Wednesday, December 14, 2005
What is it with Cameron's insistance that he be seen as not disagreeing with, and with helping Blair? Does he not realise that he actually is now the leader of the opposition? or is he secretly a fifth column inside the tory party who is there to help the neo-cons keep dominion over all British politics?
It is early days, I know, but there is plenty of stuff that Blair should be critisied for, but Cameron would rather help Blair to privatise Schools and Hospitals by stealth and starve the developing world with backwards trade that only supports the rich nations, whilst actually screwing the poor one's.
That talk of lowering tarrifs and opening areas of free trade to all, but would never EVER dare actually commit to creating policy in this direction.
It looks like Blair and Cameron are actually trying to create a merger of New tory and New Labour. By all means agree and work together where it actually makes obvious sense to do so, but come ON!
Is there nothing Blair has done that deserves 'ripping him a new one' over? Surely Cameron can begin to hold Blair to account on something?
How blatant can they be? the Powers that be know that under our totally screwed electoral system, that they will only face Cameron or Brown at the next election. Blair has declared his total surrender to the Blairite (neo-con - Rothschild) agenda. Cameron, by his actions thus far, is showing he is doing likewise. We really REALLY need a peaceful revolution in this country now.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
It would seem that Cameron is intent on not only seeking more of a concensus politics (which I welcome) but to seek to be a crutch to a disastrous Blair Government and assist that government get it's policies through.
He looks at this early stage to be a total let down!
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
You sleazy, lying, paranoid delusional criminal terrorist scumbags Bush and Blair, You can run, but you cannot hide from the truth. The world's Bloggers ara a comin' after ya! Woooo Ha!
Count me in!
Monday, November 28, 2005
The ever changing rationale for entering and then staying in Iraq cannot hide one underlying truth. Pre-emptive invasion of a non-threatening sovereign state is immoral, unethical, illegal and evil.
The invasion did not disarm Saddam, he was already disarmed, as our intelligence prior to the war suspected. Not one single pre-invasion claim of Saddam retaining his WMD capability has stood up to scrutiny. NOT ONE! In fact, every claim that he was was disproved BEFORE the invasion happened.
So we had to invade to protect the Iraqis from their brutal dictator. Saddam was another Hitler, threatening the entire world. This was bullshit too! Claims of his putting people through meat grinders proved to be just as false as his fantasy WMD arsenal. Yes he was a brutal dictator, but no worse than many, many others in the world, yet still, he was not a threat to us and in fact was becoming less dictatorial with every year that passed. As he feared assasination, he was becoming more and more reclusive and spent the majority of his time writing awful romance novels.
Now the UK/US have illegally invaded a nation that was no threat, used chemical weapons against civillians, set up torture facilities where innocent people where tortured to death and now we have, former Iraq Prime Minister, Allawi coming out and saying that the situation for Iraqis is now worse than under Saddam Hussien!
When will this madness end with the public trials of Tony Blair and George W Bush?
Saddam's trial rightly continues today, Bush' and Blair's MUST follow soon!
Friday, November 25, 2005
Except; he didn't have them, and we've used them on his own people and, despite them having a very poor version of democracy, now Iraqi's are still being tortured to death.
Was it because we trusted in the paranoid delusions of lunatics?
How can we prevent the next mistake?
by John Pilger
The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has called for an "insurrection of subjugated knowledge." The insurrection is well under way. In trying to make sense of a dangerous world, millions of people are turning away from the traditional sources of news and information and to the World Wide Web, convinced that mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power. The great scandal of Iraq has accelerated this. In the United States, several senior broadcasters have confessed that had they challenged and exposed the lies told about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, instead of amplifying and justifying them, the invasion might not have happened.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
*NOTE The mainstream media SHOULD have been reporting this information all along, as I and hundreds of other bloggers WERE telling these truths as they came to light. During these last 2-3 years the mainstream media have been slagging off and ridiculing the blogs when we were doing THEIR JOB!!! Now they come clean(ish) and propose to tell us what we already knew all along. The mainstream media were still complicit in passing the government propaganda, without qualification, to the people as truth. They were NOT duped by the administration, or the intelligence services, they complied with them. Further, they would often not report the doubts that the intelligence community were raising prior to the invasion! I welcome the very late conversion of the mainstream media to reporting what really happened, (www.whatreallyhappened.com have already been doing this for some years as have rense.com, informationclearinghouse.info, prisonplanet.com davidicke.com antiwar.com amongst many others ) But now they need to look at the genuine, unanswered questions relating to 911 too, especially the controlled, pre-planned demolition of WTC7 and the prior arranged, multiple 'miitary exercises' taking place that day under the direct control of VP Dick Cheney. We are often told 'the world changed on 911, and 911 is constantly used to validate the on-going destruction of civil liberties at home, and creation of terrorist threat abroad. When the truth of 911 is generally acknowledged as an 'at least' assisted inside job engineered, or allowed, to succeed by the Neo-con cabal. Then, prehaps, the whole phoney war-on-terror house of cards may come crashing down and end this nightmare of delusion, destruction and death.*
I used to believed that Bush and Cheney lied us to war, and I argued that they were warned of the lack of evidence to support their arguments about Iraq's WMD and yet they continued to push those discredited and debunked claims. Thus supporting my argument that they deliberately lied.
I was wrong.
For them to lie, they would have to know that what they were saying was not true. They were told on many occasions by the UN, foreign intelligence and their own CIA, NSA and others that what they were claiming was not supported by evidence on the ground. That the intelligence could not be corroborated. However, they refused to even acknowledge for a nanosecond, that anything other than their fantasies could ever be real. They genuinely could not accept and therefore did not hear anything that contradicted their pre-created fantasy.
Worse, they created offices within the administration, The Office of Special Plans (under Rumsfeld), The Whitehouse Iraq Group (Under Cheney) that cherry picked and molded intelligence around their own delusional plans. How far did they go to create the reality they believed had to be real? The aluminum Tubes story was total nonsense and the Yellowcake Uranium from Africa was based on a known forgery, but still they believed this self-generated hallucination. The Mobile labs, were in fact Hydrogen balloon inflators, this was easily discoverable, they only had to look at the British receipts! Every single claim made by the administration in public in support of their fantasy world was very quickly proven wrong. How far did the administration go to create their reality? Was Valerie Plame outed as a CIA agent because her team uncovered and prevented the neo-cons from illegally smuggling WMD into Iraq to frame Saddam?
Like a teenager on LSD believing he could fly, they threw themselves off the roof of reality.
They did not therefore lie, but what they did do was far worse, they created policy that ultimately took us to a continuing quagmire of death and destruction based on their paranoid delusion. The Bush/Cheney administration in Washington and the Blair Government in London are not mentally fit to hold office. They are mentally unstable. In earlier, pre-politically correct days, they would be called lunatics. They are psychotic megalomaniacs with paranoid delusions and persecution complexes, add this to the Resident in thief's messianic delusion, linked to an over-compensation to his inferiority complex, and drug/alcohol brain damage and you get an administration that should not have control of a TV remote, let alone the worlds Weapons of Total Destruction.
They should be locked up in secure padded cells for their own, and for the rest of the planet's, safety.
The danger here is that if the level of delusional fantasy needed, (by the collective lunacy of the UK/US administrations), is one that has already created the disastrous Iraq war, then what's next?
These guys NEED to be locked up and QUICK!
Give me a liar over a lunatic everytime.
Friday, November 18, 2005
I would simply take minor exception to one point. As I have come to realise over the recent past, reading as I have on the 'non-reality based' philosophy of the neo-cons, that the neo-cons did not actually lie us to war at all.
No, it is worse than that. For the situation to become as it is now, the neo-cons would either have had to not realise and be genuinely in error about the WMD and reception of the iraqis to the western invaders and so prove themselves to be too stupid to hold office, or they lied or worse, they knew they were wrong, but genuinely convinced themselves that they were right and so are dangerously delusional.
They claim that they are so big and powerful that they create the reality on the ground, international law and foriegn and domestic observers be damned! But when their delusional reality is tested by ACTUAL reality, there fake, wishfull thinking version becomes a disaster. Their delusions account for, 'no civilians targetted with white phosphorus', as there were no civilians in Fallujah. They were all enemy combatants in a free-fire zone. Unfortunately for the women, children, babies, elderly and infirm, the white phosphorus was only too real.
What we have in America and the UK at this time is not lying neo-cons, or sadly, even stupid neocons, but dangerously powerful, paranoid delusional neocons with nukes. These people are psychologically unfit to hold any position of power or influence anywhere in the world. I wouldn't even give them the remote control to the TV.
Shame the 25th ammendment only applies to the president and not the whole lunatic bunch of the neocon nutjobs. That include the neo-cons in the Senate, Congress, Parliament and the media too.
They have all rushed this world closer to the brink of a nuclear WW3 based on their paranoid delusions, creating fake terrorism, 911, 7/7, Afghanistan, Iraq, a global backlash against imperialist USA/UK et al in their wake.
Thankfully, we are just starting to see the beginning of the end for these psychopaths.
As the Plamegate controversy starts to eat away at their base and support like a cancer, I agree with Justin, Fetch the popcorn!
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
We have liberated Iraq from an evil dictator to let them live under an avalanche of Crime, rapes, murders, kidnappings, terrorism and with a worse supply of power, food, water and medicines than under Saddam Hussien, We have used, or supported the use of, internationally banned chemical weapons against civillians.
Don't give me shit about white phosferous NOT being a chemical weapon! it's a chemical and it's a weapon! It's a fucking chemical weapon. PERIOD!!!
We are told by the Pentagon and the UK MOD and the UK Defense Secretary that these were not used against civilians, well that is PURELY a matter of cowardly and sickening semantics.
The defence secretary said he could not answer for the US use of the substance.
But he said: "We do not use white phosphorus, or indeed any other form of munition or weaponry, against civilians...
"We do not use it for anything other than a smokescreen to protect our troops when in action."
A smokescreen to defend the political crimes against humanity commited in Fallujah more like. Fallujah was a civilian center that was also home to Iraqis who believed they were fighting for their homeland against foreign invaders, much as I would similarly fight against anyone who invaded the UK. This is not praise or glorification of the resistance fighters, as many of their acts of violence and depravity can never be condoned or supported in any way, the City was a den of thieves and criminals and violent evil people. However it was also home to thousands and thousands of innocent civilians too, many of whom fled before the attacks, but many of whom also never managed to escape and were killed when they attempted to do so.
The US Military, supported by the UK military, cut off the water, sanitation, power and medication to an entire city. They then attacked the hospital, killing patients and doctors and nurses, this in itself was a warcrime. They then prevented women, children, elderly and disabled people from leaving the city. They shot and killed almost everything that moved, destroying Mosques, Clinics, museums and cultural and humanitarian facilities on their way to the total destruction of 75% of the city.
The US and UK uses weasel words to defend it's indefensible actions, words like enemy combatants, and free-fire zone. do you want to see an enemy combatant?
Here's one after the US finished with it:
After all those infants are a fearful enemy. A 300lb Marine with automatic weapons, air support, armoured vehicles and white phosferous needs to be very carefull with such a poweful enemy!
The whole city was turned into a free-fire zone, meaning that everything within the city and out including the Euphrates river, was thought of as having NO CIVILIANS in it. Women, children, babies, the elderly, the disabled, cats, dogs and any other living entity within Fallujah, whether a fighter or not, was DESIGNATED BY THE US AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT AND THEREFORE AS A LEGITIMATE TARGET!
the rules of engagement for a free-fire zone are "KILL EVERYTHING!!!"
Undoubtedly, there were civilians in Fallujah and they were targeted and killed with a weapon (that uses the effect of it's chemical interaction with the air to burn anything it meets so long as there is air present) that has also been banned by laws signed by many countries throughout the world.
Cowardly, deliberately misleading weasel words notwithstanding, civilians were targeted and killed with an internationally banned chemical weapon in Iraq by US troops supported by the US and UK Governments!
What happened in fallujah was as serious a war-crime as it gets (short of using nukes), and we are trying Saddam Hussien for lesser things right now.
ANYBODY that even attempts to describe what happened there as legal, necessary or right is a supporter of war crimes and is an enemy of humanity. Pure and Simple!
supposedly this was the aftermath of a suicide bomber with an explosive belt tied to his chest. OK how come the tables where not blown to bits? it seems unlikely to me that the tables were moved there after the blasts and then placed in a crimescene.
The blast is powerful enough to rip a human to shreds, blast through the ceiling of the room, but, yet, not disturb the tablecloth? and how considerate of the suicide bomber not to get any of his blood on the walls. Oh, and how considerate of the Jordanian security forces to evacuate all the Israeli guests, but why did they forget the Jordanian guests or the other nationalities:
(Note, no Israeli's in that list from the bbc website)
A number of Israelis staying yesterday at the Radisson SAS were evacuated before the bombing by Jordanian security forces, apparently due to a specific security alert. They were escorted back to Israel by security personnel.
This Haaretz article denies the earlier claims.
However, the other article appeared earlier and in my opinion is more reliable due to the fact that the other evidence in this case refutes later testimony and media assertions.
This LA Times article states:
The image at the top of this article clearly shows the aftermath of an explosive planted ABOVE the room, Israelis are forwarned and evacuated,
Amos N. Guiora, a former senior Israeli counter-terrorism official, said in a phone interview with The Times that sources in Israel had also told him about the pre-attack evacuations.
"It means there was excellent intelligence that this thing was going to happen," said Guiora, a former leader of the Israel Defense Forces who now heads the Institute for Global Security Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "The question that needs to be answered is why weren't the Jordanians working at the hotel similarly removed?"
The patsy is created and led before the worlds media so that we know who to blame.
Dig deeper people, the truth is not so hard to find. This was a wet false flag psy-op to create support, in the west, for the war on terror.
See This article for more...
OK so Mr Straw is shocked? really? I wonder why he hasn't expressed the same outrage against VP Dick Cheney? It is Cheney after-all that wants the CIA to be exempt from torture.
The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has condemned the alleged abuse of 170 detainees held by Iraqi security forces in Baghdad.
He said he was "deeply shocked" after US troops discovered the malnourished inmates at an interior ministry detention centre on Sunday.
Washington has also said it's troubled by the discovery after some of the inmates were found to be showing signs of apparent torture. Iraqi's prime minister has ordered a full investigation.
He said: "Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. I very much welcome the immediate investigation announced by Iraqi prime minister Ja'afari today and his confirmation that such practices are completely contrary to Iraqi government policy.
"Whoever carried out this abuse must be caught and brought to justice, regardless of rank or background. We look forward to seeing the results of this investigation as soon as possible.
"Steps must be taken to prevent this sort of incident happening again."
Or what about the President, GW Bush?
Those limitations do not extend to the CIA, however. Citing “national security”, the Bush administration has vigorously argued that the CIA be excluded from the restrictions. Bush has threatened to veto a Senate bill to ban torture - McCain is its chief proponent.Jack straw should, perhaps, aim his shock and revulsion at the administration that supported and encouraged torture in the first place.
Now I ask myself, Why did we replace Saddam and in what way are Iraqis better off?
Friday, November 11, 2005
I Remember those heroes and their fight. As the UK and the US routinely use intelligence taken from torture victims, use internationally banned chemical weapons against civilians and desperately attempt to gain total surveillance and detention without trial here, I think their fight continues; not in a physical or violent way, but in a democratic way.
Those MP's who voted against the detention without trial are continuing that fight and those heroes who sacrificed so much for so many would, I believe, be rightly proud that their sacrifice has not been wasted.
Never forget, Never Give Up, Never Surrender.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
If anyone can explain to me how this can be, email me, because according to John Reid, Bliar's reputation and authority is enhanced when he loses votes. Sorry, I just don't get it!!!
Interestingly, John Major survived 5 years with a much smaller majority, and even a minority government for a while and only lost 4 votes in all that time, That was after an economic recession, and a 4th election victory.
By contrast, Blair with a majority of 66 has been defeated after a few months.
He is a weaker and poorer leader than John Major. Any one can seem like a strong leader with a Government majority of 160+ as were Blairs first two terms.
Of course the Labour party barely won the election anyway with 35% of the voting electorate and only 22% of the adult population supporting Blair, a massive majority went against Blair at the election. He only got 66 seat majority due to the skewed seating boundries that gave labour 60+ seats based on what could have been equal vote numbers against the tories. had the boundries been accurate, labour should have a minority Government.
Blair is now a wounded lame duck with no real power, his political future is in the hands of his back-benchers and he has ZERO authority. The Blatant lies and arrogance of the Labour cabinet will turn even more people off labour.
It was breath-taking arrogance and sleaze that finished the tories. Labour are already much worse than the tories at their worst.
How can the cabinet ministers who trotted out onto the media's screens today say what they do with a straight face? How stupid do they think we are?
I am just glad that I am now, finally, witnessing the end of the delusional, discredited, disrespectful, venal, dishonest, corrupt, obnoxious, catastrophic, quasi-fascist murdering criminals, hell bent on invading a country that was according to their own internal, draft dossiers, NO THREAT TO US OR IT'S OWN NEIGHBOURS!
Now they are sliding slowly into their own pit of paranoid delusional incomprehensible lies and ultimately their own destruction, I am satisfied and enjoying watching their slow demise. When they hit the bottom and are thrown from power under a wave of public revulsion, we should charge them with their crimes and bring them to justice.
I urge all people who have agreed with my writing in the past, to manifest this reality for themselves too. Believe in it. It IS happening.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
However, let's not loose sight of the fact that the extent of the detainment without charge within our quazi-police state has just been doubled.
If this law passes, Innocent people can be removed from society, without being charged of any crime, for 28 days.
Blair has tried to drag the UK further into a totalitarian police state. He has used the problem reaction solution tactic, and terrorism (sponsored by elements within our own security services) to try to justify it. It is a tactic dictators have used for centuries. Our Historic Parliament has given a small way in to this, but stopped at full complience. Let's hope they can do even better with ID cards and other draconian and un-necessary legislation and reject that outright.
I am very happy tonight, but, We are actually closer to the total police state, but the commons has, at least, slowed the charge.
For example, let's not get lost in this bullshit about intelligence failures!
THE INTELLIGENCE DID NOT FAIL! IT WAS ACCURATE! IT SAID THE CLAIMS OF BUSH AND BLAIR ET AL WERE BULLSHIT AND COULD NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.
The time has come for the mainstream media to attempt to get back to even the slightest amount of integrity it had and now ask about the leadership ignoring intelligence and deliberately lying about intelligence to further their agenda of illegal regime change in Iraq.
They have missapropriated govenment funds, lied to Parliament and To Congress and the Senate, Lied to the public, commited mass murder and attrocities and scapegoated and persecuted anyone who has got in their way.
They lied, innocents died!
As Jon Stewart wished, "If only lies left semen stains!"
I re-produce the article below as I hold it to be too important to not risk it being lost in the memory hole.
Lying with intelligence WHO IN THE White House knew about DITSUM No. 044-02 and when did they know it?
By Robert Scheer:
That's the newly declassified smoking-gun document, originally prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002 but ignored by President Bush. Its declassification this weekend blows another huge hole in Bush's claim that he was acting on the best intelligence available when he pitched the invasion of Iraq as a way to prevent an Al Qaeda terror attack using weapons of mass destruction.
The report demolished the credibility of the key Al Qaeda informant the administration relied on to make its claim that a working alliance existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was circulated widely within the U.S. government a full eight months before Bush used the prisoner's lies to argue for an invasion of Iraq because "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases."
Al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — a Libyan captured in Pakistan in 2001 — was probably "intentionally misleading the debriefers," the DIA report concluded in one of two paragraphs finally declassified at the request of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and released by his office over the weekend. The report also said: "Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."
He got that right. Folks in the highest places were very interested in claims along the lines Libi was peddling, even though they went against both logic and the preponderance of intelligence gathered to that point about possible collaboration between two enemies of the U.S. that were fundamentally at odds with each other. Al Qaeda was able to create a base in Iraq only after the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, not before. "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements," accurately noted the DIA.
Yet Bush used the informant's already discredited tall tale in his key Oct. 7, 2002, speech just before the Senate voted on whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq and again in two speeches in February, just ahead of the invasion.
Leading up to the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to sell it to the United Nations, while Vice President Dick Cheney, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith repeated it breathlessly for homeland audiences. The con worked, and Americans came to believe the lie that Hussein was associated with the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Even CIA Director George Tenet publicly fell into line, ignoring his own agency's dissent that Libi would not have been in a position to know what he said he knew. In fact, Libi, according to the DIA, could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training allegedly occurred. In January 2004, the prisoner recanted his story, and the next month the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his false information.
One by one, the exotic intelligence factoids Bush's researchers culled from raw intelligence data files to publicly bolster their claim of imminent threat — the yellowcake uranium from Niger, the aluminum tubes for processing uranium, the Prague meeting with Mohamed Atta, the discredited Iraqi informants "Curveball" and Ahmad Chalabi — have been exposed as previously known frauds.
When it came to selling an invasion of Iraq it had wanted to launch before 9/11, the Bush White House systematically ignored the best available intelligence from U.S. agencies or any other reliable source.
It should be remembered that while Bush and his gang were successfully scaring the wits out of us about the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda alliance, U.N. weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. Weapons inspectors Hans Blix and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei promised they could finish scouring the country if given a few more months. But instead, they were abruptly chased out by an invasion necessitated by what the president told us was a "unique and urgent threat."
Bush exploited the worldwide horror felt over the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq invasion. His outrageous claim, repeated over and over before and after he dragged the nation into an unnecessary war, was never supported by a single piece of credible evidence. The Bush defense of what is arguably the biggest lie ever put over on the American people is that everyone had gotten the intelligence wrong. Not so at the highest level of U.S. intelligence, as DITSUM No. 044-02 so clearly shows. How could the president not have known?
I greatly respect democracy, freedom of speech and having differing opinions from others, and those differing from mine. In light of this I add the following: After Reading comments like, "90 days is worth it for our security", I now fully understand how Hitler came to power. Induhviduals, too cowardly to demand freedom, crawl to their political masters and beg for protection, reducing all our freedoms and destroying our way of life in a way that terrorists could only dream of. Where Hitler and the IRA failed, the British Public succeeds. Surrendering before fake threats, we spit in the face of the sacrifice of our forefathers in 2 world wars.
These heroes fought and died to protect our freedoms and our system of polititians remaining public SERVANTS. We, the public, pay for them to serve us; not for them to be our masters dictating to us when we can be free or not on a whim.
The neocon class of polititian in the US and the UK will not use these laws to protect us, but to protect themselves. They plan to subjugate us and control us through these laws. To prevent dissent to their appocolyptic visions of the future according to the PNAC principles being played out in the theatre of the governing western elite.
Thousands of people have been stopped, intimately searched, detained without charge and questioned under the terrorism act already and the vast majority of these actions have had nothing at-all whatsoever to do with terrorism. The terrorism act is a tool for the police to do what they like under the veneer of legal officialdom. The 90-day detention, unlimited house arrest, and ID Cards will be more tools in the totalitarian toolkit that they must be be allowed to use.
Demand your Freedom now and refuse to have any part of the neocon agenda.
See whare we are heading:
Fallujah nightmares: download the video and spread the link everywhere.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
As the report clearly shows, the result is in grave doubt, or rather, the way the result was calculated looks like the ES&S and Diebold election machines did steal the election for Bush.
Read this article for more ...
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
A backdoor way for government to track you? Norwich Union insure 1 in 7 UK Motorists. They have been trailing a system of insurance known a s pay as you go. this means that a 'black box' is installed in a vehicle and this communicates with a satellite. Communicating your location, time, and speed. This information shall be used to 'personalise' your insurance product. If you drive at times of day that have more accidents, you will pay more per mile than if you drive at 'safer' times of day. If you are speeding and are involved in an accident, presumably, your insurance would no longer be valid. Even if you were unaware of the speed at the moment of impact.
The government has also been investigating the option of taxing road users in this way too. For busy congested roads, you pay more tax per mile than clearer roads. This raises many questions however, for example,
1. How would you know what specifically you are having to pay per mile and when? the road you are on suddenly becomes congested (due to an accident nearby diverting traffic) will you suddenly find your tax fee going from 5p per mile to £1.50? Or you are driving down a road that routinely cost 5p per mile, but 2 accidents the previos week on that stretch puts the price of that road up to £1.00? How would you know?
2 Who else would be able to get access to the information?
The Big Brother connotations are obvious, but the financial implications are dire too. You will never know exactly how much you are being charged for driving on any particular stretch of road. Will the insurance fee go up if it is raining, or snowing or foggy? will the cheaper insurance during the day create congestion that the Government will charge more tax for?
So basically it is soon getting to the point where I will not drive anywhere any more. I think I shall do without my car and get the bus or walk.
I have nothing to hide, and to me, that is EXACTLY the point!
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
I am sorry I said totalitarianism, because we live in free democracy. I know this is true because according to McNulty:
"We are not knocking down doors at four in the morning with people booted and suited in riot gear. Most of the removals occur around half-five, half-six, seven in the morning."Phew, I am so fucking relieved!!! . I am so glad he cleared that one up, We live in free democracy because our detainees are carted off to be detained without trial, later in the morning than detainees in genuine fascist states. I feel safer already.
No that is not a joke, he REALLY said it. And with a straight face too.
And I thought that a government bending and enacting century old laws to suppress dissent, legitimate protest and creating all new laws to detain individuals without trial, place them indefinately under house arrest and criminalise people for their beliefs (support for legitimate and internationally recognised and UN authorised freedom fighters) was the preserve of totalitarian, police states or fascist states. Obviously not; for we have the 'time in the morning of removal test' :D WooHoo good us , we are STILL the good guys.
Speaking of ID cards, be aware of how much of a Ball Ache they will be to get one of these infernal Items? and YES THEY WILL BE COMPULSARY!!! Even under Current government plans, they aim to start the VOLUNTARY introduction in 2007 and have them become compulsary in 2013.
You will have to pay AT LEAST £30.00, but be sure that you are on benefits or a pension first and you do not want it to be a passport. If not the cost will be AT LEAST £97.00
Then be prepared to travel to a registration center to be fingerprinted (all fingers and thumbs) have both retinas scanned and have your photograph taken. All at your expense.
If you are a family of 5, that's over £700.oo for the day including travel and food. (If you live any distance from the registration office)
Once you have done that you can hand in your ID forms, properly filled in or face a fine.
The National Identity Register will contain the following information that has to be provided:
- Other previous names or aliases;
- Date and place of birth and, if the person has died, the date of death;
- Previous addresses in the United Kingdom and elsewhere;
- Times of residency at different places in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
- Current residential status;
- Residential statuses previously held;
- Information about numbers allocated to the applicant for identification purposes and about the documents to which they relate;
- Information about occasions on which recorded information in the Register has been provided to any person;
- Information recorded in the Register on request.
- “Other” biometrics (iris recognition);
- Entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom; and
- Where entitlement derives from a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the terms and conditions of that leave.
- National Identity Registration Number;
- The number of any ID card that has been issued;
- National Insurance number;
- The number of any relevant immigration document;
- The number of any United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)) that has been issued; (If you have ever had a passport issued to you that has been lost or stolen and you do not have that passport's number any more, you are screwed)
- The number of any passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
- The number of any document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport;
- The number of any identity card issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
- Any reference number allocated by the Secretary of State in connection with an application made for permission to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom;
- The number of any work permit (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);
- Any driver number connected to a driving licence;
- The number of any designated document which is held by the applicant that is a document the number of which does not fall within any of the preceding sub-paragraphs; ???
- The date of expiry or period of validity of a document the number of which is recorded by virtue of this paragraph. ???
- The date of every application for registration; ???
- The date of every application for a modification of the contents of his entry; ???
- The date of every application confirming the contents of his entry (with or without changes); ???
- The reason for any omission from the information recorded in his entry;
- Particulars (in addition to its number) of every ID card issued;
- Whether each such card is in force and, if not, why not;
- Particulars of every person who has countersigned an application for an ID card or a designated document; ??? What particulars?
- Particulars of every notification given by the applicant for the purposes of regulations under section 13(1) (lost, stolen and damaged ID cards etc.);
- Particulars of every requirement by the Secretary of State for the individual to surrender an ID card issued to the applicant.
- The information provided in connection with every application to be entered in the Register, for a modification of the contents of entry in the Register or for the issue of an ID card;
- Information provided in connection with every application confirming entry in the Register (with or without change;
- Particulars of the steps taken, in connection with an application mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) or otherwise, for identifying the applicant or for verifying the information provided in connection with the application;
- Particulars of any other steps taken or information obtained (otherwise than in connection with an application mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)) for ensuring that there is a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry about that individual in the Register;
- Particulars of every notification given by that individual for the purposes of section 12.
- A personal identification number to be used for facilitating the making of applications for information recorded in his entry, and for facilitating the provision of the information;
- A password or other code to be used for that purpose or particulars of a method of generating such a password or code;
- Questions and answers to be used for identifying a person seeking to make such an application or to apply for or to make a modification of that entry.
- Particulars of every occasion on which information contained in the individual’s entry has been provided to a person;
- Particulars of every person to whom such information has been provided on such an occasion;
- Other particulars, in relation to each such occasion, of the provision of the information.
Can you confidently provide all this info? or is this an administrative nightmare for you?
How will you provide the information for section (9) and (30) above? this could include and not be limited to:
Information about numbers allocated to you for identification purposes and about the documents to which they relate; (driving licence, passport, National insurance numbercard, birth certificate, marriage licence number, NHS Number, military ID cards, Bank account numbers, old bank account numbers, credit card accounts, telephone account number, Councils tax account number, store loyalty cards, club membership numbers, Insurance certificate numbers, vehicle registration documents, etc...(These numbers indentify you to these different organisations, do they not?))
At the time of writing the Government has tabled an ammendment to allow the home Secretary to be able to demand any other information including 'sensitive personal data' (eg medical records and criminal records and financial data) to be held in the National Identity Register.
The implication being that at any time, purely at the Home Secretary's (or any future Home Secretary) discretion, he or she can demand that any person, or group of people be forced to provide any data he/she demands. Failure to provide the information will result in criminal proceedings.
Are you worried yet?But of course, it's not a big brother database and it's not totalitarianism, so nothing to worry about!
Would the Government use your inability to provide specific information as a reason to prosecute you? Certainly. But how about this, would the government use this law on ID cards to persecute you?
Well, let's consider how the labour party have already used old laws in a manner in which they were never intended to be used:
From this article:
Had Mr Wolfgang (Walter Wolfgang - the 82-year-old ejected from the Labour conference for shouting "Nonsense!" during Jack Straw's speech) said "nonsense" twice during the foreign secretary's speech, the police could have charged him under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Harassment, the act says, "must involve conduct on at least two occasions ... conduct includes speech". Parliament was told that its purpose was to protect women from stalkers, but the first people to be arrested were three peaceful protesters. Since then it has been used by the arms manufacturer EDO to keep demonstrators away from its factory gates, and by Kent police to arrest a woman who sent an executive at a drugs company two polite emails, begging him not to test his products on animals. In 2001 the peace campaigners Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow were prosecuted for causing "harassment, alarm or distress" to American servicemen at the Menwith Hill military intelligence base in Yorkshire, by standing at the gate holding the Stars and Stripes and a placard reading "George W Bush? Oh dear!" In Hull a protester was arrested under the act for "staring at a building".AND
The police are also rediscovering the benefits of some of our more venerable instruments. On September 10, Keith Richardson, one of the six students convicted of aggravated trespass on Friday, had his stall in Lancaster city centre confiscated under the 1824 Vagrancy Act. "Every Person wandering abroad and endeavouring by the Exposure of Wounds and Deformities to obtain or gather Alms ... shall be deemed a Rogue and Vagabond... " The act was intended to prevent the veterans of the Napoleonic wars from begging, but the police decided that pictures of the wounds on this man's anti-vivisection leaflets put him on the wrong side of the law. In two recent cases, protesters have been arrested under the 1361 Justices of the Peace Act. So much for Mr Blair's 21st century methods.This blair Government want to defend FREEDOM (their freedom to intimidate, persecute and subjucate) and uphold their way of life. Blair's way of life being lying us into a war, murdering tens of thousands of innocent women, children and the elderly for his and his cronies personal gain and for to advance a fanatical fundementalistic religious war, launched by the most dangerous religious fundemantalist of all, GW Bush!!! As he said, GOD told him to!
Funny that whenever a normal criminal, that may have only killed one or a few people uses the 'GOD told me to' defence, he is either sectioned under the mental health act or the defence is thrown out and they are imprisoned normally,
But when tens of thousands are killed, it's just a good christian standing up fer merka in the woronterra!!!
But of course it's not totalitarianism, so nothing to worry about.
Where are the labour back benchers? Blair is an apoligist for an extremist rightwing religious fundementalist? I can understand the right wing Tory Liam Fox supporting Bush's illegal war of conquest, But a left of centre Blair? and by implication, the WHOLE Labour party that supports this bill.
What has the ID card got to do with Iraq?
Well, bear with me on this. The ID card, (as demonstrated by the above list of details to be stored and the addition to this list of any extra data the home secretary sees fit, like medical, criminal and financial data), shall be used to track everything you do.
Why do they need to track everybody? they claim it is because the world changed on September eleventh. and the rules of the game have changed since 7/7/05. SO we need to protect ourselves against dangerous people.
Yet they have used the anti terror laws against people who have (legitimately) protested against the government.
Walter Wolfgang - the 82-year-old ejected from the Labour conference for shouting "Nonsense!" during Jack Straw's speech was detained under the terrorism act, for critisicing the governement. that has set a precedent.
But Blairs lot only want to stop 07/07/05 from happening again?
ok looky here: ID cards wouldn't have stopped bombs, UK minister says
or here: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
or here: Al-Qaeda cleric exposed as an MI5 double agent
So the governement will aim to track every body, all the time (including whilst you travel) and build a risk profile of every citizen. It will be used to track everything you do:
Neil Fisher, from QinetiQ - one of the companies developing the new technology, said the public would want to be able to prove their identity to show they were not a risk.
He told the BBC's 10 O'Clock News: "You will want this to be part of your life."
"You will want, in what's fast becoming a digital society, to be able to authenticate your identity almost for any transaction that you do, be it going to the bank, going to the shops, going to the airport."
And you will need it to access all Government services too:
What happens if you order an antiwar book online?or attend antiwar rallies? or verbalise your dissent? if you are a critic of government policy, you are liaible (from established precedent) to be held under the terrorism act.
The ID card will make it easier for the govenment to track it's critics and build evidence of their terrorist tendencies so they can hold them indefinately or just detain them in the run up to elections, say the three months prior to an election so as to (a) create the fear of terrorism with many high profile detentions, and (b) prevent their critics from voting?
The unfortunate thing in all this is that it is in any way plausable. If we truly lived in a free democracy, NONE of this would be even remotely plausable.
But don't worry, Tony McNulty says we are free and under his freedom test, we clearly are.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
A good tip!!! Write for the bin. Instead of trying to get every phrase and sentence and paragraph to be prize winning literature. write as if you are going to throw it out anyway. Then just get your ideas down on paper, or on the screen. That way, you are writing. You WILL find that most of what you write will be pretty good anyway. Then you just go through the work you have done and search out the 'pearls'.
With this technique you will be a writer.
That said; you can be anything you want to be. If you want to be it? JUST GO DO IT!
I am now a systems engineer, project manager, web-developer, writer, video producer, director and life coach and I am the best person I have ever been in my LIFE!
You HAVE a great life too. It's just a choice, after all.
Monday, May 23, 2005
I learned an important lesson. I was caught, and will take the punishment and I am happy to take responsibility. I have no-one else to blame, no excuses. The reason I was driving so fast is simple. I was driving a long way, late at night and wanted to get home quickly. Simple as that. No excuses, it was my fault, I was wrong. So I have learned and grown from the experience. and THAT is the important part.
My book has come on in leaps and bounds in the last week. I have tentatively called it, "Why have you not evolved yet?" it is a guide to spiritual (not religious) enhancement and personal development. and personal growth. Believe me, the information in this book works! BIG TIME!!! It is magical and get this. It also contains the meaning of life itself!
So it should be available to buy online shortly and the URL will be displayed here :)
Must go, I have a purpose to fulfill :) I Love you all and please, if you only do one thing, make sure you get PASSIONATE about what you love.
Monday, March 14, 2005
This is the exact same line that Tony used to get support for an invasion of Iraq. "We don't want to do this, but Saddam is forcing us to, the security services said so!"
What utter utter lies! The security services are NOT asking for this legislation. they have said that legislation is for parliament to decide.
So bLIAR IS LYING AGAIN!!!! HOW MANY LIES DO YOU EXPECT IS TO BELIEVE TONY? HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE???
I still have a problem with the standard of proof. The government can now ask a judge to detain anybody they wish, under house arrest, without charge or trial, based on zero direct evidence, supposition and suspicion are all that is required. The fact that a judge has to approve makes little difference. After all it was judges that twice exonerated Tony Blair of any wrong doing over Iraq Intelligence or Dr. David Kelly, in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is fascist control by proxy.
OK, Tony Bliar was not personally responsible for the murder of Dr David Kelly, however he is responsible for the the foriegn policy of the UK and the policy towards Iraq and the twisted half truths and the blatant lies that lead to the situation arising in which Dr David Kelly was murdered.
Are we to believe that the home office cannot find a sympathetic judge? If Blair (or whomever may be pulling his strings) wanted a genuine political opponent out of the way, the rule of law and natural justice will be sacrificed, for political expediency.
I don't care whether a Judge, a politician, or Mother Theresa's ghost was to make the call for house arrest. That call should be made (a) on genuine evidence that a crime has been commited, (b) that evidence must be placed before a jury. Neither will happen now.
We currently have a crime of assisting in, or organising a terrorist attack. (that is not the correct legal terminology, but it's close enough) If the intelligence services or the police believe that a suspect has been involved in organising terrorist attacks, try them in a court under that law. This law is there to prevent people form commiting the terrorist attack in the first place.
Note, It is rarely ever the case that international terrorists turn out to be who we are lead to believe they are. They are usually the intelligence operatives or 'special ops' of some Government's security service operating 'with plausable deniability'. These intelligence services do not only gather intelligence, but perform 'psy-ops' and 'wet-ops' and other buzz-words so beloved of the playstation generation. Watch the History Channel to see where we have been lied to in the past. Where psy-ops lead to revolutions and and military coups to oust democratic leaders and install pro-corporate puppets. Will we have to wait to watch the History Channel in 25 years to see how we have been lied to now? To see who really were terrorists and who were government operatives manipulating the people through a fake war on terror?
With the introduction of this immoral, repulsive and unjust bill into law and with the imposition of the trackable ID card with it's turbo charged big brother on steroids database. It is unlikely that we will be able to access that information in 25 years time. At least not without being considered a threat to the state and therfore being 'disapeared'.
‘That’s me, a marine, a murderer of civilians’
Italian reporter shot by US military writes for newspaper that tells raw truth about US role in Iraq
by Tom Whitney
On March 4, in Baghdad, U.S. soldiers shot the Italian reporter Giuliana Sgrena, who had just been released by hostage-takers. She believes the soldiers shot to kill, and they succeeded in killing Italian Secret Service official Nicola Calipara, who had secured her release from hostage takers and who was with her.
Witnesses accompanying the pair, who also were wounded, told reporters March 5 that, contrary to U.S. allegations, the car in which the four persons were riding was not speeding and that it had already stopped at several checkpoints on its way to the airport.
Il Manifesto (www.ilmanifesto.it), the paper Giuliana Sgrena works for, is described as a “communist paper.” The titles of Sgrena’s recent articles for Il Manifesto, including “Ten thousand Iraqis in US and British prisons” (Dec. 29, 2004); “Two thousand victims in Fallujah” (Nov. 26, 2004); “Napalm raid on Fallujah?” (Nov. 23, 2004); “The death throes of Fallujah” (Nov. 13, 2004); “Stop the massacre” (Nov. 12, 2004); and “Interview with Iraqi Women tortured at Abu Graib,” show that neither she nor the paper pulls any punches when it comes to criticism of U.S. policy and conduct.
The following interview of U.S. Marine Jimmy Massey by Patrizio Lombroso of Il Manifesto appeared the day before Giuliana Sgrena was released and shot. It’s an interview not calculated to win love and friendship in official Washington circles.
‘Yo, un marine asesino de civiles’ (‘That’s me, a marine, a murderer of civilians’)
“I’ve seen the horror that we were causing every day in Iraq. I have been part of it. We are all just murderers.
“We kill innocent Iraqi civilians all the time. That’s the way it is. I believe they need to withdraw all foreign military troops in Iraq right away. And I say this about other soldiers: to avoid punishment or reprisals by the military, they don’t want to talk and admit that killing terrorists is not our mission. It’s to kill innocent civilians.”
That’s the way the Il Manifesto interview with Jimmy Massey went. He’s from the little town of Waynesville, North Carolina. He has decided to draw back the veil of silence from the “noble mission” in Iraq. Discharged from the Marine Corps for medical reasons, he has written a diary, “Cowboys from Hell,” which will be published at the end of the summer.
“What was your rank in Iraq?”
“I was a sergeant with the Third Marine Battalion during the invasion, in the spring of 2003.”
“How much time did you spend there?”
“From March 22 to the 15th of May. Four months of hell. They had to send me back to the U.S. because of a ‘stress syndrome.’ This is the term in military jargon they use to say that because of the horrors I’ve seen in the war, I’ve lost my mind.”
“Were you in the Marines many years?”
“Had you fought in a war before?”
“You are now a member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War?”
“Yes, I went to Iraq initially with the idea that weapons of mass destruction had to be eliminated. But soon my experience as a Marine made me understand that the reality was something quite different. We were ‘cowboy murderers.’ We killed innocent civilians.”
“You admit having killed innocent civilians?”
“Sure, and lots of them.”
“How did it happen?”
“Near my base in the south of Baghdad, our whole platoon attacked a group of civilians engaged in a peaceful demonstration. Why? Because we heard gunshots. It was a blood bath. The pretense that those civilians were engaged in ‘terrorist activities’ didn’t work for me. That’s what our military intelligence wanted us to believe.
“We killed more than 30 people. That was the first time that I had to face up to the horror that my hands were soiled with the blood of civilians. We laid down cluster bombs on them. The people fled, and when they arrived at the control points we had set up with armed convoys, I was supposed to shoot the ones that looked like they belonged to ‘terrorist groups.’ Those were the directions military intelligence gave us.”
“And that’s what you all did?”
“We ended up massacring innocent civilians – men, women, and children. When our platoon took over a radio station, we went ahead and put out propaganda to the population urging them to go on with their daily routine, keep the schools open, etc. But we knew that our orders were to ‘search and destroy.’ That meant carrying out armed assaults on schools, in hospitals, anywhere that ‘terrorists’ could hide. In reality these were traps set up by military intelligence. We ourselves were supposed to overlook the taking of civilian lives that were part of these missions.”
“You admit that during your mission you carried out executions on innocent civilians?”
“Yes, my platoon also opened fire on civilians and I too killed innocents. I too am an assassin.”
“How did you react after these operations when you thought about the innocents you had killed?”
“For a while I kept on going. In my own mind I denied the reality of me being a murderer and not a soldier who somehow could tell the difference between who is right and who is wrong. Then, one day I woke up and there was a young kid inside my head.
“Miraculously, he had saved himself from a massacre of passengers in his car. He was shouting at me and asking: ‘Why did you kill my brother.’ He became an obsession. I physically lost control of my equilibrium and couldn’t move or talk. I stayed in one place and looked all the time at the wall. I was really scared, and lost.”
“What measures did your superiors take?”
“For three weeks in Iraq, they filled me with anti depressives and psychotropic drugs. That’s the emergency treatment for these cases of ‘traumatic stress,’ when the idea of refusing to kill takes over a soldier’s life.”
“Didn’t their training in the United States put them at the disposal of the Pentagon into units that were really violent and aggressive?”
“Yes, in the part called ‘boot camp’ each one of us is subjected to techniques of ‘dehumanization’ and ‘desensitization to violence.’ But they never told me that this meant killing innocent civilians.”
“So, three weeks with antidepressants in Iraq – and after that?”
“They didn’t know what to do and sent me back. Now I am out of the military, incapacitated and disabled, with an honorable discharge.”
“Are there others in conditions like yours?”
“Many. And they are still at the front. They stuff them with anti-depressants, and after that they go back and are sent into combat again. It’s a problem that has become quite worrisome for them. One must not say anything about it there in the military.
“In 2004, 31 marines took their own lives, and 85 made suicide attempts. Most of those who wanted to die rather than keep on killing are less than 25 years old, and 16 percent of them are under 20 years.”
This interview with Jimmy Massey appeared March 3 in Il Manifesto. The next day, it was carried on the Spanish website, www.rebelion.org, and is translated here by Tom Whitney from the Spanish. Email Whitney at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
I hope people also, however, do not disrespect those of us who came to the view then and hold the view now that, with the history of Saddam, and with what he did not just to his own country but to the wider world, that we are safer and more secure without him in office.Tony Blair Press conference with the Italian Prime Minister [13/07/04]
My Government recognises that we live in a time of global uncertainty with an increased threat from international terrorism and organised crime.Queen's Speech [23/11/04]
You cannot have it both ways. Either we are safer or we are not. It's simple boolean logic.
Tony would have us congratulate him for making us safer and at the same time have us willingly give up 800 years of human rights so that he can save us from unprecedented threats.
So, if we are safer, why do we have to give up our civil liberties and face the risk of political pursecution?
If we are not safer, Why not? Has Tony risked the lives of his electorate by lying to invade a broken, harmless nation that never EVER attacked us?
It is one or the other and Tony has made a complete balls up of it either way.
It's frightening, what they’re doing to us . . .
More than anything, the Prime Minister wants us to be very scared. Hence the Blair Witch Project
ONE WORD sums up the Government’s attitude to civil liberties and its proposed anti-terrorism Bill.
Alternatively: wwwwooooooooooo. Boys and girls, we have returned to the world of bogeymen, monsters under the bed and things that go bump in the night. We cannot see them, but we know they are there. Some call Britain a nanny state; but nanny always told you there was no such thing as ghosts. Now nanny says there are. Nanny says there are hundreds. Nanny says: “Don’t look behind you.” Nanny says: “Did you hear that? ” Nanny says: “Oh, my God, oh, my God, oh, my God.”
The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, or the Blair Witch Project as it should be called, is motivated by fear. For it to become palatable, you must be scared. After all, the Government is scared. But what you fear and what it fears are very different. You fear a repeat of the atrocity in Madrid; it fears a repeat of the election in Madrid. You fear the bomb; it fears the blame.
Tony Blair’s biggest fear is that he is not as clever as he is made out to be: that he took his eye off the ball. If he thinks we are so vulnerable that the only way to ensure our freedom is by surrendering it, he also knows he has the bottom-line responsibility for this farrago. He wants us scared of them because he is scared of us. Mostly, he is scared of carrying the can, of the British public waking up to a War on Terror that has been diluted, mismanaged and misdirected almost from day one.
The Blair Witch Project is an insurance policy. He has a department devoted to blame-avoidance and the timing of this Bill has their handwriting all over it. “We did all we could. We made them stay home. They couldn’t even use the internet. Not our fault, you see. Not our fault . . .” We have wasted our energy fighting an enemy that posed no immediate threat in Iraq while allowing a potentially real menace within our borders to proliferate. Our police squandered resources on ring-fenced speed cameras, spurious mission statements and phoney slogans when vital detective work was paramount. A doom-laden article by Sir John Stevens, the former head of Scotland Yard, has provoked widespread alarm, but the most illuminating passage describes events immediately after 9/11.
“I remember the shock on the faces of Mr Blair and his Cabinet as experts from Scotland Yard’s Anti-Terrorism Branch, MI5 and MI6 gave their first briefing on the size of the home-grown threat. I shared that horror. As more intelligence flooded in after the invasion of Afghanistan ... the grimmer those reports became and the more dismayed Mr Blair was.”
There was only one thing for it. Invade a country that had nothing to do with it, on information that would ensure nobody ever trusted the security forces again. At that moment, the strategy for the War on Terror went so awry that this Government is now attempting to abandon a basic human freedom to cover those tracks. Willing workers assist it. Sir John Stevens says there are 200 al-Qaeda terrorists loose in Britain. Well, were you in charge of a major crime prevention agency while this army of psychopaths was growing? No, me neither. But Sir John was. His successor as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, is spending £300,000 renovating his office, having been in the job a month. No doubt on his retirement he will also treat us to terrifying revelations about the terrorist threat in London which he would definitely have got to grips with were it not for dry rot in the wainscoting. Step away from the Miró and do your job, Sir Ian. There is nothing to see here.
True story: post-9/11, a policeman passed on a tip to me. He said there was a café in East London that displayed recruiting posters for Islamic terrorist groups. He wondered if the newspaper would be interested. Challenged on why the police were not acting, he said they had been told to stay low-key for fear of upsetting the local community. Sir John Stevens would have been in overall charge back then. Funny how things work out. Now Sir John says opponents of the Blair Witch Project do not understand the horror of the terrorism we face. But we do, and we did. That is why, as the police declared war on school-run mums, mouthy footballers and people eating apples at traffic lights, Tony Blair’s “society of fear” begged for proper protection from violence of all kinds. That is why when the war in Iraq started before the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda ringleaders had been successfully completed, many questioned its logic and motives.
What is truly criminal is the lie that the only way the people can now be properly protected is to heave freedom on the bonfire. The proposed legislation is so extreme that those merely believing in vigorous policing, thorough investigation, quick trial and harsh sentences are the bleeding hearts. Yet why are we panicked like this? For house arrest read blame avoidance, pure and simple. If Britain is under great terrorist threat — a claim entirely unproven, yet very convenient in the circumstances, much like Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — somebody has messed up.
The Blair Witch Project is Tony’s way of saying: “Well, it wasn’t me.” Right now, far from being a structured law brought in to address the threat of al-Qaeda and its fellow travellers, Blair is not even sure how it will operate. He will not rule out using it to deal with those protesting against the G8 summit in Gleneagles, for instance, a worrying development even for staunch supporters. All we can say for certain is that the Blair Witch Project will serve its purpose. Tough on blame, tough on the causes of blame.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Perhaps the elite are going to use faked threats to get away with using this deadly weapon to kill millions of people. Add this to the threats we have had of a major pandemic of bird flu? notably, naturally occuring bird flu is not transmissable from human to human. However, the non naturally occuring strain cultivated by the US may well be transmissable this way.
When you add up all the ways that we are being killed in our millions (DU, Aspartame and other chemical poisoning, man made diseases etc) you may be forgiven for thinking that the Georgia guidestones are a literal warning.
On with the article:
US Military, President
Out Of Control
What Does 'Mildly Radioactive' Mean, Anyway?
By Bob Nichols
Project Censored Award Winner
"I believe in the end that ... you will comprehend that the amount of DU [Depleted Uranium] released into the atmosphere since 1991 is far more than my estimate. Whatever you or I think or differ about, the disaster is worse than we even know ... but that tale will be told each year, each decade, each century. Humanity has changed the genome of the entire planet forever." - Leuren Moret
(Oklahoma, Red State, "Land of the Free") -- The Russians just recently stopped a weightlifter coming across the border with about 100 pounds of "highly radioactive depleted uranium." The guy said he was using it for dumbbells in weightlifting.
The American Department of Defense and other government departments all are unanimous in calling so-called depleted uranium "mildly radioactive depleted uranium." They like to use it for bombs, shells and heavy caliber bullets.
Highly radioactive, mildly radioactive, moderately radioactive.
What does it mean? Whom to believe?
The godless former Commies or the brave Iraq-smashing Americans?
Decide for yourself.
Radioactivity is a standard property of the metal uranium, used by Americans for bombs, shells and bullets, and one gram will always give off 12,000 "atomic disintegrations" per second.
This lasts forever, as far as we are concerned. Think of the "atomic diserntegrations" as little atomic bullets. The kind that are only harmful from inside the human body. What do you think? Does 12,000 per second rank high or low with you? What if it is in your lung?
Delicate lung cells of 19 year old American troopers and 60-year-old Iraqi "guerrillas" don't have the ability to "spin" what is turning them into infection, pus and cancer.
Just so you know, that is 43 million, 200 thousand little bullets per hour. This nuclear bombardment at the heart of a cell in the lung or the rest of the body never stops. Of course, the "throwaway soldiers" will get cancer and die; but, the chicken-hawk Neo-Cons in the Bush Administration say that is OK! They just don't want to pay for it.
Remember the 100-hour-long First Gulf War? Only an unlucky few were killed. We Americans used 375 tons of uranium munitions. Out of the one half million, or so, soldiers in the prime of life in the war, 11,000 are now dead. and hundreds of thousands are on Medical Disability.
The latest good journalist to "Drink the Government Kool-Aid" was Bob Evans of the Daily Press in Virginia. Evans used the deceptive Government term "mildly radioactive" over and over, in his recent seven-part series on uranium weapons in use by the US Military. In his effort to be fair, Evans, a respected veteran journalist, never used the forbidden words "illegal" or "war crimes." The Daily Press readership includes a large segment of "retired military."
Since uranium is a metal that also catches on fire and burns, the bombs, shells and bullets burn and vaporize when they hit something hard like a tank, bunker, or building. Uranium gas and smoke ends up in the nose, throat and lungs of our kids and friends in the US Military and any unlucky Iraqi around. Some of the gas also hitches a ride on the desert winds to the rest of the world, including the American ally, Israel.
This is a real bummer for the American Troopers and the Iraqis. Uranium by the thousands of tons has been dispersed this way in Iraq during Gulf War I, the No-Fly Zones era, Gulf War II, the war after the war, and to this very day. Once the uranium gas and dust is in their lungs and bodies the soldiers and civilians become radiation poisoning victims and are forever changed.
There is no way to remove the uranium smoke from the body. It is radioactive. There is no treatment; there is no cure. This stuff stays dangerous, lethal even, forever and a day. After all, it is highly radioact ... err, ... pardon me, "mildly radioactive," ... err ... whatever!
Our victimized soldiers don't have forever, though. With the same absolute certainty of the Atomic Clock the US Government uses to tell time, the constant ticking of the "atomic disintegrations" (little bullets) starts the countdown to death from radiation poisoning for the soldiers and civilians alike. It's just a matter of the dose of lethal poison they received. A greater dose equals less time.
It gets worse. Captain Terry Riordon unknowingly brought radiation poisoning home with him from Iraq to his wife, Susan Riordon. As recounted in the November, 2004 issue of the mainstream Conde Nast publication Vanity Fair, Mrs. Riordon was constantly burned by her husband's semen during intercourse.
Seems Terry's semen was turned to a fiery alkali by the radioactive uranium that settled in his testicles. The happily married couple had no idea what this new and horrifying complication was in this intensely private part of their life together. Little did they know the American Department of Defense had hopped into bed with them with a deadly intent.
With her husband slowly dying of radiation poisoning and in intense pain herself, Mrs. Riordon resorted to filling condoms with frozen green peas to use on herself to obtain relief from the internal burning's intense, excruciating, lasting pain. Other couples do that and other wildly frantic and imaginative measures seeking relief. The burning can leave blisters and contamination.
"It hurt [Terry] too. He said it was like forcing it through barbed wire," Riordon says. "It seemed to burn through condoms; if he got any on his thighs or his testicles, he was in hell." In a last, desperate attempt to save their sex life, says Riordon, "I used to fill condoms with frozen peas and insert them [after sex] with a lubricant." That, she says, made her pain just about bearable. Perhaps inevitably, he became impotent. "And that was like our last little intimacy gone."
Children produced from radioactive soldier's couplings have devastating birth defects; both to war's children born in the United States and in Iraq. After all, uranium gas is just a dumb radioactive metal; it does not care one whit about the nationality of the body parts it targets.
In Iraq, women call the doomed pregnancies the "jelly belly." The world simply calls it "Genocide." That's the purposeful targeting of a race or ethnic group of people for extermination. That's our red blooded, By Gawd, All American Policy. Exterminate them! That is one answer to the question Americans are always indignantly asking "Why do they hate us so? Haven't we set them free!?!"
Bob Evans, in his series, even inadvertently let a Classified Specification out of the bag. The 140,000 pound Abrams Main Battle Tank, a primary dispenser of radioactive, poisonous uranium gas and dust in Iraq, fires its big gun at a spectacular 2,100 MPH or three times the speed of sound (MACH III.)
The three foot long solid uranium projectiles then vaporize and burn at temperatures ranging from an estimated 3,000 to 10,000 degrees as they penetrate their target. Mr. Evans, guru-like, informs us the temperature is 5,600 degrees.
What is the difference in "highly radioactive in Russia or "mildly radioactive" in Virginia? Is it the same metal? Yes, it is. Are both metals radioactive? Yes! Whether they are in Russia or the United States, yes, they are: at 12,000 little bullets per second, anywhere in the known universe! Uranium is our own perverse absolute value.
Well, this is kind of a bummer for all US citizens. President Bush and the US Military have gone and screwed the pooch. Turns out that using uranium for weapons is, like, kind of a "Big Time" War Crime. Not only is it a War Crime, it is a War Crime four different ways, according to famous UN War Crimes and humanitarian lawyer Karen Parker, JD.
Parker stated "My 'four-point' test is especially intelligible: people understand. "It spreads" (beyond the field of battle); "it lasts" (can't be turned off when the war ends); "it injures people in impermissible ways" (as in making an as yet unborn child deformed); and "it harms the environment".
Ever since we Americans obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan with nuclear weapons in August of 1945, immediately killing an estimated quarter of a million people, the rest of the world has taken a really dim view of actually using nuclear weapons.
Uranium bombs, shells and bullets are just different forms of slow-acting, stealth nuclear weapons. They are slower than the instant big boom and flash of Nagasaki type Nuclear Weapons - the atom bomb and hydrogen bomb. They are the answer to the Administration's dedicated Crusade for the Holy Grail of a "usable" nuclear weapon.
Time has telescoped from 1945 instantly -- past to present; World War II is just over, and we used nuclear weapons on civilians. Now we are using the next generation of nuclear weapons on the hapless guerrillas and civilians of Iraq. They never had a chance. Not a prayer.
Uranium weapons spread deadly radioactivity that kills and contaminates forever. Iraq is simply "toast" because of the indiscriminate, promiscuous and criminal use of millions of pounds of uranium weapons by our kids and friends in the US Military, at the command of their political masters. The masters and troopers are war criminals, and we, the U.S. taxpayers, are accessories to war crimes.
US Military Out of Control - Defies Law
So, what to do? It's all right there, in US Army Regulations, according to Maj. Doug Rokke, Ph.D. Ret., the former Director of the Pentagon Depleted Uranium Project. U.S. Army Regulations AR 700-48 and TB 9-1300-278 require the Army to "Clean and Treat." The Army is required by US law to treat all persons affected and all areas contaminated by the radioactive uranium munitions. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.
The self-claimed right to use war crime weapons carries the with it big responsibility to clean up after oneself. Refusing to clean up and treat is purposeful genocide. It is that simple. We are guilty as sin.
Dennie Williams' breakthrough CommonDreams.org article of November 11, 2004 sets the record straight on the US Military's view of using and cleaning up after illegal uranium munitions. "The Department of Defense 'does not clean up DU [depleted uranium weapons] once it leaves a U.S. weapons system such as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and hits an enemy building, or vehicle', said Melissa Bohan, an Army public affairs official."
The "suits" in the Pentagon can't be anymore clear than that. They absolutely refuse to treat the people poisoned, including their own troopers, and refuse to clean up the poisoned radioactive land. The US Military did the same thing in Vietnam with the chemical Agent Orange, which was denied and covered up for decades. As one Vietnam War medic says "Uranium weapons are like Agent Orange on steriods."
Therefore, the situation is this: the political leadership of the U.S. decided to secretly use thousands of tons of a genocidal weapon, uranium, in Iraq. Their servants in the US Military are gung-ho to irradiate the Iraqis and poison their land, forever, with illegal uranium-based war crimes weapons. The Army refuses to obey their own Regulations, that have the force of law, to Clean & Treat, in their slavish obedience to the sub-human, sick, perverted genocidal desires of their politically appointed controllers.
What's wrong with this picture?
This is real Nazi Germany stuff, isn't it? Closer to home, it is very similar to Andrew Jackson's policy of exterminating Native Americans. Citizens here in the U.S. may not want to know or accept that fact, but that is the sleight-of-hand dealt to us mere citizens in America in 2005 by our corporate-owned and sponsored politicians and media.
Denying a fact situation does not make it disappear. The facts, and the thousands of tons of weaponized uranium oxide gas and dust, just hang in there. This is impossible for supposedly patriotic "My Country Right or Wrong - Love It or Leave It" type Americans to explain away.
Uranium is as real as it gets, and it never goes away. As long as there are congenitally deformed Iraqis left in the world, and until the Iraqis are finally exterminated by these long-lived genocidal weapons, they will continue to whisper and croak in whatever voice left to them: "America Exterminated Me, Punish Them!" and demand justice.
Americans of all political stripes should be enraged to hear of what our US Military has done to Iraq. It is not OK, and they should feel betrayed by the Bush Administration, perhaps especially the center-right Americans responsible for twice electing Bush. (And the results of Both elections are still disputed.)
It was real Americans some 60 years ago "The Greatest Generation," as network news reader Tom Brokaw called them, in his book of the same name, who with the Russians, Free French, British and others stomped the fascist war makers in Germany and their Axis ally Japan in World War II.
Now the "World's Only Superpower's" American Army has taken the place of Hitler's Storm Troopers in ruling the modern world. It is supremely ironic that their own uranium weapons kill them as well as the "enemy" civilians, as they set out to control. These unthinking soldiers will ultimately destroy the world, and that seems to be the desired outcome of Administration's cult like "Rapture Me" Christofascist radical religious tradition.
In the famous Nuremburg War Crimes Trials, established after World War II to try Nazi War Criminals and assess their guilt and punishment, the Chief Prosecutor said of the German people something that applies directly to Americans today. He speaks knowingly and directly across more than 50 years of time to resolutely instruct American citizens on exactly what our duty is today, right now:
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obediencetherefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
- Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950
The statement was affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal. It is now international law and by extension, U.S. law. It is our duty as American citizens. The fascist government controlling the United States and the US Military can no longer be allowed to exist. The world and international law holds us all accountable, and the price is dear.
These white-collar criminals must all be impeached and imprisoned for their war crimes, commensurate with their degree of complicity and guilt. If the House will not impeach and the Senate will not put them on trial, then, we have a problem.
We will have to do it ourselves. Additionally, we have to vote out the co-conspirators in the Senate and the House for refusing to impeach. That is the law, handed down in 1950 after a disastrous world-wide war. We Americans must follow the law. It is our sacred duty. As President Bush likes to say "they [the House and Senate] are either for us or against us."
Can we wait till tomorrow, next week, or, next year to impeach?
In a word, "No!"
Leuren Moret, world famous former Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab scientist, said the following in an Email on Valentine's Day, 2005, requesting hundreds of physicists, scientists, professionals, managers, writers and others to join in the world-wide effort to stop the current flagrant use of illegal uranium weapons:
"I believe in the end that ... you will comprehend that the amount of DU [Depleted Uranium] released into the atmosphere since 1991 is far more than my estimate. Whatever you or I think or differ about, the disaster is worse than we even know ... but that tale will be told each year, each decade, each century. Humanity has changed the genome of the entire planet forever."
"How can you help us present the disaster in a way that ordinary people can comprehend? Infant mortality is increasing globally for the first time in 41 years..."
"This planet is being turned into a death star," Moret added.
The time to act is now. The Bush Administration controls the big media on this issue. They do not control you. Tell your friends and email this article everywhere. As U.S. citizens, as human beings, we know what we should do, and we know that we cannot afford to wait any longer.
Writers & Warriors Speakers Group:
Contact Bob Nichols at email@example.com for College Distinguished Lecture Series Speakers, Commencement Speakers, People's Events and Rallies.