Death Knell of the US Dollar

by: Clive Maund

29 November 2006

Source:
http://www.clivemaund.com/

The dollar plunged with startling ferocity late last week, driven by heavy selling.

This was very bearish action that signals panic, and the probable onset of a severe downtrend.

A break below the crucial support at 80 on the dollar index is expected to mark the transition from a clandestine unloading of dollar assets to an all-out stampede to get what you can for them before its too late.

The conditions leading to an inevitable dollar panic sell-off did not come about overnight. They are the result of years of abuse, principally by the Federal Reserve of the US, which has created a veritable blizzard of dollars, and the universal acceptance of this funny money has, up until now, allowed the United States to freeload economically on the rest of the world, living way beyond its means.

The exponential growth in dollars has been and is created electronically at the touch of a button, so that paying for anything is never a problem, whatever you want you simply print the extra money to pay for.

Because foreigners have so far played along with this game, they are now widely, and to some extent understandably, regarded as stupid.

However, it is a dangerous mistake to underestimate the mental capacities of other peoples. The Chinese, in particular, have an ancient and deep culture, and when it comes to strategic considerations, can outthink - and outflank virtually anyone. So whats going on? - why have they accepted a mountain of paper and IOUs over many years in exchange for real hard work and a vast quantity of real tangible products? The Chinese, and others, have done this to carry them over a bringing period during which they have built up their economies and infrastructure.

Their goal - which they are fast moving towards - is to arrive at the point where there is sufficient domestic and regional demand that they no longer need to rely on orders from countries like the United States. At this point - which we may arrive at sooner rather than later - things will become very dangerous for the US dollar, and the situation is actually far worse than many now believe, because the Chinese and others are preparing to WRITE OFF THEIR DOLLAR ASSETS AS A BAD LOSS - they will try to get what they can for them, of course, but otherwise will be ready to fall back on domestic and regional demand and tough it out, thus severing the umbilical with the United States, which will be left stranded, with no takers for its funny money, a gutted manufacturing base, astronomic debts and fiscal chaos, and a huge military it can no longer afford to service.

When the forces of globalization are let loose, as they have been, this is actually a natural and inevitable process, as orders and work simply move to the lowest bidders. Europe and the United States are uncompetitive and will be sidelined by the powerhouse economies of China and South East Asia.

The Chinese and other trading partners with the US are already rotating out of dollars and into Dinars, Euros, commodities generally, and Precious Metals at an ever increasing pace. As we already know, this has been a primary driver for the commodities boom.

The recent attempt by the United States to maintain its dominance by brute force - a big reason why Iraq was invaded was that it was planning to sell its oil in Euros - is right now, quite literally, running into the sand, and it is now only a question of when, not if, the helicopters arrive on the rooftops to evacuate the last of the embattled US service personnel, like in the film The Killing Fields, although a last wildly dangerous attack on Iran still cannot be ruled out.

Having looked at the fundamentals, lets now see what the charts have to say about the dollar.

On the 1-year chart for the dollar index we can see how the plunge on Thursday broke the dollar down out of a gentle uptrend that had been in force from the May low. It fell steeply again on Friday to arrive in the support zone at the May - June low. This support may provide temporary relief, but the severity of the decline suggests that it wont be long until it resumes, assuming it pauses at all that is, which it may not.

Note the bearish alignment of the moving averages, with the 50-day having closed up the gap with the 200-day in recent months, creating the potential for another severe decline.

On the 6-year chart we can see that the dollar had been marking out a potential Head-and-Shoulders bottom pattern since early 2004, but that the action of the past few days signals that the pattern is aborting, and a clear break below the May lows, which we are close to, will project the index down to the crucial long-term support at and approaching 80.

What is the origin of this strong long-term support? To see this we will have to look at a chart going back many years.

The chart going back to early 1987 shows the origins of the strong long-term support at and above 80, for on this chart we can see that it has bounced repeatedly from this level. It approached this level way back in 1978 (not shown), and again in late 1990, and it bounced from it in 1992, again in 1995, and in late 2004. Clearly it is unlikely that the dollar will drop to this level and fall straight through it, without first pausing above it for a while or staging a weak rally.

That said, however, the fundamental outlook for the dollar is truly awful for reasons made clear above, and so, despite the strength of support at this level, the dollar is not expected to hold above it for very long.

Over the past couple of months it has become obvious to all but those who started it that the US has lost the war in Iraq, and can now only engage in a face-saving or damage limitation exercise. This has further damaged US credibility worldwide.

The deficits are a running sore that continues to exert a bearish influence, and big dollar asset holders such as the Chinese are scrambling to unwind their dollar positions, in a manner that avoids precipitating a panic, which will be quite a feat if they achieve it.

What will happen to the dollar if it breaks below the immensely important support at 80? The prospect is an all-out panic and a rout, and its anyone's guess where it will finally bottom out.

Many forward thinking and intelligent US readers are already aware of the gravity of the situation, and have been mobilizing themselves to get at least a portion of their assets either out of the country, or at least out of US dollar denominated assets.

7 Reasons To Nuke The USA

by: Yamin Zakaria

26 February 2007



According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world.
The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them.
There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.
This is partly for brevity and I hope it might have some resonance with the Zionist-Christian Fundamentalists, especially the nutty ones, as number 7 has significance in the Bible.



Also, they are constantly yearning for the Armageddon, and nuking USA may only speed up the process, so for a change I might have these Christian-Zionists on my side!



The Halleluiah brigade would probably jump up, waving their arms in the air whilst claiming to be speaking in tongues, proclaim that the good Lord says: bring it on, nuke the US for their sins!



Perhaps, I would also have the communists and their variants to concur with me, as nuking the leading capitalist nation by non-state actors would seem like initiating a 21st century explosive revolution by the powerless proletariats against the capitalist class!



Before anyone screams mass murder, they ought to consider that their judgments will rest on the identity of the victims and the perpetrators.



If it is the ‘terrorists' (non state-actors, freedom fighters, Iraqi resistance etc...) nuking the US, it will be depicted as terrorism and mass murder; conversely if the US uses such weapons, it will be defensive measures in the guise of a pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential threats incurring lots of collateral damages.



Like the collateral damages inflicted on a massive scale when the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither were military targets and by this time Japan was already on its knees with no Air Force and its Navy almost annihilated. Perhaps one day some objective historian might call that an act of terrorism!






Let me now list the 7 reasons to Nuke the USA.



1) The US was established on the blood of 70 million Native Americans. Their lands were stolen. Since the US leadership considers it right of the Jews to occupy Palestine as they lived here over 2000 years ago, then the Native Americans can also argue back only 500 years and have their lands returned to them. So a valid ground to repatriate the European colonizers, if they refuse they can be herded into camps, subjected to a trail of tears. Alternatively they can be nuked out of existence for resisting, as well as retribution for the brutal killing of their ancestors.



2) Consider the crimes against the Africans, their enslavement, oppression, and lynching for centuries, which led to millions perishing. An irony of the declaration of independence by the Founding Fathers of the US, who stated that all men were created equal, whilst Afro-Americans were subjected to such brutality which continued for many decades. They have the right seek retribution (including nuclear strike) against the descendents of the criminals who have not paid them any compensation.



3) During the Spanish-American war at the turn of century, Philippines was colonized, and at least a 250,000 Filipinos were killed, then the country was turned into a brothel for the US soldiers, and it continues to be used in that manner. We don't find Billy Graham and his ilk lecturing about the sin here. Nor do we find the voices for women's rights; I suppose if they covered up instead of spreading their legs to the US soldiers then it would be cause for alarm! The Filipinos have the right of retribution for the carnage and rape.



4) The killing of the innocent Vietnamese populations and supporting monsters like the Pol Pot led to millions of Cambodians being killed. They too have the right of retribution and a nuclear strike would serve as deterrence for future attacks by the US.



5) The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians through arming the Zionists, and the genocide against the Iraqis from 1991 onwards are good reasons to nuke the US and halt the massacre and oppression. A bully always think twice when it gets a punched by one of its victim. The only reason why the US has not used nukes against the Islamic world because it fears nuclear reprisal, as Muslims do not believe in turning the other cheek, for that matter neither do the Christians!



6) Using the various financial institutions, and bribing corrupt regimes, the US has exploited the economic resources for its own benefit, bringing misery to millions around the world. Nuking the US would halt these forms of oppression, and a new economic order is likely to prevail after it is crippled permanently by nuking it.



7) At present everyone is speculating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the US or through its proxy Israel. A pre-emptive strike would make the US and the Zionists think twice, as the American and Israeli masses might appreciate what it means to use such weapons. I doubt they would have the appetite for more. For the Iraqis and the oppressed around the world they are already dying, their situation is unlikely to get any worse than it is.



Using the principles of free speech I have expressed the case for nuking the US and I am sure others would add to the above list.



My opponents would try and gag me under the pretext of promoting terrorism, of course that is because I am advocating that Americans are terrorized in order to restrain the beast amongst them.



Giving them a taste of their own medicine would make the US masses actually realize what foreign policy, collateral damages etc really means!



In contrast, the numerous times calls have been made to nuke Iran, Mecca, North Korea, etc., goes unnoticed, of course that would not be promoting terrorism but upholding free speech.



Is this not double standard? Of course not as it depends on whose standards you are using as a yardstick!



Although I have made the case for nuking the US but I would oppose the use of such weapons, a nuclear war would lead to everyone losing out. Mass murder on such a scale would bring misery to all sides.



Hence, I would favor a genuine nuclear-free world and not a nuclear-free Iran only! Likewise a nuclear-free Middle East and not a nuclear Israel with nuclear-free Arabs.



The only justification for using such weapons would be one of last resort of self-defense, which the Iranians, Iraqis, and Palestinians and others might resort to given the constant US and Israeli aggression against them.



Now consider this scenario, a Caliphate is established in the Middle East that has unified the Islamic world, it's armed with nuclear weapons. No doubt it would be competing with the US in the international arena. Who is more like to use such weapons? Foreign policy of the Caliphate is Jihad, which is the spread of Islam, using nukes to annihilate entire section of population, would defeat that central objective of spreading the message of Islam. Nukes and Jihad do not go hand in hand unless it is entirely for defensive purpose.



Where as the US as a Capitalist nation is a far better candidate as it: has a track record for using such weapons; it seeks to maximize its interests at any cost, so annihilating other races fits with its philosophy and morals, and it has a strong record for committing genocide on a massive scale in order to exploit natural resources and enforce hegemony.



They scream peace, but what they mean is war; they shout freedom but what they mean is enslavement; they shout democracy but what they mean is democracy for its multinationals.



The Quran describes such people whose words contradict their deeds: "And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. (2:11-12)"


.

COLOMBIA POLITICAL SCANDAL IMPERILING U.S. TIES

by: Indira A.R. Lakshmanan

27 February 2007

Source:
www.Boston.com (The Boston Globe)
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/25/colombia_political_scandal_imperiling_us_ties/

Just two weeks ahead of a high-profile visit by President Bush to Latin America, the United States' key partner on the continent is engulfed in an extraordinary scandal that threatens to undermine the credibility of US alliances and policy priorities from Mexico to Argentina.

The widening probe linking dozens of political allies of Colombia's president, Álvaro Uribe, to the country's right-wing death squads and drug traffickers has started to erode support on Capitol Hill for Colombia, the biggest recipient of US aid outside the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The United States has spent .7 billion since 2000 fighting drugs and the insurgency in Colombia. In a show of support for his center-right ally, President Bush is scheduled next month to be the first US president since John F. Kennedy to visit the Colombian capital of Bogotá.

But after a week that saw the ouster of Uribe's foreign minister over her family's ties to paramilitary militias and the arrest of his hand picked former secret police chief for murder, the next casualty of the scandal could be America's reputation. The region feels forgotten by and estranged from Washington, D.C., since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and a string of victories by leftist presidents.

Bush is not expected to offer significant new aid or trade in his March 8-14 tour, his nemesis Hugo Chávez of oil-rich Venezuela is traversing the continent with an open checkbook.

"Who have we staked all of our political capital on in Latin America? Uribe," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy, a think tank in Washington. "If this scandal engulfs him or his armed forces, it will be a devastating blow to the whole design of US policy."

The "para-political" scandal burst open last fall, when a computer seized from paramilitary leader "Jorge 40" revealed the names of dozens of politicians who supposedly collaborated with paramilitaries in intimidating voters, seizing land, and kidnapping or killing labor unionists and political rivals. Other revelations followed, including secret documents signed by officials pledging moral support or kickbacks to the illegal militias.

The paramilitaries formed in the 1980s to combat leftist guerrillas who have terrorized the population for more than 40 years. But the militias, like their leftist rivals, were soon implicated in massacres, kidnapping, and drug trafficking to the United States. The paramilitary umbrella group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, is classified as a terrorist organization by Washington, and many of its leaders are wanted for extradition on drug charges.

In a peace process started by Uribe, about 31,000 alleged paramilitary fighters had put down their weapons and agreed to confess to crimes in exchange for lighter penalties, making way for investigations into links to powerful elites.

Eight pro-Uribe congressmen have been arrested for collaborating with paramilitaries, and dozens of national and regional politicians, some who have apparently fled the country, are under investigation. Pro-Uribe legislators, as well as the opposition, have called for special elections to "cleanse" Congress, to erase suspicions that many may have won because of support from paramilitaries. A decorated colonel has been relieved of his post, and other former military officials are also under investigation.

On Monday, Uribe's foreign minister, María Consuelo Araújo, resigned after the Supreme Court arrested her brother, an Uribe-allied senator, for involvement in the kidnapping of a political rival. Her father, a former governor, another brother, and a cousin are also under investigation.

On Thursday came the worst blow. Jorge Noguera, who served as Uribe's campaign manager and later as head of Colombia's secret police, was arrested by the attorney general. Noguera is accused of giving a hit list of trade unionists and activists to paramilitaries, who then killed them. Another former secret police official is serving an 18- year sentence for purging police records of paramilitaries and drug traffickers.

Already, the scandal has had a ripple effect on Capitol Hill, where questions are being raised about requests for an additional billion in antinarcotics aid and a free-trade pact is up for approval.

"American taxpayers deserve assurances that the Colombian government has severed links to these terrorist groups," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees US foreign-assistance programs. "[This] scandal only reinforces the need to reassess who we are dealing with, whether adequate corrective steps are being taken, and what we are getting for our money."

For the Bush administration, Uribe has been a staunch and rare supporter in a region increasingly dominated by leftist or anti-US leaders. But with Colombia's Congress opening hearings next month into paramilitary power in Uribe's home state, including accusations against Uribe's brother, the scandal threatens to swallow up the president himself.

Uribe's defenders at home and in Washington are standing firm, countering that it is his success in persuading paramilitaries to disarm and confess that has shed light on the links to illegal militias. A recent Gallup Colombia poll gave Uribe a 73 percent approval rating.

"The US applauds the Colombian government for its determination to investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute all charges of ties to paramilitary organizations and other illegal armed groups," Eric Watnik, a State Department spokesman, said in a telephone interview from Washington.

But with Bush set to visit Bogotá, US policy to Colombia will be under the microscope. In addition to Democrats in Congress, some of Colombia's neighbors may question why Washington sticks by an administration in the midst of a humiliating crisis.

US Representative William D. Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat active in Latin American affairs, said evidence of the right-of-center government's links to death squads "evokes memories of the 1980s in Central America. I think you're going to see hearings on these issues." Aside from the problems in Colombia, Delahunt contended that "what we have is a Latin America policy that is an afterthought."

Maria McFarland, a Colombia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said Bush has "stood by Uribe unconditionally," despite long standing allegations of his armed forces collaborating with death squads. With proof now emerging, McFarland said, US policy appears hypocritical.

"They are prepared to criticize very harshly leaders they disagree with, but when their allies do something, they turn a blind eye," she said. If the United States continues "to support so strongly a government mired in corruption and links to terrorists and drug lords," it will fuel resentment from other Latin American countries that have been ignored, she said.

Having put so much faith in Uribe, Bush is expected to broaden his agenda during a trip that will also take him to Brazil, Uruguay, Guatemala, and Mexico.

"We'll see a real emphasis on Mexico and Brazil, on ethanol and biofuel -- an attempt to elevate other regional players," predicted Dan Restrepo of the Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington. "Part of the silver lining in all this could be a wake-up call to pursue all of our interests in Latin America."

But Leonardo Carvajal , a professor of foreign affairs at the Universidad Externado de Colombia in Bogotá, dismissed such comments as failing to take into account the strategic realpolitik of the region.

"Colombia is the beachhead of US interests in Latin America. . . . It doesn't matter what scandal happens," Carvajal said. "Everyone knows that the counterbalance to Chávez is Uribe and that Colombia is the bastion of US interests in Latin America."

BRITISH TROOPS IN IRAQ FACE RISK OF MENTAL ILLNESS

Monday, March 12, 2007

Source:
www.Dailytimes.com
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C03%5C12%5Cstory_12-3-2007_pg7_35

Thousands of British troops are facing permanent psychological damage after fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, a mental health charity has warned, reports the Sunday Telegraph.

"New government figures reveal that more than 2,100 soldiers have returned from Iraq since 2003 suffering from some form of mental illness," Sean Rayment writes in the British newspaper.

"The threat from roadside bombs, the intensity of the combat and the fear associated with fighting a hidden enemy are all factors said to be leading to large numbers of troops returning from operational tours with serious mental conditions."

Psychiatric conditions suffered by service personnel include post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), manic depression, and drug and alcohol dependency.

But it has also emerged that up to seven British service personnel have committed suicide either during or after active duty in Iraq.

The Ministry of Defence is yet to publish figures of the number of soldiers diagnosed with a psychiatric condition after serving in Afghanistan, where the risk of death and injury has been even greater in recent months than in Iraq.

Combat Stress, a mental health charity for veterans, has said that it has seen a 26 percent increase over the past year in the number of troops seeking help. They include 160 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seeking help for mental health conditions, many of which were not diagnosed while they were serving in the forces.

Robert Marsh, the charity's director of fund-raising, said: "The average veteran does not seek help for at least 10 years. The military could be facing a mental health time bomb."

The MoD's figures show that of the 2,100 troops diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, 904 had developed adjustment disorders, where sufferers have difficulty readjusting to their normal way of life after a traumatic experience.

Up to 328 servicemen and women returned from Iraq with PTSD, which can lead to manic depression, and another 227 were diagnosed with other neurotic disorders.

The figures also stated that 188 had taken part in so-called psychoactive substance misuse, including alcohol and drug abuse, and the abuse of antidepressants.

COMMENTARY:
A desperate Army Is Scraping The Bottom

by: JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY

McClatchy Newspapers

Wed, Mar. 14, 2007

Source:
http://www.realcities.com/
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16903393.htm


An Army already stretched painfully thin is now being asked to find the additional 25,000-plus troops to man President Bush's escalation in Iraq and, it's now obvious, prepare for additional combat rotations next year.

All the easy sweeping up of manpower already has been done. All the obvious moves to rob Peter to pay Paul have been carried out just to keep this unending war going.

Now comes the hardest part: Units that are completing their second or third yearlong combat tours are being extended for another four or six months.

Other units, now home for their promised 12 months with their families, are being told they will go back to combat sooner than that. Army National Guard units that'd already served the maximum time on active duty, in combat, are being told that the rules have changed, and they're again being called back for Iraq service.

It doesn't matter that those Guard units were ordered to leave virtually all of their equipment in Iraq and have had none of it replaced so that they might actually train for the eventuality that has befallen them. Nor does it matter that there may not be equipment and vehicles waiting for them in Iraq when they get there. Nor does it seem to matter that, four years into this war, there still aren't enough sets of body armor to provide one for every soldier sent to Iraq in this escalation. Or that in the fervent search for bodies to fill the quotas the Army has begun combing the lists of wounded soldiers and re-evaluating their fitness to return to the war, rating some soldiers who are no longer physically able to even wear the 35 pounds of body armor good to go.

That might be one solution to the scandalous treatment of soldiers on out-patient status at Walter Reed Army Hospital - rate them good to go and send them back in to Iraq. The Army, that once-magnificent Army we counted on as our shield in a dangerous world, is being bled to death in the streets and on the roads of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Politicians only now are talking about adding 100,000 more soldiers to the Army and Marine Corps, when that's something that should have begun on Sept. 12, 2001.

Where and how do they propose to find and enlist 10,000 or 20,000 more troops each year when it is literally all the recruiters can do to find enough young men and women to fill the existing quota of at least 80,000 each year?

Again, all the cheap fixes have been used. They've raised the maximum age for enlistment from 35 to 42. Should we kick that higher, say 65? Then you would have your choice: Medicare or boot camp? We've doubled the number of convicted felons permitted to enlist. We've lowered the minimum standards to allow for more high school dropouts, more people who test in the lowest quarter on mental aptitude, and more people who are tattooed from elbow to ear. And we've boosted enlistment bonuses too. Sign on the dotted line, young man, and you're on your way to boot camp and Iraq with money in your pocket.

Of course, if the economy does a meltdown there could be a boom in enlistments and all our problems would be solved. If this war continues much longer it may be hard to postpone that economic meltdown.

The Defense Department budget is now running at half a trillion dollars annually. The war in Iraq costs more than billion a week. The long-term costs of Bush's great adventure in taking down the late and unlamented Saddam Hussein are now estimated at perhaps .5 trillion when lifetime health care for thousands of wounded and disabled soldiers and Marines is figured in.

If the war ended today it would cost billions to repair and replace the equipment worn out or destroyed in Iraq. All of these costs are being pushed down the line to be borne by our children and grandchildren and their children in the form of burgeoning budget deficits seen and, as yet, unseen.

When is someone, somewhere in this country going to stand up and demand an accounting for all we've lost in a foolish, unjustified and unnecessary war in the wrong place, against the wrong people, at the wrong time - conducted by a president who got every bit of it wrong?

When are we going to cut our incredible losses in Iraq - human, spiritual, and monetary - and get back on the road to being a better country and a better people whose leaders believe, as we do, in the U.S. Constitution and habeas corpus and the right to privacy?


ABOUT THE WRITER:
Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at:

P.O. Box 399,
Bayside,
Texas 78340
E-mail: jlgalloway2@cs.com

News Feature: Flying Tigers Send Stark Message

Tamil Guardian

Friday, 30 March 2007

Source:
http://www.sibernews.com/news/news-feature/-200703307987/

The Liberation Tigers’ bombing raid on the main Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) airbase at Katunayake last Monday has signalled what one security analyst has termed a new phase in the island’s protracted conflict.

Other commentators, on the other hand, have questioned the efficacy of the Tamileelam Air Force (TAF). They point to the limited firepower of a handful of light aircraft in comparison to SLAF’s fleet of powerful jet fighter-bombers. Some have argued this has been further reduced by the loss of the element of surprise.

But this analysis not only misconstrues the specific capabilities the TAF adds to the LTTE’s military options, but also misses underlying lessons about the LTTE’s strategic growth that the fielding of an air force, no matter how small, outlines.

To begin with, the TAF was never intended to take the SLAF head on in air-to-air combat.

Instead the TAF is intended to augment the LTTE’s ground and sea fighting capabilities by providing three new capabilities: (a) attack targets that are otherwise inaccessible either due to their distance from the frontlines or the presence of substantial defences and impediments on the ground, (b) enhance the rapid gathering and verification of battlefield and strategic intelligence, and (c) transfer key assets, including personnel and specialist equipment, rapidly across the island.

Secondly, by compelling the Sri Lankan military and government to contend with and respond to the LTTE’s possession of these options, the TAF raises the cost of waging war against the LTTE and also constraints some of the options hitherto available to Colombo.

In the latter regard, the TAF undoubtedly seeks to deter, through the possibility of comparable retaliation in kind, some of the tactics used by Sri Lankan military in the northeast.

The TAF’s first (acknowledged) combat operation last Monday was, as international security analysts have pointed out, a feat of considerable skill and competence, not only for the aircrew involved, but for the commanders who planned and controlled the raid from their operation centre in Vanni.

Two LTTE aircraft took off from a jungle airstrip, accurately hit the SLAF’s most heavily defended installation and returned to base. The entire operation was conducted at night.

The issue is not whether Sri Lanka’s parked aircraft escaped or not on Monday – and amidst the government imposed blackout, the matter remains inconclusive – but the demonstration that the LTTE can launch strikes against specific targets on the ground anywhere in the island with considerably greater ease than before.

A cursory survey of the major military and economic targets, particularly outside the northeast, which have been attacked in the past two decades by the LTTE using its ground or sea assets reveals the edge an airborne option now gives it.

Key installations, potentially anywhere in the island, including military bases and other sites that contribute to Sri Lanka’s war economy can no longer rely solely on adequate defence of their perimeters on the ground.

The military’s supply routes moving personnel and equipment to and from the northern battlefronts are much more vulnerable as bridges, culverts, roads and railway tracks far from the frontlines are now within range of an LTTE strike.

So are manufacturing sites, storage depots and marshalling yards.

This is not to say all these targets are automatically vulnerable, but they certainly are less secure than before: simply being located too far away from the frontlines or behind layers of ground protection is no longer sufficient.

And the LTTE’s loss of the element of surprise does not diminish the need for Sri Lanka to implement countermeasures.

There is consequently greater pressure on the Sri Lankan military to provide adequate protection both to its own installations and others that are vital to the war economy.

The military’s anti-aircraft capability needs to be simultaneously expanded at a considerable number of sites across the island.

But it also needs to adequately disperse its assets, rather than relying on the inaccessibility of key stockpiles and assembly points. This further raises the strain of defence against air attack.

Meanwhile, as one defence analyst has already pointed out, even the Navy’s larger warships, hitherto operating in the safety provided by distance from the shore and a screen of gunboats, also have a new threat to contend with.

Harbours heavily reinforced against LTTE sea borne attacks are no longer sufficient protection either.

Secondly, the LTTE’s ability to put observers in the air and move them rapidly across the battlefield means that the gathering and verification of intelligence, both tactical and strategic, is considerably enhanced.

The Sri Lankan military therefore now now has to contend with greater needs for concealment and dispersal, while the element of surprise on which offensive operations often crucially rely is potentially harder to retain than before.

Thirdly, the use of aircraft allows the LTTE to move key assets, including personnel and specialist equipment, across the island with greater ease, simply bypassing complex security measures and other impediments on the ground.

Even after Monday’s airstrike, some eyewitnesses claimed, for example, that parachutists were seen descending in the skies over Colombo.

Although the LTTE has released pictures of one plane, the number and type of aircraft in its possession are a matter of speculation.

For some time there have been claims of small helicopters as well as fixed wing planes being operated by the LTTE. If true, these make a considerably enhance the Tigers’ ability to move personnel and equipment into and out of government-controlled areas.

Notably, the actual number of aircraft in the LTTE’s possession are not relevant to these kinds of operations. Indeed, unless the LTTE wanted to mount several simultaneous operations, a couple of planes would suffice.

But the most striking aspect of the TAF is that it emerged at all.

Some analysts have posited the emergence of the Tiger air force as a natural and logical extension of the LTTE’s fighting capability. The LTTE is famously the only non-state military to field a substantial naval arm, the ‘Sea Tigers.’

But there is nothing inevitable about the emergence of the ‘Air Tigers.’ In fact there is every reason for such an endeavour to be nigh impossible now.

Although the LTTE claimed an air force as long ago as 1998 and the foundations for it being laid by Colonel Shankar, assassinated by Sri Lankan commandos in 2001, it is only in recent years that the TAF has been properly constituted.

But this period coincides with the most concentrated and extensive effort by the Sri Lankan government and its international allies to squeeze the LTTE’s ocean going supply lines and shut down its financial and other operations around the world.

Indeed, the post 9/11 era, with its attendant global anti-terrorism drives, has arguable been the most difficult period in which the LTTE has had to develop any of its military capabilities.

That it was able to acquire the sophisticated equipment, the supplies and, especially, the extensive know-how to run an air force, not matter how small, is no mean feat.

A cursory survey of the kinds of skills and equipment needed to stage even a two-plane air force reveals the magnitude of the task.

Apart from the planes themselves, an air force needs radar, communication systems, and a range of avionics. It also needs the equipment to repair and upgrade all this, as well as the planes themselves.

The skillsets required to operate even a propeller driven air force go well beyond simply pilots - the aircrew themselves need to be trained in air-to-ground combat, including low-level and night flying.

And on the ground technicians are needed for each aspect of the aircraft and support equipment and armourers for the different types of ordnance being used.

Air to ground operations are complex activities requiring extensive training and practice.

Supporting even a single airstrike requires radar operators, communication personnel and operational planning and control staff.

Behind the handful of pilots pictured with the LTTE leader Vellupillai Pirapaharan in photographs released this week are hundreds of other skilled personnel.

In launching a single airstrike against the SLAF base in Katunayake, the LTTE has demonstrated that it has acquired many of these skills and the capacity to reproduce and extend these.

The sheer scale of this institutional exercise is demonstrated by the extent of the external support that Sri Lanka relies on for its own air operations.

Colombo relies heavily on the facilities and know-how of friendly air forces, especially those of India and Pakistan, to train its pilots and other personnel.

Despite being 18,000 strong, the SLAF still relies heavily on foreign personnel, again especially from Pakistan and India, in day-to-day operations.

Pakistani Air Force officers are, according to Indian security analysts, coordinating SLAF air-to-ground operations against the LTTE whilst Indian personnel are reportedly manning some of Sri Lanka’s radars.

Contractors from Ukraine and Israel are reportedly helping SLAF operate and maintain some of its aircraft.

Thus while SLAF can readily call on Sri Lanka’s extensive military relationships for expertise and support, especially since the turn of the century, there have been considerable international constraints on the acquisition of military capacity by non-state actors of any political persuasion.

Except, of course, those enjoying state patronage.

The LTTE is a notable exception in this regard, not having the backing of a single state but the undisguised hostility of several powerful ones.

And astute observers have noted this is the crucial message that the LTTE has sent Colombo with its heavily publicised airstrike Monday: not only is it now able to conduct such raids; it has been able to acquire this ability despite the pointed efforts of the Sri Lanka government and its allies to prevent it.

Sri Lanka’s war has entered a new phase.

WE'VE LOST THE AUTHORITY TO LECTURE IRAN

by: Matthew Norman

The Iraqi misadventure has rendered Britain too demoralized to respond with serious force

30 March 2007

Source:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/matthew_norman/article2405090.ece

...the reaction to the televising of Faye Turney on Wednesday does seem slightly hysterical. It goes without saying that the seizure of the 15 sailors and marines, whether or not they had strayed into Iranian waters (and it seems certain that they didn't), is inexcusable on every level.

And yet although Leading Seaman Turney seemed stressed, naturally enough, she also looked healthy. There were no overt signs of any physical violence, and her hands were not cuffed. She was wearing civilian clothes, and was allowed to smoke. So on hearing Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, saying that it is "totally unacceptable to parade our people in this way", the image that flashes to mind is that of other people being paraded for a global television audience, their legs and hands chained together, their bodies immersed in lurid orange boiler suits.

The British Government wasn't directly responsible for Guantanamo Bay, but it colluded in the illegal seizure of suspects taken there and mistreated to an unimaginably worse degree than appears the case with LS Turney. It assisted the Americans in their pioneering extension of the concept of outsourcing to take in torture, allowing CIA jets to refuel at British airports while transporting suspects to countries with a similarly unCyrus-like approach to human rights as modern Iran.

And it never raised a squeak about such criminal acts as the kidnap of Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, an EU citizen who was walking down a Milanese street in February 2003 when CIA operatives snatched him, bundled him into the back of a white van, and flew him to Cairo for interrogation.

None of this is to suggest, of course, that one nation's collusion in the illegal seizure of foreign nationals in any way justifies the use of the same indefensible tactics by another, or diminishes the seriousness of the offence. But British complicity in these American crimes raises questions about the source of the moral authority fuelling the current outrage about LS Turney's television appearance. If it did contravene the Geneva Convention, inmates of Camp X-Ray were expressly excluded from its protection, although they were supposedly captured in war (the abstract one against terror), and no Cabinet minister publicly objected to that. It also highlights yet again the extent to which the catastrophic blunder in Iraq is undermining attempts to deal effectively with Iran.

Precisely why the Iranians captured the officers remains opaque, even now, a week after the event, largely because of the confused command structure at the top of their government and the factional nature of the military. What is crystal clear, however, is that Iran would never have dared so blatant an act of brinkmanship were it not convinced, quite correctly, that the Iraqi misadventure has rendered Britain too nervous and demoralised, not to mention militarily overstretched, to respond with serious force.

If the Iranians aren't remotely spooked by the presence in the region of US aircraft carriers designed to focus their minds on Mr Bush's warnings about the consequences of continuing with their nuclear programme, it's hard to imagine Margaret Beckett petrifying them into line. Not even if she uses that specially fierce tone of rebuke she usually reserves for boy racers tailgating the caravan on rural lanes.

Four years after joining a war notionally intended to defuse the threat of non-existent weapons of mass distraction, we see more clearly than ever how that war has emboldened Iraq's neighbour to develop real ones; and how impotent that war has left Britain and the US so far as containing a volatile, oil-rich country gripped by paranoia about the intentions of the local nuclear superpower, Israel....

Upsetting as the vision of a distressed young mother certainly is, in the nuclear scheme of things the manipulation of LS Turney for propaganda purposes looks a fairly small step on the long, winding and disturbingly signpost-free road towards regional nuclear proliferation. The anguish expressed here by politicians and pundits stems less, one suspects, from any genuine fear for the officers' safety...than wounded pride that the naval officers of a once-dominant maritime power should be treated with such undisguised disdain.

Somewhere in all this lies a moral. Gunboat diplomacy is a thing of the past, even if we could find a spare gunboat, and for all the public pretence of "ratcheting up the heat" on the Iranians, they need to be handled with the softest of kid gloves, and cajoled into behaving by a coalition of international trading partners sympathetic to the plight of the sailors. For the days when Britain had the stature, self-confidence and façade of moral authority to play sergeant to the US chief inspector on the global stage are over, and the villains know it.

This is the legacy of Iraq, and if the posturing of the Iranians leaves Mr Blair's successors in less doubt than ever about that, the ordeal of Leading Seaman Turney and her 14 colleagues will not have been in vain.

George Galloway, A Man For All Seasons

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

When the issue of Galloway's meetings with Saddam Hussein is raised, including before the U.S. Senate, Galloway has argued that he had met Saddam "exactly the same number of times as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns."

Views on Blair and Bush--

At the national conference of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, on 30 June 2003, he apologised for describing George Bush as a "wolf", saying that to do so defamed wolves:

"No wolf would commit the sort of crimes against humanity that George Bush committed against the people of Iraq."

On 20 November 2004, George Galloway gave an interview on Abu-Dhabi TV in which he said:
“The people who invaded and destroyed Iraq and have murdered more than a million Iraqi people by sanctions and war will burn in Hell in the hell-fires, and their name in history will be branded as killers and war criminals for all time. Fallujah is a Guernica, Falluaja is a Stalingrad, and Iraq is in flames as a result of the actions of these criminals. Not the resistance, not anybody else but these criminals who invaded and fell like wolves upon the people of Iraq. And by the way, those Arab regimes which helped them to do it will burn in the same hell-fires.”

On 20 June 2005, he appeared on Al Jazeera TV to lambast these two leaders and others:
“Bush, and Blair, and the prime minister of Japan, and Silvio Berlusconi, these people are criminals, and they are responsible for mass murder in the world, for the war, and for the occupation, through their support for Israel, and through their support for a globalised capitalist economic system, which is the biggest killer the world has ever known. It has killed far more people than Adolf Hitler. It has killed far more people than George Bush. The economic system which these people support, which leaves most of the people in the world hungry, and without clean water to drink. So we're going to put them on trial, the leaders, when they come. They think they're coming for a holiday in a beautiful country called Scotland; in fact, they're coming to their trial....Ancient freedoms, which we had for hundreds of years, are being taken away from us under the name of the war on terror, when the real big terrorists are the governments of Britain and the United States. They are the real rogue states breaking international law, invading other people's countries, killing their children in the name of anti-terrorism, when in fact, all they're achieving is to make more terrorists in the world, not less, to make the world more dangerous, rather than less.”

Galloway has accused Tony Blair of "waging war on Muslims at home and abroad".

On 3 February 2006, Galloway was refused entry to Egypt at Cairo Airport and was detained "on grounds of national security", where he had been invited to 'give evidence' at a 'mock trial' of Bush and Blair. After being detained overnight, he said Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak "apologised on behalf of the Egyptian people", and he was allowed to enter the country. After initial derogatory comments from Galloway and a spokesman from his Respect party regarding Mubarak's pro-western stance and ties to Bush and Blair, Galloway later commented: "It was a most gracious apology which I accept wholeheartedly. I consider the matter now closed".

In an interview with Piers Morgan for GQ Magazine in May 2006, Galloway was asked whether a suicide bomb attack on Tony Blair with "no other casualties" would be morally justifiable "as revenge for the war on Iraq?". He answered "Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did."

In the House of Commons, on the day of the 7 July 2005 London bombings that killed 56 and injured hundreds, and following a visit to the Royal London Hospital in his constituency where many of the victims had been taken, Galloway condemned the attacks strongly, but argued that they could not be separated from the hatred and bitterness felt among Muslims because of injustices in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, including injustices, he said, suffered as a result of British foreign policy:

"I condemn the act that was committed this morning. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that Islamist extremists, inspired by the al-Qaeda world outlook, are responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against working people on their way to work, without warning, on tubes and buses. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this morning's bloodshed lies with the perpetrators of those acts... The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), in an otherwise fine speech, described today's events as "unpredictable". They were not remotely unpredictable. Our own security services predicted them and warned the Government that if we [invaded Iraq] we would be at greater risk from terrorist attacks such as the one that we have suffered this morning... Despicable, yes; but not unpredictable. It was entirely predictable and, I predict, it will not be the last."

Winding up the debate for the government in the last moments allotted, Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram described Galloway's remarks as "disgraceful" and accused Galloway of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood." No time remained for Galloway to intervene and he ran afoul of the Deputy Speaker when trying to make a point of order about Ingram's attack. He later went on to describe Ingram as a "thug" who had committed a "foul-mouthed, deliberately timed, last-10-secondssmear." The men had previously clashed over claims in Galloway's autobiography.

Galloway is Vice-President of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC). He is actively involved, often speaking on StWC platforms at anti war demonstrations. During a 9 March 2005, interview at the University of Dhaka campus Galloway called for a global alliance between Muslims and progressives: "Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries."

On 17 May 2005, the committee held a hearing concerning specific allegations (of which Galloway was one part) relating to improprieties surrounding the Oil-for-Food programme. Attending Galloway's oral testimony and inquiring of him were two of the thirteen committee members: the chair (Coleman) and the ranking Democrat (Carl Levin).

Upon Galloway's arrival in the US, he told Reuters, "I have no expectation of justice from a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of a neo-con George Bush". Galloway described Coleman as a "pro-war, neo-con hawk and the lickspittle of George W. Bush", who, he said, sought revenge against anyone who did not support the invasion of Iraq.

In his testimony, Galloway made the following statements in response to the allegations against him:
“Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf. Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.”

He questioned the reliability of evidence given by former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, stating that the circumstances of his captivity by American forces calls into question the authenticity of the remarks.

Galloway also denounced the invasion of Iraq as having been based on "a pack of lies" in his Senate testimony. The U.S. media, in reporting his appearance, emphasized his blunt remarks on the war. The British media gave generally more positive coverage; TV presenter Anne Robinson said Galloway "quite frankly put the pride back in British politics" when introducing him for a prime time talk show.

The transcript of George's evidence to the Senate was added to the Senate Committee's website and then removed approximately 24 hours later. There is now just the comment on the website that "Mr Galloway did not submit a written statement".

His autobiography, I'm Not The Only One, was published on 29 April 2004. The book's title is a quotation from "Imagine" by John Lennon. Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram applied for an interim interdict to prevent the book's publication. Ingram asserted that Galloway's text, which stated that Ingram "played the flute in a sectarian, anti-Catholic, Protestant-supremacist Orange Order band", was in bad faith and defamatory, although Ingram's lawyers conceded that for a year as a teenager he had been a member of a junior Orange Lodge in Barlanark, Glasgow, and had attended three parades. The Judge, Lord Kingarth, decided that he should refuse to grant an interim interdict, that the balance of the arguments favoured Galloway's publisher and that the phrase "sectarian, anti-Catholic, Protestant-supremacist" was fair comment on that organisation. Although Ingram was not and never had been a flute-player, the defending barrister observed that "playing the flute carries no obvious defamatory imputation ... it is not to the discredit of anyone that he plays the flute." The judge ruled that Ingram should pay the full court costs of the hearing.

======================================================

Source:
http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/130905Galloway.htm

On Friday 9th September Alex Jones was joined on air by member of Parliament and prominent antiwar activist George Galloway for a riveting one on one interview.

on The Emerging Controlled Police State:
Mr Galloway discussed the rising tide of anti-Iraq war protest, the snarling Neo-Cons' plan for world war and the possibility of staged government terror attacks to justify the invasion of more countries.

Mr Galloway kicked things off by asserting that the recent purposeful botch job on the part of FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and the heavy handed police state-like crackdown in New Orleans has backfired on the political elite.

"The United States today looks like a country run by dangerous malevolent incompetants...There is a stain on the reputation of your great country and by association mine" Said Mr Galloway.

We have extensively covered the purposeful incompetence of the federal response in New Orleans and the jackbooted-thuggery that is being advertised all over the nightly news, forwarding the agenda to once again normalize such repressive authoritative behaviour. Mr Galloway described the aftermath of Katrina as:

"A bizarre catalogue of incompetence and malevolence and racism and all the worst things about the US today... and now as we are beginning to pick up, there is more to it than meets the eye and it may be being seized upon as a big diversion. If it was it hasn't worked, it just compounds people's feeling that the US is run by these ghoulish, Marie Antoinette incompetents."

Mr Galloway went on to describe the state that the Neo-Con greed and war machine has got itself into:

"On the surface they appear to be gliding serenely like a swan but underneath they are paddling like hell just to stay afloat because they run the risk of being thrown out."

But Mr Galloway was also quick to point out that you cannot slip a cigarette paper between the two opposition parties both in the United States and Great Britain. There is no opposition, both countries operate under a duopoly, both parties run along parallel lines. We have to constructively approach how we vote and who we empower.

Mr Galloway's Respect Party, whom he represents in the London Constituency of Bethnal Green is an example of such a constructive movement. Respect knows it is never going to win a majority vote but is there simply to keep the powers that be in line, bringing them to book so to speak on important and far reaching issues that may otherwise go relatively unchallenged.

"The danger is that when the state begins to be such a miserable abysmal failure that people turn not to progressive forces of leadership but to the kind of brown shirted aggressive forces...".Galloway comments.

on Government Engineered Terrorism:

Previously Mr Galloway has suggested that there is a very real danger of the government engineering a situation where terror attacks can be manufactured and seized upon to forward the pre-planned agenda abroad and at home. On Friday Mr Galloway elaborated on these comments:

"There is a very real danger because you have elements within the state, you have the Richard Pearle 'axis of evil' snarling 'you're next' at this country or that country and yet the circumstance on the ground, the political collapse of the Bushites in the United States, the resistance in Iraq having taken such a terrible toll...is making the idea of another war simply ridiculous...and yet there are those in this Neo-Con, Zionist, Christian Fundamentalist axis that really are itching to get as much of this agenda pushed on whilst they still have the reins of power. So you cannot discount some kind of provocation being staged by those elements who want to propel the US into an even more disastrous invasion"

Mr Galloway suggests that it is not beyond the realms of imagination for a situation to arise where the power hungry elite in the US uses staged provocation to drag Iran into a geopolitical set-to, using Israel as the hammer. If this were to happen, the consequences could be as far reaching as to start a third world war which would be devastating for humanity.

This would provide the authorities with the perfect excuse to set up a police state domestically to regulate the activities of everyone and have complete control.

"...That's right, it's Orwellian, it's 1984, the permanent division of the world into warring blocs, for the profit of a few at the cost of the misery of the many, and we have to refuse this in every way we can." Galloway states.

Of course, the past masters of government sponsored terrorism were the Zionists, who created the condition in the Arab countries, and in some European countries to stampede the Jewish populations out of the countries they had been living in for many hundreds years and get them into a Zionist state. Galloway comments:

"Suddenly Jewish people who had been the victims of Christian persecution suddenly saw their Synagogues being blown up, their countries being attacked and all kinds of provocations being staged so packed their bags and moved to occupied Palestine, then to be called Israel."

on The Neo-Con War mentality:

It's well documented that the United States has adopted such provocation "dirty tricks" before and during the Vietnam war and ever since.

"It's always the case that in a big and complex State machine, there are all sorts of elements, they don't have to be endorsed by all of the political leadership, they can be people representing a trend in the political leadership." Galloway states. He went on to once again lambaste the disgusting Neo-Conservative war crazed movement that had recently attempted to falsify documents to implicate Mr Galloway in the very corruption that they consistently revel in:

"I 've already mentioned this hideous character Richard Pearle. I saw him the other day actually snarling 'you're next', threatening people with American military power, a man who couldn't punch his own way out of a wet paper bag, but ready to fight to the last with other people's last drop of blood. These people make my blood boil and they ought to make every right thinking person feel that way. We deserve better than to be governed by these gangsters."

Mr Galloway went on to describe how it is always the elite draft dodging spoon-fed weaklings that strive for this kind of dominance over all, sacrificing the lives of others whilst swaggering around in their own bomber jackets playing up to the act.

Returning to staged terrorism and Zionism Mr Galloway pointed out that Zionism has nothing to do with Jewishness. The Zionist movement, as it is well documented, funded Hitler before World War Two and many of the figurehead of Zionism were not and are not Jews.

"The reality is these people have used Jewish people, and they have used them with this ideology of Zionism, to create this little Hitler State on the Mediterranean, to act as an advance guard for their own interests in the Arab world, and we're all paying for it, the Palestinians have paid for it, the Arabs have paid for it, and now the American people are paying for it, and why should we? We don't want to live our lives in a permanent state of warfare and division."

The danger in the Arab world is that the people their know we are not evil and corrupt like our governments are, but they also know that we democratically elect our governments, Galloway goes on to decree. They are supposed to act on our behalf and that's why this corrupt version of "democracy" is being flatly rejected across the Arab world.

Mr Galloway concluded by asserting that we do have the power to change things, we are in the majority:

"The United States was a country built out of nothing and a country that went to the stars. The people of the United States are great 'can-do' people and they ought to be able to use the Constitution which the founding fathers gave them to organise their political power to change things."

Al-Qaeda Warns Of Attacks 'Worse Than 9/11'

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070530/wl_mideast_afp/qaedaattacksusmideast_070530103055;_ylt=AjwmHKOssyq0m2p6RTFXeTUUewgF

DUBAI (AFP) - An American member of Al-Qaeda warned in an Internet video that US President George W. Bush' should withdraw all his troops from Muslim land or face attacks worse than September 11. Adam Gadahn, a convert to Islam who has been indicted for treason by a US jury, issued a list of demands which he said were not up for negotiation.

"Your failure to heed our demands means that you and your people...will experience things that will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11, and Virginia Tech," he said in the video posted on Tuesday.

"You're losing on all fronts and losing big time," said Gadahn, who is the English-language spokesman for Osama bin Laden's terror network.

The tape entitled "Legitimate Demands" was produced by As-Sahab, a media outfit that specialises in Al-Qaeda online material.

Gadahn -- sporting a headress, glasses and long beard -- said Bush had "embroiled his nation in a series of unwinnable and bloody conflicts in the Islamic world."

He also called on the United States to cease support for the "bastard state of Israel" and the "56-plus apostate regimes of the Muslim world" and to free all Muslims from its prisons.

"We don't negotiate with war criminals and baby killers like you. No, these are legitimate demands which must be met," he said.

Gadahn -- also known Azzam al-Amriki and Azzam the American -- has appeared in several videotapes for Al-Qaeda since 2004, praising the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington and threatening new terror onslaughts.

In October 2006, he became the first person to be charged in the United States with treason since the World War II era. The charge carries a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum penalty of death.

Gadahn, who is believed to be in Pakistan, has a one million dollar reward for his capture and appears along with bin Laden on a US "Wanted" poster featuring 26 "faces of global terrorism". His last appearance in a video was in September last year.

Gadahn was born in 1978 in southern California, the son of a 1960s Jewish rock musician who later converted to Christianity and became a rural goat farmer.

His conversion to Islam came after he began attending the Islamic Centre of Orange County, where he is believed to have come under the influence of two foreign-born Islamic radicals.

Gadahn is believed to have left California for Karachi in 1998 and gradually fell out of contact with relatives in the United States.

His reference to Virginia Tech was to the shooting of 32 people at the university by a Korean-born gunman who then turned the gun on himself.

Al-Qaida Video Threatens Attacks On U.S.

by: ANNA JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_american_video

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - An American member of al-Qaida warned President on Tuesday to end U.S. involvement in all Muslim lands or face an attack worse than the Sept. 11 suicide assault, according to a new videotape. Wearing a white robe and a turban, Adam Yehiye Gadahn, who also goes by the name Azzam al-Amriki, said al-Qaida would not negotiate on its demands.

"Your failure to heed our demands ... means that you and your people will ... experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th and Virginia Tech," he said in the seven-minute video.

Gadahn, who has been charged in a U.S. treason indictment with aiding al-Qaida, spoke in English and the video carried Arabic subtitles. The video appeared on a Web site often used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of al-Qaida's media wing, as-Sahab.

Gadahn, who appeared in an al-Qaida video last September in which he called on Americans to convert to Islam, demanded that Bush remove all U.S. military and spies from Islamic countries, free all Muslims from U.S. prisons and end support for Israel. He said a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq alone would not satisify al-Qaida. Ben Venzke at IntelCenter, a U.S. government contractor that monitors al-Qaida messages, said the group likely did not believe any of its demands would be met.

"It essentially allows al-Qaida to say that it has provided fair warning and is thus no longer responsible for the outcome," Venzke said in a statement.

Gadahn, a California native, is the first American to be charged with treason in more than 50 years and could face the death penalty if convicted. He also was indicted on a charge of providing material support to terrorists.

A LETTER THAT WAS NEVER PUBLISHED BY ANY OF THE WEST'S CONTROLLED/PIMPED MEDIA WHORES



Supreme Taliban Leader Mullah Omar Issues Statement Calling For Unity in Afghanistan, Iraq

15 May, 2007

Source:
IraqWar
http://www.kavkazcenter.com
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/05/15/8276.shtml



The Commander of the Faithful and Supreme Taliban Leader Mullah Muhammad Omar issued a statement yesterday calling for unity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Warning that a large part of America's strategy is to divide the fighting forces, the Amir Al-Mumineen calls for all to unite under the flag of Islam.



A Message From The Commander Of The Faithful To The Mujahideen Of Afghanistan And Iraq.

In The Name Of Allah, The Most Gracious The Most Merciful!

We praise Him and send blessings on His Prophet Kareem!

To Proceed:

O dear Muslim brothers and Muslim sisters, you know very well that Muslims today are facing a number of challenges as the result of American politics, stubbornness, and pride.

This devourer of the world on the one hand is attacking the Muslims in armed attacks using various types of weapons including biological weapons and is building monstrous prisons for the Muslims like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Bagram.

On the other hand, it is trying to plant hypocrisy among the Muslims by developing ways to create an atmosphere of non-confidence within their ranks and is using Muslims by trying to invoke tribes and tongues and against each other.

Therefore it becomes obligatory on Muslims in all parts of the world to protect themselves and is an absolute duty just the same way it becomes obligatory on every Muslim to close all openings for the mean and cunning enemy so as not to give it the opportunity to open the fire of creating differences between the Muslims.

A large part of the American policy in Iraq is to divide the Muslims by name such as Ahl Al Tashee'(Shia) and Ahl As Sunnah (Sunnis) and in Afghanistan it is by Pashtun, Tajik, Hazarah, and Uzbek in an effort to reduce the severity and power of national uprising and armed resistance.

I am completely sure that the disciplined armed resistance of the heroic Mujahideen in Iraq, and the national standing in the face of the foreign occupation in Afghanistan under a single leadership has made the enemy largely nervous.

And they are now like those who are drowning, trying to grab hold of anything within arms reach.

They try to scare the local civilians by bombing them with heavy bombs and some times in the name of the tribe and area they come forward with a different faces.

However it is very pleasing and satisfying that many of their plans have now failed.

The locals have rejected the "Greats" among those who the occupiers have appointed but most importantly, they have obtained greater wisdom knowing that Islamic closeness with each other, national unity and brotherhood is a severe necessity.

I have issued a serious order to the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate to open their hearts to all the Islamic groups and people of the tribes and locations and to unite with all of them to form a single hand.

We must make relentless efforts so that the public will step away from befriending the enemy and stand by the side of the Mujahideen.

The politics of the Islamic Emirate is to set up an Islamic government, which is the wish of all the individuals in Afghanistan, which will be free from foreign intervention, which deals with wisdom with its neighbors and the world in the light of the Islamic rulings and international laws.

The Islamic Emirate does not interfere illegally in the internal affairs of other countries and does not accept the illegal interference of other countries in its matters as well.

We are, with all our strength and effort, carrying out Jihad to free our Beloved Afghanistan from foreign occupation and to provide the facility of free living, development, and peace for our citizens.

I strongly urge all the people of knowledge, Jihad, politics and national struggle to stretch their hands to their brothers to free the country and to establish an Islamic nation so that those painful events that occurred in the 1980's after the defeat of the Soviet Union never happens again, may Allah not permit it.

It is also necessary that in future Muslim blood not be spilled as the result of differences in names Mullah or Mujahid or in sect or leadership.

This is our policy, and it is on this basis that we shall work and it is for the world and the people not to consider the saying of any person as the policy of the Islamic Emirate.

The policy of the Islamic emirate is only published by the officially assigned speakers by the Islamic emirate.

In the same way I hope that the Iraqi brothers will leave aside the differences of the name of Ahl At Tashee and Ahl As Sunnah behind and stand united against the occupying enemy.Victory is not possible without unity.

And peace be unto you.

The servant of Islam,
Amir Al-Mumineen Mullah Muhammad Omar, Mujahid ,
25 Rabi Al-Akhir 1428
May 12, 2007

Spy Drones Added To Britain's "Surveillance Society"

by: Luke Baker

May 23, 2007

Source:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/tc_nm/britain_surveillance_dc



LONDON (Reuters) - It could be the 4 million closed-circuit television cameras, or maybe the spy drones hovering overhead, but one way or another Britons know they are being watched. All the time. Everywhere.

The latest gizmo to be employed in what civil liberty campaigners are calling Britain's "surveillance society" is a small, remote-controlled helicopter that can hover above inner city streets and monitor suspected criminals.

Unveiled in the north of Britain this week, it could be introduced across the country if deemed a success, fuelling an already intense debate over whether the "Big Brother" world George Orwell predicted is now truly upon us, or whether such scrutiny is merely essential for security in the modern era.

"For us, this is a cost-effective way of helping to catch criminals," said Simon Byrne, a senior police officer in the Merseyside district who launched the spy drone project.

Britain is now the most intensely monitored country in the world, according to surveillance experts, with 4.2 million CCTV cameras installed, equivalent to one for every 14 people.

So blanketing is the surveillance that the average resident of London runs the possibility of being photographed up to 300 times a day just moving around the capital, civil liberties campaigners Liberty say.

The pervasiveness of the cameras, combined with the government's plans to introduce digital identity cards for all citizens in the coming years and expand its DNA database, has led to calls for a halt until the impact can be better studied.

In a report issued earlier this year, the Royal Academy of Engineering warned that increased monitoring of society actually risked provoking a breakdown in trust between individuals and the state, eventually causing more harm than good.

"The state should remain the ultimate protector of citizen rights to privacy and should not garner new powers to invade the privacy or increase surveillance without strong justification," it said in a study filled with carefully measured language.


"SOCIAL SUICIDE"

As well as civil liberty campaigners growing increasingly alarmed at the tightening web of surveillance, some police officers have also expressed concern, saying excess monitoring is disrupting otherwise tranquil communities.

The deputy chief constable of Hampshire, a leafy county west of London, said this week he feared Britain was becoming an Orwellian society, with quiet villages now wired with cameras.

"I really don't think that's the kind of country that I want to live in," Ian Redhead told BBC television.

The conundrum for many is that while they don't want to feel constantly under surveillance themselves, they don't mind demanding the benefits of CCTV if it might do some good.

When the Cutty Sark, a famous 19th century trading ship, went up in flames on Monday in a possible arson attack, the first call by angry citizens was to urge on the police to study footage to see if any perpetrators could be spotted.

Perhaps the greatest perversity about the explosion of surveillance is that experts say it doesn't necessarily do any good. While crime has gone down in some areas, studies show that it's seldom due to the presence of CCTV cameras. In fact, there is evidence that cameras can provoke more criminal behavior.

"If people start to feel they are constantly under surveillance, the feeling of being watched starts to create the behavior that the surveillance was there to prevent," said Kirstie Ball, an expert in the impact of surveillance on society and a professor at the Open University Business School.

"Once you feel the screws are being turned, that your every move is being pinned down, you actually start trying to find ways to get around what's become a pervasive system."

An irony is that while most people don't want to feel monitored or observed by a government, many will reveal lots about themselves on Web sites and reality-style TV programmes, getting titillation from what would otherwise be an irritation.

Yet ultimately, she worries that the breakdown in trust that can be created between individuals and the state by excess surveillance is the greatest long-term worry.

"It can actually make for a slow social suicide," she said.