Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Libya is another case of selective vigilantism by the west
Bombing Tripoli while shoring up other despots in the Arab world shows the UN-backed strikes to oust Gaddafi are purely cynical
The US-Nato intervention in Libya, with United Nations security council cover, is part of an orchestrated response to show support for the movement against one dictator in particular and by so doing to bring the Arab rebellions to an end by asserting western control, confiscating their impetus and spontaneity and trying to restore the status quo ante.
All this might trigger a third phase at some stage: a growing nationalist anger that spills over into Saudi Arabia and here, have no doubt, Washington will do everything necessary to keep the Saudi royal family in power. Lose Saudi Arabia and they will lose the Gulf states. The assault on Libya, greatly helped by Gaddafi's imbecility on every front, was designed to wrest the initiative back from the streets by appearing as the defenders of civil rights. The Bahrainis, Egyptians, Tunisians, Saudi Arabians, Yemenis will not be convinced, and even in Euro-America more are opposed to this latest adventure than support it. The struggles are by no means over.
Obama talks of a merciless Gaddafi, but the west's own mercy never drops like gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It only blesses the power that dispenses, the mightiest of the mightiest.
It is absurd to think that the reasons for bombing Tripoli or for the turkey shoot outside Benghazi are designed to protect civilians. This particular argument is designed to win support from the citizens of Euro-America and part of the Arab world. "Look at us," say Obama/Clinton and the EU satraps, "we're doing good. We're on the side of the people." The sheer cynicism is breathtaking. We're expected to believe that the leaders with bloody hands in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are defending the people in Libya. The debased British and French media are capable of swallowing anything, but the fact that decent liberals still fall for this rubbish is depressing. Civil society is easily moved by some images and Gaddafi's brutality in sending his air force to bomb his people was the pretext that Washington utilised to bomb another Arab capital. Meanwhile, Obama's allies in the Arab world were hard at work promoting democracy.
The Saudis entered Bahrain where the population is being tyrannised and large-scale arrests are taking place. Not much of this is being reported on al-Jazeera. I wonder why? The station seems to have been curbed somewhat and brought into line with the politics of its funders.
All this with active US support. The despot in Yemen, loathed by a majority of his people continues to kill them every day. Not even an arms embargo, let alone a "no-fly zone" has been imposed on him. Libya is yet another case of selective vigilantism by the US and its attack dogs in the west.
They can rely on the French as well. Sarkozy was desperate to do something. Unable to save his friend Ben Ali in Tunisia, he's decided to help get rid of Gaddafi. The British always oblige and in this case, having shored up the Libyan regime for the last two decades, they're making sure they're on the right side so as not to miss out on the division of the spoils. What might they get?
The divisions on this entire operation within the American politico-military elite have meant there is no clear goal. Obama and his European satraps talk of regime change. The generals resist and say that isn't part of their picture. The US state department is busy preparing a new government composed of English-speaking Libyan collaborators. We will now never know how long Gaddafi's crumbling and weakened army would have held together in the face of strong opposition. The reason he lost support within his armed forces was precisely because he ordered them to shoot their own people. Now he speaks of imperialism's desire to topple him and take the oil and even many who despise him can see that it's true. A new Karzai is on the way.
The frontiers of the squalid protectorate that the west is going to create are being decided in Washington. Even those Libyans who, out of desperation, are backing Nato's bomber jets, might – like their Iraqi equivalents – regret their choice.All this might trigger a third phase at some stage: a growing nationalist anger that spills over into Saudi Arabia and here, have no doubt, Washington will do everything necessary to keep the Saudi royal family in power. Lose Saudi Arabia and they will lose the Gulf states. The assault on Libya, greatly helped by Gaddafi's imbecility on every front, was designed to wrest the initiative back from the streets by appearing as the defenders of civil rights. The Bahrainis, Egyptians, Tunisians, Saudi Arabians, Yemenis will not be convinced, and even in Euro-America more are opposed to this latest adventure than support it. The struggles are by no means over.
Obama talks of a merciless Gaddafi, but the west's own mercy never drops like gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It only blesses the power that dispenses, the mightiest of the mightiest.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Today, I have read many US Military on forums defending themselves and explaining ' this scum' is just a minority...Sadly' this scum' is only the tip of the iceberg...there is so much more, torture , hatred and rape but OBAMA refuses to release the truth. ONLY IN AMERICA explains....
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2011/03/lord-bless-this-defender-of-freedom-and.html
http://wikileaksleaks.blogspot.com/2011/03/iraqi-women-raped-by-americans.html
http://wikileaksleaks.blogspot.com/2011/03/iraqi-women-raped-by-americans.html
Rebels say Qatar ready to market east Libyan oil
BENGHAZI, Libya |
BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - A senior Libyan rebel official said on Sunday Gulf oil producer Qatar had agreed to market crude oil produced from east Libyan fields that are no longer in the control of Muammar Gaddafi."We contacted the oil company of Qatar and thankfully they agreed to take all the oil that we wish to export and market this oil for us," said Ali Tarhouni, a rebel official in charge of economic, financial and oil matters.
"Our next shipment will be in less than a week," Tarhouni told reporters in the rebel-held eastern city of Benghazi.
State-owned Qatar Petroleum said it had no comment.
Small, energy-rich Qatar became the first Arab nation to begin patrolling a U.N. backed no-fly zone on Friday and has urged Gaddafi to quit to avoid more bloodshed.
Libya produced about 1.6 million barrels of oil per day before the crisis, or almost 2 percent of world output. Most of the oil is in the east, but sanctions and the lack of a marketing operation have stopped the rebels selling it abroad.
The north African country relies heavily on oil exports, which pay the state salaries on which most families depend.
Tarhouni said output from east Libya oil fields that rebels controlled was running at about 100,000 to 130,000 barrels per day (bpd), which could be increased to 300,000 bpd.
Rebel fighters pushed west toward Gaddafi's stronghold of Sirte on Sunday after routing his forces in the town of Ajdabiyah with the aid of Western air strikes.
The advance puts the rebels back in control of all the main oil terminals in the eastern half of Libya, namely Es Sider, Ras Lanuf, Brega, Zueitina and Tobruk.
Tarhouni said he had asked the main oil company at Brega, 75 km west of Ajdabiyah, to resume operations within 24 hours. The terminal would produce liquid natural gas for domestic use for now, he said.
OIL STOCKS BUILD IN TOBRUK
Officials at eastern oil company Agoco have told Reuters it was pumping most of the oil produced in the east to the terminal in Tobruk in the far east of the country.
Output at its fields, including Nafoora, Sarir and Misla in the Sirte Basin, fell in recent weeks as an absence of shipments since early March led to a build-up of stocks at Tobruk.
Agoco had said it aimed to begin marketing its oil abroad before ceding the plan to the rebel national council.
Americans: Cold blooded murderers ,there is no other word for them...
The Kill Team
How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them. Plus: An exclusive look at the war crime photos censored by the Pentagon
Cpl. Jeremy Morlock with Staff Sgt. David Bram
March 27, 2011 10:00 PM ET
From the start, the questionable nature of the killings was on the radar of senior Army leadership.
Within days of the first murder, Rolling Stone has learned, Mudin's uncle descended on the gates of FOB Ramrod, along with 20 villagers from La Mohammad Kalay, to demand an investigation.
"They were sitting at our front door," recalls Lt. Col. David Abrahams, the battalion's second in command. During a four-hour meeting with Mudin's uncle, Abrahams was informed that several children in the village had seen Mudin killed by soldiers from 3rd Platoon. The battalion chief ordered the soldiers to be reinterviewed, but Abrahams found "no inconsistencies in their story," and the matter was dropped. "It was cut and dry to us at the time," Abrahams recalls.
Other officers were also in a position to question the murders. Neither 3rd Platoon's commander, Capt. Matthew Quiggle, nor 1st Lt. Roman Ligsay has been held accountable for their unit's actions, despite their repeated failure to report killings that they had ample reason to regard as suspicious.
In fact, supervising the murderous platoon, or even having knowledge of the crimes, seems to have been no impediment to career advancement. Ligsay has actually been promoted to captain, and a sergeant who joined the platoon in April became a team leader even though he "found out about the murders from the beginning," according to a soldier who cooperated with the Army investigation.
"Most people within the unit disliked the Afghan people, whether it was the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army or locals," one soldier explained to investigators. "Everyone would say they're savages." One photo shows a hand missing a finger. Another depicts a severed head being maneuvered with a stick, and still more show bloody body parts, blown-apart legs, mutilated torsos. Several show dead Afghans, lying on the ground or on Stryker vehicles, with no weapons in view.
In many of the photos it is unclear whether the bodies are civilians or Taliban, and it is possible that the unidentified deaths involved no illegal acts by U.S. soldiers. But it is a violation of Army standards to take such photos of the dead, let alone share them with others. Among the soldiers, the collection was treated like a war memento. It was passed from man to man on thumb drives and hard drives, the gruesome images of corpses and war atrocities filed alongside clips of TV shows, UFC fights and films such as Iron Man 2. One soldier kept a complete set, which he made available to anyone who asked.
The collection also includes several videos shot by U.S. troops. In a jumpy, 30-minute clip titled "Motorcycle Kill," soldiers believed to be with another battalion in the Stryker Brigade gun down two Afghans on a motorcycle who may have been armed. One of the most chilling files shows two Afghans suspected of planting an IED being blown up in an airstrike. Shot through thermal imaging, the grainy footage has been edited into a music video, complete with a rock soundtrack and a title card that reads 'death zone.'
Even before the war crimes became public, the Pentagon went to extraordinary measures to suppress the photos – an effort that reached the highest levels of both governments. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and President Hamid Karzai were reportedly briefed on the photos as early as May, and the military launched a massive effort to find every file and pull the pictures out of circulation before they could touch off a scandal on the scale of Abu Ghraib.
Investigators in Afghanistan searched the hard drives and confiscated the computers of more than a dozen soldiers, ordering them to delete any provocative images. The Army Criminal Investigation Command also sent agents fanning out across America to the homes of soldiers and their relatives, gathering up every copy of the files they could find. The message was clear: What happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan.
By suppressing the photos, however, the Army may also have been trying to keep secret evidence that the killings of civilians went beyond a few men in 3rd Platoon. In one image, two dead Afghans have been tied together, their hands bound, and placed alongside a road. A sign – handwritten on cardboard from a discarded box of rations – hangs around their necks. It reads "Taliban are Dead." The Pentagon says it is investigating the photos, but insists that there is little more investigators can do to identify the men. "It's a mystery," says a Pentagon spokesman. "To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure they know where to take it next. All we have is two apparently dead Afghans handcuffed to each other against a mile marker. We don't know much beyond that. For all we know, those two guys may have been killed by the Taliban for being sympathizers."
But such statements suggest that the Pentagon isn't following every lead. A Stryker vehicle in the photos, for example, bears identifying marks that are clearly visible in the image. And according to a source in Bravo Company, who spoke to Rolling Stone on the condition of anonymity, the two unarmed men in the photos were killed by soldiers from another platoon, which has not yet been implicated in the scandal.
"Those were some innocent farmers that got killed," the source says. "Their standard operating procedure after killing dudes was to drag them up to the side of the highway."
Army prosecutors insist that blame for the killings rests with a soldier near the bottom of the Stryker Brigade's totem pole: Calvin Gibbs, a three-tour veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who served as a squad leader in 3rd Platoon. Morlock and five soldiers charged with lesser crimes have pleaded guilty in exchange for testifying against Gibbs, who faces life in prison for three counts of premeditated murder.
The 26-year-old staff sergeant has been widely portrayed as a sociopath of Mansonesque proportions, a crazed killer with a "pure hatred for all Afghans" who was detested and feared by those around him. But the portrait omits evidence that the Army's own investigators gathered from soldiers in Bravo Company. "Gibbs is very well-liked in the platoon by his seniors, peers and subordinates alike," Spc. Adam Kelly reported, adding that Gibbs was "one of the best NCOs I've ever had the pleasure of working with in my military career. I believe that because of his experience, more people came back alive and uninjured than would have without him having been part of the platoon." Another soldier described Gibbs as an "upbeat guy, very funny. He was one of those guys you could talk to about anything and he would make you feel better about the situation."
At six-feet-four and 220 pounds, Gibbs could certainly intimidate those around him. Growing up in a devout Mormon family in Billings, Montana, he had dropped out of high school to get an equivalency degree and enlist in the Army. He plunged into soldiering, accumulating a slew of medals in Iraq, where the line between legitimate self-defense and civilian deaths was often blurry at best. In 2004, Gibbs and other soldiers allegedly fired on an unarmed Iraqi family near Kirkuk, killing two adults and a child. The incident, which was not prosecuted at the time, is now under investigation by the Army.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=3
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Will the coalition continue fighting the war for the islamic insurgents?
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton told a CBS programme aired on Sunday that the US will not get involved in Syria in the same way it has in Libya because she said each case was unique.
The war mongeress touches Syria and she will have Iran on her neck....
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap/clothcap/16313186/will-the-coalition-continue-fighting-the-war-for-the-islamic-insurgents/
The war mongeress touches Syria and she will have Iran on her neck....
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap/clothcap/16313186/will-the-coalition-continue-fighting-the-war-for-the-islamic-insurgents/
Saturday, March 26, 2011
AMERICA fighting side by side with Al Qaeda LIBYA..Need any more proof 'War on terror' is a hoax !!!!!
By Byron York, Washinton Examiner
Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebel forces in the fighting around Adjabiya, went to Afghanistan in 2002 to fight against the "foreign invasion" -- that is, U.S. troops who invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks. The Telegraph says al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, that he was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan.
http://nation.foxnews.com/libya-war/2011/03/26/shock-america-fighting-side-al-qaeda-libya
Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebel forces in the fighting around Adjabiya, went to Afghanistan in 2002 to fight against the "foreign invasion" -- that is, U.S. troops who invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks. The Telegraph says al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, that he was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan.
http://nation.foxnews.com/libya-war/2011/03/26/shock-america-fighting-side-al-qaeda-libya
Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Clinton backs the Zionists...
1 ) Lukas / AntiZionist
24/03/2011 10:47
This is a direct result of the Obama administration and the last veto, protecting the illegal settlements. Hillary Clinton is even more bribed by AIPAC and other criminal Jewish Zionist organizations than Obama. She has no credibility whatsoever. Therefore, statements from these supporters of Zionist crimes should not be taken seriously or listened to at all.
2 ) Rami Al-Ahbal / USA
24/03/2011 10:47
I thought the US doesn't condemn things pertaining to Palestine & Israel. Now I wonder why they didn't condemn settlement construction???
3 ) wes / palestine
24/03/2011 12:43
they condemned jerusalem's bombing !!!! what about those who bombed by the israeli warplanes 2 days ago ....nine people were killed we hve never seen an american condemn
4 ) Nour / One-State
24/03/2011 12:56
Where were these hypocrits when the Zionsits shelled Gaza 3 days ago and killed 3 children, and an elderly man? Spare us the crocodile tears. 62 years of occupation and torment, and the world hardly takes any action to check the Zionists.
ISRAEL: Passes new Nakba Law
Israel's parliament passed a measure on Tuesday enabling the denial of state funding to institutions that question the country's existence as a Jewish state, in a move criticised as targetting an Arab minority.
The so-called Nakba Law, using the Arabic word for "catastrophe" which is how many Palestinians regard the founding of Israel, passed by a vote of 37 to 25 after an angry debate among right and left-wing lawmakers.
Civil rights groups have denounced the measure as an effort to restrict freedom of expression to Arabs, who make up about a fifth of Israel's predominantly Jewish population.
The law would enable the withholding of funds to public institutions deemed to be involved in publicly challenging the founding of Israel as a Jewish state or any activity "denying the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state."
Many Israeli Arabs, as relatives of Palestinians who remained in what is now Israel when hundreds of thousands of others were driven away or fled during a 1948 war over Israel's establishment, question whether Israel should be a Jewish state.
Unlike Palestinians living in territory Israel captured in a 1967 war, Israeli Arabs are fully enfranchised though many complain of discrimination.
Right-wing Israeli lawmakers who introduced the bill insisted it was intended to defend Israel against what they see as a growing number of attacks on its legitimacy because of a continuing conflict with the Palestinians and other Arab states.
Israeli liberals argued it was undemocratic.
Arab lawmaker Jamal Zahalka said the measure would likely encourage more Israeli Arabs to participate in the kind of events it sought to prevent -- the public mourning of Israel's creation, which takes place in marches held each year in some Arab towns on Israeli Independence Day.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/8412/World/Region/Israel-passes-new-Nakba-Law.aspx
The so-called Nakba Law, using the Arabic word for "catastrophe" which is how many Palestinians regard the founding of Israel, passed by a vote of 37 to 25 after an angry debate among right and left-wing lawmakers.
Civil rights groups have denounced the measure as an effort to restrict freedom of expression to Arabs, who make up about a fifth of Israel's predominantly Jewish population.
The law would enable the withholding of funds to public institutions deemed to be involved in publicly challenging the founding of Israel as a Jewish state or any activity "denying the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state."
Many Israeli Arabs, as relatives of Palestinians who remained in what is now Israel when hundreds of thousands of others were driven away or fled during a 1948 war over Israel's establishment, question whether Israel should be a Jewish state.
Unlike Palestinians living in territory Israel captured in a 1967 war, Israeli Arabs are fully enfranchised though many complain of discrimination.
Right-wing Israeli lawmakers who introduced the bill insisted it was intended to defend Israel against what they see as a growing number of attacks on its legitimacy because of a continuing conflict with the Palestinians and other Arab states.
Israeli liberals argued it was undemocratic.
Arab lawmaker Jamal Zahalka said the measure would likely encourage more Israeli Arabs to participate in the kind of events it sought to prevent -- the public mourning of Israel's creation, which takes place in marches held each year in some Arab towns on Israeli Independence Day.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/8412/World/Region/Israel-passes-new-Nakba-Law.aspx
ISRAEL: Plans to massacre ...
DerekJohnBryant RT @marmite_news: US consulate in Jerusalem called Americans in #Gaza 2 leave immediately or ASAP in 1 week! Sounds like Israel plans 2nd war. via @Omar_Gaza
The Middle East unrest...the Americans could not be more pleased , they are wiping them out on the pre-text of saving civilian lives !!!! reminds me of the pied piper and the rats...
London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack
Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames
Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames
A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.
On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.
Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.
Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.
The transcript is as follows.
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.
HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.
Click here for a clip of this dialogue. Click here for a longer clip where the comments can be heard in their full context.
The fact that the exercise mirrored the exact locations and times of the bombings is light years beyond a coincidence. Power said the drill focused around 'simultaneous bombings'. At first the bombings were thought to have been spread over an hour, but the BBC reports just today that the bombings were in fact simultaneous.
Mr. Power (pictured above) and Visor Consultants need not have been 'in on the bombing' or anything of that nature for this to be of importance. The British government or one of their private company offshoots could have hired Visor to run the exercise for a number of purposes.
We are not suggesting that Mr. Power had any knowledge of the real purpose of the exercise, and the open shock he exclaims in relating the story underlines this.
The exercise fulfils several different goals. It acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise.
This is precisely what happened on the morning of 9/11/2001. The CIA was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning.
It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.
The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked.
The Anglo-American establishment that controls the military-industrial complex of the West has been caught over a hundred times carrying out bombings and other terrorist attacks around the world to further their corporate aims and to blame their enemies.
The US government has been caught planning to carry out attacks and carrying out attacks. The British government has been caught red-handed as well. Members of Vladimir Putin's FSB were caught planting bombs in a Russian apartment building in 1999 by the Moscow police.
This is not speculation. Kermit Roosevelt admited on NPR radio that in 1953 the CIA and British intelligence carried out a wave of bombings and shootings in Iran. He then went on to brag about how they subsequently blamed the bombings on Iran's President, Mossadegh. Do you understand, these people brag about what they do 40 years later?
The London bombings have the same signature as the Madrild bombings of 3/11. Both of these bombings are almost indistinguishable from the Bolognia bombing in 1980 that killed over 80 people.
The bombing in Bolognia was part of a CIA operation code named Gladio, where the US government would pay right-wing terrorists to carry out bombings to be blamed on leftists in Europe. All of this was blown wide open when two of the Bolognia bombers were convited in an Italian court, forcing them to spill their guts admitting that they were neo-fascists contracted by the CIA. Operation Gladio documents have since been declassified.
The London terror alert level was lowered before the bombings took place. This gave the purpotrators extra cover to plan and execute the attack without having to evade the most stringent security.
In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA. They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. Click here for an archive of this evidence.
The wider agenda will become clearer when Blair firmly points the finger at the selected patsies designated to take the fall. But for the moment he's happy to grandstand as the courageous leader who immedately returned to London to take control of the chaos.
BBC polls that were showing 80 per cent plus opposed the ID card will now likely flip back in the opposite direction. Support for the European Union and increased globalization through the G8 will rise. Who stands to gain from all this? Who has the motive?
From Putin blowing up his own apartment buildings to Israel being behind Hamas, the evidence is consistently clear that large scale terrorism is always state sponsored.
The Madrid train bombing is another example. The bombers were found to be police informants with close links to the Spanish security services. They had access to the most secure areas of the Madrid train system. The Spanish government initially tried to blaim the Basque group ETA for the blast in the hope that the people would rally behind the government and get them re-elected. After ETA denied involvement and the people started saying the government was involved, the Spanish government had to blame Al-Qaeda and kill some patsies by claiming they blew themselves up during a raid.
The London Underground exercises were used as the fallback cover to carry out the attack. This is the biggest smoking gun yet pointing directly to the most secretive levels of the British establishment itself being behind the attack.
More on this story as and when it develops.
-------------------------------
Related
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
David Duke: Lying liberals
National Propaganda Radio
by Jeff Davis
Liberals are liars and they insist that everyone else believe their lies or face social ostracism. If anyone needs proof that liberals are liars, keep reading. The Washington Times reports: “Senior Vice President of NPR Ron Schiller met with individuals he believed to be potential donors. However, undercover video was running during this meeting. In the following clip, Mr. Schiller and his co-worker Betsy Liley describe how NPR covers those who deny climate change is happening. Ms. Liley talks about a donor who would only give to NPR if the outlet did not talk to those who believe climate change is not happening…”
But why stop the censorship at people who debunk Global Warming? It seems that NPR censors those who don’t believe in free discussion of whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya.
The article notes “We’re not covering the birthers. We are not covering them. There’s a whole movement within the conservative group about questioning something that Obama has said as fact, ‘I was born in Hawaii, when it was the United States.’ The group that questions this, some of whom are commentators…I don’t know any who are Democrats, but they are primarily conservative commentators and people who follow them question if Obama is [a citizen]…”
So we have a major issue in American society, whether or not the President of the United States is in fact Constitutionally eligible to hold office, and NPR admits they’re simply ignoring it or covering it up. Why am I not surprised by this?
The Times goes on: “Mr. Schiller chimes in later saying, ‘The main point here is that it is not our responsibility to present the opinion of a non-scientist through our science desk. All educated scientists accept that climate change as fact.’ ”
That’s not true, by the way, and Mr. Schiller has got to know it’s not true. A WorldNetDaily article reports “More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting ‘global warming,’ the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.”
NPR is now in some danger of losing their government funding although I’ll believe it when I see it –maybe NPR will lose its funding if the Tea Party gets the upper hand in the GOP and we get a non-puppet president elected in 2012. If that happens, NPR will have to replace their government money with private donations from Big Liberals, and this means that NPR will lean even farther to the left than usual, with not even so much as a pretense of balance any more.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/lying-liberals-may-lose-a-propaganda-outlet_23433.html
by Jeff Davis
Liberals are liars and they insist that everyone else believe their lies or face social ostracism. If anyone needs proof that liberals are liars, keep reading. The Washington Times reports: “Senior Vice President of NPR Ron Schiller met with individuals he believed to be potential donors. However, undercover video was running during this meeting. In the following clip, Mr. Schiller and his co-worker Betsy Liley describe how NPR covers those who deny climate change is happening. Ms. Liley talks about a donor who would only give to NPR if the outlet did not talk to those who believe climate change is not happening…”
But why stop the censorship at people who debunk Global Warming? It seems that NPR censors those who don’t believe in free discussion of whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya.
The article notes “We’re not covering the birthers. We are not covering them. There’s a whole movement within the conservative group about questioning something that Obama has said as fact, ‘I was born in Hawaii, when it was the United States.’ The group that questions this, some of whom are commentators…I don’t know any who are Democrats, but they are primarily conservative commentators and people who follow them question if Obama is [a citizen]…”
So we have a major issue in American society, whether or not the President of the United States is in fact Constitutionally eligible to hold office, and NPR admits they’re simply ignoring it or covering it up. Why am I not surprised by this?
The Times goes on: “Mr. Schiller chimes in later saying, ‘The main point here is that it is not our responsibility to present the opinion of a non-scientist through our science desk. All educated scientists accept that climate change as fact.’ ”
That’s not true, by the way, and Mr. Schiller has got to know it’s not true. A WorldNetDaily article reports “More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting ‘global warming,’ the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.”
NPR is now in some danger of losing their government funding although I’ll believe it when I see it –maybe NPR will lose its funding if the Tea Party gets the upper hand in the GOP and we get a non-puppet president elected in 2012. If that happens, NPR will have to replace their government money with private donations from Big Liberals, and this means that NPR will lean even farther to the left than usual, with not even so much as a pretense of balance any more.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/lying-liberals-may-lose-a-propaganda-outlet_23433.html
Cameron war criminal at such a tender age...
Cameron: What looked like a triumph is beginning to seem a curse
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
REUTERS
Nato commander General Petraeus in discussion with David Cameron
Tony Blair the Middle-East poxy sodding peace envoy....
Mark Steel: It's Blair I feel really sorry for
Wednesday, 23 March 2011Isn't it marvellous that all these governments are determined to do "something" about Colonel Gaddafi? For example Hillary Clinton said she supported military action once the Arab League – made up of countries such as Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia – backed the air strikes. And it is encouraging that the policy of not tolerating a dictator has the backing of so many dictators.
Some people might suggest that one way King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for example, might reduce the number of Arab dictators, would be to stop being an Arab dictator, but that's because they don't understand how complicated these things can be.
But presumably, once Gaddafi's been dealt with, these dictators will back a UN resolution to bomb themselves, declaring, "The international community can no longer sit back and watch me trample on my own people, so I must be stopped. I give myself three days to recognise the opposition and call elections, otherwise I will assist Nato in bombing myself. Or maybe I should assist them, as they've sold me so many of their weapons they can't have many left."
Others will say the West might now turn a blind eye to repression that happens in countries which have backed the bombing of Libya, but that would mean an American government has bombed somewhere without being honest about its motives, and that would be highly cynical. For example, Hillary's comments about the need to act once the Arab League asked for help explain why no government helped Gaza when it was attacked two years ago. Because Gaza obviously forgot to ask. It's a bit shy, I suppose, and didn't want to be any trouble.
But the person to be most sorry for is Tony Blair, who must feel like one of these people who get interviewed when their neighbour's gone berserk and shot everyone in the shopping centre. Tony will make a statement soon that goes "I knew Mr Gaddafi for years. He just kept himself to himself, I had no idea he'd end up like this. I even had my photo taken with him after selling him dozens of tanks – who'd have guessed he'd use them for military reasons? I'm shocked."
The main argument for the bombing seems to be that we have to do something. This suggests that up until now we've been doing nothing, which is true if you don't count drawing the boundaries of Arab countries in the first place, installing an assortment of Kings and helping them to fire on anyone who objected, backing every Israeli invasion, arming the Shah, arming and financing a list of dictators as long as they sent us their oil, invading Iraq and then making Tony Blair the Middle-East poxy sodding peace envoy, to give his job its full title.
This may explain why most Arabs are reluctant to welcome Western backing, and why they might reply to a question from Britain and America that went "Can we just do nothing?" by answering, "Why don't you give it a go? For about a hundred years. Then we'll see how we're getting on and get back to you".
So while the people of Benghazi must have been relieved that the UN has forced Gaddafi back, it must be in the same way that if you were being attacked by robbers you'd be relieved to see the Mafia turn up and fire on them.
Then afterwards you'd have a new problem, that you owed them something. And that might be the aim of the governments involved in the bombing. Because none of them have ever seemed bothered whether the regimes in the Middle East are democratic, or brutal, as long as they're happy to trade their oil on favourable terms. They want to make sure that whatever emerges from these rebellions, there are rulers who will carry on with that arrangement.
Or maybe Britain and America have got that feeling you get at a fairground when you can't knock the tins off the shelf with the little spongy ball. It looks so easy, so after each attempt you hand over another pound and say, "Right. One more go. Surely I'll get it right this time. Here goes. Whoops!"
Like Mark Steel on The Independent on Facebook for updates
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-its-blair-i-feel-really-sorry-for-2249936.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-its-blair-i-feel-really-sorry-for-2249936.html
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
3 March 2003
When Saddam hanged a British journalist in 1990, MI5 had the journalist smeared in the Sun, and the Mail agreed he was a spy.What did Blair say? John Pilger can find nothing.
Having failed to fabricate a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and prove that Iraq has a secret armoury of banned weapons, the warmongers have fallen back on the "moral case" for an unprovoked attack on a stricken country. Farce has arrived. We want to laugh out loud, a deep and dark and almost grief-laden laugh, at Blair's concern for the "victims of Saddam Hussein" and his admonishment (reprinted in the Observer) of the millions of protesters: "There will be... no protests about the thousands of [Iraqi] children that die needlessly every year..."
First, let's look back to Saddam's most famous victim, the British journalist Farzad Bazoft, who was hanged in 1990 for "spying", a bogus trial following a bogus charge. Those of us who protested at his murder did so in the teeth of a smear campaign by the British government and a press determined to cover for Britain's favourite tyrant.
The Sun smeared Bazoft by publishing his conviction for stealing when he was a student - information supplied by MI5 on behalf of the Thatcher government, which was then seeking any excuse not to suspend its lucrative business and arms deals with the Iraqi dictator. The Mail and Today suggested that Saddam was right - that Bazoft was a spy. In a memorable editorial, the Sunday Telegraph equated investigative journalism with criminal espionage. Defending Saddam, not his victim, was clearly preferable.
What did Tony Blair say about this outrage? I can find nothing. Did Blair join those of us who protested, on the streets and in print, at the fact that ministers such as Douglas Hurd were commuting to Baghdad, with Hurd going especially to celebrate the anniversary of the coming to power of the dictator I described as "renowned as the interrogator and torturer of Qasr-al-Nihayyah, the 'Palace of the End'"?
There is no record of Blair saying anything substantive about Saddam Hussein's atrocities until after 11 September 2001 when the Americans, having failed to catch Osama Bin Laden, declared Saddam their number one enemy. As for Blair's assertion that there have been "no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly under his rule", the answer is straightforward.
There have been years of protests about the effect of the Anglo-American embargo on the children of Iraq.
That the US, backed by Britain, is largely responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths is the great unspoken in the so-called mainstream of politics and journalism.
That the embargo allowed Saddam Hussein to centralise and reinforce his domestic control is equally unmentionable. Whenever the voluminous evidence of such a monumental western crime against humanity is laid out, the crocodile tears of Blair and the rest of the warmongers barely disguise their cynicism.
Denis Halliday, the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations who was the senior UN official in Baghdad, has many times identified the "genocide" of the American-driven sanctions. The UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has paid tribute to the Iraqi rationing system, giving it credit for saving an entire population from famine.
This, like the evidence and witness of Halliday and his successor, Hans von Sponeck, and the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) and the Catholic Relief Agency (Cafod) and the 70 members of the US Congress who wrote to President Clinton describing the embargo as "infanticide masquerading as policy", has been airbrushed out.
In contrast, the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 has become part of Blair's and Bush's vocabulary. Eleven months after this atrocity, the assistant US secretary of state James Kelly flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein:
"You are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq."
What did Blair say about this? I can find nothing.
Read the Murdoch press at the time.
There is nothing about Saddam being "another Hitler"; no mention of torture chambers and appeasers. Saddam is one of us, because Washington says so.
The Australian, Murdoch's flagship in the country of his birth, and currently a leading warmonger, thought the most regrettable aspect about Iraq's use of chemical weapons at Halabja was that it had "given Tehran a propaganda coup and may have destroyed western hopes of quiet diplomacy".
Like other Murdoch papers, it defended Saddam by suggesting that Iraq's use of chemical and nerve agents was purely defensive.
Of the media warmongers in this country, it is difficult to choose the most absurd.
Murdoch's blustering hagiographer, William ("Mr X") Shawcross must defer, alas, to David Aaronovitch, the retired Stalinist apologist now employed by the Guardian Group to poke a stick at its readership and whose penchant for getting things wrong makes him the doyen. In his condescending lecture to the millions who marched on 15 February, Aaronovitch wrote:
"I wanted to ask, whether among your hundreds of thousands, the absences bothered you? The Kurds, the Iraqis - of whom there are many thousands in this country - where were they? Why were they not there?"
There were more than 4,000 Kurds marching en bloc. The Kurds foresee clearly yet another sell-out by the west, now that Washington is encouraging the Turkish military to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan.
According to my Iraqi friends, there were "a minimum of 3,000 Iraqis" marching. Two years ago, I attended an Iraqi festival at Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall. More than 2,000 Iraqis were present with their families. When Denis Halliday called for an end to the economic siege of Iraq and the implementation of that crucial passage of Security Council Resolution 687, which requires a ban on weapons of mass destruction throughout the region, in Israel as much as Iraq, he received thunderous applause. Everyone there, it seemed to me, had little or no time for Saddam Hussein; but none wanted their country strangled, attacked and occupied by the west yet again.
Patrick Tyler, a perceptive writer in the New York Times, says that Bush and Blair now face a "tenacious new adversary" - the public.
He says we are heading into a new bipolar world with two new superpowers: the regime in Washington on one side, and world public opinion on the other.
In a poll of half a million Europeans, Time magazine asked which country was the greatest threat to peace: 5.8 per cent said North Korea, 6.8 per cent said Iraq and 87 per cent said the United States. In other words, the game is up.
People have become aware, above all, that the most dangerous appeasement today has little to do with a regional tyrant, and everything to do with "our" governments.
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/blair-ignores-suns-smear-of-british-journalist-hanged-by-saddam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)