Video: George Galloway - Interviews Julian Assange re Chilcot Inquiry

WikiLeaks George Galloway Interviews Julian Assange re:  Chilcot Inquiry (Illegal Iraq Invasion 2003) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbBLow2lIrU Report mentioned in interview: UK Stability in Iraq Ops Report 2006 Leaked UK report damns Iraq war planning LINK: WikiLeaks Other telic:  'purposeful' 'telic' fm Gk. telikos, fm telos - 'end' http://www.thefreedictionary.com/telic Operation Telic = British military ops, invasion of Iraq 2003 to withdrawal of troops 2011.  British deployed 46,000 troops at outset of illegal invasion. [EDIT:  Wikipedia entry refers to initial troops but does not mention huge number of British troops sent to Iraq since 2003.  The Op Telic report refers to circa 80,000 British troops since February 2003 to (presumably) 2006 date of report (page 9).  Wikipedia info is from a 2011 BBC article that summarises the Iraq illegal war, and this article also only mentions the 46,000 UK troops, which may well have been the initial invasion force - but there is at least a total of 80,000 if not more British troops having been deployed to Iraq, judging by the 2006 report.  That's a stunning number.  But almost 50k soldiers sent to illegally invade another country is pretty impressive, as well.  So is spending £9.24 billion at taxpayer expense, while ONE MILLION BRITONS rely on FOOD BANKS and while the ESSEX POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED for years, risking public safety.  Wow. ]  Bulk of the British military mission ended by 2009.  Small number of British navy personnel remained to 2011.  British continue to remain involved in training and advisory mission in Iraq. Total cost of war to British taxpayer at £9.24 billion.  [Wikipedia] But there would be interest on that, so that can't be the full total.  Unless it's fixed interest credit from the bankers to the British?  LOL "US will have spent almost $802bn (£512.8bn) on funding the war by the end of fiscal year 2011" [BBC]  That's obscene.  America's infrastructure is crumbling. Summary / Understanding of  WikiLeaks Overview / Introduction ... and limited skimming of report: Report reveals UK govt secretly planning illegal Iraq war during 2002 Blair govt kept pending invasion ('TELIC') secret /  those privy were only inner circle officers & officials /  until 3 months prior to invasion of Iraq US 'ideological agenda' dominated / UK working to US timetable  [not sure what that is, apart from American capitalists wanting to illegally invade and rob Iraq]. UK secrecy meant that: 1.  military at large kept uninformed (to late 2002) 2. contractors vital to reconstruction & stabilisation of Iraq not contacted until end of invasion (Apr. 2003) Limited discussion and scope of planning re the following, as result: - strategy - logistics, resources etc - undertaking establishment of interim government - undertaking reconstruction - executing non-military tasks Further:  little finance requested for reconstruction purposes at commencement of post combat ops UK focus was therefore on resourcing Security Line of Operations (spending millions) and virtually nothing on the economic aspect, even though security depends on maintaining economic stability.  [Not sure what 'Security Line' of ops is.  Assume it is just gaining control of the country? ] Geneva Conventions are applicable to states (and their agents), as well as the military.  UK breached Geneva Conventions. Looks like US wasn't so big on being restricted by obligations of international law and human rights law, in terms of the onus to exercise proportionality and to limit 'collateral damage'. Interrogation of high value detainees was also an issue for UK staff embedded with coalition units in Iraq.  Not quite clear to me in which way (but I'm not familiar with this kind of thing).  Sounds like the interrogators needed lawyers. US and UK had no plan for contending with post Iraq invasion insurgency.  Americans thought they knew better and did not take suitable early counter-measures to Iraqi insurgency suggested in mid-2003 by the more savy British imperialist masters, who are widely experienced at invasion and suppression of local populations (and at recognising and quelling local uprisings), due to a history of hundreds of years of aggressive imperialist military activity (examples of British imperialist counter-insurgency experience:  Northern Ireland, Malaya and Kenya). [British Malaya  = Malay States (Malay Peninsula) + Singapore + Straits Settlements ] British applied techniques used in Northern Ireland to 'intelligence cells' in Iraq and some battle groups in Iraq used trained personnel, experienced in Northern Ireland (eg. info ops, psyops, media ops).  Not quite clear to me what 'intelligence cells' are, but I guess it's there in the report.  Dictionary look-up would indicate that these are 'terrorist cells' (ie probably small groups of organised Iraqi resistance to invasion of their homeland  [tfd]).  The dictionary meaning needs changing, by sound of things.  It should be 'resistance cells'. Those that took part described Iraq as exactly like Northern Ireland.  So what does that say about the British in Ireland?  [Ireland that's now been defeated by bankers and losing its culture and its mother tongue.] Note:  increase in violent incidents (late 2003) led to locals being able to gain support for insurgency.  That probably explains why insurgencies need to be suppressed quickly:  so support for insurrection does not spread.  Same goes for sh*tty local economy:  if economy is bad, locals will support insurgents.  That's where what I guess is money for bribes and money for pumping into the local economy is handy.  UK didn't come prepared for that. Note:  in the case of invasions or military interventions in failing or fragile states, such interventions will cause collapse of government.  Invaders need to be prepared to take on the work of government and invader military is not the best man for the job, unless it is for very short periods of time.  And maintaining various structures and stability is complicated:  there's government, humanitarian aid, the justice system and info ops that are on the agenda for future planning of invasions. LMAO ... capitalist invaders haven't got it right, after all the invasions committed in the name of US-Anglo Capitalism.  UK Capitalist report suggests that post invasion responsibilities need to be divvied up between the invaders before the invasion.  Basically, if the invaders don't coordinate their post invasion and military conflict control & stabilisation efforts with one another, re-establishing the state functions that they destroyed  will take longer and that will mean taking longer to pull out troops (probably making voters at home unhappy).  Re-establishing stability in destroyed nations takes years.  First 3 months of invasion are critical for the invaders, in terms of winning over the invaded masses. British soldiers became habituated to violence due to acceptance of high levels of violence, profoundly changing British soldiers that served in Iraq. British investigating in Iraq did a lame job of finding abuse:  out of 191 cases investigated, despite rising violence, classed only 5 cases as deliberate abuse. [*Not sure if 'TELIC' is also an acronym for something and, if so, what.] [*that's how I understood the WikiLeaks introduction to the leaked report ... but that's not necessarily 100%, as I haven't yet read much of this kind of material. ] More WikiLeaks re TELIC British Torture of Iraqis Daily Mail MoD admits troops assaulted nine Iraqi civilians at food depot The Ministry of Defence has admitted nine Iraqi men suffered unlawful assaults while being detained by British troops, it has been revealed. The men are bringing a claim for civil damages against the MoD for physical and sexual abuse they say they suffered at Camp Bread Basket, a food distribution depot near Basra, in May 2003. Three soldiers from the 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were court martialled, jailed and expelled from the Army in February 2005 for mistreating suspected looters in the incident, which led to the head of the Army apologising to the people of Iraq. Continued ... Daily Mail On A Tangent: *Enjoy reading the military tactical sort of info, but the same Capitalist Forces war machinery, that is applied by Capitalist government to invade and pillage foreign nations, can be applied to domestic populations in event of domestic insurrection.  That means domestic populations are really just another occupied people, who must do as the occupiers demand ... and domestic populations are empty-handed and they rely completely on the Capitalists (eg. urban populations dependent upon retail logistics etc, LIKE A BIG CAPITALIST FARM & MAN IS THE DOMESTICATED FARM ANIMAL, FOR THE CAPITALIST FARMER'S PROFIT. That is why there is never change, why hard-won gains for working classes can be wound back by politicians, why the masses are exploited (eg. crumbling infrastructure, services under-funded, medical services privatised etc, while the MASSES are indebted for GENERATIONS to bankers to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars spent by CAPITALIST-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENTS on WARS OF AGGRESSION ABROAD, primarily and vastly for the benefit of the wealthy capitalist class).  AND DUE to the fact that helpless domestic populations are OCCUPIED BY CAPITALISTS AND THEIR FORCES, all European domestic populations have their homelands invaded as a top-down implemented program of invasion — they can do nothing about.  For an example of how ineffectual protest is in what they refer to as 'democracy', look at the 1980s British miners' strikes and look at the might of the state:  police.   And that is just the police.  The state also has the military, that is well armed, experienced, habituated to violence and killing. CAPITALIST FARM HANDLERS AT WORK [CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE] Ambassador Bremer, please give us our medal back By Jon Perr  Wednesday Jun 18, 2014 · 4:31 AM AEST "This weekend, the architects of President Bush's disastrous Iraq war fanned out in what might be deemed Operation Iraqi Blame Shift. But of all the Republican efforts to make Barack Obama's the face of Bush's failure, perhaps none is more pathetic than that of L. Paul Bremer. On television and in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, Bremer blamed President Obama for the explosion of sectarian conflict unleashed by the removal of Saddam Hussein. That is about as disgusting a charge as Ambassador Bremer could make. After all, as Viceroy of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, Paul Bremer almost single-handedly destroyed the infrastructure of the Iraqi government and military. And for that, George W. Bush gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In his WSJ op-ed, Bremer writes about the implosion of Iraq as if we were never there.  Arguing for a perpetual American military presence ... ... with his aggressive de-Baathification of the government, privatization of state-owned businesses and the disbanding of the 400,000 man Iraqi army in May 2003, L. Paul Bremer was a one-man Sunni insurgency-generating machine. Or as Republicans are so fond of saying, he built that. " Continued http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/17/1307667/-Ambassador-Bremer-give-us-our-medal-back Listening to this right now ... even though I'm personally not remotely into the humanitarian, universalist philosophy of WikiLeaks. Still interesting in a number of respects.  And nobody deserves an illegal invasion, illegal war, looting, destruction, theft of national treasures, killings of civilians etc, committed in Iraq by the US-ANGLO CAPITALIST serving governments (and that of allied capitalist). *LOL .. the way George Galloway says 'ruse' ... rrrrrrrruse. I'm completely brain dead today.  I keep replaying this and listening to it, but nothing sinks in.

Milo Yiannopoulos: ' UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings'

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ CENSORSHIP The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings BroadbandCommissionReportLaunch September2015_RLB_4011_400x267 UN Women/Ryan Brown by Milo Yiannopoulos 25 Sep 20150 In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.” In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public. So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women. Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday. According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.” Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work. In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.  [lol  Milo's always so funny.] Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are. Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers. The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements. The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.) Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind. Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney. Ridicule and criticism are not harassment. What your guests have done on the internet is harassment. @googleideas — Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) September 23, 2015 The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.” It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy? Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues. Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha — Tyler, The Creator (@fucktyler) December 31, 2012 Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.” Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.” The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why? The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.” As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters. The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines. Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention. You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit. It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists. The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What, in my view, amounts to Western social and political oppression, driven by a melange of exploitative politicians and their parties, supranational organisations, non-government organisations, interest groups, various media darlings, the complicit corporate media, and leftist independent media, is suffocating. Social media 'victimhood' lobbying culture has a parallel industry of 'victimhood' professional media messaging, sensationalising, and delivering a Chinese water torture of incessant dripping of subjective and agenda-driven complaint and sermon of one kind or another, posing as 'universal truth', delivered from a position of moral 'authority,' insisting the world is not as it ideally 'should' be, according to these self-appointed 'authorities' and their 'victim' ego identified exhibits, various 'supporters,' and other professional beneficiaries of 'victimhood' of some kind or other. Self-interested and/or agenda-pushing parties receive rewards of a personal, professional and/or political nature, while pushing for a state-mandated emotional and social 'nirvana', that defies reality. What they have in common is exploitation of what they portray as the 'need' to 'protect' some group or other (the designated 'victim', portrayed as 'helpless' etc), and calling for measures that ultimately put at risk important civil (and therefore political) liberties of all people.  And when dealing with the internet, any incursion on freedom of speech is not merely confined to the nations of specific agenda-pushers; detrimental impact is amplified:  internationally. Taking a 'protective' path concerning freedom of expression and freedom of speech, will not deliver the blissful conditions sought. Instead, we can expect:  state-serving, and  state enforced, social and political oppression and sterility. Milo's right about the UN being a joke.  On top of publicly severing heads in the hundreds per annum, Western ally, Saudi Arabia has recently sentenced a teenager to crucifixion. As well as benefiting politicians that wish to stifle dissent and criticism (and abusers of power the world over that wish to silence critical voices), the path of censorship also benefits heavy-duty oppressors such as Saudi Arabia, when censorship is used (as it will be) to stifle criticism and information. Freedom of speech (and therefore personal and political freedom) should be vigorously defended, first and foremost. As a measure of where we are heading, check out the following item. An Oxford educated libertarian described the item as 'beyond parody' and an example of politically correct student union suppression of free speech: http://home.warwickpride.org/welfare/safe-space-policy/ Read ... and, once you've stopped laughing:  weep.  But do it quietly.  lol [*Had to take a second look at that, as I thought that maybe he was mistaken and that this had nothing to do with students.  Nope, he's not mistaken.] Other Source | here Source | here Source | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ