Thursday, 14 January 2010

Bill Rammell MP ............. Complete Cockhead !


Please go to Subrosas blog are read this piece.......


The Public Are To Blame If We Lose in Afghanistan

Rosie got to the piece before I did so H/T to her........

Bill Rammell MP..................What a total COCK

Tuesday, 12 January 2010

World's First Life-Size 'Sexbot' Unveiled


OMG

When is it going to end.

The world's first life-size "robotic girlfiend" has been unveiled in the United States - and she's even more "user-friendly" than previous models.

See Here for full story

Roxxxy, complete with artificial intelligence and flesh-like synthetic skin, has taken out-of-luck lovers by the shirt collar at an annual adult entertainment show in Las Vegas.

"She can't vacuum, she can't cook but she can do almost anything else if you know what I mean."

That is how Douglas Hines, president of manufacturer TrueCompanion, described the £4,000, 5ft 7in rubber doll.


I am horrified..................No nothing to do with fact its an artifical female, but the quote here
"Sex only goes so far, then you want to be able to talk to the person,” Mr Hines assured.

NO YOU DONT...............You pillock!

"She's a companion. She has a personality. She hears you. She listens to you. She speaks", Mr Hines went on to say.

Oh dear me !....You could have the ideal invention there but you have gone and blown it now.....excuse the pun!!!

Alastair Campbell in the witness box: this time, the truth........bwahahahahahaha



As I write this piece a certain Malcom Tucker based individual namely Tony Blair’s former press secretary, Alastair Campbell, gives evidence to the Chilcot Whitwash sorry Inquiry today.

High on the agenda, one hopes, will be his involvement in the famous September 2002 weapons of mass destruction dossier. As an aide-memoire to readers and having used info from Andrew Gilligan, I detail below the main, shall we say, inconsistencies about which Mr Campbell should (but probably won’t) be asked.

Mr Campbell’s claims:

1. In evidence (Q1092) to the Commons’ foreign affairs committee (FAC), he claimed: “The entire document was the product of the pen of the Joint Intelligence Committee chairman [John Scarlett].”

2. Campbell also claimed: “The allegation… that I, or anyone in Downing Street, exaggerated and distorted intelligence…is totally untrue.” (para 9 of his memo to the FAC.)

3. Campbell or his deputy, Godric Smith, repeatedly claimed that there had been no political interference whatever in the dossier. For instance, at the Downing Street press briefing of 4 June 2003 (on page 6 of this PDF): “The dossier was entirely the work of the intelligence agencies… Suggestions that any pressure was put on the intelligence services by No 10 or anyone else to change the document were entirely false.”

The reality:

1. The foreword of the dossier was written by Campbell, as this memo of 17 September 2002, a week before publication, makes clear. In his own evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry a few weeks ago, Scarlett himself belatedly admitted this too. The foreword was where the dossier’s most incendiary statements appeared, such as the claim that the intelligence on Saddam’s WMD was “beyond doubt.”

2. The 17 September memo also shows that Campbell suggested 15 changes to the executive summary and main body of the document to Scarlett. Most were accepted and their effect was to harden up the document’s language from possibility to probability, or probability to certainty.

3. Among the most serious: following Campbell’s suggestion in the memo, a false statement, unsupported by intelligence reporting, was inserted in the dossier that Saddam had continued to “make progress” with his illicit weapons programmes.

4. Campbell lied to the FAC about the contents of the September 17 memo, giving them only a bowdlerised version (see here, item eight) which omitted his comments on the famous “45-minute” claim and downplayed his intervention on most of the other issues.

5. Campbell, in his own words, “bombarded” Scarlett, demanding that he make Iraq’s nuclear programme look more threatening. His suggestions were largely included in the published dossier even though they were not supported by intelligence.

In the September17 memo, Campbell told Scarlett that he and Blair were “worried about the way you have expressed the nuclear issue” – namely, that it was not made to seem alarming enough. (This was in fact the truth. As Chilcot has heard, British intelligence was quite clear before the war that Iraq was many years from a nuclear weapon and in no sense a nuclear threat.)

The following day, Campbell emailed Scarlett, saying that he had showed the draft dossier “cold” to a member of his staff who had been left (correctly) thinking “there’s nothing much to worry about” over the nuclear issue. “Sorry to bombard on this point,” Campbell says, “but I do worry that the nuclear section… as currently drafted, is not in great shape.”

The day after that, Campbell emailed Scarlett again, suggesting the insertion of a totally false claim, that the “the timelines [for Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon] are considerably shortened however if Iraq manages to obtain fissile material illegally from overseas. In these circumstances, the JIC assessed in early 2002 that they could produce nuclear weapons in between one and two years.”

After some resistance by Scarlett, this fabrication duly appeared in the dossier as: “We therefore judge that if Iraq obtained fissile material and other essential components from foreign sources the timeline for production of a nuclear weapon would be shortened and Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon in between one and two years.” (Dossier para 23, page 27.)

6. Most meetings on the dossier were attended by spin-doctors and some were actually chaired by Campbell, something which even Lord Hutton criticised.

These are far from the only interventions by Campbell - and he was, of course, far from the only Downing Street political appointee to interfere in the dossier process. Significant interventions were also made by other Downing Street and Foreign Office spin-doctors and by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. Powell is up next Monday – we might have a look at some of his handiwork then.

Campbell will not be troubled by the inquiry board. He is an accomplished liar and far to intelligent to be outsmarted by that group.
He does not care about the fact both the evidence and the bulk of the public know the doc was sexed up.

However the question is how does he sit knowing that he has blood on his hands. Not just the deaths of British Servicemen and women so that Blair could play patsy to Bush but the fact that a certain Dr David Kelly also paid with his life......See here.




UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE............Gordon Brown was involved in decision-making says Alastair Campbell................Oh bugger me its gonna get even more messy now.....spin machines gone up a gear!!!!!

Monday, 11 January 2010

Is this not FRAUD !!!!

See Here

Also Here

And Here

Is this not what is known as Fraud???

Is this not a jail offence???

Wiki defines Fraud ...................I think it is !!!

Someone call the Rozzers !!!

Friday, 8 January 2010

Asylum seekers wrongly paid £10m

Now before some screaming knee jerk reaction bandit starts screaming I am a rascist...........read the story carefully.

Then answer this, How much Grit could you get for 10 Million Quid?

Pure Labour Government, bloated, red tape bullshit.




A Home Office audit found officials mistakenly handed out £9.6 million in housing benefit and living allowances.

Overpayments happened when payouts continued even after asylum cases were concluded.

The real total could be even higher because officials at the UK Border Agency have not calculated the cost of errors made in previous years.

Critics condemned the waste of taxpayers' money, and called on ministers to "get a grip" on the problem.

Tory MP David TC Davies, who sits on the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "This is yet another disgraceful waste of taxpayers' money and another huge blunder by the UK Border Agency.

"Millions of pounds are being thrown away and very little is being done to prevent it - at a time when the country is economically bankrupt."

The payouts were revealed in the Home Office's official accounts for 2008/9. They showed two-thirds of the total - nearly £7 million - was in cases where payments had been stopped but not within the required time limit.

In the remainder, payouts continued after asylum claims were rejected or approved.

Officials have been forced to write off the money because of "legal obstacles" to recovering it, the report states. Trying to recover allowances could also leave failed asylum seekers in dire poverty.


Source

Words Fail Me........They really do!!!!

So much for my warm story to end a Friday on.

A Warm Story for a Friday


The lives of two young Afghan girls from Helmand province have been saved by military medics, after they fell victim to a Taliban improvised explosive device while out playing.

While playing near their home in Musa Qala, a district in the north of Helmand Province, Kamila, 3, and Wasila, 6, were seriously injured by an IED which had earlier been laid by insurgents. Kamila took the brunt of the explosion and suffered severe head injuries; while Wasila endured shrapnel wounds to her stomach, causing liver damage.

Kamila's father took the children to Musa Qala District Centre, knowing that coalition troops based there would help. Their injuries were so severe that a British Medical Emergency Response Team (MERT) was mobilised, and the girls were flown via a British Chinook helicopter to the military multinational hospital, at Kandahar Airfield.

MERTs are launched for coalition, local national and suspected insurgent casualties with the requests being prioritized according to medical urgency.

Lieutenant Andrew Jelinek, from the Household Cavalry Battle Group, operates in Musa Qala, the area where girls were injured. He said:

"IEDs laid by insurgents take a terrible toll on innocent civilians. They have had a deadly effect on British and coalition forces but it is the ordinary Afghan people that are hit the hardest. Unfortunately, children are the frequent victims of Taleban IEDs and, sadly, the story of Kamila and Wasila is far from unique.

"It is only thanks to the work of British soldiers that there are not more incidents of this kind.

"Back home we think we worry about our kids' safety when they go out to play but here it's on a different scale. The dangers the local kids face here when they are out playing are life and death. The Taliban just don't give a stuff about them. They plant these bombs knowing kids might set them off but they just don't care. If they did they wouldn't do it."

Doctor Kao, their Canadian attending physician, who has seen several tours in Afghanistan, added:

"Before Kamila arrived, we had a young boy with similar injuries who died, so we were all very nervous about her chances of recovery. After initial treatment, the signs were not good, as she could not move her left side and was unable to express emotion.

"Although there were to be further complications, Kamila is now interacting with the people around her and even smiling. We consider Kamila our miracle child. She was such a morale booster, because we see so many kids that do not make it."

During their recovery, the girls loved to go out to the flight line and wave at the helicopters taxiing past and got very excited when the crew waved back. With the onset of winter, the girls were presented with new coats and shoes and, for a while, they refused to take them off, wearing them everywhere.

Kamila's father stayed close throughout the girls' treatment. Through an interpreter he reported that he was very happy with the care that they had received. However, he did have some concerns of what might happen upon their return. He said it would be dangerous, as the Taliban may ask him where they have been.
Now that is an obvious worry.

Kamila and her family will continue to receive medical support from the Forward Operating Base closest to their home.

The girls enjoyed a flight back to Musa Qala District Centre on board a British Chinook that was returning on routine tasking. As the helicopter flew away from the hospital, the medical staff were clearly moved by the loss of their young charges, but grateful that the girls' recovery allowed them to go home.


Source

Willie Rennie MP Reply to Yesterdays Post


Wille Rennie MP.

Pure Class...........well worth the £450.00 a month food allowance he tries to claim.


From: Willie Rennie MP
To: TLOTF
Sent: Thu, 7 January, 2010 11:39:26
Subject: Re: Comments: from Willie Rennie MP and Jim Tolson MSP ; by TLOTF; on 7th January 2010.

Thank you for your comments. They are noted.


Willie Rennie MP



2010/1/7 TLOTF

A very poor posting this I am afraid.
A standard politician responce and clearly blaming the army.

Please see this link here.....................oh dear cant link as you dont
allow it. So therefore not allowing evidence to the
contrary.........typical.

You as a civillian and an appointed Lib Dem Def spokesman have again shown
your weakness.
You have zero exp and knowledge of the workings of military matters.
You have your whitehall job to go on.

If you read the link you will see where the core of the issue is when it
comes to spending.
Do not use the military internal rank structure as part of your political
agenda.

As a def spokesperson for the Lib Dems investigate the MOD and give
comments on that fat bloated department.



I will bet Bob Ainsworth is not too worried by this man at all........and Bob sets a standard like no other

Thursday, 7 January 2010

Spot the Difference



No neither can I.

Willie Rennie MP............My local member of the 646 club and claimer of £450.00 quid food allowance.

(Yes I know its only £400.00 but gotta love him for trying)

Also note I was being nice with the joker picture............I had 1 of a c....no never mind.

He is a Lib Dem Defence Spokesman........ooops person gotta be PC here.

Well read this pile of pure shit and see what I mean.

I commented as you will see.........sorry once it goes through moderation but me thinks it might not.

Anyway I very politely (yes I am lying now) asked him to visit this link.

Typical cheap shot comment politician.
But he is a Lib Dem 3 placed politican and of the same class as Bob Ainsworth by the quality of his posting.
Poor, unresearched, weak, and not pertaining to the def spending issue at all.

He will be handed to the GOT and All Seeing Eye for a special award.

I await him blocking me now.

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

Here's One Soldier Who Told The Truth About Afghan War..........and about to pay a big price!!


Before I drop into my rant I wish it to be clear to everyone.........I fully support every single member of the our Armed Forces in the combat Operations they are carrying out.........However I detest our government for sending them there, for liying about it, for not supporting them, for scrimping on money, and for their treatment of the injured and repatriated.


Politicians and newspapers love to revere a war hero from Afghanistan, so it’s strange that they haven’t got round to Lance- Corporal Joe Glenton. When Joe went out there he must have been warned he could end up being held in captivity, but he can’t have expected that would mean getting locked away by the British Army.

His crime was to conclude that the war was making matters worse, and it was immoral to carry on fighting, and to say this publicly. So they put him in a military jail, presumably to stop him doing it again. Leave this dangerous felon at liberty and he might refuse to fight in the Congo, in Kashmir, in a re-enactment of the Battle of Bosworth; who knows what danger he’d be to the public.

As a soldier, this must leave you in a state of confusion, as I doubt whether the initial briefing includes a section that goes, “Now then, men, during your tour of duty with the British Army, I implore you to remain vigilant and wary at all times of the wily foes known as the British Army.”

Joe Glenton might have escaped arrest if he’d been prepared to keep his opposition to the war quiet, rather than speak about his experience openly. Because, as a soldier, he’s not supposed to air an opinion about the war. But every week there are reports in which soldiers tell us we’re slowly winning, and none of them get court- martialled. So the real crime wasn’t to voice an opinion but to voice the wrong opinion.

In any case British Army leaders make statements about every aspect of the war, to the extent that Richard Dannatt, head of the whole force, criticised the Government just before announcing his allegiance to the Tories. Maybe there’s a formula that goes, “Officers of the rank of Captain or above shall he be entitled to thoughts. (However, ranks down to Sergeant-Major may be permitted certain impulses, at the rate of up to three per calendar month).”

It must be hard for a soldier not to hold an opinion on the war, when they can see they’re often arming one set of warlords against another, to the extent we call the ones we like the “Moderate Taliban”. Presumably these are the ones who say “One tower was fine, but we shouldn’t have done the two”.

There must be signs all round the barracks saying “You are ordered not to notice that the honest government you’re risking your lives to defend fiddled the election so blatantly the UN ordered it to be re-run – or that the heroin production you were told you’d be eliminating has gone up – or that many of the civilians you’re here to protect want you to leave. You must also be careful not to remember that one of the reasons given for the war was to capture Bin Laden, which we never did. Therefore anyone who sees him must not notice him, as this will serve to dampen morale.”

This might be why Joe described his time in the barracks since his imprisonment by saying “The response was fantastic. Soldiers shook my hand and patted me on the back. One guy said, ’You’re saying what everyone else is thinking’. Talking to soldiers in other units, you get the impression that people are questioning why we’re in Afghanistan.”

This questioning has spread through every layer of society, to the extent that the audience for a recent Question Time in Wootton Bassett, the town that lines the streets for each returning dead soldier, warmed to the arguments of anti-war campaigner Salma Yaqoob.

So the politicians and supporters of the war must be thankful to Anjem Choudary, who’s planned a march through Wootton Bassett for his group called Islam4UK.

To give him credit, no one could accuse Islam4UK of pandering to Middle England. If one of his supporters suggested “Maybe we should call ourselves Islam4UK, except for Surrey”, he’d probably say “If you’re going soft you can sod off and join the Liberal Democrats”. Next week, you assume, he’ll announce a parade demanding the ritual slaughter of all kittens live on Blue Peter.

The march allows supporters of the war to define the situation as sensible Britain versus militant Islam. But sensible Britain is turning against this war or at least turning against the politicians who deemed the war a requirement.

Joe Glenton has recently been released on bail, and his court martial takes place in three weeks, around the time another participant in war will be giving his evidence. So the rules seem to be that if you tell a lie to start a war, you’re called up seven years later for a polite inquiry. And if you tell the truth to stop a war you’re likely to get banged up. To someone somewhere I presume this all makes sense.

However Joe I personally feel you have made a huge error. You are fully entitled to your thoughts, but you should have kept them until you removed your uniform. Whilst you wear your insignia you and your colleagues are 1 unit, 1 team. You have undermined them, you have driven a crack through the unit.
Better to have resigned, left the service then give your views. Sorry a big mistake. Whilst you wore the uniform and took the Queen shilling I can not support you!!!


Source

Iraq Inquiry..........New Evidence Discovered.


Christmas Day Terror Attack........Screw Up By Agencies or was it???


Unless you live on another planet you will all know about the attempted terror attack by Nigerian suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is accused of trying to bring down a Northwest jet outside Detroit with explosives sewn into his underwear.

This attempted Christmas Day bombing of a US airliner was a potentially disastrous "screw up" by the intelligence community, President Barack Obama has said as he vowed urgent action to tighten air security.

See Here

But that begs another question.......Who Would Benefit Politically from a Terrorist Incident on American Soil?

Despite some $40 billion dollars spent by the American people on airline security since 2001, allegedly to thwart attacks, the botched attempt to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day was foiled, not by a bloated counterterrorist bureaucracy, but by the passengers themselves.

And yet, the closer one looks at the available evidence surrounding the strange case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the more sinister alleged "intelligence failures" become.

As this story unfolds it is becoming abundantly clear that U.S. security officials had far more information on the would-be lap bomber than we've been told.

The Guardian revealed January 3 that the British secret state had Abdulmutallab on their radar for several years and that he had become "politically involved" with "extremist networks" while a student at University College London, where he served as president of the Islamic Society.

Examining "e-mail and text traffic," security officers claim to have belatedly discovered that "he has been in contact with jihadists from across the world since 2007."

Indeed, The Sunday Times disclosed that the 23-year-old terrorism suspect was "'reaching out' to extremists whom MI5 had under surveillance." The officials said that Abdulmutallab was "'starting out on a journey' in Britain" that culminated with last week's attempt to destroy Flight 253.

It is claimed by unnamed "British officials" that "none of this information was passed" to their American counterparts; on the face of it, this appears to be a rank mendacity.

The Sunday Times further reported that security officials have "now passed a file" to American counterterrorism officers that show "his repeated contacts with MI5 targets who were subject to phone taps, email intercepts and other forms of surveillance."

None of this should surprise anyone, however. In light of multiple prior warnings which preceded past terrorist atrocities, the selective leaking of information to the British media in its own way, buttresses the official story that the near-tragedy aboard Flight 253 was simply the result of ubiquitous "intelligence failures."

But as we have seen with Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and Mohammad Sidique Khan, Abdul Mutallab's "journey" was one undertaken by many before, often with a wink-and-a-nod by British and American security officials when it served the geostrategic ambitions of their political masters.

As security researcher and analyst Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote in the New Internationalist (October 2009): "Islamist terrorism cannot be understood without acknowledging the extent to which its networks are being used by Western military intelligence services, both to control strategic energy resources and to counter their geopolitical rivals. Even now, nearly a decade after 9/11, covert sponsorship of al-Qaeda networks continues."

Ahmed's findings track closely with those of Michel Chossudovsky, Peter Dale Scott and Richard Labévière, who have painstakingly documented that the complex of jihadi groups known as al-Qaeda have enjoyed the closest ties with Western intelligence agencies stretching back decades.

That intelligence officers, including those at the highest levels of the secret state's security apparat, did nothing to hamper an alleged al-Qaeda operative from getting on that plane--in a chilling echo of the 9/11 attacks--calls into question the thin tissue of lies outlined in the official narrative.

An Intelligence "Failure," or a Wild "Success" for Security Corporations?

Charged December 26 with attempting to blow up a U.S. airliner, according to The Washington Post Abdulmutallab "was listed in a U.S. terrorism database."

The Post reported that the suspect's name "was added in November to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE." It is further described as a "catch-all list" which "contains about 550,000 individuals" and is maintained by "the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center."

However, The New York Times revealed December 31 that the "National Security Agency four months ago intercepted conversations among leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen discussing a plot to use a Nigerian man for a coming terrorist attack."

Times' reporters Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton, citing unnamed "government officials," disclosed that "the electronic intercepts were translated and disseminated across classified computer networks" months before Abdulmutallab boarded Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

But when the NSA intercepts landed at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), analysts there "did not synthesize the eavesdropping intelligence with information gathered in November" when Abdulmutallab's father provided the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria crucial information on his son's involvement with the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as al-Qaeda.

Seeking comment from NCTC proved to be a daunting task. As the Times delicately put it, "officials at the counterterrorist center ... maintained a stoic silence on Wednesday, noting that the review ordered by President Obama was still under way."

Despite revelations in the British press, the White House maintains that U.S. intelligence agencies "did not miss a 'smoking gun'" that could have prevented the botched attack, the Associated Press reported January 3.

White House aide John Brennan, citing "lapses" and "errors" in sharing intelligence said, "There was no single piece of intelligence that said, 'this guy is going to get on a plane.'"

As we will soon see, Mr. Brennan has every reason to hide behind such mendacities.

Investigative journalist Tim Shorrock, the author of the essential book Spies For Hire, reported in CorpWatch, that NCTC is an outsourced counterterrorist agency chock-a-block with security contractors in the heavily-leveraged homeland security market.

Indeed, The Analysis Corporation (TAC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of defense and intelligence contractor Global Strategies Group/North America, "specializes in providing counterterrorism analysis and watchlists to U.S. government agencies."

"It is best known" according to Shorrock, "for its connection to John O. Brennan, its former CEO, a 35-year veteran of the CIA and currently President Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser. Brennan, the first director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), retired from government in November 2005 and immediately joined TAC."

Shorrock reports that "much of TAC's business is with the NCTC itself. In fact, the NCTC is one of the company's largest customers, and TAC provides counterterrorism (CT) support to 'most of the agencies within the intelligence community,' according to a company press release. One of its biggest customers is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which manages the NCTC."

"During the 1990s" Shorrock relates, "TAC developed the U.S. government's first terrorist database, 'Tipoff,' on behalf of the State Department."

Shorrock chronicles how "the database was initially conceived as a tool to help U.S. consular officials and customs inspectors determine if foreigners trying to enter the United States were known or suspected terrorists."

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent reorganization of the U.S. security bureaucracy, the investigative journalist tells us that "in 2003, management of the database--which received information collected by a large number of agencies including the CIA, NSA, and FBI--was transferred to the CIA's Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) and, later, to the National Counterterrorism Center."

"In 2005" Shorrock discloses, "Tipoff was expanded and renamed the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, and fingerprint and facial recognition software was added to help identify suspects as they crossed U.S. borders."

Despite the utter worthlessness of a bloated database containing more than 1.3 million names according to the American Civil Liberties Union, and not the grossly undercounted figure of 550,000 cited by corporate media, TIDE has been a boon for TAC.

"In the five years after 9/11" Shorrock reveals, "its income quintupled, from less than $5 million in 2001 to $24 million in 2006. In 2006, TAC increased its visibility in the intelligence community by creating a 'senior advisory board' that included three heavy hitters from the CIA: former Director George J. Tenet, former Chief Information Officer Alan Wade, and former senior analyst John P. Young."

And what have the American people gained from inflating the corporatist bottom line? In light of the Christmas Day bombing attempt, not much.

As investigative journalists Susan and Joseph Trento revealed in their overlooked but highly-disturbing 2006 book, Unsafe At Any Altitude, most of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Majed Moqed "were flagged by CAPPS (Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System)."

But because of CIA and FBI monkey-business that rendered watch-list information useless to stop suspected terrorists from boarding an airliner, "the only thing that was done as a result was that the baggage of several members of the Al Qaeda team was held on the ground until the cabin crew confirmed they had boarded as passengers."

And when you consider that Abdulmutallab didn't even have any baggage to check, alleged security "lapses" are even more glaring.

According to the Trentos, "the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security refuse to give the airlines an accurate no fly list, thereby allowing the most threatening terrorists to continue to fly."

The CBS Evening News revealed December 29 that "as early as August of 2009," tracking closely with the time-frame of NSA intercepts, "the Central Intelligence Agency was picking up information on a person of interest dubbed 'The Nigerian,' suspected of meeting with 'terrorist elements' in Yemen."

Unnamed "intelligence sources" told CBS, "'The Nigerian' has now turned out to be Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab." But that connection "was not made when Abdulmutallab's father went to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria three months later, on November 19, 2009.
The Times reported that a "family cousin quoted the father as warning officials from the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Nigeria: 'Look at the texts he's sending. He's a security threat'."

But as the Times were told by their source, "They promised to look into it. They didn't take him seriously."

And here's where things take a decidedly malevolent turn. According to the Times, "C.I.A. officials in Nigeria also prepared a separate report compiling biographical information about Mr. Abdulmutallab, including his educational background and the fact that he was considering pursuing academic studies in Islamic law in Yemen."

"That cable was sent to C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va.," Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton disclosed, "but not disseminated to other intelligence agencies, government officials said on Wednesday."

Then again, perhaps they knew all-too-well of Abdulmutallab's glide path and chose instead to turn a blind eye. Coming on the heels of disclosures in the British media, the evidence suggests that CIA intelligence provided by NSA intercepts, their own on-the-ground operatives in Yemen and MI5 surveillance reports were scrupulously ignored by factions within the secret state who sat on critical information that withheld, would disarm and paralyze normal security procedures in the face of an attack they knew was imminent.

We were told by corporate media, infamously serving as an echo chamber for grifting politicians, Bushist officials and the 9/11 Commission's 2004 whitewash, that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks resulted from "a failure of imagination" by counterterrorism officials to "connect the dots."

Seems there were plenty of "dots" in Abdulmutallab's case and yet, inexplicably, if you buy the official story, and sinisterly, if you don't, not a single one was "connected" prior to the time he took his seat on Flight 253.

Despite the fact that Abdulmutallab was denied re-entry into Britain, paid $2,800 in cash for his "ticket to Paradise," and had no luggage that normally would accompany a person holding a 2-year entry visa into the U.S., the erstwhile lap bomber scored a goal each time and eluded every intrusive "profile" presumably in place to keep us "safe." Talk about a hat trick!

Available evidence suggests that Abdulmutallab should have landed on TSA's hush-hush "Selectee list" for additional screening, or the agency's "No-fly list." And given NSA intercepts and a CIA biographical report on the suspect, this alone should have barred him from entering the country if "normal" security procedures were followed. They weren't.

As The Independent on Sunday reported last week, "the revelation of Abdulmutallab's background has confounded terror experts." One such "expert," Dr Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College, told IoS that "the attempted bombing 'didn't square'."

"On the one hand" Ranstorp said, "it seems he's been on the terror watch list but not on the no-fly list."

"That doesn't square" Ranstorp elaborated, "because the American Department for Homeland Security has pretty stringent data-mining capability. I don't understand how he had a valid visa if he was known on the terror watch list."

Good question, Dr. Ranstorp. Perhaps because someone wanted him on that plane. The question is, who?

One would have thought, given the "special treatment" afforded antiwar activists by TSA at airports, that a warning about Abdul Mutallab's possible involvement with terrorists, by his own father no less, a former top official in a government friendly to Washington, numerous NSA intercepts, a CIA dossier and MI5 reports would have raised at least one red flag!

In the suspect's case, there were so many red flags flying you'd have thought the Red Army was parading through Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport!

Then again, perhaps Abdul Mutallab was on that plane because, as journalist Daniel Hopsicker was told by a former aviation executive during his investigation of the 9/11 attacks: "Sometimes when things don't make business sense ... its because they do make sense...just in some other way."


The general outlines of the Northwest bombing attempt and the 9/11 attacks are startlingly similar. One might even say that what is involved is a modus operandi. In both cases, those alleged to have carried out the actions had been the subject of US intelligence investigations and surveillance and had been allowed to enter the country and board flights under conditions that would normally have set off multiple security alarms.

Both then and now, the government and the media expect the public to accept that all that was involved was mistakes. But why should anyone assume that the failure to act on the extensive intelligence leading to Abdulmutallab involved merely "innocent" mistakes--and not something far more sinister? (Bill Van Auken, "The Northwest Flight 253 intelligence failure: Negligence or conspiracy?," World Socialist Web Site, December 31, 2009)

And so dear readers with are left to ponder the question........Who would benefit politically from a major terrorist incident on American soil, ready, willing and able to step into the breach and exploit the catastrophic loss of human life that would follow in its wake?

Who indeed.



H/T to Tom Burghardt with thanks

Tuesday, 5 January 2010

Anjem Choudary and Wootton Bassett



I have been watching with a keen eye the developing story of Islam4UK and the attempt to plan a march through Wootton Bassett.

This may shock a few of you!!!!!

The Longrider has a great post on the subject.

Others have been discussing the plans for Andrem Choudary and his band of militant Islamists to march through Wootton Bassett. There has, as expected, been a range of opinion about how to deal with this eventuality. Indeed, on the BBC news, I watched as local politicians talked openly about banning it. The prime mentalist even got in on the act.

‘The Prime Minister’s view would be obviously that anything that is considered to be offensive to, or of concern to, families of troops wounded or killed in Afghanistan would be completely inappropriate.’

So, welcome to Britain, the land of free speech. Free speech means allowing speech that you find offensive – and, let me restate it for those who are a little slow on the uptake; there is no right not to be offended. I also wish I had a pound for every time some fuckwit used the term “inappropriate”. This is modern code for “needs to be banned”.

Sure, I share NickM’s opinion of the nauseating Choudary, a man who wants to exercise his freedom of speech but would, given the opportunity, deny it to the rest of us.

I think I tried to be polite but only managed to use the word “cunt”. I may have prefaced that with the word “utter”.

However, vile, obnoxious cunt though he is, Andrem Choudary must be allowed to voice his opinions. Out in the open, we can see him for the vile, obnoxious cunt that he is – sunshine being the best bleach. Let the world see and revile his views, let him remind us what waits for those who would find themselves living in his desired Caliphate. And, let us remind ourselves that freedom of speech means just that – freedom to speak openly, no matter how vile those opinions, no matter how upsetting, offensive or “inappropriate”.

Here, I am in absolute accord with Obnoxio:

It’s very fucking easy to defend free speech when it’s in line with your own thinking, but it takes a set to defend it when people are saying things you don’t like.

So, those libertarians who claim to value freedom of speech, but would deny it to Andrem Choudary, take note. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone, whether it is Islamofascists or Nick Griffin, no matter what iniquitous dogma they spout. If Andrem Choudary’s free speech is stifled today because he is an extremist, yours and mine will be stifled tomorrow, because we, too, are extremists in the view of the centre-left mainstream social democrats.

Of course, there is the question of how to deal with it. The best, most effective way would be to completely ignore it, for the media to fail to turn up and cover it, for the streets to be empty and the shops closed and shuttered, to deny Choudary his audience and the oxygen of publicity – for it is publicity that he seeks. Unfortunately, that ain’t gonna happen. The media cannot resist the opportunity to report, so Choudary will get his fifteen minutes no matter what – indeed, he is already basking in notoriety.

Given the dignity with which the people of Wootton Bassett have shown during the return of the fallen, perhaps a similar dignified response should be shown to Choudary. Line the streets and as the marchers approach, silently turn their backs on them. Show Choudary and his little band of nutjobs some healthy disrespect. It’s nothing more than they deserve, after all. And that’s the rub, we can use our freedom of speech to express disapproval, to remind Choudary that we will not submit to Islam, that we are better than he is.

The high moral ground is there for us to seize. Will we? Or, as is more likely, will we squander it?

I am scared though. Scared the far right will seize this for a fight. The BNP, EDL SDL or someother group of mindless morons will then get headlines for all the wrong reasons and Choudary will be vindicated in his world.

I do not want the march banned because Choudary is a Muslin. By holdng it in Wootton Bassett he has clearly showed is true colours. He is though spoiling for a fight. He is looking for it.

MoD 'institutionally incapable' of succeeding in Afghanistan


The former commander of Britain’s military operation in Helmand province has warned that the Ministry of Defence is “institutionally incapable” of succeeding in the conflict in Afghanistan.

Major-General Andrew MacKay said the MoD had failed to adapt to 21st Century wars, instead issuing messages from London that often had “no relevance at ground level”.

He said the British Army had “consistently failed” to understand the motivations of local Afghans and called for a fresh “hearts and minds” strategy focusing on the local culture and economy.

His critique, comes four months after he resigned his post as head of the British Army in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Northern England.

He officially stepped down for “personal reasons”, but colleagues said he resigned in frustration at a lack of equipment and resources and the direction of the Afghan war.

This gent is no fly by night military cowboy........he is a counter-insurgency expert and Prince Harry’s former commanding officer, Maj-Gen Mackay also led the Helmand task force in 2008, including a successful operation to recapture the important town of Musa Qala.

Bigger info here


Now why is it we are in this position.
Surely we have history from previous campaigns to look back on to give us a better understanding!

But the MOD uses civillians to call the shots, tell me exactly what exp our PM, David Cameron, Bob Ainsworth all have in ensuring that our conflicts are executed efficiently and properly..............none. They are motivatied by there own egos and there own agendas (or Obamas agenda). And please do not go onto me about they have military advisors........ they keep quitting because they are being overulled and cretins like Ainsworth keep speaking.


Ok so back to history......The history to prove my point take two parts: the first identifies disquieting similarities with preparations for WW1, utilising an extract from the authors pamphlet: If ‘It’Resonates Ignore ‘It’ - If ‘It’ Reverberates Explore ‘It, whilst the second part explores the results of a scientific approach developed in Germany between 9/11 and 26/11/2001.




And I quote.......
Moving our thought train down the track a bit further we can demonstrate, through
reflection, the recurring problem of decision making based on incomplete information, the incoherent picture, and faith in assuming that the present will be
like the past.

I am drawn back to WW1 as it is an event, so horrendous, that it is difficult to
believe, but Rwanda, Somalia, the atrocities in the Balkans are all examples of such
inhumanity. Yet as these conflicts developed very little changed from the West’s
perspective, we still needed big, relative, numbers to ensure superiority, we still
looked to the military to provide what became known as shock and awe through
overwhelming fire power; factors which provided a warm feeling that statistically we
would be unlikely to lose. Indeed Rumsfeld did try to change the numbers, reducing
the logistics tail, reducing personnel numbers, whilst increasing the fire
effectiveness; unfortunately he didn’t fully grasp the significance that battle is
just part of a system which is dynamic and undergoing a particular state called war.

If a country is to have a Ministry of Defence rather than a War Office, if it is to
have an ethical foreign policy rather than an Imperial Preference or Commonwealth
Preference, then it must develop sensitivity to the policy and strategy it deploys.
This means moving away from mechanistic doctrine, which expeditionary or manoeuvre
warfare has really become, to something which has sensitivity towards the system it
is striving to change – solutions always have a natural habit of becoming part of
the problem.

This means developing rational for a new lens to view these challenges, a lens which
is ground in substantive philosophy, with subsequent theory and methodology for
achieving what might be termed the three VVVs: viable, valid and victories across
the many conflicts with their own indigenous sensitivities.

Example from the West - WW1

To make this point might I consider again the [Viscount]Haldane [Secretary of State for War 1905-1912] scenario, but look at it from a slightly different aspect which possibly exposes a couple of ‘traps.’ You will recall the other two participants in the ‘military conversations’ (from 1906) included Edward Grey as Foreign Secretary and Col Henry Wilson (1911); where Grey through his support for this secret activity, which included keeping Parliament in ignorance, placed himself in a very difficult position in 1914; a ‘trap’ he strives to mitigate in his book Twenty‑Five Years. Instead of shaping his policy by what was best for his country, he had clearly allowed his mind to become obsessed by pathological visions of what other nations might think of the British‑and perhaps of himself.

Wilson also seems to have created his own ‘trap’ as he did not regard the
prospective dispatch of the British Expeditionary Force to France as a means of
avoiding the defeat of France, as Grey and Haldane claim to have been their
conviction; but as a glorious military adventure that was to lead the Anglo‑French
Allies into the heart of Germany before Christmas. Indeed, on August 1st 1914,
Wilson was found in ‘tears of baffled rage,’ in the Admiralty building at the
seeming possibility that the British Army might not, after all, be allowed to enter
the fight.

The four bitter years of war that actually resulted, when Wilson had looked for
perhaps four months, with three million British and Empire casualties changed his
view of Continental warfare and of his country's participation in them. "Next time,"
he told the officers of the Senior Officers School in 1920, when he was lecturing
there as a Field‑Marshal and Chief of the Imperial General Staff, "next time we
must keep out of the scrum and pinch the mufflers."
Suggesting continental warfare was not the business to be in and that a new form of
asymmetry should be thought about. It might be worth noting that Fisher had proposed
a different strategy of amphibious warfare through the Baltic and then south to
Berlin.

Trapped by experience

This example from history cannot be considered complete without consideration of the
role scientific thinking might have played, establishing frameworks to enable
decision makers and strategists to better understand the nature of the complexity
they were being challenged with. It is left to the reader to draw comparison with
the last decade where strategy became synonymous with management consultancy speak
and trapped by its own doctrine. The sad state of affairs of nearly one hundred
years ago can be no better described than by the late Captain Russell Grenfell RN
(1892 - 1954) on the inadequacy of scientific thinking, or indeed any kind of
scrutinisable thinking, in preparation for war:

……..These plans involved a drastic reshaping of higher army organization, which
had previously been devised for Colonial and not for Continental warfare. Mr.
Haldane takes a good deal of credit to himself in his books for this reorganisation,
to which he is certainly entitled. But he is not entitled to the claim he also makes
that it was due largely to "scientific thinking" on his part, both as regards the
administrative reforms introduced and the strategy on which they were based. The
reforms, as he himself admits, were not the consequence of deep and original
thinking by him and his military advisers, either separately or in combination; they
were mainly imitations of the German system which he deliberately and openly copied
from information obtained during a visit to Berlin in 1906, though they were
naturally adapted to British requirements. And, as we shall see, there was little
that was scientific about the Haldane strategy.

………….But an even more weighty accusation remains to be leveled at Mr.
Haldane's "scientific" approach to war, consistently ridiculed by Lord Fisher. The
basic assumption on which Haldane's whole outlook towards a European upheaval rested
was itself false. ….. These were scientific questions which Mr. Haldane and Sir
Edward Grey might have asked themselves as preliminaries to coming to a decision
about the French conversations. But such questions clearly never occurred to them.
They jumped straight to a superficial assumption which happened to be wrong.

That the two Ministers Haldane and Grey made this fundamental error of strategy was not their fault. They were not trained for war. But the question arises why they did not seek the advice of those who had been????

And this is exactly what we face today!!! We never seek advice and we blindly follow.

Happy New Year




Ok thats the festivities over.............time to get back to the real world and a good rant at someone.
Batteries are re-charged..............blog got a template change as a token gesture.

All is fine.............no its not!!!!

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails