¿Quién diablos mató a Gadafi?

Libya: How Many Dirty Western Hands?

by Felicity Arbuthnot

No es la primera vez que  F. Arbuthnot mete el dedo en la herida de según que asuntos muy delicados. Aquí entra a saco y ofrece su particular visión de los bajos fondos del poder. Juzguen ustedes si existen o no motivos. Si desean información adicional consulten la URL señalada.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-how-many-dirty-western-hands/

Oh what a tangled web they weave



When first they practice to invade



A sovereign nation and deceive



The world about their dark crusade.

(Michael Leunig, Poet, Cartoonist, 1945:)

This weekend a detailed article (i) suggested that a: “French secret serviceman, acting on the express orders of the then President Sarkozy, is suspected of ”the murder of Colonel Quaddafi”, on 20th October last year.
Whilst bearing in mind that the NATO-backed insurgents now in power, who have near destroyed much of Libya, de-stabilised, terrorized and hope to carve up Libya’s resources for their, rather than the country’s benefit, have every reason to wish to disassociate themselves from the butchery of Colonel Quaddafi’s terrible death, the new allegations illuminate interesting points.
The French assassin, it is claimed, infiltrated the mob rabidly manhandling the Colonel, and shot him in the head.
“The motive, according to well placed (Libyan) sources”, was to prevent any chance of interrogation into Sarkozy’s links with Colonel Quaddafi.
The Mail previously revealed (ii) quoting a French governmental briefing note published by an investigative website, that fifty million euros has been: “laundered though bank accounts in Panama and Switzerland ... from Colonel Quaddafi, to fund (Sarkozy’s 2007) election as President”, which if correct: “would have broken political financing laws.” Sarkozy’s: “numerous visits to Libya” were also cited.
Further claims are that: “The Swiss account was opened in the name of the sister of Jean-Francois Cope, the leader of Mr Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, and the President’s right-hand-man.”
Quaddafi’s son, Saif alIslam, whose life hangs in the balance and no doubt further so, should he be subject to the Libyan “judicial system”, has stated unequivocally regarding the Sarkozy campaign funding: “We have all the details and are ready to reveal everything ... We funded it.”
No wonder Saif, also generous funder (£1.5 million) to his former place of, advanced study, the prestigious London School of Economics – where he also delivered the annual Ralph Miliband Lecture in May2010, named for the renowned academic and father of the former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband and his brother Ed, current Leader of the Labour Party – has been abandoned by the Western powers who had formerly welcomed him – then conspired in another illegal coup, this time in his country.
Sarkozy of course, on becoming President, memorably welcomed Colonel Quaddafi on a State Visit to Paris in December 2007, greeting him as “Brother Leader” and hosting his famed Bedouin tent next to the Elysee Palace.Tony Blair, of course visited Quaddafi on many occasions, even flying in the Colonel’s private plane, pushing mega business deals. He too is mute on the horrors of the death and the fate of his children, grandchildren and country.
The Mail also makes the points that: “ The United Nations mandate which sanctioned (the misnamed ‘no zone’) expressly stated that the Western allies could not interfere in the internal politics of the country.”
“Instead the almost daily bombing runs ended with Quaddafi’s overthrow, while both French and British military ‘advisors’ were said to have assisted on the ground.”

¿Son peligrosos los alimentos genéticamente modificados?

E.U. Science Panel Dismisses French GM Concerns--Again

by Martin Enserink

Un panel de la European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) borró de un plumazo los recelos de Francia contra los cultivos genéticamente manipulados (GM). El presente artículo procede de Science. Para que tengan una idea, si incluyen en su dieta habitual los cereales de desayuno de la marca Kellog, (con distintas presentaciones), pueden estar casi seguros de haber consumido alimentos procedentes de cultivos (GM). No existen todavía datos del efecto a largo plazo de dichos productos. En California (USA) se desarrolla un notable movimiento de consumidores que desean que se les informe en el etiquetado de la procedencia del alimento. Como se imaginarán las compañías productoras no favorecen tal medida.

 France's latest attempt to keep genetically modified (GM) crops from its fields has been rebuked by a scientific panel at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Yesterday, EFSA issued an opinion dismissing France's argument that a GM maize variety produced by Monsanto might be harmful to the environment or human health.
The opinion is the latest blow in a long-running battle over MON810, also known as YieldGard, whose cultivation has been banned in a handful of European countries despite its approval by the European Commission in 1998. (Defensive maize: MON810 produces a toxin that protects it from the European corn borer).The French government, faced with strong public opposition to GM crops, banned Mon810 in 2008 under a so-called "safeguard clause" that gives countries some leeway to duck European rules. EFSA rejected the measure later that year, and in 2011, France's Council of State also ruled that the prohibition was out of line.
In February, France again asked the European Commission for permission to ban MON810, armed with a new scientific dossier. In it, the French government argues, among other things, that Cry1Ab, a protein produced by MON810 to ward off maize stalk borers, could hurt non-target species such as bees and butterflies, and that it could linger in the soil. But in yesterday's report, EFSA's Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms said the file contains some of the same evidence France presented—and EFSA rejected—in 2008; in the remainder, the panel "could not identify any new science-based evidence indicating that maize MON 810 cultivation in the EU poses a significant and imminent risk to the human and animal health or the environment."
Given recent history, EFSA's decision is "not really a surprise," AFP quoted a spokesperson for European health Commissioner John Dalli as saying. The commission is considering its next move, but "technically, we could now demand that France lift its ban," the spokesperson said.

Mapping drone proliferation:mapa de los abejorros.

Mapping Drone Proliferation: UAVs in 76 Countries
by Drone Wars UK
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mapping-drone-proliferation-uavs-in-76-countries/

 Si desean enterarse de la presencia de "abejorros" (drones) en diferentes países, revisen el artículo mencionado. Pueden consultarlo completo en la URL antes mencionada.

A new US Congress report on the proliferation of drones has confirmed a huge rise in the number of countries that now have military unmanned aerial systems.  The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published an unclassified version of its February 2012 report on the proliferation of UAVs.  The report examines both the proliferation of UAVs, commonly known as drones, and examines US and multilateral controls on the export of drone technology. 

The report states that between 2005  and December 2011, the number of countries that posses drones rose from 41 to 76 (see here for full list).

(Countries that have drones according to GAO report)

According to the report:  “The majority of foreign UAVs that countries have acquired fall within the tactical category. Tactical UAVs primarily conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions and typically have a limited operational range of at most 300 kilometres. However, some more advanced varieties are capable of performing intelligence collection, targeting, or attack missions. Mini UAVs were also frequently acquired across the globe during this period.” It should be noted that currently only the US, UK and Israel are known to have used armed UAVs.The report goes on: “Currently, there are over 50 countries developing more than 900 different UAV systems. This growth is attributed to countries seeing the success of the United States with UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan and deciding to invest resources into UAV development to compete economically and militarily in this emerging area.”

While the report fails to highlight the danger of growing drone proliferation to global peace and security it does emphasize the danger of drone proliferation to “US interests”.  The report states that “the use of UAVs by foreign parties to gather information on U.S. military activities has already taken place” and “the significant growth in the number of countries that have acquired UAVs, including key countries of concern, has increased the threat to the United States.”

Despite this, the report states “the U.S. government has determined that selected transfers of UAV technology support its national security interests”, thus highlighting the contradiction at the heart of current arms control measures.  ‘Private sector representatives’  told the reports authors that “UAVs are one of the most important growth sectors in the defense industry and provide significant opportunities for economic benefits if U.S. companies can remain competitive in the global UAV market.”

Table 1: US drone sales Fiscal Year 2005-2010

The report reveals that between 2005 – 2010, the US approved over $380m of drone exports (Table 1).  In total, the U.S. government approved transfers of complete UAV systems in 15 cases over the period.  Eight of the 15 countries were names in the report:  Denmark, Italy, Lithuania, United Kingdom, Australia, Colombia, Israel, and Singapore. Additionally, 1,278 UAV-related licenses  were identified over the period.
The US and the MTCR

The main international agreement that controls the transfer of drones is the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).  Although not primarily focused on drones, the MTCR controls UAVs by dividing them into two categories. Category One systems are capable of delivering a 500 kilogram warhead further than 300 kilometres, while Category II covers systems that carry a lighter warhead or have a range of less than 300km. Although all decisions are taken on a national basis (and there is no sanction by other countries if the MTCR is broken) there is a “strong presumption of denial” underpinning Category One – that is, an assumption that MTCR signatory states will not export such systems. Countries have greater discretion about exporting Category Two systems.

Drone Wars UK has previously highlighted efforts by US corporation to “relax” controls on the export of drones.  However the GAO report details for the first time “six US-sponsored UAV-related proposals” to amend the MTCR over the 2005-2011 period, five of which “would have resulted in moving some UAVs currently categorized under MTCR Category I to Category II” and thus making them more easier to export.  The five proposals were rejected by other members of the MTCR.

While the GAO report goes on to detail the need to improve internal US controls on the export of drones and related technology (recommending improving information databases and communication between licensing departments and intelligence agencies), it shies away from advocating the need to improve international controls. (Consultar la URL mencionada)

El puñetero NYT amarillea contra Spain

Vale que el New York Times es uno de los  mejores periódicos del planeta. Vale que muchos de sus colaboradores habituales son primeras figuras en su especialidad. Con unas tiradas multimillonarias y su cobertura digital excelente, parece que lo que sale en primera va siempre a misa, vamos. Pero tengo la humilde sensación de que con Spain el NYT se está pasando mucho. Más de 3 pueblos. Exagera y lo hace con mala baba. ¿Hay miseria en España?. Parece que así es. Vamos al desastre, o ya estamos metidos en un atolladero insalvable. Definitivamente no.
Por cierto, USA no es la tierra prometida.Tengo la experiencia de haber viajado en autobus (Greyhound), en el medio más humilde en USA, desde Orlando hasta Canadá. Pernocté a veces en moteles de dudosa categoría. Hable y compartí con muchas personas. Me enamoré de los ciudadanos normales frecuentemente muy solidarios y cálidos. También encontré focos de miseria, desamparo y hasta discriminación. Hay zonas de NY donde la gente malvive. Y por cierto en USA no funciona la cobertura sanitaria universal. Señoras/es, sé lo que digo: he vivido en USA y frecuentado casi todos los estratos sociales posibles. Hasta me he codeado con una mujer (muy hortera la pobre) que era/es la  tercera fortuna del país.

Señores del NYT, cordialmente, a tomar por el saco. Saldremos adelante, joder.
God bless Spain.

Xanadu by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Quiero comenzar el mes de octubre con uno de mis poemas favoritos. Se lo dedico a todas y todos los que están pasándolo mal por tantos motivos en cualquier parte del mundo.

Xanadu - Kubla Khan a poem

by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan

A stately pleasure-dome decree:

Where Alph, the sacred river, ran

Through caverns measureless to man

Down to a sunless sea.

So twice five miles of fertile ground

With walls and towers were girdled round:

And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,

Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;

And here were forests ancient as the hills,

Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted

Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!

A savage place! as holy and enchanted

As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted

By woman wailing for her demon-lover!

And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,

As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,

A mighty fountain momently was forced:

Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst

Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,

Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail:

And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever

It flung up momently the sacred river.

Five miles meandering with a mazy motion

Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,

Then reached the caverns measureless to man,

And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:

And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far

Ancestral voices prophesying war!

The shadow of the dome of pleasure

Floated midway on the waves;

Where was heard the mingled measure

From the fountain and the caves.

It was a miracle of rare device,

A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!

A damsel with a dulcimer

In a vision once I saw:

It was an Abyssinian maid,

And on her dulcimer she played,

Singing of Mount Abora.

Could I revive within me

Her symphony and song,

To such a deep delight 'twould win me

That with music loud and long

I would build that dome in air,

That sunny dome! those caves of ice!

And all who heard should see them there,

And all should cry, Beware! Beware!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread,

For he on honey-dew hath fed

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Los "abejorros" del terror de estado

 ABEJORROS DEL TERROR DE ESTADO
 Stephen Lendman

El artículo de Stephen Lendman explica (y documenta) el uso y las consecuencias del empleo de  aviones no tripulados conocidos como drones (abejorros). Las guerras ya no son lo que eran. La alta tecnología informática y los recursos más avanzados de la ciencia robótica se aplican en contiendas desatadas por intereses mayormente económicos. Las cifras de bajas de civiles inocentes desmienten la teoría de que tales máquinas pueden utilizarse de forma selectiva.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/drones-instruments-of-state-terror/
 

A new report jointly prepared by Stanford University’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (SU) and New York University School of Law’s Global Justice Clinic (NYU) is titled “Living Under Drones.”Part one discusses strikes on rescuers, funerals, and other civilian targets. Part two examines surveillance, the effects of drones overhead, and how their use creates fear and distrust. Part three considers the economic and impoverishment hardships families and communities sustain. Overall SU/NYU examines key aspects of the CIA’s drone policy. It exposes facts political Washington and media scoundrels suppress.The dominant narrative claims drone strikes are precise and effective. They involve “targeted killings.” Terrorists are assassinated with “minimal downsides or collateral impacts.” As a result, America is much safer.“This narrative is false.” It’s a bald-faced lie. Drone strikes are indiscriminate. Mostly noncombatant civilians are killed. The SU/NYU report followed nine months of intensive research.They included two investigations in Pakistan. Over 130 interviews were conducted with victims, witnesses, and experts.Thousands of pages of documentation and media reports were reviewed. This report “presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of” America’s drone-strike policy.Firsthand evidence confirms it. So-called benefits don’t exist. Civilians sustain enormous harm. “Living Under Drones” exposes what official accounts won’t say.Reevaluating Washington’s drone policy is urgently needed. Civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged. Significant evidence proves they’re commonplace.US officials claim “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties alone. They lie. Coverup is policy.At the same time, “it’s difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan.”

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) provides best available aggregate public data. Last February, TBIJ published a report titled “Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals,” saying: Predator drones sanitize killing on the cheap. Currently about one-third of US warplanes are.... (Para leer el artículo completo visite la URL correspondiente)

Madrid 25/S: vamos a rodear el Congreso

Me senté muy relajada delante del televisor con un enorme racimo de uvas. Emitían por "La sexta" un programa llamado "La sexta columna". Tres periodistas de su cadena estaban trasmitiendo en directo lo que ocurría en las imediaciones al Congreso de Diputados, en Madrid. Y claro, les estoy comentando mi experiencia cutre y doméstica del 25/S en Madrid.
No puedo precisar de cuántos manifestantes se trataba. Llenaban calles y plaza desde Cibeles hasta la fuente de Neptuno. Había muchísima gente en  torno al hotel Palace. Los participantes coreaban diferentes consignas :"El pueblo unido jamás será vencido", y recordé el Chile de Allende. También "No nos representan". Portaban muchos y muy variados carteles. Sobresalían los "no". Y entre los participantes aparecían ciudadanos de todas las edades. Padres con sus hijos, a los que querían hacer partícipes de un instante que consideraban muy importante en la historia de nuestro país. La presencia policial era notable: furgones, "maderos" aguerridos en cantidades industriales, en fin, toda una escenografía intimidatoria. Los antidisturbios iban ataviados con toda la paerafernalia tipo Robocop. Las cosas no iban demasiado mal hasta que un grupo de gente portando banderolas rojinegras y palos comenzó a zarandear las vallas metálicas que rodeaban, a unos 100 metros de distancia, el sin duda inalcansable Congreso. Estaba claro que con el notable despliegue de fuerzas del orden nadie podía ni siquiera aproximarse al recinto. Allí comenzó el caos y los indiscriminados porrazos. También hubo ataques por parte de algún que otro participantecontra los agentes. Pero eran los menos. Los antidisturbios se emplearon a fondo. A golpe de porra limpia. Patadas a gente tirada por el suelo. Empujones. Abrieron brechas en varias frentes. Daba lo mismo el sexo o la edad de las víctimas de tan lucida defensa armada del Estado de Derecho. A esas alturas se me atragantaban las buenísimas uvas y tenía el pulso bastante acelerado. Me entró un cabreo fenomenal que no hizo más que aumentar cuando comenzaron a transmitir en directo lo que ocurría en la estación de Atocha, donde la policía entró de manera abrupta, amenazadora e irresponsable.
El ministro de Interior ha calificado de impecable, apropiada etc, etc, la actuación claramente desproporcionada, y no discutan que para eso están las imágenes, de los antidisturbios. Nuestro presidente, bueno, el señor Rajoy, para evitar tan cercano y cariñoso adjetivo, felicitó a los ciudadanos que permanecen calladitos y que no se manifiestan. Que es una forma de satanizar a quienes lo hacen.
En España, Portugal, Francia y hasta en la floreciente e industrial Alemania, los ciudadanos están saliendo a la calle a ejercer su derecho de expresar pacíficamente su opinión. No se dejen atragantar con ruedas de molino: ni los manifestantes son facinerosos o "golpistas" o miembros de alguna extrema derecha fachosa. La gente toma las calles por ver amenazados sus derechos básicos. España vive un momento histórico. Un punto de inflexión después del cual ya nada será como antes. La gente está harta de los casos, notables, de corrupción. De los bancos chupópteros a los que ahora hay que sanear. De las dietas millonarias. De las prebendas y el nepotismo. Todo eso es un caldo de cultivo que unido al malestar por la crítica situación financiera y la austeridad que ahoga a los más frágiles hace que aumenten las protestas ciudadanas.
P.S. (Bueno, espero que no se dejen engañar con lo se dice por ahí de Cataluña. Los catalanes no van a romper España. Son una nación muy antigua para tales frivolidades. Otro día les cuento más sobre esto. Todavía me estoy reponiendo del 25/S).