Boardman writes: "No, it's not really fair to blame President Obama
personally for the waves of aerial bombing that took more than an hour on
October 4 to destroy a neutral hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders
in Kunduz, Afghanistan. But it's totally fair to blame President Obama for
giving the world another six years of President Bush's policy of bringing
chaos and devastation to whatever part of the Middle East happens to be
annoying the folks who have decided these things since 2001."
President Barack Obama. (photo: AP)
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Bombs Afghan Hospital
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
08 October 15
Tabloid headline (above) is a crystallization of present reality
No, it's not really fair to blame President Obama personally for the waves
of aerial bombing that took more than an hour on October 4 to destroy a
neutral hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz, Afghanistan,
even though it appears on its face to be yet another US war crime.
But it's totally fair to blame President Obama for giving the world another
six years (so far) of President Bush's policy of bringing chaos and
devastation to whatever part of the Middle East happens to be annoying the
folks who have decided these things since 2001. Not that it was all bread
and roses before that, given the century-plus of unrelenting Western
subjugation of the region by direct force and by establishing vicious proxy
dictatorships (exhibit #1 is Iran).
So when Donald Trump and people like him say that the Middle East was more
stable under Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi, therefore the US should be
supporting Russia's effort to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in the bits of
Syria his government still controls, it makes a kind of superficial sense -
unless you actually believe the region is a better place now than it was 15
years ago. And if that's your belief, maybe someone should explain their
good fortune to those millions of refugees.
Trump's argument would have been relevant in 2001, when he had nothing
useful to say in opposition to the national predation our government proudly
unleashed on the world as a war on "terrorism" and then claimed as a
"mission accomplished," even though there's still no let-up as innocent
people continue to be killed by American weapons in the hands of Americans
and others. In 2011, Trump was equally ineffective in opposition to US
engagement in Libya. To be fair to Trump, principled opposition to America's
permanent war on largely imaginary enemies (until we attack them, creating
new ones) is hard to come by, and no principled opponent of the US warfare
state is presently running for president or most other offices.
At any meaningful level, Trump's notion of "stability" is absurd except for
people who can imagine it being cool to live in an unimaginably brutal
police state. That's what they had in Iraq and Libya, and the US
accomplishment was making it worse for Iraqis and Libyans. Will Syrians now
reap the same benefits?
Slaughtered wedding parties, maimed children - Hey, stuff happens
Just as Jeb Bush is the "stuff happens" candidate now, his brother George
(like his father George) were "stuff happens" presidents. Officially, as
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, "Stuff happens" - describing US forces who
protected only themselves as looting and revenge killings went unchecked in
"liberated" Iraq. Rumsfeld himself fleshed put the full cynicism of the
Stuff Happens Doctrine, explaining an American mentality that continues to
shape decisions of state without a trace of its inherent, ugly irony:
"Stuff happens, and it's untidy. Freedom's untidy, and free people are free
to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to
live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen
here."
Seriously, the US occupation makes you free. How Orwellian is that? And
how's that working out across more than 4,000 miles of aggressive US
intervention, military and otherwise, from Tripoli to Kunduz? The
ghastliness of American behavior around the world has been plain to anyone
with the wit to look at it, as Harold Pinter did in 2005 in his Nobel
acceptance speech, which has a humanity long missing from American
leadership. Reviewing past American crimes, and anticipating future American
crimes, Pinter referred to the pitiless American assault on Nicaragua:
"The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took
some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution
and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They
were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into
the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned
with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.
"But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was
conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it
never happened.
"The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing
military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I
refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the
Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the
United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never
be forgiven."
In the United States, Chile is hardly remembered and rarely discussed,
except perhaps when our leaders confer honors on a fellow war criminal like
Henry Kissinger.
"Hope and Change" fooled people in 2008, what will work in 2016?
Peace is not yet at hand, but the world continues to wait, rather fecklessly
for the most part, while the US peace prize president pursues the same
deluded war polices (sometimes watered down) that produce the same
disastrous results. Meanwhile a numbed homeland populace is encouraged to
fret about its own security, to accept the cost of stuff happening to other
people and to ignore fifteen years of failed leadership's repeated failures.
Still there's some restlessness in the land and Trump speaks to that,
however irrelevantly, blaming the past while offering nothing new for the
future. In that, he's not alone. No one among Republicans and Democrats
takes on the US warfare state of today - that empire has no clothes and
everyone admires its exceptional wardrobe. Even Bernie Sanders, with his
actually revolutionary proposals on other issues, has yet do much more than
imply that he might be less militaristic than the rest, which is pretty much
where the Green Party is. For serious anti-militarism, one has to go to the
Socialist Party, which doesn't seem to be happening.
In late September, the Russians became at least the tenth country to send
its warplanes to bomb people in Syria. Since the Russians' targetsinclude
elements of the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, etc.), one might have
expected, if not a warm welcome, at least a tacit acceptance of one more
player in the crowded Syrian battlefield thatthe US holds so important,
albeit so ill-defined. According to the US, the Islamic State is a grave
threat to US national security, at least when its potential strength is
projected uncheck into an indefinite future based on little rational
analysis. For now, the Islamic States serves mainly as target practice for
most any interested air force, since the Islamic State has little or no air
defense and there's no one to make any distinction between dead civilians
and dead enemy combatants.
So why wouldn't President Obama at least tolerate Russian participation in a
low-cost war of attrition? After all, the Russians have a huge Muslim
population in Russia and neighboring countries, a population that, if
radicalized in significant numbers, really could threaten the Russian
government. The cynical explanation would be that the US considers radical
Islam a proprietary American enemy necessary to maintain maximum fear at
home with minimum danger; any Russian poaching on our national security
threat is against our rules.
Don't do stupid stuff, like have mutually exclusive goals
More likely, Russian support for the Syrian government is resented because
it exposes the pointlessness of US policy. The Russians, as well as the
Iranians, are supporting Syrian president Assad, whose survival in power
this long was not thought possible by the West. So US policy for ending the
multi-faceted war in Syria has long required a non-negotiable precondition:
that Assad must go. But that is not a negotiating position, it is a
non-negotiating position, and the Russian presence makes that all the more
obvious and stupid.
President Obama, having spent years doing stupid stuff all over the Middle
East, responded to Russian air strikes by warning (wink, wink) the Russians
that coming into Syria could lead to their being stuck in a "quagmire."
Could be. But the president did not seem to be invoking the irony of
America's primal "quagmire" in Viet-Nam. And he certainly wasn't
intentionally calling attention to his own inherited quagmires prolonged in
Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. Nor was he calling attention to
the US role in the Yemen quagmire, which may turn out not to be a quagmire
but a genocidal war.
At his October 2 press conference, the president was busy spinning reality
to suit his own situation. For example, he framed Syria this way: "What
started off as peaceful protests against Assad, the president, evolved into
a civil war because Assad met those protests with unimaginable brutality."
How does this differ from Bahrain, where peaceful protests were met with
unimaginable brutality? Well the Bahrain dictatorship survived because its
allies included the US and Saudi Arabia. It's never about good or bad, it's
always about "ours" or "theirs," and we don't care what unimaginable
brutality it takes to care for ours. As President Obama made clear, it's
only their behavior that's up for moral scrutiny:
". the reason Assad is still in power is because Russia and Iran have
supported him throughout this process.. They've been propping up a regime
that is rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Syrian population
because they've seen that he has been willing to drop barrel bombs on
children and on villages indiscriminately, and has been more concerned about
clinging to power than the state of his country.. And I said to Mr. Putin
that I'd be prepared to work with him if he is willing to broker with his
partners, Mr. Assad and Iran, a political transition - we can bring the rest
of the world community to a brokered solution - but that a military solution
alone, an attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the
population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire. And it won't work.
And they will be there for a while if they don't take a different course."
So the calculation for President Putin is whether his warplanes will be
stuck in Syria as long as the US has been stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
will that be worth it? Has it been worth it to the US not to take a
different course for 15 years? And what does any empire use to measure
worth?
US combat role ended in Afghanistan - only it didn't
The end of the US combat role in Afghanistan was never more real than a
three-card monte hustle. The US would base more than 10,000 troops in
Afghanistan indefinitely, but they wouldn't have a "combat role" on paper.
But there was never any question that these troops would be fighting
whenever and wherever someone in authority considered it necessary, as
authorized by the commander-in-chief. US military activity in Afghanistan in
2015 included regular air strikes against presumed "insurgents."
Despite US and other coalition support for Afghan government forces, the
Taliban made significant gains during 2015. By September, in an eerie echo
of Viet-Nam, the Taliban controlled most of the Afghan countryside while the
government still controlled the cities. One of those cities, Kunduz, in the
northeast of the country, came under Taliban control on September 28 and has
had extreme fighting ever since. US bombing of Kunduz began September 29.
Also in Kunduz, in 2011, Doctors Without Borders had established a hospital
that treated anyone who was hurt: civilians as well as combatants from any
side. The hospital was well marked as a hospital. Doctors Without Borders
made sure that authorities on all sides, including Kabul and Washington,
knew the hospital's coordinates. It's the only hospital of its kind in the
region. It was outside the Taliban-controlled area when the US bombed it.
Hospital staff notified the US and Afghan forces that they were bombing a
hospital, after which the bombing continued for another half hour.
When the bombing started, there were 80 staff and 105 patients in the
hospital. The death toll was 12 staff and 10 patients (three children), some
of whom burned to death in their beds in the critical care unit. More than
35 others were injured. Doctors Without Borders calls the attack a war
crime. And they have closed the hospital.
The first US lie in response was that they bombed the hospital because there
were Taliban inside. That would still be a war crime. But there were no
Taliban inside, and no Taliban shooting at Americans nearby, and there were
no Americans nearby, as other US lies variously claimed. Now US officials
have acknowledged that, after a "rigorous US procedure," the US bombed the
hospital intentionally.That is a war crime.
Is an unprosecuted war crime still a war crime?
So far, the American public's reaction to this war crime is of a piece with
public reaction to almost all American atrocities - stuff happens. Harold
Pinter described the process a decade ago:
"It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it
wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the
United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very
few people have actually talked about them.
"You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical
manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal
good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis."
Why would the US, even at Afghan request, deliberately commit a war crime? A
cynic might speculate that, since they were losing Kunduz to the Taliban,
they might as well deny the Taliban the use of the only available hospital.
Like President Obama, Doctors Without Borders has won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Unlike the president, Doctors Without Borders has not established policies
responsible for killing thousands of civilians in dozens of countries.
What happened in Kunduz is dwarfed by the horrors that happen in the
US-supported Saudi coalition total war on Yemen. On September 29, coalition
airstrikes there killed more than 130 people in a wedding party. At his
press conference three days later, the peace prize president did not have
the grace to mention it, much less to call it unimaginable brutality.
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Barack Obama. (photo: AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Bombs Afghan Hospital
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
08 October 15
Tabloid headline (above) is a crystallization of present reality
o, it's not really fair to blame President Obama personally for the waves
of aerial bombing that took more than an hour on October 4 to destroy a
neutral hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz, Afghanistan,
even though it appears on its face to be yet another US war crime.
But it's totally fair to blame President Obama for giving the world another
six years (so far) of President Bush's policy of bringing chaos and
devastation to whatever part of the Middle East happens to be annoying the
folks who have decided these things since 2001. Not that it was all bread
and roses before that, given the century-plus of unrelenting Western
subjugation of the region by direct force and by establishing vicious proxy
dictatorships (exhibit #1 is Iran).
So when Donald Trump and people like him say that the Middle East was more
stable under Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi, therefore the US should be
supporting Russia's effort to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in the bits of
Syria his government still controls, it makes a kind of superficial sense -
unless you actually believe the region is a better place now than it was 15
years ago. And if that's your belief, maybe someone should explain their
good fortune to those millions of refugees.
Trump's argument would have been relevant in 2001, when he had nothing
useful to say in opposition to the national predation our government proudly
unleashed on the world as a war on "terrorism" and then claimed as a
"mission accomplished," even though there's still no let-up as innocent
people continue to be killed by American weapons in the hands of Americans
and others. In 2011, Trump was equally ineffective in opposition to US
engagement in Libya. To be fair to Trump, principled opposition to America's
permanent war on largely imaginary enemies (until we attack them, creating
new ones) is hard to come by, and no principled opponent of the US warfare
state is presently running for president or most other offices.
At any meaningful level, Trump's notion of "stability" is absurd except for
people who can imagine it being cool to live in an unimaginably brutal
police state. That's what they had in Iraq and Libya, and the US
accomplishment was making it worse for Iraqis and Libyans. Will Syrians now
reap the same benefits?
Slaughtered wedding parties, maimed children - Hey, stuff happens
Just as Jeb Bush is the "stuff happens" candidate now, his brother George
(like his father George) were "stuff happens" presidents. Officially, as
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, "Stuff happens" - describing US forces who
protected only themselves as looting and revenge killings went unchecked in
"liberated" Iraq. Rumsfeld himself fleshed put the full cynicism of the
Stuff Happens Doctrine, explaining an American mentality that continues to
shape decisions of state without a trace of its inherent, ugly irony:
"Stuff happens, and it's untidy. Freedom's untidy, and free people are free
to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to
live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen
here."
Seriously, the US occupation makes you free. How Orwellian is that? And
how's that working out across more than 4,000 miles of aggressive US
intervention, military and otherwise, from Tripoli to Kunduz? The
ghastliness of American behavior around the world has been plain to anyone
with the wit to look at it, as Harold Pinter did in 2005 in his Nobel
acceptance speech, which has a humanity long missing from American
leadership. Reviewing past American crimes, and anticipating future American
crimes, Pinter referred to the pitiless American assault on Nicaragua:
"The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took
some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution
and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They
were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into
the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned
with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.
"But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was
conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it
never happened.
"The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing
military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I
refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the
Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the
United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never
be forgiven."
In the United States, Chile is hardly remembered and rarely discussed,
except perhaps when our leaders confer honors on a fellow war criminal like
Henry Kissinger.
"Hope and Change" fooled people in 2008, what will work in 2016?
Peace is not yet at hand, but the world continues to wait, rather fecklessly
for the most part, while the US peace prize president pursues the same
deluded war polices (sometimes watered down) that produce the same
disastrous results. Meanwhile a numbed homeland populace is encouraged to
fret about its own security, to accept the cost of stuff happening to other
people and to ignore fifteen years of failed leadership's repeated failures.
Still there's some restlessness in the land and Trump speaks to that,
however irrelevantly, blaming the past while offering nothing new for the
future. In that, he's not alone. No one among Republicans and Democrats
takes on the US warfare state of today - that empire has no clothes and
everyone admires its exceptional wardrobe. Even Bernie Sanders, with his
actually revolutionary proposals on other issues, has yet do much more than
imply that he might be less militaristic than the rest, which is pretty much
where the Green Party is. For serious anti-militarism, one has to go to the
Socialist Party, which doesn't seem to be happening.
In late September, the Russians became at least the tenth country to send
its warplanes to bomb people in Syria. Since the Russians' targetsinclude
elements of the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, etc.), one might have
expected, if not a warm welcome, at least a tacit acceptance of one more
player in the crowded Syrian battlefield thatthe US holds so important,
albeit so ill-defined. According to the US, the Islamic State is a grave
threat to US national security, at least when its potential strength is
projected uncheck into an indefinite future based on little rational
analysis. For now, the Islamic States serves mainly as target practice for
most any interested air force, since the Islamic State has little or no air
defense and there's no one to make any distinction between dead civilians
and dead enemy combatants.
So why wouldn't President Obama at least tolerate Russian participation in a
low-cost war of attrition? After all, the Russians have a huge Muslim
population in Russia and neighboring countries, a population that, if
radicalized in significant numbers, really could threaten the Russian
government. The cynical explanation would be that the US considers radical
Islam a proprietary American enemy necessary to maintain maximum fear at
home with minimum danger; any Russian poaching on our national security
threat is against our rules.
Don't do stupid stuff, like have mutually exclusive goals
More likely, Russian support for the Syrian government is resented because
it exposes the pointlessness of US policy. The Russians, as well as the
Iranians, are supporting Syrian president Assad, whose survival in power
this long was not thought possible by the West. So US policy for ending the
multi-faceted war in Syria has long required a non-negotiable precondition:
that Assad must go. But that is not a negotiating position, it is a
non-negotiating position, and the Russian presence makes that all the more
obvious and stupid.
President Obama, having spent years doing stupid stuff all over the Middle
East, responded to Russian air strikes by warning (wink, wink) the Russians
that coming into Syria could lead to their being stuck in a "quagmire."
Could be. But the president did not seem to be invoking the irony of
America's primal "quagmire" in Viet-Nam. And he certainly wasn't
intentionally calling attention to his own inherited quagmires prolonged in
Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. Nor was he calling attention to
the US role in the Yemen quagmire, which may turn out not to be a quagmire
but a genocidal war.
At his October 2 press conference, the president was busy spinning reality
to suit his own situation. For example, he framed Syria this way: "What
started off as peaceful protests against Assad, the president, evolved into
a civil war because Assad met those protests with unimaginable brutality."
How does this differ from Bahrain, where peaceful protests were met with
unimaginable brutality? Well the Bahrain dictatorship survived because its
allies included the US and Saudi Arabia. It's never about good or bad, it's
always about "ours" or "theirs," and we don't care what unimaginable
brutality it takes to care for ours. As President Obama made clear, it's
only their behavior that's up for moral scrutiny:
". the reason Assad is still in power is because Russia and Iran have
supported him throughout this process.. They've been propping up a regime
that is rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Syrian population
because they've seen that he has been willing to drop barrel bombs on
children and on villages indiscriminately, and has been more concerned about
clinging to power than the state of his country.. And I said to Mr. Putin
that I'd be prepared to work with him if he is willing to broker with his
partners, Mr. Assad and Iran, a political transition - we can bring the rest
of the world community to a brokered solution - but that a military solution
alone, an attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the
population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire. And it won't work.
And they will be there for a while if they don't take a different course."
So the calculation for President Putin is whether his warplanes will be
stuck in Syria as long as the US has been stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
will that be worth it? Has it been worth it to the US not to take a
different course for 15 years? And what does any empire use to measure
worth?
US combat role ended in Afghanistan - only it didn't
The end of the US combat role in Afghanistan was never more real than a
three-card monte hustle. The US would base more than 10,000 troops in
Afghanistan indefinitely, but they wouldn't have a "combat role" on paper.
But there was never any question that these troops would be fighting
whenever and wherever someone in authority considered it necessary, as
authorized by the commander-in-chief. US military activity in Afghanistan in
2015 included regular air strikes against presumed "insurgents."
Despite US and other coalition support for Afghan government forces, the
Taliban made significant gains during 2015. By September, in an eerie echo
of Viet-Nam, the Taliban controlled most of the Afghan countryside while the
government still controlled the cities. One of those cities, Kunduz, in the
northeast of the country, came under Taliban control on September 28 and has
had extreme fighting ever since. US bombing of Kunduz began September 29.
Also in Kunduz, in 2011, Doctors Without Borders had established a hospital
that treated anyone who was hurt: civilians as well as combatants from any
side. The hospital was well marked as a hospital. Doctors Without Borders
made sure that authorities on all sides, including Kabul and Washington,
knew the hospital's coordinates. It's the only hospital of its kind in the
region. It was outside the Taliban-controlled area when the US bombed it.
Hospital staff notified the US and Afghan forces that they were bombing a
hospital, after which the bombing continued for another half hour.
When the bombing started, there were 80 staff and 105 patients in the
hospital. The death toll was 12 staff and 10 patients (three children), some
of whom burned to death in their beds in the critical care unit. More than
35 others were injured. Doctors Without Borders calls the attack a war
crime. And they have closed the hospital.
The first US lie in response was that they bombed the hospital because there
were Taliban inside. That would still be a war crime. But there were no
Taliban inside, and no Taliban shooting at Americans nearby, and there were
no Americans nearby, as other US lies variously claimed. Now US officials
have acknowledged that, after a "rigorous US procedure," the US bombed the
hospital intentionally.That is a war crime.
Is an unprosecuted war crime still a war crime?
So far, the American public's reaction to this war crime is of a piece with
public reaction to almost all American atrocities - stuff happens. Harold
Pinter described the process a decade ago:
"It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it
wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the
United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very
few people have actually talked about them.
"You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical
manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal
good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis."
Why would the US, even at Afghan request, deliberately commit a war crime? A
cynic might speculate that, since they were losing Kunduz to the Taliban,
they might as well deny the Taliban the use of the only available hospital.
Like President Obama, Doctors Without Borders has won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Unlike the president, Doctors Without Borders has not established policies
responsible for killing thousands of civilians in dozens of countries.
What happened in Kunduz is dwarfed by the horrors that happen in the
US-supported Saudi coalition total war on Yemen. On September 29, coalition
airstrikes there killed more than 130 people in a wedding party. At his
press conference three days later, the peace prize president did not have
the grace to mention it, much less to call it unimaginable brutality.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
