Sacraficing The Will Of The People On The Altar of The Euro

Testosterone Pit

The Eurozone debt crisis is exacting its toll. Convoluted undemocratic taxpayer-funded bailouts of bondholders and banks designed to keep the Eurozone together can’t kick the can down the road far enough. But the price has been huge, and people have expressed their anger in massive protests. Now, these efforts are also tearing up the fabric of the 27-member European Union: the first one out may be the UK.

If offered a referendum, 56% of the British would vote for a UK exit from the EU (with 34% definitely and 22% probably). Only 30% would vote to keep the UK in the EU. It wouldn’t even be close! It would be a landslide. Thus, if it came to a referendum today, the UK, a cornerstone of the EU, would bail out.

The EU has little patience with the will of the people. In most member states, decisions such as ratification of EU treaties, scrapping one’s own currency, or bailing out holders of sovereign bonds are made by parliamentary vote. But in instances, when people were finally given a vote, they had a nasty tendency to surprise the elite—the politicians, bankers, and unelected bureaucrats that run the show.

The Lisbon Treaty, the chef d’œuvre of the EU’s political elite, was supposed to repeal existing treaties and replace them with a European Constitution that would transfer significant national sovereignty to unelected EU bureaucrats and their institutions. Negotiations started in 2001, and by 2005, a majority of member states had ratified it by parliamentary vote.

But in France, the people got an opportunity to ratify it by referendum—after parliament had passed it with 93% of the votes. What should have been a cakewalk turned into an epic battle that split the Socialist Party in two. And the people, who loved their sovereignty and wanted to hang on to it, “unexpectedly” killed the thing by a margin of 55% to 45%. In the Netherlands, a similar scenario played out. 2005 was the year that referendum became a dreadful word in the European political lexicon.

The lesson was unforgettable: don’t let the riffraff decide. Such matters should be handled by politicians, bankers, and unelected bureaucrats. And so they did damage control. Many of the measures in the failed constitution were revived as reforms in a watered-down treaty. That was in 2008. As a precaution, the uppity people in France and the Netherlands weren’t allowed to vote on it. Irish voters were, however. And they killed it. They too wanted to hang on to their sovereignty.

But then the financial crisis hit. The Irish got scared. Their banks were in trouble. The economy was going south. So the referendum was re-run after the Irish government had negotiated some concessions, and the people changed their mind (the treaty became effective December 1, 2009).

UK Parliament Votes Down Increased Funding to EU

Funding for the European Union has sparked a rebellion in the British Parliament.

Prime Minister David Cameron's own Conservative backbenchers dealt him the worst defeat since he took power in 2010.

Eurosceptic Tories joined forces with the opposition and voted for cutting the UK's cash flow to Brussels.

Mark Pritchard believes the EU is inefficient and that Britons should get the chance to vote on whether to stay part of it...

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

US Election Winner May Face a Dangerous Iran

Iran Review
Shahir ShahidSaless

Iran is likely to adopt a new and aggressive stance on the nuclear matter because Iranian leaders surmise that they can change the game. This position, however, may lead to an all-out war.

Following the European Union ministers meeting in Luxembourg 

on October 15, more sanctions were announced against Iran. According to the new set of sanctions all transactions between European and Iranian banks will be prohibited, except those with advance official permission or for humanitarian purposes, sources report. Analysts say that as a result of new sanctions Iran will lose the ability to clear its oil money in Euros. While Iran is already locked out of US transactions, these new EU sanctions can paralyze the country’s trade.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, in a speech to the United Jewish Israel Appeal in London, said: “I have said to Prime Minister Netanyahu that now is not the time for Israel to resort to military action.” He added, “The regime faces unprecedented pressure and the people are on the streets...We need the courage to give these sanctions time to work.”

Part of Mr. Cameron’s assertion is true. The economic situation in Iran is becoming perilous. As the national currency crisis unfolds, inflation is spiraling out of control. Sanctions have reduced Iran’s oil production to a 22-year low, while sanctions have also made it extremely difficult to access and transfer oil money. Mohsen Rezaii, Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, remarked, “They have made trade difficult for us. They don’t let us sell oil and when we sell oil, don’t let us get our money from the Chinese bank[s].” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who in the past dismissed the effects of sanctions, for the first time during an angry speech, said, “These sanctions are barbaric. This is a war against a nation.”

However, Mr. Cameron and policy-makers in the US completely ignore the fact that the status quo is precariously unstable. It would be a grave mistake to assume that the Iranian government will stand idly by while gripped by paralyzing sanctions, and with its very survival threatened.

The potential for retaliation by Iran against sanctions has been a concern for the West in recent years. Iran repeatedly states that it has the capability of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Last month’s massive minesweeping exercise in the Persian Gulf, led by the US, reflected this West’s concern.

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates opened new pipelines that when they become fully operational will be able to bypass the strait and handle 6.5 million barrels of oil per day.  The figure represents 40 percent of the oil exported from the region. However, still the majority of oil must be traded by using supertankers that should pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Besides Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain do not have any alternative route to ship their oil.

Until recently, observers reasoned that the likelihood of Iran closing the strait would be slim because Hormuz is the only route for Iran’s oil exports, and the main route for its food imports. This calculus, however, appears tottery and uncertain today, as Iran’s oil export plummets, clearing its oil money becomes extremely hard, and its economy steeply declines.

With sanctions tightening, dangerously reduced oil revenue may lead Iran’s leadership to the conclusion that a radical move in the Strait of Hormuz is a calculated risk that could ultimately change the game in favor of Iran.

Contrary to the US officials’ perception, keeping the Hormuz Strait open is not the issue. The crux of the strait issue resides in keeping it safe and secure, thus guaranteeing uninterrupted flow of oil. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, current international relations professor at John Hopkins University maintains, once the strait becomes a dangerous place the price of oil will skyrocket even it is not closed.   

Iran can disrupt energy supplies - including oil and 20 percent of globally-traded liquefied natural gas - without closing the strait. In July 2012, Fars News, the news agency which reflects viewpoints of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), published a long, meticulously researched, and noteworthy paper titled, “A study about the role of the Strait of Hormuz in the balance of power between Iran and the West.” The paper read:

“...complete closing of the strait by the Islamic Republic of Iran for extended duration may lead to the formation of an international coalition against Iran...therefore it doesn’t seem a logical option. But another option for the Islamic Republic of Iran is to imperil those traveling through the Strait of Hormuz...The outcome of this action would be the formation of a crisis in the global economy and a divergence between oil consuming countries and America. Meanwhile, as the economies of Europe and America toil, any disruption in oil supply will intensify the crisis. In fact, closing the Strait of Hormuz would mean, ‘making naval transit unsafe and the region look like a war zone,’ so that no government feels immune to an attack by [our] conventional armed forces, unidentified boats, or naval mines.”

Iran may use proxies to carry out attacks without directly becoming involved or simply stop supertankers from passage through its territorial waters in the narrowest parts of Hormuz, under the pretext of inspection. As oil prices soar, the conflict between Iran and the US could spiral, and ultimately transform into a disastrous military conflict.

The root cause of the deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program is the demand by the US (and of course Israel) for “zero-enrichment.” This exaction will most likely meet with insouciance, regardless of how much pressure is imposed on Iran. Iran’s leadership, even if it wanted to, could not agree with any resolution resulting in the complete suspension of their uranium enrichment program, due to the reasons and perceived costs that this author have discussed before.

The current pattern exponentially heightens the potential for a military conflict, unless demands for the complete suspension of uranium enrichment are replaced by strict and intrusive monitoring by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to limit Iran’s enrichment of uranium.

For the moment, US presidential elections have stifled new developments. Once the elections conclude, whether for the current US administration or a new president and his cabinet, Iran, most likely appearing dangerous, will take the center stage.

*This article is part of Insider & Insight, a new AIC program aimed at providing different perspectives and analyses on key developments in US-Iran relations. The commentary and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of American Iranian Council.

Source: American Iranian Council (AIC)
http://american-iranian.org/

More By Shahir Shahidsaless:

*Netanyahu, Betting ‘All-In’ for High Stakes Iran Game?:http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Netanyahu-Betting-All-In-for-High-Stakes-Iran-Game-.htm

*Current Trend in US-Iran Relations: A Road to Hell: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Current-Trend-in-US-Iran-Relations-A-Road-to-Hell.htm

A date with destiny

Herald Scotland
Magnus Gardham

HISTORY has been made after Alex Salmond and David Cameron signed the deal that will pave the way for a legally watertight independence referendum in 2014.

David Cameron and Alex Salmond outside St Andrew's
House before the signing of the historic Edinburgh Agreement.

Scotland's voters are in control of their country's destiny after the two leaders signed the Edinburgh Agreement at the Scottish Government's headquarters, St Andrew's House, in the capital.

An Order under Section 30 of the 1998 Scotland Act will transfer powers to Holyrood, allowing a single- question referendum to take place by the end of 2014.

Campaigning has already started, with both sides predicting victory.

The First Minister, who shook hands with the Prime Minister outside, said he believed "with all my soul" that Scots would vote for independence and negotiations over the break-up of the UK would start the day after the referendum.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore insisted the referendum would produce a "strong endorsement of Scotland as part of the UK".

However, rows over the role of the poll's watchdog, which could have a major impact on the outcome, erupted before their signatures were dry.

The First Minister faced pressure to abide by Electoral Commission advice on contentious issues including the wording of the question and campaign spending limits.

Meanwhile, the prospect of Mr Salmond and Mr Cameron locking horns in a live TV debate on independence became an issue after the First Minister said he would be delighted to take part in the contest.

His challenge was dismissed as "curious" by Mr Moore, who said Scots campaigners and politicians should lead them.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: "It is something we will have to take back and consider."

Meanwhile, a ComRes poll for ITV News at Ten showed 55% of Scots felt the country's economy would suffer if it split from the UK.

The new totalitarianism of surveillance technology

The Guardian

Naomi Wolf

Tom Cruise as John Anderton in the futuristic film Minority Report,
where the advertisements use recognition technology to call out to the shoppers.

A software engineer in my Facebook community wrote recently about his outrage that when he visited Disneyland, and went on a ride, the theme park offered him the photo of himself and his girlfriend to buy – with his credit card information already linked to it. He noted that he had never entered his name or information into anything at the theme park, or indicated that he wanted a photo, or alerted the humans at the ride to who he and his girlfriend were – so, he said, based on his professional experience, the system had to be using facial recognition technology. He had never signed an agreement allowing them to do so, and he declared that this use was illegal. He also claimed that Disney had recently shared data from facial-recognition technology with the United States military.

Yes, I know: it sounds like a paranoid rant.

Except that it turned out to be true. News21, supported by the Carnegie and Knight foundations, reports that Disney sites are indeed controlled by face-recognition technology, that the military is interested in the technology, and that the face-recognition contractor, Identix, has contracts with the US government – for technology that identifies individuals in a crowd.

Fast forward: after the Occupy crackdowns, I noted that odd-looking CCTVs had started to appear, attached to lampposts, in public venues in Manhattan where the small but unbowed remnants of Occupy congregated: there was one in Union Square, right in front of their encampment. I reported here on my experience of witnessing a white van marked "Indiana Energy" that was lifting workers up to the lampposts all around Union Square, and installing a type of camera. When I asked the workers what was happening – and why an Indiana company was dealing with New York City civic infrastructure, which would certainly raise questions – I was told: "I'm a contractor. Talk to ConEd."

I then noticed, some months later, that these bizarre camera/lights had been installed not only all around Union Square but also around Washington Square Park. I posted a photo I took of them, and asked: "What is this?" Commentators who had lived in China said that they were the same camera/streetlight combinations that are mounted around public places in China. These are enabled for facial recognition technology, which allows police to watch video that is tagged to individuals, in real time. When too many people congregate, they can be dispersed and intimidated simply by the risk of being identified – before dissent can coalesce. (Another of my Facebook commentators said that such lamppost cameras had been installed in Michigan, and that they barked "Obey", at pedestrians. This, too, sounded highly implausible – until this week in Richmond, British Columbia, near the Vancouver airport, when I was startled as the lamppost in the intersection started talking to me – in this case, instructing me on how to cross (as though I were blind or partially sighted).

Finally, last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly to unveil a major new police surveillanceinfrastructure, developed by Microsoft. The Domain Awareness System links existing police databases with live video feeds, including cameras using vehicle license plate recognition software. No mention was made of whether the system plans to use – or already uses – facial recognition software. But, at present, there is no law to prevent US government and law enforcement agencies from building facial recognition databases.

And we know from industry newsletters that the US military, law enforcement, and the department of homeland security are betting heavily on facial recognition technology. As PC World notes, Facebook itself is a market leader in the technology – but military and security agencies are close behind.

According to Homeland Security Newswire, billions of dollars are being invested in the development and manufacture of various biometric technologies capable of detecting and identifying anyone, anywhere in the world – via iris-scanning systems, already in use; foot-scanning technology (really); voice pattern ID software, and so on.

What is very obvious is that this technology will not be applied merely to people under arrest, or to people under surveillance in accordance with the fourth amendment (suspects in possible terrorist plots or other potential crimes, after law enforcement agents have already obtained a warrant from a magistrate). No, the "targets" here are me and you: everyone, all of the time. In the name of "national security", the capacity is being built to identify, track and document any citizen constantly and continuously.

The revealing boosterism of a trade magazine like Homeland Security Newswire envisions endless profits for the surveillance industry, in a society where your TV is spying on you, a billboard you drive by recognizes you, Minority Report style, and the FBI knows where to find your tattoo – before you have committed any crime: "FBI on Track to Book Faces, Scars, Tattoos", it notes; "Billboards, TVs Detect your Faces; Advertisers Salivate", it gloats; "Biometric Companies See Government as the Driver of Future Market Growth", it announces. Indeed, the article admits without a blush that all the growth is expected to be in government consumption, with "no real expectation" of private-sector growth at all. So much for smaller government!

To acclimate their populations to this brave new world of invasive surveillance technologies, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and and his Canadian counterpart, Stephen Harper, both recently introduced"snoop" bills. Meanwhile, in the US – "the land of the free" – the onward march of the surveillers continues apace, without check or consultation.

The British Siege of the Ecuadorian Embassy: Déjà Vu: Anglo-American disregard for International Law

Global Research
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

When Iranian student activists occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 as a result of the Iranian Revolution, the US and Britain condemned the Iranian provisional government of Prime Minister Bazargan even though it was not responsible. The US, UK, and their allies ranted and raved about the sanctity of foreign diplomatic missions, calling the activists “terrorists” and “anarchists.” Today, however, they endorse the storming of embassies and consulates themselves. It is also important to note that Anglo-American disregard for diplomatic sanctity is conducted at the official level while the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran was not an official act executed or sanctioned by the Iranian government.

In regard to British threats to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy to the United Kingdom in London, the focus should not be on Julian Assange, the controversial founder of WikiLeaks. The real focus of the British government’s threats should be on something much bigger and more important than one man. The real issue at hand is the total disregard for international law that has clearly emerged in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War.

The United States and Soviet Union never violated the diplomatic sanctity and extraterritoriality of one another’s diplomatic missions by storming them with their state security forces, even during the tensest periods of the Cold War. Embassies were consistently and securely used to relocate spies, defectors, and dissidents around the world. Many ruthless regimes and dictators during the Cold War even observed the international laws that protected the diplomatic sanctity of the diplomatic missions of other countries, even if their own dissidents sought refuge in the embassies and consulates of other countries.

The world is divided into two: those that are part of a system of empire and those that are not. The warning that British Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has issued to the government of Ecuador that it will assault Quito’s diplomatic mission in London if Assange is not turned over to the British government is in total disregard for international law and signifies a feeling of impunity felt within the system of empire that includes the UK. Cameron’s government is making threats to ignore and breach international law at the behest of Washington, DC. The Ecuadorian government, with the support of all Latin America, has responded by telling Britain that it is not a “British colony.” Quito should have re-worded its comments and said it is not an “American colony or dependency like the UK.”

International Law, Diplomatic Immunity Mean Nothing to the US Empire

It should be clear to all by now that international law is only selectively applied and that double-standards are in exercise. There are two standards in the world too. One set of standards is for those that have to follow the law and the other is for those that are above the law. Some countries see international laws as tools to be manipulated in their favour and cited only when it suits them. The governments of these countries pick and choose when to follow international law and when to apply it. These countries include the United Kingdom, France, Israel, and, first and foremost, the United States of America. These nations act as if it is acceptable and natural for them to have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), illegally invade other countries, commit crimes against international peace, kill foreign nationals with impunity, and interfere in the affairs of other countries.

Diplomatic immunity and international law means nothing to the individual’s controlling the American Empire. When Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng sought political asylum in the US Embassy to China, the Chinese government did not threaten to violate Washington’s diplomatic immunity. The behaviour of the Chinese government has been in stark contrast to that of the British government’s threats to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

London’s Threats are a Repeat of Washington’s Actions: A Look Back at 2007

No one should be surprised about the US role in the threats to violate the diplomatic immunity of the Ecuadorian Embassy to the United Kingdom. The UK is merely following in the footsteps of the US in violating the extraterritoriality of diplomatic missions. In fact, the US raided an Iranian Consulate in Iraq on January 11, 2007.

The Iranian diplomatic mission that the US stormed was in Arbil (Hewler), the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and had been representing Tehran’s interests in Iraqi Kurdistan since 1992. US forces arrested and detain five Iranian diplomats without charges and ransacked the Iranian mission taking all the Iranian diplomatic files they could get their hands on, including the office computers. Aside from the Iranians, KRG officials have also acknowledged that US forces stole the mission’s files. The US government claimed it was acting on behalf of Iraq, but both the Iraqi federal government and KRG rejected this outright.

Despite their diplomatic immunity, the Iranian diplomats from Arbil would be illegally held until July 9, 2009. To justify its breach of international law, the US would claim that the Iranian diplomatic mission was only a liaison office that was in the process of becoming recognized as a diplomatic consulate. Both Iran and Iraq rejected this. In reality, the Iranian mission in Arbil had not only been operational since the Gulf War ended, but had been given recognition by the new political establishment in Iraq after the ouster of President Saddam Hussein and the Baathist government in Baghdad.

More Anglo-American Double-Standards and Breaches of International Law in 2007

On March 23, in the same year that the US military stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan, members of the British military ventured into Iranian territorial waters and were subsequently arrested by the Iranian military for trespassing. Instead of quietly obtaining their freedom, the British government politicized the issue and openly mislead the British public into thinking that the Britons were kidnapped by Iran and had never entered Iranian territory. What happened to the Iranians was illegal, but what happened to the British military personnel was legal under international law.

The treatment of the British “detainees” and “kidnapped” Iranian diplomats was not the same either. While Tehran did use the opportunity to taunt the British government, it eventually freed the captured Britons as an “Easter gift” and sign of Iranian good will. The British press seemed to have a memory lapse that the Britons were prisoners when it saw that the British military personnel showed no signs of duress or stress and that they were well treated by the Iranians (see Annex). Instead the British press began to focus on Iranian political opportunism and began to mock the badly fitted grey civilian dress suits that the Iranians had given the British prisoners as gifts.

Parallel to the arrest of the British military personnel, the Iranian diplomat Jalal Sharafi was kidnapped in Baghdad by a US-controlled group of Iraqi commandos who handed him over to the CIA on January 6, just a few days before the US raid on the Iranian consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan. Both the raid on the Iranian mission in Arbil and Sharafi’s kidnapping in Baghdad are not isolated incidents; the US government had initiated a campaign to blame Iran and Syria for Anglo-American failures in Iraq when the events happened. As a diplomat, Sharafi was illegally captured. Moreover, the Iranian diplomat was intensely tortured by the CIA through such acts as the piercing of his feet with electric drills (see Annex). In contrast the British detainees were given proper quarters and treated as guests in Tehran. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also acknowledged that Sharafi, who would be freed on April 3, was badly tortured. Two different standards were clearly applied.

America Trying to Impose it Domestic Laws on the Rest of the World

Utter disrespect for any equally applied international standards or law is at play. We see that it is not countries like China and Iran that breach international law regularly, but countries like the US and UK. The matter also goes further, because the United States tries to impose its laws on the rest of the world.

Both the governments of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, amongst others, have condemned the government of the United States for trying to repeatedly impose its domestic laws on the rest of the world. US domestic laws that are imposed internationally are what the enforcement of the US sanction regimes against countries like Iran and Cuba are in essence. The US is even trying to impose the verdicts and rulings of its domestic courts on the rest of the world.

No country has the right to impose its domestic laws on other countries. This is a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of other countries. It an act of arrogance that implies that the rest of the world is part of a single country’s realm. In short this is how an empire acts. This behaviour, however, is also a sign of desperation as the American Empire tries exerting itself with greater force to hide the fact that it is crumbling.
ANNEX: Photographs of the British Military Prisoners of Iran and the Kidnapped Iranian Diplomat

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning author, sociologist, and geopolitical analyst. He is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) in Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica in Italy. He has also addressed the Middle East and international relations issues on several news networks including Al Jazeera, teleSUR, and Russia Today. His writings have been translated into more than twenty languages. In 2011 he was awarded the First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club for his work in international journalism.

The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.
Foreword by Denis J. Halliday.

Internet Reformation Is EU Reality?

Daily Bell

Europe finally awakes from its utopian dream ... Let's say this again, just in case a single sentient being on the planet has missed it: Germany cannot simply decide to bail Greece (or Spain, or Italy, etc) out of its debts. OK? However much Angela Merkel is nagged, berated, bullied and patronised by Barack Obama, David Cameron, or the BBC/Guardian axis that regard the preservation of the euro project as critical to their own interests, she cannot just revoke, in a unilateral act, the rules of German government or of the Bundesbank. Her persistent refusal to "take decisive action" of the kind that would suit the purposes of all those clamorous voices at the G8, is not "dithering", as it is so often described. In fact, it is not (or not entirely) to be explained in any of the mildly contemptuous ways that her tormentors suggest. It does not arise from an unthinking, superstitious terror instilled in her by the Weimar nightmare of hyper-inflation. Nor is it a narrow-minded expression of the German hausfrau's values of thrift and self-discipline. What Mrs Merkel is doing, quite appropriately, is defending the integrity of her national constitution, the economic principles on which her country's economic success has been built, and the interests of her own electorate. – Janet Daley/UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: It is time to go.

Free-Market Analysis: Someone in the mainstream press has finally written the evident and obvious truth about the Eurozone: Angela Merkel does not have it in her power simply to declare a new pan-European empire.

For this clear – clarion-like – truth, we thank Janet Daley. As part of a truly remarkable show of force on this Monday, the UK Telegraph is in full cry with no fewer than half a dozen articles calling for the demise or reduction of the EU.

But this article by Daley is by far the best, in our view – and, of course, that is a biased statement, for she comes closest to enunciating the position regarding the EU that we have been taking.

The German people themselves are the stumbling block, to Brussels' psychopathic ambition and assertion of power over Charlemagne's long-ago demesne. Here's some more from the article:

A defiant Angela Merkel is doing no more than defending the interests of her own electorate ... As the leader of a democratic state, what else should she be expected to do? Would Mr Cameron, who is busily assuring us that he will always put the needs of this country first, be chivvied into throwing over the interests of his own citizens for the sake of another national population that has come to grief largely as a consequence of its own misjudgments? Last week, he called for the "pooling [of] fiscal sovereignty" among the eurozone countries. Would he be willing to give up his Government's right to determine its own tax and spending policy?

Cameron tells Greece: buy into austerity or get out of the eurozone

Prime Minister insists that world cannot afford to wait for answers on future of single currency

The Independent
David Osborne
Andy McSmith

David Cameron has issued his bluntest warning yet to Greece that voters need to "meet their commitments" as a member of the eurozone in elections next month or leave the currency union.

Speaking at the Nato summit in Chicago, and three days before a crucial EU meeting, the Prime Minister said the leaders of the eurozone must now prepare for either outcome and be ready for the repercussions of the Greek vote, set for 17 June. The poll was called after Greek parties failed to form a new government earlier this month.

"We are coming to a decision point where Greece is going to vote. It has to be absolutely clear there is a choice: they can vote to stay in the eurozone and meet their commitments, or they can vote to give up on their commitments and effectively give up on the eurozone," Mr Cameron said. No one could tell Greece's parties what to do, but he can have left them in no doubt of how he feels. "The choice Greece faces is maintaining its commitments and maintaining its place in the eurozone or deciding that's not the path it wants to take.

"What is required is decisiveness, strong actions by government – whether action to deal with deficits, to deal with the banks, to calm markets," he said.

"The eurozone has to put in place the most robust contingency plans for both eventualities because the world is suffering from continued uncertainty in the eurozone. So this is a decision point."

Mr Cameron also defended the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, whose insistence on austerity has been blamed for preventing the G8 summit from making progress.

"Obviously she wants to make sure that countries in the eurozone that signed up to all sorts of commitments meet those commitments. She did show some flexibility in terms of what more can be done on the growth agenda."

Mr Clarke, a lifelong Euro-enthusiast, said staying in the euro is still an option for Greece.
"But if they get a lot of cranky extremists elected, they will default on their debt and everybody says they will leave the euro. For the Greeks, that will be disastrous. They will encounter real poverty," he warned.

David Cameron: there is no going back on austerity

MyTechnologyWorld9

David Cameron is to declare that there is “no going back” on harsh spending cuts after seeing the leaders of France and Greece swept from power by public anger at austerity.

Two years on from their sun-dappled press conference in the Downing Street rose garden, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will restate the case for the Coalition to 'rescue the economy from the mess left by Labour'

The eurozone is in “extreme trouble” and headwinds from the turmoil threaten Britain’s recovery, he will warn.

In a rare joint appearance with Nick Clegg, the Prime Minister and his Deputy will rededicate themselves and their parties to protecting the country from “the financial storm”.

Two years on from their sun-dappled press conference in the Downing Street rose garden, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative leaders will restate the case for the Coalition to “rescue the economy from the mess left by Labour”.

Their pledge will come against a backdrop of turbulence in the markets and the election results in France and Greece, which saw two pro-austerity administrations ousted.

At one point yesterday, the euro fell to a three-year low against the pound, while analysts predicted that Greece would be forced to leave the eurozone, greatly increasing the risk of economic “contagion” to other European countries.

The elections showed that large numbers of voters believed there was an alternative to the austerity measures imposed by governments and international funds since the global financial crisis.

Theresa May confirms extradition of TVShack founder Richard O'Dwyer

Guardian

The home secretary, Theresa May, has signed an extradition order to send the TVShack founder, Richard O'Dwyer, to the US to stand trial for alleged copyright offences. O'Dwyer, 23, set up the website, which the American authorities claim hosted links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes.

May's decision comes as David Cameron arrives in Washington to meet Barack Obama. It is expected that the UK-US extradition agreement and the case of Gary McKinnon, accused or hacking, will be raised on the margins.

A Home Office spokesman said May took the decision after "carefully considering all relevant matters".

Westminster district magistrates court cleared the way for the Sheffield Hallam University student's extradition in January when it ruled there were no remaining statutory bars to his removal. He could face a maximum sentence of five years in jail in the US, compared with only two years in Britain.

O'Dwyer's mother, Julia, from Chesterfield, said he had been "sold down the river". A petition against his extradition has been signed by almost 20,000 people.

She said: "Today, yet another British citizen is being sold down the river by the British government. Richard's life – his studies, work opportunities, financial security – is being disrupted, for who knows how long, because the UK government has not introduced the much-needed changes to extradition law."

A Home Office spokesman said that the American authorities had alleged that substantive criminal activity in this case had happened in America, and requested his extradition.

UK to take major role in making new 'eurodrones'

The Independent
John Lichfield
Nigel Morris

Plans to build a new generation of "fighter drones" that can wage war by remote control are set to be agreed today by Britain and France. David Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy are preparing to put their recent tensions behind them to launch proposals for the pilotless stealth aircraft at a summit in Paris. In a second agreement, they will promise closer co-operation on civil nuclear power.

Western nations increasingly regard the deployment of drones to launch surgical strikes on targets as a way of keeping military casualties to a minimum.

Several senior al-Qa'ida figures have been killed by unmanned American drones flying over Pakistan, while British drone missions could begin within months over Afghanistan. Critics claim the aircraft can cause "collateral damage" among civilians and that the low risk to service personnel from their use can encourage countries to turn to military force rather than diplomacy.

But the two leaders are preparing to put any qualms to one side as they sign a letter of intent of cross-Channel cooperation on the project.

Under the plan, Britain's BAE and the French planemaker Dassault – rivals in the battle for sales of the present generation of fighter planes – will be asked to collaborate in the creation of a prototype of a Star Wars-type, ground-controlled "fighter drone" by 2020. Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy are expected to present the project as proof of continuing – or revived – Anglo-French friendship despite last year's rift over tighter fiscal discipline in the eurozone.

The Paris summit, delayed from last November, will be the first lengthy one-on-one meeting between the two leaders since Mr Cameron vetoed an EU-wide fiscal pact in early December.

Mr Cameron will be accompanied by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, and Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary. The two governments will sign a declaration signalling their commitment to nuclear power as a source of safe and affordable energy that will also help cut carbon emissions.

Under the agreement, British and French public and private sector bodies in the civil nuclear power industry will work more closely on education and training, research and development and security. The two sets of ministers will also discuss cooperation in transport. Mr Cameron last night stressed the "strength and depth of Britain's ties with France". He said: "Our commercial relationship is deep and growing with exports increasing and French investment sustaining almost 10,000 jobs in the UK. Our militaries are working together on cutting-edge military technology. This relationship is vital for the national security and the prosperity of both Britain and France."

The Franco-British "fighter drone" would take aerial combat into a new age, replacing all the "conventional" piloted fighter-planes now on offer. The two governments are thought to be ready to put a modest amount of public cash into the project at this stage.

The possibility of French and British co-operation on a drone aircraft – or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) – was first mentioned in November 2010 when Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy signed a defence treaty committing the two countries to co-operate in military deployment and research. French sources said yesterday that German or Italian, or wider European, participation in the project would be welcomed. But the newspaper Les Echos reported yesterday the letter of intent to be signed by Mr Sarkozy and Mr Cameron was intended as a signal that the project would be under Anglo-French leadership.

PREPARING FOR THE NEXT CONQUEST: What does Libya tell us about Intervention in Syria and Iran?

Global Research
Richard Lightbown

Debkafile reported on 17 January that an imminent joint Israeli-US exercise had been cancelled by Israel’s prime minister, and not by the US as widely supposed. Convinced that Iran has made the decision to become a nuclear power Mr Netanyahu is preparing for possible unilateral attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.

       British press reports say agents from the CIA and MI6 are operating within Syria while British and French Special Forces are training members of the Free Syrian Army in Turkey. Pravda has claimed that NATO snipers who fought in Libya have been sent to Syria.

As regional war threatens drastic and unforeseen consequences in the Middle East some commentators claim that humanitarian benefits justify Western intervention in repressive states. This claim is worth considering in the context of the events that have befallen Libya.

No one should be under any illusions about the intentions of Western governments in Libya following their activities throughout the 42 years of Muammar Qadafi’s rule. During this time there were 39 coup attempts inspired by US, British and French agencies, most of which were centred on Benghazi and the province of Cyrenaica. Many involved an attempt at assassination, as did the US fighter-bomber attack on Tripoli in 1986 in which eight of the 18 aircraft flying from Britain specifically targeted Col Qadafi’s private residence.

Qadafi’s overthrow began as an uprising in Benghazi which followed a Facebook call, from London on 17 February 2011, to commemorate the 2005 massacre at Abu Salim prison. In response to the ensuing fighting the UN Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1970 on 26 February. Calling for an end to all violence, it required all member states to apply an arms embargo which also prohibited the provision of technical assistance, training, finance and all other assistance related to military activities. It soon became clear that British forces were in breach of the resolution when six members of the SAS were taken prisoner by rebels in Benghazi on 4 March. What the troop was trying to achieve, and what went wrong with the operation has never been revealed.

Following reports of civilian massacres by Libyan aircraft the Security Council responded by approving resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011, although this time one-third of the fifteen members abstained. (The claims concerning civilian massacres were later refuted by Amnesty International, along with allegations that the Libyan regime had been employing foreign mercenaries.) This called for an immediate cease-fire and for all sides to seek a solution to the crisis while requiring them to protect civilians. Responding to a call from the Arab League it authorised the enforcement of a no-fly zone.

A US-drafted amendment allowed for “all necessary measures [to protect Libyan civilians] under threat of attack”. The American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, promptly claimed that this allowed for arming the rebels under the terms of the resolution. Jose Cabral, the chair of the Sanctions Committee, disagreed and declared that “the resolution [1973] imposes a full embargo on arms.” The US and NATO however had no interest in legal formalities and large quantities of arms were subsequently supplied to the rebels from Qatar via the Egyptian border. France also in shipped some supplies direct, while NATO Special Forces supplied training and expertise.

On the following day and in response to resolution 1973, the Libyan Foreign Minister announced an immediate ceasefire and a stoppage of all military operations against rebel forces. The next day, 19 March, French aircraft carried out an airstrike which was followed by the launch of 110 Tomahawk missiles by US and British warships against air defences in Tripoli and Misrata. Thus only two days after its approval, the Security Council resolution was rendered a sham by NATO forces which placed civilian lives unnecessarily at risk when they ignored the offer of an immediate cease-fire and refused to seek a solution to the crisis. All subsequent calls for a ceasefire by the Libyan government were summarily dismissed by either the rebels or NATO. By 29 March the Russian Foreign Minister was moved to comment “We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council resolution."

UK plunges into moral, economic decline

PressTV



Austerity measures are having such an adverse social impact on British youth that some of them have to find sex work in order to pay their tuition fees. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury has delivered his Christmas 2011 sermon, focusing on the dismal British economy and where it is headed.

Press TV has interviewed Webster Griffin Tarpley, author and journalist from Washington to discuss the current economic situation in Britain.

What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview:

Press TV: Mr. Tarpley, before I go to the question of the banking system and what should be done by the government, first let's discuss what we saw in London and what we are seeing in the US where you are. What's been called the riots, the looting that happened and the archbishop was referring to that looting and riots and he was raising a lot of concern there.

One question is how the governments in both countries have been responding to these protests, cracking down on them or asking people to go back home. Is this a historic mistake that the governments are making and is this the right way forward in dealing with these protests?

Tarpley: I think in the case of the British regime that we have right now with [British Prime Minister David] Cameron and [British Chancellor George] Osborne, we have a government which has chosen to respond to a world banking panic with a deflationary policy of austerity meaning savage, brutal cuts in what remains of the social safety net causing a vast increase in the rate of poverty and despair.

We have this in the Republican Party here. We have one [US presidential] candidate Ron Paul who wants to cut one trillion dollars out of the US federal budget which would; I'm sure cause riots here.

The Cameron, Osborne budget of May last year is the direct precursor and in many ways the cause of these riots but I would like to say something first about the Archbishop of Canterbury- I don't regard him as a humanitarian leader, I don't regard him as a moral authority.

I regard him as a kind of signal light for the British ruling class, for the British oligarchy, for the financiers of the city of London and everything that goes with the British establishment, what he's basically saying to them is: our power could be in danger.

A signal light goes on. I'm thinking of for example the moment when the British oligarchy decided that King Edward the eighth had gone too far down the road with Hitler and become some kind of an embarrassment, he had to go.

In this case I think it's a signal light that when you have Cameron and Osborne with one quarter of Britain already living in poverty by the Roundtree Foundation definition.

If we are going to pitch a 100 thousand more children into poverty, fire 1.4 million civil servants or public workers, this is now getting very grim and the riots may be just a precursor of what's coming.

The other thing which the Archbishop doesn't talk about is I think a fear in the British ruling class that what Cameron has done, vis-a-vie Europe threatens the future of Britain. If you look at the city of London it is in many ways one of the greatest concentrations of speculative finance in the world.

It's kind of a parasite on the world economy when you have these institutions like the London [International Currency Exchange] ICE exchange that drives up the price of energy when you have the Liffe or Life futures exchange or the LCH.Clearnet which is the place where they declare crises for Greece or Italy or some other country.

These institutions cannot live without exploiting, some would say parasitizing for example the economic activity of France, Germany, Italy and so forth.

What Cameron has done- he's chosen to make this break, precisely on the issue of will the city of London be regulated or not and above all will the speculative turnover of the British financial sector be taxed and this is something that the Archbishop, to his credit, has talked about.

The idea of a city of London sales tax or he calls it a Robin Hood tax, if you had this Robin Hood tax- there are many versions- but if you had that tax, that if it were sufficient, if it were 1 percent let's say, that would be enough to maintain the pensions- the other aspects of the British social safety net.

Unfortunately I think what the archbishop talks about is something that would go more to the world wildlife fund of Prince Philip to take care of the Penguins and the Polar bears, whereas it's really British working people.

Press TV: In Washington, Mr. Tarpley, the critics in the UK are saying the government is not putting enough care or is not taking responsibility about the social impact that this austerity drive is having, specially on the youth.

I have this recent study by Leeds University saying that 25 percent of strippers and lap dancers are students in the UK and they have to find sex work because of the situation of the tuition fees.

So do you think that here now the government is actually refusing to take responsibility or simply as the activists are saying doesn't care about the impact that it's creating and what dangers it's going to pose to the government later on?

Tarpley: The Tory reactionaries, Cameron and Osborne and the rest of them, with Clegg from the Liberal Party if you can believe that, they have decided to shift the cost of the world economic depression as far as Britain is concerned off the backs of the city of London bankers and finance capitalists and oligarchs and on to the backs of working people but also the middle class.

The signature thing I think last year was when this new government said from now on you have got to pay if you want to go to a university which was a tremendous blow, basically wiping up the future for the people who now ought to be attending college.

This does not work economically, in other words the super austerity is a failure in its own terms, it doesn't balance the budget, it actually increases the deficit by having a recession which they're now finding.

But it also could lead to something like what we had with Wilson and Heath in the mid-seventies when people were wondering will the British Isles disappear below the waters of the North Sea in economic terms.

In the entire English speaking world now we've just gotten through with the Christmas holiday, anybody who turned on a television or even a radio has heard the Dickens Christmas carol, probably in about a dozen versions, and when you hear Scrooge ranting about prisons, workhouses, treadmills and the poor law this is the mentality of Cameron and Osborne.

And the other thing is they are going from the Thatcher playbook, the 30 year ago interlude that the other guest referred to. The Thatcher playbook is you can have crushing, brutal, savage austerity at home; you can bust the unions, you can attack public workers and do all these things, provided you have some kind of a foreign adventure going.

And that would be in the case of Cameron he had plenty of money to bomb Libya and now he's said the coming year is going to be the year of Somalia. So the former British colony of Libya or Italian Libya whatever was and - now it's going to be British Somali land.

This is his gambit to keep the Chauvinists and the coronel blimps happy and try to dominate the elections with this and I think what the Archbishop is trying to suggest is this is a failing package.

Press TV: If you can tell me in 30 seconds that major question of where Britain is according to the Archbishop or where Britain is heading to?

Tarpley: I would just like to say that the secessionism is the ruling class program, the busting up of the nation's sates into impotent entities is exactly what they want under the IMF [International Monetary Fund].

I think Britain right now is threatened by the fact that if we get a European banking panic in the next couple of months that would bring down the city of London in a panic and at that point Britain has almost nothing left.

I mean, here in the US we still have some farm production, we still have a few factories left but the deindustrialization of Britain is gone so far that if the city of London collapses, you have a really grim scene with terrible danger. 

Iran warns US to avoid clash over nuclear programme

Guardian

Iranian foreign minister says America has 'lost its wisdom and prudence' as tensions mount over Tehran's enrichment efforts

The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said
his country was 'prepared for the worst'

Iran has warned the US not to set the two countries on a collision course over Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, as diplomatic tensions reflected growing concern that the Middle East might be on the verge of new conflict.

The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, spoke amid reports that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has been trying to rally support within his country for an attack.

The Guardian revealed that the UK was advancing contingency plans for joining American forces in a possible air and sea campaign against military bases in Iran.

The revelations led to Nato insisting on Thursday that it would play no part in any military action, and provoked the rebuke from Salehi, who insisted that any attack by either Israel or the US would provoke immediate retaliation. He also accused Washington of recklessness.

"The US has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues," he told reporters during a visit to Libya. "Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran."

In a separate interview with a Turkish newspaper, Salehi claimed Tehran was ready for war with Israel. "We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation … such threats are not new to us," he said. "We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country."

The pressure on Iran has been building since allegations surfaced of a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The White House insists Tehran was behind the plot, but the Iranian regime has denied that.

The episode added to US concerns about Iran's nuclear enrichment programme and the increasing belligerence of its regime. Intelligence suggests that some of the Iranian centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium are being hidden inside a fortified military base in Qom, about 100 miles south-west of Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Authority will next week deliver its latest bulletin on Iran's nuclear programme and is expected to provide fresh evidence of covert plans to engineer warheads.

David Cameron Wanted Internet Shutdown During Britain’s Summer Riots

International Business Times

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron wanted the internet shut-down during the riots that swept England in August in order to prevent rioters from communicating with each other over social media networks, according to media reports.

Fears grew at the time that the disturbances were largely organized by youths using their mobile phones.

However, Cameron was persuaded against taking any such drastic measures by the Foreign Secretary William Hague over worries that such steps would lead to accusations of hypocrisy over the rights of free speech in Britain.

Reportedly, during a meeting of COBRA (the government's crisis response committee) on August 9 – in the wake of massive looting and vandalism across London, Manchester and Birmingham, Hague warned against closing down Facebook, Twitter and the BlackBerry network. He cited that nations like China and Syria would jump on the issue since Cameron has criticized their practice of state censorship.

Nonetheless, on August 11, in a speech in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said his government was “working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services".

Moreover, Hague’s fears were somewhat realized, when a Chinese newspaper editorialized against British hypocrisy when it emerged the government considered curbs on internet access.

The column, published in the state-run Xinhua news service, said: "We may wonder why western leaders, on the one hand, tend to indiscriminately accuse other nations of monitoring, but on the other take for granted their steps to monitor and control the internet. They are not interested in learning what content those nations are monitoring, let alone their varied national conditions or their different development stages."

The Telegraph reported that in speech Tuesday before the London Conference on Cyberspace, Hague reiterated his adherence to free online speech.

The New Libya: Assassination, Ruination, Broken Promises and Body Snatching...

Global Research
Felicity Arbuthnot

Saif Quaddafi

       “As usual, we swim in a pile of dishonorable politicians. An Arab poem describes how the rotten rubbish floats to the top of the water while all the gems - corals and precious fish - stay at the bottom.” (An Arab friend.)

If events of the past few days are anything to go by, the UN-NATO insurgent allies are set to bring a grim, lawless, murderous and fundamentalist future to the “New Libya.”

Polygamy is set to return as the disenfranchisement of women, the West’s new friend and interim leader, Mr Jalil has declared. (He didn’t put it quite like that, but the particular interpretation of Sharia Law he espouses, does.)

A country which had health, education and welfare services of which most could only dream(i) is also set to instantly revert fifty years. Flying King Idris’ flag, Libya is being plunged seamlessly back to his era of illiteracy and neglect.

It will not get better. Britain is already demanding that bombarded, bereaved, largely broken Libya, pay compensation for its “liberation.” No, not satire, see:ii.

Libya also has its very own Falluja, in the fled, dead and now destroyed city of Sirte, flooded, ruined and heart rending. It also has its own Basra Roads. See the melted, bombed vehicles leaving Sirte and across Libya. Those inside them also melted or vaporized, a mirror image of that 1991 US massacre of the fleeing in Iraq..

Soon Libya will also have its own living memorials to their release from free healthcare, gasoline too cheap to meter and the highest living standard in Africa: deformed babies from the radioactive and chemically toxic depleted uranium weapons which rained down on them. Another mirror image of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans where these weapons were also used.

The events though, of the last days, have shone a light on the grim reality of the future for the population. The shocking spectacle of Colonel Quaddafi and his son’s bodies, displayed to the public, in a meat cooler in a mall, until decomposition forced a furtive, body snatch and night time burial in an undisclosed location, hardly bodes well for the “human rights” to come.

Neither does the breaking of the commitment to return the bodies to the remaining, so far, un-murdered family (iii.)

Their: “corpses should be dumped in the desert to be eaten by foxes”, stated one “liberator”, claiming that at the deaths: “we all took turns to stamp on” the former Leader’s face, some hitting it “with shoes.”

When Aisha Quaddafi called her father, minutes after his death, reports state that one of the thugs answered the call telling her: “Fuzzy head is dead.”

Aisha lost her husband and baby in a NATO bombing in July. She is an internationally respected lawyer, whose cases have included being part of Saddam Hussein’s defence team and who also defended Muntader Al Saidi, the journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush in Baghdad, for: “the widows, the orphans ..” the former President had created in Iraq, on his declared “Crusade.”

She is also a former Good Will Ambassador for the United Nations. One can only speculate how much good will she feels towards a UN which has endorsed the murder and plunder of family, people and land, now. She had lost her father, four brothers, her baby daughter, with her two little cousins, within little over three months.

One (of many) questions which should be answered over the shoddy, surreptitious disposal of the bodies of Libya’s rightful leader, his son and his Defence Minister, Abu Bakr Younis, is, if the stated reason is because the insurgents did not want his last resting place to “become a shrine”, was he really the monster Washington and Whitehall have trumpeted? Or did the “coalition” just have an eye on the resources he stubbornly kept, largely for the benefit of his people?

America’s Nobel Peace Prize Laureate “first black” President, has declared the death of Muammar Quaddafi: “A momentous day in the history of Libya.”

Exclusive: Staging of Major Terror Attack on US Evident

Veterans Today

Gordon Duff

9/11 Annivesary and Israeli UN Vote to Coincide

Plans are afoot to push the United States into an attack on Iran. Anyone knowing the political atmosphere would believe this impossible unless something really terrible were to happen.

No nation on earth, we should believe, would ever stage such an event, dirty bomb or even full scale nuclear attack, as nothing less than that could push Americans to war, not an America very skeptical of 9/11 and its aftermath.

However, one nation is free to do just that, knowing it faces no consequences of any kind from America, our closest ally, continually caught spying on us, buying off politicians or, as in Britain, running the government into the ground behind the front of “News Corp” and the Murdoch empire.

We need not name that country, not while 81 members of congress are there, entertained, perhaps being recruited? The real issue is terrorism, a potential attack that could kill tens of thousands of Americans.

The NeoCon Crew - More Dangerous Than Al Queda??

Since 1999, confirmed as the year that the invasion of Iran was decided upon by Israel and their key allies in the US, the “neocons,” world events have been dominated by attempts to pre-stage a massive war.

But the enemy is nearly unassailable, geographically isolated, armed to the teeth and closely aligned with China, the world’s second military power, the nation with the stranglehold on America’s credit purse strings.

9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq were just “run ups” to the Iran invasion that never materialized in 2005 like Bush had planned, pushed forward by a “false flag” terror attack in Bahrain the White House and JSOC had attempted, thwarted by patriotic American military leaders.

None of this is news, none is history, all is, however, very easy to document though some of those involved in thwarting the Bush plan have been assassinated and others put on “terror suspect” lists. Now we see it all heating up again.

I can categorically state that there are plans afoot to stage a terror attack on the United States, in the wake of the Norway killings, not a “lone nutcase,” but a staged terrorist attack with broad international implications. Intelligence is pouring in, and if I am getting it, it means the US and UK governments have this and more.

Rupert Murdoch

Whether they admit it, bury it or even know they have it is something else.

Recent history, particularly the Murdoch scandal in Britain, teaches us that police and counter-terrorism organizations have fallen under the control of “newspapers?”

No, the problem is far worse.

The endgame will be a nuclear bomb, a fission device or, minimally, a very large “dirty bomb.” Chatter says “Chicago.” To be blamed? Iran. Who is doing it?

Think “the ususal suspects,” think global, think Middle East, think Christian extremist, think Zionist, think big news agencies facing collapse, their leaders looking at prison, think oil, you know the names.

Think 81 members of congress in Israel, think 400 sworn to put Israel above the US, think debt collapse, think Republican party and the worst collection of candidates ever seen, cartoon characters Mike Dukakis could beat.

A game is afoot, no guessing, no “dots” to connect.

The video below was “Clue Number one.”


The next clue was the report of 5 killings in Israel, blamed on “terrorists.”

Next you will see “rockets” coming from Gaza and Lebanon, carefully staged by Israel, carefully timed to a pressure on Syria. Suddenly, Israeli news filled with stories of anti-government demonstrations and an Israeli version of “Arab Spring” are now talking “terrorism.”

Jeff Gates

In Syria, Assad had to shell entire cities into submission. Israel, thus far, has only had to kill 5 of their own. Note we say “thus far.” Author Jeff Gates outlines the narrative from the “usual suspects” here:

How many Americans had heard of the Taliban before March 2001 when destruction of the ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan was reported worldwide as a ‘Cultural Holocaust’? Voila! An Evil Doer brand emerged and was soon repackaged as Islamo-fascism.

Six months later, an attack on U.S. soil left little doubt that outraged Americans would be provoked to war. Combine an emotionally wrenching mass murder with manipulated intelligence and an invasion was assured—of Iraq. That miscue required sophisticated pre-staging.

Residents of Washington, DC well recall the sniper attacks that left ten dead during the October 2002 lead-up to a Senate vote on a war resolution sponsored by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman. Those well-timed murders ensured a heightened sense of insecurity and helped ratchet up the requisite hatred—to invade a nation that played no role in 911.

Remember the Times Square Terrorist? A car belonging to a Muslim was found with two WalMart propane tanks, an alarm clock, a box of fireworks and some fertilizer. When? In May 2010 during the lead-up to a UN vote on a nuclear-free Middle East—opposed by Israel.

To sustain hate requires a sustained stream of plausible reasons to hate. Plus careful maintenance of a ‘generally accepted truth’ that keeps attention focused on a credible threat.

Preparing the Minds

Islamo-phobia was a fresh threat when it first appeared in a 1993 article in Foreign Affairs. Yet it dates from 1990 when Princeton Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, an avid Zionist, touted “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” By 1996, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington was ready to publish The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

With more than 100 nongovernmental organizations promoting The Clash, Americans experienced a seamless segue from an old narrative to a new. Without missing a beat in Pentagon spending, we ended a global Cold War and, by consensus, began a global War on Terrorism…

British Magistrates Advised To 'Disregard Normal Sentencing'

Guardian


Cases which usually would be dealt with by magistrates courts could now be referred to crown court for tougher sentences

David Cameron promises retaliation
through stricter sentencing of
riot participants

Magistrates are being advised by the courts service to disregard normal sentencing guidelines when dealing with those convicted of offences committed in the context of last week's riots.

The advice, given in open court by justices' clerks, will result in cases that would usually be disposed of in magistrates courts being referred to the crown court for more severe punishment.

It may explain why some of those convicted have received punitive sentences for offences that might normally attract a far shorter term.

In Manchester a mother of two, Ursula Nevin, was jailed for five months for receiving a pair of shorts given to her after they had been looted from a city centre store. In Brixton, south London, a 23-year-old student was jailed for six months for stealing £3.50 worth of water bottles from a supermarket.

The Crown Prosecution Service also issued guidance to prosecutors on Monday, effectively calling for juveniles found guilty of riot-related crimes to be named and shamed. Those dealt with in youth courts are normally not identified. The youngest suspects bought before the courts last week in connection with the riots were an 11-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy.

The sentencing advice from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service came to light after the chair of Camberwell Green magistrates court, Novello Noades, claimed that the court had been given a government "directive" that anyone involved in the rioting be given a custodial sentence. She later retracted her statement and said she was mortified to have used the term "directive".

Clarifying what had occurred, HMCTS explained that a senior clerk had circulated instructions to court clerks that they should advise magistrates to consider disregarding normal sentencing guidelines.
"Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary," it said. "Under the Criminal Procedure Rules justices' clerks and legal advisers in magistrates courts have a responsibility to give advice to magistrates on sentencing guidelines.

"All advice is given in open court and the parties are entitled to comment. Accordingly magistrates in London are being advised by their legal advisers to consider whether their powers of punishment are sufficient in dealing with some cases arising from the recent disorder.

"Magistrates are independent and not subject to direction from their legal advisers."

The advice was issued last week in the aftermath of the riots. It was given, it is said, to ensure consistency of sentencing across the country. Courts can therefore consider the riots as an aggravating factor in any offence, making stealing from looted shops more serious than conventional shoplifting.