 |
| John Kofi Mensah, CEO First Capital Plus |
The Bank is claiming Ghc 5 million as general damages.
The management of The Insight has described the law suit as
a complete abuse of judicial process and vowed to fight the matter in court.
First Capital Bank claims that it enjoys the right to
privacy and it is expected that The Insight will plead justification based on
public interest.
More than 124,000 Ghanaians have deposits in the Bank which
according to its own internal documents is facing serious problems of
maladministration.
The full text of the statement of claim of the Bank is
published below;
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff is Bank licensed by the Bank of Ghana to
carry on the business of Banking.
2.By the nature of its objects of incorporation, it takes deposits from the public and invests
them for and on behalf of the public, either
through loans or other investments and/or pays them back on demand.
3.As a result, it currently has a customer deposit in the
tune of about 500Million Ghana Cedis and a customer base of about 124 Thousand.
It also employs about 400 Ghanaians who derive their livelihoods from the
Plaintiff
4. The 1st Defendant is a journalist and the Managing Editor
of the Insight Newspaper.
5. The 2nd Defendant is a limited liability company and the
Publisher of the Insight Newspaper.
6. The Plaintiff avers that on the 19th and 20th of January,
2015, the Insight Newspaper, under the management and control of the 15t and
2nd Defendants published two documents purportedly being an Internal
Memorandum, issued by the Chief Executive of the Plaintiff Bank to its Board of
Directors and a report termed "Confidential Report" also purportedly
generated internally at the offices of the Plaintiff Bank.
7. The said publications, apart from their veracity being
doubtful, are also damaging to the hard earned reputation of the Plaintiff and
have the potential of damaging its business, with the obvious repercussions of
laying off its staff and also affecting the businesses of its numerous
clientele.
8. It is the case of the Plaintiff that as a legal entity,
it enjoys all the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana
and all other relevant Statutes, including without limitation, the right to
privacy and to the enjoyment of its good reputation and a conducive atmosphere
devoid of panic of its staff, its clientele and the general public to carry out
its objects of incorporation.
9. The Plaintiff further avers that by the publications in
the Insight Newspaper which said publications are caused by the Defendants, it
has caused loss of business to the Plaintiff, lowering of the Plaintiff Bank's
value with its attendant repercussions.
10. That within the two days that the publication was made,
some customers of the Bank, the staff and the shareholders have been thrown
into a state of shock thereby exhibiting worry over a possible loss of their
livelihoods and businesses, which said situation has brought undue pressure on
management of the Plaintiff Bank.
11. That after the publication of the 19th December, the
Plaintiff took the view that it was one of the acts of sensationalism by the
media and treated it with contempt. However, and contrary to the position
assumed by the Plaintiff, the Defendants again caused a more damaging
publication in its 20thJanuary, 2014 edition and termed it "Scandal
2", evincing an intention and a plan to serialize the said publications.
12. That in the 20th January, 2015 publication, the paper
published that the Plaintiff Bank was collapsed. That by the said publication,
the Defendants published a defamatory matter about the Plaintiff thereby
lowering the Plaintiff's value in the eyes of right thinking members of the
public and causing it loss of business.
Particulars of defamation:
i.
That the Defendant in its 20th January, 2015
edition published: "Scandal (2) Full Report on the Collapse of First
Capital Plus Bank"
ii.
That the Defendants in the 19th January, 2015
published:"scandal- First Capital Plus Bank is collapsing:
iii.
" .... Cases of mismanagement and
corruption" in the 19th January, 2015 edition.
13.That the above words are defamatory and that assuming
without admitting that the Plaintiff Bank was going through some difficulties,
the Defendants placed a malicious interpretation thereon, and as a result
caused a diminution and continue to cause a diminution in the business
interests of the Plaintiff Company.
14. That the business of banking is based on trust and
causing such fear and panic in the numerous clientele of the Plaintiff Bank is
highly damaging and incontrovertibly defamatory.
15. That the said statement that the bank has collapsed is untrue
as it is currently in business and discharging its duties in accordance with
law and within the precincts of the regulatory watch of the Bank of Ghana.
16. That unless compelled by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the Defendants will cause more harm to the Plaintiff.
17.That by the conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has
suffered harm, a dent on its reputation, public ridicule, general damages and
also special damages the quantum of which special damage cannot be immediately
assessed unless expert investigations are conducted to ascertain the full
extend thereof. WHEREFORE AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, the plaintiff prays against
the Defendants both jointly and severally,
i.
An injunction to restrain the Defendants from
further publications of private and confidential documents and from making
publications which are damaging to the business of the Plaintiff.
ii.
General damages of Five Million Ghana Cedis.
(Ghc 5,000,000.00)
iii.
A publication of an apology to be given same
prominence as the defamatory publication.
iv.
Special damages to be assessed.
v.
Costs of and incidental to the Suit.
DATED AT PAINTSIL, PAINTSIL &CO.,NO. 5 SIXTH LANE, KUKU
HILL, OSU, ACCRA. THIS 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.
KWEKU Y.
PAINTSIL, ESQ.
SOLICITOR FOR THE PALINTIFF
THE REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT
HUMAN RIGHT DIVISION
ACCRA
AND FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANTS
Editorial
WHO DARES STOP US?
After 22 years of publishing with an unblemished record of activism,
it is surprising that some forces still try to gag us.
We know that all those forces will soon come to the
realisation that our motives are strongly pro-people and that we cannot be
stopped by any political or legal acrobatics.
The Insight will always insist that state institutions like
the Bank of Ghana, the Police and others should perform their constitutional
duties.
We will also continue to hold public officers accountable
and always defend the interest of the vulnerable.
Nothing will stop us from performing these duties and the
earlier those who see themselves as Goliaths realise this the better it will be
for all of us.
FIRE SERVICE COMPLAINS
 |
| Mr Mark Woyongo, Interior Minister |
The Ghana National Fire
Service (GNFS) has called on the Accra Metropolitan Assembly to get rid of
buildings that obstructs firefighting to ensure the safety of properties during
fire outbreak.
Mr Ebenezer Simpson, Director Fire Safety of GNFS, said
removal of such buildings would reduce the number of valuables lost in fire
outbreaks.
The Director made the call, when he led a team from the GNFS
to visit the Mallam Attah to check illegal electrical connections in the
market.
He said the exposed nature of the cables could easily
generate fire.
He also expressed
concern that some traders are using their tables and stalls to cover the
hydrants, which make it difficult for fire fighters to get access to them
during emergencies.
Mr Simpson noted that the rate at which people are losing
their valuable properties to fire is alarming hence the need for all to
contribute to ensure a fire-free society.
Mr Moses Aboh, Assemblyman for Kokomlemle, said a contract
had been signed for all cables in the market to be changed but for about a year
the work is yet to commence, leaving the traders to do business under such
conditions.
He called on the contractor to undertake the project to
ensure the safety of all.
GNA
Seventy-two
Botoku citizens Get free NHIS
 |
| Sylvester Mensah, NHIA Boss |
Seventy-two vulnerable citizens of Awutu-Botoku in the
Central Region have been offered free National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS)
registration.
This would enable the beneficiaries to enjoy the various
healthcare benefits under the national health insurance policy.
The exercise, which was carried out by officials of the
Awutu-Effutu-Senya area branch of the National Health Insurance Authority
(NHIA), was funded by an Accra-based non-governmental organization (NGO),
GOBACARE Foundation.
The beneficiaries included adults, children and the aged.
Speaking to the media later, Ms Patience Akos-Mensah, a
spokesperson for the NGO, said the rationale for their action was to ensure
that as many vulnerable people as possible in the remote areas benefited from
the NHIS policy.
Ms Akos-Mensah expressed the Foundation’s determination to
extend the offer to more communities in the Awutu/Senya and other districts in
the Central Region.
Mr Christian Ashiagbor, an official of the National Health
Insurance Authority, advised the beneficiaries to strive to handle the NHIS
membership cards issued them properly to
enable them to source healthcare.
He reminded them of the key role good health played in the
administration of individuals, families, communities and the entire nation and
appealed to them to ensure effective and continuous sound environmental
sanitation.
This, Mr Ashiagbor said, would go a long way to protect them
against all types of communicable diseases, thus assisting in making the NHIS
policy cost-effective and sustainable.
He praised the beneficiaries for their high sense of
comportment and cooperation.
Nana Aba Akyeafoh, Chief of Botoku, on behalf of the
citizens, expressed appreciation to the management of GOBACRE FOUNDATION for
the kind gesture extended to the people.
GNA
Ministry warns
headmasters against charging two-term fees
 |
| Education Minister, Naana Opoku Agyemang |
The Ghana News Agency reproduces in full a press statement issued by
the Education Minister, Professor Jane Naana Opoku-Agyemang, warning heads of
senior high schools to desist from charging two-term fees:
“It has come to the
attention of the Ministry of Education that some Heads of Senior High Schools
are charging fees for two terms and insisting that parents pay same before
their wards are admitted for the term’s academic work.
This practice remains in flagrant violation of government
policy and directives we have earlier circulated in this regard.
The Ministry of Education takes a serious view to this
development and assures the public that steps are being taken to sanction heads
who are found to have flouted this directive.
We shall also ensure that affected parents and guardians
receive refunds.
In the meantime, we wish to urge parents and guardians not
to pay such fees.
They are hereby encouraged to contact the Ministry of
Education through our hot-lines on 0302 931898 and 0302 931897 between 800 and
1700 hours on week days or via
pro@moe.gov.gh to report any head engaging in this unacceptable conduct.
Based on the foregoing, government has today set up a
special committee chaired by Deputy for Pre-Tertiary Education with membership
drawn from the Ghana Education Service Council, Attorney General’s Department
and the Economic and Organised Crime Office.
The Committee’s terms of reference includes verifying the
reports of second and third term charges, the charging of unapproved fees and
to recommending appropriate sanctions.
The Committee is to report to me by January 30, 2015.”
GNA
Manasseh’s
Folder: Why Charlie Hebdo journalists are martyrs of stupidity
 |
| David Cameron |
I abhor any
act of terrorism and extremism. Killing journalists no matter how provocative
their publication is, and irrespective of how derogatory it is to your
religion, defeats the very purpose of that religion. I don’t think the Prophet
Mohammed (a messenger of peace as the Holy Quran tells us) would be proud of
the bloody murder of journalists at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in France and
other innocent people last week. If the God we serve were so cruel to kill us
when we wrong Him, I don’t think we would still be alive to worship Him. In
fact, any religion that sanctions murders is not a religion worth following.
Thankfully, not all Muslims sanction such acts of terrorism and extremism. Some
notable Islamic leaders have condemned the killings and such terrorist acts.
However, there cannot be a fair assessment of the Paris
tragedy if we look only at the terrorists without looking at those who
carelessness fueled their activities. Our elders say if you unjustifiably
provoke someone with pebbles, then you are invariably asking for rocks in
return. There may not be a French version of this proverb, but common sense
should guide every journalist who has access to the microphone, internet or
printing press. Unfortunately, the foolhardiness of the Charlie Hebdo folks
clouded their senses of reasoning in that regard. As a result, extreme
believers in freedom of speech clashed with extreme believers of a religion.
The result? Bloody!
Over 40 world leaders went to Paris to march against the
murderous acts of terrorism. Among these heads of state were some leaders from
Africa. Within the same period, the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, had
murdered close to 2000 innocent people. Yet these stooges of African leaders
spent money and traveled with delegations to France to mourn journalists who
died stupid deaths and invited misery upon innocent police officers and
shoppers. Ghana’s President John Mahama, the Chairman of ECOWAS, condemned the
killing of 17 people in France but I am yet to hear him on the killings in
Nigeria, which is in the sub-region he chairs.
Inasmuch as we condemn the Charlie Hebdo killers, let us be
bold to condemn the journalists who incited the unfortunate incident. Many have
joined the fray, saying the attacks are an assault on freedom of speech. How
wrong they are! There can’t be any worse form of attack on freedom of speech than
irresponsible application of the freedom.
.jpg) |
| President John Mahama |
In September 2012, France closed its embassies, consulates,
cultural centers, and schools in twenty countries. This was because Charlie
Hebdo had published cartoons satirizing two very different films: “The
Intouchables,” and “Innocence of Muslims”. In an article published in the New
Yorker on September 28, 2012, the paper’s staff writer Emily Greenhouse wrote:
“The cover of the Charlie Hebdo issue in question
is a crude depiction of an Orthodox Jewish man pushing a Muslim man in a
wheelchair: “The Intouchables 2,” it reads. (The actual “Intouchables” is a
cloying tale of a rich white man who, paralyzed in a paragliding accident,
hires a poor black man to care for him. Guess who gets his joie de vivre back).
When you turn the pages, you see ungainly caricatures, presented more or less
as advertisements for a film—only tenuously connected with the front cover’s
spoof—sure to “set the Muslim world ablaze.” Muhammad, labelled as such, is
shown naked and bending over, begging to be admired. Then the Prophet is
crouched on all fours, with genitals bared. “A Star is Born!” the caption
reads—a reference to the attention given ‘Innocence of Muslims.”
The film and the cartoons provoked violent protests across
the Muslim world leading to the death of about 50 people, including J.
Christopher Stevens, America’s Ambassador to Libya. Eight South Africans
were among those killed when a female suicide bomber, 22-year old Fatima, blew
up a bus carrying foreign workers in Afghanistan in reaction to the film. I was
on internship with The Star newspaper in South Africa so the grief was closer
to “home” and I felt the pain of parents, widows and orphans of the dead.
The question I kept asking myself was: why do you mock the
object of someone’s faith, knowing very well that they take serious exception
to it? What do you gain? What does society gain? It is true that whatever the
media publish may annoy some people, but the critical question is: what does
the content of the publication seek to achieve? Does it seek to correct a
societal wrong, mend broken human right record or it is meant to mock and
provoke others?
If a particular practice in Islam or Christianity is
detrimental to human existence, the media can criticize it even if all followers
of the religion are offended and threaten deadly consequences. But if you
portray Prophet Mohammed naked with derogatory remarks, what is your intention?
Is that what freedom of speech means? Is freedom of speech a license to be
stupid?
At the time of the killings, the editor of Charlie Hebdo,
Stephane Charbonnier, 47, was living under police protection because he had
received death threats in the past. He was killed together with the police
officer. Protecting him.
"I don't have kids, no wife, no car, no debt," he
once told France's Le Monde newspaper when the threats came amidst continues
portrayal of Prophet Mohammed in what some Muslims considered offensive.
"Maybe it's a little pompous to say, but I'd rather die standing than live
on my knees."
Georges Wolinski, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonist who was also
killed in the attack, said he didn’t trust any religion. He once said,
"Paradise is full of idiots who believe it exists."
Is freedom of speech absolute? If you don’t trust any
religion and you don’t believe in paradise, it is your right. But don’t you
think those who believe in it also have the right to do so? And is this what
the whole world wants us to call attack on free speech or risk being called
names?
The most striking contradiction about Charlie Hebdo, which
exposes their hypocrisy, was when they fired their cartoonist, Maurice Sinet,
in 2009. Maurice Sinet was subsequently charged for anti-Semitism for
suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to
Judaism for financial reasons. The Jewish community in France found his
comments distasteful and he was accused of "inciting racial hatred"
against the Jews.
Charlie Hebdo editor asked Maurice Sinet to apologise to the
Jews to which he replied, "I'd rather cut my balls off." He was fired
from Charlie Hebdo for his refusal to apologize. So why would this magazine
dare not offend the Jews but does not care about the feelings of Muslims? Why
would they fire a journalist for a less offensive comment about the Jews, but
defend what the Muslim world considers offensive and threaten to do it over and
over again?
There are currently calls for the BBC’s Tim Willcox to
resign because of a question he asked and which is considered by some as
offensive to the Jews. During a live report from the streets of Paris, Willcox
was speaking to a number of participants in the march, including one woman who
expressed her fears that Jews were being persecuted, and 'the situation is
going back to the days of the 1930s in Europe.'
Tim Willcox, who was broadcasting on the BBC News channel,
replied: “Many critics, though, of Israel's policy would suggest that the
Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.”
The greatest threat to the world today is not terrorism. It
is hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is what is fuelling terrorism and turning many
moderate Muslims into beasts of death.
 |
| US President Hussein Obama |
In one breath, we cite and condemn the role of journalists
in the Rwandan genocide. We use it to show how irresponsible application of
freedom of speech can be. But when it is Charlie Hebdo, we think nothing is
wrong with the publication and they are going ahead to publish more of Prophet
Mohammed’s cartoons. “They published what they believed it,” some say. “There’s
nothing wrong with it.” Really? How would the world be if we all published what
we believed in or did everything we believed in? Well, are the Muslim
extremists not doing what they believe in by insisting that their religious
leader should not be cartooned?
The assumption that nobody should attack the journalist over
such publications does not hold for religious extremists. Generally, there is
no complete rational thinking in religion. If President Mahama tells me in
2016, his government will increase power generation to 5000 megawatts, I will give
him reasons why that cannot be achieved. But if my pastor tells me I will marry
this year, I am tempted to believe it even though I am yet to meet my potential
wife.
Jesus Christ, the object of my faith, tells me that “blessed
is he who has not seen yet believes.” The Bible also tells me that with God all
things are possible. This may not pass any intellectual test but I believe it.
No matter one’s intellectual strength, religion defies common sense. People act
mainly with their hearts, and not with their heads. Beyond the moderate and
reasonable worshipers, however, are extremists. We have extremists in
Christianity, Islam, Budhism, among others. They represent the extreme forms of
religious irrationality. For reasons that are well known, it is Islamic extremists
that are at the forefront of terrorism. If you are rational, you don’t go
provoking extremists.
The stance taken by Charlie Hebdo and many such publications
is not the best way to deal with terrorism of this nature. Confronting
religious extremists with such brazen defiance is like wrestling with a suicide
bomber. They have nothing to lose. But could France not have avoided the loss
of 17 precious lives and prevented the cost these attacks brought? Could
authorities there not have stopped the foolhardiness of Charlie Hebdo?
As a journalist, I know many will attack me for betraying my
colleagues but circumspection is needed if such avoidable attacks can be
stopped in future. It is good to be brave and fearless but sometimes, it is
better and sensible to be a coward. In this regard, I will ask every
journalists to answer what my managing news editor often asks in such murky
situations: “What will the nation/world gain or lose if we do or don’t do that
story?” If the answer is “nothing” it is better to ignore such “offensive”
publications.
When I raised this debate on a WhatsApp platform, I was
asked how I would feel if I was killed for exposing corruption as an
investigative journalist and someone calls it stupid. My answer is simple. If
someone thinks fighting the corruption sinking my country is the same as
mocking someone’s object of faith, then they are right to call my death stupid.
The fact that I am a journalist does not mean I should defend every action of
journalists.
Martin Luther King Jr. stood for a cause. Many Americans at
the time hated him with passion. But some white extremist went beyond hatred
and killed him. He stood for a worthy cause and died for it. Today, the likes
of President Obama are beneficiaries of that cause. But can the same be said of
the cause the Charlie Hebdo journalists stood for?
Many have joined the fray and social media is awash with the
hush tag #I am Charlie. I want to say that though I am a journalist, I hold a
different view on this. I condemn the attacks, yes! But I also condemn the
senseless provocative publications by Charlie Hebdo. I am not Charlie. As far
as I am concerned, they died for a worthless cause, and though I sympathize
with their families, I will always remember them as martyrs of stupidity.
The writer, Manasseh Azure
‘Terrorism exported to Middle East from Europe’ – Assad
 |
| Syrian President Bashir Assad |
Terrorism is being exported to the Middle East from Europe,
especially from France, said Syria’s President Bashar Assad in an interview to
French media. He also criticized Western states for politically supporting
terrorists in the region.
In the ongoing civil war in Syria government forces have
been fighting terrorists since the very beginning of the conflict in its third
year, said Assad in an interview with Paris Match news
magazine given in late November and published on Wednesday.
“Even in the first days of the events, there were martyrs
from the army and the police; so, since the first days of this crisis we have been
facing terrorism,” he said answering a question whether the conflict could have
been managed differently with the appearance of the first signs of the March
2011 revolution.
The civil war was preceded by violent anti-government
protests and unrest, considered to be an extension of the Arab Spring that
swept through the Middle East and North Africa supported by radical Islamist
groups including Al-Qaeda.
“Let’s be honest: had Qatar not paid money to those
terrorists at that time, and had Turkey not supported them logistically, and
had not the West supported them politically, things would have been different.
If we in Syria had problems and mistakes before the crisis, which is normal,
this doesn’t necessarily mean that the events had internal causes,” Assad said.
He explained that currently Syria is fighting against “not
only gangs”, but also states that support them with “billions of dollars.”
“This is not a war between two armies where you can say that
they took a certain part and we took another part. The war now is not like
that. We are talking about terrorist groups which suddenly infiltrate a city or
a village,” he elaborated.
He refuted claims that the Syrian government supports
Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS) militants, which are on the rampage
in parts of Syria and Iraq, calling them absurd.
“The truth is that
ISIS was created in Iraq in 2006. It was the United States which occupied Iraq,
not Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi [IS leader] was in American prisons, not in
Syrian prisons. So, who created ISIS, Syria or the United States?”
Terrorism is an ideology which twenty years ago was exported
to the West from Sunni Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Assad stated. He
believes that the process has reversed with terrorists coming to the Middle
East from Europe and “especially France”.
“The largest percentage of the European terrorists coming to
Syria is French; and you had a number of incidents in France. There was also an
attack in Belgium against a Jewish museum. So, terrorism in Europe is no longer
asleep, it is being awakened.”
The Syrian president also jokingly noted that the competitor
of the President Francois Hollande in France is now ISIS “because Holland’s
popularity is close to that of ISIS.”
The Syrian Opposition Coalition, formed in 2012 in Qatar and
supported by the US, has been calling for Assad to resign. President Barack
Obama’s administration repeatedly said conflict in Syria can only be solved if
Assad steps down as president.
In turn, Assad said that “no president can be installed or
deposed through chaos”, citing the devastating results of Libya – when in 2011
the civil war and ousting of Muammar Gaddafi led to the increase of insurgency
and a new wave of strife ongoing on the country.
“Chaos ensued after Gaddafi’s departure. So, was his
departure the solution? Have things improved, and has Libya become a
democracy?” he questioned.
He added that remaining president had never been his
objective but he will not allow Syria to fall and become a “Western puppet
state”. Assad compared the country to a ship and the president to its captain,
which cannot abandon the vessel if it’s sinking.
“The state is like a ship; and when there is a storm, the
captain doesn’t run away and leave his ship to sink. If passengers on that ship
decided to leave, the captain should be the last one to leave, not the first.”
Syria’s president criticized the air strikes conducted by
the US-led coalition targeting the militants in Syria saying that there strikes
are “merely cosmetic” and “terrorism cannot be destroyed from the air.”
“That’s why, and after two months of the alliance’s
airstrikes, there are no tangible results on the ground in that direction,” he
said. “And that’s why saying that the alliance’s airstrikes are helping us is
not true.”
Assad reiterated that strikes are an illegal intervention
because they have not been authorized by a UN Security Council resolution and
do not respect the sovereignty of Syria.
He stressed that the Syrian army has been conducting ground
operations as well as airstrikes against terrorists which are larger than that
those launched by the alliance.
“We are the ones fighting the battles against ISIS on the
ground, and we haven’t felt any change, particularly that Turkey is still
extending direct support to ISIS in those regions,” he said
Russia
must keep USA at gunpoint
Russia's military doctrine can be updated and altered against the changing
nature of threats. Pravda.Ru interviewed President of the International Center
for Geopolitical Analysis, Doctor of Historical Sciences Leonid Ivashov, about
the current state of affairs in the military doctrine of the Russian
Federation.
"The concluding part of the military doctrine from
2010 states that its provisions can be adjusted in accordance with the changing
nature of military dangers and threats. Who and what is now a threat to
Russia?"
"The military doctrine is neither an order, nor a directive.
This is just an action plan, a body of views to military security of a state.
Of course, views change as the military-political situation changes. The
doctrine is then used as a basis for the creation of rules about the use of armed forces, appropriate orders, directives and so on. The
doctrine, which was approved in 2010, was based on more or less quiet
conditions for Russia in military-political and military-strategic terms.
Russia's military and political leadership believed that our relations with the
West were generally friendly. We were only concerned about the expansion of
NATO. This aspect was gently designated in the doctrine. The doctrine is
clearly defensive in nature. The text of the Russian doctrine from 2010 does not contain such a word as
"offensive", let alone "counter battle.
"It contains a purely defensive stance, but if
something suddenly happens, we're ready. Our nuclear capabilities serve as the
guarantee of Russia's security. This made it possible to destroy forces of
ordinary purpose and carry out the reforms that Serdyukov (former defense minister of Russia - ed.) was
conducting, destroying the army and the navy of Russia as a military
organization system. Everything was guaranteed by the fact that we have nuclear
weapons. Our nuclear shield is the primary factor of nuclear deterrence.
However, this deterrence does not guarantee safety, because we do not see a
situation when we can push the button even for a retaliatory attack.
"The Americans radically changed both their military
strategy and nuclear doctrine in the early 2000s. They pushed nuclear weapons into the background. They have not upgraded
one single ballistic missile, and they do not build new ones either. What they
do is they create a new strike force that will decide the outcome of future
battles. On December 18, 2003, they signed a directive on the concept of prompt
global strike. Under the directive, they will attack by launching thousands of
high-precision vehicles from different strategic directions. These include idea
and air based cruise missiles, strategic missiles, drones.
"With the first strike, they plan to incapacitate
our submarine-based ballistic missiles and even silo-based missiles. In this
situation, if Russia strikes back, they will use the missile defense system,
the main component of which is not the European missile defense, but the marine
component. The United States has 93 ships equipped with AEGIS systems. It was AEGIS that removed an American defunct satellite from orbit
in 2008 at an altitude of 247 km.
"Thus, the Americans plan to destroy our remaining
ballistic missiles in the boost phase of their flight. For these purposes, the
Americans create this missile defense. Afterwards, AEGIS systems will disable the
warheads of the missiles that have been launched. The Americans do their best
to devalue the Russian nuclear missile potential. And they can succeed.
"If this happens, and we can already see this, we
will see a completely different behavior of the United States. Having
neutralized strategic nuclear forces of Russia, the Americans can declare that
they do not recognize neither the Northern Sea Route, nor the Mendeleev and Lomonosov Ridge as Russian waters. The USA will pronounce
them their own or international, and for the Americans, 'international'
stands for 'American.' We may face such a situation, and what will Russia do?
Launch nuclear ballistic missiles? No, of course not.
"The military doctrine contains another fairly
precarious position, which I call a move of despair. It says that should
non-nuclear powers show aggression against Russia, threatening the existence
and the territorial integrity of Russia, then we will preemptively use nuclear
weapons.
Sounds correct, but let's see: against whom of our
neighbors can we use tactical nuclear weapons, weapons of the battlefield? Against
NATO? They are all under the American nuclear umbrella. Japan is also under
this umbrella.
"It just so happens that it is only Mongolia and
Finland that can be the countries against which we can use nuclear weapons, if
they threaten us. The situation has changed dramatically, and we are standing
on the brink of a war - not a cold, but a hot war. Therefore, today Russia
hastily takes efforts to rebuild the defensive capacity of the armed forces and
change the military doctrine.
"The Russian style of development is slow - a step
forward, a step or two back. After all, space forces existed in the times of the Soviet Union.
However, it was then thought that we have no enemies in space, and the troops
were disbanded. Today we are working on this wasteland. According to the plan
of the likely enemy, navigation and reconnaissance satellites that ensure the
use of our cruise and ballistic missiles should be destroyed first.
"The first phase of the possible attack will target
the space group, so that we do not see anything. It will be hard for aviation
to reach targets without the GLONASS system. Today, Russia takes measures to correct
this mistake as well."
"The Russian strategic long-range aviation
celebrates 100 years since the establishment. What is the role of the
long-range aviation today?"
"Any normal state creates a complex system of arms.
We still live in the remains of Ustinov's system, when all would be
interconnected by problems, when all would work in concert. When we were
building the triad of sea, land and air components, there were many disputes,
but the place for long-range aviation was found. This place is unique, because
ground missiles are attached to a certain base. A submarine travels in oceans,
but it still remains a base, the actions and movement of which are
trackable.
"Aviation is much more mobile, it can change
direction and altitude. Today, when the Americans have built the missile
defense system against Russian ballistic missiles, aviation should come to the
forefront in this triad. To make matters worse, using such bulky missiles as Bulava, Topol and Voevoda
in a nuclear-free version is meaningless, because costs are enormous, but the
effect can be minimal.
"Yet, Russian long-range strategic aircraft can use
precision cruise missiles in a nuclear-free version. It can even change the
capacity of warheads. I think it has been forgotten unfairly. Long-range
aircraft needs to be revived urgently. Our "White Swans" can fly and land somewhere at an
intermediate distance from the United States, perhaps in Latin America. Bingo -
they have the US territory at gunpoint, and this is what the Americans fear
most. They invest a lot of money in missile defense not to wage wars on their
own territory. They will be happy to stage wars anywhere, but not on their own
territory. We need to find some power to create a group that could, in case of
aggression against Russia, act on the territory of the United States. Now that
would be a factor of deterrence. They say that the General Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation and the Russian Ministry of Defence work on
that already."
"What methods of non-nuclear deterrence can be most
effective at the moment?"
"One should keep the US territory at gunpoint to be
able to immediately act on the territory. The group should target the Federal
Reserve, but I'm joking here, of course. Yet, there is some truth in this joke,
because, as a rule, it is financial oligarchs, who need to start wars.
Non-nuclear deterrence factors should include powerful government agencies,
particularly the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Economic agencies should be
involved as well to cause damage with the use of economic methods. This should
be considered as a combat mission. Planning the supplies of hydrocarbons and
other strategic goods must necessarily envisage a possibility for a special
period in wartime."
Source: Pravda.Ru
The Prince Andrew sex
allegations
 |
| Prince Andrew |
The allegations that Prince Andrew had sex with an underage
woman have yet again sparked public outrage over the behaviour of the British
elite and raised questions on whether the rich and powerful can do whatever
they want and get away with it.
According to widely reported allegations, between 1999 and
2002, Prince Andrew had sexual relations with a then teenage girl at the behest
of his friend at the time Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein is a convicted sex offender
who ran his own sex slave operation for many years in order to befriend, and
also to blackmail, potential clients ranging from the political world to
Hollywood.
While these are just allegations at this stage, they’ve
caused quite a stir among the British public. The cozy nature and closeness of
big business and politics, the Royal Family and powerful media institutions, is
hardly anything we don’t already know about, more like standard modus operandi.
But the details of how these powerful people operate, their treatment of human
beings as objectified commodities based on nothing more than their obscene
wealth, inherited or otherwise, throws things into sharp focus.
When we think about some of the daily struggles being faced
by people at the moment, while at the same time hearing about the antics of
people with wealth and position, it couldn’t be any plainer to see that there
really is one rule for us and another for them.
Even if Andrew is innocent of these claims, even if the
worst that he has done is to become best friends with someone like Epstein that
is still in itself unbelievable. In addition, lawyers have also asked the US
government for any legal documentation that suggests Andrew lobbied the US on
Epstein’s behalf.All of the allegations so far have been denied by Buckingham
Palace.
What we do know, is that the wealthy and powerful do what
they please and get away with it. More and more examples are emerging which
underscore just how completely removed the establishment is from the people
under it.Perhaps we have reached a point where things cannot get any worse, and
the truth of the lie we were sold is simply coming to the surface.
Last week and over the weekend, questions surrounding Prince
Andrew have once again resurfaced, and grown louder, which have the potential
to further damage the reputation of the British establishment. The claims being
made about Andrew, have hit the headlines in the wake of a widespread and
on-going police investigation into child abuse networks in Westminster, with
suggestions of a cover up orchestrated right from the top.
While the furor surrounding
Andrew is not connected to the Westminster scandal,
when stepping back and looking at things, it certainly adds to the increasingly
tarnished perception of Britain's elite.
Claims are being made by Virginia Roberts in the United
States, part of an earlier civil claim against Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex
offender who notoriously abused many girls dating back many years, and who was
a once bosom buddy of Andrew. In legal documents revealed to a Florida court
recently, Roberts said she had had sex with the prince no less than three times
when she was still 17-a minor under US law.
Roberts, who is one of many women who claim they were abused
by Epstein as young girls, had previously hinted that Epstein had routinely
told her to satisfy his wealthy business associates, allegedly including
Elizabeth's 'favorite' son, Andrew.
Buckingham Palace has emphatically denied the claims, while
trying to present Andrew as merely naive, the victim of bad judgment, the
reveler who just needs to choose his company a little better, an unwitting
victim of circumstance carrying out his royal duties, who is simply prone to
making Royal blunders - a bit like his dad Prince Philip.
To be fair, there is currently no evidence to suggest that
the claims being made against the Prince are true. There's just lots (and lots)
of embarrassing circumstantial evidence that raises many questions - where no
answers seem to be given.
The picture for example, which has now gone viral, shows
Andrew with his arm around Roberts' waist, while the famed Madame Ghislaine
Maxwell, Robert Maxwell's daughter looking wistfully on.Andrew too, is grinning
like a Cheshire cat. Now, don't get me wrong, the picture might be entirely
innocent, and Andrew may just be one of those friendly, down to earth hands-on types.But
it looks at very distasteful.
The very best case scenario one would imagine is the one
being offered by the taxpayer heated Buckingham Palace press office: Andrew is
a victim of circumstance and a bad judge of character.
Sure. After all, how was he to know the kind of man Epstein
was?It’s not like Epstein is an international financier, with contacts and
friends ranging from the world of international politics, all the way to
Hollywood with a reputation for having a penchant for young girls…oh wait a
minute.
It’s interesting isn't it? This track record of keeping bad
company seems to be a permanent ailment and embarrassment for the British head
of state, Queen Elizabeth. There's Elizabeth, trying her best to safeguard the
well-being of the common folk and the downtrodden, while her selfish sons
Charles and Andrew insist on forming relationships and friendships with people
like Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein.
It must make the day to day hardships faced by the Queen
that much harder to endure.
The 'royal' and legal response to the hot water Andrew now
finds himself is nonetheless predictable.They say that the allegation against
Andrew is a yarn being spun, the claims are old and are lies, and the so-called
victims are just after money. Undoubtedly at times, one must admit (drum roll)
there probably are people who come forward with lies aimed at powerful people.
Is this one of those instances?Who is the victim here?
Andrew, a wealthy prince with power and influence?Is he the victim of people
who just want his money, part of a witch-hunt against him?Or the woman who was
treated like an object, and abused by wealthy men?Even if Andrew's crime is the
company he keeps, that fact by itself speaks volumes. One only has to Google
Andrew's name to gain a sense of how he likes to spend his time.
But given that clearly these revelations are likely just the
beginning, at what point do we start to take a step back and see that the
entire culture of the British establishment is rotten to the core?When do we
start to admit it to ourselves?If there is any merit to any of the claims being
made, when do we start to entertain the possibility, that all of these
allegations of sordid corruption and abuse, whatever the degree of truth to
them, point to a sobering reality?
In some ways these sensational headlines, can have the
effect of shifting our focus from other important issues. Britain is facing
draconian public service cuts being implemented by the absolute pinnacle of
privilege, a rich white man's club.
The impact of these cuts will continue to reverberate around
the country.The trend of austerity measures is seen now throughout Europe, with
differing levels of resistance, from SYRIZA in Greece, to plain old dead-end
neo liberal submission in the UK, with no viable united labor movement
organized.There needs to be one.
I know many people believe that with the huge sensationalist
scandals like the ones currently breaking, like the Westminster pedophile
rings, and now with the royal family, we risk becoming distracted from other
important work.
But I think we need to hit a balance.Firstly, we owe it to
the victims to keep up the pressure, and to see these investigations and cases
through to the end.Those still alive who have suffered deserve justice, and to
be able to heal and move on with their lives.
Those guilty of abuse, whoever they are, need to face
justice and be treated like everyone else, no matter how much money they have,
how powerful their friends are, or because they occupy a powerful position.We
need to create a political culture where this cannot happen anymore.
Facing up to the raw reality, is a step in this process.Part
of the reason the British establishment is so divorced from the struggles of
ordinary people, is because many, on whatever level, have accepted things as
they are. They see the establishment as a symbolic necessity, an integral part
of the British identity.
Meanwhile, the establishment treats the people as
expendable, abusing them, spitting them out, and when even one of their own
does not play ball, will spit them out.
While the world is still absorbing the headlines from last
week, Prince Andrew has been busy spending millions on a new retreat with his
ex-wife.
That gives us some perspective.The government meanwhile is
continuing with its policies, while the immigration myths and talking points
about 'scroungers' are repeated by those who are probably the same ones who say
“God save the Queen.”
There definitely is a group of people who are milking this
country for all its worth, not doing their fair share, who get given more than
the rest of us, and who never seem to face justice whatever the crime.It’s
called the British establishment and it needs cleaning out.
Let's hope this year is the year in which more light appears
through the cracks and powerful abusers, war criminals, and all the rest
finally face the music.
Source:rt.com
No comments:
Post a Comment