Humanitarian Interventionism=In the Interests of the Empire

1-BringOurGirlsHome-Obama-drones‘failed states’ and `rogue states’, inviting `humanitarian intervention’ – a term used by imperial Japan to describe its bloody invasion of Manchuria. (Mussolini also used it to justify seizing Ethiopia, as did Hitler when the Nazis drove into the Sudetenland.)-“

==Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire (John Pilger)

We want to believe these media when they tell us that Britain and America are attacking other countries out of humanitarian concern. We want to believe that the people in control are decent and rational. The alternative is disturbing, frightening; it can give rise to painful feelings of powerlessness. Above all, it can lead us to question whether we should assume moral responsibility for the state of our country and world – a burden many of us would rather avoid.

NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century (David Edwards and David Cromwell)

The Empire of Chaos; total power founded on dissuasion, security obsession, absolute control—and the odd “humanitarian” bombing.
==Empire of Chaos: The Roving Eye Collection (Pepe Escobar)

bringbackourgirlsAmerica is the “Land of Hypocrisy.” It claims to “protect freedom,” while denying millions of their right to live. It claims to be “the land of the free,” while granting fewer guaranteed rights to its citizens than most industrialized nations. It proclaims “one nation, under God” and “in God we trust” while violating the commandments and teachings of the major religions. It claims to encourage “free trade” and “capitalism” while using tax dollars to help the rich get richer. It claims to be “remaining competitive in today’s market,” while firing hard workers and exploiting cheap labor around the globe. It claims to be a “democracy” while it acts strictly in the interests of its corporate sponsors. It claims “liberty and justice for all” while executing innocent humans and depriving an enormous percentage of the world of basic human rights. It claims to be launching “peace-keeping” missions while it drops napalm and bombs on civilians from the sky above. It claims to be giving “humanitarian aid” while piling up human corpses in the streets and rivers. It claims to be stopping “the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” while it builds upon its massive arsenal of such weapons. It claims to be fighting “terrorism” while it assassinates political leaders and bombs civilian buildings. It claims to be “liberating Iraq” while illegally slaughtering civilians with massive bombs. It claims to be protecting “truth” while it blatantly lies and deceives the masses. It claims to have a “free press” while it suppresses independent voices from radio, television, and print. Soldiers claim to be “serving their country” while actually serving the interests of the politicians and corporate elite.
===Land of Hypocrisy (Kennie Anderson)

tomahawksAs with all things “humanitarian” America and its servile vassals, NATO and the rest, will do nothing unless it is in the geopolitical and economic interests of the Empire. Humanitarian intervention” is such an Orwellian phrase–for any nation, state or tribe that receives the blessing of the American Empire to be so beneficently bestowed to be on the receiving end of such an outpouring of national altruism can expect to be bombed back to the stone age or at least be ripped from limb to limb by our devout humanity.

As it was in Rwanda, so it is in Nigeria. Blacks massacring blacks does not even raise the ire of the American black political left, for it serves then not in their game of power and economic gain seeking perversions. It certainly is of no consequence to the American Empire as long as they remain bounded by the blood of their own kind. I can think of not one military intervention for “humanitarian” reasons by this nation of concerned global citizens since the end of WWll, if not ever, where the real agenda was hidden by the hypocrisy of the cloak of our leaders deep impulse to right all wrongs and injustices in the lands outside our own borders. Never has been and never will be. Boko Haram seems very well aware that as long as they do not threaten to probe the outposts of the American Empire, economically or militarily, they are safe. Safe no matter how much blood they spill on African soil.

bokoThis week, Nigeria’s Director of Defense Information stated that the number of people killed in Baga including Boko Haram fighters “has so far not exceeded about 150”. These images, together with eyewitness accounts from those who survived the attack, suggest that the final death toll could be much higher than this figure,” Amnesty International’s Eyre said.

Thousands of people have fled the violence across the border to Chad and to other parts of Nigeria, according to the human rights watchdog. Analysis of satellite images suggests that this time desperate residents used wooden fishing boats to flee across Lake Chad.

“They killed so many people. I saw maybe around 100 killed at that time in Baga. I ran to the bush. As we were running, they were shooting and killing,” a male Baga resident told Amnesty.

quote-to-accept-civilization-as-it-is-practically-means-accepting-decay-george-orwell-348871An image grab made on October 31, 2014 from a video obtained by AFP shows the leader of the Islamist extremist group Boko Haram Abubakar Shekau (C) delivering a speech. (AFP Photo/Boko Haram)An image grab made on October 31, 2014 from a video obtained by AFP shows the leader of the Islamist extremist group Boko Haram Abubakar Shekau (C) delivering a speech. (AFP Photo/Boko Haram)

A woman added: “I don’t know how many but there were bodies everywhere we looked.”

The area around the towns is still in rebel control, so for now it is impossible to estimate how many people have been killed.

Boko Haram militants are currently in control of an area of about 52,000 square kilometers – approximately the size of Costa Rica or Slovakia.

[gview file=””]

Boko Haram Massacre: Seven Questions Worth Asking | Chatham House

In one month Nigerians will vote in what may be the country’s most competitive and contentious elections yet. But this important process will take place in the shadow of a worsening threat – Boko Haram, the Islamist insurgent group otherwise known as Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, which killed as many as 2,000 people in the northeastern town of Baga on 3 January.

1409030945726.jpg-620x349The attacks of the past few weeks – Boko Haram’s biggest ever in terms of casualties on Baga, and on markets using children to detonate devices – have drawn international focus back to the crisis.

But such appalling events are not new – they are an intensification, a next step in a crisis which has steadily worsened since Boko Haram’s 2010 reemergence. And they raise a number of questions about the trajectory of the insurgency and the response to it.

Why did Boko Haram take Baga now?

For Boko Haram, taking Baga – a small town in Nigeria’s Borno State – closes a gap in its map, fulfills a strategic purpose with its proximity to the border with Chad, where it is reported to have set up camps on islands in Lake Chad, and further bolsters its resources and sense of confidence with a win over a multinational military force.

The small town near Lake Chad was home to the base of the Multinational Joint Task Force, comprising troops from Nigeria, Niger and Chad – but despite the military presence, Baga was surrounded in the country’s northeastern corner by what has become Boko Haram territory.

The most recent attack was not the first fighting Baga had seen: in April 2013 nearly 200 people were killed and around 2,000 homes burnt by insurgents and soldiers in attacks and counterattacks, according to Human Rights Watch. Baga was already vulnerable.

[gview file=””]

via Boko Haram Massacre: Seven Questions Worth Asking | Chatham House.