brian haw ANTI-WAR protester Brian Haw has been arrested as police carried out security sweeps ahead of the Queen's Speech. An eyewitness reported seeing Mr Haw being forcibly detained and handcuffed by officers at the camp opposite the Houses of Parliament where he and other peace campaigners maintain a round-the-clock demonstration.

Police with sniffer dogs moved in this morning to search the ragtag collection of tents on Parliament Square before the Queen arrived to announce the new Government's plans. A Scotland Yard spokesman said two people were arrested in Parliament Square at 8am for allegedly obstructing police. An officer at the scene confirmed that Mr Haw and fellow protester Barbara Tucker had been arrested. Mr Haw began his high-profile Parliament Square demonstration against the UK's policy in Iraq and elsewhere on June 2 2001.

He has been arrested many times in the past as well as facing repeated attempts by the authorities to shut his protest down.
    peace sign THREE protesters climbed onto the roof of Westminster Abbey to demonstrate against the war in Afghanistan.

    The activists, who are connected with the Democracy Village camp in Parliament Square, scaled about 100 feet up scaffolding at the eastern end of the cathedral before unfurling a huge banner last night. Among them was peace campaigner Maria Gallastegui, 51, from Harlesden, who said she was "elated" when she spoke to the Standard by mobile phone. She said: "It's a little bit naughty but worth it."

    The protesters spent several hours on the roof waving to supporters in the square below before finally coming down last night. They were arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass.

    How the Dimmest and Dumbest Give us their Worst Losing Wars and Promoting Chaos for Profit

    A recent analysis has shown the 40 year old American M-16 rifle to be a failure in Afghanistan. The weapon that caused more American deaths in Vietnam than the enemy is still junk technology today, even with its Star Wars derivitives. The result is still “Palinesque” or as I would call it, “lipstick on a pig.” The wrong design, the wrong cartridge, no range, no stopping power and poor reliability, 40 years of failure in the most important area of the battlefield, our combat rifle. This wasn’t an accident but part of our defense tradition, fighting wars with junk, fighting wars meant to eat money, put fighting men and women under the dirt, fighting wars meant to go on forever, as long as the money flows. A new study, over 40 years late, challenges our basic infantry weapon’s effectiveness: The U.S. military’s workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban’s more primitive but longer range weapons. As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s. The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah. But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

    The recent fiascoes of battlefield corruption began in Iraq in 2003. The website, Soldiers for the Truth, formerly run by Colonel David Hackworth, one of America’s greatest heroes, began reporting that our body armor was ineffective, ill fitting, overpriced and part of a fraud driven by the Pentagon “revolving door,” the tradition of serving officers in acquisitions moving into suppliers they were supposed to have been regulating, upon retirement. Stories of falsified tests came out, still the military tried to prosecute troops whose families spent thousands on quality protective gear such as Dragonskin (TM) armor. Hundreds died because of this and we eventually got better equipment but only after tens of millions lined the pockets of people who belong in prison. Nothing was done. Surprise, surprise. America’s most famous failure is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, something we still use. Newer versions have some armor upgrades and work part of the time, but the Bradley has never been more than a rolling target, the most expensive fiasco in military history. HBO made a film about the selection process for the Bradley called The Pentagon Wars. It was a comedy. Our new “secret weapon,” the Stryker, a rehashed Swiss designed vehicle from the 70s, has one real value, cheap rubber tires. These “battleships of the highway” lay as burned hulks across Iraq and Afghanistan, another “lipstick on a pig” weapons system. The problem is much wider, much deeper than simply sending our troops into the field to face rocket propelled grenades in Humvee’s with canvas doors than couldn’t stop arrows. Every aspect of our defense has been hard wired to fail for one reason or another, let’s look at some of these.


    The Army Corps of Engineers can build a barrier around Gaza for Israel but each day, thousands of illegal aliens, many drug runners and criminals, some even terrorists, flood into the US. You would think we can’t see or hear them, that they sneak through tunnels and are invisible in the desert. You couldn’t be more wrong. America’s defense companies have received billions to develop technologies that, not only see hundreds of miles into Mexico, using advanced optics and specialized radars but systems on tethered balloons give us warning of anyone approaching from so far away that this information is highly classified, yet we fail to either protect or react. Even this isn’t the real story, the technologies we have deployed already, the ones we seem to ignore and misuse, the ones that give evidence that filling the country with illegal aliens may not be an accident, aren’t the only scandals tied to this disaster tearing America apart.


    Billions have been spent on technologies that integrate into systems that can protect, not only borders, airports or entire nations, they can be deployed on the battlefield to recognize combatants and terrorists among civilian populations. However, our most advanced technologies are deades old, long superceded by systems suppressed because of, well, the fact they are actually too effective. These “war changing” technologies have been available for years but have been purposefully suppressed, while we chose to use either nothing or 1960s rehashed junk. The companies developing new technologies, not only receive no help at all, no contracts and no interest, many are subjected to attacks on their stock, their lines of credit and are pushed to destruction. One thing has become clear, if you are developing anything that actually will win a war or solve a problem, your company will suffer the same fate as the mysterious “run your car on water” companies did years ago. What can we do? One technology alone, called “hyper spectral analysis” can close the US Border overnight at almost no cost at all. These are visual sensors that deploy on vehicles that link together with databases, software and capabilities long ready for deployment, that can recognize any individual, bio-metrically “tag” them for life and either track them for immediate detention or follow their every move through cities, airports or across battlefields.

    These units can scan airport passengers from hundreds of yards away for, not only weapons and explosives but for diseases, bio-weapons and false identities. They can find a Taliban fighter, beard shaved and no weapon, on a street corner in Kabul, they can pick out an illegal alien in a Detroit shopping mall or close 50 miles of border, even in rough terrain, in less than a day. This isn’t the only “beyond space age” technology we have, this is just the worst offender as it is deliverable and cheap and insanely effective. It would eliminate billions of dollars of airport scanners and useless technologies, long meant to fail, that enrich people like Michael Chertoff and the companies producing “junk science” in a box, many of them Israeli. The biggest “commercial” for this failed industry was the “Crotch Bomber” incident in Detroit. Follow the money, the fingerprints are all over this one.


    Few Americans get to see the “war plans” to stop piracy off Somalia. It is almost amusing if it weren’t a dangerous situation. Not only is the piracy itself a result of bad policy decisions by the Bush administration but hundreds of millions are being made banking ransom payments and in the marine insurance industry. Much more is being made in keeping dozens of ships on station or in sending secret “contractors” against the pirates as part of “Rube Goldberg” schemes. Our plans have involved running up and down hundreds of miles of coast when the pirates themselves come from a very small areas, easily observed, pirates that could be intercepted minutes after they enter international waters. America has tested using LTA platforms, we call them blimps, that carry advanced optics and radar, are low cost and devastatingly effective. These vehicles, designed by Airship Management Company and used by the US Coast Guard and Navy, are so effective they can be a “game changer” in dozens of key areas of the world. Using advanced optics and radars, they are a combination of UAV and AWAC. They just don’t cost enough and are too effective. No pirates, no pirate problem, no pirate problem profits. End of story.


    I blame the Air Force during the Eisenhower era. Every pilot wants to retire a general. The Air Force seems to exist for that. A US Senator with no military capabilities at all can get into an Air Force unit and become a colonel in days. Check out Senator Lindsay Graham, Air Force lawyer, openly gay and promoted over dozens of highly qualified combat vets. He isn’t the only one, simply the laughing stock of the Air Force. The problem, a problem that nearly destroyed the United States grew out of a desire to build bombers when the Russians were developing missiles. It was the old “taking a knife to a gunfight” scenario. We ended up a decade behind in technology with rehashed German WW2 technology while Russians had put satellites in orbit, men in space and could drop nukes on any American city. This wasn’t the Air Force’s first “dance” with the Russians. We went into Korea with propeller fighters and primitive jets against the advanced Mig 17, a plane that could fly rings around anything we every brought into that war including the F 86 Sabre.


    “Whoom,” like a giant vacuum, all of our leaders, our brightest soldiers are sucked into the “black hole” of our endless special operations commands. Speak 5 languages, can shoot a quarter out of the air blindfolded, we are dropping you into a rathole village in the middle of nowhere. What we don’t say, however, is that the intelligence you are given is false, your mission is a joke and you are only being put in harms way, facing death at the hands of a 10 year old child using a Soviet weapon, probably better than yours, that was paid for by American taxpayers. Currently, over 250,000 “state of the art” Russian assault rifles “went missing” in Iraq, all paid for by the United States. America has become addicted to elitism, forming group after group with overlapping missions. Every service has some type of commando, all basically a rehash of the Marine Corps. Because we have them, we use them, not because there is a need, not because there is a mission, simply because we have them. In the end, we fracture our military, duplicate capabilities, capabilities that we have seen time and time again were never needed in the first place. We have spent billions building forces meant to fight scenarios that exist only in movies and video games. One thing for certain, drop a small group of people somewhere and some idiot, perhaps more than a few, will show up to kill them. Welcome to the world of “irregular warfare.”


    How can you tell a country has been “saved” by the United States? They have rigged elections, leaders they hate, no electricity, dirty water, massive drug production, corruption everywhere, suicide bombers on every corner and a permanent civil war. What do you think our Washington “think tanks” teach us? Whenever America “fails” what other country gains? The third largest arms exporter in the world is Israel, a country that controls the organizations responsible for most of Amerias “strategic planning.” We give billions, much of it “under the table,” to ultra-wealthy Israel while millions of American children can’t afford dental care. Israeli children have dental care. In Afghanistan, every weapon, every bullet, every explosive used against American troops has been paid for by the United States and either supplied by us or one of our “allies.” For years, Pakistan has been pouring evidence of Indo-Israeli support for the Tabiban, reports shelved and shredded by intelligence agencies ordered to “look the other way” even when New York City is attacked.


    Iran is one of the wealthiest and, at one time, one of the most westernized states in the Middle East. Their current ruler, another Ayatollah and President Ahmadinejad face massive opposition inside their own country and among the millions of Iranians who fled that country because they couldn’t stand living somewhere run by a extremists belonging to an Islamic sect considered “heretical” by most Muslims. So, how is this unpopular government, a government that has run a massive oil producing country deep into debt, in power? The United States, with the help of Israel, are propping up Ahmadinejad. Holding office only due to massive election fraud (perhaps they have electronic voting machines there too, like Florida and Ohio), the current extremely unpopular regime in Iran stays in power only because of continual rhetoric from the US and Israel, rhetoric threatening sneak attacks and invasion. Without this deluge of empty threats, Iran might be asking for NATO membership. The last “semi-credible” enemy, or as the Bush administration loved calling it, “axis of evil” member in the Middle East, preserving Iran as an enemy is vital to the defense industry. With every other country in the region either a US ally, militarily helpless or occupied, only Iran can be used as a justification for the massive US military presence in the region. That Iran has no capability of projecting power and has no offensive weaponry nor any remote capability of operating beyond their own borders is never spoken of. What Iran does have is a very large population of people who want their own government gone, are willing to risk their lives in the process and deeply resent efforts by the US and Israel to promote an oppressive and incompetent government that has made their lives a living hell. Conspiracy theorists have long put forth rumors that Ahmadinejad is an Israeli “asset.” Were this true, it might explain alot.


    For years, Americans were told the Taliban and “Al Qaeda” were financed by the poppy fields of Afghanistan. Billions of dollars were spent to eradicate drug production in Afghanistan, which grew from “nothing at all” to massive levels, with increases every year. In fact, the more we spent to “eradicate” the more production increased. Colonel Eugene Khrushchev says the following about US policy in Afghanistan: “The new American drug policy is easy to understand. America is telling the world it can no longer eradicate opium/heroin production because “poor farmers” are going to suffer. In truth, the poppy fields America now protects are run by drug lords with ties to the Karzai regime. America is building a narco-mafia behind the government of Afghanistan tied to an unsound and corrupt policy being peddled by the Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke. The US has no plans to eradicate drug production in Afghanistan, production they and everyone else claims is funding the Taliban and is certainly pumping 65 billion dollars into somebody’s hands. This is what NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has decided to do: McChrystal’s solution is to set up a “slush fund” to pay off the Majah opium poppy growers. What this is doing is to dismantle any real counter-narcotics program the DEA and SOF were supposedly implementing. What we are learning is that the US State Department, for reasons unknown and unknowable, wants to manage Afghanistan as a crime ridden “narco-state” for the foreseeable future.

    What the Secretary of State called “the best decision in the face of an array of less-than-perfect options” has set in motion the worst-case nightmare scenario – a boon for the drug lords, a bane for the drug busters. As the story goes, the Marines ought to cash in $12 million from the Commander’s Emergency Response Program – “to disrupt the Afghan opium harvest”. The whole scheme is a total scam, nothing is “disrupted,” far from it. In fact the policy is much closer to “agricultural support and subsidy,” with the product being death dealing narcotics and the goal almost too insidious to imagine. Here are the main fraudulent premises of the swindle – political & financial – attributed to the US administration as outlined in the Washington Post:

    • “Eradication would drive farmers into the hands of the insurgency”

    • “Poppy farmers are poor creatures who face economic peril if they cannot harvest or sell their crops”

    These disinformation sound bites betray the Holbrooke hallmark and are adroitly exploited by narco-insurgency propaganda. Ambassador Thomas Schweich, a former US top drug buster in Afghanistan, exposed this drug lobby guerilla marketing in his seminal article “Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?” in the NYT way back in July 27, 2008: “UNODC shattered the myth that poppies are grown by destitute farmers…Eighty percent of the land under poppy cultivation in the south had been planted with it only in the last two years …these farmers didn’t need an alternative livelihood. They had abandoned their previous livelihoods…to take advantage of the security vacuum [which coincides with UK military presence] to grow a more profitable crop: opium…Yet Afghan officials continued to say that poppy cultivation was the only choice for its poor farmers.” (p.4) How does the world’s largest money laundering scheme and the world’s largest narcotics distribution network totally escape American attention in Afghanistan? This isn’t America’s first “dance” in this arena, with a massive drug war on its border with Mexico and decades of efforts in South America having little or no effect. We are also ignoring decades of substantive reports of CIA involvement in using narcotic trafficking to fund covert operations. You can’t turn on a TV without seeing this mentioned, the CIA-drug connection is a major part of American culture. Former FBI translator, Sibel Edmond’s testimony of US involvement in shipping drugs from Afghanistan on rendition flights has proven to be widely reliable and has received key support from members of the military and intelligence community.”


    Warnings about the “military industrial complex” started with Washington, were carried into the 20th century by General Smedley Butler and our sternest warnings came from President Eisenhower. The warnings were clear, given free rein, all power will flow into the hands of racketeers, gangsters given the power to push America into war for profit, profit from weapons, profit from stolen resources and, worst of all, geopolitical manipulation meant to keep the world in continual war and chaos. With America’s government and those of key allies beholding to defense and oil money, subject to media under the control of “war fed” corporations and manipulative foreign governments, security and peace has become undesirable and thus, unattainable. With permanent war as a business, global policies leading to cohesion and stability and defense technologies that can make war obsolete are crushed at birth. Illegal aliens can flood into America as though invisible, terrorists move through world airports untouched, airports no legitmate tourist or business traveler survives unscathed, pirates roam the open seas as though we were living in the 16th century, colorful poppies, thousands of acres of them, escape the watchful eye of “drug eradication” forces, everything a sham, everything a scam.

    I think back over 40 years ago, my M-16 E1 rifle, issued to Marines though a failed prototype, jamming in combat. I think of the 5.56 mm rounds with their “devastating killing power” hitting Viet Cong with the stopping power of a ping pong ball. I think of the video from Iraq showing our troops welding steel plates onto their vehicles in a desparate attempt to survive the endless rain of RPGs they had been subjected to. I can also find a thousand multi-millionaires who live in obscene luxury while we stick aluminum limbs on our young people. Every step of every process is owned, corrupted, infected, from “position papers” to “intelligence analyses” to “weapons system evaluations.” Are there Americans who would push our kids into a war for oil profits, no bid contracts or to provide “cover” for the ambitions of our own fanatic extremists, both homegrown and those of our closest ally with whom we have an “unbreakable bond?” Junk policy, junk weapons, junk thinking leads to a junk world ruled by junk people.


  • The corporate media , especially the BBC are utterly and dangerously obsessed with promoting war past and present. The media is totally controlled by the British establishment and their masonic goons . Most war memorials are in fact masonic monoliths and NOT true memorials to the war dead.

    There have been many articles written about masons marking their territory with dodgy and creepy statues but the most sinister is the suggestion that these miniature versions of cleopatra's needle are supposedly a memory to the war dead. There may have been many war hero's in past wars but Britain's most recent diabolical murdering campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq do NOT represent the views of the vast majority of the public who see innocent victims of madmen like Blair, Bush and Brown being bombed and gunned down to satisfy the greed and the very warped and dangerous culling on foreign soils of its people to milk those countries of their mineral reserves.

    No matter how hard the corporate media try and turn the military into war hero's they are in fact a thuggish and brutal tool used by megalomaniacs to impose their will on countries least able to defend themselves from the political madmen who answer to their masonic superiors like the Rothschilds.

  • BBC: Edinburgh homecoming parade for Afghanistan troops
  • BBC: Prince of Wales leads service marking 65 years since end of World War II
    us army The suicide rate among war veterans is extraordinary, new data reveals.

    Thirty try to commit suicide each day, on average, reports the Army Times. Eighteen succeed, roughly five of whom receive medical care from Veterans Affairs, rated one of the best health programs in the country. "Of the more than 30,000 suicides in this country each year, fully 20 percent of them are acts by veterans,'' said VA Secretary Eric Shinseki at a VA-sponsored suicide prevention conference in January, Inter Press Service reported.

    The Times noted that "In general, VA officials said, women attempt suicide more often, but men are more likely to succeed in the attempt." The report cites access to health care and age -- younger veterans are less likely to try -- as two major factors in the suicide rate, and notes that the VA is seeking to strengthen its suicide prevention programs. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, "Roughly 56 percent of all homeless veterans are African American or Hispanic, despite only accounting for 12.8 percent and 15.4 percent of the U.S. population respectively." The struggle among veterans to return to everyday life has been documented over the years.

    The Associated Press reported in November 2007 that one in four homeless people across the nation is likely to be a veteran, even though veterans constitute a mere 11 percent of overall adults in the United States. "And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans," AP added. "Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job." Homelessness among women who served in Afghanistan and Iraq is on the rise.

    The Boston Globe reported last year that "number of female service members who have become homeless after leaving the military has jumped dramatically in recent years." One in ten homeless veterans under 45 years of age is a woman, statistics showed in July of 2009.

    "Some of the first homeless vets that walked into our office were single moms," Paul Rieckhoff, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's executive director and founder, told the Globe. "When people think of homeless vets, they don’t think of a Hispanic mother and her kids. The new generation of veterans is made up of far more women.’"


    drug army It was common during the opening of the Iraq war to see slogans proclaiming “No blood for oil!” The cover story for the war – Saddam’s links with Al Qaida and his weapons of mass destruction – were obvious mass deceptions, hiding a far less palatable imperial agenda. The truth was that Iraq was a major producer of oil and, in our age, the Age of Oil, oil is the most strategic resource of all. For many it was obvious that the real agenda of the war was an imperialistic grab for Iraqi oil. This was confirmed when Iraq’s state-owned oil company was privatised to western interests in the aftermath of the invasion.

    Why then are there no slogans saying “No blood for opium!”? Afghanistan’s major product is opium and opium production has increased remarkably during the present war. The current NATO action around Marjah is clearly motivated by opium. It is reported to be Afghanistan’s main opium-producing area. Why then won’t people consider that the real agenda of the Afghan war has been control of the opium trade? The weapons of mass deception tell us that the opium belongs to the Taliban and that the US is fighting a war on drugs as well as terror. Yet it remains a curious fact that the opium trade has tracked across Southern Asia for the past five decades from east to west, following US wars, and always under the control of US assets.

    In the 1960s, when the US fought a secret war in Laos using the Hmong opium army of Vang Pao as its proxy, Southeast Asia produced 70% of the world’s illicit opium. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Afghanistan production, controlled by US-backed drug lords, took off, till it rivalled Southeast Asian production. Since 2002, Afghan opium production, encouraged by both the Taliban and US-backed drug lords, has reached 93% of world illicit production, an unparalleled performance.

    The graph below from the UN World Drug Report 2008 shows the astonishing increase in Afghan opium production that followed the US invasion.

    In the 1980s the US supported Islamic fundamentalists, the Mujahideen, against the Soviets in Afghanistan. To pay for their war, the Mujahideen ordered peasants to grow opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates, under the protection of Pakistani Intelligence, operated hundreds of heroin labs. As the Golden Crescent in Southwest Asia eclipsed the Golden Triangle in Southeast Asia as the centre of the heroin trade, it sent rates of addiction spiralling in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and the Soviet Union.

    To hide US complicity in the drug trade, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officers were required to look away from the drug-dealing intrigues of the US allies and the support they received from Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) and the services of Pakistani banks. The CIA’s mission was to destabilise the Soviet Union through the promotion of militant Islam inside the Central Asian Republics and they sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. Their mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. Knowing the drug war would hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union, the CIA facilitated the operation of anti-Soviet rebels in the provinces of Uzbekistan, Chechnya and Georgia. Drugs were used to finance terrorism and western intelligence agencies used their control of drugs to influence political factions in Central Asia. The Soviet army withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, leaving a civil war between the US-funded mujahideen and the Soviet-supported government that raged until 1992. In the chaos that followed the mujahideen victory, Afghanistan lapsed into a period of warlordism in which opium growing thrived.

    The Taliban emerged from the chaos, dedicated to removing the war lords and applying a strict interpretation of Sharia law. They captured Kandahar in 1994, and expanded their control throughout Afghanistan, capturing Kabul in 1996, and declaring the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Under the policies of the Taliban government, opium production in Afghanistan was curbed. In September 1999, the Taliban authorities issued a decree, requiring all opium-growers in Afghanistan to reduce output by one-third. A second decree, issued in July 2000, required farmers to completely stop opium cultivation. Ordering the ban on opium growing, Taliban leader Mullah Omar called the drug trade “un-Islamic”.

    As a result, 2001 was the worst year for global opium production in the period between 1990 and 2007. During the 1990s, global opium production averaged over 4000 tonnes. In 2001, opium production fell to less than 200 tonnes. Although it was not admitted by the Howard government, which claimed the credit itself, Australia’s 2001 heroin shortage was due to the Taliban. Following the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001, the armies of the northern alliance, led by US Special Forces, supported by daisy cutters, cluster bombs and bunker-busting missiles, shattered the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The opium ban was lifted and, with CIA-backed warlords back in control, Afghanistan again became the major producer of opium. Despite the official denials, Hillary Mann Leverett, a former US National Security Council official for Afghanistan, confirmed that the US knew that government ministers in Afghanistan, including the minister of defence in 2002, were involved in drug trafficking.

    After 2002 Afghan opium production rose to unheard of levels. By 2007, Afghanistan was producing enough heroin to supply the entire world. In 2009, Thomas Schweich, who served as US state department co-ordinator for counter-narcotics and justice reform for Afghanistan, accused President Hamid Karzai of impeding the war on drugs. Schweich also accused the Pentagon of obstructing attempts to get military forces to assist and protect opium crop eradication drives. Schweich wrote in the New York Times that "narco-corruption went to the top of the Afghan government". He said Karzai was reluctant to move against big drug lords in his political power base in the south, where most of the country's opium and heroin is produced.

    The most prominent of these suspected drug lords was Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai. Ahmed Wali Karzai was said to have orchestrated the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of phony ballots for his brother’s re-election effort in August 2009. He was also believed to have been responsible for setting up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations — existing only on paper — that were used to manufacture tens of thousands of phony ballots. US officials have criticised his “mafia-like” control of southern Afghanistan. The New York Times reported that the Obama administration had vowed to crack down on the drug lords who permeate the highest levels of President Karzai’s administration, and they pressed President Karzai to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, but he refused to do so. "Karzai was playing us like a fiddle," Schweich wrote. "The US would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure development; the US and its allies would fight the Taliban; Karzai's friends could get richer off the drug trade. Karzai had Taliban enemies who profited from drugs but he had even more supporters who did." But who was playing who like a fiddle?

    Was it the puppet President or the puppet masters who installed him? As Douglas Valentine shows in his history of the War on Drugs, The Strength of the Pack, this never-ending war has been a phony contest, an arm wrestle between two arms of the US state, the DEA and the CIA; with the DEA vainly attempting to prosecute the war, while the CIA protects its drug-dealing assets.

    During the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, European powers (chiefly the UK) and Japan used the opium trade to weaken and subjugate China. During the Twenty-First century, it seems that the opium weapon is being used against Iran, Russia and the former Soviet republics, which all face spiralling rate of addiction and covert US penetration as the Afghan War fuels central Asia’s heroin plague.

    Dr John Jiggens is the author of “The killer cop and the murder of Donald Mackay”.



  • The Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" video shook an apathetic and misled public awake with images of civilian killing in the chaotic streets of Baghdad in July 2007. US forces wounded two small children and killed over a dozen people including members of the media. Two soldiers from the company involved in the shooting incident have written a letter of reconciliation and apology to the people affected by the incident, which is published below. -Matt Renner.

    An Open Letter of Reconciliation and Responsibility to the Iraqi People: From Current and Former Members of the US Military

    Peace be with you,

    To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the "Collateral Murder" Wikileaks video: We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses. We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions. There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize what we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.

    We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region. We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us. More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.

    Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the values of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity. We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders, and to extend our hands to you. With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.

    Solemnly and Sincerely,
    Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
    Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army


    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

    The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration. Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.

    General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration. Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

    He also claimed that one reason Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because “the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were”. This was “not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department]”. Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.” He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”. He added: “I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.”

    Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld, Colonel Wilkerson said, deemed the incarceration of innocent men acceptable if some genuine militants were captured, leading to a better intelligence picture of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration was desperate to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, “thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country”. He signed the declaration in support of Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials. Defenders of Guantánamo said that detainees began to be released as early as September 2002, nine months after the first prisoners were sent to the jail at the US naval base in Cuba. By the time Mr Bush left office more than 530 detainees had been freed. A spokesman for Mr Bush said of Colonel Wilkerson’s allegations: “We are not going to have any comment on that.” A former associate to Mr Rumsfeld said that Mr Wilkerson's assertions were completely untrue.

    The associate said the former Defence Secretary had worked harder than anyone to get detainees released and worked assiduously to keep the prison population as small as possible. Mr Cheney’s office did not respond. There are currently about 180 detainees left in the facility.




    nuclear missile The US and UK lost three nuclear weapons each! - Part 1

    Part 1 - What went missing on President George H.W. Bush's Watch?

    UK, March 1, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) -When one reads about the pressure that the US and UK Governments put on such countries as Iran and North Korea I find it hard to believe that they themselves are so negligent in taking care of their own weapons. I also find it so hard to believe that they have such high moral standards when trying to stop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) but are prepared to use such evil weapons themselves. Readers may find it incredible to know that as a result of their gross neglect three US nuclear missiles went missing without trace and have now ended up in the hands of someone else which now adds concern as to how such an event could ever happen. The story doesn't stop there because three nuclear weapons that should have gone to the US for decommissioning were purchased in a very shady way by the British Government and they also went missing without trace and have also ended up in the hands of someone else.

    You might ask how come we never knew about these two incidents and why was it kept so secret? I can also tell you that much more went on and the United Nations were never informed. So who was involved in this pathetic fiasco and why was it kept so secret? Could it be that shonky deals went on under the table and some political parties or individuals had their palms brushed with gold? I am sure that by now your eyes are glued to this article just waiting to hear how such an event could every happen, who was implicated and who benefited from this sordid deal. One thing I can say is that you can be rest assured that no one really knows where they are now or who could use them and because of this any action taken by the west without due consideration could prove to be a catastrophic mistake. Let's go back in time during the period when SRAM Nuclear Missiles were fully developed and ready to be used. This missile in actual fact became fairly unstable under certain conditions and agm-69a-3 eventually were pulled out of service (or so we thought). So let's take a look at this terrible weapon and fully understand it background and how many of these could be carried aboard a B52 Bomber. The SRAM (short range attack missile, AGM 69A). The air-surface missile at the time of going missing contained a Plutonium Warhead W69M (200KT thermo-nuclear). The AGM69A missile was first manufactured in 1971 - 1976 and around 1,500 were produced. There were retired over a period of time between 1991 - 1994 although there were initially removed from active service in 1990 due to fire safety concerns. This concern however did not stop the continued operational usage.

    Unknown to the United Nations and many other countries the US were playing a cat and mouse game with Iraq during Gulf War 1 and it was on President George H.W. Bush's watch that things went terribly wrong during one of his major bluffs! He had authorized a B52 Bomber to depart its Saudi Arabian Air Base loaded with SRAM Nuclear Missiles and position overhead Baghdad. We were led to believe that this aircraft only had three missiles onboard; despite the fact it could carry twenty missiles. The idea Bush had in mind was to threaten Saddam with these nuclear weapons unless he toed the line. The B52 with a registration number of 59-2593 suddenly encountered a major electrical problem which could have been catastrophic. The aircraft commander was instructed to head south as he continued to attempt to sort out the problem.

    The aircraft eventually was instructed to head for Diego Garcia in the north of the Indian Ocean. Well into this flight things started to become more critical and the crew were very much aware of their cargo of potentially unstable weapons. The decision was made to jettison the weapons off the coast of Somalia in relative shallow water (one would assume for possible later recovery), and then proceeded on to land at Diego Garcia. The onboard electrical system had obviously become extremely critical resulting in the aircraft losing power to its eight engines as it attempted to get back to Diego Garcia. The aircraft started to lose height and prior to arriving at the field some crew members ejected. The aircraft by this time had dropped to below its safe ejection height and the remainder of the crew ejected but failed to deploy their chutes and consequently died. The aircraft crashed into the sea 15 nautical miles north of the field on the 3rd of February 1991. Dick Cheney was US Secretary of Defense and did not take any immediate action to recover these weapons from off the coast of Somalia at the time and consequently they were recovered by another shonky organization in May 19991 who were supposed to be a deep sea diving/ treasure salvage team who were working in the offshore Somalia area. This diving company was operating out of the Seychelles and apparently was a cover up for a South African arms smuggling operation into Somalia. The apartheid-era South African military were sending packages of conventional arms destined for groups in Somalia, and dropping them in shallow water. The divers couldn't find these packages and had to broaden their search and accidently then came across the SRAMs. They allegedly relayed their serial numbers via the UK to a retired senior officer in the USAF to find out what they were. The news from the senior officer was that these were nuclear munitions from the B-52. I should point out at this stage that the South African arms dealer was also involved in the missing UK nuclear weapons which we shall address in Part 2 of this series.

    The group communicated with South Africa's defense minister, Magnus Malan who was notoriously known for his under the table arms dealings. He met the group in South Africa but told them that the deal was off as he had just been fired by De Klerk. The trail of these weapons then faded into obscurity and no one really knows there final destination. There was talk of North Korea, Iran, Syria and Iraq but we may never know. What is fact is that at one stage some nuclear weapons did end up in Iraq(US or British)but were then relocated. I feel that in actual fact one did make it to North Korea and was detonated in one of their first tests. The second test in North Korea was totally different and could have been one of the UK's missing weapons. Should this be the case then we still have two US missiles missing and possibly two UK bombs but that's another story. There is one thing for sure that almost certainly happened and that is that the South African arms dealer ended up with much gold in his vault and other persons in the US and UK would have also had their palms brushed. Certainly in the UK senior and junior political figures became involved in both the Tory and Labour parties and much money to this day has not been accounted for. The greatest concern out of all of this gross neglect by the US and UK governments is one simple question.......who has got these weapons now? That is why the US, UK and dear old Israel had better watch their step when making bold threats to other countries as they may well get a very nice surprise!!......oh and please be careful when you place your vote this year as two current leaders have an awful lot of secrets they don't want you to know......especially in their very secretive donations file! Keep watching this space for more riveting news!


    International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice And Gonzales; International Arrest Warrants Requested

    Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.

    The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C.C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states.

    The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally “submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3). For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused’s criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition,” which the Obama administration has continued to implement.

    The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b)(iii). In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or email as indicated below.

    Francis A. Boyle
    Professor of International Law
    Law Building
    504 East Pennsylvania Avenue
    Champaign, Illinois 61820
    Phone: 217-333-7954 - Fax: 217-244-1478



    No one can honestly believe that ANYTHING will come from the Chilcot Inquiry. Blair will be before a committee made up of the UK's establishment types who will give the impression they are on the side of the many families who lost relatives in the Iraq war and the thousands of innocent victims of the British and American shock and awe bombardments . These tactics weren't done to bring down Saddam but more to do with weakening Iraq for a take over and the stripping of the oil reserves to prop up the failing western economies.


    Blair branded a coward as he refuses to face public and sneaks into Iraq inquiry two hours early Judgment Day as Tony Blair snuck into the Iraq inquiry early, avoiding a gauntlet of hate from protesters Tony Blair was branded a coward today after sneaking in to the Iraq inquiry and avoiding a gauntlet of hate through protesters. The former prime minister was two hours early for his six-hour grilling over why he took Britain to war, which has been described as his 'Judgment Day'.

    As protesters massed brandishing placards declaring 'Bliar' and 'Jail Tony', he was driven into the inquiry building via a cordoned-off rear entrance at 7.30am. The demonstrators - who included fashion designer Katherine Hamnett - were furious at being denied the opportunity to bait Mr Blair. Lindsey German, of the Stop the War Coalition, said she was 'appalled'.

    The Inquiry committee members are Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.

  • 'You're a liar and murderer': Blair booed after telling Iraq inquiry he has no regrets

    Today is UN International Holocaust Remembrance Day, but why do we only remember this one event, when so many other holocausts have taken place? Think Armenia, Rwanda, the Congo, Cambodia, Sudan, Iraq, etc. Why such a high-profile focus on this one holocaust, while the many other holocausts never get a mention?

    I myself have always held great respect for the suffering of the Jewish people during the war, and many times have reflected on some of the locations where they were publically executed. I also allocated a special time to visit the Ann Frank house in Amsterdam on one of my many trips to the Netherlands. But it seems that whenever there is any incident or conflict concerning Israel, we are almost forcibly reminded of the sad events that took place those many years ago. It is used as a sort of diversionary tactic, as if to say "hey, listen we are only protecting our existence after what happened to our people during the Holocaust." It's as if this is an excuse for the Israelis to do whatever they want today, because they were the victims of such a terrible crime during WW2. This mindset is terribly wrong and it is time to bring some logic back into the world. It's perfectly natural for every nation to remember its dead or to have a day of remembrance for such events. But to have this particular Holocaust rammed down our throats, continuously, day after day, is not only an abuse of the very principal of remembrance, but also a manipulation of current politics, economics and military actions throughout the world.

    Let's take a closer look at some facts: As we all know, around 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust -- not just by direct execution, but also from malnutrition, hypothermia, diseases,etc. Compare those numbers to the Democratic Republic of Congo, where around 5.4 million have died as of 2006. And the conflict there is still ongoing. In other countries in the region, the numbers of dead due to conflict (directly or indirectly) also are high: Rwanda, about 1 million; Sudan, 2-3 million; Somalia, at least 1 million; Cambodia, almost 2 million; Vietnam, 2 million; and, more recently, in Iraq, more than 1 million. Afghanistan is showing the same trend. Let's also reflect on the two world wars. An estimated 1 million people were killed in Russia during WW!, and 10 million more in WW2. In total, the number of people killed in WW2 was 60 million. Obviously, we could spend every day, every week, every month creating a Holocaust theme and remembrance day for those countries, but we don't. However, for some strange reason we are told repeatedly about "The Holocaust" as if the one that occurred for the Jews is the only one that counts. One must ask the Israelis if their holocaust justifies the genocide they are visiting on the Palestinian people?

    While talking of genocide, I would also wish to point out that the US, UK, NATO and IOF forces are using WMDs -- weapons that contain uranium components. They were first used by the IOF in the Yom Kippur War in October 1973, and they have been used on a regular basis since that time. They have been used extensively in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Gaza, and I believed they are now being used in Somalia and Yemen. In using these weapons, we are inflicting another, indirect genocide on millions of people -- not only in the areas of conflict but also in adjacent countries. It is a genocide that will reveal itself slowly, through the contamination from radioactive materials carried via the wind. Our own troops have been exposed as well. The respective leaders and governments that allow their usage must also be classified as war criminals. What I also find fascinating is my discovery of a poster outside an Islamic NGO promoting this special day, along with an exhibition inside that remembers the victims of the Holocaust. I know that pressure was applied to this NGO to participate in this remembrance. This is very wrong.

    So, on this UN International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I would hope that people all over the world also give some thought to those millions of others who have died under similar conditions who do not receive the same global attention. They also under terrible oppression and in some cases just as brutally. I would urge all Israelis or any Jewish citizen to visit the DRC, Rwanda or Cambodia, etc. and try to understand that what happened in Europe has been repeated all over the world. In fact, it is still going on today, to the Palestinians. Is there really any difference?

    Peter Eyre - Middle East Consultant




    blair mask Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.

    The former British prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003, told the BBC he would "still have thought it right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region. Lawyers representing the deposed Iraqi leadership said they would seek to prosecute Blair following his remarks, while one newspaper commentator said it was a "game-changing admission" for the ongoing official inquiry into the war. Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix added: "The war was sold on the WMD, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of deployment of arguments, as he said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up."

    Blair is due to give evidence to the inquiry into the war, led by former civil servant John Chilcot, early next year, and the commentator in the Sunday Telegraph said the investigation's focus must now change. "Mr Blair's game-changing admission gives them a licence to be tougher and more prosecutorial," he wrote, a call echoed by campaigners at Stop the War Coalition, who urged Chilcot's inquiry to recommend legal action against Blair. Professor Philippe Sands, a leading international lawyer, said he believed Blair's comments had left him vulnerable to legal proceedings.

    "The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose him more rather than less to legal difficulties," Sands told The Sunday Herald. A lawyer for Saddam Hussein's jailed former deputy prime minister, Tareq Aziz, wrote to Britain's top legal adviser Saturday asking permission to prosecute Blair for war crimes. In a statement Sunday, Giovanni di Stefano said the former prime minister's comments were an admission that "his aim was regime change. That is without question unlawful and subject to criminal proceedings".

    In the absence of explicit UN approval, Blair justified the war on the basis of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and long-range missiles and its non-compliance with UN weapons inspections, in defiance of numerous UN resolutions. The alleged chemical and biological weapons were never found, but Blair said he would have gone to war even if he had known they were not there. "I would still have thought it right to remove him (Saddam Hussein). Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat," he said.

    He added: "It was the notion of him as a threat to the region, of which the development of WMD was obviously one, and because you'd had 12 years of United Nations to and fro on this subject, he used chemical weapons on his own people -- so this was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind." Nick Clegg, leader of the centre-left Liberal Democrats, accused Blair of "breathtaking cynicism", while David Cameron, the leader of the main opposition Conservatives, said he was "quite surprised" at the remarks. While Saddam Hussein had violated many UN resolutions and was "a menace" to the region, Cameron -- whose party backed the invasion -- noted that Blair had put a "huge amount of weight on the WMD argument" to justify war.

    A poll published three days before the invasion found widespread British support for military action as long as it was backed by the United Nations and there was proof Iraq had WMDs. Without these conditions, support plummeted to 26 percent. Cameron also called for Blair to give his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry in public, amid reports that closed door hearings were planned. An inquiry spokesman denied this, saying Blair would appear "very much in public".