Late 1800's French poet Arthur Rimbaud is my favorite poet of all time. His life was memorialized in the movie from the 1990's called Total Eclipse, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Rimbaud and David Thewlis as his lover the poet Paul Verlaine. The movie is incredible but not as incredible as Rimbaud's life and poetry. He wrote tons of poetry and prose and became famous in the Paris scene but quit writing before he was 21 and became a gun runner. His gun running routes through Africa are still being used today. Rimbaud died of knee cancer after a grueling trip back up the trail to France. Some of his letters and poems were destroyed by his family after he died because they did not approve of his homosexual relations. What is published today is all that is known to remain of his work. He is most famous for the book "A Season in Hell" which was a huge inspiration on Jim Morrison. A book from the 90's compares the two self destructive stars.
Total Eclipse:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114702/
Intrigue abounds in this Mideast tale of a terror plot
By Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers
EL ARISH, Egypt — When Egyptian police pounded on the door before dawn and took her husband Nimr away, Sahar Zibawi had no idea that her partner was about to become a pivotal player in a convoluted political plot involving gun running to Gaza, a notorious African smuggling route once used by the French poet Arthur Rimbaud, an Iranian-backed Hezbollah cell and an attempt by Egypt's aging president to reclaim his waning regional influence.
"We've been put in a whirlwind and we don't know why," Zibawi said nervously while she met surreptitiously with a McClatchy reporter in this Mediterranean coast town that's a gateway for smuggling to Palestinian-controlled Gaza.
Nimr Zibawi, a Sinai construction worker, is one of more than 40 suspects accused of joining a Hezbollah cell that Egyptian authorities claim was plotting to destabilize President Hosni Mubarak by attacking ships in the Suez Canal and hitting tourist-dependent Red Sea resorts.
After weeks of intense questioning that their attorneys said included daily beatings and torture, Nimr Zibawi and at least one other suspect recently made videotaped confessions in which they admitted to helping smuggle weapons to Gaza militants, but not to plotting attacks inside Egypt.
"If they helped the Palestinian resistance, maybe it's true, but not in the way our government claims," said Malek Adly, an attorney with the Cairo-based Hisham Mubarak Legal Rights Center, which is representing Zibawi and eight others. "Nothing they did was intended to harm Egypt."
In some ways, Mubarak's reaction has been more important to Middle East politics than the allegations themselves: "Beware the wrath of Egypt."
The 81-year-old Mubarak is looking to reclaim his role as a regional power broker at an auspicious time: President Barack Obama has chosen Egypt as the setting for his highly anticipated June 4 address to the Arab and Muslim world.
Obama is looking to transform America's image in the Middle East — and Mubarak could play a critical role in helping the new president succeed.
Israel and the U.S. have tried to enlist pro-Western, Sunni Muslim nations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan in a regional coalition to counter Shiite Iran and Hezbollah.
Until now, many Sunni Arab leaders have been reluctant to get into a public diplomatic feud with Iran. That may be changing.
"The situation has become incredibly complex because it's not just an Egypt issue, it's about where the Middle East heading next after being completely destabilized by the Bush administration," said Issandr el Amrani, a Cairo-based analyst for the International Crisis Group.
"Iran represents the revival of the rejectionist camp, which stands against everything Egypt has built over the last 30 years," el Amrani said. "There are concerns in the regime and the wider establishment in Egypt that doesn't want to see the country go back to its anti-Western positions."
The Sinai desert has become a remote battleground in this regional ideological feud.
The weapons route to Gaza is thought to run along a legendary African smuggling route that French poet Arthur Rimbaud used in the late 1800s.
Israel reportedly bombed arms convoys on the route in Sudan during the winter Gaza offensive. That put more pressure on Egypt to take stronger steps to disrupt an arms route Israeli intelligence warned was being used to smuggle increasingly sophisticated rockets into Gaza.
If the Sinai suspects were accused merely of smuggling guns for Palestinian militants, this case might not be as significant.
Egyptian police, however, said that the men were involved in plans to destabilize Mubarak by plotting attacks on popular Sinai tourist resorts, scouting out ships in the Suez Canal, and, in a pointed jab at Iran and Hezbollah, accused them of spreading Shia Islam.
"This is a case about trying to tarnish Hezbollah's image in Egypt," Adly said. "There has been a shift in politics between Hezbollah and Egypt."
Tensions between Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Mubarak have been building since Nasrallah publicly urged Egyptians to rise up in December and challenge their president for refusing to fully open his border with Gaza and allow Palestinians to escape Israel's three-week military offensive.
"Nasrallah's behavior since December 27 has been really out of bounds and doesn't happen very often in Middle East politics," el Amrani said. "It's really unprecedented and hasn't been seen in decades of inter-Arab relations."
Israeli papers reported that their government had provided Egypt with critical intelligence about Nasrallah's agents in the Sinai that led to the first arrests in December. That Egyptian sweep began three weeks before Israel launched its military offensive in Gaza.
Sahar Zibawi was rebuffed for months when she tried to find out where her husband was and what he was accused of doing. Then, four months after Nimr was arrested, Egypt announced on April 8 that it had broken up the Hezbollah cell, including the Egyptian-born construction worker with Palestinian roots.
Zibawi said she was stunned by the news and her fears compounded.
Late last month, Egyptian intelligence returned to El Arish with Nimr Zibawi for a surprising visit. Wearing normal clothes and cologne, he was ushered into the house to spend time with his wife as the birth of couple's third child neared.
"He told me: 'I'm Egyptian before I'm Palestinian. Don't believe anything you hear," Sahar Zibawi said.
Security then led Nimr into a room where he confessed to being part of a Gaza-Sinai gun smuggling group, but not to plotting against Egypt, according to his attorney, Hosam Hadad, who witnessed the confession.
In an unusual address after the arrests were announced in April, Nasrallah admitted that one of the men picked up by Egyptian police, a Lebanese man identified as Sami Shehab, was helping to smuggle weapons to Palestinian militants in Gaza. However, he rejected any allegations that Hezbollah planned to challenge Mubarak.
Egyptian papers responded by lampooning Nasrallah as a "monkey Sheik" and suggesting the he be tried for war crimes. Egypt summoned Iranian officials to protest that nation's reaction to the case. And Mubarak obliquely warned Iran and Hezbollah to back off.
In the Sinai, relatives of the men at the center of this case nervously gathered in a nondescript house to meet a McClatchy reporter.
With young men keeping watch on the door for Egyptian security, the wives, mothers, fathers and brothers of several of the suspects said their relatives had become political pawns.
"Our sons have been hijacked by politics," said the father of one of the suspects who gave his name only as Abu Ihab. "We're just asking the hijackers to give us back or kids and stop making stuff up."
"I just want to know the end," said the mother of one of the men who gave her name as Umm Nasser. "Are we going to see them again, or are they gone forever?"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68288.html
"Wars May Come and Wars May Go But Art Is Forever."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Conservatives Leading the World Headlong into the 18th Century
Conservatives Leading the World Headlong into the 18th Century
by Prof. John Kozy
Those dastardly French! What arrogance! In 1789, they tried to destroy the Ancien Régime (read Old Order).
The Old Order is an aristocratic, social, and political system that prevailed in Europe between the 14th and 19th centuries. In it, power is held by the monarchy, the clergy, and the aristocracy, and society is divided into three Estates—the nobility, the clergy, and the rest of the people who are powerless. The Ancien Régime retains the privileges of both the nobility and aristocracy that existed in feudal times, and the people, whose lives have the value of mere livestock, exist only for the benefit of the state. The Ancien Régime is also militaristic, aggressive, and imperialistic. Wars are common, and between the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XVI, France fought in at least 27 of them. But wars, then and now, are expensive, and France financed them with debt. When Louis XVI ascended the throne, the nation neared bankruptcy, and the people were impoverished. These circumstances provoked the French Revolution. Its aim was not merely to change the government’s form, it was to change the nature of society. Its battle cry was Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité. The revolution was no mere political uprising; it was a social uprising whose aim was to entirely destroy the Old Order’s social structure, to abolish the privileges of the clergy, aristocracy, and nobility, and to uplift the value of and empower common people. The French didn’t entirely succeed, but they did create the conditions for the eventual emergence of social democracies in Europe.
This revolution alarmed the monarchs of the remaining Old Orders in Europe. The French were engaged in an ideological revolution hoping to launch a new era in world history; the remaining European monarchies saw the revolution as a life-and-death ideological struggle and sought to reverse it. Austria declared war on France, Napoleon emerged to fight it, and when he was eventually defeated by the armies of the other European powers, many of the worst features of the Old Order were reestablished in France. But even some Frenchmen sought to reverse it. One was François Auguste René, Vicomte de Chateaubriand who began to publish a journal in which he coined the term “conservative,” and ever since, that term has meant conserving as much as possible of the old economic, social, and political order with all of its privileges for the established.
If you believe the Old Order is now passé, just replace the words, “clergy” and “nobility” in the paragraphs above with “business” and “politicos” and you will recognize present day American society in that description of the Old Order’s first and second estates. Then contrast the French Revolution with the American which is sometimes erroneously described as the first Enlightenment revolution. The colonists were not concerned with social injustice. They were happy with the 18th century English social order which they brought with them when the came to the New World. Although the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” the revolution’s battle cry was “taxation without representation,” not “life, liberty, and happiness.” The only thing Americans wanted to rid themselves of was the English monarch’s rule. The American Revolution was purely political; it preserved the English Old Order in America.
This difference between the French and American revolutions explains much about America. Just as the European Old Order was militaristic, aggressive, and imperialistic, America has made military incursions into 23 nations more than 30 times since the Civil War, and these numbers don’t include the First and Second World Wars. Only once during that time did a foreign power enter the United States, and that was the very minor incursion of Pancho Villa into Arizona. Over the past several decades, more and more of this military activity has been financed by debt.
This difference between the French and American revolutions explains why no authentic liberal party has ever emerged in America. If Republicans are conservatives, Democrats are merely slightly more moderate conservatives, a political view once known as conservative liberalism.
This difference explains why Americans have a meager and torn social safety net, which the conservative establishment continually tries to abolish. It explains why Americans lack universal access to medical care; it explains the establishment’s abhorrence of labor unions; it explains the country’s lack of an effective pension system; it explains the American tolerance for an economic system that transfers wealth from the poorer to the wealthier economic classes; it explains how the Congress can, often almost overnight, come up with billions of dollars for foreign aid, wars, and businesses, but always claims that social programs are too expensive to fund; and it explains the government’s bailout efforts to counteract the current economic downturn. The common people are being forced to do without to pay for the losses of the nation’s economic institutions and those who have profited from running them. Americans are just as brave as people anywhere when called upon to defend established institutions but are inexplicably craven when it comes to confronting the establishment in defense of their own welfare.
Paul Krugman has recently written that “falling wages are a symptom of a sick economy. And they’re a symptom that can make the economy even sicker. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04krugman.html]” Of course, he’s right, but being part of the establishment himself and not having mastered the techniques of root cause analysis, his claim is shallow. America’s economy is sick, but it’s sick because the 18th century English social structure that Americans have preserved is sick.
What’s worse, it can be argued that this social structure subverts the goals of the Constitution. Its Preamble states that the Constitution was enacted to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” But if the government has promoted “the general welfare,” most Americans haven’t shared in it. And it has long been known that the legal system allows “justice” to be bought. Iustitia, the Roman Goddess of Justice, who stands in many American courtrooms, is not blindfolded to symbolize the view that justice is blind, she is blindfolded to keep her from seeing what happens in those courtrooms. And America is a violent nation; it cannot be said to be domestically tranquil. Americans imprison more criminals per capita than any other nation. And although Americans claim to value life, especially when opposing abortion, killing is ubiquitous. Parents routinely kill each other and their children, children kill their parents and other children, strangers kill strangers, highways are killing fields, not only by accidental means but by “road rage” shootings. And this claimed American respect for life doesn’t extend to foreigners. Not one prominent American has lamented the deaths of more than a million Iraqis since that nation was invaded by America and its coerced coalition.
American society is in such disarray that it has been said that Americans no longer live together, they merely live side by side. The establishment media was quick to report how Americans came together after nine-eleven, but it never reported how that togetherness came apart by ten-eleven.
The 18th century English Old Order still exists in America. The government exists for the sake of the nation’s established institutions and those who run them. The lives of common people have little value; they are little more than livestock who exist only for the sake of those institutions. Having fought a revolution to keep from being taxed without representation, they now, ironically, find themselves taxed by their elected representatives who represent not them but the established who finance campaigns. The nation is not tranquil, welfare is not general, justice is scarce, and the blessings of liberty are meager. The national defense, however, is substantial, but what is America defending?
The government justified the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a means of protecting America. But neither of these nations ever posed a threat to America. About three thousand Americans were killed on nine-eleven, however. Do these wars now protect Americans from similar fates? Well, more than 4,000 Americans have been killed and more than 43,000 have been maimed in these wars. That’s almost 50,000 Americans who have not been protected, a number equivalent to sixteen times the number of casualties on nine-eleven.
Why were the American colonists so different from the French in 1789? And why have Americans acquiesced in maintaining this 18th century social system which has such horrendous recurring consequences?
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that in the 18th century, the American colonies were sparsely inhabited, communities were small and somewhat ideologically pure, and business was local. In such circumstances, social problems were not likely to be a major concern. Those circumstances changed long ago, and America is now beset with what appear to be intractable social problems.
Why haven’t the attitudes of Americans changed? The answer can only lie in its educational system. Local control of the public schools perpetuates ignorance and out of date values. The American university system, long known for its emphasis on vocational training, has never tried to impart the classical educational values of truth, goodness, and beauty to its students. The result is that Americans are very good at teaching people how to do things, but not very good at giving them the means to understanding anything. And the American failure to understand the horrid consequences of 18th century social structure means that Americans will continue to endure them.
Is it likely that American attitudes will change? Doubtful at best! The French in 1789 had an ally that Americans lack. The common people of France had the press on their side; it was even referred to as the Fourth Estate. Americans do not. The American press has been incorporated into the establishment’s Second Estate. Without an active, sympathetic press that tells the people the truth about what is going on, the people mired in ignorance will remain there, and as leader of the so called “free world,” America is leading the world headlong into the 18th century. We can only hope that the world will not follow.
"Wars May Come and Wars May Go But Art Is Forever."
by Prof. John Kozy
Those dastardly French! What arrogance! In 1789, they tried to destroy the Ancien Régime (read Old Order).
The Old Order is an aristocratic, social, and political system that prevailed in Europe between the 14th and 19th centuries. In it, power is held by the monarchy, the clergy, and the aristocracy, and society is divided into three Estates—the nobility, the clergy, and the rest of the people who are powerless. The Ancien Régime retains the privileges of both the nobility and aristocracy that existed in feudal times, and the people, whose lives have the value of mere livestock, exist only for the benefit of the state. The Ancien Régime is also militaristic, aggressive, and imperialistic. Wars are common, and between the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XVI, France fought in at least 27 of them. But wars, then and now, are expensive, and France financed them with debt. When Louis XVI ascended the throne, the nation neared bankruptcy, and the people were impoverished. These circumstances provoked the French Revolution. Its aim was not merely to change the government’s form, it was to change the nature of society. Its battle cry was Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité. The revolution was no mere political uprising; it was a social uprising whose aim was to entirely destroy the Old Order’s social structure, to abolish the privileges of the clergy, aristocracy, and nobility, and to uplift the value of and empower common people. The French didn’t entirely succeed, but they did create the conditions for the eventual emergence of social democracies in Europe.
This revolution alarmed the monarchs of the remaining Old Orders in Europe. The French were engaged in an ideological revolution hoping to launch a new era in world history; the remaining European monarchies saw the revolution as a life-and-death ideological struggle and sought to reverse it. Austria declared war on France, Napoleon emerged to fight it, and when he was eventually defeated by the armies of the other European powers, many of the worst features of the Old Order were reestablished in France. But even some Frenchmen sought to reverse it. One was François Auguste René, Vicomte de Chateaubriand who began to publish a journal in which he coined the term “conservative,” and ever since, that term has meant conserving as much as possible of the old economic, social, and political order with all of its privileges for the established.
If you believe the Old Order is now passé, just replace the words, “clergy” and “nobility” in the paragraphs above with “business” and “politicos” and you will recognize present day American society in that description of the Old Order’s first and second estates. Then contrast the French Revolution with the American which is sometimes erroneously described as the first Enlightenment revolution. The colonists were not concerned with social injustice. They were happy with the 18th century English social order which they brought with them when the came to the New World. Although the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” the revolution’s battle cry was “taxation without representation,” not “life, liberty, and happiness.” The only thing Americans wanted to rid themselves of was the English monarch’s rule. The American Revolution was purely political; it preserved the English Old Order in America.
This difference between the French and American revolutions explains much about America. Just as the European Old Order was militaristic, aggressive, and imperialistic, America has made military incursions into 23 nations more than 30 times since the Civil War, and these numbers don’t include the First and Second World Wars. Only once during that time did a foreign power enter the United States, and that was the very minor incursion of Pancho Villa into Arizona. Over the past several decades, more and more of this military activity has been financed by debt.
This difference between the French and American revolutions explains why no authentic liberal party has ever emerged in America. If Republicans are conservatives, Democrats are merely slightly more moderate conservatives, a political view once known as conservative liberalism.
This difference explains why Americans have a meager and torn social safety net, which the conservative establishment continually tries to abolish. It explains why Americans lack universal access to medical care; it explains the establishment’s abhorrence of labor unions; it explains the country’s lack of an effective pension system; it explains the American tolerance for an economic system that transfers wealth from the poorer to the wealthier economic classes; it explains how the Congress can, often almost overnight, come up with billions of dollars for foreign aid, wars, and businesses, but always claims that social programs are too expensive to fund; and it explains the government’s bailout efforts to counteract the current economic downturn. The common people are being forced to do without to pay for the losses of the nation’s economic institutions and those who have profited from running them. Americans are just as brave as people anywhere when called upon to defend established institutions but are inexplicably craven when it comes to confronting the establishment in defense of their own welfare.
Paul Krugman has recently written that “falling wages are a symptom of a sick economy. And they’re a symptom that can make the economy even sicker. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04krugman.html]” Of course, he’s right, but being part of the establishment himself and not having mastered the techniques of root cause analysis, his claim is shallow. America’s economy is sick, but it’s sick because the 18th century English social structure that Americans have preserved is sick.
What’s worse, it can be argued that this social structure subverts the goals of the Constitution. Its Preamble states that the Constitution was enacted to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” But if the government has promoted “the general welfare,” most Americans haven’t shared in it. And it has long been known that the legal system allows “justice” to be bought. Iustitia, the Roman Goddess of Justice, who stands in many American courtrooms, is not blindfolded to symbolize the view that justice is blind, she is blindfolded to keep her from seeing what happens in those courtrooms. And America is a violent nation; it cannot be said to be domestically tranquil. Americans imprison more criminals per capita than any other nation. And although Americans claim to value life, especially when opposing abortion, killing is ubiquitous. Parents routinely kill each other and their children, children kill their parents and other children, strangers kill strangers, highways are killing fields, not only by accidental means but by “road rage” shootings. And this claimed American respect for life doesn’t extend to foreigners. Not one prominent American has lamented the deaths of more than a million Iraqis since that nation was invaded by America and its coerced coalition.
American society is in such disarray that it has been said that Americans no longer live together, they merely live side by side. The establishment media was quick to report how Americans came together after nine-eleven, but it never reported how that togetherness came apart by ten-eleven.
The 18th century English Old Order still exists in America. The government exists for the sake of the nation’s established institutions and those who run them. The lives of common people have little value; they are little more than livestock who exist only for the sake of those institutions. Having fought a revolution to keep from being taxed without representation, they now, ironically, find themselves taxed by their elected representatives who represent not them but the established who finance campaigns. The nation is not tranquil, welfare is not general, justice is scarce, and the blessings of liberty are meager. The national defense, however, is substantial, but what is America defending?
The government justified the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a means of protecting America. But neither of these nations ever posed a threat to America. About three thousand Americans were killed on nine-eleven, however. Do these wars now protect Americans from similar fates? Well, more than 4,000 Americans have been killed and more than 43,000 have been maimed in these wars. That’s almost 50,000 Americans who have not been protected, a number equivalent to sixteen times the number of casualties on nine-eleven.
Why were the American colonists so different from the French in 1789? And why have Americans acquiesced in maintaining this 18th century social system which has such horrendous recurring consequences?
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that in the 18th century, the American colonies were sparsely inhabited, communities were small and somewhat ideologically pure, and business was local. In such circumstances, social problems were not likely to be a major concern. Those circumstances changed long ago, and America is now beset with what appear to be intractable social problems.
Why haven’t the attitudes of Americans changed? The answer can only lie in its educational system. Local control of the public schools perpetuates ignorance and out of date values. The American university system, long known for its emphasis on vocational training, has never tried to impart the classical educational values of truth, goodness, and beauty to its students. The result is that Americans are very good at teaching people how to do things, but not very good at giving them the means to understanding anything. And the American failure to understand the horrid consequences of 18th century social structure means that Americans will continue to endure them.
Is it likely that American attitudes will change? Doubtful at best! The French in 1789 had an ally that Americans lack. The common people of France had the press on their side; it was even referred to as the Fourth Estate. Americans do not. The American press has been incorporated into the establishment’s Second Estate. Without an active, sympathetic press that tells the people the truth about what is going on, the people mired in ignorance will remain there, and as leader of the so called “free world,” America is leading the world headlong into the 18th century. We can only hope that the world will not follow.
"Wars May Come and Wars May Go But Art Is Forever."
Sunday, May 10, 2009
White phosphorus used in Afghan battle
White Phosphorus has been used by the Israeli's in their war on Gaza this last year. I do not believe the US military when they say that they didn't use it in this battle, even though we are known to have it and have given it to the Israeli's to use. When it came out that Israel used it the President or anyone associated with the US Government did not speak out against Israel using it and have supported Israel every step of the way. Our government even refused to participate in an international conference on racism because one of the subjects was Israel's racism against the Palestinians. If anyone has any doubts that Obama and his cabinet do not care about people, then this should help you understand how the higher ups in the US government are criminals working for international bankers. Obama and his people might as well come out and admit that they are the Nazi's of the 21st century.
White phosphorus was also used during the Vietnam war by the Vietcong against the US troops. You can see an example of how awful this substance is by watching the movie We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson. In that movie some of the rangers are hit by white phosphorus shells. Just by that one scene you can imagine how awful this substance is. It is no joke. I have no doubt in my mind that the US used this substance against the Taliban even though members of the military are saying the Taliban used it. This is a well known tactic used by military's of the world, deny it and accuse the other side of doing it.
At this link at 4 minutes, 30 seconds is the scene in We Are Soldiers with White Phosphorus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyAp0-RxHoI Embedding was disabled. Please watch it. White Phosphorus is awful.
The United States has become a fascist state. It was built up during the drug riddled 60's into the 90's while the CIA brought in the drugs to dumb down the people even more and make them not care, the gov't built up this fascist state that we live in now. If we dont wake up now, our republic that our grandfather's and fathers fought and died for will be lost forever. I personally cannot allow this to happen. I cannot walk over the graves of my soul that was lost to the last 10 wars we have fought in and pretend I don't know whats happening. We need to take this country back from the fascists that have infiltrated it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns white phosphorus used in Afghan battle
By JASON STRAZIUSO and RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press Writers Jason Straziuso And Rahim Faiez
KABUL – Doctors voiced concern over "unusual" burns on Afghan villagers wounded in an already controversial U.S.-Taliban battle, and the country's top human rights groups said Sunday it is investigating the possibility white phosphorus was used.
The American military denied using the incendiary in the battle in Farah province — which President Hamid Karzai has said killed 125 to 130 civilians — but left open the possibility that Taliban militants did. The U.S. says Taliban fighters have used white phosphorus, a spontaneously flammable material that leaves severe chemical burns on flesh, at least four times the last two years.
Using white phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is considered legitimate under international law, but rights groups say its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitutes a war crime.
Afghan doctors told The Associated Press they have treated at least 14 patients with severe burns the doctors have never seen before. The villagers were wounded during last Monday's battle in Farah province.
Allegations that white phosphorus or another chemical may have been used threatens to deepen the controversy over what Afghan officials say could be the worst case of civilian deaths since the 2001 U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban regime.
In Kabul on Sunday, hundreds of people marched near Kabul University to protest the U.S. military's role in the deaths. Protesters carried signs denouncing the U.S. and chanted anti-American slogans.
The incident in Farah drew the condemnation of Karzai, who called for an end to airstrikes. The U.S. has said militants kept villagers captive in hopes they would die in the fighting, creating a civilian casualties controversy.
However, President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Sunday the United States would not end airstrikes. Retired Gen. James Jones refused to rule out any action because "we can't fight with one hand tied behind our back."
Along with Afghan and U.S. investigations into the battle, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has been looking into concerns that white phosphorus may have been used after strange burns were reported. Nader Nadery, a commissioner in the leading rights organization, said more investigation was needed.
"Our teams have met with patients," Nadery told AP. "They are investigating the cause of the injuries and the use of white phosphorus."
White phosphorus is a spontaneously flammable material that can cause painful chemical burns. It is used to mark targets, create smoke screens or as a weapon, and can be delivered by shells, flares or hand grenades, according to GlobalSecurity.org.
Human rights groups denounce its use for the severe burns it causes, though it is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.
The U.S. military used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. Israel's military used it in January against Hamas targets in Gaza.
Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the U.S. did not use white phosphorus as a weapon in last week's battle. The U.S. does use white phosphorous to illuminate the night sky, he said.
Julian noted that military officials believe that Taliban militants have used white phosphorus at least four times in Afghanistan in the past two years. "I don't know if they (militants) had it out there or not, but it's not out of the question," he said.
A spokesman for the Taliban could not be reached for comment Sunday.
The U.S. military on Saturday said that Afghan doctors in Farah told American officials the injuries seen in wounded Afghans from two villages in the province's Bala Baluk district could have resulted from hand grenades or exploding propane tanks.
Dr. Mohammad Aref Jalali, the head of the burn unit at the Herat Regional Hospital in western Afghanistan who has treated five patients wounded in the battle, described the burns as "unusual."
"I think it's the result of a chemical used in a bomb, but I'm not sure what kind of chemical. But if it was a result of a burning house — from petrol or gas cylinders — that kind of burn would look different," he said.
Gul Ahmad Ayubi, the deputy head of Farah's health department, said the province's main hospital had received 14 patients after the battle, all with burn wounds. Five patients were sent to Herat.
"There has been other airstrikes in Farah in the past. We had injuries from those battles, but this is the first time we have seen such burns on the bodies. I'm not sure what kind of bomb it was," he said.
U.N. human rights investigators have also seen "extensive" burn wounds on victims and have raised questions about how the injuries were caused, said a U.N. official who asked not to be identified talking about internal deliberations. The U.N. has reached no conclusions about whether any chemical weapons may have been used, the official said.
Afghan officials say up to 147 people may have died in the battle in Farah, though the U.S. says that number is exaggerated.
The investigation into the Farah battle coincides with an appeal by Human Rights Watch for NATO forces to release results of an investigation into a March 14 incident in which an 8-year-old Afghan girl was burned by white phosphorus munitions in Kapisa province.
The New York-based group said Saturday that white phosphorus "causes horrendous burns and should not be used in civilian areas."
In the latest violence, a double suicide bomb attack killed seven people and wounded 20 in southern Afghanistan on Sunday. The majority of casualties were police and army units responding to the initial attack, said Dawood Ahmadi, the governor's spokesman.
A roadside bomb in eastern Nangarhar province killed eight construction workers traveling on a rural road on their way to build a checkpoint for the country's border police, an official said, while a truck driver and two assistants died in a roadside bomb blast in Zabul province while transporting goods to a U.S. base, police said.
Taliban militants have increased their attacks the last three years as the country's insurgency has turned increasingly bloody. President Barack Obama is sending 21,000 additional U.S. troops to the country to bolster the record 38,000 American forces already in the country.
"Wars May Come and Wars May Go But Art Is Forever."
White phosphorus was also used during the Vietnam war by the Vietcong against the US troops. You can see an example of how awful this substance is by watching the movie We Were Soldiers with Mel Gibson. In that movie some of the rangers are hit by white phosphorus shells. Just by that one scene you can imagine how awful this substance is. It is no joke. I have no doubt in my mind that the US used this substance against the Taliban even though members of the military are saying the Taliban used it. This is a well known tactic used by military's of the world, deny it and accuse the other side of doing it.
At this link at 4 minutes, 30 seconds is the scene in We Are Soldiers with White Phosphorus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyAp0-RxHoI Embedding was disabled. Please watch it. White Phosphorus is awful.
The United States has become a fascist state. It was built up during the drug riddled 60's into the 90's while the CIA brought in the drugs to dumb down the people even more and make them not care, the gov't built up this fascist state that we live in now. If we dont wake up now, our republic that our grandfather's and fathers fought and died for will be lost forever. I personally cannot allow this to happen. I cannot walk over the graves of my soul that was lost to the last 10 wars we have fought in and pretend I don't know whats happening. We need to take this country back from the fascists that have infiltrated it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns white phosphorus used in Afghan battle
By JASON STRAZIUSO and RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press Writers Jason Straziuso And Rahim Faiez
KABUL – Doctors voiced concern over "unusual" burns on Afghan villagers wounded in an already controversial U.S.-Taliban battle, and the country's top human rights groups said Sunday it is investigating the possibility white phosphorus was used.
The American military denied using the incendiary in the battle in Farah province — which President Hamid Karzai has said killed 125 to 130 civilians — but left open the possibility that Taliban militants did. The U.S. says Taliban fighters have used white phosphorus, a spontaneously flammable material that leaves severe chemical burns on flesh, at least four times the last two years.
Using white phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is considered legitimate under international law, but rights groups say its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitutes a war crime.
Afghan doctors told The Associated Press they have treated at least 14 patients with severe burns the doctors have never seen before. The villagers were wounded during last Monday's battle in Farah province.
Allegations that white phosphorus or another chemical may have been used threatens to deepen the controversy over what Afghan officials say could be the worst case of civilian deaths since the 2001 U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban regime.
In Kabul on Sunday, hundreds of people marched near Kabul University to protest the U.S. military's role in the deaths. Protesters carried signs denouncing the U.S. and chanted anti-American slogans.
The incident in Farah drew the condemnation of Karzai, who called for an end to airstrikes. The U.S. has said militants kept villagers captive in hopes they would die in the fighting, creating a civilian casualties controversy.
However, President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Sunday the United States would not end airstrikes. Retired Gen. James Jones refused to rule out any action because "we can't fight with one hand tied behind our back."
Along with Afghan and U.S. investigations into the battle, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has been looking into concerns that white phosphorus may have been used after strange burns were reported. Nader Nadery, a commissioner in the leading rights organization, said more investigation was needed.
"Our teams have met with patients," Nadery told AP. "They are investigating the cause of the injuries and the use of white phosphorus."
White phosphorus is a spontaneously flammable material that can cause painful chemical burns. It is used to mark targets, create smoke screens or as a weapon, and can be delivered by shells, flares or hand grenades, according to GlobalSecurity.org.
Human rights groups denounce its use for the severe burns it causes, though it is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.
The U.S. military used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. Israel's military used it in January against Hamas targets in Gaza.
Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the U.S. did not use white phosphorus as a weapon in last week's battle. The U.S. does use white phosphorous to illuminate the night sky, he said.
Julian noted that military officials believe that Taliban militants have used white phosphorus at least four times in Afghanistan in the past two years. "I don't know if they (militants) had it out there or not, but it's not out of the question," he said.
A spokesman for the Taliban could not be reached for comment Sunday.
The U.S. military on Saturday said that Afghan doctors in Farah told American officials the injuries seen in wounded Afghans from two villages in the province's Bala Baluk district could have resulted from hand grenades or exploding propane tanks.
Dr. Mohammad Aref Jalali, the head of the burn unit at the Herat Regional Hospital in western Afghanistan who has treated five patients wounded in the battle, described the burns as "unusual."
"I think it's the result of a chemical used in a bomb, but I'm not sure what kind of chemical. But if it was a result of a burning house — from petrol or gas cylinders — that kind of burn would look different," he said.
Gul Ahmad Ayubi, the deputy head of Farah's health department, said the province's main hospital had received 14 patients after the battle, all with burn wounds. Five patients were sent to Herat.
"There has been other airstrikes in Farah in the past. We had injuries from those battles, but this is the first time we have seen such burns on the bodies. I'm not sure what kind of bomb it was," he said.
U.N. human rights investigators have also seen "extensive" burn wounds on victims and have raised questions about how the injuries were caused, said a U.N. official who asked not to be identified talking about internal deliberations. The U.N. has reached no conclusions about whether any chemical weapons may have been used, the official said.
Afghan officials say up to 147 people may have died in the battle in Farah, though the U.S. says that number is exaggerated.
The investigation into the Farah battle coincides with an appeal by Human Rights Watch for NATO forces to release results of an investigation into a March 14 incident in which an 8-year-old Afghan girl was burned by white phosphorus munitions in Kapisa province.
The New York-based group said Saturday that white phosphorus "causes horrendous burns and should not be used in civilian areas."
In the latest violence, a double suicide bomb attack killed seven people and wounded 20 in southern Afghanistan on Sunday. The majority of casualties were police and army units responding to the initial attack, said Dawood Ahmadi, the governor's spokesman.
A roadside bomb in eastern Nangarhar province killed eight construction workers traveling on a rural road on their way to build a checkpoint for the country's border police, an official said, while a truck driver and two assistants died in a roadside bomb blast in Zabul province while transporting goods to a U.S. base, police said.
Taliban militants have increased their attacks the last three years as the country's insurgency has turned increasingly bloody. President Barack Obama is sending 21,000 additional U.S. troops to the country to bolster the record 38,000 American forces already in the country.
"Wars May Come and Wars May Go But Art Is Forever."
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Talk Show Host Banned From UK For Political Opinions
Talk Show Host Banned From UK For Political Opinions
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
American talk show host Michael Savage has been banned from entering the UK by the Home Secretary because of his political opinions and opposition to illegal immigration, which is considered “hate speech” in airstrip one.
“Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate,” according to an ITN report.
The list of 16 “unwelcome” individuals includes Neo-Nazis, former Ku Klux Klan members, racist skinhead groups and Islamic preachers supposedly linked to terrorist groups.
Alongside these appears the name of Savage, who is a conservative talk show host in the mold of Rush Limbaugh who has consistently opposed illegal immigration and the declining stature of U.S. sovereignty.
“Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded,” said Smith.
Apparently the ‘rules that people live by’ in the UK do not include the right to free speech and political opinions considered unpalatable by what whistle blowers have described as a “Stalinist cabal of control freaks” currently in power in Britain.
As we have previously reported, people are mandated by government threats, peer pressure and cultural bullying to “tolerate” all kinds of minority groups and for the most part we do exactly that. The problem lies in the fact that the very same crowd that preaches “tolerance” is totally intolerant of anyone who dares utter a word against them.
The government in the UK defines “tolerance” as being banned from uttering a negative word against any minority group, and hate speech laws have codified the illegality of expressing an opinion which may be considered “offensive” to a minority.
Decrees of political correctness and the doctrines of illiberal mind control, which fronts as being liberally progressive when it is in fact fascistic, have swamped Europe to the point where Christian ministers are being arrested for reading Bible passages. It is also an illegal offense in Britain to criticize homosexuality. Television presenter Robin Page was arrested by police after he said in a speech that farmers should enjoy the same rights as Muslims and gays. Police traveled from 200 miles away to question Page, before detaining him in a prison cell with dried feces on the wall and later charging him with incitement to racial hatred.
- In 2001, Gloucestershire Police set up ‘Operation Napkin’ in which senior police officers were sent to ‘ethnic restaurants’ to eat four-course dinners and at the same time listen out for “racist hate speech.” Arrests were made as a result of the program.
- In January 2006 a student who called a mounted policeman’s horse “gay” was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act for making homophobic remarks and taken to court.
- Also in 2006, a 14-year-old school girl was arrested in Manchester England for making a “racist comment,” after she refused to work with a group of Asians during a science tutorial because none of them spoke English.
- Reports of “hate crime raids” where PC subversives are rounded up like terrorists by police are commonplace in the UK.
- In the U.S., members of the Repent America organization were arrested and criminally charged, with prosecutors attempting to secure 47-year prison sentences, for the crime of reading Bible passages on the street during Philadelphia’s 2004 “Outfest” gay pride march.
It seems that the only remaining sectors of society it is permissible to lambaste or make fun of is pedophiles and Christians - question any other minority, sexuality, race, gender or religion and the thought police are on your back in an instant. The sheep herd the rest of the sheep and no one is allowed to step outside of the pen.
New hate speech laws are now being passed in the United States - such legislation masquerades as being for the purpose of protecting minorities when in reality it is solely aimed at crushing the free speech of all citizens.
Though we have fundamentally disagreed with several of Michael Savage’s views in the past, the fact that he has been banned from entering the UK, a country that poses as a haven of free speech, once again proves that free speech considered politically incorrect by the government has been all but outlawed.
"Wars May Come and Wars May Go But Art Is Forever."
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
American talk show host Michael Savage has been banned from entering the UK by the Home Secretary because of his political opinions and opposition to illegal immigration, which is considered “hate speech” in airstrip one.
“Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate,” according to an ITN report.
The list of 16 “unwelcome” individuals includes Neo-Nazis, former Ku Klux Klan members, racist skinhead groups and Islamic preachers supposedly linked to terrorist groups.
Alongside these appears the name of Savage, who is a conservative talk show host in the mold of Rush Limbaugh who has consistently opposed illegal immigration and the declining stature of U.S. sovereignty.
“Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded,” said Smith.
Apparently the ‘rules that people live by’ in the UK do not include the right to free speech and political opinions considered unpalatable by what whistle blowers have described as a “Stalinist cabal of control freaks” currently in power in Britain.
As we have previously reported, people are mandated by government threats, peer pressure and cultural bullying to “tolerate” all kinds of minority groups and for the most part we do exactly that. The problem lies in the fact that the very same crowd that preaches “tolerance” is totally intolerant of anyone who dares utter a word against them.
The government in the UK defines “tolerance” as being banned from uttering a negative word against any minority group, and hate speech laws have codified the illegality of expressing an opinion which may be considered “offensive” to a minority.
Decrees of political correctness and the doctrines of illiberal mind control, which fronts as being liberally progressive when it is in fact fascistic, have swamped Europe to the point where Christian ministers are being arrested for reading Bible passages. It is also an illegal offense in Britain to criticize homosexuality. Television presenter Robin Page was arrested by police after he said in a speech that farmers should enjoy the same rights as Muslims and gays. Police traveled from 200 miles away to question Page, before detaining him in a prison cell with dried feces on the wall and later charging him with incitement to racial hatred.
- In 2001, Gloucestershire Police set up ‘Operation Napkin’ in which senior police officers were sent to ‘ethnic restaurants’ to eat four-course dinners and at the same time listen out for “racist hate speech.” Arrests were made as a result of the program.
- In January 2006 a student who called a mounted policeman’s horse “gay” was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act for making homophobic remarks and taken to court.
- Also in 2006, a 14-year-old school girl was arrested in Manchester England for making a “racist comment,” after she refused to work with a group of Asians during a science tutorial because none of them spoke English.
- Reports of “hate crime raids” where PC subversives are rounded up like terrorists by police are commonplace in the UK.
- In the U.S., members of the Repent America organization were arrested and criminally charged, with prosecutors attempting to secure 47-year prison sentences, for the crime of reading Bible passages on the street during Philadelphia’s 2004 “Outfest” gay pride march.
It seems that the only remaining sectors of society it is permissible to lambaste or make fun of is pedophiles and Christians - question any other minority, sexuality, race, gender or religion and the thought police are on your back in an instant. The sheep herd the rest of the sheep and no one is allowed to step outside of the pen.
New hate speech laws are now being passed in the United States - such legislation masquerades as being for the purpose of protecting minorities when in reality it is solely aimed at crushing the free speech of all citizens.
Though we have fundamentally disagreed with several of Michael Savage’s views in the past, the fact that he has been banned from entering the UK, a country that poses as a haven of free speech, once again proves that free speech considered politically incorrect by the government has been all but outlawed.
"Wars May Come and Wars May Go But Art Is Forever."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
