Tweeter button Facebook button

November 17, 2011

ASIA-PACIFIC: US RAMPS UP GLOBAL WAR AGENDA

Like a schoolyard bully, President Barack Obama is flexing American military muscle as he currently sweeps through the Asia-Pacific region. The nominal impetus for the tour was the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held in Hawaii last week. But rather than discussing “economics” (the E in APEC), the salient focus for Obama and his entourage appears to be “war” – and in particular laying down battle lines to China.

Testy relations with China is nothing new for Washington given recent months of US haranguing over trade and finance, but what Obama’s bombast signals is a sinister ramping up of the militarist agenda towards Beijing.

As if bouncing underlings and lackeys into his gang, the American president has moved on from Honolulu with stopovers in Australia, Indonesia and elsewhere. Given the primary economic power of China in the hemisphere, it might be thought appropriate for Obama to make a cordial visit to Beijing to discuss partnerships and policies to revive the global economy. But no. The omission of China on this major US tour seems to be a deliberate snub to Beijing and a message to the region: that China is to be isolated and ringfenced. This is the stuff of warmongering writ large.

The blatant aggression is naturally smoothed over and made palatable by the Western mainstream media. Reporting on Obama’s unilateral belligerence at the APEC, the Washington Post bemoans: “Try as he might to focus Asian and Pacific leaders on forging new economic partnerships during a regional summit here, President Obama has spent much of his time in private meetings with his counterparts discussing another pressing concern: national security [that is, US military power].”

The Financial Times reports breathlessly: “Barack Obama will not set foot in China during his swing through the Asia-Pacific region… yet the country’s rapid economic ascent and military advances will provide the backdrop for almost everything he does on the trip.”

Note the assertion that it is China’s “military advances” that are prompting US concerns, not the more reasonable and realistic observation that Washington is the one beating the war drums.

The FT goes on to say: “The Pentagon is quietly working on a new strategy dubbed the AirSea Battle concept, which is designed to find ways to counter Chinese military plans to deny access to US forces in the seas surrounding China.”

In “seas surrounding China” it may be thought by some as entirely acceptable for Beijing to “deny access to US forces”. But not, it seems, for the scribes at the FT and other Western mainstream media, who transform US offence/Chinese defence into Chinese offence/US defence. One can only imagine how that same media would report it if China announced that it was intending to patrol nuclear warships off California.

As previously noted by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research, the South China Sea’s untapped reserves of oil and other minerals are a major driver in US maneouvring. China stands to have natural territorial rights to these deposits and has much more valid claim to the wealth than the US, whose counter-claims on the matter seem at best arrogant and at worst provocative. Again, one can imagine the US and mainstream media reaction if China was eyeing oil and gas fields off Alaska.

But there is a bigger geopolitical agenda here, as Global Research has consistently analysed. The increasing US militarism in Asia-Pacific is apiece with the globalization of war by the US/NATO and its allies. The shift in policy is, as the Washington Post lamely tells us, “the US reasserting itself as a leader in the Asia-Pacific after years of focusing on [illegal] wars in the Middle East.”

However, this is not a dynamic that should be viewed as somehow normal and acceptable. This is, as we have stated, an escalation of global aggression by powers that are “addicted to war” as a matter of policy.

Top of the US hit list is China. Washington’s criminal wars in Iraq and Libya have in particular been aimed at cutting China out of legitimate energy investments in the Middle and East and North Africa (and Africa generally). That in itself must be seen by Beijing as a flagrant assault on its overseas’ assets. Not content, it seems, with achieving that dispossession of vital Chinese energy interests, Washington is now pushing its insatiable appetite all the way into China’s domain. But such unprecedented aggression is made to appear by the US government and the dutiful mainstream media as a natural entitlement where refusal by the other party is perversely presented as “military plans to deny access”.

Obama’s visit to Australia this week is undoubtedly aimed at further twisting the threat to China. In Darwin, the US president is overseeing the opening of a base that will see for the first time US Marines being able to conduct war games on Australian soil. Thousands of kilometers from China, this development may at first seem inconsequential. But then we are told that the move is designed to station US military “out of the reach of Chinese ballistic missiles”. The insinuation is unmistakable and menacing: China is an imminent threat. Somehow, without issuing any such aggressive moves, Beijing is suddenly made to look as if it is prepared to launch ballistic missiles at US installations.

It is tempting to call this US-led dynamic of global war “dysfunctional”. But, disturbingly, it is not merely dysfunctional. The global war dynamic is a function of the collapse of capitalism and democracy in the US and Europe (the brutal police crackdown on Occupy protesters across the US is evidence of the latter). War on the world is the logical outcome of this failed system, as history has already shown us with the horrors of World War One and Two.

Karl Marx once noted: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce”.

To avert another “farce” in which the horrors of history are repeated, we need to once and for all challenge the root cause: capitalism.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27709

IRAN WILL DEFEND SYRIA AGAINST ANY POSSIBLE MILITARY ATTACKS

Earlier this year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad underlined that Tehran would maintain and reinvigorate its alliance with Syria under any kind of condition and would defend Damascus against any possible military aggression by the West.

A senior Iranian lawmaker cautioned the US to take Tehran’s tough warnings against a military intervention in Syria seriously, stressing that the Syrian people will not tolerate foreign interference in their country’s affairs.

“Iran’s warning against intervention in Syria’s affairs is serious and it is in the interest of the Americans to avoid meddling in Islamic states’ affairs,” Vice-Chairman of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi told FNA on Wednesday.

He added that Muslim states will not allow Washington to turn Syria into another Iraq for the sake of Israel’s interests.

The lawmaker also pointed to the Syrian people’s sensitivity about foreign meddling, and reiterated, “Americans do not know that the Syrian people will not tolerate Americans’ intervention even in the worst conditions.”

He further dismissed some recent claims about an upcoming regime collapse in Syria, stressing that Damascus is fully able to thwart US plots.

On Sunday, the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission reiterated Tehran’s continued and full support for Syria as a main pillar of resistance against the US and Zionist regime’s policies in the region.

Rapporteur of the Commission Kazzem Jalali said that members of his commission discussed the latest developments in connection to Syria, including the Arab League’s decision to suspend Syria from the bloc, during their meeting on Sunday.

Iran and Syria have always enjoyed a strong and strategic alliance ever since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Earlier this year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad underlined that Tehran would maintain and reinvigorate its alliance with Syria under any kind of condition and would defend Damascus against any possible military aggression by the West.

According to the Lebanese daily Al-Diyar, Ahmadinejad’s decisive remarks were made during a meeting with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, in Tehran late in August.

The report said that Sheikh Hamad was conveying a message from the US to President Ahmadinejad calling on Iran to abandon support for Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The daily said that the meeting by the Qatari Emir has failed to yield his desirable result since President Ahmadinejad strongly emphasized that “any Western aggression against Syria would make every Muslim to stand beside Syria”.

“That would be the action Iran will take,” the daily quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

 

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27700

CORPORATOCRACY, CORPORATISM, FASCISM

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini

This is indeed a fascinatingly and disgusting story - premised on absolute control over all people. Back when people were actually almost “free” (immediately after WWII), when public education was not just another empty promise - and the trend in life was toward a better tomorrow for everyone - at that time “control” was in retreat, and progress was the theme of every hour. Now what we have is control of every idiotic facet of everyday existence - rules for every waking act, every thought that is not controlled is seen as the enemy of the state (the corporatocracy).

Our entire way of life has been stolen and shall never return to the lazy and hopeful days of living and loving, of joy and promise, with the possibility for doing real and meaningful things with one’s own life - not to mention being able to envision a better world for more and more people - whose lives were so far below the levels we enjoyed. Instead of that promise, instead of that possibility - what we have now is the outright worship of Mistrust, of Fear, and of Paranoia - along with obscene profits for those who have purchased all the politicians, and who control every facet of this once nearly free society.

If American life were a sporting event - today’s game would be one in which all the officials and the referees had all been pre-purchased by what would obviously be the winning team. Now companies “police” their own activities, deciding for themselves when they’ve gone too far - or stolen too much. The original point behind government providing a watchdog over industry - was to keep the playing fields equal - between players and owners. Now the games continue but only the owners win anything - the players are degenerating from just being slaves to becoming everyday targets for anyone who hates their owners: Hence the Iraq’s of this world will focus the herd’s mind on what it really means to be an American today (a blood-stained thug, whether in a uniform or with a contract and a pen) - we are attempting to steal all that’s still sacred - in what has become a profane and truth-less world.

Like Humpty-Dumpty we will never be able to put the world back together again - not here anyhow. Too much has been lost in too many generations that have passed through this new agenda of “me first, me only.” In that process all guidelines have been destroyed, and there is no longer any “out-of-bounds” - everything is now fair game: and now the world KNOWS this for what it actually means, which is a rather subdued type of anarchy that favors only the very rich.

Whether nationally or internationally, what we have consecrated by our actions is the outlaw behavior of the corporatocracy - world wide. It is therefore not surprising that Bush would want to claim the mantle of ‘Dictator for All the Known World,’ even though he is nothing but the token puppet in the front row.

He can do this because the bought and paid for US Congress will not really give him any trouble (if they did they’d all be charged with aiding and abetting all the crimes committed so far) - and the courts have already made clear their preferences: so the only thing left in opposition is the besieged and downtrodden public. Those same people who must pay for all this criminality in dollars and in blood.

However - the public listens to the mouthpiece that has become the outlaws wholly owned whore. Completely owned and operated by those same interests that are behind the corruption - what they tell the world has little to do with actual truth, or the facts of anything that happens in the world today. If the public is to understand anything at all - then they will have to rely on their own gut instincts and what they can find on the net to corroborate or dispute what they suspect.

This is why the games we play today are so fraught with corruption, deception and duplicity on nearly every side - but - humanity has survived before when threatened by empirical demands, so perhaps there may yet be an opportunity to reverse this insanity that has become a cancer on the world. . .

If not then we’ll all be returned to the Dark Ages once again (but this time on a planet that’s been nearly destroyed by our lapsed custodianship) - because we are obviously unfit to manage for ourselves, never mind for others - in the real life of this world.

 

Source: https://www.rense.com/general62/corporatocracy.htm

 

WAR WORLDWIDE… HAD ENOUGH YET?

In reviewing the news stories of these past few weeks, it becomes clear that the Western world’s addiction to war truly knows no bounds. Libya is reeling from NATO’s “humanitarian” intervention which has crippled a once prosperous nation, destroyed its infrastructure, robbed it of its ample resources and devastated its population. But for Western military powers, this is not enough. Iran, Syria, Yemen… The hit list is growing exponentially, and so are the stakes.

There is no end to greed until we stand up and say “enough is enough”. In fact, it’s too much. The drums of war are beating and it’s up to us to choose whether we march along, or we rewrite the score.

In an era of media disinformation, our focus at Global Research has essentially been to center on the “unspoken truth”. Since its inception in 2001 we have established an extensive archive of news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media. From modest beginnings, with virtually no resources, the Centre for Research on Globalization has evolved into a dynamic research and alternative media group.

What motivates us? The same thing that motivates you to visit our website and read the articles, watch the videos and share them with your networks: we want the truth. We NEED the truth. Our lives and the lives of future generations depend on it.

It’s true that you will NEVER have to pay to access the information you need to understand what is happening in the world around you. Some things you can’t put a price on. However, maintaining our operations and supporting our contributors does present a financial challenge, and since we will always insist on remaining independent, we need the support of our readers to help us continue our battle against disinformation.

If you are in a position to support us by making a donation (and truly, EVERY amount helps), then please visit our Donation page and find out how you can process your payment online instantly, or else by mail or fax. And know that your contribution is as much appreciated as it is needed.

Recognizing that many of our readers may not be able to include a donation or membership in their budgets, we ask that you nonetheless continue to spread our articles and videos far and wide. Join our free newsletter mailing list. Join the discussion on Facebook. Let’s use our strength in numbers to fight the well-funded corporate media and break through their lies.

We all have a role to play in the peace process, and every effort makes a difference.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27685

WEIGHING IN AT 30,000 POUNDS, A NEW BOMB FOR USA

The US Air Force has a new 30,000-pound bomb in its arsenal designed to penetrate targets buried deep underground, a spokesman said Tuesday.

The Air Force started taking delivery of the giant bomb, the “Massive Ordnance Penetrator,” in September, said Lieutenant Colonel Jack Miller.

Under an August 2 contract worth $32 million, the aerospace firm Boeing is due to produce eight of the giant MOP bombs to fulfil the Air Force’s “operational needs,” according to Miller.

The Air Force could not say how many of the conventional bombs have been delivered so far, but the MOP is seen as a weapon made for going after underground bunkers and tunnels in North Korea or Iran.

The MOP bomb, with more than 5,000 pounds (or nearly 2.5 tons) of explosives, is supposed to fit on a B-2 stealth bomber to strike at underground sites hiding weapons of mass destruction.

About 20 feet (six meters) long, the GPS-guided bomb “will defeat our adversaries’ WMD before they leave the ground,” according to an official description posted on the website of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and US Strategic Command.

The United States, which suspects Iran and North Korea have built nuclear facilities deep underground to thwart any possible air raids, has been developing the MOP bomb since about 2007.

The weapon, made to penetrate up to 200 feet of reinforced concrete before exploding, is ten times more powerful than its predecessor, the BLU-109.

The new MOP is also twice as heavy as the “daisy cutter” bomb employed in Vietnam and in Tora Bora at the outset of the war in Afghanistan.

The “daisy cutter” has since been retired and replaced with the MOAB, the Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb or “the Mother of All Bombs,” which weighs less than the MOP bomb but contains more explosive power.

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/weighing-in-at-30000-pounds-new-bomb.html

EUROPE BANS X-RAY BODY SCANNERS USED AT U.S. AIRPORTS

The European Union on Monday prohibited the use of X-ray body scanners in European airports, parting ways with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which has deployed hundreds of the scanners as a way to screen millions of airline passengers for explosives hidden under clothing.

The European Commission, which enforces common policies of the EU’s 27 member countries, adopted the rule “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.”

As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying, several research studies have concluded that a small number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year.

European countries will be allowed to use an alternative body scanner, on that relies on radio frequency waves, which have not been linked to cancer. The TSA has also deployed hundreds of those machines – known as millimeter-wave scanners – in U.S. airports. But unlike Europe, it has decided to deploy both types of scanners.

The TSA would not comment specifically on the EU’s decision. But in a statement, TSA spokesman Mike McCarthy said, “As one of our many layers of security, TSA deploys the most advanced technology available to provide the best opportunity to detect dangerous items, such as explosives.

“We rigorously test our technology to ensure it meets our high detection and safety standards before it is placed in airports,” he continued. “Since January 2010, advanced imaging technology has detected more than 300 dangerous or illegal items on passengers in U.S. airports nationwide.”

Body scanners have been controversial in the United States since they were first deployed in prisons in the late 1990s and then in airports for tests after 9/11. Most of the controversy has focused on privacy because the machines can produce graphic images. But the manufacturers have since installed privacy filters.

As the TSA began deploying hundreds of body scanners after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009, several scientists began to raise concerns about the health risks of the X-ray scanner, noting that even low levels of radiation would increase the risk of cancer.

As part of our investigation, ProPublica surveyed foreign countries’ security policies and found that only a few nations used the X-ray scanner. The United Kingdom uses thembut only for secondary screening, such as when a passenger triggers the metal detector or raises suspicion.

Under the new European Commission policy, the U.K. will be allowed to complete a trial of the X-ray scanners but not to deploy them on a permanent basis when the trial ends, said Helen Kearns, spokeswoman for the European transport commissioner, Siim Kallas.

“These new rules ensure that where this technology is used it will be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capability as well as strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights,” Kallas said.

Five-hundred body scanners, split about evenly between the two technologies, are deployed in U.S. airports. The X-ray scanner, or backscatter, which looks like two large blue boxes, is used at major airports, including Los Angeles International Airport, John F. Kennedy in New York and Chicago’s O’Hare. The millimeter-wave scanner, which looks like a round glass booth, is used in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas.

Within three years, the TSA plans to deploy 1,800 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners, covering nearly every domestic airport security lane. The TSA has not yet released details on the exact breakdown.

 

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners-used-at-u.s.-airports/single

 

THE COMING PANDEMIC: EXPECT ALL PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS TO FAIL

The attacks of September 11 were quickly followed by a biological weapons attack in which government-grade weaponized anthrax killed five people and sickened numerous others.

This attack, the genesis of which remains unsolved ten years later, was used to justify the United States Congress pumping over $60 billion dollars into a “biodefense “ program which has failed in every parameter that can be measured.

In fact, it appears that all purportedly protective measures, developed nationally and internationally, have fatal flaws in their design which may function to ensure the likelihood and success of a biological weapons attack.

On The Domestic Front

Even the commission created by Congress in 2007 to evaluate all defenses for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats gave our biodefense program a failing grade.

Ten years after the anthrax mailings (which went to Congressmen who might have voted against the USA Patriot Act, as well as to certain media outlets), the US has not even developed a second generation anthrax vaccine. Over 100 million dollars has been allocated to develop this vaccine, but ten years after the biological weapons attack on our country our vaccine stockpiles consist of smallpox vaccines as well as the original anthrax vaccine (reputed to cause Gulf War syndrome) and little else.

Authorized under the Bush administration, Project BioWatch has developed and placed sensors in a number of large cities to serve as an advance detection system for an airborne biological attack, but this program has come under scrutiny and critics have alleged that this may be useless due to prior knowledge of the sensor locations by terror groups.

Since 9/11, there has also been a proliferation of what are called “biosafety labs” (BSL’s) level threes and fours. The 3’s and 4’s, so designated because of the enhanced safety protocols at use in the advanced level labs, handle the most dangerous bugs known to man. There are at least 17 such BSL-4’s now in the US and, according to documents released by the DOJ and DOE, over 1350 BSL-3’s. These numbers are dramatically up since the events of September 2001.

The US government maintains a list of pathogens and toxins which have the potential of causing grave harm to human or plant life. The Center for Disease Control is mandated to keep track of labs handling select agents, but is very cagey in terms of releasing the information about the numbers and locations of these facilities, preferring instead to tender denials and offer false information when confronted with the proliferation of these labs.

There is evidence that the US has developed an aggressive biological weapons program, despite our government’s insistence that we abandoned our bioweapons program forty years ago, under President Nixon. The evidence may be found at Sierra Army Depot (and other military bases) where these weapons appear to be stockpiled.

Locking in on the Threat

There is growing alarm among certain sectors that the US may be planning another “event” using biological weapons, and may attempt to either blame this on terrorists or on some sort of “natural” epidemic. It therefore becomes imperative to determine what sort of attack we may be facing and what we can do to protect ourselves.

According to Dr. Kenneth Alibek, a Russian scientist who came over to this side of the fence and is now working on biological weapons issues at Battelle, there are essentially three ways in which a biological attack could be launched. Writes Alibek:

Biological weapons can deployed in three ways:

  • contamination of food or water supplies, which are then ingested by the victims
  • release of infected vectors, such as mosquitoes or fleas, which then bite the victims
  • creation of an aerosol cloud, which is then inhaled by the victims (or if the targets are plants, the cloud then settles on and infects the plants).

The probability of a general airborne attack is unlikely. An airborne attack could not be easily controlled and carries the strong likelihood of affecting unintended targets. One must therefore look at other delivery systems that carry an ability to lock onto the desired targets and pass over those who have been predesignated to survive.

Work on reconfiguring the water system, countrywide, began right about the same time as the US signed onto the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in the early 1970s. This reconfigured “double line” water system provides the opportunity for a nearly “surgical” attack on predetermined targets.

Possibly advancing to the top of the list in terms of all-time government deception was President Nixon’s public announcement in 1969 that the US was ending its biological weapons program. It is now apparent that at the same time that President Nixon disavowed our bioweapons program and the US ratified the BWC, plans were being developed and executed to lay down a second main line in cities and towns throughout America, and plans to use the water system as a delivery system were cemented.

A chemist in Eastern Washington State, Dave Duncan, had volunteered in 2006 to run chemical analyses on samples of water which had ostensibly come from the mixture of the two water mains. His initial tests revealed that the specific gravity of the sample was significantly skewed when compared to normal tap water. Duncan, a fundamentalist Christian, became concerned about the implications of his work, declaring that “if people were going to be killed off, it must be God’s will.” Shortly after vacating his work on analyzing the water sample, Duncan succumbed to an aggressive form of colon cancer.

Another delivery system has been uncovered, which may dovetail with the double line water system, for the delivery of a lethal dose of toxins or chemicals. For numerous medications being manufactured by Big Pharma, there are now imposter “death drugs” being quietly manufactured, as well. These look-alike doppelgangers, which appear identical to the antibiotic, analgesic, hormonal, cardiac or other common medication, will produce a heart attack and/or stroke and — most likely — subsequent death.

Both water as a delivery system and the imposter pharmaceuticals bear the necessary targeting capability. The double line water system provides the ability to selectively target households and the pharmaceutical delivery system provides the ability to selectively target individuals.

None of the 60 billion dollars pumped into biodefense in the last ten years appears to be designated to address waterborne attacks. A recent announcement from DHS Chief Janet Napolitano declared that “dangerous terrorists” had infiltrated the utility companies and were planning an attack. The Department of Homeland Security was subsequently contacted and details were turned over to that agency as to how this could very well occur via water utilities, given the vulnerability inherent in the double line water system. There has been no response from Napolitano or the DHS.

On the International Scene

It appears the wagons have also circled around the involvement of the pharmaceutical companies in biological weapons work. As there are no weapons inspectors or any other implementation vehicle for the BWC, the pharmaceutical companies can carry on their death work without the intrusion of any Peeping Tom inspection team. The glaring failure of the BWC to provide a means of implementing the treaty has resulted in a complete lack of oversight as to what is going on in pharmaceutical labs. In the past, attempts to set up an inspection capability for the BWC have been vigorously opposed by the United States and also by . . . you guessed it — the pharmaceutical companies.

The development and production of biological weapons would necessitate, of course, a laboratory to produce them. Certain industries maintain such labs, such as pharmaceutical companies and some food production companies. Big Pharma has consistently objected to the spectre of weapons inspectors coming into their labs, stating that such weapons inspectors could, in fact, be industrial spies bent on stealing proprietary drug information. Bending to the stated necessity of keeping the profits of the pharmaceutical companies secure along with their proprietary formulas, the BWC has so far accommodated the pharmaceutical companies in their insistence on the priority of maintaining their privacy and profit margins, granting this imperative more weight than the need to keep the world safe from biological weapons.

However, given the revelation of the “death drug” imposter pill program, we can see why the pharmaceutical industry would balk at weapons inspectors peering over its shoulders.

This December, the BWC will be meeting again in Geneva, as it does only every five years. On the table will be strengthening the “confidence building measures,” (CBM’s) which have taken the place of inspection teams as a means to ensure treaty compliance. The problem is that the CBM’s rely on the integrity of each nation to accurately report on its own programs. In plain language, that means that we must “trust” the word of countries such as the United States, Russia, Great Britain, Iran, Pakistan and South Africa to accurately report what is going on in their labs.

The very term “confidence building measures” is possibly one of the most offensive and misleading parts of the staged drama that is the BWC. Forty years after the BWC treaty originally came into existence, we still have no means of ensuring any kind of compliance with the mandates of the treaty, other than the “word” of a possible offender. In a recent interview with a former CIA contractor, who has asked his name not be used here, this top-level scientist who worked for years as a CIA asset admitted that it was known in intelligence circles that the old Soviet Union under Yeltsin was violating the BWC. This was never brought to the attention of the international community through the BWC.

The three nations which serve as depositories of the BWC are Russia, Great Britain and the United States. Great Britain may have recently ducked an international scandal when a South African physician, Dr. Wouter Basson, was exonerated of war crimes charges for his work developing biological weapons with Project Coast during the apartheid years. Basson was purportedly involved in developing a “blacks-only” bioweapon, which would only kill native Africans and leave white people unscathed. Sources in the US government have contacted this reporter alleging that such a weapon is now at play and has been leaked into processed foods. The substance allegedly bonds with melanin (which is present in darker skinned peoples) producing hypertension and diabetes. Indeed, the present epidemic of these two “silent killers” is nearly unknown in Africa, where the native population does not eat such a preponderance of processed foods, relying instead on more natural food sources. Africa, as we know, is being emptied out by the AIDS epidemic.

Dr. Basson, it appears, was chummy with Dr. David Kelly, the British biological weapons inspector whose sudden “suicide” may well have been an effort to obscure the evidence of a cooperative effort between the South African bioweapons program and England ().

Come December, the Big Three — Russia, Great Britain and the US — will meet with other nations to convene their deadly serious effort of making the world safe from biological weapons. Or, that is what they want us to believe, anyway.

The reality is that, through its failure to enact implementation protocols, the BWC is enabling the development of precisely the type of weaponry that it is mandated to curtail.

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/coming-pandemic-expect-all-protective.html

SYRIA: THE WEST’S STRATEGIC GATEWAY FOR GLOBAL MILITARY SUPREMACY

The League of Arab States (Arab League) suspended the membership of Syria in the organization on November 12 as it had with Libya on February 22 of this year. In the case of Libya, whose membership was reinstated after NATO bombed proxy forces into power in late August, reports at the time indicated that member states Algeria and Syria had been opposed to the action but folded under pressure for a consensus from the eight Arab states governed by royal families - Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which to all intents and purposes now are the Arab League, with the other formal members either victims of recent regime change of one sort or another or likely targets for such a fate.

With the replication of the February move this past weekend, Algeria, Lebanon and Yemen voted against the suspension of Syria and Iraq abstained through some combination of principled opposition and self-interest, as the four may well be the next nations to be suspended by the monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) and Jordan and Morocco (the latter two having recently applied for membership though not in the Persian Gulf, Morocco bordering the Atlantic Ocean) should the U.S.-NATO-Arab monarchs entente demand it.

Washington is pressuring Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh to resign as he being shown the door courtesy of a plan devised by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), as well as demanding the same of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The GCC deployed troops to Bahrain in March, in that instance to prop up the government, that of the Al Khalifa dynasty.

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates supplied NATO with warplanes and the Transitional National Council with weapons and special forces personnel for the almost 230-day blockade and bombardment of Libya, and Jordan and Morocco joined the two Gulf states at the Paris summit on March 19 that launched the war against Libya.

The four Arab nations are both close bilateral military allies of the Pentagon and members of NATO partnership programs, the Mediterranean Dialogue in the case of Jordan and Morocco, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Jordan and the UAE are to date the only official Arabic Troop Contributing Nations for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

On October 31, eleven days after the murder of former Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddafi, NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen flew into Tripoli and offered the services of the world’s only military bloc in reconstituting the battered nation’s military and internal security forces as NATO is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan with the NATO Training Mission-Iraq and the NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan. Rebuilding, transforming and modernizing the armed forces of Libya, as with those of the other two countries, to achieve NATO standards and interoperability.

A week later Ivo Daalder, long-time proponent and architect of Global NATO [1], now empowered to put his plans into effect as the Obama administration’s ambassador to the military alliance, offered the inevitable complement to Rasmussen’s offer in reiterating that “NATO is prepared, if requested by the new Libyan authorities, to consider ways in which it could help the Libyan authorities, particularly in the area of defense and security reform.”

According to the same Agence France-Presse account, “Daalder also said Libya could bolster its ties with the transatlantic alliance by joining NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, a partnership comprising Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Mauritania, Jordan and Israel.” (The new regimes in Egypt and Tunisia are fully honoring previous military commitments to the U.S. and NATO.)

The exact scenario that a Stop NATO article warned about on March 25, six days after U.S. Africa Command launched Operation Odyssey Dawn and the beginning of the over seven-month-long war against Libya:

“If the current Libyan model is duplicated in Syria as increasingly seems to be the case, and with Lebanon already blockaded by warships from NATO nations since 2006 in what is the prototype for what NATO will soon replicate off the coast of Libya, the Mediterranean Sea will be entirely under the control of NATO and its leading member, the U.S.

“Cyprus in the only European Union member and indeed the only European nation (except for microstates) that is – for the time being – not a NATO member or partner, and Libya is the only African nation bordering the Mediterranean not a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue partnership program.”

If indeed Syria becomes the next Libya and a new Yemeni regime is installed under the control of the Gulf Cooperation Council, then the only nations remaining in the vast stretch of territory known as the Broader or Greater Middle East, from Mauritania on the Atlantic coast to Kazakhstan on the Chinese and Russian borders, not tied to NATO through multinational and bilateral partnerships will be Lebanon (see above), Eritrea, Iran and Sudan.

Djibouti hosts thousands of troops from the U.S. and other NATO member states. NATO has airlifted several thousand Ugandan and Burundian troops for the proxy war in the capital of Somalia as well as establishing a beachhead in the semi-autonomous/autonomous Puntland region of the country for its Operation Ocean Shield naval deployment in the Gulf of Aden. The six GCC states are included in NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are members of the Partnership for Peace, the program employed to graduate twelve Eastern European countries to full NATO membership from 1999-2009. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Armenia also have NATO Individual Partnership Action Plans and Georgia a special Annual Program as well as an Alliance liaison in its capital (NATO Contact Point Embassy.) In 2006 Kazakhstan became the first non-European nation to be granted an Individual Partnership Action Plan.

NATO also has a liaison office in Ethiopia which assists in the development of the eastern component of the African Standby Force, modeled after the global NATO Response Force.

With the partnerships in the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Persian Gulf connecting with those in Central and South Asia (NATO has troops stationed on bases in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) and beyond that with India and the ten-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations, linking up with the military bloc’s Contact Country partners Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, the U.S. and its major Western allies are tightening a NATO band, an armed phalanx, along the entire Northern Hemisphere. An American-led military axis from, in language Western leaders have used throughout the post-Cold War era, Vancouver to Vladivostok (proceeding eastward).

Three years ago Malta rejoined the Partnership for Peace, thereby adding to bases in Sardinia, Sicily, and Crete NATO, and bases in Cyprus Britain, can use as fighter jet, supply, refueling, arms storage and docking jumping-off points for military aggression in Africa and the Middle East.

Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus and Libya are the only Mediterranean countries that are not currently NATO members or partners and the U.S. and its fellow NATO members have designs on all four. Libya’s joining the Mediterranean Dialogue will complete Alliance partnerships across North Africa from Egypt to Morocco and will entail its Western-rebuilt navy being recruited into NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor maritime surveillance and interdiction activities across the length and breadth of the Mediterranean Sea, an operation now in its eleventh year.

The government of Syria is not only Iran’s main but it’s only reliable ally among state actors in the Arab world. The Syrian port city of Tartus hosts Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean. Regime change in Damascus, however it’s effected, will oust the Russian and Iranian navies from the sea by eliminating the only friendly docking facilities.

The consequences of the installation of a pro-Western government in Syria would also affect neighboring Lebanon, where Israel and its Western patrons would have a free hand to attack Hezbollah and Communist Party militias in the south of the nation and along with efforts by the U.S. to buy off the state’s military over the past five years eliminate all opposition to Western control of the country, military and political.

Palestine would not fare any better. In August Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told visiting American congressmen that “the security of the future Palestinian state will be handed to NATO under US command,” according to an aide cited by the Ma’an News Agency.

He may well see NATO and U.S. troops stationed on his nation’s soil, but not on the terms he intends.

Nothing occurs in isolation and surely not in the age of Western powers employing expressions like the world’s sole military superpower and Global NATO and forging ahead with projects for their realization. Syria is no exception.

 

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27670

NUCLEAR MADNESS: IRAN, KUWAIT OR THE IAEA?

“The Public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” (Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1775.)

As the sabre rattling against Iran becomes more deafening, week on week, with threats of the nuclear insanity of potentially, deliberately, creating a few Chenobyls or a Fukushima, by bombing working nuclear power plants, another potential nuclear madness is planned, geographically “next door.”

The IAEA appears to be behaving in as partisan, shameless way regarding Iran, as it did with Iraq. Then, accusations, with considerable justification, were that the inspection teams were more about spying that neutral observation. “The way back to (the UN) was via Tel Aviv”, remarked one former inspector, memorably.

Gareth Porter has meticulously, comprehensively trashed (i) the IAEA’s latest Report on Iran, showing disturbing parallels with the tragic Iraq fiasco. Iraq had Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi and “Curveball”, selling fairy stories. Iran, seemingly, has an expert in nanodiamonds, Vyacheslav Danilenko, apparently doubling as a nuclear weapons expert, and a plethora of unidentified spokespersons for “Member States.” Hardly rigid, verifiable scholarship.

Previous “concerns” expressed, has been that Iran has vast oil reserves, so there must be a weapons related reason to expand nuclear power. However Iran has been under increasingly stringent sanctions since 14th November 1979, ironically, necessitating additional sources of energy – for which it is now being threatened with Iraq’s fate.

Yet headlines in the Middle East, warning: “Most volatile region in the world is going nuclear”, one with a helpful map of “volatile” countries with advanced nuclear ambitions, seem to have escaped IAEA notice. Iran, of course, has no history of belligerence towards its neighbours, for decades. Indeed, in 2003, in spite of the terrible cost of the eight year war after the 1980 (Western driven) invasion by Iraq, told that the country was still a “threat to its neighbours” by Washington, Tehran repeatedly responded that it was not.

Consider then the case of Kuwait: “Blessed with an abundance of natural petroleum resources …” (Gulf News 25th February 2011) which has advanced plans for up to four nuclear power stations – two apparently to be built on two islands, Warba and Bubiyan, which have been the source of conflict for nearly a century – many scholars contend longer - the dispute over which contributed to the disaster of Iraq’s invasion and that country’s subsequent decimation - of 2nd August 1990.

Theodore Draper outlined the vast complexities in 1993(ii.)

“The suddenness of the [Iraqi] action [invading Kuwait] and the coverage it has received should not disguise the fact that Iraqi claims to Kuwaiti territory have been pursued with remarkable consistency over the last half-century, through Hashemite and revolutionary rule alike.

There is some justification for the argument (which) predates by a considerable length of time, the accession of Saddam Hussain to the Iraqi Presidency.

These claims will not disappear with a settlement of the present Kuwait Crisis, whether or not this involves a change of regime in Baghdad.

“It is necessary to take these historical roots into account because they left such an explosive legacy in the Gulf region—the Iraqi quest for a coastal outlet, the obstruction of the Kuwaiti barrier islands of Warba and Bubiyan, the dispute over Kuwait’s exploitation of the Rumaila oil field, the precarious borders …” But as Richard Schofield (iii) points out:

“Thus there was more to Saddam Hussein’s attempt to annex Kuwait than one man’s evil character. Whatever may happen to him, the Iraqi grievances will not go away.

“For more than two centuries, Kuwait managed to survive by playing off one major power against another. As a nation, it did not have the ancient roots that Iraq has in Mesopotamia.

“Throughout the 1930s, Iraq refused to agree to a demarcation of the boundary with Kuwait unless the latter was willing to give up control of the islands, Warba and Bubiyan, and thus secure the narrow Iraqi Persian Gulf coastline. Despite its vulnerability, Kuwait refused to make concessions.

By 1935, Iraqi propaganda openly called for the incorporation of Kuwait. Three years later, Iraq made this claim official, with the same justification used by Saddam Hussein five decades later—that Kuwait had once been attached to the Ottoman province of Basra. “ (Emphasis mine.)

Swimming distance from Iraq, which Patrick Markey has described as: “… a flash point, a country still struggling with violence, sectarianism and pressure from neighbours in an unstable region”, $20 Billion is to be spent on the Warba Island nuclear reactor, just 500 metres from the nearest Iraqi inhabited area, at the port of Umm Qasr. It is 30 miles from Kuwait. (Bubiyan nestles next to Warba..)v.

Pointing out that it is on the still disputed border between Iraq and Kuwait arising from further boundary tinkering after 1991’s hostilities, politician Ms. Alya Naseef has demanded of Prime Minister Nuri Maliki strongly represents that the plans be halted.

The main contractors are French giant AREVA, in which in December 2010 the Kuwaiti Investment Authority invested $794 million and Kuwait acquired a 4.8% stake, making it the third largest investor, the French State being the largest. AREVA has extensive contracts and mutual interests with the United States.(vi)

Further, in September last year, Kuwait signed a: “ … a bilateral agreement with Japan for cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, covering issues such as expertise exchange, human resource development, nuclear safety, following similar deals with France and the US earlier this year.”

The five year deal with Japan, includes: “ … preparation, planning and promotion of nuclear power development … safety and security.

“The scope of the cooperation includes training, human resources and infrastructure development, and the appropriate application of nuclear power generation and related technology.”

I wonder if Fukushima’s radioactive air borne or sea borne fallout has reached the Gulf yet.

The UK Foreign Office website states of Kuwait: “There is a general threat from terrorism. Attacks cannot be ruled out and could be indiscriminate:

“These include references to attacks on Western interests … military, oil, transport and aviation interests.”

What a prize a nuclear power station would be.

“Many areas of the Gulf are highly sensitive, including near maritime boundaries and the islands of Bubiyan and Warbah …” Further: “ The area in the northern Gulf, between Iran, Iraq and Kuwait has not been demarcated …” reminds the Foreign Office.

It would be hard to find a more volatile place to build a nuclear installation. Oh, and the land is low lying and subject to silting and shifting.

With the IAEA berating Iran for its nuclear programme, it is seem bewildering that the very real and present dangers of these terrifying, mad cap projects have passed them by.

Heaven forbid that the fifty years fruitful trade relations, between Japan and Kuwait, celebrated in May this year,(viii) has tempted Japan’s Mr Yukiya Amano, heading the IAEA, to put country before nuclear madness.

And don’t forget the suicide bombers.

 

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27687

U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE UPLOADING YOU TUBE VIDEOS

The Department of Justice is attempting to criminalize uploading videos that break You Tube’s terms of service, along with any other online action that is deemed to contravene a website’s usage policy, in a shocking expansion of cybersecurity laws deemed draconian by critics.

“In a statement obtained by CNET that’s scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites’ often-ignored, always-unintelligible “terms of service” policies,” writes Declan McCullagh.

Such violations would include creating a fake Facebook profile, lying about your weight on dating websites, or providing any other item of false information that violates a website’s TOS agreement.

Under the DOJ’s new legal framework, an expansion of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), agreeing to a website’s terms of service would be identical to signing a contract with an employer, with similar punishments for breaking that contract.

“To the Justice Department, this means that a Web site’s terms of service define what’s “authorized” or not, and ignoring them can turn you into a felon,” writes McCullagh, pointing out that millions of Americans violate ‘terms of agreement’ policies every single day.

Indeed, in the case of You Tube, users are often informed months or even years later that they may have infringed on the company’s ‘terms of service’ agreement if another user merely complains about the content of their video.

Attorney Stewart Baker warns that under the newly amended law, users uploading a copyrighted You Tube video more than once would fit into “a pattern of racketeering,” with even harsher criminal penalties, “at least if Justice gets its way.”

A coalition of free speech organizations from across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, Americans for Tax Reform, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and FreedomWorks have joined forces to oppose the move, savaging the proposed changes as an affront to Internet anonymity in a letter to the Senate.

“If a person assumes a fictitious identity at a party, there is no federal crime,” the letter states. “Yet if they assume that same identity on a social network that prohibits pseudonyms, there may again be a CFAA violation. This is a gross misuse of the law.”

As we have documented, the attempt to create a Communist Chinese-style system of Internet policing, advocated by Senator Joe Lieberman, mandates that Internet anonymity be outlawed and that a system even more draconian than what was rejected in China – individual ID’s for Internet users – be put in place.

The attempt to expand CFAA is just one tentacle of an all out war on Internet freedom that has been launched by the federal government. Another piece of legislation that has received bipartisan support, the so-called “Rogue websites bill,” would create a Chinese-style ban list where ISPs would be mandated to block certain websites by government decree.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAT20111115&articleId=27681