ISIS, Israel, Iran and the "War on Terror"

ISIS, Israel, Iran and the "War on Terror"

By Dark Politricks

This is what I mean when I stated in my last article that we are hypocritical when it comes to our treatment of Saudi Arabia in relation to ISIS.

Saudi Arabia, has decided to lash a woman 200 times for being gang-raped by seven men. Her actual crime was leaving her house, thus making being gang-raped her own fault, - Gang Raped Saudi Woman Sentenced to 200 lashes, 6 months in jail.

Two “Islamic States”, one gets massive arms supplies, Royal visits and ignored when it comes to their human right abuses. Whilst the other gets bombed and denounced as terrorists for doing the same thing in a cruder manner.

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 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.

It seems as if the Israeli President 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?

Why would the Israelis who were so concerned about al-Qaeda not feel the threat of ISIS on their borders and concentrate instead on Iranian bomb making.

Here we have 3 Islamic States all being treated differently because of what they CAN do for their allies, and who they are allied to, rather than their actual potential threat to the outside world.

If we had to order the three by the amount of death and evil they have done to the 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 and 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. In fact entire sections of the 9.11 commission report was blacked out keeping Saudi Arabia’s name from their findings.

Even this nypost.com. explains it clearly.

“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.“

View the full article at nypost.com.

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 George W Bush’s 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 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.

I keep being reminded of ex Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky in his book “By Way of Deception” when he repeats what he was told was the future of Saddam Hussein in the Middle East.

“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 Mossad had 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.

By Way Of Deception - Victor Ostrovsky

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.

Iraqi army downs 2 UK planes carrying weapons to ISIL

Here is the Washington Post trying to excuse the dropping of weapons to ISIS by saying it was an accident.

We can’t have the war on terror ending too soon can we! Not when the militarisation of our police forces at home isn't yet complete and we still have a few liberties left.

Remember this war on terror was because we had to fight these evil terrorists who hated our freedoms.

Doesn't anyone think it strange we have lost more freedoms in the years since this war started than in any time before. Even when the IRA was at war with us for 30+ years we didn't give up our liberties at home.

It was only with the installation of MI5 mole Tony Blair in the Labour party, who brought it so far into the centre ground that there was hardly any difference between it and the Tories, that we started handing our freedoms over on a plate and misusing them, such as Gordon Brown using anti-terrorism laws to freeze Icelandic money in UK banks after their financial crash.

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?

© 2015 Dark Politricks

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com.

Killing the Islamic State

Killing The Islamic State

By Dark Politricks

ISIS or "Islamic State" as they call themselves, is as barbaric a group as they come. 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 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 histpry.

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.

The UK military cannot even face the threat from a resurgent Russia, no matter how many times our Eurofighter Typhoons have to be scrambled to fend off Russian Bombers from the coast of Cornwall.

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?

Remember folks if the war in Ukraine actually gets hot between Russia and NATO then China's recent demo of a laser fired into space to destroy a satellite it had "no use for" or in other words, a warning to the USA that they could take down any US satellites they wanted, making the techno dependent US military redundant, will become true. Russia will most certainly do the same.

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.

Israel has one of the biggest and most sophisticated armies in the world yet they spend their time either setting up fake al-Qaeda groups to then "catch" or allowing the US to instead. Just like leading a blind and dumb rat to a piece of poisoned cheese.

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.

We have already done enough damage.

It's someone else's turn to turn the tide.

View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com.

The Drugs War - Why It Should Be Ended - A documentary by Russell Brand

The Drugs War - Why It Should Be Ended - A documentary by Russell Brand

YouTube.com
Russell Brand End The Drugs War - By Dark Politricks

As someone who has been around drugs all my life in the UK it is interesting to see different people's perspectives on drugs.

You can read my own thoughts on drugs and the war on it here: The Drug Laws Need Re-Thinking.

If you know my history and my current conitions then you will know I am on Fentanyl for my chrionic pain condition, a drug 100 * stronger than Morphine and many times more potent than heroin. It's a drug that they cut heroin with and has caused many deaths in the USA.

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:

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-1

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-2

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-3

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-4

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.

He is an ex addict and I recommned reading his book Revolution at the same time.

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 reality 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

View the original video at YouTube.com. View the original article on the main site Russell Brand End The Drugs War - By Dark Politricks

9.11 An Introductory Guide for people wanting to know the conspiracy theories behind the attack that started World War III

9.11 An Introductory Guide for people wanting to know the conspiracy theories behind the attack that started World War III

By Dark Politricks.

Sorry I haven't written munch lately but I am been seriously ill - almost dead to be exact , ina nd out of hospital for various things, but I am able to write today .

Today I want to introduce newcomers to the 9/11 conspiracies to a great introductory video that gets you up to speed on some of the key points 9/11.

It doesn't go as far as naming real names lke the head of the Israeli Mossad Operation teams or how Mossad were following some of the hijackers around for up to a year before the attack, However it does open the door far enough for people to  be intrigued enough to want to investigate more.

Most people know all about the parts discussed in the video but for others this is a good starting place.

Why ?

Well it's all about one man's story from how he went from an average America husband and father who believed the Governments line on the 9/11 attacks. To someone who nearly lost his marriage, friends and had everyone thinking he was going loopy for speaking out about the glaring inconsistencies in the 9.11 story.

Lies being told to the American people to get them to fight wars in foreign lands.

He talks about the fast falling of buildings, the super fast clean up, the ejected steel poles embedded in other buildings, the samples of dust consisting of a substance called nano-termite a substance only produced in in top US military laboratories to the amount of people who had pre-knowledge of  the attacks and especially WTC-7.

Here was a building not hit by a place that collapsed looking like a perfect controlled demolition in almost free fall time, with no resistance from from all the floors to slow the collapse down.

He talks about how vans were turning up at 3am every morning after the janitors of WTC had left and then left again before they returned. What were these people doing? Has anyone asked and found an answer?

He also discusses how all the companies running the security of the WTC buildings, and even airports that the hijackers used were owned by Bush family members,.

Also why i it so many of the he families of the dead victims from the attack want a fresh investigation and so much more.

What makes this video different from the others you might have seen about 9./1 is how it's about one mans journey from an air of nonchalance about 9.11 and belief in the official story until he saw one bit of video footage that changed his whole perspective. Just the single thought about why George W Bush carried on  reading to school kids when the country was under attack made him wonder why.

Any  other President who had just been told there were multiple hijacked planes in the sky would have been taken out from the building to a secure location ASAP.

Who would have known whether the hijackers knew the location  of the Presidents whereabouts that day?

Why did the Secret Service feel so safe remaining in the school and more worried about scaring the children than getting the Present to protective custody  in  time of "war".

He then saw more videos, read more articles, and went down the "rabbit hole" until it almost broke his marriage apart by his obsession with the 9/11 conspiracy.

Therefore he first started making this video for his wife and family to explain to them WHY he was so obsessed with the 9.11 attacks.

It worked, they watched it and changed their minds. His marriage and family were saved. Therefore he recently put this up on YouTube for others to see and I suggest that you do spend the time to watch it, especially if you still believe the official report of what happened on 9.11.

So for someone new to 9/11 and the discussions about all the various topics, about who did it, why they did it, and who had something to gain from starting what is now becoming a 3rd World War between the West and Iskan ot os a great starter vodep to read. It goes at a nice pace, fills you with facts and quotes from the mainstream media around 9.11 and then shows how the same media turned on anyone attempting to claim it was an "inside job".

One of the funnies pieces of the film is how a CNN team managed to drive into Afghanistan interview the worlds most wanted man, Osama bin-Laden and yet the worlds most sophisticated security apparatus couldn't capture or taker him out.  Funny how people managed to interview bin-Lade before and after 9.11 but the CIA went to war for a decade and let him escape to Pakistan.



The video is fast paced and has a human touch as the parts between the 9.11 attacks are interspersed with his personal tale of how it effected his marriage, family and friends.

A Starter Guide On 9.11

I would 100% suggest this video as a starter guide for anyone interested in the events, whether you believe in a conspiracy and especially if you don't.

Afterwards there is enough people mentioned in the film, organisations, companies and other websites that you can go and visit to get more detailed knowledge of  the facts.

If you want one article on a theoretical debate between a conspiracy believer and non believer read this article of mine.

Then if you want a real debate just read the comments below the article.

Just before I show you the video I want to show you a some film of what happens when a plane flying at the same speeds the hijacked planes were going when they hit the WTC and Pentagon hit solid concrete.

Does the plane enter the wall or does it just crumble into dust on the outside?

Now watch the video and send it to your friends, family and other people who believe the official conspiracy story.

 

9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version

 

View the original srticle at 9/11 The Anatomy of a Great Deception - Please Watch This Is If You Want To Know The Basics About 9/1 Conspiracy Theories.