Disciple of US-Anglo NATO Capitalist Mercenary - Propaganda for War on Russia

Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-war-nato-richard-shirreff-485818   War With Russia Looms, Says Former NATO General in New Book By Alexander Nazaryan On 8/1/16 at 4:03 PM The first female president of the United States faces her first major international conflict: Seeking to consolidate the Slavic nations of Eastern Europe, Russia has seized the three Baltic states—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia—all members of NATO. That requires a response beyond just a caustic tweet or sharply worded press release. For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, there is serious talk of nuclear war.  [COMMENT:  Shameless US-Anglo capitalist establishment warmonger Russophobe propaganda. The laughable reference to the 'first female president' is reference to just another Wall Street puppet, irrespective of the sex organs of the puppet; much like the first black puppet neocon-exploited-PR-appointment Wall Street owned president, with the weekly CIA 'kill list' and the joke Nobel Public Opinion Manipulation 'Peace Prize' pretzel. Russia is not the aggressor in Eastern Europe.  The aggressor is, in fact, the US-Anglo capitalist empire and the Baltic states mentioned are vassals of the US-Anglo capitalist empire, thanks to their stupid neocon Washington puppet capitalist serving elites, who happen to be destroying their own countries: (1) subordinating the interests of their individual nations to the interests of US-Anglo capitalism;  (2) courting nuclear incident with Russia and (3) filling their indigenous European nations with third world hordes, either displaced by US-Anglo capitalist military interventions across the globe or just looking for a better standard of living than in third world sh*tholes, exploited by capitalist and by corrupt third world leaders, while the population growth in those regions has exploded over decades of redirecting Western taxpayer resources to third world aid and economic enslavement.    The fantasy propaganda piece by British ex-NATO capitalist mercenary commander refers to 'nuclear war'; but if there is a nuclear incident, it will be because of the US-Anglo capitalist mercenary aggressor's threat to Russian national security, planted on Russia's doorstep.  ] This is the basis of 2017 War with Russia, the unsettling new book by General Sir Richard Shirreff, who retired in 2014 as NATO’s deputy supreme commander of Europe, as well as its highest-ranking British officer. Although 2017 is technically a novel, this “future history” is really just a war game on the printed page, its preoccupations much closer to those of von Clausewitz and Churchill than those of Woolf or Wordsworth. Shirreff’s book is subtitled “An urgent warning from senior military command,” and he makes plain in his introduction that the novel’s primary intention is to convey the urgency of containing Russian President Vladimir Putin. He likens today’s Mother Russia to Germany in the late 1930s, when it seized the Sudetenland in brazen contravention of established borders. War-weary Europe let the matter slide, hoping that talk of a Thousand Year Reich was just bluster.  [COMMENT:  what a stupid c*cksucker this d*ckhead is.  Does he actually think anyone is dumb enough to fall for this 'contain Putin' US-Anglo capitalist serving shite?  The only 'Nazis' are the US-Anglo capitalist elites and their sponsored politicians and mouthpieces, the assh*les.  The same US-Anglo capitalists destroyed Europe in their WWII capitalist war on Europe.  Look what they have done to indigenous Europe since:  they are the enemies of all Europeans.  ] “I’m worried, very worried, that we’re sleepwalking into something absolutely catastrophic,” Shirreff tells me, speaking on a Friday evening from his home in Hampshire, in the bucolic country outside of London. A graduate of Oxford who served in the British army, with deployments in the Middle East and the Balkans, he is not a natural writer, so the judgment of the Financial Times—that this is a “literary disaster”—is not as stinging as it might otherwise be, since that same review praised Shirreff’s grim geopolitical vision as one of “profound importance.” 2017 is an unabashedly didactic work, a real-life warning with the bold-faced names changed. [COMMENT:  this US-Anglo capitalist filth had no right to interfere in the Balkans.  Russia is just another Balkans for the US-Anglo capitalist scum, and they're not 'sleepwalking' into anything:  they are deliberately provoking a military incident with Russia, so that they can drag Russia into war and destroy Russia, like they have destroyed the Balkans and the Middle East, while destroying indigenous Europe.  ] The novel opens with the Russians staging an attack on a school in Donetsk, the breakaway region of the Ukraine controlled by pro-Kremlin separatists since 2014. Close to 100 children are killed, and Ukrainian forces are blamed, thus giving the Russians the perfect pretext for further aggression. Russia used a similar ploy—the bombing of several apartment buildings in Moscow in 1999—to begin the first Chechen War. But let’s not give Putin too much credit: He likely learned the tactic from Hitler, who was probably behind the Reichstag fire of 1933, which allowed the Nazis to eliminate political opponents before moving on to more grandiose aims. [COMMENT:  this is so perverse.  The CIA puppet Ukraine is responsible for killing children and other civilians in east Ukraine, while NATO has a long history of war crimes and child murder.      INSERT http://www.infowars.com/there-is-a-special-place-in-hell-for-clinton-operative-albright/ There is a “Special Place in Hell” for Clinton Operative Albright  The 17th anniversary of Bill Clinton's illegal bombing of Yugoslavia Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - March 27, 2016 Back in February, the former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton said “there’s a special place in hell” for women who do not vote for Hillary Clinton. Madeleine Albright made the remark during a campaign stop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Last Thursday marked the 17th anniversary of NATO’s illegal bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Bill Clinton’s reign. The attack—38,400 sorties, including 10,484 strike sorties—lasted 78 days and destroyed infrastructure, commercial buildings, schools, health institutions, media houses and cultural monuments. NATO “deeply” regretted killing at least seventeen people when a bomb hit a bus packed with women and children. It also supposedly regretted killing fifteen people after it targeted a hospital with a cluster bomb and killed three diplomats at China’s embassy in Belgrade. After Serbian television criticized Albright and Clinton, it was bombed as well, killing sixteen people. Democrat Bernie Sanders “begrudgingly” voted to attack Yugoslavia. “If anyone thinks there is a simple solution to this problem, then you know very little about this problem,” he said recently in defense of his decision. “The [1999] bombing war violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent ‘Polish atrocities’ against Germans,” writes William Rockler, former prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. [Comment:  this was a kangaroo court. ] In 2013 Albright admitted the bombing was illegal. “When you ask if that is legal—honestly, to go back to Kosovo, system kind of said that what we did there was not legal, but was fair,” she said. Albright is known for her enthusiastic support of mass murder and war crimes. Asked about economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that led to the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children, Albright said in 1996: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” Clinton, like Albright, supports mass murder as a foreign policy tool. In October 2000, The New York Times reported Clinton “cited American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as examples of foreign engagements she favored on moral and strategic grounds.” Clinton urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia without congressional approval and said what “do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” In 2008 she defended her vote to invade Iraq and kill 1.5 million people. She accused the late Tim Russert of getting all “Jesuitical” when he pointed out her support for Bush’s “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” Now that she is running for president Clinton tells her supporters she “made a mistake, plain and simple” when she voted to kill. CONTINUED http://www.infowars.com/there-is-a-special-place-in-hell-for-clinton-operative-albright/ F*ck you, General Sir Richard Shirreff, you filthy propagandist dog.  F*cking US-Anglo capitalist filth is forever backing crazy religious extremist militia murderers across the globe, and backed the Chechen Islamic terrorists.  It is therefore the US-Anglo capitalist filth that is responsible for the spread of Medieval religious and political terrorism across the globe.   Fancy dragging Adolf Hitler into this in an attempt to smear the president of Russia, when the US-Anglo empire is responsible for more destruction, murder and war crimes across this planet during the imperialist exploitation of numerous foreign peoples, and during Chinese Opium Wars, the Boer War, during WWI, during WWII, and for decades since WWII, than the Third Reich German targets of global capitalism who were subject to US-Anglo capitalist brutal and criminal torture-confessions, disposed of in the multiples of thousands by starvation on the banks of the Rhine, and otherwise sent into slavery by the capitalists, who occupied and continue to occupy the defeated German state; US-Anglo capitalists who presided over the starvation, 'de-Nazification' and rape of Germans, and US-Anglo capitalists who have enslaved the German people whose heritage has since been assigned to invaders.  But it's Hitler that's the 'bad guy', say the capitalist war criminals.  Eyeroll.   ] BACK TO http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-war-nato-richard-shirreff-485818   War With Russia Looms, Says Former NATO General in New Book By Alexander Nazaryan On 8/1/16 at 4:03 PM  .... CONTINUED  The Ukrainian operation is only the start. Putin—his identity is very lightly disguised by Shirreff, as is that of Hillary Clinton, though he says she wasn’t necessarily his model for the American president—has his eyes on the Baltics, which Russia has long regarded as its birthright. The Kremlin is bolstered by a conviction that Western Europe and the United States will do anything to avoid the use of force. “The West may have great economic capability, but they think only of social welfare,” one Kremlin adviser says in 2017. “They have forgotten to stand up for themselves.”   [COMMENT:  what was the illegal Iraq War?  Oh, please, what a load of sh*t.  As if the US-Anglo and associated capitalists and their NATO mercenary force are shy of using lethal (and illegal force), and it's this same capitalist aggressor scum that has trained long-range missiles on Russia, from Russia's borderlands.    What kind of d*ckhead would put his name to this ludicrous propaganda?  ] When I spoke to Shirreff, he lamented the ease with which Russia invaded both Georgia (2008) and the Ukraine (2014). “That was a slick, very professionally executed operation,” he says of the conquest of Crimea, one that Putin may well try to replicate in the Baltics, given how little genuine resistance he encountered from the West two years ago. “Russia despises weakness and respects strength,” Shirreff tells me. It’s no accident that, every few months, the nation goes agog over images of Putin, stolid and shirtless, wrestling a bear or cuddling with a Siberian tiger.   [COMMENT:  Shirreff doesn't know what he's talking about, or he pretends not to know, for the sake of disseminating warmongering propaganda against the Russians.  Russia did not invade Ukraine.  The invasion of Ukraine is by US-Anglo capitalism that executed the CIA coup in Ukraine. Looks like Shirreff is taking a leaf out of the Israeli military doctrine, contending that "Russia despises weakness ..."; in an Israeli-styled ideological and propaganda move, laying the groundwork for 'justification' of the use of highly aggressive military force (be it pre-emptive or disproportionately aggressive, as a military doctrine). Yes, let's train missiles on Russia, because social media has taken a liking to splicing images of Putin on a bear ... what a d*ckhead, Shirreff is.  ] Until a few weeks ago, most American readers of 2017 would not have thought twice about the preface by James Stavridis, the now-retired American admiral who served as the NATO Supreme Commander of Europe. But in July, media outlets reported that Stavridis was being seriously considered by Clinton as her vice presidential candidate. If he is to serve as an advisory role in her presidency, his view of Russia would be useful. And as presented here, that view is utterly unambiguous: “Of all the challenges America faces on the geopolitical scene in the second decade of the 21st century, the most dangerous is the resurgence of Russia under President Putin.” When Mitt Romney said as much during his 2012 presidential bid, he was mocked for stoking anachronistic Cold War fears. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” President Obama said glibly of Romney’s warning. [Comment:  who gives a rat's what that Wall Street PR appointment is mouthing off, with a Wall Street hand up his capitalist-serving ass.  This Wall Street serving rat, and the interests he represents, is a danger to all Europeans.  The danger here is capitalist aggressors Washington, London and Brussels.  ] But the 1980s actually saw the rise of nuclear disarmament, as well as a broader thawing of Russo-American relations. This moment, the one we live in, feels closer to the 1960s, with American missile defense shields rising in the former Soviet bloc countries of Romania and Poland, as well as military exercises that seem like preparations for the real deal. Annoyed by such exercises in Eastern Europe conducted by NATO, a Kremlin senior official put the matter as bluntly as one of Shirreff’s characters: “If NATO initiates an encroachment—against a nuclear power like ourselves—it will be punished.” This kind of bluster could easily have come from the Kremlin of Khrushchev, as both sides prepared for mutual assured destruction. [COMMENT:  why is stating the obvious consequence of threatening Russia's national security 'bluster' or likened to the Shirreff novel propaganda, Newsweek? US-Anglo capitalist mercenary NATO is hardly preparing for 'mutual assured destruction', as Washington is probably quite safe, being situated well away, across the Atlantic. US-Anglo capitalist NATO is preparing for destruction of Russia and I hope the Russians nuke Europe off the f*cking face of the Earth if there is an incident, so that there is nothing capable of growing on European soil for the next 1000 years of radiation emanating from a nuclear wasted crater in what once was indigenous Europe.  That's how I would be handling any threat to Russia (and/or indigenous Europe).  ] I spoke to Shirreff just days after hackers universally believed to be associated with the Kremlin broke into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, a breach the director of national intelligence called “a version of war” (though he also tried to temper suggestions that Russia was at fault). Donald Trump openly encouraged further such incursions, as long they helped his quest for the White House. [COMMENT:  more propaganda.  The hackers are not 'universally believed to be associated with the Kremlin"; that is just the propaganda from the US-Anglo capitalist authorities and capitalist-controlled corporate media. ] When I first spoke with Shirreff, he declined to comment on Trump’s overtures to the Kremlin, but by the next morning, he’d changed his mind and sent me an email that said, in part: “What could suit Putin better than to embarrass the Democrats and so propel into the White House a candidate who has undermined NATO’s doctrine of collective defence by raising questions over America’s willingness to support an ally if attacked?” He was referring to Trump’s suggestion that the United States would not come to the aid of NATO allies who hadn’t made the requisite defense expenditures. [COMMENT:  LMAO.  Now Trump the capitalist and the poster-boy of American capitalism is in league with the Kremlin?  LOL, sure he is.  Face facts:  nobody white and sane wants the Democrats and their program of destruction of white America, which is at a critical point and on the verge of going under at a purported 62% white demographic (probably much less, in reality).  The bet is the American public also doesn't want the costs of endless neocon wars in the Middle East, the enormous costs of bearing US capitalist mercenary NATO forces stationed around the world, or being lumbered with paying the price for American capitalist serving 'free' trade agreements, that don't serve ordinary American interests.  Note also that Trump is merely referring to those nations that do not come up with the requisite military finances.  ] It is far more likely, according to most projections, that the next president will be Clinton, a longtime foe of Putin who has shown a willingness to use American force abroad. Shirreff believes that nuclear war with Russia is a possibility: Kaliningrad, a region of Russia that borders the Baltic States, now serves as a growing repository for both conventional and nuclear weapons, including Iskander missile systems that have nuclear capability and a range of 300 miles. These could be fired at the West—and will be, if Putin finds Russia’s borders with Europe threatened. Of course, if he invades the Baltics, such a counterattack would be required by the “collective defense” doctrine of the North Atlantic Treaty, known as Article 5. “If NATO goes to war with Russia,” Shirreff says, “that means nuclear war.”  [COMMENT:  once again, if there is a nuclear event, it will be because US-Anglo capitalist mercenaries, NATO, are encroaching on Russia's borders and threatening Russian national security.  Please nuke them, Russia.  ] His solution is paradoxical: a show of strength and unity by NATO that would discourage any offensive moves on Russia’s part, so that NATO’s strength would never be tested. In other words, frighten Russia into acceptable, rational-actor behavior. Shirreff adds that Trump is “absolutely right” about many European nations failing to meet their financial obligations to NATO, even if the failed casino magnate couched his criticism in undue threats about abandoning treaty commitments. “Europe needs to step up to the mark,” Shirreff says. He also says the West needs to commit once more to a dialogue with Russia. That’s made harder by the fact that Russia is always sensitive to lectures from the West, resentful about perceived condescension from Europe and the U.S. Still, stony silence is unlikely to bring a resolution. “Communication” is what Shirreff hopes for, not war. “But it’s gotta be backed up by strength.” [COMMENT:  If I were Russian, and if I had nukes, I'd simply send all these capitalist oppressor assh*les nukes in a surprise suicide attack.   Death would be worth winning.    ] http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-war-nato-richard-shirreff-485818 General Sir Richard Shirreff born in Kenya in 1955 raised Kenya education:  England Exeter College, Oxford (Modern History) commissioned from Sandhurst 1978 regimental service was spent in Germany Canada United Kingdom Northern Ireland Gulf Hong Kong Brunei attended miscellaneous 'defence studies' courses appointed to various staff posts Yugoslavia commanded 7th Armoured Brigade 1999-2000 incl., forming the core of a multinational brigade in Serbian Kosovo commanded 3rd (UK) Division from 2005-2007 Iraq divisional HQ deployed as HQ Multinational Division South East in Iraq between July 2006 and January 2007 commanded on operations at every level from platoon to division included combat in the Gulf War of 1991 as a tank squadron leader counter-insurgency infantry ops role in Northern Ireland (three tours) counter-insurgency infantry ops role in Iraq counter-insurgency infantry ops role in in Serbian Kosovo qualified as a military parachutist in 2005 command of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in December 2007 preparing the Corps for deployment in support of ISAF oversaw the relocation of the Corps from Germany to the UK served as the 27th DSACEUR from 3rd March 2011 until 1 April 2014 http://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/Experts/Fellows/Gen.-Sir-Alexander-Richard-David-Shirreff http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/philip-hammond-tried-to-have-general-court-martialled-for-speaki/ Philip Hammond tried to have General court martialled for speaking out, it is claimed Tom Whitehead, Security Editor 18 May 2016 • 6:09pm Philip Hammond tried to have a senior General court martialled for speaking out over defence cuts, it is claimed. General Sir Richard Shirreff said the then Defence Secretary was furious that he had criticised the Government for “hollowing out” the Royal Navy. Sir Richard claimed Mr Hammond asked the head of the army to take “formal action” against him but was told that was not possible because, at the time, Sir Richard reported to Nato. The row boiled over in 2014 following comments made by Sir Richard as he stepped down as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of Nato, where he was the UK’s most senior officer. He said defence cuts meant the Royal Navy was being “cut to the bone” and it was a “hell of a gamble”. Mr Hammond, who moved to become Foreign Secretary later that year, went on television to dismiss the criticism as “nonsense”. But behind the public row, it is now claimed that Mr Hammond wanted further action taken against Sir Richard, which the General said would have amounted to a court martial. In his new book, which predicts war with Russia by next year, Sir Richard said he was summoned to the office of General Sir Peter Wall, then Chief of the General Staff (CGS), and told that the Defence Secretary had wanted “formal action!. “Formal action would have involved a court martial and, fortunately for the latter’s political reputation – it also seems he had not appreciated that I reported to Nato and not to him – wiser counsel had prevailed,” he wrote. At a press conference launching the book, Sir Richard added: “I was summoned to the  CGS office and told that he had headed off a potential discussion of formal action being taken against me. So that is fact.” Sources close to Mr Hammond dismissed the claim. A Whitehall source said: “No one recognises this claim, but this guy has made a series of outlandish claims over the years. “He's trying to sell a book, so we have to expect such outbursts. Previous comments were made as if the Ministry of Defence didn't have a financial black hole to tackle and as if he wasn't aware that the 2010 SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review) maintained the Army's ability to deploy a division size force." Sir Richard told the Telegraph on Tuesday that David Cameron and his Government had made the UK a “semi-pacifist” nation by its stance on not wanting to engage in foreign conflicts. On Wednesday, he said the situation had become so severe that he doubted Britain would not be able to engage in a war such as it did in Iraq in 2003.  “There is and has been a hollowing out of, a cutting away at muscle and damn well nearly at the bone, frankly, in UK defences which puts us now in a very, very different position from where we were even ten or 15 years ago,” he said. “I would question whether the UK could deploy a division for war. I think that’s highly unlikely. The notion of deploying a division for war as the UK did in Iraq in 2003 and in 1991 is frankly almost inconceivable.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/philip-hammond-tried-to-have-general-court-martialled-for-speaki/ Russia Contends With NATO Threat to Russian National Security LINK | here COMMENT This is an outrage.  How is it possible for an unelected military official attached to the US-Anglo capitalist mercenary organisation, NATO, to act to publicly undermine the policy of the elected British government, and to be able to do so with impunity, in pursuit of US-NATO capitalist warmongering agenda goals? The system is clearly broken.  LOL

Determined British Political Persecution of Australian Journalist

Determined British Political Persecution of Australian Journalist http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/24/uk-seeks-review-un-julian-assange-arbitrary-detention?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter UK seeks review of UN Julian Assange 'arbitrary detention' finding Foreign Office says United Nations panel’s conclusions are inaccurate and WikiLeaks founder is voluntarily avoiding arrest in embassy Esther Addley Friday 25 March 2016 03.12 AEDT The British government has formally asked a United Nations panel to review its finding that Julian Assange is “arbitrarily detained” in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, calling the opinion “deeply flawed”. In its first formal response to the finding of the UN working group on arbitrary detention, which published its opinion in February, the Foreign Office confirmed it would contest the finding, saying: “The original conclusions of the UN working group are inaccurate and should be reviewed.”  [Comment:  liars, manipulators, political persecutors and shameless propagandists.  The arrogance of these liars is astonishing:  they smear the independent UN expert panel's decision as "inaccurate" and trumpet in the media that it "should" be reviewed.  The cheek of these war criminals.  By the way, they should be tried for war crimes.   ] In a statement, the Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire said: “We want to ensure the working group is in possession of the full facts. Our request for a review of the opinion sets those facts out clearly. [Comment:  As Assange's lawyer says, the Foreign Office is not disputing the facts -- they've had ample opportunity to do so ahead of the Working Group's decision.  They're trying to publicly undermine the OPINION of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.   Bad sports and undemocratic political persecutors. ] “Julian Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK, and is in fact voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy. The UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden.”  [Comment:  Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained for over 5 and a half years, as determined by a UN panel of qualified legal experts, and these British Foreign Office weasels are now mounting an underhand campaign.   Assange was arbitrarily detained WITHOUT CHARGE,  by Britain and their colluding off-sider, Sweden, which has failed to proceed this farce of a legal 'case', pursuant to British Crown Prosecution Service advice to deny Assange an interview in Britain, and therefore an opportunity to defend himself ... so they can continue to pressure to extradict Assange to Sweden.   What scum.] The WikiLeaks founder has been confined to the embassy in London since July 2012, when he sought asylum in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations, which he denies.   [Comment:  This does not read quite right to me.  Assange SOUGHT POLITICAL ASYLUM FROM ECUADOR & WAS GRANTED POLITICAL ASYLUM BY ECUADOR BECAUSE JOURNALIST-PUBLISHER JULIAN ASSANGE WAS AT RISK OF U.S. POLITICAL PERSECUTION FOR HAVING EXPOSED US & ALLIED WAR CRIMES. ASSANGE WAS SUBJECT OF POLITICAL PERSECUTION & AT RISK OF BEING CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR POLITICAL REASONS, BY THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HAS CONDUCTED A MASSIVE, MULTI-AGENCY, UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION INTO ASSANGE & HIS ORGANISATION, WIKILEAKS. ASSANGE IS THE SUBJECT OF POLITICAL PERSECUTION AND A CONFIRMED U.S. GRAND JURY SEALED INDICTMENT TO TRY JULIAN ASSANGE FOR SEVERAL CAPITAL CRIMES IN U.S.A. HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE US GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO REDEFINE JOURNALISM AS 'ESPIONAGE' &  TO EXTENT AMERICAN JURISDICTION WORLDWIDE. Massive Coverup Exposed In Sweden As Media, Cops Hid Migrant Sex Attacks http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-11/massive-coverup-exposed-sweden-media-cops-hid-migrant-sex-attacks AND THIS IS WHAT THE SWEDISH AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN WHILE THESE DISGUSTING SWEDISH POLITICIAN WEASELS, THE SWEDISH POLICE & THE SWEDISH PRESS COVER UP RAPE, BRUTAL GANG RAPE, MASS RAPE & SEXUAL ASSAULT, AS WELL AS A HOST OF VIOLENT CRIMES REGULARLY & OVERWHELMINGLY PERPETRATED BY MIGRANTS AGAINST SWEDISH WOMEN AND GIRLS OVER DECADES, PARTLY DUE TO SWEDEN'S SUPPORT OF ENDLESS AMERICAN WARS & AN IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT ACCOMMODATES SAME. ] The international panel said on 4 February that it believed Assange’s confinement was arbitrary because of the length of time in bringing his case to resolution, citing in particular a “lack of diligence by the Swedish prosecutor in its investigations”.  [Comment:  It is not merely an 'international panel' it is a panel of highly qualified legal experts.   Furthermore, the panel does not 'believe' -- as if it were a matter of faith -- the expert panel has deliberated and DECIDED that Assange has been arbitrarily detained.] The government argues that the panel is not a judicial body and its findings are therefore not binding. “The working group’s opinion is deeply flawed and Mr Assange has never been the subject of arbitrary detention,” it said. “His human rights have been protected throughout the process and will continue to be protected if and when he is extradited to Sweden.”  [Comment:  The lying British government knows the expert panel's decision is binding, or else they would not have lodged a request for review. The violators of what are  'human rights', as defined and affirmed under international conventions, claim they do not violate such rights, even when found by a UN panel of experts as having actually violated Assange's rights by arbitrarily detaining him. But that is to be expected.  Of course, they will deny this and insist they are not violating his rights, as they continue to violate his rights and politically persecute him -- for so long as they can get away with this obscene and undemocratic act. Why isn't the newspaper discussing the outrageous political oppression and abuse by this undemocratic British regime?] Speaking shortly after the working group’s findings were published, Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, described them as ridiculous and said Assange was hiding from justice.   [Comment:  what's ridiculous is Britain having shielded Argentina's war criminal, dictator Augusto Pinochet, from being tried for war crimes.  Likewise, Britain is shielding Israeli politicians from arrest for war crimes -- eg. former Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni -- by granting diplomatic immunity from facing arrest in relation to war crimes allegedly committed in commission of military action against Gaza 2009 -- here.  Britain also managed to ignore its own parliamentary rules regarding a petition to arrest Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes: “It’s quite disappointing that the Parliament has refused to play by its own rules. The fact is that it’s a particular issue which receives over 100,000 signatures that ultimately allows to be debated on the floor of the House. The fact that it has been declined, gives rise to many questions,” said Anas al-Tikriti, chief executive of the Cordoba Foundation. [source] The British politicians NEVER PLAY BY THE RULES, and they lie as naturally as they breathe.   It's nothing but lies and more lies, in Britain's determined persecution of Australian journalist, Julian Assange. ]   Assange accused Hammond of insulting the UN, saying: “This is the end of the road for the legal arguments that have been put forward by Sweden and the UK.” Responding to the government statement, Melinda Taylor, a legal adviser to Assange, told the Guardian: “The fact that they have submitted this request for reconsideration undermines their previous assertion that they weren’t in any way bound to comply with its opinion.” She said that all the points made by the Foreign Office had been known to the working group before it gave its original opinion, and the UK had every opportunity to make its case and correct any factual errors before the opinion was published. “In the absence of any objective basis to seek reconsideration, this rebuttal appears to be an attempt to publicly undermine the working group’s opinion,” she said. The panel’s decision on whether or not to review its opinion will be made during its next session, beginning 18 April, the Foreign Office said. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/24/uk-seeks-review-un-julian-assange-arbitrary-detention?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter ---------------------- ---------------------- Support Assange J4A

UK - Will not join forces with Syria against Islamic State

Philip Hammond: We will not enter into a 'poisonous' alliance with Assad Foreign Secretary says that 'my enemy's enemy is not my friend' as he rules out sharing intelligence with Assad to take on Islamic State forces By Steven Swinford, Senior Political Correspondent 2:16PM BST 22 Aug 2014 Britain will not enter into a "poisonous" alliance with Syria in its fight against Islamic State forces, the Foreign Secretary has said. Ministers have faced calls from Tory MPs and military leaders to liaise with Bashaar al Assad's government on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend". However Philip Hammond has ruled out an alliance with the Syrian regime because it would "poison" Britain's relationship with moderate Sunnis. "We may very well find that we are aligned against a common enemy but it would poison what we're trying to achieve in separating moderate Sunni opinion from the poisonous ideology of Isil if we were to align ourselves with Assad." He made the comments after Lord Dannatt, the former chief of general staff, highlighted how David Cameron has been open to a relationship with Iran in dealing with the conflict. He said: "The old saying 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' has begun to have some resonance with our relationship with Iran. "I think it's going to have some resonance with our relationship with Assad. I think whether it is above the counter or below the counter, a conversation has got to be held with him. "Because if there are going to be any question of air strikes over Syria airspace it's got to be with the Assad regime's approval." Mr Hammond said that the government will review whether it provides moderate rebels fighting against the Syrian regime with weapons. France has already announced that it has been supplying them and accused Britain and the West of bearing a "heavy burden of responsibility" for failing to intervene a year ago. Mr Hammond also said that Britain will not put "boots on the ground" in Iraq. He said: "Putting western boots on the ground to fight would not only be something we would be very unlikely to get consent for but something that would not be helpful and has not been asked for. [...] EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11051137/Philip-Hammond-We-will-not-enter-into-a-poisonous-alliance-with-Assad.html

Bit of an interest in Middle East again.
Don't know what I'm on about, but I give it a shot understanding what's going on.  LOL.

Thought it a rather odd statement from Hammond - ie the 'poisonous' bit.

Take it he simply doesn't want to get moderate Sunni Muslims off-side by getting on-board with Assad?

Given the mention of Iran, checked to see where they stand.  Iran is Shia, so it's not Iran that's the issue?

Anyway, the statement didn't sound too friendly to me and I wonder why.  What's the problem with Syria?

Looking at the article again, he's referring to the ISIL ideology as 'poisonous', so the headline is a bit misleading even though he said 'poison' to what UK is trying to achieve.

The word poison reminded me of the chemical warefare accusations against Syria.  From what I understand, Syria has been cleared.  It has in fact been suggested in a rather impressive article that I read just yesterday, I think it was, that the chemical projectile was a CIA job (if I understood correctly).

That headline's really shitting me now.  Unless they haven't quoted Hammond entirely, he's not saying he's not entering into a 'poisonous alliance' - he is merely saying that an alliance would poison to the end result they're aiming for.  Even so, bit of an odd choice of words - not very diplomatic.  Or am I wrong?

I don't know if I'm over-analysing this.  It's getting like some brain twister.  LOL.

Anyway, no boots on the ground and no holding hands with Assad.

But the bit about providing moderate rebels with weapons has me confused.  Which ones?  If they're the rebels in Syria, isn't that in violation of the Assad regime's sovereignty?

Bear with me, I'm new and don't know what's going on.  LOL.

Anyway, I found it interesting.

Middle East

Losing a bit of interest in the middle east.  Too complicated and too hard to follow.

Current focus tends to be mostly on Ukraine.

However, I noticed that a heap of people (including Imran Khan) are planning on protesting in Pakistan over what they claim is rigged elections.

The government's troops/guards are going to square up to the protesters, so it could potentially get out of hand.

UK's Philip Hammond asked everyone to resolve things 'democratically', which struck me as rather lame and comic when things don't sound too democratic over in Pakistan.

Russell Brand's done another funny video; this time taking the piss out of some US wannabe-warmonger type of news presenter carrying on about ISIS.

Found it amusing mostly because the news guy's posturing carry-on actually is hilarious.

Don't have too many positive feelings about the middle east, though.

Middle east seems too warped to be fixed and it seems like there's no hope for anything over there.

The big story is a journalist (James Foley) has been beheaded.  

Did not read about it until some 'Who was James Foley' article popped up in front of me on twitter (where I've been wasting time lately).  Briefly skimmed over the article.  Looks like he's had a close call before.

Anyway, I wasn't game to look at the video because I find it disturbing to see a slow act of killing.  

It was only when I saw all these reports that it was being suppressed, that entertainers were calling on people not to look at it etc, that I thought I'll take a look (because they don't want me to look).

Went to LiveLeak (as twitter was allegedly blocking it).  First video off the rank was the blotted out face version.  Even so, I didn't get past a few seconds of it because I just couldn't handle knowing what was about to happen.  Does my head in.  Can't watch it even kind of screened off.

It is such a sick thing to do.  I can't understand how anyone would think this was an OK way to kill someone.  That sounds weird, because there's probably no really OK way to kill people.  But, anyway, if you're going to take someone's life, I don't understand the need to be really close, personal, bloodied, slow and sick about it.

That's why I don't think there is any hope.  There is no crossing that divide between middle east and west.

USA-OBAMA & UK-CAMERON - DENY UKRAINE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS - BOTH DESPICABLE

Readout of the President's Call with Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom By Newsroom America Feeds at 9 Aug 14:52 The President spoke this morning with UK Prime Minister David Cameron about the crises in Iraq and Ukraine, and the growing Ebola outbreak in West Africa. On Iraq, the two leaders agreed to provide additional, immediate humanitarian assistance, and to develop options that will secure the safety of the civilians on Mount Sinjar. They discussed efforts to counter the threat posed by ISIL against all Iraqis, and agreed on the need for Iraqi political leaders from all factions to put aside their differences and to form an inclusive government capable of pulling the country together. The President and Prime Minister also discussed the developing situation in Ukraine, and agreed that any Russian intervention in Ukraine, even under purported "humanitarian" auspices, without the formal, express consent and authorization of the Government of Ukraine is unacceptable, violates international law, and will provoke additional consequences. On Gaza, they condemned the resumption of rocket fire and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities leading to a sustainable cease-fire. President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron reiterated support for Israel's right to self-defense while emphasizing the need for all sides to minimize civilian casualties. Finally, regarding the growing Ebola outbreak, the two leaders welcomed the efforts of the World Health Organization, and vowed to increase the assistance provided by the U.S. and UK governments. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/09/readout-presidents-call-prime-minister-cameron-united-kingdom

Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:9 Russia Rejects UK Hammond's Biased Accusations on Ukraine Crisis TEHRAN (FNA)- Russian embassy in the UK rejected biased accusations of British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond over the crisis in Ukraine. “This statement (the Hammond's comments) is unjust, misleading and unacceptable. Russia did not supply and is not supplying weapons to Ukraine," the Russian embassy said in a statement on Saturday, Itar-Tass reported. “We are surprised that the Government of the United Kingdom denies humanitarian disaster in the Donbas region. Even if the media in UK by some unknown reason choose not to inform public on it, does not mean the appalling humanitarian disaster does not exist. Deliberate silence on that is nothing more than bias and distortion of facts," it added. “Despite previous international agreements, including provisions of the Geneva Statement of April 17 and the Berlin Declaration of July 2, Kiev continues a large-scale military operation in this region using heavy artillery, armored vehicles, Grad multi-launch missile systems, causing deaths of Ukrainian civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure," the statement further said. “According to the data of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 1367 people have been killed and 4087 people have been injured (of which 2589 were civilians, including 29 children) since the beginning of this operation. In total, there are about 3.9 million civilians in the area of military action. Vital infrastructure, including power supply and water supply, residential buildings are being destroyed. In some populated areas up to 80 percent of houses are destroyed. About 200,000 Ukrainians have no access to drinking water. In the last week, numbers of internally displaced people (112,000 people according to Ukrainian data) and refugees (163,000 according to Russian Federal Migration Service data) have drastically increased," it went on to say. “The most dramatic situation is in healthcare. About 70 percent of medical personnel were forced to evacuate to safer regions, but those who stayed are in mortal danger, because there is high risk for ambulances to be attacked,” the embassy said in the statement. “British Foreign Office statement does not represent the facts. It is aimed at misleading the international community and general public by pointing in the wrong direction. Instead, the UK should do something to make Kiev regime stop killing innocent civilians, prevent appalling humanitarian catastrophe and start inclusive real political dialogue with all Ukrainian parties." In a statement published on the UK government’s official website on August 8, the UK’s foreign secretary said there were no conditions for a humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Source - Fars News Agency - here.

What they are doing is backing the US puppet government of Ukraine that's shelling the East Ukraine people, in violation of international agreements -- and EVEN MORE DESPICABLE and beyond belief is that they DENY a humanitarian crisis and deny humanitarian aid to 3.9 million Ukrainians who are without everything we take for granted in an intact city.

There's dead; there's injured; there's few medics; there's 3.9 million people in a war zone; there's displaced; there's destroyed homes; there's destroyed infrastructure; there's 200,000 Ukrainians without drinking water.

And they smile sweetly and *deny* a humanitarian crisis.

That is just sick beyond belief.

On top of that, the press is either silent because it's (a) corporate owned or (b) silenced by the government of two nations who are known to conduct mass surveillance worldwide, conduct kidnappings and torture (rendition) jointly -- two representatives of government that no longer serve the people that voted for them and, instead, clearly serve global corporate interests.

Meanwhile, the average person lives in a police state, Obama and Cameron play global pirates and global cops, alongside unelected intelligence services that aren't even answerable to the government -- they're above it.

So who, exactly, is running US and UK?