Saturday, 24 September 2011


Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech at UN General Assembly 2011 + FULL TRANSCRIPT

Read/Download the PDF of the FULL TRANSCRIPT here
Dear Colleagues and friends;
It is vividly clear that despite all historical achievements, including creation of the United-Nations, which was a product of untiring struggles and efforts offree-minded and justice-seeking individuals as well as the international cooperation, human societies are yet far from fulfilling their noble desires and aspirations;
Most nations of the world are unhappy with the current international circumstances;
And despite the general longing and aspiration to promote peace, progress, and fraternity, wars, mass-murder, widespread poverty, and socioeconomic and political crises continue to infringe upon the rights and sovereignty of nations, leaving behind irreparable damage worldwide;
Approximately, three billion people of the world live on less than 2.5 dollars a day, and over a billion people live without having even one sufficient meal on a daily basis;
Forty-percent of the poorest world populations only share five percent of the global income, while twenty percent of the richest people share seventy-five percent of the total global income.
More than twenty thousand innocent and destitute children die every day in the world because of poverty.
In the United States, eighty percent of financial resources are controlled by ten percent of its population, while only twenty percent of these resources belong to the ninety percent of the population.
What are the causes and reasons behind these inequalities? How can bone remedy such injustice?
The rulers of the global management circles divide the social life from ethics and spirituality while claiming the situation is the outcome of the pursuit of thepath of divine prophets or the vulnerability of nations or the ill performance of a few groups or individuals. They claim that only their views and approaches can save the human society.
Dear Colleagues and friends;
Wouldn’t you think that the root cause of the problems must be sought in the prevailing international order, or the way the world is governed? I would like to draw your kind attention to the following questions:
Who abducted forcefully tens of millions of people from their homes in Africa and other regions of the world during the dark period of slavery , making them a victim of their materialistic greed.
Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world. Who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?
Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy millions killedand hundreds of millions injured or homeless. Who created the wars in Korean peninsula and in Vietnam?
Who imposed, through deceits and hypocrisy, the Zionism and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries of the region?
Who imposed and supported for decades military dictatorship and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African, and Latin American nations.
Who used nuclear bomb against defenseless people, and stockpiled thousands of warheads in their arsenals?
Whose economies rely on waging wars and selling arms?
Who provoked and encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade and impose an eight-year war on Iran, and who assisted and equipped him to deploy chemical weapons against our cities and our people.
Who used the mysterious September 11 incident as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, killing, injuring, and displacing millions in two countries with the ultimate goal of bringing into its domination the Middle East and its oil resources?
Who nullified the Breton Woods system by printing trillions of dollars without the backing of gold reserves or equivalent currency? A move that triggered inflation worldwide and was intended to prey on the economic gains of other nations.
Which country’s military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world combined?
Which governments are the most indebted ones in the world?
Who dominates the policy-making establishments of the world economy?
Who are responsible for the world economic recession, and are imposing the consequences on America, Europe and the world in general?
Which governments are always ready to drop thousands of bombs on other countries, but ponder and hesitate to provide aid to famine-stricken people in
Somalia or in other places?
Who are the ones dominating the Security Council which is ostensibly responsible for safeguarding the international security?
There exist tens of other similar questions. Of course, the answers are clear. The majority of nations and governments of the world have had no role in the creation of the current global crises, and as a matter of fact, they were themselves the victims of such policies.
It is as lucid as daylight that the same slave masters and colonial powers that once instigated the two world wars have caused widespread misery and disorder with far-reaching effects across the globe since then.

All cultures, identities, lives, values and wealth of nations, women, youth, families as well as the wealth of nations are sacrificed to their imperialistic tendencies and their inclination to enslave and captivate others. Hypocrisy and deceit are allowed in order to secure their interests and imperialistic goals. Drug- trafficking and killing of innocent human beings are also allowed in pursuit of such diabolic goals. Despite NATO’s presence in theoccupied Afghanistan, there has been a dramatic increase in the production of illicit drugs there.
They tolerate no question or criticism, and instead of presenting a reason for their violations, they always put themselves in the position of a claimant.By using their imperialistic media network which is under the influence of colonialism they threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and the September 11 event with sanctions and military action.
Last year, when the need to form a fact-finding team to undertake a thorough investigation concerning the hidden elements involved in September 11 incident was brought up; an idea also endorsed by all independent governments and nations as well as by the majority in the United States, my country and myself came under pressure and threat by the government of the United States.
Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea.

Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad adressing the UN General Assembly

The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia

We Are Troy NYC protesting after the State of Georgia's legal lynching of an innocent man.
by Daniel Patrick Welch
That’s the night that the lights went out in Georgia
That’s the night that they killed an innocent ma.
Well, don’t trust your soul to no backwoods, southerly lawyer
‘Cos the judge in the town’s got blood stains on his hands
–Vicki Lawrence, 1973
I used to think that the US was a deeply religious country; so much so that its theocratic fundamentalism distorted every aspect of its crazed political agenda. Well, that last part is still true. But no one could engage in the kind of rampage of sadistic, destructive behavior in which our nation is engaged without the belief that there is no accounting, no consequence–in short, that there is no hell.
When the state of Georgia murdered Troy Davis on Wednesday, it brought condemnation from around the world. This act of state-sanctioned murder also brought into focus the death grip of moral certainty which now has a stranglehold on the US, even in the face of a world which increasingly sees it as morally bankrupt. But a society as thoroughly racist as the US is just as thoroughly determined, perhaps paradoxically–and perhaps not–to deny, ignore and deflect criticism that would raise any doubt, lest the festering sore of its legacy be provoked and proceed to sepsis.
Like a cornered liar or a thief with a guilty conscience, the righteous executioners must continue to see themsevles as upholding justice, democracy, human rights–whatever the good guys do–even when, no especially when, their crazed and horrific actions bring disastrous consequences for those around them. It is no surprise, then, that Barack Obama thought it inappropriate to intervene in the Davis case while simultaneously trying vigorously to blunt the effort for Palestinian self-determination. Nor could he or any in the elitosphere be expected to see the irony of his disinterest in Georgia’s killing a black man while he crowed to the UN about „liberating“ Libya, his much vaunted and bombastic rhetoric empty except for the contempt it showed for the Libyan people, the black segment of which is now at the mercy of the rapist racists of the TNC while Obama and his Euromercenary allies gladhand each other and twist the arm of any who dare disagree.
This sort of irony just can’t be scripted. Or, as Bart Simpson once famously said, „the ironing is delicous.“ But irony is apparently dead, as the banksters, swindlers, liars and oligarchs who bankrolled Obama’s election to the tune of 700 million dollars know all too well. And boy, did they get their money’s worth. Is it even possible to tailor a more perfect stooge for the job of pressing ahead with the Project for a New American Century and all the other tasks of empire with which the US president must be comfortable in order to keep his job? In the words of Zippy the Pinhead, „is dis a system??“
As in Georgia, there will be no remorse, no self-doubt, no awareness of what the rest of the world sees. Full steam ahead. And why should there be? The Peace Prize bestowed by the dynamite-inventing Nobel family (maybe irony died a lot longer ago than I thought) gave Obama carte blanche to pursue unfettered the dreams of empire, peddling old snake oil in new bottles to a gullible public that foolishly gave him the benefit of the doubt. Honey, the Chinese intern hopelessly in love with Doonesbury’s Duke, once went to, of all people, Henry Kissinger for some much needed advice. How, she wondered, could she reconcile her country’s revolutionary ideals with the excesses of the Cultural Revolution? Kissinger demurs: „Mao did what he had to do in the face of the Soviet threat. To counter the same threat, I advised Nixon to *invade Cambodia,* resulting the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians! But you don’t see *me* moping around….“ „Easy for you to say, Professor,“ Honey retorts. „You have your Peace Prize to fall back on.“ The more things change…
And true to form, leaders given an unearned benefit of the doubt are quick and deep to disappoint by any means necessary, throwing one yet another actual body under the doubt bus whose undercarriage is now clogged with the figurative bodies of Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and so many others. Naturally, it is just this benefit of the doubt that is denied to Troy Davis and so many like him. In fact, while their oppressors kill, imprison, invade, impoverish and lay waste with impunity and moral certainty, the Troy Davises of the world are punished for not expressing enough self-doubt, lest they be tagged with the most racist of all labels, uppity.
More than anything else, Troy was killed for being uppity, for not playing the game. The system’s final victory over the soul is to force it to submit. Orwell’s Room 101 was designed to do just that, to inflict such psychic pain that Winston Smith would cry ‘Do it to Julia!’ and eventually, of course, to love Big Brother. Troy denied them this victory. The day after the Supreme Court finally decided there was absolutely nothing unsettling about the Davis case, the Georgia Board of Pardons granted clemency to a white man who actually killed someone–admittedly shot him and beat him to death with a paint can. But unlike Davis, who stubbornly held to his uppity claim of innocence, the white fella showed remorse, good Christian tear-jerking, self-reforming remorse. Nothing a parole board loves more; we are after all, aren’t we, as David Duke and Evan Mecham dreamed, a Great White Christian Nation.
Perhaps it is better to have some clarity, to have issues defined in terms so black and white (pun intended–help me out here, people! I’m trying to breathe some life back into this irony thing). A lot of the work is already done for us, as capitalism and empire creak under the enormous weight of their own internal contradictions. The House of Cards is falling, and the guilty are running for the exits, just as they did at the UN in „protest“ of Ahmedinejad’s speech. Obama’s presidency is doomed, thank god, and will be little mourned. End It, Don’t Mend it, to paraphrase Senator Yoda aka The Hobbit aka the horrible little man, Joe Lieberman. Maybe we can put aside Progressive Internationalism–what those who claim to be progressives call the imperial killing of Iraqis, Pakistanis, Libyans, and soon, Syrians and Iranians if they have their way–and get back to good old Full Metal Spectrum Jacket Dominance…Syndrome…-itis…or whatever empire’s new label will be. Liberals can still be the useful idiots they are so good at being, but this time on our side instead of in service to empire and full-throttle-us capitalism.
And in the background, we can follow the advice of Troy Davis and the parting words of Joe Hill and Mother Jones–Don’t mourn, organize. Uppity is all we know, and there is no time like the present to push back against the powers who inculcate in us such paralyzing self-doubt while excercising absolutely none as they arrogantly plunder and take everthing to which they feel entitled. This is a classic tool of empire, satirized in the old irish revolutionary standard God Bless England. The kids like it for its catchy nonsense refrain, „Whack fol the diddle and the die do day,“ but its true message is in the verses: „When we were savage, fierce and wild/ She came as a mother to her child/ Gently raised us from the slime/ Kept our hands from hellish crime/ And she sent us to heave in her own good time!/ Whack fol the diddle and the die do day.“
As the Third World awakens and sheds this slavelike monniker (we could never really figure out what the hell it meant anyway), it sloughs off the equally belittling skins of the undeveloped, underdeveloped, developing, emerging, and becomes the Global South. The world’s people are increasingly aware–much more so than their US counterparts for sure–of who is on their side and who is not. The Europeans shed crocodile tears over Troy Davis and tut-tut their disapproval of a violent, racist America, while their pilots continue to drop bombs on Libya and wherever the imperial agenda next dictates, bringing the New Democracy of One Person, One Bomb to an African, Arab or Muslim country near you! Who knows, in the next installment they may be as prolific as in Libya, where their 30,000 bombs killed 60,000 people, or two people per bomb. See, under capitalism, even democracy expands in each fiscal quarter. Whack fol the diddle and the die do day….

Letter from President Hugo Chavez to the Secretary General of the United Nations

by Hugo Chavez
Miraflores, September 17, 2011
His Excellency, Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations
Mr. Secretary General:
Distinguished representatives of the peoples of the world:
I address these words to the United Nations General Assembly, to this great forum that represents all the people of earth, to ratify, on this day and in this setting, Venezuela’s full support of the recognition of the Palestinian State: of Palestine’s right to become a free, sovereign and independent state. This represents an act of historic justice towards a people who carry with them, from time immemorial, all the pain and suffering of the world.
In his memorable essay The Grandeur of Arafat, the great French philosopher Gilles Deleuze wrote with the full weight of the truth: The Palestinian cause is first and foremost the set of injustices that these people have suffered and continue to suffer. And I dare add that the Palestinian cause also represents a constant and unwavering will to resist, already written in the historic memory of the human condition. A will to resist that is born of the most profound love for the earth. Mahmoud Darwish, the infinite voice of the longed-for Palestine, with heartfelt conscience speaks about this love: We don’t need memories/ because we carry within us Mount Carmelo/ and in our eyelids is the herb of Galilee./ Don’t say: If only we could flow to my country like a river!/ Don’t say that!/ Because we are in the flesh of our country/ and our country is in our flesh.
Against those who falsely assert that what has happened to the Palestinian people is not genocide, Deleuze himself states with unfaltering lucidity: From beginning to end, it involved acting as if the Palestinian people not only must not exist, but had never existed. It represents the very essence of genocide: to decree that a people do not exist; to deny them the right to existence.
In this regard, the great Spanish writer Juan Goytisolo is quite right when he forcefully states: The biblical promise of the land of Judea and Samaria to the tribes of Israel is not a notarized property contract that authorizes the eviction of those who were born and live on that land. This is precisely why conflict resolution in the Middle East must, necessarily, bring justice to the Palestinian people; this is the only path to peace.
It is upsetting and painful that the same people who suffered one of the worst examples of genocide in history have become the executioners of the Palestinian people: it is upsetting and painful that the heritage of the Holocaust be the Nakba. And it is truly disturbing that Zionism continues to use the charge of anti-Semitism as blackmail against those who oppose their violations and crimes. Israel has, blatantly and despicably, used and continues to use the memory of the victims. And they do so to act with complete impunity against Palestine. It’s worth mentioning that anti-Semitism is a Western, European, scourge in which the Arabs do not participate. Furthermore, let’s not forget that it is the Semite Palestine people who suffer from the ethnic cleansing practiced by the Israeli colonialist State.
I want to make myself clear: It is one thing to denounce anti-Semitism, and an entirely different thing to passively accept that Zionistic barbarism enforces an apartheid regime against the Palestinian people. From an ethical standpoint those who denounce the first, must condemn the second.
A necessary digression: it is frankly abusive to confuse Zionism with Judaism. Throughout time we have been reminded of this by several Jewish intellectuals such as Albert Einstein and Erich Fromm. And today there are an ever increasing number of conscientious citizens, within Israel itself, who openly oppose Zionism and its criminal and terrorist practices.
We must spell it out: Zionism, as a world vision, is absolutely racist. Irrefutable proof of this can be seen in these words written with terrifying cynicism by Golda Meir: How are we to return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. It is not as people think, that there existed a people called Palestinians, who considered themselves as Palestinians, and that we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.“
It is important to remember that: from the end of the 19th century, Zionism called for the return of the Jewish people to Palestine and the creation of a national state of its own. This approach was beneficial for French and British colonialism, as it would later be for Yankee imperialism. The West has always encouraged and supported the Zionist occupation of Palestine by military means.
Read and reread the document historically known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917: the British Government assumed the legal authority to promise a national home in Palestine to the Jewish people, deliberately ignoring the presence and wishes of its inhabitants. It should be added that Christians and Muslims lived in peace for centuries in the Holy Land up until the time when Zionism began to claim it as its complete and exclusive property.
Let’s not forget that beginning in the second decade of the 20th century, Zionism started to develop its expansionist plans by taking advantage of the colonial British occupation of Palestine. By the end of World War II, the Palestinian people’s tragedy worsened, with their expulsion from their territory and, at the same time, from history. In 1947, the despicable and illegal UN resolution 181 recommends dividing Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State, and an area under international control (Jerusalem and Belem). Shamefully, 56 percent of the territory was granted to Zionism to establish its State. In fact, this resolution violated international law and blatantly ignored the will of the vast Arab majority: the right to self-determination of the people became a dead letter.
From 1948 to date, the Zionist State has continually applied its criminal strategy against the Palestinian people with the constant support of its unconditional ally, the United States of America. This unconditional allegiance is clearly observed by the fact that Israel directs and sets US international policy for the Middle East. That’s why the great Palestinian and universal conscience Edward Said stated that any peace agreement built on the alliance with the United States would be an alliance that confirms Zionist power, rather than one that confronts it.
Now then: contrary to what Israel and the United States are trying to make the world believe through transnational media outlets, what happened and continues to happen in Palestine —using Said’s words— is not a religious conflict, but a political conflict, with a colonial and imperialist stamp. It did not begin in the Middle East, but rather in Europe.
What was and continues to be at the heart of the conflict?: debate and discussion has prioritized Israel’s security while ignoring Palestine’s. This is corroborated by recent events; a good example is the latest act of genocide set off by Israel during its Operation Molten Lead in Gaza.
Palestine’s security cannot be reduced to the simple acknowledgement of a limited self-government and self-policing in its “enclaves” along the west bank of the Jordan and in the Gaza Strip. This ignores the creation of the Palestinian State, in the borders set prior to 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital; and the rights of its citizens and their self-determination as a people. This further disregards the compensation and subsequent return to the Homeland of 50 percent of the Palestinian people who are scattered all over the world, as established by resolution 194.
It’s unbelievable that a country (Israel) that owes its existence to a general assembly resolution could be so disdainful of the resolutions that emanate from the UN, said Father Miguel D’Escoto when pleading for the end of the massacre against the people of Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.
Mr. Secretary General and distinguished representatives of the peoples of the world:
It is impossible to ignore the crisis in the United Nations. In 2005, before this very same General Assembly, we argued that the United Nations model had become exhausted. The fact that the debate on the Palestinian issue has been delayed and is being openly sabotaged reconfirms this.
For several days, Washington has been stating that, at the Security Council, it will veto what will be a majority resolution of the General Assembly: the recognition of Palestine as a full member of the UN. In the Statement of Recognition of the Palestinian State, Venezuela, together with the sister Nations that make up the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), have denounced that such a just aspiration could be blocked by this means. As we know, the empire, in this and other instances, is trying to impose its double standard on the world stage: Yankee double standards are violating international law in Libya, while allowing Israel to do whatever it pleases, thus becoming the main accomplice of the Palestinian genocide being carried out by the hands of Zionist barbarity. Edward Said touched a nerve when he wrote that: Israeli interests in the United States have made the US’ Middle East policy Israeli-centric.
I would like to conclude with the voice of Mahmoud Darwish in his memorable poem On This Earth: We have on this earth what makes life worth living: On this earth, the lady of earth, Mother of all beginnings/ Mother of all ends. She was called… Palestine./ Her name later became… Palestine./ My Lady, because you are my Lady, I deserve life.
It will continue to be called Palestine: Palestine will live and overcome! Long-live free, sovereign and independent Palestine!
Hugo Chávez Frías
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

What Wikileaks tells us about Al-Jazeera

Is the rapidly expanding Middle East satellite television network and voice of the Arab Spring as independent as it claims?

Al Jazeera has been making waves in the Middle East ever since it aired its first broadcast on Nov. 1, 1996. In its news dispatches and talk shows, the pan-Arab satellite channel, which is funded by the state of Qatar, has been a strident critic of U.S. foreign policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Territories, even while it has been a thorn in the side of many an Arab autocrat. But after the last dump of leaked U.S. diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, on Aug. 30, articles have begun to circulate — especially in Iranian and Syrian media outlets — about Al Jazeera’s close relationship with a surprising interlocutor: the U.S. government.
In particular, a newly released cable issued by the U.S. Embassy in Doha and signed by then ambassador Chase Untermeyer, details a meeting between an embassy public affairs official and Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera’s director general, in which the latter is said to agree to tone down and remove what the United States terms „disturbing Al Jazeera website content.“
There have been longstanding accusations that Al Jazeera serves as an arm of its host nation’s foreign policy, and earlier leaked documents referred to the news organization as „one of Qatar’s most valuable political and diplomatic tools,“ which could be used as „a bargaining tool to repair relationships with other countries.“ Another document urges Sen. John Kerry to engage the Qatari government on Al Jazeera during a visit to the Gulf country, saying, „there are ample precedents for a bilateral dialogue on Al Jazeera as part of improving bilateral relations.“
Despite those assertions by U.S. diplomatic sources, both the network and the Qatari government fiercely insist that it is editorially independent and free from interference.
Skeptics take the latest leak as proof, though, that Al Jazeera is susceptible to external pressures, not least in part due to the document’s summary:
PAO [Public affairs officer] met 10/19 with Al Jazeera Managing Director Wadah Khanfar to discuss the latest DIA [U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency] report on Al Jazeera and disturbing Al Jazeera website content…. Khanfar said the most recent website piece of concern to the USG [U.S. government] has been toned down and that he would have it removed over the subsequent two or three days. End summary.
In what some are seizing upon as evidence of an American-Qatari conspiracy, the cable, dated October 2005, continues with a quote from Khanfar saying, „We need to fix the method of how we receive these reports,“ mentioning that he had found one of them „on the fax machine.“
Later, there is a reference in the memo to a sort of understanding that’s been reached between Al Jazeera and the U.S. government:
On a semantic level, [Khanfar] objected to the use of the word „agreement“ as used in the August report on the first page, under the heading „Violence in Iraq“, where a sentence reads: „In violation of the station’s agreement several months ago with US officials etc“. „The agreement was that it was a non-paper,“ said Khanfar. [A non-paper is diplomatic jargon for a proposal that is unofficial and has not been committed to.] „As a news organization, we cannot sign agreements of this nature, and to have it here like this in writing is of concern to us.“
Leaving it at that, the cable appears to be a smoking gun showing Al Jazeera at the U.S. government’s beck and call. Iran-owned Press TV uses this to conclude that „the US government has previously had a say in what content to appear on the al-Jazeera website.“ The website ArabCrunch similarly denounced Al Jazeera for responding to U.S. pressure, and says the cable „might have revealed the reason behind the AJ one sided coverage of Iraq in the recent years.“ Read in their full context, though, this and other leaked cables tell a very different story.
Khanfar could not be reached for comment, and Al Jazeera has made no official response to the latest claims, but a source at the channel told Foreign Policy that these sorts of meeting between high-level Al Jazeera management and U.S. officials are standard practice, and continue today. Elaborating, he said that representatives of numerous diplomatic missions regularly bring lists of complaints to Al Jazeera, but that doesn’t mean they are heeded or given undue weight.
The controversial cable actually backs up this comment to a certain extent, detailing Khanfar arguing with some points made in the U.S. government report presented to him by the embassy representative. „Some are simple mistakes which we accept and address,“ he said. Other points, such as airing views not favorable to the United States, are taken out of context, given that the contrasting opinion would have its due in a later report, he said. Khanfar also tells the representative that some grievances can’t be addressed, including the use of „terrorist tapes“ on air, which he insists is the network’s policy so long as they are edited for newsworthiness. And obviously, he states, he can’t very well prevent guests or interviewees from using language deemed by the U.S. government as „inflammatory.“
Reviewing the „troublesome website material“ Khanfar agreed to tone down, the U.S. public affairs officer cites a sensationalistic report carried by Al Jazeera’s Arabic website:
The site opens to an image of bloody sheets of paper riddled with bullet holes.  Viewers click on the bullet holes to access testimony from ten alleged „eye witnesses“…
The unnamed U.S. officer tells Khanfar that the report „came across as inflammatory and journalistically questionable.“ It then says, „Khanfar appeared to repress a sigh but said he would have the piece removed.“
Al Jazeera — while lauded internationally for the quality of its broadcasts — has more than once had to backpeddle on content carried by the website, which operates somewhat autonomously from the Arabic channel in an office across town. In 2007, for example, the site carried a poll asking readers if they „support Al Qaeda’s attacks in Algeria.“ A majority of the poll’s 30,000 respondents answered yes, sparking a furor from the Algerian media, accusing the channel of legitimizing al Qaeda. The website’s manager later said posting the poll was a grave error and had been done without his permission.
Beyond this specific memo, WikiLeaks has published more than 30 cables from the U.S. Embassy in Doha with the label Al Jazeera, and many more making mention of the news organization, ranging in date from September 2005 to February 2010. But the portrait the leaked cables paint is not evidence of any sort of conspiracy so much as an organization struggling to maintain professional standards.
The earliest available cable discusses preparations for the launch of „Al Jazeera International,“ the original name of Al Jazeera English, and the recording of a pilot called „The Hassan and Josh Show.“ Offering some insights into the younger channel’s development, it says operations were „still in a somewhat chaotic embryonic stage“ in 2005.
Curiously, that pilot, which never made it to air, was hosted by the two stars of the 2004 Iraq war documentary Control Room — former marine Josh Rushing and veteran Al Jazeera journalist Hassan Ibrahim. The cable’s author concluded that Ibrahim and Rushing were „clearly still amateur anchors and will need considerable practice to present a more professional and engaging program.“
The next available cable documents an earlier meeting between Khanfar and the embassy’s public affairs officer, in which the Al Jazeera director likens the „War on Terror“ to Osama bin Laden’s tactic of saying, „You’re either with us, or against us.“ Khanfar insists Al Jazeera belongs in neither camp.
Another document from 2005 describes steps Al Jazeera has taken to shore up shifting standards in quality:
Khanfar noted that he holds a daily 1pm meeting with an AJ quality assurance team entrusted with implementing AJ’s code of ethics and conduct, which views and anlayzes all Al Jazeera programming, looking for lapses in professionalism, balance and objectivity. „That meeting is very tight, tighter even than your list,“ said Khanfar.
The author of that cable concludes that Khanfar „is clearly committed to bringing Al Jazeera up to professional international standards of journalism and … seems to be not only open to criticism but to welcome it.“
Following up, U.S. Embassy officials later met with Jaafar Abbas Ahmed, the head of Al Jazeera’s Quality Assurance (QA) unit, who, they said was frank about „resistance and hostility“ from the channel’s older generation of journalists. Abbas told them some Al Jazeera staff treat the quality assurance team with suspicion, referring to them at times as the KGB and CIA.
„According to Abbas, the effort to professionalize Al Jazeera is an uphill one,“ the cable reads, indicating the biggest problem he faced was that „old habits die hard.“ It continues:
While AJ started out with a significant number of ex-BBC reporters, this cadre has shrunk over the years, attracted to other channels such as Al Arabiyya, Abbas said. He added that only a handful remains.
A majority of the remaining journalism staff are therefore ex-state TV reporters. They may be brilliant, but the journalistic culture they have absorbed is different from the one AJ is trying to cultivate, Abbas explained.
At least one expert who has studied the network in depth says Al Jazeera’s culture may be the very thing behind the mixed standards in output.
„[My] academic research shows influence is not something that comes on a top-down level — you have to look at the individuals working there,“ said Mohamed Zayani, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and co-author of the book The Culture of Al Jazeera: Inside an Arab Media Giant.
„What we got time and again was that there was a big margin of freedom… and journalists were empowered by it,“ he told me. But that also makes Al Jazeera more susceptible to the subjective views of individual employees, he said.
Al Jazeera has, if anything, become even more of a household name in recent years, and has been recognized in the West by no less than U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for offering „real news.“ The organization has aggressively covered the „Arab Spring“ uprisings across the Middle East, even dropping popular programming to air around-the-clock coverage as revolts have climaxed in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Justifiably or not, though, critics accuse the broadcaster of ignoring the unrest in its own backyard, the Gulf.
In the case of Syria, Al Jazeera has faced backlash for covering the brutal crackdown on opposition protesters by the government there. Syrians have accused Al Jazeera of seeking to foment unrest in the country, and at least one media outlet even accused the Qatar-based broadcaster of setting up film studios to stage some of the uprising. It comes as no surprise, then, that some might seize on the latest leaked cables as a way to discredit the news organization as simply being a mouthpiece for the U.S. government.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi speech, English subtitles, 20.09.2011 – Mathaba

Transcription via MATHABA
„All should be aware that the government of Libya is the Jamahiriya government, that the power belongs to the men and women of the Popular Conferences and the People’s Committees in Libya. This Government by the People will never fail nor fall. It embodies the millions of Libyans and for that reason it can’t fall. Anyone who says Qaddafi’s government has fallen is nothing but ridiculous and a joke. Qaddafi doesn’t have a government, therefore that government can’t fall. Qaddafi is out of power since 1977 when I have passed the power to the People’s Committees of the Jamahiriya. When 2,000 tribes meet and declare that only the Libyan people represent Libya, doesn’t that say enough?
This is the answer to NATO which has said the National Transitional Council from Benghazi represents the Libyan people. The Libyan people are here and they are with me, nobody can represent us. So no legitimacy to anything else or anyone else, the power belongs to the people. All Libyans are members of the People’s Committees. Anything else is false.
What is happening now in Libya is a charade which can only take place because of the NATO air raids, which will not last forever. When they have left the traitors will be gone too. We are ready to die for the Power of the People. This is what we stand for and this is what our martyrs have been standing for.“

Michael Parenti – Profit Pathology and its Alternatives

Q & A


Demonstration in support of Muammar Gaddafi, against the NATO counter-revolution in Libya [18.09.2011]

Demonstration in support of Muammar Gaddafi, against the NATO counter-revolution, in Tarhunah 09/18/2011
Libyan citizens rallying in support of Gaddafi and in opposition to NATO +rebels.

Michel Chossudovsky on RT – „NATO recruiting jihadists to invade Syria“

Across in Syria, at least four people were reportedly killed in crackdowns on anti-government protests on Sunday. The ongoing violence in the country has left more than two and a half thousand dead in the past few months. Moscow’s stepping up its efforts to mediate a peaceful solution to the conflict. A team of Russian lawmakers is on the ground on a fact-finding mission in the country. They say Damascus appears to be committed to Democratic reform. The Kremlin is also circulating a draft resolution at the UN that’s aimed at urging the warring sides towards dialogue. Moscow’s approach rivals the U.S.-backed draft, which targets Damascus and urges President Assad to step down. Political analyst Michel Chossudovsky says the Russian delegation will have its hands full in Syria.

Libyan Jamahiriya stands its ground against NATO rebels

Real Revolutionairies defends themselves against Fake Corporate Manufactured Revolution (brought to you by BP, BAE, Lockheed Martin, Ratheon, IMF, WTO, NATO and all the rest)
The NATO-rebel’s quest to force the Libyan population under its control has faced strong resistance with 80% of Libya still under popular democratic Jamahiriya control.
Disciplined Libyan defence forces are staging precision attacks and withering shelling barrages to defend land that includes Moammar Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte against the invaders and terrorists.
The entire central area between the NATO-rebel hub of Benghazi and the capital Tripoli — is turning into a seat of resistance to foreign occupying forces such as  zones in Iraq or Afghanistan. Defence forces have killed hundreds of NATO-rebels in recent days.
“Its cities are packed with weapons, missiles and ammunition depots,” said Fadl-Allah Haroun, a commander of NATO-rebel units near Benghazi. “It is an unbelievable force.”
NATO rebel fighters have been assembling for an expected push into the well-defended town of Bani Walid, after seven months of very limited success and only with constant NATO bombing support which has already claimed well over 50,000 lives, on the western end of the 240-mile (400-kilometer) band of pro-Gadhafi territory. It includes the popular Libya leader Muammar Qaddafi’s Mediterranean birthplace city of Sirte and stretches to near the oil port of Ras Lanouf — which came under back-to-back attacks by Libyan Jamahiriya defence forces on Monday killed dozens of NATO-rebels and foreign mercenaries.
The stiff resistance in Bani Walid, inspite of a month of heavy blockade and intense bombing from NATO forces, including resistance by what NATO rebels claim are highly trained snipers, offers a glimpse of possibly much bigger fights ahead to try to dislodge Sirte and other places from the Libyan people who are defending their freedom against the foreign invasion and Arab traitors and terrorists.
Cities and towns throughout the center of the Libyan Jamahiriya are still under control of the people who are armed for defense along with larger weapons such as 152mm Howitzer canons now well hidden against NATO airstrikes that continue in the area, NATO-rebel commanders told The Associated Press.
The Libyan defence commandos also stage hit-and-run strikes from the desert to the south against the NATO-rebels, with Libya’s vast hinterlands and distant pro-Qaddafi hubs such as Sabha becoming rallying points for resistance fighters who are now joining from other African states to defend the continent against the bankrupt imperialist nations seeking to seize its resources.
Already an estimated 150 billion dollars have been „seized“ by imperialist forces controlling the UN Security Council, however so long as the legitimate democratic government which is still recognized by most of the world is in power, these assets cannot be handed over to the foreign-backed terrorist regime, observers point out.
The Jamahiriya still has a reported 144 tons of gold, worth around 7 billion dollars which the NATO-rebels have not been able to seize.
Outside Wadi Al-Hammar, a village on the coastal road about 55 miles (90 kilometers) east of Sirte, NATO-rebels have found armored vehicles hidden under tents and other weapons stashed in encampments of nomadic Bedouin tribesmen.
Al-Tayab Said, a NATO-rebel commander from Sabha, said Jamahiriya resistance fighters are trying to regroup and are using desert supply lines from Algeria.
“They are moving freely across the border,” he said. “They get constant supply.”
Algeria is supporting the Jamahiriya as both Libya and Algeria are threatened by Al-Qaida allied terrorists, which have been exposed as being under the control of western nations intelligence services to the consternation of western politicians that have their eyes open such as Dennis Kucinich in the USA and who are seeking prosecution of western regime heads for their backing of terrorists.
Other NATO-rebel  leaders have noted the superior fighting tactics of the highly trained Libya defence force units.
A battlefield report about a Mitsubishi pickup is now making the rounds as a cautionary tale: on Saturday, Libyan Jamahiriya defence forces left the vehicle — loaded with ammunition — in a conspicuous hilltop in Wadi Al-Hammar. NATO-rebel fighters rushed to claim the prize, but were picked off by hidden marksmen. At least 35 deaths were counted before the group managed to retreat to safety.
Dr. Ahmed Alsharif, who heads a field hospital in Nawfaliyah, said at least 80 NATO-rebel fighters have been killed since Saturday in or around the hospital.
The Libyan resistance is strong because in Libya the government is by the people — a direct participatory democracy based on people’s conferences and elected people’s committees. The self-governing Libyan society is thus called a „Jamahiriya“ a term coined to describe a country without a traditional government which is considered dictatorship, and instead the people themselves ruling themselves.

Mathaba Reporter with Latest News on Libya [19.09.2011]

Some uplifting updates from Dennis South who reports for Mathaba and thought it was worth sharing:
Things are looking up, in case you hadn’t had a chance to keep up. Here are 12 major, BIG positivies:
‎1. The attacks on Bani Walid were rebuffed severely by the Libyan Defence Forces. The „rebels“ lost 1000 soldiers.2. Same is the case with their attack on Sirte.3. Ditto for Sebha 4. The Libyan Defense Forces re-captured Brega. That’s the oil port where they ship out oil. It’s what NATO wanted to capture, and hold, more than anything.
5. The Libyan Defense Forces re-captured Ras Lanouf, a city that holds an important oil refinery.
6. Gaddafi now has at least 10,000 Tuaregs at his disposal (and maybe more), and some of them have crossed into Libya to help him fight. I believe they are now part of his security squad.
7. Other Saharan tribes and sub-tribes are rallying behind Gaddafi. These are non-Libyans
8. There’s a gradual trickle of Arab fighters, from other countries, coming to Libya to fight alongside Gaddafi. That is a big surprise, quite frankly (though it shouldn’t be).
9. Although most all of Tripoli is in the hands of the „rebels,“ LDF sniper-marksmen are popping off „rebels“ left and right, using silencers. It’s guerilla warfare
10. There is mass chaos in Benghazi, the HQ of the „rebels.“ Residents are flying the green flag, in defiance of the „rebels.“ Al-Qaeda wants Mustafa Abdul Jalil, head of the „rebels,“ dead, and the „rebels“ themselves are fighting against each other, even on the battlefield
11. The Egyptian army has not been able to stop Arab tribes from crossing the Egyptian border and going into Libya to help Gaddafi.
12. The „rebels“ have no chain of command, and this week they fought each other about that.
13. Today, when ordered to return to Bani Walid to fight, the rebels REFUSED. When asked by their commanders, „Is it because of fatigue,“ they said, „No. It is because we cannot continue shedding Libyan blood.“
via Stop the aggression in Libya
Of course there is no verification from any mainstream media yet, but since it is nearly impossible to get information about whats really going on on the ground in those cities right now we have to spread the reports we get from the left non-corporate journalists.
Outside Sirte Nato backed TNC Rebels destroying a mural depicting HEROES of African Independence. Talking about "freedom fighters" ....

No comments:

Post a Comment