Rebels, with the help of NATO bombs and missiles, drove out Misrata's Black population
The “rebels” in Misrata in Libya have driven out the entire Black population of the city, according to a chilling story in The Wall Street Journal today under the headline Libya City Torn by Tribal Feud.”
The “rebels” now eye the city of Tawergha, 25 miles away, and vow to cleanse it of all Black people once they seize the city. Isn't this the perfect definition of the term “genocide”?
According to The Journal's article, the “rebels” refer to themselves as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.” The Journal quotes a rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous saying, of Black Libyans, “They should pack up,” and that “Tawergha no longer exists, only Mistrata.”
You won't read this kind of article in The New York Times, which has become as journalistically corrupt and as compromised as the old PRAVDA, during the Soviet era. This editorial page has been insisting since the beginning of the Libya conflict that the “rebels” embraced racism and used the allegation that Muammar al-Quathafi had employed mercenaries from other African countries as a pretext to massacre Black Libyans.
Phi Beta Iota: Congress has no clue–pontificating politicals divorced from reality. Cynthia McKinney, Green Party candidate for President in 2008, has taken a personal interest in this, and personally visited Libya to confirm that NATO is committing war crimes in its indiscriminate attacks against Tripoli, far removed from the “no fly zone” as originally envisioned. What the US Government is doing “in our name” in Libya, and in many countries around the world, is neither Constitutional nor affordable. Congress is lacking in intelligence and integrity. The lunacy continues….
Afghanistan: Special Comment. Longtime Readers know that NightWatch has had a continuing project to monitor the security situation in Afghanistan since mid-2006, using a consistent sample of unclassified reporting. In 2006, when the Taliban resurgence was just beginning, NightWatch began publishing monthly summaries of the security situation.
In the past three years, the number of incidents per month has increased so that compiling and analyzing monthly reports threatened to become a full time job.
NightWatch has continued to track data in detail for all 400 districts of Afghanistan every other month and spot checked fighting reports in between. Preliminary analysis of the data for May 2011 was completed today. The table below shows the data from three tracking measures since last November.
The remarks of the President are beneath contempt in so far as they completely avoid reality. Every statement about Afghanistan is questionable if not an outright misrepresentation. Al Quada and Afghanistan are not the same. This entire statement is a crock of warm, diseased spit. It is offensive in the extreme in its disrespect for public intelligence and the expectation of integrity in governance.
An honest president would admit that we are losing in Afghanistan and the Taliban is gaining (while also resupplying itself from our stocks); that suicide terrorism is directly related to the presence of US troops in countries where there is no public interest, only a special interest.
An honest president would apologize for attacking Libya and committing war crimes in Tripoli, a Congressional declaration of war not being in effect, and an honest president would admit that we are assassinating people–often the wrong people–all over the world.
An honest president would address the fraud that has bankrupted the nation and the corruption in the US government that allows all white collar criminals to avoid justice.
An honest president would admit that the domestic economic and social situation is desperate–the last twenty years have seen what Grover Norquist called the ultimate bi-partisanship: when the two parties get together and agree to screw the American people.
Barack Obama–like his immediate predecessors–is not an honest president. His rhetoric is false, offensive, and if Congress were honest, which it is not, he would be facing impeachment prior to the 4th of July.
Phi Beta Iota: This just in from NIGHTWATCH (forthcoming): …..tells a much different tale than what was said tonight…..
Just finished the first analysis of May 2011 finished. Unprecedented level of engagements of all kinds. Over 2000 for the first time in my data sample. The number of districts under stress is over 280 out of 400, all time high just under three-fourths.
For honest appraisals of Afghanistan, see Spinny Afghanistan. Washington is occupied by people who lack intelligence and integrity, who have abdicated their responsibilities under their Oaths of Office to defend and support the Constitution (not a corrupt chain of command), and who have absolutely no clue how to go about–even if they wanted to–serving the public interest.
Afterthought: The standard retired military flag officers are making fools of themselves across the channels, none more so than MajGen Bob Scales, USA (Ret), who just threw his integrity under the bus on Fox. GO ARMY. This is pathetic. How do we censure retired generals for deceiving any portion of the public?
An embedded reporter snaps war footage. The U.S. military-industrial complex and media work together to propagate the agenda of government.
NATO’s decision to intervene in Libya on humanitarian grounds has become an alarming and revealing assessment of America’s understanding of war. The way the “established” media portrayed the Libyan conflict, and its subsequent reception, illustrates our society’s failure to recognize how the power dynamics of plutocratic governance shape our realities. There is significant historical evidence that during times of war propaganda is used to justify military action for special interests. If we are to believe the theme of “change” will define our generation, we must pierce through both the media and the government’s rationalization of war.
I have found the established media’s reporting on Libya to be lacking in depth and consideration of an alternative to military intervention. This is not unusual. History repeatedly shows that during times of war, the established media have a tendency to mislead, deceive, and (in some instances) fabricate to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. This is shown through the writings of Carl Bernstein, the Nayirah testimony, the treatment of former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and the beginning of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Essentially, the media has been used to facilitate consent, not dissent.
Given the assumption that we learn from history, our passive acceptance of such reporting is surprising. In 1758, author Samuel Johnson wrote, “Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.” Later, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the emerging military-industrial complex, which we learned has a tradition of lying in addition to tremendous governmental influence. If the military has to go to such lengths for approval, it is clearly not what we naturally desire. Thus, why has there not been more widespread skepticism and objection with regard to Libya?
Led by the U.S., NATO used reports of imminent danger to civilians as justification for humanitarian intervention. Yet, history shows that there is a good reason to approach this explanation with skepticism. In fact, it was recently reported that President Barack Obama exaggerated the humanitarian threat. Once we consider issues such as who the Libyan rebels are and what role oil, banking, previous planning, and geopolitics play in the situation, it seems that history is repeating itself.
The question for our generation becomes: At what point do we categorically reject war and its mechanisms from the beginning rather than in retrospect? We can do this by repudiating all war. We must reject the seemingly righteous theory of humanitarian intervention because it is divorced from how social conflicts actually arise and are resolved. The idea that bombing — an indiscriminate killing method the U.S. has become notoriously inaccurate at — can improve a situation is untenable. The most recent example is Kosovo; it was the nonviolent movement that ultimately resolved the conflict. Moreover, what right does any country have to determine the affairs of another country? This is the same expression of moral superiority used to justify imperialism.
If we want to live in a world of peace, we must learn from our history and see that war is an unnatural phenomenon; we need to reject it on a philosophical and spiritual level. Removing war from our conscience creates space for dialogue and diplomacy, and brings us closer to a shared utopia.
Was born in Kingston, Jamaica, raised in Atlanta, Georgia, attended high school in Torino, Italy, obtained a history degree from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and is currently a Juris Doctorate candidate at the University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law. Coy's primary interests are stimulating our natural impulse to collaborate with one another, exploring and deepening our collective consciousness, and building small-scale, sustainable communities where appreciation of the environment, and our role within it, is deeply embedded within the culture. For more, check out the website: http://www.everythingology.com
Phi Beta Iota: Standard elite distortions of reality occur through Forbidden Knowledge, Rule by Secrecy, Lost History, Manufacturing Consent, Propaganda, Weapons of Mass Deception, Fog Facts, and Missing information, among others. All of these terms are titles of books. Information Forensics, and Public Intelligence in the Public Interest, are the antidotes.
Goodbye two-Party system? Discontent is building to open up the political process
NEW YORK NEWSDAY THE SUNDAY SPECIAL
October 31, 2010
Name a problem — poverty, war, out-of-control spending. The political parties offer themselves as the solution to all of the above, and more. We respond by voting for first one party, then the other, then back again. We want to let the world know we are unhappy, but we haven’t yet developed the creative capacity to rearrange the world around us.
This seemingly eternal passivity is the mother’s milk of political partyism. No wonder the Republicans and Democrats and their auxiliaries — the tea parties, the unions, the media — must whip us into a frenzy. Whether we are Foxites, MSNBCists, bloggers or bored stiff, we’re now implored daily to get out to vote. Why? Not because voting develops our capacity to move the country forward. But because we must put one, or the other, or both, political parties in power — even though separately and together, they brought us to this anxious and crummy place.
Phi Beta Iota: Jacqueline Salit is a force in America, and she has access to Michael Bloomberg. They both made a mistake in spending money on apparatchiks who created the NO LABELS “movement” that would be a monstrocity but for the fact that it is so pathetically “wag the puppy” one can only laugh. She herself is authentic, and there is no denying the fact that 43% or more voters now consider themselves Independent, and over 83% told an informal Wall Street Journal poll they are ready to vote for a third party President. All that is missing now is a Presidential candidate from a third party that can make Seven Promises to America.
The House Appropriations Committee has reported the bill and text for HR 2219, the 2012 DOD appropriations bill, that handles most, but not all, of the appropriations for DOD and for DOD expenses in Afghanistan and elsewhere (Title IX). Find the bill and report, as actually reported — not the pre-mark up versions distributed by the HAC — at the Thomas site for HR 2219 at ) for the report, and for the bill.
There are some elements to the bill that the HAC forgot to emphasize in its press releases and that the press has paid little to no attention to.
For example, I found the following to be interesting:
There are a pile of earmarks in the bill. Some are sprinkled through the R&D section of the bill. They start in the tables for Army R&D on p. 211. See the very first one: +$20 million for “University and Industry Research Centers,” which is explained in the detailed table on p. 218 as for “Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” It is explained more fully on p. 205. The explanation, however, does not obviate the fact that the add on is an earmark to anyone who understands what earmarks are and why they are done.
Another misstep by the IC…..Zawahiri has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that has brought you the “Arab Spring”, Washington's perception of a move toward democracy…..
Zawahiri's goal has always been to overtake AQ (hence the belief he was responsible for Azam's death) and make it a weapon of the Islamic Jihad. If true, and the Arab Spring is tied to the Brotherhood, then giving up UBL is another step of the ladder. He was no longer needed.
Now that Ayman Zawahiri has assumed leadership of al-Qaeda, it is important to end the widespread perception that he is a dour intellectual who is disconnected from young, would-be jihadists. The fact is, Zawahiri is a wily, dangerous and imposing leader who should be considered no less of a threat — and perhaps even more so — than his predecessor.
