Friday, August 29, 2008

Gladio CIA Cicilian Slaughter - MI6 basra - Turkey 2008

First, please read this article IN FULL, don't just skim it:

A short and important history lesson on the ACTUAL methods of the CIA:

YES.. slaughter of innocent civilians... yes... its true, there is 100% proof!

A long held tradition, a tool of the criminal intelligence-mafia-agencies. Compare with the incident where MI6 undercover agents tried to plant a bomb in a crowded market but were caught redhanded by the Iraqis in Basra:

Now, under a less corrupt MORAL-driven AKP government .. Turkey is getting rid of the CIA-paid murderers:

a good article from UAE:

The National - Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates

Party of one

August 29. 2008 11:38AM UAE / August 29. 2008 7:38AM GMT

It’s our party: AKP supporters celebrate the party’s victory in a court case challenging its legitimacy. Reuters

Two turbulent, violent years that looked liable to topple Turkey’s ruling party have instead left it stronger than ever, Cihan Tugal writes.

The past two years have been turbulent ones in the Republic of Turkey, with assassinations, destabilising mass demonstrations, controversial parliamentary and presidential elections and the revelation of a series of conspiracies. Two recent court cases – one challenging the legitimacy of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), the other prosecuting an underground network of violent secular ultranationalists – may look like extensions of this era of turbulence. But it is more likely that they signal its end.

At the centre of this drama lies the AKP, the “moderate Islamic” party that controls the parliament, the government and the presidency. Its ascendancy can be seen as the unintended consequence of official manoeuvring: after 1980, a military government took steps to fund and support some Islamic organisations in an attempt to pre-empt the reemergence of a leftist movement that had threatened the state in the 1970s. But by the 1990s, this policy had clearly backfired. A social justice-orientated Islamic mobilisation from below, organised by the Welfare Party (RP), started to threaten the western orientation of the Turkish state and the peaceful functioning of the free market. Another military intervention in 1997 closed down Islamic parties and associations. But in 2001, pro-western conservatives broke off from the Islamist movement to establish the AKP.

Unlike the RP, the AKP is pro-US and pro-EU, favours a free-market economy and gives measured support to democracy. It identifies itself as conservative rather than Islamist. Encouraged by this reformation, many non-Islamist politicians (liberals, reformed right-wing nationalists and social democrats) joined the AKP. Liberal intellectuals of all stripes (from Islamists to socialists), seeing no alternative democratic force in the country, became public voices for the party’s policies.

While the liberal wing of the secular establishment was happy with the split in the Islamist movement, hard-line secular nationalists could not accept the AKP’s rise to power. The consolidation of AKP rule after a sweeping electoral victory in 2007, along with the election of a president – Abdullah Gül – whose wife wears a headscarf, further enraged the nationalists.

Hundreds of thousands of nationalists took to the streets in a series of mass demonstrations, shouting authoritarian slogans and denigrating Kurds and Arabs. Paramilitary gangs distributed ethnic hate literature directed at Christian missionaries and Kurds. The demonstrations attacked the US and EU alongside the AKP, and the nationalist forces pressed for an alliance between Turkey, Russia, China and Iran against the West. In January of that year, the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was murdered in broad daylight by a teenaged ultranationalist, and three Christian missionaries were tortured and brutally murdered. While the military remained silent in the face of these killings, elements in its high command indicated their approval of the anti-AKP demonstrations and increasingly anti-American public sentiment.

In March 2008, secularist prosecutors filed a case in the constitutional court aimed at disbanding the AKP and barring its 71 top figures from politics for five years. The prosecution accused the party of organising “anti-secular” activities. But AKP supporters contend that the suit against the party, the anti-government street-demonstrations and the assassinations have all been the work of a so-called “deep state” organisation of hard-line secular nationalists, known as Ergenekon.

In July, pro-AKP prosecutors struck back with a 2500-page case against 86 people said to belong to the Ergenekon network – including retired generals, journalists and activists – alleging a plot to overthrow the government as well as involvement with the killings of Christian missionaries and a priest.

At the end of July, the court case against the AKP failed by one vote. Instead of shutting down the AKP, the court cut public funding for the party and issued a warning against it. Some liberal AKP supporters, strangely enough, looked kindly on the punishment – they had been alarmed by the party’s recent attempts to criminalise adultery and ban alcohol in municipalities under its control.

The Ergenekon case will not be concluded so quickly, as it involves deeper and more complicated issues. The network has been compared to the “Gladio” in Italy, one of several counter-guerrilla organisations established in Nato countries in the 1950s to fight back in the event of a communist takeover. Such an organisation did indeed exist in Turkey, but whereas in other European nations these groups were dismantled by the early 1990s, in Turkey the “deep state” was reorganised to fight Kurdish nationalism and remnants of the socialist left. Some have seen its fingerprints on thousands of extrajudicial killings of pro-Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) figures in the East and a handful of leftist activists in the West. The Ergenekon prosecution, however, targets only those hardline ultranationalists who threaten the AKP; those involved in the war against the Kurds remain mostly untouched.

The Ergenekon case, with its emphasis on military elements, steers clear of the police, though they have been integral to these extralegal operations since the 1970s, as seen most recently by their links to figures involved in the Hrant Dink assassination. In the pre-AKP era, it was top military officers who were above the law, but today top police officials seem to have taken their place.

The trial – which has captivated Turks with its unending string of apparently sensational revelations – has had a chilling effect on political debate. Anyone who questions the Ergenekon prosecution is quickly lumped in with pro-coup extremists; AKP supporters insist that journalists and intellectuals who raise doubts about the case have secret ties with the military, come from military families, or are covert racists. Unions and newspapers resisting the westernizing free-market policies of the AKP are now attacked as “secret Ergenekon”.

There is cause for concern that this signals the emergence of a “soft totalitarian” order. In the old days, opponents would be physically liquidated. Now they can be marginalised by baseless association with Ergenekon.

Now that the court case against the AKP has failed, there is no longer any force preventing the party from taking near total control of the political field. All the legitimate voices are joining the AKP bloc — those who remain outside are either marginal or powerless. Politics from now on will probably be shaped within this bloc, not as a conflict between two or more major parties. Future generations might witness a democracy resembling Cold War-era Japan, where a conservative party is in essence the only game in town, though other parties participate without taking power.

In short, while these two court cases have been seen internationally as a deepening of Turkey’s recent instability, they actually indicate the growing strength of the Turkish centre. The result is neither a liberal sea change in Turkish politics (e.g. the final triumph of democracy and the end of the Turkish Gladio) nor a step towards an Islamic state. Instead, recent developments have solidified the direction the Turkish state has taken since the 1980 military coup: toward a religiously conservative (rather than Islamic) state with a strong free-market tendency and ever stronger ties to the West. Not all secularly-minded people are being purged from the bureaucracy and civic arenas – but those who challenge and oppose this dominant tendency have been marginalised decisively.

The significance of this moment is not limited to Turkey. This is still a test of moderate Islam within a democracy – and, for that matter, of the ability for an Islamist-led state to be integrated into a US-led world market.

American diplomats and experts, as well as academics in Europe, have pointed to Turkey as an example of compatibility between Islam and democracy. The failure of the court case against the AKP has ratified their arguments: a democratically elected Islamic party has weathered an authoritarian storm. At the same time, the Ergenekon case is in the process of weeding out potential sources of instability and anti-western sentiment within the state.

But both trials have created an atmosphere where the Washington consensus cannot be questioned publicly: it has become an unacceptable sin to criticise the free market or Turkey’s alliance with the US. Pro-American forces in the country were divided over the last two years, but now many of the wounds have healed. Some prominent secular pro-American journalists have shifted positions to become supporters of the AKP. The nationalist wing of the military has also changed its stance, after (allegedly) flirting with Ergenekon-style pro-Russian and pro-Chinese ideas for a couple of years. The high command handed over retired generals suspected of being linked to the Ergenekon to the police. After the apparent fluctuations of the last two years, the high command remains committed to the US and the EU, and thus supportive of the AKP.

To the relief of those who have looked to Turkey as a safe ally of the West and a front-line state against Islamic radicalism and anti-western nationalism, pro-western actors look more likely to emerge more unified from these years of turbulence. Despite harbingers of doom in 2007, Turkey’s AKP, the global test case for moderate Islam, is poised to remain in control for the foreseeable future.

Cihan Tugal teaches sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. His book Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism will be published by the Stanford University Press in 2009

Caught red-handed

Nafeez Ahmed


Zarqawi Eat Your Heart Out

Basra is relatively stable compared to central Iraq where violence involving insurgents, civilians and coalition forces is a daily routine. The city has rarely been a site of clashes between insurgents and coalition troops, nor is it a victim of regular terrorist attacks. This week, however, things changed, but not thanks to Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda ilk.

On Monday, two British soldiers were arrested and detained by Iraqi police in Basra. Within a matter of hours, the British military responded with overwhelming force, despite subsequent denials by the Ministry of Defence, which insisted that the two men had been retrieved solely through "negotiations."

British military officials, including Brigadier John Lorimer, told BBC News (9/20/05) that the British Army had stormed an Iraqi police station to locate the detainees. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed that "British vehicles" had attempted to "maintain a cordon" outside the police station.

After British Army tanks "flattened the wall" of the station, UK troops "broke into the police station to confirm the men were not there" and then "staged a rescue from a house in Basra", according a commanding officer familiar with the operation. Both men, British defence sources told the BBC's Richard Galpin in Baghdad, were "members of the SAS elite special forces." After their arrest, the soldiers were over to the local militia.

What had prompted this bizarre turn of events? Why had the Iraqi police forces, which normally work in close cooperation with coalition military forces, arrested two British SAS soldiers, and then handed them over to the local militia? A review of the initial on-the-ground reports leads to a clearer picture.

Fancy Dress and Big Guns Don't Mix

According to the BBC's Galpin, reporting for BBC Radio 4 (9/20/05, 18 hrs news script), Iraqi police sources in Basra told the BBC the "two British men were arrested after failing to stop at a checkpoint. There was an exchange of gunfire. The men were wearing traditional Arab clothing, and when the police eventually stopped them, they said they found explosives and weapons in their car…It's widely believed the two British servicemen were operating undercover."

Undercover? Dressed as Arabs? What were they trying to do that had caught the attention of their colleagues, the Iraqi police?

According to the Washington Post (9/20/05), "Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." Reuters (9/19/05) cited police, local officials and other witnesses who confirmed that "the two undercover soldiers were arrested after opening fire on Iraqi police who approached them." Officials said that "the men were wearing traditional Arab headscarves and sitting in an unmarked car."

According to Mohammed al-Abadi, an official in the Basra governorate, “A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them.”

Booby-trapped Brits?

In an interview with Al Jazeerah TV, the popular Iraqi leader Fattah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly and deputy official in the Basra governorate, said that police had "caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market." Contrary to British authorities' claims that the soldiers had been immediately handed to local militia, al-Sheikh confirmed that they were "at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime."

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment and British Covert Operations

British defence sources told the Scotsman (9/20/05) that the soldiers were part of an "undercover special forces detachment" set up this year to "bridge the intelligence void” in Basra, drawing on 'special forces' experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went 'deep' undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces."

These elite forces operate under the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and were formed last year by then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, "to gather human intelligence during counter-terrorist missions."

The question, of course, is how does firing at Iraqi police while dressed as Arabs and carrying explosives constitute "countering terrorism" or even gathering "intelligence"?

The admission by British defence officials is revealing. A glance at the Special Reconnaissance Regiment gives a more concrete idea of the sort of operations these two British soldiers were involved in.

The Regiment, formed recently, is "modelled on an undercover unit that operated in Northern Ireland" according to Whitehall sources. The Regiment had "absorbed the 14th Intelligence Company, known as '14 Int,' a plainclothes unit set up to gather intelligence covertly on suspect terrorists in Northern Ireland. Its recruits are trained by the SAS."

This is the same Regiment that was involved in the unlawful July 22 execution - multiple head-shots - of the innocent Brazilian, Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes, after he boarded a tube train in Stockwell Underground station.

According to Detective Sergeant Nicholas Benwell, member of the Scotland Yard team that had been investigating the activities of an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence, the Force Research Unit (FRU), the team found that "military intelligence was colluding with terrorists to help them kill so-called 'legitimate targets' such as active republicans... many of the victims of these government-backed hit squads were innocent civilians."

Benwell's revelations were corroborated in detail by British double agent Kevin Fulton, who was recruited to the FRU in 1981, when he began to infiltrate the ranks of IRA. In his role as a British FRU agent inside the IRA, he was told by his military intelligence handlers to "do anything" to win the confidence of the terrorist group.

"I mixed explosive and I helped develop new types of bombs," he told Scotland's Sunday Herald (6/23/02). "I moved weapons… if you ask me if the materials I handled killed anyone, then I will have to say that some of the things I helped develop did kill… my handlers knew everything I did. I was never told not to do something that was discussed. How can you pretend to be a terrorist and not act like one? You can't. You’ve got to do what they do… They did a lot of murders… I broke the law seven days a week and my handlers knew that. They knew that I was making bombs and giving them to other members of the IRA and they did nothing about it… The idea was that the only way to beat the enemy was to penetrate the enemy and be the enemy."

Most startlingly, Fulton said that his handlers told him his operations were "sanctioned right at the top… this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing."



Documentation (27):
Captain Ken Masters, British chief police investigator in Basra died under mysterious circumstances. The cause of death was not mentioned. According to a Ministry of Defense spokesman, his death was "not due to hostile action" nor to natural causes.

Ken Masters was Commanding Officer of the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police. He was "responsible for the investigation of all in-theatre serious incidents, plus investigations conducted by the General Police Duties element of the Theatre Investigation Group." (Statement of Britain's Ministry of Defense, 16 Oct 2005).

In this capacity, Captain Masters was responsible for investigating the circumstances of the arrest of two undercover elite SAS men, wearing Arab clothing, by Iraqi police in Basra. on September 19 (London Times (17 Oct 2005)..

"The Ministry of Defence refused to reveal details about his [Masters] work but it is believed he was involved in the inquiry into the dramatic rescue of two SAS soldiers held in a prison in Basra." (Daily Mail, 16 Oct 2005)

The two British undercover "soldiers", who were driving a car loaded with weapons and ammunition, were subsequently "rescued" by British forces, in a major military assault on the building where they were being detained:

"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by helicopters " to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."

The incident, which resulted in numerous civilian and police casualties has caused political embarrassment.

Several media reports and eyewitness accounts suggested that the SAS operatives were disguised as Al Qaeda "terrorists" and were planning to set off the bombs in Basra's central square during a a major religious event.

On the 14th of October, Britain formally apologized to Iraq and confirmed that it "will pay compensation for injuries and damage caused during the storming by the army of a police station in Basra in the operation to release two SAS soldiers" (The Scotesman, 15 Oct 2005). In the British raid on the prison, 7 Iraqis were killed and 43 were injured .(The Times, op cit)

"Compensation to the families of alleged Iraqi victims who died during the fracas depended on the official investigation being carried out by Captain Masters and his team." (ibid)

Captain Ken Masters died in Basra on the 15th. According to the MoD "the circumstances (of his death) were not regarded as suspicious."

The reports casually suggested that Masters might have been suffering from "stress", which could have driven him to commit suicide. In the words of a Defense analyst quoted by the BBC:.

"Capt Masters was part of quite a small outfit and his job would have been quite stressful. It's quite an onerous job..... I think, (there is) quite a lot of stress involved" (BBC, 16 October 2005).

The Daily Mail (17 Oct 2005), however, tends to dismiss the suicide thesis "Little is known of his private life and it is said to be unlikely that the pressures of work would have led him to commit suicide."

The car the SAS agents used, was a white Toyota Cressida (28). The "Death Car", which Steven Vincent wrote about in "Switched Off in Basra", was a "white Toyota Mark II".(26)
A Toyota Cressida and a Toyota Mark II is one and the same car. (29)
Stephen Vincent was kidnapped by a "white police truck" in Basra, before he got murdered.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Basra Shadowlands

Sarah Meyer, Index Research

Part I: Basra Timeline 2005
Part II: Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit and the SAS
Part III: Some Questions
Appendix : Blair Fiction Fog (posted 7/10/05)

On October 1st 1918, Lawrence of Arabia led the Arabs into Damascus in an armoured car. “Damascus salutes you, “ said a rider, flourishing his head-dress. “Multitudes of Syrians thronged the streets to celebrate liberation from the Ottoman Empire.”

1. Basra Timeline 2005


There was no such welcome greeting for the armoured tanks in Basra, known as the ‘station of death' whilst the Iraqis were celebrating during the Karbala religious festival in September 2005.

There was an air of tension. Recent attacks on Westerners --
once a rare event in Basra -- had targeted British and U.S. diplomatic convoys and killed at least eight Britons and Americans.

Since the increase in attacks against UK forces two months ago, a 24-strong SAS team has been working out of Basra to provide a safety net to stop the bombers getting into the city from Iran.

In the early morning of the 19th, Fakher Haider,
an Iraqi journalist and photographer working for the NY Times, was found dead on the outskirts of Basra. Earlier, on 2 August, Steven Vincent, another journalist, was kidnapped and killed in Basra, allegedly after being taken away in a marked police car. Vincent had criticized UK security forces. More
A British official blamed Islamists. More

In an interview between Al Jazeera TV’s Anchorman Al-Habib al-Ghurayb and Fattah al-Shaykh, Al-Shaykh spoke of the background to the events of 19 September 2005: “There have been indiscriminate arrests, the most recent of which was the arrest of Shaykh Ahmad al-Farqusi and two Basra citizens on the pretext that they had carried out terrorist operations to kill US soldiers. This is a baseless claim.”

Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a spokesman for Moqtada al-Sadr, said "We called a protest outside the mayor’s office on Monday (the 19th) demanding the Sheikh be released," Sheikh Hassan said. "This protest was peaceful."

Two Arrested Men

Fattah al-Shaykh continued : “the sons of Basra caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market. However, the sons of the city of Basra arrested them. They [the two non-Iraqis] then fired at the people there and killed some of them. The two arrested persons are now at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime.”

On the 19th of September 2005, Xinhuanet News repeated the story with some rewording, specifically that the car was “packed with explosives.”

Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr,
explained why in another interview, two British soldiers had been arrested in Basra: ".. Events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army (al-Sadr’s militia) driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested."

The photographs of the two men,
with their faces blocked out,
appeared on British television.

The white Toyota car, was later removed by the British. The BBC said that the gear in the car was ’standard kit’ for British special forces.’

The men were detained at the police station for questioning by a judge.
They were carrying a a plastic-coated card, ’ the only document found on the men. The card read in English: "In an emergency, please call US and UK forces on these numbers." There were phone numbers for the cities of Amara, Nassiriya and Basra."

According to Iraqi MP Ali Dabagh, the militiamen from the outlawed Madhi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr wanted the soldiers as hostages to exchange for two of their leaders arrested on Sunday by British forces.

That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armoured cars demanding the two be released. Lee Watson, 20, said he had driven through walls and over vehicles to get to them. There were “6 SAS people” in the back of his Warrior tank. He added, “They looked like computer characters with shotguns, machine guns, pistols and knives.” However, the two British men were not in the jail. Watson continues, "The helicopter gave us directions and we followed, stormed the street, rescued the two guys and got out. They had been battered half to death but were OK. They thanked us for saving their lives and two choppers came down and away they all went." More

A policeman, Abbas Hassan, told Reuters that a tank cannon struck a room where a policeman was praying." He was standing next to mangled cars outside the police station and jail that he said were crushed by British military vehicles. "This is terrorism. All we had was rifles."

BBC News: Video and Audio

Brigadier John Lorimor, commander of the 12th Mechanized Brigade, made a full statement, in which he said that "Minor damage was caused to the prison compound wall and to the house in which our two soldiers were held." More

The British Defence Ministry later admitted their intentional breach.

An Iraqi television cameraman who lives across the street from the jail said about 150 Iraqi prisoners also fled as British troops stormed inside and rescued their comrades. More


The arrests sparked protests after British troops, backed by tanks, attempted to free the soldiers from the police station. (6 –12) other tanks, as well as helicopter gunships, were nearby. More

Two British armoured vehicles were attacked by a crowd, angered by the earlier arrests of two Basra citizens. Reuters television footage showed two British armoured personnel vehicles sent to the station attempting to reverse away from the crowd as it came under attack. As flames engulfed the vehicles, one soldier was seen scrambling from a top hatch, as he was pelted with stones and set on fire.

Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of Basra province, condemned the British for raiding the prison, an act he called "barbaric, savage and irresponsible"
"This is an irresponsible act," al-Waili said, adding that the British force had spirited the prisoners away to an unknown location. They were later released.

In an interview on Syrian TV, also on the 19th, Nidal Zaghbur spoke with his colleague in Baghdad, Ziyad al-Munajjid. Al-Munajjid said: “this incident gave answers to questions and suspicions that were lacking evidence about the participation of the occupation in some armed operations in Iraq. Many analysts and observers here had suspicions that the occupation was involved in some armed operations against civilians and places of worship and in the killing of scientists. “


On Tuesday, 20 September, in a Reuters release Alaa Habib writes: “Residents of Basra, in a region with Iraq's biggest oil reserves, called on British troops to leave the country. ‘It is unappropriate for any Iraqi to be insulted by a British or an American or any other occupier, we reject the occupying forces,’ said Abbas Jassim. … "What the two Britons did was literally international terrorism … If the British had condemned this, it would have calmed the situation but instead they came and demanded them back which sets a dangerous precedent," Ali al-Yassiri, an aide to Sadr, told Reuters.

The Reuters report continues. At the Baghdad press conference, Haider al-Ebadi, an adviser to PM Ibrahim Jaafair, said, “It is a very unfortunate development that the British forces should try to release their forces the way it happened," Al-Ebadi also said that the two men “were acting very suspiciously like they were watching something and collecting information in civilian clothes in these tense times,"

In the same report, Brigadier John Lorimer, the British commander, said: "From an early stage I had good reason to believe the lives of the two soldiers were at risk," (see above, exchange of prisoners)

On Wednesday, 21 September, al Jazeera reported that about 300 Iraqis, including police officers in uniform, have demonstrated in the southern city of Basra. British forces made no attempt to control them … demonstrators carried banners calling for the return of the two British agents to face Iraqi justice. They also demanded the resignation of the provincial police chief, accusing him of being an agent of the British. "The British promised us sovereignty. So where is this sovereignty if they destroy a police station?" asked one demonstrator.

Also on 21 September, it was announced that Basra officials, following the British raid, had decided to boycott British troops. "All regular meetings between the governorate and British troops have been cancelled and we will not allow British soldiers into the governorate building or any other public office in Basra," Nadim al-Jaabari, spokesman for the provincial governor," told AFP on Thursday. More

On 21 September, alarmed by the focus on the UK SAS disaster, the Media started,
without investigation, to parrot spin about Iranian "insurgents" on the Iraq border. This "news" escalated during the following week.

On 22 September, Mohammed al-Waili told Reuters: "The governing council met yesterday and decided to stop all cooperation with the British until they meet three demands, To apologise for what happened, to guarantee that it does not happen again, and … to provide some compensation for all the damage they did during the operation," he said. The Reuters report continues: “British troops meanwhile confined themselves to their barracks in and around Basra, lowering their profile in an effort to tamp down tensions caused by Monday's raid.”

On 23 September, Adrian Blomfeld reported from Baghdad that
an Al-Sadr official said that the staged bombings were aimed at starting an ethnic war. More

On 24 September, 'Judge Ragheb Mohamad Hassan al-Muthafar told The Sunday Times in an exclusive interview that the soldiers were “suspects who attempted to commit a wilful act of murder”. According to the judge, nine people were killed and 14 injured, including two boys aged 13 and 14, when (the protestors) attacked British forces surrounding the police station where the men were detained. The Ministry of Defense is carrying out an investigation.' More

On Saturday 24 September, Reuters’ Abdel-Razzak Hameed reported that “an Iraqi judge has issued arrest warrants for two undercover soldiers of freed British soldiers.”

British military spokesman Major Steve Melbourne: replied: “We are not fully aware of the issue of these warrants…But what I must say is they have no legal basis for the issue of these." ,BBC Audio transcript, 0738

Also on the 24th, a “flurry of rockets was fired at buildings occupied by British troops.”

On 26 September, The Guardian reports that Karen McLuskie, a British diplomat in Basra, commented: “Britain refuses apology and compensation for Iraqis caught up in Basra riots.” More

29 September. British Hand Over Control of Basra More

On October 11th, Britain offers apologies and compensation for damaged buildings and personal injuries which they incurred in Basra following the arrests of the two UK soldiers.

Elias Akleh, British Terrorism in Iraq
Ramzy Baroud, Iraq is an Occupied Nation in Revolt
William Bowles, Agents Provacateurs?
Pratap Chatterjee, Ex-SAS Men Cash In on Iraq Bonanza
Robert Fisk, When Nature and Man Conspire to Expose the Lies …
Michael Keefer: Were British Special Forces Planting Bombs in Basra?
Kurt Nimmo, Big Trouble for British Occupation of Southern Iraq
John Pilger, Sinister Events in a Cynical War
Tom Regan, The "Myth" of Iraq’s Foreign Fighters
Mike Whitney, Another Milestone in the War on Terror
Mike Whitney, Iraq: "A Right Rollicking Cock-up"

Researchers Notes

“The SAS involvement in Iraq was discovered on the 30th of January 2005 when an RAF Hercules plane crashed near Baghdad killing then British servicemen after dropping off fifty SAS members north of Baghdad to fight Iraqi guerillas.”

There is a history of occupied countries lacking any form of jurisdiction. This contradicts the ‘democratic’ principles propounded by the occupier. Human rights are systemically incurred - and ignored.

Part II : Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit and the SAS

On the day following Basra vs. The British, I opened the The Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis 1, to where I had left off, ‘Explaining the War Against Terrorism,’ which describes British undercover operations. Following is a summary of what Mark Curtis has written about the SAS, MI5 and MI6. I would like to thank Mark for allowing me to précis parts of his fine book. All quotes in the following sections are from The Web of Deceit, with one exception.

The SAS ‘Killer Squads

“An SAS officer noted: The SAS is the only agency whose job is to go out and zap people.” (p. 97)

Britain set up pseudo-terrorist ‘counter gangs’ in Palestine in the 1940s and Aden in the 1960s.” These consisted of “former terrorists and loyal tribesmen (Aden) led by British officers disguised as locals.” They were sent out in twos and threes to target those suspected of terrorism against British and local targets. (p. 96)

Aden (South Yemen): The SAS set up ‘hit squads’ whilst the RAF bombed villages and crops causing death and the evacuation of thousands. (p. 96)

Afghanistan: Former SAS officers trained Afghan mojahidins from the beginning of Soviet occupation. “Some SAS MI6 conducted ‘disruptive action’. KMS, (a private company) and then the SAS, trained commando units. Some Afghans were disguised and brought for training at a secret spot in Scotland. “Some SAS had back-up roles with the mojahidin.” (pp.62-3) 2 Britain supplied around 600 ‘Blowpipe’ … anti-aircraft missiles (later used by the Taliban) to these very same mojahidin, which shot down not only Soviet aircraft but passenger planes as well. Britain’s MI6 officers also supported and trained Afghan warlords. The CIA and MI6 trained Osama bin Laden’s supporters. The “war on terrorism” is “at least partly a creation of our (US, Saudi, Pakistan and Britain’s) making.” (p. 64)

Iran: The coup putting The Shah into power was arranged by the CIA and MI6.. (p. 310) The SAS “loaned soldiers to the Iranian military to help train the Shah’s special forces for operations against Kurdish guerillas in N. Iran.” MI6 was in contact with the Shah’s intelligence service, SAVAK; some SAVAK officers were trained in the UK in 1957. About 100,000 people were killed by the Shah’s regime. (pp. 313-4)

Northern Ireland: Modern ‘death squads’.

Kurt Nimmo has written an article about the SAS involvement in Northern Ireland. More

North Yemen: MI6 worked with tribesmen to ‘direct the planting of bombs’ at Egyptian military outposts while garrison towns were ‘shot up’ and political figures murdered.’ … MI6 “provided intelligence and logistical support to the rebels.” The rebels failed to dislodge the government. (p. 281)

Malaya: Between 1948 – 1960 a ‘counter-insurgency’ campaign against the Chinese was waged on behalf of rubber interests in the UK.
‘Killer squads’ were used in this brutal colonial war of decapitations, defoliants, detentions, villageisations’ and bombs. SAS squads from Rhodesia served alongside the British. The British declared this war an ‘emergency,’ and (as in the war in Afghanistan/Iraq) thus declared themselves immune from war crimes. (pp. 334 – 345)

Oman: Britain effectively controlled Oman, its oil, and the repressive Sultan. Britain was “therefore responsible for the repression.” (p. 277). There was a rebellion in Northern Oman, during which “the SAS fought a covert guerilla war whilst the UK Royal Air Force engaged in bombing and shelling of rebel villages and strongholds.” The “British ‘success’ was mainly due to inflicting terrifying violence.” The British ridded themselves of this Sultan and he came to live in the Dorchester Hotel.
Their next Sultan had his own personal 4-man SAS. “An SAS unit organized 1000 irregular forces to fight the rebels. Enemy corpses were
dumped in the main market square. (pp. 277 – 280)

Pakistan: SAS trained special Pakistani forces. (p. 62; see Afghanistan)

Palestine: “Squads were given a free hand to kill Jewish terrorists seeking an end to British rule and were able to adopt methods close to those adopted by the Jewish terrorists”… (p. 96)

Rhodesia: “former SAS officers were recruited… by the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) in the l970s.” (p. 97)

Zambia: the SAS were involved with bombings and assassinations against Rhodesian nationalists.

MI5, MI6 And Assassinations

“A long history has been buried. British government involvement in assassinating foreign leaders is virtually an elite tradition” (p. 95)

Hoxha, Albanian president, assassination plans by MI6, 1948. (p. 95)

Nasser, in the 1950’s: poisoned chocolate attempt; A SAS hit squad then considered other methods. (p. 95)

Sukarno of Indonesia: evidence of MI6 plot in 1950s. (p. 95)

Colonel Grivas, Cypriot guerilla leader: assassination plans by MI6 in late 1950s. (p. 95)

Dag Hammarskjold, 1959 plane crash: “meetings between MI5, the CIA and a South African military front company and plans to place TNT in the wheel bay of an aircraft.” described in letters. UK governmental denial of this was in a Guardian 1998 article. (p. 95)

Others considered: Chandra Bose India; The Mufti of Jerusalem (1950s) (p. 95)

Obote, Ugandan president: assassination plans by MI6 in 1969. (p. 95)

A bomb in Beirut, 1985, intended to kill Sheikh Fadlallah, the Shia leader, exploded. “Around eighty people were killed, including women and children, and over 200 wounded…The bombing was organized by the CIA and Saudi agents with the assistance of Britain’s MI6. 3 (p. 94)

Milosovic, President of Serbia: MI6 put forward three options for assassination in 1992. 1) with an SAS bomb/sniper ambush; 2) Serbian paramilitary group assassination; 3) road crash, eg. with strobe light. Later, NATO aircraft targeted him during Kosovo war. (p. 96)

The Quadafi Plot, Libya, 1996: MI6 cable revealing knowledge of assassination attempt by ‘one officer and twenty men being trained especially for this attack.’ “Claims that MI6 was in contact with ‘Osama Bin Laden’s main allies in the plot.” Quadafi was not killed; six innocent bystanders were. (p. 97) 4 MI6 paid £100,000 to the group. “Pure fantasy” said Robin Cook. Ben Bradshaw, Foreign Office Minister, later noted in 2002 that “There is no moral distinction between an attacker who kills civilians or parliamentarians and a state that wittingly provides the resources that facilitate such a terrorist attack. 5 (pp. 97-8)

British Torture & The British Army

1971 investigation: "The British found the British army had engaged in the torture of detainees … in counter-insurgency operations in Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, British Cameroons (1960 – 61), Brunei (1963), British Guiana (1964), Aden (1964-67), Borneo / Malaysia (1965 – 66), the Persian Gulf (1970 – 71) and in Northern Ireland (1971)." (pp. 280 – 81)

1. Mark Curtis, The Web of Deceit, Britain’s Real Role in the World, Vintage GB, 2003. Foreward by John Pilger. Back
2. Curtis footnote no. 30, Cooley, Unholy Wars, pp. 95-7, 81 Back
3.Curtis footnote 42, More Back
4. Curtis footnote no. 48: Dorril, MI6, p. 793; Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘Gagging orders issued in MI6 trial, Guardian, 7 October 2002 Back
5. Curtis footnote no. 50: More Back

Part III : Some Questions

Who is killing doctors in Iraq?

Who is killing journalists and photographers in Iraq?

Who is killing Iraqi teachers?

Who is killing Iraqi scientists?

Who shot Juan Torres in Bagram, Afghanistan?

Who are the "insurgents" kidnapping, beating and drugging people, forcing them to set off bombs that kill Iraqi citizens?

Who is being abducted and where are they?

What company is making the infrared bombs being used in Iraq?

Why are governments allowed to continue to commit torture and murder without fear of legal reprisal?

“State sponsored terrorism is by far the most serious category of terrorism in the world today.” (Curtis, ibid., p. 94)

Appendix : Blair Fiction fog

Spin is hypnotically interesting for journalists. The public becomes a ‘willing accomplice’ to the crime. The purpose of spin is to get the media, and thus the world, to take their eyes off the ball. In Basra, the eye was uncomfortably on the ball marked 'Two British Men Arrested.’ The most recent spin headlines in the UK media concern the alleged interference of the Iranian “insurgents” on the borders of Iraq. Bush supports this, being the original instigator of demonizing Iran.

The British SAS have been faffing around the Iranian border for two months.

The dubious Blair accusation about Iranian “insurgents” was first noticed, I believe, by Kurt Nimmo in his blog Media Shifts Attention from SAS Screw Up to Iran on the 21st of September.

Blair Fiction Fog followed the Basra officials' announcement to boycott British troops
Going yet further back, it can also be seen as a response to the Iranian steadfastness to following its nuclear power development.

This Blair-Spin is now reaching epic proportions, with denials from both Iran and Hizbollah.

The accusation is but a part of the plan to make Iran “dangerous”, in the same way as Saddam was “dangerous” with his WMDs.
When the US government feels the spin has seeded, then the (now deleted from Web) DOD nuclear plan of preemptive strike can then be activated. (Document available here)

While God speaks to Bush, we spin along our way, like lemmings, towards the cliff edge.
Photo Charles Dharapak/AP

Is the focus by US/UK governments on Iran's 'nuclear weapons buildup' a subterfuge
for a US war on Iran to control its oil? The interference of the UK in matters Iranian continues with Iran Focus writing, on 17 October, that a person admitting to being trained by the British in Iraq was arrested for his part in the twin Ahwaz bombings.

Clearing the Fiction Fog. What information about Iran is now being hidden from the public? There is US/UK sabre rattling about "War in Iran" because of an alleged nuclear 'threat.' Any war in Iran would be for the same reason as the war in Iraq - OIL.
This article by physicist Gordon Prather on 22 October 2005 tells us what we are not being told about 'matters nuclear' in Iran.



01.04.06. Dominic Kennedy, uruknet. Iranian militiamen were brought in by Britain

DoD Contract, 11.08.06.
Blackwater Security Consulting, Moyock, N.C., was awarded on Aug. 7, 2006, a $7,161,101 firm-fixed-price contract for personal security detail services - protection security services. Work will be performed in Baghdad, Iraq, and is expected to be completed by September 30, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on March 25, 2006, and 21 bids were received. The Joint Contracting Command, Baghdad, Iraq, is the contracting activity (W91GY0-06-C-0027).

Exposing Gordon Kerr and Tony Blair’s secret army
07.04.07. Simon Basketter exposes how special British units in Iraq are run by the same man who commanded death squads in Northern Ireland.

Sarah Meyer is a researcher, living in Sussex, England. She is also a “citizen reporter” for

found on

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 8:40 AM 0 comments

Bla Bla about Obama

The Un-asked Question is Asked

Posted August 28, 2008 | 12:31 PM (EST)

The other evening, I was having dinner with a conservative friend. Generally, we avoid politics at meals, so as to keep both the yelling and food down, but occasionally it creeps in. It did when he began going on and on (and on) about Barack Obama's "inexperience."

I ate my pasta in polite quiet, though, all the while knowing what I was gnashing to respond. But finally, he said "inexperienced" one too many times.

And so, as warmly as possible, I asked it --

"More inexperienced than George Bush?"

His reaction was unexpected shock. There was total silence. A deer in the headlights look. Then I inquired, "How did that work out?" Still no answer. At last, I politely changed the subject.

Days later, I was talking with another friend, this one liberal, and recounted the conversation. He was aghast. I was admonished to be careful, because of what a Republican "might say" in return, twisting the disastrous presidency of inexperienced George W. Bush to a comparison of Barack Obama.

But my friend missed the point. This wasn't some theoretical case of what "might" be. I'd actually made the comment. And the other person actually didn't have a response. I don't mean "didn't have a good response." Or even an understandable one. I mean - literally no response.

I also realized something else, bigger.

After eight years of the far-Right positioning Democrats, with little regard to the truth, I refuse any longer to define my own personal interests based on what conservatives "might" say. Because we know what they will say. We know it will be critical, sometimes reprehensible and occasionally a knowing-lie. So, I can't concern myself with that. If conservatives want to try to compare Barack Obama to George Bush in any regard, I am more than happy to take that challenge and paint them with reality.

Far-right Republicans will try to turn any Democratic presidential candidate inside out. And I won't accept my terms based on their terms. I know what they "might" say. But more importantly, I know what I will say in return. All it takes is looking around, seeing reality and merely describing it.

When one gives in to what the far-Right "might" say, they win. Not anymore.

So, let's return to that first conversion and break the silence of what wasn't said about George Bush's inexperience when he first-ran for president.

If there's one thing what we've learned after eight years is that most Republicans today have drawn battle lines and support the Administration party line totally, near-blindly. In such a view, George Bush must be wonderful, with few flaws. Yet if that's the case, their "inexperienced" argument becomes their own worst enemy. Because it forces a Republican to acknowledge either that 1) the once-inexperienced George Bush has done a great job, or 2) the once-inexperienced George Bush has done a flawed job.

And I can live with either acknowledgment.

If the former, that means "experience" when running for president is meaningless. But even better, it opens the debate to the Republican record and actual issues, something the McCain campaign has been twisting to avoid. It forces a Republican explanation that the economy is strong, there's no housing crisis, global warming doesn't exist, the $482 billion budget deficit isn't the largest in U.S. history, the job market is booming, gas prices are low, and that the Iraq War is going quite well and near a happy conclusion - just like the war in Afghanistan.

If accepting the latter, however, that's just as good - because it requires a Republican acknowledging that because George Bush was inexperienced when he came to office, he screwed up.

Once the discourse is on these terms, Barack Obama's 14 years of elective experience easily exceeds that of George Bush when he first ran for president. At least Barack Obama has four years in the U.S. Senate, where he serves on the Foreign Relations committee. Add to that 10 years as a state senator in Illinois. Of course, to some, statehouse experience doesn't count - but if so, consider then that George Bush's only experience was as head of a statehouse. Take that from his resume, and Mr. Bush is left with nothing. Six years as state governor of Texas. That's it.

But let's go further and put George Bush's political "experience" in full perspective: the Texas state legislature only meets every two years - and for a mere 140 days. That means in his six years in office, George Bush presided over the legislature for barely one year.

I'll take that "experience" debate any day.

However, there's an even-more important point to the "experience" argument than just that. For the past 32 years, no first-term U.S. president (but one) has had "experience" when elected.

Not George W. Bush. Not Bill Clinton. Not even the conservatives beloved Ronald Reagan. Not Jimmy Carter. None had any foreign policy experience, any federal experience, any experience with the joint chiefs of staff and managing the U.S. Armed Forces. No experience with the CIA, FBI or NSA. Just their home state. (Only the first George Bush did, and he got defeated for re-election.)

Sorry, no matter how big its economy, being California governor has never inherently qualified anybody for Commander-in-Chief. That's one reason you don't remember President George Deukmejian.

And why 37 out of 38 California governors were never seen by the public as experienced enough to become president.

In fact, Ronald Reagan was seen as a wildly scary loose-cannon and huge risk. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were all considered deeply inexperienced. Yet, although all of them ran against experienced, sitting presidents - they all won.

John Kennedy, who inspired a generation, was considered extremely inexperienced, which is how Richard Nixon ran against him: the two-time vice-president and foreign policy expert against the elitist kid. And the kid won. Did a nice job, too.

The Republican Talking Point Mantra today likes to make a big deal of "experience" - yet without ever defining it. The implication focuses on the U.S. Senate, and that four years there isn't enough experience for Americans. Pop quiz. How many former U.S. senators served two terms as president in the history of the United States? Extra credit if you can name them all. Take your time.


It was a trick question. The answer is zero. No former U.S. senator has ever completed two full terms as president. That's how much Senate experience matters to Americans.

In fact, the American public has only elected a former-senator to be president to two terms on one, single occasion - but his Senate experience didn't help, since Richard Nixon resigned from office in disgrace. Further, the American public has only elected two presidents directly from the Senate - Warren Harding and John Kennedy.

By those standards, all senators - including John McCain - fail on the enough "experience" scale.

The point is that the American public has shown itself unconcerned with years of "experience" when selecting its president. Especially U.S. Senate experience. The results have been mixed, but then that's where the elected-president's judgment and quality of appointments he makes come in.

Which returns us to that original conversation and the silence that followed. In truth, the issue has never been that George Bush failed because he was inexperienced - it's because he was intellectually incurious, surrounded himself by entrenched ideologues, politicized the government, refused to adapt, and blindly followed paths for Republican gain, not for the nation. He failed because he made incompetent decisions every step of the way. And the American public finally grasped it, which is why George Bush today has a 29 percent approval rating plummeted down from 90 percent.

And addressing that with a Republican takes away the only campaign issue of "inexperience" they are even trying.

All that's left, then, is judgment. Vision. Where one stands on the issues. And ultimately, the ability to put all that together and bring about a better America.

- Like another politician from Illinois, arguably the least-experienced man to become president, who served only one term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and just four terms in the Illinois House. Abraham Lincoln. He did okay, too.

In a perfect world, Barack Obama would be serving his third term in the U.S Senate. In a perfect world, we would be out of Iraq. But Barack Obama has 14 years of elected office, and John McCain has voted with President George Bush 95 percent of the time. We deal with life as it is, the best we can.

No one else can define what are your own personal interests. Conservatives had their say for eight years. They messed up America. Their time has passed. So have their arguments.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Obama Not American?

Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court (Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency)by Phillip Berg - 9/11 Truth Attorney for William Rodriguez

AmericaRight | 8/21/08 | Jeff Schreiber

Posted on Thu Aug 21 17:00:24 2008 by LdSentinal

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.

"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a naturalized U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.

Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed "natural born," that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama's registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama's half-sister.

"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg stated. "If the DNC officers ... had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws."

"It is unfair to the country," he continued, "for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected."

Two U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq


BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 (Xinhua) -- Two U.S. soldiers were killed in two separate attacks in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

A U.S. soldier was killed when insurgents attacked his patrol with improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad at approximately 11:00 a.m. (0800 GMT) on Thursday, a military statement said.

Separately, a second soldier died at a U.S. medical facility in Baghdad after being wounded by small arms attack on Wednesday during a foot patrol in northern Baghdad, another military statement said.

About 4,150 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, according to media count based on Pentagon figures.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 4:58 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

USA = Stasi 2.0 -- intrusive surveillance

Bush administration widens domestic spy agency powers
By Naomi Spencer
25 August 2008

In recent weeks, Bush administration officials have introduced a number of provisions that substantially widen the powers of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to conduct spying and other operations within the US against American citizens.

Last week, several news outlets reported that the Justice Department had drafted new rules on intelligence gathering operations which it plans to ratify on October 1, the first day of the new fiscal year and one month before the November elections.

Although details of the draft have not been made publicly available, officials told the Associated Press (AP) that the changes give explicit permission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to spy on Americans even if there is no basis for suspicion of criminal activity or allegations of wrongdoing. According to an August 20 report by the AP, officials speaking on condition of anonymity said .the new policy would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious..

Among factors the officials said could be used as the basis for spying, according to the AP, were .travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity and access to weapons or military training, along with the person.s race or ethnicity..

The FBI would be authorized to conduct activities such as .long-term surveillance, interviewing neighbors and work-mates, recruiting informants and searching commercial databases for information on people..

Four members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who were briefed on the new rules.Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.wrote in an August 18 letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey that the new rules opened the way for .intrusive surveillance. against innocent Americans based on .race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities..

An August 22 editorial by the New York Times, citing comments of Senate staffers familiar with the new rules, reported that the FBI would be authorized to carry out .pretext interviews, in which agents do not honestly represent themselves while questioning a subject.s neighbors and work colleagues..

There can be little doubt that among those targeted will be the sizable and growing segment of the population actively opposed to the government.s policies. .Pretext interviews. and the use of .recruited informants..who infiltrate targeted organizations.are deeply anti-democratic and unconstitutional tactics that the FBI, in the anti-communist Cold War era, widely employed against socialists and civil rights groups.

In their letter, the senators merely urged Mukasey not to ratify the guidelines until they have been publicly indication that they have no any serious intention of blocking the action. Only last month, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate passed, by an overwhelming margin, legislation legitimizing the Bush administration.s ongoing domestic wiretapping and surveillance operations and granting immunity to telecommunications companies participating in the illegal programs. (See: .Obama joins Senate vote to legitimize Bush.s domestic spying operation.).

In an August 20 reply to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General.s office gave an assurance that Mukasey would not sign the guidelines in advance of a September 17 appearance before the committee by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

However, the letter made clear that the Justice Department considered the delay little more than a grace period. It stated, .Although we have not traditionally worked with Congress in developing Attorney General guidelines, and as you note in your letter, we are not obligated to do so, we appreciate the laudable and thoughtful suggestions we have already received.... In the meantime, the Attorney General.s office said the department would .continue to train FBI employees in preparation for the October 1, 2008 implementation date..

In tandem with more aggressive FBI spying, the Justice Department last week introduced a proposal to further integrate state and local law enforcement agencies into the intelligence apparatus by allowing police forces to collect intelligence about American citizens. The proposal would allow police to share data with federal agencies and retain information for at least ten years.

As an August 16 Washington Post article reported, in the past few years numerous instances of police infiltration of peace and other protest groups have come to light. The article noted that .undercover New York police officers infiltrated protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention... California state agents eavesdropped on peace, animal rights and labor activists,. and .Denver police spied on Amnesty International and others before being discovered..

Michael German, a former FBI agent turned whistleblower who is now a policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the Post, .If police officers no longer see themselves as engaged in protecting their communities from criminals and instead as domestic intelligence agents working on behalf of the CIA, they will be encouraged to collect more information... It turns police officers into spies on behalf of the federal government..

On August 20, the Post reported that the federal government has been compiling information on land, sea, and air border-crossings by Americans via a previously undisclosed Border Crossing Information system run by the Department of Homeland Security. The data.including name, birth date, gender and photographic documentation.will be held for 15 years and can be used by intelligence agencies in investigations. The newspaper commented, .The same information is gathered about foreign travelers, but it is held for 75 years..

This month, the Bush administration also announced the creation of a new unit within the Defense Department.s Defense Intelligence Agency, called the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center. Without giving details, Mike Pick, appointed to direct the program, told reporters at a Pentagon press conference that the office would carry out .strategic offensive counterintelligence operations. within the United States. Pentagon officials have insisted that the agency would target only .foreign intelligence officers. on US soil.

The announcement closely followed a July 30 executive order by President Bush ordering a restructuring of intelligence agencies to more tightly centralize spying and other so-called .counterintelligence operations. under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The purpose of the change is to consolidate and solidify the huge intelligence apparatus that has grown massively in the period since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 2:00 PM 0 comments

BBC is a propaganda instrument

"The disclosure that a Whitehall counter-terrorism propaganda operation is promoting material to the BBC and other media will raise fresh concerns about official news management in a highly sensitive area."

URL Here:-

Revealed: Britain's secret propaganda war against al-Qaida
BBC and website forums targeted by Home Office unit

A Whitehall counter-terrorism unit is targeting the BBC and other media organisations as part of a new global propaganda push designed to "taint the al-Qaida brand", according to a secret Home Office paper seen by the Guardian.

The document also shows that Whitehall counter-terrorism experts intend to exploit new media websites and outlets with a proposal to "channel messages through volunteers in internet forums" as part of their campaign.

The strategy is being conducted by the research, information and communication unit, [RICU] which was set up last year by the then home secretary, John Reid, to counter al-Qaida propaganda at home and overseas. It is staffed by officials from several government departments.

The report, headed, Challenging violent extremist ideology through communications, says: "We are pushing this material to UK media channels, eg, a BBC radio programme exposing tensions between AQ leadership and supporters. And a restricted working group will communicate niche messages through media and non-media."
Link to this audio

The disclosure that a Whitehall counter-terrorism propaganda operation is promoting material to the BBC and other media will raise fresh concerns about official news management in a highly sensitive area.

The government campaign is based upon the premise that al-Qaida is waning worldwide and can appear vulnerable on issues such as declining popularity; its rejection by credible figures, especially religious ones, and details of atrocities.

The Whitehall propaganda unit is collecting material to target these vulnerabilities under three themes. They are that al-Qaida is losing support; "they are not heroes and don't have answers; and that they harm you, your country and your livelihood".

The RICU guidance, dated July 21 2008, says that the material is primarily aimed at "overseas communicators" in embassies and consulates around the world, confirming the global scale of the Whitehall counter-terrorist propaganda effort now underway.

But it also says that other partners should be encouraged to integrate this work into their communications at home as well: "It is aimed primarily (but not exclusively) at those working with overseas influencers and opinion formers."

The first dossier of material being despatched to diplomatic posts worldwide cites condemnation of al-Qaida from Sayyid Imam al-Sharif aka Dr Fadi, a former leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and Salman Abu-Awdah, a leading Saudi scholar who has published an open letter to Osama bin Laden calling al-Qaida's aims illegitimate and immoral. It notes that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are now keen to distance themselves from al-Qaida.

In a section headed "AQ has suffered military defeat in ..." it adds "use advisedly - avoid suggesting that AQ is no longer a threat. We are not claiming victory over AQ. We are stressing their declining support".

The dossier says that al-Qaida has been definitively expelled from large areas of Iraq and has lost ground in Afghanistan. It quotes CIA director Michael Hayden's claim in May that al-Qaida had been essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and was now "on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world," but describes this as a "strikingly upbeat assessment of the organisation".

It highlights the fact that Mohammed Hamid, who was convicted in February for recruiting and radicalising young men to fight against the west, was a former crack addict.

The document also notes that al-Qaida has to "feed its new franchises with propaganda to keep the 'brand' alive at all costs". It says that it is focused on Palestine - to the discomfort of the Palestinians - because it has failed in Iraq and is now pronouncing on issues as diverse as Egyptian trade unions and climate change in a desperate attempt to remain relevant.

The "material" is a mixture of recent news reports and articles from Arabic, Middle Eastern and North African news sources illustrating the theme of "AQ is in decline" as well as articles from the New York Times, the Observer, Newsweek and British and American websites.

The RICU guidance note says the dossier has been drafted with support from Whitehall press officers "on how best to tailor such material for media engagements, presenting information to ministers, or to other stakeholders. It is in a separate, unclassified format to make it the sort of product that a minister or a press officer could use before an interview; or that could be given as a crib sheet for trusted contacts," says the classified document.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 1:38 PM 0 comments

Sunday, August 24, 2008

USA kills civilians 1/4 mio Cluster bomblets

During its war in Afghanistan, the United States dropped nearly a quarter-million cluster bomblets that killed or injured scores of civilians, especially children, both during and after strikes, Human Rights Watch said in a report.

The Socioeconomic Impact (example)

In a village south of Kandahar, bomblets damaged a building used to dry grapes and littered a pomegranate orchard, in which Human Rights Watch counted about eighty bomblets in a three-hundred-foot (ninety-one meter) radius. The trees probably increased the dud rate because branches snagged the parachutes, some of which still hung in the trees, and slowed the bomblets' descent.

The ICRC list corroborates the trends Human Rights Watch identified during its mission to Afghanistan. Of the victims it reported, 20 percent were tending animals, 16 percent were farming, and 10 percent were gathering wood when injured. The list breaks down the victims' activities at the time of incident as follows: tending animals, 25 victims; farming, 20; traveling on foot, 19; playing/recreation, 15; collecting wood, 13; incidental passing, 13; tampering with item, 9; traveling in vehicle, 2; military activities, 2; other, 7; unknown, 2. ICRC, November Cluster Bomb Casualty List.

The United Nations says nearly 700 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 2:55 AM 0 comments

Friday, August 22, 2008

Georgia -- a Classic Brzezinski Project

Georgia-Russia: It's a Classic Brzezinski Project!

Written by
Monday, 18 August 2008
digg_url = " content ?;
by Zahir Ebrahim

The blogosphere is now filled with a plethora of interesting analysis and postmortem of the Russian-Georgian conflagration. Many scholars, academics, and activists are weighing in with their analysis on what happened. The two most illuminating (as usual) have come from and can be read here and here. Some others have also provided good analysis and background perspectives, as for instance the erudite reports from stratfor,,,, and also the one noted above. However, while almost all of them rightly prognosticate a new “Cold War”, or that the Russians have finally come into their own under Vladimir Putin, they invariably imply this as an inadvertent by-product of the largely miscalculated events which can either lead to a broader war, or to a checkmate of the American empire! Inexplicably, even the usually forensic globalresearch authors (Chossudovsky and Lendman), while coming the closest to the blatant reality of hectoring hegemons, have not ventured to fully explore beyond the thin veil in the aforecited essays “War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?” and “Using Georgia to Target Russia”.Lendmen comes the closest when he almost tepidly observes: 'The New Great Game – What's at stake is what former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard.” ', but then stops short of full exploration.
Chossudovsky too, quite forensically observes: “The war on Southern Ossetia was not meant to be won, leading to the restoration of Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia. It was intended to destabilize the region while also triggering a US-NATO confrontation with Russia.”, but surprisingly, doesn't mention Brzezinski at all! However, almost gingerly, he does ask at the conclusion of his detailed analysis: “Are we dealing with an act of provocation, with a view to triggering a broader conflict? Supported by media propaganda, the Western military alliance is intent on using this incident to confront Russia, as evidenced by recent NATO statements.” My response to Michel Chossudovsky's careful tepidity is a forceful yes as is argued below! There can be no alternate rational explanation given the history of empire. And the mainstream media of course have done their job all too exceptionally well as is also argued below.Consider the frightening prospect that both Chossudovsky and Lendmen have barely, but rightfully, hinted at: that Georgia's military buildup over the past years with a stooge at the helm of its affairs finally bursting her munificence in the provocative bombing of the Ossetian civilians in the middle of the night in the most despicable of ways, was an Anglo-American setup! A sting operation with a calculated opening gambit to compel the Russians to make their own forced move on the Eurasian Grand Chessboard precisely as they subsequently did!The resulting political and military global climate so reminiscent of the “Cold War”, is neither an inadvertence, nor a miscalculation, as almost everyone else has projected. But rather, according to a cold-blooded premeditated plan for a “new world order” in which the import of Putin's 2007 observations are intended to become sardonically and completely realized.Putin had not only warned of an autocratic-oligarchic world coming into being, but that it was so pernicious that it would destroy the nation purusing it. Well – both are intended to come true from the Anglo-American perspective. The destruction of America via the clandestine SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) to create a new temporary Union en route to a world without independent nation-states that is ruled oligarchically under a singular central force. Here is Putin's relevant statements from the 2007 Munich Conference on Security Policy: “The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.”Put it another way, this Georgian-Russian conflagration is as much a miscalculation or happenstance in 2008, as George Kennan's “Truman Doctrine” was in seeding the Cold War in 1948. Provoking Russia is very much a component of the grand master plan and Putin well understands it. The gambit offered to Putin in Georgia has willingly been accepted because Russia too is fed up of the oligarchs' “New World Order” raping her and the rest of the pluralistic world. Putin sees Russia's destruction as a mighty nation and civilization, in her continued passivity and inaction. Among all the nations of Eurasia, Russia by far has paid the greatest price in the useless wars and machinations of the Anglo-American establishment during the 20th century. No more. No more Jews bringing revolutions to Russia, or pillaging its wealth, and no more petty fascists under imperial tutelage bringing wars to its ancient borders!With that as the backdrop of overarching motivations, let's look at the American side. If such an opening gambit as argued above isn't its main purpose, then it was asinine for the Georgians to have attacked Ossetia like this. As reported elsewhere, the Georgians have been fully armed and controlled by the US and Israel, with full intelligence available to them 24x7. The Georgian leadership is handpicked US-Israeli puppets. The fact that the Russians had anticipated the assault by Georgia and were already in formation close to the borders because of which they were able to retaliate so quickly, was known to the Americans. Thus why would the Americans goad/command the Georgians to attack when they could trivially predict this hard likely response by the Russians? Minimally, the Russian military mobilization at the border was a sure give-away! A Rand Corporation worth its salt plays out all war-game scenarios. It is further worthwhile asking why would the Americans deliberately antagonize the Russians by ferrying Georgian soldiers from Iraq back to the Georgian frontlines so that they can contribute to Russian and Ossetian casualties? That's quite a needless and futile overt act of war directly by the United States against Russia – for what can an additional 2000 soldiers possibly accomplish against a modern Russian army which has a declared first-strike use of nuclear weapons as its well-publicized self-defense doctrine even in conventional precision warfare? This move by the Americans can only be understood rationally if the purpose is deemed to be deliberate nuancing of the loaded gun being held on Russia's head in America's opening gambit. If I was at the Rand Corporation, this ferrying idea might have sounded really awesome for adding fuel to the fire already lighted! Hey – perhaps the Russians can be coerced into shooting down a couple of those ferry boats! Notice how proxy wars are waged? The casualties are usually the patsies!Lastly, in the attack by the Georgians, why would they concentrate on killing the Ossetian innocent civilians rather than take on/capture/disable things of military/civil significance if capturing the Ossetian capital and re-absorbing Ossetia into Georgia was the real goal?Apart from being provocative, there was zero efficacy to this “surprise” attack by the Georgians upon the Russians (as Chossudovsky has also noted). The only peoples really surprised were the innocent victimized public on either side!The one forensic explanation which wholly and rationally explains this (mis)adventure by Georgia is that from the Anglo-American perspective, it was a trap set for the Russians to behave exactly as they did. The Georgians and Ossetians are just disposable canon fodder – patsies like the Afghanis before them. This operation has all the hallmarks of a Brzezinski proxy war on Russia leaving the Russians, once again, no choice but to intervene in Georgia as they did. Just like they had no choice as the former USSR, in their intervention in Afghanistan three decades ago when Zbigniew Brzezinski started giving aid to the Mujahideen under President Carter as deliberate premeditated provocation six months before the Soviet Union's intervention. All this is known history. Only its lessons seem to be forgotten all too quickly in the rush to be among the first to make one's analysis of what happened.If the afore-stated opening gambit scenario is rational and plausible, as it appears to be if one looks at it from the geostrategic perspective on the Grand Chessboard, then it begs the obvious question why? Why prompt this Russian Intervention in Georgia, and now? Let's flesh that out in the light of the afore-stated overarching motivations.Just watch the worldwide mainstream news to know in a minute why! OBL and Al-Qaida need replacing – the mantra is now well worn and not going down really well among the American and European public. “Islamofascism” has little utility in destabilizing Russia, while perhaps still potent for China. Thus the new boogieman of the “bad bear” has been craftily resurrected. The consistent Western mainstream news reportage over the past week which has entirely blamed Russia for the conflict in the face of blatant facts to the contrary, validates this notion that the creation of this new mantra of “bad bear” is well orchestrated. Facts are only relevant to the creation of magical mantras if they support the mantras. Otherwise distortions, half-truths, outright bold lies, and the dialectics of deception suffice to construct new propaganda. The new mantra under construction projects the Russians as once again out to exercise their hegemony due to their inescapable genetic DNA that was previously manifested as the “bad” communist USSR, and now it's simply “bad” Russia! The basic propaganda is that the Russians cannot be trusted as nice “civilized” partners of the West and they are showing their true colors once again. That they must be re-feared by the world!This is the most apparent and visible empirical reason for this gambit. Also watch how easily the hitherto continually morphing and entirely illusive “Al Qaida” leadership are now being suddenly found and systematically killed off in the escalation of bombings in the tribal belt region bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan by NATO, the United States Military, and the Pakistan Army. For seven years ten million tons of Depleted Uranium munitions were dropped on Afghanistan without getting the famous OBL. Yet in the past few weeks, remarkably, many so called senior “Al Qaida” leadership have not only been killed from the air, but also assertively identified as leaders! Pakistani newspapers daily report some new “Taliban” or “Al Qaida” senior leader dead from the previous night's missile attack by NATO drones on the already impoverished rural population of Pakistan's tribal region. The increased indiscriminate killings of a 'lesser' peoples who have largely been written off from the pages of history as disposable fodder, is further bringing to a head the pre-planned destabilization and falling apart of Pakistan. It appears that the “bad bear” and “islamofascism” mantras may run in parallel for a while, until at least Pakistan is dismembered, but that the new mantra of “bad bear” is rapidly being cultivated as the new “doctrinal motivation” to take the latter's place for “imperial mobilization” in other parts of Eurasia.The invisible or not so apparent reason, which one only understands if one looks behind the scenes towards the “forces that drive them”, in this case Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Anglo-American sponsors, the ruling interests are itching to also dismember Russia. And this deliberately provoked intervention of Russia into Georgia is merely the step-1, using a similar ploy as the Afghan Trap, but with the difference that this time it is part of a destabilization campaign right on Russia's long borders.Additionally, keeping Russia busy on its flank while engaging Iran – if indeed Iran is actually to be bombed by Israel and/or the massive US naval armada now besieging her – makes short term military sense.All ducks are lined up in a row as far as Russia hater, grandmaster Zbigniew Brzezinski – the architect of geostrategic primacy on the Grand Chessboard – is concerned. However, as was noted by Project Humanbeingsfirst in its Press Release of June 30, 2008:While Zbigniew Brzezinski may have planned the “Grand Chessboard” in the West, his Eurasian targets of the great game actually invented chess. All four of the regions burgeoning powers, Iran, India, China, and Russia, are ancient civilizations far older than the Atlantic powers put together, and are also expert chess players in the very ethos of the richness of their civilizations. Many public parks in Iran for instance, are dotted with stone and wood carved chess tables where ordinary peoples gather daily under the shady trees to spar with each other, bringing their own chess pieces. Chess is not an acquired skill in Asia, nor is it of recent acquisition, as it is for the West! It is innate to the peoples. The Chinese classic “Art of War” is 2500 years old and still teaches the Rand Corporation how to play their great games! One given to intimately comprehending the perverse real-world of “hectoring hegemons” in which “safety” is only considered to be the “sturdy child of terror and survival the twin brother of annihilation”, would hope that the young Mr. Putin quickly re-introduces the “balance of terror” from the present day “unilateral terror”! The latter has always been an open license for exercising primacy for “full spectrum dominance” by anyone who can get away with it. It is a history “as old as mankind”! While both terror paradigms can wreck havoc upon the weak and the dispensable, “balance of terror” appears to be the only pragmatic solution for surviving this dastardly “New World Order” and derailing its “imperial mobilization” as noted in Project Humanbeingsfirst's report: “From Balance of Terror to Unilateral Terror on the Grand Chessboard!”.The next rational step for Putin is to boldly initiate the extension of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) towards a full spectrum mutual defense pact treaty across Asia, and to immediately offer its protection to Iran as its full member. If Iran falls like Iraq, so will Russia (eventually). Having nuclear weapons is no protection when a devilishly fomented civil war can easily tear a nation apart – just look at Pakistan (and of course the wolfish dismemberment of Serbia)! Next stop – Russia! Only in full spectrum alliances is there any assurance of postponing, and eventually defeating the plans for the New World Order. Some of the world's greatest minds and financiers have been preparing this masterplan for well over a century and its realization is rapidly proceeding on a logarithmic scale today. The US military power ominously besieging Iran and the rising crescendo of UN sanctions as a prelude to “shock and awe” leave little room for any delay or margin for optimism. There is no time for vacillation and false posturing by the pending victims as the lives of millions of humanity is at stake! One has got to put real teeth of real 'MADness' into one's bold self-defense!A rational and pragmatic message of “balance of power” in order to immediately avert the twilight of civilization – while some among mankind's greatest murderers continue to assert the mal fide discourse learned at the dawn of civilization – brought to you by Project[* Update August 17, 2008]: The fact that Russia has taken up the American opening gambit handed her and is actually responding with the next “Rand predicted move”, may be gleaned in this UK Telegraph article of August 15, 2008: “Russia destroying military bases in Georgia”. Apart from its self-explanatory title, the article notes: “While US military aircraft and warships are being sent to the region to deliver aid, and Miss Rice is due to visit the Georgian capital Tblisi on Friday, the presence of US soldiers in Georgia is also intended to send a strong signal to Russia of Washington's support for the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili.” Sky news reported the same day in its article “Russians 'Seize US Weapons Depot'”: “Relief planes have continued to fly into Georgia's capital Tbilisi with supplies for the estimated 100,000 people displaced by the fighting. US officials said their two planes carried cots, blankets, medicine and surgical supplies”. Therefore, the afore-quoted “presence of US soldiers in Georgia” in the present tense, must logically imply such presence to have commenced from before the Georgian attack on Ossetia, since the United States proclaims to have only sent in relief supplies in its two plane loads and no military aid! This is official indirect confirmation of more than just the already known American and Israeli military advisors and military trainers being present in Georgia! Are these soldiers in uniform? Or are they black-ops, part of some “Stay Behind Army” to engage the Russians? Wouldn't Putin know that? The Russian hard-nosed response of “cleansing” Georgia of American/Israeli military bases and attempting to disarm Georgia as the minimal act of carnage a “superpower” in its own right would inflict upon a provocative “gnat”, is an entirely logical and predictable military move after any invasion. Both American and Israeli occupations as well as Russia's own intervention in Afghanistan prove this truism! Thus it cannot be a surprise – except for public consumption. As per the disclosures of NATO's “Stay Behind Armies” during the Cold War under “Operation Gladio” in preparation for any Soviet invasion of Western Europe, and as per the experience of “giving to the USSR its Vietnam War” in Afghanistan, the opening gambit by the Anglo-American ruling establishment in pathetically replaying history to attempt to destabilize Russia is quite transparent. I would have expected something far more creative from Brzezinski!To further convolute the motivations of the Anglo-American establishment in initiating this geostrategic gambit, see this August 12th Alex Jones interview of chaplain Lindsey Williams. I am neutral on adjudicating what LW discloses, except that it appears to be remarkably consistent with some grotesque components of manifest reality that seeks to precipitate crises upon crises to seed “revolutionary times” up the wazoo! The question that is really meaningful to this “chessgame” after Russia has completed her “pawn” move however (and She is still in the process of executing it): will Russia initiate her own counter-moves along the SCO as outlined above? Would She go on the offensive by forging a military pact with Venezuela; rapidly transition the BRIC economic cooperation into a formal economic block; and install her military presence – nuclear military presence – in America's own backyard in South America? Some or all these steps would be the rational and logical next counter-moves to efficaciously bring-on the genuine “balance of terror” on the Grand Chessboard! The best defense is an offense! Russia under Putin must surely realize that! And so must Zbigniew Brzezinski! But can Putin play more imaginatively than Brzezinski and the entire Anglo-American elite?
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 9:21 AM 0 comments