US-NATO Menace to the World

More: http://tass.ru/en/politics/875340 Russian envoy: NATO base in Romania poses considerable risk to Russian security Russian Politics & Diplomacy May 12, 22:23 BRUSSELS, May 12. /TASS/. The deployment of NATO’s missile defense base in Romania is creating considerable risks to Russia’s security, Russian Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko said on Thursday, commenting on putting on combat duty of a NATO missile defense base in Deveselu, Romania. "Putting into operation of the Deveselu base is another step in the series of measures creating considerable risks to the Russian Federation’s security," he told Russian reporters. "The commissioning of the American missile defense base in Romania should be considered not in isolation, but in complex with other US and NATO actions that have negative consequences for strategic stability and international security. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the full range of the US efforts aimed at the creation of a global missile defense system with an active and partially mobile European segment. In addition to the ground-based Aegis Ashore systems, it includes sea platforms that are now actively advanced to the waters adjoining Russia," the Russian ambassador said. "We also cannot ignore the strategic coupling of the American anti-missile project with the so-called ‘Prompt Global Strike’ program and Washington's desire to maintain a free hand in the possible deployment of weapons in outer space. In addition, by deploying at the Aegis Ashore facilities the universal launchers Mk 41 (Mark 41), capable of launching medium-range missiles, the United States seriously undermines the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty," he said. "The deployment of anti-missile bases in Poland and Romania also cannot be separated from the general military activity of NATO member countries on the "eastern flank" of the alliance, which resulted in the NATO military infrastructure moving closer to Russian borders. It is clear that these measures in no way can be detached from the alliance’s obligations on non-deployment of permanent additional substantial combat forces in Eastern Europe, which is fixed in the Founding Act on Mutual Relations between NATO and Russia. The stationary permanently combat-ready missile defense systems that are being deployed in the region fully meet the criteria of permanence and military significance," Grushko said. "The declarative assurances that the US and NATO missile defense system is not targeted against Russia cannot convince us. We can see their value by the example of the US and NATO unwillingness in any way to take into account the achieved international agreements on the Iranian nuclear program during the allegedly ‘adaptive’ alignment of the missile defense system. Notably, the so-called ‘Iranian nuclear threat’ had earlier been presented as the main incentive for its creation", he said. A special ceremony confirming the operational readiness of the US ground-based missile defense system Aegis was held at the military base in Deveselu, Olt county, in southern Romania on Thursday. The missile defense base there is located at an area of 175 hectares; it comprises a radar station, the missile batteries’ operations control center and Mk 41 mobile batteries with the SM-3 (Standard-3) interceptor missiles. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said more than once that Russia regards the deployment of Mk 41 launchers in Romania as a violation of the 1987 INF Treaty, because the Mk 41 is a dual purpose launcher. US ship-based systems of this type are capable of launching both interceptor missiles and medium-range cruise missiles Tomahawk. More: http://tass.ru/en/politics/875340 [CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE]   [CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE]  [CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE] [CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE]   [CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE] [CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE] -------/\/\/ COMMENT The US-NATO capitalists' mercenary forces not only used the staged 'threat' of Iran ruse to 'justify' obscene levels of US and allied taxpayer money spending on offensive weapons, they've used that same ruse to aggressively encroach on Russia's borders, and they've set up a missile system that is dual-purpose and in violation of the 1987 INF Treaty. US-NATO are the aggressors here, and they're a menace to the entire world.

CIA History of Subversion of Democracy

CIA History of Subversion of Democracy -------/\/\/ CIA History of Subversion of Democracy Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II By William Blum pg. 120 to pg.122 "Covert funding was the name of the game." "Victor Marchetti former executive assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA, has revealed that in the 1950s the Agency "spent ..." .... Expenditures ... came to about $10 million annually." "The CIA itself has admitted that between 1948 and 1968, it paid a total of $65,160,000 to the Christian Democrats and other parties, to labor groups, and to a wide variety of other organizations in Italy.  It also spent an undisclosed amount in support of magazines and book publishers ..." "It is not known when, if ever, the CIA ended its practice of funding anti-Communist groups in Italy.  Internal Agency documents of 1972 reveal contributions of some $10 million to political parties, affiliated organizations, and 21 individual candidates ... that year." " ... in the 1980s, CIA Director William Casey arranged for Saudi Arabia to pay $2 million to prevent the Communists from achieving electoral gains in Italy." " ... largest oil company in the United States, Exxon Corp., admitted that between 1963 and 1972 it had made political contributions to the Christian Democrats and several other Italian political parties totaling $46 million to $49 Million.  Mobil Oil Corp. also contributed to the Italian electoral process ..." [Money given by CIA to Italian political parties since WWII]: "... ended up "in villas, in vacation homes and in Swiss bank accounts for the politicians themselves." [The Italian Communist Party]: ".... all those years, the party was proceeding along a path revisionist enough to make Lenin turn in his grave ..." "The path was marked by billboards proclaiming "the democratic advance to socialism" and the "national road to socialism", the abandonment of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" ..." "The party pushed it's "national" role as responsible opposition, participated in "the drive for productivity", affirmed its support for a multi-party system and for Italy remaining in the Common Market and in NATO ..." "... files of the State Department and the CIA ... testify to the reality of the Communist Party's "historic compromise" and the evolution of its estrangement from the Soviet Union known as "Eurocommunism." [comment:  misnomer - should be "CIAcommunism".   That explains all those sh*tty fake left political parties in every country.  The ones disavow material socialism (or whatever you call it) and, instead, stand for pretty much what their conservative opposition represents, while both support all facets of Balkanising Cultural Marxism ... presumably on the basis that all gullible plebs are equal. Oh, and as confirmation of their 'legitimacy' as forces for 'good' and 'noble intentions', and evidence of their clear moral superiority,  that's at one with the sacred authority that is the  "international community", in bullsh*tting politician jargon.  Playing Spot-the-Lies, looking for key bullsh*t phrases uttered by politicians would be a good game to play, if I watched enough -- or any -- commercial TV.  ] Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II By William Blum pg. 120 to pg.122 ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENTS How appalling is this? Check out corrupt Saudi Arabia, right in with the CIA -- Saudi Arabia is just another CIA state. Does anyone actually believe that the CIA have stopped funding media publications and political parties,  and that they've stopped bribing and otherwise infiltrating  the media and political parties, across the globe? I don't. So the great 'democracy' debate is itself a LIE -- it's just ruse to distract the masses with to and fro senseless, going nowhere argument to create the ILLUSION of CHOICE as well as the ILLUSION of ACTION.

Two-faced, deceitful, shameless, undemocratic Saudi Arab butt-kissing British government scumbags

ꕤ LONDON:  Saudi Businessman Cleared of Rape 'Tripped & Fell into Rape' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P51OP7cATPc LONDON: "A SAUDI millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he may have penetrated her accidentally when he fell on her. Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of attacking the 18-year-old as she slept on his sofa after a night out. " CONTINUED http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6807564/Saudi-millionaire-cleared-of-charges-after-claiming-he-accidentally-fell-on-victim.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- The tripped-and-raped in London guy came up today as a footnote to an RT News article I quickly skimmed ... and I initially mistook Sheikh Walid Juffali for the tripped-and-raped Saudi guy.  Oops. Sheikh Walid Juffali  has been appointed UN envoy figurehead of a Caribbean former British colony's  maritime organisation of some description, which is rather handy now that the Sheikh can invoke diplomatic immunity to sidestep beating off  the ex-wife's lawyers in a British court.   Sheikh-Your-Missus is aiming to rely on diplomatic immunity to sidestep having to address the British lawsuit mounted by pissed off (or maybe even relieved?) Wife No. 3, after the billionaire acquired a newer-model, Lebanese TV hostess, Wife No. 4.   Lawyers for the Sheikh argue that he is entitled to diplomatic immunity pursuant to: Article 15 of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2015 Meanwhile, lawyers on the other side argue that he hasn't attended any of the 25 IMO meetings in the 19 months he's been in the post (Independent).  The chihuahua-sized British satellite Caribbean island reportedly informed the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) that it intends to permit the Sheikh to invoke diplomatic immunity  ... Once again, that spares the Sheikh's legal team having to fend off Wife No. 3's  lawyers in a British court. For its part, the British FCO assures the tabloid-reading rabble that all is above board,  proclaiming that this is not an abuse of privileges associated with the principle of diplomatic immunity granted by the British sidekick Saint Lucia government and, basically, that the tiny British sidekick has thought fit to knock back British request to waiver diplomatic immunity. In a nice little twist, 'diplomatic immunity' is something that the British keep invoking and treating as if it were the holy of holies to the British ... whenever politically expedient.  The British government reverence at the holy shrine of 'diplomatic immunity' is an especially handy resort, the British find, when the British must explain to a voting public concerned about Palestinian civilian deaths, why the British have repeatedly declined to arrest Israeli politicians for alleged war crimes. Despite the British pronouncements, it's plain to see that the British professed regard for 'diplomatic immunity' is selective and rather suspect when the two-faced, deceitful, shameless, undemocratic, Saudi Arab butt-kissing, British government scumbags have already threatened to raid the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012, and have thus threatened to violate Ecuador's diplomatic status: Source Sydney Morning Herald | here Source Sydney Morning Herald | here EXTRACT 16.08.2012 Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told a news conference that Ecuador had received a written threat on Wednesday from Britain that "it could assault our embassy" if Assange was not handed over. He said the threat was delivered to Ecuador's Foreign Ministry and ambassador in London. Any such incursion would be "without modern precedent" and could end up before the international courts, an Australian law expert said. Professor Donald Rothwell, from Australian National University College of Law, said the government's stance shows just how serious Britain is about extraditing the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden. "The Ecuadorian embassy enjoys protection under Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which precludes the United Kingdom authorities from entering the embassy without consent. Assange has enjoyed the protection of the embassy since he sought asylum there on June 19, 2012. "If the United Kingdom revoked the embassy's diplomatic protection and entered the embassy to arrest Assange, Ecuador could rightly view this as a significant violation of international law which may find its way before an international court." Source Sydney Morning Herald | here Extraordinary Diplomatic Stand-Off  My Ass  The Independent [Hope the above makes sense.  Brain is in go-slow mode.  Everything feels like it's taking a million years to do, and I can't remember what I'm doing, even as I'm doing it ... lol] ꕤ

British In Bed With The Saudis - No Regard for Human Rights - It's A Scam

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ January 5, 2016 Bribery over Humanity: The UK, Saudi Arabia and the UN Human Rights Council by Binoy Kampmark Wither human rights – especially when it comes to strategic partnerships. The UK-Saudi Arabia relationship has been one of a seedier sort, filled with military deals, mooted criticism and hedging. When given the John Snow treatment as to what Britain’s role behind securing Saudi Arabia its position on the UN Human Rights Council was, Prime Minister David Cameron fenced furiously before embellishing Riyadh’s value in its relations with the West. [comment:  not sure who John Snow is ... it may be Channel 4 presenter, Jon Snow - here] The paper trail in such matters is always useful, and given that Britain remains one of the most secretive states in the western world, those things are not always easy to come by. Light, however, was already shed by cables released through WikiLeaks suggesting that a degree of haggling had taken place between the states over the subject of compromising human rights. The Saudi cable trove, made available to WikiLeaks last June, has spurred various groups to comb through the foreign ministry collection with an eye to decoding the Kingdom’s sometimes inscrutable positions. The relevant documentation in this case touches on talks between Saudi and British officials ahead of the November 2013 vote on membership of the 47 member body. Cables from January and February 2013, separately translated by UN Watch and The Australian, discloses proposed positions of support. One cable posits how, “The [Saudi] delegation is honoured to send to the ministry the enclosed memorandum, which the delegation has received from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom asking it for the support and backing of their country to the membership of the human rights council (HRC) for the period 2014-2016, in the elections that will take place in 2013 in the city of New York.” It goes on to say how, “The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014-2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the candidacy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” The cables also reveal how money was expended for the campaign to gain the seat, noting a transfer of $100,000 for “expenditures resulting from the campaign to nominate the Kingdom for membership of the human rights council for the period 2014-2016.” While the itemisation of that item is not available, the Kingdom’s record on sugaring and softening its counterparts to improve its image is well known. A spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempted to nip any suspicions in the bud in rather unconvincing fashion. “Saudi Arabia took part in an uncontested election for a seat as one of the Asian Group members in the UN’s Human Rights Council.” Besides, the UK’s position, so went the argument, was of no consequence, whatever might have been said behind closed doors. The UK might not publicise “how it votes” but as “this was not a contested election within the Asian Group… the UK’s vote was immaterial.” The situation has also been further excited by the mass execution on Saturday of 47 individuals, including the outspoken Shia cleric Sheik Nimr al-Nimr. It was the largest show of death put on by the Kingdom since 1980. Neither the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett or Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats, could let that one pass. “In light of the weekend’s events,” claimed Bennett, “the government should be launching an inquiry to establish who made the decision to so abuse the UN process and the principle of universal human rights.” The perennial problem here is that any government inquiry tends to be an exercise of exculpation rather than revelation. [comment:  eluding responsibility rather than fact-finding / exposing] The response from the British FCO to the spectacular bloodletting on Saturday was of the tepid, pedestrian variety, taken straight out of its precedent book of tepid, pedestrian responses. “The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and in every country. The death penalty undermines human dignity and there is no evidence that it works as a deterrent.” The statement goes on to suggest that the foreign secretary is doing his job, regularly raising “human rights issues with his counterparts in countries of concern, including Saudi Arabia. We seek to build strong and mature relationships so that we can be candid with each other about these areas on which we do not agree, including on human rights.” So candid were these exchanges, they led to a compromise regarding Britain’s own stance on human rights abuses. If anything, it induced a cynical caricature, one of positioning and sponsorship for an image distinctly at odds with the reality. For Riyadh, this could not be seen as anything other than a coup in international diplomacy. The Kingdom had found its own useful, complicit fool. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:  bkampmark@gmail.com http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The human rights topic is wasted on me. As I see things, universal human rights principles are just a means of (a) interfering with other nations (bullying, shaming, undermining, pressuring, smearing, fomenting dissent etc), while maintaining pious intentions; and (b) a means of politically assaulting and manipulating domestic political opponents (or other targets), in the usual guise of 'concern', 'condemnation' and other holier than thou rubuke, or whatever else. I highly doubt that those at the top end of national government (whoever they may be) actually consider the notion of 'human rights' (and certainly not domestic rights), as they plot their way to domination and exploitation of whatever is coveted and targeted for gain, on behalf of whoever their masters may be. Western governments that pour billions of dollars (while depriving their own citizens and/or condemning them to generations of debt slavery to finance wars etc), Western governments that supply tons of arms over decades of relentless interference in the affairs of foreign targets, with the aim of destabilising sovereign states, when they're not raining down tons of bombs, or otherwise pursuing regime change, faking reasons to wage war, waging war illegally and destroying entire regions, regardless of the grand scale of destruction and number of direct and indirect deaths, probably don't really care much for universal human rights principles ... or much beyond the principles of self-interest. The British Foreign Office personnel wouldn't lose any sleep over beheadings in Saudi Arabia.   In fact, they're probably in favour of whatever blood-letting it takes the Saudis, if it serves to preserve the power of the Saudis (whom the British installed on the throne), because the British elite interests and the Saudi elite interests coincide beyond the UNHRC body. The rote non-statement 'nowhere' response, that serves to create an appearance of an appropriate official 'response', must be standard practice in British politics -- and maybe all politics.  I've not really been listening. Getting a bit off topic:  what's the bet that the following isn't an aberration, and that it's also a standard British political manoeuvre?   No Evidence of Iran’s role in violence and instability in Iraq – confirms British Foreign Minister by Mehrnaz Shahabi(CASMII Columns) Wednesday, July 18, 2007 David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops: Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”. This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence. Contextually, this important admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence. [...] CONTINUED http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/2609 In Summary FT did not dwell on Milibrand admission FT had published without evidence that Iran govt cooperation w/ al-Qaeda using Iran territory for launching anti-coalition ops in Iraq mainstream media response re Milibrand admission, also silence war media / orchestrated chorus "finding shadows of Iranian culprits at every corner" Tape of Abu Omar al Baghdadi al-Qaeda Iraq leader released by Associated Press >> threatens to war w/ Iran  >> unless Iran stops supporting Shia in Iraq >> no USA govt response >> absence of media interest That caught my eye somewhere today (not sure what I was reading) ... and it sort of stuck. Lucky the Financial Times guy followed up the misleading statement with a clarifying question.  lol EDIT:  It looks like FT itself didn't then follow up further on the Milibrand admission, nor did the media in general. This is the funniest British-Saudi image I could find.  Not sure how accurate it is -- as in, who is really in control in this relationship?  [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. ꕤ

Yemen re Iran - False Accusations, False Testimony, False Reports, Fake News & Iran Vilification

ꕤ Article SOURCE Gareth Porter Independent Investigative Journalist / Historian US National Security Policy Link | Source "How False Stories of Iran Arming the Houthis Were Used to Justify War in Yemen" Thursday, 31 December 2015 10:42 By Gareth Porter, Truthout | News Analysis Independent Investigative Journalist / Historian US National Security Policy Link | Source Summary March 2015 Bombing campaign initiated by Saudi Arabia + Gulf allies + US support Rationale for Saudi-led war on Yemen: Houthis portrayed as merely proxies of Iran Houthis allegedly armed by Iran (for years) allegations repeatedly echoed in press allegation not proven yet allegation REINFORCED by UN experts report UNSC PANEL OF EXPERTS - REPORT REPORT UN Security Council from:  Panel of Experts established  pursuant to Security Council resolution 1929 (2010) Link | UNSC Panel of Experts Report Report dated:  1 June 2015 Salomé  Zourabichvili (Coordinator Panel Experts) Mowaffaq al-Refai (Expert) Jonathan Brewer (Expert) Christian Kessler (Expert) Chunjie Li (Expert) Thomas Mazet (Expert) Kazuto Suzuki (Expert) Elena Vodopolavoa (Expert) RESULTS REPORT -- concluded Iran shipping arms to Houthi rebels in Yemen -- allegedly by sea, since at least 2009 HOWEVER -- investigation of x2 main allegations re arms by Yemen govt -- & cited by expert panel -- shows both allegations "CRUDELY CONSTRUCTED RUSES" -- President Saleh govt of Yemen -- claimed vessel (Mahan 1) seized Yemen waters Oct 2009 -- & that weapons found on-board (& Iran crew x5 convicted) WIKILEAKS CABLES 2010 -- (from US Embassy in Yemen) REVEALS -- 'arms onboard' was concocted by Yemen government -- US cable of 11 Nov. 2009 reported to WA that: -- Yemen govt failed to substantiate public claims -- cable stated:  'sensitive reporting' -- (ie US intelligence reports) -- convey that SHIP WAS CARRYING NO WEAPONS AT ALL -- given US knowledge, Yemen govt began changing story -- (subsequent US cable notes) --  Yemen changed story to: --  ship empty, so arms must have been delivered -- Article says, Pres. Saleh, Yemen -- hoped to use Iran arms story to get political support of US -- for war against Houthis (planned 'Op Scorched Earth') YEMEN ARMS - MASSIVE MARKET -- local arms market massive -- directly from Yemen military itself -- would explain where Houthis get arms from 2013 - JIHAN 1 (SHIP) -- seized Jan 23, 2013 -- arms on-board (true) -- but story of arms shipment from Iran is false -- joint patrol: Yemen Coast Guard & US Navy -- intercepted Jihan 1 ship -- cargo:  portable SAM (& misc. multiple other) -- weeks later, UN expert panel inspects arms seized -- 'Ministry of Sepah' labels found on arms boxes -- ie of former Iranian military logistics ministry -- but no evidence connecting this to Iran -- all crew & businessmen who arranged shipment from Yemen -- no evidence for manufacture in Iran -- allegations centred on testimony of Yemen crew -- but GPS evidence not cited by panel -- (as match for crew story) -- panel claimed it had no info re location of loading of arms WEAPONS UNDER DIESEL FUEL TANKS -- weapons hidden under diesel fuel tanks -- weapons could only be accessed after tanks emptied -- report fails to discuss the significance of this fact -- ie points to Yemen origin of arms 2013 - REPORT UNSC MONITORING GROUP -- on Somalia & Eritrea -- says Jihan 1 crew divulged to diplomatic source: -- ship headed for SOMALIA -- confirmed by unnamed Yemen official -- not disclosed to UNSC expert panel -- (per UN Monitoring Report) SOMALIA -- destination Somalia -- Jihan 1 commercial smuggling / not politically motivated -- smuggling diesel fuel from Yemen to Somalia - lucrative -- long-standing combo smuggling arms / Yemen to Somalia -- Somalia outlawed fuel import b/c of arms smuggling -- UN Monitoring Group report -- reveals series of arms shipments to Somalia (late 2012) -- before Jihan 1 seized -- similar weapons main Jihan 1 shipment -- report from Somalia (& own UNSC Monitoring Group) -- Yemen = source of weapons -- key evidence:  Bulgaria govt to UN Monitoring Group -- stating rocket propelled grenade rounds + other -- seized in Somalia -- Bulgaria made & delivered to Yemen armed forces 2010 Going by info in UNSC Monitoring Group Report -- arms on Jihan 1 belong to Yemen arms smugglers -- Yemen govt exploited the situation, after transit busted -- Yemen govt concocted the Iran story -- Yemen govt had Yemen crew feed UN panel concocted story UNSC Monitoring Group Report -- re Somalia & Eritrea -- problematic re concocted anti-Iran story -- Yemen govt Western backers put a new spin on the story -- Reuters quoted 'Western diplomat' -- claimed Iran supplying al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia -- noted C-4 explosives -- (used by al-shabaab terrorist bombings but not Houthi MO) -- claim not credible b/c -- al-Shabaab = close ties to al-Qaeda (enemy of Iran) -- story only reported in pro-Saudi & pro-Israeli media Yemen govt concocted 'Iran arms' on Jihan 1 story +  recycled UNSC expert panel report =  key, widely accepted narrative re Iran in Middle East SOURCE Gareth Porter Independent Investigative Journalist / Historian US National Security Policy Link | Source ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT As the source states no reproduction without permission, I've tried to summarise the article rather than copy over & mark up, like I do. Not sure how I went with summary.  I'm sure I've covered everything, but it's probably not hugely different from the original. Anyway, there it is.  That means the bombing of Yemen and the vilification of Iran is based on false claims, fake testimony, fake reports, fake news stories and fake anti-Iran spin.  Wow. ꕤ

Netherlands - 2,000 Riot Over Plans to Build Asylum Centre

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627454/Geldersmalen-riot-asylum-seeker-centre-migrant-crisis-Netherlands Thousands RIOT after officials threaten to build asylum centre in tiny town in Netherlands THOUSANDS of furious residents took to the streets and rioted after officials announced plans to house migrants in their town. By Scott Campbell & Selina Sykes PUBLISHED: 05:51, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 | UPDATED: 08:17, Thu, Dec 17, 2015 Police fired warning shots in a bid to disperse the crowd in Geldermalsen, Netherlands where 2,000 people joined the protest. Pictures and videos of the incident showed dozens of youths tearing down fences, throwing beer bottles and fireworks at police, and chanting slogans against the proposed centre for asylum-seekers in the town of 27,000. A spokesman said officers had "so far made numerous arrests, it's is not clear yet how many". No serious injuries were reported. A meeting of the town's council to decide on whether to build the centre to house 1,500 asylum-seekers had to be halted. In dramatic scenes the meeting was evacuated by shouting policemen as rioters sought to force their way into the building. Police said late on Wednesday that the crowd had still not dispersed and officers were sporadically being pelted with debris. They said the meeting would not be resumed and called on protesters to leave the town centre. Police sealed off the town hall but protestors pelted the building with bottles, bricks and fireworks. Several windows were smashed. Riot police arrived in 15 minibuses to deal with the unrest. Two police officers were slightly injured in the clashes and at least 14 arrests have been made, according to a local newspaper. Explosives experts were reportedly deployed to deal with a large firework which had not exploded. Police restored calm at around 10.30pm. Local residents have said the troublemakers were not from Geldermalsen. Local mayor Miranda de Vries tweeted that everybody in the meeting hall was safe, adding that she was saddened by the incident. She posted on Twitter: “people say they are frightened of asylum seekers. I am very very sad about this.” The incident was the biggest display of anti-migrant sentiment in the Netherlands since hooligans attacked a Syrian refugee centre in October. Deputy Justice Minister Klaas Dijkhoff, who oversees immigration and asylum policy, called the incident in Geldermalsen "un-Dutch."  [Comment:  Hey, those US-EU-NATO non-European immigrants are, in fact, 'un-Dutch' -- and therein lies the problem.  The Justice Minister is well aware of that, but he would prefer to pursue what is in fact an  un-Dutch and un-European agenda that his kind is pursuing on behalf of the bankers, corporations and the elites, while pretending it's the Dutch that are the 'problem' (for opposing native European resource theft (and multiple other thefts), native European displacement, and native European annihilation). Yet the Dutch Justice Minister would, instead, have you believe the third world invasion mayhem that serial US-NATO military interventions (& other factors) have unleashed upon Europe is to be borne in silent, passive, compliance by existentially and otherwise at-threat native Europeans.  Guessing that the mayhem is funded and fostered by the fundamentalist Saudis, as the Saudis appear keen on spreading fundamentalism (along with terrorism), and would appear equally keen on establishing a European 'caliphate'  -- while keeping their borders closed to these same mass population movements. The Saudis reportedly recently offered to put up one (x1) mosque per EVERY 100 immigrant arrivals in Germany.   Note that Saudis are not amenable to erection of churches in their country.  A wise policy, of course.  Why, exactly, isn't Europe pursuing the same? Hello?  No wonder what's routinely described as 'right wing' in the scaremongering corporate press is looking an attractive option these days. Article re Saudi offer, here] He said: “This is not how we deal with each other in the Netherlands. This is unheard of.” [Comment:  LOL ... It's the invasion of Europe that is unheard of, since the Islamic conquests. But the European gates have now been voluntarily opened to an Islamic conquest of the Third Millennium. Some Netherlands politician (Geert Wilders) has been lobbying for YEARS to do something about mass non-European immigration ... but nobody's listening.  Too busy serving the corporate agenda and being politically correct (or just afraid of death threats that come with that territory), apparently.  Wilders has 24/7 security because defending Dutch / European interests is life-threatening.  He also has difficulties getting into what are supposed to be 'democratic' Western countries, who try to block his entry or put up unnecessary hurdles.  Guessing that strategy is a means of (a) suppressing information that may make domestic populations more aware and (b) quietly vilifying (and politically undermining) the target of these shifty moves, which then dutifully gets reported in the mainstream smear-specialist press:  painting an picture of some 'undesirable' or 'extremist' (which is exactly the sort these countries actually open their borders to ... so, go figure). I don't know a whole lot about the Wilders guy, but he seems acceptable and respectable from what I've seen so far.  However, there's a lot of negative hype around him, because the West is anxious to keep pushing the agenda that suits warmongers and corporations, rather than nations. Anyway, under the circumstances, is there any surprise there is a strong public reaction to what amounts to a foreign invasion of European towns? Of course, there's no surprise -- but these politicians like to feign surprise and preach to the public via the complicit corporate media.  Clearly, the politicians are aware that Europeans are afraid of the invasion and its consequences, but they feign lack of understanding how this could possibly be. Well, just today while surfing for some political satire I came across a decapitated guy in an orange jumpsuit, wrists handcuffed behind him, lying on his stomach, his head resting on his upper back.  And some hours before that, photographs of children being encouraged to blow up their soft toys and to pretend to cut the throats of their teddy-bears were doing the rounds of social media. Gee, I wonder why the European public might be afraid. Fear factor aside, taking on mass numbers of non-European foreigners is severely detrimental and potentially fatal to the European people.  Think growing political suppression combined with political weakness (breakdown of social bonds, polarisation etc, consequences of decades of media propaganda etc), already weak demographics and weak national/social/cultural identity factors, potential for 'cross-breeding' & other assimilation factors of native European populations (resulting in dilution and more division and polarisation), which feeds back into the weakening of the native population as a social and political force. Large numbers of unassimilable non-Europeans are a serious social threat to native European populations, no matter what the nature of the mass foreign incoming population (model citizens or not).  These European politicians are raping their own people with imposed mass third world immigration forced on European homelands.] The arrival of thousands of refugees in the Netherlands as part of the influx of arrivals in Europe has stirred tensions between hard-line opponents and those welcoming migrants. European countries are struggling to cope with the largest movement of migrants since World War Two, many of them Syrians who have come via Turkey, Greece and the Balkans.  [Comment:  MOST are non Syrian.  'Syria' is the media spin used to guilt Europeans into swallowing the mass third world immigration to Europe.] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627454/Geldersmalen-riot-asylum-seeker-centre-migrant-crisis-Netherlands ------------- SAMPLE - EXPRESS READER COMMENTS "regbobsalLess than a minute ago This rioting happens in Sweden & Germany on a daily basis,but is hidden by the authorities. The media is controlled by the EU nastasi mirroring Goebbels propaganda in Nazi Germany." "sheprmLess than a minute ago Governments and ruling bodies will soon have to realise that they are [there] to serve their people ......this is the start of civil war." The Independent Saudi Arabia offers Germany 200 mosques – one for every 100 refugees who arrived last weekend The kingdom has faced criticism over its response to the crisis Adam Withnall @adamwithnall Friday 11 September 2015 861 comments Saudi Arabia has reportedly responded to the growing number of people fleeing the Middle East for western Europe – by offering to build 200 mosques in Germany. [ Offered:  x1 mosque per every 100 refugees.] Syria’s richer Gulf neighbours have been accused of not doing their fair share in the humanitarian crisis, with Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the UAE also keeping their doors firmly shut to asylum-seekers. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which quoted a report in the Lebanese newspaper Al Diyar, Saudi Arabia would build one mosque for every 100 refugees who entered Germany in extraordinary numbers last weekend. [ ... ] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-offers-germany-200-mosques-one-for-every-100-refugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT This was deliberately forced on European people by their deceitful and indifferent politicians, who did not make alternative arrangements for those they knew they would displace in Libya and Syria. But it doesn't end there.  France's Hollande is blowing up most of Africa.  US and the Saudis are bombing Yemen (although US is only acting as adviser).  Iraq is still a shambles, with ISIS entrenched in parts.  Afghanistan's no improvement.  The Taliban are still fighting foreign occupation.  And everyone's attacking Syria (with Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran defending). So that's where all those people are flooding Europe from. The same deceitful and negligent European politicians feigning surprise have spun the non-European invasion as if it were a mere 'accident', along the lines of the media-friendly, emotive, altruism-inducing and propaganda spinning 'refugee crisis'.   The invasion was no accident.  It is the result of acts of war (rather than acts of god) and was therefore anticipated.  Furthermore, unlike a flood or an earthquake, where nations may send material support, non-Europeans in the millions have been forced upon Europe -- and Europe is finished, unless Europe is planning on shipping all these non-Europeans out (which it is not).  Europe's politicians, via Merkel, sent an open invitation to non-European immigrants, and they arrived from both the Middle East and from African regions.  By default, the invitation was also extended to a massive number of economic refugees that European taxpayers who arrived also, minus their identification or bearing stolen or forged identification. European taxpayers will now be funding all these arrivals, including the economic immigrant arrivals -- and European taxpayers will be  funding these foreign individuals and their families for generations, in many cases. Most immigrants arrive with either fake ID or discarded ID, so deporting them is next to impossible when (a) identifying them 100% is impossible and (b) when certain Islamic countries (eg Pakistan) refuse to take deportees because they are 'unwilling'. So Europe is stuck with them and stuck providing for them, even if they are economic immigrants (thanks to provisions of international human rights law). But ... international human rights law can be subordinated to national law, just as Russia has recently done:   Russian Constitution law supremacy - post link | here). Add to the new non-European arrivals, their additional x8 relatives per person for family reunification purposes in Europe. So for every 1-million non-Europeans that settle in Europe, you can expect up to x8 (depending on where in Europe one is) of non-European relatives eventually join the millions of 2015 newcomers alone. If my rough estimate is correct, in the next 3 years Germany could wind up with around 10-million non-European arrivals, plus the roughly 10% they own up to already having (but probably understate). So does that mean by 2018, about one in five Germans will potentially be Middle Easterner or African (or are my estimates faulty ... highly probable, lol)? But if one in five Germans aren't even German by 2018, Germany may as well just nuke itself and be done with what is slow-motion defeat and death of a European people. Back to the Netherlands riot:  it was European politicians who did not secure borders.  It was European politicians who did not take a hard line in response to the invasion that was channelled into Europe via ISIS-supporting Turkey, which is an act of gross negligence on the part of European politicians (see Paris attacks). It is also European politicians who continue to keep borders open, upon weeks of continued invasion of Europe by tens of thousands of non-Europeans per day, every day. These are the same politicians that have acknowledged that what they refer to as 'multiculturalism' 'utterly failed' (Merkel, 2010).  The Guardian European people should not be conned by anything politicians or the mainstream media have to say on the subject, and especially not the emotive propaganda and declarations of 'responsibility' 'owed' to non-tribal, non-European outsiders who are unassimilable and a threat to European culture, identity, integrity, demographics, and a threat to native European social and political unity and strength.  Politicians knew this would happen throughout their support of multiple US-led military interventions, and politicians facilitated this mayhem that is now an irrevocable blight on Europe. Europe's only responsibility is towards Europe's peoples, and it is this responsibility that Europe's politicians have arrogantly dismissed. [This is obviously my personal take on what is happening in Europe right now.  It is how I feel at a gut level on the subject of large-scale non-European immigration and the surrounding issues.  I realise my views don't fit in with the popular views of today, but this is how I see and what I see and feel.  Hopefully, my notes make sense.  I've been on a massive no-sleep 'bender' ... lol] ꕤ

Yemen - Blackwater / Academi Mercenary Personnel Killed in Saudi Assault on Yemen's Shia Houthis

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/10/441071/Yemen-Blacwater-UAE-Saudi-Arabia-Taizz-Hadi-Sudan PressTV 15 Blackwater mercs, including commander, killed in Yemen since Tuesday Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:24AM The chief of Blackwater mercenaries in Yemen has been killed in clashes with Houthi Ansarullah fighters and allied forces in the country’s southwest, reports say. Yemen’s Arabic-language al-Masirah news website reported that the commander-in-chief of the private security firm in the country, a Mexican national, was slain in the al-Omari district of Ta'izz Province early on Wednesday. According to the report, the recent fatality has brought to 15 the number of foreign forces with the Blackwater killed in clashes in Yemen since Tuesday. Some Australian, British, and French advisors and commanders -- plus half a dozen Colombian soldiers -- were among the dead. The mercenaries are part of the UAE forces that help Saudi Arabia in its war against the impoverished country. A US security services training company, Blackwater Worldwide, which is now known as Academi, is one the most notorious private security firms in the world and is responsible for killing of scores of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Yemen has been under military attacks by Saudi Arabia since March 26. The Saudi military strikes were launched with the aim of undermining Ansarullah and bringing fugitive former president of Yemen, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, back to power. More than 7,500 people have been killed and over 14,000 others injured since the Saudi aerial aggression began. The Saudi war has also taken a heavy toll on Yemen’s facilities and infrastructure. http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/10/441071/Yemen-Blacwater-UAE-Saudi-Arabia-Taizz-Hadi-Sudan In Summary Saudi Arabia attack on Yemen: -- aerial bombing - commenced: 26 March 2015 -- ground war also: see mercenaries, UAE -- over 7,500 dead -- 14,000 injured -- infrastructure destroyed Houthi Ansarullah (Yemen defenders) Houthi Ansarullah Ansar Allah Arabic for "Helpers/Supporters of God" = Houthis - Zaidi Shia group from Sa'dah of northern Yemen Followers of: Zayd ibn ʻAlī {great-grandson of: Husayn ibn ʻAlī} Zaydi Shi'a - est. 35-40% of Muslims in Yemen Zayd ibn Ali 695–740 great-grandson of Imam Ali -- born in Medina -- son of Imam ‘Alī ibn Husayn "Zayn al-Abidīn" -- one of wives of 4th Shia Imam -- was mother of Zayd ibn Ali -- respected & revered member of Ahl ul Bayt -- ie   Ahl ul Bayt - family of founder of religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayd_ibn_Ali * Follow-up required. Action: al-Omari district, Ta'izz province (Wed) -- defeat of mercenaries  of United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- Mexican-born Blackwater / Academi mercenary chief killed -- 14 others killed -- killed mercenaries incl: Australian, British, French advisers / commanders Saudi Arabia, UAE & mercenary aim: -- restore Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi as president -- Hadi fled ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- UPDATE:  130 US MERCENARIES DEAD - YEMEN COMMENT Exciting report.  Like reading about mercenaries. Houthis sound like tough opponents. Taking out mercenaries (esp. chief & commanders) seems like a big win for the Houthis -- but their infrastructure has been destroyed, thousands are injured and foreign aggressors have killed over 7,500. Houthis are paying a high price for any gains they're making. ꕤ