#AutoAtentado en #Boston (Final)

Parte 1

Parte 2

Obligatorio Recordar

 
¿Quiénes serán los culpables?

Quienes perdieron seres queridos en este auto-atentado buscarán justicia, no todos, pero la mayoría. Si les contáramos quienes perpetraron el atentado, no lo creerían, preferirían que su gobierno actúe y encuentre a los culpables. 

Y a los pocos momentos los han encontrado, ya se lo dijo en un anterior escrito, que culparían a un joven de aproximadamente 20 años de edad (http://obligatoriorecordar.blogspot.com/2013/04/actors-used-at-boston-bombing-to-create.html) y así lo hicieron. 

Confesó este joven de 19 años, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, y también incriminó a su hermano Tamerlan de 26 años quien murió durante su captura. ¿Por qué lo hicieron? Fácil, lo hicieron para protestar sobre las guerras en Afganistán e Irak y, no tenía que ser de otra manera, para defender el Islam. Dice DZhokhar que actuaron solos, que la mente brillante de su hermano planeó todo y que no tienen relación con otro grupo terrorista, aun así ya iniciaron las investigaciones de su familia para ver si no hay vínculos terroristas.

¡Qué trillada es esta historia realmente! 

Y qué vergüenza para el Imperio, dos jóvenes burlan todas las seguridades del país más seguro del mundo, todos los billones de dólares a la basura.

Los hermanos Tamerlan Tsarnaev (izq.), y Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, los "culpables" de los ataques en Boston.

¿Qué buscan con estos auto-atentados?

Más guerras, tal vez encuentren alguna conexión con células terrorista en Irán, muy probable. Pero también tienen a Mali, Pakistán, Siria o a cualquier país que deseen atacar, ¿Venezuela?, todo es posible. Todavía hay rincones oscuros a los cuales atacar, según palabras del satánico Bush hijo. 

Más leyes regulatorias, ya metieron al congreso la ley de censura de Internet CISPA. Pueden obligar a usar el chip que les defenderá de todo, eso sí, hasta que venga un niño y plante una bomba mini-nuclear en alguna parte de EE.UU. O una ley peor que la Ley Patriota que pusieron luego del 9/11.

Aún sigue la lucha con Corea del Norte.

El INWO

Como ya lo dije, el 1 de marzo de 1993 Steve Jackson fue detenido por el FBI y le robaron discos duros de su empresa, lo creían el delincuente más peligroso de la nación. El día 12 un tribunal de Texas reconoció que los servicios secretos incumplieron con la ley, lo dejaron, pero nunca le devolvieron sus archivos.

El reloj marca 11:11 cuando se abrieron portales satánicos para el NOM.

La Carta de la Tercer Guerra Mundial

La Carta que habla sobre le mes de Abril

Los Auto-Atentados de Boston y Oklahoma sucedieron en abril.

Auto-Atentado en Fukushima 

La empresa que gestionaba la planta es TEPCO, una empresa judía.

Control de Armas

Con el auto-atentado en Sandy Hook inició el control de armas a gran escala

Noruega

Asesinatos en masa, agenda rutinaria satánica

La carta habla de 23 muertos y dice: "Una espantosa historia noticiosa distrae a todos los medios, y al tiempo en que sigue su curso, el público se ha olvidado de todo eso… ¿cuál era ese asunto, de todos modos?”

Reducir la Población

Toda la agenda es hecha para reducir la población mundial para un mejor control.

Obelisco en Boston

El Obelisco de Boston es un símbolo de Osiris Masón, eligieron a Boston por su tradición satánica, además tiene la logia masona más antigua y activa con delegaciones en China, Tokio y Guantánamo.

Nuevamente los números:

Está a 350km de Nueva York, 350 suma 8, 8 número de sacrificio a Isthar y a Anu.

15 de abril de 2013 ocurrieron los atentados, 15 suma 6, 6 el hexagrama sionista y sacrificio satánico.

Niño fallecido Martin Richard tenía 8 años.

Boston uno de los primeros estados de los pioneros ingleses controlados por logias satánicas.

Boston fue elegido por su infraestructura y como continuación de Sandy Hook que está muy cerca.  
 

Para concluir diremos que las personas que estaban en los techos durante el auto-atentado eran quienes controlaban todo y controlaban a los corredores que pusieron las bombas.

The War in Mali and AFRICOM’s Agenda: Target China

Part I: Africa’s New Thirty Years’ War?

Mali at first glance seems a most unlikely place for the NATO powers, led by a neo-colonialist French government of Socialist President Francois Hollande (and quietly backed to the hilt by the Obama Administration), to launch what is being called by some a new Thirty Years’ War Against Terrorism.

Mali, with a population of some 12 million, and a landmass three and a half times the size of Germany, is a land-locked largely Saharan Desert country in the center of western Africa, bordered by Algeria to its north, Mauritania to its west, Senegal, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso and Niger to its southern part. People I know who have spent time there before the recent US-led efforts at destabilization called it one of the most peaceful and beautiful places on earth, the home of Timbuktu. Its people are some ninety percent Muslim of varying persuasions. It has a rural subsistence agriculture and adult illiteracy of nearly 50%. Yet this country is suddenly the center of a new global “war on terror.”

On January 20 Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron announced his country’s curious resolve to dedicate itself to deal with “the terrorism threat” in Mali and north Africa. Cameron declared, “It will require a response that is about years, even decades, rather than months, and it requires a response that…has an absolutely iron resolve…” [1] Britain in its colonial heyday never had a stake in Mali. Until it won independence in 1960, Mali was a French colony.

Continue reading:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-in-mali-and-africoms-african-agenda-target-china/5322517  

30-Year CIA Vet Talks False Flag At Brookings Institution

Veterano de 30 años dentro de la CIA habla sobre Operaciones de Bandera Falsa en el Brookings Institution

Las operaciones de bandera falsa son operaciones ocultas llevadas a cabo por gobiernos y organizaciones, con el fin de que aparenten ser de otras entidades. En este caso el ex agente de la CIA Bruce Riedel, habla sobre los escuadrones antiterrorismo de Argelia y las tácticas que utilizan.

http://www.infowars.com/30-year-cia-vet-talks-false-flag-at-brookings-institution/

Jurriaan Maessen

In a recent article published on the website of the Brookings Institution, 30 year CIA veteran and current Brookings senior fellow, Bruce Riedel talks false flag ops in relation to Algerian counter-terrorism units. In his article Algeria a Complex Ally in War Against al Qaeda, Riedel gives a description of the Algerian counter-terrorism unit DRS and its methods:

“(The) DRS is (…) known for its tactic of infiltrating terrorist groups, creating “false flag” terrorists and trying to control them.”, Riedel writes. “Rumors have associated the DRS in the past with the Malian warlord Iyad Ag Ghali, head of Ansar al Dine AQIM’s ally in Mali, and even with Mukhtar Belmukhtar, the al-Qaeda terrorist who engineered the attack on the natural gas plant.”

Here the CIA-vet admits that the Algerian intelligence agency is in the business of “creating false flag terrorists”, and that this agency is “rumored” to have ties to terrorist attacks in North Africa. This statement is quite interesting, as the very concept of “false flag” is usually labeled as some outrageous conspiracy theory. We of course know that false flag terrorism is standard modus operandi of intelligence agencies all over the world. We are also aware of the fact that the Brookings Institution is one of the think tanks that warm to the idea of using false flag attacks to attain public support for an invasion of Iran.

In my original June 29, 2009 article titled Brookings Publication mentions possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation’ to Trigger Iran Invasion” I cover false flag proposals made by the Brookings Institute in their Which Path To Persia document.

In the 2009 paper, the authors openly contemplated a possible “provocation” to escalate things to the point of armed conflict:

“(…) it is not impossible”, they write, “that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.”

Under the headline “The Question of a Provocation” on page 66 in this document, the authors press the point even further:

‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.”

Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know which party is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):

“Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?”

Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:

“Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.”

The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called “Inspiring an Insurgency”, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists plunder their nation:

“The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.”

The entire Arab Spring hoax springs to mind, doesn’t it? As Paul Joseph Watson reported in September of 2012, a member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank proposed a false flag operation to kick off a military conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The think tank’s director of research Patrick Clawson stated:

“(…) if (…) the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson said.

The Crisis in Mali: A Historical Perspective on the Tuareg People

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-crisis-in-mali-a-historical-perspective-on-the-tuareg-people/5321407

By Devon DB

Currently the ongoing situation in Mali is gaining traction in the media with the reporting of Al Qaeda members within the ranks of the Tuareg rebels.

The situation in quite complicated and involves not only France, but also the US and partially Canada and links to the interests of these Western powers with not just Mali, but with the African continent as a whole.

However, in order to get a better handle on the situation, there must first be an understanding of the domestic actors, namely the Tuareg people.

The Tuareg People

The Tuareg are a people that have lived in northern Mali “as early as the fifth century BCE” [1] according to Herodotus. After establishing the city of Timbuktu in the 11th century, the Tuareg “traded, traveled, and conquered throughout Saharan” over the next four centuries, eventually converting to Islam in the 14th century, which allowed them to “gain great wealth trading salt, gold, and black slaves.” [2] This independence was swept away when the French colonized Mali when they “defeated the Tuareg at Timbuktu and established borders and administrative districts to rule the area until Mali declared independence in 1960.” [3] The Tuareg people have consistently wanted self-independence and in pursuit of such goals have engaged in a number of rebellions.

The first was in 1916 when, in response to the French not giving the Tuareg their own autonomous zone (called Azawad) as was promised, they revolted. The French violently quelled the revolt and “subsequently confiscated important grazing lands while using Tuaregs as forced conscripts and labor – and fragmented Tuareg societies through the drawing of arbitrary boundaries between Soudan [Mali] and its neighbors.”[4]

Yet, this did not end the Tuareg goal of an independent, sovereign state. Once the French had ceded Mali independence, the Tuareg began to push toward their dream of establishing Azawad once again with “several prominent Tuareg leaders [lobbying] for a separate Tuareg homeland consisting of northern Mali and parts of modern day Algeria, Niger, Mauritania. […] [However,] black politicians like Modibo Keita, Mali’s first President, made it clear that independent Mali would not cede its northern territories.” [5]

The First Tuareg Rebellion

In the 1960s, while the independence movements in Africa were ongoing, the Tuareg once again vied for their own autonomy, known as the Afellaga rebellion. The Tuareg were greatly oppressed by the government of Modibo Keita, which came into power after the French had left, as they “were singled out for particular discrimination, and were more neglected than others in the distribution of state benefits,” which may have been due to the fact that “most of the senior leadership of post-colonial Mali were drawn from the southern ethnic groups who were not sympathetic to the pastoral culture of the northern desert nomads.” [6]

In addition to this, the Tuareg felt that the government’s policy of ‘modernization’ was in reality an attack on the Tuareg themselves as the Keita government enacted policies such as “land reform that threatened [the Tuareg’s] privileged access to agricultural products.” [7] Specifically, Keita “had moved increasingly in the direction of [establishing a version of] the Soviet collective farm and had created state corporations to monopolize the purchase of basic crops.” [8]

In addition to this, Keita left customary land rights unchanged “except when the state needed land for industry or transport. Then the Minister of Rural Economy issued a decree of acquisition and registration in the name of the state, but only after publication of notice and a hearing to determine customary claims.” [9] Unfortunately for the Tuareg, this unchanging of customary land rights did not apply to the subsoil that was on their land. Instead, this subsoil was turned into a state monopoly due to Keita’s desire to ensure that no one became a capitalist based on the discovery of subsoil resources.

This had a major negative impact on the Tuareg as they had a pastoral culture and the subsoil helps to “determine what kind of crops can be grown in any area and, therefore, what livestock can be raised.” [10] Thus, by creating a state monopoly on subsoil, the Keita government was effectively in control of what the Tuareg would be able to grow and therefore in control of their very lives.

This oppression eventually boiled over and became the first Tuareg rebellion, which began with small hit-and-run attacks on government forces. However, it was quickly crushed due to the Tuareg lacking “a unified leadership, a well-coordinated strategy or clear evidence of a coherent strategic vision.” [11] In addition to this, the rebels were unable to mobilize the entire Tuareg community.

The Malian military, well-motivated and [well-equipped] with new Soviet weapons, conducted vigorous counterinsurgency operations. By the end of 1964, the government’s strong arm methods had crushed the rebellion. It then placed the Tuareg-populated northern regions under a repressive military administration. [12]

Yet while the Malian military may have won the battle, they failed to win the war as their heavy-handed tactics only alienated Tuareg who didn’t support the insurgency and not only did the government fail to follow through on promises to improve the local infrastructure and increase economic opportunity. To avoid the military occupation of their communities and also due to massive drought in the 1980s, many Tuareg fled to nearby countries such as Algeria, Mauritania, and Libya. Thus, the grievances of the Tuareg went unaddressed, only creating a situation in which a rebellion would once again occur.

The Second Tuareg Rebellion

The raging inferno that was the spirit of independence of the Tuareg people once again came back to life in 1990. It must be noted that Tuareg had greatly changed since the 1960s and moved from a socialist government to a military dictatorship that (due to massive pressure from the people) quickly changed to a transitional government with military and civilian leaders, finally fully becoming democratic in 1992. [13]

While Mali was transitioning to a democracy, the Tuareg people were still suffering under the boot of oppression. Three decades after the first rebellion, the occupation of Tuareg communities still had not ended and “resentment fueled by the harsh repression, continued dissatisfaction with government policies, and perceived exclusion from political power led various Tuareg and Arab groups to begin a second rebellion against the Malian government.” [14] The second rebellion was sparked due to “attacks on non-Tuareg Malians [at] the southernmost edge of the Tuareg regions [which led to] skirmishes between the Malian army and Tuareg rebels.” [15]

Yet it did not last long as the first major step to peace was made in 1991 by the transitional government and resulted in the Tamanrasset Accords, which was negotiated in Algeria between the military government of Lt. Colonel Amadou Toumani Touré (that had taken power in a coup on March 26, 1991) and the two major Tuareg factions, The Azaouad Popular Movement and the Arabic Islamic Front of Azawad, on January 6, 1991. In the Accords, the Malian military agreed to “disengage from the running of the civil administration and will proceed to the suppression of certain military posts,” “avoid zones of pasture land and densely populated zones,” to be “confined to their role of defense of the integrity of the territory at the frontiers,” [16] and created a ceasefire between the two main Tuareg factions and the government.

However, not all of the Tuareg factions signed onto the Accords as many rebel groups demanded “among other concessions, the removal of current administrators in the north and their replacement with local representatives.” [17] The Accords represented a political compromise in which more autonomy was granted to Tuareg communities and local and regional councils made up of local representatives were established, yet the Tuareg still remained a part of Mali. Thus, the Accords were not the end all be all of the situation as tensions remained between the Tuareg and the Malian government.

The transitionary government of Mali attempted to negotiate with the Tuareg. This culminated in the April 1992 National Pact between the Malian government and several Tuareg factions. The National Pact allowed for “integration of Tuareg combatants into the Malian armed forces, demilitarization of the north, economic integration of northern populations, and a more detailed special administrative structure for the three northern regions.” [18] After Alpha Konaré was elected president of Mali in 1992, he furthered the process of Tuareg autonomy by not only honoring the concessions made in the National Pact but by removing the structure of federal and regional governments and allowing authority to take hold at the local level. Yet, decentralization had a greater political purpose, as it “effectively co-opted the Tuareg by allowing them a degree of autonomy and the benefits of remaining in the Republic.” [19]

However, this attempt to deal with the Tuareg did not hold as the National Pact only renewed debate about the unique status of Tuareg people and some rebel groups, such as the Arabic Islamic Front of Azawad, did not attend the National Pact talks [20] and the violence continued, eventually resulting in the deaths of 6,000-8,000 people before an peace agreement was signed by all factions.

It must be noted that the introduction the Arabic Islamic Front of Azawad to the Tuareg rebellion is also the introduction of radical Islam to the Tuareg fight for independence. The emergence of radical Islam was greatly aided by the Gaddafi regime. During the 1970s many Tuareg had fled to Libya and other countries, mainly for economic opportunity. Once there, Gaddafi “welcomed them with open arms. He gave them food and shelter. He called them brothers. He also started training them as soldiers.” [21] Gaddafi then used these soldiers to found the Islamic Legion in 1972. The goal of the Legion was to “further [Gaddafi’s own] territorial ambitions in the African interior and advance the cause of Arab supremacy.” [22] The Legion was sent to fight the in Niger, Mali, Palestine, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. However, the Legion came to an end due to the price of oil declining in 1985, which meant that Gaddafi could no longer afford to recruit and train fighters. Coupled with the Legion’s crushing defeat in Chad, the organization was disbanded which left many Tuareg going back to their homes in Mali with large amounts of combat experience. The role of Libya played a role not only in the third Tuareg rebellion, but also in the current, ongoing fighting. [23]

The Third Tuareg Rebellion

The third rebellion was not so much a rebellion, but rather an insurgency that kidnapped and killed members of the Malian military.

The insurgency began in May 2006, when “a group of Tuareg army deserters attacked military barracks in Kidal region, seizing weapons and demanding greater autonomy and development assistance.” [24] The former general Amadou Toumani Toure had won presidential elections in 2002 and reacted to the violence by working with a rebel coalition known as the Democratic Alliance for Change to establish a peace agreement that solely restated that Malian government’s commitment to improving the economy in the northern areas where the rebels lived. However, many rebels such as Ibrahim Ag Bahanga, who was killed just last year, [25] refused to abide by the peace treaty and continued to terrorize the Malian military until the government of Mali deployed a large offensive force to eliminate the insurgency. [26]

Yet, the fight for Tuareg independence remains and leads us into the current, ongoing rebellion.

Notes 

 [1] Ann Hershkowitz, The Tuareg in Mali and Niger: The Role of Desertification in Violent Conflict, American University, http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/tuareg.htm(August 2005)

[2] http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/tuareg.htm

[3] Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Tamashek Cultural Orientation, http://famdliflc.lingnet.org/products/Tamashek/co_tt/tamashek.pdf

[4] Minority Rights, Tuareg, http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5315&tmpl

[5] Aman Sethi, “Battle Reveals Islamists Riding Over Ethnic Faultllines,” The Hindu, January 14, 2012 (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/battle-reveals-islamists-riding-over-ethnic-faultlines/article4305856.ece)

[6] Global Security, Tuareg – Mali – 1962-1964, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/tuareg-mali-1962.htm

[7] Colonel Dan Henk, Lieutenant Colonel Kalifa Keita, Conflict and Conflict Resolution in the Sahel: The Tuareg Insurgency in Mali, Strategic Studies Institute, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub200.pdf

[8] John N. Hazard, “Marxian Socialism in Africa: The Case of Mali,” Comparative Politics 2:1 (1969), pg 4

[9] Hazard, pg 4

[10] Forest Preserve District of Cook County, IL, Topsoil and Subsoil, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/300-399/nb372.htm

[11] http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub200.pdf

[12] Ibid

[13] Jaimie Bleck, “Countries at the Crossroads 2011 – Mali,” Freedom House, November 10, 2011 (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,FREEHOU,,MLI,4ecba6492f,0.html)

[14] Freedom House, November 10, 2011

[15] Jennifer C. Seely, “A Political Analysis of Decentralisation: Coopting the Tuareg Threat in Mali,” The Journal of Modern African Studies 39:3 (2001), pg 9

[16] Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Tamanrasset Accord, http://www.ucdp.uu.se/gpdatabase/peace/mal19910106.pdf

[17] Seely, pg 9

[18] Seely, pg 10

[19] Seely, pg 15

[20] Katharine Murison, ed., Africa South of the Sahara 2003, 32 ed. (London, England: The Gresham Press, 2003) pg 640

[21] Jeffrey Gettleman, “Libyan Oil Buys Allies for Qaddafi,” New York Times, March 16, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16mali.html?_r=0)

[22] Andrew McGregor, “Can African Mercenaries Save the Libyan Regime?,” Jamestown Foundation, February 23, 2011 (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=37551&cHash=4e5f37dc8755b53452b6de6c97eef96a)

[23] Glen Johnson, “Libya weapons aid Tuareg rebellion in Mali,” Los Angeles Times, June 12, 2012 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/12/world/la-fg-libya-arms-smuggle-20120612)

[24] Freedom House, Mali, Freedom in the World 2009, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2009/mali

[25] “Tuareg leader’s death linked to Libya arms trade,” France 24, August 27, 2011 (http://www.france24.com/en/20110827-mali-tuareg-leader-death-linked-libyan-weapons)

[26] “Army claims victory in clashes with Tuareg rebels,” France 24, January 2, 2009 (http://www.france24.com/en/20090102-mali-army-clashes-tuareg-rebels-claims-victory) 

EE.UU. carece de recursos para detener acciones de Al Qaeda en África

http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&idioma=1&id=1080481&Itemid=1

Las agencias de inteligencia de Estados Unidos carecen de los recursos humanos y materiales necesarios para detener la creciente presencia de la organización extremista Al Qaeda en África, señala hoy un medio prensa. Esa insuficiencia obliga a Washington a depender cada vez más de la información que proporcionan las autoridades de los países del continente para combatir las células terroristas.

Sin embargo, algunos gobernantes africanos temen apoyar públicamente las operaciones estadounidenses en la región, lo que obstaculiza los esfuerzos de Washington contra el empuje que mantiene Al Qaeda, señala una información del sitio digital de la cadena CBS.

Esa aparente falta de voluntad de gobiernos locales ha creado un vacío informativo y logístico que los terroristas han sabido explotar en los últimos meses, particularmente en Mali y otros países, añade el artículo.

La red relativamente pequeña de fuerzas y medios de inteligencia que Washington mantiene en territorio africano es insignificante en comparación con los recursos que posee en otros países, como Afganistán e Irak.

La administración del presidente Barack Obama considera que la creciente influencia de Al Qaeda en territorio africano no representa un peligro directo para Estados Unidos, pero constituye una amenaza específica para los intereses norteamericanos en el continente, concluye CBS.

Illegal Invasions / Invasiones Ilegales África

Illegal Invasions, “Rogue States”, Forgotten Victims and a Shaming Plea

The usual suspects have embarked on another mass butchery – sorry “training exercise” - in mega-resource-rich Mali, and are meddling, with lethality, in Algeria.

By Felicity Arbuthnot

The usual suspects have embarked on another mass butchery – sorry “training exercise” – in mega-resource-rich Mali, and are meddling, with lethality, in Algeria. The UK, ever keen to kill, has gone from the Prime Minister’s “no boots on the ground” assurances, to “Operation Creep” in barely over a week.

The US, says a spokesman, assesses that “intervention” may “last for years.” He was talking Mali. Think Africa.

The US plans a drone base on the Mali-Niger border, as John Glaser has written, one of: ‘

“a constellation of secret drone bases” in East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, in Ethiopia, Djibouti, the Seychelles, and beyond -which bomb Yemen and Somalia and most likely perform surveillance missions in East Africa and the Persian Gulf.’ (i)

The disaster of a recent African foray, the ruins of Libya, lives lost ranging from 30,000 to 100,000, the horror of the plight of the country’s Leader, his children, grandchildren, the murder of the US Ambassador, torching of his Benghazi residence and deaths of three US government employees are seemingly forgotten. No “lessons learned.” The British Embassy in Tripoli has received “credible threats” with the Foreign Office advising against travel to the country, with Westerners facing a “high threat from terrorism.”

Yesterday’s gift of “democracy” to Afghanistan – where US soldiers are being killed with relentless regularity by their Afghan “colleagues” who, of course, they have “trained” – has brought poverty and desperation such that the BBC – usually loyal to a fault to any colonial invasion – is reporting that some families resort to selling one child, in order to gain enough money to feed the others.

In the horror of the country’s prisons, the UN reports this month that torture is on the rise, and as Iraq (ii) the unspeakable continues.

In Iraq, the occupation’s abuses continue to haunt the invaders and the Iraqis. Today the tireless Phil Shiner, of the UK’s Public Interest Lawyers, presents another case on behalf of one hundred and eighty Iraqis, in Britain’s High Court, alleging they were systematically abused and tortured by British troops using methods chillingly reminiscent of the Americans at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

The claim is of a “systematic” policy between 2003 and 2008 of lawless torture and killing.

Mr Shiner has said:

“We’ve got the training materials, we’ve got the policy documents. Violence was endemic to the (UK) State practices and part of the State practices”.

As the tenth anniversary of the Iraq invasion approaches it is surely time for the invading countries to attempt to amend for the enormity of the illegality of the invasion and for individual sufferings. Details of the alleged abuses by Britain’s “heroes” defy depravity, bestiality, sadism and sub-humanity’s worst.

Just a few of those who suffered have their days in Court. Others have made pleas that should also shame.

Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, incarcerated under sentence of death since 2003, whose audience with the Pope in 2003 was a plea to avert an attack on Iraq, which had suffered so grievously under the embargo, whose people had died in their hundreds of thousands of its effects, has again appealed to the Pope.

In 2003 he appealed for Iraqis to live, to the Pope at the Vatican and in other European capitols. Last week he appealed to Pope Benedict the sixth that he should be allowed to die. (iii)

His lawyer Badie Izzat has said his client is deeply depressed and is sending an appeal to the Pope to intervene for the end of his suffering.

“Aziz told me that the former spokesman of the government Ali al-Dabbagh visited him months ago, accompanied by two of the judges and promised to study his case, but he did not receive any response from him” Aziz stated: “I prefer to be executed than to remain in this situation.” Two other former government officials, Saadoun Shaker and Abed Hammoud are also facing this most shocking of barbaric “victors justice.”

Tariq Aziz now suffers a range of serious health problems and seemingly has finally given up, also calling on: “all international organizations to intervene to put an end to his current status”, states Izzat.

Last year Iraq’s American imposed “Prime Minister” pushed for the death sentence against Aziz to be speeded up, in spite of the fact that Iraqi law negated the death penalty on those over seventy. Tariq Aziz is seventy four. His family have urged human rights organizations and relevant bodies, politicians to release him due to his frail state and lack of medical care.

President Talabani said that he would never sign the order for Tariq Aziz’s execution, but he was rushed to Germany after a heart attack and an ominous silence as to his condition has followed.

Tariq Aziz could have fled Iraq ahead of the bombs and tanks, but was true to his words to me in an interview that: “ … I will never give up on Iraq.” His health has failed him but whatever the complexities he did not give up on the country he served and loved.

It is impossible not to ponder whether the core of Western proclaimed values are not hypocritical cant. Those – and there are many of them, distinguished and compassionate, who have written to the Pope, to Archbishops, politicians, all who profess a faith, those who learned the Ten Commandments barely out of nursery school: “Thou shalt not kill”, those who recite the Lord’s prayer on Sundays, and at their festivals: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” What rubbish. They simply annihilate, or condone annihilating, those who pose no threat whatsoever.

They ignore over year after year, pleas for justice, pleas for human lives, please in line with their hollow, meaningless, hypocritical prayers.

“The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven, Upon the place beneath: It is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes”,wrote Shakespeare in the Merchant of Venice. Another fantasy that children of the West are indoctrinated with. Values of total delusion.

Of the torture cases before the High Court commencing today, law Professor Andrew Williams of Warwick University says:

“This is our last chance to get to the truth of what happened.

“This is what we demand of others, but we do not demand it of ourselves. What kind of message does that give the world about who we are?”

Indeed. Our governments have become the regimes they warned us about. Ones that illegally invade, rape, torture, incarcerate without oversight or review, either without trial, or via a proxy kangaroo court.

Last September Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for George W. Bush and Tony Blair to be brought to The International Criminal Court at The Hague on war crimes charges. They had, he said:

“fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies … They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.”

In the interim, perhaps those two professed Christians could do something, well, Christian, and pressure Nuri al Maliki to release their fellow Christian Tariq Aziz, his colleagues and the mass of illegally held incarcerated Iraqis.

Notes

i. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/01/28/us-plans-base-for-drones-near-mali/

ii. http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-routine-torture-and-murder-in-iraqs-prisons/5320703

iii. http://www.shafaaq.com/en/news/4896-tariq-aziz-desperate-and-appeals-the-pope-to-end-his-suffering.html 

Malian War Spreading into Niger / La Guerra en Mali se extiende a Níger

Para nuestros amigos de habla española, recomendamos usar el traductor de Internet para revisar esta y otras noticias de suma importancia sobre lo que sucede en el continente africano. Muchas gracias. OB

Malian War Spreading into Niger: French Military Moves Further Into Northern Region

Special Forces deployed by Paris to Niger to “secure” uranium mines

By Abayomi Azikiwe 

Reports emanating from the West African state of Mali indicate that French grounds forces accompanied by the national army from the capital of Bamako–along with a small contingent of regional troops from Niger, Burkina Faso, Togo, Senegal, Benin, Chad and Nigeria–are moving towards the northern historic city of Timbuktu. Although there has been a media blockade by the French and Malian governments about the impact of the war, details of the conditions taking place inside the country are emerging.

In the northern city of Gao, French and Malian forces claim that they have taken the airport and are moving to occupy the city. A military press release from Paris stated that they were fired on by “Al-Qaeda linked terrorist elements who were destroyed.” (Associated Press, January 28)

Nonetheless, the ministry of defense in France has attempted to sanitize the actual situation in the contested areas. One report asserted that no civilians have been killed in the imperialist military operations, although other news agencies have contradicted these statements.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in a press release issued on January 22, stated that “As air bombing and fighting continue in Mali refugees are continuing to cross into neighboring countries. In Mauritania, 4,208 Malian refugees have arrived since January 11.” (UNHCR)

This same media advisory continues noting that “After being registered at the Fassala transit center, they are being transported further inland to the Mbera refugee camp which is already hosting 55,221 people from earlier displacements.” During the same time period 1,300 refugees have arrived in Niger and 1,829 entered Burkina Faso.

Malians arriving in these neighboring states say that they are fleeing air strikes being carried out by French fighter jets. They are complaining about shortages of food, fuel and water. Many new arrivals are traveling in vehicles, but others are on foot and donkeys.

The refugees are anticipating that other members of their families will be crossing the borders very soon. Since the escalation of fighting in the north of Mali in January 2012, which was largely the result of the U.S.-NATO war against Libya, some 147,000 refugees have fled the country.

Inside the country, the UNHCR reports that 229,000 people have been internally displaced mainly from the areas around Kidal, Timbuktu and Gao. The UN refugee agency is assisting by providing food, water and shelter for the internally displaced as well.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced recently that the international body would not directly participate or authorize the deployment of troops under its authority. Ki-moon cited the humanitarian work carried out by the UN agencies, saying that the organization’s direct involvement would jeopardize the safety and security of its personnel.

Meanwhile the United States military is providing C-17 air transport for the French troops and equipment entering Mali. The Obama administration has pledged its support to the invasion and occupation of Mali where the Pentagon has maintained close ties with the national army.

Other NATO states are also participating in the war including Britain, Canada, Denmark and Italy. The Italian government announced on January 28 that it could not continue its support for the French war in Mali without the support of the parliament.

War Spreading to Niger

France announced that it would also deploy Special Forces units to neighboring Niger to guard the Areva uranium mines. The mines provide up to 70 percent of the uranium utilized to power its nuclear power reactors in France.

The mines are located in the areas around the towns of Arlit and Imouraren. Areva maintains operations in Canada, Kazakhstan as well as Niger.

Areva is the second largest uranium mining producer in the world. The mines in Niger are critical to its operations globally.

Just last year in October, the Niger government complained to Areva about the slow pace of its operations aimed at uranium production at the Imouraren site. Several personnel working at the mines were kidnapped during 2010 creating a serious security problem for the firm.

Also there were labor disputes in early 2012 among the construction workers at the Imouraren mines. The delays strained relations with the Niger government which threatened to withdraw support if the firm could not meet its construction deadlines.

France, a former colonial power in Africa, still maintains troops in various states on the continent including Gabon, Ivory Coast, Central African Republic, Niger and others. The U.S., which is expanding its military presence in Africa with the deployment of an additional 3,500 troops to 35 states, is therefore a natural ally of France in the imperialist expansion in the region.

Africa is becoming even more important in the supply of strategic resources essential for the maintenance of the industrial status of the western states. Oil, natural gas, coltan, platinum and uranium exist in abundance throughout the continent.

In addition to these resources, new findings have taken place over the last year in regard to natural gas and oil in East Africa. Explorations are ongoing in Uganda, Tanzania and Somalia as well as offshore areas in the Indian Ocean.

New Attacks in Algeria

On January 27, there was an attack carried out at the Ain Chikh natural gas pipeline in the Djebahia region of northern Algeria, some 75 miles east of the capital of Algiers. Initial reports indicated that two security guards were killed and five others were wounded.

Algeria was the scene of the seizure of the In Amenas gas field by an Islamist armed group purportedly headed by Mohktar BelMohktar of the “Signatories of Blood.” Algerian military forces stormed the plant on two occasions releasing hundreds of workers but the seizure resulted in the deaths of at least 81 people.

The war initiated by France against Mali, purportedly designed to prevent “Islamist extremists” from taking control of the entire country, has worsened the security situation throughout the region. U.S. trained Malian military personnel staged a coup against the democratically elected government in Bamako on March 22, after the army failed to mount an effective counter-attack against the Tuareg fighters in the north.

Opposition Grows to the Imperialist War in West and North Africa

More organizations are coming out against the French bombing and occupation of Mali, the spreading of the war into neighboring states and the support being provided by various NATO states. Workers World issued an editorial in its January 31 issue calling for the withdrawal of imperialist forces from the country.

Also Fightback! News, the website of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), published a statement opposing the intervention. A demonstration was held on January 23 in Minneapolis involving peace activists organized by the Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) chanting “No U.S. Drones to Mali, No U.S. Intervention in Mali!”

The United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC), a broad-based coalition of various groups from around the U.S., had already issued a statement opposing intervention in Mali prior to the French bombing and ground invasion which began January 11. The organizations’ administrative committee and coordinating committee has held two national conference calls on the situation inside Mali and the region.

UNAC will be issuing another statement updating its position on the current crisis. Plans are also underway for a national tour featuring people from the U.S. and Pakistan who are opposing the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) drone program that is devastating countries throughout Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.