Saturday, 28 June 2008
"Few months before 911 Wolfowitz gave a chilling speech at Westpoint. It was all doom and gloom. It sounded strange. I recently acquired a copy of the speech and I do not know what to make of it."
Thus writes the contributor of this video at Live Leak.
If he had known a little about the Neocons' Project for a New American Century the significance of Wolfowitz's speech would have been much clearer. In it, the Neocons state that in order to put their project for global domination into action the US public would have to be persuaded by another Pearl Harbor type event.
That event we now know was 911. This speech gives us a chilling clue as to why 911 was a premeditated event which served the Neocons well.
Now, listen to Rumsfeld who's openly calling for another Terror Attack!
Friday, 27 June 2008
from SPIDERED NEWS
Anti-war MP George Galloway has accused London Metropolitan Police of engaging in "a deliberate conspiracy to bring about scenes of violent disorder" during President George W. Bush's visit to the UK last week.
In addition to this information, other demonstrators have described similar incidents with strange looking protesters.
It has been common practice at previous demonstrations for authorities to employ police or special forces to intentionally infiltrate peaceful protests and cause violence.
Galloway has just sent the following letter to the Home Secretary, concerning the actions of a police agent provocateur, who has been identified as Inspector Chris Dreyfus, at the recent anti-Bush demonstration:
"I can now confirm that this man was Chris Dreyfus, an inspector in the police.
Inspector Chris Dreyfus
This man, to my direct knowledge, committed four criminal offences during the 30 minutes or so he stood next to me.
First, he repeatedly chanted the arcane, antiquated Americana, “Kill the pigs!” This is a clear incitement to violence, indeed murder. If a Muslim demonstrator had been chanting it, say, outside the Danish Embassy, he would likely now be in prison.
Secondly, he repeatedly (crushing me in the process) attempted to charge the crush barriers and the police line behind them.
Thirdly, he repeatedly exhorted others so to do.
Fourthly, he instructed a young demonstrator on the correct way to uncouple a crush barrier, which was successfully achieved and was subsequently thrown at the police, and was presumably one of the justifications for the deployment of a riot squad which eventually waded in to the protesters.
Home Secretary, there can hardly a more grave indictment of the conduct of the police force in a democratic country than this. People in the labour movement have often mythologised the state’s use of agents provocateurs throughout my 40 years experience and no doubt long before. But, to my recollection, we have never caught one red-handed before."
Nelson Mandela's recent speech in London was severely censored by the BBC, giving it a completely different meaning to that which was intended.
Here is living proof why nobody should trust the BBC any longer. Best to get your news from the Real News or Spidered News.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
|Police attack anti-Bush protestors|
The ban on the demonstration down Whitehall to protest the visit of war criminal George Bush was enforced with violence by the Metropolitan police.
Two protestors were hospitalised by baton weilding police. Stop the War Coalition have organised over 20 national protests all of which have been peaceful. We have written a letter of protest to the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.
GeorgeGalloway MP, a vice president of the Stop the War Coalition, has also written a letter of protest to the Commissioner of Police, Sir Ian Blair. Images of the demo can be found here and here. A video will follow.
Two protestors were hospitalised after police batoned those who approached the security fence around the protest free 'green zone'. The image below shows one hospitalised protestor being pulled towards the police before being struck on the head and back.
Civil liberties another casualty of war
Prominent supporters of Stop the War Coalition condemned police violence. Human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger said, “Our civil liberties are becoming another casualty of the ‘war on terror’. I was born in a dictatorship and look with great concern at recent erosions of our liberties. At the demonstration today all I wanted to do with others was to peacefully deliver my letter to the Prime Minister. I was prevented from doing so and instead witnessed brutality towards the demonstrators.”
Andrew Murray, Chair of StWC, said, “We condemn the decision of the British government and police to deny the British public the right to peacefully demonstrate while acting on behalf of the criminal administration in the USA. We also denounce the brutal conduct of many police officers towards demonstrators in Whitehall. This evening’s events highlight both the growing menace to freedoms in Britain and also the fear that George W Bush and Gordon Brown have of being held to account for their disastrous war policies.”
More Media Reports
ISPs confirm '2012: The Year The Internet Ends'
Bell Canada and TELUS (formerly owned by Verizon) employees officially confirm that by 2012 ISP's all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These 'other' sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet.
Dylan Pattyn *, who is currently writing an article for Time Magazine on the issue, has official confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and is interviewing a marketing representative from TELUS who confirms the story and states that TELUS has already started blocking all websites that aren't in the subscription package for mobile Internet access. They could not confirm whether it would happen in 2012 because both stated it may actually happen sooner (as early as 2010). Interviews with these sources, more confirmation from other sources and more in-depth information on the issue is set to be published in Time Magazine soon.
What can we do?
The reason why we're releasing this information is because we believe we can stop it. More awareness means more mainstream media shedding light on it, more political interest and more pressure on the ISP's to keep the Internet an open free space. We started this social network as a platform for Internet activism where we can join forces, share ideas and organize any form of protest that may have an impact. If we want to make a difference in this, we have to join together and stand united as one powerful voice against it.Join the movement.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Friday, 13 June 2008
Why Europe Should Listen to Ireland
By Sebastian Borger in London
Ireland shot down the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum held on Thursday. Already, EU politicians are branding the Irish as ingrates. But it is exactly that kind of arrogance which helped lead to the Irish "no" in the first place.
It was a process that began seven years ago. Meeting after difficult meeting, compromise after painful compromise, members of the European Union hammered out a new set of rules aimed at improving the way the EU functions.
Ballot boxes in Ireland did not contain the message that Brussels wanted to hear.
With 29 of 43 constituencies reporting the results of the Thursday vote, 53.5 percent of those casting ballots have rejected the treaty with 46.5 percent voting in favor. Because all 27 EU member states have to approve the Lisbon Treaty for it to be adopted, the Ireland vote single-handedly derails the agreement.
Brussels is disappointed -- and furious. When France and Holland rejected the EU constitution three years ago, it sent the alliance into two years of soul searching. This time around, EU functionaries thought they had satisfied doubts about the depth of democracy in the EU -- and about concerns that too much power was being centralized in Brussels.
So far, accusations of Irish ingratitude have been muted. But it likely won't stay that way for long. Already on Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, a diplomat not always known for his diplomacy, said that Ireland itself would be the first victim of its own referendum. "They have benefited more than others," Kouchner said on RTL radio. "It would be very, very awkward if we were not able to count on the Irish, who have often counted on Europe."
At first glance, Kouchner has a point. The island nation of 4.3 million has received billions of euros worth of subsidies from Brussels during its 35-year-old membership in the European Union. In recent years, Ireland's economy has enjoyed rapid growth -- indeed, the so-called "Celtic Tiger" will even soon become a net payer to the European Union. Instead of people flowing out of Ireland looking for work, Europeans from all over the continent are now flowing in.
But there is more to it than that. Kouchner's comments assume that anyone who is pro-Europe must necessarily be in favor of the Lisbon Treaty. At the same time, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen and others from the pro-treaty camp have complained that the "no" camp in Ireland often focused on issues that had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. So was the vote about the document at hand? Was it about Ireland's membership in the European Union or the future of the EU itself? Or was it about something else entirely?
Listen to the Irish themselves and it becomes clear that they remain, for the most part, committed Europeans. In the run up to Thursday's referendum, though, the country posed two questions born of pragmatism: Is this treaty good for us? And: Are we happy with the current development of the EU? Both questions are ones which many millions of Europeans would likely have responded to with "no." Had they been asked.
Supporters of the treaty argued that the EU needs to "function better," and that the Lisbon Treaty would help it do so. Opponents, though, responded by pointing out that the institutions in Brussels didn't exactly collapse after the French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution in 2005. And voters instinctively suspect that behind all the talk of "functioning better" lies a process that makes them uneasy, namely that the political elite are continuously working to increase European integration.
The treaty did indeed call for some changes to knit Europe closer together. One provision was for a "president" who would serve for two-and-a-half years to replace the current system whereby the presidency rotates every six months. Still, calling the position a president is something of a misnomer in that heads of government from the 27 member states would still have had most of the say. The treaty also called for the position of foreign minister, though it avoided that title. The European Court of Justice and the European Parliament would also have gained additional powers.
But there were specifically Irish fears which played into the "no" vote as well -- fears which proved difficult to dispel. The Lisbon Treaty, its opponents never tired of pointing out, would have lessened the voting leverage of smaller EU members and would thus have been bad for Ireland. Furthermore, Ireland, like the other 26 EU members, would have had to do without its own EU commissioner at times due to a provision in the treaty to shrink the size of the European Commission. Such a loss would not be a big deal for bigger countries like the UK or Germany, whose influence in Brussels is secure. For a small country like Ireland, however, it was clearly a consideration.
But the argument that perhaps resonated the most was the specter -- called into being by those opposed to the Lisbon Treaty -- of Brussels eventually passing a uniform tax code for the EU. Ireland, after all, was able to kick start its boom by offering generous tax breaks to investors from the US and elsewhere. Even the slightest hint that Ireland could lose control of its own tax policy was enough to prick up Irish middle-class ears.
Most importantly, however, the discussion leading up to Thursday's referendum was intense. And even if many of the issues raised had little to do with the Lisbon Treaty, Irish voters were the only ones able to vote and Ireland was the only country of 27 where an intense public debate took place. Their verdict on the project of European integration should be carefully considered.
Bernard Kouchner-style arrogance, in any case, should be avoided at all costs. Talk of Irish ingratitude or arguments that referenda are unsuitable in the EU would merely increase the already wide gulf between the EU elite-o-crats and the voting public.
That, though, looks to be exactly what will happen. Already, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have said that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should continue as planned -- as though the Irish referendum never took place. But for the EU -- which sings the praises of democracy and does what it can to improve democratic institutions in places like Turkey -- that would be the wrong way to go.Discuss this Article on the Forum here