Archive for the War Category

Pink Floyd – The Postwar Dream

Posted in British history, Vids, War with tags , , , , , , , on April 23, 2012 by britishloyalist

Advertisements

How Pakistan Makes Washington Pay for the Afghan War

Posted in islam, War with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2012 by britishloyalist

The US needs access to the Pakistani border into Afghanistan, so Pakistan is playing its advantage for all it’s worth.

The following ingredients should go a long way to produce a political thriller. Mr. M, a jihadist in an Asian state, has emerged as the mastermind of a terrorist attack in a neighboring country, which killed six Americans. After sifting through a vast cache of intelligence and obtaining a legal clearance, the State Department announces a $10 million bounty for information leading to his arrest and conviction. Mr. M promptly appears at a press conference and says, “I am here. America should give that reward money to me.”
A State Department spokesperson explains lamely that the reward is meant for incriminating evidence against Mr. M that would stand up in court. The prime minister of M’s home state condemns foreign interference in his country’s internal affairs. In the midst of this imbroglio, the United States decides to release $1.18 billion in aid to the cash-strapped government of the defiant prime minister to persuade him to reopen supply lines for US and NATO forces bogged down in the hapless neighboring Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Alarmingly, this is anything but fiction or a plot for an upcoming international sitcom. It is a brief summary of the latest development in the fraught relations between the United States and Pakistan, two countries locked into an uneasy embrace since September 12, 2001.
Mr. M. is Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, a 62-year-old former academic with a tapering, hennaed beard, and the founder of the Lashkar-e Taiba (the Army of the Pure, or LeT), widely linked to several outrageously audacious terrorist attacks in India. The LeT was formed in 1987 as the military wing of the Jammat-ud Dawa religious organization (Society of the Islamic Call, or JuD) at the instigation of the Pakistani army’s formidable intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The JuD owes its existence to the efforts of Saeed, who founded it in 1985 following his return to his native Lahore after two years of advanced Islamic studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, under the guidance of that country’s Grand Mufti, Shaikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz.
On its formation, the LeT joined the seven-year-old anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan, an armed insurgency directed and supervised by the ISI with funds and arms supplied by the CIA and the Saudis. Once the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the Army of the Pure turned its attention to a recently launched anti-Indian jihad in Indian-administered Kashmir and beyond. The terrorist attacks attributed to it range from the devastating multiple assaults in Mumbai in November 2008, which resulted in 166 deaths, including those six Americans, to a foiled attack on the Indian Parliament in New Delhi in December 2001, and a successful January 2010 attack on the airport in Kashmir’s capital Srinagar.

In January 2002, in the wake of Washington’s launching of the Global War on Terror, Pakistan formally banned the LeT, but in reality did little to curb its violent cross-border activities. Saeed remains its final authority. In a confession, offered as part of a plea bargain after his arrest in October 2009 in Chicago, David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American operative of LeT involved in planning the Mumbai carnage, said: “Hafiz Saeed had full knowledge of the Mumbai attacks and they were launched only after his approval.”
In December 2008, the United Nations Security Council declared the JuD a front organization for the banned LeT. The provincial Punjab government then placed Saeed under house arrest using the Maintenance of Public Order law. But six months later, the Lahore High Court declared his confinement unconstitutional. In August 2009, Interpol issued a Red Corner Notice, essentially an international arrest warrant, against Saeed in response to Indian requests for his extradition. Saeed was again put under house arrest but in October the Lahore High Court quashed all charges against him due to lack of evidence.
It is common knowledge that Pakistani judges, fearing for their lives, generally refrain from convicting high-profile jihadists with political connections. When, in the face of compelling evidence, a judge has no option but to order the sentence enjoined by the law, he must either live under guard afterwards or leave the country. Such was the case with Judge Pervez Ali Shah who tried Mumtaz Qadri, the jihadist bodyguard who murdered Punjab’s governor Salman Taseer for backing an amendment to the indiscriminately applied blasphemy law. Soon after sentencing Qadri to capital punishment last October, Shah received several death threats and was forced into self-exile.
Aware of the failures of the Pakistani authorities to convict Saeed, US agencies seemed to have checked and cross-checked the authenticity of the evidence they had collected on him before the State Department announced, on April 2nd, its reward for his arrest. This was nothing less than an implied declaration of Washington’s lack of confidence in the executive and judicial organs of Pakistan.

Little wonder that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani took umbrage, describing the US bounty as blatant interference in his country’s domestic affairs. Actually, this is nothing new. It is an open secret that, in the ongoing tussle between Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and his bête noire, army chief of staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Obama administration has always backed the civilian head of state. That, in turn, has been a significant factor in Gilani’s stay in office since March 2008, longer than any other prime minister in Pakistan’s history.

How to Trump a Superpower

Given such strong cards, diplomatic and legal, why then did the Obama administration commit itself to releasing more than $1 billion to a government that has challenged its attempt to bring to justice an alleged mastermind of cross-border terrorism?

The answer lies in what happened at two Pakistani border posts 1.5 miles from the Afghan frontier in the early hours of November 26, 2011. NATO fighter aircraft and helicopters based in Afghanistan carried out a two-hour-long raid on these posts, killing 24 soldiers. Enraged, Pakistan’s government shut the two border crossings through which the US and NATO had until then sent a significant portion of their war supplies into Afghanistan. Its officials also forced the US to vacate Shamsi air base, which was being used by the CIA as a staging area for its drone air war in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border. The drone strikes are exceedingly unpopular – one poll found 97 percent of respondents viewed them negatively—and they are vehemently condemned by a large section of the Pakistani public and its politicians.

Furthermore, the government ordered a comprehensive review of all programs, activities, and cooperation arrangements with the US and NATO. It also instructed the country’s two-tier parliament to conduct a thorough review of Islamabad’s relations with Washington. Having taken the moral high ground, the Pakistani government pressed its demands on the Obama administration.

An appointed Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) then deliberately moved at a snail’s pace to perform the task on hand, while the Pentagon explored alternative ways of ferrying goods into Afghanistan via other countries to sustain its war there. By contrast, a vociferous campaign against the reopening of the Pakistani supply lines led by the Difa-e Pakistan Council (Defense of Pakistan), representing 40 religious and political groups, headed by Hafiz Saeed, took off. Its leaders have addressed huge rallies in major Pakistani cities. It was quick to condemn Washington’s bounty on Saeed, describing it as “a nefarious attempt” to undermine the Council’s drive to protect the country’s sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the loss of the daily traffic of 500 trucks worth of food, fuel, and weapons from the Pakistani port of Karachi through the Torkham and Chaman border crossings into Afghanistan, though little publicized in US media, has undermined the fighting capability of US and NATO forces.

Sword Play: Attacking Civilians to Justify “Greater Security”

Posted in British Government, War with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2012 by britishloyalist

You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West — against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks — on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices — which were then blamed on “leftist subversives” or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders — and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for “sword”) is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, “NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe,” by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey’s repression of the Kurds.

Among the “smoking guns” unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that “do not react with sufficient effectiveness” against “communist subversion.” Ironically, the manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups “renounce the use of force” and embrace the democratic process. It is then that “U.S. army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger.” Naturally, these peace-throttling “special operations must remain strictly secret,” the document warns.

Indeed, it would not do for the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by “men inside Italian state institutions and … men linked to the structures of United States intelligence,” as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.

The Bologna atrocity is an example of what Gladio’s masters called “the strategy of tension” — fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to “strong leaders” who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat. And as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn’t limited to Western Europe. It was applied, with gruesome effectiveness, in Central America by the Reagan and Bush administrations. During the 1980s, right-wing death squads, guerrilla armies and state security forces — armed, trained and supplied by the United States — murdered tens of thousands of people throughout the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold.

Last month, it was widely reported that the Pentagon is considering a similar program in Iraq. What was not reported, however — except in the Iraqi press — is that at least one pro-occupation death squad is already in operation. Just days after the Pentagon plans were revealed, a new militant group, “Saraya Iraqna,” began offering big wads of American cash for insurgent scalps — up to $50,000, the Iraqi paper Al Ittihad reports. “Our activity will not be selective,” the group promised. In other words, anyone they consider an enemy of the state will be fair game.

Strangely enough, just as it appears that the Pentagon is establishing Gladio-style operations in Iraq, there has been a sudden rash of terrorist attacks on outrageously provocative civilian targets, such as hospitals and schools, the Guardian reports. Coming just after national elections in which the majority faction supported slates calling for a speedy end to the American occupation, the shift toward high-profile civilian slaughter has underscored the “urgent need” for U.S. forces to remain on the scene indefinitely, to provide security against the ever-present terrorist threat. Meanwhile, the Bushists continue constructing their long-sought permanent bases in Iraq: citadels to protect the oil that incoming Iraqi officials are promising to sell off to American corporations — and launching pads for new forays in geopolitical domination.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence. But the U.S. elite’s history of directing and fomenting terrorist attacks against friendly populations is so extensive — indeed, so ingrained and accepted — that it calls into question the origin of every terrorist act that roils the world. With each fresh atrocity, we’re forced to ask: Was it the work of “genuine” terrorists or a “black op” by intelligence agencies — or both?

While not infallible, the ancient Latin question is still the best guide to penetrating the bloody murk of modern terrorism: Cui bono? Who benefits? Whose powers and policies are enhanced by the attack? For it is indisputable that the “strategy of tension” means power and profit for those who claim to possess the key to “security.” And from the halls of the Kremlin to the banks of the Potomac, this cynical strategy is the ruling ideology of our times.

WWIII Update – China Has a Naval Base near the Straits of Hormuz!!

Posted in War with tags , , , on April 7, 2012 by britishloyalist

‘I hope we would do it all again if we had to’: Wife of Falklands hero Lt Col H marks 30th anniversary of invasion with poignant message

Posted in War with tags , , , on April 2, 2012 by britishloyalist

Widow Sara Jones said today ‘We stood up for what we believed in. We didn’t like to see a small country overrun’
Her husband Lt Col Herbert Jones died leading a charge against an Argentine machine gun post while commanding 2 Battalion, the Parachute Regiment
‘The people of the Falkland Islands should have the right to determine their own political future,’ said Jeremy Browne, Foreign Office Minister
Secretary of State ‘tried to strike a deal that would have seen the UK hand over power’, papers released on 30th anniversary reveal

The widow of Lt Col Herbert Jones has spoken out on the 30th anniversary of the Argentine Falklands invasion, saying ‘I hope we would do it all again.’
Sara Jones’s husband, known as ‘H’, died leading a charge against an Argentine machine gun post at Goose Green while commanding 2 Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
Mrs Jones, 70, said: ‘We stood up for what we believed in. We didn’t like to see a small country overrun by somebody who had very little claim to it.’
She said: ‘The islanders have always been fiercely British and want to stay that way. I would like to believe that we would, if we could, do it again.’
On Sky News she spoke of how the islanders are ‘very grateful to to all those who died’ and that Britain should ‘always support the vulnerable.’
Mrs Jones, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for charity work and her husband, was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.
Her comments come as Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne told Sky News the Government believed in ensuring the Falkland islanders had the freedom to choose their future.
He said: ‘The Argentinians have decided to become much more confrontational in their approach but we are completely unshakeable on our central proposition that the people of the Falkland Islands should have the right to determine their own political future, just as people in Britain, or people in Argentina for that matter, have the right to determine their political future.
‘Our basic political relationship is not as good as it could be but the reason it is not as good as it could be is because the British Government has an absolute unshakeable belief in the right of the Falkland Islands’ people to self determination and the Argentinian government don’t share that belief.
‘You can believe in fair choice or you believe in coercion,’ he said.
Meanwhile, Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said in a statement: ‘This month the country and all political parties will be united in remembrance. In committing to defending the Falkland Islanders’ wishes we are standing up for a universal, democratic ideal.
‘Commemorations to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict are an important national moment. We must remember all those who fought. Over 900 lives were lost and we pay special tribute to the sacrifice of the 255 Britons who fell fighting for our country.
‘Despite recent Argentinian belligerence relations between our two countries are totally different from early 1982, but we continue to stand for that right. There is no evidence Falkland Islanders want anything other than to remain British. Commemorations this month will be about our pride in that principle as well as honouring the dead and injured.’
The comments came as it emerged that America secretly backed Argentina’s demands for sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in the weeks before the Royal Navy joined the battle in 1982.
Papers released to mark the 30th anniversary of Argentina’s invasion of the territory today show that then U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig privately tried to strike a deal that would have seen the UK hand over power – but it was rejected by the Argentine junta.
In one private briefing for Congressmen, the Secretary of State even makes smutty jokes about sexual relations between the farmers and their sheep.
Mr Haig, who began diplomacy between London and Buenos Aires in the weeks following the invasion, described both sides as behaving like ‘a demented man on a ledge ready to jump… but unable to grab our hand’.
Minutes of a National Security Council meeting in Washington on 30 April 1982 reveal the deal would have seen some form of shared sovereignty or lease-back arrangement promising Argentina future ownership.
He told President Ronald Reagan: ‘Our proposals are a camouflaged transfer of sovereignty.’ Despite Mr Haig’s plans the meeting agreed a ‘tilt’ in diplomatic stance towards Britain.
The revelations come as David Cameron warned Argentina over the future of the Falklands, insisting: ‘Britain remains staunchly committed to upholding the right of the Falkland Islanders…to determine their own future.
‘That was the fundamental principle that was at stake 30 years ago: and that is the principle which we solemnly re-affirm today.’
He paid tribute to the 255 British servicemen who lost their lives. And in an olive branch, he also said people should remember the 649 Argentine military personnel who died.
Argentina has threatened to launch lawsuits against British banks with links to oil exploration in Falklands waters.
In an audacious move, it sent a letter to more than a dozen City of London firms, including Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays, warning against involvement in what it terms ‘unlawful hydrocarbon [oil] exploration activities’.
The attempt to apply pressure on the City will be seen as an effort to starve the explorers of funding and force them out of the region.
The papers were obtained by the Thatcher Foundation and can be viewed in full at its website


Humour: In one private briefing for Congressmen, former U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haigeven makes smutty jokes about sexual relations between the farmers and their sheep

Falklands war remembered 30 years on

Posted in War with tags , , , , , , , , on April 2, 2012 by britishloyalist

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron today marked the the 30th anniversary of the invasion of the Falkland Islands with a reaffirmation of Britain’s determination to uphold the islanders’ right to determine their own future.

Three decades after Argentinian troops seized the islands’ capital, Port Stanley, Mr Cameron paid tribute to the Task Force sent by Margaret Thatcher to take them back.

However, in a gesture of reconciliation, the Prime Minister said it should be a day to remember both the 649 Argentinians who died in the conflict as well as the 255 British armed forces personnel.

The run-up to the anniversary has been marked by a ratcheting-up in tensions between London and Buenos Aires, with the Argentine government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner loudly reasserting its claim to the islands.

In an article in the Daily Telegraph today, Foreign Secretary William Hague described Argentina’s recent aggressive actions as “deeply regrettable” and said the government’s statements “have impressed few people, including in South America”.

He went on: “We should remind the world that in the years since their liberation the Falkland islanders have repeated – without qualification or equivocation – their wish to keep their constitutional status, their national identity, and to live peacefully with their neighbours in Latin America.

“As long as the people of the Falklands continue to express that view, the UK will defend and support their right to do so.”

Meanwhile, the widow of lt Col “H” Jones told the newspaper she hoped Britain would “do it all again” if Argentina launched a fresh occupation of the Falklands.

Lt Col Herbert Jones, known as “H”, died while leading a charge against an Argentine machine gun post at Goose Green.

Sara Jones said in an interview: “The islanders have always been fiercely British and want to stay that way. I would like to believe that we would, if we could, do it again.”

In a statement to mark today’s occasion, Mr Cameron was adamant that Britain would not compromise on the central issue of the islanders’ right to self-determination.

“Thirty years ago today the people of the Falkland Islands suffered an act of aggression that sought to rob them of their freedom and their way of life,” he said.

“Today is a day for commemoration and reflection: a day to remember all those who lost their lives in the conflict – the members of our Armed Forces, as well as the Argentinian personnel who died.

“Today, we salute the heroism of the Task Force which set sail to free the islands.

“We are rightly proud of the role Britain played in righting a profound wrong. And the people of the Falkland Islands can be justly proud of the prosperous and secure future they have built for their islands since 1982.

“Britain remains staunchly committed to upholding the right of the Falkland Islanders, and of the Falkland Islanders alone, to determine their own future.

“That was the fundamental principle that was at stake 30 years ago: and that is the principle which we solemnly re-affirm today.”

78% of UK Muslims oppose free speech

Posted in Enemy's of Britain, EU, islam UK, multicultural britain, Terrorists, Vids, War with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 18, 2012 by britishloyalist