Text Fwd: CHOMSKY ON OSAMA'S KILLING

Organizing Notes
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2011/05/chomsky-on-osamas-killing.html
Sunday, May 08, 2011
CHOMSKY ON OSAMA'S KILLING

My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death
By Noam Chomsky
May 7, 2011

It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine" that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Text Fwd: OSAMA DEAD - WHO REALLY KNOWS?

Organizing Notes
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-dead-who-really-knows.html
Monday, May 02, 2011
OSAMA DEAD - WHO REALLY KNOWS?

There have been rumors for years that Osama bin Laden was already dead - either by kidney failure or U.S. strikes early on in Tora Bora. Then there were the reports of multiple variations of Osama. So who knows for sure what just happened in Pakistan?

One interesting twist is the interview with former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto who maintains in the video below that Osama was killed years ago. See that bit at 6:05 in the interview with David Frost. I would think she knew what she was talking about.

I found it interesting that "spontaneous" crowds gathered at the White House last night with flags and red, white, and blue hats to cheer the news that Osama had been killed. I can't imagine that they just had the flags and hats lying around. It all has that weird feel of a staged event.

I remember years ago, during the time of the Soviet Union, that the people there used to say you had to learn to read between the lines of the Pravda newspaper. That's how I felt when I was reading the Washington Post this morning about the killing of Osama.

Some speculate that the Obama team has created this spectacle of Osama being killed as the opening to justify the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Others wonder if this event is more about building Obama's case for reelection.

The government claims that DNA was taken to prove it was Osama before he was buried at sea. Dumped at sea? The government claims they wanted to get rid of his body in order to ensure no "shrine" was ever established.

I read that Osama's $1 million compound in Pakistan was heavily reenforced and a secure hideout. It seems remarkable to me that only three people were killed in the attack. You mean Osama only had 2-3 guards? Hard to imagine.

We are already being told that Al-Qaeda is still a threat even though high level U.S. military personnel have said that there are less than 100 of the network actually operating in Afghanistan today. This quick restatement by "world leaders" that the war on terror is not over gives me the strong sense that we won't be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon.

Let's see where things head in the coming days. It's really going to get interesting now.

Text Fwd: MAKING MORE ENEMIES ENSURES LONG WAR

Bruce Gagnon's Organizing Notes
Friday, January 14, 2011
MAKING MORE ENEMIES ENSURES LONG WAR


It's been a busy past few days in Afghanistan-Pakistan for the occupiers and "liberators" of the people there. U.S. drone strikes killed more innocent children (above) thus ensuring more enemies will be created. You can count on the fact that the family and relatives of these latest victims will rise up to throw the U.S. and NATO out of their country. That should keep the Pentagon busy at least up through 2014.

Additionally Press TV is reporting the following:

The daughter of an Afghan politician has reportedly died of her injuries after being raped by American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan's southwestern province of Farah.

US forces aboard five Toyota vans transferred the teenage girl along with several other Afghan women and girls to a military base in the province. They then sexually assaulted them, alleged Afghan sources.

Medical reports indicate that a young girl died as a result of severe bleeding that was caused by tears in her genitals from violent sexual penetration.


Two other victims were admitted to a nearby hospital and are currently receiving treatment for serious injuries they suffered following multiple rapes.

The incident comes as violence in Afghanistan has spiked to record highs since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Statistics about civilian death tolls in Afghanistan are not available. However, it is estimated that between 14,000 and 34,000 Afghan civilians have lost their lives since the US-led war.


The American army has lost 1,455 soldiers in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war.

How much longer will the people of the world allow this madness in Afghanistan-Pakistan to continue?

Text Fwd:[Rick Rozoff] Pentagon, NATO Apply Afghanistan-Pakistan War Model To Africa

Rick Rozoff blog

Stop NATO
January 2, 2011
Pentagon And NATO Apply Afghanistan-Pakistan War Model To Africa
Rick Rozoff


The New Year began with three North Atlantic Treaty Organization soldiers killed in Afghanistan and 20 people, all portrayed as militants, killed in four American missile strikes in northwest Pakistan. The third drone missile attack killed four people attempting to rescue and remove the bodies of the victims of the first, a technique used by the U.S. and NATO in their war against Yugoslavia in 1999.

The West's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is currently the longest, largest and deadliest in the world. Fatalities among U.S. troops, non-U.S. NATO and allied forces, Afghan National Army soldiers and anti-government fighters reached a record high last year: 498, 213, 800 and an unknown number (by U.S. and NATO accounts well into the thousands), respectively. The United Nations estimated 2,400 Afghan civilians were killed in the first ten months of last year, a 20 percent increase over the same period in the preceding year. Approximately a thousand people were killed by U.S. drone missile strikes in Pakistan.

It says something discouraging about a world of almost 200 nations that perhaps no more than half a dozen countries - so-called rogue states (alternatively Condoleezza Rice's "outposts of tyranny") - have voiced opposition to the war.

Washington's self-designated global war on terror (sometimes capitalized), in recent years more politely and antiseptically called overseas contingency operations, has not diminished in intensity but rather escalated in breadth and aggressiveness from West Africa to East Asia and against targets not remotely related to al-Qaeda, which has proven as nebulous and evasive as the West portrays it being ubiquitous.

From 2001 to the present the U.S. has engaged in and supported military operations against Marxist guerrillas in Colombia and the Philippines, ethnic Tuaregs in Mali, nominally Christian insurgents in Uganda and Shiite Houthi militia in northern Yemen in the name of combating...al-Qaeda. The Wahhabist school of extremism that characterizes al-Qaeda and analogous groups derives its doctrinal inspiration and material support from Saudi Arabia, yet last October Washington announced a $63 billion arms package with the kingdom, the largest foreign weapons deal in American history.

READ MORE

Text Fwd: [Rick Rozoff] Timetable Abandoned: U.S. And NATO To Wage Endless War In Afghanistan 일정을 무시하고 나토와 미국, 아프가니스탄에서 끝없는 전쟁 펼칠 것임

Rick Rozoff blog
Stop NATO
November 12, 2010
Timetable Abandoned: U.S. And NATO To Wage Endless War In Afghanistan
Rick Rozoff

The mainstream news media and alternative sources alike have seized on a recent revelation – though it is hardly such – published by McClatchy Newspapers that “The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to remove emphasis from Barack Obama’s pledge that he would begin withdrawing US forces in July 2011.” [1]

An article in this series of over a month earlier, U.S. And NATO To Wage War 15-Year War In Afghanistan And Pakistan [2], documented that much and more, and any attentive reader of news on the Internet during the preceding weeks would not have been surprised by the McClatchy feature.

On October 25 Edmund Whiteside, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council Secretary, spoke at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, and according to the local press said, “Expect the war in Afghanistan — the longest military engagement in both Canadian and American history — to continue for a ‘very long’ time.” In his exact words, “Afghanistan will be a very long military venture.”

His position will be confirmed at the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal next week, as will a major commitment demanded by the U.S.-dominated military bloc’s new Strategic Concept to be adopted at the meeting: The retention of nuclear arms in NATO’s arsenal and the continued stationing of American nuclear bombs in Europe. Whiteside also argued: “Canada says that it doesn’t need ballistic missiles. But Canada is part of a nuclear policy alliance. There’s no getting around that….” [3]

On November 8, the day before the McClatchy article appeared, the spokesman for the 152,000-troop, 50-nation, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, German Brigadier-General Josef Blotz, stated that “no timetable has been set for withdrawal of coalition troops from Afghanistan.”

READ MORE

Text Fwd: U.S., NATO Recruiting Indian Troops For Afghan War? 미국과 나토, 아프간 전쟁으로 인도 군대를 고용할 것인가?

* Text sent from Rick Rozoff on Nov. 9, 2010

Daily Times
November 7, 2010
Indian boots in Afghanistan?
By Ali K Chishti

-“The almost 9,000 Indian troops deployed on UN peacekeeping missions could easily be re-deployed in Afghanistan,” confirmed Bharat Singh, an Indian defence analyst....Daily Times has been told that Lt Gen RK Loomba, the Indian Army’s Military Intelligence DG, was...in Afghanistan to assess Afghan military’s capabilities, and India is keen on taking the new role in Afghanistan.

-[T]he NATO and ISAF command, which sees Pakistan as an “enemy” because of Pakistan’s security doctrine of “strategic depth” and the analogy of “good Taliban and bad Taliban”, also wants Indian boots in Afghanistan since 2006 and would still welcome them.

US President Barack Obama has already begun his 10-day trip to Asia where he would be visiting Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and India. Obama’s trip to Japan, South Korea and Indonesia is seen as a “continuing policy” to further strategic cooperation between the US against growing Chinese influence and North Korea. However, it is his trip to India, which is being seen as “agenda-driven” and somewhat a strategic shift by the US.
Obama’s trip to India, which the Indian media is playing up as an “extra-ordinary trip”, is being seen with very high hopes domestically where various agreements and issues such as civil nuclear cooperation, economics, counter-terrorism, Pakistan and China will be discussed in great detail. The real agenda of Obama’s trip to India is “Afghanistan” where there’s “an absolute breakdown of relations”. While both the US and India wish to avoid re-emergence of terrorism sanctuaries capable of carrying out international terrorism, it is the “US giving all cards to the Pakistanis in Afghanistan, which is a real problem. We have investments, assets and recent history which prove that Afghanistan is abused and used against carrying out attacks inside India”, confirmed Zahid Hussain, an Indian defence analyst.

“Afghanistan has become a major source of tension between the US and India for the primary reason that India does not believe that we will stay until the job is done,” McCain said in a speech before leaving for a trip to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. While President Obama will be in India signing deals and will give a strong statement supporting India, McCain will be on a “Mission Pakistan” to make sure “no egos are hurt” in Islamabad.

READ MORE

===========================
Stop NATO
Blog site

Text Fwd: U.S. And NATO Drag Asia Into Afghan Quagmire 미국과 나토, 아시아 동맹국들을 아프가니스탄 전쟁의 수렁으로

* Image source: same as the link.
For more images, click the below link.

Rick Rozoff sent on Oct. 29, 2010

Rick Rozoff blog or Stop NATO
U.S. And NATO Drag Asia Into Afghan Quagmire
Rick Rozoff
October 29, 2010


On October 7 the American and North Atlantic Treaty Organization war in Afghanistan entered its tenth year and in slightly over two months will be in its eleventh calendar year.

There are currently more than 150,000 foreign troops in the nation and the number is steadily rising.

As examples, this February Germany raised its troop numbers in Afghanistan from 4,500 to a post-World War Two overseas high of 5,350.

Italian Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa recently pledged 1,200 more troops for the war, bringing the nation's total to 4,000, during a meeting with commander of all U.S. and NATO forces General David Petraeus. This month Italy also announced it was sending three new military helicopters to the war theater and La Russa stated that he was considering authorizing bombings by Italian fighter jets in Afghanistan.

Newer NATO members in Eastern Europe have authorized comparable increases in troop deployments, with the senate of the Czech Republic voting on October 27 to boost its nation's contingent to 720 troops and Bulgaria confirming it will raise its figure to 600 by the end of the year. Moreover, the Czech Republic will redeploy special forces to Afghanistan and Bulgaria will shift from security duties to combat operations.

Not only are NATO member states continuing to enlarge the amount of troops for a war without a foreseeable end, but Washington and Brussels are intensifying joint efforts to recruit troops from nations that have until now avoided being pulled into the Afghan imbroglio.

Earlier this year Armenia, Montenegro, Mongolia, South Korea and Malaysia became the 43rd-47th official Troop Contributing Countries for NATO's International Security Assistance Force. On October 8 the diminutive South Pacific nation of Tonga was recruited by Britain as the 48th and will deploy "more than two hundred troops to Afghanistan" as - to believe British and NATO accounts of the agreement - Tonga "wants to show its support to the alliance." [1]

A few days before, the U.S.'s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke pressured the foreign minister of Bangladesh to supply combat troops to serve under NATO in Afghanistan. Four days later, on September 30, the charge d'affaires of the US mission in Dhaka, Nicholas Dean, stated, "The United States has intensified its discussion on Bangladesh's engagement in Afghanistan...." [2]

In the past week new disclosures indicate that the U.S. and NATO are broadening their Afghan war recruitment campaign throughout Asia.

READ MORE

Text Fwd: Afghanistan-Pakistan: Woodward's Ominous Narrative 아프가니스탄-파키스탄" 우드워즈의 불길한 서술

Stop NATO

Pakistan Observer
[Afghanistan-Pakistan]Woodward's Ominous Narrative
October 16, 2010
Mohammad Jamil

Bob Woodward’s book “Obama Wars” in general offers an account of President
Barack Obama’s national security team’s flawed decision-making practices,
yet there is malicious intent behind raising the points of Quetta Shura, the
Haqqani network in North Waziristan, and ISI’s support to the Taliban.

Even if one presumes that there is some truth in these allegations, it is not
understandable as to why hundreds of CIA agents and Blackwater mercenaries who
are running around in FATA and Balochistan have not been able to either arrest
or kill the top Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders despite the fact they are equipped
with sophisticated equipment and gadgetry.

Osama bin Laden may be dead or may have been killed a long time ago, but the US
wants to keep him ‘alive’ so that it can use it as justification for its
presence in the region and advancing its global interests.

In Bob Woodward’s book "Obama Wars," the author wrote: “Once Zalmay
Khalilzad brushed off Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s claim that the US
was arranging the (suicide) attacks by Pakistani Taliban inside his country, as
madness, and was of the view that both Zardari and Afghan President Hamid
Karzai, who believed in this US conspiracy theory, were dysfunctional
leaders”.

He also quoted President Zardari having said that this was a plot to destabilize
Pakistan so that the US could invade and seize its nuclear weapons. But it is
not President Zardari or Karzai’s perception, as there have been statements
from the US think tanks, analysts and members of Obama administration about
Pakistan’s ‘double game’ and they suggesting attack on the Haqqani network
in North Waziristan.

Before the drone attack in South Waziristan on Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan had
many a time provided information to the US about TTP leaders holed in South
Waziristan. It was against this backdrop that President Zardari had said: “We
give you targets of Taliban leaders you don’t go after. You go after other
areas”. Khalilzad is reported to have responded that the drones were primarily
meant to hunt down members of al Qaeda and Afghan insurgents, not the Pakistan
Taliban. This showed the liaison between the CIA and Baitullah Mehsud, as the
‘Frankenstein monster’ was killed in a drone attack along with other
militants in March 2009. It has to be mentioned that Baitullah Mehsud had
arsenal and night-vision equipment which the Pakistan army did not have at that
time.

The book also revealed that CIA chief Leon Panetta and National Security Adviser
Jim Jones were sent by Obama to Pakistan to talk to President Asif Ali Zardari
and COAS Ashfaq Pervez Kayani after the failed Faisal Shahzad bombing at Times
Square in New York.

Woodward wrote that CIA chief Leon Panetta told President Zardari: “If, God
forbid, Shahzad’s SUV had blown up in Times Square, we wouldn’t be having
this conversation. The president would be forced to do things that Pakistan
would not like. The president wants everyone in Pakistan to understand if such
an attack connected to a Pakistani group is successful there are some things
even he would not be able to stop. Just as there are political realities in
Pakistan, there are political realities in the US. No one will be able to stop
the response and consequences. This is not a threat, just a statement of
political fact.”

American leadership does not realize that Pakistan is not a banana republic but
a nuclear state with the delivery system. Though Pakistan’s political
leadership dithers while taking decisions, and does not have the guts to give an
adequate response, the military leadership has the spine to respond adequately.
Anyhow, when Jim Jones and Leon Panetta met General Kayani privately, Jones
reportedly told the army chief that the clock was starting now on all four of
the requests. Obama wanted a progress report in 30 days.

“But Kayani would not budge very much. He had other concerns. I’ll be the
first to admit, I’m India-centric,” Woodward quoted him as saying. After the
London Conference on Afghanistan last year, there was positive change in
America’s attitude, and it tried to address Pakistan’s concerns vis-à-vis
Indian influence in Afghanistan. But India has been successful in reversing the
situation, and American political leaders and especially military leaders who
had pro-Pakistan stance, and now they have suspicious about Pakistan’s
intelligence agencies supporting the Taliban.

A few months ago, through WikiLeaks an effort was to put Pakistan on the
defensive, though out of more than 92,000 reports only 180 related to Pakistan.
Though it was admitted in the report that there was “low-level assessments
about Pakistan’s ISI secretly supporting Taliban insurgents, which was based
on Afghan intelligence”, yet they insisted that the evidence was credible.

Americans doublespeak was obvious from the fact that whatever was mentioned in
the reports regarding Pakistan they said the evidence was conclusive, whereas
about American and NATO forces’ brutalities and war crimes they said that
evidence was not conclusive. Anyhow, the major focus of reports was on brutal
military actions involving the United States and the NATO forces, intelligence
information, and reports of meetings with political figures. It was also
admitted that the report regarding Pakistan was mainly based on the information
of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, which was under Tajik
Amarullah Saleh – a pro-Indian, a CIA asset and diehard anti-Pakistan.
....
[T]he Guardian had called the material “one of the biggest leaks in US
military history - devastating portrait of failing war in Afghanistan; revealing
how coalition forces killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents;
Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and
Iran are fuelling the insurgency”.

All this disinformation was being spread to pressurize Pakistan into launching
military operations in North Waziristan, where they say the Haqqani group is
holed up in. But it is a flawed perception that the Haqqani group is based in
Pakistan, because American and NATO forces know full well that the Haqqani
network is in Afghanistan and giving them a very tough time.

—The writer is Lahore-based senior journalist.
===========================
Stop NATO
Blog site
__________________________________________________________
*Related articles 관련 기사들

StopNATO
Petraeus Intensifies Air Attacks In Afghanistan And Pakistan
페트라우스 장군, 아프가니스탄과 파키스탄에서의 공중 공격 격화
Reuters blog
October 16, 2010

Saturday, October 16, 2010
Text Fwd: [Rick Rozoff] New War Rumors: U.S. Plans To Seize Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal
[릭 로조프] 새로운 전쟁 루머들: 미국, 파키스탄의 핵 무기고 탈취 계획함

Text Fwd: New War Rumors: U.S. Plans To Seize Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal 새로운 전쟁 루머들: 미국, 파키스탄의 핵 무기고 탈취 계획함

* Rick Rozoff sent on Oct. 16, 2010.

Rick Rozoff blog
Stop NATO
October 15, 2010
New War Rumors: U.S. Plans To Seize Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal
Rick Rozoff

Two recent news items emanating from the United States have begun to reverberate in Pakistan and give rise to speculation that growing American drone strikes and NATO helicopter attacks in that country may be the harbingers of far broader actions: Nothing less than the expansion of the West's war in Afghanistan into Pakistan with the ultimate goal of seizing the nation's nuclear weapons.

The News International, Pakistan's largest English-language newspaper, published a report on October 13 based on excerpts from American journalist Bob Woodward's recently released volume "Obama's Wars" which stated that during a trilateral summit between the presidents of the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan on May 6 of 2009 Pakistani head of state Asif Ali Zardari accused Washington of being behind Taliban attacks inside his country with the intent to use them so "the US could invade and seize its nuclear weapons." [1]

Woodward recounted comments exchanged at a dinner with Zardari and Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (2007-2009), to Iraq (2005-2007) and Afghanistan (2003-2005). Khalilzad was also a close associate of Jimmy Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of the U.S. strategy to support attacks by armed extremists based in Pakistan against Afghanistan starting in 1978, when he joined the Polish expatriate at Columbia University from 1979-1989.

The baton for what is now Washington's over 30-year involvement in Afghanistan was passed from Brzezinski to Khalilzad in the 1980s when the latter was appointed one of the Ronald Reagan administration's senior State Department officials in charge of supporting Mujahedin fighters operating out of Peshawar in Pakistan. He joined the State Department in 1984 on a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship and worked for Paul Wolfowitz, then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, at Foggy Bottom. His efforts were augmented by the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director at the time, Robert Gates, now U.S. defense secretary. Two of their chief clients, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, are founders and leaders of Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin and the Haqqani network, against whom Gates' Pentagon is currently waging war on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

According to Woodward's account of the Pakistani president's accusations to Khalilzad in May of last year, "Zardari dropped his diplomatic guard. He suggested that one of...two countries was arranging the attacks by the Pakistani Taliban inside his country: India or the US. Zardari didn’t think India could be that clever, but the US could. [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai had told him the US was behind the attacks, confirming the claims made by the Pakistani ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence]." [2]

Khalilzad, whose résumé also includes stints at the Defense Department, the National Security Council, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the National Endowment for Democracy, the RAND Corporation (where he assisted in establishing the Middle East Studies Center) and the Project for the New American Century, reportedly took issue with Zardari's contention, which led to the latter responding that what he had described "was a plot to destabilize Pakistan," hatched in order that, according to Woodward's version of his words, "the US could invade and seize [Pakistan's] nuclear weapons."

The account stated Zardari "could not explain the rapid expansion in violence otherwise. And the CIA had not pursued the leaders of the Pakistani Taliban, a group known as Tehrik-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan or TTP that had attacked the government. TTP was also blamed for the assassination of Zardari’s wife, Benazir Bhutto."

In the Pakistani president's words: “We give you targets of Taliban people you don’t go after. You go after other areas. We’re puzzled."

READ MORE

_________________________________________________
* Related article:

U.S. Eyes Formally Expanding Afghan War Into Pakistan Proper

Asian News International
October 15, 2010
US eyeing expanding its war on terror formally into Pakistan?
(* Text sent from Rick Rozoff on Oct. 16, 2010)

Video Fwd:[Pakistan] IMPACT OF FLOODS NOW TAKE HOLD 파키스탄: 홍수 영향 현재 진행중

* Bruce Gagnon blog on Oct. 15, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
IMPACT OF FLOODS NOW TAKE HOLD



_________________________________________________________

*Related blog 관련 블로그

Thursday, August 26, 2010
[국문 번역] Text Fwd:
U.S. BASE SAVED FROM PAKISTAN FLOOD BUT NOT THE PEOPLE
미군 기지는 홍수로부터 구해졌으나 사람들은 아님.

Text Fwd: U.S. And NATO To Wage War 15-Year War In Afghanistan And Pakistan

* Rick Rozoff on Oct. 6, 2010

Rick Rozoff blog

Stop NATO
October 6, 2010
U.S. And NATO To Wage War 15-Year War In Afghanistan And Pakistan
Rick Rozoff


On October 4 President Barack Obama and what the press characterized as his war council conducted a 30-minute video conference with Obama's Afghan opposite number, President Hamid Karzai, to discuss "a number of topics, including the strategic vision for long term US-Afghan relations, the recent Afghan parliamentary elections, and regional relations."

A statement issued by the White House later in the day added that "The two leaders agreed that they should continue routine engagements to refine a common vision and to align our efforts to support President Karzai's goal of completing transition to Afghan lead security responsibility by 2014." [1]

The conference also included Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington and commander of all U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan General David Petraeus and American ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry from Kabul.

October 7 will mark the advent of the tenth year of the war waged by Washington in South Asia, the longest continuous combat operations in U.S. history. By invoking its Article 5 collective military assistance clause on September 12, 2001, NATO also joined the war effort and officially took over the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August of 2003.

There are now at least 152,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, 120,000 under NATO command, and according to several recent statements by American and NATO officials most if not all them of them will remain there beyond the 2011 withdrawal date announced by the American administration last year.

If troops from all the major Western military powers in theater remain beyond New Year's Eve of 2014, they will be engaged in the fifteenth calendar year of the Pentagon's and NATO's war in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. The conflict has also allowed the expansion of American and Alliance military bases into Central Asia - Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - and the elaboration of networks for the transit of troops, military equipment and supplies and for combat training and bombing runs from Estonia and Latvia on the Baltic Sea to Georgia on the Black Sea and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea as well as in several other nations from Eastern Europe to the so-called Broader Middle East including Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Diego Garcia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Kazakhstan.

The fruitless pursuit of the ever more elusive Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar - as such remains the official rationale of the U.S. and the 50 military partners under NATO's umbrella in the Afghan war zone - has not registered any progress in nine years, though thousands of Afghans and Pakistanis who had no contact with either of the evasive fugitives have been killed in overnight raids, checkpoint shootings, bombing runs and drone missile strikes. Cluster bomb fragments and depleted uranium residue will guarantee more deaths into the indefinite future.

Also on October 4, President Obama handed over his administration's latest classified report on the war in Afghanistan to Congress, in which he wrote: "We are continuing to implement the policy as described in December and do not believe further adjustments are required at this time." [2] He was referring to the decision to deploy an additional 30,000 U.S. troops, which has been accompanied by a dramatic escalation of lethal drone attacks inside Pakistan.

U.S. and NATO troop strength in Afghanistan has recently passed the 150,000 mark. Two years ago there were an estimated 34,000 U.S. troops and approximately 28,000 from other NATO nations in the country. The increase since 2008 is almost 250 percent. Recently the number of nations supplying troops for NATO's ISAF mission has also grown, with commitments secured from nations like Armenia, Georgia, Colombia, Mongolia, Malaysia, South Korea (a second time), Montenegro and Tonga. General Roger Brady, outgoing commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, recently stated that 39 European nations have troops assigned to NATO in Afghanistan. The amount of countries supplying military contingents for and those that have lost troops in one nation are unprecedented.

Two major milestones were reached in the last full month of the ninth year of the war on both sides of the Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. With 59 NATO soldiers killed in September, the combined U.S. and NATO death toll this year in Afghanistan exceeded the previous annual high of 2009, 521. As of October 4, 561 U.S. and NATO soldiers have died this year. The three months before last were the deadliest for foreign forces in the nine-year war: 103 in June, 88 in July and 79 in August.

READ MORE

Text Fwd: NATO Expands Afghan War Into Pakistan 나토, 파키스탄으로 아프간 전쟁 확대

Rick Rozoff

Stop NATO
September 28, 2010
NATO Expands Afghan War Into Pakistan
Rick Rozoff

On October 7 the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization military allies will begin the tenth year of their war in Afghanistan, over 3,000 miles from NATO Headquarters in Brussels.

The following month midterm elections will be held in the U.S. and NATO will hold a two-day summit in Portugal. The American administration is eager to achieve, or appear to have achieved, a foreign policy triumph in an effort to retain Democratic Party control of Congress and NATO something to show for the longest and largest military mission in its 61 years of existence.

President Barack Obama has tripled the amount of American combat troops in Afghanistan to 100,000 and along with forces from other NATO member states and partner nations there are now over 150,000 foreign troops in the nation, the most ever stationed in the war-wracked country. 120,000 of those soldiers are now under the command of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the most ever serving in a North Atlantic Alliance-led military operation. NATO deployed 60,000 troops to Bosnia in 1995 and 50,000 to Kosovo four years later, in both instances after bombing campaigns and in post-conflict situations.

The 120,000 NATO forces currently in theater – from 50 nations already with more pegged to provide troops – are at the center of the world’s longest-lasting and increasingly deadly hot war. NATO’s first ground war, its first combat operations in Asia.

Last year was the most lethal for the U.S and NATO in what is now a nine-year conflict and this year has already proven even more costly in terms of combat deaths. And there are three more months to go.

Washington and Brussels could decide to save face and end the fighting through some combination of an internal political settlement and a true international peacekeeping arrangement – rather than the subversion of the International Security Assistance Force that was established by a United Nations mandate in December of 2001 but which is now the Pentagon’s and NATO’s vehicle for waging war in Afghanistan. And in neighboring Pakistan.

But the military metaphysic prevalent in Washington over the past 65 years will allow for nothing other than what is seen as victory, with a “Who lost Afghanistan?” legacy tarnishing the president who fails to secure it and the party to which he belongs being branded half-hearted and defeatist.

READ MORE

[국문 번역] Text Fwd: U.S. BASE SAVED FROM PAKISTAN FLOOD BUT NOT THE PEOPLE 미군 기지는 홍수로부터 구해졌으나 사람들은 아님.

___________________________________________________________
* Related blog 관련 블로그

Friday, October 15, 2010
Video Fwd:[Pakistan] IMPACT OF FLOODS NOW TAKE HOLD
[비디오] 파키스탄: 홍수 영향 현재 진행중
___________________________________________________________

* From Bruce Gagnon blog, August 23, 2010 2010년 8월 23일자 브루스 개그논 블로그

U.S. BASE SAVED FROM PAKISTAN FLOOD BUT NOT THE PEOPLE
미군 기지는 홍수로부터 구해졌으나 사람들은 아님.

August 20, 2010
2010 년 8월 20일

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
아시아 인권 위원회 성명

PAKISTAN: Minister tasked with saving US airbase at the cost of the displacement of thousands
파키스탄: 수천명 이동 희생위 미 공군 기지를 구하기 위한 과제에 매달리게 된 장관

The presence of Pakistan army personnel speaks to the fact that the breach of Jamali bypass was intentional and ordered from above.

파키스탄 공군 관계자의 존재는 자말리 우회로 침해가 의도적이며 위로부터의 명령이었다는 사실에 대해 말한다.

It has been reported earlier that the US Air Force has denied the relief agencies use of the Shahbaz airbase for the distribution of aid and assistance. Soldiers of the Pakistan army, a federal minister and the administration of Sindh province are blamed for the incident involving Shahbaz Airbase at Jacobabad district in Sindh province in which it has been reported that flood waters were diverted in order to save the airbase. The diversion of the floodwaters is blamed for inundating hundreds of houses and the displacement of 800,000 people. According to the media reports, the Federal Minister of Sports along with soldiers from the army and a contingent of officials from the Sindh provincial government breached the Jamali Bypass in Jafferabad district of Balochistan province during the night between August 13 and 14 to divert the water entering the airbase which has remained in US Air Force hands since the war on terror started in 2001.

미 공군이 구호 기관들이 원조와 보조의 분배를 위해 샤바즈 공군 기지를 이용하는 것을 거부했다고 일찍 보도된 바 있다. 파키스탄 군대의 군인들, 연방 장관, 그리고 신드 지방 행정부는 신드 지방 자코바바드 지역 샤바즈 공군 기지가 관계된 사건으로 비난받는데 이 사건은 홍수물이 공군 기지를 구하기 위해 우회된 것을 말한다. 홍수물의 우회는 수백채의 가옥들을 물에 잠기게 하고 80만의 사람들이 터를 잃은 것으로 비난받는다. 언론 기사들에 따르면, 연방 체육 장관은 군대의 군인들, 신디 지역 정부의 파견 관리들과 함께 8월 13일과 14일 사이 밤 2001년 테러에 대한 전쟁 이후 미 공군의 손에 있었던 기지에 들어오는 물의 흐름을 바꾸기 위해 바로키스탄 지역 자페라바드 지역 자말리 우회로가 붕괴되게 했다.

* Image source: Google

Mr. Ejaz Jakhrani, the Minister of Sports, while explaining the situation to the media said that if the water was not diverted the Shahbaz Airbase would have been inundated. Mr. Jakhrani himself was present along with the district coordination officer of the Jacobabad district, district police officer and other officials when the breach was made. It is reported in the media that Mr. Jakhrani was assigned to protect the air base by officials at the Pakistan army’s headquarter as he was elected from Jacobabad district.

체육 장관 에자즈 자크라니 씨는 언론에 상황을 설명하면서 물이 우회되지 않았더라면 샤바즈 공군 기지가 물에 잠겼을 거라 말했다. 자크라니 씨 자신이 그 침해가 저질러졌을 때 자코바바드 지역 기획 관리들과 함께 있었다. 자크라니 씨는 자코바바드 지역에서 선거에 뽑힘에 따라 파키스탄 군대 사령부의 관리들로 하여금 공군 기지를 보호하게 하도록 임무를 받았다.

A former prime minister, Mr. Mir Zafar Ullah Khan Jamali said that in order to save Shahbaz Air Base, Jamali bypass was demolished and the town of Dera Allahyar was drowned. Mr. Jamali said that if the airbase was so important, then what priority might be given to the citizens. He blamed minister Jakhrani, DPO and DCO Jacobabad for deliberately diverting the course of the floodwaters towards Balochistan.

전 수상 미르 자파 울라 칸 자말리 씨는 샤바즈 공군 기지를 구하기 위해 자말리 우회로가 헐어졌으며 데라 알라야 마을이 침수되었다고 전했다. 자말리 씨는 공군 기지가 그렇게 중요했다면 어떠한 우선권이 시민들에게 주어지겠냐고 말했다. 그는 바로키스탄으로 향하는 홍수물의 진로를 고의적으로 바꾼 자크라니 장관과 자코바바드 DPO 와 DCO 를 비난했다.

* Image Source: Google

In the meantime, during the discussion in the standing committee of the Senate the federal secretary of health has revealed that health relief operations are not possible in the flood-affected areas of Jacobabad because the airbase is under the control of the US Air Force. The coordinator of the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Centre, Dr Jahanzeb Aurakzai, told the committee that foreign health teams could not start relief operations in remote areas because there are no airstrips close to several areas, including Jacobabad.

그 동안 상원 상임 위원회 토론동안 보건 연방 장관은 자코바바드의 홍수 영향 지역들에서는 공군 기지가 미 공군의 통제 아래에 있기에 건강 구호 작전들이 가능하지 않다고 밝힌 바 있다. 건강 비상 준비 대응 센터의 코디네이터인 자한제브 아우라크자이 박사는 자코바바드를 포함, 몇 지역들 근처에 활주로들이 없었기 때문에 외국 보건 팀들이 먼 지역에서의 구호 작전을 시작힐 수 없었다고 위원회에 말했다.

The electronic media has also reported that since 2001 the government of Pakistan, during the regime of general Musharraf, turned over Shahbaz Airport to US forces fighting against terrorism on a lease so it the responsibility of the government and the Pakistan armed forces to protect the agreement done in favour of US forces. The discussions in the media have also pointed out that the presence of army soldiers during the breach of Jamali bypass is a clear indication that the Pakistan army has been ordered to save the airbase from the floodwaters.

전자 언론은 2001년 이후 파키스탄 정부가 무샤라프 장군 정권 동안, 테러리즘에 맞서 싸우는 미군들에게 샤바츠 공항을 임대로 주었으므로 미군에게 좋게 만들어진 동의안을 보호하기 위한 것이 정부와 파키스탄 군대의 책임이라 말한 바 있다. 언론 토론은 또한 자말리 우회로 침해동안 육군 군인들의 존재는 파키스탄 군대가 홍수물로부터 기지를 구하기 위해 명령 받았음을 알리는 명확한 표시였음을 또한 지적했다.

In the end, after the seven days of controversy surrounding the air base, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) said that the Shahbaz Airbase was under the complete operational control of the PAF and brushed aside reports that floodwaters had been diverted to save the base. Air Vice Marshal, Mr. Abdul Quddus, hurriedly arranged a visit of journalists to Shahbaz Airbase and asked them as to whether they could see any Americans? He told journalists that there are no drones and no Americans; seeing, he said, is believing!

결국, 공군 기지를 둘러싼 논쟁의 7일 뒤, 파키스탄 공군 (PAF) 은 샤바츠 공군 기지가 파키스탄 공군의 완전한 통제에 있었으며 홍수가 기지를 구하기 위해 전환되었다는 기사를 가볍게 무시했다. 공군 소장 압둘 쿠다스 씨는 기자들의 샤바츠 공군 기지 방문 일정을 서둘러 잡았으며 그들에게 미국인들을 볼 수 있었느냐 물었다. 그는 기자들에게 무인 비행기도 미국인들도 없다 말했다: 그는 보는 것이 믿는 것이라 말했다!

However, there was no reasonable answer to the question raised that when almost the whole of Jacobabad district of Sindh and its adjoining district of Jafferabad of Balochistan province were under floodwaters why the airbase was not affected. This could only be due to the intentional breach of the Jamali bypass. The media was also very critical of the arrangement of the visit to Shahbaz airbase at a time when much more attention is needed to focus all efforts for the relief of the affected people. The visit by the journalists has been seen as a scripted stage play as when journalists were present a C130 cargo plane landed with 200 tons of relief goods which the people of that particular affected area badly needed. Such a plane has not been seen landing there in recent times so this was too much of a coincidence.

그러나 언제 신디의 자코바바드 지역 전체 대부분과 바로키스탄 지역 자페라베드의 인접한 지역이 홍수물에 잠겼을 때 왜 공군 기지가 영향받지 않았는가에 대한 질문에 대해 합리적인 대답은 없었다. 이는 오직 자말리 우회로의 의도적 침해 때문일 수 있다. 언론은 또한 타격받은 사람들을 구호하는 모든 노력에 주의가 필요했을 때 샤바즈 공군 기지 방문을 잡은 것에 대해 매우 비판적이었다. 기자들의 방문은 특별히 타격받은 지역의 사람들이 몹시 필요로 했던 200톤의 구호 물자등을 실은 C130 화물 비행기가 착륙했을 때 기자들이 있었다는 것으로 볼 때 미리 각본된 연극 대본 처럼 보였다. 그러한 비행기는 최근 그 곳에 착륙하는 것이 보여지지 않았기에 이는 우연이라 하기엔 너무 과했다.

The federal minister and former prime minister have not retracted their statements that the floodwater was intentionally diverted to Dera Allahyar, Balochistan to save the air base.

연방 장관과 전 수상은 공군 기지를 구하기 위해 홍수가 데라 알라야로 고의적으로 바뀌어졌다는 그들의 성명서들을 철회하지 않았다.

There is rough estimation by the media about the displacement of 800,000 people by the divergence of the waters to the poorer areas. Over 150,000 people have been evacuated from Dera Allahyar and other areas. 350,000 people of Jafferabad district have been shifted to Dera Murad Jamali, Sibi and Quetta, parts of Balochistan, and over 300,000 people had earlier moved to Dera Murad Jamali and Sibi from the Sindh province particularly from Jacobabad.

물의 전환에 의해 더 가난한 지역들로 터를 옮긴 80만 명의 사람들에 대한 언론의 대략 산출이 있다. 15만 명 이상의 사람들이 델라 알라야르와 다른 지역들로 소개되었다. 자페라베드 지역의 35만명들이 바로키스탄의 일부들인 데라 무라드 자말리, 시비, 그리고 퀘타등으로 옮겨졌으며 30만 이상의 사람들이 특별히 자코바바드 의 신디 지방으로부터 데라 무라드 자말리와 시비 지방으로 일찍 옮겨졌었다.

There can be no doubt that the presence of the Pakistan army personnel at the breach of Jamali bypass indicates the fact that this was an intentional breach. This must be investigated along in order to ascertain who gave the orders. Those giving the orders must be prosecuted. The government of Pakistan must also probe the allegations of deliberate breaches; not only in the incident involving Shahbaz airbase but also those reported earlier where the agricultural lands belonging to senior ministers was protected from the floodwaters also by intentional breaches.

파키스탄 군관계자가 자말리 우회로가 침해 되었을 때 있었다는 것이 의심할 여지 없다는 사실은 이것이 고의적인 침해였음을 말한다. 이는 누가 명령을 내렸는가를 규명하기 위해서도 조사되어야 한다. 파키스탄 정부는 또한 고의적인 침해들에 대한 진술을 철저히 조사해야 한다: 샤바츠 공군 기지와 관련된 사건 뿐만이 아니라 고의적 [우회로]침해로 인해 선임 장관들이 소유한 농경지들이 홍수물로부터 보전된 곳들이라고 일찍 기사화된 것역시 말이다.

It is a gross contradiction that the United States of America is now one of the biggest donors of relief to Pakistan and it is therefore unacceptable that they are allegedly refusing permission to use Shahbaz airbase for the distribution of that relief.

미국이 현재 파키스탄에 대한 가장 큰 구호 기부자들의 하나라는것은 터무니없는모순으로 듣는 바에 의하면 그들이 그 구호 분배를 위해 샤바츠 공군 기지를 사용하는 것의 허락을 거절한다는 것은 그러므로 받아들일 수 없다.

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

AHRC 란: 아시아 인권 위원회 (The Asian Human Rights Commission: AHRC) 는 아시아의 인권 이슈들을 감시하고 압력을 녛는 지역의 비정부 단체이다. 홍콩에 기반한 단체로 1984년 세워졌다.

________________________________________________________

* Other reference materials 다른 참고 자료

English(영문)

_ Video: Why Isn't the World Rushing to Rescue Pakistan
왜 세계는 파키스탄을 구하러 달려가지 않는가?
(*From Bruce Gagnon blog on Sunday, August 22, 2010: SLIM SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE IN PAKISTAN)
(* 출처: 브루스 개그논 블로그, 2010년 8월 22일: 파키스탄인들을 위한 너무도 미약한 지지)

_ Floods in Pakistan not ‘natural’: U.S. militarism’s role in the disaster
파키스탄 홍수는 '자연적'인 것이 아니다: 재난에서 '미 군사 주의'의 역활
By Sara Flounders 사라 플라운더
International Action Center 국제 행동 센터
Aug 18, 2010 2010년 8월 18 일

Excerpts 발제

The floods will grow far worse in the coming week as record high waters move further downstream toward larger population centers in south Pakistan.

기록적으로 높은 물이 파키스탄 남부의 인구많은 중심지들쪽으로 옮겨짊에 따라 다가오는 주에 홍수가 월씬 악화될 것으로 보인다.

[...]

U.N. emergency relief coordinator John Holmes said the numbers would reach 40 to 50 million people in need of immediate assistance, out of a population of 170 million.

유엔 비상 구호 코디네이터 존 홀름스는 즉각적인 도움을 필요로 할 이들이 1억 7천만 인구중 4천만에서 5천만 인들이 될 것이라고 말했다.

All the words of concern from humanitarian agencies are starting to pour forth. But so far the amount of aid reaching Pakistan from the U.S., NATO countries and U.N. agencies is among of the smallest ever for disaster relief.

인도주의 기관들로부터 모든 우려의 말들이 나오기 시작했다. 그러나 지금까지 미국이나 북대서양 조약 기구 국가들, 그리고 유엔 기관들로부터 나오는 파키스탄에 도달하는 보조량은 재난 구호를 위해 가장 적은 것중에 속한다.

[..]

Washington has promised $55 million for emergency aid and the use of six helicopters. What an insult! Just this year Congress allocated to the Pentagon more than 1,000 times this paltry amount to continue to fight its wars in the region.

워싱턴은 구호 보조를 위해 5천 5백만 달러와 6개의 헬리콥터 사용을 약속했다. 이 무슨 모욕인가 ! 바로 올 해 미 국회는 이 얼마 되지 않은 양의 천 배 이상을 미 국방부가 이 지역에서의 전쟁들에서 싸우게 하기 위해 할당하지 않았던가?

[...]

The alliance with the U.S. has been of absolutely no help in the country’s hour of greatest need. The corrupt feudal officials and even more corrupt repressive military, all kept in power by enormous amounts of U.S. military aid, have proved totally unable to even notify the millions of people who were clearly at risk or to move into place the most basic emergency equipment.

미국과의 동맹은 이 나라가 가장 필요한 시기에 도움을 결코 주지 못했다. 미국 군대의 엄청난 보조로 권력을 유지했던 부패한 연방 관리들과 한층 더 부패하고 억압된 군대는 명확히 위험에 빠져 있던 수백만의 사람들에게 사전 주의도 못 주었을 뿐만 아니라 가장 기본적인 비상 장비들도 옮겨 놓지 못했을 정도로 완전히 그 무능함이 드러났다.

Washington is more than willing to sell Pakistan F-16 jets, hundreds of surface-to-air missiles and surveillance planes. This is enormously profitable to U.S. military contractors and Pakistan ends up ever further in debt.

워싱턴은 파키스탄에게 F-16 제트기들, 수백개의 공대지 미사일들, 그리고 정찰기들을 파는 것 이상을 기꺼이 하려 한다. 이는 미국 군사 계약업자들에게 거대하게 이윤이며 파키스탄은 훨씬 더 많은 빚으로 끝나고 말 것이다.

[...]

To respond to natural and human-made emergencies, what is needed is the uprooting of this capitalist system of exploitation and national oppression so every country can establish planning to meet its people’s needs.

자연과 인류가 만든 비상 사태에 대응하기 위해 필요한 것은 착취와 국가 억압의 자본주의 시스템을 축출하여 모든 나라가 그 민중들의 필요를 충족하게 하기 위한 계획을 세우게 할 수 있게 하는 것이다.

_ LPP Karachi Statement on Flooding(click)
홍수에 대한 파키스탄 노동당 (카라치) 성명서(클릭)

August 20, 2010 2010년 8월 20일

The Disaster, and the Way Out 재난 및 탈출의 길

Labour Party Pakistan (Karachi), National Trade Union Federation
파키스탄 노동당 (카라치), 전국 연방 노조

(*Informed by the Joan Landy(Campaign for Peace And Democracy) on Aug. 20, 2010
조안 랜디_ 평화와 민주주의를 위한 캠페인으로부터 2010년 8월 20일 제공됨)

Excerpt 발제_ Demand 요구

1. CANCEL THE DEBT
빚을 취소하라

2. CUT DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
국방 지출을 삭감하라

3. INTERNAIONAL ASSISTANCE IN GRANTS, NOT LOANS
국제 보조, 대부아닌 수여로

4. REDIRECT AMERICAN MILITARY SPENDING
미국 군사 지출 방향을 바꾸어라

5. REPARATIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
기후 변화에 대한 보상

6. DEMOCRATIC AND TRANSPARENT RECONSTRUCTION
민주주의적이고 투명한 재건설을


Korean (국문)

파키스탄 홍수 관련 기사들(클릭)

파키스탄 구호 관련 기사들(클릭)

한겨레, 2010년 8월 16일, 조기원 기자
“파키스탄 홍수, 여태껏 본 적 없는 재난”: 반기문, 국제사회 지원 호소

'반기문 유엔 사무총장이 “파키스탄 홍수는 여태껏 본 적 없는 재난”이라며 국제사회의 지원을 촉구하고 나섰다.

반 총장은 아시프 알리 자르다리 파키스탄 대통령과 함께 헬리콥터를 타고 15일 주요 피해현장인 펀자브 지방을 둘러보았다. 반 총장은 “세계 다른 자연재해 피해 현장을 본 적이 있지만 이런 것은 처음 본다”며 “내가 오늘 목격한 파괴와 고통의 현장을 잊을 수 없다. 오늘은 가슴 아픈 날이었다”고 말했다고 <에이피>(AP) 통신은 전했다.

반 총장은 “홍수 물결이 국제사회 지원 물결과 만나야 한다”며 “나는 오늘 세계의 지원을 촉구하기 위해 여기 왔다”고 말했다. 유엔은 초기 구호를 위해서만 4억5900만달러 가량이 필요하다고 밝혔지만, 지금까지 목표액의 20% 정도밖에 모이지 않았다.

파키스탄 홍수 피해 사망자는 약 1600명으로 나르기스(약 13만8000명)나 쓰촨성 지진(약 9만명)에 비해서는 적다. 그러나 홍수 피해 지역이 파키스탄 전체 국토 면적의 4분의 1에 달할 만큼 피해 범위가 광범위하다.'

Text Fwd: U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role

*Corazon Valdez Fabros informed the text.

Washington Post
U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role
By Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 4, 2010; A01

Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.

The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.

One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.

Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not."

'More access'

Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration, when most briefings on potential future operations were run through the Pentagon chain of command and were conducted by the defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"We have a lot more access," a second military official said. "They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly."

The White House, he said, is "asking for ideas and plans . . . calling us in and saying, 'Tell me what you can do. Tell me how you do these things.' "

The Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counterterrorism forces and joint operations with them. In Yemen, for example, "we are doing all three," the official said. Officials who spoke about the increased operations were not authorized to discuss them on the record.

The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said last week that the United States "will not merely respond after the fact" of a terrorist attack but will "take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."

That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to "take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge." The elite Special Operations units, drawn from all four branches of the armed forces, became a frontline counterterrorism weapon for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But Obama has made such forces a far more integrated part of his global security strategy. He has asked for a 5.7 percent increase in the Special Operations budget for fiscal 2011, for a total of $6.3 billion, plus an additional $3.5 billion in 2010 contingency funding.

Bush-era clashes between the Defense and State departments over Special Operations deployments have all but ceased. Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saw them as an independent force, approving in some countries Special Operations intelligence-gathering missions that were so secret that the U.S. ambassador was not told they were underway. But the close relationship between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is said to have smoothed out the process.

"In some places, we are quite obvious in our presence," Adm. Eric T. Olson, head of the Special Operations Command, said in a speech. "In some places, in deference to host-country sensitivities, we are lower in profile. In every place, Special Operations forces activities are coordinated with the U.S. ambassador and are under the operational control of the four-star regional commander."

Chains of command

Gen. David H. Petraeus at the Central Command and others were ordered by the Joint Staff under Bush to develop plans to use Special Operations forces for intelligence collection and other counterterrorism efforts, and were given the authority to issue direct orders to them. But those orders were formalized only last year, including in a CENTCOM directive outlining operations throughout South Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.

The order, whose existence was first reported by the New York Times, includes intelligence collection in Iran, although it is unclear whether Special Operations forces are active there.

The Tampa-based Special Operations Command is not entirely happy with its subordination to regional commanders and, in Afghanistan and Iraq, to theater commanders. Special Operations troops within Afghanistan had their own chain of command until early this year, when they were brought under the unified direction of the overall U.S. and NATO commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and his operational deputy, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez.

"Everybody working in CENTCOM works for Dave Petraeus," a military official said. "Our issue is that we believe our theater forces should be under a Special Operations theater commander, instead of . . . Rodriguez, who is a conventional [forces] guy who doesn't know how to do what we do."

Special Operations troops train for years in foreign cultures and language, and consider themselves a breed apart from what they call "general purpose forces." Special Operations troops sometimes bridle at ambassadorial authority to "control who comes in and out of their country," the official said. Operations have also been hindered in Pakistan -- where Special Operations trainers hope to nearly triple their current deployment to 300 -- by that government's delay in issuing the visas.

Although pleased with their expanded numbers and funding, Special Operations commanders would like to devote more of their force to global missions outside war zones. Of about 13,000 Special Operations forces deployed overseas, about 9,000 are evenly divided between Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Eighty percent of our investment is now in resolving current conflicts, not in building capabilities with partners to avoid future ones," one official said.

Questions remain

The force has also chafed at the cumbersome process under which the president or his designee, usually Gates, must authorize its use of lethal force outside war zones. Although the CIA has the authority to designate targets and launch lethal missiles in Pakistan's western tribal areas, attacks such as last year's in Somalia and Yemen require civilian approval.

The United Nations, in a report this week, questioned the administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification -- the permission of the country in question -- is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge approving the attacks.

Former Bush officials, still smarting from accusations that their administration overextended the president's authority to conduct lethal activities around the world at will, have asked similar questions. "While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based," said John B. Bellinger III, a senior legal adviser in both of Bush's administrations.

The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.

Text Fwd: CYNICAL POLITICS OF EMPIRE

Bruce Gagnon blog
on May 14, 2010
CYNICAL POLITICS OF EMPIRE

Afghanistan War $$ hidden in Democratic Party bill

The ruling Democratic Party, so afraid of its war in Afghanistan's rising unpopularity with the American people, has chosen to create a war funding supplemental bill that sugar coats the $33 billion more for the Central Asian quagmire in layers of hard to pass up frosting.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/crsescalation.pdf

The Administration has requested $63 billion in FY2010 supplemental appropriations:

• $33 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) primarily for deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan;

• $4.5 billion in war-related foreign aid to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan;

• $5.1 billion to replenish the U.S. Disaster Relief Fund administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);

• $2.8 billion for Haiti reconstruction and foreign aid in the wake of the earthquake;

• $13.4 billion to compensate veterans exposed to Agent Orange;

• $3.4 billion to settle land trust claims of American Indians in the long-standing Cobell case; and

• $1.2 billion to settle the discrimination claims of 70,000 black farmers in the Pigford II case.

Text Fwd: CLARITY ON AFGHANISTAN PIPELINE STORY

Bruce Gagnon blog on March 16, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
CLARITY ON AFGHANISTAN PIPELINE STORY

I've had lots of responses to my post the other day about the Marines being used to clear out southwest Afghanistan. One friend here in Maine sent me the above map that was in a Canadian newspaper in 2008. This map lays out a similar pipeline route from Turkmenistan that would deliver natural gas through Afghanistan, Pakistan, and then into India.

The June, 2008 Globe and Mail story was entitled "Pipeline opens new front in Afghan war."

Here are a few tidbits from it:

"Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India – a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province – raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project.

"To prepare for proposed construction in 2010, the Afghan government has reportedly given assurances it will clear the route of land mines, and make the path free of Taliban influence.

"The so-called Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India [TAPI] pipeline has strong support from Washington because the U.S. government is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran.

"Afghanistan's national government could reap $160-million (U.S.) a year in transit fees, an amount equivalent to half the government's current revenue.

"The pipeline proposal goes back to the 1990s, when the Taliban government held talks with California-based Unocal Corp. – and its U.S. government backer – while considering a competing bid by Argentina's Bridas Corp. Those U.S.-Taliban talks broke down in August, 2001. India, which desperately needs natural gas imports to fuel its growth, later joined the revived project."

So the picture gets clearer still. It is likely that the plan in the end would call for parallel pipelines carrying oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region - one turning east into Pakistan and then India and the second continuing south into Pakistan and ending at ports along the Arabian Sea.

But everyone acknowledges now that the "success" of these proposals is conditioned on stabilizing Afghanistan - what the U.S. and Canadian governments call dealing with "security concerns."

One of the chief concerns of the U.S. and their NATO allies is certainly making sure that Iran does not succeed in their efforts to have the pipelines run through their country. So in a sense the U.S.-NATO war on Iran has already begun.

Text Fwd: CENTRAL ASIA PIPELINE PLAN BEGINS TO EMERGE

Bruce Gagnon sent on March 14, 2010

The Washington Post today introduces us this morning to a controversy over Afghanistan war strategy. The Post reports that operations in Delaram (in the southwest) are "far from a strategic priority for senior officers at the international military headquarters in Kabul. One calls Delaram, a day's drive from the nearest city, 'the end of the Earth.' Another deems the area 'unrelated to our core mission' of defeating the Taliban by protecting Afghans in their cities and towns."

Why then are the Marines fighting in this part of the country?

The Post continues, "The Marines are constructing a vast base on the outskirts of town that will have two airstrips, an advanced combat hospital, a post office, a large convenience store and rows of housing trailers stretching as far as the eye can see. By this summer, more than 3,000 Marines -- one-tenth of the additional troops authorized by President Obama in December -- will be based here."

Again the Post adds, "They [some officials] question whether a large operation that began last month to flush the Taliban out of Marja, a poor farming community in central Helmand, is the best use of Marine resources. Although it has unfolded with fewer than expected casualties and helped to generate a perception of momentum in the U.S.-led military campaign, the mission probably will tie up two Marine battalions and hundreds of Afghan security forces until the summer."

And finally the Post reports, "Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, the top Marine commander in Afghanistan now wants Marine units to push through miles of uninhabited desert to establish control of a crossing point for insurgents, drugs and weapons on the border with Pakistan. And he wants to use the new base in Delaram to mount more operations in Nimruz, a part of far southwestern Afghanistan deemed so unimportant that it is one of the only provinces where there is no U.S. or NATO reconstruction team."

When you check the maps above a clearer picture emerges. The bottom map is the proposed pipeline route to move Caspian Sea oil through Turkmenistan into Afghanistan and then finally through Pakistan to ports along the Arabian Sea where U.S. and British tankers would gorge themselves with the black gold.

The whole reason the U.S. is in Afghanistan and Pakistan today is to deny those pipelines from being routed through Russia, China, or Iran.

Then look at the top map where the U.S. Marines are operating inside Afghanistan and causing some controversy within the military. They are building big bases in desolate southwestern Afghanistan and wanting to extend control in that region near the border of Pakistan - all of which are areas that must "be controlled" if pipelines are to be successfully built and maintained.

It seems quite obvious to me what is going on. I'd like to hear what you think.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)

Text Fwd: Korea to Send 1,000 Troops for PKO

* Image source/caption: same as the link below

'Yu Myung-hwan, Foreign Minister'

Korea Times
12-31-2009 16:05
Korea to Send 1,000 Troops for PKO
By Kim Sue-young, Staff Reporter

South Korea plans to send more than 1,000 troops to participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations (PKO) in 2010, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Thursday.

In a report to President Lee Myung-bak on its policies for the New Year, the ministry also vowed to make the G20 Summit in Seoul in November a success.

``Given its international status, it is appropriate to send more than 1,000 troops to PKOs,'' a ministry official said, requesting anonymity.

He said that disputed areas in Africa were being reviewed for operations, but details on the exact numbers and locations will be determined after consultations with the U.N.

Currently, Korea has 401 troops, the 39th largest among U.N. member countries, stationed in more than 10 countries including Lebanon, India and Pakistan.

The ministry also plans to place emphasis on the G20 Summit, a meeting of the world's 19 largest economies and the European Union.

It will appoint embassy officials to participating nations to encourage local entrepreneurs to support the summit.

President Lee will broaden his summit diplomacy toward the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, the report said.

``Lee focused on upgrading partnerships with four powers in his first year in office, and in 2009, he placed the emphasis on Asia,'' the official said.

``But this year's summit diplomacy will be centered on the other three regions,'' he added.

Additionally, Lee will promote a tripartite summit with China and Japan in May and negotiations for free trade agreements with the two neighboring countries.

The ministry will increase its Official Development Assistance (ODA) in a bid to extend its role in international society.

``We are seeking to increase ODA to 0.13 percent of GNI (growth national income) from the current 0.1 percent in 2009, and to 0.25 percent in 2015,'' the official said.
Korea joined the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, a group of donors, last month.

ksy@koreatimes.co.kr

[국문 번역: Protest Call] Update added:Drone Protest at CIA HQ - Jan 16 미 중앙 정보부앞 무인 비행기 반대 시위 2010년 1월 16일

Update 2
Bruce Gagnon blog
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
DRONE BANNER DROP AT SMITHSONIAN IN DC



_____________________________________________________________________
Update 1




Bruce Gagnon blog
Sunday, January 17, 2010
REPORT ON CIA DRONE PROTEST TRIP

"I was invited by activist Cindy Sheehan to speak at the CIA drone protest held on Saturday afternoon (January 16) outside their Langley, Virginia headquarters. As we arrived we saw big orange barricades all along the road with yellow “crime scene” plastic tape stretched all along the highway and also draped from tree to tree in the narrow spit of woods separating the four-lane road and the CIA fortress. A 50-yard open area was our protest “zone” and was totally encircled by the yellow tape. The clear message to the many cars blasting by us was: “Don’t go near those inside the yellow tape. A crime is now being committed by them.” A massive number of CIA cops and Fairfax County police had us surrounded, even from inside the patch of woods.

Cindy had worked hard in recent weeks to promote the event, primarily by Facebook and regular emails. She told us that her Facebook page was “mysteriously” taken down in the last week creating the impression amongst some that the event had been cancelled. As it turned out just over 100 people showed up for the event. A good percentage of the folks there were the Catholic Worker activists (Witness Against Torture) who have been valiantly continuing their daily “no torture” protests in front of the White House. Dressed in their orange prison garb with black hoods over their heads they were a strong reminder of the CIA directed detentions and interrogations at Guantanamo and other such hell-holes run by the U.S. around the world.

Singer/songwriter David Rovics was there to perform but had to do so without a sound system as it didn’t work. A former FBI agent, turned peace activist after being fired for refusing to investigate hunger-striking veterans protesting U.S. illegal wars in Central America in the 1980’s, told his moving story. Kathy Kelly spoke in her usual animated and heart-rending way about the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who are suffering the reality of drone strikes. Cindy Sheehan told us about the many messages she was getting from Pakistan where people were thrilled to hear that Americans were actually protesting at the CIA’s HQ.

My friend Will Van Natta drove up from southeast Florida for the event. He is a lifeguard in West Palm Beach and in 1997 swam about 20 miles in the ocean to protest the launch of the Cassini plutonium spacecraft. His courageous action was a huge media event and reminded us that if we each just do what we are “good at” then our contributions can be enormous. He has just bought time on a local radio station and will air his own weekly progressive talk show.

When I spoke at the protest I said how glad I was to be there for the first time in my life. The CIA, and their drone attacks, is the symbol of the corporatization and privatization of U.S. war policy. The running of wars has essentially been taken away from a neutered Congress and put into the hands of the secret cabal that now runs our government. We need to shine a light on this.

I also of course talked about how U.S. space technology controls the drones as it does most Pentagon “net centric” war fighting these days. Robotic warfare might be “hands off” and “out of sight-out of mind” but it is still dirty and is killing legions of civilians.

I reminded folks that drone and other robotic devices were ultimately just manifestations of a larger war and domination policy. We need to keep putting in front of the public the big picture and I went on to talk about “security export”, the U.S. role under corporation globalization of the world economy. Endless war is America’s future and social collapse at home will be the end result unless a movement springs up quickly.

On the train ride to DC I began reading a new book called “Democracy’s Prisoner: Eugene V. Debs, The Great War, and The Right to Dissent.”

Debs is my hero in American history. He ran for president five times as a Socialist and the last time, 1920, did so from the Atlanta penitentiary where he was jailed for having spoken out against U.S. participation in World War I. Arrested under the “Sedition Act” Debs and many others were jailed for opposing President Woodrow Wilson’s military draft and his decision to move the U.S. into that bloody war.

I began my CIA protest speech by telling a story from this book. Wilson was elected as the “peace candidate” in 1916 saying that he would keep the U.S. out of the European war. But immediately after the election was over Wilson turned and began a massive national war mobilization and cracked down hard on the large anti-war movement that existed prior to the election.

The book, written by Ernest Freeberg, recounts, “For many, the conflict was still distant and incomprehensible. Christian pacifists, agrarian populists, and many progressive reformers believed that Wilson’s decision to intervene in Europe betrayed the nation’s highest principles, while the Socialists still insisted that the country would be fighting ‘for the interest of financial freebooters [corporations] only.’ Most of the liberal peace organizations either disbanded or supported Wilson’s war to end all wars, but many individuals from those groups dreaded the prospect of having to choose between their country and their conscience.”

One man in the crowd outside the CIA HQ yelled out at this point asking me if I was trying to make a “subtle” comparison to Obama? Of course I was. Obama is now doing what Wilson did during his time in office, neutralize the left and fragment the anti-war movement. We need to learn from these lessons of history.

I ended my talk by sharing the story about our recent launch of the Bring Our War $ Home campaign in Maine. I said, “In Maine we are calling on our two congresspersons to not only vote against further war spending bills but also become leaders in the House against war. The House is where we might have a slim chance to block any more war funding but we are going to have to first enliven our local communities and states. If we want to stop war then we have to fight to save social progress at home. If we want to ground the drones we have to connect them to the suffering people all over this nation who will increasingly be the brunt of this mad war for corporate control.

“Good luck to you all and get organized.”

_____________________________________________________________________

Click on image for full view

이미지를 클릭 하시면 크게 보임

* Original English Image source 원문 이미지 소스:
Organizing Notes and Space4Peace.org

*

_____________________________________________________________________
FLYER 1 (above)전단 1 (위)

* Sent from Bruce Gagnon on Dec. 26, 2009
브루스 개그논으로부터 2009년 12월 26일 보내짐

'NO MURDEROUS CIA DRONES!
'살인적인 미 중앙 정보부 무인 비행기 반대'
Saturday, January 16, 2010
2010년 1월 16일. 토요일
1:00pm - 4:00pm
오후 1시부터 4시

CIA Headquarters (Langley, Virginia)
미 중앙 정보부 본부 (버지니아주 랭글리)

It was recently announced that the White House gave the CIA permission to increase its drone bombings in Pakistan of which to date over 1/3rd of the deaths are civilian.

백악관이 파키스탄에서 드로운(무인 비행기)의 공격을 늘리도록 미 중앙 정보부를 허락한 사실이 최근에 발표되었는데 현재까지 사망자의 1/3이 민간인이었다.

The CIA is a profoundly violent and corrupt organization and, while we don't think the Military should be using manned, or unmanned aerial vehicles, we think the drone bombings from CIA robots are particularly despicable.

미 중앙 정보부는 심오하게 폭력적이고 타락한 단체로서 우리는 군대가 유인 비행기 또는 무인 비행기를 사용해야 한다고 생각하지 않은 동시에 미 중앙 정보부 로봇들로부터 가해지는 무인 비행기 공격은 특히 경멸할 만한 것이라고 생각한다.

Many of us will be in the DC area for the Witness Against Torture vigil-fast from Dec 11-22, so we decided to do this protest on Saturday, January 16th.

우리중의 많은 이들이 고문을 반대하는 증인 침번-단식을 서기 위해 수도 워싱턴에 [1월] 11일부터 22일까지 있을 것이다. 그래서 이 시위를 1월16일, 토요일 하기로 했다.


Speakers: Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, Kathy Kelly, Debra Sweet and Col. (Ret.) Ann Wright, Bruce Gagnon, Joshua Smith (Technical Briefing).

연설자들: 신디 시핸, 신시아 맥키니, 캐티 켈리, 데브라 스위트. 그리고 퇴역 육군 대령 앤 라이트, 브루스 개그논, 조슈아 스미스(기술 개요)

Songs of Social Significance to be performed by David Rovics. http://www.davidrovics.com/

사회적으로 중요한 노래들이 데이비드 로빅스에 의해 공연. http://www.davidrovics.com/


Please join us if you can!

할 수 있다면 참가하시길.

Temporary Download Link for CIA Protest Flyer PDF:
미 중앙 정보부 앞 시위 전단은 잠정적으로 여기를 클릭(영문)
http://www.ipdop.org/cia_drone_protest_flyer.pdf


Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
우주의 무기와 핵을 반대하는 글로벌 넷워크
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)'


_____________________________________________________________________
FLYER 2 (bottom)전단 1 (아래)

국문 번역문을 사이트로 보려면 여기를 클릭 (2009 년 1월 3일 엎데이트)
Too see the Korean translation in site, click HERE. (Update on Jan. 3, 2009)

____________________________________________________________________________

For more on Drones, please see the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space site. Click HERE.
드로운 (무인 비행기)에 관한 더 많은 정보는 우주의 무기와 핵을 반대하는 글로벌 넷워크 사이트를 보실 것. 여기를 클릭.





Drones: Predators and Reapers - campaigning presentation [by MacGregor Eddy]
드로운(무인 비행기): 프리데이터와 리퍼- 캠페인 프리젠테이션 [맥그리거 에디 제작]

____________________________________________________________________________
* 한국인들을 위해 For Koreans

무인비행기와 미사일 방어에 관한 글/ 비디오들

글들 Writings

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/text-fwd-predator-execs-eye-global.html
Monday, September 21, 2009
[국문 번역] Text Fwd: Drones and Missile Defense to be Linked
"무인비행기와 미사일 방어의 연관성"

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/text-fwd-missile-defense-other-story.html
Friday, September 18, 2009
[국문 번역]Text Fwd: MISSILE DEFENSE: THE OTHER STORY
미사일 방어: 또 다른 이야기(브루스 개그논 씀)

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/text-fwd-attack-of-drones.html
Monday, September 14, 2009
[국문 번역] Text Fwd: Attack of the drones
무인 비행기의 공격

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/text-fwd-militarising-space-fallujah.html
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
[국문 번역]Text Fwd: Militarising space: The Fallujah fallacy
우주 공간의 군사화: 팔루쟈 궤변

비디오 Videos

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-fwd-killer-bee-uavs.html
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
[국문 번역]Video Fwd: KILLER BEE UAV'S
살인벌 무인 비행기

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/slife-fwd-drones-remote-control-war.html
Sunday, September 6, 2009
[국문 번역] Slide Fwd: DRONES: Remote Control War
무인비행기: 원격 조정 전쟁

무인 비행기 및 한국 우주 항공 산업 요약

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2010/01/text-fwd-exclusive-s-korea-to-transfer.html
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Text fwd: [Exclusive] S. Korea to Transfer UAV, Missile Technologies to UAE
[호외] 남한, 유나이티드 아랍 에미레이츠에 무인 비행기, 미사일 기술 전달 예정

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/12/text-fwd-portion-for-defense-r-cost.html

Wednesday, December 23, 2009
[국문] Text Fwd: The Portion for the Defense R&D Cost Would Be Increased to 10% of the Whole Defense Budget, by 2010.
(Unofficial translation of National Defense News, ROK: 'Unmanned Combat System' mentioned)
국방연구개발비 비중확대 2020년 국방비 대비 10%로
(국방 뉴스를 번역한 것으로 무인 전투 시스템 언급)

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post.html
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
[국문] Summary of the UAV and Korea Aero Industry Space
무인 비행기 및 한국 우주 항공 산업 요약
(by No Base Stories of Korea)

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/08/text-fwd-unmanned-us-spy-plane-crashes.html
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
[국문 번역] Text Fwd: Unmanned US spy plane crashes near inter-Korean border
2007년 8월 27일
미국 무인 첩보 비행기, 한반도 분단선 경계 근처에서 추락하다.

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/search/label/Korea%20Aerospace%20Industries
Collection of the blogs of the Korea Aerospace Industry
한국 우주 항공 산업 블로그 모음 (대부분 영문)