The official 9/11 story in under 5 minutes.....
In case you didn't know that 3 World Trade Center towers collapsed on that day (not two!) here's a 2 minute video to fill you in about WTC 7 too.....
The only 3 steel framed skyscapers ever to collapse without being part of a controlled demolition all collapsed in free fall into their own footprint on the same day on September 11th 2001. What are the chances of that???
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 September 2016
Friday, 8 July 2016
Chilcot's Blind Spot
The long awaited Chilcot report has been declared damning and highly critical of Britain's path to war in Iraq but actually doesn't really say anything we weren't already saying despite it's 2.6 million words. We know there were no WMDs, we know we were lied to and presented with false evidence already so how about investigating the real reasons we went to war? This article from Open Democracy UK reveals more in one page than Chilcot has in 7 years of writing. Chilcot failed to explore the persistent push by Britain and the US to privatise the Iraqi oil industry taking it out of state control and into the hands of BP and Shell.
see article.....
The long-awaited Chilcot Report was finally released today, examining the UK’s involvement in the Iraq War and occupation. Unfortunately, on the most important question, the report’s conclusions are all but silent: why did the UK go to war?
Chilcot takes at face value the Blair government’s claim that the motive was to address Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and limits its criticism to mistakes in the intelligence on WMD, and on insufficient administrative and military planning. He shows a remarkable lack of curiosity about the political factors behind the move to war, especially given the weakness (even at the time) of the WMD case.
To many people around the world, it was obvious that oil was a central issue, as Iraq itself had nearly a tenth of the world’s oil reserves, and together with its neighbouring countries nearly two thirds. There was a clear public interest in understanding how that affected UK decisions. Chilcot failed to explore it.
Section 10.3 of the report, in volume 9, records that senior government officials met secretly with BP and Shell on at several occasions (denied at the time) to discuss their commercial interests in obtaining contracts. Chilcot did not release the minutes, but we had obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act: they are posted here. In unusually expressive terms for a civil service write-up, one of the meeting’s minutes began, “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there".
Also in that section, Chilcot includes references to several pre-war documents identifying a British objective of using Iraqi oil to boost Britain’s own energy supplies. For example, a February 2002 Cabinet Office paper stated that the UK’s Iraq policy falls “within our objectives of preserving peace and stability in the Gulf and ensuring energy security”. A Foreign Office strategy paper in May 2003, which Chilcot didn’t include, was even more explicit: "The future shape of the Iraqi oil industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of OPEC, in both of which we have a vital interest".
As the UK’s strategy evolved with changing circumstances, two priority objectives remain consistently emphasised in the documents: to transfer Iraq’s oil industry from public ownership to the hands of multinational companies, and to make sure BP and Shell get a large piece of that.
During the direct occupation of 2003-4, the UK consistently pushed oil policy towards the longer-term issue of privatisation, rather than the immediate rebuilding of the war-damaged infrastructure. The government installed Terry Adams, a former senior manager of BP, in Baghdad to begin that work.
British officials knew their plans were not what Iraqis wanted. One document in 2004, seen but not released by Chilcot, noted that the oil issue was “politically sensitive, touching on issues of sovereignty”. Without recognising any conflict, it recommended that Britain “push the message on [foreign direct investment] to the Iraqis in private, but it will require careful handling to avoid the impression that we are trying to push the Iraqis down one particular path”.
British officials actively pressed the oil issue on the interim government in 2004-5, the provisional government in 2005-6, and the permanent government of from 2006. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote to Tony Blair in July 2005 setting out the progress on those activities. He wrote that Iraqi oil “remains important for the UK commercially and in terms of energy security. Foreign investment is badly needed and we need to continue to support Iraq to create the right framework for investment, while also supporting UK companies to engage”.
During the December 2005 election, British Ambassador William Patey sought to pressure candidates to accept passage of an oil privatization law as a top priority for the new government. During 2006 and 2007 this law became the key focus of British and US political efforts in Iraq. Forcing passage of this law became a major focus of UK and US political efforts over the subsequent two years, and was closely tied to the “surge” in troops that President Bush announced in January 2007.
In the end, attempts by Britain and the US to force a law through that legalised oil privatisation failed. The law was not passed, largely because of a popular Iraqi campaign against it. It was then decided to sign long-term contracts even without any legal basis for doing so. Iraq´s oil industry is largely now run – illegally – by companies like BP, Shell and ExxonMobil.
Chilcot has said he was not asked to judge whether the war was legal. Yet in his failure to examine the real motive for war, he has side-lined crucial evidence that might tell us about the legality of the war and occupation, and the culpability of senior UK officials, including Tony Blair.
see article.....
Chilcot's blind spot: Iraq War report buries oil evidence, fails to address motive
When the UK invaded, Iraq had nearly a tenth of the
world's oil reserves -- and government documents "explicitly state" oil
was a consideration before the war. Why didn't Chilcot explore it
further?
 |
The long-awaited Chilcot Report was finally released today, examining the UK’s involvement in the Iraq War and occupation. Unfortunately, on the most important question, the report’s conclusions are all but silent: why did the UK go to war?
Chilcot takes at face value the Blair government’s claim that the motive was to address Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and limits its criticism to mistakes in the intelligence on WMD, and on insufficient administrative and military planning. He shows a remarkable lack of curiosity about the political factors behind the move to war, especially given the weakness (even at the time) of the WMD case.
Most important of these is oil. Buried in deep in volume 9 of the 2.6 million-word report, Chilcot refers to government documents that explicitly state the oil objective, and outlining how Britain pursued that objective throughout the occupation. But he does not consider this evidence in his analysis or conclusions. Oil considerations do not even appear in the report’s 150-page summary.Chilcot takes at face value the Blair government’s claim that the motive was to address Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
To many people around the world, it was obvious that oil was a central issue, as Iraq itself had nearly a tenth of the world’s oil reserves, and together with its neighbouring countries nearly two thirds. There was a clear public interest in understanding how that affected UK decisions. Chilcot failed to explore it.
Section 10.3 of the report, in volume 9, records that senior government officials met secretly with BP and Shell on at several occasions (denied at the time) to discuss their commercial interests in obtaining contracts. Chilcot did not release the minutes, but we had obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act: they are posted here. In unusually expressive terms for a civil service write-up, one of the meeting’s minutes began, “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there".
Also in that section, Chilcot includes references to several pre-war documents identifying a British objective of using Iraqi oil to boost Britain’s own energy supplies. For example, a February 2002 Cabinet Office paper stated that the UK’s Iraq policy falls “within our objectives of preserving peace and stability in the Gulf and ensuring energy security”. A Foreign Office strategy paper in May 2003, which Chilcot didn’t include, was even more explicit: "The future shape of the Iraqi oil industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of OPEC, in both of which we have a vital interest".
So there was the motive; but how did the UK act on it? That same section 10.3 refers to numerous documents revealing the UK’s evolving actions to shape the structure of the Iraqi oil industry, throughout the occupation until 2009. The government did so in close coordination with BP and Shell. This full story – with its crucial context – was told in Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq.During the direct occupation of 2003-4, the UK consistently pushed oil policy towards the longer-term issue of privatisation, rather than the immediate rebuilding of the war-damaged infrastructure.
As the UK’s strategy evolved with changing circumstances, two priority objectives remain consistently emphasised in the documents: to transfer Iraq’s oil industry from public ownership to the hands of multinational companies, and to make sure BP and Shell get a large piece of that.
During the direct occupation of 2003-4, the UK consistently pushed oil policy towards the longer-term issue of privatisation, rather than the immediate rebuilding of the war-damaged infrastructure. The government installed Terry Adams, a former senior manager of BP, in Baghdad to begin that work.
British officials knew their plans were not what Iraqis wanted. One document in 2004, seen but not released by Chilcot, noted that the oil issue was “politically sensitive, touching on issues of sovereignty”. Without recognising any conflict, it recommended that Britain “push the message on [foreign direct investment] to the Iraqis in private, but it will require careful handling to avoid the impression that we are trying to push the Iraqis down one particular path”.
British officials actively pressed the oil issue on the interim government in 2004-5, the provisional government in 2005-6, and the permanent government of from 2006. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote to Tony Blair in July 2005 setting out the progress on those activities. He wrote that Iraqi oil “remains important for the UK commercially and in terms of energy security. Foreign investment is badly needed and we need to continue to support Iraq to create the right framework for investment, while also supporting UK companies to engage”.
During the December 2005 election, British Ambassador William Patey sought to pressure candidates to accept passage of an oil privatization law as a top priority for the new government. During 2006 and 2007 this law became the key focus of British and US political efforts in Iraq. Forcing passage of this law became a major focus of UK and US political efforts over the subsequent two years, and was closely tied to the “surge” in troops that President Bush announced in January 2007.
Deep in volume 9, when Chilcot refers to these British efforts, he presents them under the veneer of normal diplomatic activity, neglecting the reality that the UK and USA still had 150,000 troops the country, and had directly appointed the interim government. The permanent government in 2006 was established through elections the UK and USA had designed, and contested by the politicians they had promoted. Terry Adams was even commissioned to draft the contracts that would be signed with the likes of his former company.Attempts by Britain and the US to force a law through that legalised oil privatisation failed
In the end, attempts by Britain and the US to force a law through that legalised oil privatisation failed. The law was not passed, largely because of a popular Iraqi campaign against it. It was then decided to sign long-term contracts even without any legal basis for doing so. Iraq´s oil industry is largely now run – illegally – by companies like BP, Shell and ExxonMobil.
Chilcot has said he was not asked to judge whether the war was legal. Yet in his failure to examine the real motive for war, he has side-lined crucial evidence that might tell us about the legality of the war and occupation, and the culpability of senior UK officials, including Tony Blair.
Iraq´s oil industry is largely now run – illegally – by companies like BP, Shell and ExxonMobil.
Friday, 5 February 2016
War with Iran?
Article from PressTV:
Why does this mean possible war or invasion of Iran? Well when Iraq and Libya stopped trading oil in US dollars and switched to Euros or other currencies they were swiftly invaded, overthrown and switched back to payments in dollars.
If you ain't a clue what I'm on about or why it matters, my blog post "Petrodollar Warfare" from a couple of years ago is still relevant and will explain. http://jonnybrand.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/petrodollar-warfare.html
Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil and decided to switch to the Euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.
The Iraq war began March 2003; Baghdad fell in April; by June Iraq was now selling oil in dollars again.
.....Good luck Iran!!!
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/02/05/448836/Iran-wants-oil-payments-in-euros-only-"Iran wants oil payments in euros only"
Why does this mean possible war or invasion of Iran? Well when Iraq and Libya stopped trading oil in US dollars and switched to Euros or other currencies they were swiftly invaded, overthrown and switched back to payments in dollars.
If you ain't a clue what I'm on about or why it matters, my blog post "Petrodollar Warfare" from a couple of years ago is still relevant and will explain. http://jonnybrand.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/petrodollar-warfare.html
Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil and decided to switch to the Euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.
The Iraq war began March 2003; Baghdad fell in April; by June Iraq was now selling oil in dollars again.
.....Good luck Iran!!!
Thursday, 3 December 2015
I am a terrorist sympathiser.....
.....according to David Cameron.
Cameron urged his MPs not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" before the vote on whether Britain should start military strikes in Syria. Being anti-war and against illegally bombing other countries is apparently an extremist view, bombs are always the answer and anyone who disagrees (most of the British population) is a terrorist sympathiser.
If you're not sure what a terrorist sympathiser is or what one looks like I did a quick bit of research and found the following images to illustrate it perfectly.....
Now that Britain has already started bombing Syria after MPs voted yes yesterday Cameron has finally got the war he's been desperate for, hold on though..... remember what he said a couple of weeks ago?
But why is nobody asking where ISIS and militant groups are getting all their weapons from? Who's funding them? Who's buying the oil from the oil fields they control? Who's letting new militants across the border into Iraq and Syria? Who are the 'moderate' rebels? (surely no terrorists can be described as moderate). Why are Turkey and Saudi Arabia still 'friends' and allies despite their shady connections to all of the above?
Stop the flow of weapons, money and people and eventually the problem is starved. The majority of the fighters are paid mercenaries who fight for whoever pays the most, therefore no money = no army. Stop the flow of arms into the region and they've nothing to fight with. If we can spend billions on brimstone missiles why not spend billions on tackling the above instead and save many thousands of innocent lives being lost in the crossfire?
This way the only people who lose out are terrorists and people who own shares in the arms trade ;-)
Why aren't I the Minister for Foreign Affairs?
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya all destroyed. Syria nearly done. Next up probably Lebanon as a warm up for the big end goal..... Iran.
Cameron urged his MPs not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" before the vote on whether Britain should start military strikes in Syria. Being anti-war and against illegally bombing other countries is apparently an extremist view, bombs are always the answer and anyone who disagrees (most of the British population) is a terrorist sympathiser.
If you're not sure what a terrorist sympathiser is or what one looks like I did a quick bit of research and found the following images to illustrate it perfectly.....
Stop the flow of weapons, money and people and eventually the problem is starved. The majority of the fighters are paid mercenaries who fight for whoever pays the most, therefore no money = no army. Stop the flow of arms into the region and they've nothing to fight with. If we can spend billions on brimstone missiles why not spend billions on tackling the above instead and save many thousands of innocent lives being lost in the crossfire?
This way the only people who lose out are terrorists and people who own shares in the arms trade ;-)
Why aren't I the Minister for Foreign Affairs?
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya all destroyed. Syria nearly done. Next up probably Lebanon as a warm up for the big end goal..... Iran.
Wednesday, 9 September 2015
It all makes sense now!
This short article I found by stop the war coalition explains exactly why the Obama regime and the Cameron regime are yet again bombing in the Middle East. It should help clear up any confusion you may have, a quick 30 second read will put it all into perspective.....
Why we're bombing Iraq and Syria: Obama and Cameron clear up any confusion
Obama and Cameron remove any misunderstanding about why the United States and Britain are bombing in the Middle East again.
You may be confused about why we are bombing Iraq and Syria. So we will make ourselves very clear.
We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS.
We don't like ISIS, but ISIS has been supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like, and Saudi Arabia is now supporting us in bombing ISIS.
We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not ISIS, which is also fighting against him.
We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government against ISIS.
So some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.
If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.
And all this was started by us invading Iraq to drive out terrorists who weren't there until we went to drive them out.
We hope you now understand.
We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS.
We don't like ISIS, but ISIS has been supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like, and Saudi Arabia is now supporting us in bombing ISIS.
We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not ISIS, which is also fighting against him.
We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government against ISIS.
So some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.
If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.
And all this was started by us invading Iraq to drive out terrorists who weren't there until we went to drive them out.
We hope you now understand.
Sunday, 5 October 2014
off with IS head
Just trying to put myself into the mind of a ruthless terrorist..... Yes I think I'll film the beheading of some hostages and then I'll do a polished post production and fade to black to edit out the most gruesome part of the actual beheading because although I'm extremely evil I do have boundaries of decency. I will then clean up all the blood and just show a still photo of the decapitated head on the body. I will then keep uploading these videos to unknown accounts because I want armies from America and Europe to keep on bombing me and my terrorist soldiers to hamper our sinister objectives of creating an Islamic State.
Now I'll try and put myself in the mind of an American/European member of the public (ooh I'm one of those!)..... Hmmmm I've seen about these beheading videos all over the news and media constantly for every minute of every day, I've not seen the actual beheading part in them because even the original versions don't show that, and now I can't see them at all because they've been banned from being shown on youtube or anywhere in the media, but the media tells me they've beheaded a couple of British and Americans so I am outraged and will post status updates on social media saying how disgusted I am with undertones of religious/racial hatred. I now accept Iraq and Syria being bombed at a cost of billions in taxpayer's money because my government told me not to question it, actually I don't really care anymore, it's boring now and X Factor is on in a minute anyway.
Now who knows what goes on in the mind of a Western politician leader?! David Cameron for instance finds himself able to announce public service cuts and new taxes to make up £billions in deficit whilst simultaneously backing military action in Iraq at a cost of £billions!
Both US and UK governments seem 100% satisfied with the authenticity of the videos from day one, and America (of course) was first to initiate a new war which is based on a few oddly editted YouTube videos created and uploaded by persons unknown. With the 'beheading' videos and related stories there has never been a better example of what six weeks of wall to wall media coverage can achieve in terms of transforming public opinion. In this case, the objective is a green light to reignite the War on Terror into Iraq and Syria and to re-brand the enemy from Al Qaeda to ISIS. With the help of US and European multinational corporate TV networks, the videos have triggered an artificial tidal wave of national hysteria.
Logically if the real objective was to eliminate ISIS, then you would expect Washington and the Obama regime would want to sit down with both the Syria and Iraqi governments in order to create a strategy to flush out the so called Islamic State. With that level of coordination, the terror group could be wiped out in no time, but that cannot happen because the US has a double agenda.
Part one of that agenda is the popular front with the US and it's allies promising to degrade ISIS, while the second part is the unpopular covert agenda of continuing the long running project of driving a messy civil war inside Syria by supporting, funding and arming rebel fighters to achieve a change of Governance in Syria.
The US will use any air strikes in Syria to hit key Syrian military targets carried out under a complete media blackout around ‘wrong targets’, and also use air strikes to provide air cover for the Syrian 'rebels' which it has been funding and arming since 2012. Please remember last year when with the backing of the military industrial complex the Obama regime and drooling puppet PM Cameron were desperately trying to convince everyone we needed to bomb Syria, it was so unpopular they couldn't do it and set about arming terrorist groups for a proxy war instead. A year on and here we are firing missiles and dropping bombs in Iraq and Syria to fight the terrorists that we armed last year. Arms manufacturers are popping the champagne again. British made Brimstone missiles cost £100,000 each (could pay annual salary of three nurses for every single missile fired), American Tomahawk missiles cost $1.4million each! (wow!)
£££ kerrr ching! $$$
see also the post i wrote a couple of weeks ago "More War = Love and Peace"
Oh by the way, nice to see that stock prices for military contractors (such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman) shot to all time record highs last week when Obama and Co. committed to more prolonged and sustained war in Iraq and Syria. Nice one! At least someone benefits, it's not all doom and gloom. :-)
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
More War = Love and Peace
So for the last couple of years the US, Britain, NATO and Western aligned Arab countries have been funding, arming and assisting 'rebels' in Syria to try and overthrow Assad's Government, erm oops i meant to say Assad's regime, and now it has been decided that these rebels are actually terrorists and so we have to bomb them. So does this mean they were previously collaborating with these Islamic State terrorists? Oooh don't worry about that! stop asking questions, here are the facts.....
No civilians will die or be displaced by these strikes, only evil terrorists will be affected because firing missiles from the sea hundreds of miles away has pin point accuracy.
No roads, homes, water supply or electricity infrastructure will be destroyed and in the remote chance that this does happen US troops will come and clear everything up and assist local independent contractors in repairing the damage.
Bombing a declared Islamic state is definitely not an act of war against Syria because the supposed enemy is not officially Syria as a sovereign nation. It's also definitely not a war crime because although Syria's government gave no consent for military action the US told them they were going to drop bombs in their country regardless so it's all fine.
The alliance of Arab countries assisting the US militarily is absolutely not a PR front and it's just a coincidence that Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and UAE have been and are staunch allies of the US. All these countries will have hugely significant involvement and it won't just be their names tagged to the situation because as Obama tells us "IS is not America's fight alone".
The war against ISIS has no wider motive to further destabilise the Syrian Government, it's just a coincidence that US and Britain were eager to bomb them last year but it wasn't politically viable to do so at the time.
Hardly anyone has died in Iraq due to war over the last 10 years, only a million or so people so history suggests that arming Kurdish groups in Iraq won't really ignite more war and more deaths. Arming people to fight against people you have also armed previously has something to do with democracy somewhere, I'm sure it does. More weapons = peace.
Russia and Iran having a mutual defense agreement with Syria is completely irrelevant and both of these countries warning the US against military actions inside Syria is nothing to be concerned about.
David Cameron announcing his backing of military strikes and offering support to the US will be a complete shock to us all and at no point do we expect to see Britain getting involved in another messy illegal war.
No part of the military industrial complex will profit from this latest round of war mongering, all weapons manufacturers and military contractors will still exist if there is no more war and they will still make billions in profit if we have nobody to fire tomohawk missiles at and don't decide to bolster our nuclear defense systems when all war has ended.
All of this will be over really soon, everything will have a happy ending and people from all countries involved will be forever grateful that all this war and destruction has yet again brought love and peace to the world.
No civilians will die or be displaced by these strikes, only evil terrorists will be affected because firing missiles from the sea hundreds of miles away has pin point accuracy.
No roads, homes, water supply or electricity infrastructure will be destroyed and in the remote chance that this does happen US troops will come and clear everything up and assist local independent contractors in repairing the damage.
Bombing a declared Islamic state is definitely not an act of war against Syria because the supposed enemy is not officially Syria as a sovereign nation. It's also definitely not a war crime because although Syria's government gave no consent for military action the US told them they were going to drop bombs in their country regardless so it's all fine.
The alliance of Arab countries assisting the US militarily is absolutely not a PR front and it's just a coincidence that Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and UAE have been and are staunch allies of the US. All these countries will have hugely significant involvement and it won't just be their names tagged to the situation because as Obama tells us "IS is not America's fight alone".
The war against ISIS has no wider motive to further destabilise the Syrian Government, it's just a coincidence that US and Britain were eager to bomb them last year but it wasn't politically viable to do so at the time.
Hardly anyone has died in Iraq due to war over the last 10 years, only a million or so people so history suggests that arming Kurdish groups in Iraq won't really ignite more war and more deaths. Arming people to fight against people you have also armed previously has something to do with democracy somewhere, I'm sure it does. More weapons = peace.
Russia and Iran having a mutual defense agreement with Syria is completely irrelevant and both of these countries warning the US against military actions inside Syria is nothing to be concerned about.
David Cameron announcing his backing of military strikes and offering support to the US will be a complete shock to us all and at no point do we expect to see Britain getting involved in another messy illegal war.
No part of the military industrial complex will profit from this latest round of war mongering, all weapons manufacturers and military contractors will still exist if there is no more war and they will still make billions in profit if we have nobody to fire tomohawk missiles at and don't decide to bolster our nuclear defense systems when all war has ended.
All of this will be over really soon, everything will have a happy ending and people from all countries involved will be forever grateful that all this war and destruction has yet again brought love and peace to the world.
Friday, 8 August 2014
stop the killing...and...erm...start the airstrikes!!!
Obama authorises Iraq air strikes on Islamist fighters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28699832.....says this morning's headlines. So the 'rebels' that the US were backing, arming and funding in Syria to fight against the Syrian government are now called Islamic militants since crossing the border into Iraq. If these Islamic State fighters or ISIS or whatever they are now calling themselves are forcibly taking control of Iraqi towns and slaughtering those who resist then yes it's terrible and must be stopped but then the same groups were trying to do the same in Syria and we were told they were the good guys when they were attacking Damascus.
Mr Obama said the US could not turn a "blind eye" to the prospect of violence "on a horrific scale", he said the US would act "carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide".
Erm..... Obama mate, are you talking about Gaza now? No?? Oh right, yes of course, I forgot that Israel are merely defending themselves (with F-16 fighter jets), yeh you're talking about how we can't stand aside and allow all these innocent people to be oppressed and killed...... in Iraq
Too many people have died and suffered in Iraq already over the last 10 years of war so..... let's start airstrikes!!!
Speaking of the Iraq war and the million that died because of those pesky non existent WMDs.....
http://jonnybrand.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/iraq.html
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
War on Syria then on to Iran
The Syrian government are being framed by the US and NATO with the chemical weapons story to give an excuse for war. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that Assad's Syrian army have used chemical weapons but even so the news channels loop John Kerry spouting his mouth off about the "moral obscenity" of the "undeniable" use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. There is going to be a war, the UN inspectors are conducting a meaningless investigation because it doesn't matter what they conclude, the war will escalate anyway and the US and UK are going in, it's already been decided. Sound familiar? Iraq? Libya?
Iran and Syria have a mutual defence agreement which is exactly why the whole Syria situation is happening, it's to draw Iran into a war. Petrodollar warfare is what it's all about. In September 2000 Saddam Hussein announced a switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency, the Iraq war began March 2003; Baghdad fell in April; by June Iraq was now selling oil in dollars again.
New York's NYMEX and London's IPE oil exchanges dominate international trade in oil and primarily exchange in dollars. The Iranian Oil Borse (IOB) officially opened as an oil commodity exchange in Feb 2008. During 2007 Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non US dollar currencies. By December 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major (non-US) currencies. Iran is the third largest oil producer in the world so this is a big deal and a big threat to US financial interests due to reduced demand for the dollar. Previous attempts to get at Iran haven't gained enough momentum such as the claims they are harbouring nuclear weapons and the insanely heavy trade sanctions which they partly avoid by using alternative trade agreements with certain countries. So plan B is to start war next door to Iran and drag them in.
The UN investigators have found that the Syrian rebels are more likely to have used sarin nerve gas, the same rebels that are backed, funded and armed by the US. The news channels however will report how our politicians are squarely blaming chemical weapon attacks on Assad's Syrian army. Tony Blair the middle east peace envoy is now calling for military strikes against Syria, yes that's right I said 'peace' envoy, the same guy who helped bring 'peace' to Iraq when he was PM. This crossing a red line that we keep hearing about from Obama doesn't really matter, it's just a marker to refer back to when larger scale intervention is being justified. William Hague has said military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is possible without the unanimous consent of the UN Security Council. Meanwhile Russia warns of catastrophic consequences of military intervention in Syria.
This war was planned some time ago and all roads lead to Tehran..... remember though Russia and China are watching.......
And finally, maybe we should also listen to president Assad's side of the story ,that's only fair, right?
Iran and Syria have a mutual defence agreement which is exactly why the whole Syria situation is happening, it's to draw Iran into a war. Petrodollar warfare is what it's all about. In September 2000 Saddam Hussein announced a switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency, the Iraq war began March 2003; Baghdad fell in April; by June Iraq was now selling oil in dollars again.
New York's NYMEX and London's IPE oil exchanges dominate international trade in oil and primarily exchange in dollars. The Iranian Oil Borse (IOB) officially opened as an oil commodity exchange in Feb 2008. During 2007 Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non US dollar currencies. By December 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major (non-US) currencies. Iran is the third largest oil producer in the world so this is a big deal and a big threat to US financial interests due to reduced demand for the dollar. Previous attempts to get at Iran haven't gained enough momentum such as the claims they are harbouring nuclear weapons and the insanely heavy trade sanctions which they partly avoid by using alternative trade agreements with certain countries. So plan B is to start war next door to Iran and drag them in.
The UN investigators have found that the Syrian rebels are more likely to have used sarin nerve gas, the same rebels that are backed, funded and armed by the US. The news channels however will report how our politicians are squarely blaming chemical weapon attacks on Assad's Syrian army. Tony Blair the middle east peace envoy is now calling for military strikes against Syria, yes that's right I said 'peace' envoy, the same guy who helped bring 'peace' to Iraq when he was PM. This crossing a red line that we keep hearing about from Obama doesn't really matter, it's just a marker to refer back to when larger scale intervention is being justified. William Hague has said military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is possible without the unanimous consent of the UN Security Council. Meanwhile Russia warns of catastrophic consequences of military intervention in Syria.
This war was planned some time ago and all roads lead to Tehran..... remember though Russia and China are watching.......
And finally, maybe we should also listen to president Assad's side of the story ,that's only fair, right?
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
whistleblowing in the wind
Bradley Manning was judged today to be guilty of 20 of the 22 charges against him and faces sentencing tomorrow. He will very likely spend the rest of his life in prison.
Those guilty of the war crimes he exposed continue to walk free without question.
Imagine a scenario where you witness a variety of serious crimes, lets say you yourself are aware and have evidence of work colleagues repeatedly stealing, covering up fraud, blackmailing, bullying and harassing people. You decide you cannot knowingly let this happen behind closed doors anymore and expose them with specific undeniable evidence. You feel a moral obligation to blow the whistle. Your bosses then decide it is you that should be punished for revealing secrets about your work environment and turn a blind eye to the colleagues you exposed because your bosses were in on it all along!. You've done the right thing but the system is against you.
Bradley Manning knew his government was corrupt and that he would be punished but he still leaked the documents, he is a hero and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Among the war crimes he exposed were;
Those guilty of the war crimes he exposed continue to walk free without question.
Imagine a scenario where you witness a variety of serious crimes, lets say you yourself are aware and have evidence of work colleagues repeatedly stealing, covering up fraud, blackmailing, bullying and harassing people. You decide you cannot knowingly let this happen behind closed doors anymore and expose them with specific undeniable evidence. You feel a moral obligation to blow the whistle. Your bosses then decide it is you that should be punished for revealing secrets about your work environment and turn a blind eye to the colleagues you exposed because your bosses were in on it all along!. You've done the right thing but the system is against you.
Bradley Manning knew his government was corrupt and that he would be punished but he still leaked the documents, he is a hero and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Among the war crimes he exposed were;
- U.S. Military officials withheld information about the indiscriminate killing of Reuters journalists and innocent Iraqi civilians.
- There is an official policy to ignore torture in Iraq.
- Guantanamo prison has knowingly held mostly innocent people and low-level operatives.
- The Obama Administration allowed Yemen’s President to cover up a secret U.S. drone bombing campaign.
- U.S. officials were told to cover up evidence of child abuse by contractors in Afghanistan.
- Known Egyptian torturers received training from the FBI in Quantico, Virginia.
- There is an official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan- for every death that is classified as a combatant, two innocent men, women or children are also killed.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Free Bradley Manning
Bradley Manning is private in the US army who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed classified material to the website WikiLeaks. He was ultimately charged with 22 offences, including communicating national defence information to an unauthorised source and aiding the enemy. Having been detained for 3 years without charge he is currently on trial answering these charges with the trial due to conclude in the next few days with his probable lifetime incarceration.
Amongst the many documents he leaked was the video known as 'Collateral Murder' (see below), the video from July 12, 2007 showed an American helicopter firing on a group of men in Baghdad. One of the men was a journalist, and two other men were Reuters employees carrying cameras that the pilots readily mistook for weapons. The helicopter also fired on a van that stopped to help the injured members of the first group; two children in the van were wounded and their father killed.
The video reveals the sickening blase attitude towards killing innocent civilians and at one point we hear someone begging for clearance to open fire (9:13) on the group of men in the van who's apparent crime is turning up to collect the bodies of the men that these US soldiers had gunned down moments before.
The details of what WikiLeaks revealed courtesy of Manning expose a full menu of scandalous, shameful, disgusting, corrupt revelations that were fully intended to be kept under wraps forever. However it is the heroic whistleblower Manning that is being brought to 'justice' as if to make an example to other potential whistleblowers that if you tell the public about these atrocities then you will be hunted down and destroyed. This is why Julian Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with round the clock police guard waiting outside to arrest him should he set foot outside, this at a cost of over £3million over the last year. This is why Edward Snowdon is stuck in a Russian airport unable to fly to any of the countries who have granted him asylum for fear of being captured and brought back to US soil to face a similar fate to Manning.
The truth is not a crime. Exposing war crimes is not a crime. Bradley Manning faces life in prison for telling the truth. Truth is only treason in an empire full of lies. Free Bradley Manning!
If you agree with the sentiments of this post please share, +1 and email to help public awareness.....
Amongst the many documents he leaked was the video known as 'Collateral Murder' (see below), the video from July 12, 2007 showed an American helicopter firing on a group of men in Baghdad. One of the men was a journalist, and two other men were Reuters employees carrying cameras that the pilots readily mistook for weapons. The helicopter also fired on a van that stopped to help the injured members of the first group; two children in the van were wounded and their father killed.
The video reveals the sickening blase attitude towards killing innocent civilians and at one point we hear someone begging for clearance to open fire (9:13) on the group of men in the van who's apparent crime is turning up to collect the bodies of the men that these US soldiers had gunned down moments before.
The details of what WikiLeaks revealed courtesy of Manning expose a full menu of scandalous, shameful, disgusting, corrupt revelations that were fully intended to be kept under wraps forever. However it is the heroic whistleblower Manning that is being brought to 'justice' as if to make an example to other potential whistleblowers that if you tell the public about these atrocities then you will be hunted down and destroyed. This is why Julian Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with round the clock police guard waiting outside to arrest him should he set foot outside, this at a cost of over £3million over the last year. This is why Edward Snowdon is stuck in a Russian airport unable to fly to any of the countries who have granted him asylum for fear of being captured and brought back to US soil to face a similar fate to Manning.
The truth is not a crime. Exposing war crimes is not a crime. Bradley Manning faces life in prison for telling the truth. Truth is only treason in an empire full of lies. Free Bradley Manning!
If you agree with the sentiments of this post please share, +1 and email to help public awareness.....
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
Petrodollar Warfare
All the wars, all the corruption, the lies, the media brainwashing, the false flag events, illegal invasions, cries of terrorism, recessions, bank collapses and the road the world war 3 can be directly linked in some way to one thing - the petrodollar.
This subject is huge and has many tangents to fire off at but here's an attempt at a brief summary;
The US dollar is backed by debt, unlike other countries America has no gold reserves to back the value of its currency and instead relies on a global demand for the dollar. The federal reserve is not owned by the country, the government or the tax paying public but is in fact a private bank, it lends huge sums of money to the government and very literally creates more money out of thin air on the basis that the previous debt will be payed back. These debts are now so vast they are impossible to ever pay back because the trillions of dollars required simply do not exist. The one thing keeping the dollar and the whole American economy alive is global demand for the currency due to commodities conventionally being traded in dollars, namely oil and trade of oil between countries is quoted in and directly linked to the value of the US dollar.
Now that's the basic system with I'm sure some oversights but it sets the scene for what follows, and basically what follows is war.
Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency. We all know what happened next of course, well we think we do anyway. The 2003 invasion, the non existent WMD, the toppling of Saddam, the long drawn out occupation of Iraq, and the resulting 1 million Iraqis who have died as a consequence. Anything else? Erm... well yes actually..... In 2003 the Bush Administration implemented a switch for Iraqi international oil sales to revert back to dollars instead of euros despite the fact that in mid-2003 the euro was valued approximately 13% higher than the dollar, and thus significantly impacted the ability of Iraq to finance rebuilding he countries infrastructure.
You get the general idea by now so apply this same thinking to many of the other US led wars, invasions, trade embargos and political interference and you'll find a pattern emerges.
This subject is huge and has many tangents to fire off at but here's an attempt at a brief summary;
Now that's the basic system with I'm sure some oversights but it sets the scene for what follows, and basically what follows is war.
Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency. We all know what happened next of course, well we think we do anyway. The 2003 invasion, the non existent WMD, the toppling of Saddam, the long drawn out occupation of Iraq, and the resulting 1 million Iraqis who have died as a consequence. Anything else? Erm... well yes actually..... In 2003 the Bush Administration implemented a switch for Iraqi international oil sales to revert back to dollars instead of euros despite the fact that in mid-2003 the euro was valued approximately 13% higher than the dollar, and thus significantly impacted the ability of Iraq to finance rebuilding he countries infrastructure.
The Iraq war began March 2003; Baghdad fell in April; by June Iraq was now selling oil in dollars againIt is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market.
You get the general idea by now so apply this same thinking to many of the other US led wars, invasions, trade embargos and political interference and you'll find a pattern emerges.
Libya - Gadaffi planned to cease selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars instead demanding payment in gold-backed Dinars (a single African currency made from gold). The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit. The US fed us some propaganda and then stamped on Libya.
Afghanistan - Why have troops stayed so long? The US needs control of Afghanistan to exert influence over Central Asian reserves. (It is estimated that the Caspian Sea basin has $12 trillion reserves of oil and natural gas.). Important pipelines cross through the region and Afghanistan is not only adjacent to countries which are rich in oil and natural gas (e.g Turkmenistan), it also possesses within its territory sizeable untapped reserves of natural gas, coal and oil. The US does not necessarily intend to steal anyone’s oil but the nation remains utterly dependent on oil trade continuing in the dollar.
As the US dollar continued to lose purchasing power over time, several oil-producing countries began to question the wisdom of accepting increasingly worthless paper currency for their oil supplies. Today, several countries have attempted to move away, or already have moved away, from the petrodollar system. Examples include Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea… or the “axis of evil” if you prefer to use the words of the mainstream media. Additionally, other nations are choosing to use their own currencies for oil like China, Russia and India among others.
Clearly America aren't going to declare war on China, Russia or India (or at least not for a long while yet) but you will no doubt be aware of political unrest in the other countries I mention.
Venezuela - (failed) US sponsored military coup against Chavez. Attempts to rig presidential elections after the death of Chavez in favour of the pro US Capriles against the socialist Maduro (failed again)
Syria - US funded rebels fighting the Assad 'regime' along with Israeli military interference by US proxy.
North Korea - Strict sanctions and trade embargos justified by the axis of evil story and exaggerated claims of nuclear war threat
Iran - The list of sanctions against Iran is pages long. There is a corresponding bipartisan belief by US government officials that Iranian citizens will become so inflamed by the effects of the sanctions that they will rise up and topple their government but this has not proved to be the case and Iran partly work round many of the sanctions using alternative trade agreements with certain countries such as Turkey, Russia and China. Iran is the next big war waiting to happen and America just needs to concoct a decent reason to get in there that will carry enough public and international support.
Afghanistan - Why have troops stayed so long? The US needs control of Afghanistan to exert influence over Central Asian reserves. (It is estimated that the Caspian Sea basin has $12 trillion reserves of oil and natural gas.). Important pipelines cross through the region and Afghanistan is not only adjacent to countries which are rich in oil and natural gas (e.g Turkmenistan), it also possesses within its territory sizeable untapped reserves of natural gas, coal and oil. The US does not necessarily intend to steal anyone’s oil but the nation remains utterly dependent on oil trade continuing in the dollar.
As the US dollar continued to lose purchasing power over time, several oil-producing countries began to question the wisdom of accepting increasingly worthless paper currency for their oil supplies. Today, several countries have attempted to move away, or already have moved away, from the petrodollar system. Examples include Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea… or the “axis of evil” if you prefer to use the words of the mainstream media. Additionally, other nations are choosing to use their own currencies for oil like China, Russia and India among others.
Clearly America aren't going to declare war on China, Russia or India (or at least not for a long while yet) but you will no doubt be aware of political unrest in the other countries I mention.
Venezuela - (failed) US sponsored military coup against Chavez. Attempts to rig presidential elections after the death of Chavez in favour of the pro US Capriles against the socialist Maduro (failed again)
Syria - US funded rebels fighting the Assad 'regime' along with Israeli military interference by US proxy.
North Korea - Strict sanctions and trade embargos justified by the axis of evil story and exaggerated claims of nuclear war threat
Iran - The list of sanctions against Iran is pages long. There is a corresponding bipartisan belief by US government officials that Iranian citizens will become so inflamed by the effects of the sanctions that they will rise up and topple their government but this has not proved to be the case and Iran partly work round many of the sanctions using alternative trade agreements with certain countries such as Turkey, Russia and China. Iran is the next big war waiting to happen and America just needs to concoct a decent reason to get in there that will carry enough public and international support.
Ultimately the petrodollar is going out of the window bit by bit and without the artificial demand for the US dollar that this system creates the whole US economy will come crashing down with potentially devastating effects. America imports two thirds of the oil it needs and when the dollar crashes foreign fuel will be too expensive, the petrol pumps dry up and chaos will ensue, starting with panic buying then progressively empty supermarket shelves, looting, social breakdown, martial law, public uprising (this is part of the reason why the government wants to disarm the public through new gun control measures) and of course there will be significant wide reaching global economic problems particularly for those countries whose currency is closely linked to the US dollar.
There's no avoiding this scenario once it is upon us and unfortunately it is already upon us. This explains why there is so much desperation to stir political unrest and initiate wars. The world is like a chess board with pieces being strategically moved every day and currently it's only really the pawns that have been taken off the board with maybe a rook or two trapped into a corner. World War 3 is only a matter of time.....
Sunday, 28 April 2013
Crossing your own red line is absolutely fine
So here we go..... we know what's coming because we've seen it all before. Last time it was Bush and Blair and this time it's Obama and Cameron, different leaders, same regime, same intentions.
Remember the pretext for the Iraq war? Weapons of mass destruction, regime attacking their own people, the axis of evil, human rights atrocities, war crimes. Of course you remember and that's why the talk we're hearing regarding Syria over the last few days sounds so familiar.
Obama has repeatedly stated Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a red line and could move the US closer to military intervention in the Syrian civil war. Now we're told chemical weapons have probably been used and await the next development..... we know it's all bullshit of course and don't forget that the rebels fighting against the Bashar al-Assad 'regime' are actually supported and encouraged by the US with a blatant intention to destabilise the region.
But why is there an interest in Syria? They're not a major producer of oil or gas, they're not a politically verbal or economic threat in the same way as Gaddafi and Libya, so whats going on? Well look at it like this- Syria might not be a major power in the Middle East, but a Syrian uprising may determine the shape of the future regional 'energy map'. The biggest losers in a successful war for regime change would be Iran, who recently signed a major pipeline deal with Syria and Iraq that is ultimately aimed at bringing Iranian gas to the Mediterranean Sea, and Russia, which has sought to expand its own influence in energy development in the region. Washington bitterly opposed this pipeline deal.
Remember the pretext for the Iraq war? Weapons of mass destruction, regime attacking their own people, the axis of evil, human rights atrocities, war crimes. Of course you remember and that's why the talk we're hearing regarding Syria over the last few days sounds so familiar.
“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations”No of course you can't condone that Mr Obama! You must also have been outraged when the US military used devastating chemical weapons during its barbaric siege of Fallujah in Iraq! The line was crossed when they used white phosphorus shells and an advanced form of napalm because they are both banned by international conventions and THAT was a war crime yes? men, women and children burnt alive.
The ongoing legacy of these weapons plagues the Iraqi people with huge increases in child leukemia and cancer, and an epidemic of nightmarish birth defects in Fallujah, Basra and the other cities subjected to a US military siege
“It’s limited evidence, but there’s growing evidence that we have seen too of the use of chemical weapons, probably by the regime.”Aah now David Cameron is chipping in is he? "limited evidence", "probably by the regime", not really convincing me there Dave, sorry mate but no I won't be happy if you spend my taxes on intervening in Syria because there seems to be no evidence whatsoever.
 |
| note that Assad does have big support from the Syrian people just like Gaddafi did in Libya |
But why is there an interest in Syria? They're not a major producer of oil or gas, they're not a politically verbal or economic threat in the same way as Gaddafi and Libya, so whats going on? Well look at it like this- Syria might not be a major power in the Middle East, but a Syrian uprising may determine the shape of the future regional 'energy map'. The biggest losers in a successful war for regime change would be Iran, who recently signed a major pipeline deal with Syria and Iraq that is ultimately aimed at bringing Iranian gas to the Mediterranean Sea, and Russia, which has sought to expand its own influence in energy development in the region. Washington bitterly opposed this pipeline deal.
The obvious winners of regime change would be the US and its allies, together with the major Western based energy conglomerates.
Syria's geographic location offers Mediterranean access to landlocked entities in search of markets for their hydrocarbons and to countries seeking access to Europe without having to go through Turkey. Opportunities in the region would be lost with a crushed Syria but more importantly new opportunities will emerge under a new Syrian regime. The end goal of US imperialism and its NATO allies in Syria is to isolate and prepare for a far larger war against Iran, with the aim of imposing neocolonial control over the whole vast energy-producing region.
Keep watching and see where this red line is drawn, then watch a bit longer and see the very people who drew the line walk straight across it. It's going to happen and you know it is. When the war starts many thousands of people will die. Did someone say war crimes?
Thursday, 10 May 2012
charity begins at home?
Whilst walking through town today i was asked at a stall set up in the market centre to make a donation to help wounded British soldiers who served in Afghanistan, I declined and went about my business. Whilst browsing the shelves of Wilkinsons I decided I would go back and pose a question.
me: Does any of this money go to help war wounded Afghans?
army fella: No, no, its for British soldiers.
me: Oh right, that's a shame
army fella: erm, er, why's that?
me: Well they need a lot more help than British soldiers do don't they?
army fella: No not at all, its for wounded soldiers who served for our country!!
me: Yes but they have the support of living in this country, the affected Afghan people need much more help!
The man got annoyed at this stage and started raising his voice, as I walked away he was shouting something about the good work of the British army. maybe I'm causing trouble but then maybe I feel better for spontaneously expressing an alternative point of view.
I'm definitely in favour of charity but only where its needed most. Afghans and Iraqis have seen their communities, infrastructures and economies decimated and the aid they are given is nowhere near enough. British soldiers may well have gone through hard times but will already get support from the army and have relative luxury to return home to, but due to our pompous love of country stance we only recognise what our guys have gone through and not what's been left behind.
Don't get me wrong I know its all well meaning and in good spirit but I was quite amused by the fella's look of bemusement, he really didn't understand my point of view and that's how I expect the mindset of the majority of this country would be. ignorance is bliss.
me: Does any of this money go to help war wounded Afghans?
army fella: No, no, its for British soldiers.
me: Oh right, that's a shame
army fella: erm, er, why's that?
me: Well they need a lot more help than British soldiers do don't they?
army fella: No not at all, its for wounded soldiers who served for our country!!
me: Yes but they have the support of living in this country, the affected Afghan people need much more help!
The man got annoyed at this stage and started raising his voice, as I walked away he was shouting something about the good work of the British army. maybe I'm causing trouble but then maybe I feel better for spontaneously expressing an alternative point of view.
I'm definitely in favour of charity but only where its needed most. Afghans and Iraqis have seen their communities, infrastructures and economies decimated and the aid they are given is nowhere near enough. British soldiers may well have gone through hard times but will already get support from the army and have relative luxury to return home to, but due to our pompous love of country stance we only recognise what our guys have gone through and not what's been left behind.
Don't get me wrong I know its all well meaning and in good spirit but I was quite amused by the fella's look of bemusement, he really didn't understand my point of view and that's how I expect the mindset of the majority of this country would be. ignorance is bliss.
Sunday, 18 December 2011
that's IRAQ sorted out then
US troops have now withdrawn from Iraq. so then lets hear about the WMD you found! what?? but thats what the war was for....right?
oh dear how embarrassing!
around one million Iraqis have died due to war since 2003, yep that's a million, a horrible human tragedy!
whats that? the 'official' figures used by the US are around 100,000?
oh well thats ok then
read this for an insight to the misleading IBC figures (IBC respectfully and caringly stands for Iraq Body Count)
The Iraq war has been a disastrous military adventure which has resulted in the loss of over 100,000* Iraqi civilians. Babies born in Fallujah suffer from terrible birth defects as a result of chemical weapons dropped there by the US. WMDs - non existent. Iraq is not a democracy by international standards. Its water and electricity infrastructure has been ruined due to the war.
*according to the IBC figures, wink wink.
But to summarise here's a quote from Barack Obama on the end of the war
"everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting and dying, bleeding and building, training and partnering, has led us to this moment of success"
Yes that's right! He said "success"!!!
bbc report
The Iraq war has been a disastrous military adventure which has resulted in the loss of over 100,000* Iraqi civilians. Babies born in Fallujah suffer from terrible birth defects as a result of chemical weapons dropped there by the US. WMDs - non existent. Iraq is not a democracy by international standards. Its water and electricity infrastructure has been ruined due to the war.
*according to the IBC figures, wink wink.
But to summarise here's a quote from Barack Obama on the end of the war
"everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting and dying, bleeding and building, training and partnering, has led us to this moment of success"
Yes that's right! He said "success"!!!
bbc report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)