What Really Started The Afghan War

What Really Started The Afghan War

By Dark Politricks
Video by The Corbett Report

The War in Afghanistan is the USA's longest ever and the most unpopular, even beating the Vietnam conflict.

The USA has been fighting the Taliban, or locals who just see them as another invading force on the backs of the Soviets, the British Empire and many other countries going back centuries to Alexander the Great who couldn't even win in the Afghanistan .

If all the previous attempts failed what makes American neocon warmongers believe they will succeed where everyone before couldn't.

Even after 17 years of fighting the Americans don't control the majority of the country and the Taliban are still carrying out devastating attacks to remove them from their land.

Whether the Pakistani ISI is a help or hindrance is totally up for debate but what isn't is that:

• America had plans to invade Afghanistan before 9.11.
• They had met with the Taliban to discuss an oil pipeline but failed to reach agreement in 2001.
• The banned the growing of Opium, calling it un-Islamic in 2001. However since invasion the tonnage of Opium grown each year has expanded hugely. With more than whispers that NATO and US planes are taking the Opium back to the West to pay for black ops and other covert missions. So much for Tony Blair's commitment to "Stop the Opium crisis" when the war started.
• There are large deposits of minerals used for modern technological devices in the realms of billions of dollars that exist which China, Japan and the USA want to extract.
• A survey carried out just after 2001 showed that 92% of Afghans had never even heard of Usama bin-Laden or the 9.11 attacks.

So are the Americans just staying to create permanent bases that once again threaten both Russia and China's regions of influence and create tensions between these countries.

This is the Corbett Report's video on the Afghan war where he looks at why did the war in Afghanistan start, and how did NATO become involved in the conflict?

He reveals the remarkable truth about the secret documents that helped launch the Afghan war.

Here is the story of the secrets and lies that started the war in Afghanistan.

 

By Dark Politricks

©2018 Dark Politricks

The death of Hugo Chavez - did a cancer inducing weapon kill him?

The death of Hugo Chavez - did a cancer inducing weapon kill him?

By Dark Politricks

Hugo Chavez has just died and rumours run around that the CIA killed him using a cancer weapon.

This doesn't sound as mad as it seems. Viruses and inflammation are the cause of most serious illnesses including heart attacks and cancer. The CIA and it's allies in other agencies like the Mossad have a long history of trying to kill their enemies in exotic means.

Who can forget the famous story of the exploding cigar that was supposed to kill Fidel Castro as well as all the other failures including poisoned wetsuits and milkshakes.

We also have many reports from the battlefields of Iraq of new secret weaponry being used on the "enemy" that included microwaving people from the inside out.

In fact these new "energy weapons" that use electromagnetic waves to cause depression and other illnesses have been used frequently in the war as this snippet from http://rense.com shows.

Microwaving Iraq

The Gulf War veteran observes that occupied Iraq has become a "saturation environment" of electromagnetic radiation. Potentially lethal electromagnetic smog from high-power US military electronics and experimental beam weapons is placing already hard-hit local populations-particularly children -- at even higher risk of experiencing serious illness, suicidal depression, impaired cognitive ability, even death.

Therefore if these are weapons that we know of just imagine what weapons the USA and their allies have that we haven't a clue about.

Here is a report from PrisonPlanet.com TV about the plots concerning Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and include the two leaders discussing the possibility of the CIA killing each of them with injections and even cancer spreading poisons.


So the possibility exists that the Americans do posses a weapon on such lines and it is an odd occurrence that 6 leaders of South American countries who all stood in alliance against US hegemony developed cancer within recent years.

Who can forget the killing of ex FSB and KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko by the Russians with a cancer causing radioactive element  polonium-210 not long back. Therefore these types of weapons do exist and the possibility cannot be ruled out however wild you might thing the conspiracy theory is,

However despite any theory or proof to the otherwise I want to pay my own respects to Hugo Chavez for his "balls" and nothing else.

He may have given his people free health care paid for from the countries energy exports and he may have done many other good things for his people that some may find "socialist" and despise purely for that reason alone.

However I respected him for standing up to the US wanting to dominate the world and not caring who knew about his feelings.

Whether you loved or hated him he was a dominant figure in South American politics and when he offered aid to the victims of Katrina when George W Bush was too busy to visit and delivered cheap oil to the Bronx during their cold winter he gained my respect at the detriment of the US president.

However despite his death I am reluctant to take Hugo Chavez off my "Good Guys" list and for that reason alone I am re-showing one of his famous rants against America, US dominance and the fact he dared call the leader of the USA a donkey and a drunk!

 




Read the original article "The death of Hugo Chavez - a cancer inducing weapon is not so far fetched after all" at the main www.darkpolitricks.com website.

Is David Cameron hoping for another Falkland War with Argentina?

By Dark Politricks

It seems that the current war of words between David Cameron and Argentinean Prime Minister Cristina Kirchner over the Falkland Islands has been complicated even further by US involvement.

A large Pentagon linked American energy company has chosen to step into the age old conflict over sovereignty of the Islands by declaring it's intention to spend up to a billion pounds on any oil extracted by UK firms around the Islands.

An article in the Sun newspaper revealed that Four executives from the Houston-based company Anadarko flew into Port Stanley last week to meet with the UK oil explorer Rockhopper who's managed to find ovver 700 million barrels of oil off the northern coast of the Falkland Islands.

The US companies board of directors include a former commander of US Strategic Command Kevin Chilton as well as Preston M "Pete" Geren II who was in the US Department of Defence for much of the last decade.

This meeting comes after a recent war of words which has been exacerbated by a number of acts including the Argentinians, Brazil, Uruguay and Chile joining together and resolve to turn away any ships trying to dock at their ports that fly the Falkland Islands flag, a sheep and a ship alongside the Union Jack. The Argentinians call this the illegal flag of the Malvinas Islands, their name for the islands that were the center of a war between the UK and them in 1982.

Then only the other week the Falkland Islands were criticized for refusing to allow a cruise ship full of sick passengers, many of them Argentinian to dock at the Islands claiming that an outbreak of stomach flu could strain the islands tiny medical resources.

This tit for tat between the wind swept Islands and the South American's who want them back now that they are oil rich is allowing the UK PM David Cameron to act up in Parliament and pretend to be the son Maggie Thatcher always wanted instead of the loser criminal she got.

The other week in the house he hypocritically responded to Argentinian president Cristina Kirchners restatement of her countries right to "Las Malvinas" as colonialism.

Whilst it is obvious that the Agentinians want to get their hands on the large oil deposits that Rockhopper found in mid 2010 they have always claimed that the islands are theirs even after their last failed attempt to capture them by force in 1982.

Whilst colonialism of all forms is wrong we cannot change history and however much some people may want to turn back the clock the fact remains that the British Empire was the biggest the world had ever seen covering all corners of the globe and the only reason the Falklands are still British is because we took them because no-one else did.

Neither the Spannish or French, both colonial powers at the time had ample opportunity to colonise the wind swept archipelago before the UK did and the fact remains that the people who live there want to remain British subjects. If we are supposed to live in a world of self-determination then it must be up to the people who live in the affected area to chose their own fate.

My Uncle served in the RAF and said when he was in the Falklands the sheep outnumbered people by the hundreds and the infrastructure was appallingly basic. Whilst the oil revenues may help improve the living standards of many people in those islands if they had accepted Argentinian ownership of some form they would already have a much better infrastructure and economy by now.

The war of words between our countries is not going to help resolve anything and it cannot be forgotten that the last Falkland war came at a time of massive economic strife and recession in our country in which a much hated Prime Minister suddenly became a hero by standing up to the Argentinian invasion of the islands in 1982.

Whilst we were undoubtedly lucky last time to win the war with our Navy task force halfway across the world, a force was reliant on our now non existent aircraft carriers and Harrier jump jets. We are now faced with a much more depleted Navy and going through another major lot of cuts in our armed forces.

Would we be so lucky another time? I don't know but the involvement of the US could change things dramatically especially if they were large consumers of Falkland oil. As the Sun article claimed the US Department of Defense linked executives as saying:

"A deal has been tabled."

"Anadarko has got approval to do this from the highest levels in the US."

"And they've been reassured the British will stand by the islands."

It seems that any future war will most definitely be about oil and it will also most certainly be used for political purposes on both sides whilst the wishes of the people in the middle, the Islanders will undoubtedly be ignored.

It seems the war with Iran has already started

By Dark Politricks

First off I would like to apologise to my readers due to the fact that I haven't been able to blog much lately due to some cancerous health issues. However as I sit at home waiting for an operation tomorrow I am watching the news channels and it appears to me that on comparable levels with the cold war we are actually already in a warm war with Iran.

We have gone way past the level of lies, mis-information and propaganda that it always required before a war and we are now actually engaging in hostile actions against our perceived enemy.

Just like the war against Iraq was fermented perfectly with lies of WMD, terrorist support and links to 9.11 we have been prepped for the current conflict very carefully over the last decade with similar lies and government backed talking heads on TV filling all the sheeples heads with propaganda, bullshit and nationalistic furor.

Lets just refresh our memories with a few of the lies we have been told about Iran.

1. They are trying to build nuclear weapons.

First off I personally think they would be crazy not to want to have nukes after seeing how their neighbours were bombed to dust for not having them. When given the choice of having the same treatment as Iraq and Libya or the hands off approach North Korea and Pakistan have received despite numerous incidents which would have sparked a war in any other country. I can see how certain Iranian officials could logically come to the conclusion that obtaining a nuclear capability would prevent attack. However that is just my perspective.

However as the IAEA themselves say, there is no proof whatsoever that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. They might be concerned with the Iranians programme but there is nothing in their latest report that indicates Iran is actually building or has decided to build a nuclear bomb.

Tehran has obviously dismissed all the intelligence used to further the case for war as fabricated lies straight from Tel Aviv and Langley but we can forget what they say can't we.

Why would we trust the Iranians when the CIA and Mossad are such honest, trustworthy sources of information?

Lets also remember that up until this last report the IAEA had provided no evidence whatsoever to prove that the Iranians were building a nuke and even US intelligence agencies had until recently been admitting there was no proof that Iran was building a bomb in their December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

So with the IAEA still monitoring all the Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities and with Russia taking away all nuclear waste so that it cannot be used in a weapon and with a multitude of experts agreeing that under this regime their is little chance of proliferation what has changed?

Well the old head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei,  has been replaced by what many, including the Iranian president claim is a "US Puppet", a Mr Yukiya Amano. The new head of the International Atomic Energey Agency seems to be a more pliable and accommodating leader of the IAEA and closely aligned with US / Israeli foreign policy objectives. Recent WikiLeaks cables seem to bear this out.

"The IAEA transition that will come as DG [director general] ElBaradei’s term ends November 30 provides a once-a-decade opportunity to overcome bureaucratic inertia, modernize Agency operations, and position the new director general for strong leadership from the DG’s office....DG of all states, but in agreement with us."

So with a new head of the IAEA it seems a new era of perspective and possible political control over the agency was created. It is therefore no surprise then that even as independent commentators have stuck to their guns about Iranian plans the IAEA has swung 360 degrees and started obfuscating their report language to enable the talking heads to make what they want of it whilst the underlying facts stay the same.

2. The Iranian President wants to wipe Israel off the map.

This is a key piece of propaganda that is often repeated by MSM talking heads and many of the Republican candidates during their endless primary debates. However it is based on a lie, repeated enough times to become a reality in many peoples eyes.

The translation of what the Iranian President actually said and an analysis of it can be found on my site but the crux of the matter is just like the Osama bin Laden video which showed him "confessing to committing the 9.11 attacks". The lie is based on a poor or deliberate mistranslation and a willingness to propagate these known untruths into the minds of the weak and the willing for propaganda purposes.

As Washington's Blog succintley puts it

"Ahmadinejad said people once thought it was impossible to remove the Shah as Iran‘s dictator, but it was done. He then said that people thought the Soviet government and Saddam’s government would never fall. He then quoted a religious leader’s words from speeches he gave encouraging Iran‘s persistence to oppose the Shah‘s occupying regime. The speech’s crystal-clear content and context is to encourage people to persist for justice from Israel’s government because they act as an occupying regime against Palestine."

This lie has been repeated by TV stations, newspapers and illiterate bloggers throughout the world as if gospel. The reason is clear as in all pre-war drum beats - demonize the enemy and make the target seem like a defenseless child in need of protection.

3. Israel is not a defenseless child in need of protection.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East who definitely has nuclear weapons as well as being the only country who has repeatedly threatened to use them on their neighbours. Whereas Iran has not started a war for many decades Israel has started many and it seems to requires a perpetual existential threat to hold the Zionist regime together.

Does the Torah not say that "He who destroys one life is as though he destroys a whole world". Maybe it's their super racist religion that makes them God's special children, above us mere Goyim and therefore no diferent from squashing a cockroach or two that enables them to threaten to rain down death and destruction from the sky on their neighbours with impunity.

As we can see in this FOX News clip Israel is already threatening to nuke Iran to prevent Iran getting nukes!

If nukes are going to be used to kill innocent civillians does it really matter which group of women, children and men are burned to a crisp in a flickering of an eye?



Israel unlike Iran is also not a member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. No IAEA inspectors are checking Israels nuclear plants or ensuring they don't sell or distribute their nuclear technology to other countries as has been claimed by independent reporters.

Israel receives over $3 Billion a year from the US in aid, a fifth of America’s foreign aid budget and on top of this they get free weapons, fighter jets, missile systems and much more, all as sweeteners to try and get them to the peace table with the Palestinians. This is on top of all the free high tech weapon systems given as "gifts" from their bought and paid for Congress.

In fact Israel has the most advanced military in the region and although not part of NATO they seem to be able to employ their biggest donors support at the click of their fingers (or the few hundred letters signed by paid for Congressmen).

Those are just 3 of the biggest lies we are being spoon fed by our compliant media groups who are all preparing us for the inevitable next conflict that keeps the US/UK axis of death in perpetual war even when we are all bankrupt and cutting spending on our own citizens at home. Who need's nurses or teachers when we can spend a few hundred thousand quid on a Tomahawk missile aimed at an office block in Tehran

We are Already At War with Iran

However it clear from recent events that the West is already engaged in hostile actions against the Iranian regime.

With Republican candidates gleefully cheering when another Iranian scientist is blown to smithereens and the Israeli's staying silent with a big smile on their face as all fingers get pointed their way it is clear that covert operations have already started to both slow down any Iranian nuclear programme and prep the ground for war.

The motorcycles attaching bombs to the side of cars already moving before blowing them up is a well known Mossad tactic. Even US shows like NCIS show the Mossad engaging in such techniques to assassinate their enemies. When Iran points the finger at Israel and the USA it is a logical conclusion seeing that multiple scientists and a large number of military troops have died in similar car bombings and attacks at military installations over the past couple of years.

Then we have the first ever known form of cyber warfare engaged against Iran with the infamous Stuxnet virus. A virus so complicated it used multiple zero day exploits unknown to the manufacture that was cleverly passed from control system to system by means of a memory stick.

Once embedded into it's intended victim, the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz it mimicked the historical activities of the reactor whilst it span the centrifuges out of control with the operators none the wiser. It was very clever attempt to derail the Iranian nuclear program and one that could have caused a major disaster if not spotted in time.

We also have our funding, training and backing of terrorist groups such as Jundullah who have been bombing Iranian targets including military and civilians targets for a number of years now. Iran calls them terrorists whilst we call them freedom fighters?

How does that concept work again - when we can pick and chose the terrorists, helping them other-throw a country like Libya one day and then spend a decade fighting a few dozen of them another?

Then again we have a long history of interfering in Iran's affairs, from the other-throw of the Shah in 1953 to the backing of Saddam Hussein in the long war between Iraq and Iran in the 80's.

Then we have the hypocrisy of the West in action for all to see once again clear as day.

Whilst we turn a blind eye to Israeli nukes and it's illegal oppression of Palestinians in breach of numerous UN resolutions we attack Syria, Libya and Iran for their repressive regimes whilst supporting Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as they commit the exact same acts against their people.

We pick and choose our enemies for political purposes whilst dressing up our attacks up in clothes that blind the stupid into believing we really are just on humanitarian missions or wanting to keep world peace.

If one goes back though the last hundred years and counts the number of wars the axis of death (US/UK) has been involved in you would lose count quite quickly, especially if you included all the "undeclared wars" and covert operations we routinely engage in.

Then there is our own behaviour that doesn't hold up to inspection when placed in front of a mirror. We claim to be the leaders of democracy and liberal freedom whilst our police beat, pepper spray and even kill protesters on the streets of London and New York who are awakening to the financial corporatocracy that has enveloped our political system.

We have resorted to Medieval tactics of torture, removed habeas corpus with liberty crushing acts such as the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act and repeated footage of US soldiers burning Korans, desecrating bodies by urinating on them, kill squads and naked pyramids in jail have done nothing but remove any moral standing we may have had left from the eyes of the world.



For such a discredited political system that is dependent on continual war such as ours to sit in judgment on the behaviour of others is a laughable concept when you actually sit and think about it.

Why should a few Western nations be able to decide arbitrarily who can and cannot be trusted to hold certain weapons, who is humane and who is in breach of human rights. Who deserves to be attacked relentlessly from the sky and who should be sold weapons by the billion. Who should die and should live.

Why do we get to make such important decisions when our own actions and behaviour do not stand up to scrutiny?

How Would a War Progress

As for the "warm war" we are already in we don't need to read tea leaves to see how a real war would progress.

Israel, with help from Saudi Arabia and the US/UK axis of death would launch air strikes to try and destroy all Iranian nuclear facilities as well as military installations, radar sites, missiles silos and probably the homes of everyone with a degree in physics.

Iran has already said it would try to block the Straits of Hormuz, which would cut off 25% of the UK's natural gas supply and much more oil and gas to other nations. Their allies in Lebanon and any left in Syria would undoubtedly launch missile attacks on Israel from the North and Hamas may even give the Israelis the excuse they want to re-invade Gaza by firing from the south.

The US would try to unblock the Straits of Hormuz causing a massive shoot up in the sea that no merchant ship would dare sail through if they had their wits about them and the price of petrol and heating would rise immensely.

If Iran has as is claimed Russian sunburn missiles or their newest air defense systems we could even see more than few dead US and Israeli pilots, sea-men and civilians if they can fire off missiles before all their silos are destroyed.

If air strikes are not enough then a ground war could be in the pipeline with US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan they are perfectly positioned to attack Iran from both sides. However as we have seen from their recent exploits, they cannot even win a war against mud hut dwelling villagers who have been repelling invaders for centuries and who give AK-47's to their kids as birthday presents.

Another ground war against a much tougher and better equipped army would not be a pretty site and could even draw other countries in either through proxies or a full blown Middle East conquest. China is keen to take all the oil the west doesn't want by implementing sanctions on Iran and Russia has been more than helpful to Iran and Syria by setting up anti aircraft missile and early warning systems.

The US has already declared their intention to control the natural gas and oil reserves of the Middle East and the Caucasus regions and slow down the rise of China by limiting their supplies of oil and other natural resources.

Whilst China is busy making friends by investing in Africa, the Middle East and South America and buying their resources America seems to feel conquest is the preferred option for obtaining the same outcome. Who would you pick as an ally if you were an independent nation stuck in the middle and had to make a choice?

The famous PNAC document details all these plans very clearly. 9.11 was the catalyst that they wanted which enabled them to enact their plans to rebuild America's Defenses and start an imperial journey of conquest and the Obama administration has done nothing to slow it down.

Terrorist attacks on Western cities would be a certainty if war broke out and the whole disastrous affair would be  a massive distraction to the economic crisis that threatens to engulf us all if war or natural disaster doesn't first.  The ending to this saga would not be good for anyone involved.

For those of you who don't wish to not spend another decade of lost liberties at home, dead relatives fighting pointless wars abroad and ridiculously high petrol prices then you know what you have to do.

The millions of people who marched and protested verbosely couldn't stop the war against Iraq even though the majority of sensible people knew it was a phony war built on phony intelligence and if only a few politicians had a conscience and resigned things might have been different.

However the US public has a brilliant opportunity in the upcoming Presidential election to make their voice heard by voting for a candidate who won't embroil the world in more war and financial doom.

Who that candidate is I will leave up to you to decide but it sure isn't the incumbent Obama and it sure isn't the majority of Republican candidates. I only hope enough of you chose wisely and pick someone not in the pocket of the Zionist lobby, the world might depend on it.