A hundred years of bombing the Arabs


A hundred years of bombing the Arabs

 

It all started just three years after the Wright Brothers’ first public demonstration of powered flight in Paris in 1908, and oddly enough the Libyans were the first to suffer. In 1911 the Libyan Arab tribes opposed an Italian attempt to annex what was then a lightly-administered Turkish possession.

On 26 October, 1911, pilot officer Giulio Gavotti dropped, by hand, four 2kg bombs from his biplane on the oases of Tajura and Ain Zara near Tripoli.  The bombing was a reprisal for a counter-attack by Turkish troops and their Arab tribal allies that had nearly driven the Italian invaders into the sea. Tribal warriors from the oases had distinguished themselves in the battle, and being out of range of the bullets and bayonets used in the retaliatory butchering of non-combatants  in Tripoli, the air attack was a convenient substitute.    

According to the first communiqué of the air force it had “A wonderful effect on the morale of the Arabs”.

Of course the colonial land-grab was sold as a civilizing mission against violent untrustworthy natives. The futurist poet, Tommaso Marinetti, flying above the Tripoli bloodbath lauded the “insane sculptures that our bullets carve out of the masses of our enemies”. The war, he felt, was “hygienic” and “a moral education”.  The Italians conquered Libya but never pacified it despite a brutal campaign against the locals.

The French followed the Italian lead in 1912, sending six planes to a “police action” in their bit of Morocco. The pioneer aviators soon found that bombing was most effective against soft civilian targets – towns, bazaars, livestock and crops. In 1913 the Spanish began dropping shrapnel bombs on rebellious Moroccan villagers. Over the following years they graduated to poison gas.

1925 was a landmark year for the rapidly-evolving use of air power’s civilizing mission. The French bombed dozens of Syrian villages and even parts of Damascus and American mercenary fliers indiscriminately bombed the undefended town at Chechaouen, a Muslim holy town in Spanish Morocco, in revenge for a severe defeat suffered by a retreating Spanish army. The London Times reporter called it “the most cruel, the most wanton, and the most unjustifiable act of the whole war”, and reported that “absolutely defenceless women and children were massacred and many others were maimed and blinded”.

The British, struggling to suppress tribal opposition and nationalist movements in their sprawling empire, weren’t far behind the others. From 1915 on, the RAF bombed Pathan villages on India’s North-West Frontier (nowadays Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal areas, where  the US Air Force continues to use the same tactic). In May 1919 the RAF targeted the cities of Afghanistan, dropping six tons of bombs on Jalalabad and inflicting 600 casualties in a dawn to dusk raid on Dacca. Then, on Empire Day, they hit Kabul with a four-engine bomber raid.

Under Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris, the RAF took to “police bombing” Iraqi Arabs and Kurds with enthusiasm. The British dubbed this strategy “control without occupation”. Does it sound familiar? It should, because it’s exactly what the US air force has been doing for many years, using sea-launched cruise missiles and, lately, Hellfire missiles launched from high-altitude drones. While these modern munitions can hit a small house with pin-point accuracy, the computer-game warriors flying the drones from a lounge chair somewhere and the intelligence officers picking the targets don’t really know who’s in that house and so they massacre innocents with monotonous regularity. In theory it’s clean and “surgical”, in practice it’s pretty much the same outcome as before.

Control without occupation was first incarnation of a strategy that’s now being used in Libya. What was sold as merely the imposition of a no-fly zone to protect civilians against Gadaffi’s near-monopoly on Libyan air power, rapidly morphed into the coalition using their planes as ground-attack support for the Benghazi rebel groups as well as strategic bombing of infrastructure.

You can’t actually win a land war from the air and the western-sponsored Libyan rebel groups areweak and disorganised, militarily-speaking, so mission-creep has set in and control without occupation is rapidly drifting towards European boots on the ground. Already, supposedly “ex”-SAS soldiers have been photographed in Misurata and British politicians are even admitting that the anti-Gadaffi forces may fragment if they win,  so Libya will need European “peace keeping” troops there for many years.

The vast majority of Europeans, Americans and Australians are entirely ignorant of the long and bloody history of western intervention  in North Africa, Arabia and Western Asia and the media (especially the Murdoch empire) entertains them with a steady diet of anti-Islamic and racist prejudice. The West blunders along in a fog of historical amnesia – not a good formula for progress – and the folk on the receiving end never forget.

source:brushtail.com.au

About these ads

Syria says it’s ready for attack ‘at any moment’


Syria says it’s ready for attack ‘at any moment’

 

A Syrian soldier gives a thumbs-up as he stands on top of a tank alongside two fellow soldiers in the Eastern Ghouta area on the northeastern outskirts of Damascus on August 30, 2013. (AFP Photo / Sam Skaine)

A Syrian soldier gives a thumbs-up as he stands on top of a tank alongside two fellow soldiers in the Eastern Ghouta area on the northeastern outskirts of Damascus on August 30, 2013. (AFP Photo / Sam Skaine)

The Syrian government says it’s expecting a military attack and is “ready to retaliate at any moment,” according to a security official who wished to remain anonymous. The US holds Syria accountable for using banned chemical weapons and threatens payback.

We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment,” the security official in Damascus told AFP.

This comes as the UN chemical inspection team finished its work in the Arab country and headed to the Hague with samples taken at the sites of alleged chemical attacks. Earlier, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it may be two weeks before for final results of their analysis are ready. 

The US, which has been mulling a military strike on Syria, said they would not attack while the UN team was still in the country. Following State Secretary John Kerry‘s Friday Speech, French President Francois Hollande however declared that a strike could come by September 4. 

US intelligence agencies claim that a chemical weapons attack near Damascus on August 21 killed a total of 1,429 Syrian civilians, including 426 children. The intelligence gathered for the report, revealed Friday, allegedly featured an intercepted communication by a senior Syrian government official familiar with the attack as well as other human, signals and satellite intelligence. The report stated that President Bashar Assad’s  was allegedly responsible for the attack. President Barack Obama used the data to make the case for retaliation against the Syrian government

On Saturday, Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, declared that the idea that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on its own people was “utter nonsense”. Calling the attack a “provocation” by Middle East forces seeking to get the US involved, he urged Washington to present its evidence to the UN Security Council.

At a meeting on the same day between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and US Ambassador in Russia Michael McFaul, “it was emphasized that the report by the working group of international experts in Syria shall be subject to consideration by the Security Council,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.

Russian also clearly stated thatany military action against Syria by the US, bypassing the UN Security Council, would be an act of aggression and a flagrant violation of international law.” 

Russia and China have vetoed three resolutions that would increase pressure on Bashar Assad since the start of the war conflict in spring 2011. They are also against a current proposal by the US, the UK and France (the three Western permanent members of the Security Council) for a resolution that would allow military action against Syria over a chemical weapons attack which the West blames on the regime, and the government blames on the rebels. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (AFP Photo / Oliver Krato)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (AFP Photo / Oliver Krato)

Earlier this week German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Russia and China over their stance in the Syrian crisis.

It is very regrettable that Russia and China have refused for some time to come to a common position [with Western partners] on the Syrian conflict. This considerably weakens the role of the United Nations,” Merkel said in an interview with German newspaper Augsburger Allgemeine, published Saturday.

Merkel ruled out German participation in any military action without international approval. 

Germany cannot participate in any military intervention without a mandate from the United Nations, NATO or the EU,” added Merkel, who is seeking re-election as chancellor for a third consecutive term in late September.

A poll published Thursday showed German public opinion against military action by the West in Syria, with about three-fifths opposed to any potential strikes, and only about one-third in favor of military intervention.

Another poll showed that most French people do not want France to take part in military action on Syria, either, and that most do not trust French President Francois Hollande to do so. A BVA poll released by Le Parisien-Aujourd’hui en France, showed that 64 percent of respondents opposed military action, 58 percent did not trust Hollande to conduct it, and 35 percent feared it could set the entire region [Middle East] ablaze“. 

The French president said that Britain’s parliamentary vote, which rejected a motion authorizing military action in Syria on Thursday, would not affect France’s own actions, however. 

Hollande, whose popularity has been affected by the economic slowdown, showed unexpected military vigor when he dispatched troops to help Mali’s government fend off Islamist rebels earlier this year in Africa, an intervention then backed by two-thirds of the French public.

On Thursday, British lawmakers voted against military intervention in Syria by a 285- to-272 margin, rejecting the government’s motion to support military action against Syria in principle. The motion came after Cameron made his case in favor of missile strikes and many in Parliament cast doubt on his assertions. It is clear to me the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Prime Minister David Cameron said. “I get that and the government will act accordingly.”

source: rt.com/news

 

Seeds of High Treason – The Friends of Israel


Seeds of High Treason – The Friends of Israel

Published on Mar 20, 2012 by 

The interests of a Nation’s own Citizens must come first. The 9/11 cover-up is falling apart at the seams, and politicians should be made accountable, either for their ignorance about issues that affect their nation, or because they have been protecting the official story, knowing that is is false.

Summary: Recently, political pressure has been brought to bear against a trades unionist for attempting to express his views about the events of 9/11, on Australia’s publicly funded broadcaster, the ABC. This video redresses the balance, and makes it clear that Australia’s prime minister is either ignorant, beyond belief, or she is putting the interests of nuclear, Apartheid Israel ahead of Australia’s.

The unedited sound file of the Kevin Bracken Jon Faine conversation can be found on this Internet page:
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/10/21/3044273.htm?site=melbourne

My thanks to YouTube7hevo1d for the Dollar Drain animationhttp://www.youtube.com/7hevo1d

My thanks to Debbie Menon, my trustworthy distributor; StevenM818 who gave me the heads up on the new NIST Freedom of Information revelations about the explosions. Sonja Karkar, Nick Irving and Debbie, again, for their always welcome advice, and to Nate Flach who always comes up with the goods when I need a video clip or some advice about them.

Clips from the following videos are included with the producers’ kind permission:
WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
The maker of this video, David Chandler is a Physics Teacher and more information on his work can be found at
http://www.911speakout.org
David is also affiliated to: International Center for 9/11 Studies, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and AE 9 11 Truth

9_11 Experiments_The Great Thermate Debate by Jonathan Cole, a professional engineer whose other work is also worth a look.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

UA175 – the last 12 seconds by achimspok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ
I have been unable to get a reply from this excellent researcher, so if you see this: Thank you for explaining this so clearly, and I hope you don’t mind me using the short excerpt.

The Murray Street Engine: Please refer to the following very well-researched article.
http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/12/lets-cover-that-murray-stree…

Google Street View: Those interested in checking out the location from which the “Twin Smokestacks” video was shot, should start off by typing in “Christopher Columbus Drive, Jersey City, NJ, United States” in Google Maps. Zoom in close keeping Interstate 78 in view, on the left (west), and find Brunswick Street. You’ll see the smokestacks just to its right. Zoom in and move the view north and find 3rd Street and there is the roof where the cameraman stood; it is beside a vacant lot. 3rd Street passes under I78, and you can use the Street View function, from the elevated highway, to find the shots I’ve used in this video. 

Please don’t ask me how to use Street View, it takes me forever to remember, each time I return to it, but expose deceivers has kindly supplied a link to the view featured in the video:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=C…

——————————————————————————–­———————————————-

Thanks to the Videosource/-producer: alawson911

Quote

Creative Destruction Part III:

Humanitarian Neo-colonialism:

Framing Libya and Reframing War

By F. William Engdahl, 3 May 2011

The most remarkable facet of NATO‘s war against Libya is the fact that “world opinion,” that ever
so nebulous thing, has accepted an act of overt military aggression against a sovereign country
guilty of no violation of the UN Charter in an act of de facto neo-colonialism, a ‘humanitarian’ war
in violation of basic precepts of the laws of nations.

The world has accepted it without realizing the implications if the war against Gaddafi’s Libya is allowed to succeed in forced regime change. At issue is not whether or not Gaddafi is good or evil. At issue is the very concept of the civilized law of nations and of just or unjust wars.

The Libya campaign represents the attempt to force application of a dangerous new concept into
the norms of accepted international law.

That concept is what is termed by its creators, Responsibility to Protect.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has stated that the justification for the use of force in Libya was
based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect, “a
new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure
to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”¹

An American President, Barack Obama, has invoked this novel new concept as justification for what
is de facto an unlawful US-led military war of aggression and acquisition.²

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Presidential candidate in 2008 said about the concept: “In adopting the principle of the responsibilty to protect, the United Nations accepted the principle that mass atrocities that take place in one state are the concern of all states.”³

Nice words and highly dangerous. According to White House insider reports, the key person driving Obama to move to military action in Libya, citing a nebulous “Responsibility to Protect” as the basis was Presidential Adviser, Samantha Power.iv

In effect, via the instrument of a controlled NATO propaganda barrage, the US government with
no verifiable proof claimed Gaddafi’s air force slaughtered innocent civilians.

That in turn has been the basis on which Amr Moussa and members of the Arab League bowed down before heavy Washington pressure to give Washington and London the quasi-legal fig leaf it needed.

That unproven slaughter of allegedly innocent civilians was why a “humanitarian” war was necessary.

On that basis, we might ask why not put a no-fly NATO bombardment operation as well on Bahrain,
or Yemen, or Syria?

Who decides the criteria in this new terrain of Responsibility to Protect?

There has been no serious effort on the side of Washington or London or Paris to negotiate a
ceasefire inside Libya, no effort to find a compromise as in other countries.

This is the marvelous flexibility of the new doctrine of Responsibility to Protect.

Washington gets to define who is responsible for what. National sovereignty becomes a relic.

Back in 2004 George Soros authored a little-noted article in Foreign Policy magazine on the notion
of national sovereignty.He wrote,

Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times when society consisted of
rulers and subjects, not citizens. It became the cornerstone of international relations with the
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648…

Today, though not all nation-states are democratically accountable to their citizens, the principle of sovereignty stands in the way of outside intervention in the internal affairs of nation-states. But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it
to their governments.

If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no
opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified.”v

Responsibility to Protect

The coup represented by the NATO intervention into events in Libya has been years in assiduous
preparation. The first to publicize the concept, “The Responsibility to Protect,” was Gareth Evans, a
former Australian Foreign Minister and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

In 2002, one year before the illegal US-UK aggression against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Evans
published a seminal paper in Foreign Affairs, the elite foreign policy journal of the New York Council
on Foreign Relations.vi

In his article Evans called for the debate on whether or not to intervene into a given country on
human rights grounds, even if the events are strictly internal to that country, to be “reframed not as an argument about the ‘right to intervene’ but about the ‘responsibility to protect.’ “vii

That clever linguistic “reframing” created a necessary blurring of lines of the original UN Charter
Principle of sovereign equality of states, of Article 2, Section 1 of the Charter.

There was a very sound reason that the founding nations signing the UN Charter in 1946 decided to exclude UN police intervention into internal disputes of a sovereign state.

Who should now decide which side in a given conflict is right? Under “responsibility to protect”
essentially the United States and a few select allies could potentially define China as in violation of
the human rights of its Tibetan or other ethnic minority citizens and order NATO troops to
intervene in a humanitarian action.

Or NATO might decide to intervene into the internal unrest in Chechnya, an integral part of the Russian Federation, because Moscow troops are attempting to enforce order over insurgents being secretly armed by NATO via Al Qaeda or Mujahideen networks in Central Asia.

Or a similar “humanitarian” excusemight be used to call for a NATO no-fly zone over Belarus or Ukraine or Venezuela or Bolivia or perhaps at some point, Brazil.

The so-called humanitarian “responsibility to protect” doctrine opens a Pandora’s Box of
possibilities for those powers controlling world opinion via CNN or BBC or key media such as the
New York Times, to justify a de facto neo-colonial policy of military intervention.

This is the real significance of what Gareth Evans blithely terms “reframing.”

Framing as deliberate manipulation In mass media framing is a very well-researched subject.

The technique refers to a technique of manipulating an individual’s emotional reaction or more accurately, his or her perception of meanings of words or phrases.

When the Republican Party sought to get support for a huge tax cut for the wealthy on inheritances, something people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett found relevant to keeping their billions,

the Bush Administration reframed the term inheritance taxes to become “death taxes,” making it subtly seem like something everyone who ultimately dies should support—only the wealthy inherit, but everyone dies became the subtle reframed message.

A rhetorical phrase is packaged thus to encourage a certain interpretation and to discourage
others.

Two authorities on framing, Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor identify why framing is so
remarkably powerful as a tool to manipulate perception.

It creates a mental “shortcut.” According to them, human beings are by nature “cognitive misers”, meaning they prefer to do as little thinking as possible.

Frames give us a quick and easy way to process information.

Hence, people will use the previously mentioned mental filters to make sense of incoming messages.

As Fiske and Taylor note,

this gives the sender and framer of the information enormous power to use these schemas to influence how the receivers will interpret the message. viii

What is emerging, with the aggression against Libya as a major test case in the reframing of
military intervention as responsibility to protect,

is acceptance of radical new forms of US orchestrated military intervention, with or without UN Security Council sanction, a radical new form of neo-colonialism, a major new step on the road to a New World Order,

the Pentagon’s muchsought Full Spectrum Dominance. Those ever-present NGOs

The steering organization for embedding the nebulous notion of responsibility to protect is another
of the ever-present Non-Governmental Organizations, this one called the Global Centre for the
Responsibility to Protect.

It in turn, much like the famous wooden Russian dolls, was created by other human rights NGOs including:

  • by the International Crisis Group,

  • Human Rights Watch,

  • Oxfam International,

  • Refugees International, typically financed by a small network of donors.ix

Gareth Evans is co-chair of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect ‘s International
Advisory Board, as well as being President Emeritus of the International Crisis Group which he led
from 2000 to 2009.

Evans’ International Crisis Group which once described itself humbly as “widely regarded as the
world’s leading independent, non-government source of information, analysis and advice to
governments and international organisations on conflict issues,” is hardly a voice of independence or democracy.

It is a creation of the leading Washington policy circles pledged to advance an agenda the Pentagon calls Full Spectrum Dominance, which I referred to in an earlier book as “Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.” x

In addition to getting government funds from the US and UK governments, Evans’ International
Crisis Group also gets generous support from the Rockefeller, Ford and MacArthur foundations.xi

George Soros, founder of the Open Society Institute sits on the ICG Board of Trustees.xii

Until he made his dramatic and well-timed return to Egypt in January 2011, Mohamed El Baradei also sat
on the board of the Brussels-based ICG. xiii

  • The ICG was previously headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to US presidents and long-time
    associate of David Rockefeller.

  • Among other leading figures linked to Evans’ International Crisis Group have been founder,

  • Morton Abramowitz, former board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. xiv

The present chair of ICG is Thomas Pickering, former US Ambassador to Moscow and to El Salvator
where he was accused of backing creation of death squads.

ICG’s board also includes:

  • General Wesley Clark, former NATO-commander who led the destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999

  • and Samuel Berger, former US National Security Advisor.

  • Former NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen is also a member.xv

This should cause at least some perceptive readers to rethink what Evans’ agenda of Responsibility to Protect is really about.

Evans’ Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, in addition to being active in North Africa and
the Middle East, is also directly active in Asia from their center in Australia.

In short they are making major efforts to propandagize the notion of responsibility to protect under
the guize of protecting various populations from what they define as “genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity…” xvi

The world community is being subtly brainwashed to accept the radical new proposition with nary a peep of serious opposition.

As Michael Barker, an Australian analyst of the use of humanitarian rhetoric and US-based NGOs to
advance a Washington agenda noted,

“Perhaps if ‘evil’ Qaddafi had been a bona fide US-backed dictator…the US government could have exerted more influence over Qaddafi’s political choices, and encouraged him to back down and allow himself to be replaced with a suitably US friendly leader.

However, it is precisely because Qaddafi is not a Western-backed dictator that external
powers cannot force his hand so easily: this helps explain why the world’s leading…elites were so
keen to use the humanitarian pretext to support his opponents in the civil war.” xvii

It sets a dangerous precedent indeed, as many nations are now beginning to realize.

Framing Libya and Reframing War

Australia Shamed By Libyan Example Of People’s Ownership Of National Wealth


Australia Shamed By Libyan Example Of People’s Ownership Of National Wealth

Australia soon to be an outcast in the world community while unable to provide for its 22 million citizens siphons of trillions annually for foreign conglomerates.

This week a group of about three hundred people were protesting against the wholesale destruction of Australian farms and reserves through the practice of Coal Seam Gas mining.

The protesters were unceremoniously kicked out. Although the demonstrators were made up of all sections of the community the government ignored them.

The police herded the people who were standing up for what is right and treated them like animals.

Australia has little or no respect for democracywith an entire state where most of the Black Original Australians live, the “Northern Territory” ruled directly from Canberra by the settler-colonial regime.

Most people in Australia are now living just above poverty line although the country provides minerals sought around the world.

Australia has had a 15 years mining boom but has no money for pensions nor for dental treatment of its citizens, who have to travel all the way to Libya to obtain free dental treatment as that country in Africa gives free medical and dental treatment even to foreigners.

The pension age was recently increased to 67 years and the average house is nearly 15 times the yearly average pay, excluding the super rich in the calculation.

Most young students leave University with a debt of $20,000 to over $150,000 with compounding interest, whilst even in Africa, Libya gives free education and covers all the costs of its students even if they go all the way to Australia to study — Libya being a “level 1″ country for visa as a result.

Dental treatment for the poor is non-existent and there are long waiting lists for important surgery operations: in South Australia 2 years waiting time before operations.

The office of South Australia’s Minister of Health John Hill was questioned as to this situation and responded by blaming the previous Howard regime although the Gillard regime has been in power now over a year: dental care has not been reinstated.

The mining companies sit in comfort in luxury hotels carving up the peoples land and paying merely some taxes with the bulk of the profits going into private mining companies hands, many of them foreign, unlike in Libya where all national assets are nationalised and go to providing the 7 million citizens with a free home, free monthly salary, free health and education both without limits, free electricity, $60,000 for young couples marriage, and more benefits besides.

The Australian regime on the other hand has supported the destruction of Libya, instead of emulating her example, and recently handed out 70 million dollars of Australian tax-payers money to terrorists in Libya under the guise of “humanitarian aid.”

It is urgent that the Australian people retake power back from the usurpers and give it back to the people. The Green Book is absolutely spot on western democracies being nothing but a fraud.

So please tell me where is your freedom of speech & the freedom of press? Where is your freedom to protest? Where is your health care? your education? your pension?

You have condemned Libya for giving us all these benefits, Why! is it so hard for you to accept that their is an alternative which your government does not want you to see!? Please people wake up!!!