April 24, 2012
Diplomacy And Culture Is Akin To 'Expanding Terrorism'
The United States NEVER ever tries to extend its influence through cultural exchanges and diplomacy.
Because that would be akin to 'expanding terrorism':
Tehran's efforts to expand its circle of influence in South America is tantamount to exporting state-sponsored terrorism into the region, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said.
"We always have a concern about in particular the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] and [their] efforts . . . to expand their influence not only throughout the Middle East but into [South America] as well," Panetta told reporters Monday.
"That, in my book, that relates to expanding terrorism. And that's one of the areas that I think all of us are concerned about," he added.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has visited the region six times over the past six years.
Tehran has also expanded its network of embassies and cultural centers in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua during that time.
The gibberish of U.S. empire drones is getting crazier by the day.
Posted by b on April 24, 2012 at 01:02 PM | Permalink
Well, terrorism has never had any logical definition (insurgents attacking US troops is terrorism, US troops attacking wedding parties is not), only a political definition: violent actions against Americans and their supporters. It's no surprise that this word eventually gets expanded to its only natural limits, i.e. all actions in any way counter to US global interests.
Posted by: Bill | Apr 24, 2012 2:11:34 PM | 1
Incoherence is a sign of senility.
Hardening of the arteries.
Brittle, thin bones.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Apr 24, 2012 2:13:10 PM | 2
How can we make people leave public service when they get minor strokes or otherwise loose their mind?..
Posted by: Alexander | Apr 24, 2012 2:56:57 PM | 3
I'm a bit off the track here but springs from the Iranian cultural "terrorism" in South America. In today's Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ND25Ak01.html Chris Cook describes an interesting development in Iran in face of the stringent economic sanctions. A system of "vouchers" based on energy transactions that circumvent monetary transactions.
"This is for an "energy dividend" of vouchers that are redeemable in payment for gasoline, diesel, and even natural gas or electricity....
In other words, such vouchers would essentially become energy currency, both domestically and regionally.
An energy standard
Taken to its logical conclusion, where this policy leads is for Iran's Central Bank simply to fix a new rial - with several zeroes removed - to a suitable unit of energy, and for energy prices to be set against this unit. This could be implemented in a similar way that a deficit-based abstract currency unit was fixed to participating European currencies at the launch of the euro.
My comment to this was "In an economic system money is best understood as a form of potential energy that can perform work. Oil is also a potential energy for doing work. The voucher system would permit the unification of both potential energies in a single coherent metric based on the real economic work to be done.
Perhaps a similar voucher system could be implemented at an international level, starting with the BRICS. It would make a big step to reconstitute Economics as a science instead of the religious ideological metaphysics that it has become today."
To this I would add that such a system might be just what the UNASUR countries are needing and could well use for their energetic integration. Imagine the shrieks of "terrorism".
Posted by: JohnE | Apr 24, 2012 3:03:51 PM | 4
Glenn Greenwald writes on the same issue:
For quite some time, right-wing dogma has warned that Iranian Terror is taking hold and expanding in Central and South America thanks to improving relations between Iran and several Latin American governments, as well as due to growing Hezbollah cells. In fact, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum all warned of these menaces at various points during the GOP primary debate, prompting a rating of “Mostly False” from PolitiFact after a detailed analysis of those claims. Like so much inane right-wing dogma, this has now been formally embraced by top-level Obama officials...
Posted by: Frank | Apr 24, 2012 3:26:52 PM | 5
The US is not afraid of Terrorism... its afraid of nations like the non-aligned South America and Iran realising that both have an interest in standing up to Imperialism. That's what the US is afraid of, nations teaming up against it.
In saying that this also shows a fair amount of stupidity. China is making huge stategic moves in Latin America, Iran is a fraction of that influence and yet the US remains blind to the Chinese moves, because of its obsessive focus on Iran and all things Muslim. Lets face it, a cultural centre in Bolivia is hardly going to tip the balance of global power. While China investing in Yuan-denominated investments in Latin America might actually tip that balance (20 Billion dollar Yuan credit line offered to Venezuela on top of 12 Billion worth of oil contracts for instance).
But hey this is America we talking about, they specialise in fantasies. Naturally a fantasyland where Hezbollah hordes conquer South America obviously takes precedence over Chinese rising weapons sales, oil and infastructure investments in the region.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 24, 2012 4:23:41 PM | 6
Gawd, Panetta, the consummate reptilian: Sleek, soft spoken, concerned, considerate; then he tears your head off.
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 24, 2012 5:29:58 PM | 7
Colm'O Toole I think that is irrevelant, teaming up against imperialism. The point is that the US is fighting very costly wars (taypayers money, loans from China i.e. economic dependency) for what? whilst everybody else quietly proceeds to further their interests in a cooperative way.
The futility also is - but that should have been known after Algeria and Vietnam - that conventional military can bomb every square meter but will still be unable to control the outcome.
The US is fighting the old military zero sum game, I win what you lose, as if they needed to rob the world for consumption and production. Fact is that the US has outsourced a large part of its production deliberately - no coercion involved - to foreign competitors, who service US consumers for cheap rates (and kill the jobs of same consumers). US economy is a global system, so what is US military for? The US is cooperating with the very countries (China) economically, its military is supposed to hold in check? Whilst its political system is dominated by a lobbyism that furthers the interest of foreign nationalities against their neighbours (I know what you think, however I am talking about the American Council for Kosovo http://www.savekosovo.org/)
Plus, US military has a national ideology, however, its make-up like the make-up of the US population is global.
Never mind, that it is not really clear, what US national identity is
(hint: it is not Anglo-Saxon)
Fun fact: the place actually started out as a colony ...
Posted by: somebody | Apr 24, 2012 5:31:17 PM | 8
Bill @ 1, "You go to war with the army you have; not the one you want."
D. Rumsfeld, freedom fighter, patriot.
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 24, 2012 5:34:12 PM | 9
@ 8, America is unique among nations. Their rise and present state was inevitable. Gifted with a huge piece of the temperate globe, ports on both oceans, fabulously wealthy with nobodies for neighbours. All bought for a song!
No wonder they can't take their eyes off themselves.
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 24, 2012 5:47:12 PM | 10
I had thought that the US would overthrow the Chavas government in Venezuela but that he was saved by the war in Iraq -- namely the US had over-extended its power and lacked the resources to take care of Chavas. It looks like the rest of South America saw the chink in the imperial armor and are moving quickly towards relative independence. However, do not expect the US to not come back latter when we have restored our force structure and begin to exercise good old fashioned gun boat diplomacy yet again.
Posted by: ToivoS | Apr 24, 2012 7:20:51 PM | 11
what cn the US do now in latin america>? only work thru its coup centres: the embassies. to support local terrorists and patsies....to undermine these countries from within.
best thing is to close all US embassies
Posted by: brian | Apr 24, 2012 8:26:27 PM | 12
Greed and Corruption I guess is the answer to why the US is cooperating (Economically) with the same power its trying to compete against (Militarily) and why it allows lobbyists to dictate national priorities. The motto of the US could just as well be "money talks". In the same way greed and corruption brought down the Roman Empire, I figure it will also bring down the US Empire. The US offshores jobs to China not because it furthers US goals but because it furthers Wall-Mart profits, and Apples profits, and the rest of them.
It's almost ironic that the US is one of the few countries that cannot be defeated by any outside powers but is so prone to defeating itself from the inside. The American Civil War destroyed the nation just as completely as Europe was destroyed in the 2 World Wars. Now it is defeating itself again this time through corruption.
But all that is not to say that other countries shouldn't resist imperialism. The Resistance Axis has exploited these signs of a fading Empire to increase their regional position. Latin America (after being pillaged in the 1970's and 1980's) has also effectively taken advantage of US shifting attention to strenghten themselves. Two historical examples these remind me of:
1) Gandhi, sensing that the British Empire would be to drained after World War 2, used that to get Indian Independence in 1947.
2) Ireland waiting to launch it's War of Independence 2 months after World War 1 ended, knowing the British would be to exhausted too fight for long.
When the US Empire is so rotten from the inside, is the best time to fight the US Empire from the outside. I think Iran sees this and uses it, as does alot of Latin America. Just a shame Europe remains tied to this sinking ship.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Apr 24, 2012 8:26:35 PM | 13
Colm O'toole, those are two very appropriate historical analogies. It does seem that our South American friends are taking advantage of imperialisms difficulties to gain some level of independence.
Posted by: ToivoS | Apr 24, 2012 9:26:52 PM | 14
The answer to why europe (meaning eu and its closest allies n wannabe eu'ers) is 'tied to the sinking ship' that is the amerikan empire, is actually very simple.
In spite of what the populations of europe and amerika have been taught to believe, amerika is just an extension of european imperialism & its engine room european capitalism.
Prescott Bush's investments in nazi germany were not the exception that the sheep in the dem party have been encouraged to believe they were. In fact that was the rule. European capitalists invested in both side of the amerikan civil war which at its heart was little more than a boardroom war over the best method of staffing the new empire's expansion; african or european labour. Both sides fought it out by exploiting the masses as their proxies/pawns.
Sure peeps notice when a member of the Saud family moves to amerika to take up a position of power on the board of an amerikan capitalist enterprise, but they miss about 99% of the appointments of european elites to amerikan boards, or amerikan elites to european boards. Those appointments can be executive or non-executive directorships, but they are all made to ensure that major investors get their voices heard at board level.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 24, 2012 10:50:07 PM | 15
The US most certainly is hedging its bets south of the border, however ineptly. There's still a raging Plan Colombia, not to mention the tacit if not material support to the recent military coup in Honduras, funding of anti-Morales/Ortega propaganda and activist activity, recent trade agreements with both Guatemala and Uruguay, as well as millions in military aid to the latter, and various other petty destabilization moves in Paraguay, etc. Can't forget our guy in Panama, either. Not that any of this has been particularly fruitful of course...that's the real reason why we set our sights to the east.
And after dragging our feet for an embarrassing amount of time, we're finally addressing the Chinese problem in Africa. Securing the north first, so to speak. What's funny is that it's looking as if the EU was the real brains behind the final pushes; Libya, et al. The US is a large tense muscle that needs some extra directing these days. We don't have, for instance, a real leader like Kissinger, just a bunch of suits.
Posted by: L Bean | Apr 25, 2012 12:25:18 AM | 16
colm o'toole said @ 6:
"The US is not afraid of Terrorism... its afraid of nations like the non-aligned South America and Iran realising that both have an interest in standing up to Imperialism. That's what the US is afraid of, nations teaming up against it."
Yep, matter of fact, they don't even have to team up. Just espouse an ideology that helps the masses instead of certain monied elites, and you're on the US shit list.
Posted by: ben | Apr 25, 2012 12:53:47 AM | 17
amerika is not against *terrarism* per se
but it got mightily pissed off when someone didnt apply for a franchise first
Posted by: denk | Apr 25, 2012 1:06:50 AM | 18
What an amazing blog. I have found this blog very interesting because I have gotten the most read information. This blog help me out otherwise I don’t know how much time I have to spend for getting right information.For more info about terrorism please visit http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/terrorism.asp
Posted by: satp | Apr 25, 2012 1:29:29 AM | 19
Neither Chaves nor Ahmadinejad would be in power today without the money they earn from selling oil to the West. Neither would the House of Saud or the Sheiks of Bahrain or Dubai. Nor would Qaddafi or Saddam Hussein have come to power.
We are bankrolling these dictators through our oil addiction.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 25, 2012 3:08:42 AM | 20
yeah, Ralphieboy, the US is a Marxist trojan horse :-))
".. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property."
Posted by: somebody | Apr 25, 2012 3:27:58 AM | 21
the answer is to decentralize. centralization concentrates everything, including power. it engenders uniformity and homogeneity and precludes diversity. it is one of the reasons communism failed in the soviet union and has failed elsewhere. the seeds of centralization are scattered everywhere so when it appears the ground has been cleared for a new way, the old way of centralization sets in again. that's the stumbling block we must get beyond and we cannot get beyond it until we recognize it for what it is and the effect it has.
Posted by: wenis | Apr 25, 2012 8:00:45 AM | 22
you mean, wenis, a tribal society is preferable to a modern state?
Posted by: somebody | Apr 25, 2012 8:17:51 AM | 23
are you ever the dualist, somebody? remove the box. free your mind. so long as you believe this is as good as it gets, this will be as good as it gets. there is no box, just the strong perception of one. that's what education is all about these days. it teaches you to erect your own box, a box just like all the others. paper or plastic about sums that box up. neither, thank you. and you can take that box and shove it.
Posted by: wenis | Apr 25, 2012 8:30:06 AM | 24
We are bankrolling these dictators through our oil addiction.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 25, 2012 3:08:42 AM | 20
troll.,.how does democratically elected Chavez and democratically elected Ahmadinajead get to be dictators?,,the word 'dictator' is used to much to attack any leader you dont like.
the real dictators are rule the US and EU, where they ignore their own people and favor moneyed interests
Posted by: brian | Apr 25, 2012 8:30:46 AM | 25
'Neither Chaves nor Ahmadinejad would be in power today without the money they earn from selling oil to the West'
Chavez came to office by offering venezuelans a better vision for Venezuela...He gets reelected because he is by far the better at providing for the people.
Does your daddy allow you to play with his computer?
Posted by: brian | Apr 25, 2012 8:33:58 AM | 26
satp @ 19: Thanks for the link, but it's incomplete. There's nothing, that I could find, about the U.S. committing acts of terrorism around the globe, in the name of fighting terrorism.
Posted by: ben | Apr 25, 2012 9:28:19 AM | 27
I get really sick and tired of reading about how righteous western powers are and everybody else is a terrorist, considering western history is full of atrocities, massacres and injustices.
I wonder how Obama, Panetta and Cameron would classify this bit of history;
From George Monbiot Blog;
"Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly ten years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain’s Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu’s Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, then conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – both rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and the other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.
Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintained, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.
The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as “Labour and freedom” and “He who helps himself will also be helped”. Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.
Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women’s breasts. They cut off inmates’ ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound"
Now that's how westerners spread their culture.
Posted by: ana souri | Apr 25, 2012 9:47:24 AM | 28
@ wenis et al. I like how these identical clones appear and upbraid the rest of us for not thinking critically. As for "failure": practice perfects.
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 25, 2012 10:33:58 AM | 29
@ 28....YUP! exactly.
Posted by: ben | Apr 25, 2012 11:03:30 AM | 30
is that the same george monbiot that now believes nuclear power is the way? come on, get real. isn't the linked article below enough to write this wanker off for what he is? do you really need him to say what you mean? or is it that you need him to tell you what to think and then placard it all over the internet so everyone else will think what he tells them to think?
the problem with so many of you here is that you really don't want anything to change. you want to come here and several other select places on the internet everyday and cyber-whack yourselves into an orgasmic frenzy. what on earth would you do if you didn't have amerika/israel/uk to serve in lieu of your metaphorical playboy/penthouse/hustler? why, you'd shrivel up and die, or better yet, maybe you'd get off your whiny asses and do something to change the world for the better. nah, this is too fun, right? it makes you feel good. it feeds you, and you feed it, and round and round it goes for who knows how long.
whatever floats your boat, but at least call it what it is.
one of the few who makes any sense here is slothrop and he gets no respect. you stab him with your steely knives, but you just can't kill the beast. he makes this place worthwhile to visit. he offers hope that there is still some sanity in this otherwise insane world. long live slothrop.
Posted by: wenis | Apr 25, 2012 12:09:25 PM | 32
weenie and slowthrob up in a tree
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 25, 2012 12:17:32 PM | 33
@ wenis @ 32
Dissing Monbiot demolishes the facts in Caroline Elkins' Britain’s Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya in what way, exactly ? Are you seriously suggesting that your dislike of Monbiot should dictate that any author, historian or researcher he cites and the facts they present in their own work should be disregarded too ?
Posted by: The Raven | Apr 25, 2012 12:22:54 PM | 34
A real leader like Kissinger?Just how many times has the voice of doom entered a fray with his troops following?Absolutely never,as he is a moral,intellectual and military midget who promotes death with our poor cannon fodder as victims.
Tell US about all his policy decisions which haven't borne poison fruit?
A loser leader invested by troglydytes to promote their nihilistic vision of racism and pride of place.
He and that martial midget in the wheelchair,Krauthammer(I bet he goes over good in Deutschland) should be guided to the longest staircase in America and nudged off the top step.
Posted by: dahoit | Apr 25, 2012 1:05:48 PM | 35
Kissinger, isn't he the one who led the US while Nixon was drunk? Didn't he succumb to Golda Meir's blackmail to start a nuclear war unless the US delivered its latest weapons and keep on delivering them? That was the real crisis that would have led to WWIII.
Posted by: Albertde | Apr 25, 2012 1:19:39 PM | 36
bring it on wenis. Want to get to know you better. You obviously got something to offer and you’re already getting flack for it (that’s good) so don’t go away at least until we really get to know you. I would guess you wouldn’t have posted unless you find something here worthwhile besides sloth. So stick around and make your offerings.
I couldn’t agree more with you at 22 & 24 but have to agree with The Raven at 34. Dissing Monboit’s past work because of his recent nuke position doesn’t invalidate the former.
Incidentally, I always get mixed emotions about slothrop. Sometimes, I believe, sloth really adds something of value but mostly just rails against our host b. Kind of dumb and counterproductive in my opinion. Sloth & I used to be, and I’d like to think still are, homies.
Posted by: juannie | Apr 25, 2012 1:19:50 PM | 37
@ 32: Welcome, Solthrop gets paid to be here, and you?
Posted by: ben | Apr 25, 2012 1:19:56 PM | 38
For our newcomer wenis..This is from Chris Hedges. I'm curious, do you disagree with any of this, or all of it? It's on the state of American politics, at present.
From Chris Hedges on the political state in America, and oh, so true:
"The extremists, of course, are already in power. They have been in power for several years. They write our legislation. They pick the candidates and fund their campaigns. They dominate the courts. They effectively gut regulations and environmental controls. They suck down billions in government subsidies. They pay no taxes. They determine our energy policy. They loot the U.S. treasury. They rigidly control public debate and information. They wage useless and costly imperial wars for profit. They are behind the stripping away of our most cherished civil liberties. They are implementing government programs to gouge out any money left in the carcass of America. And they know that Romney or Barack Obama, along with the Democratic and the Republican parties, will not stop them."
Posted by: ben | Apr 25, 2012 1:30:54 PM | 39
yes, ben, i agree with everything he's said, but i don't believe it's just amerika. it's everywhere. amerika's just the enforcer, and obviously the foil, and maybe eventually, the scapegoat along with a few other "countries." the extremists use them like skins, slipping in and out of them depending on the circumstances.
Posted by: wenis | Apr 25, 2012 3:03:17 PM | 40
enforcer AND foil? And it's "obvious". Who's the wanker?
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 25, 2012 3:24:52 PM | 41
well widdles, why write this:
'one of the few who makes any sense here is slothrop and he gets no respect. you stab him with your steely knives, but you just can't kill the beast'
Hes a beast alright...but he only talks sense to fellow trolls.
'the problem with so many of you here is that you really don't want anything to change'
we do want things to change: like theb utopian dream that the US will turn into a force for good! You and slops may be happy with the status quo on that front
but you are right about Monbiot...but then he has changed!
Posted by: brian | Apr 25, 2012 5:38:18 PM | 42
#35 dahoit and #36 Albertge - I guess my post needed a snark tag, or how's this? ---
A real "leader" like Kissinger....
Posted by: L Bean | Apr 25, 2012 5:39:08 PM | 43
yes ana 28:
'I get really sick and tired of reading about how righteous western powers are and everybody else is a terrorist, considering western history is full of atrocities, massacres and injustices'
Here is maximilian Forte tweeting with the right idea:
1D4TW Only the U.S. is attacked by "terrorists"--everyone else is attacked by freedom-loving democrats & small pink bunnies. #Libya #Syria
1 day ago
Posted by: brian | Apr 25, 2012 5:41:54 PM | 44
wenis @ 40: Enforcer, obviously, but also, planner and driving force for resource hegemony in energy rich areas around the globe. Foil? Maybe in the sense that the US can foil other countries rights to autonomy. Using the excuse "War on Terror", we, (the US) because of our never ending greed, have become the world's finest exporter of terror. Obviously, my opinion, but, shared by others in many countries we seek to dominate.
Posted by: ben | Apr 25, 2012 8:38:05 PM | 45
Maybe I shouldn't neglect to mention the consortium of NATO nations also. But, the US is still the driving force behind "Globalization".
Posted by: ben | Apr 25, 2012 8:56:47 PM | 46
Good to see that someone else also noticed the Monbiot article on england's genocidal destruction in Kenya after ww2.
I was going to post the article in here but wanted to discuss another perspective. That is the guardian comments section where so many englanders who are always happy to pull up amerikan atrocities, contemporary french colonialism, even australian incarceration rates for indigenous males, rejected the Monbiot article because: "it is too long ago", "others esp amerika, china, france & belgium have done worse" or "Monbiot favours nuclear energy"
These murderers and torturers were operating in Kenya until the mid 1950's and in malaysia until the mid 1960's, in Yemen and other ME territories until the late 1980's, in Ireland until the mid 1990's, in Iraq and Afghanistan until today. Many of those involved suppressing in the Kenyan fight for independence will still be alive to day and can be sent off to a war crime court. After all how long ago was it that senile Ukranian copped a life sentence for being an SS camp guard in WW2 ? Twelve months ago?
My point is that too many peeps are quick to call out other societies' murderers and rapists yet they gloss over their own, but it is the crimes that are committed in our names where we have the most ability to deliver justice. Or at the very least draw to the attention of our fellow citizens to as a first step in bringing the crimes to an end.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 25, 2012 10:59:06 PM | 47
its OK if england commits genocide as long as she stays in the good graces of the empire...and after all the victims were only africans! The real issue is that Kenyas leadership ends up aiding the west in its war on other african states
Posted by: brian | Apr 25, 2012 11:25:19 PM | 48
Sorry I thought anna souri had linked to Monbiot's Guardian article which is here.
Since I have thus far been unable to acquire an e edition to circulate, I feel obliged to include a couple of para's of Monbiot's piece on Elkins' history (Her work has all primary sources properly foot-noted, peer reviewed etc this is a work that draws on facts which can be substantiated it is no mainstream media beat up)
She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.
Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died. . . .
> . . . Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process". . . .
The contortions these englander liberals go through in the 35 pages of Guardian comments to try and justify the crimes or denigrate Elkins and Monbiot are unsurprisingly similar to those one reads on amerikan sites when amerikans or israelis are called to task for their crimes against humanity.
A perennial favourite I omitted before is the weak way the 'head in sanders' try to push all the crimes up at the elite, by saying the colonials weren't representative and these crimes were devised and implemented by the aristos etc.
If only it were so; unfortunately it is the willingness of some sections of the proletariat to kiss elite ass by doing the physical parts of elites' evil strategies that allows elites to rule.
Support the troops really means 'congratulate the murderers and rapists while more principled citizens who lived in poverty and endured blatant attacks on their character for being cowards or parasites rather than kill fellow humans, are ignored'.
The real heroes are those who refuse to enlist.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 25, 2012 11:38:04 PM | 49
and this was done while germans were committing inmates to their deah camps...so why arent the brits by words for genocidal villainy?
No suprise the brits destroyed documents.
This is worth springing on them now that they are so keen on R2P!
Posted by: brian | Apr 26, 2012 12:43:16 AM | 50
I should not be lumping Chavez and Ahmadinejad together with the House of Saud, but those guys remain in power becuase they have a lot of funds to distribute. Funds that they come from selling us oil.
I suspect that their grip on power would be a lot more tenuous without the money.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 26, 2012 2:42:48 AM | 51
People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles.
Obama's paternal grandfather a Kenyan Luo had his balls squashed. But then Obama does not consider himeself to have any African roots only when it suits hiim.
Posted by: hans | Apr 26, 2012 4:13:07 AM | 53
"Mau-Mau uprising" is one of those dog-whistle racist code words for "what white people can expect when the n****s take over".
They blithely ignore the background of colonialism and cruelty that led to it.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 26, 2012 4:24:27 AM | 54
Has anyone notised this in you local media????
EU denounces Zionist regime's 'legalization' of settlements
The European Union (EU) has denounced Zionist regime's move to 'legalize' the status of three illegal settlement outposts in the occupied West Bank, calling on Israeli regime to reverse the decision.
AFP quoted EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton as saying on Wednesday: "I am extremely concerned about the decision of the Israeli authorities regarding the status of the settlements of Sansana, Rachalim and Bruchin in the occupied Palestinian territory."
Ashton added: "I call upon them to reverse this decision."
She noted that "settlements are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace, and threaten the viability of a two-state solution."
The office of Zionist regime's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday announced the 'legalization' of the outposts of Bruchin and Rechelim in northern West Bank and Sansana in the southern part of the occupied Palestinian territory.
The EU statement is the latest in an international chorus of condemnations against the Zionist regime’s decision.
On Tuesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticized Israeli regime's decision, saying he was "deeply troubled" by the unlawful move.
The UN chief noted that the regime has an international obligation to refrain from "provocations" like constructing new illegal settlements in the occupied lands.
Posted by: boindub | Apr 26, 2012 9:39:50 AM | 55
boindub, it does not mean anything, it is just talk. Where are the sanctions?
"It was a European Union poll in 2003 that first drew attention to the wide gap between the opinion of the people of Europe and the policies of the European Union. This showed that 59% of Europeans considered Israel to be a greater threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea. Various subsequent polls have confirmed these findings. The BBC World Service poll published in March 2007, found that people in Europe, by large majorities, had a negative view of Israel. The figures were 77% in Germany, 68% in Greece, 66% in France, 65% in the UK, 58% in Italy, 60% in Portugal, 49% in Poland and 45% in Hungary. And the ICM poll commissioned by the Middle East Monitor and others, whose field work was done in January 2011 in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Britain showed that 53% of Europeans see the siege of Gaza as illegal, 60% see Israel's 2008/9 invasion of Gaza as illegal and 64% saw the state's attack on the Freedom Flotilla as illegal.
There are two major interventions in Israel-Palestine policy undertaken by the EU. One is its trade policy and the other it’s Aid and Development Cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. Both claim to be supportive of peace and justice for the Palestinians, but both support the Israeli occupation, oppression of the Palestinians and Israel’s constant breaches of international law."
Posted by: somebody | Apr 26, 2012 9:54:43 AM | 56
Here 's a beaut.....
CBC in Canada aired a news item this morning from Syria on an explosion in Hama. This netwrok which used to be more even handed until new PM Harper restructured the netwrok and put a pro Israeli on its head now publishes anything.
"Some said the blast may have been caused by government forces shelling the area, or perhaps even a Scud missile attack."
Now come on, how stupid can you be and to publish an account that is so STUPID tells you abouth the disinformation campaign on Syria.
Posted by: ana souri | Apr 26, 2012 11:05:19 AM | 57
(the US) because of our never ending greed
ben, how do you square this comment with hedges comments you posted? is it the extremists, or is it "our never ending greed?" if it is you, ben, as the italicized comment implies, then why don't you just stop?
Posted by: wenis | Apr 26, 2012 12:12:40 PM | 58
@58: So extremists being greedy, can't happen? Our Corporate extremists, who really run our nation through purchase of our "reps", are greedy in the extreme. Not a difficult concept.
Posted by: ben | Apr 26, 2012 1:05:37 PM | 59
'I suspect that their grip on power would be a lot more tenuous without the money.'
as i said, are you for real? 'Grip on power'? they were elected? What grip on power? Just acuse you sit at a computer and can write gives you no carte blanche to write the first bit of media propaganda that arises from your conditioning.
ChenguGold: US propaganda has been so effective that the very working class Americans that would benefit from Chavez's policies view him as a 'dictator' .
Posted by: brian | Apr 26, 2012 5:47:08 PM | 60
I love you guys :)
Posted by: Alexander | Apr 26, 2012 6:24:39 PM | 61
I do not promote "regime change" in either Venezuela or Iran, but I find that both their leaders are tinhorn elected dictators who use money their nations earn from oil sales to prop up their regimes and keep themselves in power.
In the USA politicians use political donation money from corporations to get into power.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 27, 2012 2:59:59 AM | 62
Posted by ralphieboy: "I do not promote "regime change" in either Venezuela or Iran, but I find that both their leaders are tinhorn elected dictators who use money their nations earn from oil sales to prop up their regimes and keep themselves in power."
Ahem..."tinhorn elected dictators"?!? "regimes"?
Ralphieboy, You are in desperate need of a proper education. You're a political ignoramus.
Posted by: arthurdecco | Apr 28, 2012 3:26:39 PM | 63
everyone has point and should be given a consideration. but could it be a help and how.
Posted by: Web Design Sheffield | Apr 29, 2012 6:35:42 AM | 64
'I do not promote "regime change" in either Venezuela or Iran, but I find that both their leaders are tinhorn elected dictators who use money their nations earn from oil sales to prop up their regimes and keep themselves in power'
LOL wtf? yes you do promote regime change and no neither leader is a dictator or a tinhorn/..You tho rank of fraud. Its become a habit of the rightwing to attack Chavez..and you seem to be of that ilk
Posted by: brian | Apr 29, 2012 1:55:32 PM | 65
ralphie is a right winger so its no surprise he hates Chavez
Posted by: brian | Apr 29, 2012 1:56:29 PM | 66