UNICEF: 1.4 Million Children Could Die from Famine in Africa, Yemen

Yemeni child

Local Editor

Nearly 1.4 million children are at imminent risk of death from hunger in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen, the UN children’s agency warned.

Yemeni child

In Yemen, with war tearing the country apart for two years, some 462,000 children are suffering from severe acute malnutrition, UNICEF said.

The Saudi-led strikes on Yemen don’t make the situation any better: in January, the UN warned that over 7,000 people had died in the attacks and about two-thirds of the population is in need of humanitarian aid.

At the same time, 450,000 children are malnourished in northeast Nigeria, and the famine early warning group Fews Net expressed concern that some remote areas of the Nigerian state of Borno are already in famine.

Fews Net also warned that should the disaster go on, aid agencies wouldn’t be able to get to the remote area.

In Somalia, the drought saw 185,000 children malnourished, and these numbers look set to skyrocket to 270,000 over the next few months, according to UNICEF.

Some 270,000 children are currently malnourished in South Sudan and a famine has just been declared in the north of the country.

UNICEF urged the world for prompt response, with Executive Director Anthony Lake saying “we can still save many lives.”

“Time is running out for more than a million children,” Lake added. “The severe malnutrition and looming famine are largely man-made. Our common humanity demands faster action. We must not repeat the tragedy of the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa.”

Source: News Agencies, Edited by Website Team

22-02-2017 | 09:22

Related Videos

Related articles

 

 

 

Trump: Trumpeting For a War on Iran?

Global Research, February 06, 2017
donald-trump-iran

The Trump Administration’s rhetoric and actions have alarmed the world.  The protests in response to his visa ban have overshadowed and distracted from a darker threat: war with Iran.   Is the fear of the threat greater than the threat itself?  The answer is not clear.

Certainly Americans and non-Americans who took comfort in the fact that we would have a more peaceful world believing that ‘Trump would not start a nuclear war with Russia must now have reason to pause.  The sad and stark reality is that US foreign policy is continuous.    An important part of this continuity is a war that has been waged against Iran for the past 38 years⎯unabated.

The character of this war has changed over time.  From a failed coup which attempted to destroy  the Islamic Republic in its early days (the Nojeh Coup), to aiding Saddam Hossein with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, helping and promoting the terrorist MEK group, the training and recruiting of the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, putting Special Forces on the ground in Iran, the imposition of sanctioned terrorism, the lethal Stuxnet cyberattack,  and the list goes on and on, as does the continuity of it.

While President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force and put boots on the Ground in the Persian Gulf, virtually every U.S. president since has threatened Iran with military action.  It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table.  However, thus far, every U.S. administration has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran.

To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to engage militarily with Iran, , the 2002 Millennium Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war with Iran.   The challenge was too daunting.  It is not just Iran‘s formidable defense forces that have to be reckoned with; but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway off the coast of Iran.  Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy.

Faced with this reality, over the years, the United States has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military confrontation with Iran.  These plans have included promoting the false narrative of an imaginary threat from a non-existent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in terrorism (when in fact Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades as illustrated above).   These ‘alternate facts’ have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran, and to buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz.

Plan B: West Africa and Yemen

In early 2000s, the renowned British think tank Chatham House issued one of the first publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed an earlier strategy paper for the U.S. to move toward African oil⎯The African White Paper⎯that was on the desk May 31, 2000 of then U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of energy giant Halliburton. In 2002, the Israeli-based think tank, IASPS, suggested America push toward African oil.   In an interesting coincidence, in the same year, the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, was “founded”.

In 2007, the United States African Command (AFRICOM) helped consolidate this push into the region.  The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined ‘US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States’.   This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nigeria and Yemen took on new importance.

In 2012, several alternate routes to Strait of Hormuz were identified which at the time of the report were considered to be limited in capacity and more expensive.   However, collectively, the West African oil and control of Bab Al-Mandeb would diminish the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz in case of war.

In his article for the Strategic Culture Foundation, “The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran” geo-political researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya correctly states: “[T] he US wants to make sure that it could control the Bab Al-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands (Yemen). Bab Al-Mandeb it is an important strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments that connect the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea. It is just as important as the Suez Canal for the maritime shipping lanes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

War on Iran has never been a first option. The neoconservative think tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argued in its 2004 policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant regime in Tehran.  Instead of direct conflict, the policy paper [a must read] called for the assassination of scientists, introducing a malware, covertly provide Iran plans with a design flaw, sabotage, introduce viruses, etc.  These suggestions were fully and faithfully executed against Iran.

With the policy enacted, much of the world sighed with relief when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA , or the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which restricts Iran’s domestic nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Iran) was signed in the naïve belief that a war with Iran had been alleviated.   Obama’s genius was in his execution of U.S. policies which disarmed and disbanded the antiwar movements.  But the JCPOA was not about improved relations with Iran, it was about undermining it.  As recently as April 2015, as the signing of the JCPOA was drawing near, during a speech at the Army War College Strategy Conference, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work elaborated on how the Pentagon plans to counter the three types of wars supposedly being waged by Iran, Russia, and China.

As previously planned, the purpose of the JCPOA was to pave the way for a compliant regime in Tehran faithful to Washington, failing that, Washington would be better prepared for war for  under the JCPOA, Iran would open itself up to inspections.  In other words, the plan would act as a Trojan horse to provide America with targets and soft spots.  Apparently the plan was not moving forward fast enough to please Obama, or Trump.  In direct violation of international law and concepts of state sovereignty, the Obama administration slammed sanctions on Iran for testing missiles.   Iran’s missile program was and is totally separate from the JCPOA and Iran is within its sovereign rights and within the framework of international law to build conventional missiles.

Trump followed suit. Trump ran on a campaign of changing Washington and his speeches were full of contempt for Obama; ironically, like Obama, candidate Trump continued the tactic of disarming many by calling himself a deal maker, a businessman who would create jobs, and for his rhetoric of non-interference.    But few intellectuals paid attention to his fighting words, and fewer still heeded the advisors he surrounded himself with or they would have noted that Trump considers Islam as the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and Russia.

The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his administration reflect the contrarian character of Trump and indicate their support of this continuity in US foreign policy.  Former intelligence chief and Trump’s current National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, stated that the Obama administration willfully allowed the rise of ISIS, yet the newly appointed Pentagon Chief “Mad Dog Mattis” has stated: “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief.”  So the NSC (National Security Council) believes that Obama helped ISIS rise and the Pentagon believes that ISIS helps Iran continue its ‘mischief’.  Is it any wonder that Trump is both confused and confusing?

And is it any wonder that when on January 28th Trump signed an Executive Order calling for a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days the US, UK, France and Australia ran war games drill in the Persian Gulf that simulated a confrontation with Iran⎯ the country that has, itself, been fighting ISIS.   When Iran exercised its right, by international law, to test a missile, the United States lied and accused Iran of breaking the JCPOA. Threats and new sanctions ensued.

Trump, the self-acclaimed dealmaker who took office on the promise of making new jobs, slammed more sanctions on Iran. Sanctions take jobs away from Americans by prohibiting business with Iran, and they also compel Iranians to become fully self-sufficient, breaking the chains of neo-colonialism. What a deal!

Even though Trump has lashed out at friend and foe, Team Trump has realized that when it comes to attacking a formidable enemy, it cannot do it alone.   Although both in his book, Time to Get Tough, and on his campaign trails he has lashed out at Saudi Arabia, in an about face, he has not included Saudis and other Arab state sponsors of terror on his travel ban list.   It would appear that someone whispered in Mr. Trump’s ear that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar are fighting America’s dirty war in Yemen (and in Syria) and killing Yemenis.  In fact, the infamous Erik Prince, founder of the notorious Blackwater who is said to be advising Trump from the shadows, received a $120 million contract from the Obama Administration, and for the past several years has been working with Arab countries, UAE in particular, in the “security” and “training” of militias in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen.

So will there be a not so distant military confrontation with Iran?

Not if sanity prevails.  And with Trump and his generals, that is a big IF While for many years the foundation has been laid and preparations made for a potential military confrontation with Iran, it has always been a last resort; not because the American political elite did not want war, but because they cannot win THIS war. For 8 years, Iran fought not just Iraq, but virtually the whole world.   America and its allies funded Saddam’s war against Iran, gave it intelligence and weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction.  In a period when Iran was reeling from a revolution, its army was in disarray, its population virtually one third of the current population, and its supply of US provided weapons halted Yet Iran prevailed. Various American administrations have come to the realization that while it may take a village to fight Iran, attacking Iran would destroy the global village.

It is time for us to remind Trump that we don’t want to lose our village.

This article was first submitted to the print edition of Worldwide Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) newsletter.  

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy.

Obama’s Legacy In Africa: Terrorism, Civil War & Military Expansion

Obama’s Legacy In Africa: Terrorism, Civil War & Military Expansion      

Independent geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser examines the effect of the Obama administration on Africa. What he finds is less hope and change, and more chaos and death.

The corporate media is predictably churning out nauseating retrospectives of Obama’s presidency, gently soothing Americans to sleep with fairy tales about the progressive accomplishments of President Hope and Change.

But amid the selective memory and doublethink which passes for sophisticated punditry within the controlled media matrix, let us not forget that in Africa the name Barack Obama is now synonymous with destabilization, death, and destruction.

The collective gasps of liberals grow to a deafening roar at the mere suggestion that Obama is more sinner than saint, but perhaps it would be useful to review the facts and the record rather than the carefully constructed mythos being shoehorned into history books under the broad heading of “Legacy.”

 

‘Africa’s future is up to Africans’

US President Barack Obama walks with Ghana President John Atta Mills, right, at the Presidential Palace in Accra, Ghana, July 11, 2009. (AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

US President Barack Obama walks with Ghana President John Atta Mills, right, at the Presidential Palace in Accra, Ghana, July 11, 2009. (AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

In the summer of 2009, little more than six months after being inaugurated, President Obama stood before the Ghanaian Parliament to deliver a speech intended to set the tone for his administration’s Africa policy. In addressing a crowd of hundreds in the Ghanaian capital, he was, in fact, speaking directly to millions of Africans all over the continent and throughout the diaspora. For if Obama represented Hope and Change for the people of the United States, that was doubly true for African people.

In that mostly forgettable speech, Obama declared:

“We must start from the simple premise that Africa’s future is up to Africans … the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants.”

Building prosperity, shedding corruption and tyranny, and taking on poverty and disease, he said
“can only be done if you take responsibility for your future. And it won’t be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you every step of the way, as a partner, as a friend.”

Despite being the First Black President, Obama’s words and deeds with respect to Africa perfectly embody “the White Man’s Burden” — that desire to help those poor, lowly wretches whose poverty, corruption, disease, and violence must be the product of some natural deficiency. Surely, five centuries of colonialism, combined with Obama-style imperial arrogance, had nothing to do with it.

Women wearing traditional dresses bearing the image of President Barack Obama chant his name after he addressed the Ghanaian Parliament in Accra, Ghana,, July 11, 2009. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

Women wearing traditional dresses bearing the image of President Barack Obama chant his name after he addressed the Ghanaian Parliament in Accra, Ghana,, July 11, 2009. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

But let us take Obama’s words at face value and evaluate whether Obama was able to live up to those high-minded and idealistic goals throughout his two terms in office.

Obama repeatedly stressed African agency, arguing that the United States and the West cannot solve Africa’s problems for her. Instead, he argued that the United States will be a “partner” and a “friend.” And yet, within two years of the pledge to let Africans resolve their own problems, U.S.-NATO jets were dropping bombs on Libya in support of al-Qaida-linked terrorists who would topple and brutally assassinate Moammar Gadhafi, perhaps the single strongest voice for African independence and self-sufficiency.

Considering the tens of thousands of deaths and the utter destruction and dissolution of Libya into warring tribal militias and multiple fragmented governments barely able to be called legitimate, it is particularly galling that Obama stood before the United Nations and declared the U.S.-NATO war on Libya to be a success. Exactly one month before Gadhafi’s heinous torture and assassination, Obama arrogantly stated on Sept. 20, 2011:

“This is how the international community should work in the 21st century — more nations bearing the responsibility and the costs of meeting global challenges. In fact, this is the very purpose of this United Nations. So every nation represented here today can take pride in the innocent lives we saved and in helping Libyans reclaim their country. It was the right thing to do.”

Yes, the very same president who two years earlier proclaimed that “Africa’s future is up to Africans” was a champion of French, British, Italian, and U.S. military forces imposing their will on a prosperous and independent African nation, transforming it into a chaotic and bloody failed state. So much for Hope and Change.

But of course the tragic story of Libya does not stop with just the destruction of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the assassination of Gadhafi. Rather, the war on Libya opened the floodgates for weapons smuggling, terrorism and destabilization all over the African continent. According to a 2013 report by the U.N. Security Council’s Group of Experts:

“Cases, both proven and under investigation, of illicit transfers from Libya in violation of the embargo cover more than 12 countries and include heavy and light weapons, including man-portable air defense systems, small arms and related ammunition and explosives and mines.”

The report continued, warning that “illicit flows from the country are fueling [sic] existing conflicts in Africa and the Levant and enriching the arsenals of a range of non-State actors, including terrorist groups.”

A photo from 2011 shows buildings ravaged by fighting in Sirte, Libya. Islamic State militants have controlled the city since August 2015. The U.S. military has announced ongoing airstrikes against targets in Sirte.

A photo from 2011 shows buildings ravaged by fighting in Sirte, Libya. ISIS militants have controlled the city since August 2015 as the U.S. military has carried out airstrikes against targets in Sirte, and other Libyan cities.

“The proliferation of weapons from Libya continues at an alarming rate.”

Indeed, those weapons flowing from Libya have directly fueled the civil war in Mali, facilitated the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria, empowered the terror group al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, and led to the rise of terrorist gangs and death squads in Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, and elsewhere on the continent. In effect, Obama’s war on Libya was the opening salvo of a continent-wide destabilization the effects of which are still being felt today and likely will continue to be felt for years, if not decades, to come.

With these troubling facts in mind, we return to Obama’s speech in Ghana, where he haughtily pronounced that the West is not responsible for Africa’s problems. Naturally, any student of colonialism and African history would immediately object to such selective memory. One wonders whether decades from now, when the legacy of the wars and terrorism that grew out of Obama’s policies is still being felt, another president will stand before Africa and again chastise her for not solving her own problems.

 

Obama: The smiling face of neo-colonialism

President Barack Obama smiles before he addresses the Ghanaian Parliament in Accra, Ghana, July 11, 2009. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

President Barack Obama smiles before he addresses the Ghanaian Parliament in Accra, Ghana, July 11, 2009. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

Were Obama’s crimes against peace in Africa limited only to the war on Libya and its effects, one could simply call it a blunder of historical proportions. But Obama had much more blood to spill in Africa while expanding the U.S. military footprint there.

Primary among these initiatives to grow the U.S. military presence in Africa was the expansion of the U.S. Africa Command, or AFRICOM. In June of 2013, Ebrahim Shabbir Deen of the Johannesburg-based Afro-Middle East Centre noted:

“[AFRICOM] has surreptitiously managed to infuse itself into various African militaries. This has been accomplished mainly through military-to-military partnerships which the command has with fifty-one of Africa’s fifty-five states. In many instances, these partnerships involve African militaries ceding operational command to AFRICOM.”

In fact, while President George W. Bush was responsible for the establishment of AFRICOM, it was Obama who expanded it into a continental military force into which national military forces have been subsumed. In effect, Obama was able to make African nations, and especially their militaries, into wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pentagon and U.S. military-industrial complex. But it’s ok, Obama did it with a smile and with the credibility of the “native son” of the continent.

Similarly, Obama is directly responsible for the ongoing bloodshed in South Sudan, where he championed the separatism which led to the creation of that country and the predictable civil war which has followed. Obama declared in 2011 upon the formal independence of South Sudan that: “Today is a reminder that after the darkness of war, the light of a new dawn is possible. A proud flag flies over Juba and the map of the world has been redrawn.” But Obama may have spoken too soon, as the darkness of war drags on in the devastated country where a “new dawn” seems about as likely as Obama admitting his failure.

And while Obama, as usual, waxed poetic about independence and freedom, the reality is that his backing of South Sudan was more about gaining a geopolitical advantage against China than about high-minded ideals.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, outgoing Africa Command commander Gen. William Ward, and the new Africa Command commander Gen. Carter Ham, center from left, take part in the AFRICOM change of command ceremony at the City Hall in Sindelfingen near Stuttgart, Germany, Wednesday, March 9, 2011. (AP/Mandel Ngan)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, outgoing Africa Command commander Gen. William Ward, and the new Africa Command commander Gen. Carter Ham, center from left, take part in the AFRICOM change of command ceremony at the City Hall in Sindelfingen near Stuttgart, Germany, Wednesday, March 9, 2011. (AP/Mandel Ngan)

Similarly, Obama used the expanded capabilities of U.S. military and CIA in Africa to greatly increase the Pentagon and Langley’s presence in Somalia. As Jeremy Scahill reported in The Nation in December of 2014:

“The CIA runs a counterterrorism training program for Somali intelligence agents and operatives aimed at building an indigenous strike force capable of snatch operations and targeted ‘combat’ operations against members of Al Shabab, an Islamic militant group with close ties to Al Qaeda.

As part of its expanding counterterrorism program in Somalia, the CIA also uses a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters … Some of the prisoners have been snatched off the streets of Kenya and rendered by plane to Mogadishu.”

It should be noted that the policies — the crimes against peace — highlighted here represent only a fraction of the eight years of Obama policies on the continent; a complete accounting of Obama’s crimes against Africa would likely require a book-length analysis. The intent here is to illustrate that the man who stood before Africa professing to be a friend was as much friend to Africa as the hangman is to the condemned.

Were it someone other than the first black president, perhaps there might have been an outcry at the rape and plunder of the continent, the militarization and destabilization of Africa. And yet, throughout the past eight years, there has been a deafening silence from liberals whose ideals and values apparently extend only as far as party loyalty allows.

In a beautifully precise term coined by Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, Obama represented not the lesser, but “the more effective,” evil. And when it came to Africa, that was doubly true. Who but Obama could have destroyed nations, fomented terrorism, plundered the wealth, and militarized and destabilized the entire continent all while flashing a hypnotic grin?

For the African people, however, Obama’s perfect teeth and intoxicating smile hide a forked tongue. And as for Obama’s Africa “legacy,” it can be found in the graveyards of Libya, Nigeria, and beyond.

Be Sociable, Share!

Daesh Generations أجيال “داعش”

15 كانون الثاني ,2017  13:54 مساء

يعمل تنظيم “داعش” الذي ملأ الدنيا بالدماء وشغل الناس بالقتل والتفجير والتفخيخ والحرق والإبادة على توريث منهاجه من أجل إقامة الخلافة الإسلامية لأجيال جديدة من “داعش” والتي لا تتوفر عنها أي قاعدة بيانات ومعلومات كصورهم وأسمائهم الحقيقية وتاريخهم في العمل المسلح ومناطق وجودهم في العراق أو سورية والعالم العربي والإسلامي والغرب، ويمكن القول إن الجيل الأول من الجهاديين هو الجيل المتدين والذي تبنى العنف والتشدد وحمل على الدول الطاغوتية الكافرة بزعمه، ثم الجيل الثاني الذي تمثل في القاعدة حيث بدأت هذه الأخيرة تهتم بالتنظيم والسرية والعمل الاستخباري، وبرز بعد ذلك جيل ثالث من الجهاديين ممثلاً في “داعش” الذي استفاد من كل الذين قادوا العمل المسلح ضد دولهم ومجتمعاتهم وأضاف المزيد من الأساليب المبتكرة باجتهاد الدم.

ويذهب الخبراء الغربيون ومنهم جيل كيبل إلى القول أن الجيل الثالث من “داعش” موجود في معظم العواصم الغربية كخلايا نائمة بناء على تنظير لأبي مصعب السوري الذي طرح مشروع استهداف أوروبا التي تبقى في جميع الأحوال أقرب إلى ساحة العمليات وأضعف من أميركا، فضلاً عن أن أوروبا تمثل بيئة خصبة لتجنيد الملايين من المسلمين الأوروبيين أو المهاجرين أو حتى المعتنقين الجدد للإسلام، والجيل الثالث للسلفية الجهادية هو جيل شاب فغالبية عناصرها من جيل عشريني وثلاثيني ويتسم خطابهم بتشدد وعدوانية للمخالفين أكثر من الأجيال السابقة، فقد تميز كل من الجيل الأول والثاني من السلفية الجهادية بمحاربة العدو البعيد، بينما ركز الجيل الثالث على المخالف الطائفي والعقائدي فقط.

ويذهب بعض الخبراء إلى القول أن نهاية “داعش” لن تكون وشيكة لأنها مرتبطة بمصالح استراتيجية عملاقة للولايات المتحدة الأميركية والكيان العبري وبريطانيا ثالوث التخصص في تدمير العالم العربي والإسلامي، و قد بدأت “داعش” تتمدد في سيناء المصرية وليبيا وصولاً إلى إفريقيا وتعمل على التمدد في الدول الخليجية والساحة الأوروبية، ويسود لدى فئة من الشباب الأوروبي المسلم شعور بالإحباط والسخط تجاه المجتمع، هم شباب ثائرون يبحثون عن قضية يضحون من أجلها، ويجدون في الجهاد ضالتهم المثالية، لأنهم يعتقدون أن الجهاد عمل بطولي، وأن صورهم ستنتشر في ليلة وضحاها على أعمدة جميع الصحف وسيصبحون حديث الجميع.. كما يقول الخبير الفرنسي أوليفر روي الباحث في الحركات الإسلامية.

 

Love Him or Hate Him, Fidel Castro Had a Huge Impact on the World

Posted on November 26, 2016

 photo castro_zpszv0jnymo.jpg

The Cuban Revolution, 1959

The passing of Fidel Castro is being mourned by some and celebrated by others, but one thing that can’t be denied, even by his detractors, is that the Cuban leader had a major impact on the world.

The Cuban Missile Crisis and the alliance Castro forged with Russia have perhaps been cited more so than anything else in the media obits published today. Much less attention is being given to the Cuban health care system that became a model for the world to emulate, although the New York Times does touch on it briefly.

“What a rich experience we have had, to live the two periods of Cuba–capitalism and socialism,” said Concepcion Garcia, a 55-year-old woman  in Havana. The report continues:

She removed her glasses and pointed at her eyes.

“I have the revolution and Fidel to thank for this cataract surgery,” she said, adding that she would not have been able to afford the procedure without Cuba’s socialized medical care. It did not cost her a cent, she said.

“He put Cuba on the map,” Ms. Garcia added, “and the world has recognized that.”

Her neighbor Josue Carmon Arramo, 57, chimed in: “His life may be over, but his work will live on.”

“This story will not die, because we are followers of his ideas of nationalism and solidarity of the Cuban people,” he said. “That’s who we are.”

Back in the 1990s when I was doing work for a radio station in California, I frequented the Cuban website Granma, which posted commentaries by Castro on various issues. In addition to the US-imposed economic blockade, the Cuban president often addressed issues in the wider world at large, including the conflict between Palestine and Israel–and he was a vocal, outspoken supporter of the Palestinians.

 photo castroarafat_zpsknn1997b.jpg

Yasser Arafat on visit to Cuba in 1974

Cuba extended recognition to the PLO when it was founded in 1964, and Yasser Arafat made several trips to Cuba, where he was welcomed as a legitimate head of state.

“The Cubans trained Palestinian cadres, and Fidel himself was a staunch advocate of the Palestinian quest for freedom and independence,” said Mansour Tahboub, former acting director of the Arafat Foundation.

In those days revolutionary movements were breaking out in many other parts of the world as well, particularly in Africa. This included Libya…

casgaddafi

Castro with Muammar Gaddafi

South Africa…

castmandela

With Nelson Mandela

And Angola, where Cuba sent 25,000 troops in 1975 to back the Peoples Movement for the Liberation of Angola. The MPLA succeeded in overthrowing Portuguese rule in Angola. Most of us think of “regime change” as something done by the US, but Cuba did it too. The 1970s basically brought about the end of colonialist rule in much of Africa, and many of the revolutionary movements supported by Cuba ended up overthrowing regimes backed by the US–which probably had a lot to do with why the US so obstinately and belligerently maintained its economic embargo over Cuba for as long as it did, this in the face of overwhelming support for Cuba shown by much of the rest of the world.

In fact, it got to be something of an annual theater of the absurd at the United Nations, where every year, going back to 1991, the General Assembly would voteon a resolution calling for an end to the US embargo. Year after year the countries of the world, by a lopsided majority, voted in favor of the measure, with the US and Israel often casting the lone votes against.

Although it’s just speculation on my part, Cuba’s success at regime change may well have been the inspiration for the Oded Yinon plan, which was adopted by Israel in 1982. The timing, at any rate, would seem to be about right.

The US managed to assassinate Castro’s fellow revolutionary, Che Guevara, in 1967, but they were never able to assassinate Castro himself despite numerous efforts (some say as many as 600 attempts ) . This is an accomplishment in its own right.

Whether you love him or hate him, what can’t be denied is that Fidel Castro profoundly shaped the world we live in.

Brazil has a severe infection of zionism

Welcome To Post-Coup Brazil, Where Jews and “Christian” Zionists Run Wild

By Jonathan Azaziah | Mouqawama | September 8, 2016

It’s only been a few weeks since the Zionist coup in Brazil and a Judaized shift in the Latin American powerhouse and BRICS stalwart is already unfolding. Michel Temer, the putschist who seized power from Dilma Rousseff, is known as a “friend of the Brazilian Jewish community”, and this “righteous Gentile” (as the ‘Israelis’ like to call all their puppets) has already appointed another “friend of the Brazilian Jewish community”, Jose Serra, as Brazil’s foreign minister. It has also been revealed that the Coupmonger-In-Chief worked closely with Fernando Lottenberg, the president of the Brazilian Israelite Confederation, on raising awareness (read: brainwashing) among Brazilians about “Holocaust Remembrance Day” as well as passing Zionized “anti-terrorism” legislation that will undoubtedly have an Orwellian effect on Brazil’s citizenry.

Temer has also opened the doors to the “Christian” Zionist scourge that has infected much of America, as well as other Western nations–albeit to a lesser extent–like Canada, the UK and Australia. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ), led by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, arrived in Brazil mere days after Rousseff’s overthrow and just concluded its trip 24 hours ago. Rabbi Eckstein’s gang  was on a mission to turn every major “mega-church” in Brazil into even stronger supporters of the usurping Zionist entity for the “cause” of combating “anti-Semitism”. The good “rebbe” and Temer aren’t strangers and thus, this entire event should be looked at not just as a consequence of the Zionist coup against the Workers’ Party (PT), but part and parcel of it. Furthermore, Rabbi Eckstein’s subversive visit should be seen in the greater context of “Christian” Zionist penetration into Brazil and Latin America as a whole.

Brazil, which was once a hotbed of Christian Liberation Theology led by revolutionary luminaries such as Leonardo Boff, is now spiraling into a bottomless pit of “Christian” Zionist hell and has been so since 1977 when the Universal Church–an ultra-Freemasonic institution right down to its reconstruction of Solomon’s Temple–came into being.  And let there be no doubt that this “Christian” Zionism is a byproduct of the utterly devilish Rockefeller-financed Wycliffe Bible Translators and the CIA which have worked hand-in-hand from the “Christian” Zionist outfit’s beginnings in 1942 to evangelize the Catholics of Latin America, with a special focus on Brazil, using the satanic Scofield Reference Bible.

It should be noted for the record that the Freemasonic Universal Church and other like-similar institutions were welcomed by the Brazilian military dictatorship as a counterweight to the Christian Liberation Theologians, who, despite being tortured, killed and disappeared, remained a formidable anti-Imperialist opposition current until the end of the coup regime. And how can we forget that the US-‘Israeli’-backed tyranny that did all of this murdering and maiming would never have attained power if it wasn’t for the Zionist Jew Harold Geneen, who was deathly afraid of losing his multinational ITT telecom giant to democratically-elected Brazilian President João Goulart in a wave of nationalizations.  So the Zionist Jew simply called his “shabbos goy” friend CIA Director John McCone, gave him all-access to ITT’s resources and then the CIA used this new, incredibly useful instrument to push forward with the coup full throttle, ultimately deposing Goulart in 1964. It was International Jewry that crushed Brazil’s first attempt at nationalist-socialism, and it was International Jewry that crushed Brazil’s new experiment in nationalist-socialism exemplified by Dilma Rousseff and her Workers’ Party.

Quite possibly NOTHING encapsulates this entire sad affair like BreakingIsraelNews, a known gateway for Zionist propaganda, which called the illegal ouster of Dilma Rousseff “karma” for her anti-‘Israeli’ posturing and quoted a verse from the genocidal, Jewish supremacist book of Deuteronomy to drive its pro-coup point home even further. The arrogance of World Zionism is indeed boundless and this hubris is certainly driving its offensive throughout Latin America. It’s not just Brazil. Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, a former World Bank economist whose Jewish roots and strong ties to numerous international banks and investment firms (read: the Rothschild Octopus) make him a prime mover and shaker for the Zionist project in the region, is about to take over Peru. Argentina, once run by the fiery anti-globalist Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, is now a pro-US, pro-‘Israel’ neoliberal nightmare run by neocon Mauricio Macri. And Venezuela, home of the Bolivarian Revolution, is once again in the throes of a coup as US-Zionist-aligned oligarchs wage economic war on Caracas through the deliberate creation of food shortages and other forms of destabilizing malice. The homeland of Hugo Chavez (RIP) has long been a target of ‘Israel’–he said so himself–for El Comandante fought the Jewish New World Order tooth and nail, and considering the above-mentioned pomposity of these bloodthirsty “chosenite”  coupmongers, it’s a safe bet to assume they are going to continue their efforts to crush the Bolivarian phenomenon permanently.

If Brazil and Venezuela are to survive this dark, dark period, the peoples of these respective great nations must come to terms with the simple fact that it is not merely “Imperialism” which is seeking to destroy their nationalist-socialisms and impose economic neoliberalism on their societies, but International Jewry’s ZIO-IMPERIALISM which is seeking to impose TOTAL neoliberalism on their societies in the political, financial, cultural and even spiritual sectors, hence the blatant “Christian” Zionist surge as of recent. Resistance on all fronts is the only antidote to this growing poisonous trend, and if it is not fiercely engaged in, as Venezuelan President and Chavez successor Nicolas Maduro is desperately attempting to do now, then the darkness is not only going to continue, but worsen to levels not seen since Guatemala in ’54, Brazil in ’64, Chile in ’73, Argentina in ’76 and in more recent times, Honduras in ’09, ALL PUT TOGETHER. Our full solidarity with the Latin American peoples in the face of Empire Judaica’s storm.

NIGERIAN CHRISTIANS STAND WITH SHEIKH ZAKZAKY 8 MONTHS INTO HIS UNJUST IMPRISONMENT

zakzaky christians 2

by Jonathan Azaziah

Eight months. Eight long, grueling, harsh, despicable, PROFOUNDLY unjust months have passed since Sheikh Ibrahim Yaqoub al-Zakzaky was locked up on false charges and his partisans were massacred in Zaria by the increasingly disgusting, tyrannical and collaborationist regime of US-‘Israeli’-Saudi servant Muhammadu Buhari. This murderous despot, who claims to be a representative of African “democracy”, has tried his best to paint the Sheikh as a “Shi’a terrorist” who threatens “state security” in an attempt to brainwash the Nigerian everyman into thinking that there isn’t a criminal Zionist-Imperialist scheme at play here. Buhari’s ploys, cooked up in Riyadh, Herzliya and Langley, may have worked on large chunks of Nigerian “Muslim” society–i.e. that “Islamic” sector bought and paid for by Saudi petrodollars–as well as “The Ummah” at large which remains disturbingly and horrifically indifferent to the plight of Zakzaky–also due to Al-Saud’s filthy money–but it has not had any affect on Nigeria’s Igbo Christians, who stand with the Sheikh in full, beautiful, inspiring, cross-communal solidarity.

Sheikh Ibrahim Yaqoub al-Zakzaky has spent his life striving tirelessly to bridge ethnic, religious and sectarian gaps in Nigerian society opened up by the Rothschild-financed British colonialists and he prides himself on having many close Christian comrades. Clearly, those efforts have paid dividends as Christians are now coming to his defense in defiant droves and have in fact been calling for justice on behalf of the Zaria Martyrs since the unspeakable crime was committed by Buhari’s Zionist-backed army last December. These gorgeous, resistant followers of ‘Isa al-Masih (A.S.) are sending a strong message to the Buhari regime and its backers: We shan’t be fooled by hasbara! We shan’t be tricked by the lies of a Zio-Empire-owned dictator! And we shan’t be divided!

As World Zionism works day and night with its “clash of civilizations”, its war on Jesus Christ (A.S.) via Hollywood and its simultaneous dissemination of Islamophobia and Wahhabi-Takfirism to sow discord between Muslims and Christians, one can’t help but cheer and smile incandescently upon seeing Nigerian Christians stand up for the Sheikh and the oppressed Islamic Movement of Nigeria. May their efforts not only reverberate throughout the Nigerian state but the entire globe, so all free people and all Moustazafeen, Muslim and Christian alike, stand up as one and demand the immediate release of the saintly, revolutionary Ibrahim Yaqoub al-Zakzaky and retribution for the innocent lives taken at Zaria’s Huseiniyyah Baqiyatullah. Looks like one more struggle can now be added to the growing “We Are One Hand” list! #FreeZakzaky #LongLiveZakzaky #MuslimChristianUnity #DeathToTheBuhariRegime #WeAreOneHand

zakzaky christians 1

zakzaky christians 3

%d bloggers like this: