Armchair Revolutionaries

I don't really like Galloway's politics but he's right on this one...

This is a recording from a radio phone-in, he demolishes the guy :-) quite funny...

Thanks for all the replies to my Anarchy question,alot of them have made me evaluate,how seriously i took the concept in the late 1970's,i now think it was just a clever marketing tool by McClaren et al.But onto this democracy question.The so called election in Zimbabwe am I just being naive to feel angry about this affront to humanity,When the U.S. elections went on and zeb bush stopped people voting,Palestinians vote for Hamas and are roundly condemned for not voting the way the U.S,U.K and Israel wanted and even the British electoral system is flawed.I suppose I want to know what democracy is,Is it a Green Zone in Iraq,Is it Hamas,is it zimbabwe.Or are we in the west hypocrites who always cry democracy ,but is our democracy flawed?

George Galloway MP has just sent the following letter to the Home Secretary, concerning the actions of a police agent provocateur, who has been identified as Inspector Chris Dreyfus, at the anti-Bush demonstration.

To Rt Hon Jacqui Smith

Home Secretary

Urgent

Dear Home Secretary,

As you may be aware I wrote to Sir Ian Blair and Mayor Johnson calling for an inquiry into the policing of the demonstration against George W Bush on Sunday 15 June in Parliament Square/Whitehall. I enclose a copy of my letter to him. I should say I have since been visited by Superintendent Tim Jackson and have given him an account of the basis of my original complaint.

I did tell him, however, that subsequent newspaper revelations may indicate a far more sinister involvement of the police in actual law-breaking on the demonstration which sought to provoke exactly the ugly scenes which eventually ensued.

Since my meeting with the superintendent yesterday this issue has become clearer and obliges me both as a Member of Parliament and as a close witness to these events to write to you as Home Secretary demanding a full inquiry by the government into the extraordinary events and policy decisions surrounding the policing of this demonstration.

You will be aware by now of an article in the Mail on Sunday of 22 June by Yasmin Whittaker-Khan in which she recounts her shock at meeting a man, whom she knew to be a policeman from a previous encounter, who seemed determined to bring about a confrontation between the demonstrators and the police.

This man for at least 30 minutes was stood right next to me at the front of the protest and it is inconceivable that no police photograph will confirm this. I say this because several police stills cameramen and at least one video cameraman were constantly filming.

Rapped ... Insp Chris DreyfusI can now confirm that this man was Chris Dreyfus, an inspector in the police.

This man, to my direct knowledge, committed four criminal offences during the 30 minutes or so he stood next to me. First, he repeatedly chanted the arcane, antiquated Americana, “Kill the pigs!” This is a clear incitement to violence, indeed murder. If a Muslim demonstrator had been chanting it, say, outside the Danish Embassy, he would likely now be in prison. Secondly, he repeatedly (crushing me in the process) attempted to charge the crush barriers and the police line behind them. Thirdly, he repeatedly exhorted others so to do. Fourthly, he instructed a young demonstrator on the correct way to uncouple a crush barrier, which was successfully achieved and was subsequently thrown at the police, and was presumably one of the justifications for the deployment of a riot squad which eventually waded in to the protesters.

Home Secretary, there can hardly a more grave indictment of the conduct of the police force in a democratic country than this. People in the labour movement have often mythologised the state’s use of agents provocateurs throughout my 40 years experience and no doubt long before. But, to my recollection, we have never caught one red-handed before.

This inspector’s criminal actions must place all the other in themselves legitimate complaints about police tactics in a new light. I wrote to Sir Ian – and to Mayor Johnson – questioning the competence of the policing on that day. It now seems that what happened was a deliberate conspiracy to bring about scenes of violent disorder, seen around the world and for purposes on which we can only speculate.

You, however, have clear responsibility to get to the heart of this matter. I do hope you will begin to do so without delay. In any case,

Yours sincerely,

George Galloway MP

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2533

Found this on a now defuct blog. Thought I'd share it with you guys.

----

Here is a question for all those who accept the authority of those who run our society: If you owned a large and successful private business, like Virgin Airlines for example, do you think that anyone in public office could to run it as well as or as profitably as the people who are already running it? Putting it more bluntly, can you think of any named individual in public office who would be a benefit to your successful company? I can't.

It is a strange and mysterious thing that in our society at present, only those who are the least competent to run a successful business, present themselves to the general public as being the only ones clever enough to run a whole country.

Throughout history, well before the concept of democracy had taken root, the fortunes of the country as a whole were entirely dependant on the competence and good-will of those in charge. A bad or useless ruler meant bad times for the general public. A good ruler meant, insofar as the limitations of science and technology would permit, good times for the general public.

Why then, in a period when the country as a whole is not subject to the vagaries of War Lords or hereditary potentates, should we still suffer the consequences of stupid and incompetent rulers? As stated before in this blog, a free society will always act in its own interests so the answer must be that our current form of democracy does not allow for government by consent or government by approval. What we have in fact, is government by the least able; much the same as we did before the dawn of democracy.

It is significant that in the distant past, before democratic rule, virtually all the social difficulties encountered by the ordinary citizen were as a result of forces that were beyond the ability of anyone, even the most learned, to control. Sickness and disease, pestilence and plagues, natural disasters, ignorance and illiteracy, food shortages and malnutrition and most of all, the shear hard work of life without harnessed mechanical power.

By contrast, all the social difficuties we endure today are as a result of forces created entirely by our own ruling elite. Apart from death itself, there are no examples of problems which are the result of things beyond our control, all our existing social problems being self inflicted. Thus we are forced to live under a paradox; a system of false democracy which simultaneously causes most of our problems and claims to solve them.

In reality, the administration which so often causes the major socio-political difficulties we, the general public have to endure, cannot possibly find a solution. They have not the competence to do it. There are so many examples of this damaging contradiction that it is impossible to decide where to begin. Education is probably the most easily identified. Dismantling the Secondary and Grammar School system was brought about entirely by government dictate. It was not a policy favoured by the majority of the public but the public had to endure the consequences of this blunder. Having caused a massive educational problem, our administrators insist that they alone have the expertise to solve it. They clearly don't.

Examples like this are common-place. The reorganization of the Health Service; our rail network, dismantled in the 60's now bitterly regretted; the tampering with pensions by government causing long-term financial difficulties; the crippling cost of housing caused by unrestrained and irresponsible human migration; the Third-world shortage of skilled labour caused by political neo-colonialism; the destitution of third-world farmers while our political masters tighten the food cartel created in Europe; the over-priced farmland caused by mis-conceived subsidies; the causing of the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland; the gigantic losses following the Foot & Mouth outbreak; ill-conceived wars in the Middle East. The list goes on and on, yet the culprits causing all these problems just keep going, making more mistake as each day passes while all the while, assuring us that they are the only people who can solve these problems.

These not a Party political issues; all Parties make the same type of mistakes. They won't stop. Nothing will stop them because they have the power to override, dismiss and ignore the Will of the people. This is not democracy. Absolutely none of these problems would exist if the General public had had anything to do with it.

I was a Punk and had the White A Encircled on my back,And it is true i lived a chaotic life,but was it Anarchy.looking back we thought it was,but in reality.It was anarchy in a relatively stable society.My question is can Anarchy work,can society function without laws?

Can anyone explain the following information? Why would the same company (well, their affiliates) donate to separate causes? For it to have any meaning, wouldn't they at least have to match each other? Or are they philathropically donating money to ensure that each candidate has a fair chance (ahem)?

Top Ten John McCain Campaign Donors

1. Merrill Lynch $230,310
2. Citigroup Inc. $219,551
3. Blank Rome LLP $189,226
4. Greenberg Traurig LLP $157,487
5. AT&T Inc. $153,005
6. Goldman Sachs $139,520
7. Morgan Stanley $136,651
8. JPMorgan Chase & Co. $129,400
9. Credit Suisse Group $110,725
10. Lehman Brothers $96,050

Total : $1,561,925

Top Ten Barack Obama Campaign Donors

1. Goldman Sachs - $571,330
2. University of California - $437,236
3. UBS AG - $364,806
4. JPMorgan Chase & Co - $362,207
5. Citigroup Inc - $358,054
6. National Amusements Inc - $320,750
7. Lehman Brothers - $318, 647
8. Google Inc - $309,514
9. Harvard University - $309,025
10. Sidley Austin LLP - $294,245

Total: $3,645,814

[source: Human Events magazine online]

Hi to everybody...here's an interesting letter in the Independent today...having read the ooklets supplied by the Independent on Christianity, Islam and Judaism, it is quite clear that the fundamental differences between these three religions are irreconcilable...they may be able to live alongside one an another, but the desire of each one must be for domination of the world as far as belief in a deity is concerned and that bodes ill for any long term peaceful solution...
Letters: Blair's fluffy thinking

Blair's fluffy thinking ignores fundamental religious rifts.

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Sir: Far from making the case that we need to learn to live with "a diverse religious ecology", Tony Blair, in his article (14 June) plugging his Faith Foundation, merely succeeds in reminding us of the intellectual poverty of his signature "focus-group" approach.

Despite any good intentions, unless you degrade religious practice to the status of a lifestyle option, religion sets itself up as a revealed truth. Unfortunately for Mr Blair, whose foundation will apparently seek to avoid such pesky issues as "doctrinal inquiries", the Jewish faith holds that the Messiah has yet to come, the Christians assert that he has already come, in the person of Jesus Christ, and the Muslims accept that Jesus was a prophet, but believe that the Koran is God's last word on the subject, a view denied by both Jews and Christians.

That's a pretty fundamental disagreement. If you sincerely believe in any one religion, you have to believe that the others are wrong, not a good recipe for living peacefully with your neighbours. This may be the reason why a man who has gone out of his way to adopt Roman Catholicism, the most sternly doctrinal of all the Christian sects, chooses to escape from the dilemma by presenting himself as "a person of faith". We should take him at his word for once: the dictionary definition of faith as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" sounds just about right for the man who took us to Iraq on the back of a dodgy dossier.

In fact, perhaps we could even forgive him for so modesty naming the institute after himself: as a monument to fluffy thinking and misplaced concern, it is the perfect symbol for his failure as Prime Minister to deliver "education, education, education", the only thing that will ever stand between us and a return to the faith-based bigotry of the Middle Ages.

Simon Prentis

Hi to everybody...grim article here by Mark Steel which is worth reading...note the fortune made by the armaments industry...it's mind boggling...
Mark Steel: If the poor of Africa are hungry, send them arms.

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

It's so difficult, apparently, to work out how to solve the food shortages in Africa. Because the price of food has just gone up, the way prices do sometimes, caught by a freak gust of wind or flare from the sun or something and whoosh, up they go, whether it's oil or an Olympic Games or rice and it's just bad luck.

Combined with the growing population, it means there's no simple way of stopping millions of people starving. But fortunately the same laws don't apply to other essential items, such as arms. That's why you never get reports saying: "What with the booming population and rising prices, there just aren't enough weapons to go round.

"The crisis is so deep there are now allies of America without access to a single cluster bomb, and in one region of the Congo warlords have to share one flamethrower between two. Charities have sent out truckloads of Tomahawk missiles to Uzbekistan but the queues of government officials go back across the hills, and the fear is that for some this shipment may have come too late."

And aid programmes require summits lasting several days, followed by statements about tying aid to trade deals, that begin: "You don't solve the problem of hunger simply by giving people food."

So while getting food to the hungry seems impossible, there has been a 37 per cent increase in global arms spending in the past 10 years, which raised last year's tally to $1,204bn. Those of you who don't understand economics might wonder why there can't be an agreement to only spend $1,203bn instead, then wander round Sainsbury's buying a billion dollars' worth of food and take it to people who are starving, especially as Sainsbury's currently have a special offer of a free box of Shredded Wheat if you spend a billion dollars or more.

It's arguable there isn't a food shortage at all. According to the World Hunger Education Service, there are now 17 per cent more calories produced per person each day than there were 30 years ago. The problem is that, for example, in India, while 48 per cent of children under five are malnourished, in 2004 they exported one-and-a-half-billion dollars' worth of rice to meet trade agreements.

But instead the most common solution offered is that Africa has to attract the free market, and then trade itself out of hunger. Kofi Annan, on Monday's Newsnight agreed with this, in his amiable helpless way. There was no alternative, he said, to attracting Chinese trade, regardless of their human rights records or whether that trade will encourage the dictators they trade with. Because that's what the starving need – people who are prepared to make a few quid out of them.

The only flaw is that these people are already the ones who've wrecked the place. In Nigeria entire villages were uprooted to make room for Shell Oil. In Tanzania the water supply was sold off to a consortium, which spent a huge chunk of Tanzanian public money and was so disastrous even the World Bank kicked them out. In South Africa tens of thousands were left without electricity after privatisation.

But the more chaos these companies cause, the more we're told they're the only answer. Maybe that's how these companies advertise, with little boxes in the Yellow Pages that say "Balfour Beatty – making disaster come faster". Or they send out leaflets that say: "Not long ago no one had heard of the Shanto region of Ethiopia. But since Unimax Ltd. forced the farmers to make cheap coffee for export, many inhabitants now feature regularly on Christmas charity videos! Unimax – we put the star into starvation."

What a depressing argument it is, that help can only be attracted if it promises to make multinationals a fortune. No one else is expected to think like this, to see dying children and think: "Hmm, I would help out, but what's in it for me?"

Maybe there should be a special edition of Comic Relief for businessmen, that goes: "Well you all saw that harrowing film presented by Lenny Henry, and since that was made, eight of those children have died of Aids. Which is why it's vital that you ring right now and secure the rights to provide water to the place. Because the World Bank have forced the country to sell off its supply and you'll make a PACKET, but if they're all dead they won't be able to pay so it will be too late. Now here's Gaby with a man dressed as a giraffe who'll tell you how to make 3 million quid buying mangoes from Uganda and selling them straight back to them again."

Hi to everybody...hubby told me this morning that none of the other parties are contesting the by-election when David Davis stands on the single issue of the 42 days incarceration...how do you have an election with only one candidate? And what does he hope to gain from it if it's uncontested? This makes it a protest without backbone...he's got to be re-elected, will get his previous position back no doubt as the Conservative Party needs him apparently as the voice of the ordinary man with his non public school background and the son of a single mother...so what will he achieve?
These political games leave me mystified...it becomes farcical if it's uncontested and basically a pointless protest...why is the Labour candidate not standing against him? If, as has been suggested, 65% of the public agree with the 42 days, he could be defeated on this particular single issue, and he only had a 5000 majority...I suppose that's fairly large but still could be undone if standing on this contentious issue alone....
Robin Cook resigned when we entered the Iraq War and I respected him greatly for that, but this resignation falls far short of that honourable resignation...this strikes me as contrived rather than genuine with this latest turn up for the books...a non-contested election...just plain nonsense in my opinion....

(This group seems like the right place for this)

This song is basically Country Joe McDonald's song that he played at Woodstock, but I changed the words slightly to be about the Middle East situation rather than Vietnam. I did this a few years ago and there are a few mistakes in the playing and singing because I did it in 1 take after a minimum of rehearsal.

Tom.

Hi to everybody...did anybody here catch Panorama Special with Jane Corbin last night at 9? It was a documentary about the missing $23 billion dollars in Iraq that has disappeared into the pockets of war profiteers and many are directly connected to Bush and his government....could have done without the interspersed old movie clips which were an unnecessary filler, perhaps to lighten an extremely heavy subject, but, apart from that, it was a real eye opener.
Youtube will probably have it soon, but it's not there yet...and surprise, surprise, the BBC watch again isn't showing it...maybe a bit too soon, but I think it should be up there and available to see for anybody who missed it...

Hi to everybody...does anybody think that Gordon Brown may be being deliberately sabotaged by the media and his enemies?
Two politicians might stand as Prime Ministers to replace him...one being Ed Balls who is a member of the Bildenburg Group and David Milliband, who is Jewish and has strong connections to Israel...either of these two individuals would be unacceptable as Prime Ministers through these connections. Brown is not sympathetic to George Bush's regime and, as such, would possibly oppose any attacks on Iran, which is being proposed prior to the end of Bush's reign in the White House...
I still believe the Labour Party was hijacked after the very sudden and unexpected death of John Smith by Tony Blair, and is in danger of being hijacked again if we don't watch out...Al Gore was cheated out of the Presidency by Bush and his second term was assured by support of the far right wing moral majority in the USA. That was to all intents and purposes, a coup.
If a vote of no confidence in Gordon Brown is put forward at some point in the near future, we should be extremely careful who the Labour Party elects as its new leader. I think our country is standing on the edge of a very dangerous precipice and we should be aware of it...

one to watch.

9pm tonight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7444083.stm

Hi to everybody...as we're now seeing videos of this group, I thought I'd give you a list of the members of it as that makes it somewhat more real rather than a shadowy unknown group...
Bilderberg Group

ORGANIZATION

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Group holds "by invitation only" annual meetings of the rich and powerful. About two-thirds of the attendees are European, the rest American. Informally named for the site of the group's first meeting, the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands.

Name Occupation Birth Death Known for
Umberto Agnelli
Business
1-Nov-1934 27-May-2004 Chairman of Fiat, 2003-04
Fouad Ajami
Author
9-Sep-1945 Director of Middle East Studies, SAIS

Paul Allaire
Business
21-Jul-1938 Twice CEO of Xerox
Graham T. Allison
Scholar
23-Mar-1940 Kennedy School of Government
Ed Balls
Politician
25-Feb-1967 British MP, Normanton
Robert L. Bartley
Editor
12-Oct-1937 10-Dec-2003 Editor of the Wall Street Journal, 1979-2003

Evan Bayh
Politician
26-Dec-1955 US Senator from Indiana
Queen Beatrix I
Royalty
31-Jan-1938 Queen of the Netherlands
Prince Bernhard
Royalty
29-Jun-1911 1-Dec-2004 Prince of the Netherlands
Carl Bildt
Head of State
15-Jul-1949 Foreign Minister of Sweden
Conrad Black
Business
25-Aug-1944 Rapacious newspaper mogul
John Browne
Business
20-Feb-1948 CEO of British Petroleum, 1995-2007

John H. Bryan
Business
5-Oct-1936 CEO of Sara Lee, 1975-2000
William F. Buckley
Columnist
24-Nov-1925 27-Feb-2008 National Review
William Bundy
Government
24-Sep-1917 6-Oct-2000 Cold War advisor to JFK, LBJ
Peter Carington
Government
6-Jun-1919 UK Foreign Secretary, 1979-82
Ahmed Chalabi
Government
30-Oct-1944 Prominent on the Iraqi Provisional Council

Bill Clinton
Head of State
19-Aug-1946 42nd US President, 1993-2001
Marshall A. Cohen
Business
c. 1935 CEO of Molson, 1988-96
Timothy C. Collins
Business
c. 1956 Private equity, Ripplewood Holdings

Jon Corzine
Politician
1-Jan-1947 Governor of New Jersey
Claes Dahlbäck
Business
c. 1948 CEO of Investor AB, 1978-99
Paul G. Desmarais, Jr.
Business
3-Jul-1954 Co-CEO of Power Corporation of Canada

John Deutch
Government
27-Jul-1938 CIA Director, 1995-96
Chris Dodd
Politician
27-May-1944 US Senator from Connecticut
Thomas E. Donilon
Attorney
c. 1955 O'Melvany and Myers
Esther Dyson
Business
14-Jul-1951 EDventure Holdings, former ICANN director

Dianne Feinstein
Politician
22-Jun-1933 US Senator from California
Martin Feldstein
Economist
25-Nov-1939 Reagan economist
Anthony S. Fell
Business
c. 1941 Chairman, RBC Capital Markets
Stephen Friedman
Business
21-Dec-1937 Former Partner, Goldman Sachs
Thomas Friedman
Journalist
20-Jul-1953 New York Times
Melinda Gates
Philanthropist
15-Aug-1964 Married to Bill Gates
Timothy F. Geithner
Government
18-Aug-1961 President of the New York Fed
David Gergen
Columnist
9-May-1942 Advisor to Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton

Paul Gigot
Columnist
c. 1955 Wall Street Journal columnist
Donald E. Graham
Journalist
22-Apr-1945 Washington Post CEO
Katharine Graham
Publisher
16-Jun-1917 17-Jul-2001 Washington Post publisher, 1966-79

Richard Haass
Government
1951 President, Council on Foreign Relations

Chuck Hagel
Politician
4-Oct-1946 US Senator from Nebraska
Richard C. Holbrooke
Diplomat
24-Apr-1941 US Ambassador to UN, 1998-2001
Allan Hubbard
Economist
8-Sep-1947 George W. Bush economist
Merit E. Janow
Educator
13-May-1958 Professor of Int'l Affairs, Columbia University

Peter Jennings
Journalist
29-Jul-1938 7-Aug-2005 Former anchor, ABC World News Tonight

James A. Johnson
Business
24-Dec-1943 CEO of Fannie Mae, 1991-98
J. Bennett Johnston
Politician
10-Jun-1932 US Senator from Louisiana, 1972-97

Vernon Jordan
Business
15-Aug-1935 Advisor to Bill Clinton
Henry Kissinger
Government
27-May-1923 Secretly bombed Cambodia
Andrew S. B. Knight
Journalist
1-Nov-1939 Editor of The Economist, 1974-86

Henry Kravis
Business
6-Jan-1944 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Marie-Josée Kravis
Economist
11-Sep-1949 President of MoMA
Bill Kristol
Columnist
23-Dec-1952 Editor of The Weekly Standard
Jan Leschly
Business
? CEO of SmithKline Beecham, 1994-2000

William J. Luti
Military
c. 1952 NSC Defense Policy Adviser
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Administrator
1946 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Charles Mathias
Politician
24-Jul-1922 US Senator from Maryland, 1969-87

William J. McDonough
Business
c. 1934 President of New York Fed, 1993-2003

George J. Mitchell
Politician
20-Aug-1933 US Senator from Maine, 1980-95
Bill Moyers
Journalist
6-Jun-1934 NOW with Bill Moyers
Craig Mundie
Business
c. 1949 Microsoft CTO
George Pataki
Politician
24-Jun-1945 Governor of New York, 1995-2006

Richard Perle
Government
16-Sep-1941 aka Prince of Darkness
Fredrik Reinfeldt
Head of State
4-Aug-1965 Prime Minister of Sweden
Bill Richardson
Politician
15-Nov-1947 Governor of New Mexico
Rozanne L. Ridgway
Diplomat
22-Aug-1935 Asst. Secy. of State for Europe, 1985-89

Don Riegle
Politician
4-Feb-1938 US Senator from Michigan, 1976-95

David Rockefeller
Business
12-Jun-1915 Founder of the Trilateral Commission

Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Business
2-Jul-1954 Telecom executive
John Shad
Government
27-Jun-1923 Jul-1994 SEC Chairman, 1981-87
Robert B. Shapiro
Business
4-Aug-1938 CEO of Monsanto, 1995-2000
George Soros
Business
12-Aug-1930 Hungarian financial speculator
Lesley Stahl
Journalist
16-Dec-1941 60 Minutes
James B. Steinberg
Government
c. 1951 Deputy National Security Advisor, 1997-2001

Dennis Stevenson
Business
19-Jul-1945 Chairman of HBOS
Peter Sutherland
Government
25-Apr-1946 First Director General of the WTO

Jean-Claude Trichet
Business
20-Dec-1942 President, European Central Bank

John Vinocur
Journalist
? International Herald Tribune correspondent

John C. Whitehead
Business
1922 US Deputy Secretary of State, 1985-89

Daniel Yergin
Author
6-Feb-1947 The Prize
Robert Zoellick
Government
25-Jul-1953 World Bank president

And that's it...a bunch of rich and powerful individuals....but capable of bringing in a One World government...not sure about that...

In regards to the post below (The crimes of Atheists), I suggest watching the following video to see what Christianity, the War on Terror and the world's Banking systems have in common... It'll really open your eyes!!!

Atheists say that religion is behind much of the crimes, terrorism and wars. They point to 9/11 and some of the conflicts around the world that have a religious nature. They point to the crusades and the inquisition and say the world would be a better place if God was not part of it.

Atheists cry crocodile tears about the crimes of religion, crimes that often go back 500 or 1000 years. The Spanish inquisition over about 300 years killed about 2000 people - that’s 2000 too many, but ....

it's nothing compared to the crimes of atheist regimes, which occurred not in ancient times but during the last century. Mao in China - 60+ Million, Stalin in Russia - 40 million, pol pot, castro, kim jong-il... the crimes of Christianity are the crimes of the past, the crimes of atheism are still very much with us.

Hi to everybody...following on from the David Shayler video, here's an interesting article on the front page of the Independent today...

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

The below video, 'Mind The Gap' is the creation of David Shayler, who is a former MI5 intelligence operative.

David was sacked from MI5 for attempting to reveal information about corruption and other serious wrong doings by the British Government and their Intelligence services. These included the assasination of foriegn leaders and killing of innocent people. He now lives in exile in a secret location in France, after being ordered out of Britain by the Government for breaching the National Secrets Act.

 Watch a higher-quality version here

In this video, David risks all once again and returns to Britain to expose the British Government for it's involvement in the London bombings which took place on 7th July 2005.

Watch this video and then decide for yourself, wether you should believe anything that the British Government tells you ever again.

Be afraid... be very afraid ...

If you'd like to watch a similar film over at iBanter, called ' Ludicrous Diversion ', which tells you at the end how you can help us in the fight for the truth, then click here ...