NATO's "Fact Sheet" about NATO will make your eyes bleed

Fact: These gentlemen love NATO

Russia. It's a terrible country full of baseless "claims" about NATO: "NATO bombed this, NATO killed that" - so hurtful and malicious. Luckily for us, a public relations intern has compiled a helpful "NATO fact sheet about NATO" in order to thwart this insensitive Russian smear campaign. Or to use NATO's own words:

Since Russia began its illegal military intervention in Ukraine, Russian officials have accused NATO of a series of provocations, threats and hostile actions stretching back over 25 years. This webpage sets out the facts.

As you already guessed, NATO's webpage of facts about NATO is actually little more than a smorgasbord of twisted logic and transparent bullshit topped off with self-denial sprinkles. Your correspondent has selected his three favorite "facts" for closer examination, and will now report on his findings.

FACT: Don't listen to the haters. Afghanistan's security forces are awesome

Claim: NATO's operation in Afghanistan was a failure

Fact: NATO took over the command of the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2003.

Under NATO's command, the mission progressively extended throughout Afghanistan, was joined by 22 non-NATO countries and built up from scratch an Afghan National Security Force of more than 350,000 soldiers and police.

Threats to Afghanistan's security continue. However, the Afghan forces are now ready to take full responsibility for security across the country, as agreed with the Afghan authorities.

NATO has agreed to continue providing training, advice and assistance to the Afghan forces, and has planned a mission to do so, "Resolute Support", as of 1 January.

This is terrific news. Given NATO's primary objective in Afghanistan is "to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country," its circle-jerk boasting about creating a magnificent fighting force "from scratch" is more than appropriate:

But The New York Times is notoriously anti-war. We need a second opinion, preferably one from the Defense Department's own newspaper, which reported in February that

The authors of an independent, Pentagon-commissioned assessment of the Afghan National Security Forces concluded that current U.S. and NATO plans for the post-2014 ANSF are woefully inadequate to prevent a major deterioration in the Afghanistan security environment.

Pentagon pessimists! But just how "woeful" is the current "security environment" in Afghanistan? In August, an Afghan soldier trained by NATO shot and killed a US Army general. Quite on purpose. This marvel of Afghan security is called an "insider attack," and it happens all the time.

In at least one month in 2012, insider attacks were "the leading killer of American troops," according to CBS. For a more recent example of this security phenomenon: In September, "an Afghan soldier shot an International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) trainer dead, injuring another trainer and an interpreter."

If you think that the security situation is only woeful for NATO forces training their mutinous Afghan army, think again. Afghan police officers are also frequent targets of insider attacks.

Yes, this is the Afghan National Security Force, "the leading killer of American troops", which NATO is so proud of. Never forget: NATO built this remarkable NATO-killing fighting force "from scratch".

In conclusion, Reuters reported earlier this month that "Afghan forces [are] ill equipped to fight [the] Taliban without NATO."

Mission accomplished.

FACT: Under the Taliban, the Afghan drug trade basically ceased to exist. Under NATO, it has experienced a historic renaissance of poppy-fueled delight. So what?

Claim: The NATO-led mission in Afghanistan failed to stop the Afghan drugs trade

Fact: As with any sovereign country, the primary responsibility for upholding law and order in Afghanistan, including as regards the trade in narcotics, rests with the Afghan government.

The international community is supporting the Afghan government to live up to this responsibility in many ways, including both through the United Nations and through the European Union.

NATO is not a main actor in this area. This role has been agreed with the international community.

Do you know why the Afghan government can't stop the drug trade in its own country? Because the United States considers Afghan's endless fields of poppies a "potential good thing for Afghanistan and the Army." We can't make this shit up. US Army policy dictates that American forces are

not allowed to actually step foot in poppy fields or damage the fields in any way. They can't even threaten to destroy the fields or send in Afghan troops to burn, plow under or poison the delicate, pastel-colored flowers.

It's even more incredible that NATO claims Afghanistan is a "sovereign nation," and yet the United States forbids Afghan troops from burning poppy fields in their own country. How can NATO chastise the Afghan government about its country's drug trade when it won't allow Afghan troops to combat its country's drug trade?

Meanwhile, the US Army's poppy policy has produced the desired results:

The total area under cultivation was about 224,000 hectares (553,500 acres) in 2014, a seven percent increase on last year, according to the Afghanistan Opium Survey released by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

The survey said that potential opium production was estimated at 6,400 tonnes in 2014, a rapid increase of 17 percent from 2013, but not as high as the record 7,400 tonnes produced in 2007

And what becomes of the hundreds of thousands of US-approved hectares of Afghan poppies? Many are transformed into delicious heroin, and then the heroin is sent to Russia.

You're welcome, Russia.

FACT: NATO's 26,500 humanitarian bombing sorties protected Libyans from violence

Claim: NATO's operation over Libya was illegitimate

The NATO-led operation was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), 1970 and 1973, both quoting Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and neither of which was opposed by Russia.

UNSCR 1973 authorized the international community "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

After the conflict, NATO cooperated with the UN International Commission of Inquiry on Libya, which found no breach of UNSCR 1973 or international law, concluding instead that "NATO conducted a highly precise campaign with a demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties."

It's difficult to know where to begin, but this Reuters report does a fairly good job of clarifying what NATO describes as "protecting civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack":

NATO said on Saturday it had bombed three satellite dishes in Tripoli to stop "terror broadcasts" by Muammar Gaddafi, but Libyan state TV remained on air and condemned what it said was the targeting of journalists.

Yes, NATO bombed a television station and killed three journalists in order to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack." That seems reasonable.

Right up until the very end of its glorious humanitarian bombing of Libya, NATO vehemently denied that it had killed a single civilian. This was because

only a death that NATO itself investigated and corroborated could be called confirmed. But because the alliance declined to investigate allegations, its casualty tally by definition could not budge - from zero.

NATO was eventually forced to admit that its magical humanitarian bombs had killed one or maybe two civilians after a New York Times investigation revealed that "NATO warplanes had bombed ambulance crews and civilians who were attempting to aid the wounded injured in earlier strikes." Classy.

It's worth going back and looking at exactly how NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen described his organization's "mandate" in Libya:

What we have decided tonight is to take the responsibility for enforcing the No-Fly Zone with the aim to protect the civilian population, and the mandate doesn't go beyond that, of course we can act in self-defence, but what we will do is to enforce the No-Fly Zone and ensure that we protect the civilian population.

Really? So how does Rasmussen explain this:

Special forces troops from Britain, France, Jordan and Qatar on the ground in Libya have stepped up operations in Tripoli and other cities in recent days to help rebel forces as they conducted their final advance on the Gadhafi regime, a NATO official confirmed to CNN Wednesday.

NATO's war against Libya was a clusterfuck of lies and deceit, so much so that

Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.

White lies. Like telling your pregnant wife that she doesn't look fat. We must never forget that NATO's valiant effort has led to "a self-declared government set up by an armed group that seized the Libyan capital in August."

Libya's "official" government and parliament now operate from towns hundreds of miles east of Tripoli.

The End.

Epilogue: How can anyone trust anything these assholes say, anyway?

How can we put this delicately? NATO doesn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to "not being entirely full of shit." Strong words, and we intend to defend them.

Exhibit A: If we killed them, they're bad

In September 2012, NATO proudly announced that it had attacked a group of 45 "hostiles" with "precision munitions and direct fire," resulting in the deaths of "a large number of insurgents". This is fancy NATO talk for "dropping a bomb on women collecting wood at night."

Or as CNN explains: "NATO admitted that it had killed Afghan civilians in an airstrike early Sunday morning, hours after saying there was no evidence of civilian deaths."

Exhibit B: Kill pregnant women, dig the bullets out of their dead bodies, and deny everything

In 2010, NATO forces conducted one of its signature "night raids," resulting in the deaths of five civilians, including three women, two of whom were pregnant. And how did NATO handle this sticky situation? You know already:

NATO military officials had suggested that the women were actually stabbed to death - or had died by some other means - hours before the raid, an explanation that implied that family members or others at the home might have killed them.

Survivors of the raid called that explanation a cover-up and insisted that American forces killed the women. Relatives and family friends said the bloody raid followed a party in honor of the birth of a grandson of the owner of the house.

On Sunday night the American-led military command in Kabul issued a statement admitting that "international forces" were responsible for the deaths of the women.

If that's not disgusting enough for you, here's an extra bonus:

"There was evidence of tampering at the scene, walls being washed, bullets dug out of holes in the wall," the NATO official said, adding that investigators "couldn't find bullets from the wounds in the body."

Dig the bullets out of their pregnant corpses, and then blame family members for their deaths. Charming.

By the way, what is the current freedom-status of NATO's blossoming bastions of democracy? Let's consult Transparency International's Corruption Index:

Yes, Libya and Afghanistan are basically tied with North Korea for Most Corrupt Nation on Earth. It's fun to compare the 2014 index with results from 2010 (pre-NATO liberation of Libya). As you will observe, Gaddafi's Evil Arab Jamahiriya was outrageously less corrupt than the NATO-sponsored regime currently clinging to power. As for Afghanistan in 2010: It was the same corrupt, NATO-occupied hellhole that we know and love today.

Enough already.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

The West's malicious misrepresentation of terrorism in the Caucasus

© Sputnik/ Igor Mikhalev

The latest jihadi attack on the Chechen capital Grozny once again illustrates a dark truth. Namely that in the midst of the United States' seemingly endless "War on Terror" one jihadi terrorist movement is spared all criticism. This is the one which for more than a decade has been waging war on Russia in the Caucasus.

This is clearly shown by the way the Western media reported the attack. Though it received scant attention, the reports of the incident that were provided studiously avoided referring to the perpetrators as either "jihadis" or "terrorists". Instead they were called such things as "militants", "separatists" or even just "Chechens" - the last especially outrageous given that their intended targets were Chechens.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that it is because this particular jihadi movement, unlike all the rest, targets Russia. That this is the only thing that differentiates this jihadi movement from the others is unimportant. The mere fact it opposes Russia is apparently enough.

That this is indeed a terrorist jihadi movement no different from the others requires some explanation and a brief discussion of the recent history of the Caucasus.

Firstly, it should be said clearly that the jihadi movement in the Caucasus is a product of the political crisis that arose in Russia at the fall of the USSR in 1991. It is fashionable in the west to claim that it is something else and dates back to earlier times. Recently a number of books and articles have appeared that purport to trace its origins all the way back to the wars the Russian Empire fought in the 19th century in the Caucasus. According to this view, the jihadi movement is merely the latest manifestation of the struggle of the Muslim people of the Caucasus against Russia that began in the early 19th century. The Chechens in particular are supposed to be engaged in a centuries old struggle for liberation against Russia and their recent history is in inevitably described in these terms.

A brief survey of the actual history of the Caucasus, and of Chechnya in particular, shows that this view of Caucasian history is quite simply wrong.

In the 19th century the Russian Empire did fight a long war in the Caucasus against some, though not all, the Muslim people there. This war is the subject of Russian literary works by Tolstoy and Lermontov amongst others. Russia was eventually victorious in this war, fully pacifying the Caucasus by the 1860s. In the process the Russians and the Caucasians who fought each other acquired considerable knowledge and respect for each other. The Caucasian leader Shamil was, for example, treated with great respect by the Russians following his capture and was even allowed by them to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca - honorable treatment of a brave enemy unknown and probably incomprehensible to the West today.

Following the 1860s, the Caucasus basically became a peaceful and stable region of the Russian Empire. During the period of the Revolution, the region witnessed considerable instability, but then this was true of the Russian Empire as a whole. Once the USSR became consolidated the history of the peoples of the Caucasus became part of the general history of the USSR. Thus whilst there was considerable opposition in the Caucasus to collectivization this was true of the USSR as a whole.

Claims made of a continuous history of Chechen hostility to Russia and Russians tend to center on events during the Second World War. Stalin's government accused the Chechens of collaborating with the Germans and as a form of collective punishment deported the entire Chechen nation from their homes.

This episode has been seized on by certain Western scholars and journalists looking for proof of the supposed age-old enmity that supposedly exists between the Chechen people and Russia. Recently a number of books have appeared in the west which purport to describe the conflict between the Chechens and the Russians during the Second World War and the rebellion the Soviet authorities are supposed to have faced in the Caucasus.

There is no doubt that some people in the Caucasus did try to take advantage of the exceptionally difficult situation in which the USSR found itself to try to achieve their own goals though what these were precisely it is not always easy to say. The same however was true in other parts of the USSR as well. The Caucasus was not the only region of the USSR were the Germans found collaborators. As the story of the Vlasov army shows, there were collaborators even among Russians. That some people tried to take advantage of a difficult situation does not mean that the majority did or even wanted to.

Those best qualified to know the true situation, the Soviet government, exonerated the Chechens in the 1950s and allowed them to return to their homes. In view of this it seems perverse for Western writers to say today that Stalin's allegations against the Chechens were true after all. It is a bizarre, and to my knowledge unique, case of westerners endorsing allegations Stalin made which subsequent Soviet and Russian governments have rejected.

The deportation for the Chechen people was for them a traumatic experience. This should not obscure the fact that the subsequent period following their return from the 1950s to the final end of the USSR was in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Caucasus a period of peace and prosperity. In view of this, it is unsurprising that in the referendum held in March 1991 the Muslim people of the northern Caucasus voted overwhelmingly to support the continuation of the USSR. Chechens throughout this period were full Soviet citizens and many made the most of the opportunities this offered them. Two well-known examples are Dzhokar Dudayev, who became a Major General in the Soviet Air Force, and Ruslan Khasbulatov, who eventually rose to become chairman of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation in the early Yeltsin era.

The crisis that convulsed the Caucasus and Chechnya in particular in 1991 cannot therefore be explained as part of some great historic conflict between Chechens and Russians. Rather it is better understood as part of the general crisis that affected the whole of the USSR at that time.

In Chechnya, the weakening of state authority opened the way for a violent armed coup by the followers of Dzokhar Dudayev. Significantly Dudayev's movement had not previously sought secession from the USSR. Rather its demands were for Chechnya to be accepted as a sovereign Republic of the USSR alongside the three other Caucasian republics, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

In the aftermath of the failed August coup attempt in Moscow in 1991, Dudayev and his followers seized the opportunity to launch a coup of their own in Grozny. The coup was carried out with considerable violence and resulted in the murder of several of Dudayev's opponents.

Whilst it is clear that Dudayev enjoyed some support in Chechnya, its extent is difficult to judge since he never submitted himself to any form of election process whilst he was in power. That most people in Chechnya did not support him appears to be confirmed by a referendum which he did hold shortly after he seized power. Turnout in that referendum was very low, perhaps as low as 20%. The region of Ingushetia, which had been united with Chechnya, refused to accept Dudayev's authority and seceded, accepting the authority of the central government in Moscow. Today it is a separate republic within the Russian Federation.

As time passed, Dudayev ran into increasing opposition in Chechnya itself and by 1994 he faced rebellion. The conflict became violent and the central government in Moscow became involved, leading to the First Chechen War over the course of which Dudayev himself was killed. Federal troops were withdrawn following a peace agreement in 1996 which however enabled some of Dudayev's former associates to seize power.

Thereafter, between 1996 and 1999 Chechnya was basically left to itself. A presidential election took place during this period, whose fairness and legitimacy, predictably enough, was recognized by western governments and NGOs. However, in the conditions that existed in Chechnya at this time, it would have been impossible for a pro-Russian candidate to stand in such an election so it is wrong to accept it as offering a true picture of opinion there. All one can say about this election is that it was conducted in conditions of great instability and that it resulted in the election of Mashkhadov, the more moderate figure of the two put forward, the other being the violent jihadi extremist, Shamil Basayev.

What is indisputable is that over the period of its self-declared independence, first under Dudayev from 1992 to 1994, and then from 1996 to 1999, Chechnya became heavily infiltrated by Islamic militants some of them with links to what became Al Qaeda. As time passed these groups became increasingly dominant and by 1999 were effectively in control. Following several years of growing gangsterism, frequently punctuated with mass kidnappings and ransom demands of people from southern Russia, in 1999 these militant jihadis launched an invasion of the neighboring republic of Dagestan and a series of bomb attacks on apartment buildings in Moscow. By this point their agenda was no longer independence for Chechnya but an Islamist war against Russia.

This war has been fought with relentless ferocity ever since. Using the same methods as other Al Qaeda affiliated jihadi groups, indiscriminate attacks have been launched against the Russian civilian population, including horrifying terrorist outrages such as the Nord-Ost Theatre siege and the massacre of schoolchildren at Beslan.

These actions have in turn provoked the central government in Moscow to reassert control, which by and large it has successfully done. In doing so there is little doubt that the central government has had the support of the great majority of the local people. The fact that the jihadi movement in the Caucasus has been first contained and then largely defeated is proof of this. Without such support this would not have been possible.

As of today, the jihadi insurgency in the Caucasus is the only jihadi insurgency that has been successfully contained and largely defeated. This is an important fact about it that neither the western media nor western governments have ever acknowledged.

Indeed the account of the conflict given here, though it is the correct one, is not the one the western media and western governments have given. In particular the insurgency Russia has been fighting in the Caucasus since the 1990s, and in particular since 1999, is an Islamic jihadi insurgency is a fact which in the West has never acknowledged. The independent US scholar Gordon Hahn (whose views about the conflict are by no means identical to the ones given here) has complained prolifically about this. His complaints on this point have however gone largely unnoticed.

This in itself is bad enough. However what is much worse is the way the western media and to some extent western governments have sought to turn the facts of the conflict on their head by blaming the worst atrocities of the conflict not on the perpetrators but on their victims.

This has been true throughout the conflict. It was already true for example during the period of Chechnya's self-declared independence from 1996 to 1999. The terrorist outrages involving kidnappings and ransom demands that took place during this period were reported with indifference in the west provided they were directed at the Russian civilian population. Only when westerners were kidnapped did interest briefly flicker. The Russian film Voyna (2002) - a film in part about the kidnapping by Chechens of two Britons - captures this attitude perfectly.

The situation however becomes even more grotesque when jihadi terrorism against Russians becomes so extreme that they simply cannot be ignored.

If one takes what were possibly the four most egregious acts of terrorism committed against Russian targets by Caucasian jihadi terrorists - the mass kidnapping at Budennyovsk, the Moscow apartment bombings, the Nord-Ost Theatre siege and the Beslan massacre - what one notices from western media coverage in each case is (1) a reluctance to condemn the action and to call it by the simple and accurate word "terrorism" (2) reporting that always seeks to "explain" the action in terms of the demonstrably false historical narrative of Russian-Caucasian interaction discussed here and (3) an attempt to blame the Russian authorities for what happened.

The most extreme example of (3) is the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings. Though jihadi leaders admitted their responsibility for the bombings at the time when they happened, and though every one of those responsible for the bombings has been identified, with several captured, put on trial and convicted of the crime, the western media and even some western governments continue to indulge in the theory that the Russian authorities were in some way responsible. Though nothing that could remotely be called evidence has ever been produced to support this fantastic - indeed outrageous - theory, it continues to be endlessly repeated, with a seemingly unending series of books and articles published that purport to "prove" it true. This at the same time as western authorities and media show no such tolerance for the claims of the US's government's involvement in the terrorist attacks on the United States that took place on September 9th 2001.

However, if claims of Russian involvement in the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings are the most extreme example of this practice, it is also present in all the other cases cited. Thus the anti-terrorist action that saved most of the hostages in the Nord-Ost theatre siege (and which would certainly have been praised if it had taken place in similar circumstances in the West) is routinely condemned for its alleged "ruthlessness", whilst the Russian authorities were alternatively criticized for failing to prevent the mass kidnapping at Budennyovsk and for failing to surrender to the terrorists' demands at Beslan. In all cases the conduct of the Russian security forces comes in for particular criticism and even mockery, with no attempt ever made to relate their actual conduct to the extremely difficult conditions they have had to face on each occasion.

If the activities of the jihadis in the Caucasus have stirred little outrage in the West, the same emphatically has not been true of the steps taken by the Russian authorities to combat them. Always and invariably, these have been the subject of ferocious condemnation.

This tends to reach fever pitch whenever it appears that the Russian security forces look like they might win. This was particularly so over the course of 1999. Western media coverage of the conflict that year went from confident though as it turned out groundless predictions that the Russian security forces would lose to a furious campaign of denunciation of the Russian security forces and of the Russian political leadership when it became increasingly obvious that on the contrary they were going to win. I can still remember watching a Channel 4 Despatches program on British television in the winter of that year in which the reporter seemed unable to control his anger as he reeled off a seemingly unending list of war crimes he alleged with no evidence the Russian military had committed. The actual context of the conflict that year, the bombings in the Moscow apartments and the jihadi attack on Dagestan, were not mentioned.

The same biased reporting has continued ever since. The western media still refuses to call the Caucasian jihadis terrorists - something it unhesitatingly calls all Muslim jihadi movements everywhere else. Even more absurdly, it still refuses even to admit that they are jihadis even though they themselves make no secret of the fact. Whilst Western governments act purposefully to close down all other jihadi terrorist websites operating from their territories, the Caucasian jihadi website the Kavkaz Centre continues in Finland unimpeded.

Such as is the tolerance extended to Caucasian terrorists in the West that when the Russian authorities attempted to alert the US authorities to the dangers posed by the Tsarnaev brothers their warnings were ignored. Subsequently, their attacks in the US were rightly condemned as terrorism. By contrast the latest jihadi attack on Grozny is not.

Meanwhile, whilst the West continues to indulge the Caucasian jihadi movement so long as it confines its attacks on Russia, Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of the present government of Chechnya, who has sided with Russia, comes in for relentless criticism for opposing them.

Wild allegations of Kadyrov's involvement in various murders and human rights abuses are thrown around with abandon without so much as a scintilla of proof. He continues to be routinely accused in the West of responsibility for the murders of the two journalists Politkovskaya and Estemirova though the investigations into both murders have for any reasonable person conclusively established his complete innocence in both cases. The fact that his father was the victim of jihadi violence and that Chechnya's economic and security situation has been transformed during the period when he has headed its government is hardly ever mentioned.

The size of the gap between western stories about Kadyrov and the actual reality was for me exposed perfectly by a US embassy cable leaked by the alternative media organisation Wikileaks. It contained a report of a party that Kadyrov and a US diplomat both attended. The diplomat's report dripped with contempt for Kadyrov and was filled with innuendo both about the nature of the party and about Kadyrov's behaviour during it. One had to read the report carefully to realize that in fact nothing that could be remotely called unseemly had actually happened or been done by anyone at the party, which seems in fact to have been a rather staid affair.

The last few years have shown a steady, though gradual, stabilisation of the security situation in the Caucasus. This last year was the most peaceful the region has known since the crisis year of 1991. As discussed, given the region's complex history and geography, this would not have been possible without the support of its people.

The situation in the region however remains complex. Economic conditions are still difficult and unemployment is high. Though their activities are much diminished and most of their leaders have been killed, violent jihadis are still active there. The region needs a long period of peace and of sustained investment to overcome its problems. After all they have suffered its people deserve no less. Playing political games with their history and supporting, however indirectly, the terrorists who remain amongst them is not the way to help them achieve it.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

How Russia is fixing America's Syrian mess

The US and its allies aren't the only ones fighting terrorism in Syria. Russia has supported the government there in its anti-terrorist struggle for over the past three and a half years, but it receives barely any Western media acknowledgement for its efforts.

This week's meeting that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem had with Putin and Lavrov in Sochi was scarcely reported on in the West, but this doesn't mean that it was insignificant. In fact, it was neglected precisely because of its significance, since it shows that Russia is the main international actor helping to bring peace to the country and victory to the anti-terrorist forces. All of this jars with the mainstream narrative that the US is the solution to the Mideast's woes, instead showing that it's actually the problem in the first place.

Call 'Em How You See 'Em

Russia is certain that the US is the Mideast's main headache and has lately come out with some hard-swinging statements against it. Lavrov previously decried the use of the false "good terrorist, bad terrorist" myth, which first came about over 30 years ago when the US created the Mujahedeen, saying that political interests shouldn't supercede anti-terrorist considerations. Seeing that the US obviously wasn't listening after it started bombing Syria, he raised his tone this week to saying that Russia is against "attempts to use extremist and even openly terrorist groups for the purposes of a regime change in Syria", in clear reference to the US' policy of arming supposedly 'moderate' Islamic militant groups. Putin said afterwards in an interview that "the main risk...stems from the activities of the so-called Islamic State and other radical groups that were once actively employed by some Western countries, which flirted with them and encouraged them", so it's no perhaps wonder that he earlier voiced the impression that "whatever Americans touch they always end up with Libya or Iraq."

The Sochi Solutions

The US' destructive policy in Syria starkly contrasts with the constructive one that Russia is pursuing, showing how the Sochi talks were a promising step towards halting Syria's bloodshed and further defeating the terrorists.

Local Ceasefires:

The first notable result was that Russia and Syria came out in official support for the local ceasefire initiative earlier proposed by UN special envoy Staffan D. Mistura. Aleppo is anticipated to be the first testing ground of this policy, and if the US and its regional allies can convince their Syrian proxies to abide by it, then it could potentially be rolled out in other battleground cities. This would free up both forces to more freely fight against ISIL and begin the ground offensive that some in the West have been calling for, but instead composed of actual Syrians and not foreign militaries with ulterior and meddling motives.

Cutting the Purse Strings:

ISIL receives millions of dollars a day in critical financing by selling oil on the black market, so Russia has once more repeated its proposal for the international community to ban the purchase of terrorist-controlled natural resources. The idea was first suggested by Russia in July, but Lavrov commented this week that the "UN Secretariat is not too active in establishing facts" on the matter and urged them to pick up the pace. This importantly shows that unlike the US' bombing of Syria's terrorist-occupied oil infrastructure, Russia's plan is to go after the buyers of those products instead, which would leave the valuable structures intact to assist with necessary post-war reconstruction.

Restarting the Reconciliation Process:

Perhaps the most impactful proposal, but also the least likely to succeed in the short term, was the speculative idea to restart talks between Damascus and the non-terrorist anti-government opposition. No solid details were given, but there has been talk that any future reconciliation discussions could possibly occur in Moscow. One of the former Syrian opposition leaders, Moaz Al-Khatib, visited the Russian capital earlier this month to supposedly discuss such a proposal, but it is unsure how much support this has among the anti-government movement's current leaders.

Although Lavrov said that "If you think that a conference will be announced similar to the one that was held in...January this year with the participation of 50-odd states, thousands of journalists, bright lights, there won't be such a conference", he did underline that a political solution was the only possible way out of the crisis. Thus, Russia doesn't discount the idea of a new type of conference being held in a different, more subdued format and being presided over in Moscow sometime in the future, although nothing tangible was publicly confirmed.

Complete Opposites

What Russia's basically doing is the polar opposite of the US, and unsurprisingly, it's been far more successful in accomplishing its anti-terror goals. Let's look at their differences back-to-back for maximum effect:

Recognition:

• Russia: Recognizes the democratically elected government and is against its violent overthrow.


• US: Does not recognize the democratic will of the people, supports violent regime change.

Accusations versus Support:

• Russia: Provides diplomatic support to the government in its almost four-year war against terrorism.


• US: Falsely accuses the government of having been complicit in the rise of terrorism there.

Anti-Terror Coalition:

• Russia: Says that all countries should be invited to tackle terrorism without political discrimination.


• US: Excluded Syria from the Paris ISIL meeting and subsequent coalition.

Arms Shipments:

• Russia: Only sells arms to the legitimate authorities, which in turn use them to kill terrorists.


• US: Supplies the 'moderate' Islamic opposition, is 'shocked' when weapons end up in ISIL's hands.

Bombings:

• Russia: Emphasizes international law and says that Damascus' permission and coordination are a must.


• US: Unilaterally bombs Syrian territory without cooperating with its legitimate authorities.

Thus, Russia is undoubtedly serious about fighting terrorism in Syria, but the US doesn't seem to have its priorities straight, being more focused on regime change at all costs than on fighting terror with the same insistency. American policy created ISIL, while Russian policy has consistently been against it and similar groups for almost four years already. When the diplomats of the future look back at the Syrian War, it's not hard to see which country they'll view as being on the right side of history.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Maker Movement: Inspiring curiosity and teaching children creative skills

© Dan Evans / San Francisco Chronicle

Chris Cook, right, a founding of Curiosity Hacked, helps children design a logo.

With her right hand, my 8-year-old daughter, Kalian, presses the red-hot soldering iron against the circuit board. With her left hand, she guides a thin, tin wire until it's pressing against both the circuit board and the tip of the iron.

The tin begins to melt. There is a wisp of smoke, and a metallic smell drifts back to where I am standing behind her, a bit nervously, sweat running down my forehead onto my safety goggles (which I have always detested). I am ready to pounce if that soldering iron slips and touches her skin.

Instead, she pulls the iron and wire away. The solder cools, holding in place a metal pin from a computer chip. It's one of 20 solders she must make to attach the chip to the circuit board, and the moment seems to last forever.

Attaching the chip is just one of the tiny steps she and her brother, Liam, 10, will take over the next 10 months to create their own miniature computer, called a Hackerling Circuit.

We were building these computers as part of a program called Curiosity Hacked, started by some friends here. The goal is to teach kids a wide range of digital and analog skills: computer programming, 3-D printing, and sewing and drawing.

The program is part of much larger phenomenon known as the Maker Movement. Having emerged in Silicon Valley almost a decade ago, the Maker Movement has grown into a global community of tinkerers, programmers and designers united by the simple satisfaction they get from making stuff.

In recent years, this movement has turned its attention to children through programs like Curiosity Hacked.

Beyond the skills they learn, the kids come away with a more fundamental lesson: that the act of creating something can be incredibly educational and deeply gratifying in a way that buying something off the shelf never will be.

We live in a world in which the objects around us are increasingly complex and intimidating. We are taught not to make, but to buy.

That creates a growing distance between us and the world. We don't know how our food is grown or our energy is produced. We can't sew a button on a shirt or take apart our computer.

That was the case for me growing up. I was a klutz who was laughed out of woodshop by a middle school teacher. In college, I was going to be an engineer, but hated chemistry lab and those awful safety goggles.

Even now, I can't change the oil in my car. I am a member of the Jiffy Lube generation.

The Maker Movement caught the attention of Richard Sennett, a professor of sociology at the London School of Economics. Sennett studies the nature of work and our relationship to the objects in our lives.

In his 2008 book, "The Craftsman," Sennett explored the idea that "making is thinking." That there is spiritual and intellectual value in creating things with one's hands. The problem is that such acts take time, and curiosity, and patience. As the pace of the world accelerates, people choose convenience over crafting.

"There is something very profound about the connection between the hand and the mind," Sennett said. "Physical craftsmanship can make you slow down and lead to a very different way of thinking about the world. Doing things faster and faster is not necessarily good for critical thinking."

Just as Sennett was researching his book, someone in Silicon Valley was starting a movement to push those same ideas.

In 2005, Dale Dougherty, an editor at O'Reilly Media, which publishes tech-focused books and magazines, launched a magazine called Make. It covered a range of crafts, such as geeky electronics and more traditional arts.

A year later, Dougherty staged the first Maker Faire in San Mateo County to bring together the loose network of makers he had stumbled across. That Maker Faire drew 20,000 people. Last May, 130,000 attended over two days. The event has spawned 140 other annual Maker Faires around the world.

© Dan Evans / San Francisco Chronicle

Adesina Tyler, 8, solders a circuit board during a Curiosity Hacked meeting.

I attended my first Maker Faire with my family in 2009. It felt like being plopped down into a carnival of creation.

The wonders we saw included a life-size version of the game Mouse Trap. Steam-driven motorcycles made of wood. The stable of R2-D2s built by roboticists.

There was a fabric tent where children spent hours cutting up old clothes to sew new garments.

Dougherty realized that after the weekend ended, most kids had nowhere to learn these skills. In 2012, he launched the nonprofit Maker Education Initiative so children could get hands-on education in science, technology, engineering, art and math.

"This is how we learn, by manipulating and changing the physical world around us," Dougherty said. "Kids want more of that."

Back in my North Oakland neighborhood, Samantha Matalone Cook and her husband, Chris, were active members in a hacker space called Ace Monster Toys. Samantha is an educator; Chris is a computer systems administrator.

AMT had equipment such as laser cutters, 3-D printers, computers and sewing machines for adults to build anything they could imagine. In the fall of 2012, the Cooks, along with a friend, Garratt Gallagher, began making plans to start a program they initially called Hacker Scouts, to let kids have access to those same tools.

"When kids come to us, we want to give them the skills and the tools they need to achieve these big ideas they have," Samantha said.

The Oakland chapter of Hacker Scouts was called a guild. By the following summer, there were 25 Hacker Scout guilds in 12 states.

Within a year, they had outgrown AMT. To fund their own location, they launched a Kickstarter campaign that raised $37,000 from 557 donors.

The only sour note was when the Boy Scouts of America threatened to sue them unless they changed the name, which they did, to Curiosity Hacked.

In late 2013, Curiosity Hacked debuted its space in North Oakland, filled with laser cutters, 3-D printers and a wide array of tools.

© Dan Evans, San Francisco Chronicle

Amelia Costello, left, and Natalie Lim, both 11, play with LED lights, making them light up by attaching them to a small battery.

When the Cooks first told our family about Hacker Scouts, we immediately wanted to join.

The coming months were filled with great moments of wonder and discovery. And yes, at times it was excruciating, testing not just my knowledge but my patience with things moving slowly.

We would arrive at the weekly meetings and talk about the various components that needed to be attached to the Hackerling Circuit.

In addition to soldering 28 components to it, the children had to create a case that would cover the finished circuit board using design software. They had to feed that design into a laser cutter that would cut the wood into pieces they would then assemble. They also had to sew a leather pouch to hold it.

Working a couple of hours each week, the kids took months to build the Hackerling Circuit.

Some weeks, my kids soldered a single pin because the tin spread too far, and touched other pieces. They then had to use a little tool called a "solder sucker" to remove the faulty solder, a chore that took 20 or 30 minutes. There were meetings where all we did was remove a few poor solders.

Gradually, my children saw progress. A switch finally in place. A tiny speaker added. An LED screen that displayed just a few characters. Some buttons and lights. No one would mistake this for a Mac. But it was a computer. Made with their own hands.

After months of work, though, there was still one vital question: Would it work?

To test hers, Kalian plugged it into a laptop and tapped a few buttons to download a program. We waited a few seconds. And then ... nothing. She let out a groan. I felt the weight of 10 months of wasted work.

After re-inspecting all the solders, Kalian switched the circuit on and off. She unplugged the cable running to the laptop and re-attached it. She downloaded the software again.

This time, the circuit sprang to life. Lights blinked. Digital sounds crackled out of the speaker. Then, we experienced an almost indescribable satisfaction when the LED screen flashed on and five letters scrolled across its display:

"Hello."

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

India and Russia affirm their ties: Productive visit by Putin

© REUTERS/Ahmad Masood

Russian President Vladimir Putin's annual summit visit to India this year was a brief affair. Putin came looking for assurances that an India led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi would have no truck with Western attempts to isolate Russia and will continue to be a "time tested and reliable" partner, especially at a time of economic difficulties for Russia.

These, he received. India has given the Russians both official as well symbolic reassurance that it does not support Western sanctions. In return, India has got its own set of guarantees at the highest level from the Russians for spares for existing Russian-origin military hardware, with Moscow agreeing to move more quickly on transferring technology for the equipment to Indian firms. Keen to retain its position in the Indian defense sector, Russia has also become the first major arms exporter to come on board with India's military-aerospace industrial goals under the "Make in India" program, with an initiative to produce and even export Russian origin helicopters from Indian soil being announced during the visit itself. At a time when Russia needs India's high-end human resources and its market size and India requires more high-value manufacturing elements, the long-standing trust between the two sides seems to be helpful.

While the joint vision document released during the visit explicitly notes that India and Russia oppose economic sanctions that do not have the approval of the United Nations Security Council, it was perhaps the fact that a business delegation led by the Crimean prime minister accompanied Putin on his visit that was more revealing of India's stance on Ukraine. The Indian government is apparently encouraging Indian businesses to engage more deeply in Crimea, in a clear signal that it stands with Russia irrespective of American positions. In fact India is going even further than China is in making its support for Russia clear.

And that of course is by design, since India does not want Russia to step back from its traditional role of maintaining a power balance in Eurasia. Of course, India will need to offer more than just support on Crimea if it is to prevent Russia from becoming overly dependent on China at a time when Moscow needs to re-orient itself away from Western markets. It is here that Modi's statement on Russia remaining India's primary defense partner despite other options for his country becomes important. The Russian embassy in India has been rather voluble of late in denouncing India's turn towards the United States and France as defense partners, while Russian spares support for existing programs had become rather uneven - leading to calls in India to scale back its military partnership with Russia. That moment has now passed.

Already a private company in India has snagged a contract for maintaining Mig-29s, and more such arrangements are being pushed forward. During talks, Modi is known to have conveyed to Putin the very crucial need to locate spares manufacturing facilities for Russian origin weapons in India. For its part, Russia seems at ease with the overall "Make in India" policy that Modi's government is emphasizing. In light of India's liberalized regime for "FDI in Defense," Russia will tie up with an Indian partner to produce as well export up to 400 Mi-17 medium lift and Ka-226 light utility helicopters (LUH) in India each year. The Ka-226 incidentally was the Russian entry for the Indian military's global LUH tenders, before that process was cancelled by the Modi government in favor of a home-made initiative where foreign majors could tie-up with Indian partners to build the helicopters in India.

Recognizing that India has adopted an automotive sector-type strategy to boost its aerospace industry at a time when China is spending heavily in this arena, Russia is also looking to locate MS-21 and Sukhoi Superjet 100 production facilities in India, taking advantage of the availability of cheaper but trained manpower locally. Russia has known for a while that it needs greenfield locations for its high-end industries outside its own territory, and India with its immense market size seems the best prospect. Going forward, the output from Russian industrial arrangements in India should also service the domestic market back in Russia, given the need to hold down costs at a time of tighter state budgets. Moreover, with the prospect of Western sanctions lingering for the foreseeable future, Russia may require export partners such as India to circumvent the sanctions. However, as with every such initiative in India, any Russian investment in the aerospace industry will be tied to localization clauses as well as support for India's own civil airliner development program.

Although the visit did not bring any announcement on ambitious co-development programs, such as the fifth generation fighter aircraft project or the medium transport aircraft initiative, Modi's statement on Russia's status as the most important defense partner for India means that there will be new impetus in sorting out the workshare issues holding back a final agreement on these two initiatives. Of course, Russia will have to be far more amenable to Indian demands on technology development if these projects are to proceed, given the spends involved.

Continuing negotiations also meant that hydrocarbons did not become a centerpiece of the visit, in contrast to initial expectations. The visit did see an agreement signed between India's Essar and Rosneft on the long-term supply of some 10 million tons of crude annually at a discount that will see the former drawing down imports from Iran. However, no agreement was reached on Indian state-owned ONGC purchasing a stake in Rosneft's East Siberian oil and gas fields, including the prized Vankor estate, which will feed assured markets in China via the ESPO pipeline, since the Indians want a 25 percent stake while Rosneft is offering only 10 percent. The haggling may reflect the fact that Indian hydrocarbon majors want equity stakes in lucrative fields and tax breaks for existing assets in Russia where production has tapered off, while the Russians want India to make up-front off-take commitments for risky offshore fields in the Arctic as well as for LNG export projects. Putin even commented just prior to the visit that LNG is likely to prove cheaper than a gas pipeline from Russia to India, and this too is going to be explored. Given India and Russia's needs in the current oil-to-gas transition, much bigger deals can be expected in the future, current negotiations notwithstanding.

In any case, delays on the hydrocarbon front are not getting in the way of building more Russian-origin nuclear reactors in India. Neither is India's nuclear liability law, with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) agreeing with Rosatom to build a further 12 reactors of Russian design in India by 2035 in addition to the two existing facilities at Kudankulam. To accommodate more Russian design reactors, another reactor site will be identified soon along India's eastern coast. The first of this new wave of reactors will be Kudankulam units 3 & 4, with construction commencing in 2016. Again, the Russians will have to localize most of the components for the VVER-1200 reactors that will be built under these arrangements. The visit has also seen forward movement on settling a dispute between Indian Rare Earth's Limited, a DAE undertaking, and Russia for recoveries from a titanium plant in India.

The minerals outlook does seem to be brightening, with Indian investment in Russian potash mines set to grow and Indian companies inking a 2.1 billion dollar pact to source diamonds directly from Russia's world-leading diamond consortium Alrosa. The diamond industry in India is a significant employer and the world's largest manufacturing center for cut and polished diamonds. It can now reduce its dependence on diamond trading centers in the West and Dubai. Interestingly, this move is similar to the Chinese decision to locate production facilities in Modi's home state of Gujarat, the center for India's diamond industry, since it directly increases the power of a business constituency entrenched in Modi's region of origin. Clearly, Modi looms large as a personality to be courted now in the Indian political spectrum by major foreign countries.

With both sides looking to grow trade in strategic sectors and minerals, the working group on India's participation in the Eurasian customs union now looks more significant. More so because Russia's food security in the future will also depend on cheap Indian exports of processed dairy and meat products as well as commodities such as rice, given that Moscow has embargoed Western suppliers. At the same time, Russia is instituting "import substitution" policies at home and free trade arrangements with India will allow two-way trade to grow regardless. In fact, it would also be a source of encouragement for Indian industries to use Russia's own water resources to produce certain categories of goods.

To do that, Indian and Russian business will have to talk more efficiently and directly with each other. There is solid ground for that now, with Russia rather keen to enter the Indian market with a view to finding innovative partners that can overcome traditional weaknesses in bringing inventions to market. The vision document calls for the creation of a "direct investment fund of $2 billion between Rosnano and suitable Indian investment partners for implementation of high-tech projects." Besides this, the Skolkovo foundation is now scouring India for startups in the high-tech spectrum to fund as an angel investor. Russia and India will also ease visa rules for businesses and students to facilitate the movement of financial and human capital. Overall, given the urgent need to boost trade (which languishes at a mere $10 billion) and private investment, both sides are moving forward on rupee-ruble trade with their central banks working out the modalities and export-import banks discussing new credit guarantees that would facilitate loans in local currencies for Indian and Russian companies seeking to participate in each other's economies. This is of course in sync with BRICS efforts to trade in bilateral currencies in a bid to reduce the influence of the dollar. Of course, it will ultimately also depend on how quickly bilateral economic activity grows between the two sides.

In the multilateral sphere, India wants the 2015 Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Ufa to be the moment it finally becomes a member of that organization. With China having supported India's membership and Russia presiding over SCO at the moment, this will be a key test of India-Russia ties. No wonder Putin's special representative remarked recently that Moscow will do whatever it can to secure India's membership.

Just as India does not want to push Russia into China's grip, Russia doesn't want to see China become too dominant. With this in mind, Russia's partnership with India in strategic deterrence programs will grow in strength, already evident in their nuclear agreement and the fact that Russia has made available military GLONASS signals to India for ballistic missile targeting.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Restored colossal statue of Amenhotep III unveiled in Egypt

© AP

A tourist takes a picture of two colossal statues of Pharaoh Amenhotep III in Luxor on December 14, 2014.

Archaeologists on Sunday unveiled a restored colossal statue of Amenhotep III that was toppled in an earthquake more than 3,000 years ago at Egypt's famed temple city of Luxor.

The statue showing him in a striding attitude was re-erected at the northern gate of the king's funerary temple on the west bank of the Nile.

The temple is already famous for its existing 3,400-year-old Memnon colossi - twin statues of Amenhotep III whose reign archaeologists say marked the political and cultural zenith of ancient Egyptian civilisation.

The 12.92-metre (43-foot) statue unveiled on Sunday stands west of an existing effigy of the king, also depicting him walking, which was unveiled in March.

"These are up to now the highest standing effigies of an Egyptian king in striding attitude," said German-Armenian archaeologist Hourig Sourouzian, who heads the project to conserve the temple.

The world-famous twin Memnon colossi are 21 metres tall but show the pharaoh seated.

The restored statue now stands again for the first time since its collapse 3,200 years ago, Sourouzian told AFP from Luxor.

Consisting of 89 large pieces and numerous small fragments and reassembled since November, the monolith weighs 110 tonnes.

It had lain broken in pieces after the earthquake in 1200 BC, Sourouzian said.

The statue shows the king wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, and each hand holding a papyrus roll inscribed with his name, like the one standing next to it that was unveiled earlier this year.

His belt, holding a dagger with a falcon-head handle, is fastened with a rectangular clasp bearing the names of the king.

Work to conserve the Amenhotep III temple is entirely funded through private and international donations.

Pharaoh Amenhotep III inherited an empire that stretched from the Euphrates to Sudan, archaeologists say.

The 18th dynasty ruler became king aged around 12, with his mother as regent.

Amenhotep III died in around 1354 BC and was succeeded by his son Amenhotep IV, widely known as Akhenaten.

Luxor, a city of some 500,000 people on the banks of the Nile in southern Egypt, is an open-air museum of intricate temples and pharaonic tombs.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

99% of Americans are absolutely unprepared for disasters

© unknown

As the biggest storm in five years took aim at California this week cities across the state distributed sandbags, cancelled school and warned residents to prepare for power outages. And though the storm didn't really live up to the media hype, some people did take the warnings to heart and made last minute trips to the grocery store to stock up on foodstuffs and other supplies just so they wouldn't have to go out in the rain.

But not everyone was prepared. One San Francisco resident in particular highlights just how susceptible America is to disasters and what to expect in the event of a widespread emergency.

"I thought we were going to watch tv all day, but now the power's out," Beth Ludwig said. Her mom added that the kids had never experienced a power outage before.

Georgia Virgili was one of the hundreds of thousands in the Bay Area who lost most of the conveniences of modern life.

"I didn't have power," Virgili said. "I couldn't get my car out of the garage, I have no food, I have no cash, so I'm trying to forage for something." CBS)

The storm that swept California over the last 48 hours wasn't really that severe. Moreover, the public had nearly three days of advanced warning that it was coming. Yet, even this was apparently not enough to convince people to make even the most basic of preparations.

Mr. Virgili was totally unprepared, as are about 99% of Americans based on recent preparedness surveys conducted by The Discovery Channel.

As many as three million Americans now fall into the category dubbed 'preppers' - people who are making detailed plans for the end of the world as we know it.

The preppers are an ever-growing group of survivalists who take extreme measures to prepare for a major catastrophic event.

Given the various threats faced by humanity, including scenarios like an economic collapse. a rogue attack targeting our power grid or massive natural disasters, one can only imagine what it will look like should the system as a whole experience a sustained large-scale disaster.

To give you an idea, here are a couple of pictures taken in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Within 72 hours the system began to break down as transportation systems in large metro areas came to a standstill. The only supplies available were being distributed by the National Guard and availability was so thin that FEMA had to place emergency orders for more food. There was no clean water, no gas, and grocery stores had been cleaned out to the point that people resorted to digging through the trash just to find a meal:

© unknown

Luckily, the emergency was similar to what we saw in California, so it didn't come as a surprise to government officials, who had already mobilized the National Guard with distribution areas for Meals Ready To Eat and filtered water:

© unknown

Time and again we see the same story play out during disasters. During winter storms grocery store shelves have been cleaned out. After the Haitian earthquake tens of thousands were left without medical aid and armed gangs looted and killed anything they could. And who could forget Hurricane Katrina, where the government failed so miserably with their emergency response that it took them three days just to get clean water to those stuck in the Super Dome.

Now consider what would happen if something like this went on for days or weeks. What about months?

A recently released Congressional report suggests that a worst-case scenario grid down power outage lasting one year would leave 9 out of 10 Americans dead. This is an extreme example, of course, but certainly a plausible one and it emphasizes just how serious and horrific it will be for those who are not prepared.

That nearly 99% of Americans have made absolutely no plans to insulate themselves from disasters and emergencies is shocking, but to be expected. Most people are under the impression that all of those billions of dollars being spent by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are for supplies that will be distributed to the general population should disaster strike. The government will help, but their capacity in an extreme emergency will be very limited. Former Secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano has warned that their response teams will likely be overwhelmed and she has recommended that people have at least a two week supply of food and water. But that warning has fallen on deaf ears, as evidenced by the "tragic" stories we hear in the aftermath of disasters on a regular basis.

America as a whole is not prepared.

If the worst happens we can fully expect a complete breakdown of our civilized society within 72 hours. What's astonishing is that much of what is to come could be prevented if every individual took responsibility for themselves and put together a basic preparedness plan that included some emergency provisions like a 30 day food supply, water reserves, medical supplies and a personal defense plan.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More