illuminati ( official website )

Russia and the Wages of Terror

subhuman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:13:49 +0000

Moscow is now living with the reality of renewed terrorism. It seems nearly inevitable. This conclusion is not the result of panic — it is, rather, an assessment of the chances of our own survival. So what should be done? How can we avoid the next tragedy?

It’s now quite clear that the methods our military is using during the so-called antiterrorism operation in Chechnya have been transformed into methods for reproducing terrorism. This week, Russian forces further stepped up the crackdown.

A young generation of radical Chechen fighters, reared on these Russian methods, is now fighting far more cruelly for the liberation of their land from federal forces than Aslan Maskhadov, the aging Chechen president. And only a small fraction of those radicals was destroyed by Russian special forces in the Moscow theater; the far larger part is preparing new acts of revenge against Russia that we cannot anticipate.

At the same time, the intellectual inadequacy of our special services, especially the Federal Security Service, has become obvious. Yes, our special-forces troops shoot expertly, and there is enough poison gas in the country to wipe out everyone if necessary. However, as far as the main task — the prevention of terrorist acts — is concerned, our special forces are impotent and the bold rhetoric of President Vladimir Putin about the rebirth of the mighty security service has proved a myth.

This is clear from the fact that the very cream of the special forces who managed the operation to free the hostages in the Moscow theater did not know basic information about their enemy in Chechnya. They didn’t know the answer to basic questions like these: Who is in the Chechen political-military leadership? Who is in Mr. Maskhadov’s inner circle? And most important, what should be done next?

Mr. Putin so far has only demonstrated that we are unwilling to yield to terrorists of any sort, even if it costs the lives of innocent citizens. So how are we to make peace with Chechnya now? Can we negotiate with Mr. Maskhadov? Will he have the authority to negotiate? These questions make peace talks seem impossible, but is there any other option?

There is still another important question: who will bring together these camps? The figure of a mediator, without whom it is unlikely that anything useful would result, is of central importance. And that mediator must come from outside the Kremlin. Any mediator from the federal center would not have the trust of the Chechens and, more important, there is no one in the political establishment eager to sacrifice his or her political career for the sake of contributing to a transitional settlement in Chechnya.

Of course, none of this can happen unless the Chechens are given complete assurances that field commanders they send to the negotiations will not be arrested by the Russian government.

References:
Anna Politkovskaya

The Congolese War

subhuman — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:50:23 +0000

The Congo Republic has the richest deposit of coltan, an energy heat source that is used to power lap tops playstations mobile phones, etc.

Corporate mining giants finance the militia that murders, rapes and mutilates the Congolese. They are paid $60.00 per month to commit atrocities and keep the people traumatised so the profiteers have free reign over the country and its mineral deposits while the people suffer and starve.

If you are Congolese you have two choices of employment the militia or the mines. Most of the adult men join the militia it is better pay this leaves the mining to the children who dig this mineral out with their bare hands. They have no tools except maybe a hammer if they are lucky. These children barely make enough money to feed the families aminimal meal.

These children are enduring incredible hardships to provide a product so rich kids can have their mobiles and playsations.

The woman are so badly hurt mentally and physically that they have no male support or protection. They are raped then horribly mutilated so that they will not have a child, its genocide!!!!

It can’t but make us all hang our heads in shame that our world has come to such an imbalance and we are unable to stop the horror.

Maybe with a collective consciousness of our consumerism, extravegances and waste we can make a difference on a global level.

Third World Debt

subhuman — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:33:17 +0000

Debt has crippled many developing countries. Often based on loans taken out by prior rulers and dictators (many of which various Western nations put into power to suit their interests), millions face poorer and poorer living standards as precious resources are diverted to debt repayment.

Poor countries and billions of people are being devastated under the burden of debt and trade policies of the IMF, World Bank and the WTO. Zambia in 1997, paid 40% of its total budget to service foreign debt, and only 7% for basic services such as vaccines for children. If debt had been cancelled in 1997 for twenty of the poorest countries, the money released for basic healthcare could have saved the lives of about 21 million children by the year 2000, the equivalent of 19,000 children a day. The failure by the rich countries to cancel the odious debts to the poorest countries in the world leaves the poorest countries in the world with nothing to spend on basic needs and much needed infrastructure, leaving millions in poverty and destitution.

Some Facts

- The developing world now spends $1.3 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. (Nigeria borrowed around $5 billion and has paid about $16 billion, but still owes $28 billion - That $28 billion came about because of the injustice in the foreign creditors’ interest rates.

- 7 Million children die each year as a result of the debt crisis

- In the 52 Jubilee 2000 countries, a total population of 1037 million people shoulder a debt burden of £286 billion. It is a curious fact that this is less than the total net worth of the world’s 21 richest individuals

- Every day in 1999, $128 million was transferred from the poorest countries to the richest in debt repayments. Of this, $53 million was from East Asia and the Pacific, $38 million from South Asia and $23 million from Africa

- Spread over 20 years, the cost of canceling the debts of the 52 Jubilee 2000 countries is only one penny a day for each person in the industrialized world.

- If debt had been cancelled in 1997 for twenty of the poorest countries, the money released for basic healthcare could have saved the lives of about 21 million children by the year 2000, the equivalent of 19,000 children a day.

Against the War in Iraq?

subhuman — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:33:28 +0000

If you are a part of the tribe that is against war in Iraq, believe me you are not alone. More and more people world over and specially in America are getting more and more frustrated with the utility of war in Iraq and the violent quagmire it has left for the world.

The very premise on which the case against Iraq was built, “that Iraq as weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”, was found to be misplaced at best, and grossly and falsely exaggerated at worst to justify the war. The claim that Saddam Hussein was a threat to Iraqi people and world at large was moreso reliable, but was this enough of a reason for the USA to go to war.

Did USA or its allies really have a case for going to war against Iraq?.. is a matter of debate and discussions. Is the world today any better and free from terrorist attacks than it was in the pre war era?.. is also open to question. Some may argue that the war has benefited the Iraqi people but that is definitely out of question when we see the present situation and fractional and violent clashes occurring on a daily basis. Thus, what benefit has really accrued to anyone in the whole process? Well the answers are often painful and complex.

War against Iraq was perpetrated on the mass hysteria that Iraq has dangerous chemical and biological weapons, which will be used against the mankind by the then brutal regime led by Saddam Hussein. That not a trace of it was found out later is now common knowledge.

It is also an established fact that the UNO and other agencies were literally bulldozed by the USA at the time of giving it sanction to attack a sovereign nation. Was Iraq worse than other rogue nations that are still thriving amidst gross human rights violations against their own people? If international issues are sorted out in this manner, nobody will care a damn for justice and fair play. Another moot point worth consideration is the abject surrender of all nations of the world to the whims and fancies and personal vendetta against the head of a state. That Saddam Hussein was brutal and merciless is not disputed. However to have the right to attack him for being so is being too arrogant and reflects hegemony tendencies. The increasing public opinion against war in Iraq reflects the anxiety of the world in the whole affair. It seems that the world was much better and safer to live in if one individual is not allowed to carry out his own personal agenda and the whole world has to suffer the consequences thereof. It is also important that the world bodies learn their lessons from war against war in Iraq and avoid one person to dictate his terms.

The Silent War Between Israel And Syria

subhuman — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:22:11 +0000

So what happened on the morning of September 6, 2007 ? Israel has instituted a news blackout beyond saying that Israeli soldiers demonstrated unusual courage in acting against Syria. Syria indicates that Israel violated its airspace and fired missals on ground targets. Iran has been absolutely quiet, very unusual for them. There has been no comment across the Middle East. Europe is quiet on the issue. Here is the dismissive reaction of U.S. President George Bush when asked the question in his general press conference on September 20, 2007: “ I’m not going to comment on the matter.”

If all these countries are quiet, if politicians won’t comment, if there are news restrictions on what should be a highly publicized current event, then there must be a pretty big worldwide story here. It also must be diplomatically sensitive. Here is what can be determined about the raid by Israel on Syria on the morning of September 6, 2007.

In late spring, Israeli intelligence (Mossad) received information that Syria was trying to buy a nuclear device from North Korea. Israel had a building in Syria under surveillance from a satellite sent into orbit last June. The building (about 50 miles from the Iraq border) was believed to be storing nuclear equipment. On September 3, 2007, a ship arrived from North Korea with a cargo that was marked as cement. The cargo was subsequently transferred to the building that Israel had under surveillance. This triggered a strike on September 6, 2007 by five Israeli warplanes on the building and possibly other targets in Syria.

The timing of this incident could not be worse for North Korea. The country is beginning the second phase of six-party talks on disabling their current nuclear program. After years of talks, a deal was brokered in February 2007 under which Pyongyang (capital city of North Korea) agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor in return for fuel and aid. North Korea admitted International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, who verified the shutdown of the Yongbyon reactor in July. In the second phase, scheduled to start next week, North Korea needs to declare all of its nuclear programs and disable its nuclear facilities. North Korea is at the bargaining table because up to two million of its people have died since the mid-1990s due to acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and the economic mismanagement of the Head Of State, Kim Jong- il. The country relies on foreign aid to feed millions of its people.

The timing could not have been better for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who has gained ten points in his favorability ratings in Israel’s latest public opinion polls. He is gaining popularity for showing strong, decisive action on the Syrian nuclear threat. He is also gaining popularity in Israel for his ongoing meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ahead of the U.S. sponsored Middle East peace conference in November.

Iran may be involved in this incident as well. Consider a report from the Nazareth-based Israeli Arab newspaper, The Assennara, which cited anonymous Israeli sources as saying that Israeli jets “bombed a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was financed by Iran… It appears that the base was completely destroyed.”

In recent days, Syria has begun to increase its rhetoric on Israel’s reported violation of Syrian airspace. It has warned the United Nations that the international community’s silence over the incident could have “tragic consequences.” In a letter sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Syria warns Israel that its “outrageous aggression” will have serious consequences. Also, consider this statement from Syrian International Atomic Energy Agency ambassador Ibrahim Othman, “ The fact that UN and IAEA decisions regarding Israel’s nuclear capability are not implemented increases the frustration of the Arab states and threatens to expand the arms race that could threaten the peace and security of the region and entire world.”

We know that Israel bombed targets in Syria on September 6, 2007. The targets appear to be military locations in Syria sponsored by North Korea and Iran. The fact that these three countries are working together, possibly on nuclear weapons, is indeed disturbing. The Syrian Head Of State, Bashar al-Assad, is now in the process of contemplating Syria’s response to the Israeli air strikes. Unfortunately, the world has not heard the last of the silent war of September 6, 2007 between Israel and Syria.

A Cuba Without Fidel Castro

subhuman — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:14:24 +0000

Cuban President Fidel Castro has outlasted no fewer than nine American presidents during his nearly five decade rule in Cuba. In fact, Castro has ruled Cuba for such a long period of time that more than three quarters of the Cuban people have known no other leader.

The country used to be prosperous and the world’s largest producer of sugar, but the decades of Castro’s rule have been a disaster for the Cuban economy. Today, Cuba is a poor country with an economy dependent on agriculture and tourism. It has shortages in food, fuel, clothing, and books. Fidel Castro embraced the Soviet Union as a trading partner years ago and Cuba has suffered financially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Cubans refer to these difficult times as the “Special Period”.

For the economy to improve, new trading partners and revenue sources need to be uncovered. Tourism has been increasing in Cuba, but it is an industry held back by the Cuban government’s horrible human rights record and inherent government corruption. The United States has an embargo on Cuba that has been in place for forty four years which also limits Cuban economic growth and tourism.

In July 2006, President Castro underwent emergency intestinal surgery and has not attended any public events since. In recent days, rumors have intensified that Castro’s death is near. The death of Castro could dramatically impact the relationship between Cuba and the United States and provide more opportunity and hope for Cubans and for Cuban exiles in Florida.

Indeed, for some in the exile community in South Florida, the death of Fidel Castro may mean that Cuba and the United States will turn the clock back to the nineteen fifties and become allies once again. For others, it may mean political and economic changes that may indicate a move toward democracy on the island. For some Cubans, it may mean the chance to leave Cuba and join their relatives or friends in Miami. To others in Cuba it may mean a chance to make a brand of socialism work if the United States lifts its current embargo which limits economic advancement on the island.

However, change may not occur very quickly after Fidel Castro dies. The dictator has already turned over power to his brother Raul Castro. Also, two of Castro’s sons are gaining favorable press coverage in the Cuban media and appear to be in line at some point, for succession to the dictator’s brother.

For the United States, the death of Fidel Castro could mean a dramatic shift in its policy toward Cuba. The U.S. embargo should be lifted since it has not worked as leverage for Fidel Castro to improve human rights over the years. With Fidel Castro gone, the time is right for the United States to change policy toward its island neighbor.

With time, economic improvement and reform, Cuba can be a vibrant centerpiece of tourism in the Caribbean. The death of Fidel Castro can be the catalyst for change. A Cuba without Fidel Castro, is an opportunity for a better tomorrow for the island.

Article by James Smith

Putting a stop to global arms trade.

subhuman — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:21:01 +0000

The arms trade is a major cause of human rights abuses. Some governments spend more on military expenditure than on social development, communications infrastructure and health combined. While every nation has the right and the need to ensure its security, in these changing times, arms requirements and procurements may need to change too.

The growing availability of small arms has been a major factor in the increase in the number of conflicts, and in hindering smoother rebuilding and development after a conflict has ended. It is estimated, for example, that:

- There are around half a billion military small arms around the world;
- Some 300,000 to half a million people around the world are killed by them each year;
- They are the major cause of civilian casualties in modern conflicts.

But the world’s governments are taking little or no action to achieve this. Responsibility for the bloodshed and misery caused by the absence of effective arms controls stops directly at their doors.

Where do these weapons come from? An incredible 88 per cent of the world’s arms are supplied by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - US, UK, Russia, France and China. More than two-thirds of the value of all arms sold are destined for Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

We need tougher global arms controls. By campaigning for change, ordinary people can force our governments to act. Perhaps the best way is not for the entire population to go naked in the name of international arms control, but if enough people stand up and demand an end to the deadly global trade in arms, governments must listen.

Diamond War - The UN Stand

subhuman — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:01:13 +0000

Diamonds and the continuous perpetration of war and violence in the countries of Africa have been involved in a long and arduous cycle over so many years. The story is basically the same for many different countries. Rebel factions launch wars against the government. To fund their activities, their main action is to take control of the diamond rich areas in their country and force the people to mine diamonds for them, hence the term diamond war. The rough diamonds are then smuggled out to other countries and sold to the world market. In the midst of this struggle, it is the common people who suffer. They are the ones caught in between the cycle of violence. Though this has been the reality, for over a decade, the international community was unable, or unwilling, to do anything about it.

Diamond War Recognition It was only in December 1, 2000 that the United Nations came up with a resolution to deal with the situation. Finally, the suffering of the African people became too much to ignore. The UN formally recognized the role that blood diamonds play in fuelling the wars and conflicts in Africa and decided to take some measures in order to put a stop to the vicious activities there. In the UN General Assembly resolution, it was made clear that sanctions were needed in order for the illegal mining and trading of diamonds to stop. The idea was that if only legitimate diamonds were mined and sold, it would cut off the funds of the rebels and thus contribute to peace and ultimately, development. The UN asserts that everyone involved must participate in order for the measures to be effective.

From 2000 until last year, the UN has carried out many studies and imposed sanctions on individual countries and rebel groups involved in the mining and trading of blood diamonds and diamond wars. Key countries which have had sanctions brought upon them are Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Ivory Coast for their involvement in diamond wars. Sanctions came in the form of arms embargoes, travel, and financial restrictions especially for known leaders of the rebel groups. The UN has also come up with a monitoring mechanism for the countries involved. This monitoring mechanism aims to address the traffic of diamonds as well as arms - diamonds going out of the said countries and arms coming in from Eastern European countries.

Diamonds Wars Continue Despite the continuing efforts of the UN to curb this illicit trade, reports show that the mining of blood diamonds still occur. This is especially true for the countries with rebel controlled areas. Somehow, blood diamonds still find a way out of these countries and into the world market. Somehow, arms still find their way into the rebels'’ hands. As the UN itself stated, everyone must participate and be vigilant in this fight against conflict diamonds. From the international diamond market, to the local officials'’ everyone must give his two cents worth in order for real progress to be made. Until that happens we must live with the reality that everyday, people and children are being abused, maimed, and killed in the name of blood diamonds.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

subhuman — Sun, 27 May 2007 05:29:49 +0000

Trying to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is probably the most important issue facing the world’s population today. It’s certainly the most dangerous, because more and more countries are trying to develop these weapons. Now I’m talking more about the nuclear threat, rather than the bacterial and chemical threats, although these are just as dangerous and have to be controlled as well. The countries that we know that have these nuclear weapons at present are the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, possibly South Africa, and North Korea. Many also believe that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, although they claim they’re only trying to attain nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But right now the world is more concerned about North Korea which does have nuclear weapons, but has an unpredictable and untrustworthy dictator, and Iran, even though they actually don’t have nuclear weapons. They are worried about Iran because most countries in the world seem to feel that Iran desires them and could use them because they do possess a very radical and unpredictable religious belief that could justify their use. But behind all this is the fear that terrorists who have no national identity or allegiance might get their hands on these very dangerous weapons. And this is the real danger. Countries can be somewhat controlled, but individuals can be quite elusive. And the more countries that have this nuclear weaponry, the more dangerous it is that this nuclear weaponry could fall into the hands of these terrorists.

While many are trying to negotiate with North Korea so that they would get rid of its nuclear arsenal, and are also trying to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, there is really a contradiction here. While the many are trying to do this, they never talk about getting rid of their own nuclear weaponry. After all, the many feel that we’re the good guys, and they’re the bad. But how do North Korea and Iran really feel about this? Maybe they feel that they’re the good guys, and we’re the bad. It really tends to be a very subjective issue. But we’re the stronger of the two groups who possess nuclear weapons, so we can actually exert much more pressure upon the smaller of the groups to get rid of them. This doesn’t make it right, however. The problem, as I see it, is one of sovereignty. As long as you have sovereignty (individual countries) in the world., you’re going to have each country trying to attain much more power at the expense of the others, and one of the most visible ways to demonstrate this power is through the military with a nuclear arsenal being the most powerful indication of this. This is also called competition which we’re all trying to promote, but this is the most dangerous form of competition that the world can participate in.

Peace movements shown to perpetuate conflict?

subhuman — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:33:38 +0000

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends people out into the world who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. Peace activists are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called peace movements - that is whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East: People called for a cease-fire in the interests of peace, but there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? There is a reason why General Sherman said “war is hell” more than a century ago, but he helped end the Civil War not by cease-fires or bowing to world opinion, but with his devastating march through Georgia. There were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand the substitution of military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power, because that would bring the prospect of annihilation. World opinion, the U.N. and peace movements have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease-fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places - but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture a little British colony in the South Atlantic? Before there were peace movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires.

The most catastrophic result of peace movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, peace movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm as an example to others. The British Labour party voted consistently against military spending, and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country.

If peace movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II. Instead, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle the first two years of the war, because prewar peace movements had left them with inadequate military equipment, much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

Peace movements don’t bring peace, but war.