1

Long-Awaited Chilcot Report Shows US and UK Had No Reason to Invade Iraq

Chilcot report-compressed

By Claire Bernish | Activist Post

In a damning commentary on the rush to invade Iraq, Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry found “diplomatic options had not” at the time “been exhausted. Military action was therefore not a last resort” — as then Prime Minister Tony Blair led the people of the U.K. to believe.

While the Chilcot Report proffers scathing insight into the circumstances surrounding the U.K.’s part in one of the most contentious invasions of a sovereign state in modern times, findings dually skewer then U.S. President George W. Bush’s reckless rush to force military action.

“Military action might have been necessary later,” the BBC summarized several key points found by the Inquiry, “but in March 2003: There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.

“Judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — known as WMD — were presented with a certainty that was not justified” and “Intelligence had ‘not established beyond doubt’ that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.”

Comprehensive in scope at 2.6 million words, the report covers the U.K.’s role in Iraq from 2001 to 2009, and includes preparations for the invasion, troop preparedness, the actual conflict, and the lack of forethought of the consequences — both in civilian and other casualties, as well as other repercussions — aggression would have on the country and region.

Chilcot investigated the nuanced codependent relationship between the U.S. and U.K. under the leadership of Bush and Blair, paraphrased by the BBC, “former prime minister Tony Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK’s relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.”

Though many expected the seven-year investigation to ‘whitewash’ widely-known mistakes in intelligence and support for the U.S. goal of “regime change,” Chilcot did not hesitate to keenly criticize the unjustified and heightened rush to initiate an all-out military assault — despite the report’s somewhat subdued language in doing so.

Nor does the report let either government off the hook for the enormity of the tragedy — in the civilian death toll, lack of planning for the aftermath in Iraq, nor in Blair’s capitulation to Bush’s bellicosity, despite lack of sufficient justification for war. Indeed, “despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated,” as the report’s Executive Summary states.

While the findings severely undercut the total number of Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed — at least 150,000 by July 2009 — Chilcot did admit the figure’s shortcomings.

Further, the report notes despite warnings about the potential for an invasion to destabilize the region — and what that ensuing stability might mean far into the future — Blair (and thus Bush, without stating as much) pressed the case for invasion past the point of disputability.

Additionally, Blair’s previous reluctance to involve the U.K. militarily in favor of forcing the Iraqi leader to accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, the report found, vanished following his visit to Bush’s Crawford, Texas, ranch. As it states:

Following his meeting with President Bush, Mr Blair stated that Saddam Hussein had to be confronted and brought back into compliance with the UN.

The acceptance of the possibility that the UK might participate in a military invasion of Iraq was a profound change in UK thinking. Although no decisions had been taken, that became the basis for contingency planning in the months ahead.

Flawed intelligence — the bulk of Bush’s justification for the invasion — should have been questioned by members of Parliament, but wasn’t, the report noted, adding the putative procedures determining legal justification for such an action were “far from satisfactory.”

Overall, the Blair-led government “failed to achieve its stated objectives.”

“If Tony Blair and other politicians responsible had told the truth it [the Iraq War] never would have happened,” asserted Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament general secretary and organizer of a massive protest, as cited by RT. “A country was destroyed, millions of innocent Iraqis were killed, British soldiers were killed, and terrorism has spread across the Middle East. Those responsible must now be brought to justice.”

In the years following the effectively unjustified invasion of Iraq, countless advocates, activists, and policy critics have issued calls for the summary prosecution of members of the Bush and Blair administrations for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. Whether or not the Chilcot Inquiry’s findings will add sufficiently to the rather stunning case in favor of doing so remains to be seen — as do other potential repercussions — though it’s widely believed the report doesn’t quite go far enough to do so.

Indeed, by not making a summary judgment on legality, a seeming paradox has been created. While any judgment concerning legal issues in the Iraq War must be undertaken in a court of law, the report’s open hinting there could means for prosecution based on this evidence could be seen as allowing such proceedings — but contrarily could suggest the evidence to prosecute the politicians responsible isn’t sufficient.

Encompassing 12 full volumes — some 6,000 pages — the Chilcot Inquiry had been expected to take just two years — but instead took seven. Considering the sheer volume of information contained therein, it’s possible further revelations will become apparent in the days ahead.

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

Read more great articles at Activist Post.




A French Journalist Who Spent 10 Months in ISIS Captivity Reveals What the Jihadists REALLY Want

Nicolas Henin-compressed

By Vandita | We Are Anonymous

Nicolas Hénin, a French journalist who was chained together in underground cells by ISIS in Syria for 10 months as a hostage alongside US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff who were later beheaded, has not only revealed his brutal and gruesome ordeal at hands of terror group, he has also described how welcoming refugees is the best strategy against ISIS, how airstrikes against Syria are a trap, how the jihadists want the West to kill Muslims to justify their terror, and how the terrorists can be defeated.

ISIS Wants You To Turn Your Back On Refugees

UNHCR figures show over one million refugees and migrants reached Europe by sea in 2015. But things are different in 2016 with many Western countries planning to close their doors to refugees blaming Muslims for terror attacks on the West. However, Hénin insists:

“Welcoming refugees is not a terror threat to our countries; it’s like a vaccine to protect us from terrorism, because the more interactions we have between societies, between communities, the less there will be tensions. The Islamic State believes in a global confrontation. What they want eventually is civil war in our countries, or at least large unrest, and in the Middle East, a large-scale war. This is what they look for. This is what they struggle for. So we have to kill their narrative and actually to welcome refugees, totally destroy their narrative.”

ISIS Wants You To Not Stop Bombing Syria

US President Barack Obama called the unfortunate shooting at a holiday party, which killed 14 people and injured 22, in San Bernardino on December 2, 2015 as “an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people” and vowed to continue bombing Iraq and Syria areas held by the Islamic State. But Hénin warns that airstrikes are NOT the answer to combating the Islamic State; in fact, he says, airstrikes against Syria are a trap.

“Airstrikes in Syria, the way they are done, are a mistake… All of these bombings have a terrible side effect. And basically, we—Westerners, but not only Westerners, also the Russians, also the regime—are pushing the Syrian people into the hands of ISIS. We are working for them. We are recruiting for them.”

ISIS Wants To See You Hate & Kill Muslims

The Charlie Hebdo shooting , the multiple terror attacks on Paris and the recent Brussels Bombings not only struck at the heart of cosmopolitan Western civilization, it struck at the Western unity, giving Islamophobic elements in both America and Europe an excuse to persecute their own innocent Muslim citizens. That is exactly what the Islamic State wanted.

In an op-ed for The Guardian, Hénin explains how we are just fuelling our enemies and fuelling the misery and disaster for the natives, and why we absolutely must not respond to terror attacks with more violence and hate…

“With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.

“Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see.

“Canada withdrew from the air war after the election of Justin Trudeau. I desperately want France to do the same, and rationality tells me it could happen. But pragmatism tells me it won’t. The fact is we are trapped: ISIS has trapped us. They came to Paris with Kalashnikovs, claiming that they wanted to stop the bombing, but knowing all too well that the attack would force us to keep bombing or even to intensify these counterproductive attacks. That is what is happening.”

In a column for the International Business Times, Hénin made a very compelling case for why we must not overreact to the acts of terrorism:

Let’s start by asking ourselves, what does our enemy want us to do? What reaction would make them happy? The answer is that the Paris attacks were committed because ISIS wants to see us kill Muslims. They want to provoke military escalation in Syria. They want to provoke unrest. They want to provoke confrontations with Muslims from the Western world.

ISIS believes that Muslims have no place in a Western society, and that the two worlds can’t coexist. All of their propaganda – based on a corrupted restoration of the ‘Muslim pride’ – is actually a scam: ISIS wants the West to kill Muslims to justify their war.

ISIS is a terrorist group and we can’t reproach them and expect them to shift ideals and act as we do. They can only act by their very definition – to terrorize. They do this to become a part of our political agenda. To make us forget what is fair or moral. To make us have eyes only for them. Enthralled by their terror campaign, we ultimately act against our own interests, against all logic.

How Can The Islamic State Be Defeated?

“The winner of this war will not be the party that has the newest, the most expensive or the most sophisticated weaponry, but the party that manages to win over people.”


This article (A French Journo Who Spent 10 Months In ISIS Captivity Reveals What Do Jihadists REALLY Want) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.

Read more great articles at We Are Anonymous.




Former CIA Agent to Americans: It’s Time to Talk About What’s Really Causing Terrorism

cia-agent-terror-2

By Carey Wedler | The Anti Media

(ANTIMEDIA) In the wake of yet another terrorist attack, a former CIA counterterrorism agent has shared her insight into what causes such tragic, intentional carnage. Amaryllis Fox spoke for the first time publicly with Al Jazeera Plus (AJ+) about terrorism, misguided narratives on why it happens, and the underlying motivators driving it — ultimately urging  Americans and those in power to adopt a different approach in combating the ongoing violence.

If I learned one lesson from my time with the CIA, it is this: everybody believes they are the good guy,” says Fox, who is currently “in the process of getting her CIA cover rolled back,AJ+ reports. She is now a peace activist and runs Mulu,an e-commerce company supporting at-risk communities around the world.

Fox worked as a counterterrorism and intelligence official for the clandestine services during the 2000s. In her first public statement on her time there, she discussed the limitations on the American public’s perception of the war on terror:

The conversation that’s going on in the United States right now about ISIS and about the United States overseas is more oversimplified than ever. Ask most Americans whether ISIS poses an existential threat to this country and they’ll say yes. That’s where the conversation stops.

Indeed, while a majority of Americans fear terrorism, reaching a consensus on how to tackle ISIS has proved contentious. Fox explained the simplicity of the way the conflicts are viewed on both sides:

If you’re walking down the street in Iraq or Syria and ask anybody why America dropped bombs, you get: ‘They were waging war on Islam.’”

In America, the question is: “Why were we attacked on 9/11?

Fox says if you pose this question, “You get: they hate us because we’re free.”

However, she contests the validity of these assumptions, pointing to the powerful forces that drive conflict in the first place:

Those are stories manufactured by a really small number of people on both sides who amass a great deal of power and wealth by convincing the rest of us to keep killing each other.

Indeed, both sides of the conflict expend significant effort campaigning to prove their crusades are justified. In the United States, after decades of prolonged conflict, the populace is largely desensitized to war and often ignorant of its current manifestations.

Fox challenges this paradigm:

I think the question we need to be asking, as Americans examining our foreign policy, is whether or not we’re pouring kerosene on a candle. The only real way to disarm your enemy is to listen to them. If you hear them out, if you’re brave enough to really listen to their story, you can see that more often than not, you might have made some of the same choices if you’d lived their life instead of yours.

Of course, as Americans mourn the most recent mass shooting, it is doubtful many citizens are well-versed in the U.S. foreign policy that provokes such terrorism. Rather, they focus, understandably, on the wrong done to their nation. But Fox offered a unique perspective that lends insight to the “enemy.”

An Al-Qaeda fighter made a point once during debriefing,” she recounted. “He said all these movies that America makes — like Independence Day, and the Hunger Games, and Star Wars — they’re all about a small scrappy band of rebels who will do anything in their power with the limited resources available to them to expel an outside, technological advanced invader. ‘And what you don’t realize,’ he said, is that to us, to the rest of the world, you are the empire, and we are Luke and Han. You are the aliens and we are Will Smith.’”

However, she also challenged the Al-Qaeda fighter’s take, arguing that on both sides of  conflict, those fighting on the ground often provide the same reasons for doing so:

But the truth is that when you talk to people who are really fighting on the ground, on both sides, and ask them why they’re there, they answer with hopes for their children, specific policies that they think are cruel or unfair,” she says.

And while it may be easier to dismiss your enemy as evil, hearing them out on policy concerns is actually an amazing thing, because as long as your enemy is a subhuman psychopath that’s gonna attack you no matter what you do, this never ends. But if your enemy is a policy, however complicated — that we can work with.”

As terror attacks become an increasingly normal occurrence in the West — and as Western intervention trudges ahead unabated — hearing out enemies’ concerns may, at this point, be the most effective counterterrorism gesture the United States can make; that is, if it is truly determined to bring an end to the violence.


This article (Former CIA Agent to Americans: Time to Talk About What’s Really Causing Terrorism) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

Read more great articles at The Anti Media.




What You Can Do to Fight the Bilderbergs in 2016

By Karma Singh | Harmony Energy Consultants

bilderberg

Editor’s Note: While this posting has to do with the Bilderberg Group meeting, which took place over this weekend, the marching orders issued to the attendees will no doubt play out over the next several months and year. As such, the manifestations included in this posting will be effective to be used throughout the next year while those efforts are under way. This is one way in which we can all do our part to do something good for the world. Thank you.

The so called “Bilderberg Group” consists of a self-appointed elite who believe that they have a “natural right” to dominate the world and to exploit it and humanity for their personal gain. The members are the owners of the cartels, the warmongers, large-scale exploiters of every type and the editors in chief and politicians whom they have purchased.

(A cartel is a group of businesses that work together to eliminate competition and to keep prices artificially high. The pharmaceutical manufacturers, for example, work together as a single entity to sell their products to your health service without about 6000% profit over the production costs. The owners of the 5 major cartels – energy, military-industrial, agrochemical, pharmaceutical and banking all work together under the control of the banking cartel which, in turn, is owned outright by the Rothschild family.)

This group meets once per year to appoint the next high-level politicians, give them orders as to what new laws the cartels require and to set forward their plans for a complete world dictatorship.

Up until now, each meeting has been held in an isolated location which is completely sealed off by a massive military a police presence. These meetings have been kept such a well-guarded secret that, although they have been held regularly since the 19th century, they first came to public attention in 1954 with the meeting in the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland (hence the name).

This weekend, the 9th to 12th June, they have reserved the old palace in Dresden city centre for their 2016 meeting.

Whether this is just bravura, deliberate provocation or a decoy to divert attention from the real meeting being held somewhere else?????

It will be easy to determine whether this is a decoy and the real meeting (according to their schedule) is actually being held in the USA.

If no high-ranking politicians turn up in Dresden but have “disappeared” for the weekend then Dresden is a decoy.

Whichever way it is, our action must be the same.

A few days ago, I published a manifestation built upon the method detailed in “The Key to Luck” upon this webpage.

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “Bilderberg in Dresden”

Update & additional manifestation:

How things stand in Dresden this [Sunday] morning:

On Friday, there was the beginning of a schism within the Bilderberg Group. During the night to Saturday, the “chiefs” were able to dampen this down but it’s still cooking under.

If we remain “on the ball” after Dresden, the chances that parts of the Bilderberg organisation will break away should not be underestimated.

For all those who work with “The Key to Luck”, the manifestation is:

The Text:
All people, everywhere, see the true plans and desires of the cartels. All secrets are known, all veils are lifted and truth alone rules the affairs of mankind.

The Vision:
Everyone, everywhere; man, woman and child looks up in the sudden knowledge of truth. All faces shine with the knowledge of salvation and divinity. All eyes are open wide and all stand together as one and at one each with the other.

The Feelings:
Thankfulness, freedom, joy and unity

Robert O'Leary 150x150

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Here Are 3 Ways You Can Help to Prevent War

By Karma Singh | Harmony Energy Consultants

Wars-compressed

This is an activity which used to be fairly simple: If your king told you to go and attack another country or your Pope, e.g. Innocent III, told you to go and murder all the followers of a different Christian sect (the Cathars) then it was your divine duty to blindly follow the order.

As power began to shift from absolute monarchs towards aristocratic families, e.g. Magna Carta, it became necessary to persuade these families that a war would serve their interests. The interests of the common people, those who were destined to do the killing and dying, were never even considered.

It was also at this time that the bankers began to play a growing role in decisions about such matters.

Although much emphasis has been laid upon “honour” and “pride”, national and racial “superiority” “obligation” to one’s country/religion and the like, these are merely superficial flim-flam to distract and confuse, i.e., they have nothing to do with reality.

The reality is that the abuses of the feudal system induced widespread poverty and the not-so-subtle preaching from pulpit and similar portrayed the victims as the guilty ones because “you are not good enough for God”. For some unrecognisable guilt (Catholic Church, for example – “you are guilty of possessing a body, a thing which God despises”) a debt of service to church and state which you have to either pay or die trying to avoid eternal damnation was created.

Now, if you can convince someone that they are guilty of some unspecified or absurd misdemeanour, the first reaction they will have is to either sink into hopeless depression or seek to pass the guilt feelings onto someone else. This latter is the objective of all the state and religion manipulations for in this condition you are more than willing to believe that some other country, some other nation, some other religion is to blame and that you can regain your innocence and freedom by attacking them. Having created your powder keg, all you then need to do is to apply a spark to the fuse. It doesn’t really matter what it is, if you’ve done your propaganda right, the people will believe whatever you want them to and demand to be led into war. Neat, huh?

This all worked very well for several centuries and only a few historians even questioned who was really benefitting. Very few people could read. Travel was rare and inter-cultural exchanges almost non-existent. Then came the industrial revolution.

In order to expand their wealth, the new “Elite” – the industrialists – needed workers who could read and write and so they bought themselves an education system. N.B. it was not benevolent government which did this but powerful factory owners who pushed this “reform” through. It was this which sowed the seeds for the collapse of the Old System – a collapse which is becoming daily more obvious. 

Due to increased knowledge gleaned from the general ability to read combined with the rising consciousness of humanity as a whole, a new phenomenon arose in the early 20th century, that of the “conscientious objector” to travelling abroad to kill other people. Government propaganda with the “white feather” campaign and other ways of punishing the dissenters kept the lid on matters but it came dangerously close to a public awareness as to what the war was actually about – to prevent Germany taking over from Britain as the industrial centre of Europe.

When the police investigate a crime, all their experience has shown them that one of the first questions they must ask is “who benefits?” In a very large percentage of cases, this leads them to the culprit. The same principle needs to be applied to war.

In the 1930’s it was Germany’s establishment of a national banking system, thus removing the entire nation from the exploitation of the banking cartel, which triggered the process of inveigling Germany into another continent-wide war. At the same time, the growing industrial strength of Japan threatened much of the USA’s markets in South East Asia. A whole raft of illegal methods were used to push Japan into making a pre-emptive strike to break out of the american strangle hold on their economy.

Now, I’m not saying that the German or Japanese governments were centres of benevolent enlightenment. No, they were typical of their times just very much less under the control of American cartels and the City of London bankers than were the “allies” who created the war. What we have been taught in schools and elsewhere may, largely, be true but disproportionate and imbalanced. Please bear in mind that almost nothing was known of the concentration camps until after the war so to portray this as a justification for the war is more than a little disingenuous.

The racial cleaning called “eugenics” was not a solely German activity but was widely believed and practiced across the planet at that time and especially in the USA, Canada and Australia. Also, operations such as Auschwitz were run not by the german government but by the pharmaceutical cartel – one of the principle beneficiaries of the World War Two; during the years immediately following the war, they received their reward in the form of legislation across wide swathes of our planet giving them a mandatory monopoly on “health” care.

If we now move to the 1960’s we see something else happening.

Increasing access to knowledge led to mass protests about the Viet Nam war – a war requested by the military industrial complex to test new weapons. These protests became so powerful that, at one point, an entire division in Viet Nam just stopped fighting. Eventually, public pressure at home forced a complete withdrawal from the area. There then began a process of reducing the standard of education, especially in the USA but, generally, across most of the banker controlled world. This, combined with great pressure to move from natural foods to denatured processed “phude” which drastically reduces intelligence, has been the response in order to prepare the people as a whole for the next war. And so the invasion of Iraq (to confiscate the oil reserves) could be pushed through with only moderate protest.

War on two fronts is being prepared at the moment.

For many decades, the cartels have been following a policy of actively damaging the economies of Moslem countries, creating mass poverty and unemployment. Why? Because islamic law does not favour the high degree of usury perpetrated upon the people of “Christian” countries.

The “Christians” are then educated into the belief that all Moslems are terrorists who want to destroy their Christian culture for doctrinaire reasons. As with almost all wars of the last 300 years, the banking cartel shows itself also here to be the prime mover in creating war. On the one hand, Moslem people are indoctrinated into the belief that Christian countries (and not just the bankers) are destroying them and their way of life. On the other hand, “Christian” people are being trained to believe that they must make pre-emptive strikes against “Islamisten” (a phantom people existing solely in the banker owned press and nowhere else) in order to preserve their way of life.

In Yeltsin’s Russia, the banking cartel had managed to take ownership (without actual payment of course – as is usual for them) of almost all of Russia’s natural resources. By the time that Putin took over the reins of power, the nation was to all intents and purposes bankrupt. As nothing had been paid, Putin saw no problem in retaking ownership of Russia’s massive natural resources and, basically, throwing the bankers out of the country. Twice so far, the banking cartel has tried to regain control of Russia via local wars – without avail you will note.

Now the attempt is running via Ukraine and other border regions to push Russia into a major war with NATO. For months, West European and American governments (cartel controlled, please note) have been massing military machines around Russia’s Western borders in an attempt to severely destabilise the region in order to push Russia into a pre-emptive strike to get out of a tactically hopeless military position or lose much territory to invading European armies. This is likely to be followed by “American” led attacks upon Syria and Iran in order to spread the war far and wide.

Parallel hereto, they have been pushing millions of “refugees” to leave the Middle East and to take up home, mostly in Germany. These are around 80+% young men who would, otherwise, be drafted into military service. Merkel has followed the instructions given to her by the bankers to junk all immigration controls and to place the burden of caring for the “refugees” on the local communities who are, then, forbidden to give the “refugees” work to do.

The intention is to inculcate a sort of civil war in Germany between German nationalists and the phantom “Islamists” in order to destroy the German economy for a third time in one century.

Now, you may ask, “What have the bankers to win from the widespread destruction as will inevitably ensue should their plans succeed?”
They believe that the degree of destruction will be so immense that humanity will return to a feudal like society which they can rule with ease unopposed.
Although you may question just how realistic this belief on their part is, they do not see it that way but have, for so long been accustomed to rule unopposed, that they believe they have a pre-ordained right to own humanity and to use humans as they choose.

It is this paranoia and myopia which are their weakest point and where we, humanity as a whole, should apply our skills to thwart their plans once again as we have done several times during the last 15 years.

As we have seen above, their principle tool for engendering war is to create a belief in lack as this appears to give the justification for attacking and killing other peoples. If we remove this belief, will the soldiers still attack and will the civilian population still support them? Both historical and present day indications show that they probably will not.

If everyone can clearly see that the planned war is designed to exclusively benefit the bankers and their friends (as is usual – no-one else has ever had any benefit from going to war -), will they support it? I think not.

If the steadily rising consciousness as we move inexorably deeper into the Age of Community can be applied to this problem, will the institutions which are designed to enable war continue? Experience shows that those employed there will simply walk off the job as soon as they have an alternative way of feeding themselves and their families.

I have three tools to offer for this undertaking and one to commend:

This first tool can be used right now. It is the technology to change the world by using your natural powers of manifestation. The detailed instructions are in the book “The Key to Luck”.

The Text:
All people, everywhere, see the true plans and desires of the cartels. All secrets are known, all veils are lifted and truth alone rules the affairs of mankind.

The Vision:
Everyone, everywhere; man, woman and child looks up in the sudden knowledge of truth. All faces shine with the knowledge of salvation and divinity. All eyes are open wide and all stand together as one and at one each with the other.

The Feelings:
Thankfulness, freedom, joy and unity

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “How to Create a War.”




Families Of British Soldiers Killed In Iraq May Sue Tony Blair After Chilcot Report

Video Source: RT

The families of slain British soldiers might sue former UK PM Tony Blair if evidence suggests the equipment provided to the troops during the Iraq War was inadequate, Roger Bacon, father of an army serviceman killed in a roadside bomb blast, told RT.

Bereaved relatives of UK servicemen and women slain during the Iraq War are contemplating taking legal action against Blair and/or other officials if the much-anticipated report commissioned in 2009 and prepared by Sir John Chilcot reveals that the government failed to adequately provide for the needs of British military personnel participating in the 8-year-long invasion and occupation.

Bacon, who is member of the Iraq Families Action Group, which is seeking justice from the UK authorities on behalf of the 179 British servicemen killed in Iraq, told RT that he firmly believes Blair“committed an illegal act in taking us [the UK] there.” What is worse, Bacon believes the invasion focused on “regime change,” but lacked planning, leading to grave consequences that put the “entire country in chaos” and allowed groups such as Islamic State (IS, ISIS/ISIL) to take over parts of Iraq.

He added that, after looking at specific cases of UK families that had lost children in the war, it was “quite clear” that the troops had been ill-equipped for their task.

“There is an equipment issue,” Bacon said, while promising to carefully look at Chilcot’s inquiry before he and members of other affected families decide whether to file a lawsuit against Blair or other parties, including the UK’s defense ministry.

“Whether it has to do with suing Tony Blair himself or the ministry of defense over equipment we will have to wait until the report comes out to see what it says about it,” said Bacon, whose son Matthew was killed by an IED in 2005, just five weeks after being deployed, while on his way back from the allies’ headquarters in Basra.

“You don’t expect to lose your son before you go,” the grieving father added.

Over the past years, the families of British servicemen killed over the course of the war have slammed Chilcot for delaying the report’s publication, while threatening to take legal action if a deadline for its release was not set.

“Now we expect a Chilcot report to come out on July 6. It’s just taken far too long to do,” stressed Bacon, who has become one of the most vocal critics of the increasingly protracted publication process.

“It is morally reprehensible to keep delaying the publication of the report,” he said back in 2015.

The report, which is supposed to examine the justification for deploying British troops, may further tarnish the former PM’s less than perfect reputation, as it is expected to be loaded with heavy criticism of his actions prior to the invasion.

“Two million words in it, and within those words there’s going to be, we believe, a lot of criticism about what happened in Iraq and before. How we got into a situation where we went to war,” Bacon added.

The report is rumored to reveal details about secretive meetings between Blair and George W. Bush, in which the then-British PM reportedly said he would support the war in Iraq no matter what. This evidence might confirm allegations that Blair had committed to back the US-led campaign regardless of whether Iraq’s late leader, Saddam Hussein, was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, the report will shed light on Blair’s involvement in forging a so-called “dodgy dossier” – an intelligence report claiming that Hussein had the ability to attack Britain with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, which turned out to be false, as no WMDs were found in Iraq at all.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




Over Half of Every Tax Dollar You Give to Uncle Sam is Spent on This

American flag military industrial complex-compressed

By Phillip Schneider | Waking Times

Most people probably don’t think too much about this, but are you aware of just how much of your income is being used to fuel the military industrial complex?

Conveniently omitted from the corporate/state-run media organizations is the fact that some 53 percent of your tax dollars are spent on the military. That’s right, more than half of the money you give to Uncle Sam for the privilege of being American income is spent directly on military.

In 2011 the budget for the US Government was over 3 trillion dollars, while military spending included a $717 billion request from the pentagon, $200 billion towards “overseas contingency funding” for the two major conflicts we are engaged in, and $40 billion in black budget intelligence which includes the CIA, NSA, and other agencies where the amount of money given is never fully disclosed.

In addition, $94 billion was spent on non-DOD military operations, $100 billion on health care and veterans benefits, and $400 billion was spent paying off the interest on debt raised to pay for past wars. This all adds up to over 1.6 trillion dollars spent on so-called defense. That is more than what was spent during the second world war after being adjusted for inflation.

Defense Spending Or Offense Spending?

Now it is true that defense spending is important to American interests. You might be inclined to think about how much worse off we would be without a military. Without a strong defense, if a country decided to engage us in any sort of negative way militarily we wouldn’t be able to resist or hold our ground.

However, what is typically called “defense spending” is by-and-large nothing offense spending designed to support a policy of military interventionism which exploits many nations for their natural resources and establishes Rothschild controlled central banks wherever and whenever they can.

To see this, one needs not look beyond the excuses for going to war in the first place. From the Gulf of Tonkin incident of August 1964, to the supposed WMD’s in Iraq, to Obama’s attempt in the summer of 2013 to begin bombing campaigns in Syria, nearly each and every war is initiated alongside war propaganda intended to serve the special interests who profit from the lucrative military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address of 1961.

Why would they need to continuously lie to get us into war if there was a plausible reason for “defending ourselves” in the first place?

Drone Bombings Are America’s Slap In The Face To The World

When you take the immediate danger of American soldiers out of the equation, and in some cases any human input at all, it creates a situation where the public generally doesn’t see any problem with bombing the living daylights out of another country because it is out of sight, out of mind. For this reason, the drone program has become one of the military’s most insidious operations in history.

To put the drone program into perspective you have to understand its scale and its ability to remain covert. During the Obama presidency alone, the US has bombed a total of eight countries. Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, and Pakistan. Also, Obama became the worlds first Nobel Peace Prize winner to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize winner when he authorized a strike on a Afghan hospital run by the 1999 Peace Prize recipient Doctors Without Borders, killing at least 22 people. And somehow, bombs somehow keep on falling in places where Obama boasts that he hast ended two wars.

A recent whistle blower exposed the fact that about 90 percent of those killed in drone strikes are not the intended targets. Yes, you heard that right. For every ten people killed by American drones, nine are innocent bystanders, some of which are merely patients in a hospital suspected of harboring terrorists.

“What is war but mass murder on a scale impossible by private police forces?” – Austrian economist Murray Rothbard

This Money Could Be Spent Fixing Our Country, Or Better Yet Not Stolen From Us

In 2014 one fighter jet ended up costing the US $400 billion dollars. That amount of money could havepayed for every homeless person in America to have a house worth $600,000. Imagine what that kind of money could have done if it were spent on humanitarian efforts, or better yet, if left in the hands of hardworking Americans who are supporting the economy through their free market decisions.

At the end of the day, we are all cash-cows for Uncle Sam and his globalist military industrial complex.

This short video puts it all nicely into perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQiELpyBIrM

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a student and a contributing author to Waking Times.

This article (Over Half of Every Tax Dollar You Give to Uncle Sam is Spent on This) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Phillip Schneider and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Read more great articles at Waking Times.




This US Army Chaplain Just Stood Up to the American “Empire”

US-army-chaplain-compressed

By Michaela Whitton | The Anti Media

(ANTIMEDIA) A U.S. Army Reserve chaplain has resigned in opposition to U.S. policies on nuclear weapons, militarized drones, and preemptive war. In a letter to President Obama, Captain Christopher John Antal stated he can no longer serve as a chaplain for an “empire.”

From September 2012 to February 2013, Antal was an Army chaplain to a battalion supporting the 3rd Infantry Division in southern Afghanistan. Although his unit didn’t have operational responsibilities for drones, the chaplain saw them launch and land, and was therefore fully aware of the consequences of remote-control killing.

In a poem he wrote in 2012, called “A Veterans Day Confession For America,” Antal accused the U.S. of sanitizing killing and condoning extrajudicial assassinations. His commanding officer was informed of his prose, and in a blatant attempt to silence dissent, Antal was investigated and banned from travel. Officially reprimanded, he was sent back to the U.S. with a “do not promote” evaluation and discharged from active duty.According to Veterans For Peace, the minister challenged the punishment, which resulted in his re-activation and promotion to Captain in the U.S. Army.

In his letter sent to President Obama on April 12 — also published on the website of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation at Rock Tavern — Antal laid out the reasons behind his resignation. Citing opposition to U.S. imperial overreach, he wrote:

“I resign because I refuse to support U.S. armed drone policy. The Executive Branch continues to claim the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, at any time, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence, in a secret process, undertaken by unidentified officials. I refuse to support this policy of unaccountable killing.”

Voicing opposition to U.S. nuclear weapons policy, the chaplain also accused America of investing millions of dollars into arms that threaten the existence of mankind and the planet. Adamant in his refusal to support terror and “mutually assured destruction,” he added, “I resign because I refuse to support U.S. policy of preventive war, permanent military supremacy, and global power projection.“

Slamming the U.S. for claiming extrajudicial authority and impunity from international law, Antal said he can no longer reconcile these policies with what he called his “sworn duty to protect and defend America.” Nor can he reconcile the principles of his own religious faith — including justice, equity, and compassion — with U.S. warmongering.


This article (This US Army Chaplain Just Stood Up to the American “Empire”) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton andtheAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, emailedits@theantimedia.org.

Read more great articles at The Anti Media.




Ex-CIA Spy Admits Tip Led to Nelson Mandela’s Long Imprisonment

By Unattributed | The Guardian

Nelson Mandela in prisonFormer operative says Americans believed the leader was ‘completely under the control of the Soviet Union’, report reveals

A tip from a CIA spy to authorities in apartheid-era South Africa led to Nelson Mandela’s arrest, beginning the leader’s 27 years behind bars, a report said on Sunday.

Donald Rickard, a former US vice-consul in Durban and CIA operative, told British film director John Irvin that he had been involved in Mandela’s arrest in 1962, which was seen as necessary because the Americans believed he was “completely under the control of the Soviet Union”, according to a report in the Sunday Times newspaper.

“He could have incited a war in South Africa, the United States would have to get involved, grudgingly, and things could have gone to hell,” Rickard said.

“We were teetering on the brink here and it had to be stopped, which meant Mandela had to be stopped. And I put a stop to it.”

Mandela was eventually freed from prison in 1990 and went on to become South Africa’s president between 1994 and 1999 before dying in 2013 aged 95.

Zizi Kodwa, national spokesman of Mandela’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) party, called the revelation “a serious indictment”.

“We always knew there was always collaboration between some western countries and the apartheid regime,” he said.

He claimed that though the incident happened decades ago, the CIA was still interfering in South African politics.

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




When the Warning is Ignored…

 

George Washington, after 1796, by Gilbert Stuart (Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute)

George Washington, after 1796, by Gilbert Stuart (Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute)

BY G. Edward Griffin |NeedToKnowNews.com    and Tyler Durden| ZEROHEDGE

THE WARNING:
In his 1796 Farewell address, George Washington, the First President of the United States, said: “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. … Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

THE CONSEQUENCES of ignoring that advice are painfully evident in this this week’s news:  The late Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told John Kerry in 2014, ‘Daesh [ISIS] is our response to your support for the Da’wa – the Tehran-aligned Shia Islamist ruling party of Iraq’ after the city of Mosul fell to the US military offensive. In other words, the Saudis created ISIS in response to US intervention in the region that shifted the balance of power to Iran. According to a CIA document, the US approved of this plan and intended to use ISIS to topple Syrian President Assad. 

Related Article: Bulgarian Prophet Who Died In 1996 Predicted ISIS, 9/11, the Arab Spring, Obama…A 2016 “Muslim War” and Russian “Superpower”

On the day Barack Obama is kowtowing to his Saudi allies, and just days after a senior Obama administration finally made the admission that has been a “conspiracy theory” for years namely that “a lot of the money, the seed money if you will, for what became Al Qaeda, came out of Saudi Arabia,” the FT is out with another stunning revelation.

Related Article : ISIS: The ‘Enemy’ the US Created, Armed, and Funded

The FT has written an article that supposedly focuses on the US sources of growing diplomatic antipathy between the US and Saudi Arabia.

The source of disagreement: the treatment of Iran.

Related Article:ISIS in Iraq and the Path to Iran

 As US President Barack Obama arrives on a valedictory visit to Saudi Arabia this week, that 70-year-old bargain looks frayed by fractious relations with a ruling House of Saud that is coming under unpredictable new management. The shale-based energy revolution meanwhile shows the potential to liberate the US from dependence on Saudi and Gulf oil. Mr Obama’s main foreign policy achievement, the nuclear deal struck last year between international powers and Iran, is abhorrent to Saudi Arabia, whose virulently sectarian Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam abominates the Shia Islam of Iran and its Arab network of co-religionists from Baghdad to Beirut.

But it was not just Iran.

“Even when the Iran deal was only at an interim and fragile stage in 2013, the Saudis were so affronted they rejected a seat for which they had vigorously lobbied on the UN Security Council. But differences between Washington and Riyadh had been steadily accumulating — starting with the fact that it was mainly Saudi terrorists, on orders of the Saudi Osama bin Laden, who struck America on 9/11.”

However the real reason for Iraqi fury at Obama goes further back. In fact, it appears that all current events are shaped by the disastrous foreign policy of Obama’s early years, namely the US intervention behind the Arab Spring:

The Saudis could never reconcile themselves to the US-led invasion of Iraq, not because it toppled Saddam Hussein but because it led to Shia majority rule in an Arab country. When Hosni Mubarak was toppled by Egypt’s popular revolt in 2011, Riyadh accused Mr Obama of betraying a US allySaudi perceptions of US complacency in the face of Iran’s advances in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen are a grievance far outweighing western perceptions of Isis jihadism as the main threat in and from the Middle East.

But the punchlineSaudi’s admission that it itself created Daesh, or ISIS. As for the twist: as the late Saudi foreign minister says, the Saudis only created ISIS in response to Obama’s disastrous policy in the region. 

 To wit:

 After the Iraqi city of Mosul fell to a lightning Isis offensive in 2014, even the late Prince Saud al-Faisal, the respected Saudi foreign minister, remonstrated with John Kerry, US secretary of state, that “Daesh [Isis] is our [Sunni] response to your support for the Da’wa” — the Tehran-aligned Shia Islamist ruling party of Iraq.

And there you have it, and as a reminder, the person who was in charge of US foreign policy during this entire period was none other than…

 

But that is just part of the story.

As we revealed last year courtesy of leaked CIA documents, according to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed  the “leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

 “According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.”

In other words, the Saudis may have created ISIS in response to US foreign policy, but this had been known all too well to the US from the beginning, who not only were “in on it”, but actively groomed the terrorist organization, ostensibly through a clandestine spy organization whose name is conveniently abbreviated to just three letters. 

Which ultimately means that just like Al Qaeda was funded, i.e., created, by Saudi Arabia, so its replacement on the global bogeyman scale, the Islamic State terrorist are nothing more than conveniently puppets, played from day one by the interplay of Saudi and US national interests.

And since the US clearly knew about the formation of ISIS, it is also safe to assume that the US government may well have been aware of the tactics and strategy used by Al Qaeda, especially on that fateful day of September 11, 2001.

When will this be confirmed? Hopefully just as soon as those “28 pages” of high confidential documents are finally declassified. We are holding our breath…




Peacekeeping Tribal Elder Begs America to Stop Trying to Kill Him With Drone Strikes

Code Pink-compressed

By Michaela Whitton | Activist Post

A tribal elder from Pakistan is in the U.K. this week in an attempt to get Britain to persuade the United States to stop trying to kill him. Malik Jalil, from the village of Waziristan on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, has a role as an intermediary in settling disputes. He is a member of a community devoted to trying to keep the peace in the region, and he is sanctioned by the Pakistani government.

Malik claims he has been put on a ‘kill list’ and targeted at least four times by U.S. drone strikes for his role in attempting to prevent violence between the local Taliban and the authorities.

It is not only horrific that in the 21st century, a list has been drawn up of people governments want to kill; in Pakistan, which is out of sight and out of mind, only a minority of those killed by U.S. drones are even identified. Of the 2,494 people killed since 2004, only 729 have been named. At least 1,765 victims remain nameless, according to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Related Article: In Public Challenge to Obama, Family of Drone Victim Asks: ‘What is the Value of an Innocent Life?’

Invited by Lord Ken MacDonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Jalal has traveled to the U.K. to ask for the government’s help in taking him off the kill list. Writing for Stop the War, he said:

I have been warned that Americans and their allies had me and others from the Peace Committee on their Kill List. I cannot name my sources, as they would find themselves targeted for trying to save my life. But it leaves me in no doubt that I am one of the hunted.

Speaking via a translator on national radio, he recounted a number of near-misses that have convinced him he is a U.S. military target. On one occasion, he was visiting a nearby village in a people carrier when the vehicle just meters behind him was hit by a missile. As his back window shattered in the explosion, the car behind him went up in flames and the bodies of those in it were blown to pieces.

“I realised they must have been targeting my car, the people in the other car were just shopkeepers, ordinary people,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.

On another occasion he had been invited for dinner with a friend. There are no telephones in the region, so the arrangements had been made using walkie-talkies. As Jalal approached his friend’s house, it exploded. “I was on my way to his house, about 500 meters away in my car and the house was hit by a missile. We went up to the house after the strike and it was destroyed, everything was on fire,” he recalled.

Convinced that yet again he was the intended target, he said the actual victim was just a poor local man. He believes his conversation via the walkie-talkies was intercepted by U.S. forces, who bombed it knowing he was going to be there. Asked how he can be so sure, he said whenever there is an attack, dispute or fighting in the area, he is always the first on the scene in an attempt to resolve the situation.

“I came close to being bombed four times, so in the end I realised they were on to me,” he said, adding that people from the security services had warned him he should leave the area.

Insistent that the Americans don’t want peace in Waziristan, Jalal believes the progress made in his special role improving security is what has put him in the American crosshairs. Denying criticism he has vowed to avenge U.S. killings and has encouraged suicide attacks against Americans, he said:

“Twenty-seven people in my village had already been killed in a drone strike. After that a tribal gathering was bombed. Those who died were my childhood friends. When the killings happened there were huge protests in Waziristan and people were asked to demonstrate against America. On that day if we hadn’t held a press conference calling for calm, there would have been war in Waziristan,” he said.

Describing the damning effects of U.S. drone strikes on his family and the wider community, he claimed there are 400,000 people in Waziristan alone with mental problems as a result of the relentless drone strikes. In addition, he says six of his own family members have been mentally destabilised. He has had to leave and his son is too terrified to return.

Asked if he is scared of arrest during his visit to Britain, the reconciliation worker was clear:

“I had a peaceful role, in Pakistan. I am not involved in terrorism, I am clean so I am not scared. The thing is, is that I don’t trust America and won’t go there. I came to Britain because I feel like it is like a younger brother to America. I’m here to tell Britain that America doesn’t listen to us so you should tell them to stop killing Waziristanis.

Related Article: Nearly 9 out of 10 Pakistani Drone Victims Were Not Militants (Project Censored #3)

“The British police, the British Army, the British Courts can ask me anything they like. I came here for that reason and am happy for them to question me,” he added.

Clive Stafford Smith, Director of the human rights organisation, Reprieve, has called for the British prime minister to order a full and transparent inquiry into the kill list, immediately.

This article (Innocent Man Begs America to Stop Trying to Murder Him with Drone Strikes) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Read more great articles at Activist Post.




Innocent Peacemaker Begs America to Stop Trying to Kill Him with Drone Strikes

Military Drone

By Michaela Whitton | The Anti Media

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — A tribal elder from Pakistan is in the U.K. this week in an attempt to get Britain to persuade the United States to stop trying to kill him. Malik Jalil, from the village of Waziristan on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, has a role as an intermediary in settling disputes. He is a member of a community devoted to trying to keep the peace in the region, and he is sanctioned by the Pakistani government.

Malik claims he has been put on a ‘kill list’ and targeted at least four times by U.S. drone strikes for his role in attempting to prevent violence between the local Taliban and the authorities.

It is not only it horrific that in the 21st century, a list has been drawn up of people governments want to kill; in Pakistan, which is out of sight and out of mind, only a minority of those killed by U.S. drones are even identified. Of the 2,494 people killed since 2004, only 729 have been named. At least 1,765 victims remain nameless, according to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Invited by Lord Ken MacDonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Jalal has traveled to the U.K. to ask for the government’s help in taking him off the kill list. Writing for Stop the War, he said:

I have been warned that Americans and their allies had me and others from the Peace Committee on their Kill List. I cannot name my sources, as they would find themselves targeted for trying to save my life. But it leaves me in no doubt that I am one of the hunted.”

Speaking via a translator on national radio, he recounted a number of near-misses that have convinced him he is a U.S. military target. On one occasion, he was visiting a nearby village in a people carrier when the vehicle just meters behind him was hit by a missile. As his back window shattered in the explosion, the car behind him went up in flames and the bodies of those in it were blown to pieces.

“I realised they must have been targeting my car, the people in the other car were just shopkeepers, ordinary people,”he told Radio 4’s Today programme.

On another occasion he had been invited for dinner in with a friend. There are no telephones in the region, so the arrangements had been made using walkie talkies. As Jalal approached his friend’s house, it exploded. “I was on my way to his house, about 500 meters away in my car and the house was hit by a missile. We went up to the house after the strike and it was destroyed, everything was on fire,” he recalled.

Convinced that yet again he was the intended target, he said the actual victim was just a poor local man. He believes his conversation via the walkie talkies was intercepted by U.S. forces, who bombed it knowing he was going to be there. Asked how he can be so sure, he said whenever there is an attack, dispute or fighting in the area, he is always the first on the scene in an attempt to resolve the situation.

“I came close to being bombed four times, so in the end I realised they were on to me,” he said, adding that people from the security services had warned him he should leave the area.

Insistent that the Americans don’t want peace in Waziristan, Jalal believes the progress made in his special role improving security is what has put him in the American crosshairs. Denying criticism he has vowed to avenge U.S. killings and has encouraged suicide attacks against Americans, he said:

“Twenty-seven people in my village had already been killed in a drone strike. After that a tribal gathering was bombed. Those who died were my childhood friends. When the killings happened there were huge protests in Waziristan and people were asked to demonstrate against America. On that day if we hadn’t held a press conference calling for calm, there would have been war in Waziristan,” he said.

Describing the damning effects of U.S. drone strikes on his family and the wider community, he claimed there are 400, 000 people in Waziristan alone with mental problems as a result of the relentless drone strikes. In addition, he says six of his own family members have been mentally destabilised. He has had to leave and his son is too terrified to return.

Asked if he is scared of arrest during his visit to Britain, the reconciliation worker was clear:

“I had a peaceful role, in Pakistan. I am not involved in terrorism, I am clean so I am not scared. The thing is, is that I don’t trust America and won’t go there. I came to Britain because I feel like it is like a younger brother to America. I’m here to tell Britain that America doesn’t listen to us so you should tell them to stop killing Waziristanis.

“The British police, the British Army, the British Courts can ask me anything they like. I came here for that reason and am happy for them to question me,” he added.

Clive Stafford Smith, Director of the human rights organisation, Reprieve, has called for the British prime minister to order a full and transparent inquiry into the kill list, immediately.


This article (Innocent Man Begs America to Stop Trying to Murder Him with Drone Strikes) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whittonand theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Read more great articles at The Anti Media.




Former Bush Official Just Confirmed That Our Wars Are for Corporate Interests

Wars-compressed

By Claire Bernish | The Anti Media

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — “I think Smedley Butler was onto something,”Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former George W. Bush administration heavyweight, told Salon in an exclusive interview.

Major General Smedley Butler earned the highest rank in the U.S. Marine Corps, accumulating numerous accolades as he helped lead the United States through decades of war. He later became an ardent critic of such militarism and imperialism.

Related Article: The War on Terror Is Based on Lies Told by Elites Who Actually WANT War

“War is a racket,” Butler famously said, and Wilkerson — who has also turned critical of U.S. imperialist policy — agrees with and admires the esteemed Marine.

Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to former secretary of state, Colin Powell, has grown tired of “the corporate interests that we go abroad to slay monsters for.”

Of the profiteering scheme that wars have come to embody, Wilkerson quoted Butler:

“Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

 Noting Butler’s brief but accurate characterization of what Eisenhowercalled the military-industrial complex, Wilkerson added that today’s war machine “is more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought it would be.”

The willingness of such weapons and military equipment corporations to excuse the transgressions of repressive and abusive regimes in the Middle East and Asia for the sake of profit, Wilkerson asserted, stands as evidence Eisenhower underestimated the extent the to which the problem would manifest.

“Was Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO — after George H. W. Bush and [his Secretary of State] James Baker had assured Gorbachev and then Yeltsin that we wouldn’t go an inch further east — was this for Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, and Boeing, and others, to increase their network of potential weapons sales?” Wilkerson asked.

“You bet it was,” he answered his own question.

“Is there a penchant on behalf of the Congress,” he continued, “to bless the use of force more often than not because of the constituencies they have and the money they get from the defense contractors?

“You bet.

“It’s not like Dick Cheney or someone like that went and said let’s have a war because we want to make money for Halliburton,” Wilkerson explained, describing such decision-making as “pernicious.”

Taking his description a step further, Wilkerson characterized those corporations flooding congressional elections and political PACs with cash as “another pernicious influence.”

Relating another ill of the U.S. war machine, Wilkerson repined the creep of privatization of “public functions, like prisons,” for which the former Bush official places greatest blame on Republicans — though Democrats appear as eager about the shift. Salon mentioned Hillary Clinton’s speech from 2011, during her tenure as Secretary of State, in which she stated, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.”

Indeed, journalist Jeremy Scahill extensively reported and investigated the enormous army of private contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan — with a particular focus on Blackwater. Run by notorious mercenary Erik Prince — who recently became the subject of an investigation by the Dept. of Justice and other federal agencies — Blackwater appeared to operate so unpredictably as to essentially be a rogue organization.

Scahill penned an article for the Guardian in 2007, revealing the exact troubles with privatization Wilkerson referred to — there were 48,000 ‘private contractors’ working for 630 companies in varying capacities in Iraq.

“In many respects,” Wilkerson continued, “it is now private interests that benefit most from our use of military force. Whether it’s private security contractors, that are still all over Iraq or Afghanistan, or it’s the bigger-known defense contractors, like the number one in the world, Lockheed Martin.”

Contractors have arguably done the most to damage U.S.’ international relations and accountability than any other factor — except for the corporations paying them. All of this profit for belligerence has clearly benefited one de facto policy: American imperialism.

Related Article: Why Hillary’s AIPAC Speech Should Terrify Anyone Who Gives a Damn About Peace

“We now dwarf the Russians or anyone else who sells weapons in the world,” Wilkerson noted. “We are the death merchant of the world.”

Now, Wilkerson worried, “We’ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.”


This article (Former Bush Official Just Confirmed That Our Wars Are for Corporate Interests) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish andtheAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, emailedits@theantimedia.org.




ISIS Attacked Brussels? The US Created ISIS? Therefore?

who-created-isis-1-compressed

By Jon Rappoport | Activist Post

I want to acknowledge two researchers and reporters, whose work cuts deeply into the ISIS mirage: Tony Cartalucci and Brandon Turbeville. In a half-sane world, Cartalucci would be the international editor of the New York Times, if the Times were a real news outlet.

If we accept the premise that ISIS attacked Brussels, then the next question is: what is ISIS?

Who is behind it? Who supplies it? Who funds it? Who sustains it?

Related Article: ISIS: The ‘Enemy’ the US Created, Armed, and Funded

Brandon Turbeville, writing at Activist Post (“Congress Votes To Fight ISIS By Funding ISIS To Fight Assad”, 9/19/2014), states:

Obama’s plan [is] to ‘detect and degrade’ ISIS…the reality is that the plan is nothing more than a plan to…destroy the Syrian government to benefit of ISIS and other fundamentalist groups that the United States has created, funded, trained, and directed since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis.

Cartalucci, in an article titled, “In Syria, There Are No Moderates” (9/2013), writes:

…there were never, nor are there any ‘moderates’ operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria’s borders as ‘divided’ along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention [in Syria].

Turbeville writes:

Indeed, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard [NY Times] wrote in April, 2013 (“Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy”), ‘In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce…Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government…Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.’  (emphasis added)

In other words, the “moderate Syrian rebels” are a fiction no one could fail to notice. The US funding has always gone to ISIS.

I could cite much more from Cartalucci and Turbeville, who effectively argue that ISIS is a created tool of the US government and its allies. I strongly recommend you read and study their work.

Related Article: ‘I Helped Create ISIS’: Iraq War Veteran Says US policy Caused ‘Blowback’ in Middle East

As far as the Brussels attacks are concerned, if we assume that ISIS was responsible, the whole scenario is turned upside down after analyzing the basis of ISIS.

The Obama administration (jointly with the Bush administration) should be announcing: “Well, we keep ISIS alive. Unfortunately, things happen. One of those things is Brussels.”

And then you could go on to query the sincerity of the word “unfortunately.”

Articles by Tony Cartalucci:

Brussels Attack: The True Implications of ISIS Links (3/22/2016)

ISIS: US-Saudi Plague Reaches Indonesia? (1/16/2016)

America’s Fake War on ISIS Grinds On (3/22/2016)

Turkey: The Islamic State’s Second Home (1/18/2016)

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Image Credit

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, andPOWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Read more great articles at Activist Post.




Why Hillary’s AIPAC Speech Should Terrify Anyone Who Gives a Damn About Peace

aipac

By Lauren McCauley | Common Dreams

Palestinian and human rights advocates were aghast over remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention on Monday, saying that her speech represented “everything that is bad” with U.S. imperialism and policy in the Middle East.

During the address, Clinton vowed to take the U.S.-Israel relationship to “the next level”—a level which seemingly includes more war and imperialism, few, if any, rights for Palestinians, and definitely no economic boycotts of Israel.

“Has even one single Clinton supporter denounced the disgusting speech she gave today?”
—Glenn Greenwald
Striking a hawkish tone, Clinton warned the powerful lobby group against rival candidates who want to “outsource Middle East security to dictators” and “cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security,” and instead vowed even more “security and intelligence cooperation.”

“As president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge,” she said. “The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats. That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the Arrow Three and David’s Sling. And we should work together to develop better tunnel detection, technology to prevent armed smuggling, kidnapping and terrorist attacks.”

As observers noted, as she ran down the list of “evolving threats,” the former U.S. secretary of state resorted to common neoconservative talking points, declaring:

As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.

We have to combat all these trends with even more intense security and diplomatic cooperation. The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.

Touting her “deep, personal commitment” to the “Jewish state,” Clinton then said that “one of the first things I’ll do in office is invite Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] to visit the White House.”

The speech proved that, on matters of Israel, Clinton is “running to the right” of GOP front-runner Donald Trump, as noted by Mondoweiss‘ Philip Weiss, who wrote that the remarks were “filled with red meat for Israel supporters” and “contained scant reference to the peace process.”

Later, Clinton doubled down on her previous pledge to dismantle the growing internationalBoycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, linking the campaign against Palestinian apartheid to anti-Semitism, saying “we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.”

“I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now,” Clinton continued. “As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS.”

Clinton then specifically called on young people “on the front lines” to resist efforts to boycott Israel, saying: “I hope you stay strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate” —to which Naomi Dann, media correspondent for Jewish Voice for Peace, responded:

Though unsurprised by the candidate’s vigorous support for the policies and tactics of the Israeli state, observers pointed to the remarks as a frightening indicator of what a Clinton presidency could mean for the Middle East.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/711929806548549632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/711962665082621952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

In a statement to Common Dreams, Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, said that the dialogue at the convention “is a reminder of the current limits of the mainstream discourse on Israel, which rely on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”

“From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same,” Vilkomerson continued. “More arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation.”

Watch the entire speech below:

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License