NOAM CHOMSKY - TOP 10 MEDIA MANIPULATION STRATEGIES

Noam Chomsky, the distinguished American philosopher, political activist and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has compiled a list of the ten most powerful and efficacious strategies used by “masters of the world” to establish a manipulation of the population through the media.

The strategies are so well-elaborated that even the countries with the best educational systems, succumb to the power and terror of those mafias. Many things are reported in the news but few are explained.


The journalistic tendency to balance stories with two opposing views leads to a tendency to ‘build stories around a confrontation between protagonists and antagonists’ (Ricci 1993: 95). Issues such as garbage and sewage sludge only get coverage, despite their importance, when there is a fight over the siting of a landfill or incinerator and the coverage is then on the ‘anger and anguish of affected citizens, or the conflicting claims of corporate spokesmen, government regulators and environmental activists’ rather than the issues and technical background to them (Gersh 1992: 16).

The job of media is not to inform, but to misinform: Divert public attention from important issues and changes decided by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or continuous flood of distractions and insignificant information.

Journalists who have access to highly placed government and corporate sources have to keep them on their side by not reporting anything adverse about them or their organizations. Otherwise they risk losing them as sources of information. In return for this loyalty, their sources occasionally give them good stories, leaks and access to special interviews. Unofficial information, or leaks, give the impression of investigative journalism, but are often strategic manoeuvres on the part of those with position or power (Ricci 1993: 99). ‘It is a bitter irony of source journalism … that the most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the “best” sources’ (quoted in Lee and Solomon 1990: 18).


The 10 Strategies:

1. The strategy of distraction

The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information.

Distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics.

“Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals” (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars).


2. Create problems, then offer solutions

This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution.”

It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept.

For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant’s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom.

Or create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.


3. The gradual strategy

Acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years.

That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions (neoliberalism) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s:

• the minimal state
• privatization
• precariousness
• flexibility
• massive unemployment
• wages
• do not guarantee a decent income,

...so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.


4. The strategy of deferring

Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application.

It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter.

• First, because the effort is not used immediately
• Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided

This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.


5. Go to the public as a little child

Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children’s intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient.

The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilizing.

Why?

“If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger.” (see Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars)


6. Use the emotional side more than the reflection

Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis, and finally to the critical sense of the individual.

Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …


7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity

Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement.

“The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes.” (See Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars).

8. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity

Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…


9. Self-blame Strengthen

To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts.

So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual auto-devaluate and guilt himself, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action.

And, without action, there is no revolution!


10. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves

Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites.

Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically.

The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself.

This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.


References:

Article written by Sylvain Timsit, collected in Pressenza: “TOP 10 MEDIA MANIPULATION STRATEGIES. Paris. September 21, 2010. The article is derived from: http://www.syti.net/Manipulations.html

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. This document dated May 1979, was found on July 7, 1986 in an IBM copier bought at an auction of military equipment. Negligence or intentional leak, this text has been in possession of the secret services of the U.S. Navy. For safety reasons, the document does not include the signature of the organization where it came from. But information and dates clippings left believing that these Bilderberg Group, a " discussion club " that meets the extremely powerful worlds of finance, economics, politics, the armed forces and services secrets. Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars was published as an appendix to the book "Behold A Pale Horse" by William Cooper, Light Technology Publishing, 1991.

Gersh, D. 1992, ‘Covering solid waste issues.’ Editor & Publisher 125(29 August): 15-6.

Lee, M.A., and N. Solomon 1990. Unreliable Sources: A guide to detecting bias in news media. New York: Carol Publishing Group.

Read more »

HOW WAR MADE THE BUSH FAMILY RICH

When interested in the connection between the Iraq War and the Bush family, only clicking in Google is enough to find a wealth of information. Remarkably, we never get any information about it by our own media, kind of strange, right?

The many connections between the Bush family, defence industry and the global arms trade are only known by a certain group of people. The average American or any other world citizen has not the faintest idea of it.

The following article written by Evelyn J. Pringle gives a clear image of it: Why Are We In Iraq?

Bush Family $$$ Signs

After Dick Cheney's tenure at the Pentagon ended in 1993, he spent much of the next two years deciding whether to run for President. He formed a political-action committee, and crossed the country making speeches and raising money. (Contact Sport, The New Yorker, 2/16/04).

Records from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) shows that Cheney's PAC contributors included executives of the companies that have since won the largest contracts in Iraq. Among them were Thomas Cruikshank, Halliburton's CEO at the time; Stephen Bechtel, whose family's firm now has a contract in Iraq worth as much as $2.8 billion; and Duane Andrews, then senior VP of Science Applications International Corporation, which has won seven contracts in Iraq.

However, while Cheney and his pals may well be the most blatant profiteers in Iraq, they are by no means the only ones involved in this grand war profiteering scheme commonly referred to as the "War on Terror." The #1 spot on the list belongs to the First Family.

War Is Family Business

Here's where the web of deceit really gets complicated. There are so many ties between the Bush family, the defense industry and the global arms trade, that it's almost impossible to keep track of them all. But yet the widespread ties are hardly ever even mentioned in the mainstream media. Or a revelation might show up for a day or two and then its like oh well, what's new.

Lets Start At The Top - The First President Bush

When Jr. took office, Bush (Sr.) was a member of the Carlyle Group. The firm is almost entirely made up of ex-government officials and it is said to be the world's most politically connected private equity firm.

The complaints about the Bush family connections with the Carlyle Group began long before 9/11. As early as March 3, 2001, shortly after Bush Jr.'s inauguration, Judicial Watch issued a press release that said:

Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, called on former President George Herbert Walker Bush to resign immediately from the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm, while his son President George W. Bush is in office. Today's New York Times reported that the elder Bush is an "ambassador" for the $12 billion private investment firm and last year traveled to the Middle East on its behalf. The former president also helped the firm in South Korea.

The New York Times reported that as compensation, the elder Bush is allowed to buy a stake in the Carlyle Group's investments, which include ownership in at least 164 companies throughout the world (thereby by giving the current president an indirect benefit). James Baker, the former Secretary of State who served as President George W. Bush's point man in Florida's election dispute, is a partner in the firm. The firm also gave George W. Bush help in the early 1990's when it placed him on one of its subsidiary's board of directors.

This is simply inappropriate. Former President Bush should immediately resign from the Carlyle Group because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Any foreign government or foreign investor trying to curry favor with the current Bush Administration is sure to throw business to the Carlyle Group. And with the former President Bush promoting the firm's investments abroad, foreign nationals could understandably confuse the Carlyle Group's interests with the interests of the United States government," stated Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel.

Questions are now bound to be raised if the recent Bush Administration change in policy towards Iraq has the fingerprints of the Carlyle Group, which is trying to gain investments from other Arab countries who [sic] would presumably benefit from the new policy," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

As a rule, I'm not a major fan of Judicial Watch; however in this case their comments are almost prophetic.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, it became known that Bush Sr. was financially linked to the bin Laden family. The Sept 28, 2001 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that, "George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm."

When Sr. hooked up with the Carlyle Group, his special area of influence was the Middle East, and especially Saudi Arabia investors. One of the investors that he brought to Carlyle was the Bin Laden Group, a construction company owned by the family of none other than future US #1 enemy Osama bin Laden. 

According to an investigation by theWSJ, Sr. convinced Osama's brother, Shafiq bin Laden, to invest $2 million of Bin Laden Group money with Carlyle.

According to the WSJ, "The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least twice in the last three years -- 1998 and 2000 -- as a representative of Carlyle, seeking to expand business dealings with one of the wealthiest Saudi families which, some experts argue, has never fully severed its ties with black sheep Osama in spite of current reports in a mainstream press that is afraid of offending the current administration."

I'm no expert, but I even knew that 6 months prior to 9/11, Osama appeared in a video taken at his son's wedding, along with his mother, his son and his son's new wife. I guess they family must have got into a tiff after the wedding.

The WSJ went on to outline the details of the family's investment. The bin Laden firm invested $2 million in Carlyle Partners II Fund, which raised a total of $1.3 billion overall. The fund purchased several aerospace companies among 29 deals. "So far, the family has received $1.3 million back in completed investments and should ultimately realize a 40% annualized rate of return," a Carlyle executive told the WSJ.

On Sept 27, the WSJ said it confirmed that a meeting took place between Sr. and the bin Laden family through Sr's Chief of Staff Jean Becker, but only after the WSJ showed Becker a personal thank you note that Bush Sr. sent to the bin Ladens after the meeting.

Here's a little known fact that may bring goose bumps to some. On 9/11, Shafiq bin Laden was at a meeting in the office of the Carlyle Group, and stood watching TV as the WTC was destroyed under the instruction of his brother.

So in a nutshell, Osama's attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, which lead to a massive increase in defense spending, most likely made the Bush family a great deal of money. And the real kicker is that the attack may have even enriched his own family.

How Does Carlyle Make Its Money?

It's been estimated that Carlyle has investments in over 300 companies, and the majority of them derive revenues from military and security contracts. In fact, Carlyle is the countries 11th largest defense contractor. In 2002, it received $677 million in government contracts, and in 2003, it was awarded contracts worth another $2.1 billion.

Business has definitely improved for the firm since Jr. took office. For example, one of its subsidiaries, Vought Aircraft, now holds over $1 billion in defense contracts. Prior to 2001, the company's future was iffy at best. Right before 9/11, it had actually laid off 20% of its workforce. But low and behold, business picked right back up with the air strikes on Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.

Carlyle's ties go directly into the Oval Office.  In fact, a list of past employees has Jr.'s name on it.  He was actually employed by Carlyle at on point in his life. According to a story in Harper's Magazine, Jr. held a position as a corporate director on the board of the Carlyle subsidiary, Caterair. Until he was politely told to hit the road because he didn't have anything to offer the company.

In addition, in March 1995, while Jr. was governor of Texas governor and a senior Trustee of the University of Texas, the University of Texas Endowment placed $10 million in investments with the Carlyle Group.  Who knows how much of that investment money benefited the bin Ladens.

Side-Kick James Baker

Sr.'s top sidekick, James Baker, is also a player with the Carlyle Group. He joined the firm immediately after his stint as Sr.'s Secretary of State ended, bringing a briefcase packed full of global connections to the firm.  Carlyle's revenues tripled after Baker came on board.

Much like Bush Sr., Baker's main duty was to manage the firm's relationships with Saudi clients.  He not only handled investment deals, it was also his job to look after the key interests of Saudi investors. For instance, when the Justice Department began an investigation into the financial dealings of Saudi Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, guess who the prince turned to for help? You got it, Baker.

And get this, Baker is currently defending the prince in a trillion dollar lawsuit brought by the families of the victims of the 9/11. The suit accuses the prince of using Islamic charities to funnel millions of dollars to known terrorist groups linked to Al-Qaeda.

Carlyle is also cashing in on the Homeland Security front and the enactment of the Patriot Act.  Two Carlyle companies, Federal Data Systems and US Investigations Services, hold multi-billion dollar contracts to provide background checks for airlines, the Pentagon, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. USIS used to be a federal agency, until it was privatized in 1996 and snatched up by Carlyle. Needless to say, it's now making money hand over fist.

Baker & Carlyle Hard At It

Baker and Carlyle have been hard at it behind the scenes, profiting in ways so blatant that a secret deal revealed byThe Nation magazine (and since reported in most major newspapers) gives a whole new meaning to the term war profiteering.

As most people know, Bush Jr. appointed Baker to be his special envoy on Iraq's debt.  His mission was to meet with presidents and prime ministers around the world and ask them to forgive Iraq's debt in the name of the reparation needs of the country.

When Baker was appointed, questions about conflict of interest were raised because of his ties to the Carlyle Group, which has extensive business interests in the Middle East.  His law firm, Baker Botts, was also brought up because both firms have strong links to the Saudi Royal Family, which happens to hold a great deal of Iraq's debt. 

In fact, the New York Times published an editorial upon the announcement of Baker being appointed special envoy that called for Baker to resign from both Carlyle because he was a partner, and Baker Botts. 

In response to the editorial, Jr. said he doesn't read editorials, but assured the world that Baker was a man of high integrity.  Carlyle submitted a signed statement that said:  "Carlyle does not engage in lobbying or consulting." and "Carlyle does not have any investment in Iraqi public or private debt."

Well that was then and this now. According to confidential documents obtained by The Nation, including a 65-page proposal to the Kuwaiti government, Carlyle has sought to secure a $1 billion investment from Kuwait using Baker's influence as debt envoy. The secret deal involved a plan to transfer ownership of up to $57 billion in unpaid Iraqi debts owed to Kuwait.

The debts would be assigned to a foundation created by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle Group and the Albright Group, headed by former secretary of state Madeline Albright, along with several other well-connected firms.

So it boils down to this, the Carlyle Group was engaged in lobbying to secure Iraq's debt at the same time that Baker was asking the world to forgive those debts. Under the deal, Kuwait would give the consortium $2 billion up front to invest in a private equity fund, with half of it going to Carlyle.

The Nation showed the documents to Jerome Levinson, an international lawyer and expert on political and corporate corruption at American University.  He called it "one of the greatest cons of all time. The consortium is saying to the Kuwaiti government, 'Through us, you have the only chance to realize a substantial part of the debt.  Why?  Because of who we are and who we know.' It's influence peddling of the crassest kind."

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, told The Nation, that this means Baker is in a "classic conflict of interest. Baker is on two sides of this transaction:  He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq." She said, "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government."

Just listen how they described The Carlyle Group, "a private equity team, has earned its reputation by successfully consummating deals at the intersection of politics and finance, with its roster of political stars, including, among others, former US Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former British Prime Minister John Major, and until recently, former US President George Bush." 

I like that "stars." Is that kind of like Hollywood stars except they are from Washington?

The document goes on to state: "The extent to which these individuals can plan an instrumental rule in fashioning strategies is now more limited ... due to the recent appointment of Secretary Baker as the President's envoy on international debt, and the need to avoid an apparent conflict of interest." Yet it goes on to say that this will soon change: "We believe that with Secretary Baker's retirement from his temporary position, that Carlyle and those leading individuals associated with Carlyle will then once again be free to play a more decisive role..." according toThe Nation.

I wonder if this means we're going to lose our special envoy. 


Retirement?

The proposal goes on to tell Kuwait that in the near future, 40 state-owned Iraqi enterprises will be available for leasing and management contracts. Is that kind of like privatizing public utilities? 40 of them, huh? You mean we are going to do all that for Iraq? Does that mean that the Iraqis might have clean water, and not have raw sewage in their streets anytime soon? I suppose that would be a good thing.

Now where in the world did the Iraqis ever get the idea that we wanted to take over their country? I've never been able to figure out why they would ever think that.

For those readers wondering about how much progress Baker has made in the 10 months in his position as special envoy, I'd have to say not much. The negotiations apparently are kind of stalled.  

Senator Joe Biden recently asked Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq, about the status of the international negotiations to get other countries to forgive Iraq's debts. He asked, "Has a single nation in the G8 ... formally said or requested of their parliaments to forgive Iraqi debt?"  "Not yet.  No sir," Schlicher answered.

According to The Nation, "Not only has Baker failed to deliver any firm commitments for debt forgiveness; at the annual meeting of the International Fund on October 2, it emerged that France had done an end run around Washington and was pushing a debt-relief deal of its own. ... a plan to cancel only 50% of Iraq's debts -- a far cry from the 90-95 % cancellation Washington had been demanding. Yet Baker was nowhere to be found."

Evelyn J. Pringle is an Ohio-based investigative journalist, and a columnist for Independent Media TV. She can be reached at: e.pringle@sbcglobal.net. (C) Copyright 2004 Evelyn J. Pringle.

After reading the above article, can we still look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the same? It is unacceptable to have such conflicting interests, still it happens and the media stays silent. Are we really living in a open democracy or is that just a dream that vanished many years ago?

Read more »

TODAY'S FRIEND IS TOMORROW'S ENEMY

The last 2 months have been specially hard for Libyan citizens. Speculations come and go everyday from all sides, specially from Western and Arabic media. The same happens with politicians. One day Western leaders are Gaddafi's best friends and another day they are their enemies. Who can understand that double standard?

What follows are some pictures of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi with different European, Latin American and African leaders.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shook hands with U.S. President Barack Obama at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy on Thursday, July 9, 2009. After 39 years, Gadaffi could meet a U.S president. But, were Gadaffi and Obama very good friends?

Gaddafi and Gordon Brown

Gaddafi giving a press conference at the headquarters of the EU. The EU received a "terrorist" and nobody says anything, specially Romano Prodi.

Gaddafi with WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy

Gadaffi with the Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez . They met at the Africa-South American Summit in Margarita Island, Venezuela in September 2009. Chávez has never denied that Gaddafi is his friend and is trying to mediate in the Libya's conflict. At least, we can see sincerity here.

Mandela with Gaddafi. What many people do not know it is that Gaddafi supported ANC fighters by training and arming them in order to finish with the Apartheid. The libyan leader helped South Africa in its worst moment and Mandela is very grateful.

Moammar Gadhafi receiving King Juan Carlos of Spain in Tripoli in January 2009.

Gaddaffi with ex-Secretary General of the European Commission and current Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service, David O'Sullivan (Left) and with the European Commissioner for Competition, Joaquín Almunia (Right).

Gaddafi with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

In a lecture at Columbia University, Aznar said that Gadaffi has supported “the West's efforts against terrorism”. Then, why the West is against Gadaffi?

Gaddafi's friends: Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Medvedev, Obama, and Ban Ki-moon

Gadaffi with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. He looks so proud to be next to his friend. But, why he said that his Government had offered to manage the exile of Libyan leader in an African country?

Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi attends a meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano at the Quirinale Palace on June 10, 2009 in Rome, Italy.

What a nice picture! Definitely, Berlusconi found a truly great friend. It is a pity that Berlusconi agreed to bomb Libya.

Gaddafi with the current Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin. He has criticised the NATO-led airstrikes in Libya, saying attacks on Muammar Gaddafi's palaces suggest the aim is to kill the Libyan leader.

Gadaffi with the ex-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair.

Gaddafi and Barroso. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said recently: “He (Gaddafi) must go and this was the unanimous decision of the European Council supporting this approach. Time is running out, so we have to intensify the international pressure on the current regime to step down.” But the above picture shows the opposite. The smile on Barroso's face says it all.

Gaddafi with Nicolas Sarkozy. The French President looks very happy being with Libyan leader. I wonder, why Sarkozy is using aircrafts to attack his good friend?

Muammar Gaddafi is welcomed by King Juan Carlos, and Queen Sofia of Spain during a ceremony at El Pardo Palace in December 2007.

Gaddafi with Romano Prodi

EU head Van Rompuy holding hands with Gaddafi. They met in Tripoli at the EU-Africa Summit in November 2010. Since March. Gaddafi himself was among Europe’s best arms clients for a long time but Van Rompuy keeps silent. The most incredible here is that in only 5 months (November 2010 - March 2011), Gaddafi became a cruel dictator for the EU.

Again Gaddafi with his friends again. We can see the Chancellor of Germany among them. Angela Merkel urged Gaddafi to resign, saying the UN Security Council decision against his regime was a signal to all "despots" and declared “it is high time for him to go. But then, what we are talking about? Merkel calls Gaddafi a despot, but said nothing when she met the Libyan leader at the G8 summit 2009.

Read more »

FIDEL CASTRO'S REFLECTIONS: NATO'S INEVITABLE WAR (PART TWO)

When at just 27 years old Gaddafi, colonel in the Libyan army, inspired by his Egyptian colleague Abdel Nasser, overthrew King Idris I in 1969, he applied important revolutionary measures such as agrarian reform and the nationalization of oil. The growing incomes were dedicated to economic and social development, particularly education and health services for the reduced Libyan population living in the immense desert territory with very little available farm land.
An extensive and deep sea of "fossil water" existed beneath that desert. When I heard about an experimental cultivation area I had the impression that, in the future, those aquifers would be more valuable than oil.

Religious faith, preached with the fervor that characterizes Muslim nations, in part helped to compensate for the strong tribal tendency which still survives in that Arab country.

Libyan revolutionaries devised and implemented their own ideas in relation to legal and political institutions, which Cuba, as a principle, respected.

We totally abstained from expressing any opinions concerning the concepts of the Libyan leadership.

We can clearly see that the fundamental concern of the United States and NATO is not Libya, but the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world, which they wish to prevent at all costs.

It is an irrefutable fact that relations between the United States and its NATO allies in recent years were excellent until the rebellion in Egypt and in Tunisia arose.

In high-level meetings between Libya and NATO leaders, none of the latter had any problems with Gaddafi. The country was a secure source of high-quality oil, gas and even potassium supplies. The problems which arose between them in the early decades had been overcome.



Strategic sectors such as oil extraction and transportation were opened up to foreign investment.

Privatizations were extended to many public enterprises. The International Monetary Fund exercised its beatific role in the implementation of those operations.

Logically, Aznar was fulsome in his praise of Gaddafi and after him, Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero and even my friend the King of Spain, paraded past the sardonic regard of the Libyan leader. They were happy.

Although it might seem that I am mocking that is not the case; I am simply asking myself why they now want to take Gaddafi before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

They are accusing him 24 hours a day of firing on unarmed citizens who were protesting. Why did they not explain to the world that the weapons and, above all, the sophisticated machinery of repression possessed by Libya, was supplied by the United States, Britain and other illustrious hosts of Gaddafi?

I strongly oppose the cynicism and lies currently being used to justify the invasion and occupation of Libya.

The last time that I visited Gaddafi was in May 2001, 15 years after Reagan attacked his very modest residence, where he took me to see what was left of it. It received a direct hit from the aircraft and was considerably destroyed; his little daughter three years of age died in the attack: she was murdered by Ronald Reagan. There was no prior agreement on the part of NATO, the Human Rights Committee, or the Security Council.

My previous visit had taken place in 1977, eight years after the beginning of the revolutionary process in Libya. I visited Tripoli; I took part in the General People’s Congress in Sebha; I toured the first agricultural experiments with water pumped from the vast sea of fossil waters; I visited Benghazi, I was the object of a warm reception. It was a legendary country which had been the scenario of historic battles in World War II. It did not as yet have six million inhabitants, nor were its enormous volumes of oil and fossil waters known. The former Portuguese colonies in Africa had already been liberated.



We had fought for 15 years in Angola against mercenary armies organized along tribal lines by the United States, the Mobutu government, and the well-equipped and trained racist apartheid army. This army, following U.S. instructions, as is now known, invaded Angola in 1975 in order to prevent its independence, reaching the outskirts of Luanda with its motorized forces. A number of Cuban instructors died in that brutal invasion. Resources were sent immediately.

Expelled from that country by Cuban internationalists and Angolan troops to the border of South African occupied Namibia, the racists were given the mission of eliminating the revolutionary process in Angola.

With the support of the United States and Israel they developed nuclear weapons. They already possessed them when the Cuban and Angolan troops defeated their land and air forces in Cuito Cuanavale and, defying the risk – using conventional tactics and means – advanced toward the border with Namibia, where the apartheid troops were attempting to resist. Twice in their history our forces have been at risk of attack by those kinds of weapons: in October of 1962 and in southern Angola, but on that second occasion, not even deploying those nuclear weapons that South Africa possessed could they have prevented the defeat which marked the end of the odious system. Those events took place under the government of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Piet Botha in South Africa.

There is no talk of that and the hundreds of thousands of lives which the imperialist adventure cost.

I regret having to recall those events when another great risk is hovering over the Arab peoples, because they are not resigned to continue being the victims of plunder and oppression.

The Revolution in the Arab world so much feared by the United States and NATO is that of those who lack all rights in the face of those who flaunt all privileges, and thus is destined to be more profound than the one unleashed in Europe in 1789 with the storming of the Bastille.

Not even Louis XIV, when he proclaimed that he was the state, possessed the privileges of King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz of Saudi Arabia and far less the vast wealth that lies below the surface of that almost desert country, where yankee transnationals determine the extraction and thus the price of oil in the world.

When the Libyan crisis began, extraction in Saudi Arabia rose to one million barrels a day at minimum cost and, in consequence, by those means alone, the income of that country and those who control it has risen to one billon dollars a day.

No one should imagine that the Saudi people are swimming in money. There are moving accounts of the living conditions of many construction workers and those in other sectors obliged to work 13 to 14 hours a day for paltry wages.

Shocked by the revolutionary wave which is shaking the prevalent system of plunder, in the wake of what took place with workers in Egypt and Tunisia, but also unemployed youth in Jordan, the occupied territories of Palestine, Yemen and even Bahrain and the Arab Emirates with higher per capita income, the upper echelons of the Saudi hierarchy has been impacted by the events.

As opposed to other times, today the Arab peoples receive almost instantaneous information on events, albeit exceptionally manipulated.

The worst thing for the status quo of the privileged sectors is that these persistent events are coinciding with a considerable increase in food prices and the devastating impact of climate change, while the United States, the largest producer of corn in the world, is wasting 40% of that product and a significant part of soy production on biofuels to feed automobiles. Lester Brown, the best informed American ecologist in the world on agricultural products, can surely give us an idea of the current food situation.

The Bolivarian president, Hugo Chávez, is making a valiant effort to find a solution without NATO intervention in Libya. The chances of his attaining that objective would improve if he can achieve the feat of creating a broad movement of opinion before and not after the intervention takes place, and the peoples do not have to see the atrocious experience of Iraq repeated in other countries.

End of Reflection.

Fidel Castro Ruz
March 3, 2011
10:32 p.m.

Source: http://www.cubadebate.cu/

Read more »

FIDEL CASTRO'S REFLECTIONS: NATO'S INEVITABLE WAR (PART ONE)

As opposed to the situation in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya occupies first place in the Human Development Index within Africa and has the highest life expectancy rate on the continent. Education and health receive special state attention. The cultural level of the population is without a doubt higher. Its problems are of another nature. The population is not in need of food or basic social services. The country requires many foreign workers to implement its ambitious production and social development plans.

Therefore it offers employment to hundreds of thousands of workers from Egypt, Tunisia, China and other nations. It has an enormous income and hard currency reserves deposited in the banks of rich countries, with which it acquires consumer goods and even sophisticated weapons, supplied by the very countries which now want to invade in the name of human rights.

The colossal campaign of lies unleashed by the mass media has created much confusion in world public opinion. Some time will pass before what really has happened in Libya is reconstructed, and real events are separated from the falsified ones which have been disseminated.

Serious and prestigious broadcasters such as Telesur have been obliged to send reporters and photographers to one group's activities and then to the opposite side's, in order to report what was really occurring.

Communications were blocked; honest diplomatic officials risked their lives touring neighborhoods, observing activities day and night to report what was transpiring. The empire and its principal allies employed the most sophisticated media to disseminate falsified information about the events, requiring one to infer traces of the truth.

No doubt, the faces of young people protesting in Benghazi, men and women, with veils and without, expressed real indignation.

The tribal component of this Arab country is noticeable, despite the Islamic faith sincerely shared by 95% of the population.

Imperialism and NATO – seriously concerned about the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world, which produces a large portion of the oil sustaining the consumer economies of the rich, developed countries – could not miss the opportunity to take advantage of Libya's internal conflict to promote a military intervention. The statements formulated by the United States government from early on were clearly in this vein.

The circumstances could hardly be more propitious. The Republican right wing dealt President Obama, an expert in rhetoric, a severe blow during the November elections.

The fascist "mission accomplished" group, ideologically supported by the extremist Tea Party, has reduced the current president's options to a merely decorative role, with even his health program and the doubtful recuperation of the economy in danger, as a result of the budget deficit and the uncontrollable increase in the public debt, which has broken all historical records.

Despite the torrent of lies and the confusion created, the United States was unable to drag China or the Russian Federation into the UN Security Council's approval of military intervention in Libya, although it did achieve its current objectives within the Human Rights Council. As for a military intervention, the Secretary of State declared in words which did not leave the slightest doubt, "No option is off the table."

The fact is that Libya is involved in a civil war, as we had foreseen, and there is nothing the United Nations could have done to prevent it, except that its own Secretary General sprinkled a hefty dose of fuel on the fire.

The problem which these actors perhaps never imagined is that the very leaders of the rebellion have burst upon the complicated scene, declaring that they reject any foreign military intervention.

Various news agencies reported that Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, spokesperson for the Libyan National Council, stated on Monday 28th that "The rest of Libya will be liberated by the Libyan people."

"We can count on the army to liberate Tripoli," Ghoga assured, announcing the formation of a "National Council" to represent the country’s cities in the hands of the insurrection.

"What we want is intelligence information, but in no case that our air, land or sea sovereignty is affected," he added during a meeting with journalists in this city 1,000km east of Tripoli.

"The intransigence of opposition leaders over national sovereignty reflected opinions spontaneously expressed by many Libyan citizens to the international press in Benghazi," according to an AFP cable this past Monday.

That same day, Abeir Imneina, a professor of political sciences at the University of Benghazi, stated, "There is a very strong feeling of nationalism in Libya."

"Moreover, the Iraqi example scares everyone in the Arab world," she stressed, in reference to the 2003 U.S. invasion which was to have brought democracy to that country and then, by contagion, to the region as a whole, a hypothesis totally refuted by the facts.

The professor continues, "We know very well what happened in Iraq, which is in the throes of instability. Following in those footsteps is not appealing at all. We don't want the Americans to come and then to have to regret (the end of the rule of) Gaddafi." But according to Abeir Imneina, "There is also the feeling that this is our revolution and that it is up to us forge ahead."

Just a few hours after this cable was published, two of the major U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, hastened to provide new versions on the subject, as reported by the DPA news agency the following day, March 1, "The Libyan opposition could ask the West to undertake air strikes on the strategic positions of forces loyal to Muammar al Gaddafi, the U.S. press states today."

The issue is being discussed within the Libyan National Council, according to online editions of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

The New York Times notes that these discussions reveal the growing frustration of the rebel leaders at the possibility of Gaddafi retaking power.

"In the case of air strikes being executed within the framework of the United Nations, they would not imply international intervention," explained the Council spokesperson, quoted by The New York Times.

"The Council is composed of lawyers, academics, judges and prominent members of Libyan society."

The cable states:

"The Washington Post quoted rebels who recognize that, without Western support, battles with forces loyal to Gaddafi could last a long time and cost a large number of human lives."

It is striking that the cable does not mention one single industrial, agricultural or construction worker, anyone linked to material production or the young students or combatants who can be seen in the demonstrations.

Why the effort to present the rebels as prominent members of society demanding U.S. and NATO air strikes to kill Libyans?

Some day the truth will be known, through people like the professor of political sciences at the University of Benghazi, who narrated with such eloquence the terrible experience which killed, destroyed homes and left millions of people in Iraq jobless or forced to emigrate.

Today, Wednesday, March 2, the EFE news agency presents the known rebel spokesperson making statements that, in my view, simultaneously affirm and contradict those of Monday: "Benghazi (Libya) March 2. The Libyan rebel leadership today asked the UN Security Council to launch an air strike ‘on mercenaries’ from the Muammar al-Gaddafi regime."

"Our army cannot launch attacks on the mercenaries, given its defensive role," stated rebel spokesperson Abdel Hafiz Ghoga at a press conference in Benghazi.

"A strategic air strike is not the same as an international intervention, which we reject," emphasized the spokesperson for the opposition forces, which have consistently expressed opposition to any foreign military intervention in the Libyan conflict.

Which of the many imperialist wars would this one resemble?

That of Spain in 1936, that of Mussolini against Ethiopia in 1935, that of George W. Bush against Iraq in 2003 or any one of the dozens of wars promoted by the United States against the peoples of the Americas, from the invasion of Mexico in 1846 to that of the Malvinas in 1982?

Without excluding, of course, the mercenary invasion of Girón, the dirty war and the blockade of our homeland during 50 years, the anniversary of which is next April 16.

In all of those wars, such as that of Vietnam, which cost millions of lives, justifications and the most cynical measures reigned supreme.

For those harboring any doubt as to the inevitable military intervention which is to take place in Libya, the AP news agency, which I consider well informed, led with a cable published today affirming, "Some NATO countries are drawing up contingency plans modeled on the no-fly zones over the Balkans in the 1990s in case the international community decides to impose an air embargo over Libya, diplomats said."

It goes on to conclude, "The diplomats, who could not be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, said the options being looked into are modeled on the no-fly zone which the Western military alliance imposed over Bosnia in 1993 that had a U.N. mandate… and NATO's aerial offensive against Yugoslavia [via Kosovo] in 1999, WHICH DID NOT HAVE IT."

I shall continue tomorrow.

Fidel Castro Ruz
March 2, 2011
8:19 p.m.

Source: http://www.cubadebate.cu/

Read more »

THE BARBARIC SOLDIERS OF THE USA

You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality.

Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.

- Malcolm X

'Kill Team' Morlock trophy image — lifting the dead boys head by his hair

They are called heroes in the USA. The soldiers are fighting in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing peace to people whose life is in danger. Fighting with honour for an honourable cause but sadly enough this is just the fairy tale the American political leaders want us to believe. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing more than a massacre, innocent civilians including women and children are slaughtered in the most brutal way possible by the so honourable American soldiers.

The most unbelievable fact about this all is that the USA doesn’t want to address this. Pictures are kept out of the western media, some media are even threatened by the USA to not show or talk about these matters. Only when pictures leak the USA takes action against it.  

Abeer Qasim Hamza was raped and murdered, after her family was murdered.

One case where the USA did take action was in the Mahmudiyah killings and gang- rape of a 14-year-old girl by U.S. troops occurred on March 12, 2006, in the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Five United States Army soldiers were charged with the crimes: Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Spc. James P. Barker, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, Pfc. Brian L. Howard and Pfc. Steven D. Green (whom the army discharged before the crime's discovery). Abeer Qasim Hamza was raped and murdered, after her family was murdered.

But there are many more stories, which are kept away from media and where no justice is done. In the following part a couple of these stories will be shown and described. The pictures included are shocking but real. 

U.S. soldiers in Bravo Company stationed near Kandahar in a war game they were playing took it upon themselves to kill an unarmed Afghanistan boy. The Kill team did this January 15th 2010.

Gul Mudin, a young teenager, lived in the village of La Mohammad Kalay, Afghanistan.

Sworn statements have two soldiers Corporal Jeremy Morlock and Private First Class Andrew Holmes engaged in staging the killing so that it would appear that the US soldiers had been under attack.

The statements read that they ordered the boy to stand still and then they tossed a grenade at him and opened fire with their weapons while they remained behind a mud wall. The dead body of the boy, Gul Mudin is seen here lying by the wall where he was killed.

Image of severed legs passed around among the members of Bravo Company.

US Staff Sgt. Gibbs in the back of a Stryker vehicle, a pair of scissors visible in the top pocket of his uniform. Dead fingers are tossed around within the company. Gibbs is said to have used a pair of medic shears to cut the finger off at least two Afghan civilians murdered by members of his platoon.

“Those were some innocent farmers that got killed. Their standard operating procedure after killing dudes was to drag them up to the side of the highway.”

Rolling Stone — In the process of suppressing the photographs, the Army may also have been trying to keep secret evidence that the killings of civilians went beyond a few men in 3rd Platoon.

The above picture is already shocking and prevail a side of the war that is hardly shown here in the West. At the bottom of this article you can find the links to the pages that show more pictures of the barbarian acts of the soldiers of the USA. In this article the most appalling are not used, so be aware when opening the links given, the pictures provided there are horrific.

Often the question ‘Why are the Arabs so angry at the West and mainly USA?’ is asked to me.  I show them above pictures and then ask the person the same question: ‘Why are the Arabs so angry at the West and mainly USA?’ 90% of the time their opinion changed dramatically, some are even ashamed of their opinion before seeing the pictures.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are dirty wars, both sides are evil; the USA and the Taliban/ Al-Qaeda. People in Afghanistan and Iraq live day by day out in a hell on earth, where nobody protects them.

Not even the USA, the country claiming it’s the most developed country in the world and a real fighter for freedom.

Well maybe somebody can explain to me what these brutal killings have to do with freedom?!

Links/Sources:

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/asia/afghanistan/afghanistan.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

Read more »