Cover of George W. Bushdiigo/my tags
diigo/oldephartte/military
British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?
Sept 2005
the plan to keep Iraq divided and in turmoil is an actual policy directive that spans back over two decades.
Iran's top military commander Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr pointed the finger at the occupational government last week by publicly stating,
“The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,” Zolqadr said.
“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners”.
Synthetic terror provocation by networks within the British intelligence services MI-5, MI-6, the Home Office, and the Metropolitan Police Special Branch who are favorable to a wider Anglo-American aggressive war in the Middle East, featuring especially an early pre-emptive attack on Iran, with a separate option on North Korea also included. With the London attacks, the Anglo-American invisible government adds another horrendous crime to its own dossier. But this time, their operations appear imperfect, especially in regard to the lack (so far) of a credible patsy group which, by virtue of its ethnicity, could direct popular anger against one of the invisible government's targets. So far, the entire attribution of the London crimes depends on what amounts to an anonymous posting in an obscure, hitherto unknown, secular Arabic-language chatrooms in the state of Maryland, USA. But, based on this wretched shred of pseudo-evidence, British Prime Minister Tony Blair — who has surely heard of a group called the Irish Republican Army, which bombed London for more than a decade — has not hesitated to ascribe the murders to "Islam," and seems to be flirting with total martial law under the Civil Contingencies Act. We are reminded once again of how he earned his nickname of Tony Bliar.
SCOTLAND YARD KNEW IN ADVANCE
That the British Government knew in advance that blasts would occur is not open to rational doubt. Within hours of the explosions, Israeli Army Radio was reporting that "Scotland Yard [London police headquarters] had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred." This report, repeated by IsraelNN.com, added that "the Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit." This report is attributed to "unconfirmed reliable sources." At around the same time, the Associated Press issued a wire asserting that "British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city," according to "a senior Israeli official." This wire specifies that "just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say that they had received warnings of possible attacks...."According to eyewitness reports from London, BBC claimed between 8:45 and some minutes after 10 AM that the incidents in the Underground were the result of an electrical power surge, or alternatively of a collision. Foreign bigwigs, presumably not just Netanyahu, were warned, while London working people continued to stream into the subway. These reports have been denied, repudiated, sanitized, and expunged from news media websites by the modern Orwellian Thought Police, but they have been archived by analysts who learned on 9/11 and other occasions that key evidence in state-sponsored terror crimes tends to filter out during the first minutes and hours, during the critical interval when the controlled media are assimilating the cover story peddled by complicit moles within the ministries. These reports are not at all damaging to Israel, but are devastating for British domestic security organs. An alternative version peddled by Stratfor.com, namely that the Israelis warned Scotland Yard, is most probably spurious but still leaves the British authorities on the hook. Which Scotland Yard official made the calls? Identify that official, and you have bagged a real live rogue network mole.
Another more general element of foreknowledge can be seen in the fact reported by Isikoff and Hosenball of Newsweek that, since about November 2004, the US FBI, but not other US agencies, has been refusing to use the London Underground.
The US Navy has awarded both Lockheed Martin Corporation and Austal USA a fixed-price incentive contract for a 10-ship block-buy, making a total of 20 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). Lead items for nine additional LCS are also to be bought in. The cost of each 10-ship order is US $3,620,625,192 (Lockheed Martin) and US $3,518,156,851 (Austal). The average cost of both variants is, according to the Pentagon, US $440 million per ship, which is $98 million below the cap for each vessel imposed by Congress. Secretary of the US Navy Ray Mabus said: “The awards represent a unique and valuable opportunity to lock in the benefits of competition and provide needed ships to our fleet in a timely and extraordinarily cost effective manner.”
A few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, I attended a big holiday dinner with family and friends. Naturally much of the conversation revolved around the terrorist attacks and the rage and sorrow we all felt. There was also considerable discussion about President George W Bush's handling of the catastrophe and his decision to send troops to Afghanistan in pursuit of the perpetrators and to eliminate the Taliban regime that was hosting them.
Everyone at the table approved of the president's actions and believed that there was no alternative. Moreover, and this was somewhat surprising considering that none of us thought Bush had been legitimately elected, we all believed that he was being honest about the situation the United States faced and the options that were before him.
There was, however, one dissenter. My younger son, then in college, was absolutely opposed to going into Afghanistan. He said that there had to be a better way to respond than rushing into a war that, in his opinion, would likely expand and last "forever." Besides, he added, "I don't believe a word that comes out of Bush's mouth."
Naturally a brouhaha ensued with everyone (including me) telling the kid how utterly wrong and unpatriotic he was. There was a lot of yelling, but he would not back down. He just kept saying "you'll see."
Boy did we.
Everyone at the table approved of the president's actions and believed that there was no alternative. Moreover, and this was somewhat surprising considering that none of us thought Bush had been legitimately elected, we all believed that he was being honest about the situation the United States faced and the options that were before him.
There was, however, one dissenter. My younger son, then in college, was absolutely opposed to going into Afghanistan. He said that there had to be a better way to respond than rushing into a war that, in his opinion, would likely expand and last "forever." Besides, he added, "I don't believe a word that comes out of Bush's mouth."
Naturally a brouhaha ensued with everyone (including me) telling the kid how utterly wrong and unpatriotic he was. There was a lot of yelling, but he would not back down. He just kept saying "you'll see."
Boy did we.
( Foreknowledge or coverage ? The first comment tries to disprove the thesis of Iranian impotence. Which may actually be fair...and irrelevant to supposition that another plot is brewing along the lines of a seemingly infinite number of predecessors.
I wonder if the 'younger son' does analysis ? )
Americans believe red herring– Iran is Enemy #1. Why?
Zbigniew Brzezinski:How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
( So there isn't a global Islam...but that wasn't the question )
The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means
In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. ( Oh. Another 'mistake.' Riiiight. )
The Awlaki memo and Marty Lederman
The secret document provided the justification for acting [against Awlaki] despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis.
These are not operational actions being concealed, but legal conclusions that bind the Executive Branch...It basically means citizens cannot even know the laws that prevail in the country. Now we have the Obama DOJ refusing to release the Awlaki OLC memo — which purported to authorize the President to assassinate a U.S. citizen without due process — and is also concealing OLC memos purporting to describe the legal limits of its surveillance powers, which it also refuses to disclose even in the face of lawsuits.Harold Koh was long one of the leading advocates for a narrow interpretation of the President’s war powers under the War Powers Resolution, only to become the architect — once appointed to the State Department — of the ludicrous claims offered to justify President Obama’s fighting the war in Libya even in the face of a Congressional vote refusing to authorize it. That’s just how Washington functions (during the Clinton years, John Yoo actually objected that Clinton had “exercised the powers of the imperial presidency to the utmost” and had “accelerated the disturbing trends in foreign policy that undermine notions of democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law”; once appointed by Bush, Yoo helped codify the most sweeping presidential powers imaginable). People who aren’t willing to adhere to that dynamic rarely end up in positions of power there, and if they refuse, never will again.
To have argued in the Bush years that the AUMF does not allow the President to detain U.S. citizens without due process, but argue now in the Obama years that it empowers the President to kill them without due process, requires some significant levels of intellectual flexibility, to put that as generously as possible.
Presidents can always find someone among their political appointees at DOJ to provide the legal stamp of approval for whatever they want to do.
More and more, this is how the most vital matters in our democracy are decided: by secret deliberations among the President’s partisan lawyers.
( Darn. Forgot the 'k' in de-mock-racy in New Rome )
- coram nobis
- Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Some procedural issues also need reiteration:
1. One lawyer's (or one group of lawyers') memorandum is not case law, not under any version of common law taught today in the former United States. At best, it's administrative guidance; at worst, it's somebody's opinion. Ipse dixit.
Mental illness and obesity are rising in the UK and US, leading activists to fight for a new approach to healthcare.
In the late 1840s, typhus fever broke out in Upper Silesia, a Prussian province in what is now Poland. The education ministry sent a physician called Rudolf Virchow to investigate. While Virchow identified insanitary working conditions as the immediate cause of the epidemic, he traced its origins to the region's lack of political liberty. In the absence of free institutions the inhabitants were "poor, ignorant and apathetic". In order to prevent a recurrence of the disease Virchow recommended a remedy that he summarised in a few words: "full and unlimited democracy".
Modern day Britain and America are not in quite the same condition as Upper Silesia. We are not dying in the thousands from typhus and starvation. But we are not well, either. The problems with the US healthcare system are well known. Millions lack adequate insurance coverage, and thousands suffer unnecessarily and die prematurely as a result.
There are other, more insidious problems. We are living through what appears to be an epidemic of loneliness and distress. By the beginning of the century in Britain one in six adults suffered from a neurotic disorder, most likely anxiety, depression, or both. In 2004, a Department of Health study estimated that around a quarter of all adults had "an alcohol use disorder".
According to the psychologist Bruce Levine between a fifth and a quarter of Americans are receiving drug treatment for psychiatric disorders. He notes, too, that there is an epidemic of compulsive and addictive behaviour. These compulsions and addictions exact a terrible toll on people's physical health.
Japan 'set to ease ban on export of weapons'
Free to participate in the F-35 overpriced debacle for a 'fighter' that I can't see any use for. Think they could redesign the A.V. Roe Arrow ? At least that would carry 2, we know the airframe moved right along....and even at a ridiculously dated design parameter makes more sense than what I've been hearing
Top general opens door for F-35 fighter jet cuts
BusinessWeek - 10 minutes agoThe F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the biggest weapons procurement program for the Pentagon, costing $238 billion. The program is plagued with delays and cost ...148 related articles
"The Government of Syria has manifestly failed to protect its population. Furthermore, it has ignored the international community's calls to co-operate with international investigations," the UN human rights chief said.
('Human Rights' : There's a toothless 'political football' if I ever heard of one )
Theirs and Ours: Terrorism Is What They Do
A defining feature of state power is rhetoric about a ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ role in world affairs. Errors of judgement, blunders and tactical mistakes can, and do, occur. But the motivation underlying state policy is fundamentally benign. Reporters and commentators, trained or selected for professional ‘reliability’, tend to slavishly adopt this prevailing ideology.
Is Europe sliding into a double-dip recession? - Focus on the long term
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment