Posts Tagged ‘Sarin Gas’

Will anyone bring the War Criminal Tony Blair to justice?

July 6, 2016

Will anyone bring the War Criminal Tony Blair to justice?

By Dark Politricks

www.darkpolitricks.com

Now the Chilcot report is out, does this mean that the Tory Government have the balls to go and arrest Tony Blair for pushing the illegal Iraq war?

Here was someone who knew that the evidence was false yet still promised George W Bush to be with him whatever, despite the UN and his own legal advisers, saying that the war was illegal.

Just like the many EU referendums before BREXIT, it was “no that’s the wrong answer, go and find the right one”, until a dodgy legal basis was provided to give Blair cover for his actions by Lord Goldsmith. I wonder how and why he got given his title….

I doubt any Tories will do anything to put their establishment buddy Blair’s head in the block as it would mean putting their own heads in as well. Many of them eagerly went along with the falsehood that many in the world knew was a blatant lie.

It does however make sense why the Blairite push for power against their Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was planned just before this week’s revelations. They were hoping to take the sting out of the massive news story it will surely become, their own names off the front pages, and provide a different headline for the newspapers. However we must ensure that #Chilcot stays in the news and social media despite other political manoeuvrings.

If we have to wait for the Blairites to return to the Labour fold and for Corbyn to get elected before seeing Blair in the Hague then we could be waiting a long time. However hopefully a massive class action case by the families of dead UK soldiers, and maybe millions of Iraqi’s hurt by the war, could be formed to take him to civil court instead.

Hopefully they could win and sting Blair with a massive monetary punishment as OJ Simpson was, to take away all the millions he has made since leading the country into Iraq by selling speeches, and pretending to be a “Peace Envoy”. All whilst making money for himself in the Middle East advising dictators and lobbying the UN to vote against Palestinian statehood in 2011 – on the payroll of the Israelis no doubt.

The Palestinians had this to say about Tony Blair:

There is no one within the Palestinian leadership that supports or likes or trusts Tony Blair, particularly because of the very damaging role he played during our UN bid.

He is considered persona non grata in Palestine. Although we can’t prevent him from coming here, we can hopefully minimise the role he can play because he is not a mediator, he is totally biased on one side.

So what were the main findings of the Chilcot report which we have had to wait 7 years for?

  • There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
  • The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
  • On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him “whatever”. But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
  • Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – known as WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
  • Intelligence had “not established beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
  • Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
  • The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were “far from satisfactory”.
  • The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10’s response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
  • The UK’s actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN’s Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the Security Council”. But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
  • In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded
  • Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas – including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were “wholly inadequate”.
  • The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
  • The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK’s relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.

So will anyone apart from Jeremy Corbyn whose whole party seems to have deserted him despite having overwhelming support from the Labour membership and Trade Unions do anything about the lies of Tony Blair that led us to war and the creation of ISIS which haunts us all now?

Despite the massacres, huge car bombs killing hundreds almost on a daily basis during the Iraq civil war, journalists getting their heads cut off by ISIS and al-Qaeda and the strengthening of Iran, Tony Blair still thinks he made the right decision. He said this in the report:

Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country

So no remorse then for the many people killed and injured from 2003 to this very day, all coming from his decision to back George W Bush who had some narcissistic desire to achieve what his father didn’t in the earlier Gulf War, remove Saddam from power. This was despite any links to 9.11 or any evidence that he posed a threat to the region.

Saddam and RumsfeldThis was a dictator that was supported by the USA during the 80’s in it’s war with Iran, and many in George W Bushes cabinet were players from that era such as Donald Rumsfeld who is seen here having a good time with his favoured dictator of the region.

I have no doubt that the USA believed Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction because they used to sell him so many of them, including the nerve gas which he used against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi rebels. No complaint was made about it at the time of the event but when it came to the standard demonisation of the enemy before a war all this was put into the heads of the public to paint a horrible picture of their ex friend and enabled dictator.

Despite warnings by the CIA that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily Donald Rumsfeld who was at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, continued to make it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

This included biological weapons and viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Also during the time the US was selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons the UK under Maggie Thatcher was selling up to 78 different types of military equipment including Land Rovers, tank recovery vehicles, terrain-following radar and spare tank parts according to released government reports.

Apparently this pleased Maggie very much. She said she was “very pleased” with the “Contracts worth over £150m [that] have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months including one for £34m (for armoured recovery vehicles through Jordan),” which was written by a junior minister, Thomas Trenchard, in 1981. This letter also stated that meetings with Saddam Hussein “represent a significant step forward in establishing a working relationship with Iraq which should produce both political and major commercial benefits”.

So not only did the UK and USA help stock up Saddam Hussein with all the WMD they then accused him of having, a very hypocritical move but to be expected by the two major powers in the axis of continual war, but we actually helped him use those weapons on Iranians.

Iran was finally brought to the negotiating table by providing Iraq the location of Iranian troops, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defences once they had learned that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage in the 8 year long war.

They were fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin and mustard gas prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence.

These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favour and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

So not only were we totally hypocritical when dealing with Saddam helping him use WMD that we sold him in the first place, but we started a war of aggression against his country that was not thought out, had no plans for after the invasion, spilled over into sectarian violence and civil war and the formation of terrorist groups where there were none before.

So how many dead people does Blair and Bush have on their hands from their decision to go to war “on faulty intelligence” or as normal people say “illegally”?

How many dead and injured victims have their been over the last 12+ years and the years prior…

-The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible were responsible for over half a million deaths, mainly children.
-The Illegal war which Blair promised Bush to support even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it is thought to have killed at least half a million people.
-The depleted uranium weapons used in Fallujah that are still causing babies to be born without legs and arms and horrible birth defects.
-The long civil war came after the fall of Saddam between the Sunnis, Shia’s and Kurds.
-The forming of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 when no al-Qaeda terrorists had existed before.
The forming of ISIS which is now fighting Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian and Russian soldiers and inspiring terrorist attacks in the west. All whilst we do very little to stop them (and even support them) whilst allowing our ally Turkey to bomb the Kurds instead.
-And that’s not even counting all the dead US/UK soldiers.
-And those who came home with missing limbs from IEDS and PTSD now living in poverty on the streets or in jail.

I wonder what the total death count is, or will ever be……

I also wonder if the world has the strength to punish a war criminal that wasn’t on the losing side for once?

By Dark Politricks

View the original article on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.

 

© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Advertisements

Are we sure we want to start World War III?

August 26, 2013

Are we sure we want to start World War III?

By Dark Politricks

This is the question we should be debating when we talk about Syria, especially after this latest chemical weapon attack.

So far the claims that the attack was carried out by President Assad’s forces have not been proved and seeing that the history of previous claims has actually led to the door of the rebels we should be wary about jumping in head first.

Why President Assad would attack defenceless woman and children with chemical weapons instead of the rebel forces I have no idea. He knows that the west has made “chemical weapons” their red line and even though we have backtracked from storming into Syria on previous occasions we have been funding and supporting the rebels covertly for some time.

However with politicians in the USA, UK and France all getting war crazy after the latest attack we should be very wary of attacking Syria without 100% proof that

a) Assad was behind the attacks and

b) We are prepared to see high-tech Russian made missiles flying all over the middle east.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, is telling TV stations that Obama should ignore the War Powers Act, as he did over Libya and go straight into Syria first and ask Congress for permission later.

And the UK’s foreign secretary, William Hague, is indicating that the axis of war, USA, UK and France could go it alone in Syria without consent from the UN. He told the BBC today that:

“Diplomacy has not worked in Syria” and that:

“We, the United States, many other countries including France, are clear that we can’t allow the idea in the 21st century that chemical weapons can be used with impunity,” as well as implying that military action could be taken “without complete unity on the UN Security Council” and stressed that such action would be “in accordance with international law”.

He also parroted the official line that has yet to be proven that the main suspect behind the attack is indeed the Syrian regime and there was “no other plausible explanation”.

Obviously this is biased and playing to one point of view, a western imperialist one that ignores past facts and uncomfortable truths about the nature of the rebels we are so eager to back in Syria.

An earlier independent UN investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the former Swiss attorney-general Ms Del Ponte suggested that previous chemical weapon attacks were carried out by Syrian rebels NOT the forces of President Assad.

She claimed that there was “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that the rebels had used the nerve gas Sarin. However this point of view was obviously dismissed out of hand by the Axis of War as it didn’t fit their desired outcome.

I can only suspect that the “independent” investigators sent to examine recent claims of a chemical weapon attack have been picked more “thoroughly” this time.

This comes on top of a recent raid by Turkish security forces who found a 2 kg cylinder filled with sarin gas after searching the homes of Al-Nusra Syrian militants. The raid was carried out in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia and the gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out a chemical attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.

Russia Today, although not exactly fair and biased when it comes to their allies, as is the BBC, FOX or CNN, recently reported that the Syrian army had found a huge chemical weapons factory just outside Damascus. Obviously this news wasn’t reported much on western TV.

We also have proof that talk of a “false flag” attack to pin blame on Assad and make an attack on Syria possible is not so far-fetched after all. Hacked emails from defense contractor Britam revealed a plan which was apparently “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar, to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria.

This false flag attack is something many people have warned about and it would provide the war mongers the perfect excuse to start their next war of distraction. If you haven’t seen this point of view being espoused on mainstream media then you are getting your news from the wrong sources, alternative media sites have been talking about this possibility for years now.

I most recently talked about our hypocrisy in supporting al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria, which follows on from our support of them in Libya, Kosovo and back into time.  It seems we are fond of using al-Qaeda as the bogeyman to strip our liberties at home but support them in any way possible to destabilise our enemies abroad.

Washington’s Blog gave a great breakdown on the doubt cast about the recent chemical weapons attack recently and included quotes from experts in chemical weapons use.

John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.

“Of the videos that I’ve seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils… this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents,” he said.

Gwyn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, which specialises in chemical weapons issues, said the evidence did not suggest that the chemicals used were of the weapons-grade that the Syrian army possesses in its stockpiles.

“We’re not seeing reports that doctors and nurses… are becoming fatalities, so that would suggest that the toxicity of it isn’t what we would consider military sarin. It may well be that it is a lower-grade,” Winfield told AFP.

Even the Israeli paper Haaretz casted doubts on the Syrian army being behind the attack.

Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used.

Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons.

Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use.

It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?

So it seems that despite doubts by many, the axis of war are scheming and getting ready it seems to launch another war in breach of international law. We should be thinking twice about the consequences of such actions as it could be the “big war of distraction” that many have been waiting for.

Russia has already claimed it would supply advanced missile systems to Syria including missiles that “never miss their target”, and whilst Putin has claimed that Israel wouldn’t be attacked if they stayed out of the conflict it is obvious by their attacks into Syria so far that this would be unlikely.

Therefore a full-scale war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and maybe Russia on one side, with the axis of war, Israel, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army on the other seems likely.

Even I had to read that sentence a few times when I wrote it!

Are we really prepared to fight alongside al-Qaeda linked rebels? The same people we blame for 9.11 and the war on terror?

Are we prepared to go to war to support the same sort of people who beheaded a UK soldier, Lee Rigby, on the streets of London only months back? People like these?

 

And Russia isn’t going to play nice this time.

Putin has passed on diplomatic messages to the axis of war claiming that they will supply weapons that have never been seen in the Middle East before.

These will include top of the range, S 400 system has a range of over 400 miles and is considered more than a decade ahead of the most advanced US counterpart. Syria is already, along with Iran, likely to have the older S 300 missile system installed and ready for use.

Russian S-400 Missile System

Russian Barrel 24 Launchers

It seems that years ago the Soviets and then Russians, adopted a new tactic, instead of the cold war, gun for gun, tank for tank race with NATO. Instead of building and maintaining a huge expensive arsenal they instead looked for weaknesses in their opponents defences and then came up with ways to exploit them.

It seems that with their new range of missiles that they may have done that, although I’m sure with the amount of money the USA spends on its military it won’t have sat back and allowed the Russians to implement superior weapons that could one day defeat them. However from talk on various military and defence sites it does seem that the Russian’s do have some of the top anti-ship missile technology available on the planet at the moment.

Missiles such as the SS-N-22 “Sunburn” which has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. They also have the “Yakhonts”,  SSN-X-26 cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles and could make all US / NATO ships in the Persian Gulf or Mediterranean vulnerable to attack.

Whilst the US has been installing new anti-aircraft missile defence systems the missiles they are likely to face have never been tested in combat in real situations therefore until that time comes theoretical debates on defence system websites will be just that. However this being said the two armies have never actually “faced off”, so to speak, apart from by proxy and if the war in Syria heats up enough we might be crazy enough to see who’s missile system really is the best.

Are we really willing to risk a possible World War just to support a civil war we have no right being involved in?

Are we prepared to be called “hypocrites” again for breaching international law, ignoring the UN and choosing who can and can’t start wars in the world?

And do we really want to risk a major war all on unproven evidence of a chemical weapons attack that in all likelihood was a staged attack by the rebels?

It seems that whenever a big peace talk, convention or inspection in Syria is about to happen a new “major crime against humanity” occurs. Is this just luck or are the Syrian rebels trying to force our hand by using false flag attacks to pin the blame on Assad?

Before we are willing to risk the lives of millions shouldn’t we be sure first?

View the orginal article Are we ready to go to war with Russia over Syria? at darkpolitricks.com.