Create the problem, send in your solution! U.S. to send team to Nigeria to deal with terrorist group it created

This is another of such incidents that have been staged over the centuries to blame false enemies for attacks that they did not commit. The tactic remains in common use today, and will continue to be employed as long as populations still blindly believe whatever their governments tell them about the origins of spectacular terror incidents.

The Empire US CORPORATIONS President Barack Obama said Tuesday that the U.S. will do everything it can to help Nigeria find nearly 300 teenage girls missing since they were kidnapped from school three weeks ago by an Islamist extremist group that has threatened to sell them.

Worldwide protests demand the rescue of kidnapped Ni­ger­ian girls: Rallies in Ni­ger­ian and American cities protest the government’s weak response to the crime.

Obama said the immediate priority is finding the girls, but that the Boko Haram group must also be dealt with.

"In the short term our goal is obviously is to help the international community, and the Nigerian government, as a team to do everything we can to recover these young ladies," Obama said in an interview with NBC's "Today," in some of his first public comments on what he said was a "terrible situation" in the West African nation.

"But we're also going to have to deal with the broader problem of organizations like this that ... can cause such havoc in people's day-to-day lives," Obama said of Boko Haram.

The brazen April 15 abduction has sparked international outrage and mounting demands, including by some in Washington, for Nigeria to spare no effort to find and free the girls before they can be sold into slavery or otherwise harmed.

Nigeria's police have said more than 300 girls were abducted from their secondary school in the country's remote northeast. Of that number, 276 remain in captivity and 53 managed to escape.

Obama said he was glad the Nigerian government was accepting help from U.S. military and law enforcement advisers.

"Obviously, what's happening is awful, and, as a father of two girls, I can't imagine what their parents are going through," he told CBS News in an interview. Obama said the U.S. has long sought to work with Nigeria to contain Boko Haram.

"You've got one of the worst regional or local terrorist organizations in Boko Haram in Nigeria. They've been killing people ruthlessly for many years now and we've already been seeking greater cooperation with the Nigerians," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

He said the kidnapping and subsequent outrage over Nigeria's inability to rescue the girls "may be the event that helps to mobilize the entire international community to finally do something against this horrendous organization that's perpetrated such a terrible crime."

The technical experts heading to Nigeria will include U.S. military and law enforcement personnel skilled in intelligence, investigations, hostage negotiating, information sharing and victim assistance, as well as officials with expertise in other areas, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

U.S. armed forces were not being sent, Carney noted.

Obama commented during a series of previously arranged television interviews conducted in the White House Rose Garden, shortly after the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution urging the girls' safe and immediate return. Some lawmakers also observed a moment of silence on the Capitol steps calling for their release, and dozens of people also protested outside the Nigerian Embassy in Washington.

All 20 female senators urged Obama in a letter to pursue severe international sanctions on Boko Haram. A smaller group of mostly male senators urged Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan to address the root causes of unrest in his country.

Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. had been in touch with Nigeria "from day one" of the crisis. But repeated offers of U.S. assistance were ignored until Kerry got on the phone Tuesday with Jonathan amid growing international concern and outrage over the fate of the girls in the weeks since their abduction.

Kerry said Nigeria apparently wanted to pursue its own strategy, but now realizes more needs to be done.

"I think now the complications that have arisen have convinced everybody that there needs to be a greater effort," Kerry said at a State Department news conference. "And it will begin immediately. I mean, literally, immediately."

A statement from Jonathan's office said the U.S. offer "includes the deployment of U.S. security personnel and assets to work with their Nigerian counterparts in the search and rescue operation." The statement added that Nigeria's security agencies are working at "full capacity" to find the girls and welcomes the addition of American "counter-insurgency know-how and expertise."

Nigeria's Islamic extremist leader, Abubakar Shekau, has claimed responsibility for the abduction and has threatened to sell the girls. Shekau also warned that Boko Haram will attack more schools and abduct more girls. Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful."

The State Department on Tuesday warned U.S. citizens against traveling to Nigeria.

In mid-April, more than 300 schoolgirls were kidnapped from Chibok boarding school in northern Nigeria by gunmen from the Islamist sect Boko Haram. Three weeks later, most of those girls are still missing. More than a week ago, a group of Nigerians launched the Twitter campaign #BringBackOurGirls, sparking global outrage over the attack. And on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry offered to send a team to help rescue the children. Meanwhile, Nigeria's nightmare gets worse by the day: On Monday, the leader of the group, which has terrorized the country for years, threatened to sell the girls off as slaves, and on Tuesday, Boko Haram kidnapped another eight girls. But let's back up a minute. What is Boko Haram, exactly? And why do its members kidnap schoolgirls?

What is Boko Haram? Boko Haram is a group of Islamic fundamentalists based in northern Nigeria that has been terrorizing the country since 2009. The group believes Western culture is sinful and wants to return the country to the pre-colonial era of Muslim rule. To that end, Boko Haram has attacked government targets, including military checkpoints, police stations, highways, and schools, as well as churches, mosques, the UN building, and, recently, a bus station in the capital city of Abuja. Over the past five years, Boko Haram has slaughtered roughly 5,000 Nigerians whom the group viewed as pro-government. Here is a map of Boko Haram attacks over the years, via Business Insider:

What gave rise to the group? Boko Haram has roots in the 1970s-era Islamic revival in the region, but was founded in 2002 by a Muslim cleric named Mohammed Yusuf, shortly after Nigeria's transition from dictatorship to democracy in 1999. The Boko Haram ideology—disseminated through a mosque and Islamic school Yusuf set up—gained traction in post-dictatorship Nigeria because many northern Muslims saw Western-style democracy as a scheme to disenfranchise them; voter turnout is higher in the Christian south than in the Muslim north. Persistent extreme poverty in the region has reinforced the notionthat the government, which the group believes has been corrupted by Western values, cares more about enriching itself than helping Nigerians, and it has helped drive Boko Haram recruitment over the years. It's hard to say how many Nigerians the group counts as members, but the Nigerian security forces claim to have killed thousands of them.

Nigerians have labeled the group Boko Haram, which loosely translated means "Western education is a sin." But that's not what Boko Haram calls itself. Its official name is Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, which in Arabic means "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad."

Boko Haram is an Islamist terror group. Any links with Al Qaeda? Yep. In many of his sermons, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau pledges allegiance to Al Qaeda. And Boko Haram has reportedly adopted many of Al Qaeda's terrorist tactics, including suicide bombings. Last year, the Obama administration officially designated Boko Haram a terrorist organization.

Has the group ever attacked Americans? No. But Boko Haram has threatened to attack the United States, which it calls "a prostitute nation of infidels and liars." And the group has kidnapped Westerners before.

Why did the militants kidnap the schoolgirls? In an effort to scare Nigerians away from Western education, Boko Haram and other militants have attacked 50 schools over the past year, killing more than 100 schoolchildren and 70 teachers. Thousands of students and teachers across the northern part of the country have been forced to flee their schools because of the violence.

This is not the first time Boko Haram has kidnapped girls, either. Just two weeks before the Chibok abduction, 25 young girls were kidnapped by the Islamist militants from the northern town of Konduga. Those girls are likely still being held captive. And Boko Haram abducted handfuls of children last year, as well as Christian women, whom the group converts to Islam and forces into marriage. But the Chibok kidnapping "is the largest number of children abducted in one swoop in the country," Nnamdi Obasi, a senior Nigeria analyst for the International Crisis Group, told Mother Jones this week.

Some of the girls have reportedly been married off to the militants. On Monday, the leader of Boko Haram threatened in a homemade video to sell some into slavery:

		How did the Chibok attack play out? Here is Michelle Faul, of the Associated Press, who interviewed one of the girls who was able to escape:She says that when the gunmen came to her dormitory, they were sleeping. This is before dawn. These men came in, they had uniforms. They said, "Don't worry. We're soldiers here to help you." And she said it wasn't until that they were outside and…started setting fire to the school and shouting…"God is great," that it suddenly dawned on them these were not soldiers. These were Boko Haram.

[…] You can imagine the conditions that they're in [now]. They were taken initially to the Sambisa forest, dense forests, humid heat, blocks of malaria-carrying mosquitoes. They're probably drinking water from rivers and streams that [are] not clean. We're told they're kept on the move. Every couple of days, they're moving.

Have any of the girls escaped? Nigerian police report that 53 of the girls have escaped, but 276 remain missing. Here is the AP's Faul again, explaining how some of the girls managed to flee the terrorists:

The girl I spoke with was able to escape on the first night. She said that they were loaded onto trucks. It was dark. In the dark, some of the girls clung to low-hanging branches overhead. This was an open-back truck. She said she hesitated. And then one of the girls said, "Me, I'm going. If they shoot me, they shoot me, but I don't know what else they might do to me if I don't go." So this girl jumped down, and the girl I spoke to jumped down. She said she ran into the bush, and she said, "I ran and I ran." And she said, "That's how I was able to save myself."

What is the Nigerian government doing to rescue the girls? The Nigerian government claims that it has deployed aerial surveillance over the forest and that it has soldiers on foot searching for the girls. But from the start, Nigerian security forces made a pretty weak effort to find the girls, Mausi Segun, a researcher for Human Rights Watch based in northern Nigeria, told Mother Jones last week. She says the military did not make use of information provided by parents and locals in its rescue efforts. Desperate parents took to the forest themselves to search for their daughters.

Meanwhile, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan waited three weeks before publicly acknowledging the abductions and admitting he had no idea where the girls might be. The tepid response by the government has sparked a string of protests in Abuja. (First lady Patience Jonathan recently alleged that women protesting in Abuja against the government's weak response to the Chibok abductions had fabricated the kidnappings.)

 
What is the rest of the world doing to help rescue the kidnapped girls? On Tuesday, the Nigerian government accepted a US offer to send a team of military and law enforcement officials to help the search and rescue effort. The United Kingdom will send a similar team. China and France have pledged assistance, too.

In the wake of the kidnapping, the rest of the world was slow on the uptake. Only after Nigerians criticized the international media's initial indifference to the massive kidnapping did the foreign press start covering the attack. Since then, global outrage has grown by the day. The Twitter hashtag #BringBackOurGirls has been tweeted more than a million times. On Wednesday, First Lady Michelle Obama tweeted her support.

How is the Nigerian government fighting the broader Boko Haram insurgency? 

Jonathan has vowed to defeat Boko Haram, but the insurgency is deadlier now than at any point in the group's history. In the the first few months of 2014, the Islamist militants have already killed 1,500 people.

As Mother Jones reported last week, one reason the Nigerian government has not been able to stem attacks by the group is that the military does not coordinate with security forces in the countries that border northern Nigeria—including Cameroon, Chad, and Niger—where Boko Haram hides out. And the military's expenditures are not tracked, so it's hard to tell how much of the $6 billion a year the country spends on defense actually goes toward fighting Boko Haram.

Human rights advocates charge that Nigerian security forces' response to the insurgency, which often includes the indiscriminate killing of northern Nigerian men, has aggravated Boko Haram violence.

The United States provides about $1 million a year in aid to the Nigerian military, as well as $3 million in law enforcement assistance. And the US military will soon start training Nigerian special forces to fight Boko Haram.

 
Update, Thursday, May 8, 2014: Boko Haram killed more than 300 people in an attack on a northern town of Gamboru Ngala this week, the New York Timesreported Wednesday night. There were no security forces in the town because they had all been drafted to search for the missing girls.

Who are ‘Boko Haram’, and what are they up to in Nigeria? Nigeria’s premier terror circus conveniently grabbed the headlines away from an embattled White House this week (simmering scandals, Behghazi, and IRS), just in the nick of time, pulling off the terror caper of the year. Without booking any coaches, a relatively small group of Boko Harem operatives managed to kidnap up to 300 young girls from a secondary school in Chibok in remote northeastern Nigeria on April 14th. If this was indeed a real kidnapping even, the response time is pretty pathetic – nearly one month? Barack and Michelle Obama were a bit slow on the uptake of this story, not least of because Washington has been busy ginning-up war with Russia, shipping weapons to Islamic extremists in Syria and pretending to care about the missing airliner Flight MH370. Not worry, the FBI have been sent to Nigeria to take control of the crime scene – which may, or may not be good news for Nigerians. If the FBI were really there to figure out what happened, then they should dig into this: for some unknown reason up until a few months ago, the White House was trying to keep Boko Haram off the State Dept’s Official Designated Terror List, and there’s probably a very good reason for that…

 

TAKING OWNERSHIP OF “OUR GIRLS”: First Lady takes a break from shopping to engage in what appears to be the latest CIA-linked theatrical production in Africa. Curiously, the news claims that fifty-three girls managed to escape Boko Haram’s evil clutches but over 200 remain captive after being abducted from on 14 April. Take all of the complicated Wikipedia text away, and in real Nigerian modern informal language, ‘Boko Haram’ actually translates to, “everything is haram”.

According to their colourful Youtube and other sock-puppet videos (early videos had the Pentagon’s own SITE or Intel Center’ logo embossed on them), the “al Qaeda-linked” group(s) wants to impose sharia law in Nigeria, Niger, and even Cameroon. It’s main activity is killing and terrorising Christians, attacking and bombing churches and schools, government buildings, kidnapping western tourists, and has recently decided to try its hand in the child trafficking business. Nigeria is resource-rich and has the largest population and workforce in Africa, but it is a nation divided along sectarian tribal and religious lines (thank the British for that, par usual), a poor nation ruled by a corrupt super-class in collusion with Oil giants like BP.

If Nigeria remains divided, then there will almost certainly be no challenge to Britain, US and the Netherlands oil conquest of the country. To keep it divided, trouble needs to be stirred periodically. “The US embassy’s subversive activities in Nigeria fits into the long term US government’s well camouflaged policy of containment against Nigeria the ultimate goal of which is to eliminate Nigeria as a potential strategic rival to the US in the African continent”, News Rescue reports.

But that is only the first layer to the new African onion. Here’s the bigger project… One of the primary foreign policy goals of the US and NATO during the Obama Administration was to gain a greater military footprint in Africa, all of which is outlined in Washington’s AFRICOM policy directives which were set into motion in 2007 during the Bush presidency. This was arguably a much easier sell with African-American president Barrack Obama in the US than it would be with any other leader. One only needs to read the strategic briefings in U.S. AFRICOM documents to realise the true endgame for Africa: the eviction of China economic and political influence throughout the continent, and when it comes to achieving that goal – anything goes (including a theatric Boko Haram production it seems).

One AFRICOM study justifies US interventions on the basis of fears that China will eventually dispatch troops to Africa to defend its interests there: “Now China has achieved a stage of economic development which requires endless supplies of African raw materials and has started to develop the capacity to exercise influence in most corners of the globe. The extrapolation of history predicts that distrust and uncertainty will inevitably lead the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Africa in staggering numbers…” Washington understands better than anyone, that in the 21st century, the simplest way to ramp-up a police or military presence in any region is to create a public enemy. Understanding what the US project for a new American century in Africa is all about, you need to understand the McDonald’s model of business: franchises.

As an example, Nigeria’s illusive terror brand called “Boko Haram” has always been hard to pin down, not least of all because there are 4 or 5, or even 6 different ‘Boko Haram’ outfits in Nigeria. One thing which the Obama Administration has excelled at over the last 6 years in running guns. Whether it’s within the US and Mexico with Operation Fast and Furious, or guns trafficked in Libya via Egypt during the Muslim Brotherhood’s short reign there, then from Libya to Syria, ore even directly from the CIA to jihadist terror groups in Syria, and also from the new Libya out to “Al Qaeda affiliates” in Algeria, Mali and Nigeria.

Boko Harem was certainly hooked into the gun-running market and has benefited from heavy weaponry originally sent to arm Libyan rebels during NATO’s proxy war on the ground, where the CIA manage Libyan fighting groups, as well as carefully manage media reports coming out on a daily basis (Washington was in careful coordination with their ally Qatar’s al Jazeera TV network throughout the process).

Following NATO’s hostile intervention in Libya in 2011, we learned that AQIM had joined forces with the Al Qaeda linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – all of which are inexorably tied to the CIA and British intelligence agencies since Al Qaeda’s inception after the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 80′s. Now the baton has been passed to a franchise trading under the Boko Haram brand. “In addition to support by the Saudis, Boko Haram has received indirect assistance from NATO via Libya’s al-Qaeda mercenaries”, explains Global Research. “During an interview conducted by Al-Jazeera with Abu Mousab Abdel Wadoud, the AQIM leader states that Algeria-based organizations have provided arms to Nigeria’s Boko Haram movement ‘to defend Muslims in Nigeria and stop the advance of a minority of Crusaders.’ It remains highly documented that members of Al-Qaeda (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who fought among the Libyan rebels directly received arms and logistical support from NATO bloc countries during the Libyan conflict in 2011,” writes Nile Bowie.

A closer look at all of the so-called terrorist ‘franchises’ which the CIA are steering and managing throughout the continent reveals their true function – destabilisation, sectarian division which, of course, requires a US or NATO presence all over the continent. They are as follows:

Active CIA-MI6-Mossad-linked ‘franchisees’:  
Boko Haram in Nigeria, Niger, Mali – see there exploits here and here.

Al Shabab in Somalia and Kenya – see there exploits here and here.  
Al Qaeda in Islamic Magreb (AQIM) Algeria and Mali – see there exploits here and here. Musilm Brotherhood in Egypt – see there exploits here and here.  
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – see there exploits here and here.
Al Qaeda (all singing and dancing, ubiquitous pan-African/global brand name).  

Non-existent, but still promoted in Washington: Joseph Kony in Uganda (last scene in 2006, but that hasn’t stopped Obama from sending US troops into Uganda the hunt the ghost). Last fall’s Kenyan Mall Massacre was alleged by “western terror experts” to have been carried out by “the al Qaeda affiliate known as al Shabab”, but curiously enough, as is the case with Boko Haram, there seems to be a few different al Shababs, and rather predictable, the most extremist, over-the-top and theatrical franchise has been linked to the CIA-MI5-Mossad intelligence nexus in Africa. African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM), a peace keeping mission operated by the AU in Somalia with approval by the UN, is ‘something for the locals’ – a subset of US AFRICOM, but within that framework, various shadowy elements view “manageable insecurity” as a good business. Firedog Lake blog has even gone so far as to label Boko Harem as ‘Obama’s African Death Squad’. They explain Boko Haram’s ties to Washington: “A CIA Death Squad under President Obama’s control Murdered at least 12 Africans in Nigeria with a car bomb Thursday. The group Boko Haram claimed responsibility: http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/11322064  

WikiLeaks revealed that they are part of the US Central Inteligence Agency: http://imnig.org/boko-haram-cia-covert-operation-%E2%80%93-wikileaksBoko Haram is an ODS – an Obama Death Squad. The President has several such groups, carrying out Lynchings in Africa, and Murdering journalists in Honduras and Mexico. Boko Haram stepped up its operations exponentially when Obama became President. According to US officials, Boko Haram has Murdered over 10,000 Africans (Some were ordered by President George W. Bush, before Obama was in office): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#State_counter-offensive  

Because of its affiliation with the Empire CIA, the US State Department refused to designate Boko Haram a Terrorist group until a few months ago, despite its decade of lynchings: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/13/us-designates-boko-haram-terrorist-organization/?page=all 

They hold Rape Fests. http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/04/30/boko-harams-horrendous-abduction-of-234-teenage-girls 
~&~ http://leadership.ng/features/353367/ordeal-hands-rapists-boko-haram-camps

To manipulate the news, they staged a battle with other CIA members and with Great Britain’s MI5: http://tribune.com.ng/news/top-stories/item/952-boko-haram-fg-engages-cia-mi5/952-boko-haram-fg-engages-cia-mi5 “

Popular and nearly entertaining Boko Haram Sock-Puppet Video…

What Would An Eruption Of The Yellowstone Supervolcano Look Like?

On March 30, 2014, the worst earthquake in about 30 years rattled the Yellowstone supervolcano.  Overall, there have been at least 25 significant earthquakes at Yellowstone National Park since Thursday, but it is the 4.8 earthquake that has many observers extremely worried.  Could such a large earthquake be a sign that the Yellowstone supervolcano is starting to roar to life after all this time?  And if it does erupt, what would that mean for the rest of the country?

As you will see below, a full-blown eruption at Yellowstone would be absolutely catastrophic.  It is estimated that such an eruption could dump a 10 foot deep layer of volcanic ash up to 1,000 miles away and render much of the nation uninhabitable for years to come.  In essence, it would instantly bring the United States and Canada to its knees.

It is true that it is normal for Yellowstone to experience up to 3,000 earthquakes a year.  But most of those earthquakes are extremely small and nothing to worry about.

But the 4.8 earthquake that struck on Sunday is definitely raising eyebrows – especially considering what else has been going on at Yellowstone lately.
For example, the scientists that monitor Yellowstone are telling us that the area where the earthquake was centered has been experiencing “ground uplift” in recent months…

A University of Utah release said that the quake area had experienced a “ground uplift” since August and that “seismicity in the general region of the uplift has been elevated for several months.”

I don’t know about you, but the fact that the largest volcano in the U.S. by far has been experiencing “ground uplift” is not very comforting to me.

The danger posed by Yellowstone should not be underestimated. This is something that I have written about before, but since then scientists have discovered that the Yellowstone supervolcano is actually two and a half times larger than they previously believed it to be…

Late last year a new study into the enormous super volcano found the underground magma chamber to be 2.5 times larger than previously thought — a cavern spanning some 90km by 30km and capable of holding 300 billion cubic kilometres of molten rock. If the sleeping giant were to wake, the outflow of lava, ash and smoke would devastate the United States and affect the entire world.

A full-blown eruption at Yellowstone would be unlike anything that any of us have ever seen before.  The following YouTube video attempts to portray what would happen to areas within a few hundred miles of Yellowstone…

Yellowstone lies over a hotspot where light, hot, molten mantle rock rises toward the surface. While the Yellowstone hotspot is now under the Yellowstone Plateau, it previously helped create the eastern Snake River Plain (to the west of Yellowstone) through a series of huge volcanic eruptions. The hotspot appears to move across terrain in the east-northeast direction, but in fact the hotspot is much deeper than terrain and remains stationary while the North American Plate moves west-southwest over it.

Over the past 18 million years or so, this hotspot has generated a succession of violent eruptions and less violent floods of basaltic lava. Together these eruptions have helped create the eastern part of the Snake River Plain from a once-mountainous region. At least a dozen of these eruptions were so massive that they are classified as super-eruptions. Volcanic eruptions sometimes empty their stores of magma so swiftly that they cause the overlying land to collapse into the emptied magma chamber, forming a geographic depression called a caldera. Calderas formed from explosive super-eruptions can be as wide and deep as mid- to large-sized lakes and can be responsible for destroying broad swaths of mountain ranges.

The oldest identified caldera remnant straddles the border near McDermitt, Nevada-Oregon, although there are volcaniclastic piles and arcuate faults that define caldera complexes more than 60 km (37 mi) in diameter in the Carmacks Group of southwest-central Yukon, Canada, which is interpreted to have formed 70 million years ago by the Yellowstone hotspot. Progressively younger caldera remnants, most grouped in several overlapping volcanic fields, extend from the Nevada-Oregon border through the eastern Snake River Plain and terminate in the Yellowstone Plateau.

One such caldera, the Bruneau-Jarbidge caldera in southern Idaho, was formed between 10 and 12 million years ago, and the event dropped ash to a depth of one foot (30 cm) 1,000 miles (1,600 km) away in northeastern Nebraska and killed large herds of rhinoceros, camel, and other animals at Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park. Within the past 17 million years, 142 or more caldera-forming eruptions have occurred from the Yellowstone hotspot. 

But of course the devastation would not just be limited to the northwest part of the country.  The following are some more facts about Yellowstone that I compiled for a previous article…

1.  A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone could be up to 1,000 time more powerful than the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980.  
2. A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone would spew volcanic ash 25 miles up into the air
3. The next eruption of Yellowstone seems to be getting closer with each passing year.  Since 2004, some areas of Yellowstone National Park have risen by as much as 10 inches.
4. There are approximately 3,000 earthquakes in the Yellowstone area every single year.
5. In the event of a full-scale eruption of Yellowstone, virtually the entire northwest United States will be completely destroyed. 
6. A massive eruption of Yellowstone would mean that just about everything within a 100 mile radius of Yellowstone would be immediately killed. 
7. A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone could also potentially dump a layer of volcanic ash that is at least 10 feet deep up to 1,000 miles away.  
8. A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone would cover virtually the entire midwest United States with volcanic ash.  Food production in America would be almost totally wiped out.
9. The “volcanic winter” that a massive Yellowstone eruption would cause would radically cool the planet.  Some scientists believe that global temperatures would decline by up to 20 degrees. 
10. America would never be the same again after a massive Yellowstone eruption.  Some scientists believe that a full eruption by Yellowstone would render two-thirds of the United States completely uninhabitable.  
11. Scientists tell us that it is not a matter of “if” Yellowstone will erupt but rather “when” the next inevitable eruption will take place. In essence, a Yellowstone eruption would be on the same level as a Carrington event.  

Either one would fundamentally change life in the United States in a single day. Personally, I certainly hope that we do not see an eruption at Yellowstone any time soon.  And actually, I am much more concerned about the possibility of an eruption at other volcanoes in the northwest such as Mt. Hood and Mt. Rainier.   But if the ground keeps rising rapidly at Yellowstone and earthquakes like the one that struck on Sunday keep on happening, then it would be very foolish for us to ignore the warning signs. And of course you shouldn’t expect the government to warn you about the potential threat of a Yellowstone eruption until the very last moment.   Generally speaking, the government is much more concerned about “keeping people calm” than it is about telling us the truth. We seem to have moved into a time of increased seismic activity all over North and South America.

North West America tectonic plate movement 

In such an environment, it would not be wise to say that an eruption at Yellowstone “can’t happen”. The truth is that an eruption at Yellowstone could happen at any moment. Government preparation had already going on such as:

• Seed vaults,
• Police state
• FEMA camps,
• Technologies transfer to China,
• Gold evacuation,
• Internet Control Handover,
• Asia pivot

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller speaking at a UN Business Conference, Sept 14, 1994. One of that major crisis is the Yellowstone volcanic explosion.

  If the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts then millions of U.S. citizens could end up in Brazil, Australia, or Argentina.

That’s according to the South African news website Praag, which said that the African National Congress was offered $10 billion a year for 10 years if it would build temporary housing for Americans in case of an eruption.

The potential eruption of the supervolcano, one of the biggest in the world, has been a hot topic ever since videos of animals allegedly fleeing the area before an earthquake were posted online. Although the veracity of the claims haven’t been backed up, dozens of bloggers and others have been trying to figure out what, if anything, is going on.

One of the latest theories is that the U.S. Geological Service and its partners, which keep an eye on the caldera, are hiding data from the public.

The Praag article says that the South African government fears that placing so many Americans in South Africa could dramatically change the country.

“South Africa will not be part of the plan, because there is a risk that millions of white Americans could be sent to South Africa in an emergency situation and that this would pose a risk to black national culture identity,” Dr. Siph Matwetwe, spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs, is quoted as saying.

“We have our own challenges, even if there is enough housing and infrastructure available, it will destabilize the country and may even bring back apartheid.”

The gigantic volcano in Yellowstone has erupted three times over the last two million years, covering a huge area of surrounding land. Maps from educational institutions and government officials project that up to 17 states could be fully or partially impacted if the volcano erupted again. The far south of Canada could also get hit, as well as the far north of Mexico.

Scientists aren’t sure when it will erupt next, although many have sought to assure the public that it probably won’t for a while. In reality, the volcano could erupt at any time, though officials would in theory be able to detect an impending eruption and alert Americans to the threat.

And SEAWAPA should be an additional project to NAWAPA in order to continue Human progresses during this natural disaster event to continue food supply, technology development and Human progress.

Recruiting tool for US-UK aggressions and genocide

Beneath fraud, media spin, UN stamps of approval, awaits an unfolding nightmare for the people of Africa and the world.

CNN, Al Jazeera Caught Red-Handed Staging War Propaganda

KONY 2012: State Propaganda for a New Generation

March 14, 2012

The overnight viral sensation KONY 2012 brought worldwide awareness to the African war criminal Joseph Kony. Beneath this commendable cause, lies however an elaborate agenda that is presented in the video in a very manipulative way. We’ll look at the agenda behind KONY 2012 and how it uses reverse psychology to not only justify a military operation in Africa, but to actually have people demand it.

KONY 2012 is a viral sensation that swept the entire world in less than 24 hours. Its main subject is the African rebel leader Joseph Kony, his war crimes and the clearly defined “movement” to stop him. Countless celebrities have endorsed the movement, news sources have reported it and social media is buzzing with it. While the problem of guerrilla warfare and child soldiers has plagued Africa for decades, and several documentaries have already been produced regarding the issue, this particular 29-minute video made managed to obtain mass exposure and support.

KONY 2012 is less of a documentary than it is a highly efficient infomercial that is tailor-made for the Facebook generation, using state-of-the-art marketing techniques to make its point. Young people like “underground movements” and want to feel like they are changing the world. KONY 2012 taps into these needs to bring about something that is not “hip” or “underground” at all: A military operation in Uganda. Not only that, it urges the participants of the movement to order stuff, to wear bracelets that are associated with an online profile and to record their actions in social media. This makes KONY 2012 the first artificially created movement that is fully track-able, monitor-able and quantifiable by those who engendered it. In other words, what appears to be a movement “from the people” is actually a new way for the elite to advance its agenda.

Make THIS go Viral: Kony 2012 Propaganda 2.0 Explained

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

KONY 2012 Psy-Op Collapsing

Invisible Children disables comments on viral propaganda video + meet the real Joseph Kony. 

March 14, 2012 - As the US State Department, USAID centric Invisible Children psy-op KONY 2012 collapses, Invisible Children has disabled comments on their viral YouTube video.

When last checked, negative comments were voted to the top and a cascading effect of skepticism as well as damning facts began drowning out the initial confusion, sympathy, and emotional knee-jerk support the propaganda video purposefully created and preyed upon.

Image: A screenshot of Invisible Children's Kony 2012 video on YouTube. Comments have been disabled. (click image to enlarge)

....

As comments are now being censored - it is suggested that people simply go to the video and click the "dislike" button to voice their opposition to this stunt. Most likely, even that feature will be disabled, and the video KONY 2012 will become the one-way Wall Street infomercial it really is, rather than the faux-participatory "social media" "activism 2.0" experience it masquerades as being.

The Establishment-Funded "Anti-Establishment" Charity

It has been revealed that indeed Invisible Children has been working with USAID, a US government agency that helps lay the groundwork for what could best be described as a modern-day imperial administrative network. It is now also revealed that Invisible Children attended the 2010 US State Department and Fortune 500 sponsored Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit in London.

AYM (also called Movements.org) it was reported, played a central role in preparing armies of US State Department funded, trained, and equipped activists to carry out the so-called "Arab Spring" years in advance. Much like KONY 2012, the Arab Spring took many by surprise and in the wave of confusion, entire nations were upturned and US proxy regimes installed. Tunisia and Libya are now full fledged client states of Wall Street and London, while the fates of nations like Egypt and Syria still hang in the balance.

Unlike the "Arab Spring" however, the KONY 2012 scam has collapsed almost as fast as it first swept the globe. And as it falls, it is taking with it the credibility of all who participated in it and promoted it, including the deceitful International Criminal Court (ICC) and its chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, as well as Hollywood and the corporate-media who did all in their power to lie, manipulate and make fools out of millions once more in the pursuit of perpetuating the imperial ambitions of Wall Street and London.

KONY 2012 is Casus Belli for Emptying Out Africa

It was reported in "Libyan Rebels Inspired by Globalization" that US-proxy rebel leader, Gibril (Jabril) Elwarfally before the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, would claim Libya's role in the future was to transition to a service economy, focus on education, and turn Libya into “a lake” to develop the skills of Africans to serve the needs of the European Union. If Africa is a treasure trove of resources, Libya will be the doorway through which the West loots it.

And as the West breaks down the door in North Africa, US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has been concurrently deploying military assets throughout Africa, from Nigeria, across Central and East Africa and southward toward Kenya and even as far as to menace the former British holding of Rhodesia, now known as Zimbabwe.

It has been reported already that in Uganda British firms have participated in land grabs violently displacing up to 30,000 people in single transactions in direct cooperation with Ugandan dictator-for-life Yoweri Museveni. In fact, it is troops under Museveni's command, who helped displace these people, and who stand to receive additional weapons and funds from Invisible Children's KONY 2012 campaign.

Video: Meeting Joseph Kony - A rare interview with Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. Kony would state that he and his men were "freedom fighters," and that, "we are fighting for democracy. We should be free to elect our leader. We want our leader to be elected," as opposed to the current reigning dictator of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni who has been in power for nearly 3 decades.

....

While researching this article, a rare interview with Joseph Kony himself was found. Kony states that his fight is against Ugandan President Museveni, who by any definition is indeed a tyrannical, mass murdering dictator. Kony states that he is actually a "freedom fighter" fighting for "democracy." With talk like that, it is a surprise that the US State Department isn't funding and arming him. Ironically, recent reports indicate that the US may just have been, and that the West was funding and backing both Kony and Museveni to ensure that the entire region remained in constant turmoil. The purpose of this from a geopolitical point-of-view is quite simple, as encapsulated in the following ancient Chinese stratagem:

When a country is beset by internal conflicts, when disease and famine ravage the population, when corruption and crime are rampant, then it will be unable to deal with an outside threat. This is the time to attack. -The 36 Strategies, #5 Loot a Burning House

With US troops already on the ground in Uganda, as well as creeping across Africa under AFRICOM, the attack is already on. Quite clearly further US troop deployments based on invoking renewed interest in Africa and the hunting of various "boogeymen" amidst an atmosphere of general chaos and lawlessness serves only to give the US free reign over the continent and eliminate any and all African leaders who insist on maintaining ties with China and/or their national sovereignty.

The corporate-financier elite have calculated that public ignorance, even for nations as well-known as Iran, Syria, and Libya, is so profound that the media can peddle any narrative and still have the public believe it. Building a manipulative mechanism, what Vigilant Citizen describes as, "State Propaganda for a New Generation," goes beyond just Uganda and Joseph Kony. It represents a model that can be turned against virtually any country in Africa, or even around the world.

It represents a new stage in manipulating the minds and hearts of the global population by leveraging so-called social media, more accurately described as "Propaganda 2.0." Exposing and burying this new method of manipulation is the key to bringing forth a real revolution.

British Corporation Mass Murdering Ugandans in UN Sanctioned Land Grab

Editor's Note: March 12, 2012 - This article was originally published on September 26, 2011 regarding a murderous land grab made by Ugandan dictator-for-life Yoweri Museveni on behalf of a British corporation masquerading as a "green" humanitarian enterprise.

In the wake of the KONY 2012 fraud, Land Destroyer believed it was essential that the plight of some 20,000 Ugandans displaced, some murdered by Ugandan troops, be reiterated - in hopes of highlighting the absurdity and double standards being applied by the corporate media, Hollywood, and various mouthpieces throughout Western government in regards to Africa and around the world. Real injustice as well as the real perpetrators must be fully exposed.

There is REAL genocide being carried out in Africa, and the face of the perpetrator is not merely Joseph Kony and his child-soldiers, it is Museveni and his child soldiers, as well as corporate-fascists like Robert Devereux of the UK who had tens of thousands displaced while making deals to prop up brutal dictators like Museveni. The difference, aside from the vast scale of Museveni's crimes compared to Kony, is the fact that Museveni gladly serves Western interests, while Kony serves more conveniently as the latest in a long line of "boogeymen" to cover up the ongoing Western plunder of Africa.

“Kony 2012″ a New Recruiting Tool for US-UK Aggressions and Genocide in Africa

Also: Russian Elections and Syria's Destabilization

Image: Ugandan "President-for-Life" Yoweri Museveni and British corporate-fascist Robert Devereux (over his shoulder) are recent collaborators that saw the Ugandan military displace 20,000 people from their land so Devereux's corporation, "New Forests" could plant trees where once they wrought their livelihood from. Strangely, this seems to have been overlooked by "Invisible Children." 

Editor's Note: Seems Kony 2012 not only made Joseph Kony famous, but also the now not-so-hidden agenda of Wall Street and London's AFRICOM. I wonder if the makers of this informative and entertaining video had to spend 9 years duping people into parting with millions of dollars to get this online like Invisible Children did? Let's see if we can make this go viral and prove that in addition to being deceitful, Invisible Children also misappropriated millions of dollars when simply telling the truth would have sold better, and with lower overhead.

The final message is also quite powerful - showing the true potential of modern society, if the truth is known and technology mobilized against, not for the agenda of the megalomaniacal elite.

September 26, 2011 - The New York Times recently reported in an article titled, "In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out," that the British "New Forests Company" has evicted over 20,000 people from their land in Uganda to make way for tree plantations. Homes were burnt, people, including women and children, were brutalized and murdered during the long eviction process. However, the New York Times states that in this case "the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming."

The "group" the New York Times is referring to is Oxfam, which published a report titled, "The New Forests Company and its Uganda plantations," detailing the activities of New Forests in Uganda and the evictions the New York Times gingerly describes in its article.

Who is The New Forests Company?

Meet "New Forests," a UK-based firm that claims to be a "sustainable and socially responsible forestry company with established, rapidly growing plantations and the prospect  of a diversified product base for local and regional export markets which will deliver both attractive returns to investors and significant social and environmental benefits." Their corporate website is not short of the color green, nor of African people smiling and prospering, so apparently, we are left to believe, New Forests has made good on their mission statement.

Image: Taken from New Forests' website, they proudly display the swath of destruction their company is responsible for, of course, instead of depicting the displacements, murders, and thuggery they are committing against the people of Africa, they place images of thriving trees.

....

Meet Robert Deveruex, chairman of New Forests, one of the founding shareholders of The Virgin Group and former chairman of Soho House Group. He has spent a great deal of time and energy making what his corporation is doing in Africa appear to have a philanthropic spin. In an August 2010 Guardian article titled, "Robert Devereux donates £4m of art collection to set up African charity," Devereux claims of his New Forests company that it "has a huge community development programme. It's not philanthropy. We go to the community and we say, 'We want to co-invest with you. If you provide what labour and materials you can, we'll provide money for things that you can't get.'" Devereux, however, never mentioned what happens if the community says, "no thanks."

Photo: Robert Devereux, a long time investor, a long time con-artist spinning his company's despoiling of Africa as some sort of cutting-edge investment strategy that makes money and "helps" people. Even as Devereux made his disingenuous statements in 2010 regarding New Forests, the villagers in Uganda he was "helping" had already filed a court case a year earlier protesting the British company's encroachment on their land.

...

Meet New Forests executive director and CEO Julian Ozanne, who previously worked for the Financial Times, advised US and European investment banks on business and political risk in Africa and worked for the global corporate-fascists nexus, the World Economic Forum. Also serving as a New Forest director is Jonathan Aisbitt, chairman of the investment firm, The Man Group, and previously a partner and managing director at the now notorious Goldman Sachs.

There is also Avril Stassen, who is not only a director at New Forests but is also currently a principal at Agri-Vie Investment Advisers, which claims to be "focused on food and agribusiness in Sub-Sahara Africa with a mission to generate an above average investment return, as well as demonstrable socio-economic development impacts through its equity investments in food and agribusinesses." In other words, buying up land in African nations people depend on to live, to instead broaden foreign investors' portfolios and profits, all under the cover of feel good rhetoric and pictures of smiling Africans pasted all over their website and annual reports. A good website that seems to be keeping watch on Agri-Vie is Farmlandgrab.org, which in one short URL explains exactly the game Agri-Vie is playing.

And finally, meet Sajjad Sabur, also a director at New Forests, as well as a managing director at HSBC, heading the mega-bank's "Principal Investments Africa" branch which targets African businesses with management buyouts, growth capital and recapitalization "opportunities." Sabur's HSBC (Queen Elisabeth II bank) invesment arm has actually invested in New Forests.

Quite clearly, this looks more like the profile of a Wall Street-London corporate-fascist hit team than anything at all involving humanitarian, environmental, or social concerns. And judging by Oxfam's report and the subsequent attempt by the New York Times to mitigate the gravity of what the largest banks in the world are doing to Africa, it seems like a corporate-fascist hit is just what is unfolding in Uganda at New Forests' hands.

Globalization is Modern Day Imperialism by Anglo-American Bankers

Backtracking to New Forests' mission statement, apparently "social responsibility" equates to murdering or displacing tens of thousands of Ugandans in their own nation, and "attractive returns" equates to the extraction and exportation of Ugandan resources for a corporation's shareholders 4,000 miles away. What we are told is of significant "benefit" to society and the environment looks more like a textbook case of imperialism, perpetrated by British, surely new to being socially and environmentally responsible, but certainly not to imperialism nor gimmicks used to mask it behind noble causes.

The New York Times reveals that the World Bank is also an investor in New Forests along with HSBC, and that the true nature of the scam goes beyond merely displacing tens of thousands to grow trees, but that the trees are being used for the purpose of selling contrived carbon credits, not even to provide tangible resources for economic activity. The New York Times also implicates the United Nations, which granted New Forests permission to "trade" with the Ugandan government regarding its 50-year lease to grow trees in the landlocked nation.

The government of Uganda, led by President-for-life Yoweri Museveni for the last 25 years, was the result of a protracted civil war led by Museveni himself. After seizing power, he was immediately lauded by the West, embraced the World Bank and International Monetary Fund's plans for restructuring his newly conquered nation, and has been running it as a dictator ever since. It is no surprise that Museveni is now selling his own people out, no doubt in exchange for his perpetual, unhindered rule, transiting a vast corporate media black hole enjoyed by regimes servile to Wall Street and London worldwide.

The globalist New York Times has a long tradition of apologizing not just for Anglo-American bankers as they defile the planet, but defending their accomplices, Museveni apparently one of them. In a 1997 New York Times article titled, "Uganda Leader Stands Tall in New African Order," Museveni is praised for his extraterritorial meddling throughout neighboring African states. The New York Times claims, "not only has Mr. Museveni resurrected his own impoverished nation from two decades of brutal dictatorship and near economic collapse, but he is also widely seen as the covert patron of rebel movements like the one that has just toppled Mobutu Sese Seko, the longtime dictator of Zaire." The article then brushes off accusations that Museveni is dictator of a single party system of governance by providing Museveni's own defense, that Uganda is pre-industrial and not ready for multiparty democracy.

How resurrected Uganda is from poverty is a matter of debate, and certainly, the concept of poverty has taken on all new dimensions for over 20,000 Ugandans forced from their land by Anglo-American bankers and their willing accomplices in the Ugandan government. How Museveni plans on bringing Uganda past its "pre-industrial" state by handing over land to foreigners to grow trees on for the next 50 years, leaving his own people homeless, jobless, and destitute for an entire generation is also a profound mystery.

What we are watching in Africa is the grotesque reality that is globalization peaking through the thick layer of lies, propaganda, spin, liberal ideologies, and imagery used to dupe the Western world, and increasingly many in the developing world. It is a reality that entails theft on a massive scale, human exploitation, mass-murder, collective punishment, and intimidation. For those that think Uganda is an isolated anomaly and are somehow able to dismiss the backgrounds of New Forests which represents an entire network designed specifically to exploit and strip mine all of Africa, one need look no further than Southeast Asia's Cambodia. There, half way around the world from Uganda, another Western backed dictator-for-life, Hun Sen, has literally sold half his country to foreign investors, displacing hundreds of thousands at gunpoint in a nearly identical Wall Street-London land-grab.

Globalization is a multi-billion dollar packaged update of the British Empire's "spreading of civilization." Designs of dominion and exploitation have historically always been accompanied by excuses seen as palatable for the masses who were expected to support and carry these designs to fruition for the ruling elite. While it is no longer fashionable to kill black and brown people while accusing them of being "savages," it is still quite fashionable to consider them "undemocratic," "backwards," "overpopulating," "terrorists," and above all, "detriments to our environment." At least, New Forests and New York Times seem to think so.

Once again, the choice we the people have, upon learning of this, is to either detach in cowardice and apathy, or identify the corporations, banks, and institutions leading this "globalization," expose them, boycott them, and ultimately replace them. Those of New Forests guilty of displacing, even murdering people simply for profit in a foreign nation, thousands of miles from their shores, don't belong in business anymore.

The darkest villains we face on earth today are not cave dwelling Islamic fundamentalists, Libyan colonels, or Americans selling sliver coins, instead, the most dangerous, degenerate, and detrimental members of the human race reside on Wall Street and in London's financial institutions.

A More Accurate KONY 2012 Campaign Poster...

Featured here is Cecil Rhodes who helped the British Empire literally conquer a massive swath of Africa from the north all the way to the south, the portion over which Rhodes is spanning in the illustration. In memory of his megalomania, the British would name what is now modern day Zimbabwe after him, calling it "Rhodesia."

Today, US Africa Command, known as AFRICOM, is spreading across Africa in the footsteps of Cecil Rhodes. As reported by allAfrica.com, Vice Admiral Moeller at an AFRICOM meeting held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008 would declare that protecting "the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market" was one of AFRICOM's guiding principles. Of course by "global market," the admiral means the Fortune 500 corporations of Wall Street and London.

In our politically sensitive modern age, pillaging Africa in the footsteps of shameless and quite racist imperialists is very difficult to do. Therefore, Joseph Kony, Al Qaeda, Qaddafi, starving children, pirates, and every other geopolitical ploy and contrivance imaginable, and some left yet unimagined have been used to justify AFRICOM's expanding presence on a continent they have no business setting foot on.

Ironically, ploys like KONY 2012 have liberal youth clamoring for what is perhaps the next dark chapter in large scale racist imperial enslavement, plundering, and exploitation.

For excellent analysis on the KONY 2012 scam, please read Nile Bowie's "Youth Movement Promotes US Military Presence in Central Africa," and BlackStarNews.com's "KONY 2012, Invisible Children's Pro-AFRICOM and Museveni Propaganda."

KONY 2012, Invisible Children's Pro-AFRICOM & Museveni Propaganda

March 8, 2012

Invisible Children's goals initially may have been to publicize the plight of children caught in Uganda's decades-long conflicts; lately, IC has been acting as apologists for General Yoweri K. Museveni's dictatorship and the U.S. goal to impose AFRICOM (the U.S. Africa Military Command) on Africa.

IC has produced a brilliant film that's making the global rounds on Facebook

It's a classic as propaganda pieces come. The short but overwhelmingly powerful film uses all the best tear-jerk techniques. In the end, the film denounces Joseph Kony, the leader of the brutal Lord's Resistance Army, while giving the impression that Museveni's dictatorship and his brutal military, which was found liable for war crimes in Democratic Republic of Congo by the International Court of Justice, has nothing to do with the atrocities committed against children in Uganda. It also doesn't inform viewers that Museveni abducted thousands of child soldiers to win his insurgency in Uganda in 1986, launching the pattern of child soldier recruitment all over Africa.

In fact, Kony's insurgency against Museveni was launched later, meaning he too learned child soldier-abductions from Museveni.

Look at the way Invisible Children exploits American children in the beginning of their documentary; they then transplant the audience to Uganda, where again they take advantage of Ugandan children, who are the victims of both the LRA and the Ugandan government's army.

The imagery are powerful. Dr. Joseph Goebbels' and Leni Riefenstahl would have been proud of this cinematic coup by Invisible Children.

If Invisible Children was in fact a serious organization that has not been co-opted by the Museveni regime and the U.S. foreign policy agenda, the organization would inform the world that General Museveni, who has now stolen three elections in a row in Uganda is the first person who deserves to be arrested.

This Ugandan and East African nightmare gets a blank check from Washington simply because he has deployed Ugandan soldiers to Somalia at the behest of the United States. So democracy, human rights abuses, and genocide, become minor nuisances as far as U.S. foreign policy goes and as far as Invisible Children cares. This is beyond hypocrisy. Those members of Invisible Children who may have supported this misguided project to send more U.S. troops to Africa because they were unwittingly deceived, should do some serious soul searching.

Museveni does not care for the plight of children in Uganda's Acholi region. How else would he have herded 2 million Acholis in concentration camps for 20 years where, according to the United Nations' World Health Organization (WHO), more than 1,000 children, women and men died of planned neglect--lack of medical facilities; lack of adequate food; dehydration, and; lack of sanitation and toilet facilities. Does this sound like a person who cares about children?

His colleagues have denounced Acholis as "backwards" and as "biological substances." General Museveni himself revealed an interesting pathology, as a first class racist African when he told Atlantic Monthly Magazine, in September 1994: “I have never blamed the whites for colonizing Africa: I have never blamed these whites for taking slaves. If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave.” Ironically --or perhaps not-- the general was even more embraced by Washington after those remarks. Gen. Museveni has been a U.S. ally since the days of Ronald Reagan.

So why does Invisible Children only go after Kony while leaving Museveni alone when in fact they are two sides of the same coin?

These young folks who run Invisible Children are extremely dangerous to the welfare of Ugandans and other Africans should they succeed in broadening U.S. military presence in Africa. If the United States were truly interested purely in eliminating Kony why deploy now when Kony abandoned Uganda in 2006 when he was negotiating a peace deal that ultimately collapsed, with Museveni.

While Kony and his fighters were camped at Garamba in Congo, as agreed upon during peace negotiations, who was it that launched a military attack with planes and helicopters in December 2008? It was Gen. Museveni, with U.S. assistance. The peace negotiations, which had been embraced by traditional and religious leaders in Acholi region, collapsed. According to Jan Egeland, the former U.N Under-Secretary General for humanitarian affairs, Museveni also wanted to pursue a military approach and even ridiculed his own attempts to negotiate peace.

Immediately more killings ensued --this time in Congo; and since Museveni and Kony are two sides of the same coin, it's unclear who committed the atrocities in Garamba after the abortive attack.

After the attacks the LRA scattered into the Central African Republic. One would imagine that if the U.S. and Invisible Children were really interested in Kony, the deployment would have been to Central African Republic.

The young folks behind Invisible Children don't understand the conflict in Uganda; yet they have made themselves the spokespersons. They have campaigned and convinced some celebrities, including Rihana and P. Diddy, to tweet their half-truth propaganda film. This is a way to have one-sided or impartial information become the "dominant truth" globally, and drown out critical analyses.

It's like a group of impressionable White youngsters coming to Harlem and saying: we see you have major crises, let us tell you what's the solution. Who would accept such misguided and destructive arrogance? If it's unacceptable in Harlem, it must also be rejected in Uganda's Acholi region.

Acholi traditional leaders, religious leaders, and members of Parliament in Uganda, have all opposed further militarization. But they are not in a position to express their views on CNN or in The New York Times, or to make a slick documentary, such as Invisible Children's. What's more, they're not accorded the presumptive credibility that are often bestowed to White analysts when compared to native Ugandans.

Yet, rather than listen to the cries of Uganda's traditional and religious leaders who live in the war-devastated regions, Invisible Children has decided to produce a beautiful documentary with an ugly agenda that only escalates conflict and endorses Gen. Museveni. Who really believes it's a good thing for the United States to be sending troops to Uganda or anywhere in Africa? Why would these troops act any differently than those sent to Iraq and Afghanistan?

The U.S. government and Invisible Children are using the brutal Joseph Kony as a bogeyman to justify the U.S. long-term plan, which is to impose AFRICOM on Africa. Since everyone knows about Kony's atrocities, who would object if the U.S. sends 100 U.S. "advisers" to help Uganda, after all? Brilliantly devious. Of course it never stops at 100 "advisers." That was the announced deployment; there are probably more U.S. troops in the region. Even before the deployment some had already been training Museveni's soldiers. And more will come; unannounced.

AFRICOM, the ultimate objective, would allow the U.S. to be able to counter resource-hungry China by having boots on the ground near the oil-rich northern part of Uganda, South Sudan, Congo's region bordering Lake Albert, and the Central African Republic. The troops would also be near by in case a decision is made to support regime-change in Khartoum, Sudan. After all, the U.S. foreign policy reasoning is that since Sudan's president Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his defense minister have both been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), few would shed tears for them.

The U.S. is aware that African countries oppose AFRICOM. So what does the U.S. do? Go after a "devil" and in this case it's Kony. Tell the world --with the help of Invisible Children--that our mission is to help rid Uganda of this "devil"; who by the way is hiding somewhere in Central African Republic, while the dictator who most recently stole elections last February, sits in Kampala and meets with U.S. officials and leaders of Invisible Children.

If the real target was simply Joseph Kony, the U.S. would have used an armed predator drone; this is how the U.S. has eliminated several suspected leaders of Al-qaeda and the Taleban, after all.

It doesn't seem that Invisible Children is an independent do-good save-the-children outfit. They are paving the way --with Kony, brutal as he is, as the bogeyman-- for AFRICOM.

Kony is a nightmare, but Museveni has caused the deaths of millions of people in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo. In 2005 the International Court of Justice found Uganda liable for what amounts to war crimes in Congo: mass rapes of both women and men; disemboweling pregnant women; burning people inside their homes alive; massacres and; plunder of resources. Congo lost six million people after Uganda's occupation of parts of Congo. The Court awarded Congo $10 billion in reparations; not a dime has been paid.

Congo then referred the same crimes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague for war crimes charges. On June 8, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gen. Museveni personally contacted Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary General and asked him to block the criminal investigation.

It seems that the U.S. and ICC Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo might have indeed obliged. Gen. Museveni and senior Ugandan military commanders remain un-indicted for the alleged crimes that the ICJ already found Uganda liable; only one side of the same coin, Kony was indicted. Prosecutor Ocampo is also totally discredited; readers should Google "Ocampo and South African journalist case."

There is another documentary that tries to explain the Ugandan tragedy, in a more sober manner, unlike Invisible Children's slick propaganda piece.

Hopefully this commentary will motivate people to do their research and demand that the international community deal with both Kony and Museveni.

Hopefully more people will also do their own research and not be vulnerable to slick propaganda such as Invisible Children's.

For example, readers can Google terms such as "Yoweri Museveni and Congo genocide," "Museveni and Kony," "Museveni and and Rwanda genocide," "Museveni and Acholi genocide," and "U.S. support for dictator Museveni."