May 18, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for War

Six jet attack missile sites across London during Olympic Games

May 1, 2012 By Leave a Comment

By Justin Davenport on April 30, 2012

London will be ringed by six missile sites to guard against a 9/11-style suicide jet attack during the Olympics.

One battery could be positioned near a playground in Waltham Forest with the others providing round-the-clock cover from Blackheath Common, the Lea Valley Reservoir, Oxleas Wood, Barn Hill in Epping Forest and on top of a block of flats in Bow.

David Cameron will have ultimate responsibility for any decision to fire the surface-to-air Starstreak and Rapier missiles.

The weapons travel at three times the speed of sound with a range of 3.4 miles. General Sir Nick Parker, in charge of Olympic operations, said: “We are practising for the worst-case scenario, not the most likely scenario but we believe that it is prudent to be prepared. It is sensible to prepare for the worst.”

Starstreaks can be fired from the shoulder or armoured vehicles while Rapiers are mounted on trailers. They will be aimed at defending the Olympic Park.

He said people were being consulted over the sites. General Parker said Typhoon fighter jets patrolling the skies would be the first line of defence followed by snipers in helicopters whose role would be to shoot the pilots of planes which failed to turn back from the stadium.

The surface-to-air missiles are being deployed as the third tier of defence aimed at slower or smaller aircraft. The Rapiers will be sited farther out and Starstreak High Velocity Missiles will be deployed in Bow and Waltham Forest just a few miles from the stadium.

The general said dummy missiles would be used during a major army and police security exercise which starts on Wednesday. The eight-day exercise codenamed Olympic Guardian will see the Navy’s largest ship HMS Ocean moored at Greenwich and Typhoon jets conducting low flying runs across London.

He revealed that Typhoon jets had been operating on exercise in London airspace as recently as last Friday. Of the missile sites, he added: “I understand that this is unusual and people may be concerned but I believe that for the greater good it is prudent to us to provide this sort of air security.”

The sites were chosen out of 100 possibilities as the best locations for anti-aircraft systems. The missiles are part of a major military involvement in the Olympics but the general said the role of the armed forces would remain in the background.

A total of 7,500 soldiers and naval officers will be deployed in London during the Games, including a detachment of Royal Marines and special forces personnel.

A 1,000 strong unarmed “contingency force” will be on stand-by to help with searches and security surrounding the games venues.

Police emphasised that no soldiers would be deployed on the streets of London during the games. HMS Ocean will anchor in the Thames to serve as a floating base for more than 800 marines. More than 12,500 police officers will be on duty.

Today police chiefs refused to say how many armed officers would be deployed during the Games.

Residents near the proposed missile sites voiced their concern after being sent leaflets  by the Ministry of Defence.

Lynda Greenwood of Barn Hill, Epping Forest, said: “We don’t want it here. People will be up in arms. Using a site in this tiny hamlet to store missiles is dangerous. What’s to stop terrorists from targeting us to get rid of these missiles?”

Mrs Greenwood, 58, who helps her husband run a roofing business, added: “It puts us in danger. What are the authorities thinking?”

Flash Bristow, chairwoman of the Ferndale Area Residents’ Association in Leytonstone, which includes the Fred Wigg Tower in Montague Road, said: “To hear there’s going to be something capable of killing people that is going to be put on a block of flats a few minutes’ walk from my house is shocking.

“The tower is 16 storeys high and is opposite terraced houses and near three primary schools.

“I don’t see why they need to put missiles everywhere. It will make me feel far less safe to know there’s something lurking nearby.”

Howard Shields, chairman of the Blackheath Society, said: “The leaflet talks about putting a ground-based air defence unit at the western end of Blackheath. We have to understand that security is a big general issue during Games.

“Our concern is that so much of the heath is already being used for other bits of the Olympics. We’re anxious this is not going to take another enormous chunk of the heath, and have been assured footprint is quite small.”

Source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/six-jet-attack-missile-sites-across-london-during-olympic-games-7696931.html

Filed Under: False Flag Attacks, Featured

Syrian Peace Deal: UN’s Cloak to NATO’s Dagger

April 10, 2012 By 1 Comment

Turkey begins fabricating “cross border” incidents to justify Brookings prescribed “safe havens” inside Syria.
by Tony Cartalucci on April 9, 2012

From the very beginning, US policy makers admitted that Kofi Annan’s “peace mission” to Syria was nothing more than a rouse to preserve NATO’s proxy forces from total destruction and create “safe havens” from which to prolong the bloodshed. It was hoped that with established “safe havens” in Syria, protected by Turkish military forces (Turkey has been a NATO member since 1952) violence and pressure verses the Syrian government could be perpetually increased until it finally collapsed and the carving up of Syria could commence.

Photo: Annan is a trustee of Wall Street speculator George Soros and geopolitical manipulator Zbigniew Brzezinski’s International Crisis Group (ICG), along side Neo-Conservative corporate lobbyist and warmonger Kenneth Adelman, US State Department-listed Iranian terror organization MEK lobbyist - General Wesley Clark, Wall Street-backed color revolution leader- Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, and Brookings Institution’s Samuel Berger. Serving as “advisers” to the International Crisis Group include, Neo-Conservative warmonger Richard Armitage, former Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bank of Israel Governor Stanely Fischer, and President of Israel Shimon Peres. While Annan poses as a representative of the “United Nations” he is in reality representing the pro-regime change agenda of the ICG and the special interests that fund its work.

….

This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria andIran. In their latest report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated (emphasis added):

“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership.This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Click to enlarge

Image: Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

….

And while “peace” was being peddled by Soros-funded International Crisis Group trustee Kofi Annan, the US, UK, France, and members of the West’s proxy Arab League simultaneously called for Assad to stand down and withdraw troops from secured cities while openly declaring that arms and cash would continue to flow to the rebels. The “Friends of Syria” summit would even ludicrously declare that “wages” would be paid to rebels to continue their battle to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Clearly the label “peace deal” is inappropriate for a proposal that seeks to empower and indeed see one side prevail militarily over another whose hands are purposefully tied. It is an unconditional surrender to foreign-funded terrorists simply labeled as a “peace deal.”

The Brookings Institution’s “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” are meant to be established by NATO-member Turkey, who has been threatening to partially invade Syria for weeks in order to accomplish this. And while Turkey claims this is based on “humanitarian concerns,” examining Turkey’s abysmal human rights record in addition to its own ongoing genocidal campaign against the Kurdish people both within and beyond its borders, it is clear they are simply fulfilling the agenda established by their Western patrons on Wall Street and in the city of London.

Photo: Turkish tanks entering Iraq to raid Kurdish towns and hunt suspected rebels in 2008. More recently, Turkey has been bombing “suspected” rebel bases in both Turkey and Iraq, as well as conducting mass nationwide arrests. Strangely, as Turkey verifiably does what Libya’s Qaddafi and Syria’s Assad have been accused of doing, in all of their hypocrisy, are now calling for a partial invasion of Syria based on “humanitarian concerns.”

….Now, Turkey is fabricating stories involving Syrian troops “firing across” the Turkish-Syrian border. The New York Times published these bold accusations before admitting further down that “it was unclear what kind of weapons caused the injuries on Sunday around six miles inside Turkish territory,” and that “there were conflicting accounts about the incident.” As are all the accusations used by NATO, the UN, and individual member states to justify meddling in Syria’s affairs, these tales involve hear-say from the rebels themselves.

It is clear that Turkey, NATO, and the UN are attempting to set the pretext for the establishment of “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” intended to circumvent the UN Security Council which has seen attempts to green-light military intervention vetoed twice by Russia and China. As the UN “peace deal” deadline of April 10 comes and goes, we can expect an ever increasing din of propaganda purporting Syrian violations against Turkish sovereignty, the continued propaganda campaign accentuating the “victimization” of NATO’s death squads, and the public roll-out of Brookings’ Turkish established “safe haven” within Syrian territory.

Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution, from whose playbook Kofi Annan is being directed in his disingenuous “peace mission” to Syria. (click image to enlarge)

Image: Just some of the corporate and “institutional” sponsors of the International Crisis Group, upon which Kofi Annan sits as a “trustee” with other dubious personalities including George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Israeli President Shimon Peres, Egypt’s Mohammed ElBaradei, and Neo-Cons Richard Armitage and Kenneth Adelman. (click image to enlarge)

….The UN “peace deal” was a rouse from the beginning. The West has no intention of leaving Syria intact and will seek all means by which to prevail in toppling the government, carving up the country along sectarian lines, plunging it into perpetual violence as it has Libya, and moving next toward Iran. While it is essential to expose the truth behind Syria’s unrest, is also important to identify the corporate-financier interests driving this nefarious agenda and boycott them entirely while seeking out viable local solutions to support instead. If none exist, it is our duty to use our time, money, attention, and resources to create such alternatives instead of perpetuating the self-serving agenda unfolding before us.

Ultimately it is “we the people” paying into this current paradigm that allows it to continue moving forward, therefore it by necessity must be “we the people” who undermine and ultimately replace it.

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/syrian-peace-deal-uns-cloak-to-natos.html

Filed Under: Africa, British Petroleum, China, Corporations, France, Genocide, Human Rights, Iran, Libya, Military Industrial Complex, NATO, Russia, Safety, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Nations

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Matter of Peace or War?

December 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment

“Let us, on this International Day, reaffirm our commitment to translating ‎solidarity into positive action. The international community must help steer the situation ‎towards a historic peace agreement.‎” That is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message for the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, 29 November 2011.

Mr. Ban called on the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to show courage and determination to seek an agreement for a two-State solution that can open up a brighter future for Palestinian and Israeli children.

There have been many Middle East peace proposals and many negotiations including an Arab state, with or without a significant Jewish population, a Jewish state, with or without a significant Arab population, a single bi-national state, with or without some degree of cantonization, two states, one bi-national and one Arab, with or without some form of federation, and two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with or without some form of federation.

During the 19th Century some Jews banded together to form a political ideology called Zionism, based on the idea of a “Jewish homeland.” In the USA the Zionist movement developed a powerful political lobby to promote its aims, while its military groups pursued a violent terrorist campaign in Palestine against the Arabs and Britain to force acceptance of its demands.

On 29 November 1947 the United Nations adopted a partition resolution dividing the land of Palestine into two independent states- one Arab and one Jewish, while Jerusalem was put under international protection. This was accepted by most of the Jewish settlers, who comprised 13% of the population and rejected by the majority Arab population, the original inhabitants who demanded self–determination. The British said the decision would be a failure and refused to apply it. When British forces withdrew in May 1948, and Israel declared independence fighting broke out between Arabs and Jews.

One of the first plans for settling the Arab-Israel war of 1948 was made by the UN emissary, Count Folke Bernadotte. Count Folke Bernadotte was a Swedish noble and diplomat, nephew of the Swedish king, fluent in six languages; he was an outstanding humanitarian and very well respected for his integrity. He gained international recognition through his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War Two, organizing exchanges of disabled prisoners. Bernadotte also used his position to negotiate with Heinrich Himmler, a military commander, and a leading member of the Nazi Party, and save the lives of about 30,000 Jews, Allied prisoners of war and other people from the concentration camps, just before the end of the war.

Count Folke Bernadotte

On 20th May, 1948, the United Nations Security Council appointed Bernadotte as mediator in the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. After meeting Arab and Jewish leaders he succeeded in obtaining a 30-day truce that began on 11th June. In then developed his first plan for peace.

First Proposal

Bernadotte’s first plan called for the Jewish State to relinquish the Negev and Jerusalem to Transjordan and to receive the western Galilee. Bernadotte advocated a total demilitarization of Jerusalem and blamed the Jewish forces for “aggressive” behavior in the city.

The Arab world rejected the Bernadotte plan on the grounds that, as Syrian officer Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib said, “Most of these mediators are spies for the Jews anyway.” The Israeli government, hating the idea of giving up Jerusalem and bent on military victory, quickly followed suit. Fighting resumed on July 8 and the Israeli army gained strength and succeeded in pushing back the Arabs until a second UN cease-fire was declared on July 18, this time with no time limit and a threat of economic sanctions against any country that broke it.

After the unsuccessful first proposal, Bernadotte continued with a more complex proposal that abandoned the idea of a Union and proposed two independent states. Having witnessed the expulsion of the Palestinians from their home, he called for the unqualified return of all Palestinian refugees expelled as a result of the conflict. He declared:

“The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return…. [N]o settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged. It will be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right of return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine…”

The Palestinian People

Second Proposal

This proposal was completed on September 16, 1948 and it contained what he described as “seven basic premises” regarding the situation in Palestine:

  1. Peace must return to Palestine and every feasible measure should be taken to ensure that hostilities will not be resumed and that harmonious relations between Arab and Jew will ultimately be restored.
  2. A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
  3. The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.
  4. Adherence to the principle of geographical homogeneity and integration, which should be the major objective of the boundary arrangements, should apply equally to Arab and Jewish territories, whose frontiers should not therefore, be rigidly controlled by the territorial arrangements envisaged in the resolution of 29 November.
  5. The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return.
  6. The City of Jerusalem, because of its religious and international significance and the complexity of interests involved, should be accorded special and separate treatment.
  7. International responsibility should be expressed where desirable and necessary in the form of international guarantees, as a means of allaying existing fears, and particularly with regard to boundaries and human rights.

On 17 September 1948, the day after he submitted his progress report to the UN, a four-man team of the Jewish nationalist Zionist group Lehi (commonly known as the Stern Gang or Stern Group) ambushed Bernadotte’s motorcade in Jerusalem’s Katamon neighborhood.

The four hit men were, in fact, Stern Gang members consisting of three gunmen and a driver. The three gunmen were Yitzhak Ben-Moshe, “Gingi” Zinger, and Yehoshua Cohen. Cohen was the shooter who murdered Bernadotte. The fourth member of the hit team, the jeep driver, was Meshulam Makover.

The Assassination of Count Bernadotte

Of the three Stern Gang leaders who dispatched the killers, Israel Eldad, Natan Yalin-Mor and Yitzhak Shamir, only Yalon-Mor was brought to trial along with one gang member, Mattiyahu Shmulovitz. They were not charged with Bernadotte’s murder but with membership in a terrorist organization. Following their conviction Yalon-Mor and Shmulovitz were pardoned under a general amnesty ordered by Ben-Gurion after serving only two weeks in jail.

Based upon events in Israel following Bernadotte’s assassination it is apparent that being a member of the Stern Gang was not blight on one’s good name but a career-enhancing credential. For example, Natan Yalin-Mor was elected to a seat in the First Knesset, the Israeli parliament. The shooter, Yehoshua Cohen, became Ben-Gurion’s personal bodyguard. In 1983, Yitzhak Shamir succeeded Menachem Begin as Prime Minister.

From 1948 through to the present day, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is ongoing. After all these years, the only unanswerable question is the one that was asked by Bertrand Russell in his message to the International Conference of Parliamentarians held in February 1970:

The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was ‘given’ by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased.

How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty?

It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict.

Sources:

http://www.1948.org.uk/right-of-return/

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/un/solidarity-day-palestinian-people

http://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/News/News/child-charity-news/Pages/International-Solidarity-Palestinian-749.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state

http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Bernadotte_Plan.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDbernadotte.htm

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/49384

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/folke.html

http://suspiciousdeaths.blogspot.com/2010/06/count-folke-bernadotte.html

Filed Under: Featured, Genocide, Human Rights, Israel, Palestine, Politics, War Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Ground-To-Air Missiles ‘May Protect’ London 2012 Games

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By BBC News on 14 November 2011

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has told MPs that ground-to-air missiles will be deployed to protect the 2012 Olympic Games in London if deemed operationally necessary. 

He was asked to confirm this by the former defence secretary Liam Fox.

It was Mr Hammond’s first appearance at Defence Questions since taking over from Mr Fox.

The US embassy in London has denied reports that it was unhappy with the UK’s security plans.

The Guardian claimed the US was furious about security plans and wanted to send up to 1,000 of its own people, including 500 FBI agents but the Home Office says it has “full confidence” in the plans.

‘All necessary measures’

Mr Hammond was asked by his predecessor to confirm whether there would be a “full range of multilayered defence and deterrents” in place for the 2012 Games including surface-to-air missiles.

He replied: “I can assure him that all necessary measures to ensure the security and safety of the London Olympic Games will be taken including – if the advice of the military is that it is required – appropriate ground-to-air defences.”

The BBC’s Political Correspondent Robin Brant said Mr Fox would almost certainly have been aware of the security plans for the event – so the exchange may have been designed to show how seriously the UK’s contingency planning was being taken.

The deployment of overseas security officers at the Olympics has become standard procedure in recent years but final responsibility for security rests with the host government.

National Olympic security co-ordinator Chris Allison said there would be a small number of “foreign security liaison officers” in London to act as a link between their national teams and UK police.

But he insisted their numbers would not be on the scale reported

“The Games will be delivered by the British police service, working with Games organisers Locog,” he told the BBC. “We will have support from other colleagues up and down the country but it is the British police service that will be doing it.”

The US was providing “great support”, Mr Allison added, and their officials did not “recognise” the concerns expressed in the newspaper.

The Guardian article says the London riots, the arrest of a security guard at the Olympic site and arrests before the visit of the Pope last year have raised US anxieties while the restriction of the scope of anti-terrorism stop-and-search powers was also claimed to have caused concerns.

‘Safe and secure’

In response, the Home Office said security planning was “on track” and funding had been protected.

“The government is committed to delivering a safe and secure Games that London, the UK and the world can enjoy,” a spokesman said.

Philip Hammond: “All necessary measures available… including ground-to-air defences”

The International Olympic Committee (IOC), which undertakes detailed inspections of security preparations, had “full confidence” in the UK’s plans, he added.

Responding to claims in the article, the games organisers Locog said precise numbers of security officers are only now being finalised because the venues themselves have only just been completed.

The US embassy said it had the “utmost confidence” in the British government’s arrangements to ensure safety and security for the Olympic Games.

In a letter to the Guardian newspaper charge d’affaires Barbara Stephenson said it was “normal and prudent for the US to engage in discussions”.

Earlier this year Mr Allison said 12,000 officers may be needed nationally to police the event and another 10,000-15,000 security officials could also be deployed by private security firm G4S.

The BBC’s security correspondent Gordon Corera said: “The US is understood to be taking a close interest in the plans and is intending to send over hundreds of personnel to protect its athletes.”

 

Source:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15724639

Filed Under: United Kingdom, Weapons Tagged With: ,

Report: Half of All Americans to be Diagnosed with Mental Health Problems

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Anthony Gucciardi

According to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental illness during their lifetime. Published on Sept. 2 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the report highlights the diagnosis crisis that is currently ongoing in the United States and elsewhere. 

The monetary empire of antispsychotics became obnoxiously apparently in 2008, becoming the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales. Surpassing even pharmaceuticals used to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux, antipsychotics quickly became the most profitable pill to push on patients.  Even more disturbing, is the health-damaging effects of the pharmaceuticals given to mental health patients, often leading to side effects that are far worse than the original symptoms.

In 2005, it was found that link between Prozac and suicidal behavior was kept a secret. The BBC even reported in as early as the year 2000 that Prozac ‘led to suicide’. Oftentimes killers will end their own lives after shootings, or attempt to force the cops to kill them. This is essentially a form of suicide with a mixture of murderous tendencies. If Prozac can drive someone to suicide, could it also drive someone to end someone else’s life? Paxil, an anti-depressant drug, was found to be linked to violent behavior in 2006. The link incited multiple lawsuits, and brings up questions as to whether or not similar drugs have the same effects. Anti-depressants have horrible side effects, but about the even more hardcore drugs, such as the drugs that many of the other killers were taking?

Nearly every shooter in recent times has been loaded up on harmful pharmaceuticals, arguably driving them to commit the horrendous acts that they have become known for. Loughner is most likely no exception. With children worldwide, particularly in foster homes, being dosed up with insane amounts of psychotropic drugs, it is a large concern. Prozac has even been found in the drinking water. Taking pharmaceuticals that lead to extreme thoughts of suicide and violent behavior is a recipe for disaster.

 

Source:  http://naturalsociety.com/report-half-of-all-americans-to-be-diagnosed-with-mental-health-problems/

 

Filed Under: Big Pharma, Drugs, Health, Mental Health, Suicide

Cheney Calls For Air Strike On Iran Over Captured Drone

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By David Edwards

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday that President Barack Obama should have ordered an “air strike” on Iran after they recently captured a U.S. drone. 

Earlier on Monday, President Barack Obama had explained that U.S. officials asked Iran to return the RQ-170 Sentinel surveillance drone.

“The right response to that would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it,” Cheney told CNN’s Erin Burnett. “You can do that from the air. You can do that with a quick air strike, and in effect make it impossible for them to benefit from having captured that drone.”

“I was told that the president had three options on his desk. He rejected all of them,” the former vice president added.

“They all involved sending somebody in to try to recover it, or if you can’t do that, admittedly that would be a difficult operation, you certainly could have gone in and destroyed it on the ground with an air strike.”

For their part, Iran has called on the U.S. to apologize, saying the U.S. broke international laws by violating their airspace.

 

Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/13/cheney-calls-for-air-strike-on-iran-over-captured-drone/

Filed Under: Iran, USA Tagged With: ,

Barack Obama Declares Iraq War A Success

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By 

President told an audience of soldiers at Fort Bragg that the final pullout after nearly nine years of conflict is a ‘historic’ moment.

Barack Obama marked an end to a war he once described as “dumb” by declaring the conflict in Iraq a success and saying the last US troops will leave in the coming days with their “heads held high“. 

The president told an audience of soldiers at Fort Bragg that the final pullout from Iraq after nearly nine years of war is a “historic” moment and that the country they leave behind is “an extraordinary achievement”.

“Dozens of bases with American names that housed thousands of American troops have been closed down or turned over to the Iraqis. Thousands of tons of equipment have been packed up and shipped out. Tomorrow, the colours of United States Forces Iraq, the colours you fought under, will be formally cased in a ceremony in Baghdad,” he said. “One of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of the American military will come to an end. Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its people. America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

The president said the last US troops will leave in the coming days, travelling south across the desert by much the same route that American, British and coalition forces attacked Iraq in 2003.

Obama hinted at the military and diplomatic quagmire he inherited from a Bush administration that had promised Americans a quick and easy war that would see Iraqis scattering flowers at the feet of US soldiers. Instead, the American invasion unleashed a conflict – part civil war, part anti-occupation – that dragged on for years.

But the president, who came to power promising to end the war, said that for all the suffering, the result was success.

“We knew this day would come. We’ve known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long,” said Obama. “It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq – all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success.”

Obama’s studiously avoided declaring victory or the hubris of his predecessor, George Bush, who paraded under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” just as the worst of the killing in Iraq was about to begin. But the president said that the US has left Iraq better than it found it.

“Iraq’s not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement,” he said.

That interpretation is strongly disputed by critics of the way who say the conflict has destabilised the region, strengthened Iran and exposed US military shortcomings which may encourage future conflict. It is also claimed by critics that the war has strengthened hostility to the US and fueled not deterred terrorism.

The overwhelming US public support for the invasion in 2003, in part driven by the Bush administration’s misleading attempts to link Iraq to the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks as well as its flawed claims about weapons of mass destruction, faded as the costs in American lives and dollars rose.

The president acknowledged part of the huge human cost of the war.

“We know too well the heavy cost of this war. More than 1.5m Americans have served in Iraq. Over 30,000 Americans have been wounded and those are only the wounds that show. Nearly 4,500 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice,” he said. “We also know that these numbers don’t tell the full story of the Iraq war. Not even close.”

Obama made no mention of Iraqi deaths. The cost in Iraqi lives is heavily disputed but is generally believed to run in to the hundreds of thousands.

Neither did the president talk about the financial cost of the war that earlier this week he said ran above $1 trillion – an expense that has contributed significantly to America’s economic decline.

Obama did touch on his own opposition to the invasion of Iraq in noting that while the war may have divided the country, support for the troops was solid as was their commitment.

“Our efforts in Iraq have taken many twists and turns. It was a source of great controversy at home with patriots on both sides of the debate. But there was one constant: your patriotism. Your commitment to fulfil your mission. Your abiding commitment to one another. That was constant. That did not change. That did not waver,” he said to loud cheers.

 

Source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success

Filed Under: Iraq, Military, USA, War Tagged With:

White House Unleashes New Terrorism Propaganda Campaign

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer

Yesterday the White House revealed a new plan to fight what they allege is the threat of homegrown terrorism; a threat which I have been pointing out has been artificially hyped up for some time now. 

The Obama administration continues to promulgate the fake threat of terrorism in order to justify their increasing erosion of civil liberties and massive expenditures on so-called counterterrorism efforts.

The program is aimed at even further integrating local and federal authorities, just as the fusion centers do across the nation, along with improving the ability for officers to “recognize violent extremism,” according to ABC News.

However, I think we all know by now this means teaching them to be paranoid, to ignore all facts that show the threat of terrorism is incredibly low, and to be suspicious of their fellow citizens.

This new program isn’t just integrating local law enforcement with federal agencies as the fusion centers have been doing, it is also increasing “coordination between local partners – including schools and community groups,” representing a new front in fear mongering.

Through so-called “community outreach” programs, the federal government fosters a pervasive sense of paranoia and fear which allows for wildly un-American and incredibly dangerous legislation like S.1867 to pass with such astounding margins.

The Obama administration’s new plan has already drawn criticism from Senators Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman who questioned the omission of radical Islam from the new document.

The 24-page report released yesterday draws parallels between domestic extremism and “gang violence” and “sexual offenses” while a recent Department of Defense letter called the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence.”

“We also continue to be disappointed by the administration’s refusal to identify violent Islamist extremism as our enemy,” the statement from Collins and Lieberman said. “To understand this threat and counter it, we must not shy away from making the sharp distinction between the peaceful religion followed by millions of law-abiding Americans and a twisted corruption of that religion used to justify violence.”

This also follows the trend I have been observing for some time of shifting the alleged threat away from Muslim extremists and towards regular Americans.

This latest report from the Obama administration is clearly pushing the narrative that the real threat is average American citizens and not foreign radical militants, a move which is undoubtedly related to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

As I recently covered, countless Americans could easily be rounded up and, at best, treated as Civilian Internees, although it is much more likely that anyone determined to be a “belligerent” (even if it is only ideological) will be treated as an Enemy Prisoner of War.

The report, entitled “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,” claims, “Protecting our nation’s communities from violent extremist recruitment and radicalization is a top national security priority. It is an effort that requires creativity, diligence and commitment to our fundamental rights and principles.”

The part about “commitment to our fundamental rights and principles” is outright laughable seeing as the Obama administration has trampled all over our fundamental rights and principles with glee.

“Just as we engage and raise awareness to prevent gang violence, sexual offenses, school shootings and other acts of violence, so too must we ensure that our communities are empowered to recognize threats of violent extremism and understand the range of government and nongovernment resources that can help keep their families, friends and neighbors safe,” the report said.

This is the type of fear mongering that drives people to live in a constantly paranoid state in which they’re perpetually trying to “recognize threats of violent extremism” when there are none to be found.

But of course that is exactly what the federal government wants, as without creating a culture of fear, there is no justification for the steady erosion of our most essential rights and liberties.

While Collins and Lieberman criticized the Obama administration’s perceived failure to identify radical Islam as a dangerous factor, they did laud the White House for making progress in what Fox News calls “counter[ing] propaganda and coordinat[ing] with local communities.”

Exactly what they mean by propaganda is unclear, but in reality the only propaganda that needs to be countered is that which is disseminated by the U.S. government.

Lieberman and Collins, who are the chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, respectively, cited 33 cases of homegrown terror plots since 2009 which have resulted in the deaths of 14 Americans.

However, they fail to point out that in the vast majority of these cases, the alleged terrorists dealt with the Federal Bureau of Investigations or other government agents the entire time.

A fantastic article in Mother Jones exposed just how the FBI goes about manufacturing these terrorists in order to justify the homeland security industry.

Martin Stolar, a lawyer who represented an individual caught up in a sting involving the Herald Square subway station in New York in 2004 told Mother Jones, “They’re creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror.”

At this point, this fact is irrefutable and with every supposed domestic terrorism case that grabs headlines, it becomes even clearer that the real terrorists work out of expensive offices in Washington and are engineering fake terror events on a regular basis in order to justify their treasonous activities.

With some of the most atrocious legislation coming our way in the near future, it can only be expected that this propaganda will continue to be pushed in order to justify stripping Americans of their most essential civil liberties.

 

Source:  http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/white-house-unleashes-new-terrorism.html

Filed Under: Extremism, Terrorism, USA Tagged With:

Western Elite Wages Info-War to Justify Syria Invasion?

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Prof. Igor Panarin

Escalating tensions surrounding Syria are preparation for aggression. Writer and political scientist Igor Panarin believes that part of the British-American and Israeli elite is waging an information war to justify a military invasion of Syria.

In the article below, Panarin explains his view.

The mass protests that broke out in a number of Arab countries in 2011 were orchestrated from London, which essentially became their coordination center. The BBC and Qatar’s supposedly-independent Al-Jazeera channel (which in reality is ideologically controlled by a part of the British-American elite) led the way in providing media support. 

For instance, the BBC reports that an independent commission of UN human rights experts accused Syrian authorities of committing crimes against humanity as they dispersed anti-government protests. But French journalist Thierry Meyssan found out that the commission clearly fabricated the evidence they used in their investigation. For instance, according to the UN commission, Syrian security forces killed over 3,500 peaceful protesters.

But the figure is hardly credible, as it comes from a mysterious London-based human rights organization called Observatoire Syrien des Droits de l’Homme (OSDH) [Syrian Observatory of Human Rights – RT]. According to Meyssan, many of the 3,500 protesters supposedly killed by Syrian security forces are in fact alive and well. Their names, distributed by the OSDH, were in fact taken from the phonebook. Meyssan says an information war is being waged against Syria and that at least some of the footage distributed by Al-Jazeera is produced in special studios that reproduce the main squares of Syria’s major cities. The same trick was used with Libya, when the footage of street fighting in Tripoli on August 23, 2011, was actually shot in Qatari studios, which opened a new chapter in information warfare.

The Syrian government recently banned iPhones to stop the propagation of lies among protesters. Some of the protesters still use banned smartphones to disseminate false reports, announce protest rallies and distribute anti-government materials using the “Syria Alone” application. The application, launched on November 18, was developed by British and US experts specifically to help the opposition coordinate their protests. Information warfare specialists use Syria Alone to publish anti-government materials and criticize the work of law enforcers. The Syrian authorities believe that by banning the iPhone they can stop misinformation from spreading. In addition to the US and the EU, the anti-Syrian coalition now includes the Arab League, which recently expelled Damascus and then introduced tough sanctions against Syria.

A part of the British-American elite is playing the leading role in media campaign against Syria, which is no surprise after their success in Libya, where their media attacks preceded NATO’s direct military intervention. A similar strategy is now used against Syria.

For instance, the decision to suspend Syria’s membership in the Arab League leads to further international isolation, which is clearly what the West wants to achieve. The Arab League first took a similar decision regarding Libya in late February, and then it recognized the NATO-backed Transitional National Council as the only legitimate body representing the people of Libya, in August. In other words, what we see today is the same scenario being reproduced in Syria, with the Western multinational elite launching a media attack against that country.

The Syrian army and police are facing a strong opponent, including foreign mercenaries. According to some sources, there are around 10,000 of them, mainly from Arab countries and Pakistan and Pashtuns from Afghanistan.

Russia’s approach to the conflict in Syria radically differs from that of the United States and its allies. The Kremlin vetoed the UN Security Council resolution, which would have made it possible to repeat the Libyan scenario in Syria. Moscow is doing its best to avoid the escalation of the conflict, to prevent military intervention (among other things, by sending an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean) and to establish a constructive peaceful dialogue.

 

Source:  http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28209

Filed Under: Syria, Technology, USA

Putin Lashes Out At McCain, Says US Drones, Commandos Killed Gaddafi

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By rt.com on 15 December, 2011, 14:18

Vladimir Putin has lashed out at John McCain over his threats that the PM may face same fate as the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Russian premier speculated that the US senator has been traumatized by his POW experience.

Putin presented his version of how Gaddafi was killed, and it allocates a dubious place for NATO in the scenario. 

“All the world saw him being killed, all bloodied. Is that democracy? And who did it? Drones, including American ones, delivered a strike on his motorcade. Then commandos, who were not supposed to be there, brought in so-called opposition and militants. And killed him without trial,” Putin explained.

“Mr. McCain is known to have fought in Vietnam. I believe he has enough civilian blood on his hands. Is it that he can’t live without such horrible disgusting scenes as the butchering of Gaddafi?” the Russian prime minister speculated.

“Mr. McCain was taken prisoner in Vietnam and was put, not just in jail, but in a pit! He sat there for several years. Any person would go nuts from that!” he added.

Putin also said hawkish politicians like McCain are targeting, not him personally, but rather Russia, because it has the strength to protect its sovereignty and its international interests rather than submit to world domination pretenses. But there are more those who want to see Russia as a partner, not as an enemy.

“The West is not monolithic, and we have more friends than enemies,” Putin assured.

 

Source: http://rt.com/news/putin-mccain-gaddafi-nuts-879/

Filed Under: Libya, Russia, USA Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts