Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘arab spring’

Young Turks to Permanently Control Middle East


Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston 1784– 1865 (Lord Palmerston)

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston 1784– 1865 (Lord Palmerston)

Palmerston Launches Young Turks to Permanently Control Middle East

by Joseph Brewda, delivered to the Conference of the Schiller Institute/ICLC Conference in suburban Washington, DC., on President’s Day weekend, 1994. “Solving the Paradox of Current World History

Chorus: It is clear that the B’nai B’rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B’nai B’rith members. The one peculiarity of B’nai B’rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B’nai B’rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B’nai B’rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.

At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B’nai B’rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call “the sick man of Europe.” Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.

In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.

In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.

Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.

When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.

Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.

The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.

But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.

The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.

This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt’s family later patronized the British KGB spy “Kim” Philby.

While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.

For example, the British supported the idea of carving a “Greater Armenia” out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This “Greater Armenia” had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn’t want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.

At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of “Greater Kurdistan.” As the map shows, the proposed territories of “Greater Kurdistan” and “Greater Armenia” were almost identical.

In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.

In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.

B’nai B’rith and the Young Turks

But who were these “Young Turks,” who so efficiently destroyed the empire?
The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B’nai B’rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called “Macedonia Resurrected.” The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.

The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B’nai B’rith’s European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.

During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.

(more…)

Western Intelligences Partner Islamist to Create Terrorism


Western Intelligences Partner Islamists to Create Terrorism

Western Intelligences Partner Islamist Groups to Create Terrorism

In many Muslim countries there are secret groups who are very much like the Illuminati and the Freemasons, but with militant recruits. These groups work with western intelligences to create terrorism, cooperate in sting operations and  to export terrorism to any country.

Their objectives are:
1- Strength at home;

2- Hit opponents abroad and at home; and

3- Give western governments the reasons to fund and arm counter-terrorism which is actually the same terrorism they created together.

Take Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Gaza and Qatar for examples

U.S. Creates a Problem, Causes a Reaction, then Provides the Solution


U.S. Creates a Problem causes a reaction then provides the solution

U.S. Creates a Problem causes a reaction then provides the solution

U.S. Commandos to Storm Nigeria in June


By Pointblank News 22/2/12
Feb 24, 2012 – 4:30:27 PM
Barring any last minutes change, top United States elite forces made up of members of the Marines, Navy Seals and Special Forces, will be in Nigeria in June as part of effort to help the country deal with the Boko Haram insurgence.

Nigeria and the United States Military have existing agreements in counter-terrorism, Maritime Security, military transformation and other areas.

A U.S. Army officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the mission said U.S. troop members on the mission have already been informed.

Monica Matoush, spokeswoman for the U.S Defense Department did not return calls when Pointblanknews.com sort for clarifications on the planned June mission.

Nicole M. Dalrymple Media Action Officer, West and Central Africa AFRICOM Public Affairs Office told Pointblanknews.com that she cannot immediately confirm the June mission but disclosed that counterterrorism, Maritime Security and others are areas the U.S is rendering assistance to Nigeria.

“If I’m able to find anything out about specific training in June I will let you know,” she told Pointblanknews.com in an email exchange.

In public comments, Nigerian and U.S. officials acknowledge “strategic cooperation” and confirm high-level meetings. However, they play down the meetings as routine, apparently for fear the Northern Muslim leaders will be outraged.

The military source said the mission is purely training but did not rule out a possible change of plans based on a new request for assistance from Nigeria.

“The mission is purely for a training purpose but we understand there is a new request and I don’t know details of it yet. But if we have directive to do otherwise, then we won’t have any choice than to do just that. I am aware that some senior officials are in talks with some Nigerian officials for more help but I cannot say what other help it is.”

Pointblanknews.com could not confirm details of the latest request from the Nigerian Government to the U.S Military. Spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense,Colonel Mohammed and Army Spokesman, Colonel Usman Abdul did not pick up their calls.

The source confirmed that the soldiers on the mission would be drawn from AFRICOM and from those who just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan because of their understanding of the Arab world.

Dalrymple however disclosed, “our partnership with Nigeria is focused in four areas requested by the Nigerians. Those areas are maritime security, crisis response (i.e. peacekeeping operations, pandemic response, airlift), counterterrorism, and military transformation (i.e.joint doctrine development, integration of women into the military, civil-military capability).

She said while there are no U.S. troops on the ground in an operational capacity assisting the Nigerian military in their response to Boko Haram attacks, “Nigeria is a member of the U.S. State Department’s Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism
Partnership.”

According to her, “In recent years, at Nigeria’s request, the U.S. has been working with the Nigerian military on their nascent counter-force through recurring training events.

“This training has included basic soldiering skills, basic small unit infantry tactics and leadership training,” she told Pointblanknews.com

Boko Haram employs the tactics of Al-Qaeda, using suicide bombers and waging guerilla warfare in their quest to Islamize Nigeria. Their insurgency has led to several deaths and destruction of properties including the United Nations building in the Nigeria capital of Abuja in 2011.

Ambassador J. Anthony Holmes, U.S. Africa Command’s civilian Deputy had in October 2011 said “Given the realities on the continent, however, our focus tends to be on Somalia and the surrounding countries to deal with al-Shabaab, and in West Africa, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which is based in northern Mali but increasingly has ties with Boko Haram in northern Nigeria. So we try to assist the governments and militaries of the countries in that region to develop the capacity to come to grips with and solve its own terrorism problem.

Source: Ocnus.net 2012

This is one more indication that Nigeria’s Boko Haram is really a Western-backed Insurgency

For sure there are channels of covert western military and intelligence support for Boko Haram of the same sort that were served to the Libyan Islamist rebels NTC through Gulf Arab states. The objectives of the West are three-folds:
1- To divert and suppress  the public growing hostilities and legitimate demands against western oil companies and their influences (which surprisingly Boko Haram is mute about them!! and no attacks reported against western interests and individual casualties. Those killed in August 2011 bomb attack on the UN House in Abuja were not; 11 were UN personnel almost all of them Africans, and 12 non-UN persons ).
2- To hold the Nigerian Government and corrupt wealthy clique hostages to internal insecurities and conflicts and hence weakening their bargaining position; and advance the need for the rejected U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
3- To create a parallel invisible violent local hands to act as their armed agents for subversion and coercion and change as an alternative to western military base.
Most probably Nigeria is actually confronted by an “Unconventional” warfare with the West; which is in the form of insurgency of particular ethnic group in the north together with perverts from other regions seeking oil money and power.
The U.S. Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Training Circulars explain this policy quite clearly. They are being applied in north and west Africa and in Syria, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen.
Without western companies of oil, minerals, import of goods and export of cash crops (cocoa, groundnuts, rubber, palm oil and other lucrative commodities) there shall be no Boko Haram, no civil wars, and no coups in Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Guinea, D.R. Congo, Senegal, Ghana or any other country.

Nigeria’s Boko Haram Could Be a Western-backed Insurgency


Nigeria's Boko Haram Could Be a Western-backed Insurgency

Nigeria's Boko Haram Could Be a Western-backed Insurgency

For sure there are channels of covert western military and intelligence support for Boko Haram of the same sort that were served to the Libyan Islamist rebels NTC through Gulf Arab states. The objectives of the West are three-folds:

1- To divert and suppress  the public growing hostilities and legitimate demands against western oil companies and their influences (which surprisingly Boko Haram is mute about them!! and no attacks reported against western interests and individual casualties. Those killed in August 2011 bomb attack on the UN House in Abuja were not; 11 were UN personnel almost all of them Africans, and 12 non-UN persons ).

2- To hold the Nigerian Government and corrupt wealthy clique hostages to internal insecurities and conflicts and hence weakening their bargaining position; and advance the need for the rejected U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

3- To create a parallel invisible violent local hands to act as their armed agents for subversion and coercion and change as an alternative to western military base.

Most probably Nigeria is actually confronted by an “Unconventional” warfare with the West; which is in the form of insurgency of particular ethnic group in the north together with perverts from other regions seeking oil money and power.

The U.S. Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Training Circulars explain this policy quite clearly. They are being applied in north and west Africa and in Syria, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen.

Without western companies of oil, minerals, import of goods and export of cash crops (cocoa, groundnuts, rubber, palm oil and other lucrative commodities) there shall be no Boko Haram, no civil wars, and no coups in Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Guinea, D.R. Congo, Senegal, Ghana or any other country.

America’s Guide for “Unconventional” Warfare (Insurgencies) P2


Chapter 2: Fundamentals of Resistance and Insurgency

The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. Mao Zedong

Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move. Sun Tzu

Separate definitions exist for resistance movements and insurgencies within the DOD and various academic communities. However, within this document, the two terms convey  a  strategy  of  insurrection.  Planners  broadly  use  the  term  “insurgency”  to describe  the  concept  of  achieving  aims  through  a  strategy  of  armed  conflict  and subversion against an indigenous government or occupying power. Planners use the term “resistance movement” to convey a unique type of insurgency that focuses on the removal of an occupying power. The difference in terminology is important to the concept  of  UW,  because  planners  must  understand  the  significant  differences  in dealing with a resistance movement that forms in response to an occupying power, and an insurgency that grows over time out of discontent for an oppressive regime. Planners  generically  use  the  term  “resistance”  to  categorize  the  activities  of  a resistance movement or insurgency.

Insurgents  are  inherently  indigenous.  There  remains  confusion  regarding  external support  elements,  such  as  foreign  fighters.  Even  when  the  U.S.  forces  or  foreign fighters  support  an  insurgency  or  resistance  movement,  planners  should  not categorize them as part of the insurgency. Planners should categorize these elements as enablers, facilitators, advisors, or supporters.

WHY POPULATIONS RESIST

2-1.  Resistance generally begins with the desire of individuals to remove intolerable conditions imposed by an unpopular regime or occupying power. Feelings of opposition toward the governing authority and hatred of existing conditions that conflict with the individual’s values, interests, aspirations, and way of life spread from the individual to his family, close friends, and neighbors. As a result, an entire community may  possess  an  obsessive  hatred  for  the  established  authority.  Initially,  this  hatred  will  manifest  as sporadic,  spontaneous  nonviolent  and  violent  acts  of  resistance  by  the  people  toward  authority.  As  the discontent grows, natural leaders, such as former military personnel, clergymen, local office holders, and neighborhood representatives, emerge to channel this discontent into organized resistance that promotes its growth. The population must believe they have nothing to lose, or more to gain. Key to transitioning from growing  discontent  to insurrection is the perception by a significant portion of the population that they have nothing to lose by revolting and the belief that they can succeed. In addition, there must be a spark that triggers insurrection, such as a catalyzing event that ignites popular support against the government power and a dynamic insurgent leadership that is able to exploit the situation. Figure 2-1, page 2-2, defines words critical to understanding resistance movements.

Figure 2-1. Resistance terminology

Figure 2-1. Resistance terminology

CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE

2-2.  People who outwardly follow their normal mode of existence conduct clandestine resistance. This type  of  resistance  is  organized  and  controlled  and  conducts  the  following  activities  as  groups  and individuals:

  Political action.

  Propaganda.

  Espionage.

  Sabotage.

  Traffic in contraband.

  Intelligence gathering.

(more…)

America’s Guide for “Unconventional” Warfare (Insurgencies) P1


Special Forces Unconventional Warfare

Training Circular No. 18-01, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 30 November 2010

Preface

Training Circular (TC) 18-01, Special Forces Unconventional Warfare, defines the current United States (U.S.) Army Special Forces (SF) concept of planning and conducting unconventional warfare (UW) operations. For the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.

PURPOSE

TC 18-01 is authoritative but not directive. It serves as a guide and does not preclude SF units from developing their own standing operating procedures (SOPs) to meet their needs. It explains planning and the roles of SF, Military  Information  Support  operations  (MISO),  and  Civil  Affairs  (CA)  in  UW  operations.  There are appropriate manuals within the series that addresses the other primary SF missions in detail.

SCOPE

The primary users of this manual are commanders, staff officers, and operational personnel at the team (Special Forces operational detachment A [SFODA]), company (Special Forces operational detachment B [SFODB]), and battalion (Special Forces operational detachment C [SFODC]) levels.  This TC is specifically for SF Soldiers; however, it is also intended for use Army wide to improve the integration of SF into the plans and operations of other special operations forces (SOF) and conventional forces.

APPLICABILITY

Commanders and trainers should use this and other related manuals in conjunction with command guidance and the Combined Arms Training Strategy to plan and conduct successful UW operations. This publication applies to the Active Army, the Army National Guard (ARNG)/Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) unless otherwise stated.

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

The  proponent  of  this  TC  is  the  United  States  Army  John  F.  Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS). Submit comments and recommended changes on Department of the Army (DA) Form 2028 (Recommended  Changes  to  Publications  and  Blank  Forms)  directly  to  Commander,  USAJFKSWCS, ATTN: AOJK-DTD-SF, 2175 Reilly Road, Stop A, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000. This TC is designed to be UNCLASSIFIED in order to ensure the widest distribution possible to the appropriate Army special operations forces  (ARSOF)  and  other  interested  Department  of  Defense  (DOD)  and  United  States  Government  (USG) agencies  while  protecting  technical  or  operational  information  from  automatic  dissemination  under  the International Exchange Program or by other means. Unless this publication states otherwise, masculine nouns and pronouns do not refer exclusively to men.

Chapter 1: Overview

There  is  another  type  of  warfare—new  in  its  intensity,  ancient  in  its  origin—war  by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest. President John F. Kennedy, 1962

The Commander, United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), defines UW as activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force in a denied area.

INTRODUCTION TO UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE

1-1.  The  intent  of  U.S.  UW  efforts  is  to  exploit  a  hostile  power’s  political,  military,  economic,  and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives.  Historically,  the  military  concept  for  the  employment  of  UW  was  primarily  in  support  of resistance  movements  during  general-war  scenarios.  While  this  concept  remains  valid,  the  operational environment  since  the  end  of  World  War  II  has  increasingly  required  U.S.  forces  to  conduct  UW  in scenarios short of general war (limited war).

1-2.  Enabling  a  resistance  movement  or  insurgency  entails  the  development  of  an  underground  and guerrilla  forces,  as  well  as  supporting  auxiliaries  for  each  of  these  elements.  Resistance movements or insurgencies always have an underground element. The armed component of these groups is the guerrilla force and is only present if the resistance transitions to conflict. The combined effects of two interrelated lines  of  effort  largely  generate  the  end  result  of  a  UW  campaign.  The  efforts  are  armed  conflict  and subversion. Forces conduct armed conflict, normally in the form of guerrilla warfare, against the security apparatus of the host nation (HN) or occupying military. Conflict also includes operations that attack and degrade enemy morale, organizational cohesion, and operational effectiveness and separate the enemy from the  population.  Over  time,  these  attacks  degrade  the  ability  of  the  HN  or  occupying  military  to  project military power and exert control over the population. Subversion undermines the power of the government or occupying element by portraying it as incapable of effective governance to the population.

1-3.  Department  of  Defense  Directive  (DODD)  3000.07,  Irregular  Warfare,  recognizes  that  IW  is  as strategically important as traditional warfare. UW is inherently a USG interagency effort, with a scope that frequently exceeds the capabilities of the DOD alone.  There are numerous, uniquely defined terms associated with UW (Figure 1-1, page 1-2).

These terms developed over the years from various military and government agencies, as well as the academic world. Many of the terms used to define UW appear to closely resemble one another and most are found in Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, or JP 3-05, Doctrine for Joint Special Operations.

1-4.  The  following  chapters  contain  vital  information  for  U.S.  Forces.  In addition, there are four appendixes. Appendix A provides an example of an area study, Appendix B gives an example of an SF area assessment, Appendix C contains a sample program of instruction for resistance forces, and Appendix D details SF caching.

Figure 1-1. Unconventional warfare terminology

Figure 1-1. Unconventional warfare terminology

THE ROLE OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL STRATEGY

1-5.  Three  documents  capture  the  U.S.  national  strategy:  the  National  Security  Strategy,  the  National Defense Strategy, and the National Military Strategy. The National Security Strategy states the President’s interest  and  goals.  The  National  Defense  Strategy  is  the  DOD  contribution  to  the  National  Security Strategy.  The  National  Defense  Strategy  also  provides  a  framework  for  other  DOD  strategic  guidance, specifically for campaign and contingency planning, force development, and intelligence. The goals and objectives of the President’s National Security Strategy guide the National Military Strategy. In addition, the  National  Military  Strategy  implements  the  Secretary  of  Defense’s  National  Defense  Strategy.  The National Military Strategy provides focus for military activities by defining a set of interrelated military objectives.

1-6.  USG support to a resistance or insurgency can manifest in any of the following manners:

  Indirect  support.  In  limited-war  scenarios,  overt  U.S.  support  for  a  resistance  movement  is sometimes undesirable. In these cases, the USG may indirectly render support though a coalition partner or a third-country location. The USG normally limits indirect support to logistical aid and training. Limited war presents a much more restrictive environment that requires low-profile execution of all USG support operations.

  Direct  support  (less  combat).  In  general-war  scenarios,  the  visibility  of  USG  support  is  less controversial, which expands the nature of possible USG support to include a wider scope of logistical  support,  training,  and  advisory  assistance.  U.S.  assistance  can  include  advisors  in sanctuaries or insurgent-controlled areas not in direct combat. The United States can also render assistance from a neighboring country.

  Combat support. Combat support includes all of the activities of indirect and direct support in addition to combat operations.

1-7.  Before providing support to a resistance movement or insurgency, planners must consider how the ideology and objectives of the resistance movement affect strategic interests in the region. Planners must ensure leadership clearly defines U.S. national strategy and goals before planners make any determination regarding  the  appropriateness  of  support  to  a  resistance  movement  or  insurgency.  Without  a  clear understanding of the desired effects and end state for a region or conflict, it is impossible to assess whether support to a resistance or insurgency would achieve favorable results.

1-8.  Successful planners weigh the benefits of providing support to resistance forces against the overall strategic  context  of  a  campaign.  They  must  not  allow  a  desire  to  conduct  UW  or  to  produce  a  purely military  effect  dominate  their  judgment.  Support  to  resistance  forces  does  not  simply  contribute  to  a military effort; it undoubtedly alters the geopolitical landscape of a given region. Planners may deem a specific  insurgent  effort  feasible  and  appropriate  to  the  military  effort,  but  consider  it  strategically unfavorable because of the political risk of the effort or the potential for increased regional instability.

(more…)

U.S. Constitution no longer model for developing democracies


U.S. Model is Losing in Developing Democracies

U.S. Model is Losing in Developing Democracies

Adam Liptak wrote on The New York Times, on February 6, 2012, the following:

The Constitution has seen better days. Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.

The study, to be published in June in The New York University Law Review, bristles with data. Its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.

“Among the world’s democracies,” Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, “constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.”

“The turn of the twenty-first century, however, saw the beginning of a steep plunge that continues through the most recent years for which we have data, to the point that the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II.”

There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.” (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)

Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

The Constitution’s waning global stature is consistent with the diminished influence of the Supreme Court, which “is losing the central role it once had among courts in modern democracies,” Aharon Barak, then the president of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote in The Harvard Law Review in 2002.

Many foreign judges say they have become less likely to cite decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in part because of what they consider its parochialism.

“America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater,” Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said that he looked instead to India, South Africa and New Zealand.

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: “Canadian law,” he wrote, “serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world.” The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights,” he said.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

Source: By Adam Liptak, The New York Times, Published: February 6, 2012

Adam Liptak is the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times.
Mr. Liptak, a lawyer, joined The Times’s news staff in 2002 and began covering the Supreme Court in the fall of 2008. He has written a column, “Sidebar,” on developments in the law, since 2007.
Mr. Liptak’s series on ways in which the United States’s legal system differs from those of other developed nations, “American Exception,” was a finalist for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in explanatory reporting.
In 2005, Mr. Liptak examined the rise in life sentences in the United States in a three-part series. The next year, he and two colleagues studied connections between contributions to the campaigns of justices on the Ohio Supreme Court and those justices’ voting records. He was a member of the teams that examined the reporting of Jayson Blair and Judith Miller at The Times.

Reinvent Democracy by creating 3D Democracy!


Welcome to 3D Democracy blog!

Reinvent Democracy by creating 3D Democracy

Reinvent Democracy by creating 3D Democracy

I started this personal WordPress.com blog in mid September 2011 and named it Tarig Anter with the purpose of posting articles, news and opinions about “Protecting Democracy & Exposing Western Liberal Democracy”.

I found it more helpful to create another blog and name it 3D Democracy. The name and the address of this new blog is more public and easier to remember. While Tarig Anter is a personal blog, the new 3D Democracy blog is for everybody to own, share and contribute. Therefore, that new blog is completely yours; and I shall be just a single contributor in the discussions, writing and the actions that intended to serve and develop the purpose of inventing new just democracy.

The main theme there, in the new blog, is about reinventing democracy in the world with particular emphasis on my continent, Africa, and the developing countries.

Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy is about  advocating

1- The Right of All Citizens to Elect at Least Three Representatives in Their Parliaments To Protect Their Distinct Social, Economic and Political Interests.

2- Parliament Must Be Equally Shared By Men and Women.

3- The Powers of Trade & Business Unions and Ethnic Communities Must Be Increased to Level With Political Parties.

All articles and comments that were posted here are exported to 3D Democracy blog. So, Please browse and comment and keep visiting that blog.

That new blog is your baby! so nourish it and keep it growing.

Best regards.

Tarig

Sick from BBC, CNN, France 24 and JSC Lies?


Western media falsifies the news

Western Media Falsifies the News

Following the dramatic events in several countries in Ivory Coast, Occupy Movements, North Africa and the Middle East makes evident conclusions that these channels must be mouthpieces of the propaganda system in the US army division of psychological warfare and the intelligence machinery. Even the state-owned channels of undemocratic regimes are becoming more professional and ethical than this shame list.

I feel very sorry for those presenters who are working there against their conscience and principles just to avoid unemployment or demotion.

I assume that the directors and editors of these outlets are in some ways on the pay list of the US government and they hold military ranks. (If this is not the reality then they are strongly advised to demand that).

[Lying is probably one of the most common wrong acts that we carry out. Most people would condemn lying except when there’s a good reason for it.] From: BBC Ethics Guide

Here, is an excellent article written by Adrian Salbuchi, an Argentine geopolitical analyst/Economist, exposing the methods they use to control the populace through ‘Newspeak’. It was published by RT, Russia Today, on 29 November, 2011

George Orwell’s Guide to the News**

The Western mainstream media falsifies the news resorting to euphemisms, half-truths and lies in the best (worst) style of George Orwell’s novel 1984. We all live in the unreal world of “Newspeak” used by the Global Power Elite to control our minds.

Man gets confused when things that happen around him and to him, or which are done in his name, cannot be properly grasped, understood or made sense of. Normally, such confusion leads to inaction. If you’re lost at night in the middle of a forest but you can still see the stars, then a bit of astronomical knowledge will at least quickly tell you which way is north. But if it’s cloudy or you’re ignorant of the constellations in starry heaven, then you might as well light up a fire and do nothing until dawn…. You’re Lost!

Today, mainstream media coverage uses programmed distortion, confusion, even outright lying when its Money Power masters order it to support the “official story” on any major political, economic or financial process. When looked at closely, however, the “official story” of things can be seen to be inaccurate, misleading, often hardly believable if not downright stupid.

Examples of this: Iraq’s inexistent WMD’s leading to the invasion and destruction of that country; global mega-banker bail-outs with taxpayer money; irrational US diplomatic, military, financial and ideological alignment to Israeli objectives; “we-killed-Osama-Bin-Laden-and-dumped-his-body-into-the-sea”; and the wide array of “whodunits” surrounding 9/11 in New York and Washington, 7/7 in London, the AMIA/Israeli Embassy attacks in Buenos Aires in 1992/1994, and – of course – that all time favorite: who shot JFK…?

These are but a few of the paradigmatic cases that have at least served to trigger millions of people to wake up and think with their own minds instead of the mainstream media’s! But unfortunately the vast majority of such cases are not so clear-cut. The vast majority of Newspeak lies are like knots, difficult to untie as they carry built-in complexity resembling Gordian Knots. And, as with all Gordian Knots, you need to cut right through them, and this requires swift and precise action plus a good measure of intellectual courage.

To give an example of what we say, let’s take a quick look at how a “Newspeak” operation works. It requires sequential planning, it requires time, it requires proper logistics, it requires “credible” spokespeople in public and private sectors, it requires choosing the right words and images at the right time and in the right circumstances.

So, let’s say the Global Power Elite – working through the governments of the US, UK, EU into which they are deeply embedded, and joint-venturing with a wide array of media outlets, defense companies, oil companies, security and construction companies, and powerful lobbies – decide that they wish to overrun and destroy a specific country… Libya, for example…

How do they ensure that “the international community” will just quietly look on (except for the still relatively small minority of voices that are increasingly raising hell against them)?

The Seven Step Mainstream Media Country Destruction Guide

1. First, they start by targeting a country ripe for “Regime Change”, and brand it a “rogue state”; then…

2. They arm, train, finance local terrorist groups through CIA, MI6, Mossad, Al-Qaeda (a CIA operation), drug cartels (often CIA operations) and call them “freedom fighters”; then…

3. As mock UN Security Council Resolutions are staged that rain death and destruction upon millions of civilians, they call it “UN sanctions to protect civilians”; then…

4. They spread flagrant lies through their “newsrooms” and paid journalists, and call it “the international community’s concerns expressed by prestigious spokespeople and analysts…” then…

5. They bomb, invade and begin to control the target country and call it “liberation”; then…

6. As the target country falls fully under their control, they impose “the kind of democracy that we want to see” (as Hillary Clinton before visiting Egypt and Tunisia on March 10, 2011), until finally…

7. They steal appetizing oil, mineral and agricultural reserves handing them over to Global Power Elite corporations, and impose unnecessary private banking debt and call it “foreign investment and reconstruction.”

Their keynotes are: Force and Hypocrisy, which they have used time and again to destroy entire countries, always in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”. Utmost force and violence is used to achieve their ends and goals.

Their Elders recommended this many decades ago in a blueprint for World Domination written on a hoary manuscript of old…

“What did you say…? That you don’t want to be ‘liberated’ and ‘democratized’?!?”

“Then, take this Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Berlin, Dresden, Baghdad, and Basra!! Take that Tokyo, Gaza, Lebanon, Kabul, Pakistan, Tripoli, Belgrade, Egypt, El Salvador and Grenada!! And take that, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Somalia, Africa!!”

Always bombing people to smithereens… Always, of course, in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”

Written by Adrian Salbuchi for RTAdrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina.

**George Orwell is the pen name of English novelist and journalist Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950) Considered perhaps the 20th century’s best chronicler of English culture, Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945), which together have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century author. His book Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, is widely acclaimed, as are his numerous essays on politics, literature, language and culture. In 2008, The Times ranked him second on a list of “The 50 greatest British writers since 1945”.

The West is Going Too Far Against Syria


Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

I was never a supporter of Syria and any other Arab country; and definitely not any Arab inherited regime or sheikhdom. Actually the problems of the Middle East concern me as much as the difficulties of living on Mars. But with the ferocious combined assault of Islamists; Globalists; Gulf Arab puppet regimes; USA; UK; France; Israel and NATO’s mercenaries on Syria I find it immoral to keep quiet and not to defend a nationalist government and the national sovereignty of Syria or any other country in similar situation.

The coordinated campaigns of violence; lies; media and plots to topple the government in Syria to install another western dummy in that region have gone too far. It is furiously insulting for decency in the world to hear or read that that strange coalition is trying to bring human rights; freedom; democracy; blab…blab…blab to the people of Syria; Egypt; Iraq; Yemen or Libya. It is really ridiculous to see who are driving the funny Arab League in the campaign towards justice, democracy and freedom.

I wish to see a counter coalition to stand up against that gang of thugs and thieves. The African Union, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, China, India, Asia and South America must act together to stop such  aggression. It is very essential that the honest nationalist Syrian opposition shall make their independent voices and actions heard.

%d bloggers like this: