Madrid 2020

Oso y mendigo. Puerta del Sol, Madrid.

La candidatura de Tokio está herida de muerte por el estado de alerta 3, por fugas de agua radiactiva en el rector nuclear de Fukushima. En condesastre. blogspot. com encontrarán varios posts sobre el desastre nuclear del 11/11/2011. Que pena, lo siento mucho, pero el peligro es real. Y aunque ese país admirable va a poner toda su tecnología para paliar el grave problema (no se puede hacer otra cosa) concurren con una enorme desventaja. Nadie va a confiar en ellos. Otra vez será. Se lo merecen.

En Turquía proliferan las manifestaciones de los ciudadanos descontentos contra un régimen dudosamente democrático. Hay brotes de violencia. El Islám, les guste o no admitirlo, no soporta la libertad que se necesita para el deporte olímpico. Les ofenden los cuerpos de las deportistas. En fin. El mundo árabe es un polvorín. Así que, asunto terminado.

Así las cosas, Madrid es la opción menos mala. Llega a su tercera final olímpica consecutiva, con las garantías financieras (presuntamente) aportadas, pese a la aguda crisis que España padece desde hace un lustro, y reanudando el curso político, en el que el caso Bárcenas (interminable culebrón de corruptelas del partido en el gobierno, PP), los Ere de Andalucía (culebrón de corruptelas del gobierno de Andalucía, PSOE) y el contencioso con Gibraltar (penoso pulso con UK en el que Spain ha incurrido varios notables ridículos) por el vertido de bloques de hormigón, que impiden faenar a los pescadores españoles, mantendrán su espacio. La candidatura, con el aprobado del COI para su financiación, presume estrepitosamente además de una recién estrenada "ley antidopaje" , que pudo ser un obstáculo en sus anteriores intentos, y celebra los últimos insuficientes y paupérrimos datos del paro, 31 parados menos, que indican  "una sexta bajada consecutiva en agosto, mes en el que por primera vez hay una reducción desde el año 2000".

La capital de Spain, tercera en la elección para 2012 detrás de Londres y París y segunda para 2016 al perder la última votación frente a Río, solventó en menos tiempo del previsto su penúltimo examen ante la asamblea del COI, el pasado 3 de julio en Lausana. Eso es buen síntoma y provocó un ataque de euforia histérica en Doña Botella de Aznar. (Madrid Mayor).

Madrid 2020 sería un soplo de prosperidad para la empobrecida Spain. Ojalá que las Olimpiadas en España no se conviertan en un nido de olímpica corrupción, chanchullos, prebendas, contratos amañados, empresas fantasmas, ONG de millonarios, patrocinadores rastreros, urdangarines muy presuntos. Ojalá sean capaces de quitarse un poco esa arrogancia con la que molestan a muchos ciudadanos/as, la chulería sin gracia, el autobombo. Que las Olimpiadas sean una oportunidad de mostrar las culturas variopintas que conviven hace más de 500 años por aquí. Que suenen en castellano, en catalán, en vascuense, en galego, en todas las lenguas, con toda la riqueza que tenemos. Que no politicen la Olimpiada. Que se dejen de resaltar la "implicación" de quienes están obligados a hacerlo. 

Que el Madrid del 2 de mayo, el del 5/M, el de Chueca, el de Malasaña, el del Barrio de Salamanca, el de la Puerta de Alcalá, el de la Plaza Mayor, el de Pérez Galdós, el del Retiro, el de los atardeceres mágicos de una ciudad dura, chula, única, festiva, torera y mística a su manera, reciba al mundo. Pongamos que hablo del Madrid que amo tanto. De mi Madrid al que siempre vuelvo en sueños. Por un glorioso verano de 1986 en la Plaza Mayor. Siempre estaré en Madrid.

The perfect CV

Catty Cowan, la autora del presente post, es una verdadera experta en comunicación. Aquí les dejos sus recomendaciones para un CV presentable. Agregaría que si lo hacen on-line, con gracia, pero sin pasarse, puede ser efectivo. Los jefes de personal son muy listos. Y tienen poco tiempo.

"When it comes to applying for a new job, your CV could be just the ticket to get you that initial foot in the door and secure an interview – but how do you ensure your CV is added to the interview pile rather than thrown straight in the bin?

Putting together a successful CV is easy once you know how. It's a case of taking all your skills and experience and tailoring them to the job you're applying for. But what if you don't meet the right criteria? Well, I've put together the following tips to help you get started in creating a successful CV and securing your first (or next) arts job.

Get the basics right

There is no right or wrong way to write a CV but there are some common sections you should cover. These include: personal and contact information; education and qualifications; work history and/or experience; relevant skills to the job in question; own interests, achievements or hobbies; and some references.

Presentation is key

A successful CV is always carefully and clearly presented, and printed on clean, crisp white paper. The layout should always be clean and well structured and CVs should never be crumpled or folded, so use an A4 envelope to post your applications.

Always remember the CV hotspot – the upper middle area of the first page is where the recruiter's eye will naturally fall, so make sure you include your most important information there.

Stick to no more than two pages of A4

A good CV is clear, concise and makes every point necessary without waffling. You don't need pages and pages of paper – you just keep things short and sweet. A CV is a reassurance to a potential employer, it's a chance to tick the right boxes. And if everything is satisfied, there's a better chance of a job interview. Also, employers receive dozens of CVs all the time so it's unlikely they'll read each one cover to cover. Most will make a judgment about a CV within sections, so stick to a maximum of two pages of A4 paper.

Understand the job description

The clues are in the job application, so read the details from start to finish. Take notes and create bullet points, highlighting everything you can satisfy and all the bits you can't. With the areas where you're lacking, fill in the blanks by adapting the skills you do have. For example, if the job in question requires someone with sales experience, there's nothing stopping you from using any retail work you've undertaken – even if it was something to help pay the bills through university. It will demonstrate the skills you do have and show how they're transferable.

Tailor the CV to the role

When you've established what the job entails and how you can match each requirement, create a CV specifically for that role. Remember, there is no such thing as a generic CV. Every CV you send to a potential employee should be tailored to that role so don't be lazy and hope that a general CV will work because it won't.

Create a unique CV for every job you apply for. You don't have to re-write the whole thing, just adapt the details so they're relevant.

Making the most of skills

Under the skills section of your CV don't forget to mention key skills that can help you to stand out from the crowd. These could include: communication skills; computer skills; team working; problem solving or even speaking a foreign language. Skills can come out of the most unlikely places, so really think about what you've done to grow your own skills, even if you take examples from being in a local sports team or joining a voluntary group – it's all relevant.

Making the most of interests

Under interests, highlight the things that show off skills you've gained and employers look for. Describe any examples of positions of responsibility, working in a team or anything that shows you can use your own initiative. For example, if you ran your university's newspaper or if you started a weekend league football team that became a success.

Include anything that shows how diverse, interested and skilled you are. Don't include passive interests like watching TV, solitary hobbies that can be perceived as you lacking in people skills. Make yourself sound really interesting.

Making the most of experience

Use assertive and positive language under the work history and experience sections, such as "developed", "organised" or "achieved". Try to relate the skills you have learned to the job role you're applying for. For example: "The work experience involved working in a team," or "This position involved planning, organisation and leadership as I was responsible for a team of people".

Really get to grips with the valuable skills and experience you have gained from past work positions, even if it was just working in a restaurant – every little helps.

Including references

References should be from someone who has employed you in the past and can vouch for your skills and experience. If you've never worked before you're OK to use a teacher or tutor as a referee. Try to include two if you can.

Keep your CV updated

It's crucial to review your CV on a regular basis and add any new skills or experience that's missing. For example, if you've just done some volunteering or worked on a new project, make sure they're on there – potential employers are always impressed" 

The CIA big money

El presupuesto que las 16 agencias de espionaje de EE.UU. destinaron a labores de inteligencia y lucha contra el terrorismo fue de 52 mil 600 millones de dólares en el año fiscal 2013, según reveló el diario estadounidense The Washington Post, que cita nuevos documentos filtrados por el exanalista Edward Snowden, ahora en Rusia.

De acuerdo con The Post, que califica esta partida secreta como "presupuesto negro", es la primera vez que la opinión pública tiene acceso con tanto detalle a los gastos, recursos y evaluaciones internas de la inteligencia estadounidense.

La Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) es la principal beneficiaria de los fondos, con 14 mil 700 millones de dólares para este año fiscal, seguida de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA), con 10 mil 500 millones de dólares.

En total, la comunidad de inteligencia de EE.UU. emplea directamente a 107 mil 35 trabajadores, según los documentos.

"Las agencias de espionaje de EE.UU. han construido un coloso para la recolección de inteligencia desde los ataques del 11 de septiembre del 2001", afirma el diario a la luz de los datos del presupuesto. Pero ese coloso, añade, es "incapaz de proporcionar información crítica al presidente sobre una serie de amenazas para la seguridad nacional", según se desprende de las evaluaciones incluidas en la documentación.

Aunque el gobierno estadounidense ha divulgado regularmente desde el 2007 el nivel global de fondos que destina a las actividades de espionaje, nunca antes se había publicado cómo se usa el dinero ni qué resultados se alcanzan.

El sumario del Programa Nacional de Inteligencia obtenido por The Post, de 178 páginas, detalla los éxitos, fracasos y objetivos de las 16 agencias federales que constituyen la "comunidad de inteligencia" en EE.UU.

Entre estas "ciberoperaciones", llevadas a cabo de manera conjunta por la CIA y la NSA, se incluyen "agresivos" esfuerzos para acceder a redes informáticas extranjeras con el fin de obtener información o sabotear sistemas enemigos.

Las operaciones de contraespionaje, por su parte, están concentradas estratégicamente en torno a los objetivos prioritarios como China, Rusia e Irán.

De acuerdo con este "presupuesto negro", los programas de contraespionaje emplean a uno de cada cuatro trabajadores y reciben un tercio del total de los fondos.

Por último, el diario divulga documentos dedicados a la preocupación en el seno de la NSA acerca del "comportamiento anómalo" de su propio personal, y en el 2013 se identifican cerca de 4 000 posibles amenazas internas relacionadas con la filtración de información sensible por parte de sus agentes.(Con información de SE)
 

Sarin sobre Siria

Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?
By Yossef Bodansky



El uso, el asesinato, de miles de civiles mediante gas, presuntamente sarin, en Siria abre múltiples interrogantes. El análisis de Yossef Bodansky apunta respuestas para algunas de ellas.Y lo que es mejor, hace dudar, que es muy sano. Me atrevo a agregar algunas dudas propias: cómo es posible que la inteligencia estadounidense no detectara la presencia de arsenales químicos. ¿Se pudo evitar su empleo?. Me gustaría saber quién sintetizo tales productos, dónde, que mercado hay en torno al sarin (o soman y tabun). Se desconocen muchos detalles aparte de los muertos. La Administración estadounidense debería obrar con cordura. Y emplear mejor inteligencia.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.

The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.

Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.

These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Follow-up weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of August 24-25, 2013, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).

Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the US and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on August 26, 2013. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by US Amb. Robert Ford.

More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.

“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced US bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.

The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention.

The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.

Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.

MSF director of operations Bart Janssens summed up the findings: “MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events — characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers — strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.” Simply put, even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries. According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides. Moreover, opposition reports that there was distinct stench during the attack suggest that it could have come from the “kitchen sarin” used by jihadist groups (as distinct from the odorless military-type sarin) or improvised agents like pesticides.

Some of the evidence touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best.

A small incident in Beirut raises big questions. A day after the chemical attack, Lebanese fixers working for the “Mukhabarat Amriki” succeeded to convince a Syrian male who claimed to have been injured in the chemical attack to seek medical aid in Beirut in return for a hefty sum that would effectively settle him for life. The man was put into an ambulance and transferred overnight to the Farhat Hospital in Jib Janine, Beirut. The Obama White House immediately leaked friendly media that “the Lebanese Red Cross announced that test results found traces of sarin gas in his blood.” However, this was news to Lebanese intelligence and Red Cross officials.
According to senior intelligence officials, “Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh told [them] that the injured Syrian fled the hospital before doctors were able to test for traces of toxic gas in his blood.” Apparently, the patient declared that he had recovered from his nausea and no longer needed medical treatment. The Lebanese security forces are still searching for the Syrian patient and his honorarium.

On August 24, 2013, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.

The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four HizbAllah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar. Both the Syrian and the HizbAllah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack. Damascus told Moscow the Syrian troops were hit by some form of a nerve agent and sent samples (blood, tissues, and soil) and captured equipment to Russia.

Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.

“The regime in Syria ... has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on August 27, 2013. He believes the attack was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction”. Muslim is convinced that “some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action” is responsible for the chemical attack. The US was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then “everybody would forget it”, Muslim shrugged. “Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdo?an of Turkey?”

And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?

It is a colossal failure.

And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?

Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?

Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs

Copyright Defense and Foreign Affairs and Oilprice.com 2013

Copyright © 2013 Global Research

Seis millones de desplazados sirios

The Drums of War are Beating: Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians in Syria

By Marjorie Cohn and Jeanne Mirer

Occidente deshoja una peligrosa margarita en torno a Siria. Mientras tanto el Alto Comisionado de la ONU para los refugiados (otra entelequia estadística) nos pone ante los ojos la dolorosa cifra de 6 millones de "desplazados" sirios. Y yo lo traduciría a personas como ustedes o como yo, aterrorizadas, desvalidas, que cargan lo poco que han podido salvar, desheredados. No me imagino de qué manera terminaremos pagando por tanto sufrimiento ajeno. El presidente Obama, que tal vez bendiga su mesa bien servida, rodeado de familia y mascota, y duerma a pierna suelta, deberá decidir que hace con un problema que ha dejado, de manera irresponsable, envenenarse hasta extremos insoportables. Por lo menos va a consultar con el resto de su Gobierno. Eso será el día 9. Apuesto que si se decide por los misiles o los drones

(de corta, limitada y precisa acción, tal vez se atreva a decir "limpia"), lo dejará para el día 11. Para otro 11/S de odio. Si a esto se añade la arrogancia criminal del presidente sirio la combinación puede ser altamente explosiva.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-drums-of-war-are-beating-killing-civilians-to-protect-civilians-in-syria/5347187

The drums of war are beating again. The Obama administration will reportedly launch a military strike to punish Syria’s Assad government for its alleged use of chemical weapons. A military attack would invariably kill civilians for the ostensible purpose of showing the Syrian government that killing civilians is wrong. “What we are talking about here is a potential response . . . to this specific violation of international norms,” declared White House press secretary Jay Carney. But a military intervention by the United States in Syria to punish the government would violate international law.

For the United States to threaten to and/or launch a military strike as a reprisal is a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter. The Charter requires countries to settle their international disputes peacefully.

Article 2(4) makes it illegal for any country to either use force or threaten to use force against another country. Article 2(7) prohibits intervention in an internal or domestic dispute in another country. The only time military force is lawful under the Charter is when the Security Council approves it, or under Article 51, which allows a country to defend itself if attacked. “The use of chemical weapons within Syria is not an armed attack on the United States,” according to Notre Dame law professor Mary Ellen O’Connell.

The United States and the international community have failed to take constructive steps to promote peace-making efforts, which could have brought the crisis in Syria to an end. The big powers instead have waged a proxy war to give their “side” a stronger hand in future negotiations, evaluating the situation only in terms of geopolitical concerns. The result has been to once again demonstrate that military solutions to political and economic problems are no solution at all.  In the meantime, the fans of enmity between religious factions have been inflamed to such a degree that the demonization of each by the other has created fertile ground for slaughter and excuses for not negotiating with anyone with “blood on their hands.”

Despite U.S. claims of “little doubt that Assad used these weapons,” there is significant doubt among the international community about which side employed chemical weapons. Many view the so-called rebels as trying to create a situation to provoke U.S. intervention against Assad. Indeed, in May, Carla del Ponte, former international prosecutor and current UN commissioner on Syria, concluded that opposition forces used sarin gas against civilians.

The use of any type of chemical weapon by any party would constitute a war crime. Chemical weapons that kill and maim people are illegal and their use violates the laws of war. The illegality of chemical and poisoned weapons was first established by the Hague regulations of 1899 and Hague Convention of 1907. It was reiterated in the Geneva Convention of 1925 and the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court specifically states that employing “poison or poisoned weapons” and “asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices” are war crimes, under Article 8. The prohibition on the use of these weapons is an international norm regardless of whether any convention has been ratified.  As these weapons do not distinguish between military combatants and civilians, they violate the principle of distinction and the ban on weapons which cause unnecessary suffering and death contained in the Hague Convention. Under the Nuremberg Principles, violations of the laws of war are war crimes.

The self-righteousness of the United States about the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad is hypocritical. The United States used napalm and employed massive amounts of chemical weapons in the form of Agent Orange in Vietnam, which continues to affect countless people over many generations.

Recently declassified CIA documents reveal U.S. complicity in Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, according to Foreign Policy: “In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.”

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States used cluster bombs, depleted uranium, and white phosphorous gas. Cluster bomb cannisters contain tiny bomblets, which can spread over a vast area. Unexploded cluster bombs are frequently picked up by children and explode, resulting in serious injury or death. Depleted uranium (DU) weapons spread high levels of radiation over vast areas of land. In Iraq, there has been a sharp increase in Leukemia and birth defects, probably due to DU. White phosphorous gas melts the skin and burns to the bone.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War (Geneva IV) classifies “willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health” as a grave breach, which constitutes a war crime.

The use of chemical weapons, regardless of the purpose, is atrocious, no matter the feigned justification.  A government’s use of such weapons against its own people is particularly reprehensible.  Secretary of State John Kerry said that the purported attack by Assad’s forces “defies any code of morality” and should “shock the conscience of the world.”  He went on to say that “there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”

Yet the U.S. militarily occupied over 75% of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques for 60 years, during which time the Navy routinely practiced with, and used, Agent Orange, depleted uranium, napalm and other toxic chemicals and metals such as TNT and mercury.  This occurred within a couple of miles of a civilian population that included thousands of U.S. citizens.  The people of Vieques have lived under the colonial rule of the United States now for 115 years and suffer from terminal health conditions such as elevated rates of cancer, hypertension, respiratory and skin illnesses and kidney failure.  While Secretary Kerry calls for accountability by the Assad government, the U.S. Navy has yet to admit, much less seek atonement, for decades of bombing and biochemical warfare on Vieques.

The U.S. government’s moral outrage at the use of these weapons falls flat as it refuses to take responsibility for its own violations.

President Barack Obama admitted, “If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it . . .” The Obama administration is studying the 1999 “NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations,” the New York Times reported. But NATO’s Kosovo bombing also violated the UN Charter as the Security Council never approved it, and it was not carried out in self-defense. The UN Charter does not permit the use of military force for “humanitarian interventions.” Humanitarian concerns do not constitute self-defense.  In fact, humanitarian concerns should spur the international community to seek peace and end the suffering, not increase military attacks, which could endanger peace in the entire region.

Moreover, as Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and David Wildman of Human Rights & Racial Justice for the Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church wrote, “Does anyone really believe that a military strike on an alleged chemical weapons factory would help the Syrian people, would save any lives, would help bring an end to this horrific civil war”?

Military strikes will likely result in the escalation of Syria’s civil war. “Let’s be clear,” Bennis and Wildman note. “Any U.S. military attack, cruise missiles or anything else, will not be to protect civilians – it will mean taking sides once again in a bloody, complicated civil war.” Anthony Cordesman, military analyst from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, asks, “Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes. Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no.”

The United States and its allies must refrain from military intervention in Syria and take affirmative steps to promote a durable ceasefire and a political solution consistent with international law. If the U.S. government were truly interested in fomenting peace and promoting accountability, it should apologize to and compensate the victims of its own use of chemical weapons around the world.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL). New York attorney Jeanne Mirer is president of the IADL and co-chair of the NLG’s International Committee. Both Cohn and Mirer are on the board of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign

Copyright © 2013 Global Research

Marines rumbo a Siria

Centenares de infantes estadounidenses se aproximan a las costas sirias a bordo del buque USS San Antonio, de acuerdo con información difundida por la cadena televisiva CNN.

Los marines forman parte de la 26 Unidad Expedicionaria (MEU), integrada por más de 2 200 militares, que disponen de capacidades de operaciones terrestres y aéreas para intervenir en áreas de conflicto en plazos relativamente breves.

La MEU está formada además por el buque de asalto anfibio Kearsarge, actualmente en el golfo Pérsico, y el de desembarco Carter Hall, que se mantiene en el océano Índico.

Sin embargo, el Pentágono aseguró  que estas fuerzas no forman parte de los planes para una eventual operación contra Siria, que se prevé realizar sin el empleo de unidades terrestres y solo con cohetes crucero Tomahawk, de largo alcance, a bordo de buques norteamericanos en áreas aledañas al territorio sirio, según la CNN.

El USS San Antonio pasó el jueves del mar Rojo al Mediterráneo a través del Canal de Suez y al parecer se dirige a la isla griega de Creta, donde permanecerá hasta finales de octubre.

Washington culpa a Siria por el reciente uso de armas químicas contra civiles. El gobierno de Bashar al-Assad rechazó las acusaciones y las calificó de "pretexto para una acción bélica".

En los últimos días la Armada estadounidense reforzó su presencia en la región del golfo Pérsico con el arribo del portaaviones Harry S. Truman, con dos cruceros coheteriles e igual número de destructores como buques escoltas, que relevarán a la agrupación similar del USS Nimitz, que se encuentra en el área desde marzo pasado.

Sin embargo, el Nimitz permanecerá en la región hasta nuevo aviso, pues su presencia sería vital en la eventualidad de un golpe militar contra Siria. (Con información de PL)
 

La disyuntiva Siria

War on Syria and the West’s Skin-Deep Morality
By Colin Todhunter

Los ciudadanos deberíamos ser capaces de tomar posiciones respecto a lo que ocurre más allá de nuestras fronteras. Por eso no viene mal estar enterados. Si Estados Unidos abre otro frente militar en Siria, y hay que resaltar que la terrible guerra que asola esa región lleva mucho tiempo activa, las consecuencias las pagaremos todos. El artículo de Todhunter va acompañado de numerosas citas.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-on-syria-and-the-wests-skin-deep-morality/5347043

And here we go again. In Syria, things were getting desperate for Washington. It needed a major made-for-TV, cross-the-red-line incident involving chemical weapons. Unsurprisingly, by hook or by crook – probably crook (1) – it got it. The BBC, British Foreign Secretary William Hague and a multitude of other media outlets and politicians now clamour, or at least strongly imply the need, for direct military action to bolster the illegal ‘indirect’ military intervention from the West and its allies that has already been taking place for a long time.

The story being peddled goes that the (axis of) evil Syrian regime has used a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ to help win a war it was already winning, thereby incurring the wrath of the US. Strange logic indeed.

It’s a case of déjà vu. British MP George Galloway in front of a US senate hearing back in 2005 exposed the ‘pack of lies’ that the US-led invasion of Iraq was built on. Similar forms of deceit have been the foundations for shaping public opinion regarding attacking Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and numerous other countries. The presence of WMDs was used to justify attacking Iraq, while ‘humanitarianism’ or ‘fighting terror’ was the excuse used elsewhere.

But what is it about the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that provokes a knee jerk reaction from media people and politicians who foam with rage and let seep from their mouths high minded platitudes about morality?

“Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people we personally dislike.” Oscar Wilde in ‘An Ideal Husband’.

If in the above quote from Wilde, we replace ‘people’ with ‘regimes’, we may appreciate the nature of the West playing fast and lose with its notions of morality. Supply arms, including chemical weapons, to dictatorial regimes throughout West Asia with atrocious human rights records because, notwithstanding the fact it is great business, they are ‘good friends of ours’ (to coin a highly apt mafia term). Yes, all friends and good ones at that, as long as they remain loyal to the ‘Project for the New American Century’ (2).

The PNAC, or the project for world domination, is partly built on gullible, easily led public opinion, which is (often) fanned by the emotionally laden letters ‘W-M-D’. A Pavlov’s dog public and media, which respond on cue to the moralistic bleatings of condescending criminals that masquerade as respectable politicians and who rely on the public’s ignorance to fuel their barbarity in the name of ‘protecting civilians’ from an impending bloodbath, while going on to cause one in Libya, to ‘defeat terror’, while funding it in Syria, or to ‘support democracy’, while undermining it in Egypt.

These politicians and much of the mainstream media confine the narrative about WMD to a military battlefield, or a threat of outright violent destruction. The term is never to be associated with the US dropping atom bombs on Japan, the West using mini-nukes in the form of depleted uranium or the use of white phosphorous to kill and maim (3). From the cancers caused to the environmental contamination, where is Hague’s, the BBC’s or any other number of media outlets’ moral indignation about this type of mass destruction?

Where too is their condemnation of treacherous economic, trade, food or agriculture policies that blight hundreds of millions across the globe? Where is their condemnation over the criminal manipulation of currency markets, commodities, interest rates and derivatives, or the neo-liberalism and the corporate-financial cartels that conspire to shape trade via the WTO, IMF or the World Bank (4,5,6,7,8)?

That’s right, condemnation of these economic and political weapons of mass destruction and suffering are nowhere to be seen or heard simply because such political figures and media institutions with their skin-deep morality are in place merely to serve the interests of fraudulent capital and its fraudulent policies.

This type of mass destruction and mass misery does not involve headline-grabbing, eye-catching episodes of carnage and death. This violence is structural in form, is arguably ultimately just as destructive and is ongoing and all pervasive (9). In Western countries, this is disguised as a need for ‘austerity’. In poorer countries, it is called ‘development’.

Under the ‘structural adjustment’ policies imposed on poor countries, it has become a case of export or be damned, embrace corporate agriculture or be damned, borrow and build dams or be damned. And, in the process, elites – both foreign and indigenous – prosper, while the people and the environment end up being damned anyhow (10). It’s almost becoming a cliché to mention the hundreds of thousands of farmers in India who ‘embraced’ it all and died. It’s no cliché though, it happened.

It’s no cliché that the petrochemical-backed, corporate-driven ‘Green Revolution’ is raping the environment (11). It’s no cliché to say that genetic engineering is a highly financially lucrative ‘experiment’ that is jeopardising our health and the future of humanity (12). Neither is it a cliché that millions, from Egypt to the US, are bearing the brunt of economic policies that result in misery for the many and record profits for the few.

Perhaps we should look at Hague and his ilk and assess whether they actually do care about the plight of ordinary folk in the manner they claim to. Do they really care about the plight of Syrians? Perhaps we might care to ponder that they clearly do not, given the back door deals and wars they have sanctioned for the benefit of powerful corporations (13,14).

Why should they care so much about people in far off places when they show little for those in their own countries? The post-war Keynesian consensus has been gradually dismantled, leading to the offshoring of much of their own economies and leaving millions in debt, in poverty, thrown onto the scrapheap or used as fodder to fight wars for the rich under the banner of ‘humanitarianism’ or ‘protecting our freedoms’. And, as far as ‘protecting our freedom’ is concern, look to Edward Snowden and especially Hague’s squirming reaction to the revelations to see how hollow this rings.

Moral outrage within certain influential quarters about the latest happenings in Syria might be enough to fool some of the public, but let the record show that this fake outrage runs skin deep and is extremely selective.

Notes

1) http://www.globalresearch.ca/doctors-behind-syrian-chemical-weapons-claims-are-aiding-terrorists/5346870

2) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

3) http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html

4) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/big-banks-criminally-conspire-to-rig-800-trillion-dollar-market.html

5) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/a-cartel-of-big-banks-is-harming-the-world-economy-by-manipulating-derivatives.html

6) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/every-market-is-rigged.html

7) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/the-big-banks-and-commodities-future-trading-commission-conspired-to-hide-speculation-from-congress.html

8) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/if-we-dont-break-up-the-big-banks-they-will-manipulate-more-and-more-of-the-economy-making-us-poorer-and-poorer.html

9) http://www.globalresearch.ca/india-structural-violence-mass-poverty-and-social-inequality/5307173

10) http://www.globalissues.org/article/7/causes-of-hunger-are-related-to-poverty#Increasingemphasisonliberalizedexport-orientedandindustrialagriculture

11) http://sagarmediainc.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/punjab-indias-grain-bowl-now-reels-under-agrarian/

12) http://www.countercurrents.org/todhunter090713.htm

13) http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-eu-free-trade-agreement-a-corporate-stitch-up-by-any-other-name/5339789

14) http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Weapons/Making_Killing_page.html