Private Bradley Manning, accused of sharing classified US army files with the whistleblowing website Wikileaks, will get a 112 days cut from his eventual sentence. The victory for his defense team comes after a judge ruled that Manning’s 9 months in prison amounted to pre-trial punishment and was excessively harsh. Retired colonel Morris Davis told us the military is just trying to spare its blushes.
Archive for the ‘Wikileaks’ Category
Before It’s News
The BBC contacted me yesterday and sent me the following email.
This BBC journalist clearly admits that perhaps the government and media aren’t telling us the truth regarding the death of nurse Jacintha Saldanha and now the massacre in the US. WTF!
The BBC have obviously taken leave of their senses, if they ever had any, and hired conspiracy theorists instead of journalists. Is this really what we should be paying our license fee for? Who knew that the BBC is a hot bed of conspiracy theorists.
Of course the darker side of this story (and of course I’m probably going to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist) is that this is an attempt by the BBC to try to draw me out into a conversation about the terrible tragedies of Jacintha Saldanha and the recent US massacre as a back door to talking about…
Peer’s revenge over Twitter slurs: McAlpine will sue internet gossips
- Tory peer ‘terrified’ by BBC’s false implication that he abused children
- Terms of the agreement will be announced in court in a few days’ time
- And lawyers will sue ANYONE who named him on Twitter
Lord McAlpine is taking landmark legal action against internet gossips who falsely branded him a paedophile.
Lawyers for the Tory peer warned Twitter users ‘we know who you are’ and urged them to come forward voluntarily or face being pursued through the courts.
His action is intended to stop so-called ‘trial by Twitter’ and, if successful, could radically change the way the internet is policed and make those using social networks more directly accountable for defamatory comments.
Lord McAlpine, the former Tory party treasurer wrongly accused of being a child abuser following a botched Newsnight report, yesterday agreed a £185,000 compensation settlement with the BBC – funded by licence-payers.
Let’s compare Syria’s Assad to some of the ‘statesmen’ currently trying to overthrow his government through their Orwellian-esque named, “The Friends of Syria” project…
RT interviewed Syrian President Bashar Al Assad this week, and by all accounts, Assad came off as intelligent, sensitive and above all, as a statesmen. We may not agree with all of his policies, but non-psychopaths living in the west can all agree that Washington and London’s plan to flood Syria with terrorists and destroy it from within – is not a civilised way to go.
Alright, let’s compare the calibre of leadership. First, here’s the Syrian leader – showing admirable restraint in the face of criminal intervention by West and Gulf States. He was, by all accounts – impressive, to say the least…
As his people are being brutally butchered by the West’s proxies and mercenaries in Syria, here’s US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, showing the calibre of leadership we are left with in the west…
The reason Hillary finds all this such a lark, is that she has more important things to consider – namely, her celebrity aspirations…
…and she want to be President in 2016. It would be better if she became host of The View.
Now for David Cameron. How does statesman Cameron stack up against Syria’s Assad in terms of leadership, brains and pure toughness? The British PM supports FSA and al Qaida terrorists in Syria with guns and military intelligence, but when it comes to Britain itself, he’s keeping himself busy covering for paedophiles and child abusers at the heart of the British Establishment. The thought of a “gay witch-hunt” in Westminster made the PM turn yellow. Could be handle Assad’s workload then? How does Cameron stack up? You decide:
And finally, we have the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, allegedly he is a ‘straight’ politician, so shouldn’t have to worry about David Cameron’s ‘gay witch-hunt’. Here’s a photo that should inspire international confidence…
There he is with Savile!
And they call themselves “Friends of Syria’, well, well.
It’s times like these, when you have to really feel like the world has been turned upside down.
A fresh wave of embarrassment could be about to hit the US, as WikiLeaks begins releasing over a hundred classified files this Thursday. This time they’re detailing America’s detention procedures, including those in infamous prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. RT’s Laura Smith reports.
What will a war with Iran look like? What will be the results of a unilateral attack on Iran by Israel and the US? Will it trigger multi-regional military conflict?
21st Century Wire geopolitical analyst, Patrick Henningsen, outlines possible outcomes, including the Hegelian outcome of a One World Order aka ‘New World Order’, in an exclusive, previously unreleased interview with domestic Russian television, filmed in London in Sept 2012.
Bahrain’s Shia opposition says a teenage protester has been killed in violent clashes with police in the capital Manama. Police fired tear-gas and stun grenades to disperse demonstrators, who were throwing stones and petrol bombs. The West will always turn a blind eye to real repression in Bahrain. They have been demanding equal rights from the Sunni monarchy for over a year now. RT talks to Patrick Henningsen, who is a geopolitical analyst for the “UK Column”, a current affairs newspaper and website.
21st Century Wire
August 29, 2012
In a shop yesterday the unique sound of Ian Dury and the Blockheads came over the Tannoy. The inspidisation of the music scene of today however makes it hard to imagine he would get a record deal were he to be around now. A polio sufferer as a child ( in the age before political correctness, Dury hilariously self mocked his affliction in several witty songs) Dury stood about five feet tall, walked with a pronounced limp, and was as far from the received music business idea of what is “commercial” or “sexy” as it is possible to get. Yet he was hugely successful, selling millions of records. These days he would doubtless ply his trade in the pubs, clubs and at Festivals, something of a local hero but never achieving national recognition. Fortunately he appeared in the 1970’s, a more democratic and eclectic era, less obsessed with image and more concerned with substance.
The right to vote is the most fundamental right in any country that considers itself a democracy. Politics may be distorted by money, misinformation and a paucity of real choice, but its a fair enough assumption that the right to vote finds common cause across the political spectrum.
Not any longer. The run up to the 2012 election has seen a systematic and thorough attempt by state level Republican officials in several states to disenfranchise large swathes of the electorate. In Pennsylvania, this has been through the introduction of strict new voter ID rules that require voters to produce some form of photographic ID. Since the driver’s license is far and away the most commonly held form of photo identification, this naturally militates against those who do not drive. Non-drivers in the State of Independence are predominantly poor, either under 25 or senior citizens, and black – all categories far more like to vote for the President than his opponent.
In Florida, new voter registration requirements involving producing several forms of ID and correspondence from corporations such as banks, mean than ten times as many new Republican voters have been registered as Democrat in the last twelve months. These are just two examples among many. Now election rigging in US presidential elections is nothing new, but for the first time in this election the issue is being highlighted by liberal commentators in the mainstream media, with the MSNBC talking heads particularly vociferous in their condemnation of such blatantly undemocratic tactics. What remains to be seen is if Romney squeaks in with the help of one of these rigged states, will the liberal media cry foul and rally the disenfranchised urban populace against what is, to all intents and purposes, a coup?
Readers may be confused by the intervention by the Roman Catholic Church in the question of Gay marriage in Scotland. For those unclear about where Rome stands, lets clarify the RC position: The Roman Catholic church remains implacably opposed to loving homosexual relationships and all homosexual acts between consenting adults. It reaffirms its centuries old position that only homosexual acts between ordained Roman Catholic priests and non consenting minors have the blessing of the holy father.
By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
October 18, 2011
In 2008, Barack Obama made history as the first black President in the United States of America. Three years later, he has made history again, this time as the first US President to establish a permanent US military presence on the African continent.
Obama announced late last week, “I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.”
It is ironic that America’s first black President would be the one to establish a permanent US military beach head in Africa, but one only has to read the numerous strategic briefings available from U.S. AFRICOM to reveal a long-range Anglo-American agenda for the Dark Continent.
When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007 under President George W. Bush, 49 different countries signed on to the US military imperial charter for Africa.
AFICOM is a colonial subsidary of Neoconservative pièce de résistance known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In sporting terms, you could say that Bush Jr kicked the ball down the field in 2007, but it is Barack Obama who has carried the ball over the goal line in 2011.
Last Friday, Obama extended his bold new military safari tour of Africa, ordering the deployment of 100 special forces US troops to the central Africa country of Uganda, allegedly to support local forces in battling the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Formed in 1987, they have been engaged in an armed rebellion against the ruling Ugandan government.
Interestingly, LRA’s leader is the infamous Joseph Kony, who also has all the makings of a bin-Ladenesque comic book villain. Should that conflict escalate, tales of Kony will provide a ready, out-of-the-box meal for a US mainstream media machine who are forever gagging for a new world public enemy number one.
Uganda looks to have brokered an initial deal here as a US local partner in Africa, a relationship which was formalized following Uganda’s key role (allegedly) in battling Muslim extremists in Somalia. Whatever Uganda’s actual role was, their rewards have been substantial. Obama recently sent them around $45 million in military equipment, and this will certainly be topped up annually if Uganda continues to host US troops there.
From an AFRICOM standpoint, this latest deal with Uganda is a major step forward in militarily colonizing the continent. What Obama did not highlight in his announcement last week is that a small force is already present in Uganda, and that the new attachment of US special forces who are arriving shortly will be dispatched to perform various ops in the surrounding South Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Add to this an extensive laundry list of US State Department and ‘national security’ objectives, and you have a fully baked recipe for a permanent US military presence in Africa.
To achieve this, the US will also require numerous black ops, backed by a large supporting cast of CIA field workers, agents, US military administrators and paid contractors. This will enable the US, with all the elements necessary for the overthrow of any African country south of the Sahara desert.
If recent events in North Africa are any indication, the US will often back and support a military dictatorship, rather than allow for a country’s own self-determination. Egypt is the best example of this. After all the fanfare surround the Arab Spring, few have bothered to pay attention to who and what actually replaced Egypt’s overthrown regime there. Now Egypt’s ‘temporary’ military government does not want to relinquish the reins of power.
Not surprisingly, only one country refused to sign on to AFRICOM’s neocolonial charter. That country was Libya.
If you have any doubts as to what a country can expect if it falls foul of the America’s AFRICOM dictates, look no further than Libya and its leader Moummar Qaddafi. Following UN’s flimsy resolution 1973, Libya was pulverized by a full-blown NATO military air assault. Following the destruction of most of its cities and their infrastructures, Libya is currently in the process of being carved by selected US and European corporations. It’s doubtful that Libya will ever see half the stability or prosperity it had achieved under Qaddafi.
Libya was a hot run, and a subsequent Beta test on the part of NATO and AFRICOM. First on AFRICOM’s menu is UN sanctions, then arming a local faction and fomenting civil unrest, then regime change, followed by the privatization and auctioning off of any valuable state assets to US and European companies, and eventually – a long, hard session of neoliberal IMF economic shock therapy.
Note that the US military or NATO will always be on call if local rebels need their revolution advanced down field. If this process cannot be initiated via the UN, the US will also be very well-placed to run a clandestine operation anywhere on the continent.
In Uganda’s case, it may work as a reverse of NATO’s Libyan-style intervention, whereby US troops will crush, not assist Ugandan rebels rising up against a corrupt and despotic government.
On the very long-range end of the agenda will be to unify Africa into an EU-type superstate, the African Union, and with a single African currency. For Wall Street and the City of London, this is a relatively untapped opportunity to plunder, and then re-plunder a number of otherwise emerging growth economies.
Proponents of AFRICOM seem confident, and with good reason. The US has always been successful at achieving a high level of destabilization in any country it interacts with militarily. This special brand of “engineered chaos” then needs to be managed by a strong military presence in the region.
Globalist elites and transnational corporations could not be more thrilled- hundreds of no-bid contracts, opening up new markets, new monopolies, and extremely cheap labor for globalist industries… in Africa.
In terms of the global geopolitical chessboard, AFRICOM’s most significant objective for America and Europe will be to confront, minimize, sabotage, and where possible- completely destroy China’s economic interests in Africa. Evicting the Chinese from their hundreds of economic interests and political partnerships in Africa amounts to a new Cold War between the Anglo-American Empire and China.
Unfortunately for Africa, USA Inc has become one giant corporation, and certainly behaves like one. Its current CEO, Barack Obama, has one of the hardest hitting velvet gloves in history. He has already demonstrated that he can, and will, bomb a nation into compliance with the globalist plan to completely re-colonize and re-corporatize Africa, arguably the most resource-rich continent on the planet.
The process will take time, and will no doubt cost many billions of dollars, and thousands of innocent lives will be lost at the hands of CIA-sponsored civil and guerrilla wars. One AFRICOM study believes that China would eventually send its troops to Africa, to defend its economic interests there. The study warns:
“Now China has achieved a stage of economic development which requires endless supplies of African raw materials and has started to develop the capacity to exercise influence in most corners of the globe. The extrapolation of history predicts that distrust and uncertainty will inevitably lead the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Africa in staggering number.”
AFRICOM, in its own words, is almost expecting a military confrontation with China over its interests in Africa, and with the new US practice of ‘pre-emptive foreign policy’, it serves as an almost perfect storm for a new not-so-cold war there.
China will not just react, as the US might do, if its interests and investment have been threatened in Africa. This is partly because unlike USA Inc, China is still a functioning nation-state and Chinese leaders are not being constantly pressured by its corporations to act over-aggressively to protect Chinese interests.
In the twilight days of every US administration, an American President is defined by his all-important legacy.
Whether Obama becomes either a one term or two term President- after it’s all said and done, he will be remembered as Kenya’s only begotten son, who sold out Africans to his globalist overlords- the man who eventually broke the back of Africa.
Ironic, as we still remember how much hope (remember that word) some people had of him, way, way back in 2008.