Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    Nobody ‘stealing’ your jobs, you spend too much on wars, Alibaba founder tells US

    20 Jan, 2017



    Chinese billionaire and Alibaba founder Jack Ma believes that improper distribution of funds and hyper inflated US military spending, not globalization or other countries “stealing” US jobs, is behind the economic decline in America.

    The Chinese business magnate earlier in January met with US President-elect Donald Trump, who has bemoaned the loss of American industry and jobs due to the outsourcing of labor to countries like Mexico and China. Ma, however, has a different view of what is behind the US economic decline.

    “Over the past thirty years, the Americans had thirteen wars spending 40.2 trillion dollars,”
    said Ma, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “What if they spent a part of that money on building up the infrastructure, helping the white-collar and the blue-collar workers? No matter how strategically good it is, you’re supposed to spend money on your own people.”

    “And the other money which I’m curious about is that when I was young, all I heard about America was Ford and Boeing and those big manufacturing companies. The last 10-20 years, all I heard about is Silicon Valley and Wall Street,” he continued.

    “And what happened? The year 2008: the financial crisis wiped out 19.2 trillion dollars in the USA alone and destroyed 34 million jobs globally. So what if the spent on Wall Street and the Middle East was spent on the Mid-West of the United States, developing the industry there? That could change a lot.”

    According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , the United States spent $596 billion, or 3.3 percent of its GDP, on military expenditure in 2015, which is higher than any other country in the world. In Ma’s opinion, this is partly responsible for the loss of jobs in America’s Rust Belt.

    “So it’s not that other countries steal jobs from you guys, it is your strategy! You do not distribute the money in a proper way,”
    he summarized.

    Ma also expressed the view that overall globalization was a positive thing as it had brought many benefits to both China and the world. However, it should be improved by making more room for small businesses rather than the current system run by the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was developed to protect corporate interests.

    “The WTO was great but it was mainly designed for developed countries and big companies. There’s no opportunity for small business. We want to build up an EWTP – an Electronic World Trade Platform – to support young people, small business.”

    “And the other thing is that the WTO is a very interesting organization. When you put 200 government officials in one room, ask them to agree on something – it’s impossible! I can never imagine that they agree on something together. Business should be designed by business people, so we believe the EWTP should have businessmen sitting down together, agree on something, negotiate on something, then get endorsement from the government.” Ma founded Alibaba, one of the world’s largest online retailers and e-commerce platforms, back in 1999. According to Forbes, Ma has a net worth of approximately 27.7 billion dollars, making him the second-richest man in China.


    https://www.rt.com/business/374289-a...jobs-military/

  2. #22
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    Trump To Focus Counter-Extremism Program Solely On Islam

    By Julia Edwards Ainsley, Dustin Volz and Kristina Cooke - 2/2/2017

    The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

    The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

    Such a change would reflect Trump's election campaign rhetoric and criticism of former President Barack Obama for being weak in the fight against Islamic State and for refusing to use the phrase "radical Islam" in describing it. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks on civilians in several countries.

    The CVE program aims to deter groups or potential lone attackers through community partnerships and educational programs or counter-messaging campaigns in cooperation with companies such as Google and Facebook.

    Some proponents of the program fear that rebranding it could make it more difficult for the government to work with Muslims already hesitant to trust the new administration, particularly after Trump issued an executive order last Friday temporarily blocking travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

    Still, the CVE program, which focuses on U.S. residents and is separate from a military effort to fight extremism online, has been criticized even by some supporters as ineffective.

    A source who has worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the program said Trump transition team members first met with a CVE task force in December and floated the idea of changing the name and focus.

    In a meeting last Thursday attended by senior staff for DHS Secretary John Kelly, government employees were asked to defend why they chose certain community organizations as recipients of CVE program grants, said the source, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

    Although CVE funding has been appropriated by Congress and the grant recipients were notified in the final days of the Obama administration, the money still may not go out the door, the source said, adding that Kelly is reviewing the matter.

    The department declined comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

    PROGRAM CRITICIZED

    Some Republicans in Congress have long assailed the program as politically correct and ineffective, asserting that singling out and using the term "radical Islam" as the trigger for many violent attacks would help focus deterrence efforts.

    Others counter that branding the problem as "radical Islam" would only serve to alienate more than three million Americans who practice Islam peacefully.

    Many community groups, meanwhile, had already been cautious about the program, partly over concerns that it could double as a surveillance tool for law enforcement.

    Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said she was told last week by people within DHS that there was a push to refocus the CVE effort from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism.

    "That is concerning for us because they are targeting a faith group and casting it under a net of suspicion," she said.

    Another source familiar with the matter was told last week by a DHS official that a name change would take place. Three other sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said such plans had been discussed but were unable to attest whether they had been finalized.

    The Obama administration sought to foster relationships with community groups to engage them in the counterterrorism effort. In 2016, Congress appropriated $10 million in grants for CVE efforts and DHS awarded the first round of grants on Jan. 13, a week before Trump was inaugurated.

    Among those approved were local governments, city police departments, universities and non-profit organizations. In addition to organizations dedicated to combating Islamic State's recruitment in the United States, grants also went to Life After Hate, which rehabilitates former neo-Nazis and other domestic extremists.

    Just in the past two years, authorities blamed radical and violent ideologies as the motives for a white supremacist's shooting rampage inside a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina and Islamist militants for shootings and bombings in California, Florida and New York.

    One grant recipient, Leaders Advancing & Helping Communities, a Michigan-based group led by Lebanese-Americans, has declined a $500,000 DHS grant it had sought, according to an email the group sent that was seen by Reuters. A representative for the group confirmed the grant had been rejected but declined further comment.

    "Given the current political climate and cause for concern, LAHC has chosen to decline the award," said the email, which was sent last Thursday, a day before Trump issued his immigration order, which was condemned at home and abroad as discriminating against Muslims while the White House said it was to "to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals."

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-focus-counter-extremism-program-solely-on-islam-sources/ar-AAmw0oI


    There are 10 million Muslims in the USA, not 3 million as these writer and others claim.

  3. #23
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    Steve Bannon’s War with Islam: Trump May Not Even Understand His Adviser’s Apocalyptic Vision

    Bannon has long yearned for a civilizational conflict between the West and the Muslim world. Now he may get it.





    By
    Jalal Baig / Salon



    February 5, 2017



    There seems to be considerable urgency right now to enshrine Donald Trump’s Islamophobia into law. Talk of an immigration ban, a Muslim registry and even internment camps once sounded like the machinations of a spray-tanned salesman looking to indulge the electorate’s need for a good villain narrative. Amid an atmosphere of overwhelming chaos, the early days of Trump’s reign have made clear, however, that Islam is Public Enemy No. 1 and serves as the centerpiece of Steve Bannon’s ethno-nationalist agenda. (Trump’s ban on immigration and travel from certain Muslim-majority nations is currently on hold, thanks to a Friday federal court order. That does nothing to resolve the larger questions.)


    Bannon called Trump “a blunt instrument for us” in an interview last summer with Vanity Fair. He added, “I don’t know whether he really gets it or not.” That the former Breitbart executive editor would have an outsized role in a Trump administration should have been evident long ago. In Trump, Bannon found a petulant Twitterphile and a manipulable tool who has minimal interest in policymaking and little insight into his own limitations. As he sought an upheaval to remake an America rife with perceived threats, Trump was, as Lawrence Douglas wrote, “the proper vehicle to carry the fight forward.”


    For Bannon, the fight is against Islam. There are echoes of Samuel Huntington’s 1993 essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Clash of Civilizations?” Huntington wrote of a world that had been divided along “fault lines” such as culture, which could spur conflict between Islamic civilization and the West. Bannon speaks of the current war with “jihadist Islamic fascism” in apocalyptic terms and sees it as the latest iteration, as Uri Friedman wrote, “of an existential, centuries old-struggle between the Judeo-Christian West and the Islamic world.”


    Further, Muslim immigration gnaws at Trump’s foremost consigliere. He evinces ignorance in his ideas about sharia, yet uses the term frequently when discussing Muslim immigrants, who “are not people with thousands of years of democracy in their DNA.” Though roughly 100,000 Muslims have entered the United States in each of the last few years, he claimed in December 2015 that 1 million would be entering in each of the next two years.


    These statements were a prelude to Trump’s “Muslim ban,” an executive order that was signed shortly after inauguration (and is now on hold, at least for the moment). Its swift enactment was the first sign that Bannon’s war on Islam had begun. He hastily crafted the ban without regard for the Department of Homeland Security — or for that matter the State, Defense and Justice departments. Soon court orders were being defied and acting attorney general Sally Yates was fired for her refusal to enforce Bannon’s opening salvo. Christian refugees would be given priority over others to enter the country, as an individual’s religious identity is apparently the only indicator of his or her suffering.


    Bannon’s temerity was on full display as he sought to engineer the civilizational crisis that he has clearly relished for years. His consolidation of power was complete when Trump took the unprecedented step of offering Bannon — a man with no experience or background in national security, foreign policy or the military — a permanent seat on the National Security Council. (Yes, Bannon was once a Navy officer. He left the service in 1983.) Now the man who admires darkness, Satan and Darth Vader will influence major decisions of war and peace.


    All this unrestrained jingoism risks causing a conflagration at a time of isolated fires that are being managed and contained adequately. As Robin Wright of the New Yorker noted, the Obama administration “has turned the tide on jihadism over the past two years. The two premier movements — the Islamic State and Al Qaeda — are both on the defensive.” In the United States, attacks by Muslims were responsible for only one-third of 1 percent of all murders in 2016.
    Even Bernard Lewis, who fathered the phrase “clash of civilizations” when he wrote of the Arab world’s need to expunge Islam from its politics, cautioned against an exaggerated response to the Judeo-Christian world’s ancient rival. “It is crucially important,” he noted, “that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but equally irrational reaction against that rival.”


    But Bannon desires carnage.


    Through the immigration ban and its associated rhetoric, jihadists and at least seven Muslim-majority countries have been given notice of the Trump administration’s intentions. This is a not a U.S. government that will call Islam a religion of peace, as George W. Bush did. Or one that will be reluctant to use the term “Islamic” to prevent giving groups like ISIS legitimacy, as Barack Obama did.


    Yet ISIS is emboldened now because Bannon’s undaunted pursuit of a clash will help its goal to “eliminate the gray zone” of coexistence between Muslims residing in the West and their non-Muslim neighbors. ISIS hopes that Bannon’s stark intentions will make Muslims in the West disillusioned about its acceptance and tolerance, boosting recruitment and sympathy for their deranged cause. As Abu Omar Khorasani, a senior Islamic State commander in Afghanistan, said, “This guy [Trump] is a complete maniac. His utter hate towards Muslims will make our job much easier because we can recruit thousands.”

    In addition, as Dan Byman, a staff member of the 9/11 commission, noted, Muslims in the United States may become more disenchanted “and thus easier to recruit or inspire to be lone wolves. In addition, it may make communities feel they are suspect and decrease vital cooperation with law enforcement. The hostile rhetoric that goes with these bans makes all this more likely.”

    http://www.alternet.org/visions/stev...eid=83e6bcb3fa

  4. #24
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    Here’s an Updated List-by-Year of All Major U.S. Wars

    February 17, 2017

    A couple of years ago, those at Activist Post reported on a compiled list-by-year of each American war, and now that 2016 has come and gone, and there’s been a change of oligarchical puppets in the White House, we’ve provided an update to the Activist Post’s list below.

    After 240 years, the United States can only boast a dreadful 21-years of peace (if you don’t count slavery). The following four facts were listed, and they’re still valid in 2017:

    Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance [more now] that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.

    No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.” [This now includes Trump]

    The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.

    The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

    Year-by-year Timeline of America’s Major Wars (1776-2011)

    1776 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamagua Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War
    1777 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War

    1778 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
    1779 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
    1780 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
    1781 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
    1782 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
    1783 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
    1784 – Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War, Oconee War

    1785 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1786 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1787 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1788 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1789 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1790 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1791 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1792 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1793 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
    1794 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

    1795 – Northwest Indian War

    1796 – No major war
    1797 – No major war


    1798 – Quasi-War
    1799 – Quasi-War
    1800 – Quasi-War

    1801 – First Barbary War
    1802 – First Barbary War
    1803 – First Barbary War
    1804 – First Barbary War
    1805 – First Barbary War

    1806 – Sabine Expedition

    1807 – No major war
    1808 – No major war
    1809 – No major war


    1810 – U.S. occupies Spanish-held West Florida
    1811 – Tecumseh’s War

    1812 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Seminole Wars, U.S. occupies Spanish-held Amelia Island and other parts of East Florida
    1813 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Peoria War, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in West Florida
    1814 – War of 1812, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in Florida, Anti-piracy war
    1815 – War of 1812, Second Barbary War, Anti-piracy war

    1816 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
    1817 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
    1818 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

    1819 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war
    1820 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

    1821 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)
    1822 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)
    1823 – Anti-piracy war, Arikara War
    1824 – Anti-piracy war
    1825 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

    1826 – No major war

    1827 – Winnebago War

    1828 – No major war
    1829 – No major war
    1830 – No major war


    1831 – Sac and Fox Indian War

    1832 – Black Hawk War

    1833 – Cherokee Indian War
    1834 – Cherokee Indian War, Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign
    1835 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War
    1836 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Missouri-Iowa Border War
    1837 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Osage Indian War, Buckshot War
    1838 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Buckshot War, Heatherly Indian War
    1839 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars

    1840 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade Fiji Islands
    1841 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade McKean Island, Gilbert Islands, and Samoa
    1842 – Seminole Wars

    1843 – U.S. forces clash with Chinese, U.S. troops invade African coast

    1844 – Texas-Indian Wars
    1845 – Texas-Indian Wars

    1846 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars
    1847 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars
    1848 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War

    1849 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians
    1850 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, California Indian Wars, Pitt River Expedition

    1851 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

    1852 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

    1853 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, Walker War, California Indian Wars

    1854 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians

    1855 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Yakima War, Winnas Expedition, Klickitat War, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

    1856 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Tintic War

    1857 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Utah War, Conflict in Nicaragua

    1858 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Mohave War, California Indian Wars, Spokane-Coeur d’Alene-Paloos War, Utah War, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

    1859 Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Pecos Expedition, Antelope Hills Expedition, Bear River Expedition, John Brown’s raid, U.S. forces launch attack against Paraguay, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1860 – Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Paiute War, Kiowa-Comanche War

    1861 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign

    1862 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Dakota War of 1862,

    1863 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Goshute War

    1864 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Snake War

    1865 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Colorado War, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War

    1866 – Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Franklin County War, U.S. invades Mexico, Conflict with China

    1867 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, U.S. troops occupy Nicaragua and attack Taiwan

    1868 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Battle of Washita River, Franklin County War

    1869 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

    1870 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

    1871 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, Kingsley Cave Massacre, U.S. forces invade Korea

    1872 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Franklin County War
    1873 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Apache Wars, Cypress Hills Massacre, U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1874 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Red River War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1875 – Conflict in Mexico, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Eastern Nevada, Mason County War, Colfax County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1876 – Texas-Indian Wars, Black Hills War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1877 – Texas-Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Black Hills War, Nez Perce War, Mason County War, Lincoln County War, San Elizario Salt War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1878 – Paiute Indian conflict, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Lincoln County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1879 – Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, White River War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1880 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1881 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1882 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1883 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1884 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1885 – Apache Wars, Eastern Nevada Expedition, U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1886 – Apache Wars, Pleasant Valley War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1887 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1888 – U.S. show of force against Haiti, U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1889 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1890 – Sioux Indian War, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Ghost Dance War, Wounded Knee, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1891 – Sioux Indian War, Ghost Dance War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1892 – Johnson County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1893 – U.S. forces invade Mexico and Hawaii
    1894 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
    1895 – U.S. forces invade Mexico, Bannock Indian Disturbances
    1896 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

    1897 – No major war

    1898 – Spanish-American War, Battle of Leech Lake, Chippewa Indian Disturbances

    1899 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1900 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1901 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1902 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1903 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1904 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1905 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1906 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1907 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1908 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1909 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1910 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1911 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1912 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
    1913 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, New Mexico Navajo War

    1914 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
    1915 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico, Colorado Paiute War
    1916 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
    1917 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S. invades Mexico
    1918 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S invades Mexico
    1919 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
    1920 – Banana Wars
    1921 – Banana Wars
    1922 – Banana Wars
    1923 – Banana Wars, Posey War
    1924 – Banana Wars
    1925 – Banana Wars
    1926 – Banana Wars
    1927 – Banana Wars
    1928 – Banana Wars
    1930 – Banana Wars
    1931 – Banana Wars
    1932 – Banana Wars
    1933 – Banana Wars
    1934 – Banana Wars

    1935 – No major war
    1936 – No major war
    1937 – No major war
    1938 – No major war
    1939 – No major war
    1940 – No major war


    1941 – World War II
    1942 – World War II
    1943 – World War II
    1944 – World War II
    1945 – World War II

    1946 – Cold War (U.S. occupies the Philippines and South Korea)
    1947 – Cold War (U.S. occupies South Korea, U.S. forces land in Greece to fight Communists)
    1948 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)
    1949 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

    1950 – Korean War, Jayuga Uprising
    1951 – Korean War
    1952 – Korean War
    1953 – Korean War

    1954 – Covert War in Guatemala

    1955 – Vietnam War
    1956 – Vietnam War
    1957 – Vietnam War
    1958 – Vietnam War
    1959 – Vietnam War, Conflict in Haiti
    1960 – Vietnam War
    1961 – Vietnam War
    1962 – Vietnam War, Cold War (Cuban Missile Crisis; U.S. marines fight Communists in Thailand)
    1963 – Vietnam War
    1964 – Vietnam War
    1965 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic
    1966 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic
    1967 – Vietnam War
    1968 – Vietnam War
    1969 – Vietnam War
    1970 – Vietnam War
    1971 – Vietnam War
    1972 – Vietnam War
    1973 – Vietnam War, U.S. aids Israel in Yom Kippur War
    1974 – Vietnam War
    1975 – Vietnam War

    1976 – No major war
    1977 – No major war
    1978 – No major war


    1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)
    1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)
    1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident
    1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon
    1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon
    1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf
    1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)
    1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

    1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf
    1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama

    1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines

    1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama
    1991 – First Gulf War

    1992 – Conflict in Iraq
    1993 – Conflict in Iraq
    1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti
    1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina
    1996 – Conflict in Iraq


    1997 – No major war

    1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan
    1999 – Kosovo War

    2000 – No major war

    2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan
    2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen
    2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq
    2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
    2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
    2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
    2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen
    2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
    2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
    2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
    2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)
    2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen
    2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen
    2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; War on ISIL in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Nigeria
    2015 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; War on ISIL in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Nigeria; War in
    Afghanistan
    2016 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; War on ISIL in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Nigeria; War in Afghanistan

    http://anonhq.com/heres-updated-list-year-major-u-s-wars


    Sources:

    Agencies (2012). Deaths in US drone strike in Somalia. Aljazeera. Retrieved from: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa...924775127.html

    Bureau of Investigative Journalism (2013). Global US drone strikes. Stats.areppim. Retrieved from: http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats...war_global.htm

    Roggio, Bill (2012. US drone strike kills 11 AQAP leaders, fighters: report. FDD’s Long War Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...trike_kill.php

  5. #25
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    Cambodia Rejects US War Debt, Slams US Imperial Brutality


    Following the United States’ renewed insistence that Cambodia pay back its alleged "war debts," fury across Cambodia has been widespread.


    Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has been calling for the cancellation of the debt since President Donald Trump was elected, rejected paying it, saying, "I have not sent an official letter to Trump asking him to cancel the debt … They brought bombs and dropped them on Cambodia and (now) demand Cambodian people to pay.”


    Speaking at a conference earlier this month, Sen, a former commander with Cambodian communists, slammed recent comments made by U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia William Heidt about repayment, and recalled the atrocities committed by the United States in the 1970s.


    “They dropped bombs on our heads and then ask up to repay. When we do not repay, they tell the IMF (International Monetary Fund) not to lend us money," Sen said. "We should raise our voices to talk about the issue of the country that has invaded other (countries) and has killed children."


    In the late 1960s, the United States gave Cambodia a US$274 million loan, mostly for food supplies to the U.S.-backed Lon Nol government who had taken over the country in a coup a year earlier. The debt has almost doubled since then, as Cambodia has refused to enter into a repayment program.


    As Nol fought against the Khmer Rouge between 1970 and 1975, U.S. fighter jets carried out secret carpet-bombings against the group in support of the right-wing government, killing more than 500,000 people, many of them women and children. After the Khmer Rouge took over the country in 1975, more than 2 million people died as a result of political executions, disease and forced labor, and many credited U.S. imperialism in the region for fueling the death toll.


    During his tenure as prime minister since 1998, Sen has called for the United States to drop the "dirty debt" several times, but U.S. leaders have refused.


    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...0321-0011.html

  6. #26
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    The United States was never immune to fascism. Not then, not now

    It has never been more important to acknowledge the history of fascism and neo-fascism in America

    America is currently experiencing a wave of increasingly aggressive far-right and neo-fascist activism. Observers have routinely considered fascism an ideology alien to American society. Yet it has deeper roots in American history than most of us have been willing to acknowledge.


    Consider the interwar period. The crisis years of the 1920s and 1930s not only gave rise to fascist movements across Europe – a moment captured in Ernst Nolte’s classic The Three Faces of Fascism – but around the globe. The United States was no exception.


    Across the country, fascist and proto-fascist groups sprang up. The most prominent among them was the paramilitary Silver Shirts movement, founded by William Dudley Pelley, a radical journalist from Massachusetts, in 1933.


    Obsessed with fantasies about a Jewish-Communist world conspiracy and fears about an African American corruption of American culture, its followers promoted racism, extreme nationalism, violence and the ideal of an aggressive masculinity. They competed against various other militant fringe groups, from the Khaki Shirt movement, which aimed to build a paramilitary force of army veterans to stage a coup, to the paramilitary Black Legion, feared for its assassinations, bombings and acts of arson.


    An important role in this history was played by radicalized parts of the Italian and German American community. Inspired by the ascent of Mussolini, some Italian Americans founded numerous fascist groups, which were eventually united under the Fascist League of North America.

    "Many commentators still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America. They consider fascism to be foreign to US society"

    Even bigger was Fritz Julius Kuhn’s German-American Bund, founded in 1936. Its members considered themselves patriotic Americans. At their meetings the American flag stood beside the Swastika banner. At a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York on 20 February 1939, a crowd of 20,000 listened to Kuhn attacking President Franklin D Roosevelt, referring to him as “Frank D Rosenfeld” and calling his New Deal a “Jew Deal”.


    The gathering ended in violent clashes between protesters and participants. Similar riots took place on the west coast. The New York Times reported: “Disorders attendant upon Nazi rallies in New York and Los Angeles this week again focused attention upon the Nazi movement in the United States and inspired conjectures as to its strength and influence.”


    To be sure, most of these groups were peripheral. And yet historians have shown that the appeal of fascism among many Americans in the interwar years should not be underestimated. The ideology found prominent supporters, from the writer Ezra Pound, who from Italy called Americans for an alliance with Mussolini, to the aviator Charles Lindbergh, who in the 1940s campaigned against Washington’s entry into the war.

    "When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled ‘made in Germany’"

    Fascist agitators published widely circulated newspapers and aired radio shows, which reached millions, preaching virulent antisemitism, nativism and anti-Communism. Many of them had no obvious links to their fascist counterparts in Europe and cushioned their message with American nativism and Christian piety.


    “When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled ‘made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika,” a US reporter warned urgently in 1938. “It will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism’.” Sinclair Lewis’s novel It Can’t Happen Here, published a few years earlier, had made a similar point.

    "White nationalist and neo-fascist movements in the US have grown by 600% on social media, outperforming Isis "


    During the second world war, American fascists suffered a serious blow. At the great sedition trial of 1944, some of the movement’s key proponents were charged with treason. In the postwar years, however, scores of new groups emerged. Some saw themselves in the tradition of the interwar period, such as the American Nazi party, founded in 1959 by the flamboyant war veteran George Lincoln Rockwell, which copied its ideology and iconography from Germany’s Nazi party.

    Yet many of these groups transformed and began to look very different from their predecessors of the 1930s. Not all wore jackboots, armbands and uniforms any more. Not all assembled at torch rallies. They embraced new discourses of globalization, migration and multiculturalism. Today, neo-fascism has many faces, with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates to segments of the alt-right.


    The United States has never been immune to fascism. But many commentators still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America. They still consider fascism to be foreign to American society. They often assume that American exceptionalism makes the country immune to any fascist threat. Fascism has no place in our master narrative of American history. Conversely, in most global histories of fascism, America is no more than a footnote.


    And yet it has never been more important to acknowledge the history of fascism and neo-fascism in America than it is today. Over the last five years, according to a recent study by George Washington University, white nationalist and neo-fascist movements in the US have grown by 600% on Twitter, outperforming Isis in nearly every category, from follower numbers to numbers of tweets.


    Although they remain fringe groups, Trump’s victory has given them new confidence. Never in history have they felt more empowered. Many of them saw his election as their victory. The chorus of support ranges from the American Nazi party supremo, Rocky Suhayda, who sees Trump as a “real opportunity”, to the white supremacist leader David Duke, who said he was “100% behind” Trump.


    They cheered as he failed to mention Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day. They cheered as he refused to condemn the Minnesota mosque attack. They cheered as he relativized the rightwing violence by blaming “all sides” after the murder in Charlottesville. It is perhaps the first time in American history that the racist far-right sees the elites in the White House as its allies.


    Trump has long done little to distance himself from these groups. In fact, he has all too often shamelessly tapped into their discourses, using dog-whistles, and continues to maintain a tacit, though increasingly shaky, alliance with them.


    More than a decade ago, the historian Robert Paxton, well versed in the long history of fascism and neo-fascism in America, warned in his important book The Anatomy of Fascism about the “catastrophic setbacks and polarization” which “the United States would have to suffer” if “these fringe groups” were “to find powerful allies and enter the mainstream” of American politics.
    His words may turn out to be prophetic.


    David Motadel is an assistant professor of international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_fb

  7. #27
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    US justice is built to humiliate and oppress black men. And it starts with the chokehold



    The author of the acclaimed Chokehold: Policing Black Men writes on how the system treats African Americans with contempt: ‘If police patrolled white areas as they do poor black neighborhoods, there would be a revolution’


    Chokehold: a maneuver in which a person’s neck is tightly gripped in a way that restrains breathing. A person left in a chokehold for more than a few seconds can die.


    The former police chief of Los Angeles Daryl Gates once suggested that there is something about the anatomy of African Americans that makes them especially susceptible to serious injury from chokeholds, because their arteries do not open as fast as arteries do on “normal people.”
    The truth is any human being will suffer distress when pressure on the carotid arteries interrupts the supply of blood from the heart to the brain. Many police departments in the United States have banned chokeholds, but this does not stop some officers from using them when they perceive a threat.


    The United States supreme court decided a case about chokeholds that tells you everything you need to know about how criminal “justice” works for African American men.


    In 1976, Adolph Lyons, a 24-year-old black man, was pulled over by four Los Angeles police officers for driving with a broken taillight. The cops exited their squad cars with their guns drawn, ordering Lyons to spread his legs and put his hands on top of his head.


    After Lyons was frisked, he put his hands down, causing one cop to grab Lyons’s hands and slam them against his head. Lyons had been holding his keys and he complained that he was in pain. The police officer tackled Lyons and placed him in a chokehold until he blacked out. When Lyons regained consciousness, he was lying facedown on the ground, had soiled his pants, and was spitting up blood and dirt. The cops gave him a traffic citation and sent him on his way.


    Lyons sued to make the LAPD stop putting people in chokeholds. He presented evidence that in recent years 16 people – including 12 black men – had died in LAPD custody after being placed in chokeholds. In City of Los Angeles v Lyons, the US supreme court denied his claim, holding that because Lyons could not prove that he would be subject to a chokehold in the future, he had no “personal stake in the outcome”. Dissenting from the court’s opinion, Thurgood Marshall, the first African American on the supreme court, wrote:
    “It is undisputed that chokeholds pose a high and unpredictable risk of serious injury or death. Chokeholds are intended to bring a subject under control by causing pain and rendering him unconscious. Depending on the position of the officer’s arm and the force applied, the victim’s voluntary or involuntary reaction, and his state of health, an officer may inadvertently crush the victim’s larynx, trachea, or hyoid. The result may be death caused by either cardiac arrest or asphyxiation. An LAPD officer described the reaction of a person to being choked as “do[ing] the chicken”, in reference apparently to the reactions of a chicken when its neck is wrung.”
    The work of police is to preserve law and order, including the racial order. Hillary Clinton once asked a room full of white people to imagine how they would feel if police and judges treated them the way African Americans are treated. If the police patrolled white communities with the same violence that they patrol poor black neighborhoods, there would be a revolution.


    The purpose of my book, Chokehold, is to inspire the same outrage about what the police do to African Americans, and the same revolution in response.


    A chokehold is a process of coercing submission that is self-reinforcing. A chokehold justifies additional pressure on the body because the body does not come into compliance, but the body cannot come into compliance because of the vise grip that is on it.


    This is the black experience in the United States. This is how the process of law and order pushes African American men into the criminal system. This is how the system is broke on purpose.

    •••

    There has never, not for one minute in American history, been peace between black people and the police. And nothing since slavery – not Jim Crow segregation, not lynching, not restrictive covenants in housing, not being shut out of New Deal programs like social security and the GI bill, not massive white resistance to school desegregation, not the ceaseless efforts to prevent blacks from voting – nothing has sparked the level of outrage among African Americans as when they have felt under violent attack by the police.


    Most of the times that African Americans have set aside traditional civil rights strategies like bringing court cases and marching peacefully and instead have rioted in the streets and attacked symbols of the state have been because of something the police have done. Watts in 1965, Newark in 1967, Miami in 1980, Los Angeles in 1992, Ferguson in 2015, Baltimore in 2016, Charlotte in 2016 – each of these cities went up in flames sparked by the police killing a black man.


    The problem is the criminal process itself.


    Cops routinely hurt and humiliate black people because that is what they are paid to do. Virtually every objective investigation of a US law enforcement agency finds that the police, as policy, treat African Americans with contempt.
    In New York, Baltimore, Ferguson, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cleveland, San Francisco, and many other cities, the US justice department and federal courts have stated that the official practices of police departments include violating the rights of African Americans. The police kill, wound, pepper spray, beat up, detain, frisk, handcuff, and use dogs against blacks in circumstances in which they do not do the same to white people.


    It is the moral responsibility of every American, when armed agents of the state are harming people in our names, to ask why.
    •••

    Every black man in America faces a symbolic chokehold every time he leaves his home. The sight of an unknown black man scares people, and the law responds with a set of harsh practices of surveillance, control and punishment designed to put down the threat.


    The people who carry out the chokehold include cops, judges, and politicians. But it’s not just about the government. It’s also about you. People of all races and ethnicities make the most consequential and the most mundane decisions based on the chokehold. It impacts everything from the neighborhood you choose to live in and who you marry to where you look when you get on an elevator.


    I like hoodies, but I won’t wear one, and it’s not mainly because of the police. It’s because when I put on a hoodie everybody turns into a neighborhood watch person. When the sight of a black man makes you walk quicker or check to see if your car door is locked, you are enforcing the chokehold.


    You are not alone. As an African American man, I’m not only the target of the chokehold. I’ve also been one of its perpetrators. I’ve done so officially – as a prosecutor who sent a lot of black men to prison.I represented the government in criminal court and defended cops who had racially pro-led or used excessive force.Many of those prosecutions I now regret. I can’t turn back time, but I can expose a morally bankrupt system. That’s one reason I wrote this book.


    But before I get too high and mighty, you should know that I’ve also enforced the chokehold outside my work as a prosecutor. I am a black man who at times is afraid of other black men. And then I get mad when people act afraid of me.
    Other times I have been more disgusted or angry with some of my brothers than scared. I read the news articles about “black-on-black” homicide in places like Chicago and Los Angeles. I listen to some hip-hop music that seems to celebrate thug life. And as a kid I got bullied by other black males. Sometimes I think if brothers would just do right, we would not have to worry about people being afraid of us. I have wondered if we have brought the chokehold on ourselves.
    In my years as a prosecutor, I learned some inside information that I am now willing to share. Some of it will blow your mind, but I don’t feel bad for telling tales out of school. I was on the front lines in carrying out the chokehold. Now I want to be on the front lines in helping to crush it.


    My creds to write this book don’t come just from my experience as a law enforcement officer, my legal training at Harvard, or the more than 20 years I have spent researching criminal justice. I learned as much as an African American man who got arrested for a crime I did not commit – during the time that I served as a federal prosecutor. I didn’t beat my case because I was innocent, even though I was. I beat my case because I knew how to work the system.


    The chokehold does not stem from hate of African Americans. Its anti-blackness is instrumental rather than emotional. As slaves built the White House, the chokehold builds the wealth of white elites. Discriminatory law enforcement practices such as stop and frisk, mass incarceration, and the war on drugs are key components of the political economy of the United States. After the civil rights movement of the 1960s stigmatized overt racism, the national economy, which from the founding has been premised on a racialized form of capitalism, still required black bodies to exploit. The chokehold evolved as a “color-blind” method of keeping African Americans down, and then blaming them for their own degradation. The rap group Public Enemy said: “It takes a nation of millions to hold us back.”
    Actually all it takes is the chokehold. It is the invisible fist of the law.


    The chokehold means that what happens in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland – where the police routinely harass and discriminate against African American – is not a flaw in the criminal justice system. Ferguson and Baltimore are examples of how the system is supposed to work. The problem is not bad-apple cops. The problem is police work itself. American cops are the enforcers of a criminal justice regime that targets black men and sets them up to fail.


    The chokehold is how the police get away with shooting unarmed black people. Cops are rarely prosecuted because they are, literally, doing their jobs. This is why efforts to fix “problems” such as excessive force and racial profiling are doomed to fail. If it’s not broke, you can’t fix it. Police violence and selective enforcement are not so much flaws in American criminal justice as they are integral features of it. The chokehold is why, legally speaking, black lives don’t matter as much as white lives.


    The whole world knows that the United States faces a crisis in racial justice, but the focus on police and mass incarceration is too narrow. We might be able to fix those problems the way that we “ fixed” slavery and segregation, but the chokehold’s genius is its mutability. Throughout the existence of America, there have always been legal ways to keep black people down. Slavery bled into the old Jim Crow; the old Jim Crew bled into the new Jim Crow. In order to halt this wretched cycle we must not think of reform – we must think of transformation. The United States of America must be disrupted, and made anew. This book uses the experience of African American men to explain why.


    One of the consequences of the chokehold is mass incarceration, famously described by Michelle Alexander as “the new Jim Crow”. The chokehold also brings us police tactics such as stop and frisk, which are designed to humiliate African American males – to bring them into submission. The chokehold demands a certain kind of performance from a black man every time he leaves his home. He must affirmatively demonstrate – to the police and the public at large –that he is not a threat. Most African American men follow the script. Black men who are noncompliant suffer the consequences.


    The chokehold is perfectly legal. Like all law, it promotes the interests of the rich and powerful. In any system marked by inequality, there are winners and losers. Because the chokehold imposes racial order, who wins and who loses is based on race.


    White people are the winners. What they win is not only material, like the cash money that arresting African Americans brings to cities all over the country in fines and court costs. The criminalizing of blackness also brings psychic rewards. American criminal justice enhances the property value of whiteness.


    As the chokehold subordinates black men, it improves the status of white people. It works as an enforcement mechanism for keeping the black man in his place literally as well as figuratively. Oh the places African American men don’t go because of the chokehold. It frees up urban space for coffeehouses and beer gardens.


    But it’s not just the five-dollar latte crowd that wins. The chokehold is something like an employment stimulus plan for working-class white people, who don’t have to compete for jobs with all the black men who are locked up, or who are underground because they have outstanding arrest warrants, or who have criminal records that make obtaining legal employment exceedingly difficult. Poor white people are simply not locked up at rates similar to African Americans. These benefits make crushing the chokehold more difficult because if it ends, white people lose – at least in the short term.


    Progressives often lambast poor white people for voting for conservative Republicans like Donald Trump, suggesting that those votes are not in their best interests. But low-income white folks might have better sense than pundits give them credit for. A vote for a conservative is an investment in the property value of one’s whiteness. The criminal process makes white privilege more than just a status symbol, and more than just a partial shield from the criminal process (as compared to African Americans). Black men are locked up at five times the rate of white men. There are more African Americans in the US criminal justice system than there were slaves in 1850.


    By reducing competition for jobs, and by generating employment in law enforcement and corrections, especially in the mainly white rural areas where prisons are often located, the chokehold delivers cash money to many working-class white people.


    The chokehold relegates black men to an inferior status of citizenship. We might care about that as a moral issue, or as an issue of racial justice. But honestly, many people will not give a **** for those reasons. African Americans have been second-class citizens since we were allowed – after the bloodiest war in US history and an amendment to the constitution – to become citizens at all.


    The political scientist Lisa Miller has described the United States as a “failed state” for African Americans. Indeed some activists involved in the movement for black lives speak of their work as creating a “Black Spring”, similar to the Arab Spring movements that attempted to bring democracy to some Middle Eastern countries.


    We face a crucial choice. Do we allow the chokehold to continue to strangle our democracy and risk the rebellion that always comes to police states? Or do we transform the United States of America into the true multiracial democracy that, at our best, we aspire to be? My book is about the urgency of transformation. All of the people will be free, or none of them will. “All the way down, this time.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...3-cd2508ade9c7

  8. #28
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,315

    Default

    Solihull councillor suspended after sharing racist (islamophobic) tweets

    There have also been calls for Coun Potts to resign

    By Mike Lockley - 24 SEP 2017

    A councillor who sits on a religious education committee
    has sparked outrage after retweeting a slew of offensive and inflammatory anti-Muslim rants.

    Solihull Borough Council’s Jeff Potts has now been suspended by his own Conservative group.

    The move means he can still attend meetings - but as an independent.

    There have also been calls for Coun Potts to resign after he re-tweeted comments made by other individuals such as: “Deport and repatriate all Muslims from the UK or watch terrorists kill innocent people for generations to come.”

    He also retweeted: “You’ve clearly not experienced the Pakistani hospitality, having a daughter raped by men who think she’s ‘white trash’.



    When approached by our reporter the long-standing councillor, who sits as the local authority’s representative on the standing advisory committee on religious education, stressed he did not share or support the comments.

    It was, he said, a “freedom of speech issue”.

    That explanation has failed to satisfy council opposition leader James Burn who has demanded the Conservative’s resignation.

    “His position is untenable,” said the Green Party member. “When you start retweeting things about deporting all Muslims you are publicising views that are very close to crossing a legal line and encouraging hatred.

    “I’m afraid to say I don’t think he has any other choice but to resign. By retweeting, you are spreading that view and information.

    “I’m concerned about the tweets. I’m concerned this is a councillor on a committee advising on religious education, I’m concerned this is the same Conservative group who have only just been in trouble for a similar incident and did not act swiftly following a complaint about it.

    “A resident brought this matter to my attention as they were very upset and told me he’d contacted Solihull Conservatives on their group email.”

    It is not the first time Solihull Council has been embroiled in a twitter row. Just last month, Coun Ken Hawkins was banned from senior roles on the body following a tweet involving the Grenfall Tower disaster.

    He captioned a picture of protesters demanding justice: “Lets get ourselves a hangin!”

    A Code of Conduct hearing banned the former mayor from holding a cabinet position for the remainder of the municipal year.

    Now Solihull’s Conservative group face a fresh storm.

    Above an August 31 tweet stating, “we wish all Muslims a blessed Eid ul-Adha”, Coun Potts posted: “Why?”

    The incendiary comment “UK police covered-up THOUSANDS of girls raped/sold by the religion of peace” drew the following response: “Is anybody surprised?”

    All the controversial comments have now been deleted.

    Formerly a member of the Labour Party, Coun Potts, who represents the well-heeled, leafy ward of Knowle, has been on the Solihull authority since May, 2012. He is vice chairman of the council planning committee and also sits on the licensing committee, airport working party and safer Solihull board. He has an exemplary attendance record of 86 per cent.

    He was keen to brush off the controversy when interviewed by our reporter, stating: “I have no comment on that at all. My public page states I don’t endorse retweets.” That means he does not support the views stated.

    Coun Potts did, however, explain that the tweets were briefly displayed as a matter of freedom speech. He “certainly did not” agree with those views.

    Sabir Hussain, trustee of the Solihull Muslim Community Association, voiced his “sadness” over the remarks that appeared on Coun Potts’ twitter account.

    He said: “I feel sorry for him because he is misguided and has shown narrow vision.



    “There is, in any community, religion or sect, bad apples. The Muslim faith is not exempt from that. To retweet something that suggests all are like that is unfair.

    “Retweeting something like that only inflames community relations that we have worked very hard to fuse together.

    “Solihull is a very nice place to live. I have lived there for 35 years and have very good friends among various religions. We find it very comforting to relate to each other’s religions. We are all one together, regardless of colour and shape, and we are one very cohesive society.”

    When the Mercury first contacted Bob Sleigh, leader of Solihull Council, he was unaware of the growing controversy.

    But within hours of our call, he and colleagues on the Conservative Group had made the decision to suspend Coun Potts.

    He said: “After you phoned, I rang Coun Potts for clarification and then told him he was suspended from the Conservative Group. I took the action because I believed it was the right action to take.”

    A full investigation will now follow.

    Warning over the dangers of sharing tweets

    There are distinct echoes between the Solihull controversy and the tweet troubles that landed school governor and Tory campaigner Gary Walker in hot water.

    The 50-year-old, who last year stood for election to Gosport Borough Council, Hampshire, was “spoken to” by his party after a post suggesting mosques should be bulldozed was shared on his account.

    The post said: “Every time a jihadist commits an act of terrorism in a Western country, all Western countries should bulldoze one mosque.” It adds: “Share if you agree.”

    When the row erupted in May, Conservative Association chairman George McAleese said: “It’s not on, it’s just not on. ‘I’ll be having a quiet word. I don’t support that view at all.

    “He feels he’s let the association down. He works hard for us and he feels he’s let us down.”

    Councillor Graham Burgess, deputy leader of Gosport Borough Council, said: “Everyone has their own views. We as the association don’t associate ourselves with that. That’s the danger on Facebook, clicking on something – people should be aware.

    “We at the association don’t tolerate it and George will have words with Gary, it’s not something we expect from members. People are expressing their views. I’d urge all members and users of Facebook not to share it or forward it.”

    That warning has come too late for Coun Potts.

    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...aring-13660262


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •