Sane Britain Disappears

Padraig

Banned
Should current British domestic legislative plans really be all that surprising, given that Britain, as junior partner to the US in all "matters of state", domestic and geo-political [increasingly, a European-based US satellite state], is simply replicating already-enacted US legislation? The "war on terror" providing all manner of justification for repressive domestic measures: But what is actually crucial to understand here is how the true catastrophe is ALREADY this domestic life under the shadow of the permanently broadcast threat of an always imminent terrorist strike or catastrophe by the Other. As Zizek maintains, "This is ideology at its purest. Today's "American,awaken!" is a distant call of Hitler's "Deutschland, erwache!", which, as Adorno wrote long ago, meant its exact opposite ... In short, far from awakening us, September 11 served to put us to sleep again, to continue our dream [of the US hegemonic ideology] after the nightmare of the last [post-Vietnam trauma] decades."

Countdown to U.S.-Iran War Has Begun: Reports

Presence of U.S. bombers in England seen as advance signals

Moreover, the steady escalation of tension may in the long run even mislead Iran and the opponents of war as any U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be far more likely to be sudden and unexpected.

"This is because the assault would be conducted almost entirely by aircraft and stand-off missiles rather than ground troops, and any extra U.S. units needed to supplement the extensive forces already in the region could be unobtrusively moved there. The huge advantage of surprise is needed in order to cripple Iranian air defenses as any advance warning to Iran would enable the Iranians to disperse these people and indeed key equipment in advance," writes Paul Rodgers in his article, "The countdown to war."

To avoid aircrew casualties or prisoners would mean a key component of U.S. action would be a strong dependence on the B-2 long-range stealth-bomber, according to Rodgers.

"This plane can carry sixteen individually-targeted, highly accurate bombs; thus, a single aircraft can attack sixteen separate targets in just one operation," he wrote.

The basing of the B-2 far from the region would be useful in preserving secrecy. But the plane's dependence on specialized servicing equipment to maintain its "stealth" radar-avoidance ability puts the only four bases worldwide where these are available at an absolute premium, he added.

These four bases are in the United States, Guam, Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean) and RAF Fairford (Gloucestershire, England). The stealth support facilities already available in the first three locations were joined by Fairford, a major United States Air Force standby base, in December 2004. This serves as a forward operating facility, especially for heavy bombers such as the B-1B, the B-2 and the B-52. In the approach to the Iraq war, the Air Force's 457th air expeditionary wing was based at Fairford; 14 B-52s flew in from Minot, North Dakota and deployed there for seven weeks while conducting more than 100 bombing sorties over Iraq, according to Rodgers.

Fairford underwent a major two-year development and reconstruction program, completed in May 2002. Another building project was started a year later to equip the base with a specialized hangar to accommodate the B-2; the 15 months since it came into operation have seen occasional visits by individual planes. The B-2s' immense costs and specialized facilities means that only 21 are finished and about 15 can be deployed at any one time, according to Rodgers.

"The need for an element of surprise in any attack on Iran makes it difficult to gage exactly when it might be imminent," he wrote.

Fairford offers two possible advance signals. The first is a more coordinated presence of B-2s at the base. Training for an attack may involve deployments of B-2 aircraft there for a few days to familiarize air and ground crew with the details of combat operations from a new base, according to Rodgers.

"It is likely that the first such exercise took place last week when three B-2s flew into Fairford within a few days in what appears to be the first orchestrated deployment of this kind. This may well be an indicator of training now underway," Rodgers wrote.

The second signal is a sudden increase in base security at Fairford, including the policing of an extended cordon and closure of local roads to minimize any external observation of activities there. If and when that happens, the countdown to war with Iran will almost certainly be well underway. The moment may arrive at any time in the next year or more, quite possibly when it is least expected, according to Rodgers
.​

Britain took part in mock Iran invasion

Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops

By Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill

British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable.​


Sane Britain disappears

With liberal apologists all but in line, the ground is being prepared in Britain for the clash of civilisations US neo-cons have been dreaming of, writes Jonathan Cook*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Until recently liberal Europeans were keen to distance themselves, at least officially, from the ideological excesses of the current American administration. They argued that the neo-conservative enthusiasm for the "war on terror" -- and its underpinning ideology of "a clash of civilisations" -- did not fit with Europe's painful recent experiences of world wars and the dismantling of its colonial outposts around the globe.

But there is every sign that the public dissociation is coming to a very rapid end. The language and assumptions of the "clash scaremongers" is permeating European thought, including the reasoning of its liberal classes, just as surely as it once did about the Cold War.

So far attention has focussed on specific frictions: the Francophone countries' hyperventilating over the Islamic veil; the Scandinavian obsession with immigrants; and the Germanic nations' undisguised distaste at Muslim Turkey's possible gate-crashing of the Christian club of the European Union.

Little notice has been paid to a similar public embrace of the clash thesis in Britain. There, after the British public's well-publicised opposition to Tony Blair's participation in President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, Britons have all but resigned themselves to a slew of policies -- extra powers for the police, detention without charge, ID cards, stricter immigration policies, limits on free expression -- that are eroding long-cherished freedoms and rights.

But two recent incidents in particular illustrate the rapid refashioning of the British agenda, particularly among liberals. The first involves an attempt to silence a democratically elected leader, London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, by a government-appointed committee seeking his suspension from office. The second concerns the media's response to the notorious Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

What each case highlights is a double standard on freedom of expression that gives an especially privileged status to speech that assumes or promotes the "clash of civilisations". By contrast, those who reject the clash model -- who believe it is just the latest incarnation, recast for the global era, of the traditional colonial policy of divide and rule -- are being maligned or silenced.

[ ... ]

The frenzied response of some Muslims helped to overshadow a more significant point, however. What was the intention of the cartoonists, the newspaper and television channels across Europe that insisted on publishing the cartoons, and those who defended their right to do so?

Although British liberals were prepared to admit that the cartoons might hurt religious sensitivities (or, in their view, over-sensitivity), they refused to concede that the offence might run deeper still. In fact, by portraying the founder of Islam as a terrorist -- as the bomb in the turban caricature surely does -- the cartoons criticised Muslims not for what they do (a minuscule number are involved in terror) but for what they are: members of a community of belief.

Whereas British liberals have supported the denial of Livingstone's freedom to offend one individual, they have invoked as a sacrosanct principle the right to incite against a religious group, one that exists as a series of vulnerable and marginalised minorities across Europe.

The reason for this double standard seems clear enough. While Livingstone and others like him are a threat to those shaping a future world order that promises endless war against the "Other", the European media and their liberal apologists are being recruited to a cause that will ensure such a war is all but inevitable.

European liberals playing with Bush's fire are likely to get more than their fingers burnt. They are sliding headlong into an uncivilised clash of their very own making.

*** The writer is author of Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State , published by Pluto Books next month.​
 

corneilius

Well-known member
Shits and Fans!

Padraig, thanks for posting these articles .... we are now looking at the writing on the wall ..... and we had better get active, or they will press ahead with their agenda, though it may appear that all we can do is slow it down .... I am not so sure that is the case. Born a wanton optimist, I was! lol!

I sense that the new LARF bill is to be put in place to quell dissent and protest by making it criminally illegal, and furthermore to protect those in power from indictment.

That means that they sense that there are enough people in the UK who have had enough of this warmongering to stop them, should we all act together.

I hope we can do it, and soon!
 

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
^^^chuckles...well,dont beat yourself up TOO badly...every single denizen of every single nation-state cld ask the same question

but i really question the need to "get active" outside of disseminating information and at least letting (or trying to, anyway) people know the score

the demos in my own accursed country (ugh!) were some of the largest in its history, and their impact was negligible

looking for a real way out of this fucking mess besides waving cardboard signs with scathing slogans.................im tired of that after twenty years...gotta be a better way, not that i have any ideas...chuckles...

bitterly :(
 

corneilius

Well-known member
resource for news on LARF

As chimsky says activism is a lifetimes work, you do not stop, ever.

here's a fine resource for info in the Media from my friends at newsnow :

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Abolition+of+Parliament+Bill

read all about it!

Latest articles from around the world. The campaign is beginning to gather pace. We have a month to stop these madmen, before they take it to the third reading, after 'rephrasing' the bill.

The day of the reading might be a good day to go for an extended walk, if you know what I mean!?

More details soon.

And spread the word, folks!
 

bruno

est malade
satanmcnugget said:
^^^chuckles...well,dont beat yourself up TOO badly...every single denizen of every single nation-state cld ask the same question

but i really question the need to "get active" outside of disseminating information and at least letting (or trying to, anyway) people know the score

the demos in my own accursed country (ugh!) were some of the largest in its history, and their impact was negligible

looking for a real way out of this fucking mess besides waving cardboard signs with scathing slogans.................im tired of that after twenty years...gotta be a better way, not that i have any ideas...chuckles...

bitterly :(
commit suicide immediately.

in a more serious tone i think you need to start electing decent representatives and keeping them in check through letter-writing, faxing, etc. to see the 'opposition' this cosy with republicans, even financed by the same people, is repulsive from an outside perspective, but more repulsive is the thought that they were elected.

a couple of days have passed since the news of a massive 104 acre u.s. embassy being built in the heart of baghdad, where is the outcry? there is something wrong with the people you choose to represent you.
 

corneilius

Well-known member
the Power Inquiry

You are on the right track, it is about who we select and it is about the process of doing that, which is blatantly not working.

See the thread I started on the Power Inquiry. It's amazing that this report has had no coverage.
 

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
commit suicide immediately

ung uh...im too interested in the outcome :)





hope im wrong, too, but i suspect im not....i just dont think the whole electoral politics shell-game is gonna click...were in so deep, i just cant see it being THAT simple


really



but i hope im wrong
 

corneilius

Well-known member
Sane britian in your heart

If there is a sane Britain, it is in YOUR hearts. Bring it out, let it be a light for your friends, neighbours and all whom you meet. Sure, there's no guarantee that our heart'felt sanity will prevail, yet if we do not act, the insanity will surely prevail, and we will have surrendered, without a whimper. Not good. Not worthy of this life.
 

Padraig

Banned
bruno said:
... a couple of days have passed since the news of a massive 104 acre u.s. embassy being built in the heart of baghdad, where is the outcry?

Outcry, yes; its just that such news did not suddenly emerge a couple of days ago, but precisely a few years ago. Take, for instance, this report - that was among many others -from 23rd April, 2004:

US admits it will still control Iraq after transfer :

The US has made clear that the transfer of sovereignty to a provisional Iraqi government on 30 June will be a limited affair, and that ultimate authority will reside at a gigantic new US embassy in Baghdad and with the military occupation force.

And even before this, Naomi Klein wrote (Guardian, April 3, 2004), "Taken together, these latest measures paint a telling picture of what a "free Iraq" will look like: the United States will maintain its military and corporate presence through 14 enduring military bases and the largest US embassy in the world. It will hold on to authority over Iraq's armed forces, its security and economic policy and the design of its core infrastructure ..."

And another, even earlier news report:

Iraq: U.S. Scrambles To Set Up World's Biggest Embassy In Baghdad By Jeffrey Donovan, Wednesday, March 10, 2004

The United States is setting up a new embassy in Baghdad to assume U.S. responsibilities in Iraq after sovereignty is returned to Iraqis on 30 June. It will be the world's biggest U.S. embassy, with some 4,000 staff members. But the sheer size of the project is proving an organizational challenge -- and raising questions about America's future intentions in Iraq.

p7a.jpg


A comprehensive listing and description of all US military bases, torture centres, and diplomatic offices in Baghdad is online-accessable here, which refers to the ongoing construction of the US Embassy in Baghdad:

"In the summer of 2005, a Kuwaiti firm was 'awarded’ the $592m contract for the new US embassy in Baghdad, to be completed by 2007. Built to withstand attack, this Ozymandius on the Tigris, composed of a cluster of 21 buildings, will have "a gym, swimming pool, barber and beauty shops, a food court and a commissary. In addition to the main embassy buildings, there will be a large-scale US Marine barracks, a school, locker rooms, a warehouse, a vehicle maintenance garage, and six apartment buildings with a total of 619 one-bedroom units. Water, electricity and sewage treatment plants will all be independent from Baghdad's city utilities. The total site will be two-thirds the area of the National Mall in Washington, DC." It will be the largest US embassy in the world. For that reason, I have included this US Embassy in Baghdad amongst US Bases in Iraq."

As of mid-May 2005 it was reported that US forces occupied a total of 106 bases in Iraq. These ranged in size from the massive Camp Victory complex near the Baghdad airport, to small outposts with as few as 500 soldiers. The US also operates four detention facilities and several other convoy support centers. In the first five months of 2005, US forces had turned over 13 small facilities in Baghdad to Iraqi military or police units.

Full listing of all US military camps, forward operating bases/facilities, and other nomenclature in Iraq.
 

corneilius

Well-known member
American Bases in Iraq

It's like an insane job creation scheme, you know, like work for the boys, yeah! go there and knock 'em down, build 'em up, knock 'em down again, build 'em up again, and all the while someone is making a profit!?

And children suffer.
 

Padraig

Banned
For Reasons Of State

"I would really appreciate some urgent help in these local elections, Georgy. What can you do?"

"Let's invade Iran!"

iran.gif
 
Top