American Aggression, Propaganda, Serbia & NATO

American Aggression Propaganda, NATO & SERBIA 1999 SERBIA source SERBIA   Madeleine Albright Former US Secretary of State under Bomber Bill Clinton named like operations are named some fake euphemism for something that is, in reality, its opposite 38,400 sorties 10,484 strike sortie 78 days destruction Special Place in Hell SERBIA SERBIA 2014 US Academic Former US Ambassador to Russia RT News SERBIA SERBIA SERBIA

Former MI6 Boss Backs Brexit - Ease of Deportation & Border Control

Article SOURCE Former MI6 Boss Backs Brexit - Ease of Deportation & Border Control Daily Mail Quitting EU would make Britain SAFER, says former MI6 chief: Sir Richard Dearlove suggests Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our borders By James Slack and Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail Published: 10:53 EST, 24 March 2016 | Updated: 12:38 EST, 24 March 2016     Former head of MI6 demolished the security case for staying in the EU     Sir Richard Dearlove said Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists     Added British intelligence services 'give much more' than they get in return     Washington was a more important counter-terror ally than the EU, he said By James Slack and Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail Published: 10:53 EST, 24 March 2016 | Updated: 12:38 EST, 24 March 2016 The former head of MI6 yesterday demolished the security case for staying in the EU – saying Britain could be safer out. Sir Richard Dearlove said Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our borders. He added that Europe could not turn its back on Britain if it left the EU because our intelligence services 'give much more' than they get in return. In any event, Washington was a more important counter-terror ally, he said. The former spy chief also dismissed suggestions that Brexit would harm our relationship with the US and likened the EU's various intelligence bodies to the 'leakiest ships of state' and colanders riddled with holes. David Cameron and other senior ministers have relied heavily on claims that Britain is more secure inside the Brussels club because of measures like the European arrest warrant. But, in a devastating intervention, Sir Richard said: 'Few would notice its passing.' His assessment was backed by a government minister and London Mayor Boris Johnson – who warned EU judges were making it harder to throw out fanatics. Sir Richard, who was chief of the Secret Intelligence Service from 1999 to 2004, wrote in the current affairs magazine Prospect: 'Whether one is an enthusiastic European or not, the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. 'Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights – remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque – and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union.' He adds: 'Britain is Europe's leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return. 'It is difficult to imagine any of the other EU members ending the relationships they already enjoy with the UK.' He says liaison between allies is partly driven by 'moral considerations' – so that if Germany learns of a terrorist plot against London, it would not withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not in the EU. Sir Richard concludes: 'Would Brexit damage our defence and intelligence relationship with the United States, which outweighs anything European by many factors of 10? I conclude confidently that no, it would not. 'There would be disapproval of Brexit in Washington, and some disappointment too, but the practical consideration of living in a dangerous world and depending on true friends would win out. In short, Europe would be the potential losers in national security. But if Brexit happened, the UK would almost certainly show the magnanimity not to make its European partners pay the cost.' Theresa May yesterday said EU membership – and access to its intelligence – was 'of benefit' in thwarting terror plots. The Home Secretary told MPs: 'I think there are a number of mechanisms that we are part of within the EU that do enhance our security.' But Boris Johnson and farming minister George Eustice both warned that EU membership was harming national security. The London Mayor told MPs: 'I've seen various people quoted as saying that remaining in the EU is essential for security. 'I think it's important to put a countervailing point which is that there are some ways now that the European Court of Justice is militating against our ability to control our borders in the way we want to and indeed to maintain proper surveillance. 'If you look at the case of Abu Hamza's niece, who tried to smuggle SIM cards to him in prison, we couldn't deport her not because of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights but because of the European Court in Luxembourg, which is now able to adjudicate on the entire corpus of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.' Mr Eustice said the Schengen zone of passport-free travel on the continent meant terrorists could move more freely within the EU.' Yesterday Belgium's ambassador to the UK, Guy Trouveroy, also conceded that free movement increased the risk of terrorist attacks. He said: 'There is no hiding... It is an issue.' But No.10 pointed to comments by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terror laws, and former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, who both insisted Britain would be safer inside the EU. Mr Anderson told the BBC that the UK, which is not in the Schengen zone, is 'much easier to defend' because of our sea border despite the huge cost and inconvenience to travellers. Last night former Home Secretary Lord Howard called the EU a 'failing project' that is 'failing to keep its people safe'. The former Tory leader said Schengen was akin to 'hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe'. Attempts by some Out campaigners to link the EU's free movement rules to the atrocity were criticised by Mr Cameron, who said it was 'not appropriate' to score political points. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506991/UK-safer-Europe-says-former-MI6-chief-Sir-Richard-Dearlove-suggests-Brexit-make-easier-deport-terrorists.html -------/\/\/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT It's the perfect time to push the issue that Dave Cameron's trying to dismiss: "Mr Cameron ... said it was 'not appropriate' to score political points." Even though the ex-MI6 guy, Richard Dearlove, is associated with what they call the 'sexed up' intelligence report ahead of the Iraq invasion 2003, what he says re Brexit makes perfect sense. That David Cameron is a slimy weasel. Sir Malcom Rifkind doesn't sound much better: "Two years later, Rifkind advocated British military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, with or without a mandate from the United Nations." [source] Rifkind was also involved in lobbying for the destruction of Libya, by 'neutralisation' of Gaddafi's conventional forces. So Europe probably has him to thank for the tidal wave of non-Europeans pouring into Europe, together with the terrorists among them. Why is he so bent on remaining in the EU, when Dearlove has made it plain that Brexit's the go and the security gains outweigh the non-existent costs? Rifkind was appointed Chairman of Armor Group (US-owned), one of the largest security groups in Iraq -- here. So this is the British-American revolving door? There's something unseemly about such an appointment, as it gives the impression that former politician war-hawks get rewarded by the sector that they previously enriched by lobbying for war while in office. Perhaps Rifkind has an American bias, now that he works for an American firm? Americans are described as likely to be 'disappointed' should Britain exit the EU, so the EU thing must serve them and their interests. Bet the Americans are behind the invasion of Europe -- as in, they're most likely funding and arranging the mass movement, whether directly, through third parties, or in partnership. Read somewhere that the US and Britain want a weakened German EU partner.  But that doesn't explain the destruction of Sweden. Maybe they just want a weak European native population?

Sweden's Shameful Record of CONCEALING RAPE of Swedish Women

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/ Sweden's Shameful Record of Cover-Up of Rape of Swedish Women It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful Stockholm police were warned not to give descriptions of the perpetrators lest they were accused of being racist Ivar Arpi  |  16 January 2016  |  Stockholm It took days for police to acknowledge the extent of the mass attacks on women celebrating New Year’s Eve in Cologne. The Germans were lucky; in Sweden, similar attacks have been taking place for more than a year and the authorities are still playing catch up. Only now is the truth emerging, both about the attacks and the cover-ups. Stefan Löfven, our Prime Minister, has denounced a ‘double betrayal’ of women and has promised an investigation. But he ought to be asking this: what made the police and even journalists cover up the truth? The answer can be discovered in the reaction to the Cologne attacks. Sweden prides itself on its sexual equality and has even pioneered a feminist foreign policy. When hundreds of women were reported to have been molested and abused in Cologne — at the hands of an organised mob — the reaction from Swedish politicians and pundits ought to have been one of outrage. Instead, we were told that the events in Cologne were not unusual. An article in Aftonbladet, Sweden’s largest tabloid, argued that it was racist to point out that the perpetrators in Cologne had been described as North African or Arab, since German men had carried out sexual assaults during Bavaria’s Oktober-fest. Another Aftonbladet article said that reporting on the Cologne attacks was bowing to right-wing extremism. Over the last week, we have been told over and over that the real issue is men, not any particular culture — that Swedish men are no better. Then last week Sweden’s own stories began to emerge. During the We Are Sthlm music festival, large groups of young men harassed girls sexually. It began in 2014 and it also went on during last year’s festival. According to internal police reports the groups were ‘so-called refugee youths primarily from Afghanistan’. The youngest of the victims was 12 years old. The police claimed that there were ‘relatively few crimes and arrests considering the number of participants’. Internal reports told a different story. The police were shocked enough by the harassment to try to come up with a strategy to handle the groups of molesters at the festival — a strategy that was evidently unsuccessful. The trouble was that they were trying to deal with a problem but would not speak its name. As Peter Ågren, police chief in central Stockholm, put it: ‘Sometimes we do not dare to say how things really are because we believe it will play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats.’ As we now know, police officers in Stockholm are instructed not to reveal the ethnicity or nationality of any suspects lest they be accused of racism.  [comment:  Agren has stated that he was misquoted by Dagens Nyheter & that he did not specifically link Sweden Democrats with the rationale put out for not reporting the mob rapes / sex assaults, although there was general discussion regarding nationalist parties, as I understand from (translated) article I recently read.  So the Swedish paper that did not report on the disclosures made 6 months ago by a whistleblower, subsequently also misquoted Agren (HERE)] The Sweden Democrats are the anti-immigration populist force in Sweden — no longer a fringe element but the third–largest party after the election of 2014. Opinion polls suggest they are growing ever stronger. They are reviled by all other parties, who try to fight them by rejecting their every claim as baseless. As a result, immigration cannot be discussed frankly in Sweden. If you mention anything negative about refugees or immigration, you’re accused of playing into the hands of the reviled far-right. As a result, even legitimate concerns are silenced or labelled xenophobic. The recent migration crisis has changed this only slightly.  [comment:  I cannot convey how sick I am of seeing the word 'populist' frequently used alongside descriptions of nationalist or anti-immigration political organisations.  By attaching 'populist' to the description, the press conveys that such organisations ''appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people" as if the interest of 'ordinary' Europeans are less valid than the outlook, interests, motivations and agendas of the butt-kissing middle-class intelligentsia, politicians and their wealthy patrons, who are responsible for the promotion of genocidal (& rape of European women) policies for decades in Western nations & now European women are reaping what these cretins have sown.] When a country cannot hold honest debates, there are consequences. Take Roger Ticoalu, director of events at Stockholm City Council. He said he had been utterly unaware of the risk of such attacks:     ‘It was a modus operandi that we had never seen before: large groups of young men who surround girls and molest them.’ The German police made a similar point: they are used to handling drunks. But gangs of young men encircling and then groping women at large public gatherings: who has ever heard of such a thing? In the Arab world, it’s something of a phenomenon. It has a name: ‘Taharrush gamea’. Sometimes the girls are teased and have their veils torn off by gangs of young men; sometimes it escalates into rape. Five years ago, this form of attack was the subject of an award-winning Egyptian film, 678. Instances of young men surrounding and attacking girls were reported throughout the Arab Spring protests in Cairo in 2011 and 2012. Lara Logan, a CNN journalist covering the fall of Hosni Mubarak, was raped in Tahrir Square. Taharrush gamea is a modern evil, and it’s being imported into Europe. Our authorities ought to be aware of it. But they can’t be made aware, when any mention of the issue is discouraged. This leaves the police unprepared, and leaves the public feeling not just vulnerable but deceived. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to wonder how many more instances there have been where Swedish police have taken political considerations into account before disclosing information. Before Dan Eliasson became Sweden’s national police commissioner, he tweeted that he ‘vomited’ when he saw Jimmie Åkesson, party leader of the Sweden Democrats, on television. To what degree were his own personal political views imprinted on the Swedish police? Were the officers who covered up the sexual harassments responding to signals from Eliasson? Did they think that making a fuss about immigrant crime was a bad career move, and did that stop them doing their duty? Even now, Swedes are still trying to figure out what exactly has been going on. Reports are emerging of Taharrush gamea-style harassment in Malmö on New Year’s Eve. According to police reports, hundreds of refugee youths from Afghanistan roamed around and ‘surrounded intoxicated girls/women and harassed them’. Similar incidents are being reported from towns such as Kalmar and Karlstad. The Finnish authorities are handling reports of organised sexual harassment perpetrated by Iraqi immigrants. We Swedes pride ourselves on our unrivalled record on respecting women’s rights. But when women’s rights conflict with the goal of accommodating other cultures, it’s almost always women who are pushed to the side. This week, the chattering classes in Sweden will be worrying about how this story plays into the hands of the Sweden Democrats. But events have moved beyond that. The truth may be painful. Yet, as we have seen, concealing the truth is worse. Ivar Arpi is an editorial page writer for Svenska Dagbladet. [ major Stockholm daily ] http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I'm disgusted that Europeans let their women get assaulted by what amounts to genocidal imports at European taxpayer expense, and that the Vikings are so brainwashed that: a) this genocidal mass immigration policy is accepted. b) that leaders of their institutions cover up the rape of Swedish women. c) that leaders of their institutions insult Swedish nationalists, who represent the vital interest of native Swedes - while they, the liberals, facilitate the rape of Sweden. Sweden is a lie.  Sweden might think that it is fashionably 'feminist', but despite the 'feminist foreign policy' political schtick that the politicians and intelligentsia showcase, Sweden is NOT remotely concerned with the welfare of its own women. Sweden's authorities and press have covered up rapes and sexual assaults of Swedish women; Sweden lets off third world gang rapists with nothing but slaps on the wrist (eg. aggravated gang rape conviction is a mere 4 years penalty); Sweden's Migration Board (headed by former Sapo / security service head, Anders Danielsson (2007–2012) - more re Daneilsson, towards end of linked post)  has concealed the rape of a 3-year old by an asylum-seeker; and Sweden's women have been getting WHOLESALE raped and gang-raped by third world immigrants FOR WELL OVER A DECADE that I am aware. While Sweden was facilitating the rape of its women and covering up the rape of its women by third world gang-rapists, Sweden was also shamelessly pursuing the 5-year political persecution witch-hunt against an Australian journalist, Julian Assange, who exposed US and allied wrongdoings & war crimes; a journalist who has now been detained for over 5 years without charge, while Sweden & UK have refused to respect the political asylum he was rightfully granted by Ecuador & and while Sweden deliberately REFUSED to question Assange to progress the Swedish 'inquiry' (on the advice of the British), so that the Swedes & the British could pursue the true agenda:  extradition of Assange to Sweden for 'questioning' & into the arms of Sweden's powerful American ally, which is waiting in the wings for a US extradition, on the basis of a sealed US Grand Jury indictment  (formal, legal accusation), in existence since Jan. 2011, if not earlier. Preposterous, undemocratic political persecution by state and media facilitators of rape of Swedish women. What a sick world we live in. Media & Politician Prejudicial Attack on Assange LINK | Post Sweden Media Misrepresents Murder of Teenager in Swedish School European Media Remains Silent LINK | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- PS ... & for those that argue that the rape of Western women phenomenon (that's been sweeping Europe for over a decade) is not 'cultural' or related to ethnicity, take a good look at the above article:  'taharrush gamea' is an Arabic form of attack engaged in by mobs of young men assaulting/raping females in the Middle East, you liberal cretins.  Off-site post & video of mob attack   | here ꕤ

2013 - Abu Ghraib & Other Captive Torture Iraq - US Govt Contractor to Pay Tortured Captives

ꕤ Article SOURCE Archived News - 2013 http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-defense-contractor-pays-over-5-million-to-ex-abu-ghraib-inmates/ Times of Israel  / AP  - 2013 Summary: Engility Holdings Inc Chantilly, Virginia, USA US government defence contractor lawsuit:  conspiring to torture detainees at:   Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq Paid $5.28 million to 71 former inmates held Abu Ghraib (& at other US-run detention sites) between 2003 and 2007 L-3 Services Inc. (now an Engility subsidiary) provided translators to US military in Iraq over  6,000 translators in Iraq (at $450 million per annum contract) CACI International Inc. Arlington, Virginia, USA (another US government defence contractor) case expected to go on trial each of the 71 Iraqis received a portion Torture - Iraq mock execution (trigger pulling) wall slammed until unconscious stripped, bound (chain) & hooded, threatened with rape forced to consume so much water, vomited blood several captives raped & beaten kept naked extended periods of time 2003 to 2006 USA Defence Department paid $30.9 million to Iraqi & Afghan civilians re killings, injuries, property damage due to US or coalition forces' military actions US government is immune from lawsuits stemming from combatant activities of the military at war 2013 - Times of Israel: "Courts are still sorting out whether contractors in a war zone should be accorded legal immunity from being sued, just as the government is immune." In its defense four years ago against the lawsuit, L-3 said the fact that the claims in the case “cannot be brought against the government means that they also cannot be brought against L-3.” “No court in the United States has allowed aliens — detained on the battlefield or in the course of postwar occupation and military operations by the US military — to seek damages for their detention,” the company told the federal court four years ago. “Yet these plaintiffs bring claims seeking money damages for their detention and treatment while in the custody of the US military in the midst of a belligerent occupation in Iraq.” Allowing the case to proceed “would require a wholly unprecedented injection of the judiciary into wartime military operations and occupation conduct against the local population, in particular the conditions of confinement and interrogation for intelligence gathering,” L-3 added. http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-defense-contractor-pays-over-5-million-to-ex-abu-ghraib-inmates/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The Iraqi torture victims didn't receive much:  $5.28 million between 71 victims is peanuts. Maybe the whole of Iraq should mount a class action lawsuit and get restitution for decades, seeing the entire Iraq war was illegal. If the US cannot be sued re 'war' military actions, why have US taxpayers paid:  $30.9 million to Afghans and Iraqis? And check out the $450-million American taxpayer money that went to the interpreters. And let's not forget the 2010 monthly costs borne by the American taxpayer, that's in the BILLIONS (and, no, that's not a typo): February 2010 Cost of War to USA Taxpayers Afghanistan - $6.7 billion per month Iraq - $5.5 billion per month Link  | Post Bankers must love war USA debt clock: Over $18 Trillion dollars payable to bankers by US taxpayers for generations ahead More US debt clocks: http://www.usadebtclock.com/ www.usdebtclock.org/ *I think that's 'trillions' ... but I'm no good at reading big numbers. ꕤ

Afghan War 2001 - 2010 Ninth Anniversary Article

ꕤ Article SOURCE archived news - as marked http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/10/07/on-the-ninth-anniversary-of-the-afghanistan-war/ Afghan War 2001 On the Ninth Anniversary of the Afghanistan War By The Red Phoenix on October 7, 2010 Today, the war and military occupation in Afghanistan continues onwards for its tenth year, marking the ninth anniversary of the invasion on October 7th, 2001. The so-called “Global War on Terror” has escalated into a full-scale invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the bombing and terrorization of Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries. Since then, the financial costs of the Afghanistan War have trampled that of the Iraq War. In February 2010, the monthly cost for Afghanistan was $6.7 billion, while the Iraq War was $5.5 billion. Costs aside, let us take a look at where the Afghan War has taken the Afghan population nine years down the line.  “Operation Enduring Freedom” (OEF) has brought nothing but destruction, a military dictatorship, legalized rape and the re-opening of Afghanistan’s poppy and opium fields to fuel the global drug trade.  [comment:  I thought the figure in the billions per month was a typo, but a check indicates monthly figures in the BILLIONS is correct & the figures given in this 2010 article are correct - here] In addition, NATO airstrikes and ground operations have not ceased for a moment. Even pro-US Afghan President Hamid Karzai is calling on the US to withdraw. The death tolls for both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have independently claimed thousands of lives. Some civilian death estimates for Afghanistan say between 11,443 and 14,240 deaths have been recorded total as “direct deaths,” with 6982 since 2007. Some estimates go as high as over a million dead in Iraq alone. The recent escalation of the war in Afghanistan by the US imperialists is the beginning of President Barack Obama’s plan to send 30,000 more troops in the coming months before a supposed gradual drawdown of troops (much like the recent Iraq “drawdown” no doubt) in 2011. The CIA remains poised and ready to borrow armed bomber drones from the US military in order to expand their covert assassination campaign, which has been known to violate the borders of Pakistan in North Waziristan and commit political assassinations. Current State of Afghanistan  [at 2010] A global public opinion survey involving 47 nations conducted in 2007 found that only 2 out of the 47 countries possessed a majority that supported the continued US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan. These two were Israel (59%) and Kenya (60%) (1). More breaking news included that “The Taliban issued a statement marking the invasion anniversary, claiming 75 percent of Afghanistan was now under its control. ‘The strongholds of jihad and resistance against the invading Americans and their allies are as strong as ever,’ it said. ‘The invading Americans spent hundreds of billions of dollars in order to continue this illegitimate war, lost thousands of soldiers — with tens of thousands of them being injured — and faced heavy losses in terms of military hardware.’ The Taliban urged the U.S. and its allies to immediately leave the country” (2). A report by the Open Society Foundations, a think-tank, said that “Afghans are increasingly angry and resentful about the international presence in Afghanistan and do not believe insurgents are responsible for most attacks and civilian deaths” (2). Just to give our readers an idea of just how bad the drug trade in Afghanistan has gotten since the US occupation, on Wednesday a “joint patrol […] seized a vehicle with 1,700 pounds (760 kilograms) of heroin, 550 pounds (250 kilograms) of hashish, 220 pounds (100 kilograms) of wet opium, five anti-personal mines, and bomb-making materials in Kandahar […]” (2). As Afghanistan was getting ravaged with bombs, the U.S. government enlisted the help of the Northern Alliance led by warlord Rashid Dostum to do their bidding on the ground. In a U.S. orchestrated operation, the Northern Alliance captured the Taliban stronghold of Mazar-i-Sharif. Thousands of Taliban fighters were taken prisoner in the nearby town of Kunduz. Kunduz fell in November of that year, and in December, New York Times correspondent Carlotta Gall reported, “dozens…of prisoners asphyxiated in shipping containers used to transport them to [the] prison in Shibarghan, a journey that took two or three days” (3). The NA needed to transport thousands of “potentially dangerous men” and as such they were stuffed into sealed containers that often line the roads of Afghanistan and are used to transport prisoners. This figure of “dozens” comes from the prison commander who admitted that 43 had died during the journey, most from combat injuries. However, inquiry with inmates held in Shibarghan lead Gall to believe that the actual number of deaths may be much higher. The following May, Gall offered a follow-up report, offering the news, “A tangle of abandoned clothes, half-covered in sand, lies just off the desert track. Pieces of white bone are strewn among the mess and the smell of decaying bodies drifts over the site” (4). She then went on to offer some background information on what she had discovered: The desert outside Shibarghan “hides what are suspected to be large-scale killings committed five months ago by Afghan allies of the US” (3). “Kill Team” in Afghanistan Exposed for War Crimes As for a more recent event, rogue members of a platoon from the fifth Stryker Combat Brigade, second infantry division were charged with killing civilians for sport and for dismembering and photographing corpses. According to the army’s own charge documents, an Afghan man approached the platoon in the small village of La Mohammed Kalay. One soldier, falling back on the excuse that they were under attack, threw a fragmentary grenade and ordered others to open fire. This unprovoked attack, taking place on January 15th, was the beginning of a wide-reaching shooting spree against civilians. The subsequent investigation has pressured the belief that the military ignored warnings of the rouge soldiers and what they were doing. One of the soldiers facing charges, Spc. Adam Winfield, wrote home to his parents after he was notified of the killings done by his fellow soldiers, “I’m not sure what to do about something that happened out here, but I need to be secretive about this” (5). He wrote this on a Facebook message to his parents, dated January 15th, 2009. About a month later, he was able to present his family with the details. Soldiers in his unit were on patrol and killed, “some innocent guy about my age, just farming” (5). He then added that those who had committed the murder suggested that he “get one of his own.” The soldier’s father, Christopher Winfield, went to contact the Army through a hotline in order to prompt an investigation. However, his efforts were all for none. Months later, two more Afghan civilians were killed. Spc. Winfield later told his parents that he had “proof that they [the soldiers in his unit] are planning another one in the form of an AK-47 they want to drop on a guy” (6). He added that he felt a strong concern for his personal safety if he made the decision to report the killings to the authorities. “Should I do the right thing and put myself in danger for it? Or just shut up and deal with it,” adding, “There are no more good men left here. It eats away at my conscience every day” (7). Winfield had good reason to worry. Another soldier in the same unit, Pfc. Justin Stoner, who told superiors about hashish-smoking among soldiers, was savagely beaten by several members of the platoon. Staff Sgt. Gibbs and another soldier further intimidated Stoner by displaying on the floor a set of severed fingers, telling Stoner that “if I don’t want to end up like that guy…shut the hell up” (6). This led Stoner to tell investigators about the murders of the three Afghan civilians. Spec. Jeremy N. Morlock, 22, and a member of the 5th Stryker Combat Brigade admitted to taking place in the killings, which took place in the Kandahar province between January and May 2009. He attempted to shift the blame entirely on Gibbs, claiming that he was the one that planted the idea with their unit to kill innocent Afghans. “Gibbs had pure hatred for all Afghanis and constantly referred to them as savages,” Morlock said in one statement, details of which were first reported by the Associated Press (8). Morlock, Gibbs and three other U.S. soldiers have been charged with murder in the deaths of the three Afghan civilians. In some of the most gruesome allegations against American military personnel since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, they and other soldiers from their platoon also face charges of using hashish, dismembering and photographing corpses, and possessing human bones. Morlock’s defense attorney sought to toss out his client’s statements by arguing that he was on heavy medication at the time of his discussion with Army investigators in May of that year. http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/10/07/on-the-ninth-anniversary-of-the-afghanistan-war/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/11/kill-team-calvin-gibbs-convicted The Guardian - 2011 'Kill team' US platoon commander guilty of Afghan murders Calvin Gibbs, who made soldiers help him kill civilians and take body part 'trophies', could be out in less than 10 years Chris McGreal in Washington Friday 11 November 2011 14.36 AEDT A US military court has convicted an army squad commander of leading a "kill team" in Afghanistan that murdered unarmed civilians and collected body parts as war trophies. But Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, 26, could be freed in less than 10 years after receiving a life sentence with the possibility of early parole for murder, assault and conspiracy over the killings of three Afghans in separate incidents staged to look as if the victims were combatants. In one of the most serious accusations of war crimes to emerge from the Afghan conflict, Gibbs recruited other soldiers to murder civilians he called "savages" after he took over command of a US army squad in Afghanistan's Kandahar province in November 2009. Prosecutors described Gibbs as hunting innocent Afghans "for sport", a view reinforced by the staff sergeant's statement likening the amputation of body parts as trophies to collecting antlers from a deer. The military prosecutor, Major Rob Stelle, told the court: "Sergeant Gibbs had a charisma, he had a 'follow me' personality. But it was all a bunch of crap, he had his own mission: murder and depravity. No one died before Sergeant Gibbs showed up." Gibbs was convicted of murder for inciting two soldiers to kill 15-year-old Gul Mudin as he worked in a field. The platoon commander gave a grenade to one of the soldiers, Jeremy Morlock, who threw it at Mudin. A second soldier, Andrew Holmes, then shot the boy. Gibbs played with the corpse of the teenager "as if it was a puppet", Morlock told the trial. The staff sergeant was also convicted of shooting dead Marach Agha, a man sleeping by a roadside, and then planting a Kalashnikov next to the corpse to make it look as if he was a fighter. He kept part of the victim's skull as a trophy. Gibbs was convicted on a third count of murder for killing a Muslim cleric, Mullah Adahdad, with a grenade and then shooting him. Two other soldiers, Morlock and Adam Winfield, have already pleaded guilty over their roles in the killing. Gibbs and other soldiers collected fingers, teeth and other body parts as trophies. They also took photographs of themselves posing next to their dead victims. In one of the pictures Morlock is seen lifting Mudin's [teenager's] head by its hair for the camera and smiling. The soldiers also took ghoulish pictures of themselves with dead combatants. The jury of five soldiers was shown pages of Facebook messages sent by Winfield to his parents in which he described how Gibbs led the killings. In one exchange with his father Winfield recounted Mudin's killing. "An innocent dude. They planned and went through with it. I knew about it. Didn't believe they were going to do it. Then it happened. Pretty much the whole platoon knows about it. It's OK with all of them pretty much. Except me. I want to do something about it. The only problem is I don't feel safe here telling anyone. The guy who did it is the golden boy in the company who can never do anything wrong and it's my word against theirs," Winfield wrote. Winfield later told investigators: "[Gibbs] likes to kill things. He is pretty much evil incarnate. I mean, I have never met a man who can go from one minute joking around, then mindless killings." The court martial was told that Gibbs had six skull tattoos on his leg to mark up each of his "kills" from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his testimony Gibbs denied responsibility for the killings, saying the victims all died in legitimate combat. But he did admit slicing off body parts from Afghans, including the fingers of a man, and keeping them or giving them to other soldiers as trophies. "In my mind I was there to take the antlers off the deer. You have to come to terms with what you're doing. Shooting people is not an easy thing to do," said Gibbs. The prosecution witnesses against Gibbs included members of his army unit who were also involved in the atrocities. Morlock and Holmes have pleaded guilty to murder and received prison sentences of 24 years and seven years respectively. Winfield pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter for failing to prevent other soldiers from attacking Afghan civilians. He was jailed for three years. Another soldier, Michael Wagnon, is awaiting trial over the killings and collecting human body parts. The killings came to light in May after the army began investigating an assault on a soldier, Justin Stoner, after he reported to superiors that members of his unit were smoking hashish. Gibbs, Morlock and other members of the platoon are alleged to have beaten Stoner and told him to keep his mouth shut. Stoner reported the beating and told investigators what he knew of the "kill team". Prosecutors called Gibbs "monstrous" and "savage" and told the military jury he should never be released from prison. But the jurors acceded to the convicted soldier's plea to have the hope of being reunited with his son and sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole after less than 10 years. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/11/kill-team-calvin-gibbs-convicted SUMMARY February 2010 Cost of War to USA Taxpayers Afghanistan - $6.7 billion per month Iraq - $5.5 billion per month est. civilians killed Afghanistan direct: 11,443 - 14,240 indirect: 6,982 *other estimates as high as over 1-million dead, Iraq alone ➭  CIA covert political assassination program 2007 Survey only majority support for US/NATO occupation  of Afghanistan Israel (59%) Kenya (60%) ➭ Drug trade booming ➭ Taliban claims 75% control of Afghan territory http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/10/07/on-the-ninth-anniversary-of-the-afghanistan-war/ WAR CRIMES - Afghanistan Killing civilians Suffocation of Captives Northern Alliance USA orchestrated op take town of:  Mazar-i-Sharif 1,000s Taliban fighters taken prisoner (Kunduz) transport to prison in Shibarghan 3-day journey ➭ dozens captives suffocated in sealed shipping containers ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Checking some old stories, as I was having a look at some old photos to get a feel for 2010 wars.  I missed out on what was going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, because I wasn't interested at the time. On reading of the random killings of civilians and body parts collection, the initial feeling was horror and disgust. It makes no sense to kill civilians for nothing and it's sick to play around with dead things, glorifying the slaughter and glorifying one's role in committing the slaughter. While you want people in the military (esp. the army) that can kill and aren't at all squeamish, you don't want sickos targeting civilians or killing unjustly and randomly, and certainly not sickos with a fetish for body parts. But I'm not sure why that's so offensive.  As in, when people are dead, they're dead.   I guess because it goes beyond maybe taking a photograph of someone killed in combat (but this wasn't even combat, it was civilians randomly targeted), and it's taking disgusting trophies -- which is a lot like playing around with and treasuring decay. [I'm eating toast at the moment & my stomach's sort of unhappy with that imagery.] It's sick to be that hung up on dead things,  and the entire thing was staged to pump up this guy's ego and self-image as 'killer.'  It didn't even matter to him that the whole thing was a fraud (in the sense that his victims weren't even combatants) and that he was therefore no great combatant. Odds are that the Staff Sergeant, Calvin Gibbs, is a psychopath. That it was a US military commander, that it was planned in advance, and that the platoon (15-30 soldiers) were OK with this, is damning of the US military. The Winfield guy getting 3 years prison seems harsh, seeing he wasn't involved and wasn't into what his unit was doing, and seeing he expressed fear about speaking up about what was going on. *I can't believe they're going to free the sicko commander & let him loose in US society. ꕤ

2012 - 'Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?'

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/afghanistan-feminist-war-the-first-fem_b_1349217.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/afghanistan-feminist-war-the-first-fem_b_1349217.html Afghanistan: The First Feminist War? Dan Ehrlich Posted: 16/03/2012 22:37 GMT Updated: 16/05/2012 10:12 BST The tragedy in Afghanistan of a US soldier murdering 16 civilians has given President Obama a greater urgency in getting American troops out of that country. Yet, he finds himself in a similar situation as President Nixon during the latter days of the Vietnam War...Securing Peace (leaving) with honour. With America's "puppet" Afghan ruler Hamid Karzai now asking NATO troops to stay in their camps, abandoning one of their main goals of winning the hearts and minds of the people...one question resonates: Why are we sill there? Leaving Afghanistan was a main topic Obama discussed with British Prime Minister David Cameron this past week. And it's a cinch one of the talking points was that question: Why are we still there? What are our goals? Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaida is opening up chapters all over the Islamic world, the only concrete answer to that question is the protection of women. The feminist victory may be complete in America, but on the international stage it's not doing so well with three quarters of the world's women still under often-severe male domination. Afghanistan is an extreme case in point in what might be termed the first feminist war...a war that now may not be won even if Hillary Clinton dons a flack jacket and shoulders an M16 on the front lines. Still, since the Bush Administration to the present America's top foreign policy office has been held by women...women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters. I say that since there has yet to be a credible explanation as to why we, and other NATO nations, are sill there, except to keep the extreme male chauvinist and misogynist Muslim Taliban from power. Our main goal of defeating Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida group and international terrorism is over...at least there. Remember, America originally helped arm the Taliban in its fight against the Soviets. As far as anyone can tell the reason for our conflict with them, as with Iraq, is regime change. We have also accomplished that. How long Karzai remains in power after NATO leaves is questionable. Yet, unlike Iraq, which had a strong central autocratic government, the Taliban is a theocracy made up of hill tribesmen who simply abandoned Kabul when we arrived and took the mountains and friendly villages for a protracted war against NATO. Of course it doesn't have to be that way. If we had the money and popular support we could stay there as long as we wanted. We have maintained forces in South Korea since the end of WW2, most of that time under a cease-fire agreement with North Korea. But, this is the main weakness with progressive democracies when pitted against stagnant theocracies. Like sharks, we have to keep moving or we eventually will perish. Many Islamic states simply exist as shellfish, going where the tide takes them, in a non-evolutionary permanent state shielded by their faith. But, for us, as usual there's more at stake in Afghanistan than our war on terror, women being forced to wear burkas and our international reputation. There are big, big bucks in the form of natural gas and minerals. And there's one more thing...narcotics. The country's biggest cash crop is opium poppies, another battle that hasn't been going well. Because as with our similar efforts to eradicate South American cocaine, we're fighting an indigenous people's traditional work. President Obama's original contention during the GW Bush years that we should be concentrating on Afghanistan rather than invading Iraq was good politics in the aftermath of 9/11. Our invasion of Iraq wasn't based so much on Saddam Hussein's brutality as it was on reports of his so-called weapons of mass destruction aimed at the West...a claim that has since been proven false. So, it was left to the media to ramp the US population up for our Afghan adventure. Photos and videos of women being tortured and executed for trying to have jobs or enjoy some western music, inflamed many of us against the brutal Taliban religious fanaticism. As it should have. Develop a war on terrorism and couple this with the Taliban and nine years later we are still there with more NATO troops dying every week. But wait! There's one more weakness progressive democracies have: We won't do what some of our enemies would do to win. We are limited by our civility, rules of warfare, the Geneva Convention, etc. That's partly why those 16 senseless civilian deaths is so difficult to stomach. During the Korean War General Douglas MacArthur, one of the most brilliant military tacticians we have ever had was fired by President Truman because he wanted to bomb the railroads in Manchuria. That was from where China's Red Army supplies were being funneled into Korea. He felt if we broke the supply line, the Chinese offensive would collapse. Truman, however, felt such as action might bring Russia into the conflict and trigger WW3. We didn't win in Korea...but eventually bargained for a truce. In Vietnam we tried everything except invading North Vietnam and nuclear weapons. But, those options were nixed for fear of bringing the Chinese into the war. We are not about to nuke Afghanistan, killing everyone that isn't waiving Old Glory or even try to fight a war of attrition, which we would lose. That's possibly because we are still too nice to win. We will eventually just leave...but probably without that infamous Mission Accomplished banner. And, hopefully we may at long last learn that our nation is best defended by guarding our own borders and fighting a never-ending battle at home for truth, justice and the American way, if anyone can recall what that way is.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/afghanistan-feminist-war-the-first-fem_b_1349217.html Decades-old CIA crack-cocaine scandal gains new momentum Published time: 11 Oct, 2014 01:47 Edited time: 13 Oct, 2014 14:52 Nearly two decades after a US reporter was humiliated for connecting the CIA to a drug-trafficking trade that funded the Nicaraguan Contras, important players in the scandal – which led to the journalist’s suicide – are coming forward to back his claims.   Back in 1996, Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News broke a story stating not only that the Nicaraguan Contras – supported by the United States in a rebellion against their left-leaning government – were involved in the US crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s, but also that the CIA knew and turned a blind eye to the operation. As a result, Webb concluded, the CIA was complicit in a drug trade that was wreaking havoc on African American communities in Los Angeles. The bombshell report sparked outrage across the country, but when national newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post weighed in on the matter, they dismissed Webb and attacked his story to the point that it was disowned by the Mercury News. Webb was forced out of journalism and ultimately committed suicide in 2004. Now, however, the whole ordeal is being looked at with fresh eyes in the form of two new films: “Kill the Messenger” and a documentary called, “Freeway: Crack in the System.” Additionally, several figures involved in the operation have recently spoken out, lending further credibility to Webb’s original reporting.  https://www.rt.com/usa/194992-cia-crack-scandal-webb/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I'm not really good with subtlety.  I don't get it.  I find it annoying. What exactly is this, a piss-take?  We know it wasn't a 'feminist war' and the writer himself goes on to discuss the big draw-cards of Afghanistan: 1.  "big, big bucks in the form of natural gas and minerals." 2.  "country's biggest cash crop is opium poppies" (narcotics). So that probably explains what the Americans are doing there.  That and the regime change the Americans sought. And regime change was accomplished, according to the author.  By installing  Hamid Karza. So what else is there? Seeing a military base in Korea was discussed (a base that is like an occupation since WWII), I'm going to guess that the Americans also want a military base in Afghanistan, so they can permanently occupy the country. There's a large number of military bases in Afghanistan.  Wow, who knew?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISAF_installations_in_Afghanistan The writer comes across as rather unpleasant, the way he keeps referring to the American invaders and aggressors as 'too nice' to win the invasion, yet he admits that the Americans will not win a war of attrition.  So short of dropping nukes on Afghanistan, what is there?  Whatever it is, it's not a case of being 'too nice' to win. This is a nation of invaders and destroyers that have killed for decades on a worldwide scale. The reference to progressive democracies being limited to rules of war, the Geneva Convention and so on, are total crap. The US has refused to ratify protocols of the Geneva Convention, the US has denied detainees basic human rights and denied detainees rights as combatants, and the US has engaged in torture of detainees, rendition (kidnap & transfer abroad), and was/is running black sites.  Plus the US has bailed out of the Rome Statute, so that it is not subject to provisions of the International Criminal Court (thus to avoid conviction for:   genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression). The illegal invasion of Iraq would, I believe, be considered a 'war of aggression' and therefore a war crime. Chauvinism & burqas, and exporting 'feminism' (democracy or anything else), have absolutely nothing to do with American (or Western) NATO motivations. And as the CIA was involved in trafficking drugs in South America to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, even the mention of eradicating cocaine in South America is suspect. What's the bet that the CIA is just repeating the same patterns in the Middle East? P.S. Following is link to USA Rome Statute (ICC) unsigning: USA - Rome Statute - ICC -- USA 'unsigns' Rome Statute -- USA threatens military force -- USA hypocrisy re ICC & regime change Targets (Libya & Syria) Link | Post ꕤ