Monday, October 17, 2011

The State Runs The Left

An academic and leading campaigner against racism and fascism has been exposed as a police spy-master who led a network of undercover officers in political activist groups.

Bob Lambert, now a lecturer and expert on Islamophobia who regularly speaks at civil rights rallies, infiltrated organisations including Greenpeace as part of a covert police unit.

During his previous 26-year career as a Special Branch officer, he placed moles inside political protest groups, including anti-racism organisations, impeding their activities.
Spy: Bob Lambert during his undercover days in the mid-1980s (left) and the academic and lecturer as he is now (right). He has been exposed as a police spy-master who led a network of undercover officers in political activist groups

Mr Lambert became head of the unit after around a decade working undercover, reported The Guardian.

He has previously admitted working for special branch between 1980 and 2006, but has never revealed his past as a police spy.

Ironically, Mr Lambert's secret undercover work was revealed on Saturday at a Unite Against Fascism conference, at which he was a speaker.

Fellow activists at the event claimed he used the alias Bob Robinson while a member of London Greenpeace between 1984 and 1988.

More...Closer to the truth: Cameron promises 'full disclosure' on Hillsborough disaster ahead of MPs' debate sparked by 100,000-strong online petition

The group campaigned for environmental issues including nuclear disarmament and claims 'Robinson' attended numerous protests and meetings.

It is also believed that Mr Lambert infiltrated animal rights groups.

But he was actually a member of the Special Demonstration Squad, a police unit dedicated to infiltrating political groups thought to pose a threat to public order.

When urged to apologise at the conference for his undercover work, Mr Lambert refused to comment, the activists claim.

Undercover: Mr Lambert (wearing a red jacket) attends a protest during the period he infiltrated London Greenpeace

He last week urged people to attend to 'show a united front against hatred and bigotry and celebrate the diversity of our multicultural communities'.

In the late 1990s, Mr Lambert became head of the Special Demonstration Squad and was responsible for placing police moles in political organisations.

From 2002 to 2007, he was in charge of Scotland Yard's Muslim Contact Unit, tasked with preventing Islamic extremism by way of two-way dialogue with the Muslim community.

Since 2006, he has lectured at Exeter and St Andrew's universities.
Mr Lambert is the seventh police officer to be unmasked as a spy inside protest organisations.

Alternate life: Mark Kennedy spent seven years undercover as an eco-activist before allegedly going 'native' and naming another campaigner as an officer
The most high-profile of these was Mark Kennedy, who spent seven years undercover as an eco-activist before allegedly going 'native' and naming another campaigner as an officer when he was rumbled.

A spokesman for London Greenpeace today said: 'By publicly exposing this latest scandal, campaigners have demonstrated that the recent police spies outed were not "rogue officers", but part of an unacceptable pattern of immoral infiltration of environmental groups, condoned at a high level.

'We demand action to ensure that the full truth is revealed and that justice is done.'

A report into Kennedy and the work of undercover police officers in protest groups is scheduled to be published on Thursday.

Racked with guilt at betraying his new friends after seven years of pretence, Kennedy apparently confessed that a female officer in her 30s was also a spy.
She lived in Leeds and played a major part in organising a protest intended to close down the Drax coal-fired power station in North Yorkshire.

The group had already grown suspicious after she disappeared overnight in 2008 claiming she had fallen in love with a man in Coventry. She was never seen again.

Senior police chiefs were in January said to be worried Kennedy, who went under the name Mark Stone in his alternate life, had also compromised the safety of other officers working covertly.

Telling friends who were protesters that the officer was working undercover is a serious breach of protocol which could mean other operatives have to be moved for their safety.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050051/Lecturer-exposed-police-spy-master-infiltrated-Greenpeace-groups-posing-threat-public-order.html#ixzz1b3ByAYRh









Add to Technorati Favorites

The 600 Trillion Dollar Derivatives Bomb about to Explode

http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/derivatives-the-600-trillion-time-bomb-thats-set-to-explode/



Do you want to know the real reason banks aren't lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?

It's because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn't evening out. To the contrary, it's growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States.

In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.

The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).

Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world's top policymakers would have reined these things in by now - but they haven't.

Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market.

Think I'm exaggerating?

The notional value of the world's derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position's assets. This distinction is necessary because when you're talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much as 5, 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.

The world's gross domestic product (GDP) is only about $65 trillion, or roughly 10.83% of the worldwide value of the global derivatives market, according to The Economist. So there is literally not enough money on the planet to backstop the banks trading these things if they run into trouble.


How to Profit as Wall Street Insiders Push Oil Higher

Find out how high oil will go in this
free report.
Enter Email Address Here:


Cancel at any time | How it works


Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody even knows if the $600 trillion figure is accurate, because specialized derivatives vehicles like the credit default swaps that are now roiling Europe remain largely unregulated and unaccounted for.


Tick...Tick...Tick
To be fair, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimated the net notional value of uncollateralized derivatives risks is between $2 trillion and $8 trillion, which is still a staggering amount of money and well beyond the billions being talked about in Europe.

Imagine the fallout from a $600 trillion explosion if several banks went down at once. It would eclipse the collapse of Lehman Brothers in no uncertain terms.

A governmental default would panic already anxious investors, causing a run on several major European banks in an effort to recover their deposits. That would, in turn, cause several banks to literally run out of money and declare bankruptcy.

Short-term borrowing costs would skyrocket and liquidity would evaporate. That would cause a ricochet across the Atlantic as the institutions themselves then panic and try to recover their own capital by withdrawing liquidity by any means possible.

And that's why banks are hoarding cash instead of lending it.

The major banks know there is no way they can collateralize the potential daisy chain failure that Greece represents. So they're doing everything they can to stockpile cash and keep their trading under wraps and away from public scrutiny.

What really scares me, though, is that the banks

think this is an acceptable risk because the odds of a default are allegedly smaller than one in 10,000.

But haven't we heard that before?

Although American banks have limited their exposure to Greece, they have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to European banks and European governments that may not be capable of paying them back.

According to the Bank of International Settlements, U.S. banks have loaned only $60.5 billion to banks in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy - the countries most at risk of default. But they've lent $275.8 billion to French and German banks.

And undoubtedly bet trillions on the same debt.

There are three key takeaways here:


•There is not enough capital on hand to cover the possible losses associated with the default of a single counterparty - JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), BNP Paribas SA (PINK: BNPQY) or the National Bank of Greece (NYSE ADR: NBG) for example - let alone multiple failures.

•That means banks with large derivatives exposure have to risk even more money to generate the incremental returns needed to cover the bets they've already made.

•And the fact that Wall Street believes it has the risks under control practically guarantees that it doesn't.


Seems to me that the world's central bankers and politicians should be less concerned about stimulating "demand" and more concerned about fixing derivatives before this $600 trillion time bomb goes off.











Add to Technorati Favorites

The Tabula Rasa, Race and the Liberals Lie

http://www.economist.com/node/21532247?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/transporterofdelight



THE idea that the human personality is a blank slate, to be written upon only by experience, prevailed for most of the second half of the 20th century. Over the past two decades, however, that notion has been undermined. Studies comparing identical with non-identical twins have helped to establish the heritability of many aspects of behaviour, and examination of DNA has uncovered some of the genes responsible. Recent work on both these fronts suggests that happiness is highly heritable.

As any human being knows, many factors govern whether people are happy or unhappy. External circumstances are important: employed people are happier than unemployed ones and better-off people than poor ones. Age has a role, too: the young and the old are happier than the middle-aged. But personality is the single biggest determinant: extroverts are happier than introverts, and confident people happier than anxious ones.

In this section
Frying tonight
»Transporter of delight
Chilling out in the winter sun
Reprints

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

Related topics
Race relations
Social issues
Africa
London
Science
That personality, along with intelligence, is at least partly heritable is becoming increasingly clear; so, presumably, the tendency to be happy or miserable is, to some extent, passed on through DNA. To try to establish just what that extent is, a group of scientists from University College, London; Harvard Medical School; the University of California, San Diego; and the University of Zurich examined over 1,000 pairs of twins from a huge study on the health of American adolescents. In “Genes, Economics and Happiness”, a working paper from the University of Zurich’s Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, they conclude that about a third of the variation in people’s happiness is heritable. That is along the lines of, though a little lower than, previous estimates on the subject.

But while twin studies are useful for establishing the extent to which a characteristic is heritable, they do not finger the particular genes at work. One of the researchers, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, of University College, London, and the London School of Economics, has tried to do just that, by picking a popular suspect—the gene that encodes the serotonin-transporter protein, a molecule that shuffles a brain messenger called serotonin through cell membranes—and examining how variants of that gene affect levels of happiness.

Serotonin is involved in mood regulation. Serotonin transporters are crucial to this job. The serotonin-transporter gene comes in two functional variants—long and short. The long one produces more transporter-protein molecules than the short one. People have two versions (known as alleles) of each gene, one from each parent. So some have two short alleles, some have two long ones, and the rest have one of each.

The adolescents in Dr De Neve’s study were asked to grade themselves from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Dr De Neve found that those with one long allele were 8% more likely than those with none to describe themselves as very satisfied; those with two long alleles were 17% more likely.

Which is interesting. Where the story could become controversial is when the ethnic origins of the volunteers are taken into account. All were Americans, but they were asked to classify themselves by race as well. On average, the Asian Americans in the sample had 0.69 long genes, the black Americans had 1.47 and the white Americans had 1.12.

That result sits comfortably with other studies showing that, on average, Asian countries report lower levels of happiness than their GDP per head would suggest. African countries, however, are all over the place, happinesswise. But that is not surprising, either. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent, because that is where humanity evolved (Asians, Europeans, Aboriginal Australians and Amerindians are all descended from a few adventurers who left Africa about 60,000 years ago). Black Americans, mostly the descendants of slaves carried away from a few places in west Africa, cannot possibly be representative of the whole continent.

That some populations have more of the long version of the serotonin-transporter gene has been noticed before, though the association has previously been made at a national, rather than a racial, level. In a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, published in 2009, Joan Chiao and Katherine Blizinsky of Northwestern University, in Illinois, found a positive correlation between higher levels of the short version of the gene and mood disorders (China and Japan have lots of both) and with collectivist political systems. Their hypothesis is that cultures prone to anxiety tend towards systems that emphasise social harmony and away from ones that emphasise individuals’ independence of each other.

This latter study may be a few steps too far along the road to genetic determinism for some people. But there is growing interest in the study of happiness, not just among geneticists but also among economists and policymakers dissatisfied with current ways of measuring humanity’s achievements. Future work in this field will be read avidly in those circles.











Add to Technorati Favorites

Uganda, Obama and George Soros

After President Barack Obama announced earlier this week that he would be sending American troops into Uganda, WND uncovered billionaire activist George Soros' ties both to the political pressure behind the decision and to the African nation's fledgling oil industry.

Soros sits on the executive board of an influential "crisis management organization" that recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform, a recommendation Obama's action seems to fulfill.

The president emeritus of that organization, the International Crisis Group, is also the principal author of "Responsibility to Protect," the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.

Soros' own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.

Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the International Criminal Court.

Several of the doctrine's main founders also sit on boards with Soros, who is a major proponent of the doctrine.

Unmask the powers behind Obama's curtain with Aaron Klein's "The Manchurian President," autographed at WND's Superstore!

Soros also maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda's oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country's leadership.

(Story continues below)





Soros' hand in Ugandan oil industry

Oil exploration began in Uganda's northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006.

Uganda's Energy Ministry estimates the country has over 2 billion barrels of oil, with some estimates going as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015, delayed from 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatory framework for the oil industry.

A 2008 national oil and gas policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil. However, the policy's recommendations have been largely ignored, with critics accusing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of corruption and of tightening his grip on the African country's emerging oil sector.

Soros himself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.

In 2008, the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders from Uganda and other East African countries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda's national oil and gas policy.

Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.

Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP's oil work.

PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda's oil sector.

PWYP is directly funded by Soros' Open Society as well as the the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.

The billionaire's Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to "identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals."

U.S. troops to Uganda

Obama yesterday notified House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military personnel, mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa. The first troops reportedly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday.

The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord's Resistance Army, or LRA. Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

In a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel "with appropriate combat equipment" deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include "a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel."

"Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces," he said.

Both conservatives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances U.S. interests.

Writing in The Atlantic yesterday, Max Fisher noted the Obama administration last year approved special forces bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia.

"But those operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. – something the Lord's Resistance Army could not possibly do," he wrote.

"It's difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord's Resistance Army's campaign of violence," continued Fisher. "It's possible that there's some immediate U.S. interest at stake we can't obviously see."

Bill Roggio, the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration's stated rationale for sending troops "puzzling," claiming the LRA does not present a national security threat to the U.S. – "despite what President Obama said."

Tea-party-backed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann also questioned the wisdom of Obama's move to send U.S. troops to Uganda.

"When it comes to sending our brave men and women into foreign nations, we have to first demonstrate a vital American national interest before we send our troops in," she said at a campaign stop yesterday in Iowa.

Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda

In April 2010 Soros' International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a report sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising the U.S. military run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony's capture.

The report states, "To the U.S. government: Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralizes all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the U.N. and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations."

Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional countries to fight Kony's LRA, but Obama's new deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement.

Soros sits in the ICG's executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton's former national security advisor; George J. Mitchell, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader who served as a Mideast envoy to both Obama and President Bush; and Javier Solana, a socialist activist who is NATO's former secretary-general as well as the former foreign affairs minister of Spain.

Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the ICG's senior advisor.

The ICG's president emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh Thakur, is the original founder of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, with the duo even coining the term "responsibility to protect."

Both Evans and Thakur serve as advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the main group pushing the doctrine.

As WND first exposed, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Samantha Power, Arafat deputy

Meanwhile, a closer look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

WND was first to report the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "responsibility to protect" while defining its guidelines.

The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr's founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power's center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya, widely regarded as test of Responsibility to Protect in action.

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various United Nations-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops who commit alleged "war crimes" overseas.

Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article Soros said, "True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular," he continued, "the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

'One World Order'

The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, meanwhile, works in partnership with the World Federalist Movement, a group that promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. The Movement is a main coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect Center.

WND reported that Responsibility doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote. "A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train."

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' Western power."



Read more: Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=356321#ixzz1b1PiwhlJ














Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Ian Dale and Fox's Mossad Links

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/fox-its-all-very-spooky?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



I am beginning to understand why Jim Murphy is playing the Fox saga so coolly and did not hysterically demand a head on a spike. He knows that there is a very good chance that from the acorn of a sorry tale of poor judgement and an unfortunate friendship, the mighty oak of a serious political story might grow. I doubt whether we will be ever told what input the security services input was into the Cabinet secretary’s report, but I would be amazed if it was not significant.



The first clue that his whole saga might take an unusual twist was a fascinating piece by Martin Kettle suggesting that Fox would be in trouble if he was running his own security policy underneath the Foreign Office radar. To be honest I couldn’t quite see where he was coming from until the jig saw pieces from other media outlets, particularly SKY’s Tom Raynor, suddenly begin to fit together.



I will summarise. Werrity gets his cash to travel the world from a number of donors. Fox has had a particular interest in bring peace and stability to Sri Lanka. He has been involved with the Sri Lankan Development Fund which was wound up in 1999. The fund was registered at 30 George Square, Marylebone. But so is a rather mysterious, Kroll like company called G3 Good Governance. This is chaired by Chester Crocker who was Reagan’s Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa. Crocker advanced the policy of constructive engagement towards Apartheid. He also served under Al Haig at the NSA. Crocker is also connected to C5 Capital which employs Lt General Sir Graham Lamb who was former director of UK Special Forces. G3 also funds a charitable organisation, Universal Exports Foundation, run by a lady said to be the daughter of a former MI6 Middle East Director. Paddy Ashdown (former SIS) is involved. G3 gave a donation to Pargav, who helped fund Werritty.



Now there is nothing illegal or improper about any of this. But there appear to be some very interesting connections which someone somewhere, ought to pay attention to. Oh, and to add to the drama of it all, Universal Exports was the fictional cover name in the James Bond books for M16.



So, as I once said to a judge, “there we are, your Honour”. To which his response with “But where are we? I haven’t got a clue!” And with this little tale I haven’t got a clue where we are either. But, I must say, it is all very spooky.














Add to Technorati Favorites

70 % want immigration cut

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britons-want-immigration-reduced-2371467.html






Most Britons want to see immigration reduced, but think the Government should focus on cutting the number of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers instead of foreign students and skilled workers, a survey showed today.


Half of those who want to see immigration reduced said most or even all of the cuts should come from among illegal immigrants, research by Oxford University's Migration Observatory found.


And of the three in 10 people who do not want to see immigration cut, three fifths still want to cut the number of migrants in the UK illegally, with two-fifths feeling strongly about this.


David Cameron appealed for the public to "shop" illegal immigrants last Monday as he pledged to reclaim Britain's borders, urging Britons to help tackle the issue by reporting suspicious individuals.


The Government has pledged to cut net migration from the current 242,000 to the "tens of thousands" last seen in the 1990s, with crackdowns on forced and sham marriages, bogus students and an annual cap on immigrants coming from outside the EU.


But the Migration Observatory report showed foreign students, which make up almost two fifths of all immigrants to the UK, appear to be of little concern to Britons with just a third wanting cuts to come from this area.


Meanwhile, more than half want to see a fall in the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK, despite the fact they make up the smallest proportion of immigrants, just 4% in 2009.


And while almost two-thirds backed reducing immigration among low-skilled workers, which come mostly from the EU, only a third wanted to see fewer skilled migrants.


But international conventions and EU membership constrain the Government from reducing the numbers of asylum seekers or EU migrants in the UK, the report said.


Dr Scott Blinder, its lead author, said the survey exposed the difficulties the Government faces in meeting public demand.


"The Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place," he said.


"A clear majority of people in Britain would like immigration reduced, but they want the cuts to come from specific groups of immigrants, and these are often groups over whom the Government has limited direct control, and sometimes groups that are comparatively small in number."


He added: "Blunt questions about whether the British public supports or opposes immigration in general do not capture the complexities of many people's real views, and are not nearly fine-grained enough to give policy-makers a real understanding of what a majority of the public wants."


But Immigration Minister Damian Green said: "We have made sweeping changes to get a grip on immigration in this country, closing down routes that were subject to abuse and taking action against those with no right to be here.


"This is clearly in line with what the public want us to be doing. There is much more to be done and we will stick to our course."


:: Ipsos Mori carried out face-to-face interviews with 1,002 people aged 15+ in Britain between September 2 and 8.










Add to Technorati Favorites

Fox and Mossad

The real reason Liam Fox had to resign was not a grubby little money scandal about firms funding Adam Werritty as he jetted round the world with the Defence Secretary.

It was much more important, and much worse, than that.

Last Sunday, ‘friends of Liam Fox’ were letting it be known that the investigation of Werritty would bring up nothing scandalous.

These friends were widely reported as saying that Werritty’s funding came from those wishing to promote U.S. and Israeli interests to the British government.


Yet that ‘defence’ of Fox touched on precisely the point that had started alarm bells ringing among senior civil servants throughout Whitehall.

Not only was Werritty being paid to act as an unofficial part of the Defence Secretary’s entourage, the money was coming from people who may have been ready to promote the interests of certain foreign governments, particularly the United States, Israel and Sri Lanka.


While the United States is a very close ally, its commercial and other interests are not always identical to UK interests.

Israel is not a military ally of the UK. There are often tensions between its interests in the Middle East and the UK’s interests, as in the attack on the Gaza Aid convoy which resulted in the death of Turkish citizens. Turkey is an ally of the UK, being a vital member of NATO.

As for the Sri Lankan government, there are serious concerns over its human rights record, particularly after major hostilities with Tamil rebel fighters had ceased.
The British Defence Secretary should be exclusively concerned with the interests only of Britain.

'It is plain as a pikestaff that Fox had retained his effective partnership with Werritty in lobbying activities that not only were concerned with Israel and Sri Lanka, but which actively sought to promote the geo-strategic interests of those countries – for money.' But it is plain as a pikestaff that Fox had retained his effective partnership with Werritty in lobbying activities that not only were concerned with Israel and Sri Lanka, but which actively sought to promote the geo-strategic interests of those countries – for money.

I was contacted early last week by a senior Whitehall source – somebody I have known for more than a decade – who has access to the Cabinet Office investigation.

They were worried the Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell’s investigation was being misdirected onto only the very narrow question of whether Werritty received specific payments for setting up specific meetings with Fox – playing into Fox’s extraordinary House of Commons defence that Werritty was ‘not dependent on any transactional behaviour to maintain his income’.

But my source told me that what really was worrying senior officials in the MOD, FCO and Cabinet Office was the possibility that Fox could be being used as a ‘useful idiot’ by Mossad, Israel’s far-reaching and extremely effective intelligence service.

Key funding sources for Werritty were from the Israeli lobby and a rather obscure commercial intelligence agency.

Might Mossad be pulling Werritty’s strings, with or without his knowledge?

On Friday, two senior Fleet Street journalists also reported hearing similar concerns from other Whitehall officials about possible Israeli intelligence service involvement with Fox and Werritty.

By working closely with an unofficial aide with extraordinary access but no security vetting and murky funding sources, Fox had potentially compromised national security. That is the real story here.

Let us hope that Fox’s fall will remind future Defence Secretaries that there is only one country whose interests they should seek to defend – and that is this one.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049642/Was-Mossad-using-Fox-Werritty-useful-idiots-Ex-Ambassador-reveals-links-advisers-set-alarm-bells-ringing.html#ixzz1awGQzj5U






Add to Technorati Favorites

Africom and Re-colonisation of Africa

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24171



Global Research Editor's Note

The following is the English transcript of Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's interview with Life Week, a major Chinese magazine based in Beijing.

Nazemroaya was interviewed by Xu Jingjing for Life Week's feature article about AFRICOM and Libya on April 1, 2011.

The 2008 article cited by Xu Jingjing is Nazemroaya's "The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East and North Africa."





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



XU JINGJING: According to your analysis, what is AFRICOM’s role in the military intervention in Libya? What is its capability?

NAZEMROAYA: In reality, AFRICOM is still very much attached to EUCOM and dependent on EUCOM in many ways. It will be through this Libyan military intervention and the future military operations that will bud out of this war against Libya that AFRICOM will manage to further secure its independence from EUCOM. But I want to be clear. This does not mean that AFRICOM has no role in North Africa, because it has a role on the ground and I believe that it was actively involved in supporting the fighters now opposed to Colonel Qaddafi in Libya.

AFRICOM’s role is currently latent or concealed. It is EUCOM, the U.S. military operational command that is based in Europe, which is currently running the operations against the Libyans. EUCOM also overlaps with NATO and both EUCOM and NATO have the same military commander, which is Admiral James Stavridis.

Several days ago, I listened to Admirial Stravridis speak to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee and he made it clear that Operation Odyssey Dawn is being led from Europe and that the U.S. military will always be in control of the military campaign against Libya. He also contradicted NATO’s official spokesperson, by saying that there was a possibility that NATO troops could land in Libya for “stabilization operations.”

Returning to AFRICOM’s role, I said AFRICOM’s role is currently latent or concealed. As the fighting in Libya proceeds, the role of AFRICOM will become clearer, more important, and more visible.

AFRICOM has been involved in the intelligence work in regards to Libya. When Admiral Stravridis was asked by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee about the role of Al-Qaeda in the Benghazi-based Transitional Council, he automatically answered that the commander of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham, could answer this question. This indicates that in the intelligence front and possibly rebel training it is AFRICOM that has been responsible and much more involved on the ground in Libya.

XU JINGJING: AFRICOM has no assigned troops and no headquarters in Africa itself. What is its major mission and objection? How do you evaluate its decision to enhance U.S. influence in Africa?

NAZEMROAYA: As I mentioned earlier, AFRICOM is still attached to EUCOM. Its capabilities in some senses are nominal. It will be via the military campaign against Libya and the years of instability that will haunt Africa after this war that AFRICOM will solidify itself as a separate operational military command.

AFRICOM’s main objective is to secure the African continent for the U.S. and its allies. Its mission is to help secure a new colonial order in Africa that the U.S. and its allies are working to establish. In many ways this is what the military intervention in Libya is all about. The recent London Conference about Libya can even be compared to the Berlin Conference of 1884. The difference in 2011 is that the U.S. is at the table and more importantly leading the other participants in carving up Libya and Africa.

XU JINGJING: How is an African strategy important to the United States? How do you evaluate the influence of the U.S. in Africa now? What are the major barriers for the U.S. to expand its influence?

NAZEMROAYA: Of course the People’s Republic of China and its allies play a major role in answering this question. The U.S. and its allies are not only formulating a new strategy to maintain and deepen their control over Africa, but are also working to push China and its allies out of Africa. The U.S. and many E.U. powers have watched China nervously throughout the years. China has been making major inroads in Africa and China is a major strategic and economic rival and challenge to the U.S. and Western Europe in Africa.

It will also be China and its allies that will form one of the barriers to the U.S. strategy to control Africa. The people of Africa cannot be forgotten either, because they will play a very important role to resisting the U.S. and the E.U. in the long-term.

Even as we speak there are protests in sub-Saharan Africa, which not too many people in the Northern Hemisphere even discuss or know about. In Senegal and other parts of West Africa there have been protests. In Central Africa there have been protests. While the protests in the Arab World are watched and intensely reported upon, the protests of these people are mostly ignored.

XU JINGJING: What were the changes of U.S. Africa policy in the past 20 years? What were the major motivations for those changes?

NAZEMROAYA: There are many ways to examine U.S. foreign policy in Africa in the past two decades. We can see a period of intense rivalry with the old colonial powers, such as France, but what I think is important to note is that U.S. foreign policy in Africa has worked incrementally to push out China. Again, the motivations for this are the rise of China and its growing influence in Africa.

One cannot ignore China when speaking about Africa. All this has resulted in an actually dimension of cooperation between Washington and France and the old colonial powers. They are working together to secure the African continent within their collective sphere of influence and to muscle out China. At the end of the day, this is what AFRICOM was made for.

XU JINGJING: In one of your articles, you mention French plans on forming a Mediterranean Union. In your analysis, why is France always active in this region?

NAZEMROAYA: Paris has always been active in Africa, because of its proximity to the continent and its colonial history in Africa. It was the French that controlled the largest colonial empire in Africa. This is also why at one point France, with the support of Belgium and Germany, has been a major rival to the U.S. and Britain in Africa. This appears to have changed as Paris and its close partners have harmonized their interests with the U.S. and Britain.

I am glad you brought up the Mediterranean Union or the “Union of the Mediterranean” as it was renamed later as part of a public relations stunt. The article you mentioned was actually published by the North Africa Times several years ago, which I believe is Libyan owned. When the North Africa Times published the article, they removed the section where I quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor of the Carter Administration, about the longstanding plans to form a Mediterranean Union and what it involved.

The Mediterranean Union is a political, economic, and security entity. It is also complemented at the military level by NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue. The events leading to the formal declaration of the Mediterranean Union follow the same patterns that were used to expand the European Union and NATO in Eastern Europe.

The Union of the Mediterranean is meant to entrench the Mediterranean and the Arab World into the orbit of Washington and the European Union. It is also a bridgehead into Africa. The project calls for economic integration, massive privatization, and harmonization of policies. It is a colonial project and it serves to control and exploit the pools of labour in the Southern Mediterranean for the European Union. In the future, this can be used to upset the labour market in Asia and other regions. Also, it is through the Mediterranean Union that the immigration and refugee laws being used to manage the influx of people from North Africa were created. The E.U. was expecting these events and its members clearly spell this out when they made these laws.

XU JINGJING: What is your analysis on the U.S. and the military alliance’s actions in the first ten days of the war in Libya?

NAZEMROAYA: The actions in the first ten days of the war were never meant to protect civilians. The military operations have been offensive in nature and a means to weaken Libya as an independent state. I mentioned earlier that I listened to the testimony of Admiral Stavridis to the U.S. Armed Services Committee in Washington and I would like to refer to it again. At the hearing both Admiral Stavridis and Senator McCain both unwittingly stated that sanctions and no-fly zones do not accomplish anything. This is very profound. If these actions do not accomplish anything, then why did the U.S. push for them to be imposed on the Libyans? The answer is that the operation is not of a humanitarian nature, it is an act of aggression meant to open the door into Libya and Africa for a new colonial project.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya







Add to Technorati Favorites

Africom, China and Libya

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26763


The Washington-led decision by NATO to bomb Gaddafi's Libya into submission over recent months, at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of at least $1 billion, has little if anything to do with what the Obama Administration claims was a mission to "protect innocent civilians." In reality it is part of a larger strategic assault by NATO and by the Pentagon in particular to entirely control China's economic achilles heel, namely China's strategic dependence on large volumes of imported crude oil and gas. Today China is the world's second largest importer of oil after the United States and the gap is rapidly closing.



If we take a careful look at a map of Africa and also look at the African organization of the new Pentagon Africa Command—AFRICOM—the pattern that emerges is a careful strategy of controlling one of China's most strategically important oil and raw materials sources.



NATO's Libya campaign was and is all about oil. But not about simply controlling Libyan high-grade crude because the USA is nervous about reliable foreign supplies. It rather is about controlling China's free access to long-term oil imports from Africa and from the Middle East. In other words, it is about controlling China itself.



Libya geographically is bounded to its north by the Mediterranean directly across from Italy, where Italian ENI oil company has been the largest foreign operator in Libya for years. To its west it is bounded by Tunisia and by Algeria. To its south it is bounded by Chad. To its east it is bounded by both Sudan (today Sudan and Southern Sudan) and by Egypt. That should tell something about the strategic importance of Libya from the standpoint of the Pentagon's AFRICOM long-term strategy for controlling Africa and its resources and which country is able to get those resources.






Gaddafi's Libya had maintained strict national state control over the rich reserves of high quality "light, sweet" Libyan crude oil. As of 2006 data Libya had the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, some 35%, larger even than Nigeria. Oil consessions had been extended to Chinese state oil companies as well as Russian and others in recent years. Not surprisingly a spokesman from the so-called opposition claiming victory over Gaddafi, Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm AGOCO, told Reuters, "We don't have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil." China and Russia and Brazil either opposed UN sanctions on Libya or pressed for a negotiated settlement of the internal conflict and an end to NATO bombing.



As I have detailed elsewhere,1 Gaddafi, an old adherent of Arab socialism on the line of Egypt's Gamal Nasser, used the oil revenues to improve the lot of his people. Health care was free as was education. Each Libyan family was given a state grant of $50000 towards buying a new house and all bank loans were according to Islamic anti-usury laws, interest free. The state was also free of debt. Only by bribery and massive infiltration into the tribal opposition areas of the eastern part of the country could the CIA, MI6 and other NATO intelligence operatives, at an estimated cost of $1 billion, and massive NATO bombing of civilians, destabilize the strong ties between Gaddafi and his people.



Why then did NATO and the Pentagon lead such a mad and destructive assault on a peaceful sovereign country? Clear is that one of the prime reasons was to complete the encirclement of China's oil and vital raw material sources across northern Africa.



Pentagon alarm over China



Step-by-step in the past several years Washington had begun to create the perception that China, which was the "dear friend and ally of America" less than a decade ago, was becoming the greatest threat to world peace because of China's enormous economic expansion. The painting of China as a new "enemy" has been complex as Washington is dependent on China to buy the lion's share of the US Government debt in the form of Treasury paper.



In August the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China's military status. 2 This year the report sent alarm bells ringing across China for a strident new tone. The report stated among other things, “Over the past decade, China’s military has benefited from robust investment in modern hardware and technology. Many modern systems have reached maturity and others will become operational in the next few years,” the Pentagon said in the report. It added that “there remains uncertainty about how China will use its growing capabilities... China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century.”3



In a matter of perhaps two to five years, depending on how the rest of the world reacts or plays their cards, the Peoples' Republic of China will emerge in the controlled Western media painted as the new "Hitler Germany." If that seems hard to believe today, just reflect on how that was done with former Washington allies such as Egypt's Mubarak or even Saddam Hussein. In June this year, former US Secretary of the Navy and now US Senator from Virginia, James Webb, startled many in Beijing when he told press that China was fast approaching what he called a “Munich moment,” when Washington must decide how to maintain a strategic balance, a reference to the 1938 crisis over Czechoslovakia when Chamberlain opted for appeasement with Hitler over Czechoslovakia. Webb added, “If you look at the last 10 years, the strategic winner has been China.” 4



The same massively effective propaganda machine of the Pentagon, led by CNN, BBC, the New York Times or London Guardian will get the subtle command from Washington to "paint China and its leaders black." China is becoming far too strong and far too independent for many in Washington and in Wall Street. To control that, above all China's oil import dependency has been identified as her Achilles Heel. Libya is a move to strike directly at that vulnerable Achilles heel.



China moves into Africa



The involvement of Chinese energy and raw materials companies across Africa had become a major cause of alarm in Washington where an attitude of malign neglect had dominated Washington Africa policy since the Cold War era. As its future energy needs became obvious several years ago China began a major African economic diplomacy which reached a crescendo in 2006 when Beijing literally rolled out the red carpet to heads of more than forty African states and discussed a broad range of economic issues. None were more important for Beijing than securing future African oil resources for China's robust industrialization.



China moved into countries which had been virtually abandoned by former European colonial powers like France or Britain or Portugal.



Chad is a case in point. The poorest and most geographically isolated African countries, Chad was courted by Beijing which resumed diplomatic ties in 2006.






In October 2007 China's state oil giant CNPC signed a contract to build a refinery jointly with Chad's government. Two years later they began construction of an oil pipeline to carry oil from a new Chinese field in the south some 300 kilometers to the refinery. Western-supported NGO's predictably began howling about environmental impacts of the Chinese oil pipeline. The same NGOs were curiously silent when Chevron struck oil in 2003 in Chad. In July 2011 the two countries, Chad and China celebrated opening of the joint venture oil refinery near Chad's capital of Ndjamena. 5 Chad's Chinese oil activities are strikingly close to another major Chinese oil project in what then was Sudan's Darfur region bordering Chad.



Sudan had been a growing source of oil flows to China since cooperation began in the late 1990s after Chevron abandoned its stake there. By 1998 CNPC was building a 1500 km long oil pipeline from southern Sudan oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea as well as building a major oil refinery near Khartoum. Sudan was the first large overseas oilfield project operated by China. By the beginning of 2011 Sudan oil, most all from the conflict-torn south, provided some 10% of China's oil imports from taking more than 60% of Sudan's daily oil production of 490,000 barrels. Sudan had become a point of vital Chinese national energy security.



According to geological estimates, the subsurface running from Darfur in what was southern Sudan through Chad into Cameroon is one giagantic oil field in extent perhaps equivalent to a new Saudi Arabia. Controlling southern Sudan as well as Chad and Cameroon is vital to the Pentagon strategy of "strategic denial" to China of their future oil flows. So long as a stable and robust Ghaddafi regime remained in power in Tripoli that control remained a major problem. The simultaneous splitting off of the Republic of South Sudan from Khartoum and the toppling of Ghaddafi in favor of weak rebel bands beholden to Pentagon support was for the Pentagon Full Spectrum Dominance of strategic priority.





AFRICOM responds



The key force behind the recent wave of Western military attacks against Libya or more covert regime changes such as those in Tunisia, Egypt and the fateful referendum in southern Sudan which has now made that oil-rich region "independent" has been AFRICOM, the special US military command established by the Bush Administration in 2008 explicitly to counter the growing Chinese influence over Africa's vast oil and mineral wealth.



In late 2007, Dr. J. Peter Pham, a Washington insider who advises the US State and Defense Departments, stated openly that among the aims of the new AFRICOM, is the objective of "protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance ... a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment." 6



In testimony before the US Congress supporting creation of AFRICOM in 2007, Pham, who is associated with the neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated:



"This natural wealth makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People’s Republic of China, whose dynamic economy...has an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it...China is currently importing approximately 2.6 million barrels of crude per day, about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 of those barrels—roughly a third of its imports—come from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville). Is it any wonder, then, that…perhaps no other foreign region rivals Africa as the object of Beijing’s sustained strategic interest in recent years...


Intentionally or not, many analysts expect that Africa—especially the states along its oil-rich western coastline—will increasingly becoming a theatre for strategic competition between the United States and its only real near-peer competitor on the global stage, China, as both countries seek to expand their influence and secure access to resources."7




It is useful to briefly recall the sequence of Washington-sponsored "Twitter" revolutions in the ongoing so-called Arab Spring. The first was Tunisia, an apparently insignificant land on north Africa's Mediterranean. However Tunisia is on the western border of Libya. The second domino to fall in the process was Mubarak's Egypt. That created major instability across the Middle East into north Africa as Mubarak for all his flaws had fiercely resisted Washington Middle East pollicy. Israel also lost a secure ally when Mubarak fell.



Then in July 2011 Southern Sudan declared itself the independent Republic of South Sudan, breaking away from Sudan after years of US-backed insurgency against Khartoum rule. The new Republic takes with it the bulk of Sudan's known oil riches, something clearly not causing joy in Beijing. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, led the US delegation to the independence celebrations, calling it "a testament to the Southern Sudanese people." She added, in terms of making the secssion happen, "the US has been as active as anyone." US President Obama openly supported seccession of the south. The breakaway was a project guided and financed from Washington since the Bush Administration decided to make it a priority in 2004. 8



Now Sudan has suddenly lost its main source of hard currency oil revenue. The secession of the south, where three-quarters of Sudan’s 490 000 barrels a day of oil is produced, has aggravated economic difficulties in Khartoum cutting some 37% off its total revenues. Sudan’s only oil refineries and the only export route run north from oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea in northern Sudan. South Sudan is now being encouraged by Washington to build a new export pipeline independent of Khartoum via Kenya. Kenya is one of the areas of strongest US military influence in Africa.9



The aim of the US-led regime change in Libya as well as the entire Greater Middle East Project which lies behind the Arab Spring is to secure absolute control over the world's largest known oil fields to control future policies in especially countries like China. As then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is reported to have said during the 1970's when he was arguably more powerful than the President of the United States, "If you control the oil you control entire nations or groups of nations."


For the future national energy security of China the ultimate answer lies in finding secure domestic energy reserves. Fortunately there are revolutionary new methods to detect and map presence of oil and gas where even the best current geology says oil is not to be found. Perhaps therein lies a way out of the oil trap that has been laid for China. In my newest book, The Energy Wars I detail such new methods for those interested.





F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

Notes

1 F. William Engdahl, Creative Destruction: Libya in Washington's Greater Middle East Project--Part II, March 26, 2011, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23961
2 Office of the Secretary of Defense, ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011, August 25, 2011, accessed in www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2011_cmpr_final.pdf.

3 Ibid.

4 Charles Hoskinson, DOD report outlines China concerns, August 25, 2011, accessed in http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62027.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62027.html

5 Xinhua, China-Chad joint oil refinery starts operating, July 1, 2011, acessed in http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7426213.html. BBC News, Chad pipeline threatens villages, 9 October 2009, accessed in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8298525.stm.

6 F. William Engdahl, China and the Congo Wars: AFRICOM. America's New Military Command, November 26, 2008, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11173

7 Ibid.

8 Rebecca Hamilton, US Played Key Role in Southern Sudan's Long Journey to Independence, July 9, 2011, accessed in http://pulitzercenter.org/articles/south-sudan-independence-khartoum-southern-kordofan-us-administration-role

9 Maram Mazen, South Sudan studies new export routes to bypass the north, March 12, 2011, accessed in http://www.gasandoil.com/news/2011/03/south-sudan-studies-routes-other-than-north-for-oil-exports


F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl












Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday, October 15, 2011

The Iran Plot Fake Exposed

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1012/Used-car-salesman-as-Iran-proxy-Why-assassination-plot-doesn-t-add-up-for-experts


This wing of the Revolutionary Guard was accused by US military commanders in Iraq in 2007 and 2008 of jeopardizing the efforts of more than 150,000 American troops on the ground, of backing militias of all stripes, and of exercising strong influence on Baghdad's rulers.

Yet how many Iranian Qods Force operatives did that take? One US diplomat posted to Baghdad at the time had the consensus answer: There were just eight Qods Force men in all of Iraq.

IN PICTURES: Iran's military might

Indeed, the Qods Force has a reputation for careful, methodical work – as well as effective use of local proxies, and ultimately their pragmatic deployment by Tehran as covert tools to expand Iran's influence across a region in flux. That explains why Iran experts are raising questions about fresh US charges of an Iran-backed bomb plot, this time to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies.

A criminal complaint filed by US prosecutors on Tuesday charge Mansour Arbabsiar – a naturalized US citizen with an Iranian passport from Corpus Christi, Texas – and Gholam Shakuri, "an Iran-based member of Iran's Qods Force," with plotting to kill the Saudi diplomat on US soil in an operation "directed by factions of the Iranian government."

ABCau

Powered by Details of alleged plot
Those who know Iran well are skeptical, but do not rule out any possibility. Mr. Arbabsiar may have arranged for $100,000 to be transferred from Iran as a downpayment of $1.5 million for the hit, as US charges indicate.

Arbabsiar may also have boasted to one alleged accomplice in the plot – an associate of Mexico's Zeta drug cartel, who also happened to be an informant of the US Drug Enforcement Administration – that his cousin was a "big general" in the Iranian military.

While also describing a series of potential attacks to the associate, he may even have stated – apparently in secretly taped conversations – that mass American casualties as a result were not a problem: "They want that guy [the ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him f**k 'em," reads the legal complaint.

Why the plot doesn't add up
But Iran specialists who have followed the Islamic Republic for years say that many details in the alleged plot just don't add up.

"It's a very strange case, it doesn't really fit Iran's mode of operation," says Alireza Nader, an Iran analyst at the Rand Corp. in Arlington, Va., and coauthor of studies about the Revolutionary Guard.

"When you look at Iranian use of terrorism, it has some very specific objectives, whether it's countering the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan, or retaliating against perceived Israeli actions," says Mr. Nader.

"This [plot] doesn't seem to serve Iran's interests in any conceivable way," says Nader. "Assassinating the Saudi ambassador would increase international pressure against Iran, could be considered an act of war ... by Saudi Arabia, it could really destabilize the government in Iran; and this is a political system that is interested in its own survival."

No apparent cost-benefit analysis
Iran has been trying to evade sanctions, strengthen relations with non-Western partners, while continuing with its nuclear program, notes Nader.

He says it is "difficult" to believe that either Qassim Soleimani – the canny commander of the Qods Force – or Iran's deliberative supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, would order such an attack that "would put all of Iran's objectives and strategies at risk."

That view has been echoed by many Iran watchers, who are raising doubts about the assassination plot allegations.

“This plot, if true, departs from all known Iranian policies and procedures,” writes Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University and principal White House aide during the 1979 Iranian revolution and hostage crisis.

While Iran may have many reasons to be angry at the US and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Sick notes in a posting on the Gulf2000/Columbia experts list that he moderates, “it is difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all possible missions.”

Relying on “at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and US intelligence agents” appears to be sloppy, adds Sick. “Whatever else may be Iran’s failings, they are not noted for utter disregard of the most basic intelligence tradecraft.”

The odd set of details means that the usual cost-benefit calculation that experts often attribute to Tehran's decisionmaking does not apply here, says Muhammad Sahimi, in an analysis for the Tehran Bureau website.

At a time when pressure is building on Iran over "gross human rights violations," sanctions are showing signs of working, Iran is "deeply worried about the fate of its strategic partner in Syria ... tensions with Turkey are increasing ... and a fierce power struggle is under way within Iran," says Mr. Sahimi, "it is essentially impossible to believe that the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] would act in such a way as to open a major new front against itself."

Previous assassinations only targeted Iranians
Sahimi also notes that, even at the height of the regime's assassinations of opponents in the past, it did not target non-Iranians.

"It is keenly aware that it is under the American microscope," says Sahimi, making even less likely Iran embarking "on such a useless assassination involving a low-level, non-player individual."

Such reservations are not the same ones given by Iranian officials when they dismiss the charges of a murder plot. But analysts suggest more information will need to be revealed before judgment can be made.

"Iran does have a history of terrorism, but they also like to go through proxies – and true and tested proxies, not necessarily just anybody," says Nader of Rand, citing Hezbollah in Lebanon, for example, or Iraqi Shiite insurgents trained in Iranian camps.

The man arrested by US law enforcement at JFK airport on Sept. 29 does not seem to fit that mold.

Not your average proxy
Arbabsiar, a former used car salesman, would appear to have been a surprise choice of the Qods Force. Yet he apparently traveled several times to Mexico to recruit drug-cartel hit men, had $100,000 from Iran paid into a US account and promised much more, and discussed the plot on a normal telephone.

“The Iranian modus operandi is only to trust sensitive plots to their own employees, or to trusted proxies such as Hezbollah, Saudi Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadr faction in Iraq, Iran-friendly extremist Muslims in Afghanistan and other pro-Iranian Muslim groups,” wrote Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service on Gulf2000 on Wednesday.

“Are we to believe that this Texas car seller was a Qods sleeper agent for many years resident in the US? Ridiculous,” said Mr. Katzman, who authored a study of the Revolutionary Guard in the 1990s. “They (the Iranian command system) never ever use such has-beens or loosely connected people for sensitive plots such as this.”

And what kind of man is he? The Associated Press spoke to Arbabsiar's friend and former Texas business partner David Tomscha, who said he was "sort of a hustler." The Iranian-American, the AP reported, "was likable, albeit a bit lazy."

"He's no mastermind," Mr. Tomscha told the AP. "I can't imagine him thinking up a plan like that. I mean, he didn't seem all that political. He was more of a businessman."

IN PICTURES: Iran's military might










Add to Technorati Favorites

The Iran Plot Lie

"We are not talking to Iran, so we don't understand each other," outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen told the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last month. "If something happens, it's virtually assured that we won't get it right — that there will be miscalculation, which could be extremely dangerous in that part of the world."

Mullen's warning of the perils arising from the two sides' inability to communicate and understand each other's intentions — "Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union" — seems especially prescient amid the fallout from the alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington, blamed by the U.S. on "elements of the Iranian government." Claims that officials within the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps initiated a bizarre scheme via an Iranian-American used-car salesman — described by his former business partner as "a sort of hustler" — to enlist the services of a Mexican drug gang for a terrorism strike in the U.S. capital have been seized on by the Administration to press for tougher international action against Tehran.
"We see this as a chance to go out to capitals and around the world and talk to allies and partners about what the Iranians tried to do," an unnamed official told the Washington Post. "We're going to use this to isolate them to the maximum extent possible." Vice President Joe Biden added, darkly, that when it came to responding to Iran's behavior, "nothing has been taken off the table."

U.S. officials fanned out on Wednesday to enlist the support of foreign governments for further sanctions. (The U.S. has banned Iran's airline from operating in the U.S. and has frozen its assets.) And the Administration plans to approach the U.N. Security Council, seeking action to "hold Iran accountable" over the plot. While Britain and France have signaled support, it's difficult to imagine that the revelations will persuade countries skeptical of the U.S.'s Iran policy to change their positions. As National Iranian American Council President Trita Parsi tells TIME, "They have to be sure the evidence of involvement by the government of Iran is very solid, because they can't afford another Colin Powell moment at the Security Council." (The former Secretary of State briefed the council in February 2003 on U.S. claims about Iraq's weapons programs, on which it justified its invasion, but the claims later proved to be unfounded.) "And the evidentiary bar is going to be set pretty high at the Security Council precisely because of the Colin Powell experience," Parsi adds.

Accepting at face value the claim that this plot was the work of the Iranian government requires a suspension of disbelief. "This plot, if true, departs from all known Iranian policies and procedures," wrote Gary Sick, a former National Security Council Iran aide now at Columbia University. Despite its animus toward the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, Iran has always relied on trusted proxies like Hizballah to carry out assassinations, giving Tehran plausible deniability. "Iran has never conducted — or apparently even attempted — an assassination or a bombing inside the U.S.," Sick noted. "And it is difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all possible missions. In this instance, they allegedly relied on at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and U.S. intelligence agents."

Terrorism attacks have long been part of Iran's playbook in its three-decade battle for regional supremacy with Saudi Arabia, and that battle has intensified in recent years as the two sides have played out proxy wars in Iraq and Lebanon, while Tehran's key Arab ally, Syria, has been in mortal danger, and the Saudis have flexed their muscles by cracking down violently on Bahrain's Shi'ite majority and its own Shi'ite minority. Riyadh appears to be orchestrating events in Yemen too.

But Iran-Saudi tensions don't explain the choice of Washington as the venue for an attack. The ambassador, Adel al-Jubeir, is not a key player in the Saudi regime. And not only is the U.S. capital probably one of the world's better-protected cities since 9/11, but an act of terrorism there would certainly provoke retaliation by the Americans. The Washington bomb plot makes sense only if the goal was, in fact, to provoke the U.S. into attacking Iran.

Some have suggested that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei might do just that, seeing a confrontation with the U.S. threat as a way of consolidating his regime. But the challenge of the Green Movement has been largely suppressed, for now, and even the uppity President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has had his wings clipped. It's not hard to see why so many Iran watchers doubt that Khamenei would have signed off on such a harebrained scheme, even if some speculate that a rogue faction within the Quds Force may have been responsible.

But Tehran is not the only power center whose hard-liners might like to provoke an outbreak of hostilities between Iran and the U.S., prompting further speculation abroad over the nature and possible authorship of the plot.

Details of the scheme raise even more doubts: the deadly professionals of the Quds Force are said to have broken with the habit of using either their own disciplined professionals or trusted proxies like Hizballah, with plenty of cutouts and plausible deniability. Instead, they ostensibly turned to a used-car salesman to engage the services of a Mexican drug gang with no history of mounting attacks outside of Mexican borders. My colleague Tim Padgett has highlighted the absurdity of the idea that the Zetas, a multibillion-dollar criminal operation, would be willing to court the wrath of the U.S. through an act of war in Washington, and for a measly $1.5 million.

If the conception of the plot was hokey, the tradecraft — communications by phone, money wired from a Quds Force bank account — wasn't worthy of the name.

"You can't make this stuff up," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But unfortunately, since the Iraq invasion, much of the international community is unlikely to easily accept claims made by Washington against rival states whose regimes it would like to be rid of.

Still, even though the plot was thwarted, it could yet provoke an escalation, or even a confrontation, between the U.S. and Iran. The poisoning of the atmosphere will, in all likelihood, further dim the already diminished hopes for any diplomatic progress on the nuclear standoff. And if the Administration fails to win support for a significant escalation of sanctions or other form of punishment for the Tehran regime after presenting evidence of the latest allegations of Iranian malfeasance, the ball will land back in Obama's court. Having made the case that Iran crossed a red line, he will be under pressure to act — or risk entering a highly polarized election season haunted by a "soft on Iran" charge.



Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/10/12/will-the-washington-bomb-plot-force-obama-into-war-with-iran/#ixzz1aqQNMPaB








Add to Technorati Favorites

Friday, October 14, 2011

Liam Fox and the Israeli Private Intelligence Group

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15302045


Financial backers linked to Israel and a private intelligence firm helped fund the travels of Liam Fox's close friend Adam Werritty, according to reports.

The Times claims they helped channel £147,000 into a company set up by Mr Werritty, who used it to join the defence secretary on trips abroad.

The lobbyist is due to be questioned again later as part of a probe into his relationship with the minister.

Mr Fox insists his friend does not work for him officially or unofficially.

The Times claims a money trail links Mr Werritty to a private intelligence company with strong interests in Sri Lanka and a property investor who lobbies the UK government on behalf of Israel.

The paper also alleges links to a venture capitalist whom it claims is "keen for stronger ties with Washington".

'Weak leadership'

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Fox's story was that Mr Werritty was funded by ideological backers, rather than backers of companies who wanted defence contracts.

But he said Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell was not likely to be impressed by that argument - as in effect it meant Mr Fox was using an alternative source of advice to the civil service, being paid for by private funds.

Continue reading the main story “
Start Quote
The civil service - and many outsiders - will, I suspect, believe that Mr Fox has allowed himself and them to be compromised. ”
End Quote

Nick Robinson

BBC Political Editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Fox: Why he might go
Our correspondent said ultimately there would be a perceived difference between the civil service view on taking outside advice and the political view, and in the end it would be up to David Cameron to decide Mr Fox's future.

The defence secretary has faced continuous pressure after it emerged his best man and former flat mate Mr Werritty was present on 18 of his overseas trips, including visits to Sri Lanka and Dubai, despite having no official role.

Mr Werritty had also met the defence secretary at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) 22 times since May 2010 and handed out business cards claiming he was Mr Fox's adviser.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that the pair attended a $500 (£318) dollar-a-head dinner in Washington with senior defence industry figures which had not been declared by the MoD in its list of Mr Fox's meetings.

The Daily Telegraph claims they were both guests at the fundraising dinner last year at the Mandarin Oriental hotel.

Mr Fox's spokesman said he had been attending the event in a "private capacity" while he was on annual leave and that taxpayers' money was not used.

'Artificial deadline'

Labour leader Ed Miliband has accused Mr Cameron of weak leadership for not reaching a swift decision on Mr Fox's future.


Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell is leading an inquiry into Mr Fox's conduct But Mr Cameron again said on Thursday that he would not make a decision on his minister's position until all the facts had been established and the questions answered instead of meeting an "artificial deadline".

Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell is leading an investigation into claims Mr Fox broke the rules on ministerial conduct by allowing his friend access to government business although the terms of reference of his inquiry have not been published.

The UK's most senior civil servant is not expected to complete his report until next week. After an interim report into Mr Fox's conduct was released on Monday, No 10 said serious mistakes had been made.

The BBC understands that details of meetings Mr Werritty had with other ministers are also likely be released early next week, possibly on the same day. Labour have called for them to be disclosed.

'Fatal'

The Guardian reported that Mr Fox has been asked to address Conservative MPs on Monday evening in what it said was a sign of the strength of support for the defence secretary from the right of the party.

The paper said Mr Fox had been asked to speak to the foreign affairs subcommittee of the influential backbench 1922 Committee although party sources indicated this was a longstanding engagement.

Senior backbenchers - such as David Davis and Sir Malcolm Rifkind - have said he should stay in his job, arguing the Ministry of Defence needs stable leadership while UK forces are in action in Afghanistan and Libya.

But former Conservative defence secretary Michael Portillo, who left frontline politics in 2003, said that if the allegations in The Times turned out to be correct, they could "prove fatal" for Mr Fox.

"If it turns out that the adviser (Adam Werritty) has been flying around the world funded by private elements and it has not been declared anywhere, that seems to me unsustainable," he told BBC's This Week programme.













Add to Technorati Favorites

Its the Zionists AGAIN - Liam Fox

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/10/the-real-werritty-scandal/


This information comes straight from a source with direct access to the Cabinet Office investigation into Fox’s relationship with Werritty.

Gus O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary, has fixed with Cameron the lines of his investigation to allow him to whitewash Fox. This will be done by the standard method of only asking very narrow questions, to which the answer is known to be satisfactory. In this case, the investigation into Werritty’s finances will look only at the very narrow question of whether he received specific payments that can be linked directly to the setting up of specific meetings with Fox. The answer is thought to be no; that is what Fox was indicating by his extraordinary formulation to the House of Commons that Werritty was “not dependent on any transactional behaviour to maintain his income”.

So O’Donnell will announce that Werritty received no specific money for specific meetings with or introductions to Fox.

But the deal between Cameron, Fox and O’Donnell is that O’Donnell will not address the much more important question of who funded Werritty and why. Having claimed there was no wrongdoing, O’Donnell will say Mr Werritty’s finances are private and should not be made public. It was on that basis that Werritty agreed to give financial details to Sue Gray in the Cabinet Office yesterday.

The Cabinet Office will only look for direct evidence of a little grubby money-making for introductions to Fox. But what is actually happening is much worse and much more serious. Who paid for Werritty’s eighteen overseas trips with Liam Fox and his stays in exclusive hotels in the World’s most expensive destinations? What does he live on?

The answer is that Werritty is paid by representatives of far right US and Israeli sources to influence the British defence secretary. It has been discussed within the MOD whether Werritty is being – knowingly or otherwise – run as an agent of influence by the CIA or Mossad. That is why the chiefs of the armed forces are so concerned, and why there is today much gagging at the stitch up within the Cabinet Office.

This has parallels to the Christine Keeler case but is much, much worse.

That the British Defence Minister holds frequent unrecorded meetings in the Ministry and abroad with somebody promoting the interests of foreign powers is much, much worse than a little cash-grubbing. That the person representing the foreign powers is actually present, apparently to all as a ministerial adviser, at meetings of Fox with important representatives of foreign nations is simply appalling.

That we are being so easily misdirected to a narrow cash question – and that the media have followed that misdirection – is ludicrous.









Add to Technorati Favorites

Race Riots in America

The return of race riots to America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2011
5:23 pm Eastern


By Colin Flaherty
© 2011

Thank God for YouTube. Or else we never would have know that hundreds of times in more than 50 cities since 2010, groups of black people have been roaming the streets of America – assaulting, intimidating, stalking, threatening, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, even raping and killing.

But today the denials are crumbling. The curtains are lifting. We now can see what so many public officials and media have been curiously desperate to deny: Race riots are back.

And not just in Chicago, Philadelphia and New York. Places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado and Indiana have their very own race riots, too.

Let's look at Philadelphia. In the spring of 2010, large groups of black people – as in thousands – began gathering in the "eclectic" section of South Philadelphia. Mayhem and violence followed.

Emily Guendelsberger was one of the early and more visible victims. Guendelsberger was an editor at Onion Magazine – a lifestyle guide for the hopelessly hip; complete with gratuitous shots at Sarah Palin. Just a year before, Guendelsberger wrote a column for the Philadelphia Daily News "about why using the term 'flash mob' to describe the large groups of black kids that adults assumed were organizing on 'The Twitter' belied a fundamental misunderstanding of what was going on."

She and her friends were way too cool to pretend to notice the race of the people involved in recent attacks in the area. So, like the media and public officials, they didn't.

In June of 2011, Guendelsberger and her friends were quite surprised when their liberal intentions and gentle demeanor did nothing but encourage a crowd of more than 1,000 black people to assault her.

As one of the rioters told another victim that night, it's not our fault you can't fight.

The initial newspaper accounts say it was only 40 people. And race was never mentioned. But the 40 were an offshoot of thousands of black people who had descended on this urban enclave of upscale bars and restaurants and shops – running through the streets, assaulting people in restaurants, stealing their phones and purses, pulling people off bicycles.

Not one of these thousands cared enough to call the police or point out the assailants who herded Guendelsberger and her friends into an alley, then beat them, robbed them, all the time laughing.

Guendelsberger spent the next several days in a hospital bed with a severely broken leg – explaining to people how unhappy she was that her hospital roommate watched religious programming on TV.

Her severe injuries did not stop her from telling friends the violence visited upon her was not racial because, although all the assailants were black, her boyfriend was "brown." And since he got beat up too, but not as badly as she did, that proved her point that race had nothing to do with it.

Anyone who thought differently was "racist" and "creepy," she said.

Several on-line comments wondered why she could not acknowledge the racial component of the mob.

Replied one: "Unless you're pointing that out to show how the whites have oppressed blacks, acknowledging that fact is racist."

Racist facts: Philadelphia liberals, meet the Stockholm syndrome.

The mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, called Guendelsberger to thank her. She was thrilled.

This was the same mayor who had recently declared that an outbreak of racial violence was nothing to worry about and was really the fault of bad reporting.

The police chief backed him up. The district attorney said a "high school diploma is the best anti-crime tool."

One year and a few dozen attacks before, the mayor and his crew had assured the people of Philadelphia that these crimes would stop because, uh ... they said so.

Nutter told the New York Times the violence had "no racial component." The Times was one of the only media outlets to even consider the question. Even if only to dismiss it.

Then came the YouTube videos, showing thousands of black people roaming the streets of Philadelphia, with violence and injury following. Pizza shops, hotels, bar, tourists, the largest attacks all took place on South Street.

Pulling people out of cars and beating them.

And there were lots and lots of video cameras: Local network affiliates were all over it with video. But no one had the nerve to say what they video screamed: All the attackers and looters were black.

Police claimed that none of the injuries imposed by the mob was serious. Turns out they had not even checked. Ronnie Polaneczky, columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, did.

She found John, a maintenance mechanic, who suffered severe brain injury and facial fractures and was still in the hospital two weeks after he was pulled from a bike and beaten.

The stories are legion: The same weekend Guendelsberger and her pals ran into "nothing much," more than 40 black people in a Philly suburb descended on a Sears and ransacked it in broad daylight.

Afterwards, the police chief said he feared for the safety of the rioters.

In February 2010, at a Macy's department store a few blocks from city hall, more than 100 black people erupted in fights and destruction.

In July 2011, hundreds of blacks created an "astonishing" amount of violence at downtown Philadelphia restaurants, hotels and bars.

July 4, 2010 – stop me if you've heard this before – hundreds of black people storm the streets of South Philadelphia: beating, looting, destroying.

July 4, 2011, 10-20 black people assault and stab a student and his dog from LaSalle University. He's still alive, though many people do not know why. The dog probably saved him.

March 17, 2010, dozens of black people fight in a clothing store while onlookers laugh and cheer.

In Spring of 2010, police break up a black flash mob in the Tioga-Nicetown section of Philly. Kids were bored and acting stupid, said the reporter. The video tells another story.

In the Summer of 2011, Jeremy Schenkel recounted the attack on him to CBS3 Eyewitness News. He says the kids were laughing as they beat and kicked him, and not only was there the attacking mob, there was also a group of kids cheering them on.

"Almost like an admiring group that was following them, just kind of ragging on people, and one of those guys said, 'It's not our fault you can't fight,'" Schenkel recalls.

Then came the reader comments to the race-neutral stories: Hundreds and hundreds wanted to know why reporters repeatedly refused to identify the race of the attackers.

People knew two things were important: One, large groups of black people were systematically assaulting people in their town; and two, lots of people seemed way too heavily invested in not talking about the central organizing feature of the crime: The gangs of violent criminals were black.

A few days after the June 2011 attack on Guendelsberger, news anchors on the local Fox affiliate weighed in. A black TV anchor worried about the "destructive tone" of the comments from people who observed that all the people in these riots were black.

She said it was "sad" that people did not recognize the true nature of the violence: Young people were to blame. Not black people.

Their guest, a black radio talk-show host, said the riots were not racial. But if they were, it was understandable because the state legislature cut money for job training and increased money for prisons. He said it was not right to blame everyone in a group for the acts of a few bad people in that group.

"When African-American commits a crime, society is looking to define race. When Loughner shot (Rep.) Giffords, nobody said 'what is wrong with white men?' This isn't a black or white issue: they need things to do."

(Column continues below)





Then they blamed young people some more. It was not about race. Despite overwhelming video evidence, despite the fact that everyone arrested was black, despite every bit of evidence to the contrary, this reporter wanted to know whom we were going to believe – her, or our own eyes?

Why couldn't we see that?

Then, one month later, Philadelphia's black Mayor Nutter blew all the deniers out of the water.

After years of denying and explaining dozens of attacks, Nutter took to the pulpit of a local black church to break the silence and mention the "R" word: Race. In a Sunday speech in July of 2011, the mayor admitted his city had a problem with violent black people:

"You have damaged your own race."

The head of Philadelphia's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, J. Whyatt Mondesire, said it "took courage" for Mr. Nutter to deliver the message.

"These are majority African-American youths and they need to be called on it," Mr. Mondesire said.

The black website TheGrio.com said Nutter just seemed so disgusted that he just had to, as he put it, talk about things black people "think but won't say."

After years of joining with the mayor in ignoring organized racial violence, the Philadelphia Inquirer congratulated the mayor for "moving quickly against mayhem mobs."

No, folks. To quote the master comic: I am not making this up.

All the kids needed, said the mayor and his crew, was a place to go. Something to do. How about bowling? So the mayor organized a "Teen Night" bowling for the kids – which was just fine until someone got stabbed in a fight after the bowling.

On July 29, 2011, a man in hospital scrubs was walking down the street at 2 p.m. Coming towards him were seven black students from Mastery Charter School in Philadelphia, a school that recently received $1 million from Oprah.

As he passes, they turn and pummel him. All caught on tape. From two cameras. This has yet to make its debut on the Oprah Network.

Several months after her attack, Guendelsberger is going through some changes, she told NPR. After Mayor Nutter got religion, so did she:

"I am afraid of young, black men now. It's very annoying because there are a lot of young, black men in Philadelphia. I honestly just wish I could go back to how I was before," she says.

And all these attacks began one year after a Department of Justice investigation found that black students at South Philadelphia High School had been systematically assaulting Asian students for years. When this story broke, the superintendent of schools gave the Asian students a pamphlet, telling them how to talk and act towards blacks so they would not antagonize them.

Of course, it is not just Philly.

In Iowa, last year, following a racial disturbance at the state fair, one police report called it "Beat Whitey Night." Reporters argued semantics and ignored the violence.

In Peoria, right in the middle of Middle America, a large crowd of black people attacked police and firefighters called to the scene of a Fourth of July fire.

In Milwaukee, also on the Fourth of July this year, after looting a nearby convenience store, a crowd of nearly 100 blacks set upon a some white teens on a picnic. After beating one white woman, a black woman noted: "Oh, white girl bleed a lot."

At the Wisconsin state fair, just a few weeks later, hundreds of black people roamed the fairgrounds, targeting white people for violence. You didn't hear about that?

Then you probably did not hear about Black Beach Week, held every year in Miami Beach over the Memorial Day Weekend. This year, 200,000 black people created a three-day riot complete with shootings, killing, mountains of filth and everything in between – causing another kind of riot: An uprising to shut down this annual violent uprising.

The list of cities goes on and on. As do the denials and excuses.

In Chicago, congressman and former Black Panther leader Bobby Rush says this kind of crime is common in black neighborhoods, and the only reason anyone is noticing now is because white people are getting hurt.

Rush is probably right. Which means this problem is hundreds of times worse than we think.

Public officials, local media and even victims may be too squeamish to talk about the new race riots, but YouTube is not. Neither is talk radio.

So we learn in fits and starts and pieces and glimpses. Finally, we are connecting the dots. Which is good: The solutions cannot begin until the denial ends. But first we all need to hear – and see – it.


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

Colin Flaherty is a writer and a host (along with his liberal brother John) of "The Fighting Flaherty Brothers," a talk-radio show on WDEL in Wilmington, Del.





Read more: The return of race riots to America http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=355449#ixzz1alkKmRK1









Add to Technorati Favorites