Translate

Showing posts with label history lessons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history lessons. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2020

Some tweets from my Twitter activity .. Apil 21 - 25

































Posted by MariaS at 16:29 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 19, 2017

The other side of Korea


Lee Camp of  RT's Redacted Tonight speaks to Anya Parampil about the historical context of current U.S. aggression against North Korea.
Worth a watch.

Posted by MariaS at 20:08 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Wanna know how North Korea got to be what it is now?


Worth a read.
 

William R Polk at ConsortiumNews
How History Explains the Korean Crisis
The U.S. and North Korea are on the brink of hostilities that if begun would almost certainly lead to a nuclear exchange. This is the expressed judgment of most competent observers. They differ over the causes of this confrontation and over the size, range and impact of the weapons that would be fired, but no one can doubt that even a “limited” nuclear exchange would have horrifying effects throughout much of the world including North America.

So how did we get to this point, what are we now doing and what could be done to avoid what would almost certainly be the disastrous consequences of even a “limited” nuclear war?

The media is replete with accounts of the latest pronouncements and events, but both in my personal experience in the closest we ever came to a nuclear disaster, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and from studying many other “flash points,” I have learned that failure to appreciate the background and sequence of events makes one incapable of understanding the present and so is apt to lead to self-defeating actions. With this warning in mind, I will recount in Part 1 how we and the Koreans got to where we are. Then in Part 2, I will address how we might go to war, what that would mean and what we can do to stay alive.

Throughout most of its history, Korea regarded China as its teacher. It borrowed from China Confucianism, its concepts of law, its canons of art and its method of writing. For these, it usually paid tribute to the Chinese emperor.

With Japan, relations were different. Armed with the then weapon of mass destruction, the musket, Japan invaded Korea in 1592 and occupied it with more than a quarter of a million soldiers. The Koreans, armed only with bows and arrows, were beaten into submission. But, because of events in Japan, and particularly the decision to give up the gun, the Japanese withdrew in less than a decade and left Korea on its own..........
Posted by MariaS at 14:46 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Jim Sinclair, Metis leader ... An important part of Canadian history


The vid links unto others if you are inclined to learn more about the Aboriginal people of Canada.



Biography as submitted by the Sinclair Family
Jim Sinclair was born on June 3 , 1933 in Punnichy, Saskatchewan, of Indian parents denied their status under the Indian Act. Treated by the Canadian government as part of a group of Aboriginal people with no rights, he lived in a squatter community with no running water or other services on a road allowance – a bush covered 66-foot wide strip of public land, reserved by the Crown for road building purposes. He was educated at various schools that accepted “road allowance” students. Some schools provided hot lunch programs for students, but excluded the road allowance people, who went hungry because their parents were squatters who did not pay taxes. Jim’s first political involvements were in the Lestock / Punnichy district of Saskatchewan, where there had been an active Métis organization for several years. He became active in the Red Power Movement.

Jim became a field worker for the Métis Society in 1964, and worked throughout Saskatchewan organizing local groups. In 1967, he was elected to the board of the newly formed Métis Society of Saskatchewan. ...

Posted by MariaS at 19:05 0 comments
Labels: ,

Monday, January 11, 2016

Standoff at Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon


When there are constant and aggressive government infringements on the way of  life of We The People, this is what is likely to happen. Rumor has it that militia groups are multiplying in the good old USA.  Gotta wonder why, eh?
Don't blame the ranchers without educating yourselves on the background history.
Below, I have tried to give as much as I could find on the why and how.  Go to the links to read in full.

From SuperStation95
Patriot Militia Seizes Federal Complex in Oregon; Armed Insurrection Against federal Tyranny Begins
....HISTORY:  The Harney Basin in Oregon (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  These actions were flatly unconstitutional as explained later in this story.

In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced.” 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water to bypass the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed by this deliberate government act. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed .....

Below, Dr Roberts gives us a bit of history. He touches on the Oregon militia issue, but read his piece more for the history he gives us on the problems created, in the first place,  by the Empire itself.

From PaulCraigRoberts
America Is Being Destroyed By Problems That Are Unaddressed

....The fresh American machine gun and barbed wire fodder weakened the German position, and an armistice was agreed. The Germans were promised no territorial losses and no reparations if they laid down their arms, which they did only to be betrayed at Versailles. The injustice and stupidity of the Versailles Treaty produced the German hyperinflation, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the rise of Hitler.

Hitler’s demands that Germany be put back together from the pieces handed out to France, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, comprising 13 percent of Germany’s European territory and one-tenth of her population, and a repeat of French and British stupidity that had sired the Great War finished off the remnants of European civilization in World War II.

The United States benefitted greatly from this death. The economy of the United States was left untouched by both world wars, but economies elsewhere were destroyed. This left Washington and the New York banks the arbiters of the world economy. The US dollar replaced British sterling as the world reserve currency and became the foundation of US domination in the second half of the 20th century, a domination limited in its reach only by the Soviet Union.

The Soviet collapse in 1991 removed this constraint from Washington. The result was a burst of American arrogance and hubris that wiped away in over-reach the leadership power that had been handed to the United States. Since the Clinton regime, Washington’s wars have eroded American leadership and replaced stability in the Middle East and North Africa with chaos.

Washington moved in the wrong direction both in the economic and political arenas. In place of ....


AND here's the latest situation as of today.

 From OregonLive
Oregon standoff: Bundy, militants   destroy fence at federal refuge
BURNS — Militants presiding over an armed occupation of a federal bird sanctuary destroyed a portion of a fence Monday afternoon that they said was installed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – using the agency's own equipment.

The stunt was perhaps the militants' boldest yet since overtaking the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge earlier this month. Arizona businessman Ammon Bundy and his band of protesters traveled about five miles south of refuge headquarters to a property where they said a local ranching family grazes cattle.....

Posted by MariaS at 18:40 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Chris Hedges talks to author and historian Vijay Prashad ...


on the terminal illness which is bound to see the demise of the Empire. 


Posted by MariaS at 21:52 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

England and Islam ....... Hundred years ago


Below, just one of the 30+ essays from Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer, published in The Spectator, England of  a century ago.  This particular essay is at # XXV from his many other works published by the same newspaper and can be found at the Gutenberg Project archives.  Please note that the "Moslems of India" that he refers to and whom England favored over Hindus, are the same Moslems on whose behalf India was partitioned and Pakistan was carved out for the favored. 
England, the old Empire .... if you read through some of the essays you will get a feel for how the present day Empire of USA is going through the same thought processes that brought down the previous one. 

ENGLAND AND ISLAM  "The Spectator," August 23, 1913

Amidst the many important remarks made by Sir Edward Grey in his recent Parliamentary statement on the affairs of the Balkan Peninsula, none deserve greater attention than those which dealt with the duties and
responsibilities of England towards Mohammedans in general. It was, indeed, high time that some clear and authoritative declaration of principle on this important subject should be made by a Minister of the
Crown. We are constantly being reminded that King George V. is the greatest Mohammedan ruler in the world, that some seventy millions of
his subjects in India are Moslems, and that the inhabitants of Egypt are also, for the most part, followers of the Prophet of Arabia. It is not infrequently maintained that it is a duty incumbent on Great Britain to defend the interests and to secure the welfare of Moslems all over the world because a very large number of their co-religionists are British
subjects and reside in British territory. It is not at all surprising that this claim should be advanced, but it is manifestly one which
cannot be admitted without very great and important qualifications.  Moreover, it is one which, from a European point of view, represents a somewhat belated order of ideas. It is true that community of religion constitutes the main bond of union between Russia and the population of the Balkan Peninsula, but apart from the fact that no such community of religious thought exists between Christian England and Moslem or Hindu
India, it is to be noted that, generally speaking, the tie of a common creed, which played so important a part in European politics and diplomacy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, has now been greatly weakened, even if it has not disappeared altogether. It has been supplanted almost everywhere by the bond of nationality. No practical politician would now argue that, if the Protestants of Holland or Sweden
had any special causes for complaint, a direct responsibility rested on their co-religionists in Germany or England to see that those grievances were redressed. No Roman Catholic nation would now advance a claim to
interfere in the affairs of Ireland on the ground that the majority of the population of that country are Roman Catholics.

This transformation of political thought and action has not yet taken place in the East. It may be, as some competent observers are disposed to think, that the principle of nationality is gaining ground in Eastern
countries, but it has certainly not as yet taken firm root. The bond which holds Moslem societies together is still religious rather than patriotic. Its binding strength has been greatly enhanced by two circumstances. One is that Mecca is to the Moslem far more than
Jerusalem is to the Christian or to the Jew. From Delhi to Zanzibar, from Constantinople to Java, every devout Moslem turns when he prays to what Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole aptly calls the "cradle of his creed." The other circumstance is that, although, as Mr. Hughes has said, "we have not seen a single work of authority, nor met with a single man of learning who has ever attempted to prove that the Sultans of Turkey are rightful Caliphs," at the same time the spiritual authority usurped by Selim I. is generally recognised throughout Islam, with the result not only that unity of thought has been engendered amongst Moslems, but also that religion has to a great extent been incorporated into politics, and identified with the maintenance of a special form of government in a portion of the Moslem world.

The growth of the principle of nationality in those eastern countries which are under western dominion might not inconceivably raise political issues of considerable magnitude, but in the discussions which have from time to time taken place on this subject the inconveniences and even danger caused by the universality of a non-national bond based on community of religion have perhaps been somewhat unduly neglected. These inconveniences have, however, always existed. That the policy which led
to the Crimean War and generally the prolonged tension which existed between England and Russia were due to the British connection with India is universally recognised. It would be difficult to differentiate the  causes of that tension, and to say how far it was, on the one hand, due to purely strategical considerations, or, on the other hand, to a desire to meet the wishes and satisfy the aspirations of the many millions of Moslems who are British subjects. Since, however, the general diplomatic
relations between England and Russia have, fortunately for both countries, been placed on a footing of more assured confidence and
friendship than any which have existed for a long time past, strategical considerations have greatly diminished in importance. The natural result has been that the alternative plea for regarding Near Eastern affairs from the point of view of Indian interests has acquired greater prominence. Those who have been closely in touch with the affairs of the Near East, and have watched the gradual decay of Turkey, have for some while past foreseen that the time was inevitably approaching when British statesmen and the British nation would be forced by the
necessities of the situation to give a definite answer to the question how far their diplomatic action in Europe would have to be governed by the alleged obligation to conciliate Moslem opinion in India. That
question received, to a certain limited extent, a practical answer when Bulgaria declared war on Turkey and when not a voice was raised in this country to urge that the policy which dictated the Crimean War should be rehabilitated.

The answer, however, is not yet complete. England is now apparently expected by many Moslems to separate herself from the Concert of Europe,and not impossibly to imperil the peace of the world, in order that the Turks should continue in occupation of Adrianople. The secretary of the Punjab Moslem League has informed us through the medium of the press
that unless this is done the efforts of the extreme Indian Nationalists to secure the sympathies of Mohammedans in India "will meet with growing success."

It was in reality to this challenge that Sir Edward Grey replied. His answer was decisive, and left no manner of doubt as to the policy which the British Government intends to pursue. It will almost certainly meet with well-nigh universal approval in this country. After explaining that the racial sentiments and religious feelings of Moslem subjects of the
Crown would be respected and have full scope, that British policy would never be one of intolerance or wanton and unprovoked aggression against a Mohammedan Power, and that the British Government would never join in
any outrage on Mohammedan feelings and sentiments in any part of the world, Sir Edward Grey added, "We cannot undertake the duty of
protecting Mohammedan Powers outside the British dominions from the consequences of their own action.... To suppose that we can undertake the protection of and are bound to regulate our European policy so as to
side with a Mussulman Power when that Mussulman Power rejects the advice given to it, that is not a claim we can admit."

These are wise words, and it is greatly to be hoped that not only the Moslems of Turkey, but also those inhabiting other countries, will read,mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. Notably, the Moslems of India should recognise that, with the collapse of Turkish power in Europe, a new order of things has arisen, that the change which the attitude of England towards Turkey has undergone is the necessary consequence of that collapse, and that it does not in the smallest degree connote unfriendliness to Islam. In fact, they must now endeavour to separate Islamism from politics. With the single exception of the occupation of Cyprus, which, as Lord Goschen very truly said at the time, "prevented
British Ambassadors from showing 'clean hands' to the Sultan in proof of the unselfishness of British action," the policy of England in the Near  East has been actuated, ever since the close of the Napoleonic wars, by a sincere and wholly disinterested desire to save Turkish statesmen from the consequences of their own folly. In this cause no effort has been
spared, even to the shedding of the best blood of England. All has been in vain. History does not relate a more striking instance of the truth of the old Latin saying that self-deception is the first step on the
road to ruin. Advice tendered in the best interests of the Ottoman Empire has been persistently rejected. The Turks, who have always been strangers in Europe, have shown conspicuous inability to comply with the
elementary requirements of European civilisation, and have at last failed to maintain that military efficiency which has, from the days when they crossed the Bosphorus, been the sole mainstay of their power and position. It is, as Sir Edward Grey pointed out, unreasonable to expect that we should now save them from the consequences of their own
action. Whether Moslems all over the world will or should still continue to regard the Sultan of Turkey as their spiritual head is a matter on which it would be presumptuous for a Christian to offer any opinion, but however this may be, Indian Moslems would do well to recognise the fact that circumstances, and not the hostility of Great Britain or of any
other foreign Power, have materially altered the position of the Sultan in so far as the world of politics and diplomacy is concerned. Whether the statesman in whose hands the destinies of Turkey now lie at once abandon Adrianople, or whether they continue to remain there for a time with the certainty that they will be sowing the seeds of further bloodshed in the near future, one thing is certain. It is that the days of Turkey as an European Power are numbered. Asia must henceforth be her
sphere of action.

That these truths should be unpalatable to Indian Moslems is but natural; neither is it possible to withhold some sympathy from them in the distress which they must now feel at the partial wreck of the most important Moslem State which the world has yet seen. But facts, however distasteful, have to be faced, and it would be truly deplorable if the non-recognition of those facts should lead our Moslem fellow-subjects in India to resent the action of the British Government and to adopt a line of conduct from which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. But whatever that line of conduct may be, the duty of the British Government and nation is clear. Their European policy, whilst allowing all due weight to Indian interests and sentiment, must in the main be guided by general considerations based on the necessities of civilised  progress throughout the world, and on the interests and welfare of the British Empire as a whole. The idea that that policy should be diverted
from its course in order to subserve the cause of a single Moslem Power which has rejected British advice is, as Sir Edward Grey very rightly remarked, wholly inadmissible.
Posted by MariaS at 20:31 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Historian William Blum: "America wants world domination...."


and he goes on to say that for the last two centuries that's what America has set out to do.  It matters little whether a Republican or a Liberal resides in the White House, the goal remains the same.

And, in the link after the vid, read up on what John Stockwell, a former CIA officer  has to disclose.  The link also has a vid with part of his talk. 



From InformationClearingHouse
"I did 13 years in the CIA altogether.
I sat on a subcommittee of the NSC, so I was like a chief of staff, with the GS-18s (like 3-star generals) Henry Kissinger, Bill Colby (the CIA director), the GS-18s and the CIA, making the important decisions and my job was to put it all together and make it happen and run it, an interesting place from which to watch a covert action being done...

I testified for days before the Congress, giving them chapter and verse, date and detail, proving specific lies. They were asking if we had to do with S. Africa, that was fighting in the country. In fact we were coordinating this operation so closely that our airplanes, full of arms from the states, would meet their airplanes in Kinshasa and they would take our arms into Angola to distribute to our forces for us....

What I found with all of this study is that the subject, the problem, if you will, for the world, for the U.S. is much, much, much graver, astronomically graver, than just Angola and Vietnam. I found that the Senate Church committee has reported, in their study of covert actions, that the CIA ran several thousand covert actions since 1961, and that the heyday of covert action was before 1961; that we have run several hundred covert actions a year, and the CIA has been in business for a total of 37 years.

What we're going to talk about tonight is the United States national security syndrome. We're going to talk about how and why the U.S. manipulates the press. We're going to talk about how and why the U.S. is pouring money into El Salvador, and preparing to invade Nicaragua; how all of this concerns us so directly. I'm going to try to explain to you the other side of terrorism; that is, the other side of what Secretary of State Shultz talks about. In doing this, we'll talk about the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and the Central American war.

Everything I'm going to talk to you about is represented, one way or another, already in the public records. You can dig it all out for yourselves, without coming to hear me if you so chose. Books, based on information gotten out of the CIA under the freedom of information act, testimony before the Congress, hearings before the Senate Church committee, research by scholars, witness of people throughout the world who have been to these target areas that we'll be talking about. I want to emphasize that my own background is profoundly conservative. We come from South Texas, East Texas....

I was conditioned by my training, my marine corps training, and my background, to believe in everything they were saying about the cold war, and I took the job with great enthusiasm (in the CIA) to join the best and the brightest of the CIA, of our foreign service, to go out into the world, to join the struggle, to project American values and save the world for our brand of democracy. And I believed this. I went out and worked hard....

What I really got out of these 6 years in Africa was a sense ... that nothing we were doing in fact defended U.S. national security interests very much. We didn't have many national security interests in Bujumbura, Burundi, in the heart of Africa. I concluded that I just couldn't see the point.........
Posted by MariaS at 15:59 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 9, 2015

History Lessons OR Seven things you didn't know about Iran


Good reminders below of why the Iranians have a bigger mistrust of the USA than the Americans have of the Iranians.  The discussion in the comments section is interesting too.
 
John Schwarz writing at TheIntercept
Seven Things You Didn’t Know   the U.S. and Its Allies Did to Iran

It’s hard for some Americans to understand why the Obama administration is so determined to come to an agreement with Iran on its nuclear capability, given that huge Iranian rallies are constantly chanting “Death to America!” I know the chanting makes me unhappy, since I’m part of America, and I strongly oppose me dying.

But if you know our actual history with Iran, you can kind of see where they’re coming from. They have understandable reasons to be angry at and frightened of us — things we’ve done that if, say, Norway had done them to us, would have us out in the streets shouting “Death to Norway!” Unfortunately, not only have the U.S. and our allies done horrendous things to Iran, we’re not even polite enough to remember it.

Reminding ourselves of this history does not mean endorsing an Iran with nuclear-tipped ICBMs. It does mean realizing how absurd it sounds when critics of the proposed agreement say it suddenly makes the U.S. the weaker party or that we’re getting a bad deal because Iran, as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham put it, does not fear Obama enough. It’s exactly the opposite: This is the best agreement the U.S. could get because for the first time in 35 years, U.S.-Iranian relations aren’t being driven purely by fear.

1. The founder of Reuters purchased Iran in 1872
Nasir al-Din Shah, Shah of Iran from 1848-1896, sold Baron Julius de Reuter the right to operate all of Iran’s railroads and canals, most of the mines, all of the government’s forests, and all future industries. The famous British statesman...........
Posted by MariaS at 19:00 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Sunday, February 15, 2015

How a false flag operation failed on June 8, 1967 and saved Egypt from the USA's war machine


Israel's misdeeds are glossed over by the powers-that-be and always will be. 
More vids and further info at the link below.

From WashingtonBlog:
Israel Murdered U.S. Sailors   and Tried to Sink Their Ship … A Failed False Flag Attack Against the United States



An Attempt to Drag America Into Israel’s War

On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the American naval vessel USS Liberty in international waters, and tried to sink it.

After checking the Liberty out for 8 hours – and making 9 overflights with Israeli jets, within 200 feet … close enough for the pilots and the sunbathing Liberty sailors on deck to waive at each other.

Yet the Israelis attacked it with Mirage fighter jets, torpedoes and napalm.  The USS Liberty suffered 70% casualties, with 34 killed and 174 wounded.

The Israeli attack spanned two hours … as long as the attack on Pearl Harbor. The air attack alone lasted approximately 25 minutes: consisting of more than 30 sorties by approximately 12 separate planes using napalm, cannon, and rockets which left 821 holes in the ship.  The Israelis fired 30mm cannons and rockets into the boat.

Following the attack by fighter jets, three Israeli motor torpedo boats torpedoed the ship, causing a 40 x 40 foot wide hole in her hull, and machine-gunning firefighters and stretcher-bearers attempting to save their ship and crew. More than 3,000 machine-gun bullet holes were later counted on the Liberty’s hull.

After the attack was thought to have ended, three life rafts were lowered into the water to rescue the most seriously wounded. The Israeli torpedo boats returned and machine-gunned these life rafts at close range. This was followed by the approach of two large Israeli Army assault helicopters filled with armed commandos carrying what appeared to be explosive satchels (they departed after hovering over the ship for several minutes, making no attempt to communicate).

The Israelis clearly knew it was an American ship, tried to sink it, and tried to frame the Egyptians for the attack, as shown by the following evidence:

(1) The Liberty was flying a huge, brand new American flag. The flag was 5-by-8 feet.  The weather conditions were ideal to ensure the flag’s easy observance and identification, because it was clear and sunny, with a wind-speed which made for a constant rippling motion in the flag.  After the flag was shot up by the jets, the Liberty’s crew replaced it with a giant 7-by-13 foot American flag, which flew during the entire duration of the attack.

(2) The Liberty had a unique profile and didn’t look like any other boat, since it had more and bigger antennas – including large, high-tech dishes and giant towers – than any other boat in the world (it was an NSA spy ship).

(3) The Liberty was marked with uniquely American numbering and colors in front.

(4) The Israeli pilots shot out the Liberty’s communications equipment first, and specifically jammed the ship’s emergency radio signal … unique to American naval vessels in the 6th Fleet. The ships from other fleets and other nations used different frequencies, which the Israelis did not jam.

(5) The Israelis used unmarked fighter jets and unmarked torpedo boats during the attack.

(6) Recently-declassified radio transcripts between the Israeli attack forces and ground control show that – at least 3 times – an Israeli fighter jet pilot identified the craft as American, and asked whether ground control was sure he should attack.  Ground control repeatedly said, yes, attack the vessel.

(7) The Israeli torpedo boats methodically destroyed all of the Liberty’s liferafts one by one (which is a war crime).

(8) The only reason the Israelis did not successfully sink the Liberty and kill all of its crewmen was that one sailor duck-taped together antennae – and took many bullet wounds in the process – which enabled an emergency SOS to get out from the Liberty to American 6th Fleet.

(9) The Israelis later claimed that they mistook the Liberty for an Egyptian vessel.  But the Egyptian ship – the El Quseir – was an unarmed 1920s-era horse carrier out of service in Alexandria, four times smaller than the Liberty, which bore virtually no resemblance to the Liberty.

(10) President Lyndon Johnson believed the attack was intentional and he leaked his opinion to Newsweek.

Other high-level Americans agreed:

“I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation….  Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations.  I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day.  The attack was outrageous.”
–U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk

“The evidence was clear.  Both Adm. Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack …


Posted by MariaS at 15:49 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Colonial America 1497 - 1763




Posted by MariaS at 13:11 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 10, 2015

French-Algerian war of 1954-62






More here  
here
here
and here.  

Posted by MariaS at 20:20 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 9, 2015

Documentary on the American Civil War


Let's take a look at a small part of that civil war as the next one is looming over that war-loving nation. 



Posted by MariaS at 18:59 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 28, 2014

582 First Nations in Canada?


This number is news to me.  I am floored.  So many First Nations and First Nations communities in Canada? What does it all mean?  
Love the names ... tried pronouncing a few of the tongue twisters,  failed miserably.

 As far as the "transparency law" goes, that's a good thing.  It's a known fact that many of those at the top in First Nations are siphoning the Govt. funds, meant for their communities, into their own private pockets. 

Susana Mas writing at CBC:
52 First Nations risk losing funding  for not complying with transparency law.
Kashechewan First Nation given more time to comply; sanctions will not target 'essential' services....

 ....Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt said in a statement that 529 out of 582 First Nations — over 90 per cent — have met the new requirements, appearing to leave 53 that are not in compliance.....

 .......In a letter obtained by CBC News and sent by Aboriginal Affairs, the government said it would consider cutting funding to essential services beginning Dec. 12. 
But in his statement today, the minister said the government would only consider cutting new or existing funding to "non-essential" programs.
"I have directed that the sanctions not target essential services that support band members," Valcourt said in a written statement Thursday afternoon.......

 The 52 First Nations on the government's revised list are:

 Quebec
Algonquins of Barriere Lake

 Ontario
Wahta Mohawks
Weenusk First Nation
Wabauskang First Nation
Ginoogaming First Nation
Gull Bay First Nation
Whitesand First Nation
Bearskin Lake First Nation
Fort Severn First Nation
Chapleau Ojibway First Nation
Kashechewan First Nation

 Manitoba
Hollow Water Band
Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation Government
Little Saskatchewan Band
Norway House Cree Nation
Ebb And Flow Band
Dakota Tipi Band
Wasagamack First Nation
Bunibonibee Cree Nation
York Factory First Nation
Fox Lake Band
Shamattawa First Nation
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation
Northlands Band
Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation
Lake St Martin

 Saskatchewan
Onion Lake Cree Nation
Poundmaker Band
Thunderchild
Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation
Cowessess Band
Ochapowace Band
Fishing Lake First Nation Band
Ministikwan Lake Cree Nation
English River First Nation Band

 Alberta
Sawridge Band
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation
Cold Lake First Nations Band

 British Columbia
Skatin Nations
New Westminster Indian Band
Semiahmoo Indian Band
Chawathil Indian Band
Popkum Indian Band
Peters Indian Band
Takla Lake First Nation
Gitxaala Nation
Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band
Boston Bar First Nation
High Bar Indian Band
Tl'etinqox Government

 Yukon
Liard First Nation

 Northwest Territories
Acho Dene Koe First Nation...........

Posted by MariaS at 11:15 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Monday, November 24, 2014

Conrad Black is a perfect example of why I fear historians


How many historians have been lying to us, or at the very least, avoiding telling us the whole truth just like Conrad Black?  You can bet your bottom dollar there have been plenty and their kind will continue distorting the truth at every opportunity.

Don Marks writing at CBC:
Conrad Black's history of Canada:
Arrogant, misinformed and disgraceful
Rise to Greatness: The History of Canada from the Vikings to the present ignores the indigenous contribution

 Conrad Black is either so arrogant and ignorant that he considers the opinions of others totally beneath him​,​ or he simply likes to fight so much that he deliberately tries to be as politically incorrect as possible.

 He is all of this in his recent book, Rise to Greatness: The History of Canada from the Vikings to the present. 

 The title is completely misleading.  This cannot be a history of Canada when it barely includes First Nations.   When it does, Black is mostly negative and dismissive.  

 I thought we stopped publishing history books which ignored the contributions of indigenous people.  And texts that called any battle that was won by the Indians a massacre and any won by the whites a great victory.

 First Nations are mostly relegated to three of the early pages of Black's 1,000 page tome (other references to native people are minimal; Big Bear is named, Elijah Harper gets a sentence and Phil Fontaine is completely ignored).  

 Louis Riel receives more attention but, like the indigenous people who occupy those three pages, it would be better if Black excluded him entirely. His treatment of First Nations is so insulting and condescending and inaccurate, I am surprised there hasn’t been a major uproar.  

 Black describes indigenous religion as “superstition”.   He claims their environmental practices consisted of “chasing away all the wildlife” or “fishing out” the lakes and rivers. 

 Indigenous women were promiscuous to the extreme and Indians were untrustworthy (according to Black, they were the ones who didn’t honour treaties).  

 Black makes broad accusations and sweeping conclusions as if he were there to provide a first​-​hand account, and he is so cocksure of everything that he writes it like fact.

 Black concludes that “The Indians were splendid woodsmen and craftsmen but they were a stone age culture that had not discovered the wheel” and “Indian society was not in itself worthy of integral conservation, nor was its dilution a suitable subject for great lamentation​." 

 It is conclusions like those that will provide readers with an indication of where this arrogant, ignorant snob is coming from.  

 Modern society has discredited Eurocentric historians who dismiss native culture and contributions out of hand.   Yet Black can write like a dinosaur and seemingly get away with it. 

 Well, not here.

 Connie, it’s not like the native peoples of .......

Posted by MariaS at 09:29 0 comments
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)