| Woman Confesses to Working with Terrorist Groups and Interrogating Abducted Women
Aug 20, 2012
| |
DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Terrorist Sabah Othman confessed to working with armed terrorist groups in Douma, Damascus Countryside, and being an accomplice to the abduction, torture and murder of women, with her acting as an interrogator.
In confessions broadcast by the Syrian TV, 22 year-old Othman said that she is originally from Douma and that she was married at the age of 14 and separated from her husband three years later. She met a man named Ala'a Mahfoud from Harasta on the pretext that he wanted to marry her, and he introduced her to two militants from a group referring to itself as Loua'a al-Islam who in turn introduced her to the group's leader Zahran Alloush who employed her as an interrogator of the women they abducted. Othman said that she was told to beat up any abducted woman that doesn't answer questions and that another woman assisted her in this work, and after they finish the interrogation the militants would take the women to an unknown location and murder them. She said that the militants would slit the throats of the abducted women and dump their bodies near a slaughterhouse, elaborating that the first woman she interrogated was Samira Assaf, a mother of four, who was slaughtered and dumped near a slaughterhouse where her body was eaten by stray dogs, noting that the terrorists recorded this incident on video. Othman went on to say that the second woman she interrogated was called Dunya Omar, and that she was shot in the head and her body was dumped near a sewer in al-Shifouniye area, while the third woman she interrogated was called Fadya Daher from Deir Ezzor, and this woman was offered by the terrorists to their leader Alloush and was raped and tortured by electricity before being murdered. She said that the members of Loua'a al-Islam she had dealings with would pretend to be religious in front of people while in fact they used drugs and abducted women without showing any sign of remorse. Othman concluded by warning other women from associating with terrorists because they're likely to kill them like the other women they abduct after they've outlived their usefulness in order to cover up their crimes. H. Sabbagh |
.
Boston artist Steve Mills - realistic painting
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Woman Confesses to Working with Terrorist Groups and Interrogating Abducted Women
Al-Moallem: We Believe that the USA is the Major Player against Syria and the Rest are Its Instruments
| Al-Moallem: We Believe that the USA is the Major Player against Syria and the Rest are Its Instruments
Aug 28, 2012
| |
LONDON, (SANA) – Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem affirmed that We belive the USA is the major player against Syria and the rest are its instruments under its control.
In an interview with the British newspaper the Independent conducted by journalist Robert Fisk, al-Moallem said that America is behind Syria's violence, and that he doesn't understand its slogan of fighting international terrorism when it's supporting terrorism in Syria. He pointed out that over 60% of the country's violence comes from abroad, specifically from Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the United States exercising its influence over all others, adding "When the Americans say, 'We are supplying the opposition with sophisticated instruments of telecommunications', isn't this part of a military effort, when they supply the opposition with USD 25 million?" Al-Moallem pointed out that the goal of what is happening in Syria is to pressure it regarding its relations with Iran and resistance movements in Palestine and Lebanon, saying "We were told by some Western envoy at the beginning of this crisis that relations between Syria and Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas are the major elements behind this crisis. If we settle this issue, they will help end the crisis." He went on to say that the Americans succeeded in frightening the Gulf countries about Iran's nuclear capabilities, persuading them to buy arms from the US and fulfilling Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 dream of maintaining bases for oil transportation. Regarding the European positions towards the Syrian crisis, al-Moallem said "I tell the Europeans: I don't understand your slogan about the welfare of the Syrian people when you are supporting 17 resolutions against the welfare of the Syrian people." As for Qatari-Syrian relations, al-Moallem noted that Qatar was the one who reneged on these relations, saying that he met Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani in Doha in November 2011 when the Arab League launched its initiative which led to sending observers to Syria, pointing out that during this meeting, Hamad told him "If you agree to this initiative, I will change the attitude of Al Jazeera and I will tell Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi to support Syria and reconciliation, and I have put down some billions of dollars to rebuild Syria." He added that he asked Hamad about having had very close relations with Muammar Gaddafi and why he sent his aircrafts to attack Libya and be part of NATO, with Hamad responding by saying simply "Because we don't want to lose our momentum in Tunis and Egypt." Al-Moallem stressed that the crisis started with legitimate demands subsequently addressed by legislation and reforms and even a new constitution, but then came foreign elements who used these legitimate demands to hijack the peaceful agenda of the people. "I don't accept as a citizen to return back centuries to a regime which can bring Syria backwards. In principle …no government in the world can accept an armed terrorist group, some of them coming from abroad, controlling streets and villages in the name of jihad," he said, adding that as a Syrian citizen, he is sad to see what's happening in Syria, compared with how it was two years ago. "There are many Syrians like me – eager to see Syria return to the old days when we were proud of our security," he concluded. H. Sabbagh |
Gaza: Mursi Disappoints
Gaza: Mursi Disappoints
By: Shuaib Abu Jahal
 |
Palestinian men transport bags of cement through tunnels used for smuggling goods, including food, fuel and building materials, along the Gaza-Egypt border in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, on 23 August 2012. (Photo: AFP - Mohammed Abed)
August 26, 2012 When Mursi won the presidency in Egypt, Gazans were ecstatic and publicly celebrated their expectations of better times to come. Today, their disappointment is just as immense as their previous elation. Palestinians were feeling frustrated with the Egyptian decision to only open the Rafah border crossing south of the Gaza Strip for three days a week. They had hoped that their situation would improve dramatically after Mohammed Mursi’s victory in the presidential election. After all, Mursi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Hamas’ ally. Al-Akhbar visited Gaza to speak to the residents about their situation. Amani Shnino said: "I think it’s unfair to only allow three days for travel. The whole of Gaza is a humanitarian crisis and we were deceived by Mursi." Walid Iki (24 years old) expressed his wish that "the Rafah crossing would be open for longer, allowing any Gazan citizen to travel freely." He pointed out that "the situation of the crossing under Hosni Mubarak was better. The situation today is somewhat chaotic." Iki is surprised by "Hamas’ silence regarding this decision." After the Sinai incident in which 16 Egyptian soldiers were killed on August 6, the Egyptian authorities closed down the Rafah crossing. The Hamas government announced it would close the tunnels along Gaza’s southern borders, stopping citizens from leaving the country and stopping the entry of food items and fuel into Gaza. As a result, people panicked and flocked to gas stations to store up on fuel and queues of cars were seen lining up. Closing the tunnels led to a gas shortage and a price hike and to scarcity in some items in Gaza’s markets. Gazans were deeply disappointed after all their elation at Mursi’s victory. The health sector was hit the worst by the repercussions of the crossing’s continued closing. Scores of patients have been unable to travel for operations and treatment outside Gaza. The spokesperson of the Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip Hamas government, Ashraf al-Qudra, said that "each day the crossing is closed, the waiting lists of patients supposed to travel to Egypt increases by 40 patients. This requires the immediate opening of the crossing for a whole week so that patients can travel for treatment." He added: "Any delay in these cases exacerbates their medical conditions." Qudra asked Egypt to "open the crossing all week long." Hamas has denied any relation to the incident in Sinai, accusing Israel of standing behind the attack. Its security agencies declared their willingness to cooperate fully with the Egyptian leadership to reveal the perpetrators and asked for the reopening of the crossing and the tunnels. The deputy prime minister and foreign minister in the Gaza government, Muhammad Awad, told Al-Akhbar: "We are hoping that the Egyptian decision will not be permanent or long-term. We need the Rafah crossing to be open at all times and to implement the agreement that was signed a month ago to open the crossing. Otherwise the Gaza Strip will face a real crisis and a health disaster." Political analyst, Ibrahim Abrash, told Al-Akhbar: "This Egyptian measure under the Mursi presidency is no different from previous measures under Hosni Mubarak. Egyptian national security takes priority regardless of the president or the party in charge. Egyptians give priority to their interests and their national security over any other ideological considerations. It appears that Egypt took this decision while awaiting the results of the Rafah investigations fearing that some Palestinians were involved in the Sinai incident." When asked about Hamas’ silence concerning this decision, Abrash said, "Hamas does not want a tense relationship with Egypt’s rulers, the MB. It knows that if it loses its relationship with the MB, it will lose an ally and its situation would get worse. After all, Hamas is an offshoot of the MB." Abrash pointed out that Hamas received assurances that opening the crossing is connected to closing the Rafah investigations. In the meantime, the office of the prime minister of the Hamas government, Ismail Haniya, announced that the prime minister ended consultations regarding a cabinet reshuffle in his government, though no details were released. A statement said that: "Haniya ended his consultations after an adequate period of time," and he is expected to present the new cabinet before the parliament soon for a vote of confidence. Haniya’s expected decision is considered a new attempt at Palestinian reconciliation taking place with Egyptian sponsorship. The cabinet reshuffle comes as a response to a similar reshuffle in Salam Fayad’s government in the West Bank. This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition. |
US Afghanistan strategy: An analytical evaluation
US Afghanistan strategy: An analytical evaluation-
Dr. Ahsan ur Rahman Khan
August 26, 2012
A realistic discernment of the post-US withdrawal picture of Afghanistan is one of the aspects which retains priority attention of most of those who are linked with political and strategic policy analysis and planning, specially in the regional countries and the world powers. Obviously, for that purpose a number of related aspects and factors have to be taken into account and analysed. However, probably the most important requirement is that of a critical evaluation of the much pronounced US’ COIN (counter-insurgency) Strategy. This US strategy is dominating all US’ actions in Afghanistan; and its implications will certainly play a dominant role in defining the post-US withdrawal picture of that country. As for the US official instance, the COIN Strategy basically aims at defeating al-Qaeda and Taliban as a pre-requisite to ushering in an era of peace, democracy, respect for human rights, etc through internationally assisted reconstruction of Afghanistan; and that, it is producing the desired effects towards achieving that aim. However, many a non-official publication emanating from US and Europe reflect facts to the contrary. Besides that, the emerging ground realities too clearly defy US claims relating to the actual aim of this strategy as also the results being achieved through its application. Obviously, that dichotomy is too alarming a threat for the peace and stability not only in Afghanistan, but in the entire region – thereby necessitating an in-depth analysis of US COIN Strategy. This article presents an analytical appraisal of the identified realities related to US Afghanistan strategy. In the outset, it may be pertinent to clarify certain conceptual and applied aspects related to the term 'strategy’ as also the dimensions of strategy, so that a framework of the required analysis may be formulated based upon these clarifications. As for the term 'strategy’, in general usage it has varying definitions because of the varying contexts in relation to which the definitions are coined like national, military, political, corporate, and business, etc. In the case of the analysis presented in this paper obviously the focus is on national strategy. It is worth noting that the concept of national strategy has undergone re-thinking and revision especially after World War II and that process still continues. In many such revisions the conceptual 'coverage’ of the term national strategy has generally been expanded to include new dimensions. For example Liddell Hart’s concept-defining phrase "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy", subsequently gave way to the much wider concept of 'grand strategy’ which was introduced to cover those industrial, financial, demographic, and societal aspects of war that have become so salient in the Twentieth century. The definition given in US Department of Defence Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 2005 even included the aspect of development of national power by mentioning, "The art and science of developing and using the diplomatic, economic, and informational powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during peace and war to secure national objectives". Subsequently, with the experience of US war in Iraq and Afghanistan, US Army War College (USAWC) decided to study yet a newer approach to national strategy, i.e., an approach that takes the perspective of the other side using culture as a means to determine the what and why of the others’ interests that could help in the formulation of US strategy and policy, its implementation and a favourable outcome. That idea was in consonance with the already emerged and growing recognition that culture is an important factor at the policy and strategy levels. The USAWC therefore established a board of six directors in 2006 to undertake the study; and as result of that endeavour USAWC introduced the cultural concepts and framework as part of the Strategic Thinking course in 2009. Details of that study were published by USAWC paper titled 'Cultural Dimensions of Strategy and Policy’ in 2009. As for the fundamentals of strategy, a brief reference has to be made of the 'national interest/objective’, 'assumptions’ (of the strategic environment assumed to be obtaining during the application of strategy), 'ends’ (of strategy to achieve the objectives), 'means’ (resources available to be devoted for the application of strategy), and 'ways’ (methods of organised application of resources). It deserves emphasis that out of this list, if the national interest is realistically defined and the assumptions are correct, then the task of balancing the equation of 'ends – means – ways’ may be performed with considerable accuracy. The afore-mentioned US/European publications, which bring to fore the flaws of US Afghanistan Strategy, also base their criticism in relation to some of these aspects of strategy, besides some other aspects. Out of these publications, at least three are of note. One is the prize-winning essay of Lieutenant Colonel Mark Schrecker, USMC, which won the Strategic Research Paper category of the 2010 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategic Essay Competition. It deals in detail with the conceptual aspect of 'assumption’ in strategy. Second is the article titled 'Why COIN Failed In Vietnam, Iran and Afghanistan’, dated 3rd July 2012, presenting a chapter of the book authored by Peter Van Buren – a US foreign service official who worked for US State Department for reconstruction work with US occupation forces in Iraq. He provides insight in many of the serious ingrained dichotomies of US strategy. Third is the official US document of the Special Inspector General of Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), dated 30th July 2012. It brings to fore the problematic ground realities relating to US efforts for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, which is considered to be of critical importance to the success of US COIN Strategy. As for US COIN Strategy, its essence may be drawn from the speeches of President Obama in March and later in December 2009, as quoted by Lieutenant Colonel Mark Schrecker. He mentions that Obama emphsised that the US’ national interest to be supported by this strategy would be. "The security and safety of the American people [are] at stake in Afghanistan"; that the objective was "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and prevent its capacity to threaten America and its allies in the future"; and to achieve this objective, "The tasks specified by the President — defeat of the Taliban, training Afghan security forces, improving governance, and growing the Afghan economy — are critical elements of a COIN operation". Before going into the analysis of the thus officially stated national interest of US in Afghanistan war, and the objectives and tasks of COIN Strategy, it may be worth noting as to how Eliot A. Cohen, a Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies commented on this. He mentioned in his article dated 6th December, 2009, "It is impolite, but probably true, to say that when President Obama announced in March that he had a "comprehensive, new strategy" for victory in Afghanistan, he had no precise idea what he was talking about. In Washington parlance, the word "strategy" usually means "to-do list" or at best "action plan". As for "comprehensive" and "new", they usually mean merely "better than whatever my predecessors did". Professor Cohen might have sounded a bit abrasive in these comments. However, the subsequently available knowledge relating to COIN Strategy did prove at least one facet of Professor Cohen’s observation that whatever rationale and strategy President Obama gave about Afghanistan war was far from reality. Now, was that distancing from reality a mistake, or was it intentional to cover up hidden US motives, is a matter to be resolved by humanity at large. When a realistic examination of the various interwoven features of COIN Strategy is undertaken, it becomes very clear that this strategy suffers from textural flaws due to many basic differences between its 'announced’ and 'latent’ features. Taking first the stated US national interest which was the 'announced’ reason for US war in Afghanistan. According to President Obama it was/is for 'providing security and safety to American people whose lives were threatened by al-Qaeda group in Afghanistan’. According to him that national interest was based upon the threat that al-Qaeda was fully organised, equipped, and had the capability of attacking and devastating anywhere even in the US homeland. However, prudence clearly highlighted that it was simply a dubious concoction based upon the projected false alarm, like the falsehood of the alarm of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to temporarily conceal US actual motives of attacking that country. This falsehood of President Obama has also been confirmed in many of the afore-mentioned publications. Otherwise too, even then it was a common knowledge that al-Qaeda did not possess any capability even closer to those announced by President Obama – a fact which has also been acknowledged by Lieutenant Colonel Mark Schrecker who quoted John Brennan, President Obama's most senior counterterrorism expert, who suggested that "[al-Qaeda] has been consumed with trying to ensure its security and stay out of the way in northern Pakistan". As for the 'assumptions’ on which US COIN Strategy is based, a number of very serious flaws are evident. From the tone and tenor of the pronouncements of US officialdom linked with US war in Afghanistan it is apparent that in the context of the strategic environment, US’ war makers were very confident that with its immense high-tech military might and the 'sole super power’ dominance in international politics it wouldn’t be difficult for US to conquer Afghanistan and reshape the country to serve US interests. That assumption was very probably made under the influence of US 'power arrogance’. However, by doing so the US war planners just ignored the critically important cultural aspect related to strategic planning. The afore-mentioned USAWC paper dilates in detail on this aspect. It highlights three cultural features or dimensions that drive political and strategic action and behaviour of not only the attacker but also the side being attacked. Those are 'identity’, 'political culture’, and 'resilience’. The implied importance related to strategic planning of the 'identity’ and 'resilience’ of a particular nation is well-known and does not require further elaboration. Regarding 'political culture’, however, it may be elaborated that USAWC paper highlights two instruments of its expression, i.e. 'political system’ (including the "examination of the role of history, class, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, geography (physical, social, and cultural), demography, and power fault lines that determine power centers, connections, and operations"), and 'strategic culture’ (a new term that entails the understanding of the effect of cultural factors on strategic behaviour). In that context, US planners made the mistake of disregarding two critically important realities. On the one side, they disregarded the historically proven national identity, resilience and strategic culture of Afghans, who through the passage of centuries have repeatedly shown their proven capability of bearing the utmost miseries but not allowing even the mightiest invaders (Greek Empire, Moghal Empire, British Empire, USSR) to finally occupy and reshape their country. And on the other side, they disregarded the much known fact of the US public’s incapability of bearing such miseries, specially the loss of lives of even their soldiers. These violations of the realities have led US to its current dilemma of desperately finding a way to disengage from the war to answer the mounting clamour of US public for a 'safe’ return of their soldiers back home. Peter Van Buren, with his inside knowledge of US State Department, in his aforementioned publication has even credibly negated US claim that it is fighting counterinsurgency (COIN) operations in Afghanistan for the betterment and reconstruction of that country. He quotes his colleague who asserted, "The problem is that one can only counter an insurgency if a legitimate government, supported by the majority of the people but opposed by an insurgency, exists". Then he goes on to elaborate that in the case of Afghanistan, as was the case of Vietnam and Iraq, it was US which planted illegitimate government of its choosing with "superficial trappings of democracy" and when some segment of the population rose in arms against the illegitimate government they were dubbed as insurgents. Lieutenant Colonel Mark Schrecker has also criticised US COIN Strategy due to serious flaws in its basic assumptions. He notes four of those: "The first is that al-Qaeda is still a threat to the United States and its citizens; the second, and perhaps most important, is that Afghanistan is of vital importance to al-Qaeda; the third significant assumption is that a favourable outcome requires a COIN strategy; and finally that the United States has sufficient popular support and resources (and a willingness to commit them) to conduct a counterinsurgency and that it can be brought to a successful conclusion before the required support and resources are exhausted". He then examines those in detail, leading to the conclusion that all of those assumptions are basically flawed. Very briefly, for the negation of the first assumption, he has quoted the credible observation of President Obama’s most senior counterterrorism expert (above-mentioned); for the second he examines three of its sub-assumptions and concludes, "Given the fallacies in these sub assumptions, it follows that the overarching assumption — that Afghanistan is of vital importance to al-Qaeda — is not valid; having examined the third, again in detail, he concludes quoting Sageman: "Unfortunately, a COIN strategy in Afghanistan is at best irrelevant to the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda, which is located in Pakistan"; and for the fourth, he asserts, "Sustainment of COIN operations in Afghanistan will likely face at least three significant challenges: maintaining the support of the American people, maintaining funding from Congress in the face of the ongoing budget crisis, and maintaining the support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and other coalition partners". Besides that, he also cautions, "To accurately assess this strategy, it is necessary to add up not only hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, but also the social disruption at home, damage to the Nation’s financial stability, injury to the Nation’s prestige abroad, and opportunity costs of other foreign and domestic policy goals that were not achieved because of the ongoing struggles in Afghanistan". And, in the context of the cost of this US’ war, it is also worth noting that Molly Moorhead in her article dated 7th August 2012 has quoted Harrison (a defence budget expert) who has provided the calculation that in military related expenditure alone this war is costing US an amount of $1.2 million per troop per year; and the overall expenditure, quoted by Joshua Foust in his July 2012 article titled, 'Five Lessons We Should Have Learned in Afghanistan’, is $570.9 billion since 2001 till May 2012. This way of strategic planning by US planners is so much away from even the basic norms of professionalism that Joshua Foust likens it to the 'magical rain dance’ (a ritual of some people who believe that a particular dance by them brings the desired rain). His comments are worth noting: "The US government has engaged in significant magical thinking in Afghanistan. For the last 10 years, military and civilian leaders have promised that if something was built, or a certain area of the country was "cleared" of militants, or if some other singular event like a presidential election took place, the war would be won. It was the political equivalent of a rain dance – rather than understanding the complex reasons why bad things happened in Afghanistan, policymakers chose to assume that simple fixes could produce victory". Even relating to the 'ways’ (methods of organised application of resources) for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, there are considerable flaws in US COIN Strategy. Joshua Foust has also dealt in detail regarding some of the major reconstruction/development projects like the much pronounced Kajaki Dam in Helmand province and Tarakhil power plant built outside of Kabul, highlighting the data of the actualities of these and terms these as "perfect example of magical thinking". The clearly 'unpromising’ state of Afghanistan’s reconstruction – considered as the key to success of US COIN Strategy, has also been highlighted in the afore-mentioned latest official US document of the Special Inspector General of Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), dated 30th July 2012. It brings to fore the actual state of Afghanistan’s infrastructure construction / development projects, including water, power, transportation, and other projects in support of the COIN strategy in Afghanistan. It highlights considerable delays and mismanagement in the ongoing projects. Regarding energy sector projects, it mentions: "Our reports have found that the US government’s efforts to execute large-scale energy sector projects in Afghanistan have frequently resulted in cost and schedule over-runs, contractor default, questionable or undefined sustainment methods, and wasted US dollars"; and mentioning overall, it also cautions, "the scale of most projects means that these agencies will not achieve the planned contributions to the COIN strategy——-"; and "in some instances, these projects may result in adverse COIN effects because they create an expectations gap among the affected population or lack citizen support. Grasp of these realities of US Afghanistan Strategy thus attained leads to a final and somewhat perplexing question; as to why after all US strategic planners formulated and are still perusing such a flawed strategy? Is it that they were mistaken, being naïve; or is it that they intentionally concocted this contraption of the 'announced’ elements of US strategy to conceal, albeit clumsily, the latent elements of their actual strategic design? The opinions relating to this question are likely to differ. And, for no surprise, many of the US analysts etc quoted in this paper who have pointed out such flaws in US strategy, obviously prefer to term it as a mistake of the naive. Prudence, however, clearly highlights the much higher probability that it was/is intentional; concealing the actual US design (supported by NATO) to 'blitzkrieg’ and bulldoze its way to attain its geopolitical objectives for politico-economic gains in this region at all cost, irrespective of the resulting massive human and material devastation in Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular. That is so, because the ethical aspects of humanity have no place in the mindset of the 'power-arrogant’ war maker cliques of US and other powers. And as for the billions of dollars of US taxpayers money spent on this war, again the point to understand is that those billions of dollars extracted from US public are continually enriching the coffers of these very war makers, including US tycoons of military industry, oil industry, security contract agencies, and other industries involved in the reconstruction, etc. work. |
Israeli court rejects Corrie family lawsuit; calls Rachel Corrie’s death ‘regrettable accident’
Israeli court rejects Corrie family lawsuit; calls Rachel Corrie’s death ‘regrettable accident’
by Adam Horowitz
 |
August 28, 2012
Note the quote from Judge Gershon in the following Haaretz report which blames Rachel for her own death:Judge Oded Gershon has ruled in favor of the state of Israel in the Corrie family wrongful death lawsuit. Rachel Corrie was crushed to death on March 16, 2003 by an Israeli military Caterpillar D9-R bulldozer as she protested the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah, Gaza. (for more on the case seehere). The Haifa District Court rejected on Tuesday accusations that Israel was at fault over the death of American activist Rachel Corrie, who was crushed by an army bulldozer during a 2003 pro-Palestinian demonstration in Gaza. . .Corrie family attorney Hussein Abu Hussein issued the following statement following the verdict. The ruling marks yet another victory for Israeli impunity in the occupied territories: While not surprising, this verdict is yet another example of where impunity has prevailed over accountability and fairness. Rachel Corrie was killed while non-violently protesting home demolitions and injustice in Gaza, and today, this court has given its stamp of approval to flawed and illegal practices that failed to protect civilian life. In this regard, the verdict blames the victim based on distorted facts and it could have been written directly by the state attorneys.Omar Barghouti sent out the following reaction to the verdict, putting it in the broader context of the Israeli legal system's "structural flaws" that were criticized in the Goldstone Report: It's a sad day for humanity, for the Corries, for Palestinians, for all people of conscience around the world ...Activists in the U.S. have announced plans to redouble their efforts to push for divestment from Caterpillar in the wake of the verdict. From the We Divest campaign: The We Divest Campaign, a national coalition demanding pension fund giant TIAA-CREF divest from companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands, is intensifying its call for divestment from Caterpillar Inc. in the wake of an Israeli court ruling today siding with the government in the civil court case brought by the Corrie family. The case alleged that the State of Israel was responsible for the killing of 23-year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death by a Caterpillar bulldozer as she attempted to use nonviolent civil disobedience to stop the destruction of Palestinian homes by the Israeli army in Gaza in March 2003. The court’s decision followed an Israeli investigation that the US ambassador to Israel recently criticized as lacking credibility.Jewish Voice for Peace has also condemned the verdict. It includes a statement from Rachel Corrie's parents. Excerpts: Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is deeply disappointed by the verdict read by Judge Oded Gershon this morning in the civil court case brought by the Corrie family against the State of Israel... In response to the Judge Gershon’s verdict, Cindy and Craig Corrie, Rachel’s parents said: "We are deeply saddened and troubled by what we heard today in the court of Judge Oded Gershon. This was a bad day, not only for us, but for human rights, for humanity, the rule of law, and the country of Israel. From the beginning, it was clear that there was a system to protect the military and soldiers, to provide them impunity. This extends to the courts. The diplomatic process failed us. The Israeli court system demonstrated that it failed us too. Rachel was a human being who deserved accountability, and we as her family deserve that too." Sydney Levy, Director of Advocacy at Jewish Voice for Peace said: "We at JVP deplore Judge Gershon’s verdict, and we applaud the Corrie family and their legal team for successfully putting on trial Israel’s flawed justice system. This verdict is yet another flagrant disregard for international law by Israel, which is obligated, as are all countries, to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians from the dangers of military operations. The Israeli military undoubtedly violated this principle in the killing of nonviolent human rights activist Rachel Corrie." |
The Case for Regional Currencies
The Case for Regional Currencies
August 28, 2012
For most in the United States the dollar seems an inevitability. But it was only in the aftermath of the Civil War that Lincoln’s Whig party got what they had been aiming for for decades: national currency. Up to then all sorts of currencies had circulated. First the various scrips of the colonies, later competing banking currencies. Then already the main aim of a ‘national’ currency was not wellbeing, but centralizing power in the hands of a few.
However, it relegated the more remote areas of the United States to eternal depression.
Regional imbalances
As we have seen with the euro crisis, in large currency areas regional imbalances are inevitable. Greece imports more from the North than it can export to its suppliers. As a result it has a negative balance of payments and loses euros to Germany, Holland and a few other countries. This means deflationary pressures (a dwindling money supply) that can only be solved either by going deeper and deeper into debt to maintain a healthy money supply, or structural redistribution from North to South through Brussels. The latter, of course, was the plan of the Eurocrats when they implemented the Euro. But while the Germans like importing Euros from Greece, it does not like giving them back. And who can blame them? They delivered goods and services for them.
This pattern is clearly recognizable in Europe through the Euro crisis and at the time it was predicted by a number of economists. But few realize this is always going on any national economy that is more than a city state.
For instance: the economy of the small nation of Holland is basically centered around the West, where Amsterdam is still at the heart of it all, complemented by a number of lesser cities. However, the North and South have forever known depressed economies, with difficulty getting full employment and structurally lower price levels. It is exactly the same issue: negative balance of payments with the core, in this case the West of Holland, net outflow of money (earlier Guilders, now Euros) and deflationary pressures as a result.
In every economy, even in a mature currency area like that of the United States, every region still generates most of its production through trade with regional partners. Yes, under the pressures of globalization and the ongoing onslaught of Transnationals against local economies, less and less is regional trade, but it still is quite substantial. There is basically no reason why this trade should not be financed with regional currencies. It basically is completely unnecessary and actually insane to allow these economies to wither away just because they cannot cope with (inter)national competition and as a result have too little money circulate locally to finance its regional economy.
The same is going on in the US where regions like Arkansas and rural States are under-developed and often actually quite poor.
Economists and bankers will explain ‘structural adjustments’ are necessary: people must give up natural rights to accomodate international corporations so that they can compete with core areas. Labor markets must become ‘flexible’, meaning lower wages, fewer worker rights. Of course, in the minds of these people, regions exists to provide optimal return on investment for capital.
But the simple truth is that economies only exist to provide the people with what they need for a decent life.
Centralization of Power
The Civil War delivered a death blow to State Rights and local independence and paved the way for the American Empire. National Currency, created and controlled by Washington, instead of by the States, was instrumental in this. As we know today, the Federal Government is corporation, owned by its shareholders in London and has very little to do with the American People.
The same thing is now going on in Europe. With typical banker logic the debtor nations, to be save, must first be destroyed. They must give up control over their budgets and all fade away in the grandiose idea of Europe. Otherwise they will marginalized by the USA and China. We must all compete, of course, or go down. It has nothing to do with what the people really need. Nobody is interested, except some Eurocrats and other megalomaniacs.
The trend is clear: the Euro was a major step forward to World Currency. Where the US could still be plausibly, though not factually, be presented as one Nation, in Europe this is impossible. Power is being centralized at ever higher levels, in ever fewer hands.
Regional Currencies
Regional currencies come in many guises, with many different monetary architectures, but by their very nature they only circulate in a regional area and are controlled by people actually living in the region.
So they both decentralize power and end regional imbalance. Local trade can always be financed, there is no dependence on (supra)national scarce currency.
If something goes wrong, through either mismanagement or abuse, the controllers will have to answer to their neighbors, instead of hide behind a police state.
This is not to say governments or even international bodies cannot create their own units. In fact, monetary stability is closely linked with the presence of different units: if one fails (usually because of corruption) than the others continue. Why should the economy be destroyed if the money men mess up? It just makes no sense.
Besides Regional Currencies there is also much scope for international cybercurrencies. Bitcoin is an example, although still rather primitive from a monetary perspective.
What would happen if Facebook created its own unit? I think everybody can answer this question for himself. The only reason it has not happened is because Facebook is part and parcel of the control grid.
Conclusion
The monopoly on currency must go. Why offer dozens of brands of crisps at a supermarket and call that ‘consumer choice’, while insisting on one size fits all currency controlled by those proven guilty?
The good news is that there is no legal monopoly. There are only legal tender laws. These give Fed Notes and the Euro its power, but it is not a monopoly. And well managed private party currencies of all sorts have managed to find a place under the sun.
We don’t have to wait for either the banks or the government to clean up their act. They never will.
Comprehensive monetary reform requires local and regional units, to combat imbalances associated with too big currency regions, while ending excessive power centralization.
Dedicated people can create fully viable currencies chipping away at the Money Power’s domination and interest slavery.
Israeli rabbi calls for prayers for Iran's destruction
Israeli rabbi calls for prayers for Iran's destruction
JERUSALEM, Aug 26 (Reuters) - An influential Israeli rabbi has called for prayers for Iran's destruction, a week after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to court his support for a possible attack on a nuclear programme Israel sees as an existential threat.
The sermon by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef added to a flurry of recent rhetoric from Israeli officials that has raised international concern that Israel, widely believed to be the Middle East's only atomic power, might attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
"(When) we ask God to 'bring an end to our enemies', we should be thinking about Iran, those evil ones who threaten Israel. May the Lord destroy them," Yosef was quoted as saying by Israeli media on Sunday.
Last week, Netanyahu sent his national security adviser to brief Yosef, 91, on Iran's nuclear activities in what was widely seen as an effort to win his backing for any future military strike, possibly before the U.S. presidential vote in November.
Yosef, a former Israeli chief rabbi, is the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, a key member of Netanyahu's governing coalition.
Netanyahu is frustrated that Western diplomacy to try to force Iran to rein in its programme has so far proved fruitless.
He said on Friday that Iran, whose leaders have threatened Israel's destruction, had made "accelerated progress towards achieving nuclear weapons".
Yosef issued his call in a sermon late on Saturday in which he said Iran should be included in a traditional Jewish New Year blessing next month over food in which God is asked to strike down Israel's enemies.
Netanyahu's security cabinet, which Israeli officials have said is divided over the question of launching a go-it-alone attack on Iran, includes a Shas minister as one of its eight members. Iran says it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes.
Yosef wields significant influence over Shas's lawmakers, who seek his guidance on policy.
In the past, the Baghdad-born Yosef has stirred controversy by likening Palestinians to snakes, calling for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to "perish from this world" and describing non-Jews as "born only to serve us".
But he has also spoken out in favour of Israel ceding occupied land for peace with the Palestinians in order to end conflict and save Jewish lives.
© Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved.
France tells Syrian opposition to form govt, pledges to recognize it
France tells Syrian opposition to form govt, pledges to recognize it
Published: 27 August, 2012, 20:27
Edited: 28 August, 2012, 13:52
Edited: 28 August, 2012, 13:52
French President Francois Hollande has called on the Syrian opposition to form a provisional government, saying his country will recognize it as legitimate.
Hollande’s announcement – the first of its kind – creates new diplomatic pressure against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.
Syria’s opposition remains badly fragmented, and it is far from clear whether such a provisional government could be formed anytime soon. But such a statement is seen by many as added incentive for the formation of government.
The French leader made annoucement during his first address to the country's ambassadors around the world.
Hollande also warned the Syrian government that there could be a direct military intervention.
"With our partners we remain very vigilant regarding preventing the use of chemical weapons, which for the international community would be a legitimate reason for direct intervention."
This announcement comes after US President Barack Obama warned Assad that any use or even movement of the country’s stockpile of chemical weapons would be met by US military intervention.
The French leader also criticized Russia and China, claiming “their attitude weakens our ability to carry out the mandate conferred on us by the UN charter.”
'Free Syrian Army chosen proxies of Foreign powers’ – activist
Brian Becker, director of the ANSWER anti-war coalition, told RT that Western states are pushing forward the idea of a proxy government as a part of their colonial agenda in the Middle East. And such a move would lay a strong basis for a full-scale military intervention, he added.
RT: The French leader has called on the Syrian opposition to form a provisional government, saying France would recognize it… What do you make of this?
Brian Becker: It’s most important to remember that France is the former colonizer of Syria, the colonizer along with the British in the Middle East. It is very odd and ironic, in fact completely hypocritical to have the French government saying to the Syrian opposition ‘you form a government and we will recognize you.’
I mean that’s just a script from the good old days when the colonial powers operated through proxies in Syria, Egypt, wherever the colonialism was, and that was most parts of the world. What we are seeing now is an escalation of foreign intervention.
If France, and if Britain and the United States, if the NATO powers in fact recognize this government by the Syrian opposition, by French colonialism in its new form, then we will see the basis being laid for downright full-scale military intervention to defend this new government which the West will say is the legitimate voice of the Syrian people.
RT: But who would form that new provisional government?
BB: Well, it would be those who would be most keen to the French, British, and US interests. In other words, there was an opposition, a big opposition to the Assad government in Syria that was against violence, against civil war and particularly against foreign intervention. They’ve been pushed to the side and in their place is the Free Syrian Army, the so-called Syrian revolutionaries who are nothing really at this point other than the chosen proxies of the foreign powers.
So it would be they, those who control the monopoly of violence, that is the NATO powers themselves, who will ultimately determine what the character is of this new so-called opposition government, or what they will declare to be the legitimate government of the Syrian people.
RT: Moscow has warned the US and its allies against the so-called 'democracy by bombs' scenario. Meanwhile, the French President has said that Russia and China are 'weakening' the UN over Syria. Do you agree?
BB: That’s the thing, you know, if the United States, and France, and Britain consider the United Nations to be nothing other than their plaything for their own foreign policy, yes they are very disappointed in Russia and China for “weakening the UN.”
But if the UN is actually to be the voice for peace, a method, an instrument to avoid war, to avoid the ravages of colonialism as it has pretended to be at least in the past, then of course Russia and China are doing a completely legitimate function, which is to say ‘no, the United Nations must be the world body not the plaything, not the instrument of French, British and US foreign policy. By their sheer maintaining an independent position they are raising the ire of the Western powers. But of course the people in Syria and the Middle East hope that they’ll stay the course because they need the Middle East to be independent of the former colonial powers.
Cannabis found to lower IQ of young
Cannabis found to lower IQ of young
Cannabis can lower the IQ of young teenagers and may cause permanent mental impairment, research has shown.
The most persistent users suffer an average eight-point decline in IQ between adolescence and adulthood, according to the study of more than 1,000 participants.
Scientists believe smoking cannabis from the age of puberty may disrupt developing and vulnerable brain circuits. Users experienced significantly more attention and memory problems than non-users, the study revealed. This was the case even after taking account of different educational backgrounds and use of alcohol and other drugs.
Quitting or cutting down on cannabis later in life did not fully reverse the impact on those who started taking the drug in their early teens. But the study found no evidence of similar problems affecting people who only took up cannabis as adults.
The international team, led by US psychologist Dr Madeline Meier, from Duke University in Durham, Carolina, wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning even after controlling for years of education.
"Impairment was concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users, with more persistent use associated with greater decline. Further, cessation of cannabis use did not fully restore neuropsychological functioning among adolescent-onset cannabis users."
Professor Terrie Moffitt, from the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, who took part in the study, said: "Participants were frank about their substance abuse habits because they trust our confidentiality guarantee, and 96% of the original participants stuck with the study from 1972 to today. It's such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains."
Colleague Professor Robin Murray, also from the Institute of Psychiatry, said: "We have known for some time that heavy use of cannabis increases risk of schizophrenia-like psychoses but this remains a relatively rare outcome so it's not so important from a public health point of view.
"There are far fewer studies on its effect on minor psychiatric illness or on everyday life. However, there are a lot of clinical and educational anecdotal reports that cannabis users tend to be less successful in their educational achievement, marriages and occupations.
"It is of course part of folk-lore among young people that some heavy users of cannabis - my daughter callers them 'stoners' - seem to gradually lose their abilities and end up achieving much less than one would have anticipated. This study provides one explanation as to why this might be the case."
Copyright © 2012 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)