Sunday, June 22, 2014

356 Lets kill, just out of precaution...

This blog: 

The jewish religion has many extremist aspects.
One of them is: A Jew may kill a non-jewish child if he has good reason to believe that this child will grow up to be an enemy of the Jewish people. ( King's Torah)
Under one condition: the murder should not lead to anti-jewish actions.

Since the Neocons are responsable for American politics, their policy has some extremist aspects.
One of them is: pre-emptive strike.
America may attack an enemy if America believes that this enemy will do bad things in the near future to America (a terrror attack) or to his own people (Ghadaffi will throw bombs on civilians). In the last case it can be called: pre-emptive Responsability to Protect.

The good part of pre-emptive striking.
If you are really sure that an enemy is preparing to attack you, then the best thing to do is attack him first. ( If diplomacy or other good plans fail).

The bad thing of pre-emptive striking.
It allows the attack and destruction of  'peaceful entities'  with the help of the masses who are led to believe that they attack 'bad entities'. The masses do not know of the hidden agenda, which is supposed to be 'American Empire Building' but often comes down helping Israel to become Greater Israel.

In our time plain offensive wars have become unthinkable.
So if you want to eleminate other 'entities' you must accuse the other of planning to attack you.
They do not have to be a danger in reality.
You just have to make believe that they are dangerous. For instance:  that they have weapons of Mass destruction. ( Or plan to build a nuclear war, or work together with Al Qaida, or can throw a bomb on London in 40 minutes)

A pre-emptive nuclear war.
From 1946 to 2014 the threat of the atomic bomb caused peace in the world: Each party was afraid that the other would retaliate by throwing an atom bomb, which would destroy both parties.

This situation has changed in two ways.
The Americans uses Nato in an agressive way, and if they can re-posess the Crimea, Russia's possibility to retaliate would be very low, which leaves the possibility for America to throw an atomic bomb on Russia without being punished for it.  Knowing them, I am sure they will do it.
So now they begin to talk about the possibility of throwing a pre-emptive atomic bomb!
This is very dangerous NEW  idea. ( Paul Craig Roberts)

Sheikh Imran Hussein's vision.
In 2003  Sheikh Imran Hussein held a speech in which he predicted the Arab Spring.  But he predicted more at that time. He said: It's Israel's strategy to have extremists in power in Arab countries. And when thes extremists decide to take on Israel and threaten Israel, then they will have an excuse to throw their atomic bomb and kill millions of arabs. That is their strategy....  ( 8 min, video with Imran Husseini , 2003)   So far the Sheikh's predictions are correct...  (For a summary of the speech: see below)

Pre-emptive prosecution.  
Already around 1985 Neocons like Richard Perle began to bring money muslim countries in to Eastern Europa for building madrassa's. From these students the more extreme elements were recruited  to form a jihadist army whiuch would later be used to destroy Islamic stated with more secularised governments. All acoording to the Yinon Plan.  Sibeld Edmonds has described the whole story.

Then 911 was made to happen, and since that time muslim-bashing is big bussiness.
Muslims are the new Russia: the new ennemy that makes wars possible. And made the Patriot Act possible. And makes surveillance of all people all over the world possible ( Snowden: NSA).

But to make the muslim-thread a credible idea, you have to show some threats every now and then.

A study has recently shown that from about 400 arrests for terrorism, 94% were pre-emptive. In short: the accusations were false.

Here is the report: Inventing Terrorists.  ( Below you will find a summary of this report.)

The law is used as if it is an asset to make warfare with: Lawfare.


Summary of Sheikh Imran Husseini's 2003 speech.
Sheikh Imran Hussein:  in2003:
Israel wants a big war against the muslim World. But Israel does not want to look like an agressor, It wants to look like a victim that acts out of self defense.  But muslims do not know how bad Palestinians are treated.  So Al Jazeeera was created, and Al Jazeera shows how the Palestinians suffer. This will make the arab people very angry.  The governments in the Islam World will fall.  Authentic muslims will take power.  
Then they will also  become hostile to Israel.
Israel will tel the World that they are threatened. That they wiull all be killed.
Israel will use this as  the legitimation  to commit a pre-emptive strike.
It wil be real armageddon. The rest of the World will protest, but that is all.

Then Israel will controle the oil fields and has power over the World.  

Summary of 'Inventing Terrorists'.  

This study, sponsored by two national organizations, Project SALAM (Support And Legal Advocacy for Muslims) and the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF), focuses on post-9/11 claims by the U.S. government that it keeps the county safe from terrorism by arresting hundreds of so-called “terrorists” who were about to strike the U.S. until the FBI foiled their plots. In fact, this study shows that there have been remarkably few actual terrorism threats to this country in the last decade. The vast majority of arrests in the war on terror have consisted of
    • the FBI foiling its own entrapment plots; or
    • the government arresting people on material support for terrorism
    charges that effectively criminalize innocent conduct, such as
    charitable giving and management, free speech, free association,
    peace-making, and social hospitality; or
    • inflation of minor or technical incidents into terrorism events, such
    as immigration application inaccuracies, old weapons charges, or inaccurate statements to governmental officials The study shows that the war on terror has been largely a charade designed
to make the American public believe that a terrorist army is loose in the U.S., when the truth is that most of the people convicted of terrorismrelated crimes posed no danger to the U.S. and were entrapped by a preventive strategy known as preemptive prosecution. The theme of the study links preemptive prosecution to the metaphor of “lawfare,” the use of the law as a weapon of war, in this case the war on terror.
Statistically, the study asks how many of the individuals who appear on theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) 2001–2010 list of “terrorism and terrorism-related convictions” (Appendix A) represented real terrorism threats, and how many were cases of preemptive prosecutions. The study then categorizes the cases of the individuals on the DOJ list as one of three types of cases: preemptive prosecutions, cases that contained elements of preemptive prosecution, or cases that were not preemptive prosecutions/represented real terrorism threats.
The statistical analysis shows that 72.4% of convictions on the DOJ list represent cases of preemptive prosecution that were based on suspicion of the defendant’s perceived ideology and not on his/her criminal activity. Another 21.8% of convictions on the DOJ list represent people who began on their own to engage in minor, non-terrorist criminal activity but whose cases were manipulated and inflated by the government to appear as though they were “terrorists”; these cases are referred to in the study as “elements of preemptive prosecution” or “elements.” Overall, 94.2% of all the terrorism-related convictions on the DOJ list have been either preemptive prosecution cases or cases that involved elements of preemptive prosecution.
The study defines preemptive prosecution, gives background on the origin of the concept, discusses the tactical patterns that characterize its use by the government, and provides a methodology for determining the categorization of a case. The study then shows, for cases on the DOJ list, the percentages for each categorization of a case, as well as percentages for the tactical patterns used in each categorization. The study concludes that the government has used preemptive prosecution to exaggerate the threat of Muslim extremism to the security of the country, and presents some hypotheses as to why the government has done this, without taking a position on which possibilities may be correct. The study also makes recommendations to change the present unfair terrorism laws.


Monday, June 09, 2014

355 Hypocrisy: a new world record.

This blog:

D Day: 70 years ago.

On the coast of Normandy in France all the world leaders were invited.
Fine speeches were held.
How we, 'the allies' did beat the ultimate Evil.
How our brave all soldiers died for this good case.
How we now commemorate all victims of Nazizm, also the good Germans.
 (A fine moment for a close up of Angela Merkel.)

Mr. Putin was there too, but he was looked down upon.
After the photo-session he walked away alone, nobody had the guts to speak to him.
Why?  He recently was named 'The new Hitler'.
That's why.


Here are the facts:

1. Who stopped and destroyed Hitler: the Allies or the Russians? 

In the summer of 1941 Hitler attacked Russia with the biggest army the world had ever seen:

 Three million  German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months.
By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up. When the so-called “allies” (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them. The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.
( Read the whole articel by Paul C. Roberts: here.) ( Same information: Moon of Alabama

2. Who could be seen as 'The new Hitler' ? 

The Americans have dropped bombs on civilians in 33 countries, since WW2. (List)
They have done 200 military operations in other countries in 200 years. (List)
Een Quote:
“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” – Michael Ledeen, former Defense Department consultant and holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.   

How does Russia ( or Putin) qualify as ' The new Hitler'? 
Well, a small detail of history  is that 27 million Russians died while fighting the 'old Hitler'.  
When the CIA succeeded to generate revoltes in Hungary and Tsjechoslvakia, the Russians defended what they considered 'theirs'. 
When a communist government in Afghanistan was attacked by CIA-sponsored mujaheddin like Osama, the Russians invaded to help their communist brothers. 
When the USA succeeded to create a revolt in Ukraïne which would give them the only real harbor of the Russians, Sebastopol, and thus check-mated Russia,  the Crimeans, who are almost all Russians, separated from Ukraïne, and asked to be part of Russia.   There were 'gentle men in green, probably Russian soldiers, but the whole thing did not cost one life. Quite a difference from all the Hunmanitarian interventions of the West, which always cost many many lives and invariably destroy the country for ever after. 
So : Who is the new Hitler?  The USA or Russia? 
                                                                                                                                                                   3. Who is anti-fascist, and who is pro-fascist?      

We are all anti-fascist of course. At least that is what we all say. 
But America has accused Putin to be like Hitler, to act like a fascist. Where can we find the proof? 
In the bloodless transfer of the Crimea?                        

What is America's record in this? 
Well, we see that minister Nuland works together with mr Tiagnybok and mr Yarosh.  Both of them are fascists.   The same for John McCain: big smiles on photo's with people who are really fascists.  
Not only are they followers of Bandera, the man who cooperated with Hitler, and not only do they use emblemata (signs, symbols) that are fascist in origin, also their behavior is fascistoïde.  
You can see that in many video's: how they bully people. How they have killed people.How they put people on fire. How they have used snipers to kill people. 

354 Alan Kuperman proves: Ghadaffi did nothing wrong.

This blog:

There is an Update below.

Interesting lecture by an American prof. whose interest is in effectiveness of Human Intervention. 
He studied the Libian revolt against  Ghadaffi with another goal than the usual scholars.  His information on what happened during the war is like 'colateral information'. He had no motive to lie. 
He is an interesting source. 

Prof. Kuperman:  LBJ School of Public Affairs,  Univ. Of Texas att Austin.
Kuperman spoke at the Internat. Inst. for Social Studies in The Hague, Netherlands, on 29 may 2012.

Dr. Alan Kuperman studied the Humanitarian Intervention ( HI) in  Libya very meticulously.

Het is not at all a fan of Ghadaffi.  ( He says at the end of the session that  Ghadaffi  ( G.) financed a lot of rebellions in Africa, like the one of Kagame in Rwanda)

His central question is :  is HI  effective, does it help the people, or does it  make, to tthe contrary, make humans  suffering bigger?

Kuperman starts with the common wisdom: that what we all think.
( As written in Foreign Policy in 2012 by ... They consider this a 'model' intervention. )

1. There was a peaceful uprising
2. Ghadaffi bombed peacefull civilians.
3. As a reaction, te revolt became violent.
4. G. starts to attack coivilians, also by air.
5. G. threatens to crate a bloodbath in Benghazi.
6. US and Nato intervene to prevent the bloodbath.
7. The nation-wide support ( from the Libian people)  for the rebels enabled their victory.
8. Conclusion: Nato prevented a Rwanda-like genocide and promoted freedom and democracy.

Kuperman  then says: all of these points are untrue.

Did Ghadaffi target peaceful civilians?

1.    The protets were violent from the First day.
2.    G. used restraint in the beginning. Only after demonstraters started to shoot, Gh also did use arms.
3.    The soldiers did shoot to wound, not to kill:” shot in the legs.

Initial dead toll was not thousands, as reporter in MSM, but about 250.

G. was targetting not everybody, but rebeld.
HRW: of all the wounded in Misrata, only 3 % were women.

After 2 months of war, only 257 people were killed.  So G. did not try to kill people.
He was despeartely trying to avoid killing civillians.

In how many cities did G,.. commit a bloodbath?  In none.
Why would he create one in Benghazi?
He explained it too. He said:
1.    I will not target civilians.
2.    I will not target rebels who saurrender.
3.    I will give free way out to flee the country for the rebels.

G. forces did not initiate the violence.  It was the rebeld. That is for the ffirst 3 dayys.
Later G. did initiate vioplence in o0ther places.

2. Was Nato’s interventiuon to protect civilians ?

Maybe in the begining it was motivated by that, at the beginning…
But: once Nato decided to use force,  the object became: Regime Change.
1.    Nato attacked retreating forces.
2.    They targeted places like Sirte, where the civilians all supported G.  They were not threatened by the G. forces.
3.    The USA and Nato provided intelligence to the rebels.
4.    Nato trained rebels. The rebels got weapons from other countries. They fueled a civil war. That is contraruy to protect civilians.
5.    Nato did not accept seaae fire, which was offered. Extra civilians died from that reason.

The war.
This was a regional armed uprising against G. Not a national uprising.

Uprising  in Misrata, and in the west: all rivals of G.
G. forces were surprised.   Unprepared. Rebels quickly won terrain.
In 2 weeks time much of the country was won.
Op 5 march: all the cities in east: controlled by rebels . This wa s the high point of the rebels.
On 15 march the rebels had lost all but Benghazi.
Then G. says: it will  be over in 48 hours.
That could very well be happening. Normally.
But: on march 17:  UNSC resolutie 1973.
March 19: Nato starts bombing. 
March 20:( Not in the Kuperman lecture, it just became known in april 2014)
                   Ghafdaffi offers to abdicate and leave the country. 
                  Washington refuses ! ( See Update, below). 

France bombs the cities and G. 's army. 

Then the rebels start winning again.

Op 2 august G. tries a last offensive.
This fails.

Tripoli falls.
In october the rebels find G. and kill him.

 Was this a humanitarian intervention ? (H.I.)

What would have happened if there were no H.I. ?
Kuperman ( Ku)
I th9ink G. was right: the rebels would have lost on march 22, 2011.
( without HI intervention)
How many people would have died in total, without H.I. ?
I calculated:  1000 people.
Calculated guess:  Benghazi: 500 , Misrata 200. Tripoli 200, Zawariya 170 Central Libya 10 ?

We did not get a 5 week war. We got a 30 weeks war.

Not 1000 deads.  But 8000 deads  ( US estimate nov. 2011)
30.000 ( Libya estimate, sept. 2011) ( 15000 G. forces and 15000 rebels + civilians.)

The moral hazard of Humanitary Intervention.

It backfires by stimulating rebels. It pays fort hem to starta war with civilian deads, so that intervention will come and help them.
Prospective or actual intervention will  stir and even  escalate rebellion.  

Jalil : 11 days after the begiining: he asked the UK for a No Fly zone.
Nato armed, trained the rebeld. And bombed the ennemy of the rebels.

Post War Libya.

First: reprisal killings on G. forces.  On mercenaries ( black africans were killed.

Ethnic cleansing in Tawergha. ( The black people were all killed.)
The country is now controlled by many miliotias . Even in towns different controlling groups.
Oil rich eastern part wants secession.
HRW says that former rebels commit crimes against humanity.
42% of Libyans want a new strong man like G.

Regional spillover.

Mali: weapons from Libya. ->  Tuareg rebellion.  
Syria: Nato intewrvention for Libyan rebels.
In Syria the protests were really peaceful in the beginning.  Tehen it became violent.  Were they stimulated by Libians example?
Somalia.   Weapons from Libya. Al Shabab
Proliferation: surface to air missiles ( Manpad’s ) still missing.  You can easily take down a civilian airliner.

Net Humanitarian Impact?
War perpetuated : 7x longer.
Deadth toll magnified: 8 times x to 30 times.
Human rights situation unimproved.
Economy and governance damaged
Mali civil war
Syria : rebels encouraged. More deads.
Future benefits to compensate this costs?  

Lessons 1.
Beware of misinformation and disinformation.
Regional rfebellion is not a democratic uprising.
Urban counter insurgency : targeting civilians.

The west should only intervene on H. grounds if the government reaction is grossly disproportionate.

Lesson 2.
Often it results in Regime Change.
Ku thinks that this is because west wants to prevent cognitive dissonance: how can we work with such a criminal: lets get him out.
( I know:  the HI was done  only to get the leader out , NOT to help the civilians.  Ku is naïve !! )
So there is a question: Ca none support H.I.  if one opposes the forcible overthrow of r3egimes thata are not deliberately targetting civilians?

-------------------------------- END of lecture-------------------------------

Questions from students:

Does the West have good intentions? Or was i the agenda to bring the countreis into chaos?
42 % like a kind of strongman back. And the other 48 % ?

Man:1  ??

Man 2:  How come that the Media  tel lus all this wrong information ?

Kuperman’s answers:

He believes that the intentions of the governments invoilved were  really Humanitarian.
Quiet results in Oxford in sfebr 2012, Ku had to g there and get the rsults.  They were not published.

Must R2P  be discarded?
No , do not stop it.
We can implement it in better ways.
5 recommendations: Rethinking the R2P.
The International community should only intervenen when the gov. Uses disproportional force.
Encourage peaceful solutions.

Media reporting.   ( The limits of H.I. )
I argued there: In Rwanda there was a Gross underreporting of the killings in the First 2 weeks. The numbers and the killing.  Dead toll in the 2 first weeks was probably 200 to 300 000. Violonce was different in the capital.

French doctor in Benghazi: who thougth : ‘I had 5 people killed today.  Extrapolated : 1000 in Benghazi ! :  misinformation)( Rebels: disinformation) Bloodbath in Benghazi:  who used this word for the First?  It came from a Libyan ex-pat in Geneva, in Western Europe. He said for the foiorst time: “There is a bloodbath in Benghazi !  

In Rwanda the genocide was under reported.  Now they over-report it.  Reporters will not be criticised fort hat.

“Susan Rice worked for the Clinton admin, when Rwanda genocide happened.  She was opposed to intervention ! Opposed  ! ( Ku sees it as proof why she is now pro intervention.  I see it all as logical:  )


Kuperman on Fox about the kissld ambasador in Benghazi:

I got a reaction. (See below). The reaction is based on this article on WND ( WorldNetDaily)
 There in some investigation about how ambassador Stevens was killed in Benghazi. This led to a witness, admiral Kubic.  His statement is 'breaking news' for me: Kubi says that he was a kind of mediator, and that Ghadaffi offered a sease fire and also offered to leave Libya.  In fact: he delivered the country to the rebels, in a way.  Guess what: Washington did not want to hear it!
Even Kuperman did not know about this!

Is this new?  Not really: in Washington's Blog we can read that also Mullah Omar and Ghadaffi did wave the white flag, but the war had to go on.  In the case of Iraq it was probably to weaken the country , which was considered a threat to Israel.
In the case of Afghanistan and Libya I need mopre time to understand why they refused and preferred war.

A UN high comissioner, Navi Pillay, was responsable for unwarranted support for the rebels in Lybia
in a very early ( and this crucial ) stage: (  Navi Pillay )
Now she is spreading very incredible rumours about the separatists in Ukraïne: ( Women and children)

UPDATE:  here is a very good article on Lybia, july 2014: ( Gerald A. Perreira