Monday, 5 April 2010

War what is it good for? FUCKING NOTHING BASTARDS

Website 'shows video of US attack'

One of the internet's biggest sources of classified government information has released video of what it says is a US helicopter firing at civilians in Iraq.

WikiLeaks, a website that publishes anonymously sourced documents, released what it called previously unseen footage on Monday.

It said the footage filmed from a helicopter cockpit shows a missile strike on a crowded square in a Baghdad neighbourhood in July 2007.

The website said 12 civilians were killed in the attack, including two journalists, Namir Nour El Deen and Saeed Chmagh, who worked for the Reuters news agency.

The two men appear to survive the first strike and attempt to get away, but the helicopter returns a second and third time.

Witnesses corroborated

There was no immediate comment from the US military on the video.

Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, said Pentagon officials seemed "completely surprised" when informed of the release of the tape, and appeared not to have heard about the footage beforehand.

"So far we still haven't gotten [a response]. No response to what's on the tape and no confirmation that this is in fact a military tape," she said.

But Julian Assange, the editor of, said there is strong evidence to suggest that the video is genuine.

"There was a Washington Post reporter who was with that US military unit on the ground on that day," Assange told Al Jazeera, referring to David Finkel, a journalist who was embedded with the US military in July 2007.

"He wrote a chapter in a book, which was published last year, called The Good Soldiers, which correlates directly to the material in that video.

"Also, Reuters conducted a number of investigations and interviewed two ground witnesses at the time.

"That story wasn't really taken seriously, [with] nothing to back up the witnesses, but now we have the video that shows that those witnesses were correct."

'Military whistleblowers'

WikiLeaks set up a separate website with detailed information on the video, which it said it obtained from a number of "military whistleblowers".

"WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives," the website read.

"We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident."

In the video, a voice can be heard saying there has been a shooting in the area. The unidentified person later receives permission to open fire.

Following the shooting, the footage shows troops carrying two injured children, as another unidentified person asks for permission to take the wounded out of the area.

A voice responds, saying, "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."

Military regret

Our correspondent said the military had released a statement at the time of the attack saying they had positively identified weapons and militants in the strike.

"It's important to point out that at the time of this incident, the military was very specific," she said.

"They said that the children were injured by shrapnel and the people who were killed were identified positively as militants who had put the security of Iraq at risk and that they had ... weapons.

"The commanders at the time said that they really regretted that children were wounded in this and said that they had taken every step possible to make sure that innocent lives were spared."

Nabil Nour El Deen, the brother of the Reuters photographer killed in the shooting, condemned the attack as a "crime" committed by the US military.

"Is this the democracy and freedom that they claim they have brought to Iraq?

"What Namir was doing was a patriotic work. He was trying to cover the violations of the Americans against the Iraqi people," he told Al Jazeera.

"We demand the international organisations to help us sue those people responsible for the killings of our sons and our people."


Fucking bastards. They slaughter innocents and make fun of this as some kind of fucking game. I hope these motherfuckers in that plane of death get burned alive and suffer for the rest of their lives.

Thursday, 25 March 2010

Full transcript that alerted the media to mosad 911

Full transcript of Sabrosky interview

(my deepest gratitude to R for sending me this important text! VS)

Mark Glenn: Dr. Sabrosky, welcome to the programme.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky: Thank you very much, Mark. A pleasure to be here.

MG: Well, believe me, the pleasure is ours. As I said, this article that you wrote this week - there are very few articles that really catch my attention these days, as you can understand, Dr. Sabrosky, because there's just so much information out there and so many people talking. But this one particularly caught my interest and held my interest throughout the duration of reading this article - which I will be reading here in just a minute. But before I jump into that I'm just going to go ahead and give you the floor here, and let you say some things that I think need to be said.

AS: Mark, we had talked about this earlier and, you know, my feelings are that I'm perfectly willing to debate issues with anyone on any subject. Most of us have different views of things and none of us, I think, believes we have the entire truth for ourselves. Anyone who does is a fool.

On the subject that I wrote this time, it caught my attention as well because if there is anything that is more significant it is loyalty: loyalty to country, loyalty to people, loyalty to constitution. And to my displeasure and my shame - because I have some Jewish relatives, none of whom are Zionist - a large majority of American Jews give their allegiance to a foreign country. They may have American citizenship, but their allegiance is to Israel. And as I said in the piece, this is a form of political bigamy which is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy. I'm not married now, but when I was, loyalty to my spouse was absolute. It has to be there. I could look and say, "Aha! there is Farrah Fawcett," and I could admire someone out there but I didn't give that person my allegiance. There's a difference between admiring from a distance and giving allegiance to that thing. And it's the same with a country.

Some of my [American] relatives are German, some are Irish, and all of them have a measure of allegiance to those cultures, but it's not a political allegiance. It's a social allegiance. It's like, "We're gonna stand up on St Patrick's Day," or "We're gonna stand up on Oktoberfest," or "We're gonna celebrate this," and we're proud of being German, or Irish, or whatever it happens to be. But none of us gives our allegiance to Ireland or to Germany. Jews do. And if we don't say it - I don't care if we're called anti-Semites or not - if we don't stand up and say, "Truth is truth, their allegiance is to a foreign country, they are traitors," then we're dishonest to ourselves.

MG: It would be one thing if they had allegiance to this foreign country, and this foreign country's national interests mimicked ours - but this isn't the case. The third leg of this chair here today is a man who experienced first-hand the fact that the national interests of this other country are not the same as the national interests of this country.

AS: But it's even more than that, Mark. I've had a bitter argument with one of my Jewish cousins who moved to Israel and kept an American citizenship. If someone loves another country enough to go there: more power to them. They go, that's it - they're gone. But they keep the American citizenship so that they can continue to participate in our elections, stand in our offices - look at Rahm Emanuel: he served in the Israeli armed forces, not in the American armed forces, and he is easily the second most powerful person in this country - easily.

That's treason. I will tell you right now: if Palestinians had the same influence in America I would oppose them in the same way. I don't care what the country is, what the allegiance is, what matters to me is that if you are American, you love this country first, last, and that's the end of it. And I don't care if you're Navy, Marine, whatever you are. Phil, you and I will probably agree on this and probably one of the few things that a Navy and Marine guy would agree on, but I think both of us would agree that loyalty to America is the only non-negotiable part of American citizenship.

Phil Tourney (USS Liberty Survivor): Absolutely, Alan, and I'll tell you, you being a United States Marine, that is inbred in you, and being a Marine - semper fidelis, always faithful - you're faithful to your country; and I'm sorry you had the argument with your cousin but you're still faithful to your country and I understand exactly where you're coming from.

Mark, I don't think at the beginning of the show that you read the Doctor's credentials off. I wish you would, because it means a lot, and it means a lot to me to hear them.

MG: Absolutely, and I will do that right now since I'm about to launch into reading this excellent article.

Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College.

Now, not only that - Dr. Sabrosky correct me if I'm wrong here - not only are you a graduate of the US Army War College, but you were a director of studies there for some period of time - is that correct?

AS: That's correct. For five-and-a-half years.

MG: Five-and-a-half years as director of studies at the US Army War College. You know, of all the things that I would love to have trailing behind my name, Dr. Sabrosky, being the director of studies at the US Army War College would definitely be one of them.

AS: Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

MG: Alright, ladies and gentlemen, as much as it's going to appear as if I'm acting as a school mom here in reading this article to you. Nevertheless, I'm going to do it. Not as an intellectually insulting gesture towards you - because I know you can all read very well - but I was so impressed with this article that I want it entered into the record here within the context of this conversation, and that's the reason I'm going to read it.

(reads The Dark Face of Jewish Nationalism by Dr. Sabrosky)

MG: So writes Alan Sabrosky PhD, former director of studies at the U.S. Army War College.

Dr. Sabrosky, I cannot think of an article that I have read in recent memory that basically sums up the problem that we are dealing with right now as accurately and as succinctly as this essay that you have written. You have, for all intents and purposes, nailed this thing on the head. I guess the reason why I got so excited over this article, Dr. Sabrosky, is because one of things that I have noted about the problem that we're dealing with - in terms of Zionism, the power of the Jewish lobby, and what-not - is that everything is shrouded in some type of confusion or mystery, and I think deliberately so. I think one of the biggest components to this powerful foreign interest being able to get as far as it has. I mean, let's face it: it got away with attacking a United States ship for close to two hours killing 34 men - this was an act of war, they got away with it. Not only did they get away with it, they were rewarded with three-billion dollars a year minimum. When we look at the two wars that the United States finds herself in, and on the cusp of at least two others, and all of this for the benefit of a certain foreign country sitting on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea - they have been wildly successful at bringing all of this about and I think one of the main components of this is the fact that very few people really understand the nature of the problem - and I think that your article here basically lays out the problem, which is that when you have people that try to make this claim that they are loyal to America and, at the same time, loyal to a foreign government, it is a lie.

AS: It is, and it's more than that, Mark. What we need to stand up and say is that not only did they attack the USS Liberty, they did 9/11. They did it.

I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at the Headquarters Marine Corps, and I have made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period.

You know, Phil, I don't denigrate what happened to USS Liberty in the slightest - you understand that - but for most Americans what happened to the USS Liberty, or in Vietnam, was history. Now this is history. You know, they can be concerned about it, but they're not going to get mad about it.

9/11 has led directly to 60,000 Americans dead and wounded, God knows how many hundreds of thousands of people in other countries that we've killed or wounded or made homeless, and it's an on-going sore. It's not your sore from the USS Liberty, it's not my sore from Vietnam. Both of us have those, both of us care about. But this is an open wound. And what Americans need to understand is that they did it. They did it. And if they do understand that, Israel's going to disappear. Israel will flat-ass disappear from this Earth.

I sent a film to one of my colleagues and it basically had Americans grieving over their dead coming back. And I showed one of them - it was a woman - just wrenched by grief over her dead soldier. And I said, you know, if Americans ever know that Israel did this, they're gonna scrub them off the Earth, and they're not gonna give a rat's ass - forgive my language - what the cost is. They are not going to care. They will do it. And they should.
And they should.

PT: Alan, your article and your heart and your testimony and what you believe in is heart-wrenching to me. It is like our founding fathers, and their shadows, talking and saying, "We have to fix this, we have to make our own way, and we have to do it now, or we will go down."

AS: Exactly. Absolutely, Phil. I agree fully.

PT: Your article needs to be shipped off to the library of congress immediately.

AS: Well, I can tell you it's being read by some people in Headquarters Marine Corps and at the Army War College. I sent it off to them this past week and I've had some long discussions with people up there, and there's some really, really unhappy people.

MG: What are they saying, if you can talk about that, Dr. Sabrosky?

AS: Astonishment. The first thing, Mark, is astonishment. They didn't know. They truly didn't know. And these are not unintelligent people. They really didn't know.

And the next statement is rage. Real rage. And the Zionists are playing this as truly an all-or-nothing exercise, because if they lose this one, if the American people ever realize what happened, they're done.

And I will tell you frankly - I don't think either one of you has any Jewish ancestry. I do. You know, I have one grandparent who's Jewish. As Phil Weiss from Mondoweiss were talking about it - he's a Jewish guy who puts a lot of critical stuff out there on Israel - and I said for the Orthodox Rabbinate I'm not a Jew. For the Nazis, I've been there. And if this explodes, I'm gonna go down with the rest of them. And I know this. I flat-out know this. But if that was the price for making America whole again...

When I took my oath 51 years ago to the United States marine corps, no one promised us life. No one did. They promised us duty and loyalty and service - and maybe death. And that's how they talked to us in 1959. I don't think they talk to them that way anymore. But in 1959 they did, and if my death were a requirement for the saving of America - well, hell, I could've died in Vietnam. It's my service, my country, my corps. And, Phil, it's like you in the Navy: we signed onto this, and we love our service. And none of us wishes to die. Certainly I don't. I don't think either one of you guys do. But if that's the price, then that's the price I pay. I mean that.

PT: When you're talking about Marines, I have the utmost respect and I know your duty to country. When the torpedo hit our ship and I opened up to scuttle, guess who I pulled out of there: a United States marine, named Bryce Lockwood. And he was holding on to another sailor and saved his life, and he received a silver star. God bless him for that.

And I understand wholeheartedly what's in your heart, because I have it my heart. I didn't learn it by becoming a sailor as such, but I learned it through the grace of God for saving our ship, I learned it through scholars like you, I've learned it through good friends like Mark Glenn and my shipmates - and I've learned it through actions of Israel. And when you struck me very, very hard just a second ago when you talked about 911. You're very willing to say that, yeah, they did it: 911. Yes, they did. And, you know, my heart broke. And I saw that plane - the last one - go into the tower. And to see that... I mean, I know it's in your heart, and Mark's, and everybody else's, to see your fellow Americans being slaughtered and murdered just as they did the USS Liberty. Alan, it is something that, if we don't talk about it, if we don't tell people about it - I believe God wants us to - and if we don't: shame on us.

AS: I agree very much on that side, and I'll tell you - I have a dream, as Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, and my dream is that the 5th and 6th US fleets take Israel and cream it.
And that's the end of it.

MG: Just for the record, Dr. Sabrosky, it was about three years ago - and I can remember distinctly I was on a radio programme in the run-up to the reunion that Liberty guys were going to be having in DC - and I made a prediction on the air that I believed with all my heart at the time and I believe with all my heart now, but someday, some way - I don't know exactly how it's going to happen - I have my suspicions - but someday and some way, maybe a lot sooner than any of us realize, the United States is going to find herself at war with Israel. And I mean a real, live shooting war.

Now, technically speaking, we are at war with her because she is at war with us. She is out to destroy us. We just haven't figured it out yet.

My personal prediction is that probably - again, sooner than any of us realize or would like to envision - Israel is going pull off another 9-11. She's going to pull of another USS Liberty. Obviously, some pretty powerful people in some pretty prominent places, such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, believe this is a possibility because he cut short a trip he made to Europe a few years ago to hastily fly to Israel to meet with his counterpart and warn him in no uncertain terms how important it was that there not be another USS Liberty part two.

So, in as far as what you two fellows were just talking about, that we need to talk about this, I'm going to offer another theory here for discussion. We would already have had that 9/11 part two, or that USS Liberty part two - that would already have been a fait accompli were it not for the fact that a growing number of people have been talking about this problem since 9/11.

I think that Israel has been watching all of this and has been saying, "We need to kind of let things cool a little bit for now - if we try to pull another one off right now then that's it: we're going to blow our cover."

AS: It's not only a matter of blowing our cover. If Americans ever truly understand that - they're history. It'll be a bloody, brutal war - and they're gone. I mean, it's not even going to be a close contest. And they know that. What they understand, I think, as well, is that their leverage is on the political appointments. Their leverage is not in the uniformed services.

If you pick up the Army Times, or the Navy Times, or any of the journals of any of the services you've got a very different view than you get looking at the Congress and the White House. And the military has not been bought. The military is loyal but it has not been bought. And if it ever understands this - really, really, deeply understands this - and this is what I got when I put some of these things to the Army War College and to Headquarters Marine Corps - and I mentioned to a contact in Headquarters Marine Corps, I said, "You know they did 9/11...," and it was, "You don't mean it." I said, "Absolutely".

And if they ever understand that, these people are history.

MG: Well, now let me ask you something, Doctor, and obviously I understand that we need to protect the names of the innocent here-

AS: There are no innocent! [laughter]

PT: I agree.

MG: I'd like to know a little bit more about this. I mean, these conversations that you're having with your colleagues who are still serving in uniform. What is the reaction on their part when you tell them things like this?

AS: First is disbelief, and what I show them immediately afterwards is an interview with a Danish demolitions expert named Danny Jowenko, and it shows the third building at the World Trade Center going down - WTC7. And they look at that, and I said, "Now you understand that if one of the buildings was wired for demolition, all of them were wired for demolition." And that's it. That's the tipping point.

I mean, getting into arguments about who was flying what, and where they were, and whether there was nano-thermite - those things are true, but they're incidental. The thing that's necessary is to tell people: three buildings went down; the third was not hit by a plane, it was wired for controlled demolition, therefore, all of them were wired for controlled demolition. And at that point the reaction is rage. First disbelief, and then rage.

MG: Well, I've got to tell you, that I find to be very encouraging because based upon the cursory conversations I have with some military people - and I have to be real careful about what I say because you just don't know what you're walking into when you start a discussion of this type with one of them - based upon these cursory conversations that I've had with some of them, they're clueless and they don't want to here about it. They are loyal to the flag that is on their left sleeve as a patch, and the thought that the government could be in any way involved in any kind of high crimes and treason against the people of the United States is just unthinkable to them, so I'm glad to hear that there still is some grey matter and some patriotism left - at least in the circles where you travel, Dr. Sabrosky.

AS: Well, it's not that they don't want to hear it, it's that don't know of it. What I have done when I've presented it to these people and I said, "Just look at this - just look at this picture. I'm not going to give you an argument - just look at it." And they look at the film and without exception they come back and they say, "They did it, didn't they." I said, "Yep - they did it."

PT: Can I jump in here for a second - I just wanted to mention, talking about military people, some of the most distinguished military people that I've ever had the pleasure to be around... Admiral Thomas Moore, former Joint Chiefs of Staff which supported us completely in the USS Liberty investigation, and so on and so forth.

And then Ray Davis - he was a commandant of the United States Marine Corps. He directly said - this is of course not going into 911 - that the USS Liberty was not a mistaken identity, it was an act of cold-blooded, premeditated murder. So there are people out there in the military.

Now these guys were retired at the time - but when you're educating people, like you're doing, Alan, people who serve in the military now, you're exactly right: they just don't know, because nobody knows. It's been hid up. Everything's been hid. It's been covered up so good it'd almost take a Messiah to get us out of this thing.

MG: Dr. Sabrosky, I wanted to ask you - since we are to a certain degree prognosticating today, and making predictions - what do you think is going to happen here?

I mean, I was having a conversation with someone the other day about this situation with Iran, and the fact of the matter is that irrespective of whether or not Iran is actually actively engaged in building a nuclear weapon, or not, the fact of that is that Israel cannot afford to have this war not take place. There has to be something that takes place, even if it's just lobbing a couple of bombs into Iran and then really spectacularising it through their control of the media. They have to do something to recoup some of their public image, so would you agree with me on that, and assuming that you do agree with me on that, what do you think Israel is going to be doing in the near future.

AS: We're going to have a war with Iran. And my guess is that the Arab Street is going to explode.

PT: I agree.

AS: And American forces, American units, like 5th fleet headquarters in Bahrain, the rest of it - there's going to be a casualty list that we're not even going to care to think about.

PT: Alan, I think this thing was predestined from day one. It started in Afghanistan. They go to Iraq, and Iran has been the big prize all along. What do you think?

AS: Yes. No question at all. And in fact if the Iraqi resistance hadn't been so strong it would have already happened in the second Bush administration.

PT: Absolutely. I agree 100%.

MG: So all of this reticence, reluctance - whatever you want to call it - what appears to be reticence and reluctance on the part of the Obama administration - what do you think is going on? I mean, look, just this past week we had some what I consider pretty dramatic things being said on the part of the Obama administration with regards to Israel with the settlements and what-not. What is this? Is this just posturing on the part of the Obama Administration or are they really trying to pull back on their end?

AS: The Obama Administration hasn't withheld a single dollar, a single plane - nothing. Words are cheap.

The Israelis made a tactical error in that they insulted Biden - and Biden is not one of my favorite people, but he is a street smart guy and he doesn't like being humiliated. This is a given. But nothing has happened to affect in a tangible sense anything that we're giving to Israel. Nothing. And as long as nothing happens to tangibly affect what we're giving to them, nothing else will matter.

MG: Why are we not already at war with Iran then?

AS: Partly because we can't find a good enough excuse for it that will allow us to sidestep what we're doing in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, Iraq. It's that there's just a little too much there.

I'm pretty sure that the pattern was: Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq 2003, Iran 2005, Syria 2007. The problem was that the Iraqi resistance didn't let that happen. So now the time frame is a little bit different, and I'm not sure how that's going to play out, but I think that the way we're going to it is to try and create an excuse for a war.

And after the war takes place people can question it, but it doesn't change the fact of the war.

MG: You're right. If there's anything that we learned from Vietnam it's that once the troops are committed, right or wrong, you stand by the troops. That's one of the things that I noticed with the first Gulf war, and this is before I knew anything about anything.

I thought, boy, when you look at the kind of protests that took place - and I was in college at the time of the first Gulf War - when you look at the kind of protests that took place during Vietnam - and of course on college you had a few people grumbling and saying this and saying that but, in general, the Neo-Cons really played the whole Vietnam thing beautifully - if such a word can be used for something as tragic as that. And don't misunderstand me, Dr. Sabrosky: I know that you're a Vietnam vet and I hold these guys in the highest regards too, and when I say they played this thing beautifully, they made the protesters look like these grotesque, ugly, unpatriotic people to the point where, when the next big war started, nobody would dare raise their voice up against the troops the way that they did in Vietnam.

AS: Yep, absolutely on it. Mark, I'm going to have to separate in just a minute.
If I could make sort of a concluding statement... And I think that you would second me on this.

Nothing to me is more important than loyalty to or allegiance to my country. Nothing is. But that requires my country and my government to also behave in an honorable fashion. Our government, today, does not behave in an honorable fashion. And there is something in the Declaration of Independence which says that whenever any form of government becomes oppressive of these ends it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it, and I think we have gone to the point where we need to alter or abolish it. And I say that as a man who spent his entire life loyal to the United States.

PT: I understand you. God bless you for that. God bless you.

MG: Ladies and gentlemen: "The Dark Face of Jewish Nationalism". Look it up on the internet - I don't think you're going to have any trouble finding it. Written by our very good friend and special guest tonight: Dr. Alan Sabrosky.

Doctor, I hope we will be lucky enough to have you back on the programme in the near future, and in the mean time please keep up your excellent work. Honestly, as much as this is going to sound like posturing to you, there are very few people, as I said, who say anything that really causes me to take a double-take and to sit down and pay attention, and you're definitely one of them.

AS: I appreciate that, Mark. You take care of yourself.

Phil, warmest regards. Semper fi to you, my friend.

PT: Semper fi. God bless you, sir, and we will talk again

Here is an audio recording of the full transcript for anyone interested

mossad and 911

Corporate media pretend U.S.-Israeli relations are in “crisis,” just as they have many times in the past. It’s all a charade, a play for national and international audiences. In real crises, relationships are called into question. But there has never been any question about who is in charge of this “partnership”: Israel. And don’t you dare forget it.

Freedom Rider: Israel Is Boss

“The Obama administration, like every other presidential administration in the last sixty years, does what Israel wants it to do.” The United States may invade and occupy Iraq, undermine elected presidents in Haiti and throw its weight around in numerous ways in numerous parts of the world. Yet there is one country it does not dare to confront. Of course, the nation in question is Israel.

Israel and its allies in the United States make certain that no president, no political party, no congressional leader nor any citizen who wishes to be in any way influential, will dare to step outside the lines of proscribed behavior and discourse. The American public, either because they are aware of the pro-Israel grip on power, or because they have swallowed the propaganda whole, remain cowed and silent.

Israel can do whatever it wants not only with the United States, but with other western nations as well. Mossad agents succeeded in murdering Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabouh in Dubai last month by using doctored British, Irish, French, Australian and German passports and credit cards issued to an Israeli-run bank located in South Dakota. None of the nations involved has uttered more than the slightest peep after having their sovereignty violated in such an obvious manner. “None of the nations involved in the Dubai assassination has uttered more than the slightest peep after having their sovereignty violated.”

Just in case there was any doubt about who is in charge, Israel insulted Vice President Joseph Biden and the United States government when Biden made a recent visit to Jerusalem. Biden made the pro forma journey to go through the motions of requesting that the peace process continue. The Israelis could have nudged, winked and gone through the pretense of moving forward on a just peace process. Instead they announced that more Jewish housing will be constructed on Palestinian land, embarrassing the Vice President and his boss, who wanted to pretend to be even handed when they and the rest of American political leadership are anything but. The Obama administration, like every other presidential administration in the last sixty years, does what Israel wants it to do. There shouldn’t be any reason for Israel to yank the Americans’ chain so hard and so publicly, but why follow the rules of diplomatic niceties when doing otherwise has been so successful?

The only thing worse than the obvious slap in the face, is the phony outrage surrounding it. No one gets anywhere near a presidential nomination without first swearing obedience to the Zionists and their lobby. If Obama and Biden and Hillary Clinton were truly upset with the Israelis, it is only because they were so blatant in making them all look like chumps. “No one gets anywhere near a presidential nomination without first swearing obedience to the Zionists and their lobby.”

Just a few weeks before Obama was sworn into office, George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice were the victims of an Israeli public beat down. Bush was literally pulled off a stage where he was about to give a speech and forced to take a phone call from then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. Rice had worked on a Security Council resolution which merely called for a cease fire in Israel’s massacre of thousands of people in Gaza. Olmert bragged in a press conference, “I said, ‘I don’t care; I have to talk to him.’” Not content to tell the world that he ordered the American president to follow his orders, he took a swipe at Rice too. “He gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it — a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed, and abstained on a resolution she arranged.” It isn’t surprising that Israel would repeat the humiliation just a year later with a different president.

It doesn’t matter if David Axelrod goes on the Sunday morning news shows and fakes outrage about Israel’s settlements. It matters that Israel continues to steal Palestinian land and it matters that only those willing to go along with the crime are allowed to entertain any idea of having a role in United States foreign policy decisions.
“The United States government is actually becoming more and more like Israel.”

Far from being angry at Israel, the United States government is actually becoming more and more like that nation. The Obama administration claims the right to carry out extra judicial assassinations just like their Middle East partner in crime. The temporary embarrassment and damage control pronouncements are not worthy of anyone’s attention.

The only lesson to learn from this sorry episode is that nothing new has taken place between the United States and Israel. All Americans are still made complicit in the joint criminality and earn the enmity of most of the world as a result. So don’t believe the hype. There is nothing to see here, just move along.


Very interesting indeed, the only reason america got upset with israel and their illegal settlements plans was that it would intefere with the us army. Yet another reason why america care more about power and greed than they do people. ANTI HUMAN.

As for israel, there is nothing clearer than they are very close friends with the us. Same sick minds and same sick ideals

America spreads more lies about bin laden

 Osama bin Laden has warned that Al-Qaeda will kill Americans if the mastermind of the 2001 attacks on the United States, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, is executed, in a tape Al-Jazeera television aired Thursday.

"The White House has declared its wish to execute (Sheikh Mohammed and his co-accused). The day the United States takes such a decision, it would be also taking the decision that any of you falling into our hands will be executed," bin Laden said in the audio message.

The Al-Qaeda chief said US President Barack Obama was "still walking in the footsteps" of his predecessor, George W. Bush, by escalating the war in Afghanistan.

"oppressing our prisoners that you are holding, beginning with the mujahid (holy warrior) hero Khaled al-Sheikh Mohammed."

US politicians, he added in the audiotape, had "oppressed us and still do, especially by backing Israel, which occupies the land of Palestine."

The US-based IntelCenter monitoring service said in a statement that the tape "appears to be authentic."

"Bin Laden's specific threat serves as a valid indicator of an increased threat of kidnappings targeting Americans in the immediate period and following through the Khaled Sheikh Mohammed trial in the US," IntelCenter warned.

The Kuwaiti-born Sheikh Mohammed is being held in Guantanamo Bay and was subjected to repeated water-boarding, a now banned interrogation technique that simulates drowning, after his 2003 arrest in Pakistan.

He told a military tribunal in 2008 that he did not "want to waste time" and would plead guilty to the terror charges.

The United States is just weeks away from a landmark decision on whether to try Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators in a civilian federal court or in a military tribunal.

The Obama administration had announced it would put them on trial at a courthouse in New York, just steps from where the World Trade Center that collapsed in the 2001 attacks had stood.

But the plans have met a backlash from Republican lawmakers who introduced legislation to require a military trial, throwing a challenge to Obama months ahead of mid-term elections in November.

Obama made bringing Sheikh Mohammed to a civilian trial a centrepiece of a broader plan to end what he saw as serious abuses of law in the time of Bush and his powerful vice president Dick Cheney.

Bin Laden's latest statement was his first since he issued two in January, one of them claiming responsibility for the botched Christmas Day bombing of a US airliner and vowing further strikes on American targets.

Bin Laden also referred to US support for Israel in the January message.

"God willing, our attacks against you will continue as long as you maintain your support to Israel," he said.

"America should not dream of security until we enjoy it as a reality in Palestine," added the Saudi-born militant who has a 50-million-dollar bounty on his head.

In the other tape released in January, bin Laden blamed major industrial nations for climate change, a statement the US State Department said showed that the Al Qaeda chief was struggling to stay relevant.


Quite ironic they are using these construed lies to maintain the false propaganda. Especially since benzamir bhutto was killed by cia for telling the nation he was killed in 2002. Im sure i heard a us military source say the same but not sure where i found this information.

So what are they planning by telling these lies? A false flag operation is into development no doubt. The us wants to manufacture these lies into something bigger.

"The United States is just weeks away from a landmark decision on whether to try Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators" We will see developments of a false flag op after this i feel.

Another question must also arise i feel. The question of how much torture these poor bastards would of had to actually confess and whether this will have any mention in the trial.

Thursday, 18 March 2010

This could be the end

Final destination Iran?

Exclusive: Rob Edwards

Published on 14 Mar 2010

Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran" - Dan Plesch, director, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, University of London

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.

Good luck all

Wednesday, 17 March 2010


The row over foreign secretary David Miliband's attack on the Conservative party chairman, Eric Pickles, for suggesting that Latvians who had joined the Waffen SS volunteer legion were only "conscripts" – following orders – has drawn inevitable invective from Conservatives. Today in a letter William Hague demanded an apology from Miliband not only for "smearing" Pickles – who has a record for campaigning against racism and antisemitism – but for "slurs" against the Conservative party and for dragging poor little Latvia into the debate. For good measure he accused Miliband of recycling Soviet propaganda against Latvia.

Miliband's powerful point, lest it be forgotten, was that the Conservatives had allied themselves with some pretty awful characters on Europe's far right – Poland's Michal Kaminski among them – including For Fatherland and Freedom, a Latvian party that has participated in an annual event commemorating the Latvian Waffen SS, the Lettish legion. The Tories' charge is that Miliband does not know his history. In reality it is Hague and Pickles who are on shaky ground, both historical and moral.

It is fair to say that the story of the Latvian SS legion is not straightforward. Despite the word "volunteer" in its title, the majority, far from being volunteers, were conscripts who had been offered the unenviable choice of working as auxiliaries for the Wehrmacht or being transferred to Nazi Germany's slave labour camps.
It is also true that those who escaped the Soviet occupation to prisoner-of-war camps in allied-occupied Germany – after campaigning vigorously – were treated during their "denazification" by the US displaced persons commissioner as being "distinct in purpose, ideology, activities and qualifications" from members of the German Waffen SS.

It is on these grounds that their supporters, both in Latvia and without, have attempted to argue that those who did volunteer were "nationalists", anti-communists and not really Nazis; men who sought and found an opportunity to fight the brutal Soviet occupation.In any case, the supporters of the legion claim (one in an email to me last week) that most of Latvia's Jews had already been exterminated prior to the legion being raised. It is an argument, however, that attempts to paper over a toxic stain on Latvia's "unwilling" SS troopers.

The last major slaughter of Latvia's Jews took place in March 1942, a year before the Latvian SS legion was raised. In late 1944, however, members of the Latvian SD – war criminals who had participated in genocidal activities – were transferred to the Latvian SS legion. While many members of the two Latvian divisions were conscripts – some of whom justified their membership of the SS as the lesser of two evils when compared with Soviet occupation – at least 10-20% were actual volunteers who took their oath to Hitler for ideological reasons. Indeed, the Nuremberg judgment distinguished between those conscripted into the SS and such volunteers.

Hague is wrong, too, in his glib attempts to claim that the parade involving SS veterans is an official commemoration. In 1998, the anniversary on 16 March – the day that marked the start of the battle of Velikaya, the only time both divisions in the legion fought together against the Red Army – was declared a national holiday. But it was scrapped two years later. More recently, the SS veterans' march that takes place on that day has become the focus of bitter controversy: when the head of Latvia's armed forces participated in the march, Latvia's parliament voted to have him removed from his position.Although for several years the parade had, at best, a semi-official imprimatur, more recently it has been banned – including this year, although the parade went ahead.

It is precisely this that the Tories have ignored for the convenience of their political alliances in Europe. They have ignored the real history of the Latvian legion, an organisation that included enthusiastic Nazis culpable in the murder of the country's Jews. They have chosen to gloss over as well that the issue of the legion's annual march in Riga is deeply distasteful to many Latvians in a country that suffered grievously at the hands of both Stalin and Hitler.

They have also failed to understand, whatever the mitigating circumstances that compelled some Latvians into the SS, that such service is not something to be commemorated or celebrated, but mourned. Indeed, as the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and several Jewish writers have attempted carefully to argue in the past, while the legion as a single body was not "guilty" of genocidal acts, members of the legion certainly were guilty of the most terrible crimes, making it entirely inappropriate to celebrate its existence.

What is most shocking, perhaps, in this whole story is the intellectual and moral laziness of senior Tories. And the fact that they are so little troubled at being associated with a foreign party that associates itself – for whatever reason of nationalism and history – with Hitler's Schutzstaffel: the SS.


With the emergence of pro fascist ideals in our political system, especially with recent labour anouncements
to let geert wilders into the uk and also labour allowing fascists to teach in schools.  we have a long hard struggle against both political fascism and social fascism......LETS KEEP THESE NAZI BASTARDS OF OUR STREETS! ALERTA!

Tuesday, 16 March 2010

nazi fuckers go to march

"The event, which is held annually, never fails to stir controversy, causing outrage both in Latvia and abroad, as many consider it a glorification of Nazism.The authorities in Riga banned the parade earlier this month because of security concerns.

Regardless, on Monday, a Riga court lifted the ban, saying there was no threat to security in the city, although anti-fascist groups are holding a counter-demonstration. From 1998 to 2000, the 16th of March has been an official remembrance day in the country to pay tribute to the Latvian Legion.The Legion was created in 1943 on the order of Adolf Hitler.

The danger of such events as the march of the SS legionaries in Riga is in making neo-Nazism or racism something that is acceptable, warned Glyn Ford, a former member of the European parliament from the British Labour Party.

Latvia is not alone in its glorification of Nazi collaborators as a way of criticizing the Soviet era, but “one could be critical of the Soviet era without actually getting into bed with neo-Nazis.”
Latvian Waffen SS veterans have been parading in the Latvian capital Riga to honor their comrades who died fighting on the German side during the Second World War."


Fascism has become far too big a threat. WE MUST UNITE. Fuck fascism and its ignorant ideals.

Sunday, 7 March 2010

BAP (british american project)

"In the summer of 1997, a few weeks after New Labour won power, a striking article about the election appeared in a privately circulated newsletter. Under the cryptic headline Big Swing To BAP, the article began, "No less than four British-American Project fellows and one advisory board member have been appointed to ministerial posts in the new Labour government." A list of the names of these five people and of other New Labour appointees who were members of BAP followed: "Mo Mowlam ... Chris Smith ... Peter Mandelson ... Baroness Symons ... George Robertson ... Jonathan Powell ... Geoff Mulgan ... Matthew Taylor ..." The article ended with a self-congratulatory flourish and the names of two more notable BAP members: "James Naughtie and Jeremy Paxman gave them all a hard time on BBC radio and television. Other fellows, too numerous to list, popped up throughout the national media commenting, criticising and celebrating."

The British-American Project for the Successor Generation, to give it its full title, was founded in 1985 "to perpetuate the close relationship between the United States and Britain" in the words of BAP's slim official history, through "transatlantic friendships and professional contacts". It has a membership of "600 leaders and opinion formers", drawn equally from both countries. It holds an annual conference (the next starts this Friday in Chicago) to which journalists are not invited and at which everything said is, officially at least, not to be repeated to outsiders. It rarely features in the mainstream media - instead, it makes tantalisingly vague and fleeting appearances in those corners of the internet where conspiracy aficionados gather.
Here, BAP is portrayed as a Trojan horse for American foreign policy, recruiting Britons of liberal or left-of-centre inclinations and political talent and connections when they are young, indoctrinating them with propaganda about the virtues of American capitalism and America's role in the world, and then watching them approvingly as they steer British politics in an ever more pro-Washington direction. According to this analysis, the project's greatest success has been New Labour.

Besides the names mentioned in BAP's 1997 newsletter, the organisation numbers among its members Douglas Alexander, the precocious Foreign Office and trade minister; Baroness Scotland, the politically favoured criminal justice minister; Julia Hobsbawm, the prominent public relations executive and New Labour associate; and Adair Turner, one of the government's most senior business allies and author of the recent official report on the future of pensions.

In the years immediately before the founding of BAP, the early 1980s heyday of Tony Benn and CND, the Labour party was sceptical about America. Now it will seemingly swallow almost anything the US does, and the idea that BAP made the difference has some authoritative backers. The leftwing journalist John Pilger, who has been uncovering American manipulation of other countries' politics for decades, has described BAP as a "casual freemasonry" and "by far the most influential transatlantic network of politicians, journalists and academics". The historian Frances Stonor Saunders, who has written extensively about the American use of earlier, similar networks to influence western opinion during the cold war, sees close parallels with BAP: "All that's changed is that BAP are much more sophisticated."

In December 2001, in response to a parliamentary question from the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, Tony Blair said that the organisation "arranges meetings, including with ministers, for young leaders from the business, economic, professional, cultural, artistic, governmental, academic, scientific, medical, military and social life of the two countries". Beyond New Labour, the BAP membership includes the Conservative election strategist Steve Hilton, the shadow work and pensions minister and Tory intellectual David Willetts, the former Conservative minister Stephen Dorrell, the founder of the UK Independence Party Alan Sked, and Charles Moore, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph.

Until now, BAP's public response to allegations of political influence has been to ignore or dismiss them. A postscript to its official history calls the idea of the project as a vehicle for the American government a "myth" and "a curious reinvention of BAP history". But what, then, does BAP do exactly? Since 1985, it has received sponsorship from, among other companies, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Monsanto, Saatchi & Saatchi, Philip Morris, Coopers & Lybrand, American Express, Apple, British Airways, BP, Cadbury Schweppes and Camelot. Busy politicians and other public figures have crossed the Atlantic, some of them repeatedly, to attend BAP conferences, which can last for five days. One member describes proceedings as "a quasi-religious experience for some people", but what else has kept the whole enterprise going for almost 20 years? What has BAP achieved?

The author of both the project's official history and the article in its newsletter about New Labour is a British journalist called Martin Vander Weyer. He has been a BAP member since 1994, and until last year was chairman of its British operation.

Meeting him, at first, is something of a disappointment. He is disarmingly jolly: amused eyes, a raspy, confiding voice, swept-back grey hair rebelling behind his ears. He is wearing an ostentatiously traditional but slightly unkempt suit of the kind favoured by middle-aged Tory journalists, and has just come back from a lunch at the Spectator, where he is an associate editor. He suggests a cafe, and strides off, talking freely, through the London rush hour. He does not look much like a New Labour conspirator.

Vander Weyer depicts BAP in altogether more relaxed terms. "It's both a fantastic social opportunity and an amazing professional networking opportunity." At the conferences, he says, "Everyone is on equal terms, and you take the handbrake off ..." He grins. "There's quite big late-night drinking. Requires a lot of stamina. Every year you can see the astonishment of the church-going Americans. You see them jogging around the hotel whenever you open your curtains in the morning."

To see anything sinister in all this, he continues cheerily, is "bonkers conspiracy stuff". But what about his newsletter article? Vander Weyer clasps his forehead in mock-regret. "I wrote the headline. I thought it was quite snappy. It was a great mistake. Probably my greatest mistake."

But then he begins to choose his words more carefully. "The British membership is quite a concentrated elite," he admits. "There was a stage where ... a lot of the people who emerged as part of the New Labour leadership group happened - and I say happened, because it is partly chance - to be members of BAP ... The American side is more spread out: Americans who just enjoy contact with Brits. We have Republicans, Democrats, people who work on Capitol Hill."

He explains how BAP members are selected. Each existing member can nominate up to three people aged between 28 and 40. These nominees are then interviewed and tested: there are competitive debates, "management games" and personal presentations. "We sift the nominees according to their willingness to listen to other people," says Vander Weyer. "Whether we think they'd fit with the group."

Do they ever pick people who are anti-American? "Oh yes. There are lots and lots of members who are anti-American." He mentions the journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Then he grins again. "I've never found myself in such a leftwing group as this." If BAP has a political diversity problem, he says, it is rather different from the one its critics allege: "Some of the drier Conservatives who've come to conferences over the years have found ... too much of a bleeding heart."

The circular nature of the nomination process narrows the BAP membership in other ways. A member recalls, "I was nominated by the man who subsequently became my husband, who was nominated by a friend of his, who was nominated by someone he knew." Vander Weyer says BAP is trying to compensate for this. "We try to find people outside our network." He cites "a cinema manager and a fire officer from Newcastle" who have become members. He gives a rare serious look. "We want to counter any sense that this is a self-perpetuating elite."

The only problem is, BAP was founded to be exactly that. At the start of the 1980s, the idea of a "successor generation" began to stir on the dusty pages of British and American foreign policy journals. Kenneth P Adler, an academic employed by the US government to watch western European political trends, defined it as "the segment of the general public that is most likely to succeed to positions of power and influence in the near future". This group, he and other observers predicted, would either follow the broadly pro-American path of "the founder generation" of postwar western European political leaders, or take a more independent, even hostile stance. With Ronald Reagan in the White House and the cold war he was helping to orchestrate in one of its least appealing, most attritional phases, it was by no means certain "the successor generation" would stay loyal to Washington. "Ideologically, if a consensus exists across Europe," wrote Adler, "it would be somewhere on the left ... a middle way between Sweden and Yugoslavia ... distancing [itself] from 'the superpowers'."

The US government was particularly worried about Britain. Despite all the official talk of a "special relationship" between the two countries since the second world war, there had been surprisingly regular periods of British public disenchantment with Washington: over Suez and Vietnam and, particularly, over the deployment in Britain of US nuclear weapons. In November 1981, three weeks after CND had held its biggest ever protest in London, Reagan made a speech in Washington warning that "some young people do not understand ... why we need nuclear weapons [or] Nato's roots in defending freedom." With Margaret Thatcher a deeply unpopular prime minister, and the Labour opposition influenced by an anti-Washington party membership, a new British official attitude to America looked quite likely. "It is possible to argue that had a Labour government been formed," the historian Peter Jones wrote of the early 1980s in his book America And The British Labour Party, "it would almost certainly have led to the complete collapse of the 'special relationship'."

A 27-year-old British economist called Nick Butler decided to intervene. For someone of his age and profession, he already had unusually useful and diverse connections: he worked for BP, but he was also treasurer of the influential left-leaning pressure group the Fabian Society and a promising junior player in the Labour party. He also loved America. "The UK was in a bad state," he says. "America seemed much more dynamic, full of ideas, open." For years, he had been reading Tom Wolfe and Joan Didion, and books about US politics. He was always wanting to visit America, more than his work permitted. At the same time, he felt the Labour party needed fresh ideas from abroad. "My perspective then was that my generation - I would have been described as 'rightwing' in the 1982 Labour party - were totally stifled here. No prospect of being in power."

That spring, Butler wrote a memo proposing "some form of regular contact for Britons and Americans", to reduce "hostility to all things American" and promote "mutual understanding over a wide range of policies ... how cities are regenerated, how market forces worked, and so on." For the membership of what was to become BAP, he had a specific transatlantic group in mind: "Bright people, in many different fields, who were likely to influence outcomes in those fields. People who were interesting. Interested in change. In doing things. In progress."

Butler says this with a straight face and takes a sip of wine. Sitting in the half-darkness of his London club, wearing an immaculate suit and barely opening his mouth as he talks, he explains the philosophy and workings of BAP with less of Vander Weyer's cheery evasiveness. "I don't think networks are inevitable," Butler says with emphasis. "They are absolutely desirable. I think networks are a great phenomenon. The Fabians are a network, BP's another network - that is civil society."

Since the 1980s, Butler has maintained and extended his political and commercial connections like a model member of the "successor generation". He is close to Mandelson and other senior New Labour figures. Thanks in part to Butler, BP - where he is now group vice-president, strategy and policy development - has become known as "Blair Petroleum" for the warmth of its relations with Downing Street.

Butler's gifts for alliance-building and persuasion turned BAP from a paper proposal into an international organisation in less than three years. Between 1982 and its first conference in 1985, he recruited a shrewdly broad range of supporters, co-founders and financial backers: Sir Charles Villiers, a liberal Tory businessman with a long personal attachment to America; the US embassy in London, which gave Butler a grant to go to Washington to test reactions to the BAP idea; and the Pew Charitable Trusts, a very large and wealthy American foundation.

These days, Pew supports diverse causes, from public health to the environment. But the foundation's origins are more controversial. The Pew family made their money in oil, and for much of the 20th century the dominant personality in their business and philanthropic activities was J Howard Pew, a man of particular political convictions. "To me free enterprise is a very noble thing," an official Pew history from 1984 quotes him saying. During the 1950s, he established the J Howard Pew Freedom Trust to, in the words of its charter, "acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy ... the false promises of socialism ... the paralysing effects of government controls". Since his death in 1971, the official history continues, the Freedom Trust "has supported those projects and groups that reflect the founder's philosophy". BAP, it appears, was one of them: according its own official history, it received "grants totalling $460,000, which funded the first three BAP conferences".

Butler says that the Pew organisation "never interfered. Never told us what to do. I never met them." He sounds convincing. Yet, if you read the reports from these and subsequent BAP conferences, written by and circulated to BAP members, and talk to some of those who attended, a process of political education can be discerned of which J Howard Pew would have approved.

Every autumn, BAP hires a hotel, or a large part of one, for a long weekend, alternating between British and American venues. Conference rooms are reserved, boardroom-style tables arranged, themes chosen for discussion. A purposeful timetable of seminars and larger gatherings, dinners and group excursions is drawn up. Lighter interludes are scheduled for drinking and bonding and organised fun - Vander Weyer has been known to host a closing-night revue as a rightwing caricature called Professor Whiplash - but the overall atmosphere remains somewhere between an international summit and a corporate retreat for young executives. Even at the more intimate seminars, there are papers and water jugs on the tables, and some of the men like to keep their ties on.

"I've been on weekends organised by other networks - Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-German - but I've never been on such a grand one," says Alibhai-Brown. "The amount of drink, the way you were treated, the dinners with everyone who was anyone ... Jonathan Powell [Tony Blair's chief of staff] used to come a lot. I remember having many an argument with him beside swimming pools in white towelling dressing gowns ... It was money that I'd never seen at any conference before. We [the participants] used to joke, 'This is obviously funded by the CIA.'"

Any such connection to Washington is denied by BAP, but a more subtle subordination to America was there from the beginning. There was the fact that BAP started as a British initiative, not an American one. And there was the way the American members set the tone of the conferences. "I vividly remember the first: we were all stunned by how much more money they all had," says Butler. "They'd run their own businesses. They ran charities. They were in a different league in terms of what they'd achieved. I remember Jeremy Paxman saying that to me, and Mo Mowlam. We were all struck by that."

This sense of American superiority framed and coloured the discussions. As people leaned forward on the conference tables and made bright-eyed presentations and asked each other penetrating questions, European notions such as socialism, the welfare state and high levels of government spending were judged, in the slightly sweeping way of clever young thinkers, to be in difficulties. American notions such as less regulated capitalism, a smaller "enabling state" and a world kept safe by the Pentagon came to be regarded as sensible, inevitable. "Five years before I joined BAP, I thought wealth creation and progressive politics were completely incompatible," says Trevor Phillips, now chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. "BAP was one of the things that made me think that was absurd."

For the American participants, the political epiphanies were less dramatic. "Americans who might have thought that the Labour party was off the radar screen had their minds opened," says George R Packard, a prominent American international relations academic and BAP supporter from the beginning. Another American member says simply, "You learn a lot about how many perspectives there can be." In Phillips's experience, the traffic in specific ideas was mostly one-way: "I didn't detect that the Americans had learned a great amount [from us] about what they could and should do in the US."

Besides the advantages of the American way, the other big political preoccupation of BAP conferences during the 1980s and early 1990s was the condition and prospects of the Labour party. The Conservatives may have been in government, but the conference reports mention them surprisingly rarely. Instead, there are involved discussions about the Labour attitude to nuclear weapons, about the strengths and weaknesses of the party's general election campaigning, about whether, as BAP members saw it in 1987, Labour "had more interest in remaining a party, with policies and an ideology, than in achieving power".

It is too conspiratorial to see in these debates the creation, in secret, of New Labour. The remade party was the product of countless gatherings and discussions, and too many of its architects - Blair and Gordon Brown, to name two - were not BAP members. But, in retrospect at least, there was a whiff of something new in the analyses of Labour's problems presented at BAP conferences. "Most of us held broadly New Labour views - before Tony, you could say," says Lord Lipsey, the journalist, Labour peer and BAP member. "BAP was one of a number of streams that came together in New Labour."

Of course, not everyone in BAP is a politician, just as not every conference seminar is about politics. "For any 10 politicians who happen to be members," says Vander Weyer, "you could name 10 artists, writers ..." He pauses, and then a gleam comes into his eye: "Benjamin Zephaniah [the radical black British poet] is a member. Although not a regular attender."

Another element of the BAP membership is less surprising. "Many BAP alumni are directly involved with US and UK military and defence establishments," noted the 2002 conference report. An account followed of a conference excursion to the Pentagon: "Our BAP group was welcomed as 'old friends'." Butler is equally frank about the link. "The military are quite important, quite influential. We had a great guy who was a Polaris submarine commander. And he was a leftwinger ... loosely leftwing. [Colonel] Bob Stewart, of Bosnia fame - a lovely guy - gave a great break-out talk. These weren't people pumping out a military line. These people were talking about their direct experience."

The encounters and contacts that BAP makes possible are often cited enthusiastically by members. An American mentions meeting an astronaut at a conference. "We kept in touch ... then he told me he was giving a lecture at West Point [the US military academy]. I took the train up and we had dinner. It was a blast! Completely out of my normal world."

Packard says that at the conferences he is "astounded at how quickly the bonding takes place". In BAP's official literature, the former Labour minister Chris Smith describes attending one as "four intoxicating days of thought and discussion".Critics of BAP say that is precisely the point. "Propaganda that really works," says Saunders, "is when you get people to move in directions you want them to for reasons they think are their own."

Yet not everyone joins BAP with their guard down. "I did make some inquiries privately before joining," says the British writer and foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven. He cites the infamous British liberal journal secretly funded by the CIA during the cold war: "After the whole Encounter experience, one does have to be a little careful." But Lieven's inquiries about BAP left him reassured: "It is genuinely pluralist. The discussions are very frank. In 2002, they asked me to give a talk on Bush's strategy in which I was very, very tough."

Other critics of Washington join BAP in order, they say, to know their enemy. Alibhai-Brown found her first conference in 1988 "a miserable experience ... but really useful. There were hardly any women, and unspeakable people - so rightwing - on both the British and American sides. But I wanted to know about this very powerful axis, to learn to talk to them without poking them in the eye." She was still attending BAP conferences 15 years later.

A certain number of internal dissidents are good for the project's image: they make BAP, and the Anglo-American relationship, seem open to criticism but too important to ignore. And they keep the conferences interesting. But, reassuringly, not every rebel is successfully co-opted. Zephaniah recalls his one and only conference: "It was in this hotel in California, in Oakland, the Claremont. I remember them [the BAP members] all as men in suits or power-dressed women. Oil people, a couple of people from minority groups. I remember loads of trust games. The men were told, 'Now take off your tie, and relax, and do some yoga exercises, and go off into a group, and talk about empowerment.'"

Zephaniah started skipping the discussion groups by telling each one that he was going to the other. But after a while he had had enough. One evening, "I escaped. I got out of the hotel. I went down to Berkeley [the neighbouring city], hung out with some homeless people, went to see a friend of mine." How did BAP treat him after that? "Every year, they kept sending me the report of the last conference. I had a whole shelf of them. Last year, I put them in the bin."

Sitting in his London club, in his immaculate suit, Butler smiles. We have been talking for perhaps 20 minutes, and we are already on to the second glass of wine. The founder of BAP, like many of its members, is good at being convivial. "BAP is not a terribly serious venture," he says. "It's an interesting venture." He says he feels "quite proud" of what it has achieved. "A lot of people have learned a lot from American experience in a lot of fields."

He says he hopes that the British members of BAP can exert a moderating influence on America in return. Perhaps. The more liberal American members of BAP also hope so. But, as with the special relationship itself, the power and uniqueness of BAP can be overstated. There are other Anglo-American networks for the young and ambitious: Rhodes scholars, Fulbright scholars, Kennedy scholars. And there are other American networks. Packard mentions one in passing: "In 2000, I started an exact clone of BAP: the US-Japan leadership project."

Behind the confidence of the BAP conferences, according to Vander Weyer, lies a skeletal organisation: no British office, a "cubicle office" in the US, a tiny staff working from home. "From time to time we receive a small amount of money from the foreign and commonwealth office, the US embassy," he says. After getting their first conference for free, members pay up to £500 each to attend.
And every year, BAP needs new members. As he gets up to go at the end of our interview, Vander Weyer gestures expansively across the cafe table. "Depending on how this goes," he says, "I'd be very happy to nominate you."

UK members of the British-American Project include:
Peter Mandelson EU trade commissioner
Jonathan Powell Tony Blair's chief of staff
Jeremy Paxman broadcast journalist and author
Mo Mowlam former Labour Northern Ireland secretary
Adair Turner head of pensions commission
Trevor Phillips chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality
James Naughtie broadcast journalist and author
Matthew Taylor Downing Street head of policy
Chris Smith former Labour culture secretary
Baroness Symons Foreign Office minister
Lord Robertson former Nato secretary-general
Douglas Alexander Foreign Office and trade minister
Geoff Mulgan former head of Downing Street's policy and strategy unit
Baroness Scotland Home Office minister
Julia Hobsbawm public relations consultant
Steve Hilton Conservative special adviser
Benjamin Zephaniah poet and activist
Colonel Bob Stewart former commander of British forces in Bosnia
David Willetts Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary
Alan Sked founder of Ukip
Stephen Dorrell former Conservative health secretary
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown columnist and broadcaster
Charles Moore former editor of the Daily Telegraph
Nick Butler BP group vice-president, strategy and policy development
Lord Lipsey Labour peer and author


Project Directors
Sue McLeod
UK Project Director
British-American Project
114 Salisbury Road
W13 9TT
Tel: 020 8579 4017
Arleziana Lapter
US Project Administrator



Nothing more than elitest interests to undermine and oppress the lower class. This organised crime must be stopped and is nothing more than another bilderberg. 

Saturday, 6 March 2010

commonwealth games in india put homeless in jail

"People living in Delhi’s shanty towns are being swept off the city's streets as it prepares to host the Commonwealth Games. As India's capital gears up for the October games, orders have gone out to clear the streets of beggars. Mobile anti-begging squads were formed last September to sweep the poor off the streets. Every morning teams of police, backed by mobile courtrooms, roam the city targeting the wealthy areas of South Delhi and tourist precincts.

In the past three months, the units have arrested 224 people and sentenced 124 to at least a year in one of the 12 beggar homes across the state. About 1514 beggars were committed to Delhi beggar homes last year, where the government claims to provide training in courses such as carpentry, tailoring and weaving. A free round the clock Beggar Hotline is set to be launched in April to allow people to report offenders to a Beggar Control Room.

There are an estimated 60,000 beggars on Delhi's streets according to figures in the Guardian newspaper. Many estimates put the figure much higher – and tens of thousands more people live rough on roadside scraps of land. The idea behind the push is that begging doesn’t do much for the "Incredible India" image the authorities want to promote. "Before the 2010 Commonwealth Games, we want to finish the problem of beggary from Delhi," the city's social welfare minister, Mangat Ram Singhal, announced at the launch of the initiative. One social welfare officer said: "The main motive is to create terror in them so that they will stop begging."

Thousands of shanty towns have also been flattened as part of the city’s pre games facelift, leaving countless more homeless. The Games village has been built on the site of a demolished shanty town. The beggar crackdown has been heavily criticised by aid organisations. Sushil Kumar Singh, a legal aid lawyer told The Australian newspaper the mobile units – which work alongside the city's Beggar Court – often wrongly arrest travelling day workers who depend on free meals from temples or mosques. "They're not beggars, they're labourers, but they're all poor and at some point or another may need free food," Mr Singh says. "Some people say begging is a lucrative business but if that were the case, we would all be doing it."

Ratnabai Kale was picked up at the start of the drive in September, along with her daughter Aarti, 16, and her sister Shobha, 30. "They said, 'You're not going on that bus. Get on to this one.' I asked why; they said because we were beggars. I said, 'First of all, we're not beggars, we're honest labourers', But the police didn't listen,” she said. “They told us we'd be given a four-year sentence in jail if we didn't go along."


Another stark reminder about how the olympic committee exploits the poor and needy in their rich corrupt
event.  Business > human life

Friday, 5 March 2010

Geert "im a nazi bastard" Wilders comes to uk for a kicking

"Controversial Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders arrived in Britain today after overturning a ban on him entering the UK.

Mr Wilders attempted to enter the country last February but was detained on landing at Heathrow airport and ordered to fly back to the Netherlands just over three hours later.

He had been due to show his anti-Islamic film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a "fascist book", at the House of Lords but then-home secretary Jacqui Smith said his presence had the potential to "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety" and the ban was imposed.

But the 46-year-old Freedom Party leader had the ban quashed and sparked demonstrations from Muslim protesters when he came to Parliament last October.

Today he was showing the film to MPs and peers as a guest of UK Independence Party leader Lord Pearson and crossbencher Baroness Cox. Lord Pearson has condemned radical Islam as a "world domination movement".

There was no sign of any protests when Mr Wilders arrived at London's Heathrow airport this morning but demonstrators were expected at Westminster later.

Explaining his controversial views last October, Mr Wilders said: "I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies, the less freedom that we get."

In a pre-election interview last month, Lord Pearson described the Dutch politician as a "friend" and denied accusations that his own party was "far-right" or "radical", after it called for face coverings - such as the veil worn by some Muslim women - to be banned.

"Is it radical to wish to protect British society and our Judeo-Christian culture from the growing influence of radical Islam?" he asked.

Lord Pearson insisted his party was "absolutely non-racist" and made clear he was not referring to moderate Muslims.

But he claimed the political establishment was "asleep" to the expansionist aims of radical Islam.

Mr Wilders has been under 24-hour protection for the past five years after receiving death threats over his views."


Are we trying to create at nazi free state? Maybe now we will let nazi asylum seekers join........What the fuck is our government playing at in a blatant promotion of fascist ideals by letting this piece of shit entry. Its clear our government wont stop fascists. WE WILL.



I recently watched washington your fired dvd and must say it does a very good job of exposing the corrupt american bilderberg government. It shows us that 1984 is almost here. Its a stark reminder that anyone who dare oppose the american government in ANY way goes to jail and gets beaten up by cops.  Here is some info and a link.

"WASHINGTON, YOU'RE FIRED! was born out of sheer frustration with abuses in our current political system and it gives a voice to Americans across the country. Producers Lewis and Abel trailed their way across the United States on an expedition to pull together the thoughts and requirements that everyday Americans have for their political representatives in Washington, D.C. The results were staggering and their stories are moving.

The American people know in their hearts that a problem exists in our current political structure and their solutions are simple, direct, and honest. Washington, You're Fired captures the spirit and zest of an old fashioned Boston tea party and captivatingly delivers the audience an education into legislation that will affect them and generations of Americans to come.

What if every email, every phone call; every time you surfed the Internet, your private communications were being siphoned into a gigantic dragnet funded by a forty-five billion dollar budget and carried out in cooperation with the FBI, AT&T, and Verizon? Washington, You're Fired presents compelling first-hand testimony and whistleblower accounts, punching holes in the official "war on terrorism" excuse that has been used to dismantle the U.S. Bill of Rights and tip the scales of executive checks and balance in this country.

From the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts and law enforcement abuses to the wrongful imprisonment and torturing of legal enemy combatants and misuse of the FBI and NSA -- nothing is taboo in this disturbing look at the dark side of government."

you can also try this excellent video from the same people that highlights major coverup by
the american government on 911

On the uk 911 issue here is another excellent video about the london bombing and how it was all covered up
by the uk government.

Turkey condemns US 'genocide' vote

Turkey has recalled its ambassador from the US and condemned a Washington panel's move to declare the killing of Armenians by Ottoman forces in the first world war a "genocide". "We condemn this resolution which accuses the Turkish nation of a crime it has not committed," Ankara said in a statement on Thursday.
"Following this development, our ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, was recalled to Ankara for consultations."

The announcement came minutes after the US House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee passed a non-binding measure in a 23-22 vote on Thursday, calling on the Obama administration to ensure US policy formally refers to the 1915 mass killings of Armenians as genocide.The vote, which enables the resolution to be sent to the full House for approval, came despite pressure from the White House and Turkey, a long-time Nato ally.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, told the chairman of the committee, Howard Berman, on Wednesday that "further congressional action could impede progress on normalisation of relations" between Turkey and Armenia, according to a spokesman.But Berman, in his opening remarks at the committee's hearing on Thursday, while calling Turkey a "vital and, in most respects, a loyal ally of the United States in a volatile region", said "nothing justifies Turkey's turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian genocide".

'Untimely' vote

Suat Kinik-lioglu, a member of parliament from Turkey's ruling Justice and Development party, told Al Jazeera that the vote was "very untimely". He said it was not for foreign legislators to judge on the "very complicated history of World War I", especially "when this country is a strong ally, works closely with the United States and there is an ongoing reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia".

"Turkey works very closely with the US on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, global terrorism, Middle East peace process, Syria-Israel talks," he pointed out.Saying he did not see the recalling of Turkey's ambassador to the US as merely a symbolic gesture in a drama that would soon blow over, he said:"This is being watched very carefully, there is high sensitivity towards this. Turks feel badly treated by only seeing one version of the events of 1915.
"I think the Americans would feel that same if we were to pass a resolution in our parliament talking about the treatment of [native] Indians in this country."Ankara said the outcome of the US panel's vote demonstrated "a lack of strategic vision" among US legislators at a time when Turkey and the US "are working together on a broad common agenda"."We are seriously concerned that this bill... will harm Turkish-US relations and impede efforts aimed at normalising Turkish-Armenian ties," it added.

Abdullah Gul, Turkey's president, said the resolution had "no value in the eyes of the Turkish people" and warned that it would deal a blow on fledgling efforts to end decades of hostility between Turkey and Armenia.
"Turkey will not be responsible for the negative ramifications that this vote may have in every field," he said.
White House spokesman Mike Hammer said Barack Obama, the US president, had spoken to Gul on the phone on Wednesday to express his appreciation for Turkey's efforts to normalise ties with Armenia.
Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper said Gul had urged his US counterpart to use his influence to block the resolution.

Obama had pledged to call the Armenian killings genocide during his election campaign in 2008.
The US president has said that while he has not changed his personal views, he does not want to upset promising talks between Turkey and Armenia on improving relations and opening their border which Turkey sealed in 1993 to protest against Armenia's war with neighbouring Azerbaijan.

Complicating ties

Al Jazeera's senior Washington correspondent, Rob Reynolds, said Thursday's vote could complicate relations between the US and Turkey because Ankara is an important ally."First of all, it's a highway through which the US supplies its troops in Iraq.

"For another, it's been involved often as a broker for Middle East peace agreements and of course it's a Nato ally and it has troops in the US-led Nato coalition in Afghanistan." Huseyin Bagci, a political analyst in Ankara, told Al Jazeera that the US decision would have implications on Turkey's domestic and foreign policies. "President Obama, if he's going to speak the word genocide on April 24, then probably Turkish-American relations will go into a very difficult phase," he said, referring to the date recognised by many Armenians across the world as Genocide Awareness Day.

"After this, the anti-American feelings in Turkey will increase, the Turkish nationalism will also get strengthened and the government is going to face certain reactions inside domestic politics."
Ankara also recalled its envoy from Washington in 2007 when the same committee passed a similar genocide measure. But George Bush, the then US president, stopped the resolution from going to the full House, wary that Ankara would block US access to a Turkish air base essential to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Armenian groups in the US have for decades sought congressional affirmation of the 1915 killings as genocide.

Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed under the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of modern Turkey, around the time of the first world war. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, saying 300,000-500,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks died in what was a civil war when Armenians rose up for independence and sided with invading Russian troops.

After decades of hostility, Turkey and Armenia signed a deal in October to establish diplomatic relations and open their border.But the process has hit the rocks, with Ankara accusing Yerevan of trying to tweak the terms of the deal and Armenia charging that Turkey is not committed to ratifying the accord.


was not suprising to hear hilary "bilderberger" clinton say we are dissapointed. Her anti humanity ideals
are all too evident. Its very clear that she promotes profit over humanity. Im glad this vote passed because corporate america didnt want it to pass. A sign that maybe humanity can get through this dark age.