New World Next Week
Oct 12, 2014
Sept 25, 2014
The FBI believes it has identified the masked Islamic State militant responsible for beheading Westerners in ISIS videos, but law enforcement will not reveal the identity of the man known only as “Jihadi John,” agency director James Comey told reporters.
“I believe that we have identified him, I’m not going to tell you who I believe it is,” Comey said. He also declined to detail the militant’s nationality, despite the fact that the man speaks with a British accent ‒ likely from the London area, according to The Wire, which called the news “a major step to taking down the terrorist network.”
[hat tip: DJ Rubiconski]
Sept 19, 2014
Scots have voted to stay in the UK, following an intense campaign which saw both pro-independence and pro-union campaign groups scraping for last-minute support. The ‘No’ campaign rallied 55 percent of votes against 45 percent ‘Yes’ votes. FULL STORY: http://on.rt.com/9lwhmq
by James Corbett
The Corbett Report
Sept 17, 2014
This article originally appeared in The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter on September 13, 2014. To subscribe to the newsletter and become a member of The Corbett Report website, please sign up for a monthly or annual membership here.
This week the Scots will go to the polls to answer a deceptively simple question:
“Should Scotland be an independent country?”
The question’s simplicity belies the enormity of what is being asked. In centuries past, such a sovereignty proclamation would only have been delivered at the end of a sword after the spilling of much blood. Today the fates of nations are decided by referendum…sort of.
You see, the question is extremely simple, and, in the words of at least one Canadian commentator who finds its precision refreshing after the convoluted tangle of Quebec’s sovereignty referendum questions, “crystal clear.” But is it really? After all, what does it mean to be an “independent country?” Does that mean passport sharing with the UK? Military association? An independent currency? EU membership? NATO membership? Will Scotland keep an allegiance to the crown? Will it become a commonwealth nation? There are no answers to these questions because none of those details have been worked out yet. For now, nationalist politicians are content to leave voters to fill in the blanks.
But these are not trivial questions to be asking. In fact, they go to the very heart of what is meant by “sovereignty” and “independence.” What’s more, Scotland, insofar as it is fast becoming the envy (and the role model) for independence movements around the globe, could potentially be setting precedents for future events in Catalonia or Veneto or elsewhere. In effect, they are setting down the definition of freedom for others to strive toward, so their answer to this string of questions might make the difference between true independence and what could very easily be just another form of dependence.
To see how this is the case, let’s examine some of these questions.
Geneva Business Insider
Sept 10, 2014
This month on the Geneva Business Insider, James and David preview next week’s Scottish independence vote and the various political forces that are clashing as the Scottish people go to the polls. We discuss the push for NATO membership, EU membership and a central bank for “free” Scotland and how it undermines the entire push for independence. We also examine the latest on the ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine and the specter of a cyber-hacking bank bailout.
VIDEO — Syria Ready To Cooperate With Zionist USA UK & France – Morris – Joining dots is Like Arab Genocide
Aug 25, 2014
Results for Syria ready to cooperate with USA: http://bit.ly/YVTHBo
Paypal donations to:
Bitcoin donations to: 14oA2h4TpLHr6ejQzH6NjEh4KPM6ReGd3z
Aug 5, 2014
TCP : British Baroness and cabinet member Sayeeda Warsi resigned from her position Tuesday morning, protesting the British government’s Gaza policy regarding the conflict between Israel and Gaza.
“With deep regret, I have this morning written to the Prime Minister (and) tendered my registration. I can no longer support Govt, policy on #Gaza”, wrote Warsi on her official Twitter account.
“Can people stop trying to justify the killing of children? Whatever our policies there can never be justification”, surly only regret #Gaza” Warsi added, on her Twitter account, criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza.
British Labour leader Ed Miliband on his official Twitter feed seconded Warsi, posting ” I think Baroness Warsi has acted with principle and integrity. People around Britain have been shocked by the suffering we have seen i Gaza”.
On 4 September 2012 Warsi was appointed as Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Minister for Faith and Communities. Also, Warsi is a former co-chair of the Conservative Party. Warso was also the first female Muslim minister to be appointed in David Cameron’s cabinet.
Miliband stresses on Cameron’s failure to condemn Israel’s unacceptable killing of Gaza civilians on Sunday, according to the guardian. “Speaking out is necessary to piut the pressure on Israel as of course there must also be pressure on Hamas, a terrorist organization, to end this violence”, said Miliband.
Miliband also told LBc Friday that the British government is “in the wrong place in its approach to Israel’s military operation in Gaza”.
More than 1,650 Palestinians, most of which are civilians, were killed since the beginning of the ground attack of Israel in the Gaza Strip; meanwhile, 63 Israeli soldiers and 3 civilians were killed according to various news websites.
There were protests across Britain in July 18 against the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli military’s operation against the Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, calling for fair, unbiased and contextual reporting of the events.
The Cairo Post - additional editing by Christof Lehmann,nsnbc international.
Dear nsnbc readers. We have added the complete letter of resignation of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi below. The letter is from the official Twitter account of Baroness Warsi. Please click on the image of the letter to view it in full size in another browser window.
On Sunday Aug 8th 2004, the Canadian Association of Veterans obtained funding to put up and display three statues in Memorial Park in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The statues are located near the corner of Osborne St. N and Memorial Blvd, north of Memorial Park. It is located north of the Masonic Legislative building as well.
It is dedicated to Peacekeepers who have lost their lives in the service of the country of Canada since the signing of the United Nations Charter on Oct 24th 1945.
The statue is called Peacekeepers Cairn. Cairn is defined as a heap of stones set up as a landmark, monument, tombstone, etc.
The three pillars are said to represent the Army, Navy, Air Force (and supposedly also the RCMP).
The pillar on the left is 10 feet tall, has a 45 degree beveled top to show a symbol from the front of a Peacekeeping medal depicting three soldiers. One soldier is an unarmed United Nations Military Observer, holding a pair of binoculars. A second soldier, a woman, shoulders a radio, while the third stands guard with a rifle. Above them flies a dove, the international symbol of peace. This side of the medal also bears the inscriptions PEACEKEEPING and SERVICE DE LA PAIX (translated to service out of peace), together with two maple leafs. The word“PAST” is engraved vertically into the front.
The center pillar is 12 feet tall with a 45 degree beveled top to show the United Nations symbol engraved into the stone. The symbol of the words UN on the top of a map of the world with what I construe as, it consits of longitude and latitude lines. The logo has a border of leaves, 7 on the left and 6 on the right. The word “PRESENT” is engraved into the pillar vertically.
The pillar to the right of center statue is 8 feet tall with the same bevel as the others and showing the Peacekeeping medal, reversed side. The medal’s reverse shows the cipher of Her Majesty the Queen on a maple leaf surrounded by two sprigs of laurel and the word CANADA. The word “FUTURE” engraved vertically into the front of the pillar.
Click HERE for the source (description of symbolism of peace medal).
So in essence the cairn depicts the Canadian Army’s past, present and future is aligned with UN peacekeeping missions and that the Canadian Armed Forces is essentially an army for the British Monarchy. After all that should come as no surprise to civilians who know section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada which defines the “Canadian Forces” as the armed forces of Her Majesty
Are UN peacekeeping missions really about peacekeeping?
Canada has been in over 30 major peacekeeping missions since 1956 but are the peacekeeping missions all about perpetuating peace? It’s hard to tell unless one gets information first hand from a Canadian soldier or a veteran that’s been on a UN peacekeeping mission. The Canadian Awareness Network had a private interview with a veteran who was deployed to Cyprus and Bosnia under a UN peacekeeping mission. Here’s a quote of what he has to say about UN peacekeeping missions,he would like to remain anonymous:
“I have done a couple peacekeeping missions,I did Cyprus in the middle east. That was more of a peacekeeping mission there for sure. But then we go to Bosnia thinking it’s the same type of deal like Cyprus but it wasn’t.” He was there to give food to civilians.
He then told me in Cyprus there was very little combat saying, “in the middle east… it was one killing in the whole 7 or 8 months that you were there where in Bosnia there were peacekeepers getting shot at everyday… United Nations said it was peacekeeping but you know in the eyes of the soldiers it was definitely far from that. From what they’re trying tell the media and what it actually was to me were two different things.” He describes it to be missions that involve combat of defense He said many soldiers killed their selves from the trauma’s they endure.
An article from OpenCanada.org goes into detail how UN peacekeeping mission can be full out war below:
Steve Saideman | June 13, 2012 OpenCanada.org
“…Peacekeeping missions have always risked violence, and we will continue to see violence in the future, even if less than before. The key factor that needs to be considered, which is frequently ignored, is this: When it comes to peacekeeping efforts, the enemy forces have a say in how things play out – and theirs is the deciding vote.
What does this mean? In any conflict that peacekeepers might enter, there are multiple sides and usually more than one set of actors hostile to the accord. (After all, if an agreement produced consensus, there would be little need for outsiders to intervene.) These “spoilers,” as they are known, may or may not resort to violence, but the threat that they may do so means that the outside interveners must be prepared to be violent themselves. This is basic deterrence logic: You need to be able to threaten to impose costs to deter a potential aggressor, AND you need to use force if deterrence breaks down.
The dramatic failure of the UN mission in Rwanda as the genocide started was partly due to the weakness of the UN peacekeeping effort. The genocidaires chose to be violent, voting for war against the rest of Rwanda. They started it off by killing a number of peacekeepers. As the UN mission was poorly equipped, it did not defend itself, nor did it protect anyone else. Indeed, the lesson drawn by potential spoilers from Mogadishu and Rwanda is this: Start by killing the peacekeepers, who may then flee.
Those nostalgic of past peacekeeping forget the violence the Canadians not only faced in such circumstances, but also deployed. In Croatia, the Canadians battled with the Croatian army, which was engaged in war crimes against the Serb populace. This was the biggest battle Canada fought between the wars in Korea and Afghanistan. History suggests, then, that peacekeeping has always been a violent enterprise, and it is probably more so these days, as spoilers learn from Somalia and Rwanda. “
Do Canadian soldiers like being involved in UN peacekeeping missions?
An article from the Globe and Mail answers the question below:
Globe & Mail
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Despite high-minded policy statements and public perception, Canada’s global role, Michael Valpy reports
It’s so hard to square mythology with reality. While 70 per cent of Canadians consider military peacekeeping a defining characteristic of their country, Canada has turned down so many United Nations’ requests to join peacekeeping missions during the past decade that the UN has stopped asking.
In 1991, Canada contributed more than 10 per cent of all peacekeeping troops to the UN. Sixteen years later, its contribution is less than 0.1 per cent.
On this month’s fifth anniversary of Canadian troops being sent to Afghanistan and one year after assuming responsibility for the counterinsurgency campaign — a war by any other name — in Kandahar province, one of the country’s biggest unanswered questions is: What is Canadian military policy? It’s certainly not to be the global leader in peacekeeping the country once was.
Little more than a year ago, Colonel Michael Hanrahan, the Canadian Armed Forces’ top expert on peacekeeping, was offered the job as chief of staff of the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations. His Ottawa superiors nixed the idea. There is, in fact, not a single Canadian officer in the UN’s peacekeeping headquarters.
“In view of the multiple security challenges we now confront, we should be extremely skeptical about arguments that the days of peacekeeping are over and our armed forces are now only in the business of fighting insurgents and targeting terrorists.”[quote from Fen Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School]
Yet several academics who study Canadian military and foreign policy see patterns of anti-UN bias among senior army officers and a preference for operating beside the United States. The anti-UN bias comes from their experience in UN peacekeeping missions of the past, and their U.S. preference is based on top-grade logistics and tactical support that the U.S. military can offer their own troops.
One Canadian academic, who asked to speak anonymously because he works for the military, said he had been told confidently by a senior army officer that Canadian troops would never take part in another UN-led operation. But Prof. Roland Paris, a specialist in international security at the University of Ottawa, is less convinced that Canada is deliberately turning away from the UN. He cites previous cycles of troughs in Canada’s peacekeeping involvement.
In any event, the patterns seen by Mr. Heinbecker, now director of the Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., suggest traditional UN peacekeeping operations are a thing of the past, that they have become more akin to the mission in Afghanistan.
“They are almost all complex missions now. They involve combat. Very often the UN is expected to get involved before the fighting is over….”
As the above article mentioned, Canadian armed forces have slowly declined in participating in UN peacekeeping missions. But does that mean they are not under UN control? The article above also made mention that Canadian army prefers to work along side of the US army. Ultimately the US army is under full control of the UN. U.S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified and stated that the UN and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the U.S military, reported by Infowars in 2012.
So does the UN peacekeeping cairn in Winnipeg hold a little bit of truth of Canada still participating with the UN?
In one way or another, yes.
Is the UN all about peacekeeping? No!
Islam Karimov, the Uzbek dictator who likes to boil people alive was given a “Cultural Diversity” awarded by the UN. The UN has declared Fidel Castro, the longtime Communist dictator of Cuba, the “World Hero of Solidarity”. Castro killed thousands and thousands of people during his rule, torturing some to death . Even way earlier in history 26.3 million Chinese died between 1949-1965 under the regime of Moa Zedong’s red China. In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly voted to allow Mao Zedong’s red China into the UN.
The UN was established in 1942 after the second world war by international bankers and political world leaders. The UN is the forefront to establish a “new world order” one world government under UN control, under the guise of protecting human rights and doing peacekeeping. The term “new world order” was first politically used and publicly introduced by former U.S President George H. W. Bush at the United Nations General Assembly in 1991.
Jul 31, 2014
Graham Phillips, an RT contributor covering the conflict in eastern Ukraine, was detained for a second time, and has been deported to Poland, following his arrest at Donetsk airport. The gov’t in Kiev have a policy of targeting journalists who are reporting uncomfortable aspects of the gov’t siege of E. Ukraine, as Kiev continues – with the full blessing of Washington and London, to use its military against its own people.