This might look like some kind of space ship?but it's actually a model of a supersonic Boeing airliner, being tested in NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio.
     |
Imessage Not Working mc hammer pecan pie recipe Hector Camacho Jill Kelly McKayla Maroney gronkowski
Happy Monday! Check out this amazing hotel in Gothenburg, Sweden. This intimate business hotel is designed to promote being social and to collaborate across borders. The design concept has an urban eclectic theme inspired by the heritage of the location in Lindholmen, once the centre for the shipbuilding industry, and the area of today as a centre for science and innovation. The result is a hotel with more individual expression than your general business hotel. The material palette is derived from the area and its heritage with honest materials such as wood, iron and copper. Contrasts and worked through details such as matt-glossy, dark-light and warm-cold colours enhance the sought after feeling of warmth and care.
For more info visit Doos Architects.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Source: http://www.letmebeinspired.com/radisson-blu-riverside-by-doos-architects/
stevie wonder 2013 NFL Mock Draft paleo diet paleo diet earth day Luis Suarez Earth Day 2013
(Reuters) - Tens of millions of U.S. dollars in cash were delivered by the CIA in suitcases, backpacks and plastic shopping bags to the office of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for more than a decade, the New York Times says, citing current and former advisers to the Afghan leader.
The so-called "ghost money" was meant to buy influence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but instead fuelled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington's exit strategy from Afghanistan, the newspaper quoted U.S. officials as saying.
"The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan", one American official said, "was the United States."
The CIA declined to comment on the report and the U.S. State Department did not immediately comment. The New York Times did not publish any comment from Karzai or his office.
"We called it 'ghost money'," Khalil Roman, who served as Karzai's chief of staff from 2002 until 2005, told the New York Times. "It came in secret and it left in secret."
There was no evidence that Karzai personally received any of the money, Afghan officials told the newspaper. The cash was handled by his National Security Council, it added.
In response to the report, Karzai told reporters in Helsinki after a meeting with Finnish leaders that the office of the National Security Council had been receiving support from the U.S. government for the past 10 years. He said the amounts had been "not big" and the funds were used for various purposes including assistance for the wounded.
"It's multi-purpose assistance," he said, without commenting on the report's claims the funds fuelled corruption and empowered warlords.
However, Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Janan Mosazai told reporters in Kabul that there was no proof or evidence to back up the claims in the story.
For more than a decade the cash was dropped off every month or so at the Afghan president's office, the New York Times said. Handing out cash has been standard procedure for the CIA in Afghanistan since the start of the war.
The cash payments to the president's office do not appear to be subject to oversight and restrictions placed on official American aid to the country or the CIA's formal assistance programs, like financing Afghan intelligence agencies, and do not appear to violate U.S. laws, said the New York Times.
U.S. and Afghan officials familiar with the payments were quoted as saying that the main goal in providing the cash was to maintain access to Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the CIA's influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan's highly centralized government.
Much of the money went to warlords and politicians, many with ties to the drug trade and in some cases the Taliban, the New York Times said. U.S. and Afghan officials were quoted as saying the CIA supported the same patronage networks that U.S. diplomats and law enforcement agents struggled to dismantle, leaving the government in the grip of organized crime.
Nahid Fareed, a member of parliament from western Herat province, who usually supports Karzai's government, said the claims in the story represented a "serious issue".
"Any hidden money that the palace receives from indirect channels, such as spy agencies, notably the CIA, is against national interest and is treason," Fareed told Reuters.
In 2010, Karzai said his office received cash in bags from Iran, but that it was a transparent form of aid that helped cover expenses at the presidential palace. He said at the time that the United States made similar payments.
The latest New York Times report said much of the Iranian cash, like the CIA money, went to pay warlords and politicians.
For most of Karzai's 11-year reign, there has been little interest in anti-corruption in the army or police. The country's two most powerful institutions receive billions of dollars from donors annually but struggle just to recruit and maintain a force bled by high rates of desertion.
(Additional reporting by Alistair Bell and Sarah Lynch in Washington; Hamid Shalizi and Mirwais Harooni in Kabul; Writing by Michael Perry; Editing by Mark Bendeich and Neil Fullick)
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/millions-cia-ghost-money-paid-afghanistan-presidents-office-105518747.html
living social pnc NFL Draft Grades 2013 Pain and Gain Eddie Lacy Justin Pugh dallas cowboys
The Statue of Liberty is upgrading its surveillance technology. Just don?t mention face recognition.
Photo by Lucas Jackson/Reuters
The Statue of Liberty is getting a facelift, though the changes aren?t only cosmetic. An upgraded "state of the art" security system will help keep Lady Liberty safe when it reopens soon. But what does the system entail, and could it involve a controversial new face-recognition technology that can detect visitors? ethnicity from a distance? I tried to find out?and a New York surveillance company tried to stop me.
Face recognition was first implemented at the Statue of Liberty in 2002 as part of an attempt to spot suspected terrorists whose mug shots were stored on a federal database. At the time, the initiative was lambasted by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it was so ineffective that ?Osama Bin Laden himself? could easily dodge it.
But the technology has advanced since then: Late last year, trade magazine Police Product Insight reported that a trial of the latest face-recognition software was being planned at the Statue of Liberty for the end of 2012 to ?help law enforcement and intelligence agencies spot suspicious activity.? New York surveillance camera contractor Total Recall Corp. was quoted as having told the magazine that it was set for trial at the famed tourist attraction software called FaceVACS, made by German firm Cognitec. FaceVACS, Cognitec boasts in marketing materials, can guess ethnicity based on a person?s skin color, flag suspects on watch lists, estimate the age of a person, detect gender, ?track? faces in real time, and help identify suspects if they have tried to evade detection by putting on glasses, growing a beard, or changing their hairstyle. Some versions of face-recognition software used today remain ineffective, as investigators found in the aftermath of the Boston bombings. But Cognitec claims its latest technology has a far higher accuracy rating?and is certainly more advanced than the earlier versions of face-recognition software?like the kind used at the Statue of Liberty back in 2002. (It is not clear whether the face-recognition technology remained in use at the statue after 2002.)
Liberty Island took such a severe battering during Sandy that it has stayed closed to the public ever since?thwarting the prospect of a pilot of the new software. But the statue, which attracts more than 3 million visitors annually according to estimates, is finally due to open again on July 4. In March, Statue of Liberty superintendent Dave Luchsinger told me that plans were underway to install an upgraded surveillance system in time for the reopening. ?We are moving forward with the proposal that Total Recall has come up with,? he said, adding that ?[new] systems are going in, and I know they are state of the art.? When it came to my questions about face recognition, though, things started to get murky. Was that particular project back on track? ?We do work with Cognitec, but right now because of what happened with Sandy it put a lot of different pilots that we are doing on hold,? Peter Millius, Total Recall?s director of business development, said in a phone call. ?It?s still months away, and the facial recognition right now is not going to be part of this phase.? Then, he put me hold and came back a few minutes later with a different position?insisting that the face-recognition project had in fact been ?vetoed? by the Park Police and adding that I was ?not authorized? to write about it.
That was weird, but it soon got weirder. About an hour after I spoke with Total Recall, an email from Cognitec landed in my inbox. It was from the company?s marketing manager, Elke Oberg, who had just one day earlier told me in a phone interview that ?yes, they are going to try out our technology there? in response to questions about a face-recognition pilot at the statue. Now, Oberg had sent a letter ordering me to ?refrain from publishing any information about the use of face recognition at the Statue of Liberty.? It said that I had ?false information,? that the project had been ?cancelled,? and that if I wrote about it, there would be ?legal action.? Total Recall then separately sent me an almost identical letter?warning me not to write ?any information about Total Recall and the Statue of Liberty or the use of face recognition at the Statue of Liberty.? Both companies declined further requests for comment, and Millius at Total Recall even threatened to take legal action against me personally if I continued to ?harass? him with additional questions.
Linda Friar, a National Park Service spokeswoman, confirmed that the procurement process for security screening equipment is ongoing, but she refused to comment on whether the camera surveillance system inside the statue was being upgraded on the grounds that it was ?sensitive information.? So will there be a trial of new face-recognition software?or did the Park Police ?cancel? or ?veto? this? It would probably be easier to squeeze blood from a stone than to obtain answers to those questions. ?I?m not going to show my hand as far as what security technologies we have,? Greg Norman, Park Police captain at Liberty Island, said in a brief phone interview.
The great irony here, of course, is that this is a story about a statue that stands to represent freedom and democracy in the modern world. Yet at the heart of it are corporations issuing crude threats in an attempt to stifle legitimate journalism?and by extension dictate what citizens can and cannot know about the potential use of contentious surveillance tools used to monitor them as they visit that very statue. Whether Cognitec's ethnicity-detecting face recognition software will eventually implemented at Lady Liberty remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the attempt to silence reporting on the mere prospect of it is part of an alarming wider trend to curtail discussion about new security technologies that are (re)shaping society.?
This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and?Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, visit the?Future Tense blog?and the?Future Tense home page. You can also?follow us on Twitter.
Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=acda62d271b90de2dbcb2d12d115473e
biggest loser TJ Lane lindsey vonn lindsey vonn nit first day of spring Club Penguin
REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AP) ? Five years after Iceland's economy imploded, austerity-weary voters looked set Saturday to return the parties widely blamed for the disaster to power.
Polls showed the Progressive and Independence parties, who are promising to ease Icelanders' economic pain, leading the Social Democrat-led coalition that has spent the last four years trying to pick up the pieces after the crash.
Iceland's economic recovery has been hard and uneven, and many voters are fed up.
"I think that Icelanders are craving change. The last government failed to lead us out of the economic crisis in the way people liked," said Svavar Bjorgvinsson, owner of a computer games company.
He said many voters were swayed by the center-right parties' promises of tax cuts and mortgage relief.
"Many people that have been struggling will give these parties their vote as they are seeing some light in the end of the tunnel," he said.
A shift to the right in Saturday's parliamentary election would likely shelve Iceland's plans to join the European Union, with which it has begun accession talks. Both Progressives and Independents oppose joining the 27-nation bloc.
Progressive Party chief Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and Independence Party leader Bjarni Benediktsson are the two most likely candidates for prime minister under the system of proportional representation used for elections to Iceland's 63-seat parliament, the Althingi.
The two parties governed Iceland for several decades, often in coalition, overseeing economic liberalization that spurred a banking and business boom ? until Iceland's economy crashed spectacularly during the 2008 credit crisis.
A volcano-dotted North Atlantic nation with a population of just 320,000, Iceland went from economic wunderkind to financial basket case almost overnight when its main commercial banks collapsed within a week of one another.
The value of the country's currency plummeted, while inflation and unemployment soared. Iceland was forced to seek bailouts from Europe and the International Monetary Fund.
Despite being widely blamed for the meltdown, the Independents and Progressives say they are now best placed to lead the economic recovery.
The Progressives are promising to write off some mortgage debt, taking money from foreign creditors. Benediktsson's Independence Party is offering lower taxes and the lifting of capital controls that he says are hindering foreign investment.
"We believe we can do a lot for indebted households, but our plan is not to do only that" Benediktsson said after casting his vote in a Reykjavik suburb.
"I think the only way out of the economic difficulties we've had is growing the economy, and we need to create new jobs, start new investments and we have a very strong plan to start doing that tomorrow."
Whatever the outcome, 70-year-old outgoing Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has said she will retire from politics after the election. Iceland's first female ? and first openly gay ? prime minister, she was elected as head of a center-left alliance in 2009 on a wave of public disgust at the previous administration.
Since then, Iceland has in many ways made a strong recovery. Unemployment has fallen and the economy is growing.
But inflation remains naggingly high, and many Icelanders still struggle to repay home and car loans they took out ? often in foreign currencies whose value soared after the crash ? in the years of easy credit.
Some accuse the government of caving in to international pressure to compensate Britain and the Netherlands for their citizens' lost deposits in the failed online bank Icesave. Icelanders have twice rejected repayment deals agreed to by Sigurdardottir's government.
"The government that many people thought was cleaning up the mess is getting severely punished for the last four years," said journalist and political analyst Egill Helgason. "I don't know whether they deserve it. In many ways I think not. But this is politics ? cruel."
Some voters say the outgoing government did as good a job as could be expected.
"We cannot forget that everything collapsed here and still health care, schools and society in general functions better than in most countries", said Jon Gunnar Bjornsson, an operations manager of one of Iceland's new, post-crisis banks.
"We still retain ownership of hospitals, the road system and the utility companies. I'm not sure we could have expected more.
"But still people are unhappy and want someone to take their debt away and shower them with golden fairy dust."
Polls close at 2200GMT (6 p.m. EDT), with full results expected early Sunday.
___
Lawless reported from London. Associated Press writer David Mac Dougall in Reykjavik contributed to this report.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/austerity-weary-iceland-votes-national-election-092545562.html
engadget twin towers gizmodo cnet iPhone 5 9-11 Chris Brown Tattoo
[Many thanks to Dan Glazebrook for producing a review that gets to very the heart of this book, such that reading his review is an education in itself. This was reproduced from the UK's Ceasefire Magazine.]
A Libyan man stands on Sirte?s bombed fishing harbour. May 12, 2011.
In his Ceasefire review, Dan Glazebrook examines Maximilian Forte?s withering indictment of liberal humanitarianism and its collusion in imperialist designs on Africa, as seen in NATO?s Libya campaign of 2011.
Monday, April 22, 2013
The media has gone very quiet on Libya of late; clearly, liberal imperialists don?t like to dwell on their crimes. This is not surprising. The modus operandi of the humanitarian imperialist is not one of informed reflection, but only permanent outrage against leaders of the global South; besides, in the topsy-turvy world of liberal interventionism, the ?failure to act? is the only crime of which the West is capable. As Forte puts it, their moral code holds that ?If we do not act, we should be held responsible for the actions of others. When we do act, we should never be held responsible for our own actions.?
With Gaddafi dead, the hunt is on for a new hate figure on whom to spew venom (Assad, Jong-Un); far more satisfying than actually evaluating our own role in the creation of human misery. This is the colonial mentality of the liberal lynch mob.
For the governments that lead us into war, of course, it makes perfect sense that we do not stop to look back at the last invasion before impatiently demanding the next one ? if we realised, for example, that the 1999 bombing of Serbia? (the textbook ?humanitarian intervention?) actually facilitated the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo that it was supposedly designed to prevent, we might not be so ready to demand the same treatment for every other state that falls short of our illusory ideals.
That is why this book is so important. Thoroughly researched and impeccably referenced, it tells the story of the real aims and real consequences of the war on Libya in its historical perspective.
Its author, Maximilian Forte, is well placed to do so. A professor of social anthropology in Montreal, much of his writing and research in recent years has been dedicated to the new imperialism, and especially its ?humanitarian? cover. He was amongst the first to really expose violent racism within the Libyan insurrection, and its role in facilitating NATO?s goals in Africa, and has provided consistently excellent analyses of the media coverage surrounding the conflict.
One of the book?s accomplishments is its comprehensive demolition of the war?s supposed justifications. Forte shows us that there was no ?mass rape? committed by ?Gaddafi forces? ? as alleged by Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Luis Ocampo and others at the time, but later refuted by Amnesty International, the UN and even the US army itself.
Despite hysterical media reports, there was no evidence of aerial bombing of protesters, as even CIA chief Robert Gates admitted. Gaddafi had no massacre planned for Benghazi, as had been loudly proclaimed by the leaders of Britain, France and the USA: the Libyan government forces had not carried out massacres against civilian populations in any of the other towns they recaptured from the rebels, and nor had Gaddafi threatened to do so in Benghazi; in a speech that was almost universally misreported in the Western media, he promised no mercy for those who had taken up arms against the government, whilst offering amnesty for those who ?threw their weapons away?, and at no point threatening reprisals against civilians.
When the NATO invasion began, French jets actually bombed a small retreating column of Libyan armour on the outskirts of Benghazi, comprising 14 tanks, 20 armoured personnel carriers, and a few trucks and ambulances ? nothing like enough to carry out a ?genocide? against an entire city, as had been claimed.
Indeed, the whole image of ?peaceful protesters being massacred? was turning reality on its head. In fact, Forte notes, rebels ?torched police stations, broke into the compounds of security services, attacked government offices and torched vehicles? from the very start, to which the authorities responded with ?tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets ? very similar to methods frequently used in Western nations against far more peaceful protests that lacked the element of sedition?. Only once the rebels had proceeded to occupy the Benghazi army barracks, loot its weapons, and start using them against government forces did things begin to escalate.
But the most pernicious of the lies that facilitated the Libyan war was the myth of the ?African mercenary?. Racist pogroms, Forte argues, were characteristic of the Libyan rebellion from its very inception, when 50 sub-Saharan African migrants were burnt alive in Al-Bayda on the second day of the insurgency. An Amnesty International report from September 2011 made it clear that this was no isolated incident: ?When al-Bayda, Beghazi, Derna, Misrata and other cities first fell under the control of the NTC in February, anti-Gaddafi forces carried out house raids, killing and other violent attacks? against sub-Saharan Africans and black Libyans, and ?what we are seeing in western Libya is a very similar pattern to what we have seen in Benghazi and Misrata after those cities fell to the rebels? ? arbitrary detention, torture and execution of black people.
The ?African mercenary? myth was thus created to justify these pogroms, as the Western media near-universally referred to their victims as ?mercenaries? ? or ?alleged mercenaries? in the more circumspect and highbrow outlets ? and thus as aggressors and legitimate targets. The myth was completely discredited by both Amnesty International ? whose exasperated researcher told a TV interviewer that ?We examined this issue in depth and found no evidence: the rebels spread these rumors everywhere [with] terrible consequences for African guest workers? ? and by a UN investigation team, who drew similar conclusions ? but not until both organisations had already helped perpetuate the lie themselves.
That liberal humanitarians would launch a war of aggression in order to facilitate racist massacres is not as ironic as it might at first seem. Forte writes that ?if this was humanitarianism, it could only be so by disqualifying Africans as members of humanity.? But such disqualification has been a systematic practice of liberalism from the days of John Locke, through the US war of independence and into the age of nineteenth century imperialism and beyond.
Indeed, Forte argues that the barely-veiled ?racial fear of mean African bogeymen swamping Libya like zombies? implicit in the ?African mercenary? story, was uniquely and precisely formulated to tap into a rich historical vein of European fantasies about plagues of black mobs. That the myth gained so much traction despite zero evidence, says Forte, ?tells us a great deal about the role of racial prejudice and propaganda in mobilizing public opinion in the West and organizing international relations?.
Yet the racism of the rebel fighters was not only useful for mobilising European public opinion ? it also played a strategic function, as far as NATO planners were concerned. By bringing to power a virulently anti-black government, the West has ensured that Libya?s trajectory as a pan-African state has been brought to a violent end, and that its oil wealth will no longer be used for African development. As Forte succinctly put it, ?the goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US?.
A large part of the book is dedicated to outlining Libya?s role in the creation of the African Union, and its subsequent moves to unify Africa at the economic, political and military levels. This included the investment of billions of petrodollars in industrial development across the continent, the creation of an African communications satellite, and massive financial contributions towards the African Development Bank and the African Monetary Fund ? institutions designed specifically to challenge the hegemony of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Gaddafi, Forte argues, was passionate about using Libyan oil money to help Africa industrialise and ?add value? to its export materials, moving it away from its prescribed role in the global economy as a supplier of cheap raw materials.
This was a threat to Western financial and corporate control of African economies, and combined with the rise of Chinese investment, was considered a strategic obstacle to Western domination that had to be removed. As Forte put it, ?The US, France and the UK could not afford to see allies that they had cultivated, if not installed in power, being slowly pulled from their orbits by Libya, China and other powers?.
The African Oil Policy initiative Group ? a high level US Committee comprising members of Congress, military officers and energy industry lobbyists ? noted in 2002 the growing dependence of the US on African oil, and recommended? a ?new and vigorous focus on US military cooperation in sub-Saharan Africa, to include design of a sub-unified command structure which could produce significant dividends in the protection of US investments?. They noted that ?failure to address the issue of focusing and maximizing US diplomatic and military command organization?could?act as an inadvertent incentive for US rivals such as China [and] adversaries such as Libya?. In other words, with their economic grip on the continent facing serious challenge, the Western world would increasingly have to rely on aggressive militarism in order to maintain its interests.
The recommendations of the committee would be implemented in 2006 with the creation of AFRICOM ? the US army?s African Command. AFRICOM was conceived as a sort of ?School of the Americas? for Africa, designed to train African armies for use as proxy forces for maintaining Western control, with the 2010 US National Security Strategy specifically naming the African Union as one of the regional organisations it sought to co-opt.
Libya, however, proved most uncooperative. The leaked US diplomatic cables make it very clear that Libya was viewed by the US as THE main obstacle to establishing a full muscular US military presence on the African continent, regularly highlighting its ?opposition? and ?obstruction? to AFRICOM. With Gaddafi still a respected voice within the AU, having served as its elected Chairman in 2009, he wielded significant influence, and used this to spearhead opposition to what he considered the neocolonial aims of the AFRICOM initiative.
Meanwhile, Chinese investment in Africa was growing rapidly, having grown from $6 billion in 1999 to $90 billion ten years later, displacing the US as the continent?s largest trading partner. The need for a US military presence to cling on to the West?s declining influence in Africa was growing ever more urgent. But Africa was not playing ball ? and Gaddafi was (rightly) seen as leading the charge.
Fast forward to 2012, and US General Carter Ham, head of AFRICOM, was able to claim that ?the conduct of military operations in Libya did afford now the opportunity to establish a military to military relationship with Libya, which did not previously exist?. He went on to suggest that a US base would be established in the country (Gaddafi having expelled both the US and British bases shortly after coming to power in 1969), saying that some ?assistance? would probably be necessary, in the form of a ?military presence?. President Obama wasted no time in announcing the deployment of soldiers to four more African countries within weeks of the fall of Tripoli, and AFRICOM announced an unprecedented 14 joint military exercises in Africa for the following year.
Forte argues that NATO?s attack had not only destroyed a powerful force for unity and independence in Africa, and a huge obstacle to Western military penetration of the continent, but it had also created the perfect conditions to justify further invasions. The US had previously attempted to argue that its military presence was required in North Africa in order to fight against Al Qaeda; indeed, it had set up the Trans-Saharan Counter Terrorism Programme to this end. But as Muattasim Gaddafi had explained to Hilary Clinton in Washington in 2009, the programme had been rendered redundant by the existing, and highly effective, security strategy of CEN-SAD (the Libyan-led Community of Sahel and Saharan states) and the North African Standby Force.
Like a classic protection racket, however, the British, US and French decided that if their protection wasn?t needed, then they would have to create a need for it. The destruction of Libya tore the heart out of the North African security system, flooded the region with weapons and turned Libya into an ungoverned safe haven for violent militias. Now the resulting ? and entirely predictable ? instability has spread to Mali, the West are using it as an excuse for another war and occupation. In a prescient warning (the book was published before France?s recent invasion of Mali), Forte wrote that ?intervention begets intervention. More intervention is needed to solve the problems caused by intervention.?
The book is also very strong in exposing the ideology of the ?human rights industry? and its role in bringing about the Libyan war. Western liberal humanitarianism, argues Forte, ?can only function by first directly or indirectly creating the suffering of others, and by then seeing every hand as an outstretched hand, pleading or welcoming?.
Forte goes on to expose the role of groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who helped perpetuate some of the worst lies about what was happening in Libya, such as the fictitious ?African mercenaries? and ?mass rape?, and who in the case of Amnesty, ?mere days into the uprising and well before it had a chance to ascertain, corroborate or confirm any facts on the ground?began launching public accusations against Libya, the African Union and the UNSC for failing to take action?. By calling for an assets freeze on Libya and an arms embargo (?and more actions with each passing day?), Amnesty ?thus effectively made itself a party to the conflict?; it had become part of the propaganda war and mythmaking that was designed to facilitate the invasion.
This should not be surprising given Amnesty?s history. Forte helpfully recalls that their promotion of the infamous ?incubator babies? myth that justified the Iraq war of 1991 was later singled out by several US Senators as having influenced their decision to vote for the attack. In the event, the Senate vote was passed by a majority of just six. The 1991 war devastated Iraq, which had barely recovered from the Iran-Iraq war, killing well over 100,000 people, as well as hundreds of thousands more from the diseases that ravaged the country following the deliberate destruction of its water and sewerage systems.
So it should be little surprise that Suzanne Nossel, a State Department official on Hilary Clinton?s team, was made Executive Director of Amnesty-USA in November 2011. In her State Department job, Nossell had played a key role drawing up the UN Human Rights Council resolution against Libya that ultimately formed the basis for Security Council Resolution 1973 that led to the aggression.
Forte also discusses the role of Bouchuiguir, the ?human rights activist? who emerges as the Libyan ?Curveball?. Curveball was the Iraqi ?source? who came up with the lies about Saddam?s nonexistent ?mobile chemical weapons factories? that were used to justify the 2003 Iraq war. Likewise, Bouchuiguir?s wildly inflated casualty figures provided the raw material for the hysterical UNHRC resolutions against Libya that set the ball for war rolling. He later admitted on camera that there was no evidence for his claims ? but not before 70 NGOs had signed a petition ?demanding action? in response to them.
Much has been written elsewhere about the ?neo-cons? who became (rightly) hated for their brutally idiotic conceptions of social change. But, as Forte?s book shows, the liberal humanitarians are perhaps even more contemptible; after all, at least the neo-cons never claimed to be kind, or even interested in anything other than their own self-interest. Yet the liberal humanitarians seem ? or at least claim ? to be driven by some kind of higher purpose, which makes their constant calls for wars of aggression even more repulsive. Forte puts this brilliantly:
?The vision of our humanity that liberal imperialists entertain is one which constructs us as shrieking sacks of emotion. This is the elites? anthropology, one that views us as bags of nerve and muscle: throbbing with outrage, contracting with every story of ?incubator babies?, bulging up with animus at the arrest of Gay Girl in Damascus, recoiling at the sound of Viagra-fuelled mass rape. From mass hysteria in twitter to hundreds of thousands signing an online Avaaz petition calling for bombing Libya in the name of human rights, we become nerves of mass reaction?.We scream for action via ?social media?, thumbs furiously in action on our ?smart? phones. ..Then again, our ?action? merely consists of asking the supremely endowed military establishment to act in our name.?
This anthropology is of course ?accompanied by NATO?s implicit sociology: societies can be remade through a steady course of high altitude bombings and drone strikes.?
How exactly Libya has been remade is also discussed in the book. The July 2012 elections in Libya, their very existence trumpeted in Western media as immediately vindicating every act of butchery the war brought about ? regardless of whether the parliament being elected was likely to wield any actual influence over the country ? saw fewer than half the eligible voting population take part. Even more intriguing were the results of a survey carried out in Libya by Oxford Research International that found that only 13% of Libyans said they wanted democracy within a year?s time, and only 25% within five years.
Meanwhile, the new authorities set about persecuting their opponents, real and imagined. The town of Tawergha was emptied of its entire population of around 20,000 black Libyans after militias from Misrata began systematically torching every home and business in the town, with the support of the central government. Former residents now reside in refugee camps where they continue to be hunted down and killed, or in arbitrary detention in makeshift prisons. Candidacy for elections is barred to: workers (a professional qualification is needed); anyone who ever worked in any level of government between 1969 and 2011 (unless they could demonstrate ?early and clear? support for the insurrection); anyone with academic study involving Gaddafi?s Green book; and anyone who ever received any monetary benefit from Gaddafi.
A constitutional lawyer noted these restrictions would disqualify three quarters of the Libyan population. Other new laws banned the spreading of ?news reports, rumours or propaganda? that could ?cause any damage to the state?, with penalties of up to life in prison; and prison for anyone spreading information that ?could weaken the citizens? morale? or for anyone who ?attacks the February 17 revolution, denigrates Islam, the authority of the state or its institutions?.
This is the new Libya for which the human rights imperialists and their allies lobbied, killed and tortured so hard. ?The next time empire comes knocking in the name of human rights?, concludes Forte, ?please be found standing idly by?.
Forte?s? book is a must-read for anyone seriously interested in understanding the motives and consequences of the West?s onslaught against Libya and African development.
Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO?s War on Libya and Africa
Maximilian Forte
Paperback and E-book: 352 pages
Publisher: Baraka Books (November 28, 2012)
Dan Glazebrook is a teacher and journalist, with a particular interest in the military and economic relationships between the west and the global South.
Loading...
Source: http://zeroanthropology.net/2013/04/25/africa-liberal-humanitarianism-and-natos-anthropology/
julio cesar chavez jr Topless Kate university of texas UT Austin Lizzie Velasquez NFL Network att
| |
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/5mgXwzLO1jQ/the-next-xbox-everything-we-think-we-know
oklahoma city thunder sunoco titanic ii babe ruth new jersey nets nba playoff schedule rondo
| |
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/nLoSVwWsC4Y/breathing-smarter-for-better-performance
march madness scores doonesbury padma lakshmi daughtry lakers trade ann arbor news nick young
| |
fisker atlantic social darwinism wisconsin recall election april 4 santa monica college wisconsin primary dallas fort worth airport
