Posts Tagged ‘War Machine’

Link: https://vimeo.com/149970851

Jarecki/ Why We Fight from Lawrence Christopher Skufca on Vimeo.

Synopsis:

Documentary filmmaker Eugene Jarecki’s in-depth look at how the United States has built the largest peace time military/corporate/industrial complex in the history of the World.

The film received the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival and raises important moral and ethical questions about the revolving door between our government and the defence contractor industry and the underlying economic decisions which influence U.S. policymakers to lead the nation into war.

Fair Use.
This video contains copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only in an effort to advance the understanding of human rights and social justice issues and is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

Advertisements

Please share widely, people need to know what is being done by U.K military in your name.

Britain’s Seven Covert Wars

Published in the Huffington Post, 18 October 2016 by Mark Curtis

Britain is fighting at least seven covert wars in the Middle East and North Africa, outside of any democratic oversight or control. Whitehall has in effect gone underground, with neither parliament nor the public being allowed to debate, scrutinise or even know about these wars. To cover themselves, Ministers are now often resorting to lying about what they are authorising. While Britain has identified Islamic State (among others) as the enemy abroad, it is clear that it sees the British public and parliament as the enemy at home.

Syria

Britain began training Syrian rebel forces from bases in Jordan in 2012. This was also when the SAS was reported to be ‘slipping into Syria on missions’ against Islamic State. Now, British special forces are ‘mounting hit and run raids against IS deep inside eastern Syria dressed as insurgent fighters’ and ‘frequently cross into Syria to assist the New Syrian Army’ from their base in Jordan. British special forces also provide training, weapons and other equipment to the New Syrian Army.

British aircraft began covert strikes against IS targets in Syria in 2015, months before Parliament voted in favour of overt action in December 2015.

These strikes were conducted by British pilots embedded with US and Canadian forces.

UK pilots embedded with coalition allies’ forces have been conducting air strikes over Syria against the Islamic State group, it has emerged.
This is despite UK MPs voting in 2013 against military action in Syria.
About 20 personnel, including three pilots, have been embedded with other coalition nations’ forces, including the US and Canada

Britain has also been operating a secret drone warfare programme in Syria. Last year Reaper drones killed British IS fighters in Syria, again before parliament approved military action. As I have previously argued, British covert action and support of the Syrian rebels is, along with horrific Syrian government/Russian violence, helping to prolong a terrible conflict.

Iraq

Hundreds of British troops are officially in Iraq to train local security forces. But they are also engaged in covert combat operations against IS. One recent report suggests that Britain has more than 200 special force soldiers in the country, operating out of a fortified base within a Kurdish Peshmerga camp south of Mosul.

British Reaper drones were first deployed over Iraq in 2014 and are now flown remotely by satellite from an RAF base in Lincolnshire. Britain has conducted over 200 drones strikes in Iraq since November 2014.

Libya

SAS forces have been secretly deployed to Libya since the beginning of this year, working with Jordanian special forces embedded in the British contingent. This follows a mission by MI6 and the RAF in January to gather intelligence on IS and draw up potential targets for air strikes. British commandos are now reportedly fighting and directing assaults on Libyan frontlines and running intelligence, surveillance and logistical support operations from a base in the western city of Misrata.

But a team of 15 British forces are also reported to be based in a French-led multinational military operations centre in Benghazi, eastern Libya, supporting renegade Libyan general Khalifa Haftar.

In July 2016, Middle East Eye reported that this British involvement was helping to coordinate air strikes in support of Haftar, whose forces are opposed to the Tripoli-based government that Britain is supposed to be supporting.

Yemen

The government says it has no military personnel based in Yemen. Yet a report by Vice News in April, based on numerous interviews with officials, revealed that British special forces in Yemen, who were seconded to MI6, were training Yemeni troops fighting Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and also had forces infiltrated in AQAP. The same report also found that British military personnel were helping with drone strikes against AQAP. Britain was playing ‘a crucial and sustained role with the CIA in finding and fixing targets, assessing the effect of strikes, and training Yemeni intelligence agencies to locate and identify targets for the US drone program’.

In addition, the UK spybase at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire facilitates US drone strikes in Yemen.

Britain has been widely reported (outside the mainstream media) as supporting the brutal Saudi war in Yemen, which has caused thousands of civilian deaths, most of them due to Saudi air strikes. Indeed, Britain is party to the war. The government says there are around 100 UK military personnel based in Saudi Arabia including a ‘small number’ at ‘Saudi MOD and Operational Centres’.

One such Centre, in Riyadh, coordinates the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen and includes British military personnel who are in the command room as air strikes are carried out and who have access to the bombing targets.

The UK is of course arming the Saudi campaign: The British government disclosed on 13 October that the Saudis have used five types of British bombs and missiles in Yemen. On the same day, it lied to Parliament that Britain was ‘not a party’ to the war in Yemen.

A secret ‘memorandum of understanding’ that Britain signed with Saudi Arabia in 2014 has not been made public since it ‘would damage the UK’s bilateral relationship’ with the Kingdom, the government states. It is likely that this pact includes reference to the secret British training of Syrian rebels in Saudi Arabia, which has taken place since mid-2015. Operating from a desert base in the north of the country, British forces have been teaching Syrian forces infantry skills as part of a US-led training programme.

Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, the public was told that British forces withdrew at the end of 2014. However, British forces stayed behind to help create and train an Afghan special forces unit. Despite officially only having ‘advisors’ in Afghanistan, in August 2015 it was reported that British covert forces were fighting IS and Taliban fighters.

The SAS and SBS, along with US special forces, were ‘taking part in military operations almost every night’ as the insurgents closed in on the capital Kabul.

In 2014, the government stated that it had ended its drone air strikes programme in Afghanistan, which had begun in 2008 and covered much of the country. Yet last year it was reported that British special forces were calling in air strikes using US drones.

Pakistan and Somalia

Pakistan and Somalia are two other countries where Britain is conducting covert wars. Menwith Hill facilitates US drone strikes against jihadists in both countries, with Britain’s GCHQ providing ‘locational intelligence’ to US forces for use in these attacks.

The government has said that it has 27 military personnel in Somalia who are developing the national army and supporting the African Union Mission. Yet in 2012 it was reported that the SAS was covertly fighting against al-Shabab Islamist terrorists in Somalia, working with Kenyan forces in order to target leaders.

This involved up to 60 SAS soldiers, close to a full squadron, including Forward Air Controllers who called in air strikes against al-Shabab targets by the Kenyan air force. In early 2016, it was further reported that Jordan’s King Abdullah, whose troops operate with UK special forces, was saying that his troops were ready with Britain and Kenya to go ‘over the border’ to attack al-Shabaab.

Drones

The RAF’s secret drone war, which involves a fleet of 10 Reaper drones, has been in permanent operation in Afghanistan since October 2007, but covertly began operating outside Afghanistan in 2014. The NGO Reprieve notes that Britain provides communications networks to the CIA ‘without which the US would not be able to operate this programme’. It says that this is a particular matter of concern as the US covert drone programme is illegal.

The Gulf

Even this may not be the sum total of British covert operations in the region. The government stated in 2015 that it had 177 military personnel embedded in other countries’ forces, with 30 personnel working with the US military. It is possible that these forces are also engaged in combat in the region. For example, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Philip Jones, has said that in the Gulf, British pilots fly US F18s from the decks of US aircraft carriers. This means that ‘US’ air strikes might well be carried out by British pilots.

Britain has many other military and intelligence assets in the region. Files leaked by Edward Snowden show that Britain has a network of three GCHQ spy bases in Oman – codenamed ‘Timpani’, ‘Guitar’ and ‘Clarinet’ – which tap in to various undersea cables passing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf.

These bases intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, which information is then shared with the National Security Agency in the US.

The state of Qatar houses the anti-IS coalition’s Combined Air Operations Centre at Al Udeid airbase. The government says it has seven military personnel ‘permanently assigned to Qatar’ and an additional number of ‘temporary personnel’ working at the airbase. These are likely to be covert forces; the government says that ‘we do not discuss specific numbers for reasons of safeguarding operational security’.

Similarly, the government says it has six military personnel ‘permanently assigned’ to the United Arab Emirates and an additional number of ‘temporary personnel’ at the UAE’s Al Minhad airbase. Britain also has military assets at Manama harbour, Bahrain, whose repressive armed forces are also being secretly trained by British commandos.

Kenya and Turkey

Kenya hosts Britain’s Kahawa Garrishon barracks and Laikipia Air Base, from where thousands of troops who carry out military exercises in Kenya’s harsh terrain can be deployed on active operations in the Middle East.

Turkey has also offered a base for British military training. In 2015, for example, Britain deployed several military trainers to Turkey as part of the US-led training programme in Syria, providing small arms, infantry tactics and medical training to rebel forces.

The web of deceit

When questioned about these covert activities, Ministers have two responses. One is to not to comment on special forces’ operations. The other is to lie, which has become so routine as to be official government policy. The reasoning is simple – the government believes the public simply has no right to know of these operations, let alone to influence them.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told parliament in July that the government is;

‘committed to the convention that before troops are committed to combat the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter’.

This is plainly not true, as the extent of British covert operations show.

Similarly, it was first reported in May that British troops were secretly engaged in combat in Libya. This news came two days after Fallon toldMPs that Britain was not planning ‘any kind of combat role’ to fight IS in Libya.

There are many other examples of this straightforward web of deceit. In July 2016, the government issued six separate corrections to previous ministerial statements in which they claimed that Saudi Arabia is not targeting civilians or committing war crimes in Yemen. However, little noticed was that these corrections also claimed that ‘the UK is not a party’ to the conflict in Yemen. This claim is defied by various news reports in the public domain.

British foreign policy is in extreme mode, whereby Ministers do not believe they should be accountable to the public.

This is the very definition of dictatorship.

Although in some of these wars, Britain is combatting terrorist forces that are little short of evil, it is no minor matter that several UK interventions have encouraged these very same forces and prolonged wars, all the while being regularly disastrous for the people of the region.

Britain’s absence of democracy needs serious and urgent challenging.


http://www.markcurtis.info

twitter – @markcurtis30

 

When Lynsey German and the Stop the War Coalition raised the issue of US allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia funding ISIS, they were attacked as lunatic conspiracy theorists…
but, at the time (2014), the US government backed Saudis and their Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements.

In a leaked US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, says they drew on “western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region” and there was no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of were butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

We finally know what Hillary Clinton knew all along – US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis

There is a bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about the jihadis and what they would say in public

Patrick Cockburn

@indyworld

isisflag.jpg

 

 

It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furore over thesexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on “western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region” there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

The memo says: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.” This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the “War on Terror” would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan].” But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama “questioned, often harshly, the role that America’s Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally”.

It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that “a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I’ve heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as ‘Arab-occupied territory’.”

Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates “were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do?

They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world”. Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian “moderates” capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump’s demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a  presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar “to dominate the Sunni world”. But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

 

 


This article (The US War on Terror Has Cost $5 Trillion and Increased Terrorism by 6,500%) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org.

Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article toedits@theantimedia.org.


http://theantimedia.org/us-war-terror-5-trillion/

September 14, 2016   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) On September 11, 2001, one of the most tragic events in recent American history took place. Close to 3,000 civilians lost their lives in horrific terror attacks that took place on American soil. Fifteen years later, it is time to ask the question: have our counterterror efforts helped to reduce the amount of terrorism in the world? Or at the very least, have they tried to make the world safer?

According to a report released by Dr. Neta Crawford, professor of political science at Brown University, spending by the United States Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs since 9/11 is now close to $5 trillion USD. Before we have the chance to ask how a country that has racked up over $19.3 trillion USD in debt can spend $5 trillion USD on war, the focus of this article is to ask:

What has all of this spending achieved?

As Reader Supported News reported at the end of last year, terrorism has increased 6,500 percent since 2002 (they probably should rename it “the war of terror”).

In 2014, the outlet noted, it was reported that 74 percent of all terror-related casualties occurred in Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Syria. As stated by Paul Gottinger, a staff reporter for Reader Supported News, out of the aforementioned countries, “only Nigeria did not experience either U.S. air strikes or a military occupation in that year.”

Omitted from that assessment is the fact that the U.S. has been meddling in Nigeria for some time now. Why wouldn’t they? Until recently, Nigeria was Africa’s largest oil producer, as well as the continent’s largest economy until last month.

Hillary Clinton herself refused repeated requests from the CIA to place Boko Haram, the al-Qaeda and ISIS-linked terror group wreaking havoc across Nigeria (statistically they are far more deadly than ISIS), on the U.S. official list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Further, it was Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya that helped catapult Boko Haram into the menace it is today. In 2009, Boko Haram was a small-scale group with very limited weaponry. Following the invasion of Libya and the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan armories were looted, and much of the weaponry was sent over to Syria. However, Boko Haram was able to capitalize on these looted weapons and the instability that rippled throughout Africa following the NATO-led war in Libya. As Peter Weber stated in The Week:

“[Boko Haram’s weaponry] shifted from relatively cheap AK-47s in the early days of its post-2009 embrace of violence to desert-ready combat vehicles and anti-aircraft/ anti-tank guns.”

Boko Haram is just one example of an unforeseen consequence, right?

At least we removed a dictator who was going to massacre his own people in Libya, right?
Despite one’s thoughts on Gaddafi’s moral compass, he was able to transform Libya into Africa’s most prosperous democracy with the highest standard of living on the continent. Since then, Libya has fallen massively in the U.N. Human Development Index ratings (in 2015 alone, Libya fell 27 places). According to UNICEF, there are two million Libyan children out of school in a country that is now plagued by militants, civil war, and extremism. What are the chances of those children out of school being swayed to join a militant group?

Last year, four former U.S. air force service members wrote a letter to Barack Obama warning him that the single most effective recruitment tool for groups like ISIS was the drone program being implemented across the Muslim world, courtesy of the president himself. In fact, three former U.S. air force drone operators have even backed a lawsuit against the state, brought by a Yemeni man who lost members of his family in a drone strike in 2012.

According to Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s “Untold History of the United States”:

“When the U.S. began its Yemeni drone campaign in 2009, Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula had fewer than 300 militants in Yemen.

By mid-2012, that number had jumped to over 1,000.”

Still believe there is no relationship between bombing a country to death and the resulting extremist groups that emerge from the rubble?

It seems as though recent history is just repeating itself over and over — not to mention the cruel and unnecessary havoc unleashed on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. As Ben Swann, an investigative journalist and outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy, stated:

“Before the 2003 U.S. invasion, do you know how many suicide attacks there were in Iraq? None. In the country’s history there had never been one. But since the 2003 invasion, there have been 1,892.

“In Iraq, prior to the start of the Iraq war, there were reportedly just over 1.5 million Christians living in that country. And yet shortly after the war started, more than one million of them fled to Syria. That didn’t work out well. Today fewer than half a million Christians remain and yet are being exterminated by groups like ISIS.”

The list of ways in which the $5 trillion USD effort to stamp out terrorism has either caused more terrorism or done nothing remotely towards curbing terrorism is endless. Even College Humor, in their show “Adam Ruins Everything,” put together an informative piece on how the TSA is almost completely useless, having never prevented a single terrorist attack – ever.

Yet how much money has been flowing into these programs – and still is today?

It’s time for a realistic talk about our counterterrorism efforts. One can only assume the U.S. establishment is not genuine in their bid to fight terrorism across the globe given that they have continued policies that merely exacerbate terrorism and have created a world less safe for future generations.

The first step in preventing future terrorism would be to admit that our current strategy isn’t working.

Anyone who believes otherwise — or who decides to run for president on the promise they will further expand these failed policies — is not only wasting our time, but will be wasting countless lives in the process.

The Tories, under an unelected Prime Minister without a mandate, Theresa May, have today normalised xenophobia and Fascism in Britain.

See: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/10/05/the-tories-have-finally-become-ukip

Don’t worry re: the announcement by Amber Rudd that foreign workers should be registered/listed. It’s not like its without harmless precedent is it? (jk!)

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/04/jeremy-hunt-nhs-doctors-theresa-may-conservative-conference-live/

Himmler and foreign workers.jpg

Amber Rudd revealed that companies could be forced to publish the proportion of “international” staff on their books in a move which would effectively “name and shame” businesses which “are failing to take on British workers” in here words.

This decision by the Tories is utterly abhorrent and has echoes from history that I find chilling. CuBNHtnXgAAijp-.jpg

IMHO, Employers must decide to refuse to comply with this crypto-fascism. She has adopted the manifesto of the BNP!
If you’re in any doubt as to where on the political spectrum Theresa May’s ideas fall, here’s French National Front Marine Le Pen giving them her seal of approval!

CuAw0TxXYAEFktP.jpg

Ct_SKFxWIAAbp8_.jpg

What particularly sent a shiver down my spine was as May announced she would derogate the British military forces from the ECHR, the European convention on Human Rights, seeing the reaction of the Tory conference, rabidly clapping and cheering, the loudest cheer at Conservative Party Conference 2016 was to May slamming Human Rights lawyers for trying to expose potential war crimes!

This writer thinks derogations from the ECHR (which is nothing to do with Brexit from the EU but is commonly assumed to be by Brexit voters) will make the UK look like hypocrites on the World stage in it’s (self assumed) role as World’s Policeman.

May is only doing this because the MoD has been forced to settle hundreds of cases of abuse and mistreatment on the battlefield that we, the UK, as arbiters of Human Rights in the “Free World” should be trying to eradicate, not permit.

UK armed forces will still be subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions and UK Service Law, as I’m sure you know?

But none of those treaties and conventions stopped guys like Sgt Andrew Blackman committing war crimes in the battle field of Afghanistan (convicted of murder and imprisoned in 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34267936).

What is genuinely concerning me most, is the way the Tories rabidly greeted the announcement and so, the way the sentiment that many will draw from it, especially as the “Overton Window” of media and political argument has shifted so far to the Right in the UK.

Oh, and by the way. I’m an ordinary working class person from a long line of ordinary working class people… and I HATE when politicians use the phrase “ordinary working class people”!


This was Jeremy Corbyn’s angry response to Theresa May’s speech.

“Conservative Party leaders have sunk to a new low this week as they fan the flames of xenophobia and hatred in our communities and try to blame foreigners for their own failures.

Drawing up lists of foreign workers won’t stop unscrupulous employers undercutting wages in Britain.
Shutting the door to international students won’t pay young people’s tuition fee debts,
and ditching doctors from abroad won’t cut NHS waiting lists.

The Conservatives will instead foster division and discrimination in our workplaces and communities.
Once again, they are making false promises on immigration they can’t deliver. Instead of turning people against each other, ministers should take action now to deal with the real impact of migration.

They should stop the abuse of migrant labour to undercut pay and conditions, which would reduce numbers.

They should support communities with high levels of migration and they should set out a positive agenda for fair migration rules as part of the Brexit negotiations for a new relationship with the European Union.”


Theresa May has been accused of “pure nationalism”

Theresa May has been accused of “pure nationalism” as members of the public began a backlash against parts of her closing speech at the Tory conference.

Mrs May sparked controversy when she said; “if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere” during an attack on international corporations.

It came as the Prime Minister declared “change” was needed as she pledged to transform Britain in the wake of the Brexit vote.

But her comments were described as “pure undisguised nationalism” as critics queued up on social media to attack her over the “divisive” comments.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-sparks-twitter-backlash-over-citizen-of-the-world-remark-in-conservative-party-a3361701.html

Well, Sorry, Terroriser May!
I’m a homo-sapiens, resident of a planet called ‘Earth’ also known to its inhabitants as the “World”. And this world wasn’t created with notional boundaries.
Boundaries were imposed by other controlling hominids!


TheresaMay is selling bombs to Saudi Arabia who are committing War Crimes in Yemen & supporting al-Qaeda & ISIL/Daesh terrorists in Syria pic.twitter.com/Txs9RyDyhX

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re-posted from http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/zionist-wahabbi-axis-israels-natural.html ALL opinions are the author’s. All Rights are the author’s.

August 30, 2016 –
Alexander Azadgan, Katehon – 
Late last month, Jabhat al-Nusra (aka, the Al-Nusra Front), Al-Qaida’s Syrian arm, announced that it was severing ties with Al-Qaida and renaming itself Jabhat Al-Fatah Al-Sham (the Front for the Conquest of Syria).
In a video, the group’s leader, Abu Mohamed Al-Jolani, explained that the group’s association with al-Qaida permitted the outside powers intervening in the Syrian conflict to label it as an Islamic terrorist group.
The Guardian quoted Al-Jolani as saying that the name change is intended “to remove the excuse used by the international community – spearheaded by Russia – to bombard and displace Muslims in the Levant: that they are targeting Al-Nusra Front, which is associated with Al-Qaida.”
He further explained that the new policy was an attempt to have the group removed from international terror lists and to allow it to be perceived as a more acceptable, “moderate”, alternative to its main competitor, ISIS.
Al-Nusra shares certain common goals with ISIS in seeking to overthrow the legitimate and secular government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and replace it with a radical Salafist/ Wahabist one. It has also expressed hatred for the United States and other Western governments although it is being supported by the US and NATO. Writing for the National Interest in November 2015, Geopolitical Analyst Daniel DePetris explained:
“Like its Jihadist competitors in ISIS, Al-Nusra is composed of highly motivated individuals and commanders who would like nothing more than to strike at the United States or at targets in Europe. Jabhat Al-Nusra shares the same, minority-within-a-minority Salafi-Jihadist interpretation of Islam as ISIS, despises any and all sectarian groups outside of Syria’s majority Sunni community and has engaged in the same kind of atrocities that have made ISIS’s Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi the most wanted international terrorist alive.”
Though it has focused its attacks more directly on Syrian government forces and their symbolic and physical centers of power, it maintains a similar ruthlessness to that of ISIS. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch noted that both groups were “were responsible for systematic and widespread violations, including targeting civilians, kidnappings, and executions” in Syria. ISIS and Al-Nusra both impose strict and discriminatory rules on women and girls, and have actively recruited child soldiers, according to the report.
Smokescreen or Strategy?
In its recent re-branding, Al-Nusra also seems to be evaluating the political calculus of the war imposed on Syria  and acknowledging the recent gains by Syrian government forces and their allies — Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. With President Assad strengthening his position and the rebel forces in disarray, Al-Jolani may be making a bid to unify the opposition by projecting a less militant image to the outside world.
Al-Nusra Front leader Mohammed Al-Jolani undated photo released online on Thursday, July 28, 2016 to announce a video message that the militant group is changing name, and claims it will have no more ties with Al-Qaida.
Still, it’s unclear what this apparent break with Al-Qaida actually means. At the announcement of the group’s new name, Al-Jolani was joined by a high level associate of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaida, creating the impression that the changes are more tactical than strategic. Ayman Al-Zawahri, head of Al-Qaida, delivers a statement in a video which was seen online.
Smadar Perry, an Israeli journalist known to have close ties to Israeli intelligence sources, even hinted that Israel’s Mossad urged this new path on Al-Nusra. In an opinion piece posted by YNet on Monday, Perry wrote:
“It may be that this separation is just a smokescreen, and that Al-Julani will keep in touch with Al-Qaeda in secret. It may also be that Jabhat-Al-Nusra have received an intelligence analysis from a very certain organization that told it to prepare for the day after Assad leaves power.”
The White House has a hard time buying this turnover. They’re in a test period with us, said an official spokesperson, not dismissing outright the possibility of local fighters joining the American-led coalition against ISIS.
If they make a show of force in the field, and Jabhat-Al-Nusra’s dissociation leads to Al-Qaeda’s further weakening in Afghanistan, and if Israel provides its supposed intelligence about Al-Julani – Hezbollah and Assad swear he’s a Mossad agent – Al-Nusra may become another piece of the puzzle that is the new Syria.
In the original Hebrew version of the same analysis, Perry noted the likelihood that Syria will be divided in “three or four cantons.”
This has always been the goal for Tel Aviv, which sees Syria as one of the few remaining Arab states that can threaten its interests and security.
Israeli soldiers secure an area where a mortar which was fired during clashes between Syrian rebels and President Bashar Al-Assad’s government forces in the Quneitra province hit in a community in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. For the first time in the Syrian civil war, militants linked to Al-Qaida are positioned on Israel’s doorstep.
In Israel’s utterly warped view, peace on its northern border would be guaranteed if Syria can be splintered into warring factions.
It’s an approach championed at the onset of the civil war in 2011 by Daniel Pipes, an ultra-right-wing, pro-Israel, Neo-Con who serves as president of Middle East Forum, a Zionist think tank. Arguing that “the continuing Syrian conflict offers benefits to the West,” he explained:
“As Sunni Islamists fight Shiites, both sides are weakened and their lethal rivalry lessens their capabilities to trouble the outside world.
By inspiring restive minorities (Sunnis in Iran, Kurds and Shiites in Turkey), continued fighting in Syria could also weaken Islamic governments.”
He further noted:
“Nothing in the constitutions of Western states requires them to get involved in every foreign conflict; sitting this one out will prove to be a smart move.
In addition to the moral benefit of not being accountable for horrors yet to come, staying away permits the West eventually to help its only true friends in Syria, the country’s liberals.”
In a 2012 email released by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton offered an Iran-focused variant of this approach:
“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”
The Al-Nusra-Israel Alliance
Ultimately, Israel doesn’t care much about what happens in Syria as long as it can maintain a puppet protectorate along its Golan Heights border. Israel began occupying and administering the region in the Six-Day War of 1967, and it officially annexing the Golan Heights in 1981. Israel continues to refuse to return the territory to Syria despite near universal consensus that the occupation is illegal under international law. Further, the discovery of potential gas deposits there has coincided with a rise in Israeli settlement expansion in recent years.
Examining the Al-Nusra-Israeli alliance in the region, it’s clear that the bonds between the two parties have been exceedingly close. Israel maintains a border camp for the families of Syrian fighters. Reporters have documented Israeli Defense Forces commandos entering Syrian territory to rendez-vous with Syrian rebels.
Others have photographed meetings between Israeli military personnel and Al-Nusra commanders at the Quneitra Crossing, the ceasefire line that separates the Syrian-controlled territory and the Israeli-occupied territory in the Golan Heights.
U.N. personnel also documented Syrian rebel vehicles picking up supplies from the Israeli side:
“Quarterly UNDOF [United Nations Disengagement Observer Force] reports since the pull-back reveal an ongoing pattern of Israeli coordination with those [Al-Nusra] armed groups.”
According to the December 2014 report, UNDOF observed two Israeli soldiers ‘opening the technical fence gate and letting two individuals pass from the [Syrian] to the [Israeli] side’ on October 27th . Unlike most fighters seen entering the Israeli side, these individuals were not wounded and the purpose of their visit remains a mystery.
UNDOF ‘sporadically observed armed members of the opposition interacting’ with the Israeli military across the ceasefire line, the report states.
The next UNDOF report, released in March, notes that UN forces witnessed Israeli soldiers delivering material aid to armed Syrian opposition groups.
These were presumably supplies and equipment designed either to help the rebels in their fight against the Syrian government forces or to improve communications between Israeli and rebel forces.
Israel’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy
Israel’s support for radical terror groups is a long-term strategy it’s exploited in multiple theaters. Its ultimate purpose is to weaken a strong foe.
In terms of Hezbollah, Israel hadn’t anticipated that the Lebanese militant group would grow to become a much more powerful and dangerous foe than the PLO had ever been in Lebanon.
Israeli soldiers walks near the border with Syria near the site of the April 2015 Israeli air strikes, in the Israeli controlled Golan Heights.
The strategy worked better regarding Hamas because it has never been able to dominate Fatah. The two have maintained a wary and draining battle of wills over the decades, with neither being able to oust the other.
This has created a rift that has substantially weakened the Palestinians and their cause. Still, Hamas has trained its sights on Israel as well and become an even more militant foe than Fatah ever was.
Thus, Israel’s strategy of forging an alliance with Al-Nusra and strengthening it so that it can wage a formidable fight against Assad, is part and parcel of a longstanding goal of dividing Syria.
Israel erroneously hopes that these savage, militant, extremist group will dominate the Golan region and maintain stability and security there.
However, Israel neglects what almost always happens to these golems: Once they are created they take on a life of their own.
The creator loses control of his creation, which wreaks havoc and even turns against him. 
Just as it happened to Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, and Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, so it happened with the U.S. alliance with the Afghan Mujahadeen, and the Israeli alliances with their own Arab proxies.
Israel’s alliance with Al-Nusra also points to the utter cynicism of its approach. While the rest of the world labels the group terrorists, and fights to prevent their terror attacks on Western soil, Israel looks only for its own advantage.
There’s the old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but in Israel’s playbook, the saying goes: “The enemy of my friend may certainly be my friend.”
This rings especially true when Israeli leaders warn the world about the threat of global jihad, while also cozying up to these savage Jihadis in their own corner of the world. The hypocrisy couldn’t be any more profound, making Israel one of the greatest state-sponsors of terror.
The U.S. and European countries seem to deliberately ignore Israel’s tactical embrace of the Jihadi movement. The Obama administration is even preparing to ink a new record-breaking military spending agreement with Israel that will up U.S. aid from the current $3 billion a year.
The Israeli lunatic Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded $5 billion per year over the life of the 10-year deal, and the final amount will likely settle somewhere in the middle.
Only Israel gets away with such a level of cognitive dissonance in its alliance with the U.S. Any other ally that depended so profoundly on Washington for its security and existence wouldn’t dare risk endangering that relationship to forge an alliance with an enemy of the U.S. But not Israel. It forges its own path without regard for the interests of others, even its best friends. Such is the very true nature of the Zionist entity!

 

 

 

Once Upon A Time…

Weapons were manufactured for Wars.

Now, Wars are manufactured for weapons.

(Arundahti Roy)

 

Aerial bombardment of a Syrian city of 200,000 men, women & children by four UK Tornado warplanes and Brimstone missiles without Syrian government coordination or ground forces back up, now imminent. #SyriaVote #DontBombSyria

 

All 66 Labour MPs who backed bombing Syria

  • Adrian Bailey
  • Alan Campbell
  • Alan Johnson
  • Alison McGovern
  • Angela Eagle
  • Angela Smith
  • Ann Coffey
  • Anna Turley
  • Ben Bradshaw
  • Bridget Phillipson
  • Caroline Flint
  • Chris Bryant
  • Chris Leslie
  • Chuka Umunna
  • Colleen Fletcher
  • Conor McGinn
  • Dan Jarvis
  • Emma Reynolds
  • Frank Field
  • Gareth Thomas
  • Geoffrey Robinson
  • George Howarth
  • Gisela Stuart
  • Gloria De Piero
  • Graham Jones
  • Harriet Harman
  • Heidi Alexander
  • Helen Jones
  • Hilary Benn
  • Holly Lynch
  • Ian Austin
  • Jamie Reed
  • Jenny Chapman
  • Jim Dowd
  • Jim Fitzpatrick
  • Joan Ryan
  • John Spellar
  • John Woodcock
  • Keith Vaz
  • Kevan Jones
  • Kevin Barron
  • Liz Kendall
  • Louise Ellman
  • Luciana Berger
  • Lucy Powell
  • Margaret Beckett
  • Margaret Hodge
  • Maria Eagle
  • Mary Creagh
  • Michael Dugher
  • Neil Coyle
  • Pat McFadden
  • Peter Kyle
  • Phil Wilson
  • Ruth Smeeth
  • Simon Danczuk
  • Siobhain McDonagh
  • Stella Creasy
  • Susan Elan Jones
  • Tom Blenkinsop
  • Tom Watson
  • Tristram Hunt
  • Vernon Coaker
  • Wayne David
  • Yvette Cooper
  • Stephen Doughty

 

Arming ISIS: the hypocrisy of “strutting Napolean” Francois Hollande & his fellow Saudi/Israeli apologists Cameron & Obama…

John Pilger on Paris, ISIS and Media Propaganda

Video Interview
Afshin Rattansi goes underground with John Pilger.

Award winning journalist and author, John Pilger talks to us about how Washington, London and Paris gave birth to ISIS-Daesh. Plus we examine the media’s role in spreading disinformation ahead of a vote in Parliament for UK bombing of Syria. Afshin looks at the Autumn Statement and why in a time of high alert we are cutting the police force and buying drones.

Posted November 25, 2015

Caerphilly MP Wayne David on ITV News today claiming he was “bullied” what a despicable thing to say!
He has no idea what “bullying” actually is and demeans those that are/have been bullied.
He voted with the Tories to drop bombs on children in a city of 200,000 civilians, that’s f***ing bullying!
He chose to join the War Pigs. He should get used to that epithet!

Wayne David (MP Caerphilly) and Chris Bryant (MP Rhondda) – both Labour Friends of Israel.

You will see the Rhondda MP Bryant is busy doing PR for the Brimstone Missiles today!