by cameron | Jun 26, 2009 | geopolitics, Iran, Iraq
Seymour Hersh writing in The New Yorker magazine, July 2008:
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
(read the full story)
"… designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership".
The article goes on to say:
The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change.
Now think about the activities of the last couple of weeks. Starting to add up for you?
And who was running JSOC? General Stanley A. McChrystal, President Obama’s recently anointed Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan.
by cameron | May 2, 2009 | geopolitics
On a recent show, Jon Stewart said that he thought Harry Truman should have been tried as a war criminal for authorizing dropping nuclear bombs on the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He backed it up with some justification as to why the acts were just plain wrong. I cheered when I heard it because it’s very rarely that I hear Americans recognize the fact that the bombings were completely unjustified and a war crime of huge proportions. Even my American friends who are pro-justice and anti-war find it extremely hard to say “Yes, the bombings were wrong”. They justify it anyway they can.
Then, on last night’s show, he started by apologizing, saying he was wrong, and completely backing down!
You have to wonder what happened behind the scenes? I totally don’t believe his whole “Oh I knew it was wrong when I said it” shtick. The powers-that-be obviously came down on him HARD. But which powers? The Comedy Central powers? MTV? Viacom? And why? It’s not like Stewart doesn’t say lots of things that the elite don’t like on a nightly basis. Why this one statement?
If anyone can help me understand it, I’d appreciate it. Here’s Stewart talking about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
Here’s the segment where he backs down:
by cameron | Feb 2, 2009 | Cuba, Iraq, Podcast, US politics
When I was visiting my girl Chrissy in Seattle last October, I met her best friend Jed Montgomery. The four of us (including Jed’s partner Chris) had some vigorous debates about American politics. I was trying to make my point that for all of Obama’s intelligence and oratory, at the end of the day he’s a member of the Democratic Party. In the last 60 years, the Democrats have provided a pretty appalling list of Presidents:
Harry Truman – Among other things, authorized the only use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population in history
John Kennedy – Among other things, authorized the attempted invasion of Cuba, nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, was sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, etc.
Lyndon Johnson – Among other things, escalated the Vietnam war. Possibly implicated in the Kennedy assassination.
Jimmy Carter – Actually, a pretty good guy, defender of human rights.
Bill Clinton – Bombed and starved the people of Iraq, decided the best way to spend his days in the White House was to get blowjobs and stick cigars up an intern’s vag.
So… will Obama be another Jimmy Carter? Or… one of the others?
Anyway, Jed joins me on the show today to talk about our hopes and concerns for the Obama administration.
by cameron | Dec 15, 2008 | CIA, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, US politics
Were the Mumbai attacks a false flag operation co-ordinated by the CIA?
Perhaps, according to this post:
informationliberation – Pakistani Security Consultant Calls Mumbai Attacks A “Botched” False Flag
False flags ops happen regularly and are a standard technique for creating violence and then blaming it on your enemies. Hitler used it in the burning of the Reichstag. According to “Legacy Of Ashes”, the CIA has funded and organised quite a few over the last 60 years, in places such as Iran and Cuba, as well as in Chile and Zaire.
Why would the CIA want to escalate the conflict between India and Pakistan?
Well in recent months, there have been growing tensions between Pakistan and the USA, in large part because of continual US bombings on Pakistani territory which have resulted in the deaths of Pakistani soldiers. The USA claims it is attacking “terrorists” (the catch-all excuse for everything these days) but the reality is probably that they are using drones to locate and destroy Pakistan’s nuclear facilities, as part of their long-term plan to protect Israel, their most important military base in the middle east, from attacks by regional Islamic interests.
In the last couple of years, we’ve seen the USA agree to assist India’s nuclear program and Australia do a deal with India to sell them uranium, despite India’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Australia’s historical position to NOT sell uranium to any nation not signed up.
Musharaff, until recently the President/military dictator of Pakistan, was a strong puppet ally of the USA during their “War On Terror”, especially after Bush’s Undersecretary of State, Richard Armitage made the General an offer he couldn’t refuse… “either cooperate with us militarily, against the will of your own military, security service and people…and accept more than $10 billion over the next five years…or we will bomb you back to the stone age.”
Then, of course, we saw the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, just as she seemed poised to bring a new era of democratic leadership to Pakistan, one which might have significantly altered the view of them worldwide. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardar, won the election just after her death and is the current President, after Musharaff was finally abandoned by George Bush and faced impeachment. Last week, Bhutto was posthumously awarded a human rights prize by the U.N. As we know, the last thing the USA truly wants is democracy in places like Pakistan. History has taught them that when a nation like that (take Venezuela for example) gets a democracy, they start looking after their citizens first and USA corporations end up getting the rough end of the stick. One can only imagine what kind of quid pro quo Musharaff signed up for when he took the $10 billion. It looks like the current administation aren’t as keen to get raped by the IMF.
So – back to Mumbai. If – and I have no evidence for this, it’s just a thinking point – if the CIA orchestrated a false flag op, blamed it on Pakistani ISI, and got their press puppets around the West to spin out the Pentagon-written media releases, just like they did during the Iraq invasion, then it might be their way of sending a message to the Zardar administration – “Take the money – and give in to our demands – or else.”
by cameron | Jun 7, 2008 | Cuba, Iraq, US politics
So much for being “The Land Of The Free”: Human Rights Watch has just posted up the latest stats which show the USA incarcerates nearly 7 times the number of it’s citizens are other democracies such as the UK and Canada.
Statistics released today by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a branch of the US Department of Justice, show that as of June 30, 2007, approximately 2.3 million persons were incarcerated in US prisons and jails, an all-time high. This represents an incarceration rate of 762 per 100,000 US residents, the highest such rate in the world. By contrast, the United Kingdom’s incarceration rate is 152 per 100,000 residents; the rate in Canada is 108; and in France it is 91.
“The new incarceration figures confirm the United States as the world’s leading jailer,†said David Fathi, US program director at Human Rights Watch. “Americans should ask why the US locks up so many more people than do Canada, Britain, and other democracies.â€
He goes on to say even though the majority of drug users in America are white, the majority of people imprisoned on drug charges are black.
“The ‘war on drugs’ has become a war on black Americans.â€
So let’s see:
- America jails more of it’s people than any other country in the world (including Cuba, Iraq, Russia and China)
- America has more gun deaths per capita (by a huge margin) than any other country in the world.
- America has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world.
- America has financed more terrorism and supported more dictators than any other country in the world in the last century.
The question in my mind is: Is America the most violent country in the world? And why, when they have it so good?
