Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Margaret Thatcher

El titulo amarillo de abajo contiene un link al documento completo en version PDF

El teniente coronel (R) Rodolfo Richter presento su libro: Lucha Armada del PRT-ERP y Las Condiciones Revolucionarias (Dunken)

AASP EX ENEMIGOS QUE DIALOGAN

AASP EX ENEMIGOS QUE DIALOGAN

Link corto para compartir o regresar >  http://wp.me/p2jyCr-Rk

         Algo muy curioso ocurrió el miércoles 19 de 2017 en esta Ciudad. Lo que en principio parecía la anodina presentación de un libro terminó suscitando un debate esclarecedor sobre el pasado violento de nuestro país y sus perspectivas a futuro, a partir de las opiniones de los protagonistas menos pensados.

Todo sucedió en un aula de la Universidad Católica Argentina. El teniente coronel (R) Rodolfo Richter presentaba Lucha armada: el PRT-ERP y las condiciones revolucionarias (Dunken).     Es un volumen que revisa, con criterio desapasionado, los devaneos doctrinarios que a fines de la década de 1960 llevaron al grupo dirigido por Mario Roberto Santucho a tomar las armas en contra de lo que indicaban ciertos preceptos del marxismo-leninismo. El libro es la versión reducida y adaptada de la tesis que Richter defendió para acceder al doctorado en Ciencia Política.

 

Aquí un primer dato llamativo. Richter es paralítico. Perdió la movilidad de las piernas en febrero de 1975, cuando fue herido en el combate inaugural de la Operación Independencia que dispuso el gobierno democrático peronista para derrotar al ERP en el monte tucumano. Entonces tenía 26 años y era teniente de infantería del Ejército con las aptitudes de paracaidista y comando. Después de una trabajosa recuperación, logró rehacer su vida. Estudió y se convirtió en profesor de Ciencia Política. Lo que sufrió a manos de la guerrilla no le impidió estudiarla con seriedad hasta hurgar en las razones de su derrota estrepitosa.

Advertisements

“Quien es piadoso con los crueles acaba por ser cruel con los piadosos”. Talmud

ENLACE CORTO>   http://wp.me/p2hqUO-R5 

FEBO  ASOMA…

BANDERA ARGENTINA 2La noche del domingo los argentinos recuperamos la libertad después de la larga noche kirchnerista. Mucho se ha dicho sobre el fraude que se habría producido en el escrutinio provisorio que, por cierto, carece de efecto legal, ya éste queda reservado al definitivo que se conocerá en pocos días. Las encuestas “boca de urna” que se difundieron durante la jornada electoral, que arrojaban márgenes en favor del candidato de Cambiemos que iban desde 8 hasta 16 puntos, generaron dudas cuando el dato final fue un escasísimo 2,8, producto del éxito de la campaña del miedo oficialista.

Con esa pequeña diferencia y por lo mucho que conozco al kirchnerismo, me formulé una pregunta: ¿por qué Scioli reconoció su derrota tan temprano, a las 21:36, y con sólo 50% de las mesas escrutadas? El viernes, respondió que temía que la situación se saliera de cauce por la agresiva presencia de Quebracho, La Cámpora, Miles, la Tupac Amaru y el Movimiento Evita en la Plaza de Mayo.

Se confirmó ahora que el oficialismo prepara una gigantesca concentración para el 9 y el 10 de diciembre, para despedir a la Presidente e impedir que la ciudadanía acompañe a Macri en la asunción. La machacante recomendación de la imitadora local de Nicolás Maduro a sus militantes “empoderados” para que defiendan “en la calle” las supuestas conquistas y las incitaciones a la violencia de la “soñadora” Hebe Bonafini y Fernando Esteche, a sueldo de la ex-SIDE, pronostican incidentes complicados pero no deberá temblar la mano que ordene la represión de eventuales hechos antidemocráticos.

Por su parte, María Eugenia Vidal, Gobernadora electa de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, alertó sobre la posible generación de saqueos a fin de año, e instó firmemente al kirchnerismo -al cual responsabilizó- a desactivarlos.

Lo descripto, más el vergonzoso trato de la Presidente a Macri y, en especial, la bochornosa sesión en Diputados del jueves, en la cual fueron aprobados casi cien proyectos del Ejecutivo que, de transformarse en leyes, costarán al Estado la friolera de US$ 1.600 millones, justifica el título de esta nota; la esencial e imbécil colaboración de la izquierda para lograr el quorum, me recordó un artículo de José Enrique Miguens, “Darse cuenta”, que está disponible en Internet. El kirchnerismo, siempre canalla, continuará sembrando bombas para intentar, hasta el último día, impedir que la próxima administración tenga éxito y, así, permitirse soñar con retornar al poder.

La Corte Suprema, por su parte, también salió a reafirmar su poder y, después de largos años de injustificado atraso, decretó la inconstitucionalidad de la ampliación del Consejo de la Magistratura, y falló en favor de las provincias en su reclamo por la cesión de coparticipación federal; ambas sentencias, sin dudas, son correctas pero no se puede decir lo mismo del momento elegido para dictarlas. La injustificable demora en la primera cuestión permitió los avances de Cristina contra la Justicia, y las consecuencias de la otra agravarán, aún más, el frágil panorama financiero del Estado.

Mauricio Macri ha designado un gabinete de lujo, quizás -como él mismo ha dicho- uno de los mejores de la historia, y su mejor gesto político fue la ratificación de Lino Barañao como Ministro de Ciencia y Tecnología. Confío en el profesionalismo y en la vocación altruista de todos sus integrantes, muchos de los cuales han resignado importantes cargos en la actividad privada, para superar la grave crisis que, a contramano de las mentiras y de falsedades del discurso agotador de la Presidente, deberemos enfrentar.

Los problemas financieros, que por cierto no son menores, quizás resultarán más simples que los demás por la muy favorable acogida internacional que tuvo el resultado del domingo. Pero la confrontación social, la pobreza, la salud, la educación, el narcotráfico, la inseguridad, los irracionales subsidios, la falta de energía, la obsoleta infraestructura, la insensata ubicación geopolítica regional y mundial, la colonización del Estado en todos sus niveles, la independencia de la Justicia, la revisión de las sentencias írritas, los derechos humanos de todos  y, sobre todo, la implacable persecución a los corruptos de todo linaje, deberán concentrar los mayores esfuerzos de ese grupo de notables.

Por lo demás, confío en que el Frente Renovador y el peronismo federal ejercerán una oposición inteligente y responsable y colaborarán con el Ejecutivo otorgando a sus proyectos el respaldo político y legislativo que nos permita evitar el abismo que estas demenciales conductas intencionalmente han generado; solo así sus nuevos líderes podrán transformarse en una verdadera alternativa a la hora de la indispensable alternancia, ya que habrán atravesado el Jordán y lavado en él sus pecados de juventud.

Nuevos vientos han soplado y los argentinos hemos cambiado, en pocos días, nuestra imagen; hemos dejado atrás la cris-pasión y el pesimismo, y eso se nota en la calle. Pero para eso se convierta en un decidido respaldo a la gestión del Mauricio Macri, éste deberá tratarnos como adultos y, el mismo día de su asunción, hacer el inventario de la real situación del país y convocarnos a todos a poner el hombro, aunque esto implique, como dijo Churchill, sangre, sudor y lágrimas.

Así, el futuro nos pertenecerá. Habremos enderezado el rumbo y recuperado los laureles que. en un pasado lejano, supimos conseguir; entonces, los libres del mundo podrán genuinamente responder “al gran pueblo argentino, salud”.

 Bs.As., 29 Nov 15

ENRIQUE AVOGADRO

Enrique Guillermo Avogadro

Abogado
Tel. (+5411) ò (011) 4807 4401/02
Fax (+5411) o (011) 4801 6819
Cel. en Argentina (+54911) o (15) 4473 4003
Cel. en Brasil (+5521) 8128 7896
E.mail: ega1@avogadro.com.ar
E.mail: ega1avogadro@gmail.com
Site: www.avogadro.com.ar
Blog: http://egavogadro.blogspot.com
Skype: ega1avogadro
Facebook: enrique guillermo avogadro
Twitter: @egavogadro

LOS ISLENOS ARGENTINOS SON CIUDADANOS DE DERECHO PLENO (AUN SER CANDIDATOS a Presidente de La Nacion, ... POR HABER NACIDO EN SUELO PATRIO ... AHORA ... EL MUNDO ESTA ABIERTO A VUESTRS PIES...Presidente Macri.

LOS ISLENOS ARGENTINOS SON CIUDADANOS DE DERECHO PLENO (AUN SER CANDIDATOS a Presidente de La Nacion, … POR el SOLO HECHO DE HABER NACIDO EN SUELO PATRIO … AHORA … EL MUNDO ESTA ABIERTO A VUESTRS PIES…            Presidente Macri.

 

 

APRIL 21, 2015 4:33PM

PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Fight Begins This Week

By PATRICK G. EDDINGTON

Share:  Short Link > http://wp.me/p2jyCr-sV 

http://www.cato.org/blog/patriot-act-reauthorization-fight-begins-week?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=b8a4d3d497-Cato_at_Liberty_RSS&utm_term=0_395878584c-b8a4d3d497-141820070&mc_cid=b8a4d3d497&mc_eid=37a4448f40

 

If the House Judiciary Committee keeps to its current schedule, on Thursday it will meet to consider the third version of the USA Freedom Act in the last two years. I’ve seen a very recent draft of the bill, and from my perspective in its current form the bill effectively acts as if the Snowden revelations and several independent reviews of the PATRIOT Act Sec. 215 metadata program never happened.

The bill ignores the fact that both the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks and the 9/11 Commission itself found that the attacks happened because of information sharing and analytical failures, not because of intelligence collection shortfalls. The bill claims to end the controversial telephone metadata program, but a close reading of the bill reveals that it actually leaves key PATRIOT Act definitions of “person” or “U.S. Person” intact—and under 50 U.S.C. sec. 1801(m) of the PATRIOT Act, “person” is defined as “any individual, including any officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power.” It’s the “group, entity, association or corporation” language that leaves open the possibility of continued mass telephone metadata surveillance under the PATRIOT Act.

The bill also grants the government sweeping “emergency” collection authority not tied to an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, which has generally been the standard for such programs in the past. The bill allows the government to retain U.S. Person call detail records if the government alone determines such records are “foreign intelligence information”. The bill’s FISA court revisions include the creation ofamicus curiae (previously called “special advocates” in earlier version of the USA Freedom Act) that in theory would help the court work its way through particularly thorny cases potentially involving major interpretations of law. But there are two key caveats to this provision: the FISA court has sole discretion to appoint—or not appoint—theseamicus curiae and the government still retains the ability to invoke the “state secrets” privilege, which would render the presence of the amicus curiae moot.

What is missing from the bill is at least as significant as what it contains.

The bill does not address bulk collection under EO 12333 as reported by former State Department official John Napier Tye. Further, the bill fails to address bulk collection and retention of US Person records under Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.

The bill lacks mandatory US Person data destruction and audit compliance provisions for information previously collected on US Persons not currently the subject of a criminal investigation. It contains no protections for national security whistleblowers; has no bar on the government imposing “back doors” being  built into electronic devices, software or hardware; does not bar the USG from targeting U.S. Persons solely on the basis of their use of internet anonymizing technology such as Tor; and does not address the recently revealed DEA telephony metadata program.

Whether supporters of the far more sweeping Surveillance State Repeal Act will be able to get a hearing on that bill or have the chance to take provisions of the SSRA and offer them as amendments to the USA Freedom Act—either in committee or on the House floor—remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the fight over reforming our nation’s surveillance laws is about to get much more intense, and quickly.

Topics:

Foreign Policy and National SecurityLaw and Civil Liberties

 

WHICH  9/11 IS REAL?

Fuente: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/25/341790/mossad-bush-planned-executed-911/

Friday Dec 27, 201310:48 PM GMT

EU urges Turkey to address graft probe in `transparent, impartial manner`

EmailPrint

TWINTOWERS MOSSAD-BUSH PLANED-

A woman takes a moment to mourn lost relatives at the memorial site of the now destroyed World Trade Center, New York, the US, September 11, 2013.

Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:19AM

By Gordon Duff

Related Interviews:

Recent revelations published on the Press TV website, the New York Post and Veterans Today have changed history.

The story was simple, two American congressional representatives were allowed to read the Congressional 9/11 Investigation Report, this time including the areas President Bush had ordered removed. Both congressmen clearly state that the redacted pages of the report place full responsibility for the planning and execution of 9/11 on one or more foreign intelligence agencies, not “terrorists.”

What is also clear is that President Bush’s personal role in covering this up protected the real perpetrators of 9/11 and pushed the US into, not just two insane wars but draconian moves against America’s government.

The NSA and the Bush 9/11 coup

Nine eleven was a coup against the constitution. Additional reports released this week make clear some of the reasons Bush lied to the American people, to congress, our military and our allies, “Obama’s Director for National Intelligence, James Clapper, has declassified new documents that reveal how the NSA was first given the green light to start collecting bulk communication data in the hunt for Al-Qaeda terrorists after 9/11. President Barack Obama’s administration has for the first time publicly confirmed ‘the existence of collection activities authorized by President George W. Bush,’ such as bulk amounts of Internet and phone metadata, as part of the ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ (TSP). The disclosures are part of Washington’s campaign to justify the NSA’s surveillance activities, following massive leaks to the media about the classified programs by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Clapper explained on Saturday that President George W. Bush first authorized the spying in October 2001, just weeks after the September 11 attacks.”

We can prove Bush was fully criminally culpable in covering the tracks of those responsible for 9/11.

AIPAC through Bandar and bush “under a bus”

More frighteningly, the articles published this week in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Daily News, written by Hoover Institute fellow and AIPAC member, Paul Sperry, now not only blame Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia as the 9/11 mastermind but tie Bush (43) in as well.

In fact, the entire AIPAC apparatus, the largest lobbying organization in Washington, is currently engaged in a “full court press,” to stop congress from pushing for the release of the real report. Is this because the real report accuses Israel, not Saudi Arabia, and AIPAC wants the Murdoch/Sperry story to stand?

Bin Laden myth “crashes down”

The real report, called “shocking” by the legislators, who have called for President Obama to declassify the entire report, proves that there was no al-Qaeda involvement, no reason to invade Afghanistan or Iraq and no reason to hunt CIA operative, Colonel Tim Osman, also known as “Osama bin Laden.”

In fact, Ambassador Lee Wanta, a former White House Intelligence Chief and Inspector General of the Department of Defense under Reagan, has cited meetings between key government officials and “bin Laden” that he attended, meetings held in both Los Angeles and Washington DC while the US was supposedly hunting him.

From Wanta, who was present during these meetings, “In early 1990, bin Laden, suffering from advanced kidney disease, was flown to an American facility in the Persian Gulf. From there, bin Laden flew to Los Angeles, landing in the Ontario airport, met by Albert Hakim, representing President Bush (41), Ollie North (free on appeal bond), Admiral William Dickie, attorney Glenn Peglau and General Jack Singlaub, one of the founders of the CIA. Hakim was the personal representative of President Bush and in overall charge of the project. ‘Bud’ McFarlane, an Iran-Contra figure pardoned by President Bush in 1992, was also a part of the group.
Bin Laden then left Los Angeles for Washington DC. There he stayed in the Mayflower Hotel. Meetings were held at the Metropolitan Club in Washington. Attorney Glenn Peglau stayed at the Metropolitan. While there, Peglau’s room was broken into and “items” removed. At no point is there record, classified or public, that this ‘working group’ was ever dissolved nor is there any record that Osama bin Laden’s status as a security operative working for the US government ever ended. In 2001, Osama bin Laden’s last public statement denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. There are no classified documents tying bin Laden to 9/11 or citing him to be a ‘rogue CIA operative.’”

Which 9/11 is real?

In 2007, the FBI flew a team to Bangkok to interview former Soviet nuclear intelligence specialist Dimitri Khalezov. Khalezov told the FBI that, in the morning of September 12, 2001, he attended a breakfast gathering with Mossad Operations Chief Mike Harari and his son along with other Israeli operatives.

Khalezov reported to the FBI that this gathering was to celebrate the 9/11 attacks, not as Netanyahu had said, as a “fortunate happenstance for Israel” but as a Mossad attack on the United States. At that meeting, Harari also claimed credit for a role in the Oklahoma City bombing. According to Khalezov, Harari was courting him to join their group for an upcoming operation, a bombing attack on Bali, scheduled for 2002.

On October 12, 2002, a huge explosive device devastated nearly a square mile killing 202 people. An Islamic group was blamed, just as with not just 9/11 but, initially, Oklahoma City as well.

Khalezov told FBI agents that Harari claimed nuclear weapons were used to bring down the twin towers on 9/11. Harari also said he got a “cruise type” missile, a Soviet “Granit” for the Pentagon attack, purchased through Victor Bout, the “Lord of War” played by Nicholas Cage in the film of the same name.

Bout, residing in Bangkok with Harari and Khalezov, was extradited to the United States based on a highly classified indictment accusing him of supplying the guided missile used to attack the Pentagon on 9/11. Bout was arrested in Bangkok in 2008, not long after the FBI visit. He was officially convicted of supplying arms to rebels in Colombia, an activity Bout had long been engaged in on behalf of the CIA, his arms dealing partners for many years.

Leaks

Thus far, the initial report to congress on the Bush falsification does not qualify as a leak. Only Bush stands accused, the 9/11 perpetrators are still safe, their identities still protected by security protocols maintained by President Obama, despite congressional demands.

“Claimed” leaks reported by Sperry in the Washington Postblame Bandar and Saudi Intelligence for 9/11. Sperry cites the CIA as a source but, quite suspiciously, seems to be attempting to deflect the possible fallout against Israel when or if then real report is made public. The Sperry story, coordinated with AIPAC’s moves to quell congress’s demand to declassify the report may well be an indication that Israeli intelligence, as Khalezov indicates, worked with Bush to plan and execute 9/11.

From the Press TV article: “This week, Congressional representatives Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have officially requested a congressional resolution demanding President Obama declassify the heavily redacted Congressional Investigative Report on 9/11. The two representatives had just been given authority under penalty of ‘national security secrecy’ to read the censored 28 pages of the 800-page report that had not been seen. What has been made clear is that President Bush was fully aware that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were involved in 9/11 and that military action against those two nations was done to cover involvement of his administration in 9/11, involvement that included support from foreign intelligence agencies. The representatives, while reviewing the report, came to the portion titled ‘Specific Sources of Foreign Support.’
A 28-page section here had been ‘butchered’ by the White House on the personal orders of President Bush. On the original report given to Congress, an estimated 5-10,000 words were omitted from this section with page after page of dotted lines replacing text.”

This is only the most recent of revelations that AIPAC has managed to suppress through pressuring congress and its powerful assets in the press. What is increasingly clear is that many of AIPAC’s allies in Washington had access to the non-redacted report. An entire administration, leaders in congress and the Pentagon, the CIA, NSA and a dozen other organizations, all knew what was in the congressional report. They all lied to the 9/11 Commission. They all ordered measures to suppress freedom at home and to butcher hundreds of thousands around the world, kidnap and torture thousand more, all based on lies.

Countries were virtually wiped off the map on a whim. Often we hear it asked, “How could thousands be involved in a conspiracy so heinous?” We now stand ready to answer. The time has come to ask.

HJL/HJL

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest. More Press TV articles by Gordon Duff

6411 387

8556

Related Viewpoints:

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of Press TV.

Los gobiernos y los políticos son males necesarios; ¡también es necesario interrumpir lo que  estamos haciendo, para ir al baño a vaciar nuestra vejiga! Esta  es un pasable buen ejemplo a lo que se refiere el lema de este blog;

AMO A MI PATRIA… A QUIEN TEMO ES A MI GOBIERNO…”

Pero…!Cuidado!

No caigamos tampoco en la crítica ligera, inconducente… ¡No hubiese yo querido estar en los zapatos del Presidente Truman… cuando después de oír a todos sus asesores (incluidos los mentirosos, interesados, o  de espíritu pequeño y mezquino) debió tomar -en soledad- esa decisión : ¿usar o no usar esas dos armas nucleares sobre Hiroshima y Nagasaki?

Todos los gobiernos son humanos y como tales son falibles, ¡todos cometemos errores! – Los errores no me asustan, es el método más viejo de aprender si no los escondemos bajo la alfombra y los usamos bien  (intento y error)

¡Hasta la institución humana más vieja que conozco (La Iglesia Católica) que por miles de años ha sostenido “la infalibilidad Papal”  ha dado un paso gigantesco para aprender y limitar a su gobierno; me refiero a cuando el Papa Polaco pidió Perdón al mundo por las atrocidades cometidas por La Inquisición.

Al re-leer el artículo de abajo me, pregunto: ¿es esta una crítica al Presidente Truman y a su decisión? –  ¡No lo entiendo así! – Es una crítica a todo el uso posterior basado en aquellos hechos. – Usted, yo y la gente común, tenemos muy pocas chances de vernos involucrados en dilemas como los vividos por Truman y Kennedy; pero SI –(si nos da la gana)- de participar en aprender. a elegir mejor y/o limitar a nuestros gobiernos.  –  Pero ¿aprender?… ¿Que podemos aprender nosotros… a nuestro nivel, cuando a la historia la escriben los triunfadores! – Si eso es verdad… ¿o mas bien, ERA verdad?

Fíjense: Debieron pasar 500 años para que La Iglesia Católica diera ese gran paso a la modernidad,… pero pasaron muchísimos menos para que reaccione a graves escándalos modernos como la ostentación de riqueza, el banco Ambrosiano o la pedofilia… el Papa Alemán saltó como un fusible divino, y el Conclave en menos de tres días, (como sacado de la  galera de un mago), ¡ZAS! Francisco, desde el fin del mundo… apareció… Seguro no será  infalible, podrá arreglar solo parte, pero él en sí, no es lo más importante “Los Grandes Cambios Lo Son”  ¡No más infalibilidad! … No más jefe vitalicio… Si un Papa fue mal elegido, no puede, no quiere, o no sirve, se lo cambia, “!…Intento y Error…!”

¿Quieres otro ejemplo? Tal como Francisco, este también traído del frio: La Guerra de Malvinas… Ya no existe más una sola historia, (la “oficial”) hoy la gente, el pueblo tiene Internet, google, correo electrónico, cámaras digitales y amigos en todo el mundo… y entre todos desenmascaramos a los mentirosos y traidores de adentro, de afuera y de los costados, que por desgracia malos políticos hay en todos lados…

¿Cuando crees comenzó La Guerra Austral de Malvinas?  – ¿comenzó el 2 de Abril de 1982 tal como nos la cuenta la “historia oficial Argentina y Británica?  –  ¿Comenzó  con la ocupación incruenta de territorio propio?  ¡Ni una sola baja! … ocupación pre-acordada con Inglaterra y los propios  isleños que veían con agrado ser ciudadanos de algún país (Inglaterra no los trataba así, los consideraba “población implantada, ya cara de mantener para unas islas que habían perdido su valor. Por su lado Argentina los trataba con cariño no como una inver$ión!, sin reparar en gastos.  – O –  ¿Comenzó el 2 de Mayo con la orden de ataque al Crucero General Belgrano? ¡Esa orden causó  más de mil muertos como desmentirán los propios Ingleses cuando levanten el secreto a las cifras oficiales y toda la documentación decretada por el gobierno de su Magestad. Esa orden criminal, la dio La Primer Ministro Ingles, como un desesperado intento en salvar su carrera política que se hundía “como el peor Gobierno de La Historia del Reino Unido” Orden tomada en absoluta soledad contra toda opinión; La del Parlamento (oposición y sus propios partidarios), contra la de su mejor aliado (USA) y aun desde el punto de vista militar fue tan absurda y criminal que el capitán del submarino atómico la hizo repetir tres veces. ¿Quieren que hunda al Crucero General Belgrano, fuera del área de guerra, y en rumbo de retirada? “SI hunda al Belgrano” … “SI HUNDA AL BELGRANO”… “SI, AFIRMATIVO HUNDA AL BELGRANO  – Que yo sepa ningún comandante en guerra, debe pedir autorización para defenderse o atacar, si esta en guerra!  –  Esa orden fue como asesinar por la espalda a un parlamentario con bandera blanca, en retirada… solo allí comenzó la guerra… El cumplimiento de esa repugno a un buen guerrero profesional, que como todos los militares están educados y entrenados, para cumplir ordenes sin discutirlas” La traición fue política como hoy lo han denunciado los propios ingleses en el funeral de Margaret Thatcher.

Hoy tenemos comunicaciones instantáneas a nivel planetario, y lo mejor de todo gratis, no dependientes de selectores oficiales, ni censores (propios o ajenos. Cada uno de nosotros puede construir (a su responsabilidad) su propio castillo de naipes, y si es bien intencionado será mejor que cualquier historia oficial.

Te robo unos instantes más antes de dejarte leer la nota de abajo

Comparemos al cambio de la Iglesia Católica (500 años) con Inglaterra actual, solo 90 años de los que ya han pasado 31.

El Gobierno de su Majestad, decreto el archivo secreto por 90 años de toda la documentación sobre la guerra de Malvinas. Lo no impide a “Sir Lawrence Freedman escribiese sus libros sobre “La Historia Oficial De La Guerra Austral 1982” (pueden ver esos libros en Amazon, siguiendo este link http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+official+History+of+the+Falklands) pero si eres inquieto, un poco rebelde a dejarte manejar, si sigues investigando en Amazon encontraras otra historia “Oficial” del gobierno de un pseudo paisito de 2000 isleños que critican desconformes por la insuficiente parcialidad de la anterior historia “oficial”  –  Yo no he considerado útil en absoluto gastar U$A 104.05 para leer propaganda oficial de un “profesor con titulo nobiliario” siguiendo la necesidad de salvar al menos algo del prestigio nacional Ingles. Especialmente cuando tengo mucha mejor, veraz y mas imparcial información gratis, al alcance de mis dedos (mi laptop) y conste me refiero a fuentes serias, espontaneas no censuradas de los propios ingleses; tal como las críticas hechas a “la peor Leader de Guerra de toda la historia del reino unido”  tal las critica hechas públicas por la oposición y los medios de difusión incluida la BBC de Londres, con motivo del sepelio de Margaret Thatcher, donde se pretendió torcer la historia oficialmente llevando a su sepelio 800 militares para rendirle “homenaje” a su memoria. Quien dese conocer (gratis, sin pedirle permiso a los ingleses e ignorando sus 90 años de secreto (El equivalente al “Índex” con que la Iglesia Católica amenazaba con las llamas del infierno a quien leyese  los libros allí incluidos por orden papal) On Line, ahora, y gratis está plagado con testimonios argentinos y británicos hechas espontáneamente. Si un contendiente (de cualquier guerra) alaba a su enemigo yo le creo mucho más que si se lo acusa de atrocidades, o se alaba a si mismo; pero ¡cuidado! Aun en esos casos no los descarto a la ligera, trato de buscar más publicaciones sobre el mismo hecho. El gran reto que nos desafía hoy Internet es la sobreabundancia de información, no hay una censura y también los mezquinos, mentirosos, criminales de guerra, y mezquinos traidores a sus patrias tienen acceso a Internet. Margaret Thatcher es solo un ejemplo

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did

by WARD WILSON  –  May 29, 2013

The U.S. use of nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II has long been a subject of emotional debate. Initially, few questioned President Truman‘s decision to NUCLEAR BOMBS 2 HIROSHIMA and NAGASHAKIdrop two atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, in 1965, historian Gar Alperovitz argued that, although the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan’s leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for November 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary. Obviously, if the bombings weren’t necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. In the 48 years since, many others have joined the fray: some echoing Alperovitz and denouncing the bombings, others rejoining hotly that the bombings were moral, necessary, and life-saving.

Both schools of thought, however, assume that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with new, more powerful weapons did coerce Japan into surrendering on August 9. They fail to question the utility of the bombing in the first place — to ask, in essence, did it work? The orthodox view is that, yes, of course, it worked. The United States bombed Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, when the Japanese finally succumbed to the threat of further nuclear bombardment and surrendered. The support for this narrative runs deep. But there are three major problems with it, and, taken together, they significantly undermine the traditional interpretation of the Japanese surrender.

Timing

The first problem with the traditional interpretation is timing. And it is a serious problem. The traditional interpretation has a simple timeline: The U.S. Army Air Force bombs Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon on August 6, three days later they bomb Nagasaki with another, and on the next day the Japanese signal their intention to surrender.* One can hardly blame American newspapers for running headlines like: “Peace in the Pacific: Our Bomb Did It!”

When the story of Hiroshima is told in most American histories, the day of the bombing — August 6 — serves as the narrative climax. All the elements of the story point forward to that moment: the decision to build a bomb, the secret research at Los Alamos, the first impressive test, and the final culmination at Hiroshima. It is told, in other words, as a story about the Bomb. But you can’t analyze Japan’s decision to surrender objectively in the context of the story of the Bomb. Casting it as “the story of the Bomb” already presumes that the Bomb’s role is central.

Viewed from the Japanese perspective, the most important day in that second week of August wasn’t August 6 but August 9. That was the day that the Supreme Council met — for the first time in the war — to discuss unconditional surrender. The Supreme Council was a group of six top members of the government — a sort of inner cabinet — that effectively ruled Japan in 1945. Japan’s leaders had not seriously considered surrendering prior to that day. Unconditional surrender (what the Allies were demanding) was a bitter pill to swallow. The United States and Great Britain were already convening war crimes trials in Europe. What if they decided to put the emperor — who was believed to be divine — on trial? What if they got rid of the emperor and changed the form of government entirely? Even though the situation was bad in the summer of 1945, the leaders of Japan were not willing to consider giving up their traditions, their beliefs, or their way of life. Until August 9. What could have happened that caused them to so suddenly and decisively change their minds? What made them sit down to seriously discuss surrender for the first time after 14 years of war?

It could not have been Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki occurred in the late morning of August 9, after the Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender, and word of the bombing only reached Japan’s leaders in the early afternoon — after the meeting of the Supreme Council had been adjourned in deadlock and the full cabinet had been called to take up the discussion. Based on timing alone, Nagasaki can’t have been what motivated them.

Hiroshima isn’t a very good candidate either. It came 74 hours — more than three days — earlier. What kind of crisis takes three days to unfold? The hallmark of a crisis is a sense of impending disaster and the overwhelming desire to take action now. How could Japan’s leaders have felt that Hiroshima touched off a crisis and yet not meet to talk about the problem for three days?

President John F. Kennedy was sitting up in bed reading the morning papers at about 8:45 am on October 16, 1962 when McGeorge Bundy, his national security advisor, came in to inform him that the Soviet Union was secretly putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Within two hours and forty-five minutes a special committee had been created, its members selected, contacted, brought to the White House, and were seated around the cabinet table to discuss what should be done.

Margaret Thatcher with Ronald Reagan at Camp David

Margaret Thatcher with Ronald Reagan at Camp David (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If Thatcher’s supporters don’t want her death and funeral politicized they should stop trying to use it to re-write history as party political propaganda

The Conservative party claim no-one should denigrate Thatcher’s record at this time.   If they didn’t want her death and funeral politicized perhaps they shouldn’t have tried to use it for party political ends and to try to justify their current shameful policy of taking from the disabled, the poor and the unemployed to fund tax cuts for millionaires.

Given the Thatcherite establishment’s shameless rewriting of history, politicization of her death and funeral and attempt to use it to gain votes, the political opponents of the government have no option but to respond in kind. Margaret Thatcher has thousands of admirers who are senior politicians, journalists and editors telling her version of history and the present. They won’t be allowed to stop the millions of people who oppose Thatcherism, and those who suffered under Thatcher and her legacy under her successors, telling the other side of the story.

Thatcher and the Falklands War – 
Not a war hero but either incompetent 
or else deliberately engineering 
a war that wouldn’t have happened otherwise

The attempt to present her as a great war leader in relation to the Falklands, with 800 members of the military to be present at her funeral, is especially hard to reconcile with the historical facts.

When the Argentinians began talking of taking the Falklands in 1977, Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan and Foreign Secretary David Owen were persuaded by military chiefs to send a Royal Navy fleet to the South Atlantic to signal Britain would fight any invasion. The Argentinians backed down. In a similar situation in 1982 Thatcher’s government withdrew the last Royal Navy ship from the area during spending cuts, leading the Argentine military junta to believe Britain would not fight for the islands (18) – (19). They invaded – and then Thatcher declared war. Hundreds died as a result.

Some suggest that Thatcher, then the most unpopular Prime Minister in British history, after increasing unemployment to over 3 million, wanted a war to restore her popularity (20).

It’s impossible to know whether this was the result of blind ideology in imposing spending cuts and incompetence in not caring where they were made, or whether Thatcher wanted the Argentinians to believe Britain wouldn’t fight in order to get a war to restore her political fortunes. Either way she was responsible for an easily avoidable war and all the deaths in it. By any rational standard she should be condemned for not preventing war as simply and easily as Callaghan did rather than lauded for winning a war against an inferior military.

In the case of the 1990-1991 Gulf War against Iraq, which Thatcher committed British troops to shortly before her party got her to resign over the poll tax, there is no such doubt. The Bush (senior) administration and the Kuwaiti monarchy duped Saddam into war with the US over Kuwait. Bush and his advisers sought to repeat Thatcher’s feat of going from unpopularity on domestic unemployment and recession to election victory on a tide of war fuelled nationalism ; they failed.

I won’t celebrate anyone’s death, but Prime Minister David Cameron’s claim that Thatcher “saved our country” and the £10 million state funeral (of which taxpayers will pay at least half the costs) are party political propaganda and a slap in the face to all the unemployed and disabled people facing benefit cuts today (1) – (2). The message is “She mattered, you don’t”.

Thatcherites, like Thatcher, are not revolutionaries but reactionaries who want to go back to the 19th century when there was no welfare state or government regulation

Thatcherites see themselves as radical reformers going up against “the establishment” and “vested interests”. For Thatcher this meant trade unions and public sector professionals like teachers, nurses, doctors and lecturers. For brave Chancellor George Osborne, a public school and Oxford University educated millionaire Chancellor of the Exchequer, it means the vast oppressive charities and churches who help the poorest (4).

Thatcherites aim to roll back all the progress made by Atlee’s post-war Labour government and take us back to the 19th century with no trade unions, no employee rights, no welfare state and no NHS (these “only encourage dependency”) – back to the poorhouse, the workhouse and the poor dying of hunger, cold or illness and being blamed for their own suffering.

It’s new only in rejecting the One Nation conservatism of politicians like Ian Gilmour MP (who condemned Thatcher’s policies and record in his book ‘Dancing With Dogma) and Prime Minister Harold MacMillan.

From On Yer Bike in the 80s to Workers and Shirkers today –
Different Decade, Same Thatcherite attempt to impose ideology over reality

The current Conservative government even continues to claim that it hopes its welfare “reforms” will “encourage people to work” even when it’s own (fiddled) figures show over 5 times more people unemployed (2.52 million) than job vacancies (494,000) (5) – (6). (The actual ratio is higher as the unemployment figures are fiddled downwards by using methods including counting people on unpaid temporary “workfare” placements as “employed” (7).)

So basic arithmetic shows there are no jobs available for over 80% of unemployed people in the UK ; but Thatcherites have never let facts or logic get in the way of an ideology which pretends that the most powerful and wealthiest have no responsibility for the massive effects of their actions, while the poorest and most vulnerable, who have no power or influence, are supposedly entirely to blame for every problem.

Osborne claims people on benefits are all “shirkers” who don’t work (when many do) and don’t work by choice (8) – (9).

So for the first time since 1945 benefits are being cut to punish all the supposed “shirkers” (inflation is 2.2%, but the rise in benefits this year is limited to 1% -a real terms cut) (10)

This is exactly the same crap that was shovelled by Thatcher and her ministers in the 80s, when, after being elected on a campaign that promised to get unemployment down, they increased it from 2 million to over 3 million – and then people like Norman Tebbit told the unemployed to “get on yer bike” and get a job.

Thatcher didn’t save Britain – she began the policies that led to our current problems

Far from saving Britain, Thatcher caused many of our current problems.

Setting us on the road to the banking crisis

As the late Conservative MP Ian Gilmour pointed out, by raising interest rates to double figures to cool a financial sector boom in the South-East of England, Thatcher destroyed much of Britain’s manufacturing industry, which was pushed into recession by the resulting over-valuation of the pound (hurting exports) and unaffordable credit, leaving us over-reliant on the financial sector, which she began the deregulation of with the 1986 ‘Big Bang’ (this being the main cause of the boom, which was as much a bubble as the one that burst recently) (11) – (12).

Destroying key industries due to blinkered ideology

She closed down our steel industry, while other countries, like Germany, continued subsidising steel and other key industries, even under conservative Chancellors like Helmut Kohl. As a result Germany’s economy remains stronger and its unemployment lower than ours.

(And in fact as Nobel prize winning South Korean economist Ha Joon Chang has shown with copious historical examples, every single developed country got that way by subsidising and protecting industries until they were strong enough to compete internationally (13))

Selling off assets that provided revenue to government

She sold off valuable assets like British Gas and British Telecom, losing the government revenue which could have funded the NHS, public education and the welfare state. While it’s likely ideology was the main driving force for these privatisations, they also funded short term income tax cuts which helped her win elections. No wonder former Conservative Prime Minister Harold MacMillan accused her of “selling the family silver”. In fact it was worse than that. She sold the geese that laid the golden eggs.

Deregulation and privatisation leading to consumers being fleeced

Her privatisation and deregulation of every economic sector led not to greater competition but to oligopoly – sectors dominated by a few large companies which took over smaller firms or pushed them out of business, before charging customers whatever they like due to informal price fixing or simple profiteering. For instance today a handful of energy companies dominate Britain’s market for electricity and gas for the domestic and business markets.

While benefits for the poorest are cut and capped, these companies are allowed to charge whatever they like. They have doubled their profit margin by percentage on their average customer between 2011 and the first quarter of 2013 – under two years. The gap between their own costs and the prices they charge to customers rises constantly. The heads of these companies are rewarded with knighthoods (14) – (16).

This is Thatcherism again. Those who have wealth are assumed always to deserve it, while those who are poor are assumed to be poor because they are lazy or spendthrifts. In reality some of the wealthiest people in Britain started off with wealth or a family with connections to get them jobs on the boards of big firms – and then used their own wealth, or the company’s, or the bank’s, to buy political influence with donations to party funds, effectively exempting their company or their entire sector from any significant regulation. (And no, I’m not saying this is true of anyone who has more money than average, some did work hard for it and take risks and pay their employees fair wages).

Selling off council houses without replacing them – 
meaning we have to pay housing benefit for rent for private landlords

She began the sale of council houses, without buying or building replacements. Today, due to the shortage of council houses, councils spend a fortune renting social housing from private landlords or paying housing benefits that go to those landlords in rent.

This is the main reason for high benefits payments to some families – because most of it goes on housing benefit that goes straight into the pocket of private landlords – but David Cameron’s Thatcherite government is capping the benefits payments to people stuck in this situation as if this was their fault, rather than buying and building enough council houses (17).

Every Daily Mail or Sun headline about asylum seekers or people on benefits living in mansions is a result of this policy, begun by Thatcher, but rather than blame her and her successors in government, they blame weak, powerless, easy targets instead.

The Poll Tax

The poll tax, which resulted in Thatcher’s resignation, was a local council tax under which everyone paid exactly the same amount irrespective of their income. It caused riots the last time it had been tried by an English ruler, in 1381, resulting in the peasants’ revolt. The Conservatives, who supposedly want everyone to know the history of Britain, seemed to be massively ignorant of it – they thought the poll tax was going to be hugely popular. Instead, as in 1381, it brought mass non-payment and riots. Thatcher, whose supporters claim she was acting on behalf of the “ordinary person in the street” showed she had no more clue what many of them wanted than medieval English kings knew of peasants’ needs.

A lover of freedom? Thatcher’s foreign policy

We’re told Thatcher was a “lover of freedom”. This is only true if you interpret freedom in the narrow neo-liberal sense of freedom for companies, banks and those with lots of money to do what they like – pay less tax due to tax cuts, avoid tax through tax havens, avoid regulation, charge customers whatever they want to, etc.

She certainly opposed Communism, but her role in it’s downfall, like Reagan’s, was negligible. Dissidents and protesters in the Soviet bloc did far more, as did Gorbachev – and before him Brezhnev by spending so much on the Soviet military that he drove the USSR’s economy into the ground. Her support for “freedom” elsewhere wasn’t just non-existent – she was supporting , training and arming the forces of many dictatorships.

 

El Hundimiento del HMS CoventryThatcher’s Falklands War got Hundred of killed due either to incompetence or cynical manipulation – Callaghan avoided a war in identical circumstances 5 years earlier by sending a small fleet to the South Atlantic.

http://alienatedleft.blogspot.com/2013/04/thatchers-falklands-war-got-hundreds.html

Thatcher’s Falklands War got hundreds killed due either to incompetence or cynical manipulation – Callaghan avoided a war in identical circumstances 5 years earlier by sending a small fleet to the South Atlantic

English: Commemorative plaque, The house where...

English: Commemorative plaque, The house where Margaret Thatcher was born, Grantham Français : Plaque commémorative, Maison natale de Margaret Thatcher, Grantham (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The attempt to present Margaret Thatcher as a great war leader based on the Falklands War, with 800 members of the military to be present at her funeral, is bizarre once you know the historical facts.

When the Argentinians began talking of taking the Falklands in 1977, Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan and Foreign Secretary David Owen were persuaded by military chiefs to send a Royal Navy fleet to the South Atlantic to signal Britain would fight any invasion. In a similar situation in 1982 Thatcher’s government withdrew the last Royal Navy ship – the HMS Endurance – from the area during spending cuts, leading the Argentine military junta to believe Britain would not fight for the islands (1) – (2). They invaded – and then Thatcher declared war. Hundreds died as a result.

Some suggest that Thatcher, then the most unpopular Prime Minister in British history to that point, after increasing unemployment by over 50% to over 3 million after promising to reduce it during the 1979 election campaign, wanted a war to restore her popularity (3).

It’s impossible to know whether the decision to recall HMS Endurance was the result of blind ideology in imposing spending cuts and incompetence in not caring where they were made; or whether Thatcher wanted the Argentinians to believe Britain wouldn’t fight in order to get a war to restore her political fortunes. If the latter she was betraying members of the British armed forces just as much as Blair with Iraq. Either way she was responsible for an easily avoidable war and all the deaths in it. By any rational standard she should be condemned for not preventing war as simply and easily as Callaghan did rather than lauded for winning a war against an inferior military that could have been avoided.

In the case of the 1990-1991 Gulf War against Iraq, which Thatcher committed British troops to shortly before her party got her to resign over the poll tax, there is no such doubt. The Bush (senior) administration and the Kuwaiti monarchy duped Saddam into war with the US over Kuwait. Bush and his advisers sought to repeat Thatcher’s feat of going from unpopularity on domestic unemployment and recession to election victory on a tide of war fuelled nationalism ; they failed.

(1) = BBC News 01 Jun 2005 ‘Secret Falklands fleet revealed’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm

(2) = Freedman, Lawrence (2005) ‘Official History of the Falklands Campaign Volume 1’, Routledge, 2005, chapters 8 – 9

(3) = Lenman, B. P. (1992) The Eclipse of Parliament: Appearance and Reality in British Politics since 1914 (London: Edward Arnold)

Posted 4 weeks ago by calgacus

Labels: Callaghan Unemployment most Malvinas prevented Falklands Prime 1991 junta Argentinian 1977 armada Thatcher Calgacus minister war 1982 unpopular British Gulf