Wednesday, August 31, 2011

#Film 9/11 : Press for the TRUTH.

#9/11 Remembered...

George W. Bush War Criminal and LIAR!

#9/11 Experiments: Eliminate the Impossible

#IRAQ :Dick #Cheney, the Ultimate American Terrorist

The #Falklands Alternative
America’s motive for invading Iraq

Copyright Joe Vialls, 1991 – 1995,  Edited 16 February 2003
             Although most of this long report was first written in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, it is still valid today in terms of explaining America and Israel’s apparent obsession with “Ridding the World” of Iraq’s “Evil Dictator” President Saddam Hussein, plus his alleged [and apparently unique] "weapons of mass destruction". 

            Very few people know or even care that until 1971, all of the oil reserves in Iraq were owned and completely controlled by American and British interests. At that precise point in recent history, the Iraqi people were regarded by the “Western Powers” merely as serfs, who were graciously allowed to keep three cents out of every three dollar barrel of their own Iraqi oil. The balance of US$2.97 per barrel went straight into the New York and London bank accounts of western “investors”.

            Then suddenly in 1972, the young Saddam Hussein peacefully nationalized the Iraqi Oil Company, and told its American and British employees to recognize this new reality or leave the country. Most decided to leave, and horrified western investors then found “their” oil reserves in Iraq were no longer paying the rent on luxury apartments in Manhattan and Mayfair. From a Wall Street perspective it was Fidel Castro and Cuba all over again, and the bankers quietly vowed to take revenge on Saddam Hussein for his “reckless insubordination”.

            As each year rolled by, Hussein ordered that all of Iraq’s recovered oil wealth be invested in irrigation, infrastructure, education, medicine, defense and other essentials. Within a decade Iraq became easily the most advanced secular Muslim country in the world,  with large numbers of women in the professions, and a free health service that could only be marveled at by less fortunate nations.

            Predictably perhaps, Saddam Hussein became a national hero: the man who “Kicked the Americans and British out” and catapulted Iraq into the 20th Century.  Even today in 2003, all Iraqi citizens are free to carry loaded automatic weapons on the street, because President Hussein has nothing to fear from his own people.... read more

#9/11: #ISRAEL DID IT .

#9/11 Official onslaught story begins as we appraoch the 10th anniversary of Americans murdering their own people

Establishment Prepares 9/11 Official Story Onslaught towers hit1
One look at your TV guide over the next 10 days will tell you everything you need to know about how petrified the establishment is over the flimsy credibility of the official 9/11 fable.

Naturally, the 10-year anniversary of the attacks would be expected to merit a deluge of media coverage, but what sticks out is the overbearing emphasis on countering so-called “conspiracy theories” about the events of that day, or in other words, reinforcing the official “conspiracy theory” that 19 poorly trained Arab hijackers were able to cripple America’s air defenses and make three giant steel-framed structures crumble to the ground at near free fall speed.
The BBC couldn’t even wait until the month of September itself to air their latest 9/11 truth hit piece earlier this week, and another is more

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

#America #History is about to repeat itself WARNING disturbing images.

#IRAQ : Ex #Bush Official Col. Lawrence Wilkerson...Powerful words.. "I Am Willing To Testify"....

As former Vice President Dick Cheney publishes his long-awaited memoir, we speak to Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "This is a book written out of fear, fear that one day someone will 'Pinochet' Dick Cheney," says Wilkerson, alluding to the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was arrested for war crimes.

Wilkerson also calls for George W. Bush and Cheney to be held accountable for their crimes in office. "I’d be willing to testify, and I’d be willing to take any punishment I’m due," Wilkerson said. We also speak to political and legal blogger Glenn Greenwald about his recent article on Cheney, "The Fruits of Elite Immunity." "Dick Cheney goes around the country profiting off of this sleazy, sensationalistic, self-serving book, basically profiting from his crimes, and at the same time normalizing the idea that these kind of policies…are perfectly legitimate choices to make. And I think that’s the really damaging legacy from all of this," says Greenwald. [includes rush transcript]

#Libya the TRUTH HURTS ..listen to REP. Dennis Kucinich

Monday, August 29, 2011

#Wikileaks : Obama Administration Secretly Worked To Prevent Prosecution of War Crimes By The Bush Administration

Former #MI5 chief says Iraq was no threat to UK

Pre-war #IRAQ was no threat to UK !

#NATO commits massacre at Sirte raising the city to the ground

#IRAQ : Blair and Bush planned Iraq war without second UN vote, letter shows...

George Bush and Tony Blair
George Bush and Tony Blair in April 2003. A letter shows they had agreed six months before to invade Iraq without a second UN resolution. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Britain and the US were planning to take action against Saddam Hussein without a second UN resolution six months before the invasion of Iraq, a newly released letter from the-then prime minister Tony Blair's office shows.
A letter from Blair's private secretary reveals that "we and the US would take action" without a new resolution by the UN security council if UN weapons inspectors showed a clear breach of an earlier resolution by Saddam. In that case, Saddam "would not have a second chance".

That was the only way they could persuade the Bush administration to agree to a role for the UN and continuing work by UN weapons inspectors, the letter says.

The letter, dated 17 October 2002, was written by Matthew Rycroft, one of Blair's private secretaries, to Mark Sedwill, private secretary to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. "This letter is sensitive," Rycroft underlined.
He added: "It must be seen only by those with a real need to know its contents, and must not be copied further." He sent it to a number of other senior officials, including Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN.

There is no indication that it was seen by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, who at the time was advising that, without a fresh UN resolution, invading Iraq would be illegal.

Rycroft's letter referred to a Downing Street meeting on the developing Iraqi crisis attended by Straw, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, and the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Sir Mike Boyce. Also present were Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, Sally (now Lady) Morgan, his director of government relations, Alastair Campbell, his director of communications, and David Manning, his chief foreign policy adviser.

The meeting concluded, wrote Rycroft, that "the only way to keep the US on the UN route was for there to be a clear understanding that if Blix [Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector] reported an Iraqi breach of the first [UN] resolution, then Saddam would not have a second chance".

Rycroft, in a devastating passage, added: "In other words, if for some reason (such as a French or Russian veto) there were no second resolution agreed ... we and the US would take action."

The Downing Street letter is particularly significant against the background of the government's repeated emphasis in public at the time on the need to get UN approval before any invasion of Iraq. The "first resolution" referred to in Rycroft's letter was number 1441, passed unanimously in November 2002.

Goldsmith and most of the government's legal advisers insisted a second UN resolution was needed before military action could lawfully take place.

Blair was placed in an even more difficult position with the Bush administration since, in the event, Blix never reported an unconditional breach of the first resolution by Saddam Hussein.

The Rycroft letter also appears to conflict with Straw's actions at the time. A statement recently released by the Chilcot inquiry revealed that in October 2002 Straw told his French counterpart, Dominique de Villepin, that the US acceptance of the wording of the first UN resolution "implied" a further one was required.

The statement was written by Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign Office's top legal adviser, who also opposed the invasion. It also disclosed that Greenstock told his US counterpart that Britain would state publicly after the resolution was passed "that there needed to be a second resolution".

The issue is at the heart of the continuing and deep arguments over the legality of the invasion. Goldsmith originally advised Blair and Straw that the the first UN resolution did not provide sufficient legal cover for war.

Goldsmith said he changed his mind in February 2003 after a visit to Washington, where Bush's legal advisers told him they had agreed to the wording of 1441 only because it had not crossed America's "red line" – the clear message was that, as far as the US was concerned, no new UN resolution was needed.

Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College London, said: "The letter of 17 October 2002 is consistent with the conclusion that the prime minister wanted to proceed to action with the US on the basis of a single security council resolution, irrespective of what the law required, and ignoring the views at the time of the Foreign Office legal adviser and the attorney general."


#Israel : #'US must reconsider stance on Israel'

#Syria: #US trains anti-Syrian gangs in Iraq'

#ISRAEL-US plan for war with SYRIA has failed.

Sunday, August 28, 2011


Gaddafi was being demonised by the Reagan-Father Bush administration (the Rothschilds) in the 1980s when the CIA and Mossad led a campaign to destabilise Libya that mirrors what has happened in 2011. Newsweek reported on August 3rd, 1981:

'The details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic CIA destabilization campaign. One element was a "disinformation" program designed to embarrass Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a "counter government" to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third - potentially the most risky - was an escalating paramilitary campaign, probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct small-scale guerrilla operations and demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force.'
Sound familiar?

That was 30 years ago.

But so many just buy the lie no matter what the era or generation. As Adolf Hitler said: 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.' And his propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, said: 'The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Hitler also said, with equal relevance: 'What luck for the rulers that men do not think.'

NATO planes pepper-bombed Tripoli in support of the 'rebels' on the ground. Thousands of the very civilians that the UN resolution said should be protected were killed in the process. But we hear nothing of this in the mainstream media and precious little of the murder and executions of Gaddafi supporters by the 'rebels' throughout the conflict and after they entered Tripoli.

The emphasis is always on alleged executions and killings of rebel supporters by Gaddafi's forces. No doubt some of these claims are true, but where is the balance? There is none, and Syria is now being demonised to go through the same process of demonise, invade, conquer, control. Richard Haas, president of the Illuminati Council on Foreign Relations which directs US foreign policy, has admitted that the NATO bombing of Libya was not about protecting civilians, but removing Gaddafi. He also called for an 'international force' to occupy the country and 'maintain order'.

It is the same rhetoric, the same blueprint, which we have seen in every other country 'liberated' by the architects of tyranny. It really is goodbye Libya: rest in peace. The United States and its conscripted NATO allies are not going to walk away and leave Libya to the Libyans. It is an occupation force to pillage the oil resources and the banking system, and it was always going to be.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

#Libya: Amnesty offers evidence of Libyan detainee killings

#Libya : Libyan rebels and the #Israeli connection

#Germany: 89% doubt official version on 9/11

#US #Libya :#AMERICA Tried to Steal 1.5 Billion Dollars of Libyan Money, Stopped by South Africa, NATO War On... -

#Libya: Targeting of journalists and what America may be hiding .

#NATO under U.S. instruction is now the killing machine.

Snippet from article.

Twenty years later the USSR collapsed. Washington's reaction teaches us a good deal about the reality of the Cold War.

The Bush I administration, then in office, immediately declared that policies would remain pretty much unchanged, but under different pretexts. The huge military establishment would be maintained, but not for defense against the Russians; rather, to confront the "technological sophistication" of third world powers.

Similarly, they reasoned, it would be necessary to maintain "the defense industrial base," a euphemism for advanced industry, highly reliant on government subsidy and initiative.

Intervention forces still had to be aimed at the Middle East, where the serious problems "could not be laid at the Kremlin's door," contrary to half a century of deceit.

It was quietly conceded that the problems had always been "radical nationalism," that is, attempts by countries to pursue an independent course in violation of Grand Area principles. These policy fundamentals were not modified.

The Clinton administration declared that the US has the right to use military force unilaterally to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources." It also declared that military forces must be "forward deployed" in Europe and Asia "in order to shape people's opinions about us," not by gentle persuasion, and "to shape events that will affect our livelihood and our security." Instead of being reduced or eliminated, as propaganda would have led one to expect, NATO was expanded to the East.

This was in violation of verbal pledges to Mikhail Gorbachev when he agreed to allow a unified Germany to join NATO.

Today, NATO has become a global intervention force under US command, with the official task of controlling the international energy system, sea lanes, pipelines, and whatever else the hegemonic power determines.

#Libya #NATO massacre...wheel on #YvonneFletcher !

Sunday, August 21, 2011

#9/ll . #WARNING! They are going to do IT AGAIN !

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it’s not looking good for this 10th anniversary of 9/11. All the indicators are there to tell us they need a massive distraction and excuse to take this idiotic war on terror to horrific new levels and even more Orwellian internal controls and crackdowns.


#Syria: The Hama Massacre of 1982

#TRIPOLI: falls into rebel hands

#Tripoli: BREAKING: Franklin Lamb American activist shot by sniper fire.

#ISRAEL: Once again hits #GAZA and the world turns a blind eye...

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

#NATO Rats Very Happy with NATO Food, War On Libya

  will stand trial for it's warcrimes..

#LIBYA: NATO getting desperate... Misratah Liberated from NATO/Terrorists

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

August 16, 2011 "Pravda" - -For some time now it has become apparent that NATO was getting desperate. First, the persistent loss of territory by the criminal gangs of foreign terrorists they back, then the disarray within the TNC (a gang of opportunists), then the flagrant breach of international law, the war crimes, targeting the Libyan water supply and electricity grid...

It is by now patently obvious that NATO serves as the military wing of the invisible lobbies controlling the banking, energy, telecommunications, drugs and weapons lobbies which in fact dictate the policies of the majority of western states and all of its member states' foreign policies, without ever having been elected. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that NATO serves as a club to further the interests not only of these lobbies but also any politician in trouble, who is a member of the club.

Why, when Bill Clinton got into a pickle with his penis and a dress in the Oval Office, lo and behold, NATO supported the horrific Albanian terrorists (KLA/UÇK) and created the Kosovo problem (drugs lobby). Now, leapfrogging the foreign policy disaster which was the criminal invasion of Iraq (energy lobby, weapons lobby, telecoms lobby), we have the protagonists the UK Prime Minister Cameron (who after one year has destroyed his own country with his pig-headed arrogance), the hugely unpopular French President, Nicolas Sarkozy and that failed one-timer insult to the international community, Obomber, the one who received the Nobel Peace Prize and turned against Africa.

So, with three losers like these, it is hardly surprising the NATO campaign got off to a non-starter. After all, they had armed and aided a bunch of terrorists, most of whom are not even Libyan (100,000 Egyptian terrorists have been sent to the fray, many of them to their deaths) and they got it wrong. To be successful, a rebellion has to have popular support, it has to have the support of the youth, and it has to start in the heart of the capital city...continue reading.

#9/11 Explosive new charge...

by Philip Shenon

In a new documentary, former national-security aide Richard Clarke suggests the CIA tried to recruit 9/11 hijackers--then covered it up. Philip Shenon on George Tenet's denial.

With the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks only a month away, former CIA Director George Tenet and two former top aides are fighting back hard against allegations that they engaged in a massive cover-up in 2000 and 2001 to hide intelligence from the White House and the FBI that might have prevented the attacks.

The source of the explosive, unproved allegations is a man who once considered Tenet a close friend: former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who makes the charges against Tenet and the CIA in an interview for a radio documentary timed to the 10th anniversary next month. Portions of the Clarke interview were made available to The Daily Beast by the producers of the documentary...continue reading
The Daily Beast

Three #US cowards killed, 4 wounded in fighting; 2 tanks destroyed

Friday, August 5, 2011

#TonyBlair: Daily Mirror regarding Tony Blair MI5 agent ?

#UK #Torture : UK policy on torture revealed

A number of men said they were questioned by MI5 and MI6 after being tortured at Guantánamo
A number of men said they were questioned by MI5 and MI6 officers after being tortured at Guantánamo Bay. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
A top-secret document revealing how MI6 and MI5 officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by the Guardian.

The interrogation policy – details of which are believed to be too sensitive to be publicly released at the government inquiry into the UK's role in torture and rendition – instructed senior intelligence officers to weigh the importance of the information being sought against the amount of pain they expected a prisoner to suffer. It was operated by the British government for almost a decade.
A copy of the secret policy showed senior intelligence officers and ministers feared the British public could be at greater risk of a terrorist attack if Islamists became aware of its existence.

"For instance, it is possible that in some circumstances such a revelation could result in further radicalisation, leading to an increase in the threat from terrorism."

The policy adds that such a disclosure "could result in damage to the reputation of the agencies", and that this could undermine their effectiveness.
The fact that the interrogation policy document and other similar papers may not be made public during the inquiry into British complicity in torture and rendition has led to human rights groups and lawyers refusing to give evidence or attend any meetings with the inquiry team because it does not have "credibility or transparency".

The decision by 10 groups – including Liberty, Reprieve and Amnesty International – follows the publication of the inquiry's protocols, which show the final decision on whether material uncovered by the inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, can be made public will rest with the cabinet secretary.

The inquiry will begin after a police investigation into torture allegations has been completed.

Some have criticised the appointment of Gibson, a retired judge, to head the inquiry because he previously served as the intelligence services commissioner, overseeing government ministers' use of a controversial power that permits them to "disapply" UK criminal and civil law in order to offer a degree of protection to British intelligence officers committing crimes overseas. The government denies there is a conflict of interest.

The protocols also stated that former detainees and their lawyers will not be able to question intelligence officials and that all evidence from current or former members of the security and intelligence agencies, below the level of head, will be heard in private.

The document seen by the Guardian shows how the secret interrogation policy operated until it was rewritten on the orders of the coalition government last July.
It also:

The secret interrogation policy was first passed to MI5 and MI6 officers in Afghanistan in January 2002 to enable them to continue questioning prisoners whom they knew were being mistreated by members of the US military.
It was amended slightly later that year before being rewritten and expanded in 2004 after it became apparent that a significant number of British Muslims, radicalised by the invasion of Iraq, were planning attacks against the UK.
The policy was amended again in July 2006 during an investigation of a suspected plot to bring down airliners over the Atlantic.

Entitled "Agency policy on liaison with overseas security and intelligence services in relation to detainees who may be subject to mistreatment", it was given to intelligence officers handing over questions to be put to detainees.

Separate policy documents were issued for related matters, including intelligence officers conducting face-to-face interrogations.

Intelligence officers were instructed not to carry out any action "which it is known" would result in torture. However, they could proceed when they foresaw "a real possibility their actions will result in an individual's mistreatment" as long as they first sought assurances from the overseas agency.

Even when such assurances were judged to be worthless, officers could be given permission to proceed despite the real possibility that they would committing a crime and that a prisoner or prisoners would be tortured.

"When, not withstanding any caveats or prior assurances, there is still considered to be a real possibility of mistreatment and therefore there is considered to be a risk that the agencies' actions could be judged to be unlawful, the actions may not be taken without authority at a senior level. In some cases, ministers may need to be consulted," the document said.

In deciding whether to give permission, senior MI5 and MI6 management "will balance the risk of mistreatment and the risk that the officer's actions could be judged to be unlawful against the need for the proposed action".

At this point, "the operational imperative for the proposed action, such as if the action involves passing or obtaining life-saving intelligence" would be weighed against "the level of mistreatment anticipated and how likely those consequences are".

Ministers may be consulted over "particularly difficult cases", with the process of consulting being "designed to ensure that appropriate visibility and consideration of the risk of unlawful actions takes place". All such operations must remain completely secret or they could put UK interests and British lives at risk.

Disclosure of the contents of the document appears to help explain the high degree of sensitivity shown by ministers and former ministers after the Guardian became aware of its existence two years ago.

Tony Blair evaded a series of questions over the role he played in authorising changes to the instructions in 2004, while the former home secretary David Blunkett maintained it was potentially libellous even to ask him questions about the matter.

As foreign secretary, David Miliband told MPs the secret policy could never be made public as "nothing we publish must give succour to our enemies".
Blair, Blunkett and the former foreign secretary Jack Straw also declined to say whether or not they were aware that the instructions had led to a number of people being tortured.

The head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, said that, in the post 9/11 world, his officers would be derelict in their duty if they did not work with intelligence agencies in countries with poor human rights records, while his opposite number at MI6, Sir John Sawers, spoke of the "real, constant, operational dilemmas" involved in such relationships.

Others, however, are questioning whether – in the words of Ken Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions, "Tony Blair's government was guilty of developing something close to a criminal policy".

The Intelligence and Security Committee, the group of parliamentarians appointed by the prime minister to assist with the oversight of the UK's intelligence agencies, is known to have examined the document while sitting in secret, but it is unclear what – if any – suggestions or complaints it made.

Paul Murphy, the Labour MP and former minister who chaired the committee in 2006, declined to answer questions about the matter.

A number of men, mostly British Muslims, have complained that they were questioned by MI5 and MI6 officers after being tortured by overseas intelligence officials in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. Some are known to have been detained at the suggestion of British intelligence officers.
Others say they were tortured in places such as Egypt, Dubai, Morocco and Syria, while being interrogated on the basis of information that could only have been supplied by the UK.

A number were subsequently convicted of serious terrorism offences or subjected to control orders. Others returned to the UK and, after treatment, resumed their lives.

Some have brought civil proceedings against the British government, and a number have received compensation in out-of-court settlements, but others remain too scared to take legal action.

Scotland Yard has examined the possibility that one officer from MI5 and a second from MI6 committed criminal offences while extracting information from detainees overseas, and detectives are now conducting what is described as a "wider investigation into other potential criminal conduct".

A new set of instructions was drafted after last year's election, published on the orders of David Cameron, on the grounds that the coalition was "determined to resolve the problems of the past" and wished to give "greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable in the future".

Human rights groups pointed to what they said were serious loopholes that could permit MI5 and MI6 officers to remain involved in the torture of prisoners overseas.

Last week, the high court heard a challenge to the legality of the new instructions, brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Judgment is expected later in the year.