No Acknowledgment for Photogenic Terrorist

Anders Behring Breivik, Norwegian terrorist

Anders Behring Breivik, Norwegian terrorist

Deep sympathy for the victims of Norway terror attack. Not merely for being killed but also for being undermined by media. Their life has been down-valued by many media outlets since they knew that the suspect wasn’t from the group they prematurely accused. That was when they started to avoid the word ‘terror’, ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’.

Major news channels irresponsibly speculated that it was a ‘classic’ attack obviously carried out by a much referred terror group. In an early report, BBC News recklessly linked the attack to Norway’s involvements in the publication of a controversial religious cartoon, the invasion of Libya and Afghanistan. Only until they were shocked by the fact that the attacker was a ‘non-classic’ individual and a rather photogenic bloke. They weren’t ready to face the reality. Then suddenly those T-words disappeared from their dictionary. News lines were, by then, flooded with the word ‘killing’, ‘massacre’ or simply ‘crime’. The victims’ life was, by then, consequently, revalued down from being taken by a terrorism act to being taken by just a criminal act.

As much as media outlets weren’t ready with the conclusion of the tragedy, public was hard to believe when a picture of a smiling blonde-hair, blue-eyed, white-skin chap came up on the screen and was said to be the terrorist. Or the one whom media refers to as the gunman, the madman, or the killer. Extremist is the worstest word from the media for Anders Behring Breivik. Some people thought that it was too bad to be true. “It doesn’t make sense,” a few say.

It seems unlikely the Norwegian terrorist will anytime soon get acknowledged, particularly, by the western media even though Norwegian police have charged him with acts of terrorism. News sources in Norway, including ministers and experts, have apparently referred to him as a terrorist or his attack as an act of terrorism in many live interviews. Yet, media outlets stand still to prove that there’s no such a thing as objective journalism. Sad!


Royal Wedding, Celebration In Style

Photos by Ady Nugroho


Royal Wedding, The Procession

Photos by Ady Nugroho


Will Obama Return The Nobel Prize?

“The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- – -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel) – nobelprize.org

I expected to hear Barack Obama’s statement, during his speech justifying military action in Libya on 28/03, of his willingness to return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009 as what he’s done is not in line with Nobel’s will after all.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to US President Barack Obama on the grounds that he was to bring diplomacy in resolving world challenges. The announcement of him become the Laureate said that the award was “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” – nobelprize.org

Is it still relevant after he approved the US military intervention in Libya? Libya is a sovereign country like USA. This is the first war that he has declared since he moved to the White House. His worth for the Prize is, therefore, becoming much more questionable at this very time.

Nobel Peace Prize is normally awarded to individuals or organisations who have done a real action to bring peace on, at least, a part of the globe in the presided year. The Prize for Obama was awarded less than ten months after he took office.

Press questioned how early in Obama’s Presidency the award was being made. In fact the Prize was given by Nobel Committee merely “to demonstrate its support for the approaches he is taking towards global problems” (Committee release). It’s obvious that it was a little too early to acknowledge his worth for the Prize which was based solely on his speeches. Not his action for peace. It was given for what he intended doing and not for what he had done as stated in Nobel’s last will.

To maintain the nobility of the Prize, it’s worth consideration that a Nobel Peace Prize could be withdrawn should a Laureate shows inconsistency. Or, the Laureate him/herself humbly returns it if he/she prefers to betray the values of peace shared by Nobel. Will Obama?

Controversial history

In 1973 Le Duc Tho shared the Nobel Peace Prize with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The Prize was awarded to both for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord. Le Duc Tho represented North Vietnam. Kissinger represented US-backed South Vietnam. Le Duc Tho declined the Prize on the grounds that his opponent violated the ceasefire. He is the only person who has declined the Prize.

On the other side, as much as the Prize for US President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 was seen controversial, the choice of Kissinger has been the most criticised decision in the history of Nobel Peace Prize. Not only did the criticisms target America’s war in Vietnam, it concerned on Kissinger being more associated with the war than with the peace. (Controversies and Criticisms surrounding Nobel Peace Prize)

As president, Roosevelt showed his determination to see the US as a Great Power using military force, primarily in the Caribbean, and this even in the year he became a Nobel Laureate. Many American newspapers found the award curious, and The New York Times later commented that “a broad smile illuminated the face of the globe when the prize was awarded … to the most warlike citizen of these United States.” (Controversies and Criticisms surrounding Nobel Peace Prize)

What Roosevelt said is slightly different from what Obama has said that he “would not hesitate to use military force to defend our people, our interests…”

Recommended reading:

Is It Time to Revoke Obama’s Peace Prize? (Newser)

‘Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush’ (Daily Mail)

Obama ‘doesn’t deserve’ peace prize (The Independent)

Barack Obama ‘did nothing to earn Nobel Peace Prize’ (The Telegraph)

Robert Fisk: Obama, man of peace? No, just a Nobel prize of a mistake (The Independent)

Praise and skepticism greet Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize (CNN)

Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts (The New York Times)

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Is this a joke? (New Statesman)

Praise and skepticism greet Obama’s Nobel Peace Priz


Abstain and Then Regret

It was a shame that the two balancing powers in the UN Security Council—Russia and China—stood abstain in the vote to the Resolution 1973 against Libya on 17 March . And yet, another two BRIC members—Brazil and India—took the same stance. The four world’s emerging economies in the UNSC at the same period 2010-2012—China and Russia are permanent members; India and Brazil are non-permanent members—did not use their voices optimally to keep a peaceful world. China and Russia could have vetoed the resolution. It’s a big question why they did not play their part like they always did on issues regarding military intervention against any country.

The reasons of the abstentions are generally the concerns over consequences to the civilians if a military action is taken. They doubted military intervention would resolve the problem as quoted from the UNSC minutes.

Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said he had abstained, although his country’s position opposing violence against civilians in Libya was clear… His country, in fact, had pressed earlier for a resolution calling for such a ceasefire, which could have saved many additional lives. Cautioning against unpredicted consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid further destabilisation in the region.

Chinese Ambassador to the UN Li Baodong said that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Libya was of great concern to China. However, the United Nations Charter must be respected and the current crisis must be ended through peaceful means. China was always against the use of force when those means were not exhausted.

Brazilian Ambassador to the UN Maria Luiza Riberio Viotti said not convinced that the use of force … will lead to the realisation of our common objective—the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians. She added that Brazil was also concerned that the measures approved today might have the unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the ground and “causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting”. No military action alone would succeed in ending the conflict.

Indian Ambassador to the UN Manjeev Singh Puri said today’s resolution was based on very little clear information, including a lack of certainty regarding who was going to enforce the measures. There must be certainty that negative outcomes were not likely before such wide-ranging measures were adopted. Political efforts must be the priority in resolving the situation.

In the end they regret that the execution of no-fly zone has gone too wild. The Arab League, who proposed the use of Resolution 1973, even expressed deep regret.

@jakpost Russia: Stop ‘indiscriminate’ bombing of Libya http://bit.ly/gFvEm7

@Reuters Arab League says air strikes on Libya differ from the no-fly zone which was called for; aim was to protect civilians not bombard them

@jakpost China expresses regret over allied strike on #Libya http://bit.ly/fmIW5T

@FRANCE24 Arab League chief slams air strikes despite support for Libyan no-fly zone http://f24.my/ho42Bt

@jakpost China paper blasts Western air attacks in Libya http://bit.ly/fP2OZx

@BBCNews India, which abstained at the #UN Security Council vote, calls for end to #Libya air strikes, from AFP

@BBCNews Russian Prime Minister Vladimir #Putin says UN resolution on #Libya resembles Medieval calls for crusades

@Reuters Putin says Gaddafi regime does not meet democratic criteria, but that does not justify military intervention


What Hillary Wants

As an outsider, she’s made too many wishes. She wants this and that in the event of national turmoil in Egypt and other parts of the globe. On Twitter, take a look at how media echo her expectations. I assume a president gives a statement regarding international affairs after receiving a briefing from its foreign minister. That’s why Obama’s statements sound rephrasing Hillary’s words. Meanwhile, UK simply ‘re-tweets’ US status updates.

@bbcnews

Clinton urges orderly transition http://bbc.in/gtf8W5

Clinton: ‘We want restraint and reform’ http://bbc.in/eNpkyg

US demands release over shooting http://bbc.in/hCpvyl

UK calls for Egypt ‘transition’ http://bbc.in/hQ7WSF

@itv_news

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says Washington wants an orderly transition of power in Egypt, so there is not a void in governance.

@cnni

Clinton: I’ll pressure Haiti on election http://goo.gl/fb/PAqiS

Clinton calls for a peaceful transition http://goo.gl/fb/MvwKU

U.S., UK push Mubarak to fulfill pledge http://goo.gl/fb/vo8eK

@AP

Obama says Mubarak must deliver on democracy promise: http://apne.ws/e1UXjV

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the US will review aid to Egypt: http://apne.ws/fdsm0D

@SkyNews

President Obama has urged Egyptian leader Mubarak to keep his promises of greater democracy and economic opportunity for his people.

@AJEnglish

US calls for ‘orderly transition’: Reaction is mixed, with the US calling for reform and Saudi Arabia condemning… http://aje.me/f50bJZ

Obama calls for the internet and communication services to be restored in Egypt

Hilary Clinton – Protest show the underscore of deep resistance in Egyptian society and as Pres. Obama said reform is critical

@cnnbrk

Obama calls on Egytptian authorities to refrain from violence against protesters http://on.cnn.com/gwaM8x

SecState Clinton calls on #Egypt government to open up communication channels it has cut. http://on.cnn.com/fjkQqv

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls for restraint from #Egypt government. http://on.cnn.com/fjkQqv

@cnn

Obama: I told Mubarak he must deliver on his promises. http://on.cnn.com/fvOONI

@bbcbreaking

US ‘deeply concerned’ about use of violence against Egyptian protesters; calls on people to protest peacefully: US Secretary of State

@reuters

U.S. says Mubarak can’t just shuffle the deck | Reuters http://t.co/WW6gTFx

Obama says told Egypt’s Mubarak to keep promises http://t.co/zofanYb

U.S. to review aid policy with Egypt: White House http://t.co/i4YYb43

@bbcworld

Clinton urges orderly transition http://bbc.in/gtf8W5

While Saudi’s King Abdullah has mentioned the keyword ‘infiltrators’, (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113014218302425.html) I couldn’t agree more with Chavez mocking US’ chameleon-like foreign policy. A foreign policy that’s highly flexible and ‘go with the flow’.

———————————————————————————————-

U.S. role in Egypt crisis “shameful”: Chavez

By Andrew Cawthorne | Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:43pm EST

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s firebrand leader Hugo Chavez accused the United States on Sunday of a “shameful” role in the Egyptian crisis and of hypocrisy for supporting, then abandoning strongmen round the world.

Chavez, Washington’s leading critic in the Americas, said he had spoken to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad for a briefing on the protests in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world.

“In Egypt, the situation is complicated, Chavez said.

“Now you are seeing comments from Washington and some European nations. As President Gaddafi said to me, it’s shameful, it makes you kind of sick to see the meddling of the U.S., wanting to take control.”

The United States has urged an orderly transition to democracy in Egypt to avoid a power vacuum but has stopped short of calling on President Hosni Mubarak, an ally of three decades, to step down.

The socialist Chavez has generally cast himself as pro-Arab and opposed to the policies of Israel and the United States.

But in brief comments carried on state TV, he avoided any further specific comment on Egypt, saying only that “national sovereignty” should be respected.

Chavez scoffed at what he said was the United States’ chameleon-like foreign policy.

“See how the United States, after using such-and-such a president for years, as soon as he hits a crisis, they abandon him. That’s how the devil pays,” he said.

“They didn’t even give a visa or anything to the president of Tunisia,” he said, referring to President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, who lost power this month after failing to quell the worst unrest of his two-decade rule.

Washington and other Western powers have been caught off guard by the popular uprising on Arab streets after long relying on autocratic regional rulers as a bulwark against Islamic extremism.

Chavez spoke after inspecting an army ammunitions depot where predawn explosions killed one person and injured another three, lighting up the sky and terrifying locals.

Though the incident appeared to be an accident, the government said it was not discounting any cause given the depth of feeling against Chavez by political opponents.

Venezuelans have been following events in the Arab world closely, with some Chavez foes privately expressing hopes for a similar uprising against him after nearly 12 years in power.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-egypt-usa-chavez-idUSTRE70T3KQ20110130


New Zodiac Signs for Newcomers

Worship it or not, astrology is a science. What each horoscope says is a different case though. Unless we were born more than 3,000 years ago, I’m afraid we have got to change our zodiac sign. That’s what I understand from the article below. What we knew about our star sign, either from teenagers magazines or weekend papers, is not relevant anymore after all based on these discoveries. It could be simple to change our belief on this matter. But the thing is not as simple as it sounds for those having their zodiac sign tattoos. They must be gutted!

———————————————————————

Why your Zodiac sign might be wrong

Posted By Vanessa Green, Friday, 14 January 2011 10:58 GMT

New research shows that our astrological signs might not be what we thought they were.

If you consider yourself a classically well-balanced Libra or a typically stubborn Aries, you may be in for quite a shock – you could belong to a completely different star sign.

Over the past 3,000 years, the Earth’s shift on its axis has changed the 12 astrological signs as we know them. Astronomers from the Minnesota Planetarium Society have discovered that because of the moon’s gravitational pull on Earth, the alignment of the stars was pushed by about a month.

Essentially, your astrological sign is determined by the position of the sun on the day you were born. This new information in effect means that what we thought we knew about our Zodiac sign is wrong. “Because of this change in the tilt, the Earth is over here and the sun is in a different constellation than it was 3,000 years ago when this study of the stars began,” astronomer Parke Kunkle told the Twin Cities’ KARE-TV. “When [astrologers] say that the sun is in Pisces, it’s really not in Pisces,” Kunkle says.

In fact, astrology has had major issues since it began. Babylonians originally had 13 constellations but opted for 12 instead, completely ignoring Ophuchicus, the snake holder, which has now been reintroduced into the star sign line-up. The Libra star sign didn’t even come to exist until the time of Julius Caesar.

So forget everything you thought you knew about your star sign, and get ready for a brand-spanking new version of the astrological chart. The Minnesota Planetarium Society has revealed the following list as where the real Zodiac signs fall.

Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11
Pisces: March 11-April 18
Aries: April 18-May 13
Taurus: May 13-June 21
Gemini: June 21-July 20
Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23-29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29-Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20

Source: http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/home/why-your-Zodiac-sign-might-be-wrong-blog-13-vanessa-green.html


%d bloggers like this: