Western Energy Vultures Hover Over Syria - Cameron's Deceit re Syria & Criminal Negligence - Russia Reveails ISIS-Turkey Oil Smuggling

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Western firms plan to cash in on Syria’s oil and gas ‘frontier’ by Nafeez Ahmed US, British, French, Israeli and other energy interests could be prime beneficiaries of military operations in Iraq and Syria designed to rollback the power of the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) and, potentially, the Bashar al-Assad regime. A study for a global oil services company backed by the French government and linked to Britain’s Tory-led administration, published during the height of the Arab Spring, hailed the significant “hydrocarbon potential” of Syria’s offshore resources. The 2011 study was printed in GeoArabia, a petroleum industry journal published by a Bahrain-based consultancy, GulfPetroLink, which is sponsored by some of the world’s biggest oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Total, and BP. CONTINUED https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/western-firms-plan-to-cash-in-on-syria-s-oil-and-gas-frontier-6c5fa4a72a92#.48jn1q8wq 'Britain is on the verge of entering into a long war in Syria based on wishful thinking and poor information...' Patrick Cockburn was invited by Jeremy Corbyn to brief MPs on the facts about today’s Common’s vote on air strikes in Syria. This is his briefing to you     Patrick Cockburn     @indyworld     31 minutes  ago Britain is on the verge of entering a conflict in Syria in which its political and military strategy is based on wishful thinking and poor information. British air strikes in Syria will be too few to make much difference to Isis, but are important because they signal Britain’s entry into what may be a long war. In one crucial respect, David Cameron’s approach is similar to that which saw Britain fight two small but unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003, in both cases without an effective local partner on the ground. Similarly in Syria, Britain will be at the mercy of events which are being shaped by the numerous other players in the conflict, all of whom have their own highly contradictory agendas. Much of the debate around the feasibility of the British strategy has focused on Mr Cameron’s statement that we do indeed have a partner, of whose existence few were previously aware. He said that there are 70,000 “Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups”. The impression given is that there is a “third force” in Syria which will provide a powerful ally for the US, France and Britain. This would be very convenient but, unfortunately, its existence is very debatable. “The notion that there are 70,000 moderate fighters is an attempt to show that you can fight Isis and [President Bashar al] Assad at the same time,” says Professor Joshua Landis, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syrian politics. But he is dismissive of the idea that such a potential army exists, though he says there might be 70,000 Syrians with a gun who are fighting for their local clan, tribe, warlord or village. “The problem is that they hate the village down the road just as much they hate Isis and Assad,” he said. The armed opposition to President Assad is dominated by Isis, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham. Some of the smaller groups, once estimated by the CIA to number 1,500, might be labelled as moderate, but only operate under license from the extreme jihadists. Aymenn al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Middle East Forum and an authority on the Syrian armed opposition, says that these groups commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war. He recalls that one group he met during a recent visit to Latakia province in north-west Syria claimed to have 2,000 fighters, but probably numbered only 500. He warns that they pretend to the outside world that they are more moderate than they really are, speaking of “the equality of all Syrians before the law” when they are outside Syria or communicating with people who have never been to the country, but express “hatred for Shia and Allawites” on all other occasions.  Mr Tamimi says that the smaller armed groups, which sometimes have good weapons supplied by the Americans, had acted as auxiliaries to Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham when they captured Idlib City in fierce fighting with the Syrian army in May. Even if such groups are not extreme Islamists, they do not have the strength to refuse to cooperate. This will make any ceasefire very difficult to arrange because such moderate fighters as there are who might be willing to accept a truce, are intermingled with powerful Nusra forces which will not do so. Moreover, radical Islamic ideology has been gaining ground in all parts of the Syrian opposition. James Harkin, the author of Hunting Season about the kidnapping of foreigners in Syria and a frequent visitor to opposition-held areas, says that it is important to grasp that “none of these people [the armed opposition inside Syria] like us”. They see the US, Britain and France as enemies. This  includes the non-jihadists, whom the West hopes to enlist, who suspect they will be used as cannon fodder and then discarded. The one group that has some claim to be non-sectarian, secular and a powerful fighting force is the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) who claim to number 50,000, but probably total half that. It has been the most effective anti-Isis ground force and, heavily supported by US air strikes, its territory now stretches across northern Syria between the Tigris and Euphrates. It claims to be non-sectarian and that it does not persecute Sunni Arabs, but sectarian fear and hatred is today so deep in Syria – partly but not entirely because of the atrocities of Isis – that people flee the attack of every other sectarian or ethnic group different from themselves. The Sunni population in Raqqa, Isis’s Syrian capital, or in Mosul in Iraq, may dislike Isis, but they are even more terrified of the Kurds or the Shia militias. Britain is entering a war against the self-declared “Islamic State”, probably the most dangerous and violent organisation in the world, but without a realistic policy to win that war. Mr Cameron stresses the limited nature of the engagement, but Britain will be fighting a state that is also a ferocious sect, does not negotiate and may well retaliate with some atrocity similar to Paris. This is not an argument for rejecting military action against Isis, but it is one for thinking very carefully what we are doing because the only exit strategy will be military victory. It is not only in Syria that Britain lacks a powerful local partner. In Iraq, its ally will be the Iraqi government and army, neither of which has recovered from their defeats by Isis over the past two years. “Syria is a nightmare and Iraq is becoming a nightmare,” said the Iraqi political scientist and activist Ghassan al-Attiyah. If the present government of Haider al-Abadi falls it is likely to be replaced by one closer to the Iranian-backed Shia militias that are more numerous and better armed than the Iraqi army. The US-led air campaign has already launched around 8,300 air strikes against Isis which have slowed up its advance, but without bringing it to its knees. Professor Landis says that the difficulty is that the three powers in Syria capable of winning the war are Isis, a Jabhat al-Nusra led alliance or Mr Assad but “the US doesn’t want any of these to win”. He cites three attempts by the US to create a moderate armed opposition which have humiliatingly failed and, on each occasion, extreme jihadists have captured quantities of modern American weapons. The British Government has shared in a widespread but ill-founded belief over the past four years that the Assad government was about to collapse. But of the 22 million Syrian population, 4 million have fled abroad and are refugees, and about 12 million are in government-controlled areas. Though exhausted and after suffering heavy casualties, including 47,000 dead, the Syrian army is still the largest military force in the country. It now has the support of the Russian air force and is not going to lose the war, though it is not strong enough to win it. This is the terrible conflict in which Britain is about to engage, but with only limited understanding of the dangers that lie ahead. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-on-the-verge-of-entering-into-a-long-war-in-syria-based-on-wishful-thinking-and-poor-a6756476.html PETER FORD Former UK ambassador to Syria David Cameron Syria spin described as deceitful & promoting a course amounting to criminal negligence  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh1BbvbMOp4  Russian Military Reveals ISIS-Turkey Oil Smuggling Details https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMA4B2ZnQ2o&feature=youtu.be ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Mass media briefing “Russian Federation Armed Forces fighting against international terrorism. New data” http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/news/more.htm?id=12070726@cmsArticle ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT US  isn't bombing ISIS; it's dropping weapons. I had no idea that there were so many killed in Syria -- 47k dead. It's frustrating seeing this happening and being unable to do anything but watch what happens next. What the West has done is disgusting.  A functioning state has been overrun by terrorists armed and backed by the West, a country has been ripped to bits, 47,000 people are dead -- and it looks like the Shia and Allawite populations will be slaughtered if Assad and Russia don't prevail. The West doesn't care what happens.  The more destruction the more profitable it will be rebuilding the place and they probably figure that whoever eventually prevails will be desperate and ready to cooperate with Western interests. This is unbelievable.  --------------- It took me forever doing my own lame notes about the video.   Tired so I kind of zoned out here and there. It's funny how I didn't really connect the oil with the terrorism.  I think it was mentioned in the news, but it didn't mean anything to me.  It was just like, yeah, that's what they do.   But it's mind-blowing knowing that Turkey, Syria's neighbour, is actually responsible for financing terrorism and that the European Union (who would be aware of Turkey's terrorist sponsoring activities, seeing both the US and Germany spy on Turkey) has given Turkey $3.2 billion to supposedly keep Middle Eastern invasion/immigration at bay. So what's going on here?  Why not walls and military response instead?  Is the EU laundering money via Turkey to fund Middle Eastern terrorism? Although I'm forever looking at news, until Turkey shot the Russian bomber down, I wasn't aware how messed up Turkey is.  I thought their messed up is limited to imprisoning journalists (wholesale), and killing Kurds.   Turkey: imprisons journalists oppresses Kurdish minority bombs Kurds (who are fighting ISIS) likely killed Serena Shim, journalist shot down Russia bomber & killed Russian pilot has armed, trained & supported jihadists in Syria  has trained the chemical attackers in Ghouta, Syria buys stolen oil finances international terrorism (via buying stolen oil) is rewarded by the EU @ $3.2-billion PS -  I was inclined to believe ISIS was fake (Hollywood, US-CIA production), until the Russians confirmed they're real & terrorism is real. ꕤ

US-Coalition Trained Free Syrian Army Militants Enter Syria via Turkey - USD$500-million Destabilisation Mission

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/20/429968/Syria-US-Turkey-SOHR-Rami-Abdel-Rahman 75 US-trained militants enter Syria via Turkey: Report Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:38AM  Militants from the so-called Free Syrian Army take part in a military training in Syria’s northwestern city of Aleppo, May 4, 2015. ©AFP Militants from the so-called Free Syrian Army take part in a military training in Syria’s northwestern city of Aleppo, May 4, 2015. ©AFP Dozens of militants, who were newly trained by the US-led coalition purportedly fighting Daesh Takfiris, have entered Syria from Turkey, a report says. The so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said in a report on Sunday that 75 militants have crossed into northern Syria over the past few days in a convoy of a dozen cars with light weapons and ammunition. The militants that were “trained in a camp near the Turkish capital, entered Aleppo province between Friday night and Saturday morning,” said SOHR Director Rami Abdel Rahman. They were later assigned to the so-called Division 30 and Suqur al-Jabal (Falcons of the Mountain), two units for the US-trained forces. The US-led train-and-equip program in Turkey was launched in May to train up to 5,400 so-called moderate militants a year in the alleged battle against Daesh in Syria. [ie  versus ISIS / Islamic State pretext] Washington claims that the USD-500-million mission aims only to target Daesh elements. Analysts, however, argue that the project actually seeks to create more chaos in Syria and weaken the Syrian government. Before the new dispatch of militants to Syria, the program had only managed to train some 60 militants. Last month, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem slammed the US for making a distinction between the Takfiri groups fighting against the Damascus government, saying, “For us in Syria, there is no such thing as moderate or non-moderate opposition. Whoever that takes up arms against the Syrian state is a terrorist.” Since September 2014, the US, along with some of its allies, has purportedly been conducting airstrikes against Daesh extremists inside Syria without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate. The airstrikes in Syria are an extension of the US-led aerial campaign against alleged Daesh positions in Iraq, which started in August 2014. Many have criticized the ineffectiveness of the raids. This is while many members of the same US-led alliance have been among the staunch supporters of the terrorist groups operating to topple the Syrian government over the past four years. http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/20/429968/Syria-US-Turkey-SOHR-Rami-Abdel-Rahman ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The West is has been fully invested in 4 years of producing Middle Eastern mayhem, to weaken Syria. As Western proxies causing destabilisation in Syria continue to receive Western support via US-allied military training (and presumably armament) in Turkey (on Syria's northern border; Syria is the cream coloured region with cities marked), Germany's Merkel is pitching in by spending a staggering amount on absorbing what you might call the 'blow-back'  consequences of Western assaults on Syria and beyond.   Syria in relation to Turkey ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Germany's proposed spending on immigration: @ 1 million refugees per year next 2  years could cost Berlin [ie 2 million refugees @ 2yrs] 25 billion euros ($28.25 billion) (@ 12,500 euros per migrant) http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5N11N12820150917 Japanese investment bank Mizuho calculation. Over half a dozen banks contacted by Reuters broadly agreed with Mizuho's calculations.   [ibid] If that's what a single country is spending on what amounts to a 'blow-back' mop-up op, imagine the amount of potential profit and strategic value that is really at stake to Western corporate interests, and how determined the West really is to possess control of Syria ... at any cost.  What Germany, Europe and other US allies are spending is probably just 'petty cash', compared to the expected rewards that follow the destruction of a target nation. Remember, the impact of what the West has been engaged in has spread right around Europe and through to US allies as far-flung as Australia. Australia is spending the following for her part in participating in the 5-year Middle Eastern refugees mop up: AUD$44-million - ie US$31-million (by my estimation, taking in 138,750 persons 2015-2019 incl) Whatever Syria has got, the Western powers (representing corporate interests) want badly. According to this article, it's oil wars that are being waged by the West against Syria: Cables released by Wikileaks demonstrate that control of the world's strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror" http://t.co/vCJoqadlFs Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

WikiLeaks: Oil Motivates U.S. Policy More than Fighting Terrorists - Nafeez Ahmed

ꕤ Article SOURCE alternet | here Wikileaks' Cables Suggests that Oil Motivates U.S. Policy More than Fighting Terrorists Cables released by Wikileaks demonstrate that control of the world's strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror". By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed / Foreign Policy in Focus December 16, 2010 Among the batch of classified diplomatic cables recently released by the controversial whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, several have highlighted the vast extent of the financial infrastructure of Islamist terrorism sponsored by key U.S. allies in the ongoing "War on Terror." One cable by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December 2009 notes that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Despite this, “Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT [Lashkar e-Tayyiba] groups that are also aligned with al-Qaeda.” Clinton raises similar concerns about other states in the Gulf and Central Asia. Kuwait remains reluctant “to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait.” The United Arab Emirates is “vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers and facilitation networks” due to lack of regulatory oversight. Qatar’s cooperation with U.S. counter-terrorism is the “worst in the region,” and authorities are “hesitant to act against known terrorists.” Pakistani military intelligence officials “continue to maintain ties with a wide array of extremist organizations, in particular the Taliban [and the] LeT.” Despite such extensive knowledge of these terrorism financing activities, successive U.S. administrations have not only failed to exert military or economic pressure on these countries, but in fact have actively protected them, funneling billions of dollars of military and economic assistance. The reason is oil. It's the Hydrocarbons, Stupid Oil has always been an overwhelming Western interest in the region, beginning with Britain’s discovery of it in Persia in 1908. Britain controlled most Middle East oil until the end of World War II, after which the United States secured its sphere of influence in Saudi Arabia. After some pushback, Britain eventually accepted the United States as the lead player in the region. “US-UK agreement upon the broad, forward-looking pattern for the development and utilization of petroleum resources under the control of nationals of the two countries is of the highest strategic and commercial importance”, reads a 1945 memo from the chief of the State Department’s Petroleum Division. Anglo-U.S. geo-strategy exerted this control through alliances with the region’s most authoritarian regimes to ensure a cheap and stable supply of petroleum to Western markets. Recently declassified secret British Foreign Office files from the 1940s and 1950s confirm that the Gulf sheikhdoms were largely created to retain British influence in the Middle East. Britain pledged to protect them from external attack and to “counter hostile influence and propaganda within the countries themselves.” Police and military training would help in “maintaining internal security.” Similarly, in 1958 a U.S. State Department official noted that the Gulf sheikhdoms should be modernized without undermining “the fundamental authority of the ruling groups.” The protection of some of the world’s most virulent authoritarian regimes thus became integral to maintaining Anglo-U.S. geopolitical control of the world’s strategic hydrocarbon energy reserves. Our governments have willingly paid a high price for this access – the price of national security. Still Funding Radicalism One of al-Qaeda’s chief grievances against the West is what Osama bin Laden dubs the “Crusader-Jewish” presence in the lands of Islam, including support for repressive Arab regimes. Under U.S. direction and sponsorship, many of these allies played a central role in financing and supporting bin Laden’s mujahideen networks in Afghanistan to counter Soviet influence. It is perhaps less well understood that elements of the same regimes continued to support bin Laden’s networks long after the Cold War – and that they have frequently done so in collusion with U.S. intelligence services for short-sighted geopolitical interests. In fact, Afghanistan provides a rather revealing example. From 1994 to 2001, assisted by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the Clinton and Bush II administrations covertly sponsored, flirted and negotiated with the Taliban as a vehicle of regional influence. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, former White House Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia about the “covert policy that has empowered the Taliban,” in the hopes of bringing sufficient stability to “permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan.” The Great Game is still in full swing. “Since the U.S.-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power, the project has been revived and drawn strong U.S. support” reported the Associated Press in 2005. “The pipeline would allow formerly Soviet Central Asian nations to export rich energy resources without relying on Russian routes. The project’s main sponsor is the Asian Development Bank” – in which the United States is the largest shareholder alongside Japan. It so happens that the southern section of the proposed pipeline runs through territory still under de facto Taliban control, where NATO war efforts are focused. Other evidence demonstrates that control of the world’s strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror". For instance, the April 2001 study commissioned by then-Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed official fears of an impending global oil supply crunch, energy shortages, and “the need for military intervention” in the Middle East to maintain stability. Energy and Iran Other diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show clearly that oil now remains central to U.S. policy toward Iran, depicting an administration desperate to “wean the world” off Iran’s oil supply, according to the London Telegraph. With world conventional oil production most likely having peaked around 2006, Iran is one of few major suppliers that can potentially boost oil output by another 3 million barrels, and natural gas output by even more.  The nuclear question is not the real issue, but provides ample pretext for isolating Iran. But the U.S. anti-Iran stance has been highly counterproductive. In a series of dispatches for the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh cited U.S. government and intelligence officials confirming that the CIA and the Pentagon have funneled millions of dollars via Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni extremist groups across the Middle East and Central Asia. The policy – officially confirmed by a U.S. Presidential Finding in early 2008 – began in 2003 and has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon, fuelling Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict. Not only did no Democratic members of the House ever contest the policy but President Obama reappointed the architect of the policy – Robert Gates – as his defence secretary. As former National Security Council staffers Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett observe, Obama’s decision earlier this year to step up covert military operations in North Africa and the Middle East marked an “intensification of America’s covert war against Iran.” This anti-Iran directive, which extends covert U.S. support for anti-Shi’ite Islamist militant networks linked to al-Qaeda, hardly fits neatly into the stated objectives of the "War on Terror." Unless we recognize that controlling access to energy, not fighting terror, is the primary motive. Beyond Dependency While classified covert operations continue to bolster terrorist activity, the Obama administration struggles vainly to deal with the geopolitical fall-out. Getting out of this impasse requires, first, recognition of our over-dependence on hydrocarbon energy sources to the detriment of real national security. Beholden to the industry lobbyists and the geopolitical dominance that control of oil provides, Western governments have supported dictatorial regimes that fuel widespread resentment in the Muslim world. Worse, the West has tolerated and until recently colluded in the sponsorship of al-Qaeda terrorist activity by these regimes precisely to maintain the existing global energy system. Given the convergence of peak oil and climate change, it is imperative to transition to a new, renewable energy system.  Such a transition will mitigate the impact of hydrocarbon energy depletion, help prevent the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming, and contribute to economic stability through infrastructure development and job creation. By weaning us off our reliance on dubious foreign regimes, a shift to renewables and away from supporting oil dictatorships will also make us safer. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010). He blogs at The Cutting Edge. SOURCE alternet | here ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Another great article. I'm hopeless at taking everything in at once.  Will have to do some really brief notes for myself. So when the West isn't actively sponsoring Middle Eastern terrorism, the West overlooks sponsorship of terrorism by British-installed sheikdoms, favourably disposed to US and allied interests that keep them propped up in power? The US has muscled in on Britain's Middle Eastern turf post-WWII, and Britain plays second banana to the US in the region, while the US is BFF with Saudi Arabia, until the oil runs out. The key regional Western-propped dictator (Western-puppet ... or is that partner?) regimes, sponsoring terrorism and sectarian kill-fests (to maintain their self-serving and exploitative power grip on the region), are: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Surprised that Pakistan is there, although I know Pakistan's terrorist central.  Why?  Pakistan seems like odd man out. The Brits made a deal that should be void:  ie protecting the puppet monarchs from *internal* challenges ... which effectively means taking part in enslaving these populations under the control of these Western propped monarchies or other dictatorships, because it precludes the rise of anything remotely close to 'proper democracy' (if that's actually possible ... anywhere), I would think. British pledges to protect don't mean much, unless there's something in it for the British (I think it was Persia that they slimed out of protecting some time around the turn of last century or perhaps just before that): "... when Britain failed to defend Persia in the Russo-Persian War of 1826-28-a course of inaction which Britain was fully justified in taking because Persia had started the war and the 1814 mutual defense agreement obligated Britain to defend Persia only against aggression-the Shah concluded that Britain was an unreliable ally, and in effect he went over to the Russian side." [here] Wow, that was way earlier than I thought.  It was the early 1800s.  The Shah concluded correctly, in my opinion. lol  Stick with the Russians, Persia. Bin Laden wasn't happy about the Western support for repressive regimes in the region; but it also sounds like there's maybe a religious and cultural element to OBL's objection, judging by the terminology used:  'Crusader-Jewish'?  Or maybe I'm reading too much into that? Looks like OBL had forgotten that Islam itself was spread in the region through conquest of people and territories.  Not that the West is planning on spreading any ideology ... it's only profits for the wealthy that matter. Asian Development Bank, Japan and USA have a stake in a pipeline project that is intended to run through Taliban controlled territory and this is where NATO concentrated its aggression.  So, wherever NATO is, profit is?  With Obama's blessing, Robert Gates was the mastermind of a policy backing Sunni extremist vs the Shia side in the region (against Iran's interests),  while US GOVERNMENT, US INTELLIGENCE, the PENTAGON and CIA funnelled dollars for this project, via Saudi Arabia, who, in turn, flicked the dollars to al-Qaeda.  It's thanks to Gates' policy that there's a spread of sectarian violence in the Middle East, including Iraq and Lebanon.  The funnelling of money that reached al-Qaeda is confirmed (presidential finding, 2008).  So this isn't speculation. So, I take it there's no organised Islamic 'war on terror' 'death cult' about to attack anyone in here in the West, and there's only the random crazy head-chopping incident associated with the consequences of mass displacement and mass immigration, to sidestep when out and about, say, doing a spot of furniture shopping? That Robert Gates struck me as shifty and creepy looking when I saw him in this video, filmed on the day of Julian Assange's arrest in Britain, almost 5 years ago: ROBERT GATES US Defence Secretary in Afghanistan 7 Dec 2010 Associated Press https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g9g9F6_TC4 If I hadn't got interested in Ukraine and then curious about Assange and WikiLeaks, I'd probably never have paid this creepy old man any attention.  And look what fun I'd have missed out on.  lol Imagine this guy knows where all the bodies are buried. So, Gates, the architect of Hell (ie the policy of funnelling American money to Sunni al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists, in the Middle East) has been free the last 5 years, while Australian journalist, Julian Assange, has been a political prisoner in Britain (Britain, which is America's Middle Eastern second banana partner in oil and crime) -- held without charge, for exposing US and allied war crimes, those same 5 years that Architect of Hell, Robert Gates, has been free. Ehem.  Western values?  Where's those Western values plate-face, Dave Cameron's been preaching, then?  Eh? How can this be permitted to happen in democracies, among free men? Can somebody please help Assange: Julian Assange Australian Journalist FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ----------- PS I'm hoping I'll remember some of this.  Terrible recall of facts.  lol But I've discovered that information has a mysterious way of seeping in without being aware that it has.  A couple of times I've written things I thought were original ideas ... until I remembered where I'd read whatever it was that I'd laboured over ... for ages. It was rather upsetting to find out I'm not at all an original thinker.  lol ꕤ

InfoSource: Nafeez Ahmed

ꕤ Nafeez Ahmed website http://www.nafeezahmed.com/ details author investigative journalist international security scholar policy expert film maker strategy & communications consultant change activist developing INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a crowdfunded public-interest investigative journalism platform Executive Director Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD) independent think tank focused on study of violent conflict in the context of global ecological, energy & economic crises Terminated by The Guardian after writing: Israel gas article Guardian Journalist Fired for Reporting on Israeli Gas Interests 6 Dec. 2014  After writing for The Guardian for over a year, my contract was unilaterally terminated because I wrote a piece on Gaza that was beyond the pale. In doing so, The Guardian breached the very editorial freedom the paper was obligated to protect under my contract. I’m speaking out because I believe it is in the public interest to know how a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper which styles itself as the world’s leading liberal voice, casually engaged in an act of censorship to shut down coverage of issues that undermined Israel’s publicised rationale for going to war. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL AT SOURCE http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2014/12/06/guardian-journalist-fired-for-reporting-on-israeli-gas-interests/ For more on Israeli gas interests & neoliberal collateral damage, see other InfoSource (below):  'Why Murdoch Pushes for War' - Craig Murray Link  |  here more |  Nafeez Ahmed WikiLeaks:  Oil Motivates U.S. Policy More than Fighting Terrorists Nafeez Ahmed Link  |  here Nafeez Ahmed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafeez_Mosaddeq_Ahmed ꕤ