LONDON OLYMPICS INSANE, OUTRAGEOUS & UNETHICAL WAR MONGUERISM AD
Hugo Adan, August 7, 2012
1. The wrong balance: the 50/50 for commercial ads and real sport competition is wrong. Most people disgust it. If ads were related to sports, that would foster job- market for young people specialized in marketing (there could be a competition for fresh imagination). This is not the case in the Olympics of London. The last broadcasting showed some improvement, some ads were related to sports. But the big car corporations did not care for it. That was the 1st insult to the world audience. We suggest 70% of real sports for the next Olympics, and 30% for adds if contain imaged relates to sports
2. The political ad in favor of Mit Romny could be OK in a country accommodated to the idea that buying elections is just regular business, so is OK if they pay for the add. This is the second insult to the world audience: most people is fed up with such nasty politics, and there are some countries that consider that buying elections as a crime against democracy. We should separate politics from sports (is enough to have sided judges in this Olympis).
How to explain such intrusion of politics in this Olympics?. To me it stand to reason because British people have still reverence for their queens and princes, those who made their fortune at the cost of freedom and democracy. The UK has not had the social-historical prophylaxis of the guillotine during their revolution; they didn’t get the chance of cleaning that shame. For the UK top elite is OK to make alliance with the nasty Saudi royalty who slave the Bedouins and brutally repress their Shia minority. For such elite is OK to join the Saudis and train the fundamentalist jihadist to destroy Libya and now Syria, but for the world that watch the Olympics these thing are not OK. Such taking advantage of hosting the Olympis to allow political propaganda in favor of a rich tax evader like Mit Romney (who pay only 13.9% while most people in the US pay more than 30% in taxes) is just grave insult and very bad example to the whole world.
3. The worse insult to the world by NBC broadcasting of the Olympics was allowing ads containing war monguerism. (This is my team, said one military in action, in the ad) To do it just in this moment in which the US people suffer another blow from their terrorists wars abroad, it was just insane, outrageous and unmoral. It sounded like a celebration of the triumph of terrorists worldwide, this horrible plague that came back as boomerang blade against our people. The mass shootings committed by veterans of wars (this is not the 1st one, but they were hidden before as such, said one analyst) is just one more type of collateral damage of war. SEE on this regard: Vijay Prashad: The Sense of White Supremacy: Shooting at the Sikh Temple in Gurdwara, Wisconsin OPEN: http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/08/07/the-sense-of-white-supremacy-shooting-at-the-sikh-temple-in-gurdwara-wisconsin/
Wars create the environment for the shootings inside, and the perpetrators too, like the current one; the everyday culture in favor of war monguerism does the rest. War monguerism should be considered a crime against peace (it is in fact, but not with such name) and a crime against humanity, and penalized as such. That is the potential crime committed by this Olympics in London when they allow the ad in favor of the military. That is that I called insane and outrageous.
Here people in alternative media is linking the recent tragedy to the white supremacist ideology of the war veteran who committed the recent one, and that contains also a condemnation of the white supremacism shown by the US-UK military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Their damages caused to humanity by those wars defied all basic cannons of ethics and morality. The fault of NBC by allowing ads in favor of war monguerism is totally unethical.
4. The Olympics was designed to unite the world in a friendly competition not to divide and create hate among nations and hate to the US-UK that were involved in the humanitarian devastations caused by wars. Hate is that such advertisement creates. Is OK if the British used the Olympics to cover up with circus the disaster created by their financial oligarchy, at the end will be their people who will be forced to paid for the banking frauds. Soon or later such financial oligarchy will be indicted and place in jail. It depends on the British people. Meanwhile, the NBC advertisement in favor of war should be condemned as insane, outrageous and unethical.
==================
martes, 7 de agosto de 2012
sábado, 4 de agosto de 2012
UN VOTE ON SYRIA REFLECTS CHANGING BATTLEFIELD
UN VOTE ON SYRIA REFLECTS CHANGING BATTLEFIELD
UN Syria Resolution Signals Ebbing Western Legitimacy, Growing Western Aggression
by Tony Cartalucci. Global Research, August 4, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32200
August 3 General Assembly UN vote will no doubt be declared by the Western media as a resounding condemnation of Syria and a "universal" call for a "political transition" to install the US State Department's stable of hand-picked and groomed administrative proxies. However, aside from CNN, BBC, and Qatari Al Jazeera's ever-shrinking audiences, few on the planet will be convinced of these headlines.
Image: The UN General Assembly has become an instrument of corporate-financier interests. Able to abuse the one-nation, one-vote structure of resolution votes, it can repeatedly pass "resolutions" despite nations representing over half the world's population abstaining or voting against said resolutions. It should also be noted that Western representatives cast votes and produce "resolutions" without input or approval of their own populations - it is the very embodiment of the dysfunction brought about by overly centralized, unchecked supranational governance.
....
133 nations did indeed vote for the resolution tabled by the despotic absolute monarchs of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are ironically conducting their own campaigns of brutal repression both at home, and in neighboring Bahrain - this not counting the overt weapons and militants they have sent into Syria to destabilize Syria in the first place. The hypocritical nature of the resolution's sponsors is only outmatched by the feeble support it received. Should one actually analyze how many people were represented by the 133 nations that voted for the resolution, versus the 43 nations that did not support it, they would see a different story.
UN VOTE IS A SHIFT AWAY FROM WALL STREET AND LONDON
31 nations abstained, a muted protest to the resolution, with 12 nations voting firmly "no." The combined population represented by these votes consists of the majority of humanity, and had Western representatives actually reflected with their vote their own population's sentiments toward what is becoming yet another overt case of military aggression built on false pretenses - just as the notoriously reviled Iraq War was - the majority standing in opposition to this resolution would have been greater still.
But the West's UN representatives did not reflect the sentiments of their respective populations. Instead, they represented a minority sect of corporate-financiers whose vast ill-gotten fortunes and the unwarranted influence it grants them, has driven the political destabilization and violence sweeping the Arab World since the so-called "Arab Spring" began.
Nations who didn't support the resolution included China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, South Africa, India, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Iraq, North Korea, Belarus, Nicaragua, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. It is an incomplete list that is already far too long, and already includes nearly half of the world's population to be labeled as an "Axis of Evil." It represents a shift from a Wall Street and London centric global hegemony, toward a balance of power amongst a multipolar world.
That such a resolution could be tabled by despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and then subsequently passed, exposes the shortcomings of "global governance" and the so-called "international community." What little sense the UN General Assembly's "one nation, one vote" arrangement makes is further undermined by the fact that representatives of their respective nations rarely vote according to the will and aspirations of their own people in the first place. The UN has become a tool entirely of corporate-financier interests, articulated by UN representatives detached from their own populations, who have hijacked their collective voice and use it to ram through their own narrow, self-serving agendas.
The UN, if it ever even had a realistic constructive role on Earth, has proven itself a menace - a variable ultimately undermining, not promoting world peace, justice, freedom, progress or any of the other pretenses its dominating members hide their true agendas behind. The UN has become a medium within which grand crimes against world peace can unfold, rather than a bulwark against them.
UN VOTE SIGNALS WEST'S SHIFT TOWARD NAKED MILITARY AGGRESSION
The UN General Assembly vote signals yet another shift - one from feigned diplomacy by the West to achieve long planned hegemonic-driven regime change in Syria, to one of naked military aggression. Kofi Annan's retreat from his self-mutilated peace plan follows the collapse of NATO's "Operation Damascus Volcano" and the subsequent UN General Assembly vote.
His retreat allows for the West to clear the table of "diplomatic options" leaving only military aggression. This was forewarned in March 2012's "UN's Kofi Annan: An Agent of Wall Street," where Annan's ties to the very corporate-financier interests driving Syria's destabilization were exposed. The peace plan was an admitted gambit aimed at satisfying public expectations that "diplomacy" would be tried before a more aggressive military campaign was launched.
UN'S LAST CHANCE
With the court of global public opinion clearly turning against the machinations of Wall Street and London, now would be a good opportunity for a resolution to be leveled not against Syria, but against the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who openly admit to funneling weapons and even foreign fighters into Syria. Libya could also be added to that list, with the United States, France, and Britain also cited under the resolution for undermining world peace and pursing an agenda that demonstratively supports international terrorism.
Surely the West could cobble together a majority based on its vast collection of neo-fiefdoms in the General Assembly, but it would yank the last bit of moral high-ground out from under them, forcing them, their policy makers, and the corporate-financier backers to proceed with their Hitlerian campaign in full light as the aggressors - as the villains.
==========================
UN Syria Resolution Signals Ebbing Western Legitimacy, Growing Western Aggression
by Tony Cartalucci. Global Research, August 4, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32200
August 3 General Assembly UN vote will no doubt be declared by the Western media as a resounding condemnation of Syria and a "universal" call for a "political transition" to install the US State Department's stable of hand-picked and groomed administrative proxies. However, aside from CNN, BBC, and Qatari Al Jazeera's ever-shrinking audiences, few on the planet will be convinced of these headlines.
Image: The UN General Assembly has become an instrument of corporate-financier interests. Able to abuse the one-nation, one-vote structure of resolution votes, it can repeatedly pass "resolutions" despite nations representing over half the world's population abstaining or voting against said resolutions. It should also be noted that Western representatives cast votes and produce "resolutions" without input or approval of their own populations - it is the very embodiment of the dysfunction brought about by overly centralized, unchecked supranational governance.
....
133 nations did indeed vote for the resolution tabled by the despotic absolute monarchs of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are ironically conducting their own campaigns of brutal repression both at home, and in neighboring Bahrain - this not counting the overt weapons and militants they have sent into Syria to destabilize Syria in the first place. The hypocritical nature of the resolution's sponsors is only outmatched by the feeble support it received. Should one actually analyze how many people were represented by the 133 nations that voted for the resolution, versus the 43 nations that did not support it, they would see a different story.
UN VOTE IS A SHIFT AWAY FROM WALL STREET AND LONDON
31 nations abstained, a muted protest to the resolution, with 12 nations voting firmly "no." The combined population represented by these votes consists of the majority of humanity, and had Western representatives actually reflected with their vote their own population's sentiments toward what is becoming yet another overt case of military aggression built on false pretenses - just as the notoriously reviled Iraq War was - the majority standing in opposition to this resolution would have been greater still.
But the West's UN representatives did not reflect the sentiments of their respective populations. Instead, they represented a minority sect of corporate-financiers whose vast ill-gotten fortunes and the unwarranted influence it grants them, has driven the political destabilization and violence sweeping the Arab World since the so-called "Arab Spring" began.
Nations who didn't support the resolution included China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, South Africa, India, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Iraq, North Korea, Belarus, Nicaragua, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. It is an incomplete list that is already far too long, and already includes nearly half of the world's population to be labeled as an "Axis of Evil." It represents a shift from a Wall Street and London centric global hegemony, toward a balance of power amongst a multipolar world.
That such a resolution could be tabled by despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and then subsequently passed, exposes the shortcomings of "global governance" and the so-called "international community." What little sense the UN General Assembly's "one nation, one vote" arrangement makes is further undermined by the fact that representatives of their respective nations rarely vote according to the will and aspirations of their own people in the first place. The UN has become a tool entirely of corporate-financier interests, articulated by UN representatives detached from their own populations, who have hijacked their collective voice and use it to ram through their own narrow, self-serving agendas.
The UN, if it ever even had a realistic constructive role on Earth, has proven itself a menace - a variable ultimately undermining, not promoting world peace, justice, freedom, progress or any of the other pretenses its dominating members hide their true agendas behind. The UN has become a medium within which grand crimes against world peace can unfold, rather than a bulwark against them.
UN VOTE SIGNALS WEST'S SHIFT TOWARD NAKED MILITARY AGGRESSION
The UN General Assembly vote signals yet another shift - one from feigned diplomacy by the West to achieve long planned hegemonic-driven regime change in Syria, to one of naked military aggression. Kofi Annan's retreat from his self-mutilated peace plan follows the collapse of NATO's "Operation Damascus Volcano" and the subsequent UN General Assembly vote.
His retreat allows for the West to clear the table of "diplomatic options" leaving only military aggression. This was forewarned in March 2012's "UN's Kofi Annan: An Agent of Wall Street," where Annan's ties to the very corporate-financier interests driving Syria's destabilization were exposed. The peace plan was an admitted gambit aimed at satisfying public expectations that "diplomacy" would be tried before a more aggressive military campaign was launched.
UN'S LAST CHANCE
With the court of global public opinion clearly turning against the machinations of Wall Street and London, now would be a good opportunity for a resolution to be leveled not against Syria, but against the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who openly admit to funneling weapons and even foreign fighters into Syria. Libya could also be added to that list, with the United States, France, and Britain also cited under the resolution for undermining world peace and pursing an agenda that demonstratively supports international terrorism.
Surely the West could cobble together a majority based on its vast collection of neo-fiefdoms in the General Assembly, but it would yank the last bit of moral high-ground out from under them, forcing them, their policy makers, and the corporate-financier backers to proceed with their Hitlerian campaign in full light as the aggressors - as the villains.
==========================
THE BUSINESSMAN KOFI ANNAN
THE BUSINESSMAN KOFI ANNAN
UN'S KOFI ANNAN: AN AGENT OF WALL STREET
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/uns-kofi-annan-agent-of-wall-street.html
Monday, March 19, 2012
"Peace envoy" sits on board with traitors, meddlers, and warmongers.
by Tony Cartalucci
UPDATE August 3, 2012 - Kofi Annan is also revealed to be a member of JP Morgan's International Council as of 2011. He finds himself amongst duplicitous, scheming, self-serving Western-aligned personalities of all stripes including Khalid Al-Falih of Saudi Aramco, fading Russian oligarch Anatoly Chubais, US war criminal Henry Kissinger, serial financial criminal Jamie Dimon, and convicted war criminal Tony Blair. It should also be noted that the corporate-financier funded International Crisis Group has attempted to purge Annan's name from their website, however it is forever memorialized in their 2012 Annual Report available here (.pdf), and by Land Destroyer upon request.
....
March 20, 2012 - "U.N.-Arab League envoy" Kofi Annan has claimed over the last several weeks to be backing "peace efforts" in Syria to end the conflict which has lasted over a year now. In reality, it has been revealed that his function is to simply buy time for a collapsing militant front and the creation of NATO-occupied "safe havens" from which further destabilization and "coercive action" can be conducted against the Syrian government.
This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran. In their latest report, "Assessing Options for Regime Change" it is stated:
"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Image: Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," makes no secret that "responsibility to protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
....
While some may be surprised that "peace envoy" Kofi Annan is essentially lying to both Syria's government and to the world, with a complicit UN and "Arab League" willfully "in" on the fraud, Annan's ties with notorious traitors, meddlers, and warmongers indicate that this latest deception is par for the course.
Annan is a trustee of Wall Street speculator George Soros and geopolitical manipulator Zbigniew Brzezinski's International Crisis Group, along side Neo-Conservative corporate lobbyist and warmonger Kenneth Adelman, US State Department-listed Iranian terror organization MEK lobbyist - General Wesley Clark, Wall Street-backed color revolution leader - Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, and Brookings Institution's Samuel Berger.
Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution, from whose playbook Kofi Annan is being directed in his disingenuous "peace mission" to Syria. (click image to enlarge)
Image: Just some of the corporate and "institutional" sponsors of the International Crisis Group, upon which Kofi Annan sits as a "trustee" with other dubious personalities including George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Israeli President Shimon Peres, Egypt's Mohammed ElBaradei, and Neo-Cons Richard Armitage and Kenneth Adelman.
Serving as "advisers" to the International Crisis Group include, Neo-Conservative warmonger Richard Armitage, former Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bank of Israel Governor Stanely Fischer, and President of Israel Shimon Peres.
It must surely warm the cockles of the Syrian people's hearts to realize Annan, with direct ties to the Neo-Conservative establishment who has long sought Syria's destabilization and the Israel government as well as its financial institutions, is so "concerned" about establishing peace in a conflict where Syrian rebels and foreign militants are turning up with US and Israeli weapons in their hands. It must also warm their hearts to see direct admissions from the Brookings Insitution that Annan's mission is simply to buy time for a faltering foreign-funded rebellion so that it may be preserved and rehabilitated back to full strength under the guise of a "peace deal."
The fact that Egypt's ElBaradei, another foreign-backed subversive traitor, as well as Kenneth Adelman, lobbyist for Wall Street proxy Thaksin Shinwatra of Thailand and member of Eldeman public relations, a sponsor of the US State Department's "Alliance for Youth Movements" who trained equipped and backed the uprising that destabilized Syria to begin with, are involved in ICG's work indicates that the "International Crisis Group" may indeed be attempting to fulfill its mission statement of "preventing and resolving deadly conflict." However, that is with the hidden caveat being the conflicts it seeks to resolve have been created by them and their agents in the first place to justify a series of predetermined "solutions." A case of manufactured problem, corporate-media perception managed reaction, predetermined, self-serving solution.
It then appears, despite the United Nations being stamped upon Annan's efforts, that he is in fact a direct representative of Western geopolitical ambitions, more specifically those of Wall Street and London. It should be mentioned at this time that the International Crisis Group of which Annan serves as a trustee for, is funded by the following corporate-financier interests:
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Humanity United
Hunt Alternatives Fund
Jewish World Watch
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Sigrid Rausing Trust
British Petroleum (BP)
Chevron
Shell
Statoil
Kimberly- Clark Corporation
Morgan Stanley
NPI Capital
Deutsche Bank Group
When considering the Brookings Institution's admissions that Annan is simply playing a part in the overall strategy to execute long-planned Western-backed regime change in Syria, and the equally impressive array of corporations, banks, and corporate-funded foundations backing Brookings, it is clear that it is corporate-financier interests, not an "international consensus" that is behind the United Nation's efforts versus Syria. The UN is merely a convenient front lending legitimacy to what is otherwise the naked aggression of foreign military conquest. In fact, the Brrokings Institution admits as much in their report, "Assessing Options for Regime Change," where they declare:
"Taking actions without a UN mandate would also likely only add to the unraveling of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, in as much as it emphasizes the need for UN-legitimated authority." -page 3, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
This of course in the context of outlining the various unilateral actions the US can take to circumvent Russia and China's objections to meddling in Syria's sovereign affairs and in essence render moot its own contrived international legal process, as well as an acknowledgement to the flagrant abuse of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine in regards to Libya. The UN is mentioned throughout the report merely as a mechanism for obtaining US interests in the Middle East, a mere pawn rather than a driving factor behind US involvement or any sort of international "responsibility" the US is "altruistically" fulfilling.
The same can then be said of Annan's function, a mask of legitimacy behind which neo-imperial aggression is being carried out. Already, Annan's efforts are being matched by NATO-member Turkey's preparations to establish the sort of militarily occupied "safe haven" in Syrian territory, prescribed in the Brookings report. It is a plot Annan knowingly works in tandem with US-led NATO - a plot whose final objective is the further violent destabilization and overthrow of the sovereign government of Syria - not peace.
==================
UN'S KOFI ANNAN: AN AGENT OF WALL STREET
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/uns-kofi-annan-agent-of-wall-street.html
Monday, March 19, 2012
"Peace envoy" sits on board with traitors, meddlers, and warmongers.
by Tony Cartalucci
UPDATE August 3, 2012 - Kofi Annan is also revealed to be a member of JP Morgan's International Council as of 2011. He finds himself amongst duplicitous, scheming, self-serving Western-aligned personalities of all stripes including Khalid Al-Falih of Saudi Aramco, fading Russian oligarch Anatoly Chubais, US war criminal Henry Kissinger, serial financial criminal Jamie Dimon, and convicted war criminal Tony Blair. It should also be noted that the corporate-financier funded International Crisis Group has attempted to purge Annan's name from their website, however it is forever memorialized in their 2012 Annual Report available here (.pdf), and by Land Destroyer upon request.
....
March 20, 2012 - "U.N.-Arab League envoy" Kofi Annan has claimed over the last several weeks to be backing "peace efforts" in Syria to end the conflict which has lasted over a year now. In reality, it has been revealed that his function is to simply buy time for a collapsing militant front and the creation of NATO-occupied "safe havens" from which further destabilization and "coercive action" can be conducted against the Syrian government.
This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran. In their latest report, "Assessing Options for Regime Change" it is stated:
"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Image: Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," makes no secret that "responsibility to protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
....
While some may be surprised that "peace envoy" Kofi Annan is essentially lying to both Syria's government and to the world, with a complicit UN and "Arab League" willfully "in" on the fraud, Annan's ties with notorious traitors, meddlers, and warmongers indicate that this latest deception is par for the course.
Annan is a trustee of Wall Street speculator George Soros and geopolitical manipulator Zbigniew Brzezinski's International Crisis Group, along side Neo-Conservative corporate lobbyist and warmonger Kenneth Adelman, US State Department-listed Iranian terror organization MEK lobbyist - General Wesley Clark, Wall Street-backed color revolution leader - Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, and Brookings Institution's Samuel Berger.
Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution, from whose playbook Kofi Annan is being directed in his disingenuous "peace mission" to Syria. (click image to enlarge)
Image: Just some of the corporate and "institutional" sponsors of the International Crisis Group, upon which Kofi Annan sits as a "trustee" with other dubious personalities including George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Israeli President Shimon Peres, Egypt's Mohammed ElBaradei, and Neo-Cons Richard Armitage and Kenneth Adelman.
Serving as "advisers" to the International Crisis Group include, Neo-Conservative warmonger Richard Armitage, former Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bank of Israel Governor Stanely Fischer, and President of Israel Shimon Peres.
It must surely warm the cockles of the Syrian people's hearts to realize Annan, with direct ties to the Neo-Conservative establishment who has long sought Syria's destabilization and the Israel government as well as its financial institutions, is so "concerned" about establishing peace in a conflict where Syrian rebels and foreign militants are turning up with US and Israeli weapons in their hands. It must also warm their hearts to see direct admissions from the Brookings Insitution that Annan's mission is simply to buy time for a faltering foreign-funded rebellion so that it may be preserved and rehabilitated back to full strength under the guise of a "peace deal."
The fact that Egypt's ElBaradei, another foreign-backed subversive traitor, as well as Kenneth Adelman, lobbyist for Wall Street proxy Thaksin Shinwatra of Thailand and member of Eldeman public relations, a sponsor of the US State Department's "Alliance for Youth Movements" who trained equipped and backed the uprising that destabilized Syria to begin with, are involved in ICG's work indicates that the "International Crisis Group" may indeed be attempting to fulfill its mission statement of "preventing and resolving deadly conflict." However, that is with the hidden caveat being the conflicts it seeks to resolve have been created by them and their agents in the first place to justify a series of predetermined "solutions." A case of manufactured problem, corporate-media perception managed reaction, predetermined, self-serving solution.
It then appears, despite the United Nations being stamped upon Annan's efforts, that he is in fact a direct representative of Western geopolitical ambitions, more specifically those of Wall Street and London. It should be mentioned at this time that the International Crisis Group of which Annan serves as a trustee for, is funded by the following corporate-financier interests:
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Humanity United
Hunt Alternatives Fund
Jewish World Watch
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Sigrid Rausing Trust
British Petroleum (BP)
Chevron
Shell
Statoil
Kimberly- Clark Corporation
Morgan Stanley
NPI Capital
Deutsche Bank Group
When considering the Brookings Institution's admissions that Annan is simply playing a part in the overall strategy to execute long-planned Western-backed regime change in Syria, and the equally impressive array of corporations, banks, and corporate-funded foundations backing Brookings, it is clear that it is corporate-financier interests, not an "international consensus" that is behind the United Nation's efforts versus Syria. The UN is merely a convenient front lending legitimacy to what is otherwise the naked aggression of foreign military conquest. In fact, the Brrokings Institution admits as much in their report, "Assessing Options for Regime Change," where they declare:
"Taking actions without a UN mandate would also likely only add to the unraveling of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, in as much as it emphasizes the need for UN-legitimated authority." -page 3, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
This of course in the context of outlining the various unilateral actions the US can take to circumvent Russia and China's objections to meddling in Syria's sovereign affairs and in essence render moot its own contrived international legal process, as well as an acknowledgement to the flagrant abuse of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine in regards to Libya. The UN is mentioned throughout the report merely as a mechanism for obtaining US interests in the Middle East, a mere pawn rather than a driving factor behind US involvement or any sort of international "responsibility" the US is "altruistically" fulfilling.
The same can then be said of Annan's function, a mask of legitimacy behind which neo-imperial aggression is being carried out. Already, Annan's efforts are being matched by NATO-member Turkey's preparations to establish the sort of militarily occupied "safe haven" in Syrian territory, prescribed in the Brookings report. It is a plot Annan knowingly works in tandem with US-led NATO - a plot whose final objective is the further violent destabilization and overthrow of the sovereign government of Syria - not peace.
==================
NATO, SAUDIS and QATAR BEHIND THE UN RESOLUTION. THEY DON'T CARE FOR PEACE, FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY
DO STATES WHO VOTE SAUDI RES on SYRIA REALLY BELIEVE THAT SAUDIS & QATAR CARE FOR PEACE, FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY?
Saudi Arabia & Qatar royalties were the main suppliers of Al Qaeda mercenaries sent to destroy the Syrian State and government. These terrorists were funded by such royalties, trained and armed by them with the complicity of the US-UK and France in the time of Sarkozy and they are the main cause of the humanitarian disaster in Syria.
For the sake of fairness and decency of the UN Assembly, the delegates attending the meeting should have not allow to debate any resolution drafted by Saudis & Qatar and much less allowing them to have a leading voice during the meeting. There is a conflict of interest in such role since Saudis & Qatar were publicly denounced as main responsible for the current crisis in Syria. The Res is simply vicious, skewed, and had not moral authority whatsoever.
Saudis and Qatar are the royalties who have kidnapped the Arab League and they are the main associates of the NATO humanitarian disasters created in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now in Syria. Saudi and Qatar do not have moral authority to talk about democracy (they are corrupted tyrants of their own population) much less to talk about freedom and peace.
These royalties are the main emporium of fundamentalist jihadist that terrorize the world, starting with the terrorist attack in the US in Sept 11, 2001.
They should have not voice in the UN until they repair the damaged caused in countries they were planted and not voice at all in the UN until they install democracy in their own country.
HOW TO EXPLAIN THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION?
Is this another US embassies bribe worldwide to stupid officials?
Where the money to travel to NY (UN station) came from?
Does the government of Peru allowed this attack to peace on Syria by the main perpetrators of violence? What if these royalties sent mercenaries to Peru to separate the Amazonian regions from the rest of the country on the claim that the regime is violating human rights of their native population? It is a shame the Peruvian vote in favor of the Saudis draft.
Does the voter in the UN got the consent of their own Government & Senate?
THE NASTY HYPOCRESI OF NATO, SAUDIS & QATAR
The UN controlled by NATO terrorists and their puppets in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Arab League as it is NOW a serious danger, the greatest menace to PEACE and stability to all third world countries.
Why? Because the UN did not call General Assembly when the terrorist mercenaries –heavily armed by such royalties and trained by NATO (US-UK) were sent inside to destabilize Libya and Syria.
A sovereign State have the right to protect their population, their sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic (as draft it in the UN Gral Assembly Session of July 31st, 2012, to prevent armed conflict. This Assembly came also late, but it is that Gadhafi and Assad defended, the State sovereignty.
NATO and the corrupt royalties were expecting the response of the State to claim “the right to protect civilians” and intervene directly. The coming Resolution is intended to pave the road for such operation. That is the nasty hypocrisy of their language on “humanitarian intervention”. Interventions that in fact worsen the civilian disaster they create in the first place when they sent armed mercenaries to Syria and Libya before.
WHAT TO DO?
Latin America should create their own section of the UN and get out from the OAS, the Latino instrument used by the US State Department to impose their interest in the South and demand:
a. total separation of NATO from the UN until they punish their companies that profit from wars and the manufacturing of WMD
b. total separation of the terrorists royalties -starting with Saudis and Qatar- from the UNITED NATIONS until they call for democratic elections in their own countries.
------------------------------
BASIC INFO:
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY BACKS “RESOLUTION” ON SYRIA
[NOTE: There is not such RES so far, what we have is an “in process resolution” that will be draft it by the same main perpetrators of violence in Syria (NATO and its puppet-royalty) and forced the client states of the US to sign it.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/03/syria-conflict-annan-live
The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly denounced Syria's crackdown and demanded the securing of its chemical and biological weapons.
Voting was 133 in favor, with 12 against and 31 abstentions.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE BUT CAN CARRY MORAL WEIGHT.
[NOTE: that is drafted by immoral cannot carry moral weight, on reverse, it carries immorality]
The resolution says "the first step in the cessation of violence has to be made by the Syrian authorities".
The resolution's Arab sponsors had earlier diluted two key provisions: a demand that President Assad resign and a call for other countries to impose sanctions on Syria.
Russia and China had objected to those provisions.
The Associated Press says the vote was meant in part to pressure the security council to act, but frustration over the lack of action so far was clear.
Before the vote, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon reminded the assembly of the fresh violence in the city of Aleppo and drew comparisons between the failure to act in Syria to past genocide in Srebrenica and Rwanda.
"The acts of brutality that are being reported may constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes," he said of the Aleppo fighting. "Such acts must be investigated and the perpetrators held to account."
----------------
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS ON SYRIA
SYRIA
• The UN general assembly is debating a Saudi-drafted (but non-binding) resolution which condemns the Security Council for failing to stop the violence in Syria.
• A video posted on YouTube purports to show the rebels' interrogation of clan leader Zaino Berri before he was killed.
• Rebel forces are running out of food and can nothing for civilians fleeing the violence, a colonel from the Free Syrian Army told the Guardian.
• Syria has signalled its determination to continue to "combat terrorism" while at the same time claiming it is still committed to Annan's six point peace plan. Iran has blamed western and Arab countries for the plan's failure. Meanwhile, the Obama administration blamed Russia and China for Annan's resignation.
Saudi Arabia & Qatar royalties were the main suppliers of Al Qaeda mercenaries sent to destroy the Syrian State and government. These terrorists were funded by such royalties, trained and armed by them with the complicity of the US-UK and France in the time of Sarkozy and they are the main cause of the humanitarian disaster in Syria.
For the sake of fairness and decency of the UN Assembly, the delegates attending the meeting should have not allow to debate any resolution drafted by Saudis & Qatar and much less allowing them to have a leading voice during the meeting. There is a conflict of interest in such role since Saudis & Qatar were publicly denounced as main responsible for the current crisis in Syria. The Res is simply vicious, skewed, and had not moral authority whatsoever.
Saudis and Qatar are the royalties who have kidnapped the Arab League and they are the main associates of the NATO humanitarian disasters created in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now in Syria. Saudi and Qatar do not have moral authority to talk about democracy (they are corrupted tyrants of their own population) much less to talk about freedom and peace.
These royalties are the main emporium of fundamentalist jihadist that terrorize the world, starting with the terrorist attack in the US in Sept 11, 2001.
They should have not voice in the UN until they repair the damaged caused in countries they were planted and not voice at all in the UN until they install democracy in their own country.
HOW TO EXPLAIN THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION?
Is this another US embassies bribe worldwide to stupid officials?
Where the money to travel to NY (UN station) came from?
Does the government of Peru allowed this attack to peace on Syria by the main perpetrators of violence? What if these royalties sent mercenaries to Peru to separate the Amazonian regions from the rest of the country on the claim that the regime is violating human rights of their native population? It is a shame the Peruvian vote in favor of the Saudis draft.
Does the voter in the UN got the consent of their own Government & Senate?
THE NASTY HYPOCRESI OF NATO, SAUDIS & QATAR
The UN controlled by NATO terrorists and their puppets in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Arab League as it is NOW a serious danger, the greatest menace to PEACE and stability to all third world countries.
Why? Because the UN did not call General Assembly when the terrorist mercenaries –heavily armed by such royalties and trained by NATO (US-UK) were sent inside to destabilize Libya and Syria.
A sovereign State have the right to protect their population, their sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic (as draft it in the UN Gral Assembly Session of July 31st, 2012, to prevent armed conflict. This Assembly came also late, but it is that Gadhafi and Assad defended, the State sovereignty.
NATO and the corrupt royalties were expecting the response of the State to claim “the right to protect civilians” and intervene directly. The coming Resolution is intended to pave the road for such operation. That is the nasty hypocrisy of their language on “humanitarian intervention”. Interventions that in fact worsen the civilian disaster they create in the first place when they sent armed mercenaries to Syria and Libya before.
WHAT TO DO?
Latin America should create their own section of the UN and get out from the OAS, the Latino instrument used by the US State Department to impose their interest in the South and demand:
a. total separation of NATO from the UN until they punish their companies that profit from wars and the manufacturing of WMD
b. total separation of the terrorists royalties -starting with Saudis and Qatar- from the UNITED NATIONS until they call for democratic elections in their own countries.
------------------------------
BASIC INFO:
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY BACKS “RESOLUTION” ON SYRIA
[NOTE: There is not such RES so far, what we have is an “in process resolution” that will be draft it by the same main perpetrators of violence in Syria (NATO and its puppet-royalty) and forced the client states of the US to sign it.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/03/syria-conflict-annan-live
The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly denounced Syria's crackdown and demanded the securing of its chemical and biological weapons.
Voting was 133 in favor, with 12 against and 31 abstentions.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE BUT CAN CARRY MORAL WEIGHT.
[NOTE: that is drafted by immoral cannot carry moral weight, on reverse, it carries immorality]
The resolution says "the first step in the cessation of violence has to be made by the Syrian authorities".
The resolution's Arab sponsors had earlier diluted two key provisions: a demand that President Assad resign and a call for other countries to impose sanctions on Syria.
Russia and China had objected to those provisions.
The Associated Press says the vote was meant in part to pressure the security council to act, but frustration over the lack of action so far was clear.
Before the vote, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon reminded the assembly of the fresh violence in the city of Aleppo and drew comparisons between the failure to act in Syria to past genocide in Srebrenica and Rwanda.
"The acts of brutality that are being reported may constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes," he said of the Aleppo fighting. "Such acts must be investigated and the perpetrators held to account."
----------------
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS ON SYRIA
SYRIA
• The UN general assembly is debating a Saudi-drafted (but non-binding) resolution which condemns the Security Council for failing to stop the violence in Syria.
• A video posted on YouTube purports to show the rebels' interrogation of clan leader Zaino Berri before he was killed.
• Rebel forces are running out of food and can nothing for civilians fleeing the violence, a colonel from the Free Syrian Army told the Guardian.
• Syria has signalled its determination to continue to "combat terrorism" while at the same time claiming it is still committed to Annan's six point peace plan. Iran has blamed western and Arab countries for the plan's failure. Meanwhile, the Obama administration blamed Russia and China for Annan's resignation.
TWO RECENT UN RESOLUTIONS ON SYRIA, ONE LATE, THE OTHER WORSE
TWO RECENT UN RESOLUTIONS ON SYRIA, ONE LATE, THE OTHER WORSE
Hugo Adan
August 4, 2012
THE FIRST LATE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION (A/66/L.57).
July 31, 2012
Sixty-sixth session
Agenda item 34: PREVENTION OF ARMED CONFLICT
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.57
EXTRACTS:
CONSIDERATIONS
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the principles of the Charter,
RESOLVE:
3. Condemns all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, including terrorist acts;
4. Demands that all parties immediately and visibly implement Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012) in order to achieve a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties, thereby creating an atmosphere conducive to a sustained cessation of violence and a Syrian-led political transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people;
------------
NOTE 1:
THIS ONE CAN BE CALLED UN RESOLUTION (it has considerations and resolutions though they did not mentioned as so). The most important thing is that THIS ONE was much more impartial & inclusive
HOWEVER, it was intended to prevent the armed conflict when in fact the conflict was in full bloom .
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.57
---------------
NOTE 2
THE RECENT ONE (FRIDAY 3, 2012) broke the rule of impartiality, it is totally skewed and misleading. It is presented as Resolution when it is not YET, the intention is to force the countries who voted in favor to sign the final document that NATO and Qatar associates will send to them IN THE NAME OF THE UN, the institution that they kidnapped. It is expected some more tricks to pave the way for the NATO humanitarian disaster that they will call "humanitarian intervention". Be aware of that!
===================
THE WORSE UN RESOLUTION: THE ONE IN PROCESS FROM AUGUST 3/12
THIS IS a ONE SIDE STORY INTENDING TO PRESENT THE STATE OF SYRIA AS MONSTER FOR TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE HEAVY ARMED MERCENARIES THAT SAUDIS & QATAR PLANTED INSIDE SYRIA WITH THE COMPLICITY OF THE US-UK and TURKS, SINCE 9 MONTHS AGO.THIS DOCUMENT DOESN'T MENTION THEM, BY DOING SO, they are delivering a WRONG message to them: you have the international support, the UN is with your cause, god bless your terrorism, you are destined to succeed. .
-------------
THE UN NON-BINDING “RESOLUTION” better called “STATEMENTS” OF THE SIXTY-SIX GENERAL ASSEMBLY
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/ga11266.doc.htm
Sixty-sixth General Assembly
Plenary: 124th & 125th Meetings
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IN [PROCESS] RESOLUTION, DEMANDS ALL IN SYRIA ‘IMMEDIATELY AND VISIBLY’ COMMIT TO ENDING VIOLENCE THAT SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS IS RIPPING COUNTRY APART
GENERAL ASSEMBLY ‘AGAIN PROVES ITS POWER AND AUTHORITY’, SAID ITS PRESIDENT FROM QATAR;
SYRIA’S SPEAKER DENOUNCES RESOLUTION AS ‘MISLEADING AND HYSTERICAL’
TEXT
Gravely concerned by the escalating violence in Syria, the General Assembly today strongly condemned Damascus’ indiscriminate use of heavy weapons in civilian areas and its widespread violations of human rights, demanding that all parties “immediately and visibly” commit to ending a conflict that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called “a test of everything this Organization stands for”.
By a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 12 against, with 31 abstentions, the Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution expressing its concern about a raft of gross human rights violations being carried out by Syrian Government forces, systematic attacks against civilians, and the increasing use of “heavy weapons, armour and the air force against populated areas”. It was also concerned by the humanitarian impact of the violence, including repression of fundamental rights, and the influx Syrian refugees into neighboring countries. (See Annex.)
Deploring the Security Council’s failure to agree on measures to ensure the Syrian authority’s compliance with its decisions — most recently when, on 20 July, China and the Russian Federation vetoed a Council resolution that threatened sanctions if demands to end the spiraling violence were not met — the Assembly expressed its determination to seek ways and means to provide protection for the Syrian civilian population.
Its four-part resolution drafted by the Arab Group and sponsored by scores of other countries covered accountability, the humanitarian situation, political transition and follow-up. In it, the Assembly stressed that rapid progress on a political transition represented the “best opportunity” to resolve the 18-month-long crisis peacefully. It demanded in that regard that all the parties to the conflict work with the Office of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States to implement rapidly the transition plan for Syria set forth in the final communiqué issued by the Action Group on 30 June.
While the Assembly’s action came less than 24 hours after the Special Envoy, Kofi Annan, announced in frustration that he would not renew his mandate when it expired at the end of August, the resolution nevertheless fully backed his demand that the first step in ending the violence must be made by the Syrian authorities, and therefore called on the Government to fulfil immediately its commitment to cease the use of heavy weapons and complete the withdrawal of Government troops.
Following threats by the Syrian authorities to use chemical or biological weapons in the conflict, the resolution also demanded that the Government refrain from using or transferring such weapons to non-State actors, and that it respect international obligations regarding those weapons. The text went on to condemn all violence, “regardless of where it comes from, including terrorist acts”, and demanded that all parties immediately implement Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012), both adopted in April, in order to achieve a cessation of all armed violence, “thereby creating an atmosphere conducive to […] a Syrian-led political transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people”.
Before the vote, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon drew chilling comparisons between the current deadly fighting in Aleppo — “the epicentre of a vicious battle between the Syrian Government and those who wish to replace it” — and Srebrenica, which he said represented one of the darkest chapters in United Nations history, “when the international community failed to protect civilians from slaughter”.
“Today, we are all witnesses to the horrors of Syria being ripped apart by violence,” he said, noting that the acts of brutality being reported might constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes, which must be investigated and the perpetrators held to account. Despite repeated verbal acceptances of the six-point plan endorsed by the Security Council, both the Government and the opposition continued to rely on weapons, not diplomacy, in the belief that they would win through violence. “But there are no winners in Aleppo today, or anywhere else in the country. The losers in this escalating battle are the people of Syria,” he said, reiterating his regret that sharp divisions had paralyzed action in the Security Council.
Continuing, the Secretary-General noted that last week in Geneva, Foreign Ministers of the Action Group, including the five permanent Council members, had agreed on an action plan. “Now, with the situation having worsened, they must again find common ground. The immediate interests of the Syrian people must be paramount over any larger rivalries of influence,” he declared. The conflict in Syria was a test of everything the Organization stood for, he said, adding: “I do not want today’s United Nations to fail that test. I want us all to show the people of Syria and the world that we have learned the lessons of Srebrenica.”
Opening the meeting with a strong call for action, Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser also spotlighted the situation in Aleppo, where, he said, intensified military operations by the Syrian Government forces had led to daily “gross human rights violations”. The League of Arab States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had repeatedly indicated that such acts might amount to crimes against humanity and other international crimes, he added.
“I am deeply concerned about this horrifying escalation,” he said, condemning the continued widespread atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law by the Syrian authorities, as well as “horrifying” reports about mass killings, extrajudicial executions, and deliberate targeting of civilians. All parties to the conflict had responsibilities under international law to adhere to. Those responsible must be held accountable. “It is time to act. Words are not enough. The international community is responsible to act without further delay.”
He said that the deadlock in the Security Council “sends the wrong signals to all parties in the Syrian conflict”. Yet, in such times of deadlock, the General Assembly, under the United Nations Charter, had a role to play in the maintenance of international peace and security. “Today, once again, the Assembly proves its power and authority,” he declared, adding: “We have to provide the necessary assistance to the people of Syria to find an all-inclusive and peaceful solution to the crisis.”
Taking the floor ahead of action, Syria’s representative, who requested that the resolution be put to a vote, denounced the text as “misleading and hysterical” and a violation of the principles of international law, which was not intended to protect Syrians. In fact, the resolution would send the wrong message to terrorists inside and outside of Syria, and would escalate violence in the region. He also noted the “strange paradox” that the States sponsoring the text were the same ones that were providing weapons to the terrorist groups in Syria.
Those States were also providing political media coverage to the armed groups and were enforcing unilateral sanctions, which not only conflicted with the six-point plan, but also violated international law. He said that if those States were truly concerned, they would channel all of the billions of dollars they were spending to arm terrorist groups to humanitarian aid instead. No one in Syria had seen any such humanitarian assistance thus far, despite agreements reached with the United Nations on a response plan some months ago. “I am proud to stand here to defend against all conspirators against my nation,” he said, adding that a General Assembly President should be neutral in his role, but the current President, from Qatar, had violated that principle for probably the tenth time.
Among the more than 30 delegations speaking before and after the vote, most echoed serious concern for the civilians in Aleppo and other areas gripped by violence. Many speakers hailed the Assembly’s decision to act, especially in the face of the ongoing stalemate in the Security Council. Yet, while some decried Syria’s brutal repression of what had begun as peaceful protests, and expressed concern that the crisis was sliding into civil war, several speakers stressed that the Assembly resolution should have included specific and equally strong calls on the opposition to end the violence. Calling the text “one sided” and “politically motivated”, others lamented its omission of references to the growing influence on the conflict of outside actors, including those with ties to Al-Qaida.
As he introduced the text on behalf of the Arab Group, the representative of Saudi Arabia, said that in response to Mr. Annan’s six-point plan, the international community had received in return six massacres carried out by the Syrian “Government killing machine” in Baba Amr, Al-Rastan, Houla, Traimsh, Foquir and today in Aleppo. Moreover, a political process was “nowhere to be found”. The Assembly’s action aimed to show that the time was now to begin a peaceful transfer of power in order to achieve the aspirations of the Syrian people “and preserve the blood of their children”. It also aimed to guarantee security, safety and equality of rights and duties for all Syrian people of different ethnic, religious and sectarian affiliations.
Yet, the representative of the Russian Federation regretted the adoption of the text, which, he said, would only exacerbate confrontation and hamper the search for a peaceful solution. “Behind the façade of international rhetoric, it hides support for the Syrian opposition,” he declared, and added that it was no coincidence that the countries backing the Syrian opposition were the most vocal supporters of the resolution. He also said that members of the Security Council should work hand-in-hand and not go outside that body to find solutions.
Speaking in explanation of position before action were the representatives of Venezuela, Cuba, South Africa, Bolivia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ecuador, Iran and Bahamas.
Taking the floor after the vote were the representatives of Chile, Brazil, Costa Rica, Viet Nam, Israel, United Republic of Tanzania, China, Uruguay, Argentina, Nigeria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, India, Guyana, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Arab Group).
A representative of the delegation of the European Union also addressed the meeting.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of Iran, Bahrain and Syria.
The General Assembly met this morning to consider the item on prevention of armed conflict, for which it had before it draft resolution on the situation in Syria (document A/66/L.57).
===================
Hugo Adan
August 4, 2012
THE FIRST LATE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION (A/66/L.57).
July 31, 2012
Sixty-sixth session
Agenda item 34: PREVENTION OF ARMED CONFLICT
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.57
EXTRACTS:
CONSIDERATIONS
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the principles of the Charter,
RESOLVE:
3. Condemns all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, including terrorist acts;
4. Demands that all parties immediately and visibly implement Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012) in order to achieve a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties, thereby creating an atmosphere conducive to a sustained cessation of violence and a Syrian-led political transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people;
------------
NOTE 1:
THIS ONE CAN BE CALLED UN RESOLUTION (it has considerations and resolutions though they did not mentioned as so). The most important thing is that THIS ONE was much more impartial & inclusive
HOWEVER, it was intended to prevent the armed conflict when in fact the conflict was in full bloom .
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.57
---------------
NOTE 2
THE RECENT ONE (FRIDAY 3, 2012) broke the rule of impartiality, it is totally skewed and misleading. It is presented as Resolution when it is not YET, the intention is to force the countries who voted in favor to sign the final document that NATO and Qatar associates will send to them IN THE NAME OF THE UN, the institution that they kidnapped. It is expected some more tricks to pave the way for the NATO humanitarian disaster that they will call "humanitarian intervention". Be aware of that!
===================
THE WORSE UN RESOLUTION: THE ONE IN PROCESS FROM AUGUST 3/12
THIS IS a ONE SIDE STORY INTENDING TO PRESENT THE STATE OF SYRIA AS MONSTER FOR TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE HEAVY ARMED MERCENARIES THAT SAUDIS & QATAR PLANTED INSIDE SYRIA WITH THE COMPLICITY OF THE US-UK and TURKS, SINCE 9 MONTHS AGO.THIS DOCUMENT DOESN'T MENTION THEM, BY DOING SO, they are delivering a WRONG message to them: you have the international support, the UN is with your cause, god bless your terrorism, you are destined to succeed. .
-------------
THE UN NON-BINDING “RESOLUTION” better called “STATEMENTS” OF THE SIXTY-SIX GENERAL ASSEMBLY
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/ga11266.doc.htm
Sixty-sixth General Assembly
Plenary: 124th & 125th Meetings
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IN [PROCESS] RESOLUTION, DEMANDS ALL IN SYRIA ‘IMMEDIATELY AND VISIBLY’ COMMIT TO ENDING VIOLENCE THAT SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS IS RIPPING COUNTRY APART
GENERAL ASSEMBLY ‘AGAIN PROVES ITS POWER AND AUTHORITY’, SAID ITS PRESIDENT FROM QATAR;
SYRIA’S SPEAKER DENOUNCES RESOLUTION AS ‘MISLEADING AND HYSTERICAL’
TEXT
Gravely concerned by the escalating violence in Syria, the General Assembly today strongly condemned Damascus’ indiscriminate use of heavy weapons in civilian areas and its widespread violations of human rights, demanding that all parties “immediately and visibly” commit to ending a conflict that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called “a test of everything this Organization stands for”.
By a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 12 against, with 31 abstentions, the Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution expressing its concern about a raft of gross human rights violations being carried out by Syrian Government forces, systematic attacks against civilians, and the increasing use of “heavy weapons, armour and the air force against populated areas”. It was also concerned by the humanitarian impact of the violence, including repression of fundamental rights, and the influx Syrian refugees into neighboring countries. (See Annex.)
Deploring the Security Council’s failure to agree on measures to ensure the Syrian authority’s compliance with its decisions — most recently when, on 20 July, China and the Russian Federation vetoed a Council resolution that threatened sanctions if demands to end the spiraling violence were not met — the Assembly expressed its determination to seek ways and means to provide protection for the Syrian civilian population.
Its four-part resolution drafted by the Arab Group and sponsored by scores of other countries covered accountability, the humanitarian situation, political transition and follow-up. In it, the Assembly stressed that rapid progress on a political transition represented the “best opportunity” to resolve the 18-month-long crisis peacefully. It demanded in that regard that all the parties to the conflict work with the Office of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States to implement rapidly the transition plan for Syria set forth in the final communiqué issued by the Action Group on 30 June.
While the Assembly’s action came less than 24 hours after the Special Envoy, Kofi Annan, announced in frustration that he would not renew his mandate when it expired at the end of August, the resolution nevertheless fully backed his demand that the first step in ending the violence must be made by the Syrian authorities, and therefore called on the Government to fulfil immediately its commitment to cease the use of heavy weapons and complete the withdrawal of Government troops.
Following threats by the Syrian authorities to use chemical or biological weapons in the conflict, the resolution also demanded that the Government refrain from using or transferring such weapons to non-State actors, and that it respect international obligations regarding those weapons. The text went on to condemn all violence, “regardless of where it comes from, including terrorist acts”, and demanded that all parties immediately implement Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012), both adopted in April, in order to achieve a cessation of all armed violence, “thereby creating an atmosphere conducive to […] a Syrian-led political transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people”.
Before the vote, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon drew chilling comparisons between the current deadly fighting in Aleppo — “the epicentre of a vicious battle between the Syrian Government and those who wish to replace it” — and Srebrenica, which he said represented one of the darkest chapters in United Nations history, “when the international community failed to protect civilians from slaughter”.
“Today, we are all witnesses to the horrors of Syria being ripped apart by violence,” he said, noting that the acts of brutality being reported might constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes, which must be investigated and the perpetrators held to account. Despite repeated verbal acceptances of the six-point plan endorsed by the Security Council, both the Government and the opposition continued to rely on weapons, not diplomacy, in the belief that they would win through violence. “But there are no winners in Aleppo today, or anywhere else in the country. The losers in this escalating battle are the people of Syria,” he said, reiterating his regret that sharp divisions had paralyzed action in the Security Council.
Continuing, the Secretary-General noted that last week in Geneva, Foreign Ministers of the Action Group, including the five permanent Council members, had agreed on an action plan. “Now, with the situation having worsened, they must again find common ground. The immediate interests of the Syrian people must be paramount over any larger rivalries of influence,” he declared. The conflict in Syria was a test of everything the Organization stood for, he said, adding: “I do not want today’s United Nations to fail that test. I want us all to show the people of Syria and the world that we have learned the lessons of Srebrenica.”
Opening the meeting with a strong call for action, Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser also spotlighted the situation in Aleppo, where, he said, intensified military operations by the Syrian Government forces had led to daily “gross human rights violations”. The League of Arab States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had repeatedly indicated that such acts might amount to crimes against humanity and other international crimes, he added.
“I am deeply concerned about this horrifying escalation,” he said, condemning the continued widespread atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law by the Syrian authorities, as well as “horrifying” reports about mass killings, extrajudicial executions, and deliberate targeting of civilians. All parties to the conflict had responsibilities under international law to adhere to. Those responsible must be held accountable. “It is time to act. Words are not enough. The international community is responsible to act without further delay.”
He said that the deadlock in the Security Council “sends the wrong signals to all parties in the Syrian conflict”. Yet, in such times of deadlock, the General Assembly, under the United Nations Charter, had a role to play in the maintenance of international peace and security. “Today, once again, the Assembly proves its power and authority,” he declared, adding: “We have to provide the necessary assistance to the people of Syria to find an all-inclusive and peaceful solution to the crisis.”
Taking the floor ahead of action, Syria’s representative, who requested that the resolution be put to a vote, denounced the text as “misleading and hysterical” and a violation of the principles of international law, which was not intended to protect Syrians. In fact, the resolution would send the wrong message to terrorists inside and outside of Syria, and would escalate violence in the region. He also noted the “strange paradox” that the States sponsoring the text were the same ones that were providing weapons to the terrorist groups in Syria.
Those States were also providing political media coverage to the armed groups and were enforcing unilateral sanctions, which not only conflicted with the six-point plan, but also violated international law. He said that if those States were truly concerned, they would channel all of the billions of dollars they were spending to arm terrorist groups to humanitarian aid instead. No one in Syria had seen any such humanitarian assistance thus far, despite agreements reached with the United Nations on a response plan some months ago. “I am proud to stand here to defend against all conspirators against my nation,” he said, adding that a General Assembly President should be neutral in his role, but the current President, from Qatar, had violated that principle for probably the tenth time.
Among the more than 30 delegations speaking before and after the vote, most echoed serious concern for the civilians in Aleppo and other areas gripped by violence. Many speakers hailed the Assembly’s decision to act, especially in the face of the ongoing stalemate in the Security Council. Yet, while some decried Syria’s brutal repression of what had begun as peaceful protests, and expressed concern that the crisis was sliding into civil war, several speakers stressed that the Assembly resolution should have included specific and equally strong calls on the opposition to end the violence. Calling the text “one sided” and “politically motivated”, others lamented its omission of references to the growing influence on the conflict of outside actors, including those with ties to Al-Qaida.
As he introduced the text on behalf of the Arab Group, the representative of Saudi Arabia, said that in response to Mr. Annan’s six-point plan, the international community had received in return six massacres carried out by the Syrian “Government killing machine” in Baba Amr, Al-Rastan, Houla, Traimsh, Foquir and today in Aleppo. Moreover, a political process was “nowhere to be found”. The Assembly’s action aimed to show that the time was now to begin a peaceful transfer of power in order to achieve the aspirations of the Syrian people “and preserve the blood of their children”. It also aimed to guarantee security, safety and equality of rights and duties for all Syrian people of different ethnic, religious and sectarian affiliations.
Yet, the representative of the Russian Federation regretted the adoption of the text, which, he said, would only exacerbate confrontation and hamper the search for a peaceful solution. “Behind the façade of international rhetoric, it hides support for the Syrian opposition,” he declared, and added that it was no coincidence that the countries backing the Syrian opposition were the most vocal supporters of the resolution. He also said that members of the Security Council should work hand-in-hand and not go outside that body to find solutions.
Speaking in explanation of position before action were the representatives of Venezuela, Cuba, South Africa, Bolivia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ecuador, Iran and Bahamas.
Taking the floor after the vote were the representatives of Chile, Brazil, Costa Rica, Viet Nam, Israel, United Republic of Tanzania, China, Uruguay, Argentina, Nigeria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, India, Guyana, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Arab Group).
A representative of the delegation of the European Union also addressed the meeting.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of Iran, Bahrain and Syria.
The General Assembly met this morning to consider the item on prevention of armed conflict, for which it had before it draft resolution on the situation in Syria (document A/66/L.57).
===================
viernes, 3 de agosto de 2012
KOFFI ANNAN NEVER INTENDED TO GET PEACE IN SYRIA
KOFFI ANNAN NEVER INTENDED TO GET PEACE IN SYRIA
Hugo Adan.
August 3, 2012
1. He was elected Sec Gral of the UN when the UN was totally controlled by NATO allies and when the Arab League was controlled by the Saudis, Qatar and Emirates , and Annan renounced to both of them. All of them (NATO and the Arab League members) have poor record on peace, democracy and freedom. He wasn’t hired for the cause of peace, but because his failed R2P (responsibility to protect civilian in war-time) proposal fit with NATO objectives for military expansionism and because he was a useful servant easy to be manipulated by big Western corporations that profit from wars, and by the ultra-millionaires in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Emirates. He was the perfect cover arm-dealer for all of them. Now, that the destruction of Syria is done, they don't need him anymore and they cannot protect him anymore, that is why he resigned.
----------------
Note: CIA apparatuses can say that Kofi Annan was the genuine inspirator of R2P, because he brought the sad experience of Africa to debate. In Africa happens horrible massacres among rival tribes (Rwanda cases among them), that forced some States to create a united military command to put an end to such crimes. This experience was just that NATO wanted: to be converted into the unique military command of the world working with the disguise of "humanity". If that NATO did, they did not to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity, they made it worse but cover them up with the language of “humanitarian intervention”. See in the Annex below: Point 3, The AU's Constitutive Act and the Ezulwini Consensus. The fact that Annan brought back the African experience, an experience that CIA sub-agencies reinterpreted for their convenience in 2000-03 with Annan consent, made possible that US Sec of State & bureaucrats changed his opinion on him. Although Kofi Annan was requested to resign his post as Sec Gral of the UN by Senator Norm Coleman because he was involved in the scandal OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM (based on an independent investigation on corruption lead by Paul Volcker, 2004),even though, Kofi Annan was pardoned and the accusations silenced. The US bureaucrats decided to use him instead, Kofi Annan was the perfect type of businessman. I didn't matter if Annan used the bribes from the selling of Iraq Oil to fund Aq Qaeda group (perhaps this money went to the pocket of Prince Bandar & the Bush-Saudi Carlyle mafia). That is not mentioned in the report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Program#US_Senate_investigations
Open: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/
---------------
2. Annan also has a poor record on peace affairs worldwide: He was nominated as UN president by the request of the State Department and CIA top officials. His mission was to implement the UN Res known as R2P (Responsibility to Protect) drafted by the Pentagon and NATO in 2000-2002. Such proposal served to legitimize the bombing Iraq and Libya.
Before living his post in the UN, he implemented the CIA revised project of R2P with the UN Res 1674. This law was introduced to legitimize the horrors of “humanitarian interventions” of the US-NATO. Rhetorically the law was designed to protect civilians, but it produced the opposite shocking effects. With this legal instrument -Res 1674- NATO got free hands to fund, train and equip the mercenaries not only in Libya, but also in Syria. This is the good service that Kofi Annan did to imperialist powers. That is also the main reason why NATO and the Arab League nominated him as president of the Committee to supervise the peace process in Syria.
3. THE FAILURE OF R2P in Syria. As soon as this mission was accepted in Syria (fatal error of Assad’ regime the acceptance of this mission) the mercenaries got a robust help to implement the NATO violence that intended the regime-change. However, the original R2P –especially the not fly zone- couldn’t be implemented by Nato and Arab League because of the veto power of Russia and China inside the Sec Council of the UN
4. From his mission in Syria, Annan not only got funds from NATO and the Arab League royalties, he also got the support of Russians. Annan in fact allowed both sides to smuggle heavy weapons that destroyed the whole infrastructure of Syria. The Free Syrian Army was armed by Americans via Turks, and the Muslim brotherhood were armed by Saudis, Qatar & Emirates. The Europeans also participate in the training and arming of mercenaries known as rebels. Annan also allowed the Regime of Assad be armed by Russia and is possible that they also armed the civil militias (most Christian) that oppose the regime but are against foreign intervention.
Koffi Annan was the perfect type of arm-dealer contact for all of them, until his well-paid job became dangerous. There are rumors saying that the Assad regimen hired the jihadist that killed high members of his regime (possible defectors). It is also said that Prince Bandar, the main founder of the jihadist linked to Al Qaeda Saudis was killed in Syria. Meaning, the life of Kofi Annan was in danger inside Syria.
Kofi Annan, is the best example of mercenarism at the level of diplomacy. The case is that he couldn’t be protected by none of his sponsors and clients. This is why he renounced. Annan and the world loose nothing with his departure. Annan‘s service to the cause of destruction of Syria has been done. His recent accusation to Assad’ regimen of noncompliance with the six points of the peace process has non-sense at all, that is just cynical hypocrisy.
----------------------
ANNEX:
Point 3. THE AU'S CONSTITUTIVE ACT AND THE EZULWINI CONSENSUS
THE JUNGLE’S RULE IMPLEMENTED WORLWIDE
Meanwhile, in 2000, African nations were working to enshrine the principles of R2P within the founding Charter of the African Union (AU).
First, the Constitutive Act defines the promotion of peace, security and stability and the promotion and protection of “human and peoples’ rights” as core objective of the Union.
Second, it identifies “respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance”, "respect for the sanctity of human life”, and “condemnation and rejection of impunity” among its core values. Most significantly, Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act states that it is the “right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.”
This important clause conveys one end of the full R2P spectrum - military intervention - but the Charter shows the commitment of African Nations to protecting populations from atrocity, even if infringement on the sovereignty of its members is required.
The report, known as the ”Ezulwini Consensus”, was expressed at the African Union’s 7th Extraordinary Session of the Executive Council of 1-8 March 2005, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In its report, the AU embraced the Responsibility to Protect and recognized the authority of the Security Council to decide on the use of force in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
SEE: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/
Hugo Adan.
August 3, 2012
1. He was elected Sec Gral of the UN when the UN was totally controlled by NATO allies and when the Arab League was controlled by the Saudis, Qatar and Emirates , and Annan renounced to both of them. All of them (NATO and the Arab League members) have poor record on peace, democracy and freedom. He wasn’t hired for the cause of peace, but because his failed R2P (responsibility to protect civilian in war-time) proposal fit with NATO objectives for military expansionism and because he was a useful servant easy to be manipulated by big Western corporations that profit from wars, and by the ultra-millionaires in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Emirates. He was the perfect cover arm-dealer for all of them. Now, that the destruction of Syria is done, they don't need him anymore and they cannot protect him anymore, that is why he resigned.
----------------
Note: CIA apparatuses can say that Kofi Annan was the genuine inspirator of R2P, because he brought the sad experience of Africa to debate. In Africa happens horrible massacres among rival tribes (Rwanda cases among them), that forced some States to create a united military command to put an end to such crimes. This experience was just that NATO wanted: to be converted into the unique military command of the world working with the disguise of "humanity". If that NATO did, they did not to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity, they made it worse but cover them up with the language of “humanitarian intervention”. See in the Annex below: Point 3, The AU's Constitutive Act and the Ezulwini Consensus. The fact that Annan brought back the African experience, an experience that CIA sub-agencies reinterpreted for their convenience in 2000-03 with Annan consent, made possible that US Sec of State & bureaucrats changed his opinion on him. Although Kofi Annan was requested to resign his post as Sec Gral of the UN by Senator Norm Coleman because he was involved in the scandal OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM (based on an independent investigation on corruption lead by Paul Volcker, 2004),even though, Kofi Annan was pardoned and the accusations silenced. The US bureaucrats decided to use him instead, Kofi Annan was the perfect type of businessman. I didn't matter if Annan used the bribes from the selling of Iraq Oil to fund Aq Qaeda group (perhaps this money went to the pocket of Prince Bandar & the Bush-Saudi Carlyle mafia). That is not mentioned in the report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Program#US_Senate_investigations
Open: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/
---------------
2. Annan also has a poor record on peace affairs worldwide: He was nominated as UN president by the request of the State Department and CIA top officials. His mission was to implement the UN Res known as R2P (Responsibility to Protect) drafted by the Pentagon and NATO in 2000-2002. Such proposal served to legitimize the bombing Iraq and Libya.
Before living his post in the UN, he implemented the CIA revised project of R2P with the UN Res 1674. This law was introduced to legitimize the horrors of “humanitarian interventions” of the US-NATO. Rhetorically the law was designed to protect civilians, but it produced the opposite shocking effects. With this legal instrument -Res 1674- NATO got free hands to fund, train and equip the mercenaries not only in Libya, but also in Syria. This is the good service that Kofi Annan did to imperialist powers. That is also the main reason why NATO and the Arab League nominated him as president of the Committee to supervise the peace process in Syria.
3. THE FAILURE OF R2P in Syria. As soon as this mission was accepted in Syria (fatal error of Assad’ regime the acceptance of this mission) the mercenaries got a robust help to implement the NATO violence that intended the regime-change. However, the original R2P –especially the not fly zone- couldn’t be implemented by Nato and Arab League because of the veto power of Russia and China inside the Sec Council of the UN
4. From his mission in Syria, Annan not only got funds from NATO and the Arab League royalties, he also got the support of Russians. Annan in fact allowed both sides to smuggle heavy weapons that destroyed the whole infrastructure of Syria. The Free Syrian Army was armed by Americans via Turks, and the Muslim brotherhood were armed by Saudis, Qatar & Emirates. The Europeans also participate in the training and arming of mercenaries known as rebels. Annan also allowed the Regime of Assad be armed by Russia and is possible that they also armed the civil militias (most Christian) that oppose the regime but are against foreign intervention.
Koffi Annan was the perfect type of arm-dealer contact for all of them, until his well-paid job became dangerous. There are rumors saying that the Assad regimen hired the jihadist that killed high members of his regime (possible defectors). It is also said that Prince Bandar, the main founder of the jihadist linked to Al Qaeda Saudis was killed in Syria. Meaning, the life of Kofi Annan was in danger inside Syria.
Kofi Annan, is the best example of mercenarism at the level of diplomacy. The case is that he couldn’t be protected by none of his sponsors and clients. This is why he renounced. Annan and the world loose nothing with his departure. Annan‘s service to the cause of destruction of Syria has been done. His recent accusation to Assad’ regimen of noncompliance with the six points of the peace process has non-sense at all, that is just cynical hypocrisy.
----------------------
ANNEX:
Point 3. THE AU'S CONSTITUTIVE ACT AND THE EZULWINI CONSENSUS
THE JUNGLE’S RULE IMPLEMENTED WORLWIDE
Meanwhile, in 2000, African nations were working to enshrine the principles of R2P within the founding Charter of the African Union (AU).
First, the Constitutive Act defines the promotion of peace, security and stability and the promotion and protection of “human and peoples’ rights” as core objective of the Union.
Second, it identifies “respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance”, "respect for the sanctity of human life”, and “condemnation and rejection of impunity” among its core values. Most significantly, Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act states that it is the “right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.”
This important clause conveys one end of the full R2P spectrum - military intervention - but the Charter shows the commitment of African Nations to protecting populations from atrocity, even if infringement on the sovereignty of its members is required.
The report, known as the ”Ezulwini Consensus”, was expressed at the African Union’s 7th Extraordinary Session of the Executive Council of 1-8 March 2005, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In its report, the AU embraced the Responsibility to Protect and recognized the authority of the Security Council to decide on the use of force in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
SEE: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/
LONDON OLYMPICS-DECEPTION: A GOLD MEDAL STILLED TO RUSSIAN GIRLS IN GYMNASTICS
LONDON OLIMPIC-DECEPTION: A GOLD MEDAL STILLED TO RUSSIAN GIRLS IN GYMNASTICS
It happens yesterday, Thursday the 2nd of August. The gold medal was given to the Afro-American girl, though most people knew that it was totally unfair.
FACTS:
1. In the first personal trial the afro-American got 15.5 points that oversees the expected results since she was nervous and made several mistakes. In her 2nd, personal trial her performance was better however she got only 15.2 points.
2. The performance of the Russian girl was much more consistent and clearly she showed much stability and balance than the Afro-American competitor. This was seen internationally and many people interviewed agreed that she was the real winner of the gold medal.
3. To cover up the mistake made by the judges (15.5 points in the 1st trial non deserved by the afro American), they distribute the silver and bronze medals to Russian contenders.
MEANING
1. The judges of London Olympics in the case of gymnastics (and perhaps in many other sports: an Iranian denounced the case of Boxing) were openly sided. The criteria to judge and the rules on the matter should be the same for all. With the help of tech any king of misjudge should be corrected immediately. Otherwise the honor, dignity and self-esteem of individuals and the whole nation’s is offended. The main purpose of Sport Olympics is to unite the whole world.
2. NBC coverage of the Olympics inside the US were also sided: a. they made people lost the sense of competition for gold medals by showing only the sports in which American has good contenders. b.Up to yesterday China was leading the competition for gold medals and nobody had the chance to see the real competition for this quality medal. Now, with the disgusting manipulation of medals in gymnastics the US got also 18 gold medals. c. The whole picture of the competition was changed; with the bronzes accumulated –resulting from the US massive delegation to this Olympics, this country displaced China from the first post. d. In short, the nasty sidedness in gymnastics was intended to create the image of the US as super-winner of this Olympics. For many, what we might got instead is one more evidence of how money is corrupting judges in International Sports competition.
3. NBC helped to destroy the sense of fairness when they announced that the Russian girl should not be allowed to compete for this gold medal since she already got a gold medal during this Olympics. However, NBC said nothing about the collector of gold medal in swimming in one single person, up to the point of converting this American into world hero. We understand the lack of heroes in politics (Obama got the medal for the Olympics in Peace) and medals in wars abroad (we got the medals in destruction in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now in Syria) but we do not need more fake medals.
This is Sports and in this realm we should be fair and not tolerate any scam. In short: the London Olympics is an expression of the current decadence’ time
================
It happens yesterday, Thursday the 2nd of August. The gold medal was given to the Afro-American girl, though most people knew that it was totally unfair.
FACTS:
1. In the first personal trial the afro-American got 15.5 points that oversees the expected results since she was nervous and made several mistakes. In her 2nd, personal trial her performance was better however she got only 15.2 points.
2. The performance of the Russian girl was much more consistent and clearly she showed much stability and balance than the Afro-American competitor. This was seen internationally and many people interviewed agreed that she was the real winner of the gold medal.
3. To cover up the mistake made by the judges (15.5 points in the 1st trial non deserved by the afro American), they distribute the silver and bronze medals to Russian contenders.
MEANING
1. The judges of London Olympics in the case of gymnastics (and perhaps in many other sports: an Iranian denounced the case of Boxing) were openly sided. The criteria to judge and the rules on the matter should be the same for all. With the help of tech any king of misjudge should be corrected immediately. Otherwise the honor, dignity and self-esteem of individuals and the whole nation’s is offended. The main purpose of Sport Olympics is to unite the whole world.
2. NBC coverage of the Olympics inside the US were also sided: a. they made people lost the sense of competition for gold medals by showing only the sports in which American has good contenders. b.Up to yesterday China was leading the competition for gold medals and nobody had the chance to see the real competition for this quality medal. Now, with the disgusting manipulation of medals in gymnastics the US got also 18 gold medals. c. The whole picture of the competition was changed; with the bronzes accumulated –resulting from the US massive delegation to this Olympics, this country displaced China from the first post. d. In short, the nasty sidedness in gymnastics was intended to create the image of the US as super-winner of this Olympics. For many, what we might got instead is one more evidence of how money is corrupting judges in International Sports competition.
3. NBC helped to destroy the sense of fairness when they announced that the Russian girl should not be allowed to compete for this gold medal since she already got a gold medal during this Olympics. However, NBC said nothing about the collector of gold medal in swimming in one single person, up to the point of converting this American into world hero. We understand the lack of heroes in politics (Obama got the medal for the Olympics in Peace) and medals in wars abroad (we got the medals in destruction in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now in Syria) but we do not need more fake medals.
This is Sports and in this realm we should be fair and not tolerate any scam. In short: the London Olympics is an expression of the current decadence’ time
================
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)