O
Ondina
Guest
Ataques terroristas en el Centro de París. Se reportan 129 fallecidos. 11/13/15.
- Autorangiemarie
- Fecha de inicio
O
Ondina
Guest
Ahora como lo dice el NYT, todos los que nos han apedreado (figurativamente hablado) para lapidar el elefante en la habitación y para llamarnos filoterroristas, supongo que ahora como lo dice el NYT se lo tomarán como una verdad "revelada".
Por fin? Desde hace décadas se publican artículos en los denominados 'mass media' norteamericanos sobre el wahadismo y la influencia de Arabia Saudi en todos los ambitos. Lo mismo el NYT que el Washington Post, el WSJ y otros publican artículos casi todas las semanas sobre el tema. Para los que leemos esos medios día si y día también no hay nada nuevo. Llevo muchísimo tiempo trayendo artículos y enlaces a essays como el del historiador y orientalista Lewis así como artículos de revistas y prensa de infinidad de expertos sobre el tema. Por lo general, son larguisimos así que no se si a los que gustan los corta pegas conspiranoicos o la web du jour se tomen el tiempo de leerlos, pero pretender que en USA 'por fin' se publica algo de esto es de traca.
The Guardian
Paris is being used to justify agendas that had nothing to do with the attack
Trevor Timm
The aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks has now devolved into a dark and dishonest debate about how we should respond: let’s ban encryption, even though there’s no evidence the terrorists used it to carry out their crime, and let’s ban Syrian refugees, even though the attackers were neither.
It’s hard to overstate how disgusting it has been to watch, as proven-false rumors continue to be the basis for the entire political response, and technology ignorance and full-on xenophobia now dominate the discussion.
First, there’s the loud “we need to ban encryption” push that immediately spawned hundreds of articles and opinions strongly pushed by current and former intelligence officials the day or two after the attacks, despite the government quietly admitting there was no evidence that the attackers used encryption to communicate. It was a masterful PR coup: current and former intelligence officials got to sit through a series of fawning interviews on television where they were allowed to pin any of their failures on Edward Snowden and encryption – the bedrock of privacy and security for hundreds of millions of innocent people – with virtually no pushback, or any critical questions about their own conduct.
The entire encryption subject became a shiny scapegoat while the truth slowly trickled in: as of Tuesday, it was clear that American and/or French intelligence agencies had seven of the eight identified attackers on their radar prior to the attacks. The attackers used Facebook to communicate. The one phone found on the scene showed the terrorists had coordinated over unencrypted SMS text messages – just about the easiest form of communication to wiretap that exists today. (The supposed ringleader even did an interview in Isis’s English magazine in February bragging that he was already in Europe ready to attack.)
As an unnamed government official quoted by the Washington Post’s Brian Fung said, if surveillance laws are expanded the media will be partly to blame: “It seems like the media was just led around by the nose by law enforcement. [They are] taking advantage of a crisis where encryption hasn’t proven to have a role. It’s leading us in a less safe direction at a time when the world needs systems that are more secure.”
As dishonest as the “debate” over encryption has been, the dark descension of the Republican party into outright racism and cynically playing off the irrational fears of the public over the Syrian refugee crisis has been worse. We now know the attackers weren’t Syrian and weren’t even refugees. It was a cruel rumor or hoax that one was thought to have come through Europe with a Syrian passport system, but that was cleared up days ago. But in the world of Republican primaries, who cares about facts?
irtually every Republican candidate has disavowed welcoming any refugees to the US, and they are now competing over who is more in favor of banning those who are fleeing the very terrorists that they claim to be so against.
It doesn’t matter that the US has a robust screening system that has seen over 750,000 refugees come to the United States without incident – the Republican-led House has now voted to grind the already intensive screening process to a virtual halt (they were disgracefully joined by many Democrats). Chris Christie said the US should refuse widows and orphans. Rand Paul introduced a law to bar the entire Muslim world from entering the US as refugees. Donald Trump has suggested he would digitally track every Muslim in the county.
As The Intercept’s Lee Fang documented in detail, the rhetoric spewing from the mouths of the Republican Party sounds almost word for word like the racists during World War II that wanted the US to refuse Jews on the basis that they might be secret Nazis.
Even the supposedly establishment Republicans have debased themselves with rhetoric that one can only hope that one day they regret. This video of Jeb Bush struggling to explain why he would create a religious litmus test for refugees and how families are going to “prove” they’re Christian is truly cringeworthy. As Barack Obama said in his admirable condemnation of Bush and others on Tuesday, such talk is “shameful” and “un-American.”
One can say a lot of awful things about Jeb’s brother, George W Bush, including that his disastrous wars that led to the Isis mess we are in now, but he did do one thing right: he was always willing to publicly speak out in favor of the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful and abhor terrorism just like everyone else. As Chris Hayes noted, not a word of this touching speech Bush gave at an Islamic Center a week after 9/11 would ever be uttered by any of the Republican candidates today. Instead they compete over who can disparage and debase the Muslim community with the broadest brush stroke.
There are plenty of questions to ask in the aftermath of the attacks to learn how terrorism can better be prevented in the future. Instead public discourse has veered so far off-course that it’s hard to see when it will return.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tion-encryption-surveillence?CMP=share_btn_fb
O
Ondina
Guest
No, no. No es lo que se dice (hay mucha gente que ata cabos desde hace tiempo). Es cómo se enfoca el debate. It makes all the difference. EEUU está preparando la guerra contra Arabia Saudí. No lo dice el NYT. Simplemente hay que atar cabos.
Los mass media cuentan parte de la historia, pero dejan fuera partes muy importantes a conveniencia.
Guerra en medio de unas ren~idisimas elecciones presidenciales con un sitting duck de Presidente que ni siquiera controla el Congreso? Lo dudo muchísimo.
Atar cabos no conduce a nada si hay un desconocimiento descomunal de como funciona el gobierno, la sociedad y la prensa norteamericana.
O
Ondina
Guest
Pero si ya estamos en guerra! Desde la invasión de Irak lo estamos. Y esto va para largo. A Arabia Saudí se le declarará la guerra cuando toque. Yo no tengo ni idea cuando será, pero está en la agenda. Simplemente estoy atenta a las señales de humo.
O
Ondina
Guest
En efecto, hay un problema con el Islam y es más que evidente y se llama Palestina. Y es que los palestinos sobran en Gaza, Judea, Samara y Jerusalén.
No se les puede dar un Estado porque eso significa renunciar al Estado único.
No se les puede dejar votar en el Estado único porque eso significa renunciar al Estado judío.
No se les puede dejar eternamente en bantustanes porque eso es Apartheid.
No se les puede deportar en masa porque eso es contrario al Derecho Internacional.
No se les puede lanzar al mar porque eso es un crimen contra la Humanidad.
Así que ¿cuál es la solución? Pregunto.
¿Una guerra en OM quizás?
Última edición por un moderador:
El terrorista huido está en Bruselas, de ahí la alarma. Está escondido de la policía y de Daesh. Otros terroristas que también están escondidos allí quieren vengarse porque el terrorista no se puso el cinturón con los explosivos. El fugitivo quería entregarse a la policía pero sabe que Daesh se vengará matando a su familia. Parece que los otros terroristas le exigen un atentado para "perdonarlo".
- Registrado
- 16 Mar 2013
- Mensajes
- 7.584
- Calificaciones
- 26.300
artículo del 2006...ojo!...poco a poco estamos viendo como toma forma lo anticipado...con la balcanización de grandes países como Iraq y Siria...
Creative Destruction:
The Rice-Olmert-Ledeen Project for a “New Middle East”
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-...he-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882?print=1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-...e-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882
- Registrado
- 16 Mar 2013
- Mensajes
- 7.584
- Calificaciones
- 26.300
¡Ojo con estos mapas!
http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html
In June 2006, Armed Forces Journal published this map from Ralph Peters, a prominent pro-war strategist. It shows the method to the madness -- creating ethnic tension and civil war in order to redraw the boundaries. Most of the existing borders were imposed by Britain and France after World War I - and conveniently (for the US and Europe) divide most of the Arabs from most of the oil. Note that their new "Arab Shia State" would contain much of the oil, separating governments in Riyadh, Baghdad and Tehran from what is currently the main source of their national wealth.
http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters
Armed Forces Journal - June 2006
note: the online version of this article no longer has a link to these maps
http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html
In June 2006, Armed Forces Journal published this map from Ralph Peters, a prominent pro-war strategist. It shows the method to the madness -- creating ethnic tension and civil war in order to redraw the boundaries. Most of the existing borders were imposed by Britain and France after World War I - and conveniently (for the US and Europe) divide most of the Arabs from most of the oil. Note that their new "Arab Shia State" would contain much of the oil, separating governments in Riyadh, Baghdad and Tehran from what is currently the main source of their national wealth.
http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters
Armed Forces Journal - June 2006
note: the online version of this article no longer has a link to these maps
