Banner Advertiser

Friday, May 20, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Celebrating Rabindranath Tagore's legacy




Three countries in the South Asian sub-continent have picked up his songs and made them their national anthems:
India - "Jana Gana Mana Adhynayaka" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yMvU73Wr7Q
Bangladesh - "Amar Shonar Bangla" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVjbVPFeo2o
Sri Lanka - "Nama Nama Sri Lanka Matha"   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JslPiA9mPls

How many poets in the world have had that honor? That is why celebrate 150 years after his birth, India and Bangladesh together recall the pre-eminent literary genius, Rabindranath Tagore

A statue of Rabindranath Tagore, in New Delhi. File Photo: S. Subramanium

The simultaneous celebration of Rabindranath Tagore's 150th birth anniversary in India and Bangladesh marked an exceptional move to honour the poet-philosopher. It also symbolised the deep admiration that exists in both countries for the man who enriched literature as much as he did humanity as a whole.
The versatile genius, who was much ahead of his time, wrote in his mother tongue of Bangla. But he did not limit his message to the people who lived around him. His creative works introduced a powerful dose of love and internationalism. This Indian rose to international heights: he was the first non-European to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature, in 1913.
Tagore was poet, novelist, short story writer, essayist, playwright, educationist, spiritualist, painter, lyricist, composer and singer – a rare set of distinctions, an unbelievable conjunction of talents. His creative works, which still influence billions of people globally, are a matter of pride for the people of India and Bangladesh. He was born, grew up, worked and died here.
At critical moments he has been an inspiration for the people of what is now Bangladesh. Protagonists of the two-nation theory wanted to wipe out his influence. Pakistan's first military ruler, Ayub Khan, banned his songs. But the poet only became more relevant then before. A strong sense of linguistic nationalism grew around him. Finally, the people launched a strong cultural and political movement that culminated in the formation of Bangladesh.
Tagore made the Bengali middle class feel that he was an essential part of their national ethos. The emerging middle class, including students and intellectuals, regarded him as one of them. In no way could they think that Tagore was alien to them because of his religion.
Strangely, as in Pakistan's case, the successive military regimes in Bangladesh showed little interest in upholding his legacy. Tagore's songs and poems inspired Bengalis in their fight against Pakistan in the 1971 war of liberation. His songs and poetry inspired them culturally and politically. Never before had a poet left such an imprint and wielded so deep an influence on the psyche of the vast majority of the people. While India chose his Jana gana mana as the national anthem in 1947, Bangladesh has had one of his songs as the national anthem since its birth.
Sri Lanka's national anthem was also penned by Tagore: Apa Sri LankaNama Nama Nama Nama MataSundar Sri Boroni was originally Nama Nama Sri Lanka Mata in Bangla, written and set to its tune by Tagore. He did it at the request of his favourite Sri Lankan student at Santiniketan, Ananda Samarkun, in 1938. In 1940, Ananda returned to his native land and translated the song into Sinhalese and recorded it in Tagore's tune.
Indeed, Rabindranath is not only the pre-eminent literary genius of Bengal but all of South Asia, perhaps the whole of Asia.
The joint celebration of Tagore's birth anniversary began in Dhaka on May 6: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina inaugurated it. In India, it was opened by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Delhi on May 7. With this joint celebration, the great poet, who represents much of the common heritage and philosophy of the two countries, brought the two closer still.
The changed political circumstances in the two countries made the joint celebration possible. Tagore's philosophy, vision and outlook must bring the two closer. He is a monumental treasure that can bless us with love, humanity and justice.
Remembering a personality whose ardent belief in humanism and universalism was striking, India has instituted a Rs. 1 crore award in Tagore's name. Bangladesh has decided to set up a Rabindra University at Shilaidaha in Kushtia, where the poet spent a considerable part of his creative life while supervising the family estate. Bangladesh will also preserve the poet's intimate memories in 'Patisar' and 'Shahzadpur.' Dhaka has also expressed its willingness to construct a Bangladesh Bhaban at Santiniketan. India will run a special train, Sonar Tori, between Dhaka and Kolkata.
Speaking at the inaugural, Dr. Manmohan Singh said Tagore's ideas of universal humanism resonate in the contemporary world. His belief in the spiritual unity of the East and the West was a powerful message of redemption for a society beset by greed, callousness and irreverence. The joint celebration, he felt, was of "unique significance" — it was the first cultural exchange of its kind between the neighbours.
India cherishes the Tagore legacy fondly, just as Bangladesh does. Together the two must endeavour to enrich that legacy for people's welfare. Tagore is a lighthouse, a strong voice of humanity. He should guide the social consciousness of the two countries. Vice President Hamid Ansari, who attended the celebrations in Dhaka, rightly termed the celebration a momentous occasion.
Rabindranath remains a pre-eminent man of letters on both sides of the border. He is still the most influential writer in his language. He is South Asia's voice of love in a wider global perspective, a bridge of friendship. His songs should be sung forever; his works should be read for centuries to come.
Tagore's enduring influence on history comes through the many layers of his thoughts. He modernised Bangla art by refusing to follow rigid classical forms.
As a story-teller, he is second to none. His lucid, lyrical prose and grasp of the human psychology are unique. He is the foremost lyricist of his language and the most celebrated composer. He wrote more than 2,000 songs, and these are widely considered to be his best creation. His songs are an integral part of the Bengali culture and collective psyche. His novels are also some of the best in Bangla. He wrote lovely plays. He was a painter of note.
Tagore was a committed anti-colonialist. He had a deep understanding of the world at large. He visited more than 30 countries and had personal ties with scientists and literary giants of his time. He was not a revolutionary in a political sense, but he inflamed his people by renouncing his knighthood after the colonial army indiscriminately killed Indians in Jallianwala Bagh in 1919.
Tagore is a precious guide. He held that promoting one's own culture and approving the cultures of others could be one and the same attitude. "I believe," he wrote, "the unity of human civilization can be better maintained by linking up in fellowship and cooperation of the different civilizations of the world." The humanist added: "Let the mind be universal. The individual should not be sacrificed."
He was a member of the elite, but Tagore did not have elitist views on education. He wrote: "I believe that all human problems find their fundamental solution in education… Poverty, pestilence, communal fights and industrial backwardness make our path narrow and perilous owing to the meagreness of education…"
Reflecting on the plight of his country under foreign rule, Tagore understood, just as Gandhi did, that violence cannot serve the ultimate purpose of humanity. He was deeply aware that India needed more than a change of political regime. Therefore, he opted for a self-reliant village economy. In the region that is now Bangladesh, he initiated projects of local initiative, local leadership and local self-government, developing cooperative systems. Besides being a poet and philosopher, Tagore started innovative research in agriculture and rural development in Patisar, Shahzadpur and Shilaidah. This spoke of his vision and commitment to the people around him. In a world dominated by technology and science, his thoughts are still relevant as he wrote: "Science has given man immense power. The golden age will return when it is used in the service of humanity."
Tagore stood against exploitation and injustice in order to rise above geopolitical, economic and ideological divides. His messages can serve as a vital source of inspiration for cultural tolerance and lasting peace. As the two countries commemorate Tagore's birth anniversary, they should pledge to keep at bay the scourge of deadly birds of prey. A truly secular and democratic India and Bangladesh can keep alive the spirit of the great poet.
Tagore was born on May 7, 1861, in Calcutta, and died on August 7, 1941, at 80 years of age. Even a century and a half after his birth, his place in the collective life of India and Bangladesh is only getting stronger. The birth anniversary celebration is testimony to a new realisation and awakening. Invoking Tagore's timeless message of universal brotherhood, his thoughts and messages should be translated into reality.
Tagore belongs to India, and Bangladesh too. But in the truest sense, he belongs to the world. Even after 150 years of his birth, you feel his presence.
(The writer, based in Dhaka, is a Bangladesh litterateur and journalist. E-mail: hh1971@gmail.com.)


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Looking At the Messy Birth of Bangladesh(Books)



State of Affairs

By Jyoti Thottam

Looking At the Messy Birth of Bangladesh (Books)

Tahmima Anam takes on the messy birth of Bangladesh


What comes after the founding of a nation, and all its joys and traumas, when revolutionaries turn into politicians and guerrillas become ordinary sons and daughters again? That's the intriguing question posed by Tahmima Anam's The Good Muslim, set in Bangladesh after the 1971 war of independence.

Anam, a Dhaka-born, Harvard-trained anthropologist, carries forward to the new novel the characters of Maya and Sohail, a sister and brother first encountered in her harrowing 2007 debut, A Golden Age. That award-winning work was based on the wartime experiences of Anam's grandmother. Its sequel attempts to depict the war's survivors in a broader historical context, but is more successful in exploring their private tragedies than it is in portraying the convulsive emergence of a state. (Read about unrest in Dhaka.)

As the novel opens Maya, a doctor, is trying to fit back into the professional life of Dhaka after a difficult stint in a village clinic. Her brother Sohail, a student leader who, like many of his contemporaries, had taken up arms, turns to religion as a balm for the shell-shocked state that the war's end leaves him in. He uses his growing piety to justify his neglect of his young son, and his relationship with Maya turns brittle as she challenges his parental failings. Anam handles the distance between them elegantly: "There were things she wanted to tell him ... Instead, he smoked so intently she could hear the tip of his cigarette as it burned toward him."

Anam follows her characters into very dark corners with an illuminating gaze. She writes movingly, too, about the mass rape of Bangladeshi women by Pakistani troops during the war, dwelling on both the horror and its ambiguities — such as the women who decided to marry their rapists to escape the stigma, and the leader who praised the victims as heroines but said the nation had no use for children fathered by the enemy. (Maya also ends up joining one of the world's lesser-known wartime relief efforts: abortion clinics for rape victims, organized by international aid groups and the new Bangladeshi government.)

For all its lucid emotion, however, The Good Muslim delivers little political drama. This is surprising, given that Bangladesh's first years as a nation were a roller coaster of disasters and intrigues, ending in dictatorship. That tension has no chance to build in Anam's book because she structures it as a series of unchronological vignettes. The characters are constantly shrugging off momentous events that we wished Anam had explored more deeply, including the death of Bangladesh's founding father, Sheik Mujibur "Mujib" Rahman. "The famine, and then Mujib dying, and then the army came in and it was like the war had never happened." (See TIME's video on the slums of Dhaka.)

As Anam so beautifully puts it, Bangladesh is a "fast-acting country: quick to anger, quick to self-destruct." But readers hoping to understand why this is so, or seeking the background to recent events, will have to look elsewhere. There is little here to explain how a war-crimes trial can become clouded by political agendas, for instance, or why Bangladesh's champions of the poor are today attacking one of their own, Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. Bangladesh often seems mired in the minutiae of current affairs; for better or worse, The Good Muslim sets that aside and delivers something rather more visceral.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2072551,00.html


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Critical Thinking During the bin Laden Controversy



The Art of Propaganda Comprehension: Critical Thinking During the bin Laden Controversy

Blake Walley, Contributing Writer

I've found myself to be quite a bit late to the Osama Bin Laden opinion party. However, maybe that's not such a bad thing because now that it's been a while, everyone has had a chance to take a step back and calm down -- including myself.

But if you want my opinion, I think this event was totally staged. Bin Laden was almost certainly dead already and the establishment was just saving his corpse for a future emergency to rescue the system. Why? Because their empire is crumbling apart and they are completely desperate to save themselves. I mean they "killed" him and immediately dumped his body in the ocean? Please, how gullible do they think we are? And this event wasn't just staged to distract from the "birther" issue like the propaganda machine wants you to believe. This is a multi-faceted operation to channel support for their other illegal wars, to push us into another war with Pakistan, to boost their pathetic approval ratings, to jump start Obama's re-election bid, and also to distract us from the crumbling economy.

However, I do think it's incredibly hilarious that we still have a AAA rating.  How much more evidence to people need to see to realize that the game is rigged?

However, something really interesting happened with this latest propped-up media hoax, because for the first time the general masses haven't been so gullible to the official story anymore. That's because the corporate establishment propaganda machine and their pundits have become so absurd and cartoonish that they have almost no credibility anymore. And if you think basic cable news is bad, regular network news is almost unwatchable.

So, that being said, my message to the readers is this: be careful of the propaganda, and be wary of anything the establishment tells you about this event. I keep hearing some dangerous opinions put out by some in the media that suggest that it's somehow bad or unpatriotic to question the government's official stance on the issue. Now, not only do I find that concept unbelievably alarming and disturbing; that twisted philosophy helps set a very dangerous precedent. That doesn't mean that I'm suggesting that it's 100% fact that the government is definitely lying about their version of reality, but is there a reason why we can't calmly and rationally conduct an investigation into their facts before they push us into another war?

Maybe it's me, but I don't see any kind of recent government track record of honesty and transparency, do you? I for one don't buy the establishment BS story about bin Laden; but, regardless, there should never be an excuse to go to war based on some insane idea that we shouldn't question our government's intentions.

That being said, I have a warning for anyone who thinks that the government's word is good enough for them: if our leaders are anywhere near as corrupt as I suspect, but their "word" is good enough for you…and we eventually get into World War III with Pakistan based on false information (like the WMD's in Iraq), elitist interests, and possible false flags because of YOUR gullibility in believing them, then that war will also be on YOUR conscience, and blood will also be on YOUR hands as well. Please be careful. Start questioning the establishment and stop being fooled.

We need a new Renaissance, not a corrupt empire of elitists destroying the world out of power and greed…

Okay, points made…now are you ready for some evidence and critical thinking?

Let's face it, no matter what your beliefs are, it should be really obvious by now that the empire is failing and we are headed for the end of the line. Now that doesn't mean there needs to be a panic, but it's time to realize and accept that our current system is broken beyond repair and will have to be restarted and restructured at some point fairly soon.  How long do you really think our current system is going to last?

Face it, every society eventually falls, and with our world problems approaching an almost overwhelming level, there is probably no better time than now to start getting calmly informed and prepared for the possibility that there will be some big changes ahead in the near future. The good news is that these changes could very well usher in the beginning of the next Renaissance.  The bad news is that if you choose not to get involved, you will run the risk of being at the mercy of what the establishment chooses for you. Have you ever heard of the quote, "Order out of chaos?" How about "those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?" Well if you want to get a good idea of how those quotes can seriously affect your life and your future, then I strongly suggest you check out my article on North Korea.

Here's a good question for you: Did you know that there is another major war going on that you might not have been aware of?

War isn't always just about military actions; war can also be waged on information! Simply put, when two sides give different stories surrounding an event, how can you tell which side is telling you the truth?  Do you believe everything you are being told? Or are you able to spot the difference between what is probably true, and what is more likely propaganda that the establishment wants you to believe is true?

Speaking of the information war, did you know that you actually have to pay to get premium news these days? It's true! As I said earlier, regular network news is practically unwatchable these days; and even basic package news like CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are getting so corporate and phony that their credibility is falling rapidly. Sure, you can listen to your local phony corporate news clown's worthless analysis (if they actually give you something), but if you had a choice, wouldn't you rather hear what Bill Maher has to say? Judge Napolitano? Curious about the Bloomberg Network? Then prepare to open up your wallet people, because intelligent news with intelligent analysis is going to force you to shell out an extra subscription fee.

Oh yeah, that reminds me . . . wasn't there actually a time when news was supposed to be about trust? Perhaps a network or a pundit you trusted to really give it to you straight? Think about it for a moment; what if there was a breaking news story leading to an emergency situation and you only have time to listen to one source's point of view of the event before you have to follow through on their "honest, hard-hitting intelligent opinion and analysis?" Here, I'll even give you six choices:


A. Chris Matthews
B. Greta Van Susteren
C. Wolf Blitzer
D. Fox and Friends
E. NPR
F. Ann Coulter

See what I mean?

Now I get criticized at times for getting news from the Daily Show, but give me a break! Take another look at that list! And believe me, that is only a fraction of the many pundits I could have put there instead. Call me crazy, but what's worse; cartoonishly absurd "news reporters" that take themselves and their work seriously? Or comedy news that at least points out how completely absurd these people and their news are?

Let me show you some recent examples of why I respect the Daily Show's news coverage: (note: I am unable to post videos from Comedy Central, so the best way to view these clips is to right-click the hyperlink and set to "open link in a new window")

Exhibit A: Jon Stewart and John Oliver discuss the corporatocracy.

Exhibit B: Aasif Mandvi discusses how we're really not in another war.

Exhibit C: Want another reason why I think Fox News a joke? Speaking of cartoonish, take a look at this clip with the Fred Flintstone lookalike Bret Baier as he gets schooled by Jon Stewart (to be fair to Bret though, this really isn't a fair fight. Fox News has reached such a high level of absurdity, that it is literally impossible to defend the network and appear credible at the same time).

Exhibit D: This clip is one of the more important ones if you want a really good look at just how ridiculous the establishment has become. A transparency award? Are you effing kidding me? Want to know how incredibly stupid and gullible the establishment thinks the average American is?

Exhibit E: This clip can be shortened to its final two minutes (4:08 is a good beginning) This clip shows just how incredibly deceptive the establishment can be, and why this country will be in serious danger if we allow our officials to cleverly disguise and confuse their language like in this very Orwellian example.

Exhibit F: Still not convinced that the bin Laden story was staged? Remember the very sad and uneventful campaign commercial from exhibit D? Remember when I said part of the reasoning for the bin Laden hoax was to help Obama's re-election campaign? Well take a look at this clip (start about 1:40) to see just how dumb, gullible, and easily manipulated the propaganda machine thinks the voting public really is.

However, although I don't agree with everything Jon Stewart says (and I was forced to be critical of him once before), I think in the case of the bin Laden story that there may be a certain point where Jon is forced to play both sides. Obviously I can't speak for him of course, but from my perspective this means that even Jon Stewart has to polish a turd once in a while. And if you are curious to see what that looks like, you can watch here as he turns the Bin Laden "hoax" into a dick joke:

Oh well, what should I expect Jon to do? Have a Howard Beale/Charlie Sheen moment and possibly risk his career over the issue? Of course not. But it really doesn't matter to me what he truly believes or not. Besides, how can I really be that critical of a guy who can keep propaganda juggernaut Fox News at bay nearly single-handedly? So as far as I'm concerned, whether Jon has to play certain rules behind the scenes is irrelevant. Say what you want about him, but in my opinion he has done far more good then harm.

Speaking of which, perhaps it's time to take a look at a couple of people that are doing far more harm than good; and coincidentally, I'm actually going to start with one of Jon's recent guests, Rachel Maddow!

Now I already thought this lady was nuts, and in fact I've already written an article on her once before where I exposed her fanaticism regarding the second amendment. However, it appears that my work on her is unfinished as she still continues to pollute our collective consciousness.

Now there are many things about this interview I find bothersome, but I'm only going to focus on the two parts I found the most disturbing:

Once again, please right-click this hyperlink for the interview…

To be fair, Jon played a big role in some of this misinformation as well. You are welcome to watch the full interview, but if you want to get straight to the point, let's fast-forward to about 3:45.

Jon: "Is he dead? And do you think (it was a distraction from the birth certificate issue)…Really? That's what's living in your head? Are you that… just insane?"

Rachel: "The idea that the birth certificate is the real story…and that Osama bin Laden is the distraction from it? Tells you everything you need to know about the people who are really invested in the birth certificate story. If you think Osama bin Laden is the distraction that America needs…I think that puts that in the proper perspective…"

Me: Hey Jon and Rachel, I don't know what goofball's quote you found, but you can't just cherry-pick the craziest comments off some message board and then lump all of the rest of us "conspiracy theorists" into one camp like we all have the exact mentality. That would be as disingenuous as me cherry-picking comments by some left-wing tool like Doug Schoen and acting like he speaks for all liberals. Now of course I can't speak for everybody in these various "truth movements," but as far as I know, the vast majority of "truthers" are saying that Osama bin Laden had already been dead for many years.  And, as I stated in the very beginning of this article, the reasoning why bin Laden was "killed" was multi-faceted, and not solely because of the "birther" issue. That being said, this section of the interview was extremely misleading and unfair.


The second extremely disturbing piece of information I wanted to point out follows immediately after. Remember above when I said "be careful of the propaganda  . . . I keep hearing some dangerous opinions put out by some in the media that suggest that it's somehow bad or unpatriotic to question the government's official stance on the issue?"

Well, how about I just let Rachel show you in her own words (4:35-4:42).

Rachel: "The whole like; If we don't see the pictures, none of us will ever believe that he's dead thing… is a country that I don't recognize."

Really Rachel? Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't question the integrity of the government? The same people that lie to us on a daily basis? You really think we should just take them at their word even though they just conveniently and inexplicably just dumped bin Laden's body into the freaking ocean? Are you completely insane? A country you don't recognize? I mean, historically speaking, isn't questioning our government one of the things that we are most famous for? Not only was that an insane and blasphemous comment, Rachel; it is precisely what I'm referring to when I mention setting dangerous precedents. You are really starting to scare me lady. It's bad enough that you want to stomp out the second amendment, but now you don't think we should question the government? That sounds like you want to turn us into the next China, Mexico, or maybe North Korea! Hey Rachel, what's living in your head?

Now it's time to switch gears again, and guess what? It involves more comedy news! Now I understand that there are many people that say comedy and news don't mix, but I disagree completely.

In fact I've personally been influenced by a lot more comedians' philosophies than the "serious" news pundits. Whose wise words do you live by? Anderson Cooper and Sean Hannity? Or would you rather listen to Bill Hicks and George Carlin? (By the way, the Carlin link is so prophetic it's almost scary).  So, as far as I'm concerned, if you are an intelligent, rational, and logical thinking person with thought-provoking opinions, then you are just as worthy to listen to as any pundit or politician.

However, getting news from comedy doesn't always come without problems, and the power to persuade opinion can be dangerous whether it's serious or not, so on that note, I have one more example to show you:

Seth (Sith) Meyers is the "anchorman" on Saturday Night Live, and he was also the host at the recent White House correspondent's dinner. Now I'm not here to fault him for hosting this event.  However, I do have a huge problem with one of his recent newscasts, as it absolutely reeked of some of the worst propaganda I've ever seen. And, yes, I understand that this still falls in the comedy realm, but, like I said, it's all about the power to persuade opinion, and this was some very dangerous material.

Here is the hyperlink to the Weekend Update:

I apologize for the commercials (I'll blame GE) but the specific starting space in this video should be at roughly the 26th minute or the 3rd "marker" as indicated on the bottom of the video.

Comments:
26:35 Antagonizing Qaddafi to bolster support for an unpopular war?

26:57 The bin Laden is not really dead misinformation conspiracy.

27:20 Approval rating ridiculousness? I guess I must be incredibly stupid for being in the the 44% club of people that won't bow down and worship Obama over a media hoax.

27:40 Let the awkwardness begin . . . apparently the message is that we are supposed to believe that Osama bin Laden was the most wicked man that ever lived.

30:42 I guess we should blame Pakistan?

31:47 Want to know where I came up with the name Sith Meyers?

32:14 The beginning of another awkward sketch designed to bolster support for our inexcusable "kinetic military actions."

35:22 This quip comparing our children to China's might seem funny on the surface, but it's actually helping spread a very dangerous myth. I guess according to Sith, we should be ashamed of our education system since we are not turning our children into automatons the way they do in China. Hey Sith, maybe we should just start putting up the nets around the workplace like the Chinese are forced to? Or how about we start working out complex mathematical and psychological formulas to see just how many hours that we can work a person before they reach their breaking point and attempt suicide? I mean if we could just find a way to get them to stay at that maximum level of work capacity but just under their absolute mental breaking point to where they finally snap? Think about all the money we could save on nets and cleanup! Hey, is that the smell of a freshly-splattered worker? Or do I smell a promotion?

Wow Sith, so did you sell your soul at the correspondent's dinner or something? Seriously dude, did the C.I.A. write that episode's Weekly Update for you? What a giant mess of blatant government propaganda! So how does it feel to be a propaganda spewing imperialist for the dark side? Sith Meyers everyone!

Now I agree with Sith that our education system is quite flawed. In fact, I might even argue that our kids are probably being dumbed-down on purpose. However, we won't "win the future" by turning our children into robots, we will win the future with more love, imagination, inspiration, and creativity.

Here's an example, but I want you to also think about it from a different angle . . . you see it's not just the scene itself that I'm referring to. Think about it: would we even have these thought-provoking movies if we had all been educated under the Chinese "model" instead? I don't know about you, but my guess is leaning towards no. Yes, our education system needs work, but the solution is not to adopt the Chinese modelDon't believe the hype!

Okay, so I've covered the reasons why I think the mainstream media blows. So, do you think you're ready for the hardcore stuff?

Remember the multiple choice question about which pundit you would trust in an emergency situation? Never mind, I'm going to make this easy and copy it again below:
A. Chris Matthews
B. Greta Van Susteren
C. Wolf Blitzer
D. Fox and Friends
E. NPR
F. Ann Coulter

Having a little trouble with your decision? Would you like another option?

Fine, I'll give you one . . . but the bad news is that it's a bit of a controversial choice….

In fact, many would probably refer to him as the "King of Conspiracy." However, many others (depending on individual interpretation), would refer to him as the "King of Reality." Sound intriguing? Here, I'll even give you a sample in the video below (warning, may be very intense for some viewers):
By the way, if you click this sentence, it will bring you to an article leading to the link of the Washington Post article that Alex was referring to…

Now, I understand that clip was intense, controversial, and a bit one-sided (at least in this example), but you have to admit that it blows the doors off of what you could expect to hear from the list above does it not?

Okay, now let's get back to the multiple choice question again; only this time the subject will be about what really happened with Bin Laden….

I know some of you may still be tempted to run screaming back to NPR by this point, but aren't you just a little bit curious about the mega-controversial interview between "the King of Conspiracies" and major government/military insider; Dr. Steve Pieczenik? (click his name for an impressive bio)

Well here is where it all begins:


Well what about those latest Bin Laden videos?
How about 10 facts that prove that this latest Bin Laden story was a hoax?

Okay, I'm done with that part of the argument!

Bonus fun time!

Now let's end this article on the bright side with a fun little critical thinking exercise….

Once again I have to give a big kudos to Jon Stewart for lining up a recent interview with the incredibly smart and talented Albert Brooks. Not only am I also a fan of his work, but he also just wrote a controversial new book about "the real story of what will happen to America in 2030."

Therefore, I will leave you with one of my favorite scenes from one of my favorite movies which of course also stars Albert Brooks. I call it a critical thinking exercise because it really gives the audience a thought-provoking "outside the box" perspective on the bigger picture of reality. Now it doesn't matter whether this scene is truly indicative of what one could expect to see in the afterlife or not. The point is, how would you fare if your life was actually on trial?

Well that's it! I hope everyone learned a lot because there is no better time than now to wake up and get out of this modern day dark age! What are you waiting for?

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/art-of-propaganda-comprehension.html



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] The Map of the “New Middle East”



The Map of the "New Middle East"

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the "New Middle East."


 
        "Hegemony is as old as Mankind…" -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor

The term "New Middle East" was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the "Greater Middle East."

This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the "New Middle East," was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a "New Middle East" was being launched from Lebanon.

This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli "military roadmap" in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The "New Middle East" project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of "constructive chaos." This "constructive chaos" --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.
New Middle East Map

Former Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that "[w]hat we're seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the 'birth pangs'—of a 'New Middle East' and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one."1 Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed  indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force.
The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia

Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's speech on the "New Middle East" had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon --which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London-- have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the "neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders," and that "creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, 'an awesome revolutionary force' for (…) creative destruction…"2
Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below)

Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as "Russia's Southern Tier" or the Russian "Near Abroad."
Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia ("Russia's Southern Tier") to be the vulnerable and "soft under-belly" of the Russian Federation.3

It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.
This map of the "New Middle East" seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

The map of the "New Middle East" was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel's book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military's Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5
It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon's foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.
It has been written that Ralph Peters' "four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles," but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East?


The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a "humanitarian" and "righteous" arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions. According to Ralph Peter's:
    International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.


    The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
    While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam, but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

    Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia [Muslims], but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.
    Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.


    Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosphorus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected. 6
    (emphasis added)

"Necessary Pain"
Besides believing that there is "cultural stagnation" in the Middle East, it must be noted that Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are "draconian" in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or "birth pang" in order to create the "New Middle East" that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is being politicized and stimulated in Europe to offend Turkey.7


The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a "New Middle East" and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas. 
Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of "divide and conquer." Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.
Amongst the problems in the contemporary Middle East is the lack of genuine democracy which U.S. and British foreign policy has actually been deliberately obstructing.  Western-style "Democracy" has been a requirement only for those Middle Eastern states which do not conform to Washington's political demands. Invariably, it constitutes a pretext for confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are examples of undemocratic states that the United States has no problems with because they are firmly alligned within the Anglo-American orbit or sphere.
Additionally, the United States has deliberately blocked or displaced genuine democratic movements in the Middle East from Iran in 1953 (where a U.S./U.K. sponsored coup was staged against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh) to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the Arab Sheikdoms, and Jordan where the Anglo-American alliance supports military control, absolutists, and dictators in one form or another. The latest example of this is Palestine.

The Turkish Protest at NATO's Military College in Rome
Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters' map of the "New Middle East" has sparked angry reactions in Turkey. According to Turkish press releases on September 15, 2006 the map of the "New Middle East" was displayed in NATO's Military College in Rome, Italy. It was additionally reported that Turkish officers were immediately outraged by the presentation of a portioned and segmented Turkey.8 The map received some form of approval from the U.S. National War Academy before it was unveiled in front of NATO officers in Rome.





The Turkish Chief of Staff, General Buyukanit, contacted the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and protested the event and the exhibition of the redrawn map of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.9 Furthermore the Pentagon has gone out of its way to assure Turkey that the map does not reflect official U.S. policy and objectives in the region, but this seems to be conflicting with Anglo-American actions in the Middle East and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Eurasian Balkans" and the "New Middle East" Project?
The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives. Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the "Eurasian Balkans," located on its southern tier, are "potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization]," and that, "If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable."10


It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. Taking what we know from the White House's own admissions; there is a belief that "creative destruction and chaos" in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the "New Middle East," and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia:
    In Europe, the Word "Balkans" conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its "Balkans," but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogenous. They are located within that large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability (...) that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia [Pakistan, Kashmir, Western India], the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East.

    The Eurasian Balkans form the inner core of that large oblong (…) they differ from its outer zone in one particularly significant way: they are a power vacuum. Although most of the states located in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East are also unstable, American power is that region's [meaning the Middle East's] ultimate arbiter. The unstable region in the outer zone is thus an area of single power hegemony and is tempered by that hegemony. In contrast, the Eurasian Balkans are truly reminiscent of the older, more familiar Balkans of southeastern Europe: not only are its political entities unstable but they tempt and invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbors, each of whom is determined to oppose the region's domination by another. It is this familiar combination of a power vacuum and power suction that justifies the appellation "Eurasian Balkans."
   
The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia's richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.
     The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.
   
Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable.
    (…)
    The Eurasian Balkans include nine countries that one way or another fit the foregoing description, with two others as potential candidates. The nine are Kazakstan [alternative and official spelling of Kazakhstan] , Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—all of them formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union—as well as Afghanistan.
    The potential additions to the list are Turkey and Iran, both of them much more politically and economically viable, both active contestants for regional influence within the Eurasian Balkans, and thus both significant geo-strategic players in the region. At the same time, both are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts. If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable, while efforts to restrain regional domination by Russia could even become futile. 11
    (emphasis added)
Redrawing the Middle East
The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up the First World War. In the wake of the the First World War the borders of the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn. This region experienced a period of upheaval, violence and conflict, before and after World War I, which was the direct result of foreign economic interests and interference.
 
The reasons behind the First World War are more sinister than the standard school-book explanation, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Economic factors were the real motivation for the large-scale war in 1914.

Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined  U.S. tax-exempt foundations, confirmed in a 1982 interview that those powerful individuals who from behind the scenes controlled the finances, policies, and government of the United States had in fact also planned U.S. involvement in a war, which would contribute to entrenching their grip on power.
The following testimonial is from the transcript of Norman Dodd's interview with G. Edward Griffin;

We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?

Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country [the United States], than its involvement in a war.  There were intermittent shows [wars] in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were.  And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that?  They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.
At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out.
(emphasis added)
The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region.
The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran and Syria. A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.
NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO. Syria and Iran continue to be demonized by the Western media, with a view to justifying a military agenda. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a "civil war" characterised by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.
Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a "divide and conquer strategy" which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region. 
 
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is in an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Notes
1 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Special Briefing on the Travel to the Middle East and Europe of Secretary Condoleezza Rice (Press Conference, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2006).
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm
2 Professor Mark LeVine, The New Creative Destruction, Asia Times, August 22, 2006.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH22Ak01.html
3 Professor Andrej Kreutz, The Geopolitics of post-Soviet Russia and the Middle East, Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) (Washington, D.C.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, January 2002).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_1_24/ai_93458168/pg_1
4 The Caucasus or Caucasia can be considered as part of the Middle East or as a separate region
5 Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters, Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look, Armed Forces Journal (AFJ), June 2006.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
6 Ibid.
7 Crispian Balmer, French MPs back Armenia genocide bill, Turkey angry, Reuters, October 12, 2006.
James McConalogue, French against Turks: Talking about Armenian Genocide, The Brussels Journal, October 10, 2006.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1585
8 Suleyman Kurt, Carved-up Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts U.S. Apology, Zaman (Turkey), September 29, 2006.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=36919
9 Ibid.
10 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives (New York City: Basic Books, 1997).
http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/basic/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0465027261
THANK YOU TO GLOBAL RESEARCH

http://www.patriotfreedom.org/news_20110227_2236/the-map-of-the-new-middle-east/


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___