December 31, 2012 Leave a comment

Originally posted on Follow The Money:

———–

how long have they been saying iran and russia?..its the longest bluff of all time..wont happen..but they will use proxy wars and groups to snip away at them..russia versus china is the utopian dream of the west..

401

View original

Categories: Politics

10 World’s Most Outstanding Politicians (2012)

December 31, 2012 Leave a comment

The outgoing year will remain in people’s memory for quite a number of major world events. Elections were held, new leaders were elected in many countries. Syria was the most talked-about country in 2012, so Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can be named the politician of the year. Of course, many other significant events took place in different parts of the world. Pravda.Ru offers its own version of world’s ten most outstanding politicians of the year. Read more…

Western Media Discuss Options To Attack Ian

February 7, 2012 Leave a comment

According to some reports, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that Israel will strike at Iran sometime between April and June of this year. The Pentagon declined to officially comment, and Israeli leaders are silent as well. The Western media, however, were happy to sink their teeth in the story. Many publications are convinced that both Israelis and Americans may strike at Iran. Read more…

The Law Case Of The Century: Indictment Against NATO Military And Political Leaders

November 6, 2011 Leave a comment

NATO: Indictment for breach of international law in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The military and political leaders of NATO are hereby accused of the following crimes committed in the Libyan campaign of 2011, in which the systematic breaches of international law are underlined.

Understanding that international law exists and that it is systematically broken by certain powers with impunity, understanding that such a situation is unacceptable and that the same set of laws should apply to all, equally, with the same sets of weights and measures employed in upholding it, I hereby accuse NATO and the below-mentioned individuals, party to its acts in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from February to September (ongoing) 2011, of breach of international law;

1. Accusation: NATO war crimes, crimes against humanity, breach of UN Charter, Breach of UNSC Resolutions, breach of Geneva Conventions, occasioning murder, attempted murder, actions occasioning grievous and actual bodily harm, destruction of private and public property.

2. Accused:

Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Denmark) NATO Secretary-General; Charles Bouchard (Canada), Commander of Operations; Nicolas Sarkozy, Édouard Guillaud (France); Rinaldo Veri, Commander Allied Maritime Command (Italy); David Cameron, Sir Stuart Peach (UK); Barack Obama, Carter Ham, Sam Locklear (USA); Harald Sunde (Norway), Abdullah II (Jordan); Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani (Qatar), Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan (UAE); Sverker Goranson (Sweden) and the Defence Ministers Pieter de Crem (Belgium), Anuy Angelov (Bulgaria), Gitte Lillelund Bech (Denmark); Panos Beglitis (Greece); Hans Hillen (Netherlands); Gabriel Oprea (Romania);Carme Chacón Piqueras (Spain); Ismet Yilmaz (Turkey), Liam Fox (UK), Ignazio La Russa (Italy), Gérard Longuet (France).

William Hague (UK), Hillary Clinton (USA) (?)

3. Law and breaches:

3.1 Proper procedure was not followed: Under the UN Charter, any military action which comes outside a UNSC Resolution in any theatre of conflict must necessarily come from a separate Resolution in the UNSC and any military action must come after the Military Council is convened. This was not the case under UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) covering the Libyan conflict.

Why did NATO not convene the Military Staff Committee of the UNSC? Under the UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 46: “Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee”. Such committee was never convened.

This is a violation of the UN Charter rendering Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) void; There is also evidence that such Resolutions were passed on the evidence from a false flag event. The supposed crimes committed by the Libyan authorities have been hotly contested and must be investigated;

3.2 Intervention in domestic affairs of a sovereign state: UNSC Resolution 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965, containing the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States was backed up by Resolutions 31/91 of 14 December 1976, 32/153 of 19 December 1977, 33/74 of 15 December 1978, 34/101 of 14 December 1979 and 35/159 of 12 December 1980 on non-interference in the internal affairs of States.

3.3 Bombardment of undefended buildings and structures: Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court which states clearly that one criterion for indictment for war crimes is:

“Attack or bombardment, by whatever means, against undefended cities, towns, villages, buildings or houses”.

Another clause of the same Article 3 could also be invoked:

“Massive destruction of cities, towns or villages or destruction not justified by military necessity”.

The attack on Libya’s water supply network on Friday July 22 and the attack on the factory making pipes for the supply system on Saturday July 23 in al-Brega were not covered under “military necessity” in which case, under Article 3, this was an act of wanton destruction of civilian structures with military hardware. This renders NATO liable for trial by its own court, the ICC at The Hague;

3.4 Support for outlawed organizations and individuals. Despite this admission:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/
proscribed-terror-groups/proscribed-groups?view=Binary …

There is evidence that armed groups fighting inside Libya include the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which according to the British Government: “The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi” and for which reason is on the Home Office list of proscribed terrorist groups, despite this, the UK aided and abetted the said group;

3.5 Failure to apply international law: Under the UN Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33, member states must “seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”.

3.6 The Jamahiriya Government of Libya had the right to defend itself without being attacked: Chapter VII, Article 51 refers to the right of States to defend themselves against armed insurgency:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”;

3.6 Mercenaries: UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011), in its Chapter on Protection of Civilians, in paragraph 4. states:

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

There have been numerous reports of mercenaries being used by NATO and the rebels it supported; French Foreign Legion, Egyptians, Qataris, UAE forces, among others;

3.7 Boots on the ground: UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) Paragraph 16:

“16. Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;”.

If David Cameron has admitted that UK special services have assisted the terrorists on the ground, this is against the UN mandate which allowed NATO to intervene in Libya, and is a war crime.

A request has been sent (August 30) to the British FCO and Ministry of Defence to confirm or deny that troops have been used in the theatre of operations; no reply has been forthcoming;

3.8 Non-enforcement of UN Resolution, and violation of international law, by transporting rebel forces to enter the theatre of operations:

UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011):

In the Chapter on Enforcement of the arms embargo, Paragraph 13 of the same states:

“13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of Resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;

In violation of this: supply of French Milan anti-tank missiles, Swedish Carl Gustav 84mm rifles, 68mm rockets and mortars and Maadi assault rifles from Egypt; this, in addition to the British, French and Italian military advisors helping the terrorists.

3.9 Violation of Geneva Conventions:  NATO and the Transitional National Council have given the people of Sirte ten days to surrender or face a full military onslaught. This is not a cease-fire. While they await their fate, they will still be subject to artillery fire and NATO bombing, and food, water and electricity have already been cut off.

These siege tactics have been outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. In particular, Article 14 of the second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states, “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for that purpose objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations, and supplies and irrigation works.”

The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits all forms of attacks on civilians and the collective punishment of civilian populations, so virtually everything that the combined TNC-NATO forces are doing to the people of Sirte is strictly illegal and in fact criminal.

4. Sample Crimes:

13 May 2011: The murder of 11 Muslim Imams in Brega.

30 April 2011: The bombing of the Downs Syndrome School in Tripoli

30 April 2011: The bombing of a Gaddafi residence, murdering Saif Gaddafi, his friend and 3 Gaddafi children, the grandchildren of Muammar al-Qathafi

12 June 2011: The bombing of the University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established.

22 July 2011: The bombing of the Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with their drinking water.

23 July 2011: The bombing of the factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its employees.

8th August 2011: The bombing of the Hospital at Zliten. Resulting in the murder of a minimum, of 50 human beings, many of them children. The bombing of hospitals is against all international laws, and a most grievous crime.

9 August 2011: The bombing of the village of Majer, resulting in the murder of 85 civilians. 33 Children, 32 women and 20 men.

The persistent on-going bombing of the civilian population in Zliten and Tripoli, death toll not yet established.

5. Further documentary evidence of the crimes.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000524791925

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49TOmo3CZOU&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qXRwBXK34o

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25221

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbR8FaBwPRw

http://rt.com/news/interview-libya-nato-intrusion-127/

 Drawn up by: Timothy Bancroft Hinchey

6 Reasons Why You Can’t Lose Weight

November 6, 2011 Leave a comment

Do you feel like you’ve done everything you can but still don’t seem to lose weight? Chances are, you’re not doing the right things. Americans are more confused than ever about how to effectively lose weight and keep it off. Furthermore, many people are surprised to learn that the seemingly insignificant choices they make every day can negatively affect their goal of losing weight. Are you guilty of any of these behaviors? Read more…

Shocking Images Of “Rebel” Atrocities

NATO has painted itself into a corner in Libya. Its daily acts of terrorism against Libyan civilians, its acts of murder against Libyan children and its flagrant breach of international law make Obomber, Cameron and Sarkozy war criminals. Why are they not sitting alongside General Mladic in The Hague?

There exists something called international law and like it or not – and we have all seen how the USA and UK, principally, flout it at every turn (Iraq, Serbia) – even the countries belonging to NATO, the most hated organisation on the planet, imposed upon the citizens without any iota of constitutional validity, are bound to follow its precepts.

The precepts of international law are as perfectly simple to follow as they are clear to read. The band of murderous countries currently conducting the illegal act of butchery in Libya are signatories to the United Nations Charter and this is crystalline in the terms and conditions involving an armed insurrection inside a sovereign state. Third parties are not allowed to take sides. Only those with criminal intentions would bend and flout international law in siding with terrorists – and why has there been no similar action against other countries fighting extremists?

The Libyan Revolution is staged, aided, financed and abetted from abroad and this is patently obvious in the way it began – not inside the capital, Tripoli, but in the endemically separatist Benghazi, among a band of heavily armed Islamist fanatics whose militancy and racism have long been apparent and also along the already secured western frontier. Enter some SEALS into Misrata and we have a made-in-the-USA Revolution with its backers Washington’s poodle and former colonial master, Britain and Sarko “I want your oil” the Psycho.

NATO has sided with these criminals, murderers and thieves – rascals from the dregs of Libyan society, who themselves fought against NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq. What are that prissy snob Cameron, the bald-headed wonder William “Hey! I ain’t gay!” Hague, that monumentally disappointing and treacherous Obomber, that lying Hillary War Zone Clinton female and that revolting little Napoleon, Sarko the Psycho doing cavorting with terrorists?

Having taken sides, NATO has broken the law. Moreover, the remit under UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) is for the policing of a no-fly zone. Whoever gave the order to murder Colonel Gaddafi’s grandchildren was policing what no-fly zone exactly? Furthermore, why has the act of war not received the go-ahead from the UN Military Commission and if it is not an act of war, then what is the legality of strikes on civilian targets?

Somewhere along the line there is a criminal case against the above-mentioned Obama, Clinton, Hague, Cameron and Sarkozy. If The Hague does not recognise this case, then it is acting in breach of international law, is partial and therefore has no right whatsoever to judge General Ratko Mladic. Either there is one set of weights and measures which apply to all or else the notion that international law exists is nonsensical, and ipso facto, The Hague has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Now we turn to the shocking atrocities committed by the Libyan terrorists. Following are some videos which the bought media has tried to suppress. I would urge Messrs. Hague, Cameron and Sarkozy to look at them (I shall not bother with Obomber and Clinton, they’d probably just laugh). In these videos, you can see some horrifically shocking images of children slaughtered and hacked to pieces by the Libyan “rebels” (sorry, “unarmed civilians”).

Viewer discretion is recommended.

Here is a video of the butchery and rape of little girls. Viewer discretion recommended.

How do the citizens of the UK, France and the USA feel about their governments siding with these monsters, lying about Gaddafi’s forces attacking unarmed civilians when all they were doing was fighting Islamist terrorists? How do the citizens of these countries feel about the millions upon millions of their taxpayers’ hard-earned wages being squandered on this monumental miscalculation, at best, and criminal act of collusion, at worst?

How many times have Sarkozy, Obomber and Cameron said there is no funding for hospitals, schools and social services, when all the time they know that the cost of a military aircraft is 50,000 USD per hour, per aircraft. Sorry, Mr. Smith we cannot afford your cancer treatment, I am afraid you will have to die.

And the people of the United States of America, Britain and France just sit back and do nothing? Kind of makes them guilty by association does it not?

And just before we finish, proof that Cameron, Hague, Obomber, Clinton and Sarkozy are incompetent to be in their jobs: the whole footage which sparked off their reaction was based on a false flag event: it was not the Libyan Government forces firing on civilians. Watch:

I rest my case.

Photos: Unarmed civilians being brutally attacked by Colonel Gaddafi. What would Obomber, Camoron or that disgusting little Napoleon do if a band of Islamist fanatics ran amok in their countries? OK we know the answer. They’d collude with them. Muammar al-Qathafi however is more of a man. He fights. He was after all the first international leader to issue an arrest warrant against bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The USA was then his ally. Time for an ethical foreign policy and doing the decent thing. NATO, stop! NOW!

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Georgia’s Dangerous Quest for American Weapons

Since Mikheil Saakashvili took power in Georgia, the small post-Soviet republic has become one of the U.S.’s most devoted allies. It has been the highest per capita troop contributor in both Iraq and Afghanistan — even while two of its erstwhile territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, host hostile Russian forces.

Saakashvili was frightened of the Russian...

And Georgia hasn’t been particularly shy about suggesting that it sees its contributions to U.S. military missions as part of a quid pro quo. “As soldiers here, we help the American soldiers,” one Georgian corporal in Iraq told the New York Times in 2007. “Then America as a country will help our country.” In Afghanistan, it’s volunteered to serve in the dangerous Helmand province, where seven of its soldiers have been killed so far.

The help Georgia wants in return is protection against its nemesis, Russia, and to help Georgia regain control over Russian-occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Thus far, though, aside from rhetoric, the U.S. hasn’t given much actual help. George W. Bush visited Tbilisi in 2005 and called Georgia “a beacon for democracy.” Last month, a U.S. Marine Corps general effusively praised Georgians’ service in Afghanistan, noting: “Georgians like to fight.”

But talk is cheap, and there has never been much action to back up those words. Tellingly, when war broke out in 2008 over South Ossetia, the U.S. — after giving Saakashvili the impression that Washington would have his back in the case of conflict with Russia — stood by, except for one poignant move: U.S. military planes flew the Georgian soldiers serving in Iraq back home. But, by the time those troops got home, the war had already been lost.

Georgia’s primary security goal for most of Saakashvili’s rule has been to join NATO, and the U.S. did back that, but to no avail — the war with Russia took serious consideration of NATO membership off the table. After all, had Georgia been a member at the conflict’s onset, it would have forced the U.S. and the rest of NATO to declare war against Russia. Now Georgia has a new target in its sights: American weapons. Last year, it began a serious push to get the U.S. to provide it with “defensive weapons,” in particular air defense and anti-tank systems.

Providing Georgia with weapons would perpetuate a “Berlin Wall mentality”

“[L]eaving Georgia defenseless doesn’t help the situation,” Saakashvili told Newsweek. “Georgia cannot attack Russia, while a defenseless Georgia is a big temptation for Russia to change our government through military means. … As part of ongoing security cooperation, we hope that the U.S. will help us with defense-weapons capabilities.”

Lately, he’s upped the rhetorical stakes by claiming that only the U.S. could sell Georgia the weapons it needs to protect itself: “What Georgia really needs is something that it cannot get from anywhere else and that’s anti-air and anti-tank [weapons] and that’s completely obvious. … That’s where should be the next stage of the cooperation.”

The U.S. has never been a particularly large supplier of weapons to Georgia, which inherited Soviet equipment upon independence and then came to rely on other former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries for reinforcements. While the Pentagon has set up a number of military training programs with Georgia, those programs focus on preparing the Georgians for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the issue of American weapons has now come to define the state of the U.S.-Georgia relationship, with Georgia and its allies in Washington arguing that if the U.S. doesn’t give Georgia weapons, it’s kowtowing to Russia for the sake of a wishful-thinking “reset.” U.S. Senator John McCain is the leading advocate for weapons provisions; in March he told a Congressional hearing, “It is hard for me to understand, since the Russians still occupy territory that is clearly Georgian territory and continue to threaten Georgia, and yet we’re not even giving them weapons with which to defend themselves. It is not comprehensible.”

Georgia spent about $1.5 million on four top D.C. lobbying firms last year alone, far outpacing comparable countries. Those lobbying efforts include an aggressive press campaign arguing that the State Department is enforcing a “de facto embargo” by quietly blocking Georgia’s attempted arms purchases, although there is no evidence of such an embargo.

One key, but answered, question is whether Georgia expects to buy the weapons or for the U.S. to give them as aid. When asked, Georgian officials duck the question, saying that discussions aren’t that far along. But it’s one thing to allow Georgia to buy weapons, and quite another to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund them. But the numbers suggest that Georgia could never afford American hardware on its own.

Georgia is poor and Americans weapons are expensive. Tbilisi’s estimated defense budget for 2011 is about $370 million, of which one-third — $123 million — is available for procurement. The United Arab Emirates, to take one point of comparison, has just spent $7 billion on U.S. air-defense equipment. A single Patriot anti-aircraft missile costs nearly $6 million, meaning that 20 missiles — to say nothing of the launchers, radars or other essential components — would be all Georgia could afford with an entire year’s budget..

If Georgia actually wants to use its own money for weapons, then, it would do better to buy weapons from a cheaper source. Russia has intimidated many of Georgia’s former arms suppliers, especially in Eastern Europe and Israel, into ending cooperation with Georgia. But other arms manufacturers, such as China, India, Brazil, or Turkey, could surely step in.

Even if Georgia were armed to the teeth, however, it’s not clear how much good it would do them. Russia’s military is so much stronger than Georgia’s that additional weapons would be a moot point. Or worse: Though Georgia repeatedly emphasizes that it is only seeking “defensive” weapons, any defensive weapon makes aggression easier by improving defense against a counterattack. Georgia touts the threat of a Russian attack, but it was in fact Georgia which fired the first shots that precipitated the 2008 war with Russia, in an apparent belief that Russia would stand idly by.

In a paper published earlier this year, two scholars of the region, Cory Welt and Samuel Charap, argue that providing Georgia with weapons would perpetuate a “Berlin Wall mentality” of eternal conflict, and block the path that Georgia really needs to take with regard to its lost territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That, Welt and Charap write, is the slow, painstaking process of “conflict transformation that reduces tensions, brings people together across the conflict lines, creates trust, builds trade links, and normalizes contacts among authorities.”
But subtlety is not Saakashvili’s strong suit. While American weapons may not make any difference on the ground, they would be a tangible sign of hard support from the West, which Saakashvili clearly craves. Over the last few years, Georgia has perhaps done more, for less reward, than any other ally of the United States. That’s not an argument for shipping Georgia free missile systems, of course. It just makes the situation all the more tragic.

Georgia’s Dangerous Quest for American Weapons

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.