Friday 30 September 2011

Libya and the lost MissilesÊ

The White House announced today it planned to expand a program to secure and destroy Libya's huge stockpile of dangerous surface-to-air missiles, following an ABC News report that large numbers of them continue to be stolen from unguarded military warehouses.

Currently the U.S. State Department has one official on the ground in Libya, as well as five contractors who specialize in "explosive ordinance disposal", all working with the rebel Transitional National Council to find the looted missiles, White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters.

"We expect to deploy additional personnel to assist the TNC as they expand efforts to secure conventional arms storage sites," Carney said. "We're obviously at a governmental level -- both State Department and at the U.N. and elsewhere -- working with the TNC on this."

ABC News reported today U.S. officials and security experts were concerned some of the thousands of heat-seeking missiles could easily end up in the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorists groups, creating a threat to commercial airliners.

"Matching up a terrorist with a shoulder-fired missile, that's our worst nightmare," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-California, a member of the Senate's Commerce, Energy and Transportation Committee.

In the wake of the popular uprising that... View Full Size Human Rights WatchIn the wake of the popular uprising that ousted Moammar Gadhafi from power after a 42-year reign in Libya, rebel forces overran countless government military installations.

Though Libya had an estimated 20,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles before the popular uprising began in February, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told ABC News today the government does not have a clear picture of how many missiles they're trying to track down.

"We're making great progress and we expect in the coming days and weeks we will have a much greater picture of how many are missing," Shapiro said.

The missiles, four to six-feet long and Russian-made, can weigh just 55 pounds with launcher. They lock on to the heat generated by the engines of aircraft, can be fired from a vehicle or from a combatant's shoulder, and are accurate and deadly at a range of more than two miles.

Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch first warned about the problem after a trip to Libya six months ago. He took pictures of pickup truckloads of the missiles being carted off during another trip just a few weeks ago.

"I myself could have removed several hundred if I wanted to, and people can literally drive up with pickup trucks or even 18 wheelers and take away whatever they want," said Bouckaert, HRW's emergencies director. "Every time I arrive at one of these weapons facilities, the first thing we notice going missing is the surface-to-air missiles."

The ease with which rebels and other unknown parties have snatched thousands of the missiles has raised alarms that the weapons could end up in the hands of al Qaeda, which is active in Libya.

"There certainly are dangerous groups operating in the region, and we're very concerned that some of these weapons could end up in the wrong hands," said Bouckaert.

"I think the probability of al Qaeda being able to smuggle some of the stinger-like missiles out of Libya is probably pretty high," said Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism advisor and now a consultant to ABC News.

Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, told ABC News in a statement similar to Carney's remarks that, "Since the beginning of the crisis, we have been actively engaged with our allies and partners to support Libya's efforts to secure all conventional weapons stockpiles, including recover, control, and disposal of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles."

Boxer: U.S. Passenger Jets at Risk

Adding to the urgency is the fact that America's passenger jets, like those of most countries, are sitting ducks, despite years of warning about the missile threat. Since the 1970s, according to the U.S. State Department, more than 40 civilian planes around the world have been hit by surface-to-air missiles. In 2003, Iraqi insurgents hit a DHL cargo plane with a missile in Baghdad. Though on fire, the plane was able to land safely. Four years later, militants knocked a Russian-built cargo plane out of the sky over Somalia, killing all 11 crew members.

Now there are calls in Congress to give jets that fly overseas the same protection military aircraft have.

Boxer sent a letter today to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano urging the two to establish a joint program "to protect commercial aircraft from the threat of shoulder-fired missiles."

According to Boxer, it would cost about a million dollars a plane for a system that has been installed and successfully tested over the last few years, directing a laser beam into the incoming missile.

"For us to sit idly by and not do anything when we could protect 2 billion passengers over the next 20 years [with] a relatively small amount of money [from] the Department of Defense, I think that's malfeasance," said Boxer. "I think that's wrong." And it could be more practical than trying to round up all the missing Libyan missiles.

"Once these missiles walk away from these facilities, they're very difficult to get back, as the CIA realized in Afghanistan," said Bouckaert.

When the Afghan mujahideen were fighting the Soviets more than two decades ago, the CIA supplied the Afghans with 1,000 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, which had a devastating effect on Soviet military aircraft. After the Soviets had retreated, however, the CIA spent millions of dollars trying to buy back the remaining missiles from the Afghan fighters.

According to Bouckaert, the CIA spent up to $100,000 a piece to reacquire the Stingers.

"In Libya we're talking about something on the order of 20,000 surface-to-air missiles," said Bouckaert. "This is one of the greatest stockpiles of these weapons that has ever gone on the loose."

Click Here for the Blotter Homepage.

Add to Technorati Favorites


Wepons of mass destruction be atomic, biological or chemical, if the west holds them its moral but with the non-white countries or Muslim world its inhuman. Raja Mujtaba

By Adeela Naureen

So called civilized nations have no scruples!

Before the readers label me as conspiracy theorist, I would recommend them to go through or scan two important books, Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War by Jaffrey A Lockwood and Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World by Ken Alibek and Stephan Handlemen. If you don’t have time to do that, do it the easiest way and search Wikipedia. You may be surprised to know that Dengue was part of US secret Biological warfare program right from after the 2nd World War.

As per Wikipedia, “When the U.S. biological warfare program ended in 1969 it had developed seven mass-produced, battle-ready biological weapons in the form of agents that cause: anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever, VEE, and botulism. In addition Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B was produced as an incapacitating agent. In addition to the agents that were ready to be used the U.S. program conducted research into the weaponization of more than 20 other agents. They included: smallpox, EEE and WEE, AHF, Hantavirus, BHF, Lassa fever, glanders, melioidosis, plague, yellow fever, psittacosis, typhus, dengue fever, Rift Valley fever (RVF), CHIKV, late blight of potato, rinderpest, Newcastle disease, bird flu, and the toxin ricin.Besides the numerous pathogens that afflict human beings, the U.S. had developed an arsenal of anti-agriculture biological agents. These included rye stem rust spores (stored at Edgewood Arsenal, 1951–1957), wheat stem rust spores (stored at the same facility 1962 – 1969), and the causative agent of rice blast (stored at Fort Detrick 1965 – 1966).A U.S. facility at Fort Terry primarily focused on anti-animal biological agents. The first agent that was a candidate for development was foot and mouth disease (FMD). Besides FMD, five other top secret biological weapons projects were commissioned on Plum Island.The other four programs researched included RVF, rinderpest, African swine fever, plus eleven miscellaneous exotic animal diseases. The eleven miscellaneous pathogens were: Blue tongue virus, bovine influenza, bovine virus diarrhea (BVD), fowl plague, goat pneumonitis, mycobacteria, "N" virus, Newcastle disease, sheep pox, Teschers disease, and vesicular stomatitis. Work on delivery systems for the U.S. bio-weapons arsenal led to the first mass-produced biological weapon in 1952, the M33 cluster bomb. The M33's sub-munition, the pipe bomb like, cylindrical M114 bomb, was also completed and battle-ready by 1952. Other delivery systems researched and at least partially developed during the 1950s included the E77 balloon bomb and the E86 cluster bomb. The peak of U.S. biological weapons delivery system development came during the 1960s. Production of cluster bomb sub-muntions began to shift from the cylindrical bomblets to spherical bomblets, which had a larger coverage area.

Welcome to the world of Bio-War in Afro- Asia and where the spread of sudden and hitherto fore unknown diseases and biological catastrophe is becoming the order of the day. If you look at the sequence of events in last decades or so, you will find a set pattern where Asia and Africa is constantly engaged in fighting one catastrophe after the other. Can you recall names like the SAARS virus, Bird Flu, Ebola Virus, HIV, Hepatitis C, and even Swine Flu. With the entry of US led coalition into West Asia and Middle East, the remote test labs of Continental US like Lawrence Livermore and Plum Island are no more required to do the testing and storage, these weapon systems can be conveniently hidden and used in the vast spaces of Afghanistan, Balochistan, Siestan o Balochistan and the Libyan Sahara and rest of Africa. The NGOs and organization like Backwater who claim to be on humanitarian and security missions can conveniently befool the general public as well as naïve governments and unleash the new war in Afro Asian region.

Why has outbreak of these biological diseases become so rampant in the regions where the West has special interests? And why has the developing world become vulnerable to these outbreaks despite advances in science and technology? Why does the developing world depend upon vaccines and antidotes which are produced very late after the outbreak has taken its due toll? And who produces these vaccines and antidotes at exuberant costs to the developing world? These are some of the important questions requiring attention of peoples at the helm of affairs in the developing world. Africa, Asia and Latin American countries like Maxico are the future of the world, where demographic strength is likely to make these as power hubs in the next decades or so. With the western world losing the demographic battle all over, as well as finding its hold slipping in the economic and political affairs, Bio-War may be a better approach in the new realm of use of Non Kinetic means against current and potential adversaries.

A track of Dengue outbreak in Pakistan may be interesting as it has originated from the port of Karachi and two strategic junction points, Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan junction near Nimroz province of Afghanistan and Pakistan-China-Afghanistan junction from Badakhshan province. If we think that the US led Coalition was only supporting terrorism in Pakistan through her bogey of TTP then we are too naïve to underestimate their capability and reach. All kind of Kinetic and Non Kinetic means at the disposal of US led Coalition may have been tested, employed as well as kept ready for use in Afghanistan; drones and TTP are just the Kinetic Part. This should lead us to soul searching as well as taking effective security measures for good health of Pakistan and her people. Probably the second phase of Bio-War has been unleashed against Afro-Asian region.

I would conclude by referring to Ed Regis’ famous book, The Biology of Doom, it talks of US ,Russian, German and Japanese Biological Warfare programmes between 1930 and 1980,when the so called civilized nations were busy in testing and mass production of Biological Weapons to destroy humanity in a Non Kinetic War, a war which would cripple generations and unleash such diseases and viruses against humans, animals and crops that even Hitler’s scorched Earth policy would look like a child’s play. Thirty years have passed since The Biology of Doom appeared in the book stores, the evil in humans have progressed a lot after 1980; today, Biological Weapons combined with Economic Wars and Media Wars can devastate Nations and Continent without the detection of the aggressor. It is high time for the developing world to call this bluff of the west and join in a global jihad to get rid of Non Kinetic Warriors hidden behind the façade of humanity and democracy.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Libya Effect = Islamism

A sharp surge in terrorist attacks, attributed to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (Aqim), is threatening pro-western Algeria's political stability even as it struggles to defuse popular discontent sparked by the Arab spring, according to a new study. The rising violence is partly linked to the Nato-led war in next-door Libya, which appears to have fuelled jihadist sentiment and activity and increased the availability of weapons.

A study by Andrew Lebovich published by the Combating Terrorism Centre at the West Point military academy in the US charts a rise since April in Aqim outrages, including several suicide bombings, largely aimed at the Algerian security forces. "The months of July and August witnessed at least 23 attacks, including 13 IEDs [improvised explosive devices], six gun attacks, and four suicide bombing attempts," it says.

A number of factors could explain the escalation, including security force complacency symbolised by the dismantling of local militias, known as groupes de legitimes defense, which fought Islamist militants during the 1990s civil war. The northern Algerian branch of Aqim is a direct descendant of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of that period. Government opponents have also blamed President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's reconciliation policy for going soft on terror.

But a connection between the surge in violence and the British and French-led intervention in Libya is the most persuasive explanation, the study suggests. It notes Algerian and other African leaders have warned since March that chaos in Libya could destabilise Algeria by encouraging jihadist attacks and the movement of militants back and forth. They also suggested "that Aqim could gain possession of arms stolen from Libyan stocks".

"Evidence has since emerged that surface-to-air missiles and other unspecified weapons have been looted from Libyan stores, weapons that, according to European officials, have fallen into the hands of Aqim" – most likely via Aqim criminal affiliates in the ungoverned Sahel regions to the south, the study says.

Lebovich sees a number of possible consequences if the violent trend continues upwards, including growing friction between the military and the Bouteflika administration, reviving suspicions that the army may be somehow manipulating the terrorist groups (as alleged during the civil war), and even a return of the feared eradicateurs – kill squads that ruthlessly exterminated the militants at every opportunity. "Regardless of what emerges from the infighting and tension in Algeria's ruling classes, it seems likely that Aqim's violence will continue to increase in the north," Lebovich concludes.

The Aqim resurgence comes as Algeria's rulers try to avoid an Arab spring-style popular insurgency. Government efforts to date to buy off unrest, funded by oil and gas revenues, include big salary increases for civil servants, raised subsidies on basic foodstuffs, and a lifting of the state of emergency dating back to the civil war. Bouteflika, whose health and staying power are in question, has also promised reforms including an amended constitution, new electoral laws, and a press code.

But these and other measures implemented since riots broke out in Algiers in January cannot overcome some systemic problems, according to the analyst Hamoud Salhi.

"So far the policy of appeasement and concession has worked well for the Algerian government. But for how long? There are severe housing shortages in Algeria, accompanied by high consumer prices and low salaries. According to the IMF, unemployment rates have reached 25% among 24-year-olds, widening gaps between social classes," Salhi wrote in a BBC analysis. "Algeria has not necessarily weathered the storm."

Other experts and the US government have also got the jitters about a possibly violent spillover. "Aqim poses the greatest immediate threat of transnational terrorism in north-west Africa and is escalating its attacks against regional and western interests," said Andre Le Sage, writing for the US National Defence University's Institute for National Strategic Studies.

Policymakers were concerned that more direct American involvement might exacerbate Islamist militancy and internal tensions in Algeria and elsewhere, he said. Nevertheless, given the growing threat, the US "needs to be prepared to take more aggressive actions to disrupt, degrade, and ultimately defeat Aqim and should clearly determine in advance what level of increased Aqim activity would represent a direct threat to US national security interests".

In a possible sign of a more activist approach, the US embassy in Algiers issued a public terrorism alert earlier this month, saying it had information that Aqim was planning to attack planes chartered by western oil companies operating in the Algerian Maghreb. General Carter Ham, head of US Africa Command, warned, meanwhile, that there were "very worrying" indications that Aqim was increasingly co-operating with al-Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria – raising the spectre of an Islamist militant network spanning the continent.

In a statement many Algerians may view as a decidedly mixed blessing at a time of domestic political weakness and uncertainty, the US state department said Algeria continued to be "one of our strongest partners" in the fight against terrorism.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Iran - the oil war

Iran will hit back from any Israeli attack by hitting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and targeting US oil facitities in the Central Asian republics.

Now the US navy better watch out.

..Iran has equipped its naval forces with a short range "cruise missile," able to hit targets in costal areas and warships within "200 kilometres (125 miles), the country's defence minister was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

"Today we are witnessing the equipping of the Guards navy and army navy with ample numbers of the Qader cruise missile," General Ahmad Vahidi said, quoted by his ministry's website referring to the elite Revolutionary Guards who are tasked with defending Iranian waters in the Gulf.

"It has 200 km range and has ability to be launched quickly against warships and costal targets. It flies in low altitude, has high destructive power, (and is) lightweight with high precision," he added.

He added that it could be fired from the coast or from vessels of different classes, increasing considerable the operational ability of the forces.

The Qader missile was unveiled last month by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with Iranian officials dubbing it a "cruise missile" built entirely by local experts. The president said Iran's military arsenal was defensive, aimed at ensuring the country's "enemies do not dare attack."

Iran in the past two years has increased development, testing and unveiling of new "indigenous" military equipment, including missiles.

The Iranian navy recently boosted its presence in international waters, sending vessels into the Indian Ocean to protect Iranian ships from Somali pirates.

It also sent two ships into the Mediterranean for the first time in February, via the Suez Canal, to the annoyance of Israel and the United States.

Iran's navy commander, Admiral Habibollah Sayari, said on Tuesday that Iran was planning to deploy ships close to US territorial waters, without saying when.

Iranian naval forces are mainly composed of small units equipped with missiles in the Gulf and operating under the control of the Revolutionary Guards.


Add to Technorati Favorites

The Griffinite Idiots

Just been catching up on a few of the comments left by the Griffinite idiots re the comment Griffin made about Christianity.

First, the Inquisition was not a single event - it was a series of events related to specific historical triggers.

There were Inquisitions, not an Inquisition.

For Griffin to single out the Inquisitions and use them as a stick to beat the Catholic Church or Christianity is the same sort of methodology of the Islamists.

Christianity was not responsible for the Inquisition any more than a car is responsible for the actions of the drink driver behind the wheel of the car.

Individuals abusing the power of the Church are responsible for the Inquisitions, not Christianity.

Christianity is a religion - its adherents who distorted its teachings are guilty and also those abused their powers for poltiical / economic reasons, not the religion itself.

To say 'Christianity' was responsible is the exact same thing the Islamists do.

The Inquisitions are notable as it reveals how the power of the Church was abused and, that the Inquisitions were not products of Christanity but evil and ambitious men who abused their rank and authority within the Church.

They are notable as they are abberations, not as features of the religion of Christianity.

Then we get to the point of modern 'inclusive ' christianity that Griffin thinks is better than older version of Christianity.

Modern christianity is not Christian.

Its is a neo-Marxist Theology based on the Liberation Struggle ideology.

For Griffin to say that he is glad we passed the era of the Inquisition and that we are now in the post-Christian Neo-Marxist era of gay vicars peddling sermons about asylum seekers and gay marriage and that persecutes nationalists for being Christians = total moronism.

Griffin is too thick to realise that there is a new Inquisition underway today, an Inquistion against British Nationalists who are banned from being members of churches and to attend their local church.

That is the new Inqusition.

It is underway right now.

The inquisions are not over - we are in the middle of a brand new one directed at British Nationalist thought criminals - and Griffin is even too thick to realise it even when it affects his own party members.

What a cretin.

We need a muscular christianity not this present pathetic politically correct marxist mouse of a pseudo-religion that persecutes people and expels them for the heresy of free thought in their politically correct Inquisition.

Griffin was wrong on all counts.

As usual his idiot drones were unable to see it.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Immigration apology lost as Cooper talks up cultural enrichment

Immigration apology lost as Cooper talks up cultural enrichment

Immigration apology lost as Cooper talks up cultural enrichment


Few people have a greater capacity of talking from both sides of their face at once than a Labour politician.

Yvette Cooper was demonstrating a master class on how to do this on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday.

On the one hand there seemed to be a half-baked vague apology about Labour not achieving some form of immigration controls, of which she could give but the barest of detail to.

On the other hand she gave the ridiculous argument that immigrant culture somehow enriches Britain.

This overtly specious approach that advocates cultural enrichment, belies the reality that this argument is being made for the sake of the argument; not for the acknowledgment of harm that mass, unfettered, immigration causes.

As well as Labour’s cultural blunder, the economic repercussions of those with less than comparable education to our own were completely omitted by the former Labour Minister on radio.

In simple terms, migrant culture does not enrich our Islands. Britain with its rich history of toleration, free-speech and Parliamentary democracy already has the world’s eminent and superior culture that is a model for all nations seeking development.

The addition of anything distinct is merely a dilution of that which is already perfect.

To take an example, few of the successful economies of the developing world can claim freedom of the press comparable to Britain even in the 19th C, let alone today.

Let’s come back to the cultural issues in just a moment. Take a deep breath and just look at some of the immigration statistics and the migrant mess that Labour has created.

In the last ten years of 2 million jobs that were created in Britain, 1.8 million went to immigrants.

This is a shocking abdication of a government whose primary responsibility is to empower and facilitate its own people into the job market, by creating the correct skills and educational base.

According to the research body Migration Watch net immigration quadrupled to 237,000 a year between 1997 and 2007.

In 2009 it was 196,000. 3 million immigrants have arrived since 1997.

A migrant still arrives almost every minute into Britain, shockingly despite unemployment being a ten-year high. We need to build a new home every six minutes for new migrants. This is despite the national debt growing over the next few years.
Yvette Cooper was very defensive in the interview. She tried to put forward the lamentable idea of the point system.

The problem with the points system is that it does not assess people on the basis of whether they have found a job, but rather whether they are likely to.

This increases the chances that new-comers are likely to be added to a list of those who are looking for work in a country that has an increasing list of those who are losing their jobs.

Further some of these will manage to get welfare provisions before they have managed to work at all.

This is particularly likely because, under the present system, the ability to maintain oneself in the UK is not compulsory but merely carries points that are likely to aid entry.

Secondly the point system does not work. The point system that Labour left for the Coalition still meant that in the first year of the Coalition more people entered

Britain than any other year since immigration records began.This is because the point system is primarily designed to deal with those who already have a significant amount of skills and qualifications.

Critically it does not apply to any of the huge numbers of people that have an automatic right of entry from the EU.

With the new, Lib-Dem inspired, Coalition tax-free bracket of over £7,000 it is now possible to arrive in this country, never pay tax and still get free housing, schooling and healthcare.

That is clear injustice on those who have paid tax for years, and particularly those taxpayers who have to compete for the same provisions.

Now let’s go back to Cooper’s fantasy of cultural enrichment. In worst cases isolation of immigrant communities caused by multi-culturalism and lack of assimilation leads to welfare dependency, and even a proliferation of Islamic extremism.

All this has occurred under Labour and not a word of recognition is given either by Cooper or by Ed Miliband at Labour's party conference.

Immigrant cultures, because of Labour's advocacy for multi-culturalism have carried out morally repugnant Sharia courts in Britain.

When Sikhs got offended about a play in Birmingham in 2004, they chose to bash a theatre to the point of preventing a show going on. This was an episode markedly reminiscent of a medieval mob from some pre-reformation history book.

So much for immigrant assimilation into the value of freedom of speech. Token ethnic
candidates that pander to multi-culturalism were specifically chosen by Labour to shore up inner-city seats for this supposed cultural enrichment.

At the same time any criticism of multi-culturalism was, and still is, idiotically branded as racist in a manner which is akin to state censorship of any counter-argument.

Labour made assimilation actively impossible as it spent millions of tax-payer’s pounds on schemes that taught multi-culturalism in schools.

Further thousands were spent on absurd local government projects such as black-history day that encourage, rather than enervate, racial and cultural differences.

At the same time Labour, wanting this cultural enrichment, ensured that British History could never be compulsory on the national curriculum.

This was all going on whilst further immigrants were coming into the UK. Apologies from Labour are no longer simply not enough.

Resignation of seats and an immigration system that works with the effect of a quota-control is what is needed.

With large number of new comers coming in, and with no active schooling available of this country’s history it is no wonder we are, generation by generation, losing sight of who we are.

This mass pool of migration already exacerbates the lack of knowledge amongst young people, many of whom haven’t got a clue who Nelson or even, the more contemporaneous, Churchill was.

Yvette Cooper needs to get a leaf out of the book of one of my heroes, the great former Governor General of India: Warren Hastings.

As he new, you do not need to import huge parts of India into Britain to sample its culture. You can get translations of Sanskrit in libraries; and if you are really keen- you can just go there.

What Cooper and the Labour party need to grasp is that we must promote our culture at the centre of strictly controlled immigration, and encourage assimilation.

or if we don’t know who we are; we cannot know the world- we have no comparator to judge from, no yardstick from which to measure, no looking glass from which to see why we should be proud of what we have.

The air of these Isles is so mystical and romantic in texture, imbued with centuries of sacrifice and endeavour for the most noblest of causes: Liberty.

This same air that inspired Shakespeare, Coleridge, Milton and Keats, amongst others, should not be shared so easily, but only given to the best.

Further, when new immigrants arrive we should ensure they breathe the spirit of all it carries, in order that they are emancipated from the isolating burden of their own cultural provenance.

Now this, Yvette Cooper, is what cultural enrichment is all about.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Friday 23 September 2011


Listen to Nick Griffin say ' Thank god that Christianity is now virtually gone from the West '.

So much for the BNP being a 'Christian' party.

So much for the BNP defending British Christian Culture.

So much for the BNP being a 'Christian party' to protect Christian values.

Another monumental Griffin cock up - the man is an oaf.

Listen here ;

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Past and the Future

The Great Depression of the past is the the Greatest Depression of all time about to happen - look at these pictures and weep for your grandparents and weep for the future of your grandkids ;

Add to Technorati Favorites

The reason of the latest crash

"Everyone predicted the market would crash if the US didn't raise the debt limit and defaulted.

Well, the debt ceiling was raised and the market crashed anyway. Even gold went down today. Why?

They crashed because the specter of "lower government debt" meant less spending i.e. The medium of exchange would not keep pace with economic growth. And since the dollar is the world reserve currency, this puts the world economy in a straightjacket."

I wrote this on August 4. A month and a half later, the pattern continues. The market reacted negatively Wednesday to lack of stimulus from the Fed and talk of debt and default in Europe. The central bankers and their minions are deliberately causing a Depression. The catalyst for today's decline was the Fed saying the US economy has "significant down-side risks." Sounds like a deliberate provocation to me.

As long as money creation is tied to debt, we will continue to suffer. Money can no longer be produced as a debt to the private central banking cartel. It must be produced debt-free.

Here is an explanation of money I posted in August:

Imagine that you were charged a penny for every breath you took. After a month, this would amount to a lot of money. Wait! you would say. Nobody owns oxygen!

The same applies to money. Money is a medium of exchange. It has no intrinsic value.

It is a coupon used to facilitate trade. Each product or service is worth so many coupons.

The economy is like a fire which needs a certain amount of oxygen to burn steadily. The job of the government is to provide this oxygen in terms of spending i.e. injecting coupons.

Just like oxygen, nobody can own a medium of exchange.

But the Illuminati bankers do own it. They create money in the form of a debt to them! Anytime the government wants to stoke the fire, it must go further into debt.

Fiscal conservatives like Ron and Rand Paul, and the Tea Party, perpetuate and legitimize this fraudulent and dysfunctional system by harping on the dangers of "debt."

The economy would collapse if the debt were repaid. There would be no money in circulation. We're not meant to repay it.

Half the US debt is owed to the Fed and should be repudiated since the money was created as a book entry. Why should we repay it with our sweat and blood?

Fiscal Conservatives are going to tie the hands of government and precipitate a major depression.

Looks like this is coming true.


In an economic collapse, people will seek refuge in paper currency, especially the $US. This happened in 2008 and it is happening again.

Gold and silver are just rocks. They are much more expensive to produce than paper and for that reason they are inferior as a medium of exchange i.e. coupon.

A gold bug sent me this:

"The financial crash will render worthless everything that is denominated in paper. Only real things will retain value, and the royalty of real things are gold and silver, for the simple reason that they are the most liquid, i.e. universally accepted."

I replied:

if "universally accepted" and "liquid" are the criteria , the US dollar is far better than either metals... people are going into cash today!


The economy needs liquidity (i.e. an effective medium of exchange that stimulates productivity.) As long as this medium is created in the form of debt, the economy will be severely constrained. We will have deflation - too many products chasing too little cash. Deflation is poison for gold.

We don't need bankers to create currency based on our government's credit. The government can do that itself.

We must unite and demand debt-free currency creation or suffer the consequences. The politicians and mass media won't do this without pressure. They are chattels of the central bankers.


Related- Sept. 22 Gold Plummets as Investors Scramble for Cash

See "A Gold Bug Replies"

Ellen Brown - The Problem is a Shrinking Money Supply

August 8 -- Market Crash is Because of Debt Cut

Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday 22 September 2011

Faster Than Light Travel Exists

Puzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC, have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light.

Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a few billionths of a second early.

The results will soon be online to draw closer scrutiny to a result that, if true, would upend a century of physics.

The lab's research director called it "an apparently unbelievable result".

The speed of light is the Universe's ultimate speed limit, and the entirety of modern physics - as laid out in part by Albert Einstein in his theory of relativity - depends on the idea that nothing can exceed it.

Thousands of experiments have been undertaken to measure it ever more precisely, and no result has ever spotted a particle breaking the limit.

But Antonio Ereditato of the Orion collaboration and his colleagues have been carrying out an experiment for the last three years that seems to suggest neutrinos have done just that.

Neutrinos come in a number of types, and have recently been seen to switch spontaneously from one type to another.

Dr Ereditato and his colleagues prepare a beam of just one type, muon neutrinos, sending them from Cern to an underground laboratory at Gran Sasso in Italy to see how many show up as a different type, tau neutrinos.

In the course of doing the experiments, the researchers noticed that the particles showed up 60 billionths of a second sooner than light would over the same distance.

The team measured the travel times of neutrino bunches some 15,000 times, and have reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery.

But because the result is so unexpected and would wreak such havoc with our understanding of the Universe, the group is being particularly cautious. They have opted to put a report their measurements online to subject them to wider scrutiny, and will hold a seminar at Cern on Friday to discuss the result.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Equality Agenda Defined

The Eqaulity Agenda Defined ;

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday 21 September 2011

Liverpool Slavery Museum and Liberal Lies

I have sent this to Liverpool slavery museum, I will let you know what they say.


I have visited your museum and noticed that it makes not a single refernce to White slavery - not in relation to the slavery of the White Irish, British Whites by Muslims during the era of the Barbary Pirates nor of whites sent to the West Indies or America,

Is this because the museum is a racist propaganda museum deisgned to only peddle the lie that only blacks suffered slavery under the whip hand of whites ?

I am considering taking legal action against the museum under the Race Relations Acts as it is in breach of its duty to promote race relations by exposing the issues of white slavery to the British public.

I therefare want to know the following prior to launching an application for Judicial Review of your public funding ;

1) Why is white slavery not mentioned by the museum ?

2) why has the museum no exhibits about the Irish white slave trade or the Muslim slave trade of British people kdnapped by Barbary Pirates ?

3) why has the museum only featured slave stories about Blacks and Africans and not whites ?

4) Will the mueum feature any exhibits and presentations about white slavery ?

5) how much has the museum spent on exhibits about white slavery since its opening ?

6) does the museum plan to continue to breach the race relations act and demonise whites and minimise white slavery by peddling race hate against whites ?

You have 7 days to reply - then I will initiate legal action in relation to your public funding and also lodge a complaint with the police about the museum inciting racial hatred.


L. J. Barnes LLB ( Hons )

Add to Technorati Favorites

China and Saudi Arabia Alliance

China Economy

China exceeds US to become Saudi Arabia's top oil customer Source: Global Times [16:47 February 23 2010] Comments By the end of 2009, the amount of the crude oil that China imported from Saudi Arabia exceeded 1 million barrels per day, while the US, the primary importer of the country's oil before, imported less than 1 million barrels per day for the first time since more than 20 years.

China's strong demand for oil is changing the structure of the global oil market, a China Business News report said Tuesday.

According to the figures from the General Administration of Customs of China, in 2009, the accumulative total amount of oil that China imported was 204 million tons, breaking 200 million tons for the first time.

Saudi Arabia became China's largest oil source by exporting 41.86 tons, making up about 20 percent of the oil imported by China.

"The rapid growth of the oil imports from Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia rings the bell of the countries high degree of dependence on foreign trade. To ensure the energy safety, China has to change its economic development model and improve the diversification of its energy sources," said Han Xiaoping, a China energy analyst.

Saudi Arabia has been one of the most important sources for US oil imports, but in 2009, the imports amount dropped dramatically, while China's imports amount grew 15.1 percent and replaced the US to become the largest customer for Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia's change in the oil flow direction seems signal delicate changes in the global oil market, the China Business News report said.

"The US drop in oil imports from the Saudi Arabia does not necessarily mean its influence in the world's oil market is weakening," Han said. Han said that the US prices the world's oil through the dollar and this is more influential than direct purchase of the oil.

Han added that Saudi Arabia's increase in its exports to China means it is seeking a stable market for its large oil reserve and China's continuous growing demand is a good choice.

Figures from China customs also showed that China's oil imports exceeded 50 percent in 2009 and Saudi Arabia made up 20.5 percent of China's total oil imports.
The top three sources of oil for China are Saudi Arabia, Angola and Iran.

Han said that these figures revealed two problems in China's oil safety network. One is the increasing dependence on imported fuel with half of the oil imported. The other problem is the reliance on Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the politically volatile Middle East.
Since importing 6 percent of its oil in 1993, China took only 16 years to raise its dependence to 49 percent in 2008 and exceeded 50 percent in 2009.

According to a research report from the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), from 2010 to 2015, China's economy will enter a new growth period, which will also demand for oil.

The CNPC report predicted that in the next five years, the country's oil demand will increase 4.9 percent on average and the demand in 2015 may reach about 530 million tons.
"China's high dependence on oil imports has high risks, large imports will consume large foreign reserves and the potential problems with energy safety will still exist. China needs to change the development model as soon as possible and raise the efficiency of its energy use," said Zhong Jian, chief economist of
"China needs to achieve a breakthrough in new energy as soon as possible," Zhong added.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Webster Tarpley on Russia and Obama

If the American public were generally aware that the “foreign minister” of one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the world, a man whose extradition on terrorism charges is sought by at least one UN Security Council permanent member, is living openly in Washington DC, they might be indignant. If Americans knew that this is the “foreign minister” of a terrorist group specializing in killing women and children, first in a hospital, then in a school, and later defenseless civilians in a theater, their indignation might grow into rage. If they knew that this envoy for terrorists is living in the comfortable Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington DC with a lifestyle most Americans could not afford, with an office, a secretary, a travel budget, and a public relations budget all paid for at the expense of the US taxpayers, with State Department checks signed by Condoleezza Rice, they might be furious. If they knew that this ambassador for terrorists had been set up in his current all-expenses-paid, taxpayerfunded lifestyle by a man who is the main image adviser and the main foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, their view of the Illinois senator and his qualifications for the presidency might well undergo a radical change.
And yet, all this is reality. The terrorist organization in question is the Chechen rebel group associated with the names of two of the greatest butchers of our time, Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev, both deceased even though the organization they built fights on. The foreign minister and ambassador for this terrorist group is Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov (Ильяс Хамзатович Ахмадов, born December 19, 1960), who was granted political asylum in the United States in 2003. Akhmadov’s patron is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former head of the National Security Council during the Jimmy Carter administration and, before that the co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Zbigniew Brezezinski in turn is not only the main foreign policy adviser to the Barack Obama presidential campaign; Zbigniew is in many ways the creator of the public relations image profile now being used by Obama in his quest for the White House, an image that is developed in Zbig’s latest book, Second Chance. Zbigniew’s son Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the NSC under Clinton, is another key foreign policy adviser for Obama. Mika Brzezinski, daughter to Zbigniew and sister to Mark, churns out a propaganda line slanted in favor of Obama every morning on the MSNBC Morning Joe program. Ian Brzezinski, another son of Zbigniew, is busy poisoning US relations with Russia from his post as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and Russia in the Bush Pentagon. Yet another member of the clan, Zbigniew’s nephew Matthew Brzezinski serves as a de facto public relations representative for Akhmadov, whitewashing this envoy for Chechen terrorists in the pages of the Washington Post. The entire crew is made up of petty Polish aristocrats notable mainly for their fanatical, consuming hatred of Russia and Russians. The family project is to hitch the remaining military power of the United States to their monomania of hatred. If they are allowed to succeed, the bloody excesses of the neocons in the Middle East will seem like schoolyard games by comparison, since the Brzezinski gang wants to court all-out confrontation with a first-class thermonuclear power that is moving well ahead of the US in certain crucial types of strategic weaponry. The now-infamous neocons have been careful to pick on powers with little or no strategic retaliatory potential. Brzezinski lacks this faculty of discrimination. This is the reality behind the messianic edification and utopian platitudes dished up by Obama. Under an Obama administration, Americans will risk getting a reminder of what real war looks like, and they may discover that it is a two-way street.

Voters who may be wondering what the foreign policy of a future Obama administration might look like need to learn from recent painful experience with George W. Bush and look closely at the foreign policy advisers around the candidate, since it is these figures who will prepare the policy options and, by so doing, will determine the course of a new administration. For Bush, these advisers were the self-styled “Vulcans,” figures like Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Cheney, most of them neocons and most of them chosen by George Shultz, who created the disaster of the Afghan and Iraq wars. Even though Bush might have been a blank slate in foreign policy, it was evident from the presence of these neocon warmongers which direction the new regime would choose. Who then are the corresponding figures around Obama? A cursory look reveals that in foreign affairs and not just foreign affairs, Obama is the creature of the Brzezinski machine.

“He’s A Terrorist, There Is No Doubt About It”
The country that wants Akhmadov extradited into their custody to stand trial for multiple murder charges is the Russian Federation, which has repeatedly requested that Akhmadov not be allowed to stay in Washington. Russia has been demanding Akhmadov’s extradition since 2003. “He’s a terrorist, there is no doubt about it,” commented Aleksander Lukashevich, senior political counselor at the Russian Embassy in Washington. “We have proof . . . . Our foreign minister has made Russia’s position on extradition quite clear.” “Harboring terrorists, their henchmen and sponsors undermines the unity and mutual trust of parties to the antiterrorist front,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in an address to the U.N. General Assembly in 2004. Russian President Vladimir Putin commented during a visit to India in December 2004, “We cannot have double standards while fighting terrorism, and it cannot be used as a geopolitical game.” Akhmadov’s presence in Washington is thus already a major irritant in US-Russia relations. Seen in this context, Akhmadov emerges as pawn in the Brzezinski clan strategy to set the United States and Russia on a confrontation course, a strategy they plan to impose on Obama, who is their clueless puppet in international affairs.

Voters may remember the Chechen terrorists for their greatest atrocity, the September 2004 attack on a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, located in the ethnically diverse trans- Caucasus region of southern Russia. At that time, Chechen terrorists took hundreds of hostages in an elementary school. Before the terror attack was finished, more than 300 persons, mainly school children and women, had been massacred. The responsibility for this atrocity was claimed in a formal statement by the terrorist leader Shamil Basayev, a reputed CIA agent later killed by Russian troops. This infamous Basayev, one of the fiercest terrorists of our own or any other time, is generally acknowledged to have been the direct superior officer, mentor, and friend of Ilyas Akhmadov, the protégé of Zbigniew Brzezinski now living at US taxpayer expense. Akhmadov himself admits his close relationship to Basayev, whom he first met in 1992. In 1994, when the Chechen secessionist rebellion began, Akhmadov was quick to join an infantry unit commanded by Basayev operating near the Chechen capital of Grozny. Akhmadov’s other great terrorist sponsor was the Chechen rebel “president” Maskhadov, who named Akhmadov to the job of foreign minister which he still claims to hold, despite his claims to disagree with the terrorist policies of the government he continues to represent. Maskhadov was killed by Russian forces. Akhmadov, who demands Sam Adams on draft, not in bottles when he is thirsty, told Zbigniew’s nephew Matthew that he no longer approves of what Basayev and Maskhadov did, but his complicity is beyond doubt. (See Matthew Brzezinski, “Surrealpolitik: How a Chechen terror suspect wound up living on taxpayers’ dollars near the National Zoo,” Washington Post Magazine, March 20, 2005.

1995 Budyonnovsk Hospital Massacre By Akhmadov’s Friends
In 1995, a group of 150 Chechen terrorist fighters commanded by Basayev attacked a Russian hospital in Budyonnovsk, about 100 miles north of the Chechen border. Basayev and his terrorist commandos took more than 1,000 hostages at the hospital, leading to a siege by Russian forces which lasted a week. Basayev’s Chechen terrorist fighters used the defenseless Russian patients and staff as human shields. In the ensuing fighting, more than 100 Russian hostages, including many women and children, perished. These are the forces which Akhmadov has represented and continues to represent, with the American taxpayer footing the bill.

Akhmadov’s track record is so horrendous that even some important Republican Congressmen resisted granted him asylum in the US. The 2003 House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), and the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security subcommittee, John Hostettler (R-Indiana) jointly demanded that the then Attorney General John Ashcroft review the ruling that granted Akhmadov political asylum. “If the United States had evidence that Mr. Akhmadov was involved in terrorist activities, it is unclear why he was not barred from asylum as a terrorist and as a danger to the security of our nation,” they told Ashcroft in September 2004.

Zbigniew: “One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life”
“In July 2004 . . . after running up legal fees that (if he had had to pay them) would have set him back $250,000, Akhmadov received the final decision. He could stay in America,” writes Matthew Brzezinski. He does not make clear who footed the bill for Akhmadov’s quarter million dollars of lawyers’ expenses. Was it the American taxpayer? In any case, there is no doubt that the pro-Akhmadov lobbying was spearheaded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his faction of Russia haters. When Akhmadov was granted permanent asylum, it was apparently Zbigniew Brzezinski who called to give him the news: “I’m not exaggerating when I say that one of the happiest days of my life was when I called Ilyas to tell him that he would be able to stay in America,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, as quoted by his own nephew, Matthew. (Washington Post, March 20, 2005)

Akhmadov was later given a Reagan-Fascell grant by the State Department. This provides him with a generous stipend for living expenses, an office at the National Endowment for Democracy complete with private secretary, plus extra money for travel and public relations purposes – all courtesy of the American taxpayer. Would an Obama administration, with an anti-Russian foreign policy dictated by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his clan, bring Chechen and terrorists in large numbers to this country, provided that they were anti-Moscow? Would these terrorists get Reagan-Fascell grants from the State Department, so that they could live and operate at US taxpayer expense? What impact might that have on US-Russian relations? If these terrorists were to orchestrate a huge atrocity in Russia that had their fingerprints all over it, what might the Russian response be? Do we really want to go down this road in deference to the psychotic obsessions of an aging revanchist and Russophobe like Zbigniew Brzezinski?

Especially after the publication of Matthew Brzezinski’s whitewash of Akhmadov, the presence of an ambassador for such a terror organization being maintained by the US taxpayers in Washington DC became a public scandal. The scandal came out in the pages of Johnson’s Russia List, the scholarly clearing house for information about Russia. Professor Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University offered the following facts to challenge the Matthew Brzezinski article, which had claimed that Akhmadov was now a penitent for the actions of the Chechen terrorist regime: “On August 2 and September 5, 1999, the Russian Republic of Dagestan was invaded by about 2,000 terrorists from al- Qaeda-connected bases in Chechnya. Dozens of innocent Dagestani men, women, and children were murdered. According to figures furnished by the UNHCR, 32,000 people were driven from their homes. The invasions were potentially genocidal in that they exposed to direct attack the entire ethnic territories, and all villages, inhabited by some of Dagestan’s smaller ethno-linguistic groups, such as the Andis. During these months Illyas Akhmadov was serving as Chechnya’s foreign minister. He did not resign from that position. I have been able to find no evidence that Akhmadov issued any public statement repudiating the invasions of Dagestan during the six weeks that they were in progress. During interviews with Dagestanis since that time, I have been able to find no one in Dagestan who is aware of any public statement issued either by Illyas Akhmadov or Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov repudiating the invasions while they were in progress, let alone offering to assist the people of Dagestan in resisting them.” (Robert Bruce Ware, “Response to Brzezinski,” Johnson’s Russia List, March 20, 2005.

Professor Ware challenged the Brzezinski cabal to justify their support for Akhmadov and the Chechen terrorists, especially in the light of Bush’s posturing that those who harbor terrorists are themselves to be classified as terrorists: “We Americans can easily imagine how we would feel if we were to discover that Mullah Omar, or any other important Taliban official, had been granted political asylum in Russia. . . . Now here are my first questions for Illyas Akhmadov, the Brzezinski clan, . . . and everyone else cited in the Brzezinski article: If the United States was correct to declare the entire Taliban government a terrorist organization, then why isn’t the Russian government correct to declare Chechen government, including Aslan Maskhadov and Illyas Akhmadov, to be a terrorist organization? If we would think it wrong of Russia to grant political asylum to Mullah Omar, then why do we not think that it is wrong for the United States to grant political asylum to Illyas Akhmadov? Why didn’t Illyas Akhmadov resign from the Chechen government when Dagestan was invaded? Why didn’t Illyas Akhmadov resign from the Chechen government when Aslan Maskhadov refused to extradite the leaders of the invasion of Dagestan? During the months of August and September 1999, Illyas Akhmadov was shuttling between Moscow and Grozny in order to negotiate these points with Russian officials. During those months did Illyas Akhmadov personally refuse, or convey refusals, of requests such as these? Exactly what record is there that Illyas Akhmadov ever issued a public statement repudiating the invasions of Dagestan while those invasions were in progress, or supporting the extradition of the invasions’ leaders? (Robert Bruce Ware, “Response to Brzezinski,” Johnson’s Russia List, March 20, 2005)

“Achmadov Should Be Asked To Leave The United States”
Professor Ware’s conclusion was that Akhmadov needed to be deprived of his State Department funding and kicked out of the United States: “If the 9/11 [attacks] made Bin Laden a terrorist, and if the Oklahoma City blast made McVeigh a terrorist, then why didn’t his public acceptance of responsibility for the Ingushetia raids make Aslan Maskhadov a terrorist? And if his public acceptance of responsibility for those raids made Maskhadov a terrorist, then why doesn’t it implicate those who represented him, such as Illyas Akhmadov, in charges of terrorism? And if it does make Illyas Akhmadov a terrorist then why is he enjoying political asylum and a prestigious professional position at the expense of the American taxpayer? . . . Akhmadov should be asked to leave the United States as soon as possible.” (Robert Bruce Ware, “Response to Brzezinski,” Johnson’s Russia List, March 20, 2005). Better yet, Akhmadov should be handed over to Russia, which would get him off the back of the US taxpayer. At the very least, Akhmadov should be indicted for terrorism and put on trial in Washington.

Brzezinski Supported Pol Pot
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s support for Chechen terrorism, no matter how dangerous this policy may be for the United States, is exemplary for his entire approach to world affairs, which he calls “geostrategy.” In practice, this means Russophobia, the hatred of Russia. So fanatical is Zbigniew’s hatred for Russia that he is willing to embrace any lunatic adventure, no matter what the potential for blowback and damage to the United States, as long as he thinks that Moscow may be harmed in the process. A good example is his support of the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia during the time he ran foreign policy during the Carter Administration. Pol Pot was supported by the Chinese, and the Chinese at that time were the key to Brzezinski’s version of the China card policy, which was to play Beijing against Moscow in the hopes of weakening both. This is another very dangerous idea that he hopes to duplicate under a future Obama regime. Here is Brzezinski’s confession that he backed Pol Pot, which makes him an accessory to one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the twentieth century. The Pol Pot regime slaughtered between two and three million of its own people, a greater proportion of the target population than that attained by any other genocide in our time. But this was no impediment to Zbigniew: “In 1981, President Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, ‘I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot.’ The US, he added, ‘winked publicly’ as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand.” Even after the Pol Pot regime had been defeated on the battlefield by the forces of Hanoi, it continued to occupy the Cambodian seat at the United Nations, thanks largely to the support of the Carter administration which was ordered by Zbigniew Brzezinski as a Cold War measure and as a part of his China Card anti-Russian rapprochement with Beijing. By this time, it was clear that the Pol Pot regime had indeed committed genocide. (John Pilger, “The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot,” Fall 1997, online at:, citing Elizabeth Becker, When the War was Over, New York: Simon and Shuster, 1986, p. 440.)

Brzezinski also set the United States on the course that has led to the First Gulf War and the current Iraq and Afghanistan debacles. In 1980, Brzezinski was the author of the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf against all comers. Two subsequent wars have done nothing more than play out the logic of that committment, which Zbigniew intended to favor a collision between Washington and Moscow.

Brzezinski Boasts Of Starting The Afghan War
Brzezinski was also the great promoter of Islamic fundamentalism, which he celebrated as the greatest bulwark against Soviet Russian communism. Using the Islamic faundamentalists, Brzezinski hoped to make the entire region between the southern border of the USSR and the Indian Ocean into an “arc of crisis,” from which fundamentalist subversion would radiate into Soviet territory, first and foremost into the five Soviet republics of central Asia, Azerbaijan, etc. It was in the service of this Islamic fundamentalist card that Brzezinski first helped overthrow the Shah of Iran, and then insisted that the replacement could be no one else than Ayatollah Khomeini. To magnify the impact of Khomeini, Brzezinski sent subversion teams into Afghanistan during the summer of 1979 to undermine the pro-Soviet forces there and induce Moscow to intervene. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan at Christmas 1979, Moscow claimed that they were responding to earlier aggressive moves into that country by the US. In an interview about ten years ago, Brzezinski conceded that this had been true: Zbig had indeed sent subversion and terror teams into Aghanistan at least six months before the Soviet invasion, as is clear from this excerpt from that interview:

Brzezinski: … According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! . . . (Le Nouvel Observateur, January 15-21, 1998, p. 76, translated from the French by Bill Blum, From today’s perspective, a greater irresonsibility and adventurism could hardly be imagined. The First Gulf War, the disastrous Iraq War, and the looming Iran War are the direct fruits of Zbigniew’s adventurous precedents. If Zbig now argues that he did not mean to go so far in this theater, that changes nothing in this picture.

The Brzezinski Plan For Russia
The leaders in Moscow have Zbigniew’s number – he has been ranting against them for fifty years and more. They are well aware of the existence of a Brzezinski Plan, a confidential design to break up the Russian Federation and partition European Russia along the lines of what occurred during the Russian Civil War in the wake of World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. In those days the White Armies were led by figures like Wrangel, Deinkin, Kolchak and the rest, with US forces landing at Murmansk. Today, the reactionary armies are led by the megalomaniac Zbigniew, who deludes himself that he can go as a victor to Moscow, where Napoleon and Hitler failed.

Brzezinski’s aggressive plans are notorious among Russian leaders. As the Russian government minister Ivanov remarked: “Russia has to remain strong culturally, economically and politically,” he was quoted as saying by ITAR-Tass. “Otherwise, the ‘Brzezinski plan’ may prove a reality.” The wire explained that “[t]he ‘Brzezinski plan’ is a term used by Russian political figures since at least the mid-1980s to describe alleged Western plots to destabilize the Soviet Union and later Russia.” (Douglas Birch, “Kremlin Powers May Be Split After Putin,” AP, June 26, 2007)

Another news article related that by 2002 pro-Russian forces in Ukraine “have increasingly given credence to a ‘Brzezinski plan’ conspiracy that was first aired by Russian sources close to President Vladimir Putin. The ‘Brzezinski plan’ is supposedly an elaborate plan concocted by a group of U.S. policymakers to overthrow President Kuchma [then the president of Ukraine] and replace him with [NATO puppet] Yushchenko in a ‘bloodless revolution.’ An analogy is drawn with the overthrow of Slobodan Milosovic in Serbia in October 2000. Yushchenko’s alleged allies in this plot are the two wings of the radical anti-Kuchma opposition, [kleptocrat] Yuliya Tymoshenko, his former deputy prime minister, and Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz.” (Taras Kuzio, “Russia Gives Ukraine a Helping Hand in Its Elections,” RFE/RL, January 22, 2002, This is of course the scenario that played out under Brzezinski’s command, with great and continuing danger to the peace of Europe and the world, at the end of 2004. The Yushchenko pro-NATO regime in Kiev was installed by the November-December 2004 CIA people power coup or color revolution cynically orchestrated by Zbigniew and Mark Brzezinski, with the help of Mark Penn.

Obama: A Face Lift For Imperialism
The terms of Zbig’s endorsement of his own protégé are very revealing. Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world,” Brzezinski remarked during an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” “Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand,” Brzezinski said. “He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.” Brzezinski dismissed Hillary Clinton as totally inadequate: “Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to be president. President Truman didn’t have much experience before he came to office. Neither did John Kennedy,” Brzezinski said. Clinton’s foreign-policy approach is “very conventional,” Brzezinski added “I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.” “There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs,” he continued. “And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.” (Bloomberg, “Zbigniew Brzezinski Endorses Barack Obama,” Friday, August 24, 2007,

In other words, US imperialism needs a face lift and a dose of steroids to be able to address the question of finally eliminating any challenger powers and attaining a permanent US-UK Universal Monarchy, the real content of the shopworn phrase, “New World Order.” Brzezinski’s latest book, Second Chance, is widely viewed as the user manual for an Obama puppet regime. Here Zbig argues that there is a worldwide political awakening going on. This is true, and in the real world the content of this awakening is the demand for national independence, no more IMF conditionalities, economic progress, modern science, modern industry, modern technology, and rising standards of living. This awakening is clearly expressed in the world-wide demand for peaceful nuclear power reactors which is currently sweeping the planet, and which the Bush administration has been powerless to block, despite their efforts at confrontation with Iran over precisely this issue.

Here is Zbigniew’s prescription in a nutshell: “The price of failing to implement . . . [my] strategy is twofold. First, the US will spur Russia and China among others to form a rival axis of power that could tip the world toward larger imperial wars. Second, it will antagonize the emerging populist rebellion against global inequality. This widening inequality is producing “revolutionaries-in-waiting … the equivalent of the militant proletariat of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries … [The] political awakening is now global in geographic scope, comprehensive in social scale…, strikingly youthful in demographic profile and thus receptive to rapid political mobilization, and transnational in sources of inspiration because of the cumulative impact of literacy and mass communications. As a result, modern populist passions can be aroused even against a distant target, despite the absence of a unifying doctrine such as Marxism. . . . Only by identifying itself with the idea of universal human dignity—with its basic requirement of respect for culturally diverse political, social, and religious emanations—can America overcome the risk that the global political awakening will turn against it.”

As a perceptive reviewer summed it up, “Brzezinski’s book is a liberal manifesto for rehabilitating imperialism. But it relies on a fundamental, faulty assumption that the world’s nations, both great powers and war torn nations, can be led by the US as a global commonweal.” Ashley Smith, “Rehabilitating US Imperialism: Review of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower,” Zbig’s book is thus a thinly veiled call for more and better color revolutions and CIA people power coups on the model of those of Belgrade, Kiev, and Tiflis, all stressing the rights of subject nationalities to secede from larger entities – a perfect recipe for chaos and war in the ethnic labyrinth of the Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus, which the madman Brzezinski regards as one of the keys to world domination because of the potential he sees there to destabilize and dismember the Russian Federation. Brzezinski’s ancestors worked with the British to incite the subject nationalities of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and German Empires to rebel against St. Petersburg, Vienna, and Berlin, not in their own interests, but rather for the greater glory of London. Now Zbigniew wants to pose as the modern Mazzini, who wanted to make Italy turbulent – which was bad for Vienna – without making her united and strong, which would have posed problems for the imperial lifeline to India through the central Mediterranean. Brzezinski’s method would lead quickly to an economically depressed, impoverished and desolate world of squabbling, impotent petty states, presided over by Anglo-American finance oligarchs and their allmportant eastern European emigre advisers.

Naturally, Zbigniew is a fanatical opponent of third world economic development; he once said that the US would never tolerate any more Japans in Asia – in other words, no more successful transitions from backwardness to a modern full-set economy. A basic tenet of counter-insurgency is that when you are confronted with broadly supported economic and political demands, play the card of divide and conquer in the form of local control, tribal, racial, ethnic, and religious divisions, etc. Zbig claims that the real goal of the world-wide awakening is “dignity.” By dignity he means respect for every minute parochial or particularist trait of every real or imagined ethnic group and sub-group. It is the kind of dignity that reduces those who enjoy it from the status of independent nations to mere ethnographic material. Such dignity as Zbig imagines it can only be attained by the smallest possible political units – by the thorough balkanization, partition, and subdivision of the existing national states. It is the kind of dignity the British Empire had in mind when it played the Mazzini card of national self-determination against the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman Empires. Woodrow Wilson played the same card at Versailles. This kind of dignity is congenial and compatible with the Bernard Lewis Plan for carving and balkanizing every nation in the Middle East – three Iraqs, six or seven Irans, four or five Pakistans, two Sudans, multiple Lebanons, with Turkey, Syria, and other mutilated and chopped up as well. Think of the current tragic status of Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, and you will see the kind of dignity that Zbig is selling. Zbig obviously intends to apply this recipe in the ethnic labyrinth of the Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus with a view to starting the ethnic disintegration of all of Russia – a lunatic ploy if there ever was one. Another obvious flashpoint is Kosovo, where attempts to declare unilateral independence by the terrorist gun-runner and narcotics dealers of the KLA could come as soon as February 2008 – this month. Russia has already announced unspecified countermeasures to deal with such a unilateral declaration of independence, which is illegal under international law because of the Helsinki CSCE treaty of 1975 which finally put an end to World War II by fixing all European borders as of that date as permanent, except for changes mutually agreed to by the concerned parties. Zbig, one of the cheerleaders for the bombing of Serbia in the spring of 1975, cares as little about international law as any neocon.

Obama Wants To Attack Pakistan
Writing in the Atlantic Monthly, pro-Obama swooner Andrew Sullivan pointed to the massive soft power – understood as the ability to dupe and deceive the masses of the developing sector – that would accrue to the United States by making the Illinois senator with his lofty utopian and messianic platitudes the new face of US imperialism. He illustrates this by imagining a young Pakistani Moslem who sees Obama’s inauguration on his television screen, and presumably rushes off to join in the pro-Obama swoon of the corrupt and decadent US media whores. This is an ironical choice, since Pakistan is the one country that Obama has talked of attacking and bombing. Will Obama’s magical charisma still be able to dupe the Pakistanis when the bombs begin to fall?

Another issue that worries the imperial apologist Sullivan is the deep partisan divide in US public life which is the heritage of Bush and his gaggle of neocon fascist madmen. Sullivan is concerned that the raging resentment against Bush & Co. may undermine the ability of the US ruling elite to manipulate and control public opinion by means of false flag terror operations. Here Sullivan sees the potential for a Spanish-style anti-terrorism backlash, on the model of Madrid in March of 2004, which punished and ousted the neofascist prime minister Aznar, who had tried to ride the terror attacks into a permanent personal dictatorship by suspending the national elections. Obama is seen by Sullivan as the key to restoring the unity of a nation of sheep and dupes that will have a uniform Pavlovian reaction to the next false flag terror provocation:

“Perhaps the underlying risk is best illustrated by our asking what the popular response would be to another 9/11-style attack. It is hard to imagine a reprise of the sudden unity and solidarity in the days after 9/11, or an outpouring of support from allies and neighbors. It is far easier to imagine an even more bitter fight over who was responsible (apart from the perpetrators) and a profound suspicion of a government forced to impose more restrictions on travel, communications, and civil liberties. The current president would be unable to command the trust, let alone the support, of half the country in such a time. He could even be blamed for provoking any attack that came.” Andrew Sullivan, “Good-Bye to All That,” Atlantic Monthly, December 2007, p. 46)
With Obama in the White House and the partisan divide papered over, the way would be clear to unleash new false flag provocations as needed, and the entire Anglo-American oligarchy could breathe easier. In addition to his call for an attack on Pakistan, Obama has also demanded the addition of 93,000 more combat troops to the permanent US regular army. This demand puts him in the company of the some of the most extreme hawks. Obama stated: “To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnership as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.” Barack Obama (Fred Hiatt “Stay-the-Course Plus: Obama, Romney and Foreign Engagement on Steroids,” Washington Post, June 4, 2007) content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060300951.html

Max Hastings: Will We Have To Fight Russia In This Century?
The idea of inevitable war with Russia is now looming large in the pathological imagination of the corrupt and incompetent Anglo-American ruling elite; it has assumed the proportions of a new twilight of the gods. The British ruling class has been leading the charge, with their absurd charges about the Politkovskaya and Litvinenko assassinations, and their ham-handed provocations during the dispute about the status of the subversive British Council in Russia. The influential British oligarchical spokesman Max Hastings summed up this mood in the London Daily Mail last summer in an article entitled “A blundering Bush, Tsar Putin, and the question: will we, in this century, have to fight Russia?”:

“We should hope that George Bush’s successor as U.S. President is less appallingly clumsy, in provoking Moscow with promised missile deployments a few miles from her border. But the notion of Western friendship with Russia is a dead letter. The best we can look for is grudging accommodation. The bear has shown its claws once more, as so often in its bloody history, and its people enjoy the sensation. We may hope that in the 21st century we shall not be obliged to fight Russia. But it would be foolish to suppose that we shall be able to lie beside this dangerous, emotional beast in safety or tranquility.” (Max Hastings, “A blundering Bush, Tsar Putin, and the question: will we, in this century, have to fight Russia?” Daily Mail, June 5, 2007) _page_id=1770

Zbig’s Grand Strategy For 2009-2013: Play China Against Russia
Given the ongoing breakdown crisis and disintegration of the US-UK currency and banking systems, these powers are impelled to try to consolidate their world domination while there is still a chance of doing so. Single superpowers do not last very long, as history shows. The Spanish Empire of Phillip II seemed close to universal monarchy after the Turkish naval defeat at Lepanto in 1571 and the outbreak of the religious civil wars in France, but by the treaty of Vervins in 1598, it was clear that the resurgent France of Henry IV was once again capable of checkmating and balancing the Spanish. The France of Louis XIV appeared close to universal domination at the time of the Peace of the Pyrenees with Spain in 1659, at the end of the Thirty Years War. But by 1689 William of Orange had assembled his grand alliance against the French Sun King, and by Rijswijk in 1697 it was clear that the French domination was weakening. Today’s grand alliance against US-UK pretensions to universal empire is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), composed of China, Russia, and most of the central Asian republics, with new members knocking at the door. It is this SCO which Brzezinski is determined to smash, with Obama as his chief operative.

In June, 2007 Bush the elder and Bush the younger co-hosted Vladimir Putin at their compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, in the so-called lobster summit. The goal here was to detach Russia from the SCO and play it against China as an Anglo-American kamikaze. This was of course wrapped up in platitudes about preserving US-Russian friendship, but the reality was the attempt to use Russia as a dagger against Beijing. Putin was of course far too intelligent to accept such a degrading and suicidal role, despite the many false friends who were urging him to accept. In reality, the Russian nyet had already been delivered six months earlier by Foreign Minister Lavrov in his essay on the catastrophic Russian experience as a member of the British-dominated triple entente during World War I. Lavrov’s retrospective led to the conclusion that Russia would never again be duped into the role of pawn for anybody’s imperialism. Since Putin declined to go to work for the US-UK against China, Washington-Moscow relations have steadily deteriorated, with Bush threatening world war three in both October and November 2007.

Since the Bushies had failed to play Russia against China, Zbig now proposes to play China against Russia. In a recent op-ed, he argued in veiled language that China’s energy needs could be manipulated in such a way as to direct Chinese expansionism and dynamism on eastern Siberia, thereby setting up China for a direct military conflict with Russia – an old cold war dream that has circulated in Zbig’s revanchist circles since the 1950s. Zbig delicately summed up China’s energy vulnerability as follows in a late November 2007 Washington Post op-ed: “I recently visited China, where I had the opportunity to engage Chinese leaders in wide-ranging private conversations. I returned with two strong impressions regarding China’s attitude toward the Iranian problem. The first is that the magnitude of China’s internal transformation makes it vulnerable to global political and economic instability.” The second is that China does not want the US to attack Iran, which is a major oil supplier.

In Samuel Huntington’s work on the clash of civilizations in the mid-1990s, the assumption was that China and the Arab/Islamic world were the main challengers to the US-UK world system. Now Zbig wants to revise that, putting China among the supporters of the status quo and Russia at the top of the list of the rebels against the Anglo-American yoke: “Thus China, despite its meteoric rise toward global preeminence, currently is geopolitically a status quo power.” By contrast, “. . . Russia is an increasingly revisionist state, more and more openly positioning itself to attempt at least a partial reversal of the geopolitical losses it suffered in the early 1990s. Cutting off direct U.S. access to Caspian and Central Asian oil is high on the Kremlin’s list.” A US attack on Iran is to be rejected, because it would alienate China while making Moscow stronger, Zbig argues: “Moreover, longer-term geopolitical threats are seen by Moscow’s elite as involving potential Chinese encroachments on Russia’s empty but mineral-rich eastern areas and American political encroachments on the populated western areas of Russia’s recently lost imperial domain. In that context, the outbreak of a political conflict in the Persian Gulf may not be viewed by all Moscow strategists as a one-sided evil. The dramatic spike in oil prices would harm China and America while unleashing a further wave of anti-American hostility. In that context, Europe might distance itself from America while both Europe and China would become more dependent on Russia’s energy supplies. Russia would clearly be the financial and geopolitical beneficiary.” (Washington Post, November 30, 2007) In other words, an attack on Iran is useless and self-destructive, since it would help Russia and open the eyes of the slumbering Europeans. Better to address the Russian challenge directly, Zbig hints.

What this doubletalk points to in the real world is the need to turn away from confrontation with Iran in the short run, allowing the Chinese to increase their dependence on Middle East oil that must come across waters controlled by the US-UK fleets. An unspoken but obvious corollary is that the US must do everything possible to prevent the Chinese from developing access to oil sources in Africa or in central Asia. The African side of this effort is easily visible in the US-UK agitation around Darfur: the attempt to orchestrate an attack on Sudan has nothing to do with humanitarianism (by the butchers of Baghdad!), and everything to do with the fact that Sudan is one of the key oil suppliers to China, and will become an even bigger supplier as time goes on. The new US-AFRICOM, now in Stuttgart but soon to move to Ethiopia, is a key aspect of the US mobilization in many African countries to deprive China of future oil sources in that continent. About a year ago, the US-UK successfully played off Ethiopia against Somalia, severely weakening both. The new US deal with Libya is another aspect of the same effort. In recent months, terrorist actions by al Qaeda in Algeria and the other countries of the north African Maghreb have indicated that Algeria, a large oil producer, will be subject to US-UK destabilization as part of the same anti-Chinese campaign. The destabilization of Kenya has everything to do with this same thrust. If the Chinese can be kept out of Africa, their dependence on the Middle East will increase. As this is written, there is word of large-scale destabilization in Chad. At some future time, London and Washington could close the Middle East oil spigot, and China might conclude that the only alternative would be to seize the oil wells of sparsely populated eastern Siberia, as Brzezinski’s article suggests. That way one could get rid of both China and Russia, Zbig suggests. Hare-brained “geostrategic” scheming of this sort was an important cause of World War II. The advantages offered by Obama for a campaign of large-scale subversion in Africa are obvious. The detailed work would be done by Susan Rice, Clinton’s assistant Secretary of State for African affairs, and manifestly a proponent of an early US attack on Sudan, among other targets.

The mere thought that Trilateral Commission founder Brzezinski clan may be getting close to the nuclear button thanks to an Obama puppet presidency has already elicited rumblings from Moscow. General Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian chief of staff, announced in January 2008 that Russia was now shifting its nuclear doctrine to include first use of nuclear weapons in certain situations. An AP report quoted Baluyevsky as stating: “We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand . . . that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons,’ Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky said. . . . Baluyevsky identified no specific nations or forces that threaten Russia. According to the ITAR-Tass news agency, however, he said threats to global security include ‘the striving by a number of countries for hegemony on a regional and global level’ – a clear reference to the United States – and terrorism.” (AP, January 19, 2008)

Around the same time, a group of retired NATO generals led by John Shalikashvili of the United States and Klaus Naumann of Germany proposed that NATO also shift its doctrine to frank reliance on the first use of nuclear weapons – a shift that the United States has already made for its own forces. General Ivashov, the former chief of staff of the Russian forces, replied from Moscow that the collapse of the US dollar was spurring the US and NATO to court “nuclear Armageddon.” Every vote for Obama is a vote to make these matters worse by bringing Zbigniew Brzezinski’s fingers closer to the nuclear button.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Hitler and American Plan Red

A thought just occured to me in relation to the American plan to attack Britain and drop chemical weapons us - was it only the rise of Nazism and Fascism that prevented America undertaking the plan.

Did Hitler and Mussolini save the British Empire and stop America murdering millions of British people with chemical weapons ?

I wonder how the historians will explain that !

Add to Technorati Favorites

America Planned to Drop Chemical Weapons On Britain

War on the 'Red Empire': How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons

Emerging world power feared British reaction to its ambitions

Plan Red was code for massive war with British Empire

Top-secret document once regarded as 'most sensitive on Earth'

$57m allocated for building secret airfields on Canadian border - to launch attack on British land forces based there

By David Gerrie

Last updated at 5:21 PM on 20th September 2011

Comments (297) Add to My Stories Share

Details of an amazing American military plan for an attack to wipe out a major part of the British Army are today revealed for the first time.

In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain's trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.

Previously unparalleled troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include massive bombing raids on key industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons, the latter signed off at the highest level by none other than the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.

The plans, revealed in a Channel 5 documentary, were one of a number of military contingency plans drawn up against a number of potential enemies, including the Caribbean islands and China. There was even one to combat an internal uprising within the United States.

In the end there was no question of President Franklin D. Roosevelt subscribing to what was known as War Plan Red. Instead the two countries became the firmest of allies during WW2, an occasionally strained alliance that continues to this day.

Still, it is fascinating that there were enough people inside the American political and military establishment who thought that such a war was feasible.

While outside of America, both Churchill and Hitler also thought it a possibility during the 30s - a time of deep economic and political uncertainty.

In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up a terrifying plan specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain's trading ability and bringing our country to its knees

The top-secret papers seen here - once regarded as the most sensitive on Earth - were found buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C.
The highly classified files reveal that huge pushes were to be made into the Caribbean and West Coast to block any British retaliation from either Europe, India or Australia.

In 1931, the U.S. government even authorised record-breaking transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles A. Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay to investigate the possibility of using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads.

In 1931, the U.S. authorised flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent as a spy to Hudson Bay to look into using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads

Four years later, the U.S. Congress authorised $57million to be allocated for the building of three secret airfields on the U.S. side of the Canadian border, with grassed-over landing strips to hide their real purpose.

All governments make 'worst case scenario' contingency plans which are kept under wraps from the public. These documents were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. - a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth.

It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with 'The Red Empire' - its most dangerous empire.

But America's foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.

Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.

After the 1918 Armistice and throughout the 1920s, America's historic anti-British feelings handed down from the 19th century were running dangerously high due to our owing the U.S. £9billion for their intervention in The Great War.

British feeling against America was known to be reciprocal.

By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York's Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden.

Across the Atlantic, Britain had the largest empire in the world, not to mention the most powerful navy.

Against this backdrop, some Americans saw their nation emerging as a potential world leader and knew only too well how Britain had dealt with such upstarts in the past - it went to war and quashed them.

Now, America saw itself as the underdog in a similar scenario.

In 1935, America staged its largest-ever military manoeuvres, moving troops to and installing munitions dumps at Fort Drum, half an hour away from the eastern Canadian border.

By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York's Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden
It was from here the initial attack on British citizens would be launched, with Halifax, Nova Scotia, its first target.

'This would have meant six million troops fighting on America's eastern seaboard,' says Peter Carlson, editor of American History magazine.

During the 1920 and 30s, the U.S. devised several colour-coded war plans to deal with potential adversaries.
Many of these war games were submitted to the Military Information Division by officers working in their own time.
Among the contingency plans developed were:
Orange: War against Japan
Green: Against Mexico
Purple: South America
White: Domestic uprising
Black: Germany
Grey: Caribbean republics
Yellow: China
Brown: Philippines

Not surprisingly, many of these were hypothetical exercises - and provided only broad strategic outlines.
However, the planning was considered by the military to be good practice for its personnel.
'It would have been like Verdun,' alluding to the brutal conflict between German and French troops in 1916 which resulted in a death toll of 306,000.
Even Winston Churchill said while people regarded a war with the U.S. as inconceivable, it was not.
'America felt Britain had thrown it under the bus in order to stay top dog,' says Professor Mike Vlahos, of the U.S. Naval War College.
'The U.S. was forced to contemplate any measure to keep Britain at bay.'

Even Hitler thought such a war was inevitable, but astonishingly wanted Britain to win, believing that to be the best outcome for Germany, since the UK could then join his forces to attack the U.S.

'You have to remember the U.S. was born out of a revolutionary struggle against Britain in 1776,' says Dr. John H. Maurer, of the U.S. Naval War College.
Using available blueprints for this war, modern-day military and naval experts now believe the most likely outcome of such a conflict would have been a massive naval battle in the North Atlantic with very few actual deaths, but ending with Britain handing Canada over to the U.S. in order to preserve our vital trade routes.

However, on June 15, 1939, the same year as the German invasion of Poland, an internal U.S. memo states these plans for an invasion were 'wholly inapplicable', but nevertheless 'should be retained' for the future.
This is now seen as the dawn of and prime reason behind the 'special relationship' between our two countries.

America's Planned War On Britain Revealed airs on on Channel 5 tonight at 8pm

Huge troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include bombing raids on industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons - the latter signed off by the legendary General Douglas MacArthur, left (file picture)

Isolationism, prosperity and decline: America after WWI
As close allies in numerous conflicts, Britain and America have long enjoyed a 'special relationship'.
Stemming from Churchill and Roosevelt, it has since flourished - from Thatcher and Reagan, and Clinton and Blair, to the Queen and Obama.

We know now that FDR ultimately rejected an invasion of Britain as 'wholly inapplicable'.
But just how special was that relationship in the decade leading up to WWII?

By the start of the 1920s, the American economy was booming.
The 'Roaring Twenties' was an age of increased consumer spending and mass production.

But after the First World War, U.S. public opinion was becoming increasingly isolationist.
This was reflected in its refusal to join the League of Nations, whose principal mission was to maintain world peace.
U.S. foreign policy continued to cut itself off from the rest of the world during that period by imposing tariffs on imports to protect domestic manufacturers.
These children were part of a squatter community, known bitterly as 'Hoovervilles' because of the President's inability to even admit to the existence of a national crisis after the stock market crash in 1929
And its liberal approach to immigration was also changing.

Millions of people, mainly from Europe, had previously been welcomed to America in search of a better life.
But by 1921, quotas were introduced and, by 1929, only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed in.
After a decade of prosperity and optimism, America was thrown into despair when the stock market crashed in October 1929 - marking the start of the Great Depression.
The ensuing economic hardship and mass unemployment sealed the fate of President Herbert Hoover's re-election - and Franklin D Roosevelt stormed to victory in March 1933.
He was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse: banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17million people had been thrown out of work — almost a third of the adult workforce.
And the reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the U.S. should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe.
When Franklin D Roosevelt was elected as President in 1933, he was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse. Banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17million people had been thrown out of work
However, this view was at odds with FDR's vision.
He realised the necessity for the U.S. to participate more actively in international affairs - but isolationist sentiment remained high in Congress.

In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a Congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts.

The bill faced strong opposition from leading isolationists in Congress.
As tensions rose in Europe over the rise of the Nazis, Congress brought in a set of Neutrality Acts to stop America becoming entangled in external conflicts.

Although Roosevelt was not in favour of the policy, he acquiesced as he still needed Congressional support for his New Deal programmes, which were designed to bring the country out of the Depression.
By 1937, the situation in Europe was growing worse and the second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia.
In a speech, he compared international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to 'quarantine'.

But still, Americans were not willing to risk their lives for peace abroad - even when war broke out in Europe in 1939.
A slow shift in public opinion saw limited U.S. aid to the Allies.
And then the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor in December 1941 changed everything.

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites