Once again the mainstream media has successfully reported a story accurately and achieved American Imperialist propaganda at the same time. Iran's claim that the British personnel were in Iranian water seems, perhaps, a bit specious. Only with GPS can the actual position of the boats be determined. Britain claims to have proof of the boat's position, but this has not been made public...why? HMS Cornwall is a sophisticated communications and fighting ship. It was supposed to keep watch over the mobile patrol boats carrying out inspections. Standard procedure included a helicopter cover for the boats. Why did the ship not use standard radar to track local boat movements? Why did the helicopter not notice the closing Iranian boats? Why were no warning shots fired to deter the Iranians? I can only think of two possibilities...The first possibility is that the boats were all VERY near the line with the Iranian border. This would allow the possibility that drifting on the current could have led them across into Iranian territory. If this were the case, it would be an act of aggression against Iran on the part of Britain to intervene as they would in fact be guilty of the alleged territorial violation. The second possibility is that this was allowed to happen on purpose. Which Commander has been given a dressing down over allowing this to happen? None, thus far at least. Why were television observers given access to this particular patrol, and in fact interview Faye Turney before the incident? At best this seems quite peculiar.
The CIA has regularly been conducting renditioning flights out of EU airports. These flights have been condemned by the EU. A direct quote from the Guardian Unlimited,
'The preliminary report was compiled using data provided by the EU's air safety agency, Eurocontrol. It also used information gathered during three months of hearings and more than 50 hours of testimony by human rights groups and people who said they had been kidnapped and tortured by US agents.' In fact, Italy has issued arrest warrants against 13 CIA operatives for violating international law and national sovereignty by renditioning people on Italian soil. In the case of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, the CIA took an approved refugee, kidnapped him, tortured him and released him to Egyptian authorities. His refugee status was granted in Italy because of the threat to his well being in Egypt becuase his 'crime' was seeking the overthrow of the Egytian government. These renditionings regularly take 'terror suspects' unlawfully and transport them to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it is alleged they are tortured and otherwise mistreated at the hands of CIA operatives or their local counterparts with CIA approval. Many of those 'renditioned' have never entered the United States, and in the case of Hassan Nasr, were being investigated for crimes unrelated to any US terrorists threat. Why are these people called 'suspects' but when Iran takes British soldiers who were, at best, very close to breaching Iran's border, and more likely did breach the border, they are referred to as 'hostages'?
The CIA doesn't provide videos of healthy and seemingly well kept prisoners smoking cigarettes and eating what appears to be balanced meals. Yet these 'hostages' are certainly being cared for. Perhaps Faye Turney has been coerced into saying that the boat strayed into Iranian water, but she certainly hasn't been tortured in the way released victims of the CIA's renditioning program have been. Now Tony Blair cries 'foul' because broadcasting images of prisoner is a violation of the Geneva Convention. So is the practice of rendition. So is the violation of national sovereignty. So is the pre-emptive invasion of a nation. So is the sanctioning of torture. The point here is not to praise Iran's actions. They are certainly acting in an inflammatory way, considering the atomic energy situation and Iraqi insurgency claims. But, why would Britain or the United States expect to condemn Iran for breaking the very legal framework that they themselves have ignored in the 'war on terror'? Unfortunately, the Middle East seems to be degrading into anarchy. The cause for this instability falls squarely on the United States and Britain.
Friday, 30 March 2007
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
The War on Terror is Over!! (or is it?)
Its been a busy week on the personal front, so a bit belatedly, it is time to announce that war on terror is over. The United States has successfully extracted a complete confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Not only has the mastermind of virtually every terrorist attack of the past 15 years confessed, but he has done so without the aid of torture. Now, torture was used, but not in the extracting of the confession.
This brings to mind a few questions. Firstly, if torture was not required to extract this confession, why was it used at all? Secondly, if torture was used at any point to extract information, how accurate can any information be? And, thirdly, if other acts or involvements were extracted by torture, what could these acts be? He's already virtually admitted to single-handedly planning and organising every atrocity since 1993!
In consideration of the fact that Osama Bin Laden, and extensionally Al Qaeda, have NEVER been charged, or in fact linked to 911, this confession directly contradicts the pretext for war against Iraq. Let us not forget that possession of weapons of mass destruction was only part of the rationale for war. The other part was that Saddam Hussein was in some way supporting Al Qaeda. We all now know that the WMD claim was at best exaggerated and at worst completely fabricated. Now we're expected to believe that Osama Bin Laden is a nobody, and in fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the responsible party. "I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z," Mohammed, speaking through a personal representative, said according to the transcript of the hearing on Saturday at the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. This flies directly in the face of the supposed Bin Laden confession, in an audio tape released on a website, a voice claiming to be Osama bin Laden claims Zacarias Moussaoui had nothing to do with the 9/ll attacks and, in fact, was not even aware they were to take place. This statement has been touted by the US Government as proof that Osama Bin Laden planned and executed the attacks on 911.
It is virtually impossible to decipher the truth from the official US reports of the events of 911 and who was responsible. What is possible, however, is to look at the official press releases and determine that the truth has NOT been revealed. Many claim that 'conspiracy theorists' are irrational and do not look at the facts. The truth is that the 'official' account is a theory, and that particular theory does not in any way fit with the known facts. Are the 'conspiracy theorists' wrong? In all cases, save one, they are. There is only one truth and, unfortunately, it is not the official version.
This brings to mind a few questions. Firstly, if torture was not required to extract this confession, why was it used at all? Secondly, if torture was used at any point to extract information, how accurate can any information be? And, thirdly, if other acts or involvements were extracted by torture, what could these acts be? He's already virtually admitted to single-handedly planning and organising every atrocity since 1993!
In consideration of the fact that Osama Bin Laden, and extensionally Al Qaeda, have NEVER been charged, or in fact linked to 911, this confession directly contradicts the pretext for war against Iraq. Let us not forget that possession of weapons of mass destruction was only part of the rationale for war. The other part was that Saddam Hussein was in some way supporting Al Qaeda. We all now know that the WMD claim was at best exaggerated and at worst completely fabricated. Now we're expected to believe that Osama Bin Laden is a nobody, and in fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the responsible party. "I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z," Mohammed, speaking through a personal representative, said according to the transcript of the hearing on Saturday at the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. This flies directly in the face of the supposed Bin Laden confession, in an audio tape released on a website, a voice claiming to be Osama bin Laden claims Zacarias Moussaoui had nothing to do with the 9/ll attacks and, in fact, was not even aware they were to take place. This statement has been touted by the US Government as proof that Osama Bin Laden planned and executed the attacks on 911.
It is virtually impossible to decipher the truth from the official US reports of the events of 911 and who was responsible. What is possible, however, is to look at the official press releases and determine that the truth has NOT been revealed. Many claim that 'conspiracy theorists' are irrational and do not look at the facts. The truth is that the 'official' account is a theory, and that particular theory does not in any way fit with the known facts. Are the 'conspiracy theorists' wrong? In all cases, save one, they are. There is only one truth and, unfortunately, it is not the official version.
Monday, 12 March 2007
IPCC and the REAL Inconvenient Truth
What is the IPCC anyway? We see it in the news about the catastrophe of global warming, and unless we reduce our 'carbon footprint' the world as we know it will end. I've uncovered a chart from the IPCC which makes me especially suspicious of what we are being told. Don't take my word for it, look at the chart. The IPCC has a plan for taking excess CO2 out of the environment and pumping it into the ground. This will apply pressure to previously trapped fossil fuels and methane gas that will be squeezed out and used as (surprise, surprise) an energy source that adds to 'greenhouse gases'.
It's been a long time since my high school biology and chemistry classes, but I do recall something about the environment being cyclical. With the exception of what we launch into space and what falls into the atmosphere from space, we have a relatively finite amount of every element that exists on earth. We can change forms, we can use chemical reactions to release energy, but we cannot change the basic elements. In other words, the world is in a constant state of 'recycling'. Another thing I recall vividly, is that CO2 is a deadly exhaust of ALL animal life, not just power stations and automobiles. But that deadly exhaust is the LIFEBLOOD of all plant life. That's the cycle I was taught. Photosynthesis takes the deadly CO2 out of the atmosphere and replaces it with oxygen and water. None of this is new, its simply the natural process of recycling that predates mankind, and, if the world survives longer than mankind, will supersede mankind as well.
Back to the original question: What is the IPCC? We are told it is the end of debate on global warming. 2500 scientist have agreed that mankind will destroy the Earth if we don't change the way we live. Or have they? The IPCC is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, not the International Independent Research Results on Climate Change. When governments have agendas and then provide scientist to back up the pre-determined conclusions, I raise my eyebrows. My first question is, are there only 2500 scientists with expertise in the fields of the environment, energy and climate? If the answer is no, then the next obvious question is, what do the others think? If the answer is yes, the next question is, have they REALLY signed off in unison to iron-clad scientific fact in a field that has been completely unravelled and fully understood? The fact is that there are many scientist who disagree with the IPCC report. That is not particularly surprising. What is surprising is that many of these scientists' names appear on the final document. They provided evidence contrary to the desired result, were ignored and then used to lend credibility to the final report. Just to name two such instances, Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT and Professor Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris were primary contributors to the IPCC, in contradiction to the final conclusions. Their contributions were ignored, but their names appeared on the list of authors. Prof. Reiter's name has since been removed from the list of authors, but only after he threatened legal action to have it removed on the grounds that his contribution was ignored because it did not fit the desired conclusion.
The media representation of the IPCC report is also less than forthright. The IPCC Press Release states: " The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report." So this accounts for 1220 experts, so who are the rest? the government reviewers! These are politicians, not scientist. In fact the press release also states, "...adopted the Summary for Policymakers of the first volume of “Climate Change 2007”, also known as the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)(emphasis mine)." What has been portrayed as the great scientific report is actually a political policy recommendation. The actual scientific report isn't as clear cut as the recommendations. In fact, I found an interesting assessment of how climate predictions actually stack up against audited data. Out of 32 forecasts, 1 was right, 27 wrong and 4 were inconclusive. This certainly doesn't bode well for the 'unanimous' consensus that we are destroying the Earth. In fact, I actually think it is rather arrogant to think that ordinary individuals have that much impact. The biggest threat to our environment comes from the danger of nuclear technology, which is almost exclusively controlled by the very governments who tell us we need to change our ways to save the world.
It's been a long time since my high school biology and chemistry classes, but I do recall something about the environment being cyclical. With the exception of what we launch into space and what falls into the atmosphere from space, we have a relatively finite amount of every element that exists on earth. We can change forms, we can use chemical reactions to release energy, but we cannot change the basic elements. In other words, the world is in a constant state of 'recycling'. Another thing I recall vividly, is that CO2 is a deadly exhaust of ALL animal life, not just power stations and automobiles. But that deadly exhaust is the LIFEBLOOD of all plant life. That's the cycle I was taught. Photosynthesis takes the deadly CO2 out of the atmosphere and replaces it with oxygen and water. None of this is new, its simply the natural process of recycling that predates mankind, and, if the world survives longer than mankind, will supersede mankind as well.
Back to the original question: What is the IPCC? We are told it is the end of debate on global warming. 2500 scientist have agreed that mankind will destroy the Earth if we don't change the way we live. Or have they? The IPCC is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, not the International Independent Research Results on Climate Change. When governments have agendas and then provide scientist to back up the pre-determined conclusions, I raise my eyebrows. My first question is, are there only 2500 scientists with expertise in the fields of the environment, energy and climate? If the answer is no, then the next obvious question is, what do the others think? If the answer is yes, the next question is, have they REALLY signed off in unison to iron-clad scientific fact in a field that has been completely unravelled and fully understood? The fact is that there are many scientist who disagree with the IPCC report. That is not particularly surprising. What is surprising is that many of these scientists' names appear on the final document. They provided evidence contrary to the desired result, were ignored and then used to lend credibility to the final report. Just to name two such instances, Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT and Professor Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris were primary contributors to the IPCC, in contradiction to the final conclusions. Their contributions were ignored, but their names appeared on the list of authors. Prof. Reiter's name has since been removed from the list of authors, but only after he threatened legal action to have it removed on the grounds that his contribution was ignored because it did not fit the desired conclusion.
The media representation of the IPCC report is also less than forthright. The IPCC Press Release states: " The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report." So this accounts for 1220 experts, so who are the rest? the government reviewers! These are politicians, not scientist. In fact the press release also states, "...adopted the Summary for Policymakers of the first volume of “Climate Change 2007”, also known as the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)(emphasis mine)." What has been portrayed as the great scientific report is actually a political policy recommendation. The actual scientific report isn't as clear cut as the recommendations. In fact, I found an interesting assessment of how climate predictions actually stack up against audited data. Out of 32 forecasts, 1 was right, 27 wrong and 4 were inconclusive. This certainly doesn't bode well for the 'unanimous' consensus that we are destroying the Earth. In fact, I actually think it is rather arrogant to think that ordinary individuals have that much impact. The biggest threat to our environment comes from the danger of nuclear technology, which is almost exclusively controlled by the very governments who tell us we need to change our ways to save the world.
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Bush, Iraq and 9/11
One of the fundamental principles of freedom is that we have the freedom of choice. Unfortunately for the United States and the Middle East, it would seem that we are at the mercy of a condescending US administration, run by 'neoconservatives' who have actually forsaken neoconservative values and feel the need to tell us HOW to be free. A basic tenant of the original neoconservative agenda was anti-globalization. Bush, or whoever he may be representing, has circumvented this basic part of neoconservatism by establishing an imperial view of America that allows globalization to occur by believing that the global government will be America.
In Bush's commentary about freedom, he conveniently omits that freedom, particularly free elections, only count if the result is what the establishment want. In 2004, Joerg Haider, a 'far right extremist' won the Austrian elections in free an fair elections. Austria was black-balled by the rest of Europe and the United States because they didn't like the result. In 2005, the Dutch and the French (primary architect of Europe with Germany) rejected the European Constitution by referendum. As a result, the UK and Ireland scrapped planned votes because it was obvious they would fail also. In our 'free' world, these setbacks do not stop the establishment from continuing to force their own brand of freedom on us. It will not be long before we will be inundated with votes until the desired result is achieved.
The people of Iraq had an oppressive regime, of that there is no doubt. But when Bush tries to connect the oppression of primarily Shia Muslims under a minority Sunni regime, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the Sunni al Qaeda organisation would feel hopeless to the point of attacking America because of its own oppression of the Shiites. Unfortunately, while these facts are all readily available, that al Queda is made up of Sunni Muslims, and that the most oppressed in Iraq were Shia Muslims, nobody in the mainstream media seem to either bother or care enough to connect the dots. With a small amount of analysis, it becomes plain that the truth is not what we are told, it is the conglomeration of seeming disparate facts that paint the true picture when logically reviewed.
Monday, 26 February 2007
The Vice President and Iraq and Iran
In starting off this new info-blog, I will take a classic yet current situation for consideration. We have been given many reasons by the Neo-Conservatives currently controlling the Government why we need to invade sovereign nations. Central to all of these reasons, is of course, the threat of al-Qaeda. In a future articles, I will tackle the concept of Neo-Conservatism, its founding, its relationship to Islam and its need to dis-inform the People to achieve its goals. For this example the background is not necessary. The following are two fully sourced and confirmed reports. The first, is from Vice President Cheney, and the second from the New York Times:
"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home," Cheney added. "And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."
Cheney Remark Rankles Pelosi - washingtonpost.com
Twenty years ago, we, as normal citizens, would have never had the opportunity to see these two reports side by side. Thanks to the Internet, it does not take very long to begin to research what our Government is REALLY telling us. Who's strategy is Cheney referring to? Al-Queda was formed by Sunni Muslims, lead by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Sunni. If the Shiites are killing US troops, why is Cheney blaming al-Queda? If al-Queda is killing US troops, why is Cheney blaming Iran, a Shiite Muslim theocracy? In fact, if Iran is supplying the Shiites in Iraq, they are supplying the Iraqi Government whom our troops are ostensibly supporting!
If Iran is the next target for invasion (see Reuter's Article, having been planned for over a year), why is the US ambassador apologising for troops performing their duties? Or the more pointed question, why are high level Iraqis travelling to and from Iran? In this situation, the US Government has taken both sides of the fence. But the deeper meaning of this is not that policy makers can't make up their minds, on the contrary, they already plan to go into Iran. These contradictory stories serve to muddy the water so that informed debate (to the extent that debate is allowed) focuses on the wrong issues. The issue is not whether Iran is supplying weapons to their brethren in Iraq, and its not whether Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, especially considering that most of Iran's nuclear programs have been sponsored and overseen by the UN all along. The real debate should be whether the United States has the legal or moral authority to invade sovereign nations to further US interests. According to international law, the answer is no, but by Neo Conservative ideals, the rest of the world doesn't really have a say, and by clouding the question with ambiguous arguments and actions, neither do the American people.
"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home," Cheney added. "And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."
Cheney Remark Rankles Pelosi - washingtonpost.com
BAGHDAD, Feb. 25 — A raid on a Shiite weapons cache in the southern city of Hilla one week ago is providing what American officials call the best evidence yet that the deadliest roadside bombs in Iraq are manufactured in Iran, but critics contend that the forensic case remains circumstantial and inferential.
U.S. Says Raid in Iraq Supports Claim on Iran - New York Times
Twenty years ago, we, as normal citizens, would have never had the opportunity to see these two reports side by side. Thanks to the Internet, it does not take very long to begin to research what our Government is REALLY telling us. Who's strategy is Cheney referring to? Al-Queda was formed by Sunni Muslims, lead by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Sunni. If the Shiites are killing US troops, why is Cheney blaming al-Queda? If al-Queda is killing US troops, why is Cheney blaming Iran, a Shiite Muslim theocracy? In fact, if Iran is supplying the Shiites in Iraq, they are supplying the Iraqi Government whom our troops are ostensibly supporting!
The eldest son of an influential Shia politician says US troops treated him roughly when they briefly arrested him near the Iran-Iraq border on Friday.Ammar al-Hakim says he was targeted for arrest, rudely bound and blindfolded.The US military says he was arrested because his convoy was suspicious, but was treated with "dignity and respect".In Najaf, thousands have protested at the arrest. Mr Hakim's father is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.The US has repeatedly said that Iraq's Shia militias are being armed with weapons smuggled in from Iran.US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad swiftly apologised for the incident.The BBC's Jane Peel, in Baghdad, says the diplomat was doubtless keen to head off a row with Shia leaders working with the US on the new Iraq security plan.
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Hakim complains of rough handling
If Iran is the next target for invasion (see Reuter's Article, having been planned for over a year), why is the US ambassador apologising for troops performing their duties? Or the more pointed question, why are high level Iraqis travelling to and from Iran? In this situation, the US Government has taken both sides of the fence. But the deeper meaning of this is not that policy makers can't make up their minds, on the contrary, they already plan to go into Iran. These contradictory stories serve to muddy the water so that informed debate (to the extent that debate is allowed) focuses on the wrong issues. The issue is not whether Iran is supplying weapons to their brethren in Iraq, and its not whether Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, especially considering that most of Iran's nuclear programs have been sponsored and overseen by the UN all along. The real debate should be whether the United States has the legal or moral authority to invade sovereign nations to further US interests. According to international law, the answer is no, but by Neo Conservative ideals, the rest of the world doesn't really have a say, and by clouding the question with ambiguous arguments and actions, neither do the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
