The Evil Empire, Drugs and Racism

The Anglo-American Empire's 'War on Drugs' is as credible as its 'War on Terror'. Both are a fake of the kind George Orwell warned us about. Once the pretend 'Red Menace' vanished into thin air with the demise of the Soviet Union, the Anglo-American axis was left with no bogeyman with which to frighten and bully its populations into doing as they were told, never mind a huge loss of their civil liberties on both sides of the Atlantic.

The carefully-fabricated 911 was the moment when that spurious 'War on Terror' was launched, the moment when both Bush II and his English sidekick, Tony Blair, steered their ships-of-state into the depths of totalitarianism, war criminality and government-sponsored evil. Just as the 'War on Terror' permitted the Anglo-American axis to perpetrate evil in the form of genocide, the 'War on Drugs' permits its secret services to profit hugely from the black market on drugs. Now we hear that "85% of all drugs produced in Afghanistan are shipped out by US aircraft." Why doesn't this surprise us?

After what the Axis has been responsible for in its respective pasts (including the British-sponsored opium trade in the nineteenth century) it should not surprise us that the behaviour of our rulers has really not changed. All that has changed is the spin and packaging required to convince us proles that we really do live in democracies where governments operate in our interests rather than their own.

The 'War on Terror' was quite cleverly devised, where the enemy was identified as both non-white and an historic enemy of the Christian west, Islam. So not only could the proles identify an historic non-white enemy but exercise a deep-seated racism that anyone who is not white is, by definition, not only inferior but shifty and dangerous. The whole thing was devised on shock and awe with the collapse of the Twin Towers and the emotional hype of Islamic 'terrorism' that followed and which continues to this day.

This writer has consistently argued that the much-vaunted 'special relationship' between Britain and the US is only a special relationship insofar as the interests of Anglo-American capital are concerned and where British governments continue to hang onto Uncle Sam's coat-tails for the military power it allows them to associate with.

Without it, Britain would stand exposed as a post-imperial nation, disunited and in demise. And the price required of us all by our ruling elite to continue the pretence is paid daily in the blood of our young men and women who are sent out to die fighting the Axis' military adventures and others who pay the price in becoming victims of the Empire's drugs black-market.

“War on terror” as a cover for US terrorism

It's ironic. It's hypocritical. It's a fraud. The "war on terrorism" branded by America is a propaganda cover for the worst terrorists in the world.

What was the invasion and occupation of Iraq but an act of terrorism? Everyone now knows that the faux war was born of a fraud ... If America wants to stop terrorism, it needs to stop terrorizing the world.

more...

USUK made use of Uzbek torture
Former British ambassador, Craig Murray, says UK and USA sent prisoners to Uzbekistan to be tortured

Here Craig Murray describes the US ally, Uzbekistan, as a totalitarian dictatorship left over from the former Brezhnev, Soviet regime which holds over ten thousand political prisoners. "They still operate the old, Soviet gulags."

"Torture in Uzbekistan isn't unusual. It happens to several thousands of people every year ... The intelligence from these torture sessions was being received by the CIA and passed onto MI6 because MI6 and the CIA share all their intelligence."

"When people were being tortured they were being told to confess to membership of Al Qaeda. They were being told to confess to have been in training camps in Afghanistan and told to confess to have met Osama Bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes. They spoke of Uzbeks having been in Al Qaeda, in training camps and meeting Osama Bin Laden. In fact we were now in 2002-2003 when we didn't know where Osama Bin Laden was and the way he managed to see thousands of Uzbeks every year it would have been easier to track him down I felt!"

"It wasn't hard to put two and two together and work out the fact that every political prisoner I knew of in Uzbekistan was tortured and the fact that we knew of what they were being forced to confess under this torture and the CIA material came up with the same, rather dodgy narrative. It wasn't hard to put two and two together and realise that the intelligence material was coming from torture."

"Before I did anything I wanted to make sure I was on safe ground so I asked my deputy to go to the American Embassy and say to them, 'My ambassador is worried because he thinks your intelligence is coming from torture.' She came back and reported to me the reply from the CIA head in the station at Tashkent [which] was, 'Yes, of course it's coming from torture, We don't see that as a problem in the context of the war on terror.'"

"I did see that as a problem, particularly when I discovered that the CIA were bringing in people, flying in people to Uzbekistan and handing them over to the Uzbek security services ... I falsely presumed that these people they were bringing in and handing over to the security services were Uzbeks who had been captured elsewhere and brought back to Uzbekistan. I did not realise that they were of many other nationalities being handed over to be tortured."

"But they were being tortured, I knew, [but] that Uzbekistan was a destination for the extraordinary rendition system from all over the world I really didn't quite realise at the time. We now know, following for example the Council of Europe's investigation that 90% of the aeroplanes that stopped at the famous secret prison in Poland had Tashkent as their next destination."

"I complained back to London. I said we're getting this evidence from torture. It's illegal, it's immoral and it's unreliable. It's vastly exaggerating the strength of Al Qaeda in Central Asia ... I got called back to London and I expected there to have a sensible talk about the merits and demerits of intelligence and how much evidence I had that it was obtained under torture. I was absolutely stunned, genuinely stunned --it changed my whole world-view in an instant-- to be told that London knew that it was coming from torture, that it wasn't illegal because our legal advisers thought that under the United Nations' convention against torture it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture as long as we didn't do the torture ourselves."

Murray's first-hand evidence clearly illustrates how Blair and the British government were complicit in Bush's brutal, fake war on terror.



Craig Murray's Blog

Uzbek Terror and the USUK

Ex-ambassador Craig Murray exposes the horrific tortures taking place in Uzbekistan and the reasons why the USUK are secretly complicit in them.

"Anyone interested in hydrocarbon resources needs to be in Uzbekistan," he observes. He highlights two incidents of torture after which he began to realize that greatly exaggerated CIA intelligence reports were resulting from them. He reports that the CIA were flying in people to be tortured.

"I knew the CIA people who were doing it," he claims.

"When Bush came into power the relationship between the US and Uzbekistan became very cosy" Now Obama is planning to warm up the relationship and to beef up the Uzbek dictator, Karimov.

"To find out that respect for international law and human rights had gone out of the window and that people I knew and worked with were prepared to justify torture and that people knew we were using torture to beef up the terrorist scare ... when something like that hits you it really does plunge you into questioning everything you ever believed in."

Al Qaeda doesn't exist admits the BBC but it keeps repeating the Big Lie

The following video is a clip from a BBC documentary in which the existence of an organisation called Al Qaeda is proven to be false. The documentary was made years ago and has been shown on the BBC several times. But its newscasters keep repeating the Big Lie about Al Qaeda.

How could this be? Simple. It is the implementation of the Goebbels Big Lie technique, ie. if you keep repeating a Big Lie enough times people will just accept it. A few might question the Big Lie and even refute it. But the vast majority will simply accept it unquestioningly.

The entire fake 'War on Terror', including the official conspiracy theory about 911, is based upon the Big Lie.

Pakistani 'terror plot suspects' to be deported rather than charged

In what looks increasingly like a politically-motivated, phoney anti-terror raid, Operation Pathway underscores the callous, racist nature of both Gordon Brown's Nu Labor rule and a politicized police force which oversees its reign of terror.

Lives are wrecked and Muslims terrorised for political gain. A Medialens commentator rightly observes:

How casually the British establishment will destroy the lives of these innocent young people (studies terminated, families harassed, deported to Pakistan where a warm welcome from the ISI awaits etc) all because they were selected, more or less at random I would imagine, for bit parts in the latest police state PR exercise.

It's disgusting. And depressing that none of the individual human beings involved in this sorry episode (on the side of the authorites) appear have courage and/or conscience in sufficient measure to do something about it - eg. REFUSING TO OBEY IMMORAL ORDERS.

Stop the March of the Police State! Act Now!

My regular readers will know that for several years, since this blog was first created after the events of 77 in July 2005, I have been warning of the erosion of liberties and the creation of police states on both sides of the Atlantic.

The fact that this is happening as a transatlantic phenomenon is no accident. Bush's fascists first performed a coup on the US electorate by stealing the presidential election in 2000. We know now that by rights the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, was the rightful winner. But there was no challenge. Bush and his band of rogues were allowed to take over the White House. And it happened again in 2004 with 'faulty' electronic voting machines! Again, the criminals were allowed to get away with it. What now in 2008?

It was clear to many of us that the events of 911 were indeed a conspiracy involving some very powerful forces in north America and elsewhere. The purpose was to so traumatize the public that there would be no struggle when a premeditated, systematic erosion of constitutional and civil liberties followed --not only in the USA but in the UK as well as in other English-speaking countries. The wholly spurious 'War on Terror' was the ideological weapon used with which to bludgeon the opposition into submission.

On the international level we were told to prepare ourselves for 'Endless War' the description used by the Bush/Blair/Brown neocons for ongoing imperialist aggression by the US/UK/Israel in what might otherwise be called Resource Wars --wars staged in order that the West might secure strategic resources such as Oil, Gas, Water and other Mineral Resources needed to keep its system turning over.

The police states created through the fake 'War on Terror' are but one side of the coin. On the other is the prospect of Endless War. Taken together, we see the nightmare prospect of an Orwellian apocalypse. It started in earnest with the mass-murders of 911 and 77. It continues with the inexorable march of the police state. Many eyes are opening to what is going on. Many more need still to be opened. Please help that process by passing this link and text to as many people as possible. There isn't a moment to lose.

Rory Winter, CAMPAIGN for a DEMOCRATIC EUROPE.

NUJ Film shows Police obstruction of Journalists
NUJ, 9 September 2008

The National Union of Journalists has released a short film highlighting some of the problems faced by journalists covering public demonstrations.

The video was released the day after the TUC in Brighton condemned the erosion of civil liberties and media freedoms in Britain. TUC unions unanimously backed a motion, proposed by the National Union of Journalists, which called for a rethink of government policies that put journalists at risk of imprisonment just for doing their job.

Speaking after the TUC vote, NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear said: “Journalism is facing grave threats in an age of intolerance. Whilst on the streets dissent is being criminalized, independent journalism is being increasingly caught in the civil liberties clampdown.”

The nine-minute video, called Press Freedom: Collateral Damage, includes examples of the police obstructing journalists in their work.


Release of the film follows numerous complaints from media workers who have experiences of the police going beyond their powers in attempting to restrict the ability of journalists to do their work. The NUJ’s motion to the TUC was part of a wider campaign for a greater recognition of press freedom by the UK government.

The motion also highlights cases of journalists, such as Robin Ackroyd and Shiv Malik, who have faced the threat of jail because of legal demands to reveal confidential source information.

In his speech to Congress, Jeremy Dear drew attention to the case of Sally Murrer, who is facing criminal prosecution for receiving information from a police source, and highlighted the problems faced by journalists attempting to cover the recent Climate Camp in Kent.

Jeremy said: “The terrorising of journalists isn’t just done by shadowy men in balaclavas, but also by governments and organisations who use the apparatus of the law or state authorities to suppress and distort the information they do not want the public to know and to terrorise the journalists involved through injunctions, threats to imprisonment and financial ruin.

“The use of the Terrorism Act and SOCPA increasingly criminalize not just those who protest but those deemed to be giving the oxygen of publicity to such dissent. Journalists’ material and their sources are increasingly targeted by those who wish to pull a cloak of secrecy over their actions.”

The speech concluded: “This isn’t over-zealous policing this is a co-ordinated and systematic abuse of media freedom – and we must expose it, challenge it and act against those who undermine the rights of photographers, journalists and media workers.

“And we must do so because if whistleblowers and sources fear speaking out, if photographers and journalists cannot probe the dark corners of business, politics or human rights, the ability of the media – already under threat from concentration of ownership and cost-cutting – to hold power to account, to expose wrongdoing, to provide the information on which citizens can make informed decisions about their lives will be seriously compromised.

“The Terrorism Act and SOCPA are not sophisticated security policies – they are the blunt instruments of an intolerant government.

“As if in some Orwellian nightmare the Ministry of Freedom tells us that the price we must pay for peace and liberty at home is not just a war in Iraq – not just the billions spent on war – but, in the wake of the London bombings, is the fingerprinting of council workers and the covert surveillance of M&S workers. It is ID cards and 42-day detention. It is curbs on the right to protest, the civil contingencies act and it is the extension of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, a snoopers’ charter giving access to personal texts, emails and internet use.

“The price is too high. Less liberty does not imply greater security. It never has.

“Our movement has been at the forefront of the great struggles for human and civil rights over the past century. In this age of intolerance new struggles must be waged and we must lead that fight.”

Propaganda
Craig Murray's blog
September 10, 2008

I have been worrying about the serious deterioration of civil liberties in the UK for five years now, but a small incident last night convinced me we are living in a country that must be classified as "Not free". I was travelling to the theatre on the tube, and the large majority of passengers were shrouded by copies of either London Lite or the London Paper. Some thirty copies of each banner headline screamed shrilly its message of fear through the train: "Five Suicide Bombers on the Loose in London!" "Jet Terror Plot!" "Terror Jury Holiday Farce Resulted in Acquittals!"

The propaganda, which reflected uncritically the briefing the Security Services and Home Office have been manically pumping out since the non-existence of the "Bigger than 9/11" jet plot was confirmed, was so stark and so divorced from any connection to the truth, that I am convinced we are already in effect living in a totalitarian state where the government controls the population through fear with brutal efficiency and with absolutely no regard to the truth. The government had contrived to turn a major blow for its "War on Terror" scaremongering into a vehicle to ramp up that scaremongering.

The Lite told of there still being bombers around from the "Jet Terror Plot" and gave no indication whatsoever that the jury had decided the jet plot did not exist. Indeed it claimed shamelessly that the three terrorists convicted of conspiracy to murder had been planning to bring down planes - a direct lie.

The London Paper was still more worrying, because it put detail into the line the odious security service spokesman Frank "Goebbels" Gardner has been pumping out on the BBC: juries are unreliable. It said that the failure to convict in the trial was due to interruptions for a holiday for the jurors and because of an injury to a juror in a golf accident. The clear trend of the briefing coming from the government is towards the abolition of jury trials in terrorist cases: Diplock courts.

Meantime in London two men are on trial for "terrorism" because they attended a demonstration at the Uzbek Embassy against the hideous Uzbek regime, at which red paint was thrown at the Embassy to symbolise the blood of Karimov's many thousands of victims. Such protest as paint-throwing should, I think, be illegal, but given events like the Andijan massacre of many hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, I have huge sympathy for those who undertake civil disobedience in the Uzbek case. It has nothing to do with terrorism, but under the notorious Section 58 of the Terrorism Act there is real danger of conviction and heavy sentences.

These are critical times: all good men and women must fight hard against the closing in of the system upon us.