La CIA, tremenda porquería

"El vuelo de Moscú a La Habana en el que presuntamente tenía que viajar Edward Snowden, analista subcontratado por la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional estadounidense que denunció el espionaje electrónico masivo de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña, despegó desde el Terminal D del aeropuerto moscovita Sheremiétevo a las 14.15 hora local (las 12.15 en España peninsular) sin que los periodistas embarcados en el mismo vieran rastro del filtrador. Una fuente anónima rusa citada por la agencia Interfax también informó de que Snowden no salió hacia La Habana como se especulaba hasta ahora. La compañía Aeroflot confirmó ese extremo.

Por otra parte, el canciller de Ecuador, Ricardo Patiño, ha confirmado la petición de asilo solicitada a su país por Snowden. Patiño, que realizó las declaraciones en una videoconferencia desde Hanoi donde se encuentra de viaje oficial, precisó que Snowden argumentó su petición ante el "peligro de persecución" por parte de las autoridades estadounidenses", hasta aquí un extracto la información de "El País", pueden visitar el enlace. 

En la entrada "Espiar mola" toqué el asunto de las operaciones de vigilancia a algunos países participantes en la cumbre celebrada en Gran Bretaña.

Lo que viene a continuación es una breve opinión por la que, sin narcisismo, expongo el careto.

Quiero referirme a Edward Snoweden. 

No es frecuente que a la Compañía de Langley (CIA) se le escapen sus funcionarios. Se les dio el caso de uno, muy plañidero el pobre, que había operado largo tiempo en América Latina (tórrido patio trasero). Al tipo, que era (o es) católico, le entraron como remordimientos de conciencia. Escribió un libro, con el que se confesó a fondo. Finalmente fue a contarle sus batallitas de "agentón" a sus homólogos de La Habana. Salió en la tele etc, etc.  

Edward Snoweden es otra cosa. Más inteligente. Y pienso que los tiene bien puestos. Es un hombre que parece que no quiere ser comparsa de la epidemia paranoide que nos atenaza. Una enfermedad global que no hay psiquiatra que cure. Claro que Snowden ha traicionado a la CIA (fantasma de mi infancia, el coco que nos asustaba). Pero la CIA ha traicionado, y con creces, a los hombres y mujeres decentes de Estados Unidos. No fue siquiera capaz de prevenir el 11/S. Se ha visto mezclada en atentados o preparación de ellos, por ejemplo incontables contra Fidel Castro (que no es un almita cándida). Hasta fracasaron en aquella invasión contra Kuba.

 Me alegro que Snowden cante la Traviata. Que no lo secuestren. Que no sufra un accidente aparatoso. A ver si el Presidente Obama se pone las pilas y comprende de una buena vez que hay que salvar lo que resta del verdadero "sueño americano" de Martin Luther King.

Good Bless you Edward Snoweden ¡

Los timos de Obama

Fighting Al Qaeda by Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria: The Obama Administration is a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Michael Chossudovsky aporta elementos de juicio, información, datos contrastados, que respaldan lo que todos/as los que desconfiamos razonablemente intuimos: que los gobiernos nos engañan mucho. Que la opacidad perjudica a los ciudadanos que los hemos votado en procesos democráticos. La guerra contra el terrorismo se ha convertido en un mantra equivalente al todo vale. Y allí entran en juego los servicios de inteligencia (que tienen todos los países), pero en especial Estados Unidos, donde son numerosos, variopintos y a veces muy ineptos (Remember 11/S). Oriente Medio, los países del Islam son un  polvorín. Sus guerras tribales, sus guerreros fanáticos, las Viudas Negras, la Yihad, sus numerosos dialectos (o lenguas), con frecuencia confunden al Occidente que se mira el ombligo. La verdad es que hasta hace muy poco los estudios islámicos eran coto privado de unos cuantos académicos peculiares. Lo que afirmo ahora es una opinión: nadie sabe a derechas qué es Al Qaeda en los días post Bin Laden. Quedan tantos asuntos sin respuesta. El artículo que les sugiero contiene algunas respuestas.

Url of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/fighting-al-qaeda-by-supporting-al-qaeda-in-syria-the-obama-administration-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/5339728

Guerrero intergaláctico de Pennington

A major transition in US counter-terrorism doctrine is unfolding.
While Barack Obama, following in the footsteps of George W. Bush, remains firmly committed to waging a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), his administration is now openly supporting selected rebel units in Syria which are part of the Al Qaeda network.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, which has covertly supported the “Islamic Terror Network” since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war.
While Al Qaeda is a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, a “New Normal” has been established.
An Al Qaeda affiliated organization, namely Syria’s Al Nusrah, is being supported “overtly” by the US President, rather than “covertly” by the CIA.
The support of Al Nusrah, an affiliate of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), is no longer channeled in secrecy as part of a CIA-MI6 covert operation, it is now being supported –in a semi-official fashion– as part of a US foreign policy agenda. The latter is also part of America’s diplomatic discourse, implemented in consultation with Britain, Canada, Germany and France. Although Al Nusrah was not mentioned explicitly, “support to the Syrian rebels” was the main topic of debate at the June 2013 G-8 meetings in Northern Ireland.
While intelligence covert ops continue to perform an important role, Washington’s support to Al Qaeda in Syria is now “out in the open”, within the public domain. It is no longer part of a secret undertaking. It is part of the mainstay of US foreign policy, carried out under the helm of Secretary of State John Kerry.
“Support to the rebels” is also debated in the US Congress. It is the object of a bill which has already been adopted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Corker who co-sponsored the bill stated that:
“The future for Syria is uncertain, but the U.S. has a vested interest in trying to prevent an extremist takeover, which poses a very real risk for us and the region,” (emphasis added)
In a twisted logic, the bill purports to prevent “an extremist takeover” by supporting an Al Qaeda terrorist formation.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 15-3 in favor of the proposed bill.
Ironically, the pro-Israeli lobby was also actively involved in lobbying in favor of aid to jihadist rebels.
Israel has supported Al Nusrah militarily in areas adjacent to the occupied territories of the Golan Heights.
Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky (left) voted against the bill, warning:
“You will be funding today the allies of al Qaeda” (quoted by RT)
Al Qaeda, Osama and “The Blowback”
Everybody knows that Al Qaeda is now directly supported by the US government.
The implications are far-reaching. Obama’s decision not only undermines the legitimacy of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), it also casts doubt on the “blowback” thesis.
Moreover, it begs the embarrassing question: Why is the US president supporting Al Nusrah, which is on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations?
The CIA refers to the so-called “blowback” thesis whereby an “intelligence asset”, (i.e. the Islamic jihad) is said to “have gone against its sponsors”; ”
The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US – and Britain – are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback’, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. (The Guardian, London, September 15, 2001).
“What we’ve created blows back in our face.” The US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims. The CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It’s like “a son going against his father”.
While the CIA acknowledges that the late Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, was an “intelligence asset” during the Cold War, the relationship is said to “go way back”. In the wake of 9/11, news reports would invariably dismiss these Osama-CIA links as part of the “bygone era” of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably described as “irrelevant” to an understanding of the post-9/11 era:“Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, ... Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden.” (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)
Afghan Mujahideen Commanders meet with President Ronald Reagan
While the “blowback” thesis is an obvious fabrication, it has nonetheless served to provide legitimacy to the “Global War on Terrorism”. With “overt” support channeled by the US government to an Al Qaeda affiliated organization, the blowback thesis falls flat, it is no longer credible.
The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the “Islamic Militant Network”. Historically, US covert support to terrorists was a safely guarded secret, unknown to the broader public. Moreover, the CIA would never channel its support directly. It would proceed through its intelligence counterparts in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have become increasingly sophisticated.
The broad political and media consensus in the wake of the 9/11 attacks was built around the blowback: Al Qaeda had attacked America.
The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) against Al Qaeda and its affiliates had been launched. Yet the evidence amply confirms that US intelligence continues to harbor several terrorist organizations which are on the US State Department’s list.
Paradoxically, covert support to the terrorists by Western intelligence agencies (including the CIA, MI6, Germany’s BND) is an essential instrument of the “Global War on Terrorism”. Namely the war on terror to protect the Homeland is waged by using US-NATO sponsored terrorists and mercenaries as foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.
The support provided covertly to “jihadist” terrorist organizations in a large number of countries (e.g. former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Niger, Mali, Algeria, Egypt, etc.) has been used by the US-NATO alliance to destabilize sovereign states.

Obama and Al Nusrah. The “State Sponsors of Terrorism”
Al Qaeda was identified as the mastermind of the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 was immediately identified as a “state sponsor of terrorism” leading to the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan by US and NATO forces on October 7, 2001. In turn, a gamut of counterterrorism legislation and executive orders were put in place in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Executive Order 13224, signed by President George W. Bush on September 23, 2001 “authorizes the seizure of assets of organizations or individuals designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to assist, sponsor, or provide material or financial support or who are otherwise associated with terrorists.” (Sept. 23, 2001).
The US Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act 2001, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The legislation was in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which allegedly had been perpetrated by Al Qaeda.
According to the 2001 Patriot Act, those “who pay for the bomb“, namely those who fund affiliates of Al Qaeda, are terrorists. In the words of George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
The Act pertains to the harboring and financing of terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are defined in the PATRIOT Act as a terror network. Persons and organizations which support or abet Al Qaeda are considered as terrorists.
The forbidden question: Does the substance of Executive order 13224 and the PATRIOT legislation quoted above apply to a US president, a Secretary of State, a Member of the US Congress?
The Department of Justice “has prosecuted individuals and organizations for providing material support to the terrorist organization, while the Department of Treasury has frozen the assets of dozens of terrorist financiers and networks.” (See Council on Foreign Relations)
Similar measures, including the freezing of assets or organizations supportive of terrorism, were adopted in the European Union. “Since 2007, Britain’s Ministry of Finance has frozen the assets (PDF) of hundreds of individuals and organizations connected to al-Qaeda via its Asset Freezing Unit.” (Ibid)
National governments which provide support to Al Qaeda are categorised as “State-sponsors of terrorism”.
The designation is determined by the US State Department. In fact, the Secretary of State, namely John Kerry has the authority “to determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” (State Department List), See also the Counterterrorism Bureau)

Barack Obama and John Kerry: Are They “Terror Suspects”?
Now let us examine in more detail the Al Nusrah Front, which constitutes the main rebel fighting force in Syria. Al Nusrah is affiliated to Al Qaeda. The leader of Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, has pledged his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who replaced Osama bin Laden after his death.
According to the State Department Bureau of Counter-terrorism, Jabhat al Nusrah, the main rebel force in Syria is a terrorist organization, an affiliate of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
The State Department has issued a “prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons.” (emphasis added).
It is understood that US State Department Counter-terrorism policy also applies to “state sponsors of terrorism”.
Al Nusrah is financed by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel in close consultation with NATO and the Pentagon.
The Obama administration has openly confirmed its support for the Syrian rebels with most of this aid channeled to Al Nusrah.The PATRIOT Act “prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses”.
Moreover, an entire gamut of executive orders as well as the 2001 Patriot legislation prohibit “the harboring of terrorists”. (Consultar URL señalada)

Google nos joroba bien

Según la Agencia Española para la Protección de Datos (AEPD)

1.Google no informa claramente sobre el uso que va a hacer de los datos que recoge de los usuarios, por lo que estos no pueden conocer de forma precisa qué fin justifica la recogida de sus datos personales ni la utilización que se hará de los mismos.


2.En el marco de la unificación de políticas de privacidad, es posible que Google pueda combinar la información personal de un servicio con la de otros y utilizarla para otras finalidades. La ausencia de información por parte de Google podría implicar que el tratamiento de datos que realiza fuera ilegítimo.

3.Google podría estar haciendo un tratamiento desproporcionado de los datos de sus usuarios, ya que en su política de privacidad advierte de que podrá utilizar los datos recabados de forma ilimitada en todos sus servicios, presentes y futuros.

4.Google podría estar conservando los datos de sus usuarios por tiempo indeterminado o injustificado. La ley establece que los datos personales deben ser cancelados una vez que hayan dejado de ser necesarios o pertinentes para la finalidad para la que fueron recabados, y Google los mantiene más allá de estos plazos.

5.La AEPD considera que el ejercicio de derechos por parte de los usuarios podría verse obstaculizado e incluso impedido, ya que las herramientas que ofrece Google para ejercer los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición se encuentran dispersas, no están disponibles para todos los usuarios, son incompletas y aparecen con denominaciones que no siempre se corresponden con la materia que se trata. (Con información de "El País")

Monsanto envenena

La verdad es que los/las ciudadanos/nas deberíamos molestarnos en leer trabajos como el de Colin Todhunter. Aporta datos sobre los posibles efectos nocivos para la salud humana de herbicidas como Roundup de Monsanto. (Y hay un "Liberty" de Bayer primo hermano del de Monsanto). La introducción de cultivos transgénicos (GMO) diseñados para resistir tales productos, generan problemas conocidos, y estudiados, en el entorno, como la desaparición de especies útiles (daño a la diversidad natural) o la proliferación de vegetales cada vez más resistentes a los herbicidas. He incluido todas las referencias para que los/las hipotéticos visitantes puedan ampliar sus consultas.

GMO and Monsanto Roundup: Glyphosate Weedkiller in our Food and Water?

By Colin Todhunter




Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-roundup-glyphosate-weedkiller-in-our-food-and-water/5339244

“Historians may look back and write about how willing we are to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations with a massive experiment that is based on false promises and flawed science just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.” So said Don Huber in referring to the use of glyphosate and genetically modified crops. Huber was speaking at Organic Connections conference in Regina, Canada, late 2012.

Huber is an emeritus professor in plant pathology at Purdue University in the US and has worked with the Department of Homeland Security to reduce the impact of plant disease outbreaks. His words are well worth bearing in mind given that a new study commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE) and GM Freeze has found that people in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of glyphosate in their urine (1).

Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned laboratory tests on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe and found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples live in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests.

The Influence of the Biotech Sector on Safety and Regulation

Although ‘weedkiller in urine’ sounds alarming, Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, says the levels found are unlikely to be of any significance to health because they are 300 times lower than the level which might cause concern. Alison Haughton, head of the Pollination Ecology Group at Rothamsted Research, said that if FoE and GM Freeze want their work to have scientific credibility and provide a genuine contribution to the debate on pesticide residues, they should submit their work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Valid points, you might think. But FoE believes that there is sufficient evidence to suggest environmental and health impacts from glyphosate warrant concern. It wants to know how the glyphosate found in human urine samples has entered the body, what the impacts of persistent exposure to low levels of glyphosate might be and what happens to the glyphosate that remains in the body. New research published in the journal Entropy sheds disturbing light on such concerns (discussed later in this article).


In 2011, Earth Open Source said that official approval of glyphosate had been rash, problematic and deeply flawed. A comprehensive review of existing data released in June 2011 by Earth Open Source suggested that industry regulators in Europe had known for years that glyphosate causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. Questions were raised about the role of the powerful agro-industry in rigging data pertaining to product safety and its undue influence on regulatory bodies (2).

In the same vein, FoE says there is currently very little testing for glyphosate by public authorities, despite its widespread use, and authorities in Europe do not test for glyphosate in humans and tests on food are infrequent. Glyphosate was approved for EU-wide use in 2002, but FoE argues that the European regulatory agencies did not carry out their own safety testing, relying instead on data provided by the manufacturers.

Of course there are certain scientists (usually with links to the agro-industry) who always seem to be strident in calling for peer-reviewed evidence when people are critical of the biotech sector, but then rubbish it and smear or intimidate the scientists involved when that occurs, as has been the case with Dr Arsad Pusztai in the UK or Professor Seralini in France. It is therefore quite revealing that most of the data pertaining to glyphosate safety came from industry studies, not from peer-reviewed science, and the original data are not available for independent scrutiny.

Increasing Use
With references to a raft of peer-reviewed studies, FoE also brings attention to the often disturbing health and environmental dangers and impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides throughout the world (1). The FoE study also highlights concerns around the increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers, particularly as the use of glyphosate is predicted to rise further if more genetically modified (GM) crops are grown. It is after all good for business. And the biggest producer of glyphosate is Monsanto, which sells it under the brand name ‘Roundup’.
“The figures don’t lie; GMOs drive glyphosate sales.” (3)

Despite its widespread use, there is currently little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. The FoE commissioned study is the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies. FoE Europe’s spokesperson Adrian Bebb argues that there is a serious lack of action by public authorities and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused.

This certainly needs to be addressed not least because the prediction concerning increasing exposure to glyphosate is not without substance. The introduction of Roundup Ready crops has already resulted in an increase of glyphosate use. Using official US government data, Dr Charles Benbrook, research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, states that since 1996 the glysophate rate of application per crop year has tripled on cotton farms, doubled in the case of soybeans and risen 39 percent on corn (4). The average annual increase in the pounds of glyphosate applied to cotton, soybeans, and corn has been 18.2 percent, 9.8 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively, since herbicide tolerant crops were introduced.

Glyphosate is used on many genetically modified crops. 14 new GM crops designed to be cultivated with glyphosate are currently waiting for approval to be grown in Europe. Approval of these crops would inevitably lead to a further increase of glysphosate spraying. In the US, biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres annually.

Increasing Dangers
Evidence suggests that Roundup could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new peer-reviewed report, published recently in the scientific journal Entropy (5). The study also concluded that residues of glyphosate have been found in food.
These residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a science consultant. The study says that negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.
In 2010, the provincial government of Chaco province in Argentina issued a report on health statistics from the town La Leonesa. The report showed that from 2000 to 2009, following the expansion of genetically-modified soy and rice crops in the region (and the use of glyphosate), the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province (6).
Professor Huber also notes the health risks associated with the (increasing) use of glyphosate. He says a number of plant pathogens are emerging, which when consumed could impact human health. Based on research that he alludes to (he refuses to make his research public or identify his fellow researchers, who he claims could suffer substantial professional backlash from academic employers who received research funding from the biotechnology industry), Huber notes that the use of glyphosate changes the soil ecology, killing many bacteria, while giving other bacteria a competitive advantage. This makes plants highly susceptible to soil borne diseases. At the same time, glyphosate has a negative effect on a number of beneficial soil organisms (7).
Huber’s concerns about the impact of long term use of glyphosate on soil sterility are similar to concerns expressed by Elaine Ingham, a soil ecologist with the Rodale Institute, and also research carried out in by Navdanya in India (8).
As for GM crops, Huber says they have lower water use efficiency, tend to be nutrient deficient, have increased bud and fruit abortion and are predisposed to infectious diseases and insect damage. He suggests that Roundup Ready crops, treated with glyphosate, have higher levels of mycotoxins and lower nutrient levels than conventional crops.
“... you could say that what you’re doing with glyphosate is you’re giving the plant a bad case of AIDS. You’ve shut down the immune system or the defense system.” Professor Ron Huber (7)
He concludes that, when consumed, the GM crops were more likely to cause disease, infertility, birth defects, cancer and allergic reactions than conventional crops.
Huber claims that consumption of food or feed that was genetically modified could bring the altered genes in contact with the microbes in the guts of the livestock or people who eat them. He feels this increases diseases, such as celiac disease, allergies, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, gluten intolerance, irritable bowel disease, miscarriage, obesity and sudden infant death syndrome.
While none of these findings conclusively prove that plant (or animal) diseases are caused by the glyphosate, Huber feels safety evaluations have been inadequate, suggesting that previous (GM sector) research was substandard and extremely misleading in its interpretation of results – or worse.
With some hugely powerful players involved here, many of whom have successfully infiltrated important government and official bodies (9), much of the science and the ensuing debate surrounding glyphosate is being manipulated and hijacked by vested interests for commercial gain.
“... publishing in this area can also be difficult. I know from the International Symposium on Glyphosate that they had to find a journal publisher outside this country (the US) to publish the research data and symposium proceedings. It’s pretty hard to get it published in the States. There are also some hazards to publishing if you’re a young researcher doing research that runs counter to the current popular concepts. A lot of research on safety of genetic engineering is done outside of this country because it’s difficult to gain access to the materials, or the statements you have to sign to have access to those materials stating that you won’t publish without permission of the supplier. I think the 26 entomologists who sent their letter to EPA in 2009 stated it aptly when they said that objective data wasn’t available to the EPA because the materials haven’t been available to them or that they’re denied the opportunity to publish their data.” Professor Ron Huber (7)

1)http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_media_briefing_glyphosate.pdf

2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html

3) http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-engineering-and-corporate-agribusiness-gmos-and-the-impacts-of-glyphosate-herbicide/5337096

4) http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf

5) http://www.nationofchange.org/study-links-monsanto-s-roundup-autism-parkinson-s-and-alzheimer-s-1367764115

6) http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-147561-2010-06-14.html

7) http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/don-huber-may2011-acres.pdf

8) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php

9) http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

Copyright © 2013 Global Research 

 alinaquevedo@yahoo.com

Espiar mola

Agentes secretos en plena acción.

The History of America’s Secret Wars: Corporate Espionage and the Outsourcing of National SecurityBy Greg Guma

Lo de espiar es "trending topic". Mola.Se armó tamaño revuelo por las escuchas británicas en la reunión en la cumbre. Antes había salido a la superficie que la administración estadounidense de Obama "controlaba" las comunicaciones de varios medios de comunicación, grandes servidores de internet, y usuarios de varias compañías telefónicas. Es decir, que casi todo el mundo era espiado en mayor o menor medida por el gobierno. Por su parte, se ha fomentado la idea de una hipotética unidad del Ejercito chino ha practicado "ciberataques" contra los ordenadores de objetivos estratégicos estadounidenses. Por no ser menos, en España tuvimos un caso de espionaje muy cutre salchichero, contra (o sobre) políticos catalanes. Hace muchos años, una abogada estadounidense que luchaba  por conseguir hacer turismo sanitario gratuito en España, me previno contra el uso de ciertas palabras, por teléfono y en internet, vocablos que según la buena señora, eran señales "para el sistema de escuchas" estadounidense. El artículo de Guma está mejor documentado que las advertencias de la letrada asustada. Pero es bueno darse cuenta de una buena vez que nada de lo que publiquemos en internet dejará de ser, de alguna manera, registrado, visto y  evaluado. Que el correo electrónico nos expone a una insospechada falta de intimidad. Recuerdo el caso de un bobo profundo español a quien se le ocurrió colgar en su muro de Facebook un comentario que mezclaba al Jefe del Estado español con ETA. El pringao, terminó siendo acusado de (creo) falta de respeto y apología del terrorismo.
Pues lo dicho, que todos somos profundamente espiados.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-history-of-americas-secret-wars-corporate-espionage-and-the-outsourcing-of-national-security/5338982

This text is excerpted from Big Lies: How Our Corporate Overlords, Politicians and Media Establishment Warp Reality and Undermine Democracy
Pre-9/11 Flashback

When NATO’s US and British troops in Macedonia began evacuating Albanian rebels in June 2001, officials claimed that they were merely trying to help Europe avert a devastating civil war. Most media dutifully repeated this spin as fact. But the explanation only made sense if you ignored a troublesome contradiction; namely, US support for both the Macedonian Armed Forces and the Albanians fighting them. Beyond that, there was a decade of confused and manipulative Western policies, climaxing with NATO bombing and the imposition of “peace” through aggression in Kosovo. Together, these moves effectively destabilized the region.

In Macedonia, the main “cut out” – spook-speak for “intermediary” –was Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI), then a major private military company (PMC) whose Macedonian field commander was a former US general with strong ties to Kosovo Liberation Army Commander Agim Ceku and Macedonian General Jovan Andrejevski.

MPRI and other PMCs that have succeeded it receive much of their funding from the US State Department, Pentagon, and CIA. For example, MPRI trained and equipped the Bosnian Croat Muslim Federation Army with a large State Department contract. Over the years, the company claimed to have “helped” Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Macedonia – in effect, arming and training all parties. In 2000, it pulled in at least $70 million from its global operations.

Working closely with the Pentagon, MPRI also arranged for the Kosovo Liberation Army’s (KLA) training and weapons in the run up to the war on Yugoslavia. Later, the same firm channeled token military aid to the Macedonian army, new US weapons to the rebels, and military intelligence to both sides.

Actually, it was a standard procedure, applied with great success in the Middle East for decades: Keep warring parties from overwhelming one other and you strengthen the bargaining power of the puppeteer behind the scenes. Better yet, combine this with disinformation; that is, tell the public one thing while doing the opposite.

It’s not a question of allies and enemies. Those designations can change for any number of reasons. In 1999, ethnic Albanians were victims and freedom fighters. In 2001, they were “officially” a threat. Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden were just three of the friends-turned-pariahs who learned that lesson.

And what was the real objective in Macedonia? The country was in a financial straight jacket, its budget basically controlled by the IMF and the World Bank on behalf of international creditors. Since the IMF had placed a ceiling on military expenditures, the only funding option left was privatization. According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, the process started with the sale of the government’s stake in Macedonian Telekom.

Even more was at stake – things like strategic pipeline routes and transport corridors through the country. But that wouldn’t become obvious for years, if ever. This is another traditional tactic: Keep the true agenda under wraps for as long as possible.

Pretexts for War

Despite 24-hour news and talk about transparency, there’s much we don’t know about our past, much less current events. What’s worse, some of what we think we know isn’t true.

The point is that it’s no accident. Consider, for example, the proximate circumstances that led to open war in Vietnam. According to official history, two US destroyers patrolling in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam were victims of unprovoked attacks in August 1964, leading to a congressional resolution that gave President Johnson the power “to take all necessary measures.”

In fact, the destroyers were spy ships, part of a National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdropping program operating near the coast as a way to provoke the North Vietnamese into turning on their radar and other communications channels. The more provocative the maneuvers, the more signals that could be captured. Meanwhile, US raiding parties were shelling mainland targets. Documents revealed later indicated that the August 4 attack on the USS Maddox – the pretext for passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution – may not even have taken place.

But even if it did, the incident was still stage managed to build up congressional and public support for the war. Evidence suggests that the plan was based on Operation Northwoods, a scheme developed in 1962 to justify an invasion of Cuba. Among the tactics the Joint Chiefs of Staff considered then were blowing up a ship in Guantanamo Bay, a phony “communist Cuba terror campaign” in Florida and Washington, DC, and an elaborate plan to convince people that Cuba had shot down a civilian airliner filled with students. That operation wasn’t implemented, but two years later, desperate for a war, the administration’s military brass found a way to create the necessary conditions in Vietnam.

NSA and Echelon

For more than half a century, the eyes and ears of US power to monitor and manipulate information (and with it, mass perceptions) has been the NSA, initially designed to assist the CIA. Its original task was to collect raw information about threats to US security, cracking codes and using the latest technology to provide accurate intelligence on the intentions and activities of enemies. Emerging after World War II, its early focus was the Soviet Union. But it never did crack a high-level Soviet cipher system. On the other hand, it used every available means to eavesdrop on not only enemies but also allies and US citizens.

In Body of Secrets, James Bamford described a bureaucratic and secretive behemoth, based in an Orwellian Maryland complex known as Crypto City. From there, supercomputers linked it to spy satellites, subs, aircraft, and equally covert, strategically placed listening posts worldwide. By 2000, it had a $7 billion annual budget and directly employed at least 38,000 people, more than the CIA and FBI. It was also the leader of an international intelligence club, UKUSA, which includes Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Together, they monitored and recorded billions of encrypted communications, telephone calls, radio messages, faxes, and e-mails around the world.

Over the years, however, the line between enemies and friends blurred, and the intelligence gatherers often converted their control of information into unilateral power, influencing the course of history in ways that may never be known. No doubt the agency has had a hand in countless covert operations; yet, attempts to pull away the veil of secrecy have been largely unsuccessful.

In the mid-1970s, for example, just as Congress was attempting to reign in the CIA, the NSA was quietly creating a virtual state, a massive international computer network named Platform. Doing away with formal borders, it developed a software package that turned worldwide Sigint (short for “signal intelligence”: communication intelligence, eavesdropping, and electronic intelligence) into a unified whole. An early software package was code named Echelon, a name later connected with eavesdropping on commercial communication.

Of course, the NSA and its British sister, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), refused to admit Echelon existed, even though declassified documents appeared on the Internet and Congress conducted an investigation. A European Parliament report also confirmed Echelon’s activities, and encouraged Internet users and governments to adopt stronger privacy measures in response.

In March 2001, several ranking British politicians discussed Echelon’s potential impacts on civil liberties, and a European Parliament committee considered its legal, human rights, and privacy implications. The Dutch held similar hearings, and a French National Assembly inquiry urged the European Union to embrace new privacy enhancing technologies to protect against Echelon’s eavesdropping. France launched a formal investigation into possible abuses for industrial espionage.

When Allies Compete (Ver el resto en la URL indicada)

El Che a sus 85 años

Monumento dedicado al Che en Cuba

Abajo a la izquierda, una vista de Villa Nidia, uno de los primeros museos dedicados a la memoria de Ernesto Che Guevara en Argentina. Y en la foto en blanco y negro aparece  "Teté", algo cabezón y cariacontecido. El bebé asmático que se convertiría andando el tiempo en lo que él quiso: un soldado de América. Uno se pone a fabular qué hubiera llegado a ser Ernesto Guevara si no se encuentra con Fidel Castro en México. Si no se hubiera subido al yate "Granma", que parecía todo un presagio de naufragio. Se me ocurre que podría haber viajado de México a París, como al final de una carrera burocrática hizo Cortázar. El Che escribía muy bien. Tenía garra, estilo depurado, gracia. Tal vez le hubiera publicado Gallimard. Otra estrella en el dudoso firmamento del "boom" latinoamericano. Pero al final le pudo la vocación de guerrero idealista. El hambre de justicia. Era de los que pensaba que se podía cambiar el mundo. O al menos una parte. Desde luego estaba equivocado. No hay hombre nuevo posible. Hoy, si no lo hubieran asesinado, sería un anciano de 85 años. Posiblemente habría apagado las velas de una tarta festiva rodeado de hijos y nietos. En Cuba o en Argentina. Quién sabe. Lo cierto es que pese a la mercadotécnia desaforada de su imagen, a las camisetas, toallas, posters y hasta ropa interior y bebidas alcohólicas, la figura histórica del Che se agiganta con el paso del tiempo. 

Olor a sexo

Marlon camiseta sudada.

Siempre me había preguntado por el recóndito motivo por el que a veces, cuando llevaba un rato largo en el gimnasio, sentía un deseo irrefrenable de salir pitando de allí. Y la explicación la he encontrado en un artículo de "Science". Resulta ser que los humanos y humanas, secretamos con el sudor unas sustancias llamadas feromonas, que tienen mucho que ver con las conductas de apareamiento. Tengo que confesar que personalmente si alguien me huele mal no lo puedo soportar.Yo soy toda nariz. A veces, en un vuelo trasatlántico he pedido auxilio de la azafata (o el azafato ) de turno para que me librara de la aromática cercanía de algún pasajero. Pues bien, a lo que iba, cuando los hombres se "machacan" en el gimnasio y sudan como cerdos, se vuelven más amables y generosos entre ellos. Eso es lo que dicen las investigaciones serias. Y la verdad,  coincide con lo que yo observo diariamente: entre ellos se establece un vínculo de cordialidad que se manifiesta en achuchones frecuentes, palmaditas, miradas de admiración. En fin, que el día menos pensado con tanta testosterona y feromonas masculinas desparramadas, se montará un numerito entre las mancuernas. Hay gustos para todo. Si les pone el olor a camiseta sudada pues ya saben que tiene una explicación muy científica. 

Algo de "Science"
"Pheromones are everywhere in the animal world. Bugs in particular give off these chemicals to sound an alarm, identify a food source, or attract a mate. And smitten animals may indeed have "chemistry" together—pheromone signals are a subconscious part of their communication.

Scientists didn't know if humans played that game as well. But in the last 30 years, they've identified both male and female putative pheromones that are linked to mood and reproductive cycles. Some fragrancemakers have even incorporated them into their products, hoping to add an extra emotional punch to colognes and perfumes. Real-life pheromones don't smell so nice, however: The specialized glands that produce these chemical compounds are located near the armpit, where they mix with sweat. Previous investigations focused on the chemicals as sexual attractants—studying a male pheromone's effect on female mood and behavior".