Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Ilegalidad. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Ilegalidad. Mostrar todas las entradas

sábado, 14 de febrero de 2015

Ciudad muerta ( Ciutat morta): Corrupción, abuso de poder, injusticia, racismo

Un caso escandaloso. Ni es el primero ni el único, pero por lo menos, en los tiempos que corren cada vez es más fácil documentar y probar en qué mundo vivimos.
Esto es Barcelona, pero pasa en cualquier ciudad del mundo.
Y a esto lo llama democracia, cuando se les hinchan las venas contra los que denuncian los abusos.


jueves, 10 de octubre de 2013

Libia hoy

por Polina Lavrentieva

La desintegración

En el verano de 2011, Thierry Meyssan aseguraba que no había en Libia ninguna primavera árabe y que la población de ese país no se había rebelado contra Muammar el-Kadhafi sino que los países occidentales estaban instrumentalizando el movimiento separatista de la región libia de Cirenaica. Dos años más tarde, ahí están los resultados: Trípoli ha perdido totalmente el control no sólo de Cirenaica sino también de la región de Fezzan, como han podido comprobarlo los enviados especiales de la ONU. Las riquezas de Libia están ahora en manos de diferentes pandillas y de las transnacionales estadounidenses.
JPEG - 19.2 KB


No se logra detener el proceso de desintegración de Libia desatado por el asesinato del Muammar el-Kadhafi. Así lo demuestra un nuevo informe de la ONU. En un contexto de separación de las provincias en la Libia «liberada del dictador» están registrándose ejecuciones expeditivas, una opresión política masiva y torturas.

Según el informe común de la Misión de Apoyo de la ONU en Libia (MANUL) [1] y del Alto Comisionado de la ONU para los Derechos Humanos, al menos 27 personas habían muerto en las cárceles de ese país a finales de 2011 [2] y había 8 000 detenidos. Estos últimos fueron encarcelados en 2011 como «partidarios de Kadhafi». La mayoría de esas personas ni siquiera han sido investigadas y nadie sabe por cuánto tiempo estarán en la cárcel ya que el sistema judicial prácticamente ha dejado de funcionar.

El New York Times indica que en la nueva Libia se arresta a la gente por motivos religiosos y étnicos o por la simple sospecha de que no son leales a «la democracia». Los prisioneros a los que tuvieron acceso los inspectores de la ONU relataron que habían sido golpeados y torturados con fuego y con privación de alimentos en las cárceles.

En abril de este año se votó en Libia una ley que prohíbe la tortura y condena los secuestros pero esa ley no tiene ningún efecto real, lo cual es solamente otro aspecto de la desintegración del Estado libio. Las regiones van retirándose poco a poco –como habíamos previsto hace 2 años en esta misma columna–, proceso que además no está exento de derramamiento de sangre.

De ese modo, el 27 de septiembre [de 2013] la región de Fezzan proclamó su independencia, o al menos su total autonomía [3], decisión que tomaron los jefes tribales «por el mal trabajo del Congreso». En junio, la región [rica en petróleo] de Cirenaica [4] tomó una decisión similar. De las tres regiones históricas de Libia, únicamente la Tripolitania sigue formando parte del país. Por el momento, no hay fuerza capaz de reunir de nuevo a esos tres Estados históricos que conformaban la nación libia desde 1951.

[1] Sitio web de la Manul en inglés y árabe.

[2] “Torture and Deaths in Detention in Libya”, Unismil Report, octubre de 2013.

[3] «Libye "nouvelle": la région de Fezzan proclame son indépendance», Irib, 27 de septiembre de 2013.

[4] «Ливии официально больше нет. Восток объявил "нефтяное государство"» [Oficialmente, Libia ya no existe. El este se declara petroEstado], Odnako, 7 de marzo de 2012.


Secuestro del primer ministro libio Ali Zeidan




Un grupo armado secuestró al primer ministro libio, Ali Zeidan [a la izquierda en la foto], en Trípoli el 10 de octubre de 2013, en el hotel Corinthia, donde reside desde que regresó a Libia.

El ex diplomático libio Ali Zeidan había desertado en los años 1980. El 7 de octubre de 1981 fundó en Khartum elFrente Nacional de Salvación de Libia, junto al actual jefe de Estado Mohamed Magariaf. Esa formación, que es sólo una fachada de la Hermandad Musulmana, organizó varios intentos de golpes de Estado –como el del 8 de mayo de 1984– financiados por Arabia Saudita y Estados Unidos. Con sus sucesivas intentonas golpistas el Frente Nacional de Salvación de Libia mató en realidad muchos más libios que el régimen de Muammar el-Kadhafi en su 41 años de gobierno.

Refugiado en Suiza, Ali Zeidan estuvo además entre los fundadores de la Liga Libia de Derechos Humanos. En 2011, esa estructura presentó al Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, en Ginebra, un informe falso donde acusaba a Muammar el-Kadhafi de haber asesinado a más de 6 000 opositores. Fue en base a ese falso informe que el Consejo de Derechos Humanos puso «el caso de Libia» en manos del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, que a su vez dio a la OTAN la misión de imponer una zona de exclusión aérea sobre el territorio libio para proteger a la población de la represión [1]. Y lo que hizo la OTAN fue derrocar el régimen. Mohamed Magariaf se convirtió entonces en presidente y Ali Zeidan en primer ministro.

Durante la guerra contra Libia, Ali Zeidan fue uno de los miembros más influyentes del Consejo Nacional de Transición (CNT), reconocido como único representante del pueblo libio por los mismos países que desataron la guerra contra Libia. Sin embargo, según un documento presentado por Estados Unidos al Comité de Sanciones de la ONU y revelado por la Red Voltaire, el CNT era financiado en secreto por el Libyan Information Exchange Mechanism (LIEM), un órgano informal creado en Nápoles únicamente por Estados Unidos [2].

En resumen, el señor Zeidan es un miembro de la Hermandad Musulmana y fue pagado por Estados Unidos para engañar a la comunidad internacional y ayudar a la OTAN a derrocar el régimen de Muammar el-Kadhafi.

El secuestro de Aliz Zeidan parece ser una respuesta de al-Qaeda al reciente secuestro –también en Trípoli– de Abu Anas al-Libi por un comando estadounidense [3].

[1] Entrevistado en Ginebra por la Red Voltaire, el secretario general de la Liga Libia de Derechos Humanos, Silman Buchuiguir, reconoció ante una cámara la manipulación de aquel informe. Esa entrevista, realizada por Julien Teil, aparece en su film La Guerre humanitaire en Libye.

[2] «Washington tente de voler 1,5 milliard de dollars pour payer ses salariés du CNT», por Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 16 de agosto de 2011.

[3] «Estados Unidos secuestra uno de sus ex agentes en Libia»,Red Voltaire, 8 de octubre de 2013.

domingo, 22 de septiembre de 2013

USA starts blackmailing Russia over Syria

por Viktor Tivov






Here we go, not only has it gotten to the point that there have been allegations of Moscow, they say, of being a Damascus accomplice in their use of chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, but now it’s gone as far as blackmailing Russia with the possibility of sanctions against the largest Russian banks, and this is predominantly done by the government. As they say, all’s fair in love and war! But this is just going too far!

It seems that, from intensively thinking of how to get themselves out of a bind, which Washington has brought upon itself through Obama’s menacing and peremptory threats calling for air strike on Syria, some people on Capitol Hill have “lost their marbles”. Although, one cannot discount the possibility that the White House is behind this move, trying to twist Russia’s arm or, at the very least, test her “resilience”.

Consequently, four American senators, two democrats and two republicans, appealed to the American government to impose sanctions against a few large Russian banks, such as Gazprombank, VTB and VEB. The reason for this, in the senators’ opinion, is that the banks, they say, finance the activities of the Syrian government. According to the senators’ letter to the State Treasury, VEB handles payments for the delivery of S-300 missile batteries to Syria, Gazprombank provides a financial channel to pay for supplies of Syrian oil and VTB holds assets of the president Bashar al-Assad. The letter addressed to the Finance Minister Jacob Lew was signed by senator-democrats Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), and the republicans John Cornyn (Texas) and Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire).

“According to numerous reports, banks such as VTB, Vneshekonombank, and Gazprombank are carrying on ‘business as usual’ with Syria, and have repeatedly undermined American, European Union, and United Nations sanctions. Veneshekonombank’s facilitating Syrian payments for S-300 missile batteries, VTB’s holding President Assad’s personal funds, and Gazprombank’s making payments for crude oil,” states the letter. In the senators’ opinion, the assistance of Russian banks is helping the Syrian government buy weapons and continue the civil war. “In our view, these institutions are complicit in prolonging the brutal conflict in Syria and should be barred from the U.S. financial system,” state the American legislators.

Senator Blumenthal clarified to the Politico newspaper, “We can freeze their assets. We can stop them from doing business in the United States, prevent their employees from traveling here.” The Treasury representative did not comment on the senators’ letter but he noted that Washington has already imposed sanctions to pressure the Syrian government.

“The senators are misleading the American public, our bank does not hold any assets for the Syrian government,” VTB commented to the press. “No one from the States came to us for information, so we believe that this initiative is simply an attempt to further dramatize the situation and to disrupt the upcoming Syrian peace process.” VEB has told the media that, historically, VEB has acted as a government bank, in part dealing with Russia’s external debt, which includes their accounts with Damascus. The bank does not conduct any other commercial operations with the Syrian Central Bank, its government or other government-controlled organizations. All VEB operations are done strictly in accordance with the sanctions against Syria approved by the European Union and UN. Russian experts cannot fathom how one would impose these sanctions in the first place.

“Four senators are not the whole Senate,” said Pavel Nefidov, General Director of the Financial and Banking Council of CIS. “What is most important here is that Russian banks are operating within international agreements. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing illegal in keeping Syrian assets in Russian banks.” Nevertheless, Nefidov thinks that the US threats are very unpleasant for Russia. The threats, by the way, undermine New York’s status as an international financial center; because this begs the question of to what extent it obeys international standards and not the interests of political tendencies within the country. “One cannot just impose sanctions, it goes against international regulations,” said Akhmat Glashev, an advisor on criminal law at the law firm Yegorov, Puginsky, Afanasiev and Partners. “Banks would have full rights to sue. To impose sanctions, one would first have to prove that Russian financial institutions financed terrorism, human trafficking or some other illegal activity. However, co-operating with Syria within legal agreements is a completely normal process.” Incidentally, the attorney reminds us, Washington also has trade and economic agreements with Damascus, and they continue to be valid.

However, even if sanctions were imposed, it would not likely cause a significant blow to Russian banks. “The inconvenience would be in the additional costs, because it would be necessary to transfer a portion of the dollar accounts from American correspondent accounts to financial institutions in other countries. Our banks would then work through Europe, Singapore or Hong Kong, which would cause America to lose a large chunk of financial operations,” Nefidov clarified.

The senators, and those backing them, forgot one thing. Russia is a fairly self-sufficient country. And it has long been on the path towards depending on the currency basket in its accounts abroad. In offering such foolish measures, Washington is shooting itself in the foot. After all, it is not difficult for Moscow and the largest Russian banks to convert to the euro, the Yuan or some other international currency, or just hold their accounts with other nations altogether. Thus, if the dollar’s operations shrink on the territory of a space as large as Russia, then the loss, along with its international reputation, would be entirely on side of the States and its federal reserves.

The allegations of the “senator-initiators” are laughable. Russia has not cut its trade and economic ties with Syria, and it does not participate in certain collective measures to economically force Syria to capitulate. All Russian military supplies to Damascus are absolutely legal, whereas arming the insurgents, which is being done by the CIA, contradicts international regulations. And it still needs to be determined where these weapons are actually ending up. Perhaps, they are going directly to the Dzhabhat en-Nusra insurgents, that is, Al-Qaeda affiliates. This is punishable with sanctions according to international conventions, which were passed, among others, with the active participation of Washington, to deal with sponsors of international terrorism. The senators need to first sort things out on their own soil, and then remember that when in Rome…

Blackmail is blackmail, simple as that. But such cheap tricks won’t work with Russia. You’ve chosen the wrong enemy, senator sirs and madams!





lunes, 13 de febrero de 2012

Todo menos tocar a Israel

Desde la creación de ese estado teocrático, Israel, no ha habido paz en la zona.


Guerra tras guerra, Israel sigue saltándose las leyes internacionales, mientras sus vecinos son masacrados con guerras.
Las camuflan con "guerras civiles" cuando no lo son. Las venden como sectarias cuando no lo son.
Quedan patentes dos axiomas:
.- La unión hace la fuerza, que es lo que tienen los judíos a nivel mundial, con sus lobis y su influencia por doquier.
.-Divide y vencerás, que es lo que le pasa a un oriente medio con numerosas religiones, y tendencias políticas. Cuando esa convivencia pacífica se manipula para un beneficio particular, en este caso en de Israel, el resto es pan comido.



La causa palestina, es decir, la misma existencia del estado de Israel, no tienen cabida en estos momentos.
Israel amenaza a Iran, a Siria, al Libano, pero nadie se plantea en absoluto que ese estado que amenaza a sus vecinos realmente es la amenaza a la paz en la zona.

Cayó Afghanistán, Irak, Libia, en breve Siria, amenazan a Irán, pero nadie menciona a Israel como gran amenaza de la paz mundial.
No se menciona su terrorismo de estado.
No se menciona su arsenal nuclear, que dicho sea de paso son "armas de destrucción masiva".
Los que no las tenían han muerto por esa mentira.
Los que aunque ferreamente mantienen una sociedad laica son condenados a la hoguera porque no siguen el dictamen judío.
La noción de estado nación donde caben todos la quieren romper.

Divide y vencerás.
Pero cuanto puede aguantar un estado de 7 millones de habitantes judíos rodeado de millones distintos?
Cuanto puede aguantar si no es en base a guerras y a fomentar la discordia entre sus vecinos?
De qué recursos se sustenta esa nación?
Cómo se vive legalmente la invasión de Palestina?

Mientras siga esta injusticia, mientras siga esta locura, y mientras la OTAN, la ONU,  la UE, y los EE.UU bendigan esta situación y no tomen medidas contras Israel, serán cómplices de crímenes contra la humanidad.



Sí, hay crisis económica. Habría que ver quienes son los causantes. En muchos posts queda clara la trama sionista( judía)
Sí, esa crísis nos lleva a tensiones belicistas en oriente medio. Es muy bonito ver cómo entre americanos y judíos se aclaran mediante mensajes en la prensa afín quién atacará Irán primero. También cabe que sea una cortina de humo mientras derrocan Siria, porque tocar Irán no es lo mismo.

Si quieren sembrar democracia a bombas, que sigan. Tarde o temprano, esas bombas se volverán contra ellos.
Claro que si ellos mismos ya pretenden decir que se han vuelto contra ellos desde el 11/S y han engañado a gran parte de la humanidad con esa gran mentira...



¿Cómo paramos esa manipulación?

sábado, 11 de febrero de 2012

La guerras son necesarias

"El salario es a nivel microeconómico un coste pero a nivel macroeconómico es también un componente fundamental de la demanda, es decir, de la capacidad de consumo de una economía. 
Si los salarios bajan para todos los trabajadores, entonces la capacidad de consumo global también será mucho menor y los empresarios tendrán menos posibilidades de vender todos los productos que producen.

Esa paradoja explica un hecho bien conocido por la historia económica. Cuando una economía entra en crisis, se producen despidos y, por tanto, también se reduce la capacidad de consumo global porque muchos de los trabajadores que disponían de salarios dejan de tenerlos. Con menor capacidad de consumo las empresas venderán menos y, como venderán menos, tendrán que despedir trabajadores o bajar salarios para mantenerse a flote. Como cualquiera de esas dos opciones también produce un nuevo descenso de la capacidad de consumo... se produce un círculo vicioso de despidos y caída del consumo que durará hasta que la economía pueda reactivarse mediante mecanismos externos como la actuación del Estado o fenóme- nos como las guerras que provocan una movilización masiva de los recursos."

Del libro Hay alternativas.

Visto lo visto, visto como está Europa, como está USA, y el resto del mundo, la guerra tiene que ser inminente.
Sino, las guerras serán internas y eso se llama revolución. Grecia está en ello, pero no creo que interese eso. 
Eso ni mueve el consumo, ni da salida a las armas, ni regula la demografía mundial, ni ayuda de paso a Israel, y tampoco aporta nada en el mercado del crudo.
Es más, las revoluciones no son neoliberales, por lo tanto no pueden existir.
Las huelgas, se pueden tolerar, porque no dejan de ser eso. Niano.niano reconoció que le iba a costar una.
Creo que con el nuevo decreto, se van a ganar más que una huelga general.
Es hora de que los PIGS empiecen a reaccionar.



viernes, 20 de enero de 2012

Como para fiarse de cualquier agencia internacional

Denuncian a la AIEA por estar involucrada en los asesinatos de científicos iraníes

                         


(Hispantv) “La Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica (AIEA) está involucrada en el asesinato selectivo de científicos iraníes”, ha denunciado este jueves el expresidente de la Agencia de Energía Atómica Árabe (AEAA), Mahmud Barakat

“Esta es una política que se repite constantemente. La AIEA está involucrada en el asesinato de los científicos nucleares iraníes, ya que es la única entidad que posee informaciones precisas y confidenciales en este sentido”, agregó Barakat.

En una entrevista concedida a Nile TV, Barakat ha señalado que si “Irán no da información a la agencia se crea un escándalo, y acusan a Irán de no ser transparente al respecto, y si da información, se realizan los asesinatos selectivos”, informa IRIB.

Asimismo, el político explicó que el programa nuclear de Irán con fines pacíficos pretende satisfacer las demandas internas del país; asimismo, el uso de la energía atómica es una necesidad permanente para un país que ha gastado mil millones de dólares en la construcción de instalaciones nucleares.

Barakat criticó el doble rasero de Washington sobre el programa pacífico nuclear de Irán, agregando que Estados Unidos y el régimen israelí, ellos si poseen un sinnúmero de armas nucleares.

Teherán sostiene que como miembro de la AIEA y país signatario del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (TNP), tiene el derecho de utilizar la tecnología nuclear para usos pacíficos como la generación de electricidad e investigación médica.

Mientras tanto, el régimen israelí, poseedor de más de 200 ojivas atómicas, no permite que la AIEA inspeccione o supervise su controvertido programa nuclear, amén de hacer oídos sordos a la demanda de adherirse al TNP.

El 11 de enero del año en curso, el catedrático iraní, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, fue asesinado en Teherán, la capital de Irán, tras explotar la bomba lapa colocada en su coche.

Ahmadi Roshan, es el cuarto científico iraní, vinculado con el programa nuclear pacífico iraní que ha sido asesinado durante los últimos dos años. Dariush Rezainejad (julio de 2011), Masud Ali Mohammadi (enero de 2010) y Mayid Shahriari (noviembre de 2010) perdieron la vida en atentados similares, mientras que Fereydun Abasi (noviembre de 2010) sufrió heridas.

sábado, 14 de enero de 2012

El casus belli que necesita USA para atacar Iran

Iran target of 'false flag' strategy?
The ship with an orange hue is the USS Vincennes afloat in Puget Sound. It will reportedly be used in a "False Flag" attack against Iran.


Several warnings of an imminent “false flag” attack by the Israeli-influenced US on one of its own warships, which will be attributed to Iran, have been reported by several reliable sources.

In recent years “false-flag” terrorism has been utilized multiple times by US and Israeli political actors to provide pretexts for otherwise unjustifiable, anti-Islamic military excursions. The plan is to justify an all-out assault on Iran based upon a new fabricated “Pearl Harbor”.

Israel is the primary motivator behind the attempts to destabilize Iran. US traditional foreign policy was one of attempting to foster stability in the Middle East for oil markets. The Zionist impulse, conversely, is to destabilize all potential regional hegemons and carve the Middle East up into ethno-religious statelets.

Thus, since the fraudulent events of 9/11, we've seen a policy of Middle East disintegration being pursued by Israeli-influenced American politicians.

Indeed, recently released CIA memos reveal that Mossad agents have been posing as CIAagents and conscripting anti-Iranian terrorists.

Former Israeli intelligence officer, Avi Perry, startlingly wrote in a January 9th Jerusalem Post article of a forthcoming “ 'Pearl Harbor' scenario, in which Iran [will] launch…a “surprise” attack on the US navy,” giving the US “the perfect rationalization to finish them [Iran] off.” Tellingly, Perry chose to put the word “surprise” in quotation marks. Is Perry telling us something?

Perry asserts: “[an] Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime.” However, Perry identifies “a US aircraft carrier” as the likely target of this imagined Iranian attack.

We beg to differ. There are major indications that the vessel of choice is to be the USS Vincennes. The fourth USS Vincennes (CG-49) is a US Navy Ticonderoga class Aegis guided missile cruiser. On July 3, 1988, the ship shot down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 civilian passengers on board, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children.

This would be an ideal vessel for the staged provocation as it could be easily sold to the world as having been Iranian retribution for the 1988 downing of Flight 655. That way the evident lack of motive for Iran to provoke the US and Israeli military will be replaced by a perceived “motive.” No one will stop to ask themselves why Iran would thereby engage itself in a major war.

If we were to believe the Wikipedia version of history the Vincennes has already been scrapped. The Wikipedia article for the Vincennes states, “The Vincennes was completely scrapped by 23 November 2011.” If that were true it could not be used as the target of this “false-flag” attack. Yet we have photographic and testimonial evidence suggesting otherwise.

A reliable source interviewed by one of us has brought us up to speed on the latest developments:

“We now know what that INACTIVE Ticonderoga class AEGIS missile cruiser got towed out of here under cover of darkness for. It'll likely be the sacrificial lamb that starts the war with Iran....

“Why else would they move it when all the rest sit at a buoy here for months before they finally leave to be sunk?

“I told this to a former 9/11 Truth person back when that ship got moved that it was likely to be used for a FALSE FLAG attack. Well, we'll soon see if I was right about this one.”

Since the ship left Puget Sound in the dead of night about two months ago, it’s most probable location today is at the 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain for safe keeping until the time comes for its deployment. The ship would have been refurbished and repainted and provided with remote control capabilities.

“That is the only location in the region outside of Haifa Harbor where she could probably be at least partially concealed by cocooning the superstructure to make it less obvious who she is.

Meanwhile, the US Navy is compiling a list of casualties based upon deceased sailors, very much as was the case on 9/11,” we were advised.

Former Israeli false-flag attacks, such as on the USS Liberty in 1967, and the Argentine attacks in 1992 and in 1994, demonstrate Israel's willingness to attack US targets, on the one hand, and its own people, on the other.

It's highly probable that, having shipped the Vincennes into an acceptable location, that the Mossad, which has also been implicated in the events of 9/11, would do the rest of the dirty work. Or the United States, which has become Israel's lackey, might blow up one of its own ships, which would be a literal and a figurative sign of how low the US has sunk.

As a Marine Corps officer, I, Jim Fetzer, swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Neither I nor any other officer I know ever swore allegiance to the State of Israel. Our leaders are not only betraying our own Constitution but have turned our nation into a servant of an unworthy, brutal and tyrannical master, who couldn't care less about the best interests of American citizens--and our own leaders not only permit this to happen but actually promote it.

In light of recent “deep political events” in Iran, including the recent murder of Iranian nuclear physicist Professor Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, it would not be surprising if the US and Israel were to raise the ante by implementing a fraudulent trigger incident, which may very well ignite World War III.

Because of the pervasiveness of US-Israeli deceptions, an increasing number of public intellectuals are awakening to the prospect of these fraudulent events before they happen, as appears to be the case with this initiative. We can’t be certain about all of this, because we are on the outside, looking in. Perhaps the USS Vincennes actually has been scrapped. But on this point the world can rest assured: they haven’t scrapped the plan!


JF/JB/AZ/HGH


Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Joshua Blakeney is a graduate student at the University of Lethbridge, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Staff Writer at Veterans Today.

Como sería la tercera guerra mundial

Hay gente con mucha imaginación, pero la realidad está ahí. Los hechos están ahí, y lo que está ocurriendo en el mundo a causa de un imperialismo yanki sin precedentes está ahí.
También es cierto que el ser humano nunca se sabe cómo va a reaccionar antes situaciones nunca esperadas ni pensadas.
Pero para eso está la manipulación en general y la informativa en especial.
Cuando te bombardean durante años y años con falsas noticias y falsos testimonios, manipulando toda la realidad, acabas viviendo en una película.
Esta es una de ellas( aunque nuca se sabe)









What War With Iran Might Look Like
by Philip Giraldi, January 12, 2012

Back in September 2007 I wrote an article for Antiwar.com called “What World War III May Look Like.” The article, which presumed that an incident involving U.S. troops on the border between Iraq and Iran could easily escalate into what would eventually become a global conflict, was widely replayed in the alternative media and even in themainstream. Well, I am pleased to report that no such war has yet started, though there has been a disturbing expansion of U.S. military activity through the deployment of drones to hit targets in assorted countries without having to worry about American casualties or niceties like declarations of war. Other geopolitical elements that figured in my 2007 analysis have also changed, so I believe that the time has come for an update.

Iran is clearly the target of choice, just as it was in 2007. Despite President Barack Obama’s assertion that he would open up avenues to talk to the Iranians, he has failed to do so, he has rejected Iranian initiatives to start a dialogue, and he is showing every sign of unwillingness to negotiate on any level. Congress has even moved to block any contact between American and Iranian diplomats. The sanctions that recently took effect against the Iranian banking system can be construed as an act of war, particularly as Iran has not provided any casus belli. Further sanctions that will restrict energy imports are impending and will bring the country’s economy to a halt. There are already signs that the Iranian government feels itself compelled to demonstrate to its people that it is doing something about the situation. That “something” might well be a confrontation with the U.S. Navy that will have unfortunate results. In light of all that, it might be useful to imagine just how war with Iran could play out if the Iranians don’t roll over and surrender at the first whiff of grapeshot.

It might start with a minor incident, possibly involving an Iranian armed small craft manned by the Revolutionary Guard. Though the Strait of Hormuz is generally considered an international waterway, the Iranians claim that half of the strait is within their territorial waters. Tehran, in response to intensified sanctions, declares that it can determine who can use the strait and says that it will take steps to keep American warships from entering. The frigate USS Ingraham, patrolling off of Bushehr, is confronted by the small craft and ordered to heave to, an order it rejects. The Iranian commander, ignoring instructions to back off when confronted directly by the U.S. Navy, opens fire with rocket-propelled grenades. The frigate’s Phalanx rapid-fire battery immediately responds by blasting the Iranian boat, killing the entire Revolutionary Guard crew, but two American sailors are also killed in the exchange and four are wounded.

Fighters from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis are immediately launched under standing orders, and they devastate the naval base that the Iranian boat departed from. President Obama holds a press conference and calls the incident an act of war and vows to do everything necessary to support U.S. forces in the region, but he stops short of a commitment to stage a full-scale attack on Iran. A hastily called meeting of the U.N. Security Council results in a 17–1 vote urging the United States to exercise restraint, with only Washington voting “no.” In the General Assembly, only the United States, Israel, Micronesia, and Costa Rica support possible military action.

The United States is effectively alone, but Israel takes advantage of the growing war fervor in the United States to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. The recently completed nuclear reactor at Bushehr is destroyed, killing 13 Russian technicians working on the site, and the aboveground buildings at the Natanz nuclear research facility are leveled. Russian-supplied Iranian air defenses shoot down six Israeli aircraft. Washington receives no prior warning of the Israeli attack, though it does pick up the signal traffic that precedes it and knows something is coming. It makes no effort to stop the Israelis as they fly over undefended Iraqi airspace.

Congress and the media rally behind the Israelis and demand war. A bill in the House of Representatives calling on the White House to take military action in support of Israel passes 431–4. A similar bill in the Senate receives only two nays. President Obama hesitates but then approves a limited offensive, directed against Iran’s military, its nuclear sites, and, most particularly, its Revolutionary Guard installations. In the first few days, overwhelming American air and naval superiority destroys Iran’s principal air, naval, and army bases. Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities are obliterated, as are the known Iranian nuclear research and development sites. The limited offensive soon becomes anything but that, with strategic bombers dropping 30,000-pound Big BLU bunker-buster bombs to strike underground labs and processing centers. Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons are used to destroy communications centers and command and control facilities. There are nevertheless large numbers of civilian casualties as many of the targeted nuclear sites are close to or within cities and large towns. Infrastructure is also hit, particularly bridges, roads, and power-generation stations close to known nuclear research centers and military sites.

There is a pause in the attacks, and Iran strikes back. With nearly 10 years to prepare, Tehran has successfully hidden and hardened many of its military and nuclear facilities, a large percentage of which are undamaged. The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis operating in the Gulf of Oman is hit by a lucky strike by a Chinese Silkworm cruise missile that comes in low and successfully evades countermeasures. The Stennisretires to port in Bahrain. Three other support vessels are also hit and severely damaged when they are attacked by waves of small craft manned by suicidal Revolutionary Guards, not unlike the kamikaze attacks in the Second World War. The Iranian attackers are annihilated, but the Pentagon refuses to say how many American sailors have been killed in the exchange.

Pro-Iranian riots break out in Beirut. In the south of Lebanon, Hezbollah fires salvos of rockets into Israel, striking Tel Aviv and killing several hundred Israelis. Israel responds by bombing Lebanon and Syria, which it blames for supporting the attacks. Upgraded Iranian Shahab-3 missiles also strike Israel, killing more civilians. The Israeli Defense Forces are fully mobilized, and troops are sent to the northern border. Syria and Lebanon also mobilize their forces. Rioters in Baghdad attack the American embassy, which demands that the Iraqi government “do something” to protect it, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugs and says that the situation is out of his control. Large public demonstrations demand that Iraq support Iran in a fraternal struggle against the United States.

Shi’ites sympathetic to Iran sabotage Saudi Arabian eastern oil fields. Hundreds of alleged saboteurs are shot dead by Saudi security forces. An oil tanker out of Kuwait is hit by a Silkworm and runs aground to keep from sinking. Another hits a mine. Insurers at Lloyd’s of London refuse to cover any tankers transiting the Persian Gulf, claiming that damage incurred during a state of war is not covered by the policies. Oil shipments from the region, one quarter of the world’s supply, stop completely, and oil goes up to $300 a barrel. Wall Street suffers its biggest loss in 20 years, with the Dow Jones index plummeting more than 900 points.

The United States offers Iran a cease-fire, which Tehran rejects. Two days later, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is assassinated by a Shi’ite bodyguard under orders from Tehran. Pakistan declares that it is neutral in the conflict and orders the U.S. embassy to reduce its staff by 50%, including the CIA station chief and his deputy. Order breaks down in both countries, and the Pakistani army declares a state of emergency, closing the border with Afghanistan. NATO calls an emergency meeting and decides to begin the evacuation by air of the multinational force trapped in Afghanistan, leaving many weapons and heavy equipment behind.

In the power vacuum, NATO troops withdraw to their bases while Taliban-backed militias take over much of Kabul and Kandahar. Afghanistan’s Mazar-i-Sharif, which is largely Shi’ite, declares itself a part of Iran. The government resigns in Beirut, and Hezbollah forms a new one. A salvo of Iranian Silkworm missiles sets the Saudi Arabian eastern oil fields ablaze. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates send an urgent diplomatic message to Tehran declaring that they will be “neutral” in the fighting and will not assist the United States in any way. Kuwait sends the same message, while Egyptian volunteers gather along the border with Israel in Sinai, demanding that Cairo take steps in support of their Arab brothers in Lebanon. Kuwait refuses to allow the United States to use its men and supplies at Camp Doha against Iran. In Bahrain, rampaging Shi’ite crowds depose Sheikh Khalifa al-Khalifa and set up an Islamic Republic, forcing the U.S. Fifth Fleet to abandon its only secure base in the region. The Dow Jones index loses another 1,000 points.

The United States attempts to get China and Russia to mediate with Iran to end the fighting, but they refuse to do Washington any favors, noting that they had opposed the attack in the first place and also citing their countrymen killed in the U.S. attacks. Suicide bombers attack in London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. The attacks are poorly planned and inflict only a few casualties, but panic sets in and the public demands that the respective governments do something. The United States tells the Iranian government that unless resistance ceases, nuclear weapons will be used on select targets. India and Pakistan are alarmed by the U.S. threat and put their own nuclear forces on high alert, as does Israel. Russia and China also increase their readiness levels to respond to the crisis.

Iran refuses to concede defeat, and the Iranian people rally around the government. The U.S. public is clamoring for action. Oil prices continue to surge, and the long-term viability of petroleum supplies is in question as the Strait of Hormuz continues to be closed. Another U.S. ship is badly damaged by suicide attackers in the Persian Gulf. American embassies throughout the region are attacked. Anti-American rioting takes place in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Mindanao, and in Dhaka. The United States consulate general in Karachi, Pakistan, is sacked and burned. Forty Americans die along with scores of Pakistanis when the Marine guards open fire.

There are frequent terrorism scares in a number of American cities, which are under red-alert security lockdown, though there are no new attacks. Domestic air travel declines by more than 50%. As a preventive measure, there are mass arrests of American Muslim leaders. Some antiwar activists are detained at military prisons, including Guantanamo, under the provisions of the Military Commissions Act and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Israel continues to be bombarded from inside Lebanon. Its air attacks inflict massive damage on civilians but are unsuccessful in stopping the rockets. Its government falls and is replaced by a hard-right regime headed by former Foreign Secretary Avigdor Lieberman. Rioting rocks the West Bank and Gaza, forcing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resign and flee to Paris. Hamas forms a provisional government. India threatens to attack Pakistan if there is any question about the security of Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal.

The United States uses a neutron-type bomb against the main Iranian nuclear research center at Natanz, which both Washington and Israel had already bombed conventionally and destroyed. It vows to bomb again if Iran continues to resist. Iran is defiant and fires another wave of Silkworms at U.S. ships, hitting one. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistani militants assume control of the government, aided by radical elements in the army and the intelligence service. India launches a preemptive strike against the main Pakistani nuclear centers at Wah and Multan, where the country’s arsenal is believed to be concentrated. Pakistan has some of its nukes moving around on trucks to avoid such a scenario, however, and is able to strike back by bombing New Delhi.

A minor engagement between American and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf has ignited World War III.

miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2011

R2P (Responsibility to protect)

Killing civilians. Matando a los civiles.






Helping and taking care of the barbarians.
Ayudando y cuidando a los bárbaros.


Otra ONG involucrada y cómplice de esta locura infame: Médicos sin fronteras en vez de denunciar y atender a los libios asediados y masacrados, monta un hospital de campaña cerca del frente para atender a las ratas integristas y racistas.


Más claro agua, y cuidado con la NED
¿Mandarán a la infantería?



Una de las conclusiones, es que los imperialistas, no han aprendido nada de las guerras anteriores.
Se repite casi el mismo patrón. Si ahora Obama reclama que sí, que haya tropas terrestres ( aunque ya las hay de tapadillo) esto va a ser Afghanistán 2.0 e Irak 3.0 y sino al tiempo.
Ya lo dijeron hace tiempo: ninguna guerra se gana desde el aire, y menos si es imperialista.
Y sino, mira en 2006 en Líbano: tuvieron que entrar con los merkava y los sayeret matkal y bueno, destrozaron un país como han hecho en Libia, pero les dieron lo suyo y tuvieron que volverese a sus casas con el ego, bajo tierra.
En Libia : ni es una Blitzkrieg, ni es una revolución, ni es R2P. Como manden a la soldadesca especial, creo que se lía parda. Los africanos en general son como los palestinos, pero muchos más y más oscuros ( por lo de la piel). Y con el apoyo que les ha dado Libia, y la creación de la UA ( unión africana) puede que resurja con otros apoyos, lo que a mediados del siglo XX EEUU intentó erradicar: pueblos libres rebelados contra el imperialismo asesino.

Hay datos que circulan sobre los costes de las guerras, pero si Irak empezó hace 2 décadas, y luego está Afganistán, y quieren seguir con Libia, creo que no me saldrían las cuentas.
O como dije ya en otro post: como ya no salen las cuentas, por lo menos vamos a guerrear y a robar que algo nos llevaremos.
Sí: se llevarán muchos muertos de la población y de los suyos.


Más bombas inteligentes ( oximorón)
Habrán arrasado a los civiles, puesto que casi matan a las ratas de las afueras




Este último video, ocurría hace 7 meses!!!!!!!
Bueno, pues ni con esas.


Pues Obama la idea ... no es tuya




Y Libia...TAMPOCO

domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2011

Resolución 2009 de la ONU

Merece la pena leer esta resolución para ver hasta donde llega el cinismo de este organismo.
Frase a frase, intención por intención, verbo por verbo, y decisión por decisión, es el colmo de la ilegalidad y la justificación de una guerra imperialista, saltándose a la torera los mismísimos fundamentos de las Naciones Unidas.
Deja claro que Muammar Kaddafi y su gobierno no existe.
Deja claro que el interlocutor ahora es el Sr. Jibril.
Y por supuesto deja las bases de lo que quieren hacer con Libia: doblegarla y que sucumba al sistema, a occidente y sus sitema.
Ver para creer.