Archive for September, 2011

President Obama is Okay with Boiling People Alive

September 30, 2011 1 comment

You gotta hand it to the New York Times. They really know how not to provide information.

In an article from yesterday entitled “United States and Uzbekistan Discuss More Supply Routes,” we are informed that because, “the United States and Pakistan are locked in a diplomatic crisis over accusations linking Pakistan’s chief intelligence agency to militant attacks on Americans in Afghanistan,” the U.S. is resuming relations with Uzbekistan “despite its poor human rights record.”

That is an understatement. The country is led by a sadistic dictator that makes Saddam Hussein look like an angel. The guy takes dissidents and boils them alive (sometimes it’s the mothers of the dissidents).

President Obama’s friend in Uzbekistan boils people alive.

A British ambassador to the country, Craig Murray, who “was the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan until he was removed from his post in October 2004 after exposing appalling human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of President Islam Karimov,” is censored by the BBC over his actions and has come out with a memoir (see previous link).

We are re-cozying up to an evil dictator because his country is useful for “supply routes” in our illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan. This is the legacy of Mr. Hopey Change.

Categories: Uncategorized

Online Forum Shows Cops Who Like Abuse

September 29, 2011 Leave a comment

There are groups out there like Filming Cops who make it a point to expose just how routine police brutality is in this country.

Even if these “bad apples” are a small minority of the police force it doesn’t change the fact that something about a badge and a gun attracts some nasty types. No other profession (outside of the military) has this much violent abuse of power.


And with the Occupy Wall Street in its second week and countless tales of police brutality (also see here) there exists an online forum strictly for cops, and low and behold they all seem to be sadistic assholes who get pleasure from abusing those who want a better world, or who oppose Wall Street gangsterism and it’s death grip on our government. 

Back to my comment about “bad apples.” There is just something perverse about the topic of this blog and the fact that one of these cops quotes Edmund Burke as saying, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Even if 99.99% of our police are made up of “good” men and women, it is their doing nothing to counter the 0.01% that make it “necessary for the triumph of evil.”

Like the band Rage Against the Machine say in their song Know Your Enemy:

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun

Categories: Uncategorized

NATO’s terrorists say Sirte’s residents have ‘chosen to die’

September 29, 2011 Leave a comment

The other day I read Craig Murray’s blog (he is a former UK ambassador who is banned by the BBC over his speaking out against the government), and he wrote that,

That a military action by NATO rationalised as protecting civilians from the Libyan government, ends up with a far greater bombardment of civilians on behalf of a different Libyan government, is too terrible to call ironic. NATO’s mandate to “protect civilians” from the UN actually expires on Friday, so all this week we will see a massive crescendo in NATO bombing of towns before that deadline.

And I myself have blooged about the horrific siege on Sirte (see here).

But brace yourself for what The Telegraph has to say. Here are some excerpts:

“They are bombing us and women and children are dying,” said an elderly woman, wrapping her shroud to hide her face.

Over three thousand men, women and children have fled the besieged city in the last three days. Risking their lives to cross the front lines in search of refuge, they described grim and bloody conditions inside the town.

“There is no medicine, no food, no electricity. It is a disaster,” said Mohammed Omar Farjan, 37, his two young boys sitting wide-eyed on the laps of their mother and aunts crammed in the back of the car.


Rebel fighters manning rows of rocket launchers said they knew they were fighting civilians, but that Sirte’s residents had “chosen to die”.

Anti-Gaddafi fighters pray near the front line outside Sirte. 28 Sept 2011
NATO terrorists are being held outside Sirte by fierce resistance

Sirte has a population of less than 80,000 people, and even after thousands have fled the NATO Terrorists onslaughts, and NATO’s heavy bombardments, we are informed that, “Along the road, rebel checkpoint guards meticulously searched fleeing families’ vehicles,” because they, “have 10,000 names of wanted men.”

The article closes with the following:

The fleeing residents viewed the checkpoints with fear and suspicion, and many remained unsympathetic to the rebel side.

“Since the 19th March when Nato started bombing we have been living in hell,” said an elderly woman angrily at a checkpoint guard, as her husband fearfully entreated her to stay quiet.

A NATO terrorist “checkguard,” said, “Here, inside, most people still want Gaddafi.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Chairman Obama to the Left: Stop complaining and march!

September 29, 2011 Leave a comment
“I am going to press on. I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on.”
President Obama on September 24, 2011, again excoriating the Left over their unhappiness with his hooking for the Lords of Capital and shitting on the working class, but you might confuse it with another arrogant, authoritarian leader who was contemptous of the Left and workers: Chairman Lenin
Categories: Uncategorized

Rwandan Genocide and the New York Times

September 29, 2011 Leave a comment

Yesterday there was a world briefing in the New York Times called “Rwanda: France Refuses to Extradite President’s Widow,” where for some odd reason we are to believe the widow of former President Juvenal Habyarimana, whose assassination in 1994 kicked off the genocide, is guilty for what followed.

Two years ago Edward Herman and David Peterson came out with an explosive book called The Politics of Genocide (I highly recommend this book, as well as Herman’s recent book on Srebrenica), and one chapter was dedicated to correcting the numerous inaccuracies on the genocide in Rwanda, where they noted that:

To a remarkable degree, all major sectors of the Western establishment swallowed a propaganda line on Rwanda that turned perpetrator and victim upside-down.

There are good reasons to believe that Habyarimana was assassinated by Paul Kagame’s RPF, who was operating out of U.S.-backed Uganda up until the assassination, and who began a massive invasion within hours of the incident (the strategy for which he learned at Fort Leavenworth).

There are also good reasons to believe that most of the victims were victims of the RPF, not the Rwandan government, which was a power-sharing government of both Hutu’s and Tutsi’s (which makes it hard to believe there was some genocide plans in the work by the government).

It was Paul Kagame’s forces that are responsible for the genocide that followed, and today it is Paul Kagame who is president of Rwanda, and asking for the extradition of the former president’s wife. While the NYT closes by saying, “The reasoning of the Paris court was not immediately available,” they did rightly acknowledge that, “French courts have previously refused to hand over suspects to Rwanda for fear that they would not receive a fair trial.” However, the comment that, “Although living in France, she was refused political asylum in 2004 and lost her appeal as well, because French judges had found she was a central figure and exercised real power in the Hutu government that orchestrated the genocide,” was stated without qualification. And there’s a good reason for it: there is none.

Categories: Uncategorized

New York Times Continues to Ignore Inconvenient Truths on Iran

September 29, 2011 Leave a comment

In an article yesterday about Iran’s development of a new cruise missile, New York Times correspondent Rick Gladstone says Iran’s announcement is,

the latest in a series of belligerent-sounding proclamations from that country in the face of its increased isolation by a Western-led group of nations worried about Iran’s nuclear program and avowed hostility toward Israel. 

Further in the article we are informed about the “source of constant irritation for Iran”:

The announcement coincided with front-page headlines in a number of Iranian newspapers quoting the head of Iran’s navy, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, as saying he intended to deploy Iranian warships close to the Atlantic coast of the United States to reciprocate for the patrols in the Persian Gulf by the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet. The patrols are a constant source of irritation to Iran.

2010 NPT Review Conference

Obama officials waved away the claims because they say they don’t “reflect Iran’s naval capabilities,” yet, “the Obama administration had quietly provided Israel with bombs capable of destroying buried targets, including sites in Iran that could possibly house such a nuclear weapons program.”

Iran has maintained their program is for energy purposes. Much like the U.S. strategy paper on the issue more than thirty years ago, Iran maintains that “nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.”

For years the IAEA has not found any evidence of a weapons program.

The U.S., has, for the last 20 years said “Iran is less than 5 years away from a bomb!”

Iran supports FISSBAN, an international program proposed by Mohammed elBaradei to put nuclear facilities under control and inspection of an international body.

The U.S. does not.

You might recall that last year Tehran hosted an international conference on nuclear disarmament.

At the same time, the U.S. hosted an international conference on deterring nuclear terrorism, which President Obama used to threaten nuclear war (i.e. nuclear terrorism) against Iran.

This was followed by a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference where Israel’s nuclear weapons was brought up and Obama officials and Israelis balked. Nearly 190 nations signed in agreement to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone, and called for Israel to become a signatory of the NPT.

“It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world,” one Israeli official said of the “deeply flawed” agreement.

An American officials remarked that, “We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardise Israel’s national security.”

Somehow wanting the region free of nuclear weapons is “singling out Israel.” Was this an admission that only Israel has nuclear weapons, or just a poorly thought out comment?

Here’s another example of the U.S.’s position at the United Nations General Assembly. In 2007 the world voted on no less than 15 resolutions dealing with nuclear disarmament. Only one nation voted against all of them: The U.S.

The American government simply will not allow Israel’s nuclear weapons to be made an issue, yet dubious claims about Iran are expounding upon relentlessly. Last year Brazil and Turkey tried to get an arrangement made that would resolve the issue. Iran was willing. The U.S. wouldn’t back down from its confrontational stance. Even as Iran is willing to exchange their uranium for fuel the U.S. still maintains they are trying to seek nuclear weapons.

It’s also worth bringing up that the U.S. position of silence on Israel’s nuclear weapons has disturbed so many for so long that even the IAEA is now bringing it up.

Keep in mind that Israel is constantly waging what Zeev Maoz, a professor of Political Science and head of the International Relations Program at the University of California, calls “wars of choice” – i.e. aggression.

Iran, on the other hand, has not started a war in over a century!

Many on the left, like myself, see American support of an aggressive nuclear state and opposition to a relatively peaceful non-nuclear state as evidence that nuclear proliferation and world peace is not the concern of the U.S. government.

It is well known that the reason the U.S. will not allow Iran to build a nuclear reactor is because Iran is an independent nation in a region dominated by the U.S.

Turkey can have their power plants, and Israel their nuclear weapons because they are a U.S. ally – i.e. subservient state (though with Turkey’s souring relations with Israel this may change).

Iran is not allowed because they refuse to be.

In 2003 they offered a peace deal to both the U.S. and Israel which included cutting off support to Hamas and Hizbollah, and tighter IAEA controls that included “full access” to their nuclear program.

Former President Bush refused to even permit a reponse.

Iran once was an ally and was working on nuclear energy.

And the U.S. helped.

Back in 2005 when the Washington Post talked to Henry Kissinger about this it was reported,

In 1975, as secretary of state, Kissinger signed and circulated National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled “U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation,” which laid out the administration’s negotiating strategy for the sale of nuclear energy equipment projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels of oil a day, compared with an average of about 4 million barrels daily today.

The shah, who referred to oil as “noble fuel,” said it was too valuable to waste on daily energy needs. The Ford strategy paper said the “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.”

Asked why he reversed his opinion, Kissinger responded with some surprise during a brief telephone interview. After a lengthy pause, he said: “They were an allied country, and this was a commercial transaction. We didn’t address the question of them one day moving toward nuclear weapons.”

The Ford strategy paper reflects Iran’s argument today, and which we currently say is bogus. It should be apparent that the issue with Iran is not nuclear, it’s imperial.

And it’s no wonder the New York Times ignores all of this, and instead makes comments about Iran’s “belligerent-sounding proclamations.” That the U.S. has “quietly provided Israel with bombs capable of destroying buried targets,” and continues to ignore the world on peace, and nuclear disarmamentand even rejects Iranian offers of peace and disarmament, or the efforts of other foreign countries (making up 99% of the world’s nations) to do the same, does not get called “belligerent.” In fact, it doesn’t even get mentioned.

Categories: Uncategorized

New York Times, Libya and the elephant in the room

September 28, 2011 Leave a comment

In an article from yesterday entitled “As Thousands Leave Libya, and Jobs, Niger Feels Impact” the New York Times dedicated nearly 1,100 words to a catastrophe unfolding in the African country where migrant workers are fleeing what one migrant called, “a rich country.”

Photo by Bryan Denton for The New York Times
Officials in Niger estimate that at least 200 people continue to arrive daily. The government admits that it does not have the resources to help them.

The economic impact on an already impoverished country is real, but the NYT found no space to bring up the fact that the reason black African migrants are forced to leave is because of racist gangs, armed and backed-up by NATO, are terrorizing them. Throughout this entire war blacks have been targeted with rape, assault, murder, intimidation, and more. Hundreds have starved on boats while fleeing for their lives. Even black Libyans have been ethnically cleansed from their homes and communities by NATO racists who then systematically looted, burned and defaced the property of those pushed out.

The article mentions a story of how,

Two perished on the truck jammed sky-high with bags and passengers that carried Mr. Hassan and others out of Libya and through the hot sands. “Thirty days of misery,” he said, recounting the thirst, hunger, heat and destitution.

But not one mention of the racism and harassment by the NATO-backed terrorists who have put these innocent people in this predicament and created an economic crisis in Niger.

Categories: Uncategorized