7 New Messages
Digest #4475
Messages
Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:25 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
Libya, Syria and now Lebanon?
Konstantin Garibov
====
"They are interested in upsetting a balance that has been in place in Syria for decades. I think that these interests are dictated by those of US companies," Filonik says, singling out huge liquid hydrocarbon reserves that have allegedly been discovered in Lebanon. "Of course," he concludes, "this information is yet to be officially confirmed, but we all get used to the situation when many turbulent events or revolutions have an oil smell, so to speak."
====
The ever-growing flame of the Syrian conflict may spill into neighboring Lebanon, Turkey’s Milliyet newspaper reported on Tuesday. The newspaper particularly points to the fact that a recent conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in northern Lebanon was defused only because of the army’s intervention in the matter.
In light of this, Milliyet points out the high probability of an armed conflict in Lebanon in the near future. Speaking of preconditions for the ouster of the regime there is irrelevant, the newspaper says, adding that the main problem in Lebanon is that the country’s conflicting parties are endorsed and supported by outside forces.
Many in Lebanon refer to the ‘Syrian trace’ when mentioning an array of arsons, abductions and protest rallies that have taken place in their country in the past. They were echoed by former Information Minister Michel Salaha who had earlier collaborated with the government of Bashar Assad. After his arrest, Salaha claimed that Damascus had allegedly nourished plans to draw Lebanon into chaos by notably sending a host of Syrian security agents there.
Moscow-based political analyst Stanislav Tarasov says, in turn, that Salaha’s allegations about Syria’s role in the Lebanese conflict hold no water. Pointing the finger at the West is also irrelevant, Tarasov says and elaborates.
"There is a factor of the third forces," Tarasov says, referring to radical Islam-related forces ready to capitalize on a standoff between the West and the Syrian regime in order to fulfill their own scenario, aimed at toppling secular power in Lebanon. "There is a certain radical Muslim force which is keen to seize power in Lebanon, something which might be the case with Syria. In Egypt, this scenario has already been implemented.
Another Moscow-based political analyst, Alexander Filonik, says that the latest events in Syria could not but affect Lebanon, where many remain at odds over the Syrian crisis.
"In Lebanon, there are both supporters and opponents of the existing regime," Filonik says, pointing to the ongoing strife inside Lebanese society that reflects the current situation in Syria. "In this vein, I’m not surprised about the latest developments in Lebanon," Filonik adds, mentioning those poised to destabilize and destroy Syria. "They are interested in upsetting a balance that has been in place in Syria for decades. I think that these interests are dictated by those of US companies," Filonik says, singling out huge liquid hydrocarbon reserves that have allegedly been discovered in Lebanon. "Of course," he concludes, "this information is yet to be officially confirmed, but we all get used to the situation when many turbulent events or revolutions have an oil smell, so to speak."
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
Libya, Syria and now Lebanon?
Konstantin Garibov
====
"They are interested in upsetting a balance that has been in place in Syria for decades. I think that these interests are dictated by those of US companies," Filonik says, singling out huge liquid hydrocarbon reserves that have allegedly been discovered in Lebanon. "Of course," he concludes, "this information is yet to be officially confirmed, but we all get used to the situation when many turbulent events or revolutions have an oil smell, so to speak."
====
The ever-growing flame of the Syrian conflict may spill into neighboring Lebanon, Turkey’s Milliyet newspaper reported on Tuesday. The newspaper particularly points to the fact that a recent conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in northern Lebanon was defused only because of the army’s intervention in the matter.
In light of this, Milliyet points out the high probability of an armed conflict in Lebanon in the near future. Speaking of preconditions for the ouster of the regime there is irrelevant, the newspaper says, adding that the main problem in Lebanon is that the country’s conflicting parties are endorsed and supported by outside forces.
Many in Lebanon refer to the ‘Syrian trace’ when mentioning an array of arsons, abductions and protest rallies that have taken place in their country in the past. They were echoed by former Information Minister Michel Salaha who had earlier collaborated with the government of Bashar Assad. After his arrest, Salaha claimed that Damascus had allegedly nourished plans to draw Lebanon into chaos by notably sending a host of Syrian security agents there.
Moscow-based political analyst Stanislav Tarasov says, in turn, that Salaha’s allegations about Syria’s role in the Lebanese conflict hold no water. Pointing the finger at the West is also irrelevant, Tarasov says and elaborates.
"There is a factor of the third forces," Tarasov says, referring to radical Islam-related forces ready to capitalize on a standoff between the West and the Syrian regime in order to fulfill their own scenario, aimed at toppling secular power in Lebanon. "There is a certain radical Muslim force which is keen to seize power in Lebanon, something which might be the case with Syria. In Egypt, this scenario has already been implemented.
Another Moscow-based political analyst, Alexander Filonik, says that the latest events in Syria could not but affect Lebanon, where many remain at odds over the Syrian crisis.
"In Lebanon, there are both supporters and opponents of the existing regime," Filonik says, pointing to the ongoing strife inside Lebanese society that reflects the current situation in Syria. "In this vein, I’m not surprised about the latest developments in Lebanon," Filonik adds, mentioning those poised to destabilize and destroy Syria. "They are interested in upsetting a balance that has been in place in Syria for decades. I think that these interests are dictated by those of US companies," Filonik says, singling out huge liquid hydrocarbon reserves that have allegedly been discovered in Lebanon. "Of course," he concludes, "this information is yet to be officially confirmed, but we all get used to the situation when many turbulent events or revolutions have an oil smell, so to speak."
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:55 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
Hollande repeats after Obama, or Libyan scenario for Syria
Oleg Severgin
Edited by RR
====
It has been said many times that the rebels are guided by secret service professionals primarily from Great Britain, as well as from Germany and other NATO countries. It seems that authorities in those countries are willing to use in Syria the Libyan pattern, only on a larger scale. During her recent visit to Turkey, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought up the subject of creating a no-fly zone over Syria. Other NATO partners, who also use direct appeals to Bashar al-Assad to voluntarily give up his position, support that idea. It all looks familiar.
====
In his annual address to the national diplomatic corps, French president Francois Hollande announced that his country together with its partners is "closely watching" the situation in Syria in regards to al-Assad's use of chemical weapons. "For the international community the fact of use of the weapons of mass destruction would be a legitimate reason for a direct military intervention,
The announcement made by the French leader is remarkable not only in its content and its tone of an ultimatum. In fact Francois Hollande repeated word for word a similar threat made by the head of the White House, Barack Obama, shortly before that. France's senior partner in NATO threatened to strike against al-Assad even if chemical weapons are simply moved from one place to another. And still, Hollande's and Obama's statements are remarkable not in their tone as much as in their readiness for military interference as well as in the lack of any mention of the UN's role in the event of a potential military intervention by the West in Syria.
Naturally, experts could not fail to notice that detail. Also notable is the fact that lately the European mass media have openly voiced calls for a direct military intervention in the conflict in Syria. "Intervention in Syria is inevitable," stated the German weekly Die Zeit. "Will the UN Security Council lean to this or that side, will it take the risk," writes the weekly, "in any event the international community will be forced to intervene in the foreseeable future."
A verdict also peremptory in a similar way was made by the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung. "Syria will become yet another country in the Middle East that awaits a change of regime," says the publication. "Of all the Arab dictators, only Gaddafi fought for preserving his power as frantically as does Bashar al-Assad."
It is hard to tell whether it is a forecast or an obscure hint to those who are empowered to make decisions about the use of military force. The comparison of al-Assad to Gaddafi is quite demonstrative. The Austrian Die Presse has recently published an interesting article. It is called "A gunman from Dublin." The main character in the article is Najjair, an Irishman of Libyan origin. First he fought in Libya, and then he illegally moved to Syria where he joined the rebels. He crossed the border along with hundreds of other hired guns that go there through the borders with Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. Najjair received military training in Libya with the so-called Tripoli brigade. The newspaper writes that the training was conducted by "commandos" from Great Britain and Qatar. According to the publication, the "veterans" from Libya are passing their experience onto the rebels from the so-called Free Syrian Army.
It has been said many times that the rebels are guided by secret service professionals primarily from Great Britain, as well as from Germany and other NATO countries. It seems that authorities in those countries are willing to use in Syria the Libyan pattern, only on a larger scale. During her recent visit to Turkey, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought up the subject of creating a no-fly zone over Syria. Other NATO partners, who also use direct appeals to Bashar al-Assad to voluntarily give up his position, support that idea. It all looks familiar.
But Vladimir Anokhin, vice-president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Issues is skeptical.
"It would be fine and good for NATO to conduct this arrogant operation according to the Libyan scenario," says the expert. "However, the situation is absolutely different. It is like in the saying 'All cats love fish but fear to wet their paws.' Why is Europe so cautious? Because there has been a precedent set. It seemed that all was set up in Libya for the oil to start pouring. But no, nothing like that happened."
Nevertheless, the Die Zeit forecast about an imminent intervention in Syria gave out a warning: "Everybody has to be clear that what the world community is facing will be a lot more large-scale, long-term and expensive than the 7,587 air strikes made by NATO against Libya." Nothing else need be added here.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
Hollande repeats after Obama, or Libyan scenario for Syria
Oleg Severgin
Edited by RR
====
It has been said many times that the rebels are guided by secret service professionals primarily from Great Britain, as well as from Germany and other NATO countries. It seems that authorities in those countries are willing to use in Syria the Libyan pattern, only on a larger scale. During her recent visit to Turkey, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought up the subject of creating a no-fly zone over Syria. Other NATO partners, who also use direct appeals to Bashar al-Assad to voluntarily give up his position, support that idea. It all looks familiar.
====
In his annual address to the national diplomatic corps, French president Francois Hollande announced that his country together with its partners is "closely watching" the situation in Syria in regards to al-Assad's use of chemical weapons. "For the international community the fact of use of the weapons of mass destruction would be a legitimate reason for a direct military intervention,
The announcement made by the French leader is remarkable not only in its content and its tone of an ultimatum. In fact Francois Hollande repeated word for word a similar threat made by the head of the White House, Barack Obama, shortly before that. France's senior partner in NATO threatened to strike against al-Assad even if chemical weapons are simply moved from one place to another. And still, Hollande's and Obama's statements are remarkable not in their tone as much as in their readiness for military interference as well as in the lack of any mention of the UN's role in the event of a potential military intervention by the West in Syria.
Naturally, experts could not fail to notice that detail. Also notable is the fact that lately the European mass media have openly voiced calls for a direct military intervention in the conflict in Syria. "Intervention in Syria is inevitable," stated the German weekly Die Zeit. "Will the UN Security Council lean to this or that side, will it take the risk," writes the weekly, "in any event the international community will be forced to intervene in the foreseeable future."
A verdict also peremptory in a similar way was made by the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung. "Syria will become yet another country in the Middle East that awaits a change of regime," says the publication. "Of all the Arab dictators, only Gaddafi fought for preserving his power as frantically as does Bashar al-Assad."
It is hard to tell whether it is a forecast or an obscure hint to those who are empowered to make decisions about the use of military force. The comparison of al-Assad to Gaddafi is quite demonstrative. The Austrian Die Presse has recently published an interesting article. It is called "A gunman from Dublin." The main character in the article is Najjair, an Irishman of Libyan origin. First he fought in Libya, and then he illegally moved to Syria where he joined the rebels. He crossed the border along with hundreds of other hired guns that go there through the borders with Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. Najjair received military training in Libya with the so-called Tripoli brigade. The newspaper writes that the training was conducted by "commandos" from Great Britain and Qatar. According to the publication, the "veterans" from Libya are passing their experience onto the rebels from the so-called Free Syrian Army.
It has been said many times that the rebels are guided by secret service professionals primarily from Great Britain, as well as from Germany and other NATO countries. It seems that authorities in those countries are willing to use in Syria the Libyan pattern, only on a larger scale. During her recent visit to Turkey, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought up the subject of creating a no-fly zone over Syria. Other NATO partners, who also use direct appeals to Bashar al-Assad to voluntarily give up his position, support that idea. It all looks familiar.
But Vladimir Anokhin, vice-president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Issues is skeptical.
"It would be fine and good for NATO to conduct this arrogant operation according to the Libyan scenario," says the expert. "However, the situation is absolutely different. It is like in the saying 'All cats love fish but fear to wet their paws.' Why is Europe so cautious? Because there has been a precedent set. It seemed that all was set up in Libya for the oil to start pouring. But no, nothing like that happened."
Nevertheless, the Die Zeit forecast about an imminent intervention in Syria gave out a warning: "Everybody has to be clear that what the world community is facing will be a lot more large-scale, long-term and expensive than the 7,587 air strikes made by NATO against Libya." Nothing else need be added here.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:55 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://thechronicle
Chronicle Herald
August 27, 2012
No easy solution to Syrian quagmire
Scott Taylor: On Target
====
In a complete twist of the stated facts, or in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, U.S. President Barack Obama subsequently claimed that Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross “a red line” and an international intervention would be unavoidable.
Some of the more alarming Internet posts by supporters of the anti-Assad movement threaten that they will first give the Syrian president “the Gadhafi treatment” — that is beat him to death in the street...
====
In recent weeks, as the violence in Syria continues to escalate, those Western nations supporting the rebel faction have raised the spectre of embattled President Bashar al-Assad employing his chemical weapons against his own people.
This forced the Assad regime to make the declaration that it would never employ such weapons on Syrian rebels, but they would not hesitate to do so against foreign military forces if they attempt armed intervention.
This in turn led a gleeful U.S. State Department to issue their own “gotcha!” statement, wherein the Syrian threat was tantamount to a confession that Assad possesses chemical weapons of mass destruction and, if pressed, he will employ them.
In a complete twist of the stated facts, or in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, U.S. President Barack Obama subsequently claimed that Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross “a red line” and an international intervention would be unavoidable.
Israel’s reaction to the confirmation of Assad’s chemical arsenal was to sound the alarm bell over what would happen if the Syrian rebels are able to seize control of such lethal munitions.
To allay Israeli fears, there have been subsequent reports in the media that Britain, France and the U.S all have military contingency plans in place to enter Syria and secure the chemical weapons in the event that Assad’s regime loses control.
In other words, despite the rhetoric and demonization of the Assad regime during the 18-month uprising, there are still enough rational thinkers in Western military circles to understand that elements of the rebel force are far more dangerous to regional stability than the hard-pressed government forces.
Fanatical factions of the Free Syrian Army openly flaunt their links to al-Qaida and they denounce Assad for his secular policies, not to mention his British-born wife.
Some of the more alarming Internet posts by supporters of the anti-Assad movement threaten that they will first give the Syrian president “the Gadhafi treatment” — that is beat him to death in the street — and then move on to reclaim the Golan Heights from the Israeli occupying forces.
The Free Syrian Army propaganda paints Assad as being a Zionist and this pro-Israel sentiment has led him and his father, who ruled Syria before him, to neglect their obligation in regaining these strategic heights for the past four decades.
Such bold objectives being claimed by the Syrian rebels must cause a headache for John Baird, Canada’s deep-thinking foreign affairs minister.
Almost since the outset of hostilities, Baird has been among the most bellicose of international voices demanding that Assad must go. He has done his utmost to curry favour with the hodgepodge collection of rebel leaders, going so far as to demand the ouster of all Syrian diplomats from Ottawa last May.
Now, we are slowly learning that there could be a far worse scenario in store for Syria, namely that the very same rebels Baird so openly supports, might actually seize power.
This of course could prove not only confusing for Baird, but also embarrassing for Canada given that under the Conservative government we have taken a decidedly pro-Israeli platform on all Middle East policy issues.
A harbinger to this current dilemma popped up during the opening phases of the uprising in Libya. After the rebel forces had seized control of Benghazi, international media and politicians, including Baird, ventured into this eastern city to express their support for the anti-Gadhafi fighters.
One story that caught my attention at the time was a feature about how the newly liberated citizens of Benghazi were now able to openly demonstrate their hostility toward Gadhafi.
A local Benghazi artist was, in fact, conducting a brisk business in cranking out cartoons depicting Gadhafi as a Zionist, complete with a Star of David emblazoned on his flamboyant headgear.
Baird was presumably too breathless from bellowing “Gadhafi must go!” to have given much thought as to the Islamic fundamentalists’ anti-Zionist sentiments that pervaded the ranks of the ragtag rebel Libyan forces.
In another ironic twist, many of those same al-Qaida linked Libyan rebel brigades are now in Syria fighting to depose yet another Arab president whom they deem to be a pro-Israeli Zionist.
With Western military forces now poised to intervene to prevent the anti-Assad rebels from acquiring chemical weapons that they could use to attack Israel, poor old Baird must be wondering just who he should be cheering for now.
Scott Taylor is an author and editor of Esprit de Corps magazine.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Chronicle Herald
August 27, 2012
No easy solution to Syrian quagmire
Scott Taylor: On Target
====
In a complete twist of the stated facts, or in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, U.S. President Barack Obama subsequently claimed that Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross “a red line” and an international intervention would be unavoidable.
Some of the more alarming Internet posts by supporters of the anti-Assad movement threaten that they will first give the Syrian president “the Gadhafi treatment” — that is beat him to death in the street...
====
In recent weeks, as the violence in Syria continues to escalate, those Western nations supporting the rebel faction have raised the spectre of embattled President Bashar al-Assad employing his chemical weapons against his own people.
This forced the Assad regime to make the declaration that it would never employ such weapons on Syrian rebels, but they would not hesitate to do so against foreign military forces if they attempt armed intervention.
This in turn led a gleeful U.S. State Department to issue their own “gotcha!” statement, wherein the Syrian threat was tantamount to a confession that Assad possesses chemical weapons of mass destruction and, if pressed, he will employ them.
In a complete twist of the stated facts, or in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, U.S. President Barack Obama subsequently claimed that Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross “a red line” and an international intervention would be unavoidable.
Israel’s reaction to the confirmation of Assad’s chemical arsenal was to sound the alarm bell over what would happen if the Syrian rebels are able to seize control of such lethal munitions.
To allay Israeli fears, there have been subsequent reports in the media that Britain, France and the U.S all have military contingency plans in place to enter Syria and secure the chemical weapons in the event that Assad’s regime loses control.
In other words, despite the rhetoric and demonization of the Assad regime during the 18-month uprising, there are still enough rational thinkers in Western military circles to understand that elements of the rebel force are far more dangerous to regional stability than the hard-pressed government forces.
Fanatical factions of the Free Syrian Army openly flaunt their links to al-Qaida and they denounce Assad for his secular policies, not to mention his British-born wife.
Some of the more alarming Internet posts by supporters of the anti-Assad movement threaten that they will first give the Syrian president “the Gadhafi treatment” — that is beat him to death in the street — and then move on to reclaim the Golan Heights from the Israeli occupying forces.
The Free Syrian Army propaganda paints Assad as being a Zionist and this pro-Israel sentiment has led him and his father, who ruled Syria before him, to neglect their obligation in regaining these strategic heights for the past four decades.
Such bold objectives being claimed by the Syrian rebels must cause a headache for John Baird, Canada’s deep-thinking foreign affairs minister.
Almost since the outset of hostilities, Baird has been among the most bellicose of international voices demanding that Assad must go. He has done his utmost to curry favour with the hodgepodge collection of rebel leaders, going so far as to demand the ouster of all Syrian diplomats from Ottawa last May.
Now, we are slowly learning that there could be a far worse scenario in store for Syria, namely that the very same rebels Baird so openly supports, might actually seize power.
This of course could prove not only confusing for Baird, but also embarrassing for Canada given that under the Conservative government we have taken a decidedly pro-Israeli platform on all Middle East policy issues.
A harbinger to this current dilemma popped up during the opening phases of the uprising in Libya. After the rebel forces had seized control of Benghazi, international media and politicians, including Baird, ventured into this eastern city to express their support for the anti-Gadhafi fighters.
One story that caught my attention at the time was a feature about how the newly liberated citizens of Benghazi were now able to openly demonstrate their hostility toward Gadhafi.
A local Benghazi artist was, in fact, conducting a brisk business in cranking out cartoons depicting Gadhafi as a Zionist, complete with a Star of David emblazoned on his flamboyant headgear.
Baird was presumably too breathless from bellowing “Gadhafi must go!” to have given much thought as to the Islamic fundamentalists’ anti-Zionist sentiments that pervaded the ranks of the ragtag rebel Libyan forces.
In another ironic twist, many of those same al-Qaida linked Libyan rebel brigades are now in Syria fighting to depose yet another Arab president whom they deem to be a pro-Israeli Zionist.
With Western military forces now poised to intervene to prevent the anti-Assad rebels from acquiring chemical weapons that they could use to attack Israel, poor old Baird must be wondering just who he should be cheering for now.
Scott Taylor is an author and editor of Esprit de Corps magazine.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:55 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
August 28, 2012
US uses contractors to bypass international humanitarian laws
The use of private contractors allows the US to evade responsibility for violations of international humanitarian legislation, a top Russian diplomat for human rights and democracy said.
The comment came from Foreign Ministry Commissioner Konstantin Dolgov as the US Justice Department halted an investigation into the attempted bribing of Iraqi police officials by employees of the Blackwater security company (re-branded as ‘Academi’ in late 2011).
Blackwater attempted to pay $1 million in bribes for new contracts in Iraq, and also to block an investigation into the 2007 murder of 17 Iraqi civilians, including several children, by Blackwater operatives, a statement published on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website said.
The US State Department didn’t end its relationship with Blackwater for two years after the tragedy, Dolgov said.
“Despite the scandalous experience with the Blackwater company, the US military and foreign policy agencies continue to attract contractors for doing the ‘dirty work’ in the zone of armed conflicts,” Dolgov said. “Such outsourcing of state functions to private firms allows the US government to evade the responsibility for violation of international humanitarian norms.
“The Blackwater case is a vivid example of impunity enjoyed by the employees of private security companies, despite blatant violations of international Human Rights standards. The current situation is a result of the inconsistent and selective actions of the US authorities, who ignore the rights of Iraqis who fall victim to the employees of private security companies. We expect that the US authorities will at last take some measures to punish the responsible contractors of the company formerly known as Blackwater,” the statement read.
Dolgov added that a US court had sentenced Russian citizen Viktor Bout to 25 years in prison for his alleged intention to sell weapons to Colombian rebels, while the “company that succeeded Blackwater” received no punishment after confessing to illegally supplying weapons to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. “Is not it a very visual demonstration of double standards used by the US justice?” he said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
RT
August 28, 2012
US uses contractors to bypass international humanitarian laws
The use of private contractors allows the US to evade responsibility for violations of international humanitarian legislation, a top Russian diplomat for human rights and democracy said.
The comment came from Foreign Ministry Commissioner Konstantin Dolgov as the US Justice Department halted an investigation into the attempted bribing of Iraqi police officials by employees of the Blackwater security company (re-branded as ‘Academi’ in late 2011).
Blackwater attempted to pay $1 million in bribes for new contracts in Iraq, and also to block an investigation into the 2007 murder of 17 Iraqi civilians, including several children, by Blackwater operatives, a statement published on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website said.
The US State Department didn’t end its relationship with Blackwater for two years after the tragedy, Dolgov said.
“Despite the scandalous experience with the Blackwater company, the US military and foreign policy agencies continue to attract contractors for doing the ‘dirty work’ in the zone of armed conflicts,” Dolgov said. “Such outsourcing of state functions to private firms allows the US government to evade the responsibility for violation of international humanitarian norms.
“The Blackwater case is a vivid example of impunity enjoyed by the employees of private security companies, despite blatant violations of international Human Rights standards. The current situation is a result of the inconsistent and selective actions of the US authorities, who ignore the rights of Iraqis who fall victim to the employees of private security companies. We expect that the US authorities will at last take some measures to punish the responsible contractors of the company formerly known as Blackwater,” the statement read.
Dolgov added that a US court had sentenced Russian citizen Viktor Bout to 25 years in prison for his alleged intention to sell weapons to Colombian rebels, while the “company that succeeded Blackwater” received no punishment after confessing to illegally supplying weapons to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. “Is not it a very visual demonstration of double standards used by the US justice?” he said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:55 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://indrus.
Russia & India Report
August 23, 2012
The Syrian crisis and the future of the global economy
Andrei Volodin
====
[China] realises that an attack on Damascus is a blow to the positions of Tehran, a strategic ally to Syria, and an attempt to cut off Iranian oil from China. Such a scenario would help the U.S. meet its primary objective – to contain 'Chinese expansion’ in the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. has to work in several directions at once. One of them is countering the ‘expansion’ of China in the Asia-Pacific. America’s ‘anti-terrorist’ mission in Afghanistan is far from being over. Some Western analysts suggest that participation of the U.S. in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime indicates the new strand in Washington’s policy: the ‘fight for Africa’, supposedly against China again.
The aggravation of tension in the Middle East has an apparent political agenda: to distract people from helplessness of the Western European elite against the progressing economic and financial crisis.
====
We are witnessing in real-time the formation of the polycentric, post-American world. Naturally, this process is non-linear, and its trajectory, as forecasted back in the 1990s by one of the most outstanding economists of our time, Charles Kindleberger, will inevitably run through conflicts of varying intensity.
The Middle East has the largest amount of conflicts in the world today, hosting several groups of dramatically developing disputes: historic, confessional/
It is obvious that the U.S. and its junior partners are trying to use the Syrian crisis to maintain their positions in the global system and simultaneously to weaken their primary rival and principal creditor, China. Beijing, however, realises that an attack on Damascus is a blow to the positions of Tehran, a strategic ally to Syria, and an attempt to cut off Iranian oil from China. Such a scenario would help the U.S. meet its primary objective – to contain 'Chinese expansion’ in the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. has to work in several directions at once. One of them is countering the ‘expansion’ of China in the Asia-Pacific. America’s ‘anti-terrorist’ mission in Afghanistan is far from being over. Some Western analysts suggest that participation of the U.S. in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime indicates the new strand in Washington’s policy: the ‘fight for Africa’, supposedly against China again.
All of this leads to an obvious overload – in financial, economic and physical terms. American experts warn the acting administration that direct participation in the Syrian conflict can be very costly in case it proves to be lengthy.
Fueled by the continuing Syrian conflict, anxiety is building up in the West, placed in the wider context of the role played by the North Atlantic civilization in the global economy and politics. Driven by its most discerning representatives, a part of the American foreign policy establishment is questioning what the current Washington administration is looking for in a faraway land? And what consequences of this ‘experimentation’ could follow for America and its role in the transforming global system? These questions are, clearly, rhetorical, and the answers to them are exhaustively practical.
Henry Kissinger suggests articulating America’s new strategy in the Arab world in place of the fierce desire to remove Bashar al-Assad from his position. This idea found new momentum in the maestro’s American diplomacy address to his less experienced colleagues where he urged them to keep in mind the ‘unfinished mission’ in Afghanistan and the essential role of the economy in the development of the American foreign strategy.
The uncertainty concerning the resolution of the ‘Syrian riddle’ and the inevitable historic parallels cannot but influence America’s actions in the region. In the past, the imprisonment of Americans and the failed rescue attempt worked, among other factors, in favour of the Republicans during the 1980 elections (when Ronald Reagan was elected as president). Which gives rise to the question of what will happen today if the U.S. gets involved in the Syrian crisis directly? It bears noting that the hasty, ill-considered actions of the West can result in further strengthening of Iran (and Egypt, recovering from revolutionary unrest). We can’t forget that in 2003, George Bush Junior, obsessed with the idea of destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, has conferred a truly fantastic favour to Tehran by solving the problem of the ‘accursed’ Saddam Hussein for Iran. And today there is a new question of a Hamletian proportion; can it happen
that Iran will benefit from demolition of the decrepit political system of the ‘petroleum monarchies’ in the Persian Gulf?
Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft are clearly pondering over such a prospect. It would be interesting to know what Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have to say about this scenario. One of the most distinguished social economists of our days John Kenneth Galbraith once said: “Politics… consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. I believe that today the West is facing the problem in exactly this perspective.
Today the biggest problem the West is facing is not the removal of Bashar al-Assad from his position (amid total uncertainty regarding Syria’s future), but restarting economic growth in America and Western Europe. The splendid ideas of the ‘economic growth pact’ require that domestic efforts must be focused on nothing but economic growth. Growth that predominantly results from domestic factors and the strategy of economic development in this area cannot focus exclusively on support of the most viable economy in the EU, i.e. Germany. A joint effort to restore the economies of Western Europe will lead to the reduced relevance of the Syrian crisis to the citizens of the West. The aggravation of tension in the Middle East has an apparent political agenda: to distract people from helplessness of the Western European elite against the progressing economic and financial crisis.
The Indian Equation
Naturally, this gives rise to a question: what role could be assigned to India in resolution of the Syrian crisis? I would say a potentially significant one. With Pranab Mukherjee, one of the country’s most experienced and distinguished political figures, elected as President of India, its foreign policy seems to be developing coherence and genuine independence from the interests and the agendas of foreign forces. This independence is assuming the shape of specific foreign-policy initiatives. I believe that India realizes that the situation is not about a crisis in a remote country, but about the principles of modern politics that are sacred for Indians – the unity and territorial integrity of modern states.
The Libyan model of crisis resolution has proven to be utterly nonviable. That is why there is a need for new mechanism and new initiatives for the global system. The West is no longer the hub of the universe. The new global order will form through the development of horizontal cooperation between countries and regions. Also in store is the establishment of new regional and trans-regional economic and political institutions and development of their networks. Any attempt to reshape the global map by a group of states provokes a response from institutions, such as the Nonaligned Movement and BRICS.
The Indian strategic elite recognises the importance of close cooperation with Iran in economics and geopolitics. Globalization as it was at the time of the Washington Consensus has fallen into oblivion. Protracted globalization (B.R. Nayar) is being replaced by global regionalization, opening new and inviting opportunities to India.
Speculation about the possible economic union of four countries, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, has been doing the rounds for years. This refers to the future of a common market with the tendency towards compression of economic space. I think that India, Russia and Pakistan are displaying ever-growing interest in economic diplomacy. This mutually beneficial strengthening of relations holds one of the keys to resolution of conflicts and transition to the multi-polar, post-American world.
Andrei Volodin, Dr. Sc. (History), is Chief Research Fellow with the Russian Academy of Sciences’ (RAS) Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Russia & India Report
August 23, 2012
The Syrian crisis and the future of the global economy
Andrei Volodin
====
[China] realises that an attack on Damascus is a blow to the positions of Tehran, a strategic ally to Syria, and an attempt to cut off Iranian oil from China. Such a scenario would help the U.S. meet its primary objective – to contain 'Chinese expansion’ in the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. has to work in several directions at once. One of them is countering the ‘expansion’ of China in the Asia-Pacific. America’s ‘anti-terrorist’ mission in Afghanistan is far from being over. Some Western analysts suggest that participation of the U.S. in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime indicates the new strand in Washington’s policy: the ‘fight for Africa’, supposedly against China again.
The aggravation of tension in the Middle East has an apparent political agenda: to distract people from helplessness of the Western European elite against the progressing economic and financial crisis.
====
We are witnessing in real-time the formation of the polycentric, post-American world. Naturally, this process is non-linear, and its trajectory, as forecasted back in the 1990s by one of the most outstanding economists of our time, Charles Kindleberger, will inevitably run through conflicts of varying intensity.
The Middle East has the largest amount of conflicts in the world today, hosting several groups of dramatically developing disputes: historic, confessional/
It is obvious that the U.S. and its junior partners are trying to use the Syrian crisis to maintain their positions in the global system and simultaneously to weaken their primary rival and principal creditor, China. Beijing, however, realises that an attack on Damascus is a blow to the positions of Tehran, a strategic ally to Syria, and an attempt to cut off Iranian oil from China. Such a scenario would help the U.S. meet its primary objective – to contain 'Chinese expansion’ in the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. has to work in several directions at once. One of them is countering the ‘expansion’ of China in the Asia-Pacific. America’s ‘anti-terrorist’ mission in Afghanistan is far from being over. Some Western analysts suggest that participation of the U.S. in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime indicates the new strand in Washington’s policy: the ‘fight for Africa’, supposedly against China again.
All of this leads to an obvious overload – in financial, economic and physical terms. American experts warn the acting administration that direct participation in the Syrian conflict can be very costly in case it proves to be lengthy.
Fueled by the continuing Syrian conflict, anxiety is building up in the West, placed in the wider context of the role played by the North Atlantic civilization in the global economy and politics. Driven by its most discerning representatives, a part of the American foreign policy establishment is questioning what the current Washington administration is looking for in a faraway land? And what consequences of this ‘experimentation’ could follow for America and its role in the transforming global system? These questions are, clearly, rhetorical, and the answers to them are exhaustively practical.
Henry Kissinger suggests articulating America’s new strategy in the Arab world in place of the fierce desire to remove Bashar al-Assad from his position. This idea found new momentum in the maestro’s American diplomacy address to his less experienced colleagues where he urged them to keep in mind the ‘unfinished mission’ in Afghanistan and the essential role of the economy in the development of the American foreign strategy.
The uncertainty concerning the resolution of the ‘Syrian riddle’ and the inevitable historic parallels cannot but influence America’s actions in the region. In the past, the imprisonment of Americans and the failed rescue attempt worked, among other factors, in favour of the Republicans during the 1980 elections (when Ronald Reagan was elected as president). Which gives rise to the question of what will happen today if the U.S. gets involved in the Syrian crisis directly? It bears noting that the hasty, ill-considered actions of the West can result in further strengthening of Iran (and Egypt, recovering from revolutionary unrest). We can’t forget that in 2003, George Bush Junior, obsessed with the idea of destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, has conferred a truly fantastic favour to Tehran by solving the problem of the ‘accursed’ Saddam Hussein for Iran. And today there is a new question of a Hamletian proportion; can it happen
that Iran will benefit from demolition of the decrepit political system of the ‘petroleum monarchies’ in the Persian Gulf?
Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft are clearly pondering over such a prospect. It would be interesting to know what Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have to say about this scenario. One of the most distinguished social economists of our days John Kenneth Galbraith once said: “Politics… consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. I believe that today the West is facing the problem in exactly this perspective.
Today the biggest problem the West is facing is not the removal of Bashar al-Assad from his position (amid total uncertainty regarding Syria’s future), but restarting economic growth in America and Western Europe. The splendid ideas of the ‘economic growth pact’ require that domestic efforts must be focused on nothing but economic growth. Growth that predominantly results from domestic factors and the strategy of economic development in this area cannot focus exclusively on support of the most viable economy in the EU, i.e. Germany. A joint effort to restore the economies of Western Europe will lead to the reduced relevance of the Syrian crisis to the citizens of the West. The aggravation of tension in the Middle East has an apparent political agenda: to distract people from helplessness of the Western European elite against the progressing economic and financial crisis.
The Indian Equation
Naturally, this gives rise to a question: what role could be assigned to India in resolution of the Syrian crisis? I would say a potentially significant one. With Pranab Mukherjee, one of the country’s most experienced and distinguished political figures, elected as President of India, its foreign policy seems to be developing coherence and genuine independence from the interests and the agendas of foreign forces. This independence is assuming the shape of specific foreign-policy initiatives. I believe that India realizes that the situation is not about a crisis in a remote country, but about the principles of modern politics that are sacred for Indians – the unity and territorial integrity of modern states.
The Libyan model of crisis resolution has proven to be utterly nonviable. That is why there is a need for new mechanism and new initiatives for the global system. The West is no longer the hub of the universe. The new global order will form through the development of horizontal cooperation between countries and regions. Also in store is the establishment of new regional and trans-regional economic and political institutions and development of their networks. Any attempt to reshape the global map by a group of states provokes a response from institutions, such as the Nonaligned Movement and BRICS.
The Indian strategic elite recognises the importance of close cooperation with Iran in economics and geopolitics. Globalization as it was at the time of the Washington Consensus has fallen into oblivion. Protracted globalization (B.R. Nayar) is being replaced by global regionalization, opening new and inviting opportunities to India.
Speculation about the possible economic union of four countries, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, has been doing the rounds for years. This refers to the future of a common market with the tendency towards compression of economic space. I think that India, Russia and Pakistan are displaying ever-growing interest in economic diplomacy. This mutually beneficial strengthening of relations holds one of the keys to resolution of conflicts and transition to the multi-polar, post-American world.
Andrei Volodin, Dr. Sc. (History), is Chief Research Fellow with the Russian Academy of Sciences’ (RAS) Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:55 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
US pushes for a new phase of arms race
After Russia refused to support the UN Security Council resolution on Syria the US Congress forbade the Pentagon to deal with Russia’s arms export monopoly Rosoboronexport until Moscow stops supplying weapons to Damascus. Russia was quickly tagged as a country which supplies weapons to evil dictatorial regimes.
In reality, however, it’s the United States that is the largest supplier of weapons on the global marketplace, including countries with authoritarian rule.
Of course, some of the deliveries are made indirectly, through a large network of intermediaries. Curiously enough, in the Lord of War movie the main hero who illegally sells arms to dictatorial regimes plainly states that he deals with those regimes which the US government would like to deal with but must avoid in order to keep their hands clean. So at present it is the United States that stands behind the ongoing arms race, being the leading death merchant in the global marketplace. On the average, the US earns $25 billion in annual arms sales. Over the last five years the US accounted for nearly 30% of the world’s arms deals.
Legally and illegally, arms are delivered to countries engulfed in civil war. For instance, in July 2012 US President Barak Obama declared Afghanistan a major non-NATO ally, which means that the Arms Export Control Act no longer applies there. It means a sharp growth in US arms deliveries to that country. The US is a leading exporter to developing countries: in 2010 alone it earned $14.9 billion in arms sales, and this is just the official figure.
It should be kept in mind that enormous money is spent on weapons production for the US military; the Army then actively uses those weapons in a large number of military conflicts. According to Yearbook 2012 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, the US share in the world’s arms spending is 41%. In 2011 US arms spending was US$ 711 billion (4,7% of GDP), which is 5 times greater than in China, which is the second largest arms spender (US$ 143 billion).
According to the US Department of Defense, military spending in 2001 was $ 687 billion, slightly less than indicated by SIPRI. Even this figure, however, is incredible. It should be compared to Russia’s military spending ($71.9 billion) in order to realize who is really behind the world’s bloodiest conflicts. Even the budgets of four of the world's five leading countries taken together ($340,1 billion) are shy of half the US budget. Over nearly the last ten years (2002 to 2011) US military spending went up 59%.
The US spends enormous wealth on developing cutting edge weapons such as F-35 fighters and a number of other expensive programs. Over the last ten years a total of $66 billion has been spent on the F-35 fifth-generation jet fighter. For 2013 alone the Pentagon requested $179 billion for weapons upgrades. The US has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and can conduct naval operations throughout the world.
The February 2011 budget request sent by the Department of Defense to the US Congress also asked for $118 billion to conduct military operations abroad: $110 billion to wage the war in Afghanistan and $16 billion to maintain the US presence in Iraq. In financial years 2010 and 2011 war costs were estimated at $130 billion and $160 billion, respectively. During the presidency of George Bush Jr. as much as $180 billion was spent on those wars annually.
US-based companies retain top rankings on SIPRI’s Top-100 and are responsible for more than 60% of the world’s arms sales. 44 out of the 100 top arms dealers are US-based companies. 30 companies are based throughout Western Europe, 12 are based in other OECD countries and only 8 are in Russia.
The US has the highest ranking among nuclear states. The total number of nuclear warheads is approximately 8,500.
According to the US Department of Defense, current arms spending in “peaceful” times is even greater than during the Cold War era.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
US pushes for a new phase of arms race
After Russia refused to support the UN Security Council resolution on Syria the US Congress forbade the Pentagon to deal with Russia’s arms export monopoly Rosoboronexport until Moscow stops supplying weapons to Damascus. Russia was quickly tagged as a country which supplies weapons to evil dictatorial regimes.
In reality, however, it’s the United States that is the largest supplier of weapons on the global marketplace, including countries with authoritarian rule.
Of course, some of the deliveries are made indirectly, through a large network of intermediaries. Curiously enough, in the Lord of War movie the main hero who illegally sells arms to dictatorial regimes plainly states that he deals with those regimes which the US government would like to deal with but must avoid in order to keep their hands clean. So at present it is the United States that stands behind the ongoing arms race, being the leading death merchant in the global marketplace. On the average, the US earns $25 billion in annual arms sales. Over the last five years the US accounted for nearly 30% of the world’s arms deals.
Legally and illegally, arms are delivered to countries engulfed in civil war. For instance, in July 2012 US President Barak Obama declared Afghanistan a major non-NATO ally, which means that the Arms Export Control Act no longer applies there. It means a sharp growth in US arms deliveries to that country. The US is a leading exporter to developing countries: in 2010 alone it earned $14.9 billion in arms sales, and this is just the official figure.
It should be kept in mind that enormous money is spent on weapons production for the US military; the Army then actively uses those weapons in a large number of military conflicts. According to Yearbook 2012 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, the US share in the world’s arms spending is 41%. In 2011 US arms spending was US$ 711 billion (4,7% of GDP), which is 5 times greater than in China, which is the second largest arms spender (US$ 143 billion).
According to the US Department of Defense, military spending in 2001 was $ 687 billion, slightly less than indicated by SIPRI. Even this figure, however, is incredible. It should be compared to Russia’s military spending ($71.9 billion) in order to realize who is really behind the world’s bloodiest conflicts. Even the budgets of four of the world's five leading countries taken together ($340,1 billion) are shy of half the US budget. Over nearly the last ten years (2002 to 2011) US military spending went up 59%.
The US spends enormous wealth on developing cutting edge weapons such as F-35 fighters and a number of other expensive programs. Over the last ten years a total of $66 billion has been spent on the F-35 fifth-generation jet fighter. For 2013 alone the Pentagon requested $179 billion for weapons upgrades. The US has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and can conduct naval operations throughout the world.
The February 2011 budget request sent by the Department of Defense to the US Congress also asked for $118 billion to conduct military operations abroad: $110 billion to wage the war in Afghanistan and $16 billion to maintain the US presence in Iraq. In financial years 2010 and 2011 war costs were estimated at $130 billion and $160 billion, respectively. During the presidency of George Bush Jr. as much as $180 billion was spent on those wars annually.
US-based companies retain top rankings on SIPRI’s Top-100 and are responsible for more than 60% of the world’s arms sales. 44 out of the 100 top arms dealers are US-based companies. 30 companies are based throughout Western Europe, 12 are based in other OECD countries and only 8 are in Russia.
The US has the highest ranking among nuclear states. The total number of nuclear warheads is approximately 8,500.
According to the US Department of Defense, current arms spending in “peaceful” times is even greater than during the Cold War era.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:01 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
US in Afghanistan: who’s the "savage"?
John Robles
====
These are facts the West would rather we did not know because in Afghanistan as in Iraq every move against the citizenry and every bomb dropped has been done illegally. Both of these countries were attacked in illegal acts of military aggression for involvement in events they had nothing to do with, namely the events of 9-11; both of the countries never threatened or even posed a threat to the US, yet they have paid the price and have been illegally occupied, so it is not surprising that the people are fighting back.
====
Another case of US forces desecrating human remains ends with a slap on the wrist for some of the perpetrators while others received no disciplinary action and on the same day the burning of Korans was also brushed off with those guilty also escaping serious punishment. Against the backdrop of increased Afghan-on-NATO violence and the beheading of 17 partygoers by Islamists, the question as to who really are the "savages" in Afghanistan begs to be asked.
Once again, as with almost every case involving egregious misconduct by US troops who have committed what can only be characterized as war crimes, those involved have received nothing more than the proverbial slap on the wrist, and the cases are in the hundreds if not thousands. We do not know the accurate figures because most such events are hidden and not reported.
This time the events in question could be called benign by US standards. For some reason, probably to minimize the backlash, both judgments came at the same time, namely rulings on cases of soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses and the burning of Korans.
In the case of the urinating Marines some of them received unspecified administrative “discipline,” it was reported on Monday, despite the US claiming that it was a “huge” embarrassment and caused a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation, as well as condemnation and an apology from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and even US Secretary of State Clinton, who vowed that the culprits would be found and punished.
The other judgment also released on Monday, involved the burning of Korans by US troops, an event which caused widespread riots, multiple deaths and calls from the Taliban and Islamists to kill foreign troops in Afghanistan and Americans in order to defend Islam’s Holy Book.
Despite the outrage and deaths caused by their actions, nothing “criminal” really occurred, according to the US.
Like I said, these were benign events by US standards, after Abu Ghraib and similar events in Iraq, the mass murders of almost 20 civilians while they slept in their homes earlier this year by a “deranged” sergeant, cases of cutting off body parts as trophies (including the cutting off of fingers, noses, ears and even the peeling off of faces), families being set on fire, denial of medical care to mass numbers of civilians leading to their deaths, snipers posing with Nazi symbols, multiple cases of rape, sodomy and massacre after massacre after massacre, sure Marines simply urinating on corpses seems almost comic.
The Taliban are almost no better, however they trail far behind compared to the overall creativity and level of atrocity of NATO’s finest. Their savagery is just as brutal as that committed by some of the NATO forces but less widespread and frequent. The latest event attributed to the Taliban but denied by them and quite possibly carried out by “insurgents,” was the beheading of 15 men and 2 women for having a party with dancing and music, something they view as immoral and un-Islamic.
Afghan authorities have launched an investigation with President Hamid Karzai saying,”the attack shows that there are irresponsible members among the Taliban."
The beheading of the partygoers occurred in an area of Musa Qala district which is almost totally under Taliban control. The governor of Musa Qala, Nematullah Khan, said, "They were having a music party and the Taliban came and killed them and cut off their heads."
On the same day, to the south, ten Afghan soldiers were killed at a checkpoint and two NATO soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier while they were on joint patrol, bringing the number of victims of Afghan soldier on NATO soldier violence to 42 this year alone. Now called “green-on-blue-
These are facts the West would rather we did not know because in Afghanistan as in Iraq every move against the citizenry and every bomb dropped has been done illegally. Both of these countries were attacked in illegal acts of military aggression for involvement in events they had nothing to do with, namely the events of 9-11; both of the countries never threatened or even posed a threat to the US, yet they have paid the price and have been illegally occupied, so it is not surprising that the people are fighting back.
Going back to the subject of slaps on the wrists for those committing atrocities, for me the reason they never pay the price for their illegal behavior has been clear for a long time. How on earth could the US judicial system or the US military deem anything their own killing machines do to be illegal if the whole war and occupation of Afghanistan is in and of itself illegal to begin with?
The truth is an extremely dangerous thing, especially when it is something that might end plans for world domination, and that is what it is all about, but it looks like they may be failing.
In Afghanistan, a country decimated by close to 12 years of war, the truths are hidden on a daily basis and as sites such as Wikileaks have found out (the hard way), reporting on the facts is something the US Empire will not allow.
The destruction and atrocities that the US has unleashed on the Afghan people continue on a daily basis and have been something the US has attempted time and time again to hide. As they continue, so will the response from the Afghan side.
In Afghanistan the US obfuscates, hides and doctors the facts at every turn so that even finding an accurate count of the number of civilian deaths in the country is almost an impossibility, with numbers ranging from the tens of thousands to the millions. Yet one thing is crystal clear: the US has failed in Afghanistan and there is little likelihood that there is a way out.
One question that I feel truly begs to be answered is quite a simple one: who in fact are the real “savages” in Afghanistan?
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2012
US in Afghanistan: who’s the "savage"?
John Robles
====
These are facts the West would rather we did not know because in Afghanistan as in Iraq every move against the citizenry and every bomb dropped has been done illegally. Both of these countries were attacked in illegal acts of military aggression for involvement in events they had nothing to do with, namely the events of 9-11; both of the countries never threatened or even posed a threat to the US, yet they have paid the price and have been illegally occupied, so it is not surprising that the people are fighting back.
====
Another case of US forces desecrating human remains ends with a slap on the wrist for some of the perpetrators while others received no disciplinary action and on the same day the burning of Korans was also brushed off with those guilty also escaping serious punishment. Against the backdrop of increased Afghan-on-NATO violence and the beheading of 17 partygoers by Islamists, the question as to who really are the "savages" in Afghanistan begs to be asked.
Once again, as with almost every case involving egregious misconduct by US troops who have committed what can only be characterized as war crimes, those involved have received nothing more than the proverbial slap on the wrist, and the cases are in the hundreds if not thousands. We do not know the accurate figures because most such events are hidden and not reported.
This time the events in question could be called benign by US standards. For some reason, probably to minimize the backlash, both judgments came at the same time, namely rulings on cases of soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses and the burning of Korans.
In the case of the urinating Marines some of them received unspecified administrative “discipline,” it was reported on Monday, despite the US claiming that it was a “huge” embarrassment and caused a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation, as well as condemnation and an apology from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and even US Secretary of State Clinton, who vowed that the culprits would be found and punished.
The other judgment also released on Monday, involved the burning of Korans by US troops, an event which caused widespread riots, multiple deaths and calls from the Taliban and Islamists to kill foreign troops in Afghanistan and Americans in order to defend Islam’s Holy Book.
Despite the outrage and deaths caused by their actions, nothing “criminal” really occurred, according to the US.
Like I said, these were benign events by US standards, after Abu Ghraib and similar events in Iraq, the mass murders of almost 20 civilians while they slept in their homes earlier this year by a “deranged” sergeant, cases of cutting off body parts as trophies (including the cutting off of fingers, noses, ears and even the peeling off of faces), families being set on fire, denial of medical care to mass numbers of civilians leading to their deaths, snipers posing with Nazi symbols, multiple cases of rape, sodomy and massacre after massacre after massacre, sure Marines simply urinating on corpses seems almost comic.
The Taliban are almost no better, however they trail far behind compared to the overall creativity and level of atrocity of NATO’s finest. Their savagery is just as brutal as that committed by some of the NATO forces but less widespread and frequent. The latest event attributed to the Taliban but denied by them and quite possibly carried out by “insurgents,” was the beheading of 15 men and 2 women for having a party with dancing and music, something they view as immoral and un-Islamic.
Afghan authorities have launched an investigation with President Hamid Karzai saying,”the attack shows that there are irresponsible members among the Taliban."
The beheading of the partygoers occurred in an area of Musa Qala district which is almost totally under Taliban control. The governor of Musa Qala, Nematullah Khan, said, "They were having a music party and the Taliban came and killed them and cut off their heads."
On the same day, to the south, ten Afghan soldiers were killed at a checkpoint and two NATO soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier while they were on joint patrol, bringing the number of victims of Afghan soldier on NATO soldier violence to 42 this year alone. Now called “green-on-blue-
These are facts the West would rather we did not know because in Afghanistan as in Iraq every move against the citizenry and every bomb dropped has been done illegally. Both of these countries were attacked in illegal acts of military aggression for involvement in events they had nothing to do with, namely the events of 9-11; both of the countries never threatened or even posed a threat to the US, yet they have paid the price and have been illegally occupied, so it is not surprising that the people are fighting back.
Going back to the subject of slaps on the wrists for those committing atrocities, for me the reason they never pay the price for their illegal behavior has been clear for a long time. How on earth could the US judicial system or the US military deem anything their own killing machines do to be illegal if the whole war and occupation of Afghanistan is in and of itself illegal to begin with?
The truth is an extremely dangerous thing, especially when it is something that might end plans for world domination, and that is what it is all about, but it looks like they may be failing.
In Afghanistan, a country decimated by close to 12 years of war, the truths are hidden on a daily basis and as sites such as Wikileaks have found out (the hard way), reporting on the facts is something the US Empire will not allow.
The destruction and atrocities that the US has unleashed on the Afghan people continue on a daily basis and have been something the US has attempted time and time again to hide. As they continue, so will the response from the Afghan side.
In Afghanistan the US obfuscates, hides and doctors the facts at every turn so that even finding an accurate count of the number of civilian deaths in the country is almost an impossibility, with numbers ranging from the tens of thousands to the millions. Yet one thing is crystal clear: the US has failed in Afghanistan and there is little likelihood that there is a way out.
One question that I feel truly begs to be answered is quite a simple one: who in fact are the real “savages” in Afghanistan?
