Bombshell from London

Bombshell from London

Not only are we losing the war in Afghanistan, it seems we are also losing any semblance of an excuse for being there.
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk

The Toronto Sun. Sept 14, 2010


THE London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), is the world’s leading think tank for military affairs. It represents the top echelon of defence experts, retired officers and senior military men, spanning the globe from the United States and Britain to China, Russia and India.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I cannot believe that this information, now available in the public domain, has been unknown to TPTB.

Alongside the fact that the FBI does not have Bin Laden on its wanted list for 9/11 because it doesn't have enough evidence for that, these two alone serve to strengthen the case for an illegal war and war crimes on a massive scale.





www.thetruthseeker.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

From a different perspective; it has been clear for a very long time, as an almost unspoken fact, that the military offensive in Afghanistan was never properly vetted by apolitical reasoning.

Corporate interests, Opium/Poppy trafficking, Energy cartel agendas, Mineral acquisition, among other less meaningful agendas (like "keeping an eye on Pakistan") topped the list of almost certain motivations for the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars to the military industrial complex (aside from the Banking cartel amassing great wealth via financial loans to support the war.)

I might include IISS as part of the military industrial complex, despite the appearance that this report goes against their better (baser and more materialistic) agendas.

Recently, during a discussion in the ATS Live! show, we had discussed the tremendous human tragedy unfolding due to flooding in the region, where well over 10,000,000 people are facing life-threatening disease and death from starvation and lack of potable water. It bears noting that as we spend hundreds of millions fo dollars and risk thousands of our soldiers lives to chase down a few hundred militant extremists, we diverted NOTHING to help the victims of the recent flooding in the same general area....

The priorities of political leaders and diplomats appear to not be in tune with anything approaching humanitarian or 'human' considerations. They priorities seem more inclined to embrace the agenda of those for whom the status quo has proven a profitable and empowering circumstance.

anyone surprised? anyone?

realy i'm curious if this sorta news has any new feeling to the populace anymore,

it seems people have gotten used to picking their sides and being polarized, in this case they will either agree or disagree with the OP's opinion of the matter, but is there anyone learning new perspectives anymore? anyone that is for the first time accepting the idea that all government is massivly corrupt?

reply to post by wcitizen


The report isn't exactly what this blog wants us to believe. The information is probably derived from this section of the IISS website. Baroness Manningham-Buller's comments can be heard at this section on the Iraq Inquiry website.

Just be a bit careful with that blog as it has been hashed together quite a bit.

The report, presided over by the former deputy director of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, MI-6, says the threat from al-Qaeda and Taliban has been "exaggerated" by the western powers. The US-led mission in Afghanistan has "ballooned" out of all proportion from its original aim of disrupting and defeating al-Qaeda. The US-led war in Afghanistan, says IISS, using uncharacteristically blunt language, is "a long-drawn-out disaster".

reply to post by wcitizen


Perhaps the following is why they decided to give Blair a Freedom medal last week;

The IISS bombshell comes on the heels of the most dramatic part of the British Chilcot Inquiry into the origins of the invasion of Iraq. Baroness Manningham-Buller the former head of Britain�s domestic security service, MI-5, testified that the Iraq War was generated by a farrago of lies and faked evidence from the Blair government. What we call "terrorism" is largely caused by the western invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, she testified.

All this expenditure in Afghanistan to kill 50 Al Qaeda? It didn't require an entire army to do that. Some say that corporate interests are why we have our troops there but I disagree. I believe they are they so that they cannot defend the US. They will be hung out to dry with zero support when the time comes. The US has been taken over by a covert military coup. The next step will be overt repression of the populace when the economy crashes within a year but they won't use US troops for that as they know which side they would choose. That's why they are on the opposite side of the planet.
I hope American citizens remember it is their duty to be the militia. This is our only hope for the long-term future of our country.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


That isn't quite what she said. Her testimony was damning, but not as colourful as the blog wants to make out. You can view her testimony here. There is also a full transcript available to download.

Here's an article reporting her testimony.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


reply to post by Asktheanimals


Yes, the 'Freedom' medal, from his partner in crime, lol! It's so transparent.

Given that in double-speak 'Freedom' means the exact opposite, Blair received the medal for helping to advance the enslavement of the world

The reason I think this report is important is because the IISS is a highly respected body, and unusually it has used pretty strong and unequivocal language.

As such, it also adds real credible weight to the anti-war campaign.

reply to post by wcitizen


That blog isn't citing an exact report from the IISS. Hit the IISS website and things will read a little different. There are some economies of the truth going on in that blog.

If a report existed as damning as that, then the press would be all over it. Especially The Daily Mail!

The IISS’s findings are a direct challenge to Obama, Britain’s new prime minister, David Cameron, and other US allies with troops in Afghanistan. This report undermines their rational used to sustain the increasingly unpopular conflict. It will certainly convince sceptics that the real reason for occupation of Afghanistan has to do with oil, excluding China from the region, and keeping watch on nuclear-armed Pakistan.

BINGO!

Interesting that this report

presided over by the former deputy director of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, MI-6

is 'challenging' the established MSM/mainstream political stories and justification arguments for the presence there. Could they be hoping for the leadership to be more up-front about who the real teargets are (i.e. NOT Al-Quaeda)? Could this be a step towards priming the masses to accept that other battles are afoot?

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by wcitizen

 

The report isn't exactly what this blog wants us to believe. The information is probably derived from this section of the IISS website. Baroness Manningham-Buller's comments can be heard at this section on the Iraq Inquiry website.

Just be a bit careful with that blog as it has been hashed together quite a bit.

I never read anything on that site... the color scheme is terrible for reading. But that blogger is great about putting up references... so today's article is linked to the original article... Bombshell from London


It is the "Comments and Analysis" section of the site...

Eric S. Margolis is a contributing editor to the Toronto Sun chain of newspapers, writing mainly about the Middle East and South Asia

reply to post by LarryLove



I guess I am reading it differently from you.

The article you link to is entitled: "Former MI5 Chief demolishes Blair's defence of the Iraq war."

and I believe she does, she totally demolishes it.

Originally posted by wcitizen



I cannot believe that this information, now available in the public domain, has been unknown to TPTB.

Alongside the fact that the FBI does not have Bin Laden on its wanted list for 9/11 because it doesn't have enough evidence for that, these two alone serve to strengthen the case for an illegal war and war crimes on a massive scale.





www.thetruthseeker.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 16-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Hmmm you say fact that the FBI does not have him on their wanted list? I say where do you get your facts? Straight from the horse’s mouth www.fbi.gov... I give you OSAMA BIN LADEN. And to add a nail in the Coffin here is the FBI 's Top Ten List www.fbi.gov...

I mean for real? Those assclowns attacked America via planes, when are you fools going to understand that If this was done by the US government Then hundreds of people had to be involved. Fools all of you truthers. Now if the government let happen that’s a different story and there is evidence that the government did in fact let it happen.

The only thhin illegal here (or should be illegal) is you spreading lies about.

reply to post by curioustype


Okay. People, go to the IISS website and read the information for yourselves. There are quite a few inaccuracies in the blog mentioned in the opening post.

Lots of good information on the IISS website, but there isn't a report as colourful as the one mentioned.

reply to post by wcitizen


Her testimony isn't anything like what the blog says it was. I linked to a video and transcript of her testimony a post or two back. The language is damning, but very different.

You have to go direct to the sources, not the hearsay.

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Her testimony isn't anything like what the blog says it was. I linked to a video and transcript of her testimony a post or two back. The language is damning, but very different.

You have to go direct to the sources, not the hearsay.

Found this with the google key words IISS "a long-drawn-out disaster"

Strategic Survey (IISS.Org website)

In Britain the normally hawkish International Institute for Strategic Studies says the threat from al-Qaida and the Taliban has been exaggerated, and warns that the war in Afghanistan risks becoming a "long, drawn-out disaster". Meanwhile, Tony Blair cancels two appearances in London to publicise his memoirs after anti-war protesters pelt him with eggs and shoes in Dublin.

reply to post by rogerstigers


In the same article that leads with this:

In the US, a crackpot pastor who claims "Islam is of the devil" threatens to burn copies of the Qur'an and puts his plans "on hold" only after appeals from the president, the secretary general of the UN, and Angelina Jolie. In Afghanistan, five US soldiers are charged with murdering civilians at random and collecting their fingers as souvenirs, while Nato troops open fire on protests against the pastor's plans.

reply to post by LarryLove



I beg to differ. The report which the OP refers to isn't available on the IISS website. The section you refer to is simply a Press Statement about the report. The full IISS "Strategic Survey 2010: The Annual Review of World Affairs", actually has to be purchsed before you can read it. The cost is £51

The Canadian journalist in the OP is referring to the full survey, and is therefore in full possession of the facts, unlike your statement which is based upon the Press Statement only.

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by curioustype

 

Okay. People, go to the IISS website and read the information for yourselves. There are quite a few inaccuracies in the blog mentioned in the opening post.

Lots of good information on the IISS website, but there isn't a report as colourful as the one mentioned.

OK, let me suggest you go to the IISS website and check your your own facts. You are criticising based on erroneous information. It's true, the statement quoted in the OP article DOESN'T appear on the website, that's because you have to PURCHASE THE FULL REPORT before you see what it actually says.

Unless you have paid £51 for the full report, and read it, you haven't actually read one word of it, and are basing your comments on a PRESS RELEASE INSTEAD.