Paris and Los Angeles Will Be 2024 and 2028 Olympic Hosts

While hosting the Olympic games are a massive responsibility, the role is one that comes with tremendous honor as well. Which is why residents and city officials in Paris and Los Angeles are both elated by the recent news that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) voted unanimously to approve a plan awarding the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympic Games to the competing cities.

Although the two cities have been determined, there still remains a few outstanding questions. One major uncertainty is which city will host each year. In order to find a verdict, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, and the IOC have until September 13 to work out a deal. “We welcome the executive board’s decision to recognize two excellent bids from two of the world’s greatest cities,” said LA Mayor Garcetti prior to the vote, in a statement. “We look forward to working together maybe not in competition but collaboration with Paris. LA is ready to throw these Olympics in two months, if we were asked, or two decades if it came to that. LA is ready because the infrastructure, the love and the vision to make sure it’s something that serves this movement and serves the people of our city."

Of course, inviting the world to your city for the Olympics brings a host of opportunities—both in terms of profits as well as rebuilding infrastructure (not only for aesthetics, but to ensure visitors are safe and can quickly move from one location to the next). According to the Council on Foreign Relations, at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, for example, there $2.6 billion in broadcasting revenue from the television right fees. Much like previous hosts, Paris and Los Angelese would have to build new, or update pre-existing infrastructure. Which is preciously what Tokyo is in the midst of doing as they prepare to host the 2020 Olympics. Other cities that were vying for the upcoming games included: Rome, Budapest, and Hamburg.

  • Published in Sports

Cuban Circus CirkaCuba Conquers Paris

Paris, Dec 20 (Prensa Latina) The impressive technique of the circus mixed with the flavor of Cuban music and dances in the CirkaCuba show, has been a real success in Paris.

Alain Pacherie,the director of the show and founding president of the Phenix circus, where CirkaCuba will be performing until January 15th, 2017, before embarking on a tour of France, Switzerland and Belgium told Prensa Latina, 'This is a 100 percent Cuban sample, with 47 artists coming directly from the country. The idea is to show the quality of Cuba's circus, enriched by Cuban culture.'

For almost two hours, the audience is presented with impressive demonstrations by acrobats, who defy physical laws to make turns and pirouettes several meters above the ground.

According to Pacherie, CirkaCuba is a real success and more than 400,000 seats have already been sold.

The Le Parisien newspaper recently awarded the Estrella prize for the best circus of 2016 to CirkaCuba and highlighted an 'inventive', 'brilliant' show with 'incredible artists performing while dancing Cuban rhythms'.

  • Published in Culture

Mexican Graffiti Artist Pays Tribute to Prehispanic Art

Gracmor is also part of a street artists' collective based in Amsterdam and has painted in Paris and Miami.
 
Designer and street artist Pepe Gracmor is giving prehispanic art a brand new perspective in some of his current graffiti artwork painted in public spaces in the town of Puebla, Mexico.
 
"CD Design Offering Day of the Dead. Coming soon..." | Photo: @gracmor on imgur

Jose Luis Gracia Morales, now 32, started painting when he was 15 years old, and studied graphic design a few years later in a bid to make a professional career out of his art.

In the past six years, he has come up with a new concept of muralism in the streets of Puebla, as Gracmor tried to explain, in an interview with Notimex, the differences between the various ways public space could be re-appropriated through tagging, graffiti, and murals.

Gracmor, who is part of a street artists' collective based in Amsterdam and has painted in Paris and Miami, said that thanks to his experience in graphic design, his art could evolve in what he calls “abstract graffiti,” using lively colors and geometric figures.

  • Published in Culture

The motive for the attacks in Paris and Brussels

We don’t yet know who ordered the attacks in Paris and Brussels. Several potential leads have been mentioned, but only the hypothesis of an operation decided by Turkey has any serious backing.

In 2011, Alain Juppe for France and Ahmet Davutoğlu for Turkey secretly agreed to implement the creation of a pseudo-Kurdistan and a Sunnistan straddling the borders between Iraq and Syria (this was to be Daesh’s job) in order to create a destination for the exile of the Turkish Kurds. Their project was supported by Israël and the United Kingdom.

It is too early to name with any certainty the sponsor of the attacks which struck Paris on the 13th November 2015, and Brussels on the 22nd March 2016. However, for the moment, only the elements which we are about to reveal offer a reasonable explanation.

Just after the death of the founder of Turkish Islamism, Necmettin Erbakan, and at the beginning of the «Arab Spring», the Erdoğan government concluded a secret agreement with France. According to a diplomat who has studied the document, it stipulated the conditions for the participation of Turkey in the wars against Libya (which had just started) and against Syria (which was to follow). France, represented by its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, agreed in particular to deal with the «Kurdish question» without «compromising the integrity of Turkish territory» - a convoluted formula which signified that a pseudo-Kurdistan would be created elsewhere, to which the members of the PKK would be exiled. This project for ethnic cleansing, which is not new, had until that time been evoked only in Israëli military literature describing the new state between Syria and Iraq.

On the 31 st October 2014, François Hollande accompanies Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the steps of the Elysée. Another guest had just left discretely by the back door, Kurdish leader Salih Muslim.

On the 31st October 2014, President François Hollande took the opportunity of an official visit by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Paris to organise a secret meeting, at the Elysée, with the co-President of the Syrian Kurds, Salih Muslim. Betraying the Turkish Kurds and their leader Abdullah Öcalan, Salih Muslim agreed to become the President of this pseudo-Kurdistan which was to be created on the occasion of the overthrow of democratically elected President Bachar el-Assad.

This was during the battle of Kobane. For several months, the Syrian Kurds had been defending the city against Daesh. Their victory over the jihadists was to shake up the political chessboard – anyone who really wanted to fight the jihadists had to ally themselves with the Kurds. However, the Syrian Kurds only obtained their nationality at the beginning of the war – until then, they had been Turkish political refugees in Syria, chased from their country during the repression of the 1980’s. At that time, the member states of NATO considered the PKK, the main Kurdish formation in Turkey, as a terrorist organisation. But from then on, they would distinguish between the ’bad’ Turkish PKK and the ’good’ Syrian YPG, despite the fact that these two organisations are closely related.

After the battle of Kobane, François Hollande changed sides and expressed his support for the Kurds, when he received a delegation of the YPG at the Elysée, on the 8th February 2015 .

A dramatic turn of events - on the 8th February 2015, France changed its previous position. Officially this time, François Hollande received at the Elysée the co-President of the Syrian Kurds (loyal to Öcalan), Asya Abdullah, and Commander Nesrin Abdullah in camouflage uniform. Salih Muslim was absent from this meeting.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reacted by ordering an attack by Daesh, in Suruç, against a pro-Kurd demonstration, on the 20th July2015. Using Western anti-terrorist rhetoric, he declared war this time against Daesh and the Kurds, but used military means only against the Kurds. By doing so, he put an end to the cease-fire and re-started the civil war in his own country. Unable to create a pseudo-Kurdistan in Syria, he provoked the exodus of Kurds to Europe.

On the 3rd September 2015, the publication of a photograph of a drowned Kurdish child marked the start of a huge wave of migration from Turkey to the European Union, mainly to Germany. During the first weeks, the German leaders were delighted with this massive influx of new workers, badly needed by their heavy industry, while the media expressed their compassion for the refugees who were fleeing the Syrian dictatorship. Furthermore, on the 29th September, the French and German leaders hijacked the empathy for the migrants in order to study the possibility of financing the continuation of the war by giving 3 billion Euros to Turkey – a gift which was presented to public opinion as humanitarian aid for the refugees.

At the end of September 2015, Russia began its military operation against jihadists of all stripes, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was compelled to watch the progressive failure of his project. He therefore ordered Salih Muslim to launch an operation for the forced Kurdisation of Northern Syria. The Kurdish brigades expelled the Arab and Assyrian teachers from their schools and replaced them with Kurdish teachers. The Syrians revolted and reached out to the Russians, who found a way to calm the situation, not without evoking a possible ulterior federalisation of Syria. There was no reaction from France.

On the 13th November, Turkey, exasperated by François Hollande’s about-turns, took France hostage and ordered the attacks in Paris, causing 130 dead and 413 wounded.

I wrote at that time - «Successive French governments have formed alliances with states whose values are opposed to those of the Republic. They have progressively opted for waging secret wars for these states, before changing their minds. President Hollande, and in particular his Head of Staff, General Benoit Puga, his Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius and his predecessor Alain Juppé, are today the object of blackmail from which they can only escape by revealing the mess into which they have dragged their country.»

Terrorised, Paris hastily resorted to the Juppé plan of 2011. With London, they caused the adoption, on the 20th November, of Resolution 2249 by the Security Council. Under cover of the fight against Daesh, the Resolution was intended to justify the conquest of Northern Syria in order to create, at last, the pseudo-Kurdistan to which Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could expel «his» Kurds. But the United States and Russia had the text altered in such a way that France and the United Kingdom would not be able to intervene without being invited by Syria - a situation which raises echoes of the failed colonial operation of 1956, in which Franco-British troops attempted to occupy the Suez Canal with the support of Israël and Turkey, but had to withdraw under the glares of the United States and the USSR.

During the five and a half months of the Russian intervention in Syria, Turko-Russian relations continually worsened. The attack against the Metrojet Flight 9268 in the Sinaï, Vladimir Putin’s accusations at the G20 summit in Antalya, the destruction of the Sukhoï-24 and Russian sanctions against Turkey, the publication of the aerial photographs of the interminable line of tanker-trucks carrying oil stolen by Daeash through Turkey, etc. After having considered declaring war on Turkey, Russia finally decided on the subtler plan of supporting the PKK against the Erdoğan administration. Sergeï Lavrov managed to convince his US partner to profit from the coming destabilisation of Turkey by organising the overthrow of the dictator Erdoğan. The Turkish régime, which feels threatened by both Russia and the USA, is attempting to find allies. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu went to Tehran on the 5th March, while the Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, visited Ankara on the 18th March. But the Islamic Republic has no intention of causing trouble with the two great powers.

On the 14th March, Vladimir Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian bombers, at which point the pseudo-Kurdistan project once again became possible. But Moscow and Washington were one step ahead – they began to deliver, indirectly, weapons to the PKK.

Unfortunately, this time it was the European Union which no longer wanted to hear about the colonisation of Northern Syria. The majority of EU member states have followed the foreign policy imposed by Paris for the last five years, with a remarkable absence of success. In order to signal their annoyance, several states, including Belgium, offered political asylum to leaders of the Turkish Kurds. They expressed their anger during the EU-Turkey summit of the 17th and 18th March, during which they were obliged to adopt definitively the subsidy of 3 billion Euros per year to Ankara.

On that occasion, I denounced the behaviour of the European elite, who, blinded by their anti-Syrian obsession, were reproducing the same error that was committed in 1938. At that time, obsessed by their anti-communism, they supported Chancellor Hitler during the annexation of Austria and the Sudeten crisis (Munich agreements), without realising that they were arming the enemy which was about to strike them.

During the EU-Turkey summit, and therefore independently of any decisions which were taken there, President Erdoğan gave a televised speech on the occasion of the 101st anniversary of the battle of Çanakkale («the battle of the Dardanelles» – the victory of the Ottoman Empire over the allies) and in remembrance of the victims of the attack perpetrated in Ankara a few days earlier. He declared -

«There is no reason that the bomb which exploded in Ankara might not explode in Brussels or another European city (…) Here I am appealing to all states who open their arms and who, directly or indirectly, support terrorist organisations. You are feeding a serpent in your bed. and this serpent that you are feeding may bite you at any moment. Perhaps looking at these bombs which explode in Turkey on your television screens means nothing to you – but when the bombs begin exploding in your cities, you will certainly understand what we are feeling. But then it will be too late. Stop supporting these activities which you would never tolerate in your own countries, except when they are aimed at Turkey. ».

Four days later, the attacks occurred in Brussels, causing 34 dead and 260 wounded. and so that we would not think it was a coincidence, but a deliberate act, on the following day the Turkish Press rejoiced at the punishment inflicted upon Belgium.

Since President Erdoğan re-started the civil war, it has cost 3,500 lives in Turkey.

Who ordered the attack against Charlie Hebdo?

While many French react to the attack against Charlie Hebdo denouncing Islam and demonstrating in the streets, Thierry Meyssan points out that the jihadist interpretation is impossible. While it would be tempting for him to see it as an Al Qaeda or Daesh operation, he envisages another, much more dangerous hypothesis.

On January 7, 2015, commandos erupted in Paris, in the premises of Charlie Hebdo and murdered 12 people. 4 more victims are still in serious condition.

The mission of this commando had no connection with jihadist ideology

Indeed, members or sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda or Daesh would not be content to just kill atheist cartoonists; they would have first destroyed the archives of the newspaper on site, following the model of all their actions in North Africa and the Levant. For jihadists, the first duty is to destroy the objects that they believe offend God, and to punish the "enemies of God."

Similarly, they would not have immediately retreated, fleeing the police, without completing their mission. They would rather have completed their mission, were they to die on the spot.

In addition, videos and some evidence shows that the attackers are professionals. They wielded their weapons expertly and fired advisedly. They were not dressed in the fashion of the jihadists, but as military commandos.

How they dispatched a wounded policeman who posed no danger to them, certifies that their mission was not to "avenge Muhammad" because of the crass humor of Charlie Hebdo.

This aims to create the beginning of a civil war

The fact that the assailants speak French well and are probably French does not necessarily indicate that this attack is a Franco-French episode. Rather, the fact that they are professional forces one to distinguish them from possible sponsors. And there is no evidence that these are French.

It is a normal reflex, but intellectually wrong to consider, when one is a victim of an attack, that one knows his attackers. This is most logical when it comes to normal crimes, but it’s wrong when it comes to international politics.

Sponsors for the attack knew it would cause a divide between French Muslims and French non-Muslims. Charlie Hebdo had specialized in anti-Muslim provocation and most Muslims in France have been directly or indirectly their victims. Though the Muslims of France will surely condemn this attack, it will be difficult for them to experience as much pain for the victims as felt by the readers of the newspaper. This will be seen by some as complicity with the murderers.

Therefore, rather than seeing this as an extremely deadly Islamist attack of revenge against the newspaper that published the Mohammed cartoons and multiplied front page anti-Muslim headlines, it would be more logical to consider that it is the first episode of a process to trigger a civil war.

The strategy of "the clash of civilizations" was designed in Tel Aviv and Washington

The ideology and strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Daesh does not advocate the creation of civil war in the ’West’, but on the contrary to create it in the "East" and hermetically separate the two worlds. Never has Sayyid Qutb, nor any of his successors, called to provoke confrontation between Muslims and non-Muslims in the territories of the latter.

On the contrary, the strategy of the "clash of civilizations" was formulated by Bernard Lewis for the US National Security Council then popularized by Samuel Huntington not as a strategy of conquest, but as a predictable situation. [1] It aimed to persuade NATO member group populations of the inevitability of confrontation that preventively assumed the form of the "war on terrorism".

It is not in Cairo, Riyadh or Kabul that one advocates the "clash of civilizations", but in Washington and Tel Aviv.

The sponsors of the attack against Charlie Hebdo did not seek to satisfy jihadists or the Taliban, but neo-conservatives or liberal hawks.

Let’s not forget the historical precedents

We must remember that in recent years we have seen the US or NATO special services:

  • Testing the devastating effects of certain drugs on the civilian population in France;
  • Supporting the OAS to try to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle;
  • Carrying out false flag attacks against civilians in several NATO member states.

We must remember that since the break-up of Yugoslavia, the US joint chiefs of staff practiced and honed its “dog fight” strategy in many countries This consists of killing members of the majority community, and also members of minorities, then placing the blame on each of them back-to-back until everyone is sure they are in mortal danger. This is the way Washington caused the civil war in Yugoslavia as well as recently in Ukraine.

The French would do well to remember also that it is not they who took the initiative in the fight against the jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq. To date, moreover, none of them has committed any attack in France, where the case of Mehdi Nemmouche is not that of a lone terrorist, but of an agent tasked with executing two Mossad agents in Brussels. It was Washington who, on February 6, 2014, convened the interior ministers of Germany, the US, France (Mr. Valls was represented), Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom in order to make the return of European jihadists a matter of national security. It was only after this meeting that the French press addressed this issue, and that the authorities began to react.

We do not know who sponsored this professional operation against Charlie Hebdo, but we should not allow ourselves to be swept up. We should consider all assumptions and admit that at this stage, its most likely purpose is to divide us; and its sponsors are most likely in Washington.

  • Published in Specials
Subscribe to this RSS feed