Video - German journalist Lars Schall talks with J. Michael Springmann - 'Is the Whole “War on Terror” a Fraud?'

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCMfiGseUIc&feature=youtu.be Is the whole "War on Terror" a fraud? Published on Apr 15, 2015 "In this exclusive Foreign Policy Journal interview, German journalist Lars Schall talks with J. Michael Springmann, the former head of the U.S. visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and author of the book "Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World"." ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Is the Whole “War on Terror” a Fraud? by Lars Schall       April 15, 2015 http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/04/15/is-the-whole-war-on-terror-a-fraud/ ꕤ

Parmenides' Fallacy

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------  Parmenides' Fallacy 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.

Parmenides a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher born in Italy; held the metaphysical view that being is the basic substance and ultimate reality of which all things are composed; said that motion and change are sensory illusions (5th century BC) SOURCE | ABOVE http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Parmenides ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE | BELOW Forbes Margie Warrell Contributor Book:  Stop Playing Safe http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/19/the-parmenides-fallacy-are-you-ignoring-the-cost-of-inaction/  EXTRACTS / SUMMARY Bad situation indecision = stuck with status quo hoping things get better (but they get worse) Human beings are neurologically wired to: over-estimate the size of risks under-estimate our ability to handle them downplay the costs of inaction "... by choosing not to make a change or take a chance ... you can wind up incurring steep costs, in ways you can’t possibly foresee from where you are right now" [ REFERS TO ] "Professor Philip Bobbit from the University of Texas has even given a name to the human tendency to assume the present situation will remain the same. He calls it ‘Parmenides Fallacy,’ after the misguided Greek philosopher who argued that the world was static and that all change was an illusion." result:  "drives us to stick with the status quo – even one we dislike" "Parmenides Fallacy serves as a reminder to not to kid ourselves; choosing to do nothing..." SOURCE | ABOVE Forbes Margie Warrell Contributor Book:  Stop Playing Safe http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/19/the-parmenides-fallacy-are-you-ignoring-the-cost-of-inaction/  Margie Warrell Error 404 - page not found http://margiewarrell.com/stopplayinsafe Margie Warrell "an international thought leader in human potential" "professional background in Fortune 500 business, psychology, and coaching" "Her clients include NASA, British Telecom, Oracle, Body Shop, PWC and the Australian Federal Police." "bestselling author, Forbes Columnist  ..." " ... sought out by leading media outlets such as The Today Show, FOX News, CNBC and Al Jazeera, Psychology Today and Wall Street Journal. She is also a regular contributor on Australia’s ABC News Breakfast and Sunrise.    ...  international media outlets from the Wall Street Journal to The Today Show. She is also regular commentator on Australia’s Sunrise and ABC News Breakfast." http://margiewarrell.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW Aakash "I am a speck of dust in this universe, who is going to create a whole new universe someday." http://logically-illogical.blogspot.com/2008/02/parmenides-fallacy.html Parmenides' Fallacy All our decisions are generally based upon the measurement of the future benefits that can be drawn by making that decision. How will it make us better of than what we presently are. This is the fundamental clause in the decision making of most of the managers while making any investment. But what is interesting to note is that the things in the normal circumstances will constantly deteriorate in their own. So, if we don't take any decision then we might be worse off in future than what we are now. So, if the investment is made then it might be that we would be worse off than now but better off than we would have been without it.  [ ... ] SOURCE - ABOVE Aakash "I am a speck of dust in this universe, who is going to create a whole new universe someday." http://logically-illogical.blogspot.com/2008/02/parmenides-fallacy.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW Opinion, NYT Today's War Is Against Tomorrow's Iraq By PHILIP BOBBITT Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas Published: March 10, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/opinion/10BOBB.html EXTRACTS ONLY President Bush has again made his case for war against Iraq, and again his primary argument is the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to America. The president's critics are quick to point out that the Central Intelligence Agency and other experts feel that, for the moment, Saddam Hussein is unlikely to conduct terrorist attacks against America. However, they warn us, if an invasion threatens his regime, his agents or his extremist sympathizers might well attack us — possibly even using weapons of mass destruction. So is it really a good idea to press ahead with regime change? Aren't we better off now than we would be if we invade Iraq and risk setting off a dreadful response? These are natural questions, but they are neither logical nor helpful. They are a prime example in our public discourse of what might be called "Parmenides' Fallacy" — named after the Greek philosopher who held that all change was illusion. This fallacy occurs when one tries to assess a future state of affairs by measuring it against the present, as opposed to comparing it to other possible futures. Let me give a famous example of Parmenides' Fallacy in operation. [...] So, as we look to the future, we must stop debating whether invading Iraq will result in our being worse down the line than we are right now. We do not have the option of holding time still — which exposes the biggest flaw in the "Why Rush to War?" argument. The urgency lies in the fact that every day Saddam Hussein stays in power he grows richer, the global terrorist network to which he has access plans further atrocities and (international inspections notwithstanding) the chance of his acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons grows. To avoid Parmenides' Fallacy, the question we must ask is: Will we be better off in the future if we invade Iraq or if we do not invade? [ ... ] We should also consider the future of the Iraqi civilians. Yes, they would suffer the horrors of war in the near term, which for a time would be even worse than life under the sanctions now. But if an American-led intervention succeeded, the country's oil revenues could once again enrich its people, as well as its schools, hospitals and financial institutions. The Iraqis would be much better off after an invasion than they would be living indefinitely chained to Saddam Hussein. For us, though we live in relative tranquillity at present, we will at least be far less badly off in the future if we act now. Parmenides' Fallacy must not paralyze our imaginations, or our will. SOURCE - ABOVE Opinion, NYT Today's War Is Against Tomorrow's Iraq By PHILIP BOBBITT Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas Published: March 10, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/opinion/10BOBB.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bobbitt EXTRACTS |  SUMMARY Philip Bobbitt b. Texas, USA distinguished pedigree author, academic, lawyer, and public servant lectured in the United Kingdom best known for work on military strategy & constitutional law and theory Attended: Princeton University Yale Law School Oxford University graduated with an A.B. in philosophy | Princeton University in 1971 president of the Ivy Club and Chairman of the Nassau Lit. 1975 J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was Article Editor of the Yale Law Journal and taught at Yale College at Yale that he met Charles L. Black (1915–2001), who became a mentor to Bobbitt received his M.A & Ph.D. (Modern History) | University of Oxford in 1983 J.D. =  three-year law degree, Doctor Jurisprudence "... word jurisprudence derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law." In the United States jurisprudence commonly means the philosophy of law." [Cornell Uni - example] Charles Black (professor) American scholar of constitutional law  role in the historic Brown v. Board of Education *landmark USA 1954 case* US Supreme Court declared establishment of "separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional." Impeachment: A Handbook  analysis of the law of impeachment during the Watergate scandal. served in the Army Air Corps as a teacher an associate at Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl  (now Davis, Polk & Wardwell) professor of law at the Columbia University Law School "... He had the moral courage to go against his race, his class, his social circle." "Black also co-authored The Law of Admiralty with Grant Gilmore .. ... constitutional legal scholar ... "The Law of Admiralty" is one of the most influential law books ever written in a practical area of law. Admiralty is the law of the sea, of shipping and shipping contracts, and is a functional, practical area of international law, in which uniformity of the application of law in ports throughout the world is important, and as a result it has evolved somewhat differently from other areas of federal law. "Gilmore and Black," ... so influential that it is one of the few treatises that federal admiralty and international courts cite almost as though ... a primary source of law ..."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Black_%28professor%29 ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  Consitutional Law - Philip Bobbit "... believes that the Constitution's durability rests, in part, in the flexible manner in which it can be and has been interpreted since its creation. ... Bobbitt asserts that all branches of government have a duty to assess the constitutionality of their actions. 'Constitutional Fate' is a commonly used text in courses on constitutional law throughout the US." Government Service - Philip Bobbit extensively in government, for both Democratic and Republican administrations 1970s, he was Associate Counsel to President Carter  Senior director for Critical Infrastructure & senior director for Strategic Planning - Bill Clinton's presidency worked with Lloyd Cutler on the charter of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Lloyd Cutler Intelligence Commission served as White House Counsel during the Democratic administrations of Presidents Carter and Clinton Feb 2004 Lloyd Cutler  appointed to Iraq Intelligence Commission (IIC) IIC = independent panel tasked with investigating US intelligence surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the allegations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction Counselor for International Law at State Dept during George H. W. Bush administration served at National Security Council as director for Intelligence Programs National Security Council (NSC) principal forum re national security & foreign policy US President, National Security Advisors, + Cabinet officials { = part of Executive Office of President of USA} Founded by Harry S Truman 1947 - by NATIONAL SECURITY ACT b/c "felt that the diplomacy of State Dept was no longer adequate to contain the USSR" - - - Intent:  coordination & agreement among: Navy Marine Corps Army Air Force Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)  {also created in the National Security Act, 1947}  & other instruments of national security policy Function: ASSIST ON NATIONAL SECURITY & FOREIGN POLICY The Shield of Achilles - Philip Bobbit " ... 900-page work that explicates a theory, verging on philosophy, of historical change in the modern era, and a history of the development of modern constitutional and international law." "...  patterns in the (mainly modern European) history of strategic innovations, major wars, peace conferences, international diplomacy, and constitutional standards for states. Bobbitt also suggests possible future scenarios and policies appropriate to them." "The Shield of Achilles generated much interest in the diplomatic and political community.  Public officials who follow Bobbitt's works include: the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair ... the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who referred to Bobbit's book in a 2004 address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute." Terror and Consent (2008) "... the Wars for the Twenty-first Century, which applied many of the ideas of The Shield of Achilles to the problems of wars on terror." " ... Senator John McCain praised the book as "the best book I’ve ever read on terrorism ..."  "... Henry Kissinger called Bobbitt, "perhaps the most important political philosopher today."  Tony Blair wrote of Terror and Consent:  "It may be written by an academic but it is actually required reading for political leaders."  David Cameron, the leader of the Tory party in the UK  put it on a list of summer reading for his parliamentary colleagues in 2008.  ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  In Terror & Consent, Bobbitt argued that the only justification for warfare in the 21st century was to protect human rights ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- The Garments of Court and Palace  " ... 2013, Bobbitt published a study of Niccolo Machiavelli entitled The Garments of Court and Palace: Machiavelli and the World That He Made. " "...  argues that only by understanding The Prince as one half of a constitutional treatise on the State (the other being Machiavelli's Discourses) can we reconcile the many otherwise contradictory elements of his work." [emphasises] " ... what he describes as Machiavelli’s reification [reification =error of treating something which is not concrete -eg an idea - as a concrete thing] of the state as an entity with its own reality that is not to be identified with the personal power of the prince. "... especially worth emphasizing in view of the fact that the term state is so often used ... as little more than a synonym for government." "... Bobbitt has already stressed in The Shield of Achilles how much is lost if we refuse to conceptualize the state as a distinct apparatus of power, and he now points to Machiavelli as the originator of this line of thought." "... 2004 Prospect Magazine named him One of Britain's Top 100 Public Intellectuals.  ... writes essays, typically on foreign policy, published in The New York Times, and The Guardian." SOURCE - ABOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bobbitt ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- ASIDE Davis, Polk & Wardwell founded in 1849 multiple name changes international law firm HQ NYC described as:  "Tiffany's of law firms" Revenue:  $975 million (2013) John W. Davis former US Solicitor General |  1924 Democratic presidential nominee US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education represented South Carolina  |  in defence of racial segregation Davis developed close ties between the firm and: J.P. Morgan companies Guaranty Trust Company Associated Press International Paper firm represented numerous clients in the financial crisis of 2007-2008 lead counsel to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York {U.S. Treasury’s $250 billion bank capital purchase program} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Polk_%26_Wardwell ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- ꕤ

Transcript - Assange - Title: Counter-terrorism strategies targeting Muslims will affect the wider population | VIDEO Feb 2014 | Cage

TRANSCRIPT [For quotation purposes, confirm audio] Julian Assange: Counter-terrorism strategies targeting Muslims will affect the wider population VIDEO [14:33] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emfncWOhXw8&feature=youtu.be Published on 10 Feb 2014 Good afternoon. My name is Julian Assange. I am the founder and publisher of WikiLeaks. Today, I am proud to help Cage launch their Prevent report. It has been often said to me by my Muslim friends (and some of you,  I'm sure, have heard it), that there exists one law for Muslims and one law for everyone else, here in the UK, in the United States, in Australian, New Zealand, and in some of continental Europe.  That used to be true. Unfortunately, for everyone else, it is no longer true:  and the experiences that I and my staff (and other journalists) have gone through, in relation to the Edward Snowden affair; our big publications in relation to the US military intelligence sector; the activities taken against Associated Press, in United States, [and] Fox News; show that, in fact, it is no longer true. That what happens to the Muslim community, sure enough, sooner or later, happens to everyone else as well. In fact, we can go back and look at the origins of the famous mass spying efforts in the United States that affect the domestic population. EDIT - INSERT While mass spying of fibre optic cables, as they go from one country to another, has been something that the United States, the United Kingdom, [and] GCHQ, have been involved in for many years, the ramp-up in the amount of funding available to them, and to the invasiveness of that spying (and to it taking place at a domestic level), is something that occurred shortly after 9/11; although the programs were attempted to be put in place shortly before. That was meant to monitor only a few people connected to suspicious terroristic activities and, yet, within a few years, secret interpretations of that legislation had led to it being enacted for every single person in the United States. There is not a single person in the United States who has made a telephone call in that country, who has not had that call swept up into that mass surveillance system and stored. In fact, the entire community structure of the United States — from the most powerful politician or industrialist to someone in a payphone in the gutters of San Antonio calling their uncle for help — has [now] been incorporated into that system. And what does that mean? Well, if you understand who calls who, how frequently, and when, you can map the degree of social relationship between any two people; and when you do it for all people, you have the social relationship structure of the entire nation; and when you engage in worldwide spying and monitoring, you have it for most of the world. And what does it mean if you have the entire community structure of a nation? Well, it means that you end up in a similar situation to the Muslim community here in London, right now, which is:  understanding the relationships between people, allows you to affect the relationships between people; it allows you to push society in one way or another, and predict people's behaviour across a wide range of areas; in fact, in almost any way that people's behaviour is predictable. And the Prevent Strategy enacted by the United Kingdom is most often associated, or linked, to the policies of McCarthy. In fact, this room behind me is from 1943. It is J Edgar Hoover's room.  It is the FBI records office. If you were to construct a similar room using similar technology (where we didn't have computers, but we have people going from file to file), that room, for the United Kingdom, would be nearly the size of London. In fact, nearly all of us would be physically inside that room, because of the amount of information that's being collected. Now, what has happened with that Prevent Strategy: it's not just the electronic monitoring. To a degree, this room reflects an earlier stage, which is somewhat like what Prevent is doing. It is penetrating the social structure of people: their relationships with their GP; with their lecturers; with other people in their community (even schools). So there is no escape. Prevent means that the social structure of people is susceptible to whatever concern the major power factions of the day have in the united Kingdom. The precedents are all set there — enacted for the Muslim community - just like the precedents were set in the United States for mass domestic spying, by using the Muslim community as an excuse. So we're all in this together. Injustices which affect the Muslim community, soon enough, expand out to the rest of the community at large. They do that by creating policies, laws, institutions and industrial lobbies that seek always to expand their ambit to as many people as possible, to expand their domestic and international power, and lobby hard to prevent their powers being contained. We can see that, for example, with Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, which, surely most people thought, here in the UK, would only apply to those people genuinely suspected of terrorism and, if not, perhaps just Muslims. The reality is, Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, as we have seen in the David Miranda case, affects journalism. It is used to try and stop revelations of the abuses being conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) and GCHQ, here in the UK. It is the reason why our journalist, a British subject, Sarah Harrison, is in self-exile (on the advice of her lawyers), in Germany, and not here in the United Kingdom: because for her to return, she would subject herself to an interrogation under Section 7, without any ability to say that, no, she doesn't want to answer the question in relation to her journalistic work. Prevent is a human intelligence gathering system, and I think we need to see it in terms of:  it is a modern form of making people into informants, a modern regulated system of 'ratting' each other out. It is a system which turns doctor against patient, teacher against student, and neighbour against neighbour. Those people you should be able to trust the inner core of your life to ([eg] your doctor, to seek advice from), are now swept up in a system of inducements and coercion that means that they can't be trusted, debilitating the basic social fabric of society, which is that we all trust one another. What happens when Prevent expands out, as it must do, from is abuses on the Muslim community to those people involved in holding power to account? Cage itself is an institution — a very important institution — here in the UK — which is holding power to account for the abuses it conducts on the Muslim community, and yet Cage — Cage's Board and bank accounts — have been subject to interference by UK authorities. The Prevent system is almost done entirely outside of any court process and any meaningful ability to have an insight into how those people who are affected by this system may seek redress. That is the construction of a human intelligence system. What I have spoken about before and what has been reported with the Snowden revelations is the construction of an Orwellian, mass, global, surveillance system — an electronic system. So, we have here a pincer attack on basic human liberty. On the one hand, an electronic system that prevents us communicating privately with those people who are close to us; from engaging in private economic transactions; from preventing us enjoying, securely, the fruits of globalisation — the fruits of globalised interaction, the fruits of non-localised interaction, even within a country.  And, on the other hand, with Prevent, we have the construction of the remaining area of — a surveillance system for the remaining area of life that is free from mass electronic surveillance: our basic human interaction with our doctor, teacher and so on. And these two things are coming together. So, what does that mean? Does that mean all hope is lost when we have a titanic, global surveillance system and a local human intelligence system that turns one person against another? No. The existence of Cage, as an organisation that has been subject to unjust scrutiny; the existence of WikiLeaks, as an organisation which has fought a long battle against this sort of thing; demonstrates that it somehow possible — despite this excess — to succeed and grow. How was it that WikiLeaks was able to stand up to the Pentagon and the State Department, despite a very public, aggressive, engagement: the largest investigation against a publisher ever? How was it that we were able to spirit Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong to a place of safety, in the greatest manhunt the world has ever seen? How could we do that? It is not because of some extraordinary sophistication and power of WikiLeaks as an organisation. It is the result of extraordinary dedication; not extraordinary wealth. How is it that dedication is able to win against a much superior force? Well, let's remember what this game is about: mass surveillance — systems like Prevent — are all about diverting money from the tax base. It is about securitisation. What do I mean by securitisation? I mean: when the Muslim community, or WikiLeaks — or activists — are used to create fear amongst people in the establishment who have the ability to determine what money goes where. So we are used as an excuse to divert money to Booz Allen Hamilton (a contractor for the National Security Agency); G4S (which was responsible for maintaining an electronic bracelet around ankle when I was under house arrest); Serco (a similar multinational contractor, who maintained the electronic bracelet around my ankle in another house arrest location). These organisations are lobby groups, who lobby to get the maximum amount of wealth transfer from the bulk of the population, into their pockets. It's a way of transferring income, predominantly from the middle class, to these wealthy security organisations. And Prevent is no different. The people running these organisations, they're not actually concerned about preventing anything. They're not actually really concerned about stopping WikiLeaks, and that's why they're unable, so far, to stop us. What they're concerned about is engaging in a process of wealth transfer from the tax base, and gaining political support for their activities, and they can do that with smoke and mirrors. In the security industry, we call this 'security theatre': looking like you're doing something, without doing it too much. And that's why, through the assistance of organisations like Cage, actually the Muslim community in the United Kingdom — and the rest of us — stand a chance. So, I encourage you very strongly to not be frightened of what is going on. It is a concern.  But, remember: these people are deeply incompetent;  they don't have a passion for their work;  the people at Cage have a passion for their work — they are from the community; and you should support them and organisations like them. Thank you. ------- end audio | 14:32 ------- EDIT - red text insert (above).  Must have inadvertently deleted paragraph when formatting. (Lucky discovery nitpicking over a word here or there.  lol) USEFUL LINKS Prevent Strategy Presented to UK Parliament | June 2011 PDF https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf  CAGE, formerly Cageprisoners Ltd, is a London-based advocacy organization with an Islamic focus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAGE_%28organisation%29 McCarthyism Joseph R. McCarthy http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/joseph-mccarthy David Miranda UK Court: David Miranda Detention Legal Under Terrorism Law Miranda’s attorneys argued that the stop was unlawful and a violation of Miranda’s right to freedom of expression. And they said his detention marked the first time the terrorism act had been implemented to seize journalistic materials. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/19/uk-court-david-miranda-detention-legal-terrorism-law/ On the UK's Equating of Journalism With Terrorism he UK Government expressly argued that the release of the Snowden documents (which the free world calls “award–winning journalism“) is actually tantamount to “terrorism”, the same theory now being used by the Egyptian military regime to prosecute Al Jazeera journalists as terrorists. Congratulations to the UK government on the illustrious company it is once again keeping. British officials have also repeatedly threatened criminal prosecution of everyone involved in this reporting, including Guardian journalists and editors. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/19/uks-equating-journalism-terrorism-designed-conceal-gchq/ Sarah Harrison Britain is treating journalists as terrorists – believe me, I know http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/britain-journalists-terrorists-edward-snowden-nsa Booz Allen Hamilton HQ Tysons Corner, Fairfax County, Virginia core busines: provision of management, technology & security services to civilian government agencies / a security & defence contractor to defense & intelligence agencies civil & commercial entities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton G4S plc (formerly Group 4 Securicor) British multinational security services company HQ Crawley, West Sussex world's largest security company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4S Serco Group plc British outsourcing company HQ Hook, Hampshire operates public and private transport and traffic control, aviation, military weapons, detention centres, prisons and schools on behalf of its customers. "There has been a history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco The Prevent Strategy: a cradle to grave police-state http://www.cageuk.org/publication/prevent-strategy-cradle-grave-police-state Apologists for terror or defenders of human rights? The Cage controversy in context Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 ... government has drawn the entire public sector into its controversial counter-extremist agenda, meaning that public servants once responsible for the welfare of citizens – including children – must now monitor their behaviour, appearance and political views, feeding into the most unaccountable and repressive elements of the state. Increasingly marginalised by a media smear campaign, Cage has now achieved the status of public pariah once reserved for critics of government policy on Northern Ireland before the peace process. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/tom-mills-narzanin-massoumi-david-miller/apologists-for-terror-or-defenders-of-human-righ CAGE to sue David Cameron for calling it 'extremist' ISIS and Jihadi John supporting group ... seeking legal advice on whether Mr Cameron is "guilty of defamation". As well as potentially launching legal action against the Prime Minister, CAGE also announced today it has applied for a judicial review against UK charity watchdog, the Charity Commission. CAGE says the commission "exceeded its role as government regulator" by pressuring donors to stop funding it and claims the Charity Commission "spread false information based on misleading reports in certain sections of the media". It said the commission "demonised" CAGE because Jihadi John approached it for advice before he left to fight for ISIS in Syria. The organisation is not stopping there on the warpath against the establishment — it has also complained to the United Nations (UN) about "sustained attacks on its ability to do its advocacy work", which it says involves campaigning for the rights "of those adversely affected by the war on terror" http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/592855/CAGE-sue-David-Cameron-called-extremist-ISIS-Jihadi-John-supporting-group Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/6/contents/enacted ꕤ

USA - Presidential Race / Wealth vs Poverty & Misc.

U.S.A. Presidential Hopefuls Hillary Clinton took Monica's pal, Bill, to a Democratic Party event in #Iowa. Did not reveal if she is in as Pres. candidate running (Econ)  -- Note: Biden also attended & his mouth got him into strife with ADL) Census #US Census Bureau poverty rate drop @ 14.5% 2013, 4 all US / drop from 15% 2012 / Black @ 27% / Hispanics @ 24% >> http://goo.gl/aXg9py They Live They Rule "A corporate-managed state-capitalist pseudo-democracy that sells the narrow interests of the wealthy" .. http://goo.gl/YvSLV6  - Street http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/26231-they-live-they-rule Powerful article.  Not sure what to make of it.  It sounds familiar.  But it also sounds like science fiction. Modern society has morphed into the realm of science fiction? Scary. 'War on Terror' Replaces Anti-Communism "Anti-communism was replaced by the "War on Terror", as the major social control mechanism" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent#cite_note-6 … Anti-Jewish Kentucky Senator Campaign Candidate 4 Senate #Kentucky Robert Ransdell campaigned with the slogan “With Jews we lose" - ADL not happy - [TimesofIsrael] -----------------------------------------------------    COMMENT So who's going to run for President:  Clinton or Biden? The press reckon Biden's mouth is always gettting him into strife, so the latest Biden clanger is probably true to form. There's a big gap between national poverty and poverty rates of blacks and hispanics. Whoever said 'War on Terror' has replaced anti-communism as a control mechanism is quite right, in my view.   Anyway, that's some of my online US-related travels.

Pentagon wants eternal Global War on Terror - NATO long-term survival assured by "unifying threat". Translation: Russia.

Sep 5, '14 THE ROVING EYE Will NATO liberate Jihadistan? By Pepe Escobar Drive your cart and your plow Over the bones of the dead …      - William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell Caliph Ibrahim, aka Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self-declared leader of Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, really sports a mean PR vein. When the show seemed scheduled for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to save Ukraine and Western Civilization - at least rhetorically - from that Evil Empire remixed, Russia, The Caliph, accessing his expensive watch wisdom, intervened with - what else - yet another "off with their heads" special. Eyebrows were properly raised until the United States' intel alphabet soup solemnly concluded that Islamic State (IS) really beheaded yet another American journalist on video (US President Barack Obama: "An horrific act of violence"). And then, out of the blue, The Caliph doubled down, proclaiming to the whole world his next target is none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin. Was he channeling the recently ostracized Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush? In thesis, everything would be settled. The Caliph becomes a contractor to NATO (well, he’s been on to it, sort of). The Caliph beheads Putin. The Caliph liberates Chechnya - fast; not the usual, deeply embarrassing NATO quagmire in Afghanistan. The Caliph, on a roll, attacks the BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The Caliph becomes NATO’s shadow secretary-general. And Obama finally stops complaining that his calls to Putin always end up on voicemail. Ah, if geopolitics was as simple as a Marvel Comics blockbuster. Instead, The Caliph should know - even as he is largely a Made-in-the-West product, with substantial input from Gulf Cooperation Council petrodollar cash - that NATO never promised him a rose garden. So, predictably, those ungrateful Obama and David Cameron, the British Prime Minister - oh yes, because the "special relationship" is all that matters in NATO, the others are mere extras - have vowed to go after him with a broad (well, not that broad) "coalition of the willing" with the usual GCC suspects plus Turkey and Jordan, bombing Iraqi Kurdistan, parts of Sunni Iraq and even Syria. After all, Syrian President "Bashar al-Assad must go", rather "Assad brutality" in Cameron’s formulation, is the real culprit for The Caliph’s actions. And all in the name of the Enduring Freedom Forever-style Global War on Terror. Now get me that Slavic Caliph NATO’s outgoing secretary-general Anders "Fogh of War" Rasmussen was somehow rattled. After all, this was supposed to be the "crucial moment", at the NATO summit in Wales, when NATO would be at its Cold War 2.0 best, rescuing "the allies", all 28 of them, from the dark gloom of insecurity. One just had to look at the replica of a glorious Eurofighter Typhoon deployed in front of the NATO summit hotel in the southern Welsh town of Newport. To round it all off, that evil Slavic Caliph, Vlad Putin himself, designed a seven-point peace plan to solve the Ukrainian quagmire - just as Kiev’s appalling army has been reduced to strogonoff by the federalists and/or separatists in the Donbass. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko - who until virtually yesterday was screaming "Invasion!" at the top of his lungs - breathed long sighs of relief. And as an aside, he disclosed Kiev was receiving high-precision weapons from an unnamed country that could only be the US, the UK or Poland. The whole thing posed a problem, though. What is NATO to defend Western Civilization from when all that threat embodied by "Russian aggression" dissolves into a road map to peace? No wonder the 60 heads of state and government with their Ministers of Defense and Foreign Relations who performed a soft invasion/breaching of the "ring of steel" protecting Newport from protesting hordes were also somehow dazed an confused. Over 11 years after Shock and Awe, we are still living in a Rumsfeldian world. It was the former Pentagon head David Rumsfeld under George "Dubya" Bush who conceptualized "Old Europe" and "New Europe". "Old" were Venusian sissies; "New" were vigorous Martians. "New" totally supported Shock and Awe, and the subsequent invasion/occupation of Iraq. Now they support, in fact beg, for NATO to stare down Russia. "Old", for its part, was trying at least to save a negotiating space with Putin. And in the end dear prudence, especially by Berlin, was rewarded with the Putin peace plan. Just in case, not to rattle the Empire of Chaos too much, Paris announced it won’t deliver the first of two Mistral helicopter carrier battleships to Moscow according to schedule. And of course NATO strongly condemned Russia on Ukraine, and the European Union followed up with yet more sanctions. As for Fogh of War, predictably, he kept juggling his "Mars Attacks!" rhetoric (see Asia Times Online, September 3, 2014). It was all Moscow’s fault. NATO is nothing but an innocent force of appeasement - powerful and solid. At the same time, NATO would not be foolish to start depicting Russia as an enemy outright. So, as Asia Times Online reported, NATO at best will help train Kiev’s forces; the Donbass performance showed they badly need it. But there will be no Ukraine "integration" - for all the hysteria deployed by Kiev and well as Poland and the Baltic states calling for permanent bases. The new element will be the remixed NATO Response Force (NRF) which, by the way, was never used before. NRF even comes with a catchy slogan: "Travel light and strike hard". An 800-strong battalion will be able to strike in two days, and a 5,000-strong brigade between five and seven days. Well, by those "travel light" standards it would hardly be enough to prevent The Caliph from annexing larger parts of Jihadistan with his gleaming white Toyota combo. As for "strike hard", ask Pashtuns in the Hindu Kush for an informed opinion. So Wales yielded NRF; permanent "rotation" and permanent forward bases to "protect" Central and Eastern Europe; and everybody shelling out more cash (no less than 2% of their GDP each, for all 28 members, from here to 2025). All this in the middle of the third European recession in five years. Now compare the astonishing combined NATO military budget of US$900 billion (75% of all expenses monopolized by the US) with only $80 billion for Russia. Yet Moscow is the "threat". Needless to add, even under so much sound and fury, Wales did not yield NATO sitting on a Freudian divan - analyzing in an endless monologue its abject failure in both Afghanistan and Libya. In Afghanistan, the Taliban basically run rings around NATO’s bases and "strike hard" movements, demoralizing them to oblivion. That was NATO in GWOT mode. And in Libya, NATO created a failed state ravaged by militias and called it "peace". That was NATO in "Responsibility To Protect" mode. NATO liberating Jihadistan? The Pentagon couldn’t care less. The Pentagon wants eternal GWOT. US Think Tankland is ecstatic at NATO finding a "renewed purpose" and its long-term survival now assured by a "unifying threat". Translation: Russia. So The Caliph is not exactly quaking in his Made-in-USA desert boots. He’s even dreaming of taking on the Slavic Caliph himself. How come Marvel Comics never thought about that? Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). http://atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-03-050914.html

Love this guy's article.

Lots of info. & humour. Perfect.

INDIA - US WANTS TO LINE UP TRADE, PROFIT AND REGIONAL CONTROL

Uncle Sam’s worldview Hussain H Zaidi Monday, August 11, 2014 From Print Edition [...] The US wants to preserve the existing global order based on liberalism. The US also realises that although it is the lone superpower, it cannot control world affairs independently. It needs regional partners or allies, particularly those believing in economic and political liberalism (Japan and South Korea in East Asia, India in South Asia), to control the world. The political expression of liberalism is democracy, while its economic expression is free market economy. Democracy is advocated mainly because it is useful for promoting American interests as autocratic regimes are more likely to breed extremism and terrorism – at present the most potent threat to the US-dominated global order – than representative ones. By the same token, free market economy is advocated because it best suits American companies engaged in international business. Promoting the political interests of the US government and the economic interests of domestic firms is the pivot on which the American policy revolves. And given India’s political and economic credentials it finely fits into this scheme Hence the repeated statements from the US leadership that India – the largest democracy, the world's second largest market, and a nuclear and a rising economic power – is their strategic partner and a natural ally. Washington believes that New Delhi has to play a leading role in achieving durable peace and stability in the region, which is necessary for preserving the global order. Indo-US economic and commercial relations are growing. Merchandise trade between the two countries has gone up from $35 billion in 2009 to $63 billion in 2013 including $22 billion exports from the USA and $41 billion exports from India. This gives India a trade surplus of $19 billion – the country's largest trade surplus with any country. For India, the US is the single largest export market and the 5th largest source of imports. The US would like to push up its exports and investment in India and take a larger pie of the enormous Indian market. Coming back to Kerry's recent visit to India, the first US cabinet level visit after the change of the guards in New Delhi, the occasion was the fifth session of the annual strategic dialogue between the two countries. The latest round itself is being seen as preparing the groundwork for Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US next month. The joint statement issued at the end of the strategic dialogue, inter alia, reaffirmed US support to India's efforts to have a permanent seat on the UNSC; reiterated the “commitment to eliminating terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, and disrupting terrorist networks including Al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Taiba” and asked “Pakistan to work toward bringing the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks to justice.” As the joint statement shows, any account of US-India relations is incomplete without mentioning Pakistan. At least on paper, the US and Pakistan are also strategic partners and encouraging phrases such as ‘enduring partnership’, ‘shared goals’ and ‘mutual interest and respect’ are employed to characterise Washington-Islamabad ties as well. Yet the two sets of relations are different in terms of both the scale and the dynamics. New Delhi's much bigger economic muscles aside, several irritants have held back the Washington-Islamabad [Pakistan] relations. Take the war on terror. The US has long suspected that in the counterterrorism campaign, Pakistan has been hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. Although the ongoing military operation in North Waziristan, a long-standing US demand, will serve to dampen such suspicion, concerns regarding Pakistan being ‘soft’ on, if not allegedly supporting, non-state actors' involvement in cross-border terrorism is not likely to die down. Likewise, Washington has not conceded to Islamabad's [Pakistan's] demand for transfer of nuclear technology, because it suspects Islamabad does not have a clean record in non-proliferation. The US mediation on Kashmir on Pakistan's terms is also out of the question, as India has been successful in having the world see the militancy in the disputed territory as an expression of religious extremism. It is precisely for this reason that China, also facing religious uprising in its Muslim majority province of Xinjiang, no more supports Pakistan's Kashmir stance. Islamabad, on its part, complains that it has not been adequately compensated for the economic loss caused by the war on terror; that the US aid has too many strings attached to it and is cut off arbitrarily; that at times its sovereignty has been violated by American forces; that Americans have been oblivious to its major demands including a civil nuclear technology agreement – similar to the one with India – having UNSC resolutions on Kashmir implemented, and granting preferential market access to Pakistan exports in what is their single largest destination. Pakistan's problem is not that it's smaller than India but that it is an unstable society governed by a fragile political system – a fatal combination. The position held by such a country in a world power's worldview is qualitatively different from that occupied by a much more stable country. Hence, whereas the US interest in Islamabad consists mainly in the war on terror and nuclear non proliferation, New Delhi has a much larger role to play in Washington's scheme of things. EXRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-266459-Uncle-Sams-worldview

Sounds like the US uses the same old 'partnership' spiel on everyone.

US interest in forming 'partnerships' is to maintain control on a global scale, for US political interests and US corporate interests.

US also wants stability (undisrupted trade) and some of that Indian trade surplus cash.

It appears to have a different relationship with Pakistan, due to the 'fragile political system' in Pakistan.

The US interest in Pakistan is (a) suppression of 'terror' and (b) nuclear non-proliferation.

Sore points for Pakistan are:

• Kashmir
• Insufficient compensation for economic losses (Pakistan bound up in military / 'war on terror' US directives)
• US aid - many strings attached; arbitrary.
• US military violation of Pakistan's sovereignty
• Oblivious to Pakistan demands:

• civil nuclear technology agreement
• Implementation of US Security Council resolutions - Kashmir
• the granting of preferential market access to Pakistan exports

-------------------------------------------------

Found this article an interesting one.

Unfamiliar with the 'war on terror' aspects and with the issue in Kashmir, but aware from other articles/sources that much of the US aid to Pakistan is spent on military rather than economic purposes.

US isn't intrinsically interested in democracy.  

US wants (a) regional stability (b) stable trade (c) free markets (d) strategic and political global control -- and this, by and large, is all about serving corporate American interests.

....................................................................

Checking out Google images out of curiosity, came across some scary looking stuff going on in Pakistan.  

Looks like there's bombings.

Appear to be ordinary people who have got massive guns (machine guns?).  

Loads of violence.