hoy con Assad en Syria para quien EU está pidiendo un tribunal fantoche de la ONU. Para que eso ocurra tendría el ejército invasor en Syria que ganar esta guerra en Syria y es muy difícil que eso suceda.
Es más posible que una nueva asamblea General de la ONU instale un tribunal similar al de Núremberg pero con los vencedores de la guerra en Syria. Si es asi, serían los criminales de guerra de EU y los NATO quienes tendrían que poner sus cabezas bajo la guillotina del Nuevo Tribunal post-Núremberg. Los Chinos y los Rusos podrían decir entonces que Assad es nuestro hijo de puta y le darían también privilegios especiales a reos similares.
El pueblo de Syria está convencido de que ningún ejército invasor podría brindarles protección. Por esto pidieron a los del Free Syrian Army que se vayan. La mejor protección que reclama el pueblo es QUE SE VAYAN TODOS, incluyendo Assad y LOS MERCENARIOS de EU y NATO. Assad tiene que retirarse y pronto, ya sea creando un Gbno Transitorio civil-militar encargado de las Elecciones o generando un auto-golpe para el mismo fin. Si los invasores de NATO ingresan, estarán yendo contra la corriente -como el salmon de rio- a dejar sus hijitos queridos allá arriba, donde nace el rio popular de Syria.
Al parecer el Frente Popular de Oposicion que rechazó la intervención militar extranjera y se negó a participar en el circo de Tunez (la conferencia de los amigos de Syria) ha ganado ya su influencia en el pueblo. Se unieron al clamor general “solución política y pacifica” para Syria. NO a una insurrección armada de los mercenarios pagados por los criminales de guerra de EU, Francia e Inglaterra y por esto tienen bien ganado su derecho a hacer poder dentro del nuevo gobierno que viene.
Si los dos brazos intervencionistas de EU y NATO, uno armado de metrallas asesinas y el otro del verbo venenoso llamado Diplomacia de guerra y falso amor por los DR, si estos están divididos desde el inicio, es porque no hay cerebro que los una, ni la claridad de objetivos precisos que requiere esta empresa. Y si se empezó mal, mal se termina.
Si se piensa invadir Syria cuando Israel bombardee Irán, deben también esperar una respuesta simultanea de los Rusos y Chinos. Por lo pronto estos no solo han brindado armas, y dólares, sino también apoyo técnico y político-militar a Syria porque saben que adonde apunta NATO es a Iran y luego a ellos. Si el ataque simultaneo a Syria e Iran es también respondido con un ataque simultaneo al poder económico-militar de la alianza NATO, es muy posible que la UE se separe de EU y se disuelva NATO. A esto apuntaría la respuesta simultánea de Rusos y Chinos. No creo que la UE esté dispuesta a aceptar que le vuelen el cordon balístico-nuclear que EU ha instalado en suelo europeo contra Rusia y China.
Y si no se llega a esos extremos, el triunfo del reciente REFERNDUM en Syria y el entrenamiento que viene recibiendo el pueblo para defenderse de la posible invasión, más la radicalización de los pueblos rebeldes de la primavera arabe y la organización de comandos suicidas por la “hermandad musulmana” que irían mas alla de la frontera africana y esta vez apuntarían a objetivos económicos del imprio a nivel mundial, todo eso indica que esta guerra en Syria –si se la mantiene en los niveles de Irak, Afganistán y Libia- esta podría ser no una guerra de dos o tres días, sino una larga guerra que igual terminaría drenando la bases económica y politico-militar de los asociados de NATO.
Lo que viene entonces es claro: la mayor derrota de NATO primero en Syria e Irán y luego a nivel global.
------------------------
SYRIAN REBELS PULL OUT OF BESIEGED HOMS
http://rt.com/news/syrian-rebels-retreat-homs-607/
Published: 01 March, 2012
“France, US arming Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles – report: A general in the opposition militia known as the Free Syria Army has told journalists that the rebels have received French and American military assistance, amid reports of worsening violence in the stricken nation.” Published: 29 February, 2012. “France, US arming Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles”. http://rt.com/news/syria-arms-us-france-531/
Syrian rebels have been ejected from the Baba Amr district of Homs, promising revenge as they retreat. Syrian authorities allow humanitarian aid to those left in need in the city is to be delivered Friday.
Most rebel troops were pushed out of the area by President Assad’s forces on Thursday, AP reports. The Baba Amr brigade says it pulled back in order to allow some 4,000 civilian residents who had remained in their homes during the siege to escape to safety, and warned that the government will pay dearly for “targeting the civilian population in Homs.”
“We urge the international community and Muslim and Arab states to intervene immediately to prevent a potential massacre in the coming hours against tens of thousands of children, women and elderly people,” the Syrian National Council said.
The BBC reports that the rebels' withdrawal may have been made in accordance with some agreement with the government. But online reports on behalf of the Baba Amr brigade say the rebels didn’t have enough arms to protect the people in Homs.
And getting ready for further bombardment, the Syrian opposition made another strategic move to unify its various armed resistance factions, pushing the country further down the road to civil war.
"The revolution started peacefully and kept up its peaceful nature for months, but the reality today is different – and the SNC must shoulder its responsibilities in the face of this new reality," said the leadership of Syrian National Council.
Syrian authorities said they're up against armed gangs and terrorists in Homs. The Syrian Red Crescent has been allowed to provide humanitarian aid to the civilian population under siege there, who are in dire need of food and medical supplies. Al Arabiya described the situation there as “extremely worrying.”
“The ICRC and the SARC will go on Friday to Baba Amr to deliver humanitarian aid and evacuate the wounded,” ICRC spokesman in Damascus Saleh Dabbakeh told AFP.
Meanwhile, the UN Security Council together with Russia and China urged Assad’s government to grant access to the UN's humanitarian chief.
-------------------------------
RELATED NEWS: See here extracts
SYRIAN REBELS WITHDRAW FROM HOMS, SYRIAN ARMY TAKES OVER.
By Kristina Chew.
March 1, 2012
http://www.care2.com/causes/syrian-rebels-withdraw-from-homs-syrian-army-takes-over.html
“BBC‘s Jim Muir said that the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA)’s withdrawal is “obviously by agreement between the two sides, as has happened elsewhere in Syria, to avoid a final showdown.” According to a statement posted online in the name of the Baba Amr brigade of the FSA, the fighters did not have enough weapons to protect the remaining 4,000 residents of Bab Amr. The statement also warned the government not to take revenge on the civilians who remain in Bab Amr.”. [...]
“The exile political opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) announced that it is forming a military bureau. However, THE FSA, WHICH IS THE LARGEST MILITARY GROUP, IS REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE SNC’S AUTHORITY IN A SIGN, says the BBC, OF “EVIDENCE OF DEEP SPLITS WITHIN THE OPPOSITION.”
==============
BBC News - SYRIA REBELS LEAVE BESIEGED BABA AMR DISTRICT OF HOMS
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17223472. March 1, 2012
The Syrian rebel force fighting government troops in the besieged city of Homs says most of its fighters have left the Baba Amr district in a "tactical" withdrawal.
Dire conditions: A few fighters remained behind in Baba Amr to cover the retreat, the FSA said. A statement posted online in the name of the Baba Amr brigade of the FSA said the fighters did not have enough weapons to defend the civilians.
The BBC's Jim Muir, in neighbouring Lebanon, says the FSA's withdrawal was probably by agreement between the two sides, as has happened elsewhere in Syria, to avoid a final showdown.
=================
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)