Mostaque Ali

Gangsta JEWSA, Gangsta outside the JEWSA.

2012-01-29T17:03:00.005+07:00

.
.
.
.

In the JEWSA many sport tatoo's as a proud symbol of their Americanism, forgetting that in the near past only prisoners and Polynesian Maoris sported them.

In the JEWSA the American Italian Mafia (subliminally Jewish mafia) are celebrated as heroes to be empathized with, understood and even admired....on TV and the Cinema, and not recognized for what they really were, criminal scum.

These are but small indications of the decline of the American empire.

Naturally now crooks in broad day light run the government.

Well curtail the Military budget...in that case, just as the USA does.

2012-01-29T15:16:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.
Drone strikes have continued in recent days, with the full cooperation of the Coolie Gunga Din military in Pak-i-stan. They kill innocent civilians, Pakistani nationals, 99% of the time, women, children and old people.

For the Punjabi run Pakistani military losing a few ethnic Pashtun lives is worth the cost of receiving massive military aid from the JEWSA. Drone strikes also enhance the image that there really are "terrorists" in FATA which the USA needs to fight as does the Punjab military, in service of the USA. The Pakistan military after all is useful to the gora sahib, even though the Pakistani State does not need the company of gora sahib.

For the JEWSA there are a variety of conflicting hidden reasons why drones must be used to kill innocent civilians:

(i) It is a psychological message of racial technical superiority against the Iranic/Aryan Pashtuns.For some "insecure" Americans, surrounded as it is by their excessive wealth and power, this seems to be an important point to get across against fourth world Afghans.......and others (The Iranians in Mexico maid servant wank.)

(ii) It is a psychological message of racial technical superiority against the Pakistani military/The Pakistani state, and as an avenue of exerting further future American power against the Pakistani State. Though naturally the coolies haven't caught on to this yet, after several years. Such abstract thoughts are difficult to grasp against the few $'s the JEWSA throws at the Pakistani generals.

(iii) The use of Drones deflect from the REAL PENTAGON BUSINESS in Afghanistan, namely the Afghan heroin which is harvested under the aegis of the occupation forces, especially the British and the USA forces and then exported to Iran, South Asia, Central Asia, Ukraine, Russia, Europe and North America. The Taliban thus are "Controlled Opposition" fighting a fake Punch and Judy show, run by the Pakistani military/ISI for the USA. The nominal poorly performing Taliban are like the drones, a distraction and justification for why the JEWSA must fight the noble fight for 10 years and many more. The Taliban have lost 30,000 dead against the occupation forces mere loss of about 2800. The Taliban are poorly led, trained and armed with AK-47's and RPG's against the most sophisticated military machine in the world. Behind them the ISI paid for by the USA, and in front of the USA/NATO.

(iv) Afghanistan also serves as a base of mischief against Iran and Central Asia (Heroin, and later "al-CIA-duh")

A few wise nations have cotton on to his worthless, criminal, occupation which serves the peccadilloes and interests of some fat ugly Americans linked to Wall Street, and "The City"......an empire in decline after all has many incoherent, aimless, useless, unsustainable, untenable policies which in the long term are harmful to the country itself (Afghan heroin into the USA transported in using Military C-130 planes)........maybe this was the case with France, Netherlands, Poland and Canada.

Of course the Pentagon strangely have announced that they are going to spend huge amounts of money, and power-points to persuade the rest of the band of brothers to stay.....for they like working in coalitions of the willing......since this declining empire cannot sustain huge military losses of 10,000---20,000--30,000 or more unlike WWII...........and the "Controlled Opposition" Taliban are no Nazis.

For the civilian government in Pakistan the upping of the "security state" related to GWoT and the conflict in Afghanistan is bad for them, as it highlights and brings to the fore the importance and role of the Pakistan military.

This is neither what Pakistan the failed state needs or wants.

The duty of ANY civilian Pakistan government, regardless of political background would be to de-escalate GWoT, and the role of the Pakistan military in the American narrative of GWOT, and conflict in Afghanistan.

(i) With Afghanistan, maintain steadfast the blockade. Check ALL exports to Afghanistan which might have a security baring......through ALL the border crossing points, not just Khyber and Bolan Passes.

(ii) Build on the removal of the last defense minister from the military, by cutting the budget of the Pakistani military, and its enormous bloated size of 800,000 military and 300,000 paramilitary. Whats the point of having such an enormous military of 1,100,000 men unofficially IF ALL IT DOES IS SUPPORT USA GEO-STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN SOUTH ASIA? WHICH IS PATENTLY AND OBVIOUSLY HARMFUL TO PAKISTAN'S EXISTENCE. Lets not feed the beast.

The Pakistani tax payer must not support such policies a day more, so that the Pakistani military can kill more civilians.

(iii) The Punjabi military have shown that whilst they can get upset for a short while against gora masterji, against JEWSA criminal arrogance in the Punjab in the form of the Raymond Davis case and the attack on the military post recently........they are perfectly happy to cooperate with the JEWSA to kill fellow Pakistanis in the NWFP and even Baluchistan. The Pakistani military touts itself as egalitarian, classless and professional........but what is supremely professional about killing Pashtun civilians in secret covert agreement with gora sahib in a fake GWoT game designed by the JEWSA?....................surely ANY civilian government, even pretending to serve the WHOLE country would know this fact?

Iran China trade.

2012-01-26T20:00:00.001+07:00

.
.
.
.

Iran foreign trade rises despite sanctions

By presstv.com

Figures released by Iranian officials show the country's foreign trade has been developing in recent years despite tougher sanctions imposed on Iran's oil and financial sectors by the US and European Union.

Iran's Ambassador to Beijing Mehdi Safari said Wednesday that trade between Iran and China increased by 55 percent to exceed 45 billion dollars in 2011.

He added that the annual trade figures show a 16 billion-dollar increase in commercial ties with China since 2010.

China is Iran's top trade partner, with economic ties expanding in recent years after the withdrawal of Western companies in line with sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its peaceful nuclear program.

Beijing has also significantly increased its presence in Iran's oil and gas sector by signing a series of contracts worth up to 40 billion dollars in the past few years.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao defended his country's oil trade with Iran in defiance of proposed US and European sanctions during the last leg of his recent Persian Gulf tour on January 19.

"I believe that China is not the only country to buy oil from Iran... Legitimate trade has to be protected if global economic chaos is to be avoided," Wen told reporters in the Qatari capital city of Doha.

Iran is the third largest provider of oil to China which accounts for 11 percent of the country's oil imports.

India and South Korea are also major importers of Iran's crude oil which have rejected frequent calls by US and EU to join West's oil embargo against Tehran.

On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed into law new sanctions which seek to penalize countries importing Iran's oil or doing transaction with the country's central bank.

In their latest meeting in Brussels on January 23, EU foreign ministers also imposed new sanctions on Iran which include a ban on purchasing oil from the country, a freeze on the assets of Iran's Central Bank within the EU, and a ban on the sale of diamonds, gold and other precious metals to Iran.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton claimed that the new sanctions aim to bring Iran back to negotiations with P5+1 -- US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany -- over the country's peaceful nuclear program.

The United States, Israel and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program and have used this pretext to impose four rounds of sanctions and a series of unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Iran has refuted the allegations, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Tehran has a right to use nuclear technology for peaceful use.

China's criticism of the illegal oil embargo against Iran by the European puppy's of USA

2012-01-26T19:44:00.002+07:00

.
.
.
.
American power is projected by itself, and also through mostly Western proxies such as Germany, UK and other agent dogs........they ALL in turn work under the supreme objectives of the International Jews.

We note the overthrow of the Shah was a Western effort by the USA/UK and other Western countries. The same applies with the overthrow of Gaddafi.....and Syria.

Some in Iran fume about the loss of oil exports to the EU, from July 2012, but I think in the sum total of things the loss of 1 million barrels worth of exports to EU from Iran is not the end of the world STRATEGICALLY speaking, and certainly not a credible justification for blocking the Straights of Hormuz. China is rapidly picking up oil exports from Iran, and so may India. Perhaps Iran can offer more favorable terms for the export of gas to India via Pakistan.

American sanctions will not curtail Iran's impress export growth in the years to come, especially in the non-oil sector.

__________________________

China: EU Iran sanctions blind pressure

By presstv.com

China has criticized the European Union's new unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran as blind pressure and unconstructive.

“To blindly pressure and impose sanctions on Iran are not constructive approaches," the Chinese foreign ministry said Thursday in reaction to EU's recent measure against Iran over the country's nuclear program.

The United States and its allies have been accusing Tehran of pursuing a military nuclear program, and have used the allegation to impose four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions on the Islamic Republic and to take more unilateral measures against the country.

Tehran has categorically refuted the Western allegation, saying that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to acquire and develop nuclear technology meant for peaceful purposes.

The EU slapped new sanctions against Iran in a meeting of the bloc's foreign ministers on January 23.

The 27-member bloc agreed to ban oil imports as well as petroleum products from the major OPEC member state and freeze the assets of the Iranian Central Bank across the EU.

The European Union also imposed a ban on the sale of gold, diamonds, and other precious metals to Iran.

UK's Weird "Merv the Purv" Internationalist Jewish Spooks

2012-01-26T19:05:00.004+07:00

.
.
.
.

GAY, ZIONIST SPY CHIEF - MAURICE OLDFIELD by aangirfan

Maurice Oldfield, who was Britain's top spy in Washington at the time of the Kennedy assassination.

"The interviewer was a master spy, later to become head of the service...

"I felt his hand on my knee under the table.

"I thought it might be some sort of test, but when it began to creep up my thigh I decided that was the end of that." (So what's new about gay spies? - Independent)

Maurice Oldfield was boss of Britain's MI6 spy agency.

At university, a strong influence on Oldfield was Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier, born Ludwik Niemirowski, political secretary of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

Lord Victor Rothschild "pressured to have Maurice Oldfield installed as intell boss, who in turn promoted other homosexuals, before being sacked by Margaret Thatcher in 1980 as details of visits by young boys to Oldfields home reached her." ("FOR KNOWLEDGE ITSELF IS POWER” Intelligence saying)

Maurice Oldfield became boss of Britain's MI6 in 1973.

In the early 1960s, Oldfield was Britain's top spy in the USA.

He worked with the CIA's James Jesus Angleton.

Maurice Oldfield's friend Tom Driberg (left) with the Russian spy Guy Burgess, friend of Lord Ted Rothschild. (BRITAIN RUN BY AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS?) Tom Driberg MP was a rent-boy loving spook with links to Russia and hence Israel. (SPOOKS AND SPARES; GIRL MODELS AND RENT BOYS)

Lady Onslow, a close friend of Oldfield, worked with the ex-Borstal organisation 'Teamwork Associates' in London.

Keith Littlejohn had spent time in Borstal and was known to Lady Onslow.

Lady Onslow stating shortly before her death that Oldfield and Keith Littlejohn became known to each other around 1970.

In 1972, MI6 recruited the Littlejohn brothers, petty criminals, to carry out bank robberies and bomb attacks in the Republic of Ireland.

MI6 said to them that there was "going to be a policy of political assassination" for which they were to make themselves available.

Ben Gurion and Teddy Kollek. Kollek was a close friend of Oldfield who was a frequent visitor to Israel.

After Oldfield's retirement, Oldfield confessed he had lied to cover up his homosexuality.

In 1987, Margaret Thatcher confirmed to the House of Commons that Oldfield was gay.

Boys at the Kincora Children's Home in Northern Ireland were reportedly 'used' by the security services.

The head of Britain's MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield, was reportedly observed by his Special Branch guards partaking of Kincora's facilities. (The troubles: Google Books Result)

Allegedly, Oldfield shared boys with Russian spy Sir Anthony Blunt, Noel Coward, several bishops, and an archbishop. (Cached)

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a spy novel by John le Carré, featuring George Smiley, who is said to be based on Maurice Oldfield.

According to "The Biggest Secret of World War II": during World war II, Maurice Oldfield was arrested with the King’s brother, the Duke of Kent, Prince George, a boyfriend to Sir Anthony Blunt.

"A policeman rounded up what he thought were 3 drunken street whores, only to find they were ... the HIGHEST in the land...

"Maurice Oldfield and the Duke of Kent ... had links to Victor Rothschild.

"Rothschild was Churchill’s mentor; he made Churchill’s decisions."

Famous gay spies include Britain's Guy Burgess, Sir Anthony Blunt, and Alex Kellar, director of MI5's F Branch (Communist subversion) (So what's new about gay spies? - Opinion - The Independent)

Victor Rothschild, who worked for various prime ministers, and for the security services. He was reported to have given away secrets to Israel

20 April 1987

The Times

"Mr Chapman Pincher, the author, who knew Sir Maurice during his intelligence career, says in a new book that he was a homosexual who consorted with young male prostitutes...

"There was particular concern over claims that Lord Whitelaw, when he was Home Secretary, received a report on Sir Maurice Oldfield's alleged homosexual activities from the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir David McNee, in the late 1970s. At that time, Sir Maurice was a special security co-ordinator in Northern Ireland after being brought out of retirement...

"According to Mr Pincher, in his book Traitors: The Labyrinths of Treason, Special Branch officers who were giving Sir Maurice round-the-clock protection throughout his Northern Ireland appointment, discovered that male prostitutes were visiting him in his flat in Westminster.

"A report was sent to the then Mr William Whitelaw, it was claimed, and Sir Maurice was warned by a senior minister 'in the most direct language' to curb his behavior. It appeared that no further action was taken, although Sir Maurice resigned as Ulster security co-ordinator in 1980 through ill-health. He died a year later at the age of 65...

"There were reports in the Belfast newspapers, attempting to link Sir Maurice with the scandal over the Kincora welfare hostel for boys, which in 1980 was alleged to have been used for hiring out boys for homosexuals."

Julian Amery

Julian Amery frequently met Maurice Oldfield at the Savoy Grill.

Julian Amery was the son of Leopold Amery (1873-1955), who hid the fact that he was a Jew. (Le Cercle membership list - WikiSpooks)

Churchill once said of Leopold that he regarded the Empire as his own personal property.

Leopold was the author of the final draft of the Balfour Declaration, a trustee of the Rhodes Trust and a supporter of the Rothschild-Warburg-financed Paneuropa Union.

Julian Amery became chairman of the rightwing Le Cercle.

Julian was an MI6 operative.

He was co-founder of the CIA-sponsored Congress for Cultural Freedom and had links to Bilderberg and BCCI.

He was a member of the Other Club together with Lord Rothschild, Tony Blair and others.

According to Julian Amery: "The prosperity of our people rests really on the oil in the Persian Gulf, the rubber and tin of Malaya, and the gold, copper and precious metals of South- and Central Africa... If the communists [or anyone else] were to take them over, we would lose the lot..."

Julian Amery was a member of the Monday Club among whose leading figures were the Cecil family who have links to the Rothschilds and Oppenheimers.

Julian's brother John worked for Adolf Hitler.

Iran, Russia and China

2012-01-26T18:40:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.

The Eurasian "Triple Alliance." The Strategic Importance of Iran for Russia and China

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya at Global Research

Despite areas of difference and rivalries between Moscow and Tehran, ties between the two countries, based on common interests, have developed significantly.

Both Russia and Iran are both major energy exporters, they have deeply seated interests in the South Caucasus. They are both firmly opposed to NATO's missile shield, with a view to preventing the U.S. and E.U. from controlling the energy corridors around the Caspian Sea Basin.

Moscow and Tehran's bilateral ties are also part of a broader and overlapping alliance involving Armenia, Tajikistan, Belarus, Syria, and Venezuela. Yet, above all things, both republics are also two of Washington’s main geo-strategic targets.

The Eurasian Triple Alliance: The Strategic Importance of Iran for Russia and China

China, the Russian Federation, and Iran are widely considered to be allies and partners. Together the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran form a strategic barrier directed against U.S. expansionism. The three countries form a "triple alliance," which constitutes the core of a Eurasian coalition directed against U.S. encroachment into Eurasia and its quest for global hegemony.

While China confronts U.S. encroachment in East Asia and the Pacific, Iran and Russia respectively confront the U.S. led coalition in Southwest Asia and Eastern Europe. All three countries are threatened in Central Asia and are wary of the U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan.

Iran can be characterized as a geo-strategic pivot. The geo-political equation in Eurasia very much hinges on the structure of Iran's political alliances. Were Iran to become an ally of the United States, this would seriously hamper or even destabilize Russia and China. This also pertains to Iran's ethno-cultural, linguistic, economic, religious, and geo-political links to the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Moreover, were the structure of political alliances to shift in favour of the U.S., Iran could also become the greatest conduit for U.S. influence and expansion in the Caucasus and Central Asia. This has to do with the fact that Iran is the gateway to Russia's soft southern underbelly (or "Near Abroad") in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

In such a scenario, Russia as an energy corridor would be weakened as Washington would "unlock" Iran's potential as a primary energy corridor for the Caspian Sea Basin, implying de facto U.S. geopolitical control over Iranian pipeline routes. In this regard, part of Russia's success as an energy transit route has been due to U.S. efforts to weaken Iran by preventing energy from transiting through Iranian territory.

If Iran were to "change camps" and enter the U.S. sphere of influence, China's economy and national security would also be held hostage on two counts. Chinese energy security would be threatened directly because Iranian energy reserves would no longer be secure and would be subject to U.S. geo-political interests. Additionally, Central Asia could also re-orient its orbit should Washington open a direct and enforced conduit from the open seas via Iran.

Thus, both Russia and China want a strategic alliance with Iran as a means of screening them from the geo-political encroachment of the United States. “Fortress Eurasia” would be left exposed without Iran. This is why neither Russia nor China could ever accept a war against Iran. Should Washington transform Iran into a client then Russia and China would be under threat.

Misreading the Support of China and Russia for U.N. Security Council Sanctions

There is a major misreading of past Russian and Chinese support of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Even though Beijing and Moscow allowed U.N. Security Council sanctions to be passed against their Iranian ally, they did it for strategic reasons, namely with a view to keeping Iran out of Washington's orbit.

In reality, the United States would much rather co-opt Tehran as a satellite or junior partner than take the unnecessary risk and gamble of an all-out war with the Iranians. What Russian and Chinese support for past sanctions did was to allow for the development of a wider rift between Tehran and Washington. In this regard, realpolitik is at work. As American-Iranian tensions broaden, Iranian relations with Russia and China become closer and Iran becomes more and more entrenched in its relationship with Moscow and Beijing.

Russia and China, however, would never support crippling sanctions or any form of economic embargo that would threaten Iranian national security. This is why both China and Russia have refused to be coerced by Washington into joining its new 2012 unilateral sanctions. The Russians have also warned the European Union to stop being Washington's pawns, because they are hurting themselves by playing along with the schemes of the United States. In this regard Russia commented on the impractical and virtually unworkable E.U. plans for an oil embargo against Iran. Tehran has also made similar warnings and has dismissed the E.U. oil embargo as a psychological tactic that is bound to fail.

Left photo: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Dmitry A. Medvedev of Russia during a bilateral meeting in Dushabe, Tajikistan.
The bilateral Iranian-Russian meeting was held on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit on August 28, 2008.
Right photo: Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov together in Moscow discussing Russia’s step-by-step nuclear proposal.

Russo-Iranian Security Cooperation and Strategic Coordination

In August 2011, the head of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, Secretary-General Saaed (Said) Jalili, and the head of the National Security Council of the Russian Federation, Secretary Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev met in Tehran to discuss the Iranian nuclear energy program as well as bilateral cooperation. Russia wanted to help Iran rebuff the new wave of accusations by Washington directed against Iran. Soon after Patrushev and his Russian team arrived in Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, flew to Moscow.

Both Jalili and Patrushev met again in September 2011, but this time in Russia. Jalili went to Moscow first and then crossed the Urals to the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.

The Iran-Russia Yekaterinburg meeting took place on the sidelines of an international security summit. Moreover, at this venue, it was announced that the highest bodies of national security in Moscow and Tehran would henceforth coordinate by holding regular meetings. A protocol between the two countries was was signed at Yekaterinburg.

During this important gathering, both Jalili and Patrushev held meetings with their Chinese counterpart, Meng Jianzhu. As a result of these meetings, a similar process of bilateral consultation between the national security councils of Iran and China was established. Moreover, the parties also discussed the formation of a supranational security council within the Shanghai Cooperation Council to confront threats directed against Beijing, Tehran, Moscow and their Eurasian allies.

Also in September 2011, Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian envoy to NATO, announced that he would be visiting Tehran in the near future to discuss the NATO missile shield project, which both the Moscow and Tehran oppose.

Reports claiming that Russia, Iran, and China were planning on creating a joint missile shield started to surface. Rogozin, who had warned in August 2011 that Syria and Yemen would be attacked as "stepping stones" in the broader confrontation directed against Tehran, responded by publicly refuting the reports pertaining to the establishment of a joint Sino-Russo-Iranian missile shield project.

The following month, in October 2011, Russia and Iran announced that they would be expanding ties in all fields. Soon after, in November 2011, Iran and Russia signed a strategic cooperation and partnership agreement between their highest security bodies covering economics, politics, security, and intelligence. This was a long anticipated document on which both Russia and Iran had been working on. The agreement was signed in Moscow by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Supreme Security Council of Iran, Ali Bagheri (Baqeri), and the Under-Secretary of the National Security Council of Russia, Yevgeny Lukyanov.

In November 2011, the head of the Committee for International Affairs in the Russian Duma, Konstantin Kosachev, also announced that Russia must do everything it can to prevent an attack on neighbouring Iran. At the end of November 2011 it was announced that Dmitry Rogozin would definitely visit both Tehran and Beijing in 2012, together with a team of Russian officials to hold strategic discussions on collective strategies against common threats.

Left and right photos: Secretary-General Jalili and Secretary Patrushev in Tehran, Iran holding Iranian-Russian national security talks during August 2011.

Left photo: Deputy Secretary-General Ali Bagheri at a press conference in Moscow, Russia after signing a security pact with Russian officials.
Right photo: Konstantin Kosachev, the Chairperson of the Committee for International Affairs in the Russian Duma.

Russian National Security and Iranian National Security are Attached

On January 12, 2012, Nikolai Patrushev told Interfax he feared that a major war was imminent and that Tel Aviv was pushing the U.S. to attack Iran. He dismissed the claims that Iran was secretly manufacturing nuclear weapons and said that for years the world had continuously heard that Iran would have an atomic bomb by next week ad nauseum. His comments were followed by a dire warning from Dmitry Rogozin.

On January 13, 2012, Rogozin, who had been appointed deputy prime minister, declared that any attempted military intervention against Iran would be a threat to Russia's national security. In other words, an attack on Tehran is an attack on Moscow. In 2007, Vladimir Putin essentially mentioned the same thing when he was in Tehran for a Caspian Sea summit, which resulted in George W. Bush Jr. warning that World War III could erupt over Iran. Rogozin's statement is merely a declaration of what has been the position of Russia all along: should Iran fall, Russia would be in danger.

Iran is a target of U.S. hostility not just for its vast energy reserves and natural resources, but because of major geo-strategic considerations that make it a strategic springboard against Russia and China. The roads to Moscow and Beijing also go through Tehran, just as the road to Tehran goes through Damascus, Baghdad, and Beirut. Nor does the U.S. want to merely control Iranian oil and natural gas for consumption or economic reasons. Washington wants to put a muzzle around China by controlling Chinese energy security and wants Iranian energy exports to be traded in U.S. dollars to insure the continued use of the U.S. dollar in international transactions.

Moreover, Iran has been making agreements with several trade partners, including China and India, whereby business transactions will not be conducted in euros or U.S. dollars. In January 2012, both Russia and Iran replaced the U.S. dollar with their national currencies, respectively the Russian rouble and the Iranian rial, in their bilateral trade. This was an economic and financial blow to the United States.

Left photo: Vladimir V. Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holding talks in Tehran, Iran on the sidelines of a summit of Caspian Sea nations in October 2007.
Right photo: Dmitry O. Rogozin, the departing representative of Russia at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Syria and the National Security Concerns of Iran and Russia

Russia and China with Iran are all staunchly supporting Syria. The diplomatic and economic siege against Syria is tied to the geo-political stakes to control Eurasia. The instability in Syria is tied to the objective of combating Iran and ultimately turning it into a U.S. partner against Russia and China.

The cancelled or delayed deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to Israel for "Austere Challenge 2012" was tied to ratcheting up the pressure against Syria. On the basis of a Voice of Russia report, segments of the Russian media erroneously reported that "Austere Challenge 2012" was going to be held in the Persian Gulf, which was mistakenly picked up by news outlets in other parts of the world. This helped highlight the Iranian link at the expense of the Syrian and Lebanese links. The deployment of U.S. troops was aimed predominately at Syria as a means of isolating and combating Iran. The "cancelled" or "delayed" Israeli-U.S. missile exercises most probably envisaged preparations for missile and rocket attacks not only from Iran, but also from Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories.

Aside from its naval ports in Syria, Russia does not want to see Syria used to re-route the energy corridors in the Caspian Basin and the Mediterranean Basin. If Syria were to fall, these routes would be re-synchronized to reflect a new geo-political reality. At the expense of Iran, energy from the Persian Gulf could also be re-routed to the Mediterranean through both Lebanon and Syria.

Left photo: Syrian Defence Minister Dawoud (David) Rajha visiting the docked Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in the Syrian port of Tartus on January 8, 2012.
Right photo: Syrian allies, Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, join President Bashar Al-Assad for a summit in Damascus, Syria on February 25, 2010.

Left photo: The Alvand, one of the two Iranian warships that visited the Syrian port of Lattakia during February 2011.
Right photo: Rear-Admirial Habibollah Sayyari holding a press conference on February 28, 2001 at the Iranian Embassy in Syria about the Iranian naval presence off Syria’s Mediterranean coast.

Obama's Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold? "The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus"

- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2012-01-20

To Tehran, Obama's gestures in his Hormuz letter are meaningless, because his actions have always contradicted his words.

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2012-01-08

The Pentagon’s own war simulations show that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the U.S. Navy.

The American-Iranian Cold War in the Middle East and the Threat of A Broader War

- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2012-01-01

A Cold War between Tehran and Washington has been raging across the Middle East from Lebanon to Iraq and the Persian Gulf with the use of spies, drones, assassinations, and perception campaigns.

The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon

- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-12-24

Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria. This initiative was supported by Israel with a view to weakening Syria and curtailing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East.

America's Next War Theater: Syria and Lebanon?

Washington's War against the Resistance Bloc

- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-06-10

Washington has announced that it has the right to violate the national boundaries of countries which harbor terrorists as well as send troops to these countries...

The Secret Wars of the Saudi-Israeli Alliance

- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-05-28

This secret Israeli-Saudi alliance acts to destabilize Southwest Asia and North Africa on behalf of the Pentagon and NATO.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous international programs and networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow.

2012-01-26T17:36:00.001+07:00

.
.
.
.

US, Israel Agree: Iran Not Building Nukes

by Ray McGovern at antiwar.com

Has Iran decided to build a nuclear bomb? That would seem to be the central question in the current bellicose debate over whether the world should simply cripple Iran’s economy and inflict severe pain on its civilian population or launch a preemptive war to destroy its nuclear capability while possibly achieving “regime change.”

And if you’ve been reading The New York Times or following the rest of the Fawning Corporate Media, you’d likely assume that everyone who matters agrees that the answer to the question is yes, although the FCM adds the caveat that Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The line is included with an almost perceptible wink and an “oh, yeah.”

However, a consensus seems to be emerging among the intelligence and military agencies of the United States — and Israel — that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. In recent days, that judgment has been expressed by high-profile figures in the defense establishments of the two countries — U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

You might think that you would have heard more about that, wouldn’t you? The United States and Israel agree that Iran is NOT building a nuclear bomb. However, this joint assessment that Iran has NOT decided to build a nuclear bomb apparently represented too big a change in the accepted narrative for the Times and the rest of the FCM to process.

Yet, on Jan. 18, the day before U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey arrived for talks in Israel, Israeli Defense Minister Barak gave an interview to Israeli army radio in which he addressed with striking candor how he assesses Iran’s nuclear program. It was not the normal pabulum.

Question: Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?

Barak: … [C]onfusion stems from the fact that people ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now … in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case.…

Question: How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads?

Barak: I don’t know; one has to estimate.… Some say a year, others say 18 months. It doesn’t really matter. To do that, Iran would have to announce it is leaving the [UN International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection regime and stop responding to IAEA’s criticism, etc.

Why haven’t they [the Iranians] done that? Because they realize that … when it became clear to everyone that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, this would constitute definite proof that time is actually running out. This could generate either harsher sanctions or other action against them. They do not want that.

Question: Has the United States asked or demanded that the government inform the Americans in advance, should it decide on military action?

Barak: I don’t want to get into that. We have not made a decision to opt for that, we have not decided on a decision-making date. The whole thing is very far off.…

Question: You said the whole thing is “very far off.” Do you mean weeks, months, years?

Barak: I wouldn’t want to provide any estimates. It’s certainly not urgent. I don’t want to relate to it as though tomorrow it will happen.

As noted in my Jan. 19 article, “Israel Tamps Down Iran War Threats,” which was based mostly on reports from the Israeli press before I had access to the complete transcript of the interview, I noted that Barak appeared to be identifying himself with the consistent assessment of U.S. intelligence community since late 2007 that Iran has not made a decision to go forward with a nuclear bomb.

A Momentous NIE

A formal National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 — a consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies — contradicted the encrusted conventional wisdom that “of course” Iran’s nuclear development program must be aimed at producing nuclear weapons. The NIE stated: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; … Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

The Key Judgments of that Estimate elicited a vituperative reaction from some Israeli officials and in neoconservative circles in the United States. It also angered then-President George W. Bush, who joined the Israelis in expressing disagreement with the judgments. In January 2008, Bush flew to Israel to commiserate with Israeli officials who he said should have been “furious with the United States over the NIE.”

While Bush’s memoir, Decision Points, is replete with bizarre candor, nothing beats his admission that “the NIE tied my hands on the military side,” preventing him from ordering a preemptive war against Iran, an action favored by hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney.

For me personally it was heartening to discover that my former colleagues in the CIA’s analytical division had restored the old ethos of telling difficult truths to power, after the disgraceful years under CIA leaders like George Tenet and John McLaughlin when the CIA followed the politically safer route of telling the powerful what they wanted to hear.

It had been three decades since I chaired a couple of National Intelligence Estimates, but fate never gave me the chance to manage one that played such a key role in preventing an unnecessary and disastrous war as the November 2007 NIE did.

In such pressure-cooker situations, the Estimates job is not for the malleable or the fainthearted. The ethos was to speak with courage, and without fear or favor, but that is often easier said than done. In my days, however, we analysts enjoyed career protection for telling it like we saw it. It was an incredible boost to morale to see that happening again in 2007.

Ever since the NIE was published, however, powerful politicians and media pundits have sought to chip away at its conclusions, suggesting that the analysts were hopelessly naive or politically motivated or vengeful, out to punish Bush and Cheney for the heavy-handed tactics used to push false and dubious claims about Iraq’s WMDs in 2002 and 2003.

A New Conventional Wisdom

There emerged in official Washington a new conventional wisdom that the NIE was erroneous and wasn’t worth mentioning anymore. Though the Obama administration has stood by it, The New York Times and other FCM outlets routinely would state that the United States and Israel agreed that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb and then add the wink-wink denial by Iran.

However, on Jan. 8, Defense Secretary Panetta told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation that “the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them [the Iranians] … and to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

Panetta was making the implicit point that the Iranians had not made that decision, but just in case someone might miss his meaning, Panetta posed the direct question to himself: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

Barak’s Jan. 18 statement to Israeli army radio indicated that his views dovetail with those of Panetta — and their comments apparently are backed up by the assessments of each nation’s intelligence analysts. In its report on Defense Minister Barak’s remarks, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Jan. 19 summed up the change in the position of Israeli leaders as follows: “The intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present … to Dempsey indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb. The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon — or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.”

At The New York Times, the initial coverage of Barak’s interview focused on another element. An article by Isabel Kershner and Rick Gladstone appeared on Jan. 19 on page A5 under the headline “Decision on Whether to Attack Iran is ‘Far Off,’ Israeli Defense Minister Says.”

To their credit, the Times’ Kershner and Gladstone did not shrink from offering an accurate translation of what Barak said on the key point of IAEA inspections: “The Iranians have not ended the oversight exercised by the International Atomic Energy Agency.… They have not done that because they know that that would constitute proof of the military nature of their nuclear program and that would provoke stronger international sanctions or other types of action against their country.”

But missing from the Times article was Barak’s more direct assessment that Iran apparently had not made a decision to press ahead toward construction of a nuclear bomb. That would have undercut the boilerplate in almost every Times story saying that U.S. and Israeli officials believe Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.

But That’s Not the Right Line!

So, what to do? Not surprisingly, the next day (Jan. 20), the Times ran an article by its Middle East bureau chief Ethan Bronner in which he stated categorically: “Israel and the United States both say that Iran is pursuing the building of nuclear weapons — an assertion denied by Iran — ….”

By Jan. 21, the Times had time to prepare an entire page (A8) of articles setting the record “straight,” so to speak, on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions: Here are the most telling excerpts, by article (emphasis mine):

1. “European Union Moves Closer to Imposing Tough Sanctions on Iran,” by Steven Erlanger, Paris:

“Senior French officials are concerned that these measures [sanctions] … will not be strong enough to push the Iranian government into serious, substantive negotiations on its nuclear program which the West says is aimed at producing weapons.”

“In his annual speech on French diplomacy on Friday, President Nicolas Sarkozy accused Iran of lying, and he denounced what he called its ‘senseless race for a nuclear bomb.’”

“Iran says it is enriching uranium solely for peaceful uses and denies a military intent. But few in the West believe Tehran, which has not cooperated fully with inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and has been pursuing some technologies that have only a military use.”

(Pardon me, please. I’m having a bad flashback. Anyone remember the Times’ peerless reporting on those infamous “aluminum tubes” that supposedly were destined for nuclear centrifuges — until some folks did a Google search and found they were for the artillery then used by Iraq?)

2. “China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms,” by Michael Wines, Beijing:

“Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrapped up a six-day Middle East tour this week with stronger-than-usual criticism of Iran’s defiance on its nuclear program….”

“Mr. Wen’s comments on Iran were unusually pointed for Chinese diplomacy. In Doha, Qatar’s capital, he said China ‘adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.’”

“Western nations suspect that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Iran insists its program is peaceful.”

3. “U.S. General Urges Closer Ties With Israel,” by Isabel Kershner, Jerusalem:

“Though Iran continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes, Israel, the United Stated, and much of the West are convinced that Iran is working to develop a weapons program.…”

Never (Let Up) on Sunday

Next it was time for the Times to trot out David Sanger from the Washington bullpen. Many will remember him as one of the Times’ stenographers/cheerleaders for the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in March 2003. An effusive hawk also on Iran, Sanger was promoted to a position as chief Washington correspondent, apparently for services rendered.

In his Jan. 22 article, “Confronting Iran in a Year of Elections,” Sanger pulls out all the stops, even resurrecting Condoleezza Rice’s “mushroom cloud” to scare all of us — and, not least, the Iranians:

“From the perception of the Iranians, life may look better on the other side of the mushroom cloud,” said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He may be right: while the Obama administration has vowed that it will never tolerate Iran as a nuclear weapons state, a few officials admit that they may have to settle for a “nuclear capable’” Iran that has the technology, the nuclear fuel and the expertise to become a nuclear power in a matter of weeks or months.

Were that not enough, enter the national champion of the Times cheerleading squad that prepared the American people in 2002 and early 2003 for the attack on Iraq, former executive editor Bill Keller. He graced us the next day (Jan. 23) with an op-ed entitled “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?” — though he wasn’t favoring a military strike, at least not right now. Here’s Keller:

The actual state of the [nuclear] program is not entirely clear, but the best open-source estimates are that if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered full-speed-ahead — which there is no sign he has done — they could have an actual weapon in a year or so.… In practice, Obama’s policy promises to be tougher than Bush’s. Because Obama started out with an offer of direct talks — which the Iranians foolishly spurned — world opinion has shifted in our direction.

Wow. With Iraqi egg still all over his face, the disgraced Keller gets to “spurn” history itself — to rewrite the facts. Sorry, Bill, it was not Iran, but rather Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other neocons in the U.S. Department of State and White House (with you and neocon allies in the press cheering them on), who “foolishly spurned” an offer by Iran in 2010 to trade about half its low-enriched uranium for medical isotopes. It was a deal negotiated by Turkey and Brazil, but it was viewed by the neocons as an obstacle to ratcheting up the sanctions.

In his Jan. 23 column, with more sophomoric glibness, Keller wrote this:

We may now have sufficient global support to enact the one measure that would be genuinely crippling — a boycott of Iranian oil. The Iranians take this threat to their economic livelihood seriously enough that people who follow the subject no longer minimize the chance of a naval confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. It’s not impossible that we will get war with Iran even without bombing its nuclear facilities.

How neat! War without even trying!

The Paper of (Checkered) Record

Guidance to all NYT hands: Are you getting the picture? After all, what does Defense Minister Barak know? Or Defense Secretary Panetta? Or the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community? Or apparently even Israeli intelligence?

The marching orders from the Times’ management appear to be that you should pay no heed to those sources of information. Just repeat the mantra: Everyone knows Iran is hard at work on the Bomb.

As is well-known, other newspapers and media outlets take their cue from the Times. Small wonder, then, that USA Today seemed to be following the same guidance on Jan. 23, as can be seen in its major editorial on military action against Iran:

The U.S. and Iran will keep steaming toward confrontation, Iran intent on acquiring the bomb to establish itself as a regional power, and the U.S. intent on preventing it to protect allies and avoid a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.

One day, the U.S. is likely to face a wrenching choice: bomb Iran, with the nation fully united and prepared for the consequences, or let Iran have the weapons, along with a Cold War-like doctrine ensuring Iran’s nuclear annihilation if it ever uses them. In that context, sanctions remain the last best hope for a satisfactory solution.

And, of course, the U.S. press corps almost never adds the context that Israel already possesses an undeclared arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons, or that Iran is essentially surrounded by nuclear weapons states, including India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and — at sea — the United States.

PBS Equally Guilty

PBS’s behavior adhered to its customary don’t-offend-the-politicians-who-might-otherwise-cut-our-budget attitude on the Jan. 18 NewsHour — about 12 hours after Ehud Barak’s interview started making the rounds. Host Margaret Warner set the stage for an interview with neocon Dennis Ross and Vali Nasr (a professor at Tufts) by using a thoroughly misleading clip from former Sen. Rick Santorum’s Jan. 1 appearance on Meet the Press.

Warner started by saying: “Back in the U.S. many Republican presidential candidates have been vowing they’d be even tougher with Tehran. Former Senator Rick Santorum spoke on NBC’s Meet the Press: ‘I would be saying to the Iranians, you open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes and make it very public that we are doing so.’”

Santorum seemed totally unaware that there are U.N. inspectors in Iran, and host David Gregory did nothing to correct him, leaving Santorum’s remark unchallenged. The blogosphere immediately lit up with requests for NBC to tell their viewers that there are already U.N. inspectors in Iran, which unlike Israel is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows IAEA inspections.

During the Warner interview, Dennis Ross performed true to form, projecting supreme confidence that he knows more about Iran’s nuclear program than the Israeli Defense Minister and the U.S. intelligence community combined:

Margaret Warner: If you hamstring their [Iran’s] Central Bank, and the U.S. persuades all these other big customers not to buy Iranian oil, that could be thought of as an act of war on the part of the Iranians. Is that a danger?

Ross: I think there’s a context here. The context is that the Iranians continue to pursue a nuclear program. And unmistakably to many, that is a nuclear program whose purpose is to achieve nuclear weapons. That has a very high danger, a very high consequence. So the idea that they could continue with that and not realize that at some point they have to make a choice, and if they don’t make the choice, the price they’re going to pay is a very high one, that’s the logic of increasing the pressure.

Never mind that the Israeli defense minister had told the press something quite different some 12 hours before.

Still, it is interesting that Barak’s comments on how Israeli intelligence views Iran’s nuclear program now mesh so closely with the NIE in 2007. This is the new and significant story here, as I believe any objective journalist would agree.

However, the FCM — led by The New York Times — cannot countenance admitting that they have been hyping the threat from Iran as they did with Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs just nine years ago. So they keep repeating the line that Israel and the U.S. agree that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

In this up-is-down world, America’s newspaper of record won’t even report accurately what Israel (or the CIA) thinks on this important issue, if that goes against the alarmist conventional wisdom that the neocons favor. Thus, we have this divergence between what the U.S. media is reporting as flat fact — i.e., that Israel and the United States believe Iran is building a bomb (though Iran denies it) — and the statements from senior Israeli and U.S. officials that Iran has NOT decided to build a bomb.

While this might strike some as splitting hairs — since peaceful nuclear expertise can have potential military use — this hair is a very important one. If Iran is not working on building a nuclear bomb, then the threats of preemptive war are not only unjustified, they could be exactly the motivation for Iran to decide that it does need a nuclear bomb to protect itself and its people.

Originally published by ConsortiumNews.com.

Less Jew emotion/hype and more objectivity with Iran.

2012-01-26T16:22:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.

Avoiding a ‘Dumb War’ With Iran

by Philip Giraldi at antiwar.com

The media and the punditry have been deliberately misrepresenting facts to persuade the people of the United States to start another war, not unlike in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco. Since 9/11, hard-liners in the United States have depicted one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. They have justified attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Afghanistan, and they have endorsed Israel’s military actions against Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon — 10 Muslim countries.

(Persuading the USA people to go to war is no longer necessary in Police State Jew run JEWSA , and that has certainly been the case with the above 10 examples. The executive is all powerful.....and not by the people...for the people. Part of the rationale of repeated threats against mullah run Iran is to subdue the Iranian leadership, and also as a conditioning mechanism for the Jew leadership of the JEWSA as to why they need to eventually go to war against Iran for Israel, after overthrowing the USA puppet regime in 1979. Kids and adults alike exchange insults and threats before they fight. The trick is to make Iran as powerful as possible as a Third World country, by one and ALL righteous peace loving people.......so that Israel thinks twice. The Jew respects strength and power, as do most people)

This time around, Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and New Gingrich are all promising to disarm Iran by force. Romney has a neocon-heavy foreign policy team (possibly an agent of Israel), while Gingrich’s campaign received at least $5 million in financial support from Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a passionate supporter of Israel. Meanwhile, the White House continues to dither by drawing “red lines” that appear to be more debating points meant to appease the Israelis than substantive policies.

(I question whether the USA since 2001 has had reasonably functioning governments or mere fronts for Israel)

Those arguing for war in Congress, think tanks, and the media have been exploiting a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report issued in November 2011, which they interpret to mean that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that poses a major threat to the United States. But the truth is that the IAEA document is essentially political, not factual. It is based on old intelligence assessments made mostly by the United States and Israel using sometimes fabricated information in an attempt to discredit Iran. In reality, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran’s nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring its sites. While there is legitimate reason to challenge some of Iran’s actions, the nuclear program is not as threatening as many maintain.

Even those who are arguing against the rush to war frequently have succumbed to the propaganda. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a piece titled “Think Before Acting on Iran,” states that “Iran’s leaders are bad guys capable of doing dangerous things” and then goes on to describe “its relentless moves toward acquiring nuclear weapons.” Well, Gelb should be well-informed enough to know that Iran’s leadership is both cautious and pragmatic because it is primarily interested in regime preservation, not in exporting the revolution or converting the world to Shi’ism. He should also be aware that there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Gelb’s lack of connection with objective reality is reflected in his recommendation to openly debate the wisdom of going to war with Iran in a suitable forum like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A genuine nuclear expert, Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former IAEA director-general, said recently, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.” And he is not alone in that judgment: All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded “with high confidence” in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program as of 2003. They reviewed the evidence again in 2009-10 and concluded that there was still no solid evidence that the program had been in any way revived.

It is astonishing that the American people are again being gulled by a replay of the “Iraq WMD threat,” which used false information and sustained innuendo to lead the United States into a war that did not need to be fought. As Philip Zelikow, executive secretary of the 9/11 Commission, said, “The ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel.” It is not unreasonable to argue that today the formula and rationalization are the same with the Persian threat, if there is one, making it a matter of concern mostly for Israel. And Israel is far from defenseless, with an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons of its own mounted on ballistic missiles and also on cruise missiles that can be fired from submarines.

But many knowledgeable Israelis actually argue that there is no threat from Iran, even as the politicians in Tel Aviv argue insistently that military action must be taken. Former Mossad head Meir Dagan commented that an air force strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be “stupid,” a view also endorsed by two other ex-Mossad chiefs, Danny Yatom and Ephraim Halevy. Dagan added his opinion that “any strike against [the civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law.” More recently, the Israeli intelligence community has prepared its own report, similar to the U.S. NIE, which concludes that Iran has not decided to construct a nuclear weapon, leading the country’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, to conclude that the possibility of a war “is very far off.”

Dagan also pointed out another reality that has not escaped some policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv: bombing Iran would guarantee that the Iranians would decide to go nuclear for self-defense and would certainly lead them to retaliate against Israel through their principal surrogate Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, which is reported to have tens of thousands of rockets and even Scud-type longer-range missiles. If American politicians and Israel’s own political leadership were really concerned about the well-being of Israel, they would be doing everything in their power to stop a new war rather than start one.

And then there is the question of what a sustained bombing campaign by the United States would actually accomplish. Since 2005, the U.S. military and intelligence communities have engaged in a major covert operation to identify and derail Iran’s nuclear program. The Pentagon has studied the Iranian nuclear target and has concluded that it would be futile to attempt to eliminate that program — which is dispersed throughout the country and frequently located underground — through aerial bombing. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other experts have stated that even a prolonged air attack would only delay any weapons program for a year or two at most. This is identical to the view of leading Israelis.

(That...and the fact that an attack on such a major Muslim country would encourage other states to go for nuke bomb programs in the Greater Middle East...either as a safety measure against the rampant USA, or against Iran once it was known the mullahs really were going for one)

Washington is already spending as much as the rest of the world combined on national defense and $100 billion per year on Afghanistan alone, which is looking increasingly forlorn. The anti-Iran lobby has been beating the drums for an attack for years, but another Asian war on top of Afghanistan is not in America’s or Israel’s interests, whatever some of Israel’s apologists might claim. The “experts” who claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would “wipe Israel off the map” have got it wrong. Genuine language specialists have pointed out that the original statement in Farsi actually said that Israel would someday collapse: “The imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” is the accurate rendition. The imam being referred to is the late Ayatollah Khomeini, making the statement a quote within a quote. It’s wishful thinking perhaps, but far from a threat. The fact is that Iran has not attacked any of its neighbors since the 17th century, when it went to war with the Ottoman Turks, and has never threatened to attack Israel. Nor does Iran threaten the United States in any way.

(Russo-Persian War (1804–1813), Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823), Russo-Persian War (1826–1828), Anglo-Persian War (1856-1857)

We must not over egg the pudding by suggesting Iranians are all flower loving pansies......who are effeminate and passive, which actually encourages the JEW to have a go (as with defenseless Libya with its oil wealth NOW) Not since the days of Nadir Shah 265 years ago, effectively and accurately speaking, have Persians committed themselves to aggressive wars of conquest against neighbors. The latter wars in the 19th century were ALL defensive wars against aggressive neighbors who initiated wars first on poor pretexts, and subsequently annexed Persian territory in the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and Central Asia.)

Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to open a dialogue to resolve problems with the Iranians, but that pledge has been an empty one. In reality, the United States has spoken to Iranian government officials only once in the past three years, and that encounter lasted less than 45 minutes. Since that time, offers to resolve differences through diplomacy have come several times from the Iranians and have been ignored by both official Washington and the mainstream media. Not talking means that war is the only way to obtain a resolution, which would be a very bad outcome for both sides. Washington still has time to make direct diplomacy work in an attempt to convince all parties to back down from the developing crisis, but serious intent and good-faith negotiations are necessary.

The American military has recently concluded what President Obama once labeled a “dumb war” in Iraq, so it behooves us not to undertake another dumb war against a country that is much larger, better prepared, and three times more populous. Such a conflict would not be containable and would set off a major regional war. Such a war, contrary to what some argue, would not be good for the United States, Iran, or even Israel, and it would make no one safer.

"Liberated Libya"

2012-01-26T15:49:00.002+07:00

.
.
.
.
In "al-CIA-duh" Libya things are not so good, naturally.

The new NTC government is a puppet regime brought into power by the USA. Its ultimate master is the JEWSA.

Thousands of foreign USA/NATO troops are swarming into the country, to create more genocidal post-Saddam Iraq like conditions (2003--2011). But the blame will be put on the hapless divided Libyans, the actual victims...............all psychopaths tend to blame the victim, without the trouble of reflecting on their own crimes. That would be too human.

This is a foreboding, cautionary tale for Tunisia, Egypt where the USA trained generals betrayed their comrade, Hosni Mubarak(thu, thu, thu).......and Syria, should it allow itself to be defeated by NATO/USA through their "al-CIA-duh" proxies in Southern Turkey, and Lebanon.

The JEWSA, as with Iraq will steal billions $ worth of Libyan oil, the best and purest in the world, where many of the NATO/USA forces are currently heading, whilst simultaneously conducting destabilization of the country using the "El Salvador option".

The greater the stupidy of the camel drinking Arab leaders against their own interests, and their own people....the more problems for them and their people. This applies to crypto Jewish run Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the rest of the casino loving slaves of the JEWSA.

The Arab lives in one house, if one part catches fire, all of it will catch fire....and no amount of CIA/ State Department reassurance will save the entire Arab house.

There can be no peace with "al-CIA-duh" Wahabi Salafists regimes running Arab countries. There can be no power sharing agreements with these dogs. There can no elections whilst these fifth column dogs participate under their own names or through proxies.

____________________

Clashes, Torture on the Rise in ‘Disillusioned’ Libya

Public Seen Losing Faith in New US-Backed Regime

by Jason Ditz at antiwar.com

In “liberated” Libya, violence is on the rise as militias attack one another on a regular basis and seemingly everyone accuses everyone else of being a Gadhafi ally. Arrest, in this environment, often means open-ended detention without charges. And torture.

Nominally under the control of the US and NATO-backed National Transitional Council (NTC), this new Libya is a nation awash in arms and grudges, the product of an ugly civil war and an international community that seems determined to throw its weight behind any interested party still alive on the ground.

In one instance, a knife fight at a market between two men from neighboring towns culminated in the massing of troops and the kidnapping and torture death of an uninvolved resident of one of the towns. His wife has just given birth the day before. Each side claims the other are pro-Gadhafi fighters.

Western diplomats are shrugging off the problems as a “country coming down off a victory high.” But Libyans don’t trust their new interim government and mass protests are breaking out against the brand-new regime.

The NTC is looking to placate the public with a few token resignations, but the issue goes well beyond the unpopularity of a few late-in-the-game defectors from the old regime. The protests against the Gadhafi regime began with the hope of a free country, and the realization that the NTC commandeered their revolution — possibly replacing one tyrant with another — is not something that can be easily tamped down.

Iran India New Deal?

2012-01-25T21:12:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.
This has not been officially confirmed by both governments.

____________________________

'India to buy Iran oil in gold not dollars'

By Presstv.com

India has agreed to pay the price of crude oil it imports from Iran in gold, which makes it the first country to drop the US dollar for purchasing the Iranian oil.

According to a report published by DEBKAfile news website, unnamed sources have stressed that China is also expected to follow suit.

India and China take about one million barrels per day (bpd), or 40 percent of Iran's total exports of 2.5 million bpd and both of them have huge reserves of gold.

The report added that by trading in gold, New Delhi and Beijing enable Tehran to bypass the upcoming freeze on its Central Bank's assets and the oil embargo which the European Union's foreign ministers agreed to impose on Monday, January 23.

The EU currently buys around 20 percent of Iran's oil exports.

On the other hand, experts say the vast sums involved in these transactions are expected to boost the price of gold and depress the value of the dollar on world markets.

“An Indian delegation visited Tehran last week to discuss payment options in view of the new sanctions. The two sides were reported to have agreed that payment for the oil purchased would be partly in yen and partly in rupees. The switch to gold was kept [in the] dark,” the report stated.

India is Iran's second largest customer after China, and purchases around USD 12-billion-a-year worth of Iranian crude, or about 12 percent of its consumption.

Delhi is to execute its transactions, the report said, through two state-owned banks: the Calcutta-based UCO Bank, whose board of directors is made up of the Indian government, the Reserve Bank of India representatives, and Halk Bankasi (Peoples Bank) -- Turkey's seventh largest bank which is owned by the government.

US President Barack Obama signed into law, on December 31, 2011, new sanctions which seek to penalize other countries for importing Iran's oil or doing transaction with Islamic Republic's Central Bank.

Foreign ministers of the European Union also imposed sanctions on Iran's oil imports over the country's peaceful nuclear program during their Monday meeting in Brussels.

The sanctions involve an immediate ban on all new oil contracts with Iran and a freeze on the assets of the country's Central Bank within the EU.

Tehran has warned that the embargo will have negative consequences, such as increasing the oil price.

Iran India trade

2012-01-23T17:42:00.002+07:00

.
.
.
.
India, Iran to trade oil in rupees

By Presstv.com

Iran and India have agreed to settle part of their annual USD 12-billion oil trade in rupees as a means of circumventing new US sanctions against Iran's oil and financial sectors.

An Indian government source told Reuters that the two countries have been using a Turkish bank as intermediary to settle part of the payment for more than a year but still face problems in paying for Iran's oil.

"[In the new system,] the Central Bank of Iran will open an account with an Indian bank for receiving the payment…. The system will start working soon,” the source who spoke on condition of anonymity added.

The source did not specify the name of the Indian bank, but other sources have said that Iran could open an account with India's UCO Bank as it does not have any US ties.

Indian refiners began using Turkey's Halkbank in July 2011 to pay for Iranian oil but this route could be vulnerable to the new US measures.

The source, however, added that in addition to rupee payments, Indian refiners will continue to make payments through the current mechanism using Halkbank "as long as it continues."

An Indian delegation was in Tehran this week, discussing possible payment options. The source continued that the decision to pay in rupees was made after a meeting there.

The government source went on to say that Iran has agreed to step up imports from India, which added up to some USD 2.7 billion in 2010-11 and including rice and tea.

(Iran may export up to $110 billion worth of petroleum products and $40 billion worth of non-oil exports for financial year ending in March 30th 2012, HOWEVER for the same period imports will only be a meager $60 billion. This is not balanced International trade.....which encourages greater FAIR TRADE between Iran and its strategic trading partners such as China, and India. Iran needs to boost spending in huge strategic projects in INFRASTRUCTURE and INDUSTRY which should boost the Iranian economy without putting inflationary pressure, and provide more jobs, and real economic growth with help from China, India, South Korea and Japan.......after all there is only so much rice and tea Iran can import from India, or clothes/toys from China)

"This will cushion them (Iran) to some extent from exchange rate volatility," the source added.

India is the world's fourth-largest oil consumer country which supplies about 12% of its oil imports, or 350,000-400,000 barrels per day, from Iran. This makes the country, Tehran's second-biggest oil customer after China.

The US and its European allies accuse Iran of having a covert military nuclear program and have convinced the UN Security Council to pass four rounds of sanctions against the country.

On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed into law new sanctions which aim to penalize countries dealing with Iran's Central Bank or importing Iran's crude.

Tehran has vehemently rejected the accusations saying that as signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty it has full right to peaceful use of the nuclear energy.

Iran China oil trade

2012-01-22T21:02:00.004+07:00

.
.
.
.
Perhaps Iran can sell some of Syria's oil also. After all oil is oil.

_________________________

China oil imports from Iran up by 30%

By Presstv.com

China's General Administration of Customs announced on Saturday that the figure shows the world's second largest economy traded in nearly 557,000 barrels of oil from Iran on a daily basis last year, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Customs data showed that China's full-year crude imports totaled 253.78 million metric tons, up by 6.1 percent in 2011.

China's overall crude imports for December 2011 stood at 21.92 million metric tons, up 5.1 percent in comparison with the same period in the previous year.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said on January 19 that his country would continue oil trade with Iran in defiance of proposed US and European sanctions which aim to stop Iran's oil exports.

Speaking to reporters during the last leg of his Persian Gulf tour in the Qatari capital, Doha, Wen said Beijing would continue normal trade relations with Tehran while supporting UN Security Council resolutions on Iran's nuclear issue.

"China's oil trade with Iran is a normal commercial activity," he added.

China's prime minister said, "I believe that China is not the only country to buy oil from Iran... Legitimate trade has to be protected if global economic chaos is to be avoided."

He also underlined his country's firm opposition to development and possession of nuclear weapons by any country, calling for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

China's rapid growth in recent years has seen a surge in demand for oil in the country.

Assad's Secular Socialist Syria is fighting Eretz Israel through USA/NATO and Doenme Turkey

2012-01-21T13:33:00.004+07:00

.
.

.
Philip Giraldi is a former CIA analyst who takes a critical position of the USA's expensive, illegal, worthless wars for Avahat Eretz Israel.(Though he does not explicitly identify the ultimate objective of Avahat Eretz Israel, or why the JEWSA goes to so much trouble for such an objective)

Syria's options are simple given the objectives outlined by the writer below by the NATO/USA for Israel, against Assad's Syria.

(i) Seal the border between Turkey/Syria, with electrified fences and mines. Russia has expertise in this area, and the capacity to build effective border control entities/structures. Russia/Iran have the funds....Syria has the manpower.

(ii) Station at least 200,000 security personnel on the Syrian/Turkish border. Police, paramilitary and army.

(iii) Install watch towers on the border.

(iv) Install movement activated lights on the Syrian/Turkish border.

(v) Install listening devices near the Syrian Turkish border.

(vi) Do likewise on the Mediterranean coast, and the Lebanese border.

(vii) Expel all Westerners from Syria.

The funding for this project could be $10 billion but Russia, Iran and Syria have the money to undertake it.

Let NATO/USA know that Syria means business, and is serious.

________________________

NATO vs. Syria

By Philip Giraldi at the American Conservative.

Americans should be concerned about what is happening in Syria, if only because it threatens to become another undeclared war like Libya but much, much worse.

Calls for regime change have come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who several weeks ago predicted a civil war. That is indeed likely if the largely secular and nationalist regime of Bashar al-Assad falls, pitting Sunni against Shia against Alawite. Indigenous Christians will be caught in the meat grinder. Ironically, many of the Christians in Damascus are Iraqis who experienced the last round of liberation in their own country and had to flee for their lives.

NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict, with Turkey taking the lead as U.S. proxy. Ankara’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davitoglu, has openly admitted that his country is prepared to invade as soon as there is agreement among the Western allies to do so. The intervention would be based on humanitarian principles, to defend the civilian population based on the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was invoked to justify Libya. Turkish sources suggest that intervention would start with creation of a buffer zone along the Turkish-Syrian border and then be expanded. Aleppo, Syria’s largest and most cosmopolitan city, would be the crown jewel targeted by liberation forces.

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

CIA analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The Agency has refused to sign off on the claims. Likewise, accounts of mass defections from the Syrian Army and pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently. Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained, and financed by foreign governments are more true than false.

In the United States, many friends of Israel are on the Assad regime-change bandwagon, believing that a weakened Syria, divided by civil war, will present no threat to Tel Aviv. But they should think again, as these developments have a way of turning on their head. The best organized and funded opposition political movement in Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Assad's Secular Socialist Syria

2012-01-20T17:46:00.009+07:00

.
.
.
.
And so "al-CIA-duh" rebels posing as ardent righteous patriots commit terrorism in Syria from the safe haven of Doenme Turkey. They are backed by NATO forces who direct them, as they did in Libya recently.

The JEWSA directed objective is to install a militant Wahabi Sunni based "al-CIA-duh" type of government in Damascus, as they are doing in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. This is a long PROCESS where by many Middle-East countries will have "al-CIA-duh' affiliated governments, leaving Israel as the only pure Democracy.........remember this is a LONG PROCESS....planned many years ago. Thereafter these "al-CIA-duh" run states will have to be attacked directly by USA/NATO forces to "protect" Israel........Twisted logic? Not really, if you are dreaming of Avahat Erezt Israel.

In Syria ethnicity cannot be used to divide and rule the country, as in Libya (dark skinned Libyans against light skinned Libyans....Eastern Libyan tribal groups verses Western Libyans), and so religion will be used.

In Syria there are Sunni Muslims, Alawite Muslims (branch of Shia Islam.....hence why Syria has close relations with Shia Iran, and Shia Hezbollah), Christians and Druze.

Baathist Socialism under the Assad's have suppressed any religious extremism......indeed in Homs and Hama in 1982, when Western funded Muslim Brotherhood members attempted an uprising they were brutally suppressed, resulting in the death of 20--30,000 people in those two cities. Assad in that sense has a long way to go, before he surpasses his fathers record.

The elite around Assad are Alawite and are a minority propagated by the colonial French originally.

Should Bashar al-Assad lose to "al-CIA-duh" backed by NATO/USA power, then it will be a catastrophe for the country in the manner of Iraq after the USA occupied the country, viciously, maliciously and criminally. Targeted groups for massacre would be:

(i) Ba-athist members of the ruling party, tens of thousands of men and women, educated, middle class and skilled. This is what happened in Iraq, under American control.

(ii) Syrian Christians, among the oldest Christian groups......in the manner of Iraq where the country's once proud one million Christian community has been decimated into forced exile all over the world.....whilst the country was under USA control. "al-CIA-duh" will ensure their cleansing from Syria, where they have lived for 2000 years.

The Assyrians/Syriacs are significant ethnic Christian minorities that mainly live in the north and northeast (al-Qamishli, al-Hasakah) and number around 877,000–1,200,000 in Syria.

Armenians number approximately 190,000. Syria holds the 7th largest Armenian population in the world.

(iii) The next targeted group will obviously be the Alawites, ALL 3.5 million of them. They will not be tolerated in the new "al-CIA-duh" Salafist Wahabi Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Syria. No compromise for them.

(iv) The next targeted group will be the secular middle class intellectuals, and technocratic class.....many of them still believe in Socialism, many do not. But the main thing is they do not believe in theocratic states. As with Mullah Iran, with its 5 million Iranian emigres, and the destroyed technocratic class of Iraq, the same will be repeated in Syria.....GUARANTEED.

(v) Then finally the Druze will be targeted, since they are not considered Muslims.

Druze number around 700,000, and concentrate mainly in the southern area of Jabal al-Druze.

This millenia's old cosmopolitan society will be uprooted and destroyed to satisfy the lust for empire of the Jew, through the fifth column front of "al-CIA-duh" and criminal NATO/USA forces.

A lot more good people will die in Syria if the "al-CIA-duh" come to power through the backing of NATO/USA.

Remember only 10,000 mostly Iraqi soldiers died when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003, BUT under 8 years of occupation by the USA with the arrival of "al-CIA-duh" in the scene, allegedly 1.5 million people have died, and 5 million have become internal and external exiles in Iraq.

Despite the hysteria of the BBC, very few people died in the Iranian uprising of 1978-79 backed by the USA/UK.....a few hundred at most. Since 1979, maybe 1 million Iranians have died through unnecessary wars, internal political wars, and the application of very harsh theocratic laws in the country. 5 million good educated skilled Iranians have elected to leave their country.

I suppose its all too obvious a point, but Bashar al-Assad must fight fight fight for his country, and for his people. ..........because what will come under "al-CIA-duh" will be catastrophic for the country. Better to lose 5,000---50,000 people battling "al-CIA-duh" and NATO-USA forces NOW, then losing 500,000--5,000,000 LATER under the control of "al-CIA-duh" with Israeli, American and NATO forces crawling ALL over the country in support of the "al-CIA-duh" regime (Libya).

"al-CIA-duh" in power in Damascus will be a perfect foil for repeated Israeli raids into the country in the manner of Hezbollah Lebanon, and Hamas Gaza.

Syria must find clear credible allies such as Russia, Iran and China.

Syria needs to enter into secret agreements where by its embargoed oil is sold via Russia and Iran......400,000 barrels is but a drop in the international petroleum market but its revenue will be a Godsend to the Assad regime.

If USA/NATO forces can be stationed near Syria in Doenme Turkey, why can't Russia and Iran station thousands of troops supporting the Syrian army, fighting 'al-CIA-duh"?

Can Syrian intelligence infiltrate, and follow rebel forces into Turkey, Lebanon? How difficult can it be? Can Kurdish groups be trained to attack Turkey?

In all events Bashar al-Assad should not think of exiling himself to the Gulf. He must serve his country's people against the International criminals and terrorists.

___________________

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media

Assad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war

By Jonathan Steele in the Guardian and information Clearing House.

Suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favour of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news? Especially as the finding would go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis, and the media considers the unexpected more newsworthy than the obvious.

Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad – the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene – so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go.

The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a specter that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll.

Biased media coverage also continues to distort the Arab League's observer mission in Syria. When the league endorsed a no-fly zone in Libya last spring, there was high praise in the west for its action. Its decision to mediate in Syria was less welcome to western governments, and to high-profile Syrian opposition groups, who increasingly support a military rather than a political solution. So the league's move was promptly called into doubt by western leaders, and most western media echoed the line. Attacks were launched on the credentials of the mission's Sudanese chairman. Criticisms of the mission's performance by one of its 165 members were headlined. Demands were made that the mission pull out in favor of UN intervention.

The critics presumably feared that the Arab observers would report that armed violence is no longer confined to the regime's forces, and the image of peaceful protests brutally suppressed by army and police is false. Homs and a few other Syrian cities are becoming like Beirut in the 1980s or Sarajevo in the 1990s, with battles between militias raging across sectarian and ethnic fault lines.
As for foreign military intervention, it has already started. It is not following the Libyan pattern since Russia and China are furious at the west's deception in the security council last year. They will not accept a new United Nations resolution that allows any use of force. The model is an older one, going back to the era of the cold war, before "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" were developed and often misused. Remember Ronald Reagan's support for the Contras, whom he armed and trained to try to topple Nicaragua's Sandinistas from bases in Honduras? For Honduras read Turkey, the safe haven where the so-called Free Syrian Army has set up.

Here too western media silence is dramatic. No reporters have followed up on a significant recent article by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who now writes for the American Conservative – a magazine that criticises the American military-industrial complex from a non-neocon position on the lines of Ron Paul, who came second in last week's New Hampshire Republican primary. Giraldi states that Turkey, a Nato member, has become Washington's proxy and that unmarked Nato warplanes have been arriving at Iskenderum, near the Syrian border, delivering Libyan volunteers and weapons seized from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenal. "French and British special forces trainers are on the ground," he writes, "assisting the Syrian rebels, while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers …"

As the danger of full-scale war increases, Arab League foreign ministers are preparing to meet in Cairo this weekend to discuss the future of their Syrian mission. No doubt there will be western media reports highlighting remarks by those ministers who feel the mission has "lost credibility", "been duped by the regime" or "failed to stop the violence". Counter-arguments will be played down or suppressed.

In spite of the provocations from all sides the league should stand its ground. Its mission in Syria has seen peaceful demonstrations both for and against the regime. It has witnessed, and in some cases suffered from, violence by opposing forces. But it has not yet had enough time or a large enough team to talk to a comprehensive range of Syrian actors and then come up with a clear set of recommendations. Above all, it has not even started to fulfill that part of its mandate requiring it to help produce a dialogue between the regime and its critics. The mission needs to stay in Syria and not be bullied out.

It can't work

2012-01-19T17:16:00.005+07:00

.
.
.
.
This is a tricky one, but one that I roughly endorsed back in late 2005, and conveyed to Iranian publishers, but got no response.

Iran faces many problems and the nuclear issue is a distraction to these challenges of the state.

The full potential of nuclear power for Iran is a long way off, by which time hydrogen power and other forms of alternative power may become more commercially viable and attractive. The Iranian state no doubt is already exploring these alternative options now.....Solar power, hydrogen power...etc.

Nuclear power, with the tragedy of Japan has acquired a poor reputation, and is not seen as such a cheap and clean source of power as before.

Abundant oil and gas will always be available for Iran, since oil and gas are natural minerals which are chemically produced by the earth, and thus not finite. Iran with its $930 billion PPP economy uses but a small proportion of its oil and gas resources, which is exploited with outdated capital equipment badly in need of significant capital investment.

Strategically speaking, beyond specific scientific and medical requirements, Iran is not badly in need of a civilian nuclear power sector. Kissinger and other high powered Republicans merely persuaded the last Shah to go for an expensive $90 billion civilian nuclear program because of the lobby activity of the USA nuclear industry, AND poorly/falsely? researched arguments that Iran's oil would run out by the year 2000 from the USA(Peak Oil).............the mullahs merely reinstated that program, in a far more modest scale than the last Shah, from the late 1980's, after initially shutting it down in 1979.

The nuclear program in Iran belongs to the Shah, and his legacy, the Republicans and America's nuclear industry.

On the other hand tiny geographical strip Israel is on a mission led by a minority in its security apparatus, for a fantasy called "Ahavat Eretz Israel"..........Iran in any shape or form might thus be a threat to that eventual desired outcome within Israel's security perceptions and goals.

The legitimate civilian nuclear issue is thus a mere platform on which to pick a fight with Iran, using the services of the USA. Attacking Iran, destroying Iran, dividing Iran. The process began in the late 1970's when the mullahs were brought into power by the USA/UK.......the result of which has since seriously de-legitimated the country especially in the West.

One thinks even if the mullahs were to shut down the modest civilian nuclear program now, tiny geographical strip Israel would find other excuses to pick a fight with mullah Iran......using the services of their Western networks, because as the writer below correctly surmises the real issue for Israel is not Iran's peaceful, legal, nuclear program, but Israel's desire to create Ahavat Eretz Israel, and thus become the undisputed geographical empire smack bang in the Middle East......surrounded by permanently destabilized quasi-states at war within, Somalia like.

To reinforce this fact, the fifth column of Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran is backed by a significant core of senior secret Jews within the state structure of Iran, who would ensure Israel's extremist strategic requirements were met and followed by mullah Iran to the strategic detriment of Iran.......as argued by me, before:

(i) Who is but Jew Ahmedinejad who shouts the loudest about Iran's nuclear rights, and the country's desire to acquire 20 more civilian nuclear reactors. At International platforms, for Israel, in the UN and around the world where he repeats this national slogan, whereas he should be explanation the very modest nature of Iran's civilian nuclear program, and the fact that it is closely monitored by the IAEA........through simple diplomatic language, and not firey rhetoric. Instead of deescalating he escalates the issue in tandem with the Western Jewish media. Then he makes firey speeches against Israel, even though the common people have elected him to solve the country's dire economic problems.

(ii) It is the drive of the secret Jews in Iran for ISRAEL who wish to block the straights of Hormuz, even though strategically it does not make sense from Iran's real point of view. Iran's real defense lye's in defending the Iranian landmass using the army, revolutionary guards and air-force, and its cities, and its strategic sites in Iran.

Also having shouted about the rights of every nation to have civilian nuclear power for so long, and allowed the IAEA to monitor some pretty sensitive security sights in Iran for Israel for 8 years, it may be difficult for the mullahs........mediocre, directed and stupid as they are to accept that they really don't need nuclear power after all in order to develop and become more prosperous.(my arguments submitted to them in 2005)

As argued more diplomatically back then, running a banana republic economy on the verge of collapse and being destroyed significantly by the USA for Israel is not worth the cost of having, or baring a minuscule civilian nuclear program which for many years will account for a small percentage of Iran's total power generation.

But the international platform is run by men who wave their willies, and where people do stupid things based on their ego's, fantasy and often criminality.

Not logic certainly.

________________________

How Iran Could Whip the United States and Israel Without Firing a Single Shot

By Mark R. Crovelli at Lew Rockwell and information clearing House.

To the outside observer, the intensifying conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran (along with some lesser bellicose nations, like Britain) may appear like a classic "prisoner’s dilemma." The best option for both sides seems to be to pacify their domestic constituencies by escalating the conflict, which will ensure the worst possible outcome. The Israeli right-wing government is seemingly beholden to its extremist and terrorist voting blocs, while the American government is seemingly fenced in by the Israel lobby, neoconservative candidates vying for the imperial throne, the US empire and merchants of death, and the Israeli government itself. Meanwhile, the semi-totalitarian Iranian government is seemingly obliged to "stand up" to the aggressive Americans and their "Zionist client state," lest it be seen as "soft" or "weak" by its own citizens.

As in a classic prisoner’s dilemma, both sides are ostensibly ensuring the worst possible outcome by focusing on their own domestic political agendas at the expense of the bigger picture and saner solutions.

If this conflict did indeed represent a classic prisoner’s dilemma, we would have little reason to think that the conflict will not worsen dramatically in the future. We would have to assume that both sides would continue to escalate the conflict to a point from which it would be completely impossible to pull back. World War III would be virtually assured.

Fortunately, however, the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran is not a prisoner’s dilemma situation, because the Iranians hold a trump card that they can eventually use to unequivocally "win" the conflict. The trump card that the Iranians hold, and one prays that they are aware that they hold this card, is to completely dump their nuclear program.

Before you guffaw or snort at this suggestion, recall that this conflict between the Americans and Israelis on the one hand and the Iranians on the other is not about nuclear power or nuclear weapons. As the American intelligence agencies and the American government itself have assured us, to say nothing of the IAEA’s redundant assurances, there is absolutely no evidence that the Iranians are currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. Nor is the Iranian government an "existential threat" to Israel even if it did acquire nuclear weapons, as even the head former head of the Mossad has assured us. Nor still is there any need for the United States to aid in the defense of Israel, as Benjamin Netanyahu himself informed the American congress.

Bearing all this in mind, the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Instead, the pointless conflict is all about cold, hard political power in the Middle East, with the Israelis hoping to secure a vice-like grip on the region.

The Iranian government itself is surely aware of this, and you can bet your last dollar that the Iranian people are aware of it too. The media in Iran is run by the government, which means that the government has undoubtedly informed the Iranian people that it is complying with IAEA regulations and that even the American intelligence agencies say that the Iranian government is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Why should the Iranian people doubt the sincerity of the Iranian government’s pleas of innocence, when even the IAEA and American intelligence agencies assure them that the Iranian government is not pursuing nuclear weapons? More importantly, why should the rest of the Islamic world doubt the sincerity of the Iranian government’s pleas of innocence, when even the IAEA and American intelligence agencies assure them that the Iranian government is not pursuing nuclear weapons?

The answer is that they have absolutely no reason to doubt the Iranian government’s sincerity, and therein lies Iran’s trump card in this conflict. The Iranian government will not lose face with the rest of the Islamic world if it decides to terminate its nuclear program completely, as Israel and Washington demand, and diffuse the entire situation. Obama and Netenyahu would be so caught off guard by such a move that peace would be virtually assured, and the reputation of the Iranian government would be magnified a thousand fold in the region. The Iranian government would be viewed as a sane, peaceful and, most importantly, trustworthy government by the rest of the Islamic world.

Instead of toppling their regional rival, the Israelis would find themselves confronting a newly lionized giant. Forget the Arab Spring of 2011; the Iranian Spring of 2012 would transform the world.

The Americans and their European underlings would have little reason to continue their unjust and bellicose sanctions if the Iranians did precisely what was demanded of them. Continuation of the sanctions would only appear to be unjust and Iraq-like meddling in the Islamic world in the arrogant hope of "regime change" for Washington and Tel Aviv’s benefit. The reversal of sanctions, on the other hand, would almost instantaneously revive Iran’s economy, as petrodollars once again flooded the economy. Hillary Clinton and her chickenhawk confreres would no doubt still whine that the Iranians don’t "recognize" Israel, (as if it matters to the nuclear-armed Israelis whether another country "recognizes" them, whatever that even means), but poor Hillary would be at a complete loss as to what else to do.

For the sake of the entire world, especially including the hapless citizens if Iran, Israel, and the United States, one can only pray that the Iranians are politically savvy enough to recognize that they can win this conflict without even firing a shot. They don’t need to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, and they don’t need to fire a single Silkworm missile at an American aircraft carrier. All they need to do is shut down their nuclear programs in toto, and they will emerge from this conflict as the dominant and respected regional power of the Middle East.

Most importantly, they will thereby avert World War III and the spilling of much innocent blood.

International criminal nexus.

2012-01-19T16:58:00.001+07:00

.
.
.
.

CHARLES TAYLOR WORKED FOR THE PENTAGON by aangirfan

Child soldier from Liberia

From the early 1980s onwards, Charles Taylor worked for the USA's Defence Intelligence Agency.

In January 2012, this was confirmed by the Pentagon, thanks to a Freedom of Information request from the Boston Globe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088010/Former-Liberian-dictator-Charles-Taylor-worked-U-S-intelligence-Africas-notorious-warlord.html#ixzz1jnYsRGR9

Taylor, former president of Liberia, is linked to the financing of 9 11.

At least two of these people are said to be spooks: Jemima Khan, Imran Khan, Naomi Campbell, Charles Taylor, Nelson Mandela, Gracha Machel, Quincy Jones, Mia Farrow and Tony Leung

Al Qaeda and Taylor worked together in the African diamond trade.

They raised millions of dollars for terrorist activities, according to UN war crimes documents. (Liberia's Taylor gave aid to Qaeda, UN probe finds - The Boston Globe)

"Taylor ... was a business partner with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson...

"According to British and Israeli intelligence sources, Taylor enabled Al Qaeda to launder blood diamonds for cash through Liberia...

"Taylor and Victor Bout had powerful interests in the United States: a combination of the Christian Right and ... organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), both of which ignored and continue to ignore Israeli organized crime connections to Al Qaeda and terrorism." (WHO SELLS THE WEAPONS OF WAR?)

Liberia is run by the CIA and Pentagon, reportedly.

Website for this image

Arnt Breivik was the World Food Programme's Country Director in Liberia. (Cached)

Anders Breivik reportedly visited a Serbian 'crusader commander' in Monrovia, Liberia.

There he reportedly joined the Knights Templar, who 'are planning attacks in Europe'.

(From liberal roots to extremist massacre)

Allegedly, over nine years, he was involved in writing, planning, weapons procurement and bomb-making - without arousing suspicion.

Reportedly, he mentions plans to celebrate completion of his operation by enjoying the company of high-class prostitutes.

(From liberal roots to extremist massacre )

LIBERIA?

The Embassy Bombings are linked to Liberia.

AHMED GHAILANI was reported to have been in the Liberian capital, Monrovia, in 2001, with another suspect in the embassy bombings, a Kenyan man Fazul Abdullah Mohammed.

(Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani profile)

The UK's Observer newspaper (Bin Laden's $20m African 'blood diamond' deals.) reported in 2002 that the two men allegedly ran an al-Qaeda/CIA financing operation, trading "blood diamonds".

Reportedly, Ghailani and Mohammed were lavishing money on women and alcohol.

Liberia was run by Charles Taylor who was said to be a friend of the CIA and a friend of al Qaeda.

LIBERIA is an important base for the CIA and its friends.

"Victor Bout was Liberian dictator Charles Taylor's primary arms and diamond smuggler.

"Bout and his associates were given Liberian diplomatic passports and, with Taylor's blessing and protection, they registered a number of their front companies in Monrovia, the Liberian capital.

"Taylor ... was a business partner with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson...

"According to British and Israeli intelligence sources, Taylor also enabled Al Qaeda to launder blood diamonds for cash through Liberia.

Liberia

"Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone were where Israeli mobsters engaged in business ... under the full protection of the Israeli Likud government.

"Before Likud began purging Mossad of experienced intelligence officers with ties to the Israeli Labor Party, the Israeli-Al Qaeda diamond financial connection in West Africa was being pointed out by those officers as suicidal for Israeli interests.

"However, Taylor and Bout had powerful interests in the United States: a combination of the Christian Right and pro-Likud organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), both of which ignored and continue to ignore Israeli organized crime connections to Al Qaeda and terrorism."

(aangirfan: WHO SELLS THE WEAPONS OF WAR?)

So, they are all friends - the Pentagon, al Qaeda, the Jewish Mafia, the Christian Right, various tyrants?

A Coup is not the answer.

2012-01-18T18:07:00.005+07:00

.
.
.
.

With military dictators a country will get more of the same...military men are terribly narrow minded and single tracked, and don't have the imagination to solve the overall problems of the state. In Pakistan it is made worse by the top brasses naive, child like deference for gora sahib "Kuta whisperers".

Pakistan since 1951, when phase I of the military coup was conducted, has since become an awfully complicated country (Phase II 1954, Phase III 1958--full take-over). In 1951 the population was 33 million, largely rural illiterate people........allied with the zamindars these villagers could easily be managed with any amount of BS. In 2012 the population is 190 million with an urban population of 70 million plus, with a significant critical middle class, living in a complex good/bad cosmopolitan society (Karachi 16 million, Lahore 8 million, Peshawar 3.5 million)......for the simple minded "acha gora sahib" generals that is a far greater challenge than it ever was.

Also what is important to remember is that the "acha gora sahib" generals have created many problems around Pakistan, mainly related to the backing of Islamist fundamentalists. At present a civilian government provides a soft cushion on which a good deal of accountability and criticisms is leveled at internationally from the blow back of such policies, instead of the fingers being pointed at the true perpetrators of these neighborly problems.......the Pakistan military. Example: When the terrorist Jundallah organization backed by the CIA and Pakistan military carried out ops in Iran, killing their security men, it was the PPP's civilian officials who were left to calm and explain the situation with the Iranian government..........AND so with Afghanistan, with China, with India.

With civilian governments you also might get crap governments (Zardari bhen), but on occasions you might strike lucky and a Lee Kwan Yew/Mahatir type of effective administration. Which then changes everything for the country.

Civilian governments are also theoretically far more accountable to the public then military governments which cover themselves intellectually and legally with bland platforms of national security.

____________________________

Five reasons why the army won't take over Pakistan

Gunga Din serving gora sahib and GWoT.

By Reza Sayah, CNN and antiwar.com

Pakistan is facing its most serious political crisis in years, with rapidly escalating conflicts between the civilian government, the military and the judiciary, against the backdrop of a faltering economy, widespread poverty, corruption and the bloody war with Islamist militant groups.

The country was founded in 1947 as a democracy, but in times of crisis the army -- Pakistan's most powerful institution -- has overthrown the civilian government on the grounds that the leadership had been unfit and corrupt.

(destabilizing conditions initially created by the Pakistani military themselves, with guidance from the gora run ISI (Books by Shareen Mazari).......what was that episode in 2009 where 3000 Swat Taliban were going to over run Islamabad armed with nothing more than AK-47, and radios supplied by the Pakistani military.....classic destabilizing ops. The manner of which exists in many countries)

Rumors of another coup have been swirling around the current crisis -- but analysts say a military takeover is highly unlikely this time around. Here are five reasons why:

1. The people won't support a military take over

Pakistanis support a strong military for defense and security-related issues, but analysts say a history of failed military dictators has sapped much of the public's confidence in the army's ability to solve Pakistan's political problems.

The reigns of military leaders like Generals Ayub Khan, Zia Ul Haq, and, most recently, Pervez Musharraf, were plagued by accusations of corruption and ineffective leadership.

"It has become far more difficult for a military takeover to take place because of public opinion," says Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, the head of Pakistan's Institute for Legislative Development and Transparency, an Islamabad-based political think thank.

"There is a strong consensus against a military takeover among the Pakistani people. Right now, all the public criticism is aimed at the civilian government. If the military takes over, the criticism will be directed at the military and that's something they don't want."

Retired army Major General Jamshed Ayaz Khan says the Pakistani people are fed up with current civilian leadership, but they don't think the army is the answer.

"They don't want to go back to an old system that has never worked," he says.

2. A vibrant Pakistani news media is watching

One of Pakistan's internationally less-known features is its fiery and remarkably free news media that acts as this fragile democracy's watchdog. A free press is only a decade-old concept in Pakistan but it has already emerged as a powerful player in Pakistani politics.

At most hours of the day, Pakistanis can watch any one of dozens of 24-hour news networks, analyze the current political situation with reporters who hound politicians and catch up with newscasts that feature screaming debates and gaudy visual effects designed to make viewers stop and watch.

(They out do Fox News even.....with dramatic background music whilst reporting)

It's not all positive news: Six journalists were killed in 2006, according to the Pakistan Press Foundation. Meanwhile the activist group Reporters Without Borders calls Pakistan one of the most dangerous places for journalists, with news personnel often being intimidated in the course of their work.

(Ranging from Psychological harassment, to death threats, and beatings by masked plain clothes security men)

Still, analysts say, the army will be answerable to the media in case of a coup. "The media is a big factor," says Mehboob. "We have already seen how the media is strongly questioning some of the actions taken by the military. If the military stages a coup there will be far more criticism from the media than any time in the past."

"It has become far more difficult for a military takeover to take place because of public opinion. There is a strong consensus against a military takeover among the Pakistani people" Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, head of the Institute for Legislative Development and Transparency.

(The military have also been de-legitimated significantly by various recent events which have called into question their claim to be ultimate and very necessary custodian of Pakistan's national security........Abbottabad raid, drone attacks......their inability to control them, the Mehran naval base attack.....

Sadly it seems the Pakistan military have decided to continue cooperating with the USA with the drone attacks which kill innocent Pakistani civilians on sovereign Pakistani soil)

3. An independent judiciary is watching

In previous coups, Pakistan's military leaders have managed to strong-arm Pakistan's judiciary into supporting army takeovers. Analysts say Pakistan's current judiciary -- led by a chief justice who was suspended in 2007 by Musharraf but later reinstated -- won't back down from a confrontation with the army.

"The Supreme Court used to lend legitimacy to such efforts by the military, but that's no longer available to the army," Mehboob tells CNN.

4. Pakistan's allies won't support a coup

Foreign powers, like the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, hold considerable influence over Pakistan because of economic, political and military support. That's in spite of high tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan in recent months, following the American raid into Pakistan in May 2011 that killed Osama bin laden.

Still, analysts say, Pakistan's allies would view a military coup as destabilizing to the region and threatening to the fragile peace process in Afghanistan.

"The U.S. is watching and they don't want a military takeover in Pakistan," says Khan. "I think they'll step in to do all they can to convince the army a coup is not the answer."

5. The army has better options than a coup

Much of the speculation about a possible coup stems from the perception that the army's leadership doesn't like Pakistani President Azif Ali Zardari and wants him out.

Tensions between Zardari and the army escalated after the Memogate scandal -- an allegation that the government sent a secret memo to Washington calling for help to curb the military's power, an accusation the government denies.

Analysts say that if the army wants Zardari out, then there are safer and more practical options than a coup.

The Supreme Court is investigating Memogate and pushing for the government to pursue old corruption charges against Zardari. A ruling against the president would leave him too isolated to hold on to power, analysts say.

Another option would be for the army to behave like the armed forces of a democracy by waiting for next year's elections and letting the Pakistani people decide Zardari's fate with their votes.

Gilani should relent on fresh elections quickly.

2012-01-18T17:15:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.
Understandable given the history of USA/Pak relations since 1954 that high profile American officials should not be allowed into the country at such a delicate juncture.

The USA broadly has sided with the USA/UK trained generals to the detriment of civilian government rule. Any such visit now could be misconstrued and wrongly interpreted by any number of fringe flaky fractions within Pakistan's vast security apparatus, itching to act against the nascent civilian government.............any signal.......or perceived signal.......color codes, hand gestures, words uttered by the official, finely examined subsequently. The Fun for the fringe flaky fractions within Pakistan's vast security apparatus is thus finding the "clues" for such action from the USA, without looking at the overall strategic outcome of subsequent negative action on their country.

Unfortunately that is what American influence does negatively to a Third World country very often. The State becomes subverted, and the security once under American cooperative training looks to the USA as a mentor and guiding leader.

Quite frankly the embattled civilian government of Pakistan doesn't need that from a visiting Jew high official from the Obummer administration, RIGHT NOW. Pakistan the nation state also doesn't need it.

On the other hand Gilani has been in power for four years, brought into government by the USA, via the services of the ISI and fixed elections in 2008. The USA correctly calculated that a criminal amoral civilian government under Zardari bhen would be more receptive to their orders than Mossad Busharaf who had been in power for nine years. In these four years Pakistan has been a failed state, which has experienced major problems politically, economically, socially, ethnically and in the arena of security. Zardari bhen not surprisingly hasn't shown a spark of good leadership in these four troubled years, and is widely considered both within Pakistan and outside to be wholly ineffective and corrupt as President.

After all that we have the Memogate saga which points treasonous fingers at the presiding government, and an existing reputation for massive "Lets loot the state coffers" corruption involving $ billions of the country's money.

Given all this you'd think the present tottering PPP government with nothing to show for in terms of achievement in fours would be relieved to have broken the previous three year tenure record of former civilian governments under Benazir and Sharif.

But no. Gilani is showing fine kuta qualities in sticking to power, where as wiser counsels might advise him to call for quick early elections, and then stand in opposition in parliament, subsequently, reorganizing his party there after. This would at least reinforce the nascent democratic system in Pakistan.

But in Pakistan, its a policy of once in power always in power.......no graceful exits either for the military, or for civilian governments, EVEN when overall turn of events suggest otherwise. I mean look at Mossad Busharf seeking to come back to power.

_________________________

Situation Deteriorates, Pakistan Tells US Envoy to Stay Away

Officials Say Grossman Visit Would Be 'Inconvenient'

by Jason Ditz, antiwar.com

The US State Department is reporting today that a request to allow Special Envoy Marc Grossman to visit Pakistan has been turned down by the Pakistani government, citing the “prevailing situation” in the nation.

The exact “why” of this rejection has been the subject of considerable speculation, with some suggesting the move is a function of the strained relationship between the US and Pakistan since the November attack on Pakistani military bases by US warplanes.

But Pakistan’s official rejection said the timing of the visit would be “inconvenient,” suggesting it might be more a function of the deteriorating internal political situation than the long-standing gripes with the US.

Later this week, Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani will appear before the Supreme Court, which has filed contempt charges against him. If convicted he would not only be removed from office but could be jailed.

Scotland the free and brave.

2012-01-16T18:55:00.002+07:00

.
.
.
.
In Jewish run UK true human talent is not exploited or rewarded, but frowned upon. Careful social engineering destroys the wider society.

_______________________________

TOP NATION by aangirfan

Elvis Presley had Scottish origins.

Scotland would be the 6th richest country in the world if it had INDEPENDENCE

The revenue from Scotland's oil, over the last several years, amounts to £3.48 trillion.

Over the past 30 years, Scotland has produced more oil than Dubai and Abu Dhabi combined.

Over the past 30 years, Scotland has produced almost as much oil per capita as Saudi Arabia.

Uncle Sam was Scottish.

There is still a lots of oil off the coast of Scotland.

Half the oil is still to come

(SCOTTISH OIL RESERVES EXCEED ESTIMATES / 60% INCREASE IN ESTIMATES OF UNTAPPED OIL .../ Scotland's true oil wealth was hidden to stop independence.)

Each year in Scotland, tourists spend £4.5 billion.

Scotland's whisky exports are worth around £4 billion a year.

Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population, but in 2009-2010 paid 9.4% of the UK tax revenue.

The Scottish government has had budget surpluses, while the London government has been getting ever deeper into debt.

What does the Jewish media say?

According to Melanie Phillips, Jewish journalist and friend of subsidised Israel, "The only way to save the United Kingdom is to stop throwing cash at the Scots."

The Scots, who are a mixture of races, are said to rule the world. (JEWISH SCOTLAND)

So, what have the Scots ever done for us? (The Independent)

Scotland has produced huge numbers of famous thinkers:

Adam Smith author of The Wealth of Nations.

Sir William Paterson who thought up the idea of the Bank of England.

Kirkpatrick Macmillan who invented the bicycle.

Davy Crockett was Scottish

Thomas Telford who designed some of Britain's most famous canals.

Andrew Carnegie, billionaire steel magnate, who built New York's Carnegie Hall.

Glasgow chef Ali Ahmed Aslam who invented chicken tikka masala.

James Clerk Maxwell, a Scot, was one of the world's top scientists. He identified and wrote the equations of the electromagnetic field. That made possible the mobile phone, satellite communications, radio and television.

More famous Scots:

Admiral Thomas Cochrane who was commander of the Chilean navy.

Sir James Simpson who invented chloroform.

James Maxwell who invented colour photography.

Dr Henry Faulds invented fingerprinting.

John Napier invented logarithms.

Dolly the Sheep was invented in Edinburgh.

Life expectancy in some parts of Scotland, such as Calton in Glasgow, is lower than in India. Scotland's wealth is stolen by the rich elite in London.

More famous Scots:

Peter Pan was invented in Scotland by J M Barrie.

Alexander Bain invented the fax machine.

Sir Thomas Lipton invented the World Cup.

Alexander Cummings invented the flush toilet.

George Cleghorn discovered that quinine could cure malaria.

Robert watson-Watt, the inventor of radar, was Scottish.

Scotland invented golf.

Scotland invented gospel singing which led to black gospel music.

More famous Scots:

James Braid was the first, in recent centuries, to experiment with hypnotism.

Alexander Wood invented the hypodermic syringe.

James Watt developed a way of making steam engines efficient, to speed trains along.

Sir David Brewster invented the kaleidoscope.

William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, invented the Kelvin Scale.

King James, of the King James Bible, was Scottish.

Lachlan Rose invented Lime Cordial.

Robert Louis Stevenson and Captain Kidd were Scots.

Alexander Fleming was Scottish.

More famous Scots:

Dick and Mac McDonald who invented McDonald's burgers were of Scots descent.

Robert Watson-Watt developed the magnetron which has led to the microwave.

James Young discovered that by using heat you could distil coal to make paraffin.

Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin.

John Broadwood is credited with developing the piano foot-pedal.

John Boyd Dunlop invented the pneumatic tyre.

James Watt was the first to use a propeller, applied to a steam engine, on board ships.

Robert Watson-Watt invented radar.

Charles Macintosh invented the macintosh.

James Watt was Scottish

More famous Scots:

William Cullen invented the refrigerator.

Elvis's ancestors came from Aberdeenshire.

Dr John Harvey Kellogg, who invented cornflakes, was of Scottish origin.

James Nasmyth invented the power-driven hammer.

William Ged invented the stereotype, a type of printing plate.

John McAdam invented tarmacadam.

Alexander Bell invented the telephone.

Davy Crockett came from Scotland.

Scotsman John Boyd Dunlop invented the inflated rubber tyre.

More famous Scots:

John Logie Baird was the first person to publicly demonstrate a working television system.

Samuel Wilson, America's Uncle Sam, was from Scotland.

John Paul Jones founded America's navy.

Thomas Jefferson was one of 23 American presidents with Scottish or Scots-Irish origins.

Sir James Dewar invented the vacuum flask.

Lord Kelvin, a Scot, played key roles in everything from thermodynamics and electric lighting to transatlantic telecommunication and the age of the Sun.

List of some Scottish Enlightenment thinkers

Robert Adam (1728-1792) architect

James Anderson (1739-1808) agronomist, lawyer, amateur scientist

Joseph Black (1728-1799) physicist and chemist, first to isolate carbon dioxide

Hugh Blair (1718-1800) minister, author

James Boswell (1740-1795) lawyer, author of Life of Johnson

John Logie Baird was Scottish

Thomas Brown (1778–1820), Scottish moral philosopher and philosopher of mind; jointly held the Chair of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh University with Dugald Stewart

James Burnett Lord Monboddo (1714-1799) philosopher, judge, founder of modern comparative historical linguistics

Robert Burns (1759-1796) poet

Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) founder of the Restoration Movement

George Campbell (1719-1796) philosopher of language, theology, and rhetoric

Sir John Clerk of Eldin (1728-1812) prolific artist, author of An Essay on Naval Tactics; great-uncle of James Clerk Maxwell

William Cullen (1710-1790) early medical researcher and chemist

Adam Ferguson (1723-1816) considered the founder of sociology

James Hall, 4th Baronet (1761-1832) geologist, geophysicist

Henry Home, Lord Kames (1696-1782) philosopher, judge, historian

David Hume (1711-1776) philosopher

Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746) philosopher of metaphysics, logic, and ethics

James Hutton (1726–1797) founder of modern geology

Sir John Leslie (1766-1832) mathematician, physicist, investigator of heat (thermodynamics)

John Millar (1735-1801) philosopher, historian, historiographer

John Playfair (1748-1819) mathematician, author of Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth

Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish

Thomas Reid (1710-1796) philosopher, founder of the Scottish School of Common Sense

William Robertson (1721-1793) one of the founders of modern historical research
Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)

William Smellie (1740-1795) editor of the first edition of Encyclopædia Britannica

Adam Smith (1723-1790) whose The Wealth of Nations was the first modern treatise on economics

Dugald Stewart (1753-1828) moral philosopher

John Walker (naturalist) (17310-1803) Natural History Professor

James Watt (1736-1819) student of James Black; engineer, inventor (Watt steam engine)

Israel's dangerous Russian roulette games with mullah Iran

2012-01-15T17:03:00.007+07:00

.
.
.
.

False Flag And Battle Field Preparation?

U.S. Warns Israel on Iran Strike

Officials Lobby Against Attack on Iran as Military Leaders Bolster Defenses

By ADAM ENTOUS,JULIAN E. BARNES and JAY SOLOMON at the WSJ and posted on Information Clearing House.

U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week.

The high-stakes planning and diplomacy comes as U.S. officials warn Tehran, including through what administration officials described Friday as direct messages to Iran's leaders, against provocative actions.

Tehran has warned that it could retaliate to tightened sanctions by blocking oil trade through the Strait of Hormuz. On Thursday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to punish the perpetrators of the assassination—blamed by Iran on the U.S. and Israel—of an Iranian scientist involved in the nuclear program.

The U.S. denied the charge and condemned the attack. Israel hasn't commented.

The U.S. and Iran, however, have taken steps in recent days apparently designed to ease tensions. Iran has agreed to host a delegation of United Nations nuclear inspectors this month. The U.S., meanwhile, has twice this month rescued Iranian sailors in the region's seas.

Covert efforts by Israel's intelligence service to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons have been credited with slowing the program without the high risk of military conflict that could be sparked by an airstrike. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses.

But Israel has declined to rule out a strike, as has the U.S.

"It is the policy of the Israeli government, and the Obama administration, that all options remain on the table. And it is crucial that the ayatollahs in Tehran take this policy seriously," said Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S.

Mr. Netanyahu said in a recent interview that Iran has begun to "wobble," a signal some U.S. officials believe suggests he is willing to follow the current U.S. strategy, which seeks to avoid a military confrontation with Iran.

"Recent comments by the Israelis show they understand how tough the sanctions we've put in place are and are giving them time to work," said a senior Obama administration official.

The U.S. military is preparing for a number of possible responses to an Israeli strike, including assaults by pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, according to U.S. officials.

The U.S. believes its embassy and other diplomatic outposts in Iraq are more vulnerable following the withdrawal of U.S. forces last month. Up to 15,000 U.S. diplomats, federal employees and contractors are expected to remain in Iraq.

In large measure to deter Iran, the U.S. has 15,000 troops in Kuwait, and has moved a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf area.

It has also been pre-positioning aircraft and other military equipment, officials say. Arms transfers to key allies in the Gulf, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, have been fast-tracked as a further deterrent, officials say.

Israeli officials said Mr. Netanyahu's government continues to closely coordinate with the U.S. in responding to the Iranian threat. "Israel believes that heightened sanctions combined with a credible military threat may dissuade the Iranian regime from developing nuclear capabilities," Mr. Oren said.

Mr. Panetta and other top officials have privately sought assurances from Israeli leaders in recent weeks that they won't take military action against Iran. But the Israeli response has been noncommittal, U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials briefed on the military's planning said concern has mounted over the past two years that Israel may strike Iran. But rising tensions with Iran and recent changes at Iranian nuclear sites have ratcheted up the level of U.S. alarm.

"Our concern is heightened," a senior U.S. military official said of the probability of an Israeli strike over U.S. objections.

Tehran crossed at least one of Israel's "red lines" earlier this month when it announced it had begun enriching uranium at the Fordow underground nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom.

The planned closing of Israel's nuclear plant near Dimona this month, which was reported in Israeli media, sounded alarms in Washington, where officials feared it meant Israel was repositioning its own nuclear assets to safeguard them against a potential Iranian counterstrike.

Despite the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, U.S. officials have consistently puzzled over Israeli intentions. "It's hard to know what's bluster and what's not with the Israelis," said a former U.S. official.

Inside the Israeli security establishment, a sort of good cop, bad cop routine, in which Israeli officials rattle sabers amid a U.S. scramble to restrain them, has assumed its own name: "Hold Me Back."

(The problem with "hold me back" is that there are zealous zealot Israeli nutjobs who feel it is their divine duty to fight Iran over its existential threat and non-existent nuclear bomb program--- hence assassination of Iranian scientists by way of one example in Tehran ......surely that can only encourage/force Iran to actually go for nuclear bombs?!

AND at the other end in Iran there are secret Jews within Iran's state structure who would love to oblige Israel's zealot minority (Ahmedinejad----politically it is perceived to be good for them). I thought that was the hidden message of the 24th December to 2nd January military exercises......if you have see all the footage of the exercises held by the Iranian navy and broadcast by Presstv)

Some American intelligence officials complain that Israel represents a blind spot in U.S. intelligence, which devotes little resources to Israel. Some officials have long argued that, given the potential for Israel to drag the U.S. into potentially explosive situations, the U.S. should devote more resources to divining Israel's true intentions.(........and managing them, given that the USA bankrolls the country. Dangerous novel idea that could be tried. It might be a good idea for starters to know in advance ALL THE maneuvers of the Israeli submarines in the Persian Gulf by the Fifth fleet HQ in Doha....and that there should not be any "mis-communication and error" in such an area between the two buddies)

Charles Levinson and Siobhan Gorman contributed to this article.

Managing Iran in an adult fashion

2012-01-15T17:03:00.006+07:00

Israel Framed CIA in Backing Jundallah Terrorists (terrorist ops in Iran's SW)
______________________

US acts to hold Israel back from striking Iran. Their Intel agencies at odds

DEBKAfile and Lex Jones Infowars.com

The bombing attack in Tehran which killed Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan last Wednesday, Jan. 11, generated an angry phone call from US President Barack Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the next day, DEBKAfile’s Washington and intelligence sources report. Washington is increasingly concerned, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday, that Israel is preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear sites over US objections and has bolstered the defenses of US facilities in the region in case of a conflict.

Obama, Defense and Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been sending private messages to their Israel contacts warning them about the dire consequences of a strike, the paper reports. Top US armed forces chief Gen. Martin Dempsey will visit Israel next week.

DEBKAfile’s exclusive sources report that the differences between the US and Israel surfaced before the tough Obama-Netanyahu conversation last Thursday. Political, military and intelligence officials privately voiced resentment over the strong and unusual condemnation the White House and Secretary Clinton issued over the death of the Iranian nuclear scientist.

By denying “absolutely” any US involvement in the killing, the administration implicitly pointed the finger at Israel – an unusual act in relations between two friendly governments, especially when both face a common issue as sensitive as a nuclear-armed Iran.

Scotland the free and brave.

2012-01-15T16:20:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.
No significant comments added, the article below sums it up.

Scots in Scotland are good people, and deserve better under their own pure 100% government. If Scots have such a great reputation as first class managers in all fields and perhaps the most prolific inventors on earth, especially in engineering, then there is absolutely no justification for such a poor state of affairs, such as they really are, north of the border.

As with every 194 nation on earth the problem lies with the Central Government and its Leviathan unaccountable tentacles, and the corrupt elites desire to control, manage and direct these state institutions for their narrow advantage............as happens in every Third World and rich countries. The Criminal UK State being no exception.

_________________________

WHAT IF ENGLAND DID GO IT ALONE? by aangirfan

What if England did go it alone? MI6 Online

Leading friend of the London establishment Andrew Woberts says England is begging to keep Scotland as part of the UK.

A bankrupt economy, no more North Sea oil revenues...

By Andrew Woberts

If Scotland becomes independent:

1. The first problem the Prime Minister of England would face could be a weakening of the English economy.

2. The Scottish currency, like the currencies of Switzerland and Norway, would be strong.

The last set of figures from the statisticians show that for 2008-9, Scotland provided more in revenue to the London government than was spent in Scotland.

3. Scotland would keep out of NATO and its wars.

4. Scotland would be non-nuclear country, just like Switzerland.

5. Scotland's tourist industry would be boosted.

The two main political parties in Scotland are Labour and the Scottish National Party. fronta.cz/propaganda/fasisticka-italie propaganda-plakaty-letaky-druha-svetova-valka

There are 90 million people of Scottish origin in this world.

Scots are much sought after as managers in large international companies worldwide.

There are some Scots who are not wise leaders and they tend to end up associated with the Labour Party, which for many years ran Scotland on behalf of their London masters.

Young girl wearing Norwegian national costume. Photographed in Asker, Akershus, Norway. Posted to Flickr as siri 9. Author Elin

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is Europe's biggest equity investor.

Norway has saved $430 billion for the future.

Norway has invested heavily in infrastructure.

Finland is even richer than Norway and it does not have oil.

Finland produces mega-liners and modern technology.

Both Norway and Finland are small independent countries.

The Labour Party is the party of the rich oligarchs. Image from: 2012 Olympic Games +++Updated+++

Scotland should be as rich as Norway and Finland, but it is not.

Scotland still has vast oil wealth; Scotland has about 25% of Europe's renewable energy resources; Scotland has a history of producing great inventions.

Scotland is 'poor', because many of its people vote for the Labour party, the party of war and poverty.

Labour failed to control the corrupt bankers.

Labour wasted billions on wars.

Labour wants to waste £100 billion on a replacement for Trident.

Labour took Scotland's wealth and spent it in the South East of England on motorways, railways, the underground, airports and other projects.

In January 2010, a report by the UK government's National Equality Panel pointed out that the gulf between rich and poor in the UK grew wider under the Labour Party than at any time since the Second World War.

The report says that inequality in Britain is among the worst in the developed world, with the highest rate of poverty in western Europe.

On average, children born in the poorest areas will die 13 years before those in the richest.

The richest 10 per cent of families have assets worth an average £853,000 - almost 100 times the £8,800 average wealth of the poorest 10 per cent. (Gulf between rich and poor grown under Labour and now widest since WWII - Daily Mail )

Margaret Thatcher was kept afloat by Scotland's oil.

James Callaghan was saved by Scotland's oil.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have survived thanks to Scotland's oil.

Who benefits from Scotland's oil?

Not the people of the Calton area of Glasgow where the average life expectancy of a male is just 53.9 years.

This is lower than in most Third World countries. (In Iraq, life expectancy is 67. Minutes from Glasgow city centre ...)

It's Scotland's oil. And more than half the oil is still to come.

The Scottish media, controlled one suspects by the London spooks, have produced a deluge of dishonest stories attacking the Scottish National Party.

Scotland gets less public spending per head than London and many other regions of England.

Tax revenues from Scotland more or less match the country's public spending, if all North Sea oil and gas revenues are taken into account. (Research, published by the Glasgow Herald, based on Treasury figures in Whitehall, an analysis by consultants Oxford Economics and the newspaper's own calculations.)

Something called the GERS report "demonstrates that Scotland recorded a current budget surplus over the three years to 2007/08 of £2.3 billion, while the UK ran up a deficit of £24 billion over the same period." (Falklands could benefit from own oil)

subrosa-blonde.blogspot/ reminds us that Scotland's Oil Isn't Running Out

UK civil servants calculated that North Sea oil could boost incomes in an independent Scotland by up to 30%.

This is according to government records made public, 0n 28 September 2009, at the National Archives of Scotland in Edinburgh.

Oil ownership would boost income by 30% / Documents reveal that oil could mean an independent Scotland

The Scottish National Party's Brian Adam commented: "Scotland’s oil industry has a bright future with an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil still to be extracted, new technology developing and a central role in the global oil industry.

"There is as much oil left in the North Sea as has been taken out of it – and much more than half of the revenues.

"Scotland’s oil industry has a positive future.

"With the UK making £250 billion of revenue from North Sea oil over the last 30 years in real terms, it is now time to ensure that future revenues are invested properly for Scotland’s future."

OIL OWNERSHIP WOULD BOOST INCOME BY 30%

Labour has ensured that Scotland is 'poor'.

Ramsay MacDonald (1866 – 1937) was the typical Scottish Labour politician.

Macdonald married Margaret Gladstone, a lady of wealth.

With Ramsay MacDonald's first government there was little in the way of 'change'.

The government supported bosses against their workers.

One of the government's first acts was to use of troops against an engine drivers' strike.

The advance is from the left down to right, and consolidation with Afghanistan, and then up into Central Asia, and into Russia.

2012-01-14T19:46:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.
The British Super agent Bernard Lewis advertised it and wrote about it from the 1970's, referring to the creation of the "Arc of Crisis" with the specific purpose of creating problems for the Soviet Union. With the help of Soviet Jews, the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed into further problems in the 1990's under the Jewish Oligarch managed Yeltsin junta farce.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ethnic Pole who hated Russia with a vengeance, reinforced the policies of Bernard Lewis in the 1970's as NSA to the Carter administration and also as a major geo-strategist in Washington since the 1970's. He too advertised Washington's desire to encircle Russia in his important book, "The Grand Chessboard" in 1998.

One does not need to be a paranoid, fearful, insecure conspiracy theorist to know that these policies have subsequently materialized and have exacted a heavy toll on Russia, both as part of the Soviet Union and since 1991. You'd have to be a complete idiot or a Jew to ignore such facts on the ground around Russia.

Russia does not need speeches from the Great and the Good stating that the sunny blue sky is blue. What is required is solid action on the ground in and around Russia:

(i) Russia needs to massively bolster the defenses of Syria, and send thousands of military personnel to the country, near especially the Turkish border. The nature of the military personnel, their numbers and the type of equipment sent should leave everybody bewildered and guessing for a long time.

(ii) Russia needs to massively bolster the defenses of Iran, and send thousands of military personnel to the country for training purposes/joint exercises......AND PRESS the mullahs with this as a pre-condition of significant arms sales. Significant amounts of leases should be made of equipment, which the Iranians will not be able to pay for immediately. It is well known that mullah Iran doesn't like to spend huge amounts on arms purchases, for a variety of domestic political factors, but that is beside the point around immediate requirement. The nature of the military personnel, their numbers and the type of equipment sent to Iran must be kept top secret, and should leave everybody bewildered and guessing for a long time.

(iii) From Junior bloggers in the USA to everybody else knows what the USA is up to in Afghanistan, and that the huge heroin plantation in Afghanistan is harming Russia in a very real way, unintentionally or INTENTIONALLY. ....with its 4 million drug addicts. It is inconceivable given the USA geo-strategy in the Middle East and Central Asia (Arc of Crisis, The Grand Chessboard)..........that the Russian leadership and Intelligence aren't aware of these facts. Given this reality Russia must not facilitate the USA's occupation of Afghanistan, at a minimal in terms of general logistics, not just arms, and should use its huge influence in Central Asia and its FCR of $560 billion? to ensure that ALL Central Asian Republics follow Moscow's dictates on this, especially Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

(iv) Ensure that the Mongolian state remains within the Russian sphere of influence, and that the USA should not set up any military bases there.

_______________________________

Russia: Attack on Iran a ‘Direct Threat to Our Security’

Russian Officials Oppose Iran Embargo, War

by Jason Ditz, at antiwar.com

Speaking today at a press conference in Brussels, outgoing Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned against a NATO attack on Iran, saying that Russia would view any military attacks as a “direct threat to our security.”

Rogozin’s position in the government is growing, and he is leaving his current position to become Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Russia’s defense sector.

Other Russian officials have expressed opposition both to efforts at an oil embargo and continued Israeli calls for a US-led war.

Experts have said in the past that if either Russia or China were to make it clear that they viewed an attack on Iran as an attack on them it would basically end the option of “preemptive” war on the nation, and while Rogozin’s comments fall somewhat short of this they do seem to be in this same general vein.

At the same time, the genuine threat to attack Iran may be illusory, as French officials are saying that they don’t believe war is being considered as a serious option.

The Muslim Brotherhood of British Intelligence

2012-01-13T20:18:00.012+07:00

.
.
.
.

High Level Contacts Between State Department and Muslim Brotherhood

Kurt Nimmo at Infowars.com

Deputy Secretary of State William Burns has met with Mohammed Morsi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said on Wednesday.

Mohamed Morsi, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nuland characterized the meeting as a chance to reinforce U.S. expectations that Egypt’s parties will support human rights, women’s rights and religious tolerance, according to the Associated Press.

Burns visited Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood ahead of an IMF delegation that will discuss a $3 billion loan. He encouraged the north African country to cooperate with the IMF.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a documented intelligence asset. (of Western Intelligence)

Prior to World War II British Intelligence cultivated ties with the Brotherhood and the CIA later did the same. During the nationalist regime of Nasser in the 1950s, British and U.S. intelligence used the Muslim Brotherhood undermine Nasser’s rule. The organization was outlawed and designated a terrorist operation in Egypt after it attempted to assassinate the popular Egyptian leader.

(Unlikely that the USA at least in the 1950's would want to see Nasser toppled given that he along with Saddam Hussein and later Gaddafi were CIA trained assets. The 1950's and 1960's saw the USA in specific Arab countries back Socialist/Populist Secular leaders, against the previous influence of Imperial Britain. It is only when the British Foreign Office and Intelligence super agent Bernard "Jew" Lewis was dispatched to the USA to lecture, teach and advise in the early 1970's {Greek to Romans at Princeton university}....that the USA came around to backing Islamic Fundamentalists fully in Iran 1977--79, Afghanistan 1979 onwards, Egypt 1981, Syria 1982....and more significantly into the present in 2011--2012, against Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and the second attempt in Syria, where the crusader hordes of the UK hover along with their filth column Islamist proxies, because such a policy is seen as doing Israel a favor......"The Muslim hordes are at the gates of Jerusalem" therefore Israel must be protected; NATO and the USA must fight and defend Israel.......

Bernard Lewis was identified as a British Intelligence agent who "was posted to H.G. Wells' outpost at Princeton University's Center for Advanced Studies, to secure American compliance with British geopolitical manipulations in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Caspian Basin, and Central Asia. To put it bluntly: British intelligence senior operator Lewis is the guiding hand behind the ongoing U.S. neo-conservative drive for a new "Thirty Years War" in Eurasia....quoted from Rumormillsnews.com

Bernard Lewis the British super agent may also have visited and lived in Doenme Turkey in the early 1960's.....and also wrote about Syria, so I am guessing that the Western Intelligence promotion of Islamic Fundamentalists where they gain power in Greater Middle Eastern countries....Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Taliban Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia has its original source in Jew London in the Foreign Office/British Intelligence, and that Israel accepted this London policy when it itself promoted Islamist Hamas from the early 1970's.

In the USA this British Foreign Office policy has most successfully been promoted whenever the Democrats are in power in Washington, because the Democrats are seen as the ultimate Jew party in the USA.....traditionally despite their economic success 80% of Jews have voted for the Democrats.

This reflects the callous, criminal, anti-social anti-human nature of the International Jew.....the desire to promote Islamic Fundamentalist in so many countries in the Greater Middle, with all the ensuing wars and conflict such regimes clearly attract AND WILL ATTRACT IN THE FUTURE(eg Egypt)........through the services of the USA/UK especially, and the potential serious threats to tiny geographical strip Israel, surrounded by Islamist regimes.

However on the other hand such a grandiose policy covering what? 60-70 odd years shows the slow methodical patience of the International Jew.....and their supreme belief that they alone can crisis manage world events to their advantage........it shows their swaggering chutzpah and evil manipulative nature. After all if they could manage the rise and fall of the Nazis in Germany 1933-45, the Fascists in Italy 1923-43, the rise of the Bolsheviks in Imperial Russia and their demise within 73 years 1918--1991, the UK State, and the USA.........whats there in managing a few "Sand Nigger Schwartzer" countries in the greater Middle East for the eventual AHAVAT ERETZ ISRAEL and their dreams of a Jew empire......USING dumb fuck WASPS in the West of the Anders Brevik ilk.

In that secret International Jew geo-strategic sense TURKEY, UK run JORDAN, LEBANON, USA/UK influenced SAUDI ARABIA are being EXTREMELY foolish backing the illegitimate "al-CIA-duh" terrorist who are destabilizing the current Socialist Syrian state. If they ALL have a look at the map they will see that along this secret International Jew process, their own territories will be threatened eventually using the filth Column of Islamic Fundamentalists.......Bernard Lewis thinks the Saudi Monarchy will end, as will the Jordanian monarchy, and the London based Islamic Fundamentalists will come to power.)

In A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, author William Engdahl reveals how the Brotherhood was endorsed in May of 1979 at the Bilderberg meeting held in Austria. British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis said during this meeting that endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood would allow the global elite “to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines,” an effort that eventually resulted in the current clash of civilizations doctrine.

“What is going on in the Middle East with the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia that we saw a few days ago, and now in Egypt with Mubarak in his 80s, and obviously a regime that is not exactly the most stable one, we have a food crisis taking place as a backdrop and the IMF coming and telling these countries to eliminate their state food subsidies so you have, of course, the explosive background for popular unrest,” Engdahl told RT last January. “Within that you have these NGOs, like Freedom House, training activists and trade unions and various other organizations to demand democracy, demand human rights and so forth.”

Freedom House has denied it is a CIA operation, despite the fact it has received funding from the Ford Foundation – integrated into CIA operations in the early 1950s – the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Scaife Foundations.

Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the NED, said in 1991 that the organization now does what “was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA.”

Richard Mellon Scaife ran “Forum World Features, a foreign news service that was allegedly used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda.

USA/UK exporting heroin to the world from Afghanistan

2012-01-13T19:31:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.
This is the main reason the USA is there in Afghanistan for 10 years, with additionally the chance to project itself significantly against Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and of course China.

This heroin trade has dire consequences for the people of Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia......Ukraine and of course Russia with its 4 million drug addicts, Europe and North America.

What is surprising is Russia's weak response to the USA presence in Afghanistan, and the knock on negative impact it has on Russia. It is surprising Russia still assists the USA presence in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon quite simply is a criminal mafia organization, and in that sense Leon Panetta is thus the most appropriate Don of such an organization.

The real story was never about the AK-47 armed "Controlled Opposition" Taliban fighting the USA occupation of their country, directed and managed by the ISI for the USA, but this Pentagon criminal enterprise which affects vast swathes of people in several continents.

The world requires action on this global menace and crime.

____________________

'Afghan opium production soared in 2011'

Afghan farmers work in a poppy field in the troubled southern province of Kandahar.

A recent UN report says the production of opium and the illicit drug's value soared in Afghanistan last year, despite the presence of some 130,000 US-led foreign troops in the war-battered country.

According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), farmer income derived from cultivation of the poppy crop was USD 1.4 billion (EUR 1.09 billion) in 2011. The figure accounted for nine percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product.

"Opium is therefore a significant part of the Afghan economy and provides considerable funding to the insurgency and fuels corruption," UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov said in a statement on Thursday.

The office also said that more than 131,000 hectares were used for opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan last year, up seven percent from the previous year.

The overall opium produce increased by 61 percent, from 3,600 metric tons in 2010 to 5,800 in 2011.

The value of the opium yield also rose 133 percent from 2010.

The high price of opium means poppy cultivation generated 11 times more revenue for Afghan farmers than wheat.

"A stronger commitment from a broad range of national and international partners is needed to turn this worrying trend around," Fedetov said.

Let the process continue

2012-01-12T19:48:00.002+07:00

.
.
.
.
Politically its in the interests of the civilian government to fully back any judicial cum parliamentary inquiries into the so called Memogate affair. To do otherwise indicates that the government has something to hide. With 90 % of righteous Pakistanis loathing Zardari bhen, the civilian government really is not in a position morally, politically, or legally to prevent such inquiries being conducted at various levels.

The best option by Zardari Bhen would be to announce early elections in February 2012, after 4 years of PPP rule, which clears the atmosphere of uncertainty and instability.

There is absolutely no point for Zardari bhen and the failed PPP clinging to power for the sake of power for the full duration into February 2013. This could be dangerous for the PPP in the current circumstances and even more disastrous for the country. The PPP can re-group in opposition, re-organise under younger better leadership so that they can come back to power in the future. With such an appalling government/governance record it is just untenable to cling on to power for a few more days, until ultimate disaster looms.

At least Zardari bhen has conceded these facts to the opposition political parties, which is very sensible. All that is left is a parliamentary and Presidential announcement soon of fresh elections.

As stated before the idea of reigning in and controlling the military, under civilian governments is good, especially in Pakistan.

The idea however that Zardari bhen was going to use the Americans to reign in the Pakistani military at a time when the nation was humiliated by a foreign power smacks of Mir Jafar/Mir Sadiq treachery.

The idea that Zardari bhen should try and stay permanently in power into infinity, with his appalling governance/government record, failed state situation, with gora chutia sahib backing even though 90% of Pakistanis loath him and his PPP government, this is clearly undesirable.

On the other hand what Zardari bhen did whilst criminally treasonous is also amusing in that he has given back some of the medicine which the chamar chamcha coolie Gunga Din Pakistani military have applied to Pakistan and its civilian government for decades since 1947......namely the practice of secretly aligning with foreign powers to subvert the Pakistani state in a treasonous manner and gain supreme power.

From where exactly did Admiral Mullen get his nickname the "Kuta whisperer"

TREASONOUS CONSPIRACY IN PAKISTAN AGAINST THE STATE DID NOT BEGIN WITH ZARDARI BHEN.

Lets see now.

The 1951 assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan was conducted by the Pakistani military, which was then run by British officers.

The 1951-1958 destabilization of Pakistan was conducted by the Pakistani military, as a precursor to a military coup in 1954, unofficially, and 1958 fully, and the ISI was headed by a British officer.

The 1958 coup by Field Marshal Ayub Khan was directed and approved by the USA.

The 1971 vicious nasty brutal genocide in East Pakistan was approved by the USA.

The 1977 military coup against a civilian democratically elected government was directed by the USA.

The 1999 military coup that brought in Mossad Busharaf was approved and directed by the USA.

Since 2001 what exactly have the Pakistani military been doing if not by treasonous alignment with a foreign power in a conspiracy to kill Pakistanis under a fake GWoT narrative...........because they get bribe money from the USA, and lots of military hardware with which to use against Pakistanis.

The Scoundrel is outraged, but who are the REAL traitors to the country?

Will there ever be parliamentary/judicial inquiry's of the above crimes by the Pakistani military?

Not yet.

_______________________________

Pakistan’s Military Slams PM, Warns of ‘Grievous Consequences’

PM Sacks Defense Secretary as Coup Concerns Grow
by Jason Ditz, at antiwar.com

The Pakistani military has today issued a furious response to Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani’s statement earlier this week, in which he claimed top generals broke the law in responding to court requests for statements on the “coup memo,” a putative attempt by the government to solicit US military help in ousting top Pakistani generals.

The military slammed Gilani, saying that not only were the testimonies legal, but that the prime minister faced “potentially grievous consequences” for his comments. The testimonies confirmed that top military leaders believe the memo to have been an authentic plot by the government against them.

Gilani appears to be playing with fire in the situation, and has followed up his statement with the announcement that he has fired retired Lt. Gen. Naeem Lodhi, the Pakistani Defense Secretary for “gross misconduct.” Lodhi will be replaced by a key Gilani ally, Nargis Sethi.

(Pakistan should have a civilian defense secretary, that is the norm in all fully functioning democracies. This policy should be adopted by all political parties in Pakistan and not be compromised on)

Though legally speaking the position of Defense Secretary is a civilian one, historically the Pakistani military has “recommended” a retired general for the position, and has always gotten its way.

The unprecedented move has not only fueled concern that the civilian government is looking to once again sideline the military leadership, but has also convinced many that Gen. Parvez Kayani and the rest of the military are being backed into a corner, and may respond, as has happened so many times in Pakistan’s brief history, with a coup d’etat.

Endorsement of Ron Paul for President

2012-01-12T17:25:00.007+07:00

.
.
.
.
I wanted Ron Paul to win the 2008 Presidential election, but he was crowded out by the CIA mentored, came from no where candidate Barack Hussein Obama, backed by the Neo-Liberal wing of the crypto-Jew Zionist elite in the Republican Party.

An ominous reflection of the state of affairs such as they existed in the Soviet Union during the 1980's before its collapse, where the Jewish run KGB was appointing its members and non-members as Premiers into ultimate collapse and disaster for the Soviet Empire in 1991........a fraction of the Jews in the country WANTED THE Soviet Union to collapse and fail, because this was their international tribal objective.

No other Communist state has to date collapsed.......not even Pol Pots in Cambodia, invaded by Vietnam. The collapse of the Eastern European Communist states was at the behest and instigation of the Jewish run KGB working with their local Jewish agents in those countries....Markus Wolf head of the Stazi, by way of one example.

The American election system is rigged and therefore, tightly controlled which results in the Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumbs of the Zionist controlled vaudeville act of over 12 months anointed as President. Ron Paul thus never had a chance.

The 12 month long vaudeville farce is an elaborate process of sublimation and final Imperial Coronation by the Zionist elite for the Zionist elite of their "Chosen Candidate". Democracy, even crude Third World democracy does not exist in the USA. Though this never stops the USA lecturing other nations about the virtues of pure SOLID Democracy.

However if an outside candidate shows sufficient grass roots support, then the fake vaudeville farce must recognize this fact. To do otherwise will make the system all to obviously rigged even to morose Joe six-pack......the vaudeville of 12 months thus must be subtle to remain reasonably legitimate. Ron Paul won the Iowa election so he was put in Third behind a utter non-candidate bible thumper, and he also won the New Hampshire libertarian state, so he was put in second place.

The crime is when alternative news outlets report such results as fair and somehow acceptable, which contain glimmers for hope and change.

Of course Ron Paul himself is also an establishment candidate. A man who serves so many years in Capital Hill, and beckons his son to join the gravy train can only be an establishment candidate, with their instantly recognizable codes and demeanor. Ron Paul fills the alternative bit part role in the Zionist run vaudeville of Capital Hill which passes itself as Democracy.

The trick is to keep the masses within the system and not push them into joining the massed ranks of the LEADERLESS OWS movement, which are less controllable by the Zionist elite.

BUT in the sum total of things in a world which is fundamentally unfair, irrational, and stupid.......in a world where Jew scum float to the surface along with their dumb fuck WASP minions to do their bidding, Ron Paul looks rather hopeful and appealing in the messages and policies he purports to support. Bear in mind good reader that politicians always change their tune once in power.

But there it is, Ron Paul the WASP, looking earnest, sincere, wholesome........slightly too old.......zero charisma.....with the best policies out of ALL the republican candidates and obviously far better than CIA President Peace Prize Barack Hussein "I want to reach out and understand Moslems Cairo speech" Obama.

So good luck Ron Paul. I hope for America's sake you win. The same consistent position I held in 2008..........but significantly more detached this time.

_____________________________

Ron Paul Is The Only Candidate With The Momentum to Challenge Romney

Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman campaigns are all collapsing

Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars.com

Ron Paul’s second place in New Hampshire confirms him as the only candidate going into South Carolina and Florida with any kind of momentum to challenge Mitt Romney, with support for Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman collapsing.

Jon Huntsman’s one chance to insert himself into the top tier by beating Ron Paul to second in New Hampshire has failed. Despite the establishment media attempting to use Huntsman as a Ron Paul spoiler, in addition to dirty tricks on behalf of the Huntsman campaign in creating an anti-Huntsman video and blaming it on Paul supporters, the former Obama administration official didn’t even get close to Paul last night.

Indeed, with Huntsman performing best amongst voters opposed to the Tea Party, he stands no chance of performing well in the more conservative states. Huntsman isn’t even on the ballot in Arizona, Virginia or Illinois. In South Carolina he is currently polling less than Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert.

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum’s second place in Iowa was followed by a poor fifth place finish in New Hampshire. After pouring money into the state, visiting more than 30 times and making it a top priority, Santorum was expected to achieve somewhere between 10-20% of the vote yet ended up with a disappointing 9.3 per cent.

With limited funds remaining after a New Hampshire gamble that failed to pay off, Santorum’s campaign, and his current potential third place finish in South Carolina and Florida, is under threat. Ron Paul’s ads lambasting Santorum as “a corporate lobbyist and Washington politician” with “a record of betrayal” are also eating away at his support amongst conservatives.

“The momentum has dissipated. You can’t save political capital, you have to spend it right away. He took his capital and let it dissipate,” said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, who the polls suggest is Romney’s closest rival in South Carolina and Florida, had his campaign hire a cavernous ballroom at the Radisson Manchester for last night’s primary that ended up being barely a quarter full as Gingrich stumbled in fourth place with 10 per cent.

Gingrich, who has cut an insreasingly angry and aloof figure over the past few weeks, didn’t even bother to congratulate Romney or Paul on their success. One of his aides has also been accused of assaulting a woman for carrying a sign at a campaign stop. Gingrich’s support has been savaged by 96% of all Super PAC money being spent attacking his candidacy, illustrating the fact that Republicans clearly don’t want to see him challenge Obama in a fight Gingrich would almost certainly lose.

After emerging as a clear frontrunner, Gingrich’s numbers have dropped off alarmingly. Ron Paul’s debate attack on Gingrich when he labeled him a “chicken hawk” has undoubtedly made red state conservatives think twice about supporting a man who enthusiastically supported Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ attempt to impose a carbon tax on the American people under the discredited pseudo-science of global warming.

Polls show that Ron Paul is the only other candidate besides Romney who has a good chance of beating Barack Obama in a hyothetical head to head. He trumps all the other challengers to Romney in terms of electibility.

The key for Ron Paul is the fact that is Romney takes South Carolina and Florida, several if not all of the other candidates will suspend their campaigns or drop out altogether. This will force the media to frame Paul as Romney’s adversary and will allow Paul to unleash a barrage of attacks exposing Romney’s record as a big government RINO Republican.

Yuan as the new reserve currency of the world in 2012?

2012-01-10T20:42:00.003+07:00

.
.
.
.
A new Reserve currency to challenge the dollar – What’s really going on in The Straits of Hormuz.

By David Malone at information clearing House

A little over a year ago on 1st November 2010 I wrote what I called “…a little bit of scurrilous speculation.” In it I speculated that an unintended consequence of QE had been to spur several countries to think very seriously of how they could replace the dollar as their settlement currency for international deals. The Settlement Currency just means the currency both parties agree is stable, internationally trusted and accepted, and in plentiful supply. Which may not be the case for their own currencies . I wondered if doubts about the longer term stability of the dollar and of US debt levels, was combining with a political desire in China and perhaps other countries as well to challenge the US via the dollar with the eventual goal of creating an alternative reserve currency backed by gold rather than, as the dollar now is, by debt.

Various countries have been buying gold. Russia, China, India have all bought a lot….Which brings me to my speculation. The list of countries accumulating gold is similar to the list of countries that were reported to be talking about the need for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar.

I wonder if those who are seriously thinking of trying to unseat the dollar and create a currency which is backed by something other than debt and is not under the control of America’s corrupt banks and even more corrupt government, are investing in gold as a precursor to making a real bid for a new currency.

Later, in Making the New Sub Prime Part 2 I looked at the growing network of bilateral agreements in major trade deals gradually replacing the dollar as a settlement currency.

Being a ‘Settlement’ currency is not quite the same as being a ‘Reserve Currency’ like the dollar, but it a major step in that direction. It is, in fact, a very large step. Which currency large international trades are done in matters. It is a fact that in 2000, Iraq signed an agreement to sell its oil, all its oil, in Euros. Iran was contemplating doing the same at around the same time. The Iraq decision involved the large French bank PNB-Paribas. France was not one of those who supported the war and Washington led a hate campaign vilifying the French. The worry was that a switch from dollar to Euro settlement might gain momentum. Any major move away from dollar settlement would cripple the US.

In January of this year the India Times reported that India was talking to Iran about moving out of dollar settlements so as to be able to buy Iranian oil despite a US embargo. India said it was discussing settling in Gold. Remember, India has just signed a settlement agreement with China to use the Yuan.

A very good summary of recent news by ZeroHedge suggests I may have been on the right track. And recently the pace has picked up.

China and Russia have been trading directly in their own currencies and using them both interchangeably for settlement for over a year. As the The China Daily article reports,

China is allowing greater use of its currency for cross-border transactions to reduce reliance on the US dollar, after Premier Wen Jiabao said in March he was “worried” about holdings of assets denominated in the greenback.

Then on 26th December 2011 Bloomberg reported,

Japan and China will promote direct trading of the yen and yuan without using dollars and will encourage the development of a market for companies involved in the exchanges, the Japanese government said.

China is Japan’s largest trading partner. Japan will also start in 2012 buying Chinese debts. How much Dollar debt will either of them buy? They have both already been buying less. Two days later (Dec.28th) the Iranain news service reported,

Iran and China on Wednesday signed two agreements on expansion of trade ties and joint investments.

These trades too will not be settled in Dollars or in Euros. Three days after that The China Post reported that on the last day of 2011, US President Obama had signed a new law in which

U.S. imposes sanctions on banks dealing with Iran….Sanctioned institutions would be frozen out of U.S. financial markets.

Sounds tough. A bit like sending an aircraft carrier to the Straits of Hormuz. But as the article went on to report, with only barely concealed delight, the threat may be as hollow as the dollar itself. The law comes with exemptions which may eventually highlight America’s plight rather than its might.

The sanctions target both private and government-controlled banks – including central banks – and would take hold after a two- to six-month warning period, depending on the transactions, a senior Obama administration official said. Under the law, the president can move to exempt institutions in a country that has significantly reduced its dealings with Iran and in situations where a waiver is in the U.S. national security interest or otherwise necessary for energy market stability. He would need to notify Congress and waivers would be temporary, but could be extended.

And as if to make the point, only a couple of days after this on Jan 7th, came the news that,

Iran and Russia replaced the U.S. dollar with their national currencies in bilateral trade, Iran’s state-run Fars news agency reported, citing Seyed Reza Sajjadi, the Iranian ambassador in Moscow.

So now almost none of Iran’s oil will be traded in Dollars.

India and Japan have also recently agreed a 15 billion dollar currency exchange. This will tie their two currencies closer together.

The list of countries and trades no longer using the dollar for settlement for their trade is now considerable. How close are we to reaching the tipping-point where it no longer makes sense for nations to use dollars and makes more sense for them, both economically and politically, to use the network of currencies tied to the Yuan? When we reach that point the Yuan becomes in reserve currency in all but name.

China, India, Russia and Iran are all large holders of physical gold and most of them are also large producers of it. None of them are firm allies of the US. They all have long term relations with each other. All of them have expressed oncercern over US debts and printing. None of them will like QE3, nor Euro printing, when they both arrive later this year.

I think the stand-off with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz over sanctions is as much to do with the moves to replace the dollar as anything else. The stand off is as much with China and its allies as it is specifically with Iran. The US is testing China’s nerve and the solidity of its network of bilateral currency settlement agreements. We are seeing military power deployed to counter economic power. I think the US will lose. Depending on the nature of its loss we could see a precipitate decline in the standing of the dollar as global reserve currency.

2012 could see the beginning of large scale defections from the dollar settlement currency. Which would in turn have massive, perhaps even catastrophic consequences for how the world perceives what is an acceptable level of debt for the US. What is acceptable when you have the global reserve currency is quite different from what is acceptable when you don’t.

And the reverse is also true. If China can transform the netwrok of bilateral agreements which centre upon China and the Yuan, in to becoming accepted as a de facto reserve currency, then for those, like me, who wonder how China can possibly avoid a hard landing as its bad bank and property bubble deflates faster and faster, look no further.

There is no denying China has an absolutely massive bad debt crisis fermenting. Every one of its banks is gagging on bad loans made to every one of China’s regional governments. Trillions of Yuan worth of loans which will not be repaid, on property and land valued at hugely inflated but now defaulting prices. But if China can become a rival and rising reserve currency at the center of a new and growing collection of trading partners then China can and will bury the debts in a a mass unmarked grave somewhere in its hinterland.

At the moment when America is seen as being no longer the pre-eminant reserve currency and its debt load is re-considered accordingly, China and its debt load will go the other way. America and its currency risk being seen as too rotted by debt to be trusted and it’s claims of economic growth seen as fake, empty, paper-based, accountancy-conjured growth. The Dollar and America itself risk being seen as the fiat currency and fiat nation par excellence .While China and the Yuan will be seen as backed by sold gold and real growth.

One more question to ask in all this is – how far have the big banks and brokerages managed to turn even gold and silver (at least gold and silver held in the West) in to another fiat currency? Gold and bullion bugs amoung you might argue the question makes no sense. But consider re-hypothecation. How much gold and silver has been pledged and re-pledged, hypothecated and re-hypothecated? How many more paper contracts for and claims upon gold and silver exist above and beyond the amount of actual physical gold and silver? After all gold and silver are the ultimate in ‘good’ assets which counterparties will happily accept. So it seems likely to me that gold and silver (or contracts for them) will have been in demand in those repo and hypothecation markets. If so then I wonder how many conflicting and contesting claims will surround every ounce of gold and silver in the West when investors start demanding to see their ‘investment’.

I think the big old sterling silver coin may already have dropped for some investors. That is why prices for physical silver are surging above the price for paper claims on silver. I think some traders are getting nervous about buying paper claims on silver and now want only the metal itself. They suspect that in the end, if you have only a paper claim or contract for, silver that is exaclty all you will ever have – the paper. Only those with the actual metal in their hands, will get what they paid for. I think there is a fiat, paper currency version of gold and silver floating around and parasitising the metals themselves. Those who own that paper stuff may get…well … stuffed.

Why the USA/UK is in Afghanistan for 10 years.

2012-01-10T19:54:00.002+07:00

.
.
.
.
From time to time we get small glimpses of why the USA and the UK are really in Afghanistan for 10 years and more, by way of hints of the respective States actions in other parts of the world, beyond the ever changing implausible rational offered tongue in cheek. The sheer swaggering chutzpah and bravado of the criminal crook States becomes more apparent by the year.

__________________________

US Agents Laundered Money, Shipped Drugs for Cartels

The same old drug war tactics lead to more powerful cartels and illicit activity by US authorities

by John Glaser at antiwar.com

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents laundered millions in cash for a powerful Mexican drug trafficker and his Colombian cocaine supplier, according to documents made public Monday.

With the help of Mexican federal police officers, the DEA agents and their Colombian informant conducted at least 15 wire transfers to banks in the United States, Canada and China and smuggled about $2.5 million in the United States.

The efforts aimed to infiltrate the Mexican Beltran Leyva drug cartel and a cell of money launderers for Colombia’s Valle del Norte cartel in Mexico and included flying at least one shipment of cocaine from Ecuador to Madrid through a Dallas airport on behalf of the cartels.

Money laundering is a favored tactic of the DEA. The illicit activity – specifically sanctioned as Attorney General Exempt Operations – often violates Mexican sovereignty, facilitates additional criminal activity on the part of the drug cartels, and may be counterproductive, especially in the shadow of the failed gun-running operation Fast and Furious.

Mexican military and law enforcement, trained and armed by the U.S., typically assist the Americans. But Mexico’s over-reliance on harsh law enforcement and militaristic approaches to the drug war – actively promoted by the United States – has resulted in a dramatic increase in violence and an unaccountable police and military force that is responsible for widespread human rights violations.

Human Rights Watch recently released a report providing evidence that U.S.-supported Mexico’s security forces participated in “more than 170 cases of torture, 39 ‘disappearances,’ and 24 extrajudicial killings since Calderón took office in December 2006.”

“Instead of reducing violence, Mexico’s ‘war on drugs’ has resulted in a dramatic increase in killings, torture, and other appalling abuses by security forces, which only make the climate of lawlessness and fear worse in many parts of the country,” said José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch. What’s more, claimed the report, is that most of these crimes are committed with impunity.

President Calderon’s policy to deploy 50,000 Mexican troops and thousands more federal police officers – forces that are trained by the United States – appears only to have increased the violence, which has left about 50,000 dead in recent years,including 12,000 dead in 2011.

Military men should not become media stars spreading Jewish dis-information.

2012-01-09T20:05:00.011+07:00

.
.
.
.
Strange how army men make pronouncements on naval matters, as authoritative experts.

In a Democracy (Big D) military people on the whole should not become media stars, appearing on TV or the press too frequently. They should remain in the shadows, as public servants quietly doing their job for the nation.

In the UK, exceptionally for an advanced country, the British military have become media stars appearing symbolically at football matches, Wimbledon, and in everyday TV, waxing lyrical about their noble selfless deeds. Of course this in a Freudian cynical way naturally hides their criminal activity in Iraq, and especially Afghanistan.........which has absolutely zero purpose for the interests of the British tax paying public, but merely satisfies certain morbid fetishes of some elite groups in the UK. ........against Libya....against Syria....and against Iran, posturing in the Gulf.

How does enabling "al-CIA-duh" to come to power in Libya, or possibly Syria enhance the security and prosperity of the recession hit UK state? No doubt the Foreign Office and "British Intelligence" have a very rational explanation...........it serves Ahavat Eretz Israel's purpose??

If the advanced UK state makes such pointless sacrifices for Israel, what hope is there for Jewish run mullah Iran?

"Empty vessels make much sound"......If the Iranian military has so much capabilities why repeat them on national tv, again again again?

Iranian military commanders should not make delusional bombastic statements in such a delicate juncture.

Iran spends about 3% of GDP on defense, and let us say roughly that the Iranian economy is about $360 billion as of march 2011, end of financial year. That is a defense budget of about $11 billion. of this maybe $2--3 billion is earmarked for the navy.

It is simply impossible to be a "Regional and global naval power" with such a small naval budget.

Iran has a mere 5 frigates .....this is not a true blue water navy (aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, nuclear submarines). At least 20 other nations have bigger more powerful navies.

1. US Navy. The most powerful without a doubt.
2. Russian Navy. Still has a lot of big ships and nuclear subs.
3. Japanese Navy. No aircraft carriers but many modern destroyers with AEGIS system and US technology.
4. French Navy. Modern navy with a Nuclear carrier and submarines.
5. Royal Navy. The Invincible are old and limited but the British always count.
6. Chinese Navy. Lots of destroyers but many of them old and obsolete.
7. Italian Navy. A considerable navy with carrier projection power
8. Spanish Navy. Similar to Italian navy. AEGIS destroyers.
9. South Korea Navy. Modern ships and amphibious capability. AEGIS technology.
10. Indian Navy. Considerable number of ships. Old aircraft carrier (ex-HMS Hermes).
11. German Navy
12. Canadian Navy
13. Royal Australian Navy
14. Brazilian Navy
15. Turkish navy.
16. Dutch navy.
17. Taiwan navy.
18 Norway navy.
19. North Korean navy.
20. Pakistan navy.

From Wikipedia the great "Blue water navy of mullah Iran":

28,000 personnel
65 aircraft
5 Frigates
3 Corvettes
26 Submarines(including mostly midget submarines)
24 Fast Attack Craft
98 Large Patrol craft
+100 light missile boat
16 Hovercraft

Israel, though has a substantial coast, facing the sea has a very small navy:

3 corvettes
10 missile boats
3 submarines (Dolphin class)
42 patrol boats
6 support ships
19,500 personnel

Politicians like Ahmedinejad and mullahs can talk through their backsides, but military-men with so much serious responsibility for the security of the state should not ever make such statements, since so much is at stake.

I am not suggesting Iran significantly increase its naval budget, this is not what is required.

Iran requires a stronger army and air-force to secure and defend Iran on land FIRST, before the state contemplates any offensive strategy which is capital intensive, with heavy reliance on machines in sea engagements.......and thus a strain on the basket weaving economy of Iran.(220 billion Kwt electricity and 13 million tons of steel, $930 billion PPP GDP and a small number of armaments/ordnance factories)

With such a small defense budget and such large powerful adversaries best to pool the resources of the state into the army and air-force (air-defense)...FIRST, AND FOREMOST in defensive warfare, before contemplating delicate, capital intensive, highly speculative, complex maneuvering, fancy offensive warfare at sea, near or far from Third World Poor Iran.

Its is a frightening spectacle to see senior military commanders talk like illiterate villagers, who have drunk too much wine (secretly). We know the mullah puppets like to promote illiterate villagers, because they are loyal, but in such serious matters of state it does no harm to have sophisticated urbane pronouncements and theories.

______________________________

'Iran, influential naval power'

By Presstv.com

Deputy Commander of the Iranian Army Brigadier General Ahmedinejad Mousavi says the Islamic Republic has developed into a regional and global naval power in view of its major breakthroughs.

(Israel spends over $17 billion on defense 2012, officially....7% of GDP, and this does not include USA military grants and aid......with over 3,200 tanks and over 750 combat planes.........the Israeli navy has a none-existent role in Israel's defense, save for combat petrol of the coast line)

Iran maintains that the maneuvers were defensive in nature and intended to convey a message of peace and friendship to the countries of the region. The Islamic Republic has also extended a public invitation to regional states to conduct joint naval drills with Iranian forces.

The senior Iranian military commander on Monday praised the massive 10-day Velayat-90 naval drill, conducted in an area stretching from the east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden, as a demonstration of Iran's naval might and capability in the international waters.

He stated that Iran's naval forces are closely monitoring all moves by extra-regional powers in the region as they spotted a helicopter and a US aircraft carrier during Velayat-90 naval exercises.

He said the Iranian Navy's surveillance of foreign military moves during the massive ten-day naval drill was in compliance with international conventions relating to high seas and in line with the country's doctrine of national defense.

Brigadier General Mousavi emphasized that outsiders and foreign forces deployed to the Middle East follow their evil policies in the region and exploit any available opportunity to reach their goals.

He also condemned attempts to incite Iranophobia in regional states, stressing that Iran is interested in the promotion of global peace and tranquility as well as friendship among all world nations.

The top Iranian commander reiterated that the country only resists against expansionist policies of a few bullying powers.

On January 2, Iran wrapped up Velayat-90 naval drill, which was launched on December 24, 2011.

The defensive drill had four stages, namely the preparedness, the expansion of forces, the tactical, and the power phase, which were carried out successfully with the surface and subsurface vessel units and aviation units penetrating to the targeted depths.

The naval drill took place in line with a recent directive by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, instructing Iranian armed forces to maintain total readiness to defend the nation against any potential threats.

(The first "potential threat" is an air-force and missile attack against Iran's strategic targets on land in IRAN. Therefore massive state resources must be poured into this to counter such a threat......for the Iranian air-force and air-defense as FIRST PRIORITY (YES?).

The second "potential threat" is a follow up land incursion, after a successful air campaign........ from Afghanistan, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan. Therefore massive state resources must be poured into this to counter such a threat.......for the Artesh and Pasdaran as a SECOND PRIORITY (YES?).

Iran is a poor country which is not heavily industrialized, therefore it has limited finite resources. It is thus wiser to pool the limited finite resources of the state into areas where they are most needed....PRIORITY ONE AND TWO Stated above.

Example: There is absolutely no value in putting one AA gun in say Tehran, one in Mashhad, one in Isfahan, one in Shiraz, one in Qom............it is far more affective to pool them in groups of 100, backed by at least 10-20 SAM batteries.......and 60 Light SAMs; massive smoke screen shields, basic fireworks fired into the sky that are normally used for celebrations within the AA firing zone, and of course large numbers of electronic counter-ware fare equipment in many places as possible...1000 places.

A city like Tehran ALONE with 14 million people, should have 4000 AA guns with 500 SAM batteries/systems with 20,000 missiles with ranges of 50-100 km; massive smokescreen devices, civilian fireworks and of course electronic counter-warfare equipment. Thus the air defense of Tehran will require 60,000 air defense personnel, and air bases with fighter planes outside of Tehran charged with guarding the city's air space 300--500. This will cost 10's $billions ....time, training and domestic mass production of the ammunition and equipment in or near the city.

Then after Tehran one must think of Isfahan's air-defense, Mashad's air-defense, Tabriz, Shiraz, Qom...........30-40 major cities......ALL airbases, each with 500 AA guns and 50 SAM batteries, electronic counter warfare equipment etc. Then the main Artesh and Pasdaran installation which I have suggested be spread out, with under ground facilities away from their traditional bases.

If Tehran is destroyed from the air, and a land borne attack is launched from Azerbaijan/Georgia/Turkmenistan by the USA then the puppet mullah regime of the USA/UK will collapse. This is what happened to Tripoli and the Gaddafi regime in 2011 (a long time CIA puppet who was killed humiliatingly in public). This is what happened to Baghdad and Saddam Hussein in 2003 (a long time CIA agent recruited in the late 1950's and put into power by the USA, killed by his own former master and their new servants in Iraq)

The same military principle applies to the general defense of Iran. A focus on the navy is not a priority in the defense of Iran.

The challenge is then to over come the objections and secret designs of the Jews within mullah Iran.

Such things are stated by the humble worthless fakir who will never visit Iran. A worthless fakir who has no networks in Iran. Who is not Shia, not Iranian or speaks a word of Farsi......mischievous malicious gossip not withstanding)

Caution is better than sabre rattling

2012-01-08T18:51:00.010+07:00

.
.
.
.
I watched with amusement the Iranian navy "10" day military exercise in the Persian Gulf and Arabian sea on Presstv, 24th December to 2nd January. I watched them several times, the same news.

It was not very impressive, watching Iranian commando's with their Israeli supplied Uzi's in their rubber dingy's, and even more unimpressive looking naval commanders threatening to block the Straits of Hormuz (profiles left to right speaking to the reporter....reptilian, bearded, Semitic looking creatures and not what one might call true Persian naval commanders). Iranian marines storming beaches? What for?

The true master guiding their illiterate donkey mullah servants.

Iran does not have a great navy. The Shah wisely did not develop a huge navy, but instead wasted billions on his personal hobby horse, the Iranian air-force with its 100,000 personnel as of 1978, and 445 combat planes( 225 F-4 Phantoms and 80 F-14 Tomcats......5000 pilots .....he himself being one). Not that the Iranian air-force in 1978 was very effective. In 1987 I believe the Americans sank a good deal of the Iranian navy in the so called "tanker wars", without a single loss to themselves.

As I have stated before Iran's security policy seems to be written in Tel A Viv and London (The British ambassador has gone, but the embassy is still there in Tehran. The UK is run by Jews linked to the Rothschilds of London, and works closely with Israel....its tools of mischief hover near Syria/Turkey; it has 10,000 troops in Afghanistan harvesting the opium for the UK and International market; it was in Iraq destructively, and it played a critical role in toppling Gaddafi).

Persia is and always will be a land power.

It is absurd that Iran should contemplate blocking international waters with such a weak navy, and thus taking on the full might of the USA/British/French/Israeli navies and ALL other possible allies in a Jew formulated International coalition of the willing against Iran.

Given this stark FACT, any rational and elaborate argument offered by the donkey mullahs in favor of closing the Straights of Hormuz...... fails. International Law, and International geo-strategy has been defined by American military might, revved up since the late 1990's, and rampant since 2001, after the false flag 9/11 atrocity committed by Israel and the USA. The USA encouraged by Israel is thus looking for wars in such a scenario. The recent attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers is but a small obvious example of this fact and mindset in Washington.

It is absurd that Iran should contemplate blocking international waters with such a weak navy, and a MERE expenditure of 3% GDP on defense and thus taking on the full might of the USA/British/French/Israel navies and ALL other possible allies in a Jew formulated coalition of the willing against Iran.

Such donkey absurd policies advertised in advance for the benefit of the enemy can only come from controlled puppets installed by the USA/UK in 1979, in the manner of the recent "Arab Spring" (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya) ALL of which have resulted in CIA linked "al-CIA-duh" groups coming to power. Are the mullahs of Iran with their Semitic Arab posturing and the promotion of deviant Islam that different from "al-CIA-duh"?

Donkey mullah Iran must not follow the desired policy of Washington and Israel. As professor Webster Tarpley so eloquently argued on the very Presstv 28th/29th/30th December?, Washington with Israel's encouragement desires war with Iran..............in a scenario where Iran first blocks the Persian Gulf, because:

(i) It paints Iran as the aggressor power who initiates the conflict. Same strategy that was used against Imperial Japan, which forced Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, ultimately.

(ii) JEWSA puppet client states such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Kazakhstan replacing Iran's oil exports.

(iii) A chance to destroy Iran, and its infrastructure (Israel in Lebanon 2006. NATO in Libya 2011. NATO in Serbia 1998/99)

(iv) War will push up the price of petroleum which benefits the major oil bourses of New York, London and Rotterdam. Oil is dealt internationally in dollars still, and thus it will be a boost to the dollar currency (Webster Tarpley specific argument on Presstv..........which left the Iranian commentator speechless...ummm ummm..ummm)

We live in an era where the Jew is all powerful, and requires global affirmation of such power. A mere 200 years ago the Jew was a marginal ghetto character expelled from Occidental countries about 109 times covering a period of 2000 years.....due to their filthy scatology based habits and characters. Such consistent frequency cannot merely be attributed to primitive racism on the part of the hosts.....ranging from Germany, Russia, Spain, France and England. But led by the Rothschilds clan in Europe in the last two centuries the Jew has acquired central controlling positions in such Western societies.

In the UK the Rothschild of London control and run the two main parties, and vast swathes of the State, especially the "Intelligence services" mysteriously propagated by Jewish Hollywood......The Foreign Office....The Home Office. It is believed the two princes, William and Harry have Rothschild lineage, so the UK after Charles III will have its first King Emmanuel I.

Israel created by the UK from 1917 to 1948, whilst simultaneously suppressing the indigenous Palestinians is an artificial state sustained by the JEWSA. Given this Western backing it now desires an empire, called Ahavat Eretz Israel. For tactical reasons this is not official Israeli government policy but it is very real, and is the sole driving, defining force of Israeli state policy. Naturally given its minuscule size and resources it prefers to use the power of the USA and other Western states to do its bidding.

For this Jewish dream to be achieved, there will need to be serious fighting for a very long time with Israel and its allies winning ALL the wars and conflicts.(Washington's foreign policy).

Naturally, statistically and practically this Jewish dream will not be achieved, EVER, but along the long sorry path of failure of such a policy many wars will be committed and many innocents killed. Diehard Nazis in Germany resisted the allies into 1945-47 after all. Many Nazis occupy the Israeli security structure, where they dream of Arab vassal states such as Jordan, and Saudi Arabia prostrating themselves before the great Jewish Ahavat Eretz Israel. The pliant faggots in Western security will also get a good wank out of this great Jewish scheme.

The key tool of such a policy is the promotion of Islamic fundamentalists in targeted countries.....Muslim Brotherhood...."al-CIA-duh". Islamic Fundamentalists working as Israel's filth column....destabilizing and legitimating otherwise unremarkable dirt poor Third World states. The Jew will shout there after through their media that the Islamic hoards are at the gates of Jerusalem, and then the NATO will have to come to their rescue.

In Iran this Jewish conspiracy and covert narrative for empire has been achieved significantly with the installation of the mullahs in Iran in 1979. There is no need to repeat what the mullahs have done to Iran since 1979.

Iran does not need to Sabre rattle or go to war with the Jew and their dogs.

Iran must find clever ways to circumvent Jew imposed sanctions just as Apartheid South Africa did for many years with the help of American corporations, the Israeli State which offered it the nuclear bomb, circa 1975 and the UK criminal State. Russia, China, Turkey and Pakistan may be certain countries which will help Iran circumvent sanctions and worth exploring strategies for doing so.

The Jew imposed sanctions will cost Iran a few $ billions, but no immediate loss of life. BUT a war against the USA could cost Iran ultimately $500--1000 billion depending on many factors, and the loss of many lives....and of course a fundamental destabilization of the state (Saddam's Iraq 1991).

As advised before by me, Iran's security must focus on the land......in the direction of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Turkmenistan. The Iran/Iraq air-space. Finally naturally the Persian Gulf, and all threats emanating from there.

The Artesh mobilized to 700,000; Pasdaran 300,000 each with separate decentralized commands......relying solely on Iranian manufactured weapons. The air-force 100,000 incorporating air defense, and the navy at a minimal at 20,000. Donkey mullah Iran does not need to make the navy into media stars. There is no need to mobilize 20 million children for war, logistically it will be a disaster, and militarily ineffective. Many Iranian youths worship the USA any way.

Iran should focus on ejecting ALL Americans from Iraq including the 15000 civilian contractors left behind, and cutting ALL USA influence in the country (oil sector).....slow unofficial policy, over many years.

Iran should focus on ejecting ALL American forces in Afghanistan in partnership with Pakistan and Russia, either through the Taliban or otherwise using Shia elements in the country.....slow unofficial policy, over many years.

Iran's defense spending must be increased from the current 3% to 12% of GDP.........and greater domestic production of specific key conventional weapons systems, and any "gifts" from China and Russia.

The Spooks run ALL terrorists.

2011-12-22T21:06:00.005+07:00

.
.
.
.
Yes I've heard about the spooks running the IRA before.

But nobody has offered a reasonable explanation why the IRA were activated with 600 full members by the spooks for so many years, with so many deaths of innocents.

Was it a shadow war of the American empire attacking the British empire in full retreat?

Why would the British state, with its vast experience of counter-insurgency bring in the Israelis on British soil?

Was it an attempt to destabilize the British civilian government........Gladio style?

What did it achieve?

Do faggotty spooks enjoy wholly unnecessary conflict because it serves certain strange sexual urges? It gives them a sense of power and self worth in society, hidden away?

_______________________

IRA RUN BY THE SPOOKS by aangirfan

Ian Hurst, former spook.

Most terrorists work for the security services.

Lord Stevens, a former UK police chief, is quoted as saying that only three out of 210 terrorist suspects he arrested in a probe in Northern Ireland were not working for either the police, the security service MI5 or the UK Army.

On 21 December 2011, we learn that the IRA was run by the UK security services.

Half of all the top IRA men 'worked for security services'

Belfast by DanUneken

According to a 24-page document, written by UK intelligence officer Ian Hurst:

1. Half of all the senior IRA members were working for the UK intelligence services

2. Freddie Scappaticci, the IRA's head of internal security, the agent known as Stakeknife, worked for British intelligence.

3. Lord Stevens told Hurst that of 210 terrorist suspects he arrested, only three were not security force agents.

4. MI5 had a network of agents within the Garda, the Irish police force.

From 1982-1990, Ian Hurst (aka Martin Ingram) was in Londonderry handling agents like Frank Hegarty, an IRA quartermaster later murdered for betraying a cache of Libyan weapons.

Ian Hurst has claimed that Martin McGuinness reported to MI6.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/half-of-all-top-ira-men-worked-for-security-services-16093721.html#ixzz1hC5vcodA

Northern Ireland by niknkimnollie

Richard M Bennett, in Asia Times, June 2003, made the following points about the UK security services and assassinations:

1. In the early 1970s Rafael Eitan, head of the Mossad hit-squad known as the 'Kidon', toured Northern Ireland and the Special Air Services (SAS) base in Hereford, England.

Shortly after his visit there were big changes in UK security policy, including the setting up of what was to become the Force Reconnaissance Unit (FRU) .

The FRU was involved in the targeting of Irish Republicans for assassination by death squads.

The FRU may have been involved in the de Menezes killing.

2. In 1988, three Irish Republican Army (IRA) members were killed in Gibraltar by the SAS (UK special forces).

Reportedly, it was Mossad who had tracked the IRA men.

3. In 1972, John Wyman of MI6 recruited the Littlejohn brothers to carry out bank robberies and bomb attacks in the Republic of Ireland.

Wyman said to them that there was "going to be a policy of political assassination" for which they were to make themselves available.

Wyman gave the Littlejohns a list of IRA leaders to assassinate; these included Seamus Costello, Sean Qarland and Sean McStiofain.

Northern Ireland by Hotpix UK Tony Smith

In the USA, in November 1982, five men were acquitted of smuggling arms to the IRA after they revealed that the CIA had approved the shipment.[98]

There is a theory that many of the Irish terror groups were Mafias run by elements of the CIA and MI6.

It was all about making money from drugs and guns, and discrediting the Republican movement.

Northern Ireland by Slainte

Kevin Fulton, a former British soldier claimed that he had flown to New York, met FBI and MI5 agents and was given money to buy an infra-red device to be used to set off IRA bombs. (Congress probes 'IoS' revelations on IRA link.)

According to one source: "the Real IRA has in the past been exposed as being run by MI5 agents, as was the case in the Omagh bombing, and it appears that the British officials are keen to continue keeping people in fear through this same control mechanism." (statism watch - Real IRA plot.)

Former British spy Kevin Fulton reported that "the real reason why the Real IRA murderers who planted the bomb at Omagh, have never been taken to court or their cases investigated - it is because the actual bomber, Sean Hoey, was also working for the RUC (the police)". (MI5 & the IRA!)

Gerry Adams by Slainte

"In 2006, the Guardian reported that, two British agents were central to the bombings of three army border installations in 1990, the claims included tactics known as the human bomb, which involved forcing civilians to drive vehicles laden with explosives into army checkpoints, this tactic was the brainchild of British intelligence.

"In 2006, it was also revealed that, a former British Army mole in the IRA has claimed that MI5 arranged a weapons buying trip to America in which he obtained detonators, later used by terrorists to murder soldiers and police officers, and British intelligence co-operated with the FBI, to ensure his trip to New York in the 1990s went ahead without incident, so that his cover would not be blown." (MI5 & the IRA!)

The UK's General Frank Kitson refers to the 'pseudo gang'. (General Frank Kitson: Trail Blazing Fake Terrorism)

Belfast bomb by Slainte

The pseudo gang works for the military but pretends to be a bunch of terrorists.

The idea of the 'pseudo gang' is to carry out acts of violence which can then be blamed on the people that the military wants to discredit.Pseudo gangs have been used in Vietnam, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, the Philippines, Kenya, Malaya, Northern Ireland, Iraq, New York and many other places.

Reportedly, the white Rhodesians used pseudo gangs to bomb churches (and murder missionaries) and blame the violence on black guerrillas.

GERRY ADAMS OF MI6?

Martin McGuinness of MI6