Two “Islamic States”, one gets massive arms supplies, Royal visits and ignored when it comes to their human right abuses, including jailing and publicly humiliating a woman for being gang raped by 7 men!
The other, newer Islamic State, gets bombed and denounced as terrorists for doing the same thing in a cruder manner. However not all it what is seems.
Whilst I have no problem admitting these evil ISIS bastards are terrorists. We must remember that we helped create them with our divide and conquer strategy in the Middle East that seems to be for the Greater Israel project.
Keep the enemy fighting amongst themselves whilst Israel expands and Bibi gets standing ovations at Congress for denouncing Iranian nuclear bomb making that is based on flimsy evidence at best, on top of a whole lot of lies, and ignored data from reputable Atomic inspectors and agencies that prove he is talking out of his arse.
It seems as if the Israeli Prime Minister is more concerned about a non factual threat from Iran, whilst sitting on a whole pile of nuclear weapons that could destroy the Middle East himself, than the threat of ISIS on his door.
Why? Iran would be blown to bits if they tried to attack Israel which they won’t. So why isn’t Israel more concerned about a real Islamic threat right on their doorstep?
Bibi obviously wants Israel to remain the only nuclear power in the region. No competition. No MAD that could create some sort of stability that prevented any nuclear attacks between the USA and USSR for 50 years.
Why would the Israelis who were so concerned about al-Qaeda not feel the same threat from ISIS who are literally on their borders?
Instead they concentrate on Iranian bomb making and building one of the few countries along with Syria, Turkish Kurds and Iraq, who are actually on the ground fighting ISIS, into the big bad evil Islamic empire to be feared. All the while forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that Saudi Arabia has been funding ISIS as well as al-Qaeda.
Here we have 3 Islamic States, ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Iran, all being treated differently because of what they CAN do for their allies, and WHO they are allied to, rather than their REAL actual potential threat to the world.
If we had to order these three Islamic states by the amount of death, evil and crimes of humanity that they have committed to the outside world then Saudi Arabia, Israel’s ally against Iran and funder of terrorism around the world including 9.11 would surely sit at the top above ISIS with Iran at the bottom.
The Saudi’s practise a form of 18th century Wahhabist Islam that the European Parliament in 2013 labelled as the main source of global terrorism.
This brutal form of anti Shi’ite Islamic brutality has even led to attacks on American citizens on their homeland.
Yes, if you are American and believe the official story on the 9.11 attacks then you HAVE to believe that Saudi Arabia launched an act of war against your country.
In fact entire sections of the 9.11 commission report was blacked out keeping Saudi Arabia’s name from their findings.
The Saudis used bribery and their influence with the Bush regime to get this done.
“The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.”
“The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast.“
This can only be down to the close relationship between ex Saudi US ambassador, Prince Bandar and the Bush clan that prevented the natural course of a post 9.11 war on the real attackers, Saudi Arabia and their white washing from the attacks.
According to the official conspiracy theory, 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, with Saudi financing and Saudi help according to the leaked sections from the 28 full pages of the 800 page 9.11 commission report that were classified due to the Bush regimes say so.
Where 7,200 words once stood in the 9/11 commission report there are now just dots where a huge section related to the involvement of Saudi Arabia in the 9.11 attacks were laid out.
“A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.”
So why didn’t we see Saudi Arabia burned to a crisp rather than two unrelated countries that seemed to only further US and Israeli geopolitical goals.
Could it be the Bandar-Bush close ties or as some say “terrorist network”, that kept Saudi Arabia’s name from the report, despite their deep involvement in the killing of thousands of American citizens.
“After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt it’ll work.”
“But isn’t Saddam regarded as moderate toward us, allied with Jordan, the big enemy of Iran and Syria?”
“Yes, that’s why I’m opposed to this action. But that’s the directive, and I must follow it. Hopefully, you and I will be done with our little operation before anything big happens. After all, we have already destroyed his nuclear facility, and we are making money by selling hlm technology and equipment through South Africa.”
In the following weeks, more and more discoveries were made regarding the big gun and other elements of the Saddam war machine. The Mossadhad all but saturated the intelligence field with information regarding the evil intentions of Saddam the Terrible, banking on the fact that before long, he’d have enough rope to hang himself. It was very clear what the Mossad’s overall goal was. It wanted the West to do its bidding, just as the Americans had in Libya with the bombing of Qadhafi.
After all, Israel didn’t possess carriers and ample air power, and although it was capable of bombing a refugee camp in Tunis, that was not the same.
The Mossad leaders knew that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he’d been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear.
It seems as if the Israeli’s are up to their old tricks again regarding Syria and Iran using proxies such as ISIS to do their fighting for them plus of course the axis of war, the US/UK, who think they can win wars by bombing from planes.
In reality many people think this war from the air is an excuse to supply ISIS with weapons to keep the war going. Numerous papers have reported on this.
I think the only left wing party left with any MP’s in the UK parliament is the Green Party who has one! All the rest are pro-war, pro-austerity, pro-US foreign policy and pro-globalist.
So whilst Saudi Arabia is allied with Israel due their common hatred of Iran, the ISIS terrorists that Iran are actually doing the main fighting against along with the Kurds are being built up as the next big bogey man we should attack.
A repeat of Mossads built up of Saddam Hussein as the big bogey man so that their “big brother” could beat it up in the school playground years before.
If ISIS don’t attack Israel with all their weapons, money from oil sales to western companies, supplies from the US/UK and a supposedly rabid fundamentalist approach to Islam then something is very strange!
Either it’s due to factions within Saudi Arabia that are still financing them and commanding them not to disturb their Israeli ally or the Israeli’s have some kind of control over the group.
Even al-Qaeda made repeated calls to annex the evil Zionist state but I have been dearth of hearing anything of that kind from the head of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Are Mossad following their motto “by way of deception” or is something else going on?
First things first, ISIS or “Islamic State” as they call themselves, is one of the most barbaric groups to have existed. However the misnomer of the term Islamic State is being used to justify attacks on all Muslims whether they are fundamentalists or moderates. Not all Muslims are the same just as not all Christians or Jews are. The same goes for Atheists, Buddhists and any other group of people on this planet whether the Daily Mail or FOX News tells you differently or not.
Whilst ISIS may believe they are an Islamic State or a new Caliphate for the 21st century other Islamic States such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting or preparing to fight against them.
Not all Islamic States are the same either whether they put that title in their countries name or not.
There have been many Islamic Caliphates ( Islamic Governments ) throughout history and as with most religions the concept itself is split on tribal lines with Sunnis believing that the leader of any Caliphate should be elected by the Muslim people themselves whilst the Shia’s believe that only a direct descendant from Muhammad’s family can call himself a leader.
History shows that Islamic Governments who ruled from the Middle East to Europe, North Africa and at one point encompassing half of Spain, had at times more welcoming views to other religions than even the Christian Empires of the time. They allowed Jews and Christians to live amongst them and society was pluralistic as it could be under the circumstances of the age.
Not all empires were welcoming but during the “golden age” of Islam the leaders of their lands did nothing to harm people of different belief systems living amongst them.
At one point the Umayyad Caliphate covered 5.17 million square miles, making it the largest empire the world had yet seen, and the fifth-largest ever to exist in history. The Ottoman Empire was Islamic in nature and trade, science and culture flourished throughout Islamic States at various points.
It was never the home to such people as those now calling themselves the new Islamic Caliphate.
However ISIS, just like the Taliban with their fundamentalist nature,believe in a strict interpretation of the Koran, and therefore ban music, dancing, and many modern items which seems to contradict directly their love of social media as a tool to spread their message on YouTube and Facebook. Most importantly pictures of the prophet are banned 100%. We have all witnessed the attacks on journalists who print cartoons of him, and it seems to be the ultimate insult that one can take to many Muslims around the world.
It seems as if these people believe the 7th century was the end of all human advancement in Culture, Science and Ethics.
Most importantly this group of people believe that it is okay to kill any human, whether woman, child or OAP, Christian or Muslim, who doesn’t believe in their cruel barbaric form of governance.
You may have seen all the videos, accompanied by beautiful Islamic music, as people in cars film themselves doing drive by shootings on main roads in northern Iraq. Swerving back to ensure the occupants of any vehicle are killed fully and properly and any survivors of their attacks are filmed pleading for their lives before being shot in dug outs or cut to bits with knives and swords. They seem to think this indiscriminate slaughter is a propaganda tool for anyone witnessing it and they seem to be right as many young people flock to the Middle East to join their cause.
Even with all the numerous witnesses and dead victims appearing all over the place people, websites, news stations such as FOX and even forensic analysts are claiming that the recently heavily edited ISIS videos of Jihad John beheading captured journalists and aid workers, and even the burning alive of the captured Syrian pilot, are actually faked or staged.
Why ISIS would need to stage brutal killings when they have proven themselves to be sick murdering bastards by raping young girls and killing opponents by the truck load I don’t know. I have seen videos of whole convoys of trucks carrying captured Iraqi males being driven to a ditch where they are taken and shot. These are in no way heavily edited films and many are shot on phone cameras by the soldiers fighting for ISIS themselves.
However leaving aside any debate on fakery when it comes to beheadings, what I do know is that the rise of ISIS is a foreign policy error of the axis of war, and the US/UK’s training and funding of “moderate” anti Assad groups like the Free Syrian Army have not helped one bit. These groups have shown themselves to be just as barbaric as the rest of the groups fighting in Syria and any funding or training by Qatar, Saudi Arabia or the CIA have just helped to make ISIS into one of the most formidable terrorist groups in history.
We can all follow the trail of this conflict back to the “successful” overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, a country which is now a mess and a huge training base for pro ISIS groups and then to Iraq and Afghanistan and 9.11.
From our intervention in Iraq, which was basically three countries held together by a Western backed dictator, to our war on the Taliban who only asked for some proof of Osama bin-Laden’s guilt in the 9.11 attacks, before being denied it and bombed into Halliburton’s pockets, the foreign policy decisions of our leaders have either been totally foolish or carefully planned to ensure we have a well equipped army to fight for the next few decades.
We can even go all the way back to the 1st World War and the Balfour Agreement which let Jews immigrate to Palestine in return for US help for Britain in the war, and then the carving up of captured Ottoman Empire holdings into countries that never existed such as Iraq.
Yes our foreign policy is immoral and imbalanced with support for dictators one moment when they serve our purposes and then their overthrow when they stop being useful. To be honest it did seem as if the Middle East was a whole lot calmer when Gaddafi and Hussein were in power.
To go back to the concept of a Caliphate, the whole area from Africa to Iraq and Afghanistan is tribal and localised in nature. These tribes have fought each other for centuries and it was only when their lands were controlled by Caliphate leaders, dictators, and leaders of Western Empire that they seemed to settle and stop their religious and tribal strife. Take that firm grip away and the old rivalries return unabated.
Personally I have no love for any organised religion and whether it’s the break up of the Roman Empire, Henry VIII leaving the Catholic Church and setting up the Church of England so he could get his leg over, or Protestants and Catholics fighting in Ireland, Christians cannot claim to be any less tribal when it comes to irrational belief systems.
One must also remember that Islam is the 3rd branch of the Abrahamic faith.
Please remember that the first books of the old Testament, which allow for the stoning to death of adulterers and other capital punishments for eating shellfish and other stupid laws were at one stage all carried out by Jews, Christians and Muslims.
The fact that Jews are now mostly atheists and Christians have followed their own testament based on the belief that Jesus was the Messiah doesn’t take anything away from the core beliefs that all 3 religions once held, and the laws and punishments dealt out for breaking them.
The fact we are not criticising Islamic States like Saudi Arabia for their beheadings whilst attacking the new Islamic State for theirs is total hypocrisy.
Iran’s stoning to death of people can be seen on websites along with Iraqi’s brutal slaying of rapists in which the whole male community take part in the killing.
Video proof of such “punishments” can all be found on certain “death sites” on the Internet if you want to look hard enough for them.
So whilst we are no way clean when it comes to the rise of ISIS, we should absolutely oppose it for its fundamentalist religious nature.
The fact that I would like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Taliban to be classed in the same group takes nothing away from the brutality we are facing from this group of 7th century loving killers.
We may have helped stir the pot, and even funded the initial groups who became part of ISIS.
Most definitely the criminal Bandar-Bush enterprise needs it’s terrorist tentacles chopping off ASAP.
The close ties between oil rich Saudi Arabia, it’s ex ambassador and now terrorist group funding Prince Bandar and the Bush family, whose tarnished history goes way back to Prescott Bush and his Nazi funding days, is long over due some legal oversight.
We have funded Islamic groups to fight Communism and then used them to destabilise countries we wanted to encroach into. The history of our involvement is there for anyone who wants to see it.
One only need research Operation Gladio and Gladio 2 to see why we have allowed these groups to flourish and the benefits we got from allowing them to.
However once again blowback is going to bite the hand that fed it hard and fast.
To get down to basics I don’t want to see anymore UK working class men sign up for the Army or RAF to go and fight ISIS.
We have already fought and lost against similar terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq so why keep the military industrial complexes wheels waxed with tax payers money?
Anyway the UK Armed Forces are no match to anyone’s anymore due to cuts from Tory and Labour governments. Faced with ISIS captured US anti-aircraft weapons from fleeing Iraqi forces I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot more English people being beheaded by Jihad John or burned alive in cages if we were to return to the killing fields of Iraq and Syria.
We have cut our armed forces to the bare bones. We are certainly not fit for any war worth fighting unless Jersey tried invading Sussex.
Anyway, on a side note, I wonder why Cornwall is Russia’s target for “probing”?
It couldn’t be anything to do with the huge amount of under-water cables taking Internet and Phone messages across the Atlantic to the USA from Europe could it? Or is it just the western edge of NATO’s Europe?
Russia is well-known to have far superior missiles and rockets than the US and it would be no surprise to see Satellites falling from the skies during the first days of any war.
So whilst some ignorant people may feel that a hot war with Russia over Ukraine and broken promises post Berlin wall are worth going head into, some other fools think that re-sending defeated forces back into Iraq to bomb ISIS from afar will defeat them.
If we want to crush ISIS, and we should, then we should allow the countries most involved to do the fighting. We should also stop funding Nazi’s in Kiev and ask Russia to help by arming its proxies in Syria and Iran. With Russian military weapons these two countries could crush them fully without a Western jet being flown.
Jordan is already keen to bomb the hell out of ISIS because of their burned alive pilot, and Iran has been helping the Shia’s in Iraq fight ISIS for a long while now.
The Kurds are also well into a hot war at the other end of Iraq and if only we agreed that ISIS was worse for the world than President Assad of Syria then we could allow Syria a free hand to attack from the north.
Why we keep on insisting that President Assad is the real bad guy when there are clearly worse figures about in the area I don’t know. We could easily let Syria and Iran with Russian arms squash ISIS in the middle like a cockroach in the night with a heavy shoe.
Then if only we could get Israel who take US arms, de-construct them, and sell them on to Russia and other countries join the fight from the West it would be game over. I know that sounds like a dream but logically it makes sense. It’s just a shame logic pays no part in foreign affairs or Israel’s behaviour in the world.
If only Israel could stop using their military might to crush the cornered and starving people of Gaza and instead realised the threat to their east. Their weaponry would be no match to ISIS if they actually fought them.
However if they are not worried about ISIS then it can only be due to their infiltration of, or setting up of, ISIS networks. Nothing else makes sense.
For the Islamic State, who should in all theory from their previous and past behaviour, hate Jews and Zionists, not try to attack Israel it can only be down to the fact that they are bought and paid for terrorists – like so many al-Qaeda networks before them.
If ISIS do attack Israel then they will have a real enemy to fight for once instead of pretend Iranian nukes and Gazan fire cracker rockets.
They could then join the pincer movement by Assad from the north and the Kurds, and Iraq and Iran from the south to crush this disgusting beast as hard as it likes. They don’t even have to hold hands with Iran to do it, they are all neighbours with an unwelcome guest, so they should all want to resolve the problem.
It doesn’t matter who created ISIS.
It doesn’t matter which Saudi Royals still fund it as their government cries out for help between beheadings every Friday after prayers.
It doesn’t matter if ISIS are owned, created or stage-managed actors, they are still scum that need demolishing.
The only thing that matters is that the axis of war doesn’t go back into an area they have just left tails dangling between their legs.
If Islamic countries (and hopefully Jewish) can come together in their area of influence to destroy this beast on their own then it will do more for the social cohesion of the Middle East than anything the Western nations have done since World War One when the French and English carved up the lands that created Iraq in the first place.
Let’s leave the fighting to the people who have most to lose.
It will be clear to see if ISIS don’t attack Israel that something very, very wrong is occurring, and on any account Israel joining Iran to destroy this evil creation can only be a good thing, whether together or by separate means.
Lets just agree to not send anymore of our boys out to these deserts to fight.
UK Prime MinisterDavid Cameron announced legislative plans this past Monday to ban online messaging that can’t be accessed by government security agencies. His statements came as part of an initiative to resurrect the Data Communications Bill (otherwise known as the “Snooper’s Charter”) that was shot down by its political opponents in 2012.
Popular chat and social applications such as Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime, WhatsApp, Google Hangouts, Microsoft’s Skype, CryptoCat, etc. incorporate the use of encryption to block surreptitious access to online messages sent between people. Mr. Cameron said he intends to put a stop to internet communications that can’t be read by police, security, and intelligence forces – even with a warrant.
According to Mr. Cameron, the reason for this is to eradicate a private and safe method of communication between terrorists and other criminals who compromise national security. Mr. Cameron’s surveillance proposal comes at the heels of the recent tragic shootings in PARIS. However, heavy debates have risen up because of communication privacy issues related to this potential ban on encryption. Taking this into account, let’s examine some of the pros and cons on whether government officials should be able to tap into online personal communications without encryption.
The Pros of the Encryption Ban
In support for this surveillance measure, authorities cannot read online messages sent via encrypted apps if they have an appropriate legal warrant. Conversely, authorities are able to read traditional letters, listen into someone’s calls, etc. if they have a warrant. Encrypted apps block officials from investigating criminal suspects’ communications if officials have permission from the courts.
Access to emails, letters, and phone calls is critical in missing persons, homicide, and other criminal investigations. Mr. Cameron states:
“The first duty of any government is to keep our country and our people safe. The attacks in Paris once again demonstrated the scale of the terrorist threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies, and the policing in order to keep our people safe.”
The ability to reach all forms of modern communication with the right warrants will reinforce law enforcement’s efforts to combat terrorism and resolve criminal cases.
The Cons of the Encryption Ban
If the Data Communications Bill turns into official legislation, use of the aforementioned encryption-based applications would be thrown out and made illegal. That is, U.K. residents wouldn’t be able to chat with someone via iMessage or Google Hangouts. Encrypted end-to-end messaging services offered by these companies make it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to provide decrypted messages for legal purposes. Strong encryption algorithms are part and parcel of these social chat applications.
According to UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the move to block encrypted communications for complete accessibility in terrorist investigations is only a small part of the Snooper’s Charter.He told BBC:
“The Snooper’s Charter would do absolutely nothing to deal with this issue of how we as a country have access to data which originates overseas but might relate to people who want to do us harm. The Snooper’s Charter was about storing the social media activity and websites visited by everyone in this country.”
He goes on to say that this bill doesn’t balance the fine line between national freedom and security. Heavily tracked social media and other online activity would be an utter waste of national resources because it’s not targeted toward specific people and areas, and U.K. residents would experience an intrusion of privacy because their online activity is carefully monitored. These online surveillance measures are getting blowback especially in the wake of Edward Snowdon’s (a whistleblower for the U.S. National Security Agency) shocking revelations on NSA’s spy tactics.
The bill’s push for decryption and complete transparency also undermines people who want their online actions to remain anonymous for valid reasons, such as whistleblowers, advocates, enterprises that deal with confidential data, and so on. Further, businesses have a legal right and responsibilty to protect thier sensitive information, such as health records, credit card and other financial details, and identity information, through tight security protocols that include encryption. They could face prosecution and stiff penalties if they don’t protect their confidential information.
Now that we have examined some of the pros and cons of this controversy, we are excited to find out what you think! Which side are you on and why?
By Dark Politrcks
David Cameron is basically a Luddite that has no idea how encryption or the Internet works.
Whatever he tries to do people will find a way round it, they always have.
The Snowden leaks show that not just targetted terrorists are being spied on but everyone. Put the wrong word in an email along with a sexy photo of yourself meant for your lover on a business trip and it will be flagged up for further viewing after basic keyword analysis (same as Google do for showing adverts as you type in gmail – and what ECHELON was doing decades ago)
Remember people are only human and if they saw something amusing you could have a whole office laughing as they showed the pics around. Some people might not mind photos of their hairy private bits being passed around an office, most people probably would.
I hate hearing the “if I have nothing to fear I have nothing to lose” argument – yes you do have something to lose – privacy, liberty, freedom.
The war on terror has seen a massive increase in terrorist attacks from the 90′s after we stopped the IRA and a massive loss in our basic civil liberties. I feel sorry for Americans who now live under the Orwellian named PATRIOT ACT, National Security Letters and the NDAA that allows the President to kill a US citizen without any legal process.
How are we going to know when the war on terror has been won?
Who are our top generals going to sit down with to sign treaties to end the war on a tactic?
It’s the US scratching about, looking for enemies to fight to keep their war economy going now the Soviets are gone.
What better enemy than one you cannot see – the big boogey man terrorist who could be living next door to you.
Scare the population enough and they will allow you to do anything like automated naked strip searches at Airports or sending all our banking transactions to the USA under EU agreements.
Plus we have the most CCTV cameras on earth in this little island. Filmed on average 300 times a day by different cameras one study proved.
Ever watched the TV Programme “Person of Interest”?
The super computer within that show that can hook into every telephone and CCTV camera is not so far fetched after all.
The US have a system called TRAPWIRE that links CCTV cameras up across the country from airports to shopping centres and roads. Plus they are building an almost city sized data warehouse in UTAH to store it all.
People don’t seem to realise they are sleep walking into a surveillance state by putting everything they do up on Facebook or Instagram. The next generation will be wearing cameras on their “Google Specs” that records eveything they do and then use tools to interpret the important parts of the day and probably upload those – these already exist, James May from Top Gear did a show on it.
The concept of privacy, a private conversation will be lost to them.
Also Cameron doesn’t understand encyption. With open source tools people are already able to create their own strong encryption tools and making a conversation over a VPN will prevent most snooping anyway unless they have keyloggers and malware already installed on your PC’s.
Clever coders will always be able to bypass any method the Government comes up with and with the Snowden leaks we know the extent of the data they are collecting plus they are working with Google/FaceBook/Microsoft and every big tech company on the planet.
So there are many ways already to bypass Google/CIA snooping and whatever David Cameron does he will have trouble getting big international companies to comply wirth him unless he gets Obama onside on the matter.
Servers can be rented in any country to host content and ISP’s can only block so much.
Just remember privacy is one of the corner stones of a free modern civil society along with free speech.
If people think they cannot say what they want due to fear of being labelled or put on a list of “lefties” or “pirates” and maybe even banned OR searched more thoroughly wherever you go then free speech will crumble into the dust.
I am no criminal or terrorrist but I certainly don’t want the NSA/GCHQ being able to read my private thoughts or watch what I a doing when I communicate over Skype to my girlfriend in Iceland.
Remember the whole chain of being monitored in the first place starts with basic keword analysis of text. This conversation will probably be scrutinised by someone in detail just because of the frequency of certain “watch list” words. Any terrorist worth their profession would at least use a code to prevent this.
Also remember it’s the big IT and Media companies that are propagating terrorist PR in the first place. Newspapers showing Jihad John on the front page, YouTube uploads of his latest beheadings and Facebook pages devoted to these groups.
These could all be stopped easily with the keword and content analysis I talked about to prevent people creating pages devoted to ISIS and bans on the media using fear porn to sell their daily rags e.g laws to not give breath to these groups just like Gerry Adams in the 80′s.
These laws would have to be tightly written to prevent creep into stopping people who are anti government e,g Occupy protestors from falling into the category.
A simple law like “any group that chops a persons head off” cannot have content uploaded to the major sites (they will still have their own ones of course on servers based in Saudi Arabia)
And of course why are we at war with ISIS when Saudi Arabia chops limbs and stones people to death constantly. Oh yeah, Oil and arms sales. Our government has no morals or ethical foreign policy. It’s all about the Benjamins.
I am not committing a crime by taking this strong opiate because I am being prescribed it by my GP for my pain.
It’s given to me in patches I stick on my body where the drug is slowly absorbed over 2 days . It’s supposed to be 3 days but I am on the highest dose and the GP has overruled NICE rules on medications due to the severity of my condition.
When I go to the chemist to collect my supply they have to get it from the Controled Drugs Supply where I then sign an extra part of the form. It is a strong drug, one that I was told by a girl I met who worked at a homeless centre when I was in iceland (where heroin wasn’t available) that if I threw one of my patches into the middle of a crowd of homeless addicts they would fight to the death over it. Apparently due to the lack of heroin any Icelandic addict would cook these patches up, extract the Fentanyl and then inject or smoke it.
Basically though it doesn’t touch the sides on me and I get no buzz at all from taking it through a patch. This is probably why I am prescribed the maximum amount and over 2 not 3 days plus other prescribed pain killers, and of course taking other strong drugs as well to ease the pain.
For me to be on a drug that is legal because a GP gave it to me and for another person to be a criminal for using it because they bought it off me in the streets is madness in my mind.
Why is it ok to take a mind and body altering drug when it is supplied by the “system” but not when you buy it to take it for recreational purposes.
Why is it okay to ease the pain of the body but not of the mind?
You can see how the Goverments involved in cracking down doors in the morning and locking up junkies are two faced by the way they keep the drugs flowing.
From Vietnam and the Golden Triangle, Columbia and Mexico and their own internal wars and to Afghanistan where opium and now Heroin production has increased hugely since the most recent war started.
Let’s not forget that it was US policy to let Opium be grown in Afghanistan when the Soviets were at war in the same country 30 years ago to get their soldiers addicted and demoralise them as well as use the funds from the sales to pay for weapons for what is now al-Qaeda.
You can read all about the CIA’s involvment in the production and selling of drugs in this 4 part article and the most amazing quote comes from the biggest heroin producer in the 1980′s from Burma, Khun Sa, who when interviewed claimed that the the CIA were one of his best customers.
“by 1986 he was refining 80 percent of the opium harvest in the Golden Triangle. The king of opium trade, Khun Sa had risen to become the world’s largest single heroin trafficker by controlling 60 percent of the world’s illicit opium supply.”
“In 1986, Bo Gritz went to Burma with White House approval to meet with Khun Sa who supposedly had information on American MIAs. Khun Sa said that he wanted to end the opium and heroin traffic in his territory and to expose American officials involved in the drug smuggling. Gritz claimed that he took this message to the United States government and was told by Tom Harvey of the National Security Council that “there is no interest here” in the Khun Sa overture. Gritz had in his possession 40 hours of video tape of Khun Sa who “charged American officials, both past and present, with being the chief buyers of drugs produced in that part of the world.” He also claimed that he wanted to stop drug trafficking, but that the United States government would not let him. Khun Sa said that the CIA were some of his best customers. He offered support to the DEA to alert them of drug movements, but this was rejected at the headquarters level.”
For more information about the CIA’s involvement in drug smuggling please read the following articles:
You might aready know that the rulers of our world have no interest in stopping the war on drugs just like they have no interest in stopping the war on terror.
They are benefiting from it.
They are earning good money from the misery of others and it just shows what kind of people we are being controlled by when they would rather make another billion to add to their existing hundreds than stop people living in squalour taking heroin to ease the pain of the existence these overlords have created for them.
What a world.
As I sit here and write this I am watching Russell Brand’s documentary on the war on drugs on BBC3.
It discusses the fact that we are all tring to escape reality because reality is so crap.
As some ex addict says “Drugs and Drink are the answer to reality” – It’s true. When reality is so crap that it doesn’t give you anything more than cheap consumerism, materialism, banksterism and a lack of jobs and free training for people who want it. Why wouldn’t you want to escape it by going up the pub, taking drugs, watching TV or other mind numbing activities.
I suggest you watch his documentary as he interviews politiicans, goes on drug raids, speaks to addicts and politiicans and visits drug clinics in Switzerland where people are allowed to bang up and smoke crack.
Russel Brand – End The Drugs War
This is the blurb above the video on YouTube.com.
Russell Brand:End the Drugs War BBC Full Documentary 2014
The documentary Russell Brand made for BBC Three in 2012 concluded with him giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Drawing on his own experience of drug taking and recovery, he advocated treating addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal problem and underlined his own belief that abstinence is the best way to help addicts.
Since then the Committee has reported its findings, concluding that the British drugs laws were failing and that it was a ‘now or never’ moment to reform them. But David Cameron didn’t agree, insisting that the drugs policy is working in Britain and that we should ‘stick at it’.
In this personal journey for BBC Three, Russell Brand sets out to challenge that point of view. He wants to find out how other countries are tackling their problems of drug abuse and to explore how the framework of criminalization implicit in the ‘war on drugs’ produces enormous harm in the treatment of addicts. Russell believes that ‘a shift’ is happening in the way that people view drug addiction. But to really change things he needs to persuade those who have power.
Russell starts on the frontline of the ‘war on drugs’ by joining the Met Police as they carry out dawn drug raids, and ends up sharing a police cell with a young addict who has been in and out of prison since she began taking drugs aged 12. He witnesses the dangers of street addiction in Birmingham, but is as shocked by what he sees in the legal ‘drug-consumption room’ he visits in Berne, capital of conservative Switzerland.
At a drug recovery conference, Russell is drawn into an argument about abstinence versus government methadone programmes, but also finds an unlikely ally for his campaign in a Tory lord. At a UN drugs conference in Vienna he meets the politician who in 2001 decriminalized drugs in Portugal. What Russell discovers from him informs his impassioned plea at the end of the conference that drugs should be decriminalized.
As he takes his argument public, Russell finds his views are challenged by those who say that the public fear that lifting criminalization will also lift drug use. But a second encounter with the young addict he met during the Met drug raid (who, since then, has been in prison, been released and is back on drugs) bolsters his belief.
Russell meets the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who surprises him by agreeing in principle that the ‘war on drugs’ is futile and unsuccessful, but then frustrates him by explaining the lack of political will to move forward quickly to change things for the better.
Presenter Russell Brand Executive Producer Liz Hartford Producer Ross Wilson Director Ross Wilson Production Company Matchlight Ltd
Another Royal Sex Slave Scandal Involving Prince Andrew
By Dark Politricks
No suprise to see that the Royals are involved in sex orgies and clandestine meetings with under aged girls.
Rumours of sex scandals inside Buckingham Palace and with the Royal offspring (I guess the Queen is a bit too old to engage), have been running around for years now.
This is the Daily Mail on Sunday’s take on the Sex Scandal.
Yes surprisingly the British media DO Report on it however notive how they do it in an upside down way by turning the tables and making it into a “is she telling the truth story” rather than investigating the actual evidence and seeing if Prince Andrew is telling the truth. They may have had to go to court but even the Royal’s cannot erase all history caused by their well known playboy son. Whatever happens it’s very unlikely Prince Andrew would ever face criminal charges or appear in a court, US or UK.
I would put a large bet on that he won’t and if there was a court case I wouldn’t be surprised if the woman at the centre of it all Virginia Roberts would be found dead after committing suicide with a three gunshots to the head goodbye to the world just before she was about to testify.
Notice however that the Sunday Mail (an establisment right wing paper) puts on a “is she telling the truth though?” slant on the story.
They give out all the basic facts and interviews but insinuate that she is making it all up despite the fact that Epstein has been convicted and Prince Andrew has been photographed with the girl in question on top of his already dubious sexual history.
I am sure an investigation looking at hotel receipts from those hotels that she claimed she stayed at. Flight records from visits to England she claimed she took. Plus Prince Andrews visits to the places where these sex orgies and one on one massages or sexual intercourse took place could easily show whether there is enough evidence for a criminal trial.
Remember though that this is just a sensational headline to sell papers and it will no doubt die out in time with some help to ensure Mail owner Paul Dacre sweeps it all under the carpet and ensures Virginia Roberts reputation is destroyed in public before any trial ever goes ahead – however unlikely.
The spin on the story just goes to show how the establishment e.g the right wing media, Dacre, Murdoch and of course the Royals themselves are trying to sweep it all under the carpet by slandering the victim and calling her a liar rather than trying to prove her story correct which woyukd be a much bigger story. One that would be only be uncovering the truth that many of us already know abour Royalty and sex scandals.
Sex scandals that the rich and well connected get away with. Same old shit.
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: The first full account of the masseuse at the center of the explosive Prince Andrew ‘sex slave’ drama… but is she telling the truth?
Prince accused of abusing ‘Jane Doe 3′ at orgy where she was ‘sex slave’
Jane Doe 3 is Virginia Roberts, whose story was first uncovered in 2007
She told extraordinary story of three years working for billionaire Epstein
Said that she was paid to give erotic massages to tycoon and associates
Claimed Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert, acted as his ‘madame’
Palace has emphatically denied Prince had relations with underage girls
Now the most complete story yet of this young woman can be published
By Shraon Churcher – Mail on Sunday Published: 22:30, 3 January 2015 | UPDATED: 04:13, 4 January 2015
It is the most extraordinary story of sex, power, influence and the abuse of young girls and it has already sent Jeffrey Epstein, one of the richest men in America, to jail.
And today this sordid saga erupted once again with Prince Andrew sensationally forced to deny having any sexual contact with the woman whose claims have dogged him for years. Last week, the Prince was accused of abusing ‘Jane Doe 3’ – an anonymous name used in American court papers – at an orgy where she was being used as a sex slave. Jane Doe 3 is Virginia Roberts, whose story was first uncovered in 2007 by The Mail on Sunday following a painstaking investigation by our reporter Sharon Churcher, who tracked her to Australia.
The story Miss Roberts told was extraordinary – how she spent three years as an under-age ‘sex slave’ working for billionaire Epstein, a friend of the Prince, and paid to give erotic massages to the tycoon and his associates. She also claimed that Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of disgraced tycoon Robert Maxwell, acted as Epstein’s ‘madame’.
The allegations by Miss Roberts are threatening the reputation of the Queen’s second son. The Palace has emphatically denied that the Prince has had relations with underage girls.
Now, thanks to the court documents Miss Roberts lodged in Florida last week, The Mail on Sunday can publish the most complete story yet of how this young woman was exploited by Epstein’s shuttered world of seedy sex and influence. We spoke to Miss Roberts twice, the last time just 12 months ago. While fragments of her testimony to us were reproduced last week, only now can we present her comprehensive account with previously unpublished material.
Last week it was sensationally claimed that Prince Andrew had taken part in what, it was implied, was sex with a girl who was under the age of consent according to the law in Florida. As the papers lodged in the Palm Beach court spell out: ‘Epstein forced Jane Doe 3 to have sexual relations with a member of the BritishRoyal Family,Prince Andrew (aka Duke of York).
‘Epstein instructed Jane Doe 3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and required Jane Doe 3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell facilitated Prince Andrew’s acts of sexual abuse by acting as a “madame” for Epstein.’
In response, Buckingham Palace issued a strongly worded denial.
But Miss Roberts’s account differs. She says she first encountered Epstein and later Prince Andrew through Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the disgraced newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell.
She was working as a changing room assistant in the spa at Donald Trump’s palatial Florida country club, Mar-A-Lago, where her father was a maintenance manager. Soon after her 15th birthday, in 1998, she says she met Ghislaine at the club.
The socialite was a friend of Epstein’s and the pair were known in New York and London for their hedonistic lifestyle, which concerned Royal courtiers after Andrew began to associate with them. Andrew was photographed surrounded by topless women during one holiday with them in Thailand and was pictured sweatily cavorting with Ghislaine at a Halloween sado-masochistic-themed party in Manhattan, reinforcing his public image as a party loving playboy.
Miss Roberts says she had no idea of the risks she was running when she leapt at an invitation from Ghislaine to work for Epstein. ‘I was wearing my sexy white Mar-A- Lago uniform – a white miniskirt and a skintight white polo top – and studying an anatomy book when I was approached by this striking woman in her mid-40s with a very proper British accent – Ghislaine,’ Miss Roberts told The Mail on Sunday.
‘She noticed what I was reading and I told her I wanted to become a masseuse and she said she worked for a very wealthy gentleman called Jeffrey Epstein who was looking for a travelling masseuse and I’d get training and be paid large amounts of money.’
Miss Roberts was told she could start work immediately and was driven to Epstein’s sugar-pink mansion on the Palm Beach waterfront. The stairway was decorated with photos of naked young girls and Miss Roberts eventually would learn that she, too, was being photographed by hidden cameras.
‘But I was too nervous to take it in,’ she says. ‘Another lady led me into Jeffrey’s bedroom. It had a king-size bed, and a spiral staircase that led down to a pool.
‘The lady walked me straight through into the massage room. It was part of a suite – a shower room, a steam room and another closet-sized room where I later learned the sex toys were kept.
‘Jeffrey was lying face-down on a table, completely naked. He asked me a whole bunch of questions and within the first hour, he knew my life story. I told him I’d been a runaway and I’d lived on the street and I’d taken ecstasy tablets and I wasn’t a virgin and he said, “So you’re a bad girl in a good girl’s body”.’
‘The lady told me to follow her instructions. She had me put oil on my hands and then she grabbed one of his feet and started to massage it and she told me to take his other foot. Then she took off her shirt and started rubbing her breasts across Jeffrey and told me to take off my clothes. He had sex with me and the woman fondled me. I was thinking, “This is wrong. This is not legitimate massage.” But they liked me. The lady said, “She’s got a knack for it.’’ And I thought, “These are important people. I must be doing something right.” The lady gave me $200 [£130] and said I was to come back the next day.’
Miss Roberts was nauseated by the sexual acts that she was instructed to perform. But she was charmed by Epstein’s rags-to-riches life story – which, he intimated, was an example to her. ‘Jeffrey said he wanted to be my mentor,’ says Miss Roberts. ‘I felt that he and Ghislaine really cared for me. We’d do family things, like watch Sex And The City and eat popcorn.
‘But it was a sick family. I was a paedophile’s top girl, being trained up for a British Prince. He trained me to do whatever a man wanted. I was worried, but I would do anything to keep Jeffrey happy and keep my place as his No 1 girl.’
It was in 2001 that Miss Roberts was told she would be flying to London – and after they landed they drove straight to Ghislaine’s house. ‘Ghislaine showed me upstairs to a small bedroom. That night I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage. I was jetlagged. I went to sleep.
‘The next morning, Ghislaine came into my room. She was chirpy and really giddy. She jumped on the bed and said, “Get up, get up, sleepyhead. You’ve got a big day. We’ve gotta go shopping. You need a dress because you’re going to dance with a prince tonight.” She said I needed to be “smiley” and bubbly and very happy to be around him and give a lot of energy to him because he was the Queen’s son. Miss Roberts said they went shopping for a £5,000 Burberry bag and other designer dresses, perfume and makeup. ‘We got back to Ghislaine’s house around 4pm and I ran straight upstairs to have a shower,’ she said.
‘When I went downstairs, Ghislaine and Jeffrey were in the lounge. No one seemed too fussed even though we were expecting the Duke of York any minute. There was a knock at the door. There was a car outside with two men, who I think were security. Ghislaine led Andrew in and introduced me and we kissed each other on the cheek as I’d been told is the English custom.
‘Ghislaine served tea. She knew Fergie, who I gathered was the Prince’s ex-wife, and they talked very fondly about their daughters. Then Ghislaine played one of her favourite guessing games. She asked Andrew how old he thought I was and he guessed 17 and they all kind of laughed about it and Ghislaine made a joke that I was getting too old for Jeffrey. She said, “He’ll soon have to trade her in.”’
It was widely known in Jeffrey’s set that he liked young girls.
Miss Roberts says she sat between Jeffrey and Andrew at dinner, claiming: ‘Andrew was making eye contact with me at every chance and concentrating on my plunging V-neck top. He didn’t ask me anything about myself. I just sat there with a smile frozen on my lips. Ghislaine had whispered, “The Prince seems really interested in you.”
Prince Andrew accused of abusing underage sex slave
‘We went on to Tramp. We were led into a VIP area and Andrew got me a cocktail from the bar then he asked me to dance. He was the most hideous dancer I had ever seen. He was grabbing my hips and he was pouring with perspiration and he had this cheesy smile. I was used to being used for sex by men but it was not behaviour that I was used to in public, and not from a Prince who had daughters. I felt everyone was watching us.’
By her account, Miss Roberts’s first tryst with the then 41-year-old Prince allegedly took place later that night at Ghislaine Maxwell’s London townhouse. ‘All of us went upstairs and I asked Jeffrey to snap a picture of me with the Prince. I wanted something to show my Mom. Ghislaine and Jeffrey left us after that,’ she said.
‘In the morning, Ghislaine said, “You did well. He had fun.” We flew straight back to the States. I suspected that the only reason we went to London was that I was a “gift” to Andrew.’
Miss Roberts makes the extraordinary claim that she was paid about $15,000 (just under £10,000) by the 58-year-old Epstein as a reward for sleeping with the Prince and other sexual services for Epstein.
There is no suggestion that the Prince knew that Epstein paid her.
‘I was totally under Jeffrey’s spell. I was his personal sex slave. Ghislaine joked about how young I was when they introduced me to Andrew.’
Despite the Palace’s vehement denials of impropriety, Miss Roberts says: ‘It was made clear to me that my job was to do whatever pleased him’ – adding that she ‘wouldn’t have dared object’ to any demand.
‘The Prince didn’t give me money with his own hands,’ she added. ‘Jeffrey always took care of paying me after I “entertained” his friends.’’
Andrew was at the time a special trade envoy, but after Epstein was prosecuted he resigned. He subsequently broke off his friendship with the financier and has been working to rebuild his reputation with his charitable trust. His focus is on trying to grow British prosperity, including training young people to become ‘economically active’ through schemes such as apprentices and a digital enterprise award.
Speaking later, Miss Roberts said she remains mortified by her meeting with Prince Andrew.
‘To be honest, I was sort of excited to meet the Prince. That was the lifestyle to which Jeffrey had accustomed me,’ the blonde, now 30, said.
Miss Roberts says she met Andrew for a second time around Easter 2001, at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion.
‘I was in Florida when I was called up and told I was needed in New York,’ she recalls. ‘When I got to the mansion, I was told, “Get ready. You are meeting someone in the library.” Andrew was sitting there in a big leather armchair behind which there was a desk covered with photos of girls and young women, including one of me.
‘I was almost nude in the picture. I don’t think Andrew could have missed seeing it when he walked in. Ghislaine had just given him a present, some kind of big blow-up toy that was his Spitting Image puppet. He was smiling ear-to-ear. He looked like a kid whose parents were taking him to Disney World.
‘A beautiful girl called Johanna Sjoberg, who worked for Jeffrey, was sitting on Andrew’s knee. Ghislaine guided me over to Andrew and I think he recognised me though I don’t know if he remembered my name. We kissed each other on the cheek and Ghislaine placed me on his other knee.’
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Johanna has confirmed the encounter, saying she was 21 at the time and had been hired by Ghislaine to answer phones and serve drinks in return for $20 (£13) an hour.
Ghislaine subsequently asked her to give Epstein foot massages, she elaborated, and the tycoon tried to persuade her to ‘touch his nipples’. ‘He couldn’t believe I refused. No one else had ever done that,’ she said.
After being introduced to Andrew in the library, she sat on his lap. Miss Roberts says it was made clear to her that she was expected to have sex with Andrew – although again the Palace completely refutes any suggestion of impropriety.
‘Ghislaine said, “You should take him upstairs for a massage,” ’ she says, burying her face in her hands. ‘I took him upstairs to the Dungeon. He undressed and lay face down on the table. I started with his feet, then his calves the way Jeffrey liked it.’
This time there was no extra payment for the session, she added. ‘Because I wasn’t on the road, I just got my usual hourly rate, which at that time was $200.’
She met Andrew one final time on Epstein’s Caribbean island, where she says she entertained him with an ‘orgy’. ‘I flew there with Jeffrey and Ghislaine,’ she says, ‘and seven Russian girls who didn’t speak a word of English turned up with a modelling agent. Jeffrey was so excited. He said, “We’re going to do a big photo shoot with you and the girls.” The agent took the pictures.
‘They were very provocative. We were topless and he had us in sexual positions. Then were told to assemble in a big cabana. When I walked in, Andrew and Jeffrey were seated in chairs. Jeffrey directed us with hand gestures. Jeffrey and the Prince were laughing. The next day, Andrew was gone.
‘I remember thinking I would never have a normal life again but, as sick as it sounds, Jeffrey was my master. I was totally in his power. I never thought of trying to escape.’
For her 19th birthday, in August 2002, Epstein purchased a plane ticket to Thailand for her, where he enrolled her in a massage course.
Asked if she planned to escape, she blushes. Despite the degradation she endured, she insists that she never would have lied to her ‘mentor’.
‘I really did think that I could give him better massages if I studied in Thailand,’ she says.
Shortly after arriving there, however, she met an Australian martial arts expert, whom we have agreed to identify only by his first name, Robert. They fell in love and, just ten days later, they married.
‘Robert taught me how to live again,’ says Miss Roberts.
For 11 years, they lived in virtual seclusion in a rural suburb of Sydney. But a year ago, the couple moved back to America with their three young children. ‘I still dream about Jeffrey. I still wake up at night in tears,’ said Miss Roberts, who is working on a memoir.
Her memory of Prince Andrew plays heavily on her mind.
‘A lot of powerful men were part of Jeffrey’s scene, but I specifically remember Andrew,’ she says.
But she says it is now time ‘to fight’, adding: ‘When I think of what he and these other men did, it breaks my heart. I am going to name every guy who deserves to be named when I go to court.’
And yesterday she said she was being ‘unjustly victimised again’ after her account was called into question. ‘These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly the reason why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time,’ she says. ‘That trend should change. I’m not going to be bullied back into silence.’
Epstein’s lawyer Jack Goldberg said the allegations were old and salacious and had been consistently proven to have no merit.
Ghislaine Maxwell was not available for comment but has previously branded all claims against her as ‘untrue’ and ‘obvious lies’.
Dark Politricks is a site dedicated to investigating the dark side of politics including corruption, propoganda, the police state, war on terror, the intelligence services and their misdeeds, false flag attacks and much more. The site also promotes free speech, internet freedom and social justice. For an overview of my beliefs and political leanings please read this.
Whereas the site contains many articles from various sources I do write a lot of my own essays and I am now having to pay for hosting to ensure that this under reported content is available. So please help me continue to do so by visiting advertisers sites or making a small donation.
Get instant notification of new article postings and other news collated from the best sites on the net by following me on