The Raw Story

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

NATO leaves Afghanistan...or does it?

The much-publicized withdraw is actually a drawdown, as NATO forces and responsibilities will be officially cut back in the country, not cut out of it as was misleadingly made to seem. Although the Afghans are now supposedly in charge of their own destiny, they still have the option, if mutually agreed upon, to work in coordination with the stay-behind forces to engage in combat operations and counter-terrorism missions. This effectively gives Kabul a crutch to lean on for when times get tough, meaning that at the end of the day, the government still depends on the US and NATO for its ultimate existence. Furthermore, when the Status of Forces Agreement between Afghanistan and the US is critically examined, it becomes clear that the US is still largely in charge of the country and nothing has really changed.

Operation "Resolute Support"

NATO has formally termed its stay-behind mission in Afghanistan as Operation , which will see the country divided into four primary zones of responsibility.

South/East - US

North - Germany

West - Italy

Kabul - Turkey

The selected 'supervisory' states are significant, since each has a certain value in the NATO's overall mission. The US is of course the ringleader, calling all the shots, while Germany is the economic engine of the EU and its leading state. Having it on board and in a leadership role creates a strong demonstration effect for other, possibly more reluctant NATO states to step up their future commitment to the alliance. Italy, on the other hand, serves as the group's Mediterranean springboard, which could see more action in the future if Libya continues its hellish descent or Algeria ruptures after the death of its aging president. Finally, Turkey is NATO's frontline state in the Mideast and has lately played a major role in destabilizing Syria and promoting regime change there.

America's Comfy SOFA

The US government can rest assured that it will still retain major privileges in Afghanistan during the 'drawdown', owing to the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between it and its Afghan counterparts in late September. Let's take a look at some of its most striking provisions:

Back-Up On Demand (Article 2):

The US can no longer unilaterally engage in combat or counter-terrorist operations unless mutually agreed to by the Afghan forces, however, they're free to engage in multispectral assistance in strengthening Kabul's cadres. This basically means that the US military, besides being the behind-the-scenes architect of Afghan security, also functions as Afghanistan's '911 emergency services' for when the going, aka the Taliban, gets tough.

No Search and Seizure (Article 3):

The US "shall not enter Afghan homes for the purpose of military operations and searches except under extraordinary circumstances involving the urgent risk to life and limb of U.S nationals", nor can it "arrest or imprison Afghan nationals, nor maintain or operate detention facilities in Afghanistan." Simply put, if something controversial is going to happen, America may watch and supervise, but it'll let the Afghans get their hands dirty instead.

NATO Interoperability (Article 4):

The Pentagon will continue subsidizing and supervising the Afghan military, with one of the final goals being that it "(achieves) standardization and interoperability with NATO." Evidently, the US and its NATO pals plan on working together with the Afghan forces long into the future, as interoperability is a long-term goal meant for repeated future application, not just something to be achieved and applied solely in 2015-2016.

Mess With Afghanistan, Mess With America (Article 6):

If Afghanistan experiences any external aggression (including that of "externally based or supported armed groups" [read: the Pakistani Taliban]), then the US will regard this as a "grave concern" and will take appropriate measures that are mutually agreed to with the Afghans. Basically, the US is the official guarantor of Afghanistan's security, and the clause about "externally based" armed groups means that unless the terrorists in Pakistan are fully eradicated (which isn't likely any time soon), then this could theoretically continue in perpetuity.

What's Mine Is Not Yours (Article 8):

The American government and its associated contractors "retain title to all equipment, materiel, supplies, relocatable structures, and other movable property they have installed in, imported into, or acquired within the territory of Afghanistan." This means that neither the Pentagon nor its private contractors are obliged to transfer or sell its "excess" items to the Afghans, although it should enter into consultations about this regardless. Afghan President Ghani was recently fuming about the US' possible transfer of weapons and equipment to Ukraine from Afghanistan, but looking at the SOFA text that he himself signed, there's actually nothing he can do about it.

Afghan Roads, American Rules (Article 10):

"United States government aircraft, vessels and vehicles shall be free from boarding without the consent of United States forces authorities. [They] shall be free from inspection, regulation, or registration requirements". To sum it up, the US military can do whatever it wants on Afghanistan's roads, waterways, and airspace, and the 'authorities' can only sit by and watch.

Immunity (Article 13):

The first chapter gives the US the "exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction over [its troops and contractors] in respect of any criminal or civil offenses committed in the territory of Afghanistan." This is the same type of arrangement that existed in Iraq under the US military occupation and caused outrage when the 2007 Blackwater killings brought this to the spotlight.

Sovereignty? What Sovereignty? (Article 16):

"United States forces and United States contractors may import into, export out of, re-export out of and transport and use in Afghanistan any equipment, supplies, materiel, technology, training, or services", provided that they're for the US military and have the required documentation to verify this. Pretty much, the US can ship whatever it wants in and out of Afghanistan and use such things however it deems fit. Although there are provisions in there to supposedly prevent corruption and abuse, it's doubtful they'll fully succeed, because as the saying goes, 'who's watching the watchmen?'

The only thing that really changed in Afghanistan at the end of 2014 is that the foreign forces have become more 'lean' and efficient in accomplishing their objectives. Instead of going out in the line of fire themselves, they can now depend on their Afghan cannon fodder to do it for them, and ride in to save the day only when it's "mutually agreed" and deemed in their overall interests. Afghan 'empowerment' is only an illusion to mask the fact that Kabul is now a 'grown-up' Western proxy, albeit one that can only partially fend for itself. The true power still rests in the palm of the Pentagon's hand, as it has for the past 13 years and counting.

Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

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.

A restaurant in central China is offering free meals to its most attractive clients.

The Jeju Island restaurant, a Korean eatery in the Chinese city of Zhengzhou, says the 50 most handsome people to arrive at its gates each day will be spared paying their bills.

Those hoping for a free lunch have their looks evaluated by a panel of local plastic surgeons whose tummy-tucking talents the restaurant is attempting to promote.

Before eating guests are taken to a "beauty identification area" where they are photographed and considered. Potential diners are judged on the quality of their faces, eyes, noses and mouths. Protruding foreheads are a particular advantage, according to reports.

As news of the promotion spread, Chinese internet users debated how they might fare at the restaurant.

"I reckon I can get a one per cent discount with my face," joked one user of Weibo, the social media site.

"Do the ugly have to pay twice?" wondered another.

The restaurant's owners appear to be more concerned with physical appearance than English language skills. "Free meal for Goodlooking," read a bright pink sign that was hung outside the eatery last Saturday to advertise the newly launched promotion.

Authorities in Zhengzhou were unimpressed, accusing the initiative of damaging the city's image and claiming the garish sign did not have official permission.

On Tuesday teams of security guards and demolition workers descended on the restaurant to remove the sign, China News Service reported.

Xue Hexin, the restaurant manager, vowed that the free meals for the beautiful would not be stopped.

"We will be more prudent with our advertising in future," she said. "But the promotion will continue despite the demolition of our sign."

Customers at some branches of Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ in Tokyo will soon be greeted by a robot, in what the bank says will be a first for any major financial institution in the world.

The 58-centimeter robots, named NAO, can answer most basic customer-service questions in 19 languages, as well as analyze customers' facial expressions and behavior, the bank says.

"We can ramp up communication with our customers by adding a tool like this," said Kazunobu Takahara, a bank spokesman. The bank will start by placing the robots in one or two branches, likely in April, and then proceed according to customer feedback.

Video of customers recorded by the robot's forehead-mounted camera can also help the bank develop new financial services in the future, Mr. Takahara said.

NAO was developed by the French company Aldebaran Robotics, which is owned by Japanese telecom and technology giant SoftBank Corp. It costs around $8,000 and has been mainly used at schools and research institutes.

His bigger brother Pepper, also developed by Aldebaran, started working in a similar role at SoftBank's Tokyo stores last year. Softbank placed Pepper, which has a 120-centimeter body, in around 90 stores.

Pepper is more mobile, but NAO is a better communicator and is more skilled at reading people's facial expressions, BTMU said.

© Intel Free Press via Wikipedia)

Do the benefits of immersive learning applications outweigh the dangers of increased Wi-Fi exposure for children?

Most parents would be concerned if their children had significant exposure to lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, or the pesticide DDT. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations' World Health Organization (WHO), classifies these and more than 250 other agents as Class 2B Carcinogens. Another entry on that same list is radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF). The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.

Uh-oh. Not another diatribe about the dangers of our modern communication systems? Obviously, these devices and the resulting fields are extremely (and increasingly) common in modern society. Even if we want to, we can't eliminate our exposure, or our children's, to RF/EMF. But, we may need to limit that exposure, when possible.

That was among the conclusions of a report published in the entitled "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences." From an analysis of peer-reviewed studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk). The following points were made:

Children absorb a greater amount of microwave radiation than adults.

Fetuses are even more vulnerable than children. Therefore pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to microwave radiation.

Adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs (headscarf).

Cellphone manual warnings make clear an overexposure problem exists.

Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings.

Current exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised.

Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be monitored more closely, or possibly even banned.

Children and fetuses absorb more microwave radiation, according to the authors, because their bodies are relatively smaller, their skulls are thinner, and their brain tissue is more absorbent.

More generally, the studies cited in the paper found RF/EMF exposure is linked to cancers of the brain and salivary glands, ADHD, low sperm count, and, among girls who keep cell phones in their bra, breast cancer. They also noted that the average time between exposure to a carcinogen and a resultant tumor is three or more decades.

Hopefully, more longitudinal studies will be done to verify or contradict the findings so far. In the meantime, are the government's current regulations adequate? The exposure levels they warn against haven't seem to have been updated for more than 19 years.

In a Network World opinion article ominously titled "Is Wi-Fi killing us...slowly?" columnist Mark Gibbs makes the point that "... laws and warnings are all very well but it's pretty much certain that all restrictions on products that use microwave technology will err on the safe side; that is, the side that's safe for industry, not the side of what's safe for society." Gibbs then added this ominous closing question, "Will we look back (sadly) in fifty or a hundred years and marvel at how Wi-Fi and cellphones were responsible for the biggest health crisis in human history?"

But, short of that worst-case scenario, the topic certainly merits more scrutiny, and perhaps some common sense limits on what devices our children use, and for how long.

Killeen Police and Fort Hood Military Police currently have a home blocked off on the 3300 block of Cantebrian Drive where a man was found dead in a yard Tuesday morning.

Fort Hood officials confirm the man is a soldier who recently returned from a deployment to West Africa. Officials say there are no indications the soldier had Ebola, however medical personnel at Carl R. Darnall Medical Center are running tests as a precaution to make sure there is no threat to the community.

Troops returning from West Africa must undergo a 21-day monitoring period at a controlled monitoring site on post. Officials say this soldier was granted an emergency leave that was not medical related and involved a family emergency, according to officials. It is not known if the soldier was hospitalized or if the family emergency was a false report.

The soldier was under self monitoring where he had to check in with officials twice a day before his family emergency.

KCEN TV has a crew on the scene and will continue to update this story as the details become available.

Less than half (46%) of U.S. kids younger than 18 years of age are living in a home with two married heterosexual parents in their first marriage. This is a marked change from 1960, when 73% of children fit this description, and 1980, when 61% did, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of recently-released American Community Survey (ACS) and Decennial Census data.

Rapid changes in American family structure have altered the image of who's gathering for the holidays. While the old "ideal" involved couples marrying young, then starting a family, and staying married till "death do they part", the family has become more complex, and less "traditional".

Americans are delaying marriage, and more may be foregoing the institution altogether. At the same time, the share of children born outside of marriage now stands at 41%, up from just 5% in 1960 . While debate continues as to whether divorce rates have been rising or falling in recent decades, it's clear that in the longer term, the share of people who have been previously married is rising, as is remarriage .

According to our analysis, today 15% of children are living with two parents who are in a remarriage. It is difficult to accurately identify step-children in the ACS data, so we don't know for sure if these kids are from another union, or were born within the remarriage. However, data from another Census source - the 2013 Current Population Survey (CPS) - indicates that 6% of all children are living with a step-parent.

One of the largest shifts in family structure is this: 34% of children today are living with an unmarried parent - up from just 9% in 1960, and 19% in 1980. In most cases, these unmarried parents are single. However, a small share of all children - 4% - are living with two cohabiting parents, according to CPS data. Because of concerns about the quality of the new 2013 ACS data on same-sex marriage, we do not separate out the very small number of children whose parents are identified as in this type of union, but instead fold them into this "single parent" category, as well.

The remaining 5% of children are not living with either parent. In most of these cases, they are living with a grandparent - a phenomenon that has become much more prevalent since the recent economic recession.

The world is collectively mourning the vicious terror attack on a passenger bus that resulted in the deaths of 10 people in the Donetsk People's Republic today, prompting worldwide mass demonstrations and protests against the terrorism being unleashed in that country, and is calling for an international response in the form of new laws to crack down on the dramatic rise in radical terror attacks in the region. People are taking to the streets with signs saying "Je suis Donbass", borrowing from the mass show of unity with the victims of the recent terror attack in France...

Terror attack kills 10 on passenger bus in Donetsk.

...OK, sorry, I lied. No one in the West is mourning these victims of Kiev's brutality. Few have probably even heard of them. No one in the West is collectively mourning the close to 5,000 that have died in the year-long ethnic cleansing operation in Ukraine, where Kiev forces and numerous mercenary groups have been targeting, torturing, and murdering civilians with NATO-supplied weapons in what can only be described as a campaign of terror.

The leaders of Europe, North America, Australia, etc. are complete and utter hypocrites. The only time civilian deaths matter to them is when they can be exploited to serve their puppet-masters' agenda. In the case of , the reason these deaths matter is obvious. In fact, it looks like the entire scenario was planned and executed for the express purpose of serving that agenda, as Joe Quinn recently put it on PressTV:

[embedded content]

The Charlie Hebdo deaths are being exploited because they reinforce the narrative that Muslims are the biggest threat to world peace, that Muslims are the equivalent of what the Jews and other groups were to the Nazis - public enemy number one - that Muslims need to be feared, watched, suspected, demeaned, demonized, insulted, attacked, and, ultimately, dealt with in some form of 'Final Solution', thus justifying Western 'intervention' in the Middle East and covering up the decades-long slaughter the West and Israel have been perpetrating there for decades.

In contrast, the brutal deaths of civilians in Ukraine don't matter. In fact, they are necessary. It is simply unthinkable and unacceptable to have a Russia-friendly Ukraine, to the extent that the West is willing to prop up and support literal Nazis. And the people they butcher? Collateral damage, not worth the ink it takes to print accounts of their senseless deaths.

When there's a real threat, the crowd has an uncanny inability to see it for what it is, and instead go after the scapegoat, which is always and ever a threat manufactured by those who actually represent the real threat. Humanity has seen it happen countless times in the past, and people today who take pride in being 'informed', 'educated', and 'humanistic' look back on those time periods - with the benefit of hindsight, mind you - shake their heads, and mutter "Humanity was so blind..."

But they're just as blind. That's the reason it keeps happening. Less than a hundred years ago, ordinary, educated, informed Germans (not to mention other Europeans, Americans, and people around the world) could not see that the real threat was . They believed the lie, plain and simple, and they believed it because it was so 'believable'. The propaganda, the existing social tensions, the assault on their sense of safety and justice only confirmed that they were right, and caused them to become heartless racists. But does anyone really think people then saw themselves as such? Of course they didn't. Just like people in France today don't see themselves as hypocritical racists manipulated by forces of which they're entirely unaware.

The problem is that those forces are very aware of what they're doing, and they're very aware of how easy it is to manipulate people.

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

~ Plato

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

~ U.S. President James Madison

"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule."

~ Friedrich Nietzsche

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".

~ Adolph Hitler

"Why of course the people don't want war. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

~ Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".

~ Josef Stalin

The cruel irony is that the people think they are doing it for the greater good. They are solving a problem, neutralizing a threat, defending freedom, fighting the forces that go against civilization. Only, they're not. The recent attacks, and the response, has nothing to do with the threat of radical Islam or freedom of speech. The threat is real, but it isn't from Muslims: it is from our own governments.

Harrison Koehli

Harrison Koehli hails from Edmonton, Alberta. A graduate of studies in music performance, Harrison is also an editor for Red Pill Press and has been interviewed on several North American radio shows in recognition of his contributions to advancing the study of ponerology. In addition to music and books, Harrison enjoys tobacco and bacon (often at the same time) and dislikes cell phones, vegetables, and fascists.

The Raw Story

Focused on providing independent journalism.

Kiev orders crackdown on Russian TV channels

What I did after police killed my son

Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

NATO leaves Afghanistan...or does it?

Restaurant in China charges customers based on attractiveness

Japanese bank to introduce robots that provide customer service

Study finds children more at danger to WiFi exposure than previously thought

US: Fort Hood soldier returning from West Africa found dead in yard

End of the traditional family: Less than half of children in the U.S. grow up living with a mother and father

SOTT EXCLUSIVE: Terror attack in Ukraine! World outraged! Je suis Donbass!

Search

Recent Posts

Popular