S.Africa: Ruined Farm

 ΝΕΓΡΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΟΣ- ΕΝΑ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟ ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΟ

[42 Photos] S.Africa: Ruined Farm

Date Posted: Saturday 11-Feb-2006

Getting photos of farms which were handed over to the blacks is not easy, especially if they failed. The Govt really doesn't want to advertise this. Yet there must be hundreds of such farms.

These photos are from another fantastic farm - this time a grape farm - which was handed over to the blacks in S.Africa via the normal land reform procedure. And look at what a mess it is.

A while back I mentioned a Special Assignment program which showed one farm which succeeded (the one which was run by a white man on behalf of the blacks and which got lots of capital injection afterwards!). This was the other one - the failure which they showed on the same program.

This grape farm was called Blinkwater, which is Afrikaans meaning "bright water".

But first of all, I must show you this. This writing was on one of the walls of the ruined farm house. It was a message left to the blacks by the white farmer who lost his land. It reads: "You bastards will stay poor the rest of your lives". And what an accurate prophecy it was by the White farmer.



The White farmer's bitter message is on the wall...



Of the ruined farm house. Look at it now. The roof is gone, the doors and windows have been ripped out...









This Black man, is the only remaining black person on the farm. All the other blacks to whom the farm was given, are now GONE...



The black guy spoke in Afrikaans, and so they put these english subtitles in. These subtitles are worth reading because you will "get the story from the horse's mouth" so to speak. In this case, he is talking about the reservoir which used to irrigate the grapes. The starters and pumps were stolen... (by blacks of course!). So the blacks steal from the blacks. The whole thing is a complete mess. You'll see more of this insanity later further down.









The rusting pipes...





Even the pumps are gone... stolen...



The reservoir is now dry...



This is what's left of a once fine vineyard...





Looking out over the farm...



The black guy says the former White owner took the airconditioner with him...



The "they" the black man is referring to, is the Government. He says he thinks the Government wants everything to die. (I doubt it - but its an example of blacks now passing the buck - nobody wants to take responsibility).



He is once more referring to the S.African Govt changing its tune from day to day. (So what's new?)













None of the farm equipment is working any more...











Now here we see blacks struggling with other blacks. Blacks stealing from other blacks. This last remaining black guy now also has to police the place. Here he catches another black man walking around on the farm with a wood saw. He asks him what he's doing here. This black man, like many others, are cutting down trees on the farm for firewood for themselves.



Here you can see some trees have been cut...



Here is a pile of wood cut by other blacks who don't live on this farm. Isn't this cool? Now instead of blacks trespassing and ruining white-owned farms, we have blacks trespassing and ruining what's left of a ruined black-owned farm! Poetic justice I say.



This woman is also not supposed to be on this farm. He has some words with her.



He is saying the grapes will probably be dead by the next season.









Yes, all the simple daily routines have now stopped. This is typical of the way in which blacks work.







The End.

Saudi Arabia in charge of US Policy: Israel cheerleads, Saudi's finance & Cold War lives

06.02.2012 11:26

By John Stanton

"The Hanbali school, known for following the most Orthodox form of Islam, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban.." Council of Foreign Relations--Islam: Governing Under Sharia, 24 October 2011.

"In August a judge in Tabuk considered sentencing a man to be surgically paralyzed after convicting him of paralyzing another man in a fight two years earlier." Human Rights Watch ,2011.

"In September a Qatif court sentenced two high school pupils to six months in prison and 120 lashes for stealing exam questions." Human Rights Watch, 2011.

Watching, listening, and reading the media coverage, government commentary and think tank analyses on Iran's nuclear capability and the desire by some to destroy it is like taking in Abbott and Costello's Who's on First and Math skits.

The logic behind the entire push for massive military action against Iran makes about as much sense as Costello's math calculations. Abbott's acceptance of it all ("you are hired") is an appropriate analogy for the USA's role in the madness as it is being suckered into another war  in mid-east Asia at the insistence of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Israel and similar Abbott and Costello governed countries.

If the USA has so much power, why are second and third rate countries in charge of its policies in mid-east Asia?

All statements coming out of the mouths of US government officials signal confusion within the grand brains of the political, economic and military leadership. The US may or may not support a Saudi-Israeli operation against Iran said Secretary of Defense Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman general Martin Dempsey (USA) recently. That is utterly unbelievable. 

These are flammable times already and yet government officials, commentators--(and US presidential candidates--the world over are making foolish and unsupported statements about Iran and, hence, are ratcheting up the tension. President Obama says "I can't control Israel" (the USA controls/monitors all air traffic routes into and out of Iran). Israeli leadership says "only 500 casualties from an air strike" (using the logic of General Buck Turgeson in the movie Dr. Strangelove). The House of Saud says "cut the head off the snake (Colin Powell, former US Army general, once said this in reference to Saddam Hussein). In 1993 Israel said Iran would have nuclear weapons by 1999. Then they said that Iran would have them by 2001. 

The pro-Iranian war movement, and the Iranian leadership itself, would do well to get a copy of The Fog of War, 11 lessons from Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense, and watch it repeatedly. One of the points McNamara makes in the film is "I lived the Cold war every day, 24/7".

The Cold War has not ended as popularly reported. It has just shifted focus.

They are all Schemers: Big Plot and Deadly Subplots

In the overall US strategic scheme the Iranian matter as a subplot. The central focus of the story is an attempt by the USA's political, economic and military leadership to answer two questions: How can strategy, policy, operations and tactics (SPOT) be developed now to inhibit the development of China and Russia's instruments of national and international power? What SPOT's are necessary to maintain America's dollar and military dominance even as China and Russia--and to a lesser degree India and Brazil--are developing methods (currency swaps or basket of currencies minus the US dollar) to bypass the foundation of American global dominance-the dollar (and T-Bill)?

Another subplot is "it's about the oil." But the data doesn't quite support the argument.[ΑΥΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΜΕΓΑΛΟ ΠΡΟΠΑΓΑΝΔΙΣΤΙΚΟ ΠΡΟΠΕΤΑΣΜΑ ΚΑΠΝΟΥ -- ΟΧΙ, ΔΕΝ ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΤΙΠΟΤΕ ΣΤΗΝ Μ.ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΠΕΤΡΕΛΑΙΟ!] According to the Energy Information Agency there are only two mid-east Asian countries in the top ten that the US imports energy from. Saudi Arabia is in the number two spot with Mexico close behind. Iraq comes in at number seven. Rounding out the top ten are Canada (number one), Venezuela, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola, Colombia, and Russia (Brazil is number eleven). The USA imports 49 percent of its energy needs. It is not a stretch to say that with the right combination of US political and economic policies, and some sacrifice by the American people,  it could wean itself of off Saudi and Iraqi oil.

So, how and why is it that Saudi Arabia is able to shape US foreign policy towards the mid-east Asian region as it does in the face of  the Nazi-like rule of its own people? Why do Americans and Israelis so easily sell their souls to the Saud's? Why isn't Saudi Arabia featured at Regime Change Central?

John Macarthur writing in Harper's Magazine (2007) observed that "...I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house...Given my dissident politics, I should be up in arms about the Israel lobby. Not only have I supported the civil rights of the Palestinians over the years, but two of my principal intellectual mentors were George W. Ball and Edward Said, both severe critics of Israel and its extra-special relationship with the United States.

Foreign Agents for Beheadings

According to the Foreign Agents Registration a listing of 30 June 2011, the following US organizations and citizens represented Saudi interests: Hogan Lovela in Washington, DC (foreign policy interpretation of US Congressional legislative actions, lobbying);  Ketchum in New York (media relations); International Merchandising Association in Ohio (brand management); Patton Boggs (monitoring US government statements on Saudi Arabia, legislative analysis, lobbying); Qurvis LLC (monitoring US media, spreading positive stories about Saudi Arabia, lobbying, developing Internet-WWW presence).

The US Department of State, Human Rights Bureau, reported that in 2010 Saudi Arabia was an awful place to live unless you are a guy "...no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem."

Then there is the country analysis done on Saudi Arabia by Human Rights Watch (2011). "Human rights conditions remain poor in Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah has not fulfilled several specific reform promises; reforms to date have involved largely symbolic steps to improve the visibility of women and marginally expand freedom of expression. Authorities continue to systematically suppress or fail to protect the rights of nine million Saudi women and girls, eight million foreign workers, and some two million Shia citizens. Each year thousands of people receive unfair trials or are subject to arbitrary detention. Curbs on freedom of association, expression, and movement, as well as a pervasive lack of official accountability, remain serious concerns.

Iraqi Government Fears Saudi Arabia

Simon Tisdall writing for the Guardian, UK (2010) reported that the Iraqi government viewed Saudi Arabia as a threat to its internal security. " Iraqi government officials see Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to the integrity and cohesion of their fledgling democratic state, leaked US state department cables reveal. The Iraqi concerns, analyzed in a dispatch sent from the US embassy in Baghdad by then ambassador Christopher Hill in September 2009, represent a fundamental divergence from the American and British view of Iran as arch-predator in Iraq. 'Iraq views relations with Saudi Arabia as among its most challenging given Riyadh's money, deeply ingrained anti-Shia attitudes and [Saudi] suspicions that a Shia-led Iraq will inevitably further Iranian regional influence,' Hill writes. 'Iraqi contacts assess that the Saudi goal (and that of most other Sunni Arab states, to varying degrees) is to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote the formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government.' Hill's unexpected assessment flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that Iranian activities, overt and covert, are the biggest obstacle to Iraq's development."

Saudi Arabia, Syria: History of Dislike

A Muslim News report (2011) reminds that Saudi Arabia and Syria have been at odds with each other for most of their history. As such, the current turmoil in Syria, in which Saudi Arabia and the US are involved on the ground--should be viewed through a historical microscope. Americans are largely deficient on the study of history other than their own. "Syria prides itself as a secular republic and a bastion of Arab nationalism with close ties to Russia. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a reactionary monarchy and embodies itself as a caretaker of Islam, while having an extensive bond with the US and Western Europe. True, the rhetoric of the two countries may not correspond with their practice, but the ideological narratives they superficially embrace are in conflict, and much of their foreign policy aims have been at odds."

The US government approach to Syria, as it is with Iran, was largely crafted by Saudi Arabia. This is a country who speaks of the humanitarian crisis in Syria as though it is the USA.  It is more intolerant of dissent than the USSR ever was. Of all ironies, the fact that the USA negotiated with the USSR for decades and will not with Iran has to be in the top ten ironies of human history. What it says is that on crucial matters of mid-east Asian matters involving war  and oppression, the US political process is influenced and designed by repressive governments represented by American citizens. Young people die  and will continue to die as a result of this.

Human Rights Watch notes that  "US pressure for human rights improvements was imperceptible. In September the Pentagon proposed for Congressional approval a US$60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, the biggest-ever US arms sale.  It is unknown whether the UK made efforts through the Two Kingdoms Dialogue to promote human rights, but if so they had no tangible effect...

Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000. As with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, there's always talk of the Saudis playing a double game with al-Qaida publicly denouncing it and privately paying it off but you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the Saudis don't have America's best interests at heart."

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in national security. Reach him at cioran123@yahoo.com

--------------------------------------------------

Israeli Settlers Enter Beit Ommar, Harass Palestinian Residents

Israeli Settlers Enter Beit Ommar, Harass Palestinian Residents

Palestine Solidarity Project

February 5, 2012 On Friday, February 3, 2012, a large group of around 150 Israeli settlers entered the Palestinian village of Beit Ommar in the southern West Bank. The presence of settlers on Palestinian land is prohibited under International Law. The group was escorted by Israeli soldiers and border police, and moved through several neighborhoods of the village during the middle of the day. The settlers wandered through Beit Za’tah and Alkarn neighborhoods before moving onto Wadi Esheikh area close to the illegal settlement of Karmei Tsur to the south of the village. During this provocative tour, the settlers blocked Route 60, the main road connecting Hebron with Jerusalem and the main avenue of transportation for Beit Ommar residents. Palestinian vehicles were prevented from moving in the area. Additionally, Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and sound bombs at Palestinian villagers as the settlers passed through their town. This recent provocation is a continuation of settlement harassment of Palestinians in the area. Another large group of settlers entered Beit Ommar less than one month ago and settlers routinely destroy farmland, stone vehicles, and attack an even kill Palestinians in the village. On January 28th, 2011, Yousef IKhlayl, a 17-year-old Palestinian resident of Beit Ommar, was killed by Israeli settlers as he was working his family’s farmland.

Romancing the drone…

Romancing the drone…

Drone Wars UK

Pretty in Pink: public to be reassured by painted drones? February 5, 2012 Anyone with even a passing interest in the military soon discovers the peculiar phenomenon of 'military speak’, in which a spade can never quite be called a spade. Bombs and bullets are called ’ordnance consumables’, a missile strike or bombing raid is known as a 'kinetic event’, and despite its offensive purpose, the industry and its business must always be described as 'defence’.  Military speak is essentially about maintaining a psychological distance between the day-to-day sanitized business of planning, preparing (and profiting) from armed conflicts and the awful brutal reality of warfare.  The same coyness over language applies of course to drones.  Over the past few years I've lost count of the number of times I been told not to call drones 'drones’.  The current preferred term in the military is 'Remotely Piloted Air System’ (RPAS) after they rejected 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicle’ (UAV) as being 'off message’ ("such a generic term can be unhelpful, particularly when working with an uninformed audience" said the MoD last year). The term 'drone’, though widely used and understood by the public and media alike, is snubbed both by the military and those wanting to get a civil drone industry of the ground.  Not only is it seen as too dull a name for such a 'sophisticated piece of kit’ but its association with death and destruction is of course problematic. This week the Guardian revealed that the Unmanned Aerial Systems Association, a UK lobby group, is planning a public relations offensive to counter the negative image of drones.  This website (Drone Wars UK) was cited by the lobby group as part of the problem to be overcome.   They recommend  that drones deployed in the UK "be decorated with humanitarian-related advertisements, and be painted bright colours to distance them from those used in warzones"  As the guardian reports: "John Moreland, the general secretary of UAVSA, said the industry was uncomfortable with the word "drones" and wanted to find new terminology. "If they’re brightly coloured, and people know why they’re there, it makes them a lot more comfortable," he said. The idea that the public could be persuaded to accept drones by painting them bright colours has rightly been mocked across the blogosphere. A more serious strategy in the attempt to rebrand drones is for advocates to play up their potential to be used by green or human rights groups. Last week the New York Times carried a think piece arguing that drones should be used to monitor human rights abuses. Like many drones themselves however, the idea has come crashing down to earth after being comprehensively rubbished by human rights advocates (see the excellent post from Laurenist and also from Mark Kersten).  Even one noted supporter of drones, @drunkenpredator,  ridiculed the idea on twitter. Drones do not have a negative image because of the work of Drones Wars UK, but because of the awful impact that they have in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, and because of the serious concern that remote warfare will mean more warfare. The public will not be reassured by any renaming or rebranding exercise.  What is needed is for the legitimate concerns about drones in warfare and their impact on civil liberties to be taken seriously.

Settlers raid Ramallah village, vandalize property

Settlers raid Ramallah village, vandalize property

Ma'an news

Settlers vandalized cars and a house in al-Janiya village near Ramallah on Saturday night, residents said. (MaanImages/B'Tselem, HO) February 5, 2012 RAMALLAH (Ma'an) -- Settlers attacked a Ramallah village overnight Saturday, breaking into a house and vandalizing village property. Ismail Mazloum said that settlers from the nearby settlement of Talmon raided the village, vandalized his car and wrote racist slogans on walls in al-Janiya village, official news agency Wafa reported. "Once the village’s residents were alerted of the settlers’ presence, they fled toward the settlement," Wafa quoted Mazloum as saying. "Wait for us, we are coming back," and other slogans insulting Islam and calling for "revenge" were sprayed in the village. Some Jewish settlers in the West Bank have adopted a "price tag" policy, attacking Palestinians and their property in retaliation for perceived anti-settler actions by the Israeli government. Settler attacks in the West Bank against Palestinians increased by more than 50 percent in 2011, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Some 500,000 Israelis live in Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There are about 2.5 million Palestinians in the same territory. All settlements are illegal under international law.

Iran and their Rights

02.02.2012 08:04

by Anna Malm *

... "Iran is enriching uranium, it will continue to enrich uranium and has every right to do so in accordance with international law." [1]

With the words of these authors, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, it is stressed that the nuclear issue of Iran will never be resolved if Israel, the United States and their European partners do not understand the above stated clearly and unambiguously. To illuminate this point from different perspectives, the authors pointed to arguments of some analysts who also came to similar conclusions. These considerations are intertwined, say Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann Leverett and Peter Jenkins that we present below.

They point to the fact that the Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibits the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons, but it allows the enrichment of uranium for civilian purposes. This enrichment is at the core of the dispute in the West against Iran ". [1] - [2]

As clearly stated above, the enrichment of uranium for civilian purposes is a right that is provided to Iran by the prerogatives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Evidence of military activity by Iran has never been presented by Western representatives

They note then that a military strike against Iran, under these circumstances, could only logically be based on the peaceful activities of uranium enrichment by Iran. This enrichment as the treaty states, assures Iran's rights as a subscriber to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

Evidence to the contrary has never been presented, despite all efforts. This has always been correctly and accurately argued by Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann Leveret said Peter Jenkins ..

What we see is that the perspective adopted by western countries involved in the dispute with Iran is aimed at the preservation of Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. [1] - [2]

It was also argued that recent measures taken by Tehran to change its modern and sophisticated centrifuges for the Fordo site in Qom, as well as to announce the opening of a new nuclear site, followed by their statement in regard to their production of fuel and combustion plates for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR in acronym) had been taken with the intention of creating a situation of "political equality" in nuclear negotiations with the West. [1] - [2]

It was then said to be exactly equal politics, or something similar to it, that London, Paris and Washington do not want Iran to get. That is in order to secure the advantage for the West. [1] and [2].

It was also argued that even if Washington would look ​​for ways to modify its rigid stance on Iran, one could still observe the following:

a) - that both London and Paris are chronically concerned about the development of a nuclear capability (same threshold) of the important powers in the region (such as Iran) in relation to the relatively small nuclear arsenals of Britain and France. [1] [2]

b) - and what a continuous rise of Iran would represent in relation to the possibilities of the West continuing to dominate the Middle East, as it had been doing until now. [1] [2]

One cannot help but ask what can really be expected from the discussions with the so-called P5 +1, despite many good intentions that Iran and possibly Russia and China might have about reaching a fair and equitable agreement on the issue.

P5 +1 refers to the group discussions about the "nuclear standoff" - the United States, England, France, Germany, Russia and China. The part of the name +1 relates to Germany.

Personally I cannot get rid of the desire to emphasize that it is Germany that offered nuclear submarines to Israel. These submarines Israel used, not many months ago, demonstratively in the waters of the Middle East and well in the vicinity of Iran. These nuclear submarines can be comfortably loaded with nuclear weapons, according to what was reported.

Turning the analysis presented here: The intentions supposedly were to contain the dangers associated with nuclear proliferation. If these intentions were really sincere, the appropriate remedy would be to try to establish a Non-Nuclear Zone for the entire region. [1] [2]

It may be added that making Iran a helpless target does not in any way contribute to global security, quite the contrary. The preservation of Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region does not allow anybody to sleep quietly.

As I am no part of the group of people who have knowledge (de-facto) of the situation, I have to settle for having to say that for my part, I have never seen this monopoly confirmed or denied. So from my perspective, the remedy is to demand that Israel's cards be put on the table. And that's just to begin the negotiations.

Peter Jenkins, [2] as an analyst and expert on the intimate nature of the cause in question, emphasizes the simultaneous increase in two risks in the current situation.

1) the risk of military action
2) great instability for the international economy

All requirements are a result of the disproportionate western demands that Iran give up its rights established by international law-that as a participant in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that permits Iran to enrich uranium for civilian use.

Of the "new suspicions" of the IAEA, one can safely say that they are not "new" and they do not have anything at all. Such suspicions were discarded years ago in regard to not complying with the requirements of relevance and specificity.

A new report by the IAEA, recently welcomed by the West, resurrected some dubious data which was never accepted by the former director of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei, for being just that, dubious. This data was dismissed by El-Baradei for not having inherent credibility. The new director welcomed it and dressed it in new clothes.

More specifically what was said by the new representative is that the idea that such activities had not continued could not be dismissed. Well, ideas based on dubious data, smelling of dubious foundation that have never been proven and accepted are now "new directions" causing "new outrage" followed by a crescendo of economic sanctions against Iran by the leadership of western states (read as the U.S., France, England) leading us to where we are today.

We have no concrete evidence, it is not a shadow. However, the sharp pointed guns are ready to be put into action. Again-in the Middle East. God forbid.

　

REFERENCES AND NOTES:

[1], Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett in "westerners AND HIGHLY Informed Iranians KNOW THE WAY OUT OF THE NUCLEAR IMPASSE ... BUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILL NOT TAKE IT." - The RACE is on for IRAN www.raceforiran.com on January 28, 2012

[2] Peter Jenkins, Britain's former representative to the IAEA-International Atomic Energy Agency - in "The West Could Strike a Deal With Iran" published in The Telegraph. Source: www.raceforiran.com - The Race for Iran. on January 28, 2012

* Anna Malm is an international correspondent for Patria Latina and Iran News in Stockholm

----------------------------

Afghanistan-The NATO stratagem

The NATO stratagem

The Frontier Post

February 3, 2012 The NATO command in Afghanistan could be excused. After all, over all these years it has fought the Afghan war not on the battlefield but mostly on the airwaves of the embedded western corporate media. And now that the pay time has come, it has nothing spectacular on its slate to show its peoples back home for the enormous treasures they have spent on its upkeep. Throughout, it in fact has only fiddled with its war in Afghanistan, not fought it in reality. As the US-led invaders, hardly a little over 6,000 under the ISAF command and barely 12,000 under the American command, descended on the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, the Soviet Afghan war veterans were mirthfully amused at this puny force for as difficult a country as their invaded land and were no lesser stunned by the attackers’ hubris that it reflected so pungently. The Soviet invaders, some 200,000-strong had come riding on a formidable war machine backed up by powerful air support. As an ally, they had an equally strong Afghan army and air force, both trained and equipped by them lethally. And yet the Soviet invaders had to kiss humiliation of defeat at the end at an indomitable Afghan resistance’s hands. No different was it going to be for the US-led invaders of Afghanistan, had the Soviet veterans predicted then. And their prediction of years ago is now imminently coming true palpably. The Soviet invaders had at least the control of major cities. The US-led NATO occupiers cannot lay claim even to this much credibly after ten years of their invasion. Lately, they are making so much of the Kandahar "triumph". But the American intelligence community itself in its latest Afghan war assessment terms this "victory" as at best "tenuous". And their once-shrilly-touted Mirjah showcase success of the troop surge has turned out to be such a damp squib that none of them now even talks of it.It is not just that Afghanistan’s south and east are restive, out of the US-led occupiers’ control and under the Taliban’s and other insurgent groups’ sway. Even the rest of the country is under the thumb of former mujahideen commanders, on whose sweet will are dependent both the occupiers and Kabul regime alike, not vice versa. While Ustad Atta Mohammad Noor is a jealous overlord of the northern Balkh province, its capital city Mazar-i-Sharif and its periphery are held by Uzbek strongman Abdul Rashid Dostum who had fought along the Soviet invaders against the Afghan resistance and now brooks no meddling with his fiefdom. And whereas the western province of Herat is largely Tajik-origin warlord Ismail Khan’s sultanate, the central highlands region of Hazarajat stands parceled out between ethnic Hazara strongmen. By every reckoning, the US-led invaders’ occupation of Afghanistan has been such a huge collapse in every manner that their commanders will have no face to show their peoples if the reality is told in all truthfulness. The NATO’s Afghan war is no tale of heroic deeds and impressive soldiering, as been brought home by the embedded media to the western publics. It has been a shameful story of its trepidation and spinelessness. And it has been a narrative of the most devious kind of deceit and deception right from the outset. As the ISAF knights were cooling their heels in their Kabul redoubt and the American warriors in their Bagram nestle immovably for years, fattening their bellies with endless pints of beer and rolls of hamburgers, they kept crying that Taliban had fled and settled in safe havens in Pakistan from where they launched attacks on them and Afghan territories. Neither they themselves explained nor their bosses back home or media or even their people asked them critically why had they not corralled and nabbed the fleeing Taliban rumps in the first place, and if at all they were coming from Pakistan to attack them and the Afghans what were they doing in their nestling places and not moving out to intercept them and decimate them. No questions were they asked and their fictional stories of heroic deeds and brave fighting were lapped up pridefully by their folks back home just like that. It was years later, in late 2005, that they condescended to move out of their redoubts, amid a lot of reluctance, and wrangling and bickering among themselves, to take on the Taliban and other insurgent groups who had lethally regrouped in their erstwhile strongholds in the Pakhtun-dominated southern and eastern Afghanistan unshakably. Yet so delusional were they all, both the pamper-wearing Tarzans and their folks, that when the British army moved out to the Helmand region, a puffed-up British defence secretary squawked blithely that his men would capture the restive province without firing a shot. Over six years down the road, the British army is nowhere nearer even distantly that objective. The leaked NATO report of the ISI’s collusion may give some leeway to the NATO armies to delude and beguile their own peoples, greatly perturbed over their disgraceful fall in Afghanistan. But the pulsating ground realities it too would not be able to change, as couldn’t earlier the similarly misleading BBC documentary. For, up against the US-led occupiers are not just Taliban. It is the Pakhtun nationalism that is pitted against them. And this formidable force has now come to be joined in by disgruntled elements of the Afghan minorities.

Anti-Semitism and Israel's Inherent Contradictions

Anti-Semitism and Israel's Inherent Contradictions

By Ramzy Baroud

February 3, 2012 In a recent article, columnist Yaniv Halili described British author Ben White as 'anti-Semitic'. He also denounced Arab Knesset member Hanin Zoabi for writing a forward to White's latest book, Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. Those of us who can see through such distorted thinking know that White is a principled writer who has never displayed a shred of racism in his work. Zoabi is very well-known civil rights leader with a long-standing reputation of courage and poise. How could anti-racist endeavors themselves become the subject of accusation by Halili and others like him? It goes without saying there should be no room for any racist discourse - Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, or any other - in the Palestine solidarity movement, which aims at achieving long-denied justice and rights for the Palestinian people. A racist discourse is predicated on racial supremacy, which is exactly what Palestinians are resisting in Israel and the occupied territories. But the "Jewish and democratic state" of Israel is riddled with so many contradictions, the kind that no straightforward narrative can possibly capture. Many scholars and rights groups have discussed the way in which irreconcilable values defined the very character of Israel from the onset. According to Adalah (meaning "justice" in Arabic), the legal center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, "Israel's Declaration of Independence (1948) states two principles important for understanding the legal status of Palestinian citizens of Israel. First, the Declaration refers specifically to Israel as a 'Jewish state’ committed to the 'ingathering of the exiles.’ (Second)…it contains only one reference to the maintenance of complete equality of political and social rights for all its citizens, irrespective of race, religion, or sex." Adalah further asserts that there is a 'tension’ between the two principles. Perhaps this is the case, intellectually, but in practice the Israeli political establishment has resolved the seeming quandary whereby the Jewishness of the state prevails above every other humanitarian, democratic or legal consideration. Racially discriminating legislation is being churned out in the Israeli Knesset at an alarming speed, and new laws are constantly being proposed. These include "one that would end the status of Arabic as one of Israel's official languages and another that would punish Israeli citizens, including Arab Israelis, for refusing to pledge their allegiance to 'Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,’" according to columnist Linda Heard (Arab News, Jan 24). As for Palestinians living in the occupied territories, their legally enshrined political inferiority has been felt in much harsher and often bloodier ways than their brethren living in Israel. For nearly four and a half decades, the Palestinians living in these territories have been losing their land, livelihood, freedom of movement and even their very lives in the name of the racial superiority of their occupiers. Jewish settlements are illegally constructed on Palestinian land to host Jewish settlers, who use Jewish-only roads to travel between their heavily fortified colonies and the "Jewish state." While numerous intellectuals, activists and ordinary members of Jewish communities around the world have strongly protested Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, as well as Israel’s misuse of the Jewish religion to attain political goals, Israel relies greatly on the support of Jewish communities, organizations and individuals for vital funds, political support and lobbying. While many Jews identify with Israel as a 'Jewish state’, "younger American Jews are more likely than their parents to be acquainted with the Palestinians and their story," reported TIME magazine on September 29. The TIME story references one such youth, Benjamin Resnick, 27, who decries the fact that Jewish state and American liberal democracy represent two views that are 'irreconcilable’. On the other hand, he "continues to consider himself a Zionist," who "quotes the Torah in support of his view that American Jews should press Israel to end settlement expansion and help facilitate a Palestinian state." Even Resnick’s political dissent is riddled with inconsistencies, where national identity (as an American) clashes with ideology (Zionism) and religion (the Torah) is referenced as a means to resolve the discord. The Torah is put to good use repeatedly among mainstream and ardent Israeli rabbis, whose edicts to kill Arabs are commonplace in Israeli media (although rarely discussed in US media). The so-called King’s Torah – which is endorsed by some prominent Israeli rabbis – has made it permissible to kill Palestinians of all ages, including those who don’t pose a threat. "You can kill those who are not supporting or encouraging murder in order to save the lives of Jews," it states in the fifth chapter, entitled "Murder of non-Jews in a time of war." The BBC elaborates: "At one point it suggests that babies can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat" (July 19). This becomes particularly problematic when the lines between politics, ideology and religion become so conveniently blurred. Israeli and Jewish leaders borrow from the corresponding text as they find suitable to achieve policies to further occupation, war and illegal settlement. Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School, came to represent the latter model. His style lacks diplomacy and logic; however, it is effective in some circles because it centers around the idea of smearing anyone who dares to criticize Israel. The greater tragedy is that Dershowitz is provided with platforms in mainstream and rightwing Israeli media, thus giving his smear campaign the means to turn any genuine discussion of Israel into a controversial hate speech. While critical non-Jews are often smeared as 'anti-Semites’, jurist Richard Goldstone, who lead the UN investigation into the Israeli war on Gaza., was not a mere anti-Semite for concluding that Israel and Hamas had both potentially committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Dershowitz told Israeli Army Radio that Goldstone is a 'traitor to the Jewish people’. 'The Goldstone report is a defamation written by an evil, evil man,’ Dershowitz said (Haaretz, October 31). While the case for Palestinian rights and statehood can be clear-cut – not many true-to-self intellectuals could justify ethnic cleansing, defend Apartheid and rationalize murder – delving into the political identity of Israel and its ideological and religious supporters becomes immediately 'controversial’. The controversy is embedded in the purposeful intellectual and political elasticity by which Israel defines, or refuses to define itself. It claims to be Jewish as well as democratic. It claims to embody religious ideals but also to be secular. It claims to be liberal, while it is militarily oppressive. It claims to uphold 'equality’ for all, while it is racially exclusive. And if you dare to challenge these irreconcilable contradictions, you are termed an anti-Semite or a traitor - or both. - Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London). -------------------------------------------

Morgellons disease: Horror in reality

03.02.2012 12:01

Morgellons disease resembles a scene from a horror movie. The entire body is itchy. Those suffering from the disease have a sensation of something crawling under their skin. Then lesions appear. When they break, colored fibers and substance similar to dark sand grains come out.

Wounds partially heal, leaving welts and scars, but soon appear elsewhere.

It started five years ago, when Mary Leitão took fibers that looked like dandelion fluff from an abscess on the lip of her two-year old son. After three pediatricians, three allergists, two dermatologists and multiple wrong diagnoses, she realized that her Drew had a serious problem. Sores started to appear throughout the body. When they would burst, white, blue and black fibers would come out of them. The kid complained of itching, and said that bugs were crawling under his skin. Mary Leitão continued consulting doctors, but no one believed her.

The last doctor she appealed for help, an infectious diseases specialist at Johns Hopkins University, not only refused to see Drew, but suggested that the mother had Munchausen's syndrome - a psychiatric disorder where a parent pretends that her child is sick to get the attention of physicians. Mary found out what happened to Drew in March of 2004. After her website appeared on the Internet, it turned out that she was not fighting the doctors alone. There were thousands of people like her son. Drew Leitão had Morgellons disease.

In the mid-1930s, a British physician C. Kellet argued in the journal "Annals of British Medicine" that for the first time Morgellons disease was described by French doctors in the 17th century. Then, however, it was described as black hairs growing from children's skin. The first people who suffered from this disease were the children of the Morgellons family residing in Languedoc. While the "early" form of the disease is not exactly the same as the modern one, the name has stuck.  

The fibers that appear on the patients' skin are not textile fibers, as was thought at first, not worms or insects, not fragments of human skin or hair. The fibers do not appear from the outside, they are formed of substance produced in the body, possibly as a result of unknown infection.

In the laboratory the fibers were first subjected to a spectroscopic analysis, but no similarity with any of the 800 fibers registered in the database were found. Then chromatographic analysis was conducted, with the same result. The database contains nearly 90,000 organic compounds, but neither one of them look like the inspected threads. Other symptoms of Morgellons disease include chronic fatigue, forcing patients to leave work and stay home, a sharp decline in mental abilities, especially memory, severe depression, joint swelling, muscle spasms and loss of hair.

The exact number of patients is unknown to date. The site of the Center for Morgellons disease, led by Mary Leitão, has eight thousand registered users. But this, certainly, is just the tip of the iceberg. Some people do not have computers, some do not know about the Center, while others simply gave up and think they cannot be helped and intend to commit suicide. Patients reside not only in all 50 U.S. states, but also in the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. Doctors do not know how to treat the mysterious disease. Indeed, in most cases they claim that the "insects" and fibers with grains are nothing more than a figment of a sick imagination of the patients. In medicine it is called delusional parasitosis. After this diagnosis many stop going to doctors. Patients try to treat themselves - burn their furniture, clothing and carpets, move to other apartments and homes, but the strange ailment does not go away. Some claim that Morgellons disease is a new type of biological weapon.

In late 2011, experts of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S. conducted a new research and found no traces of an infectious agent or parasite on examination of the skin of patients suffering from Morgellons disease. American scientists believe that Morgellons disease is of psychiatric nature. Incidentally, the mysterious fibers were tested again and chemists have found that they are fibers of cotton or nylon. "We found no evidence that this is an infectious disease. Most of the patients, if sick, are sick mentally," said the study's author Dr. Mark Ebenhard.

Vadim Kirillov

Medpulse

Дмитрий Судаков

Americans get closer to building weapon of the future

01.02.2012 18:54

The US Navy may have the world's most powerful electromagnetic gun - the so-called railgun - during the forthcoming 15 years. The "Weapon of the 21^st Century," as Russian specialists described it, was undergoing tests during the recent several years. US defense officials were satisfied with the results. They have already signed the first contract to create the power source for the gun. The railgun needs a lot of energy to accelerate projectiles to supersonic speeds.

Raytheon Company, one of the USA's largest defense suppliers, signed an agreement with the Naval Sea Systems Command for the creation of the power system for the railgun. The agreement was evaluated at $10 billion, a message on the website of the company said.

In accordance with the agreement, Raytheon undertakes to design and build the power module, which will become a part of the Pulse Forming Network (PFN). In the future, the system can be used for the production of railguns and combat lasers.

A railgun is an entirely electrical gun that accelerates a conductive projectile along a pair of metal rails using the same principles as the homopolar motor. Railguns use two sliding or rolling contactsthat permit a largeelectric current to pass through the projectile. This current interacts with the strong magnetic fields generated by the rails and this accelerates the projectile. Particular characteristics are the lack of propellant (only the projectile and the electrical energy to launch it are required to be expended) and the ability to launch projectiles much faster than firearms-based technology allows.

Railguns have long existed as experimental and demonstrator technology. However, in recent years, some are moving towards becoming feasible military technology. For example, in the late 2000s, the U.S. Navy tested a railgun that accelerates a 3.2 kg (7 pound) projectile to approximately 2.4 kilometres per second (5,400 mph). They gave the project the Latin motto "Velocitas Eradico", which they translate as "Speed Destroys".

Apart from military applications, railguns have also been proposed to launch spacecraft into orbit. Unless the launching track was particularly long (and the acceleration required to reach orbit spread over a much longer time), such launches would however be restricted to unmanned spacecraft.

The USA conducted the first tests of the military railgun in 2008. The tests showed that the system was capable of accelerating projectiles to the speed of 9,000 kmh. By firing at greater velocities railguns have greater range, less bullet drop and less wind drift, bypassing the inherent cost and physical limitations of conventional firearms. The most recent test of a railgun took place on December 10, 2010, by the US Navy at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. During the test, the Office of Naval Research set a world record by conducting a 33 MJshot from the railgun

The goal of such tests is to build a new weapon system for surface vessels. When completed, railguns will be able to shoot projectiles at distances of up to 400 kilometers. The main advantage of the electromagnetic gun is that it poses no danger for the crew. There are no explosives used in the system.

Russian military experts admit that the railgun is a prospective weapon system of the new century. The destructive force of the system is very high. The range of the new complex is comparable to the range of missile systems. Since there is no explosive used, the projectiles are safe and lighter.

As for disadvantages, railguns can easily unmask the vessels on which they will be installed. In addition, the system needs enormous mounts of energy for work. To solve this problem, one would have to build a new generation of vessels with the energy system that would supply enough energy to both their engines and weapon systems, Russian officials noted in 2008.

In the middle of 2011, the US Senate was going to cut the funding for two most "futuristic" defense projects - the railgun and the combat laser. President Obama rescued the "weapon of the 21^st century" when he signed the decree to continue the development of railguns. First railguns are to appear on US vessels by 2025. 

Дмитрий Судаков