Category Archives: NWO

Dichotomous, a short film -Greek Ultra-Nationalists


Short Film Summary

Dichotomous:

Dichotomous is, at it’s core, a post-modern tale of redemption. The film follows two strangers, Nick Dysmas and a character known only as the Chief. These two strangers with nothing in common but a love for a broken nation on the other side of the world, are both searching for the same thing; Redemption. Through a twist of fate, their roads converge leading them down a path which will test their beliefs and endanger everything they hold dear.

 

The ‘Golden Dawn’:

The film is set against  the, current and ongoing, spread of Greece’s Ultra-Nationalist, far- right party, the Golden Dawn. Being from Greek backgrounds, we realized that, nearly a year after their emergence in the Greek parliament, no one has truly adressed the dangers of such a group’s existence. Sure there have been countless hours of news coverage, but we felt someone needed to explore the spiritual repercutions of the group’s ideallogy being spread across the globe.

If you are not familiar with the party please consider the following sources:

  1. English version of the GD webbsite http://tinyurl.com/bslclkz
  2. GD brings guns to parliament : http://tinyurl.com/bvscgbg
  3. GD on Wikipedia : http://tinyurl.com/crl59za
  4. Doctors with borders? : http://tinyurl.com/c84s9x6
  5. GD in the Big Apple : http://tinyurl.com/c9z5frd
  6. A very Golden Dawn Xmas in Montreal : http://tinyurl.com/crnl98v
  7. GD coming soon to a city near you : http://tinyurl.com/clc3ypp

*Please keep in mind that we are not endorsing or encouraging any of the beliefs of this party.

special thanks to @Canada__Kat

Advertisements

HaarpStatus Predicting Earthquake On West Coast Next Week?

The window starts now for the quake signature and goes through the middle of this week. How strong will it be? What is sizable to you?

We’ll find out what happens because a high magnitude with no appreciable weather event in the area yet just might be a quake signature.

Published on Nov 3, 2012 – 2:15 UT
By Staff Reporter
– Edited by N/A

(TheWeatherSpace.com) – The developers of HaarpStatus.com monitor frequencies often used by worldwide HAARP projects. One such signal is an earthquake signal, according to the site.

“The frequency build and peak of 7.4 suggests a window of Sunday through Wednesday of next week surrounding California,” warned the Website.

 

TheWeatherSpace.com Senior Meteorologist Kevin Martin is also monitoring the readings from HaarpStatus.

“We bought HaarpStatus.com for our network for research purposes and this reading is an interesting one from them,” said Martin. “I cannot validate such a reading as I am a meteorologist, not a true earthquake predictor.”

So if HaarpStatus.com is correct, an earthquake of unknown magnitude will hit the Western United States. We eagerly await more information and updates from their readings.

Frankenstorm Hurricane Sandy manipulated by HAARP to disrupt 

presidential election?
Hurricane Sandy headed north from the Caribbean on Saturday and was expected to pummel the eastern United States.
The U.S. National Weather Service said the storm was expected to make landfall early Tuesday near the Delaware coast, then hit two winter weather systems as it moves inland, creating a hybrid monster storm that could bring torrential rain, high winds, and up to two feet of snow.
Even if Sandy loses strength and makes landfall as something less than a hurricane, the combined storm was expected to bring misery to a huge section of the eastern U.S. An 800-mile wide swath of the country could see 50 
50 mph winds regardless of Sandy’s strength.
On Saturday morning, forecasters said hurricane-force winds of 75 mph could be felt 100 miles away from Sandy’s center.
Sandy killed at least 58 people in the Caribbean, destroyed or badly damaging thousands of homes, and knocked down trees and power lines. On Saturday morning, the storm was about 355 miles southeast of Charleston, South Carolina. Its sustained wind speed was about 75 mph.
This morning, aware of Mercury turning to go retrograde on Election Day, and of the possible East Coast storm track and massive power outages for Frankenstorm Sandy , and of the seemingly exquisite timing (expected landfall Tuesday, October 30, one day past the high-tides of Scorpio/Taurus Full Moon and one week prior to Tuesday, November 6th elections), I googled, “Hurricane Sandy caused by HAARP?“ 
I’m not the only one to ask that question.
Here’s what harpstatus.com says about HAARP and the storm:
[HaarpStatus.com is a real-time sensor network from over 28 sensors placed in rural areas across the United States. The sensors can detect the HAARP frequency on the ionosphere. Monitors plasma and ions in the atmosphere trying to predict extreme weather anomalies, and solar radiation effects.]
October 26, 2012 – 1:00p EDT
Strongest readings in the history of this project have peaked. A never before seen white-shade indicates that a value higher than 10 on the
1-10 scale has been indicated. It has no color assigned!
HaarpStatus has finally come to a bullseye over what looks like Rhode Island and Connecticut.

An Indiana University geophysical experiment detected unusual seismic signals associated with tornadoes that struck regions across the US Midwest last week – information that may have value for meteorologists studying the atmospheric activity that precedes tornado disasters. The experiment by IU researchers involves deployment of more than 100 state-of-the-art digital seismographs in a broad swath of the U.S. midcontinent. One of the twisters that struck southeastern Missouri and southern Illinois on Feb. 29 passed through the seismic detection array.

“In examining the seismograms, we recorded unusual seismic signals on three of our stations in southern Illinois,” said Michael Hamburger, professor in the department of geological sciences at IU Bloomington and one of the researchers conducting the experiment. “The seismograms show a strong, low-frequency pulse beginning around 4:45 a.m. on Feb. 29. Our preliminary interpretation, based on other seismic records of tornadoes, suggests that we were recording not the tornado itself, but a large atmospheric pressure transient related to the large thunderstorms that spawned the tornadoes.”

The seismographs that detected the pulse are near Harrisburg, Ill., a town of 9,000 where a pre-dawn twister caused extensive damage, killed six people and injured about 100 more.

IU researchers initially feared that some of the instruments might be damaged by the storm, setting back a National Science Foundation-funded project that included the investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of effort.

But when principal investigator Gary Pavlis, an IU professor of geological sciences, checked the digital recordings of the Illinois stations on Feb. 29, he found they were still alive and streaming data. As he checked further, he discovered the strange “tornado seismograms” that were recorded on seismographs near Harrisburg.

Hamburger said a seismic pressure gradient associated with the tornado produced a slow, minute tilting of the seismograph that lasted for several minutes. He said this sort of pressure-related signal may help scientists better understand atmospheric activity that takes place right before tornadoes touch down.

The IU researchers are working with colleagues at the University of California San Diego to try to compare recordings with other tornado-related signals and to dig deeper into the analysis.

While seismographs have been known to detect seismic activity related to tornadoes, it is highly unusual to have state-of-the-art digital instruments recording information in such close proximity to a tornado, the researchers say.

The IU seismic experiment, dubbed “OIINK” for its geographic coverage in parts of the Ozarks, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky, includes the positioning of 120 seismometers to study earthquakes and geological structure in a key area of North America. Installation of the instruments began last summer. They are recording thousands of earthquakes from the study area and around the world, as well as nearby mining and quarry explosions.

The $1.3 million, four-year undertaking is part of the NSF’s EarthScope program, which seeks to cover the entire U.S. with a grid of detection devices for the purpose of better understanding seismic activity and predicting earthquakes. Researchers liken EarthScope to “an upside-d

[read more]
Check out this CBC (the Canadian state-funded broadcasting network) coverage of HAARP –

And some coverage on the History Channel as well –

Secretary of Defense Cohen also stated that this is being used in an ecotype of terrorism.  Can we take Cohen’s assertions to be factual?  As Secretary of Defense, Cohen would have had first hand technical knowldge of the existence of such a weapon of mass destruction.  So if what he was saying is true who is using this weapon of mass destruction and ecotype of terrorism?  Since Cohen worked for the United States government the only plausible answer would be the United States government.
Former US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen was actually warning us in 1997 that the United States government has developed and is now actively using a weapon that is capable of causing mass destruction by triggering earthquakes, weather modification (inducing heavy rainfall that causes floods or no rainfall which causes droughts), volcanic eruptions and the like.  Cohen was warning us about the existence of HAARP.  HAARP was developed by the Bill Clinton / Al Gore administration as a United States weapon of mass destruction. HAARP was ordered built by Bill Clinton and Al Gore to beam electromagnetic waves into the Earth’s inosphere to trigger geophysical events such as earthquakes, climate modification (change), volcanic eruptions and the like.
Congressional Hearing records during the Clinton administration and HAARP patents disclose that HAARP beaming heats the inosphere.  As we all know heat causes things to expand. We also know that heat rises.  As HAARP heats one part of the ionosphere the ionosphere expands and gets pushed higher.  This HAARP ionosphere heating can cause a controlled diverting or altering of the natural path of jet streams. What does manipulating the jet stream have to do with manipulating the weather?  The jet stream is literally a fast flowing (at jet speed) stream – of water vapor.  The jet stream transports atmospheric rivers of water vapor around the World.
These jet streams of vapor carry an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River. When these atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow. By manipulating the jet stream (pushing or pulling it off course) HAARP can modify the weather. HAARP can alter the path an existing high pressure weather system (clear skies) or low pressure weather system (storm clouds) anywhere on Earth just by heating the ionsphere over the target region. HAARP can also create a column-shaped hole with a diameter of 30 miles that rises a couple of hundred kilometers through the atmosphere. The lower atmosphere then moves up the column to fill in that space, and it changes pressure systems below.
The result of hot surface air being sucked up into the column to fill the HAARP created column-shaped hole is a HAARP created hurricane (if HAARP column-shaped hole is made over water) or tornado (if HAARP column-shaped hole is made over land). The April/May 2000 issue of Scientific American contains an article on the effects of altering the course of the jet stream. This slight change to the jet stream path occurred right above the HAARP facility. That little movement created a storm front 4,000 miles away in east Texas and Louisiana to move into central Florida where it triggered a couple of tornadoes.
This article gives evidence that weather modification is certainly possible with only a slight change to the jet stream. In 1998 Bernard Eastlund completed a paper on how to knock out tornadoes using a space-based, solar-collecting microwave generator, which he called theThunderstorm Solar Power Satellite. The microwaves would heat the rainy downdraft inside the storm, disrupting the convective forces needed to concentrate the tornado’s power, and so effectively stop it from forming. That paper was presented in Italy and it was so widely accepted that NASA and FEMA contracted Bernard Eastlund to do further research on weather modification using satellite-based technology. “Mesocyclone Diagnostic Requirements for the Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite Concept” Published in the Proceedings of “The Second Conference on the Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS for Disaster Management”, Jan. 19-21, 1999, Sponsored by NASA and FEMA
The Jet Stream Solar Power Satellite is described by Eastlund as “a dual use Satellite which can focus microwave energy into a jet stream to change the direction of a jet stream.  It does this by triggering turbulence in the flowing air which decreases the flow velocity of an edge region of the flow and generating a pressure differential that changes the direction of the bulk air flow.
HAARP Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) platform

Updated April 21, 2011 – The HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) website has been down for the past 3 weeks.  It was ordered taken down by the US government to conceal US weather modification and earthquake inducing warfare activities against foreign states.  The HAARP website was publishing very damaging evidence of US military weather modification and earthquake triggering operations against foreign states.  HAARP’s waterfall charts and magnetometer charts gave evidence of an ongoing weather war between the United States government and foreign states.  The magnetometer presented concrete evidence that HAARP triggered the Japan earthquake and ensuing tsunami. HAARP’s magnetometer can be used to predict as well as give evidence of a HAARP created earthquake.  A magnetometer measures disturbances in the magnetic field in Earth’s upper atmosphere.    HAARP was broadcasting a 2.5 Hz frequency (the signature frequency of an earthquake) from just before midnight on March 8, 2011 and continued to broadcast the frequency for the entire days of March 9, 2011 and March 10, 2011. The 2.5 Hz frequency continued to be broadcasted and recorded by the magnetometer for another 10 hours the day of the Japan 9.0 magnitude earthquake. Scientists at the HAARP institute discovered that a 2.5 Hz radio frequency is the signature frequency of an earthquake.   Since this discovery the HAARP phased array antennas have been used by the US military to beam the earthquake frequency into the ionosphere and the ionosphere reflects it back to Earth – penetrating as deeply as several kilometers into the ground, depending on the geological makeup and subsurface water conditions in a targeted area..  By beaming the frequency at a specific trajectory HAARP can trigger an earthquake any place on Earth.  A short burst isn’t enough to disturb solid matter (the Earth crust) so they keep beaming the 2.5 Hz earthquake frequency for hours or days – until the desired effect is achieved. The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) prohibits the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978. The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. Evidence from HAARP’s own website revealed that the US government was acting in violation of the ENMOD treaty – use of weather modification techniques (HAARP) for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction.  HAARP broadcasting data published on the HAARP website coincided with a number of recent major catastrophes such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the 2010 heatwave in Russia, the major floorings in 2010 in China and Pakistan and the major earthquakes in Haiti and Japan – all occurred since US president and commander-in-chief of the United States military Barack Hussein Obama took office. The Japan 9.0 earthquake offered the most damaging evidence of the US government using HAARP to induce major damage and destruction against a foreign state.   HAARP’s magnetometer data showed the World that HAARP (jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy) began broadcasting the earthquake inducing frequency of 2.5 Hz on March 8, 2011 and continued to broadcast the frequency for the entire days of March 9, 2011 and March 10, 2011.  HAARP wasn’t turned off until 10 hours after the Japan 9.0 magnitude earthquake that was triggered on Friday, March 11, 2011 at 05:46:23 UTC.  Smaller earthquakes have continued for weeks without being registered on the HAARP magnetometer.  Why?  Because, as stated before a magnetometer measures disturbances in the magnetic field in Earth’s upper atmosphere.  It is not a seismometer which measure motions of the ground.  The magnetometer doesn’t measure seismic activity it measures and records electromagnetic frequencies in the Earth’s atmosphere.  HAARP’s antenna array beams the 2.5 Hz earthquake inducing radio frequency into the atmosphere where a magnetometer can record and provide concrete evidence of a US weather modification and earthquake triggering attack against foreign states.

HAARP Patents (Assigned to APTI, Inc. Los Angeles, CA, Washington, DC) U.S. Patent 4686605: Method And Apparatus For Altering A Region In The Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere, And/Or Magnetosphere Issued: Aug. 11, 1987 Filed: Jan. 10, 1985

U.S. Patent 5038664: Method For Producing A Shell Of Relativistic Particles At An Altitude Above The Earth’s Surface ~ Issued: Aug. 13, 1991 Filed: Jan. 10, 1985

U.S. Patent 4712155: Method And Apparatus For Creating An Artificial Electron Cyclotron Heating Region Of Plasma ~ Issued: Dec. 8, 1987 Filed: Jan. 28, 1985

U.S. Patent 5068669: Power Beaming System ~ Issued: Nov. 26, 1991 Filed: Sep. 1, 1988 U.S. Patent 5218374: Power Beaming System With Printer Circuit Radiating Elements Having Resonating Cavities ~ Issued: June 8, 1993 Filed: Oct. 10, 1989 U.S. Patent 5293176: Folded Cross Grid Dipole Antenna Element ~ Issued: Mar. 8, 1994 Filed: Nov. 18, 1991 U.S. Patent 5202689: Lightweight Focusing Reflector For Space ~ Issued: Apr. 13, 1993 Filed: Aug. 23, 1991 U.S. Patent 5041834: Artificial Ionospheric Mirror Composed Of A Plasma Layer Which Can Be Tilted ~ Issued: Aug. 20, 1991 Filed: May. 17, 1990 U.S. Patent 4999637: Creation Of Artificial Ionization Clouds Above The Earth ~ Issued: Mar. 12, 1991 Filed: May. 14, 1987 U.S. Patent 4954709: High Resolution Directional Gamma Ray Detector ~ Issued: Sep. 4, 1990 Filed: Aug. 16, 1989 U.S. Patent 4817495: Defense System For Discriminating Between Objects In Space ~ Issued: Apr. 4, 1989 Filed: Jul. 7, 1986 U.S. Patent 4873928: Nuclear-Sized Explosions Without Radiation ~ Issued: Oct. 17, 1989 Filed: June 15, 1987 Still think that HAARP is just another wacky fictional conspiracy?  The above listed patents should be enough to convince any intelligent person that HAARP is real and is now actively modifying our weather and triggering earthquakes.   For those who are still not convinced, look to the United States Congress for proof.  In order for HAARP to get funding the people who first created HAARP needed funding.  That funding was made possible by the US government.  If you were to look at Congressional records you would find documents that states just one of the many official purposes of HAARP – for penetrating the earth with signals bounced off of the ionosphere. Congress was informed by people in the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program that the bounced signals would be used to look inside the planet to a depth of many kilometers in order to locate underground munitions, minerals and tunnels. If you bounced the known earthquake signature signal (2.5 Hz) for a sustained period of time an earthquake could triggered many kilometers inside Earth’s crust.  The U.S. Senate actually set aside $15 million dollars in 1996 (Clinton and Al Gore Administration) to develop this ability alone — earth-penetrating-tomography. Update April 21, 2011 Under pressure from the International community the HAARP website is up again.  No data is available from April 7 to April 12, 2011.  Data before and after shows the signature frequency of an earthquake (2.5Hz) being transmitted.  Also shows energy spikes which indicates active weather modification.  Now that the website is up again you can view the data for the Japan earthquake at http://137.229.36.30/cgi-bin/scmag/disp-scmag.cgi?20110311.  From the magnetometer induction data you can see 2.5Hz (earthquake inducing frequency) being broadcasted and recorded for several days before the 9.0 magnitude earthquake.  To see what a normal (no HAARP  broadcasting) day looks like view the magnetometer charts for the days of March 15, 16 and 17 – March 16, 2011 http://137.229.36.30/cgi-bin/scmag/disp-scmag.cgi?date=20110316&Bx=on.  No earthquake inducing broadcast was detected from March 15 to March 27, 2011.  On March 28, 2011 a low powered broadcast was detected from approximately 12:00 am to 3:00 am.  Broadcasting resumed on April 2, 2011. April 6, 2011 shows you what the magnetometer charts looks like when a solar storm blasts Earth.    No data is available from April 7, 2011 to April 13, 2011 – a shutdown.  Starting on April 15, 2011 and ending approximately 10:00 am April 16, 2011 the earthquake inducing frequency of 2.5Hz was detected being broadcasted. Weather Modification To detect active weather modification use the HAARP waterfall charts.  Weather modification doesn’t require a long sustained activation and broadcast.  Look at the chart for April 20, 2011.  The chart is missing data for approximately 1 hour.   Since PRESS Core has been studying and writing about HAARP and how to recognize a weather modification incident HAARP data is being censored in exactly the same manner as seen by the chart for April 20, 2011. The HAARP waterfall chart for July 28, 2010 (link image shown above) shows what a HAARP weather modification broadcast looks like.  The tight color band from 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM is evidence of a HAARP weather modification broadcast.  That type of data is being deleted from the waterfall charts – see HAARP waterfall chart for April 20, 2011 – http://maestro.haarp.alaska.edu/data/spectrum2/data/last36_hf.gif The United States Air Force and Navy has provided a visual insight into what caused the 9.0 magnitude off of Japan on March 11, 2011 at 05:46:23 UTC.  The image above was downloaded from the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) website.  It is a time-frequency spectrogram, which shows the frequency content of signals recorded by the HAARP Induction Magnetometer. This instrument, provided by the University of Tokyo, measures temporal variations in the geomagnetic field (Earth’s magnetosphere) in the ULF (ultra-low frequency) range of 0-5 Hz.  Notions have been added to the image to show you what was happening the day the Japan earthquake and tsunami struck. By looking at the accompanying HAARP spectrum chart above you can see when the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck – red line drawn vertically – and what was happening before and after the earthquake.  What you can also see is a constant ULF frequency of 2.5 Hz being recorded by the magnetometer.  The ULF 2.5 Hz frequency is evidence of an induced earthquake.  The chart recorded this constant before, during and after the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck.  On March 11, 2011 the 2.5 Hz ULF frequency was being emitted and recorded from 0:00 hours to about 10:00 hours – or for 10 hours.  We know for a fact that the Japan earthquake lasted only a few minutes so why was the earthquake signature frequency (2.5 Hz) being recorded for 10 hours on the morning of March 11, 2011?  Because a HAARP phased array antenna system was broadcasting (transmitting) the 2.5Hz ULF frequency and it triggered the Japan earthquake and ensuing tsunami. If you go to HAARP’s official website you can see for yourself that the 2.5 Hz ULF frequency wasn’t only being broadcated for 10 hours, it was constantly being broadcasted for 2 days prior to the earthquake.  Broadcasting began on March 8, 2011, just before midnight as you can see on HAARP’s website page – http://maestro.haarp.alaska.edu/cgi-bin/scmag/disp-scmag.cgi?20110308.  Click on the Next Day link to see that the earthquake inducing 2.5 Hz ULF frequency was being broadcasted for the entire days of March 9, 2011 and March 10, 2011.  Even though the signature frequency of an earthquake was shown throughout March 9 and March 10 there were no constant earthquakes occurring off the east coast of Japan. What is the significance of a 2.5 Hz ULF broadcast?  The natural resonance of an earthquake is 2.5 Hz.  Scientists working for the United States military discovered this using the phased array antennas at the HAARP facility in Alaska.  HAARP’s own charts suggests that earthquakes occurred constantly for 3 days.  We know for a fact that they haven’t. The HAARP magnetometer data provides proof that the Japan earthquake was not a naturally occurring quake – it was triggered.  This data shows us that a HAARP military installation was broadcasting the known earthquake signature frequency in order to trigger a major earthquake.  The broadcast was most likely being transmitted from a floating HAARP system like the floating Sea-Based X-Band Radar platform that can be moved anywhere in the Pacific or Atlantic ocean under the protection of a carrier strike group – like the USS Ronald Regan.  Where was the USS Ronald Reagan on the morning of March 11, 2011?  According to a Stars & Stripes March 9, 2011 report – Reagan carrier group steams toward South Korea to join exercise. Evidence or Conspiracy theory? Is this evidence or just a bunch of nonsense attached to a baseless conspiracy theory and recklessly made public by a crackpot?  The above image is of the HAARP Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) platform which does exist – not a conspiracy theory.  The preceding link is to the United States Navy website.  What is sitting on top of the deck of the SBX is a phased array antenna – a key component of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) GMD system – clearly not a conspiracy theory. The military vessel includes power plant, a bridge, control rooms, living quarters, storage areas and the infrastructure necessary to support the massive X-band radar. The SBX radar is the most sophisticated phased array, electro-mechanically steered X-band radar in the world – according to Boeing claims. The phased array antenna consists of thousands of antennas driven by transmit/receive modules.  The radar is designed and built by Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems for Boeing, the prime contractor on the project for the United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA).  Boeing, Raytheon and MDA exists – also not a conspiracy theory. HAARP does exists.  The HAARP program is no secret.  Their own website states that: The HAARP program is committed to developing a world class ionospheric research facility consisting of:  The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI), a high power transmitter facility operating in the High Frequency (HF) range. The IRI will be used to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere for scientific study. Even World renowned Stanford University knows about and publishes reports on the activities at the HAARP installations – Experiments with the HAARP Ionospheric Heaterhttp://vlf.stanford.edu/research/experiments-haarp-ionospheric-heater.  According to Stanford – The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility is located in Gakona, Alaska at 62.39º N, 145.15º W, near mile 11 of the Tok Cutoff Highway. The facility houses many diagnostic instruments for studying the ionosphere, but the highlight is the HF transmitter array. This array consists of 15×12 crossed dipole antennas, which together can transmit a total of 3600kW of RF power at frequencies from 2.8 – 10 MHz (HF, high frequency range). This power is partially absorbed by the ionosphere, and though only a tiny fraction of the power it naturally receives from the sun, can still produce subtle changes that can be detected with sensitive instruments. The VLF group focuses on using HAARP to generate ELF and VLF waves through a process called modulated heating. Such experiments have been conducted since 1999. The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is a congressionally initiated program jointly managed by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The United States Congressional records show that HAARP is funded by the US government. The U.S. Senate set aside $15 million dollars in 1996 (Clinton administration) to develop the ability to penetrate the earth with signals bounced off of the ionosphere. This earth-penetrating-tomography has since been developed and used by the US government to look inside the planet to a depth of many kilometers in order to locate underground munitions, minerals and tunnels. The problem is that the frequencies used by HAARP for earth-penetrating tomography is also within the frequency range most cited for disruption of earth’s own electromagnetic field. HAARP patents states that HAARP can beam radio energy into the Auroral electrojet, the curved, charged-particle stream formed at high latitudes where the solar wind interacts with Earth’s magnetic field. The radio energy then disperses over large areas through ductlike regions of the ionosphere, forming a virtual antenna that can be thousands of miles in length. Such an ELF antenna can emit waves penetrating as deeply as several kilometers into the ground, depending on the geological makeup and subsurface water conditions in a targeted area. HAARP uses ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to beam pulses of polarized high-frequency radio waves into the ionosphere. These pulses can be finely tuned and adjusted so that the bounced ground penetrating beam can target a very specific area and for a specific length of time. Beaming a very large energy beam into the ground for an extended period can cause an earthquake. After all, an earthquake is the result of a sudden release of energy in the Earth’s crust that creates seismic wave resonances. The same array of antennas that are used by HAARP for ground penetrating tomography can also be used to penetrate deep into the ground and cause an earthquake anywhere around the World. Geophysical events like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – the kinds of things that may already be on the edge of discharge – can, with the right resonant energies added into the system, cause them to overload and actually fracture. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen actually made the statement regarding weapons of mass destruction and the idea of generating earthquakes artificially.  In a April 28, 1997 DoD News Briefing at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center, Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. Cohen stated: “Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.United States Patent 5041834 – Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted. METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ALTERING A REGION IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE, IONOSPHERE, AND/OR MAGNETOSPHERE “Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war.” World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that ~ “US military scientists · are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.” In the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book “Between Two Ages” that: “Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised… Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. ” Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlined several types of “unconventional weapons” using radio frequencies. He refers to “weather war,” indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already “mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.” These technologies make it “possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves].” A study of future defense “scenarios” commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: “US aerospace forces to ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications.” From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. 2010_07_28_hf.jpg HAARP Spectrum Monitor Waterfall Chart showing HAARP was active between 2:30 PM and 5:00 PM UTC July 28, 2010 As stated in previous articles HAARP is the weather modification weapon system that is responsible for climate change as well as recent earthquakes, hurricanes, floodings, drought and even bringing down aircraft. Scientific evidence proves that HAARP is at present fully operational. Using HAARP’s own data from their website the World can see exactly when the US military is using HAARP. What this means is that HAARP is now being used by the US military to selectively modify the climate of foreign states with a view to destabilizing its national economy. All this is being done in violation of the 1976 ENMOD Convention to which the United States is a signatory to. The ENMOD Convention prohibits use of environmental modification techniques as a method of warfare. States are also prohibited from assisting others in the hostile use of environmental modification. Article II of the Convention defines environmental modification techniques as: “any technique for changing – through deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.” Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976. Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977 Entered into force October 5, 1978 Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979 U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980 The States Parties to this Convention, Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament, Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Have agreed as follows: Article I 1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. 2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article. Article II As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. Article V 3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting its validity. Article VII This Convention shall be of unlimited duration. UNDERSTANDINGS REGARDING THE CONVENTION Understanding Relating to Article I It is the understanding of the Committee that, for the purposes of this Convention, the terms, “widespread”, “long-lasting” and “severe” shall be interpreted as follows: (a) “widespread”: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometres; (b) “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; (c) “severe”: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets. It is further understood that the interpretation set forth above is intended exclusively for this Convention and is not intended to prejudice the interpretation of the same or similar terms if used in connexion with any other international agreement. Understanding Relating to Article II It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere. It is further understood that all the phenomena listed above, when produced by military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result, in widespread, long-lasting or severe destruction, damage or injury. Thus, military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II, so as to cause those phenomena as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, would be prohibited. It is recognized, moreover, that the list of examples set out above is not exhaustive. Other phenomena which could result from the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II could also be appropriately included. The absence of such phenomena from the list does not in any way imply that the undertaking contained in Article I would not be applicable to those phenomena, provided the criteria set out in that article were met.

A magnetometer can be used to predict as well as give evidence of a HAARP created earthquake.  A magnetometer measures disturbances in the magnetic field in Earth’s upper atmosphere.  It is not a seismometer which measure motions of the ground.  The magnetometer doesn’t measure seismic activity it measures and records electromagnetic frequencies in the Earth’s atmosphere. HAARP’s phased array antennas beam radio wave frequencies into the atmosphere.  A radio wave is essentially an electromagnetic frequency, as is solar radiation.  The scientists at the HAARP institute found that a 2.5 Hz radio frequency is the signature frequency of an earthquake.  HAARP beams that earthquake frequency into the ionosphere and the ionosphere reflects it back to Earth – penetrating as deeply as several kilometers into the ground, depending on the geological makeup and subsurface water conditions in a targeted area..  By beaming the frequency at a specific trajectory HAARP can trigger an earthquake any place on Earth.  A short burst isn’t enough to disturb solid matter (the Earth crust) so they keep beaming the 2.5 Hz earthquake frequency for hours or days – until the desired effect is achieved. HAARP was broadcasting the 2.5 Hz frequency from just before midnight on March 8, 2011 and continued to broadcast the frequency for the entire days of March 9, 2011 and March 10, 2011. The 2.5 Hz frequency continued to be broadcasted and recorded by the magnetometer for another 10 hours the day of the Japan 9.0 magnitude earthquake. You will notice on the USGS website that the Japan earthquake didn’t occur on the Ring of Fire Fault line.  The epicenter was some 100 km west of the fault.  The earthquake epicenter occurred on solid ground.

ENVIRONMENTAL WARFARE BAN

The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) is an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978. The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction.

Environmental warfare being used for depopulation and to destroy American food supplies

Huge rivers of water flow above us in Earth’s lower atmosphere. These “atmospheric rivers” are not actually condensed water, but are vapors that really flow. We cannot see them, nor realize they are there when we fly in an airplane through them, but, these vapor rivers are enormous. Their flows rival the actual flow on Earth of the mighty Amazon River. These rivers of vapor are 420 to 480 miles wide and up to 4,800 miles long. Atmospheric rivers are relatively long, narrow regions in the atmosphere – literally rivers in the sky – that transport most of the water vapor outside of the tropics. These columns of vapor move with Earth’s atmosphere, carrying an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River.

When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow. Scientists discovered that there are five (5) atmospheric rivers in the Northern Hemisphere and five (5) more in the Southern Hemisphere. Each of these 10 rivers carries huge amounts of water vapor.  Although atmospheric rivers come in many shapes and sizes, those that contain the largest amounts of water vapor and the strongest winds can create extreme rainfall and floods, often by stalling over watersheds vulnerable to flooding. These events can disrupt travel, induce mudslides and cause catastrophic damage to life and property. Not all atmospheric rivers cause damage; most are weak systems that often provide beneficial rain or snow that is crucial to the water supply.

Atmospheric rivers are a key feature in the global water cycle and are closely tied to both water supply and flood risks. While atmospheric rivers are responsible for great quantities of rain that can produce flooding, they are essential to the existence of all life on Earth. The US has discovered a way to manipulate the Earth’s atmospheric rivers and use it as a weapon of mass destruction.  The Clinton administration (Al Gore as vice-president) began funding this new star wars weapon system in 1996.  HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) was created to give the US Force the capability of “Owning the Weather”.

HAARP was developed as a weather modification system to achieve military objectives.  HAARP scientists were given the task by Bill Clinton and Al Gore to manipulate or alter certain aspects of the environment to produce desirable changes in weather.  HAARP achieved what it was ordered to do when it developed a system of phased array antennas that beams gigawatts (1 gigawatt = 1 billion watts) of electricity into the protective ionosphere of Earth’s atmosphere.  The billions of watts of electricity beamed by HAARP heats up a targeted area of Earth’s atmosphere.  The heating manipulates the weather by pushing the Earth’s Atmospheric Rivers upwards.  HAARP atmospheric heating creates a low pressure system that pushes the Atmospheric Rivers upwards where the water vapor condenses and forms precipitation (rain, snow).

As Atmospheric Rivers are 400-600 km wide and carries an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to 10-20 times the average flow of liquid water at the mouth of the Mississippi River HAARP is able to create extreme rainfall and massive floods. To fully understand what HAARP is doing you need to know and understand what causes it to rain.  Atmospheric pressure at the Earth’s surface is one of the keys to weather, which is one reason weather maps feature H’s and L’s, representing areas of high and low air pressure. High and low pressure areas are important because they affect the weather.   A “high” is an area where the air’s pressure is higher than the pressure of the surrounding air. A “low’ is where it’s lower.  The pressure is high at the surface where air is slowly descending — much too slowly to feel. And, this is going on over a large area, maybe a few hundred square miles. As air descends, it warms, which inhibits the formation of clouds. This is why high pressure is generally — but not quite always — associated with good weather.

High atmospheric pressure leads to stable air conditions. When the ground is heated, the air will not rise. If air does not rise, water vapor in the atmospheric rivers cannot condense.  In an area of low pressure the air has a tendency to rise. As air rises, it cools and if there is enough water vapour it may condense to form clouds and rain. This is why a low pressure is generally associated with wet weather.  HAARP is used to manipulates weather by creating either a high or low pressure – depending on the effect desired.  To cause the drought in Russia in 2010 HAARP created a high pressure system over Russia for weeks on end.

To cause the floods in China, Pakistan, Australia and in US crop producing states HAARP created a low pressure system. In order for HAARP to create Biblical flooding like what were seen in Pakistan, China and Australia in 2010 HAARP created an electromagnetic dam.  This electromagnetic dam caused the Atmospheric Rivers to stall over the targets which caused astronomical amounts of precipitation to fall on the target areas.  HAARP scientists discovered that ELF wave beaming can cause an electronic dam to be created in the atmosphere! These electronic dams can divert or block these vapor rivers, causing huge amounts of rainfall to be dumped.

The HAARP created electromagnetic dam blocks the flow of the atmospheric river, causing it to back up behind the dam.  Eventually atmospheric river pressure builds up and undermines the HAARP dam causing a sudden release of the impounded precipitation.  Did HAARP cause the Pakistan, China, and Queensland Australia floods?  Scientific evidence says yes.  Did HAARP cause the Russian heatwave?  Scientific evidence says yes.  Is HAARP responsible for the flooding in Manitoba Canada and Arkansas US?  Scientific evidence says yes.

Why? HAARP has been ordered by the current US government (President Obama is the only person who can authorize the use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons and this star wars weapon of mass destruction) to manipulate the weather and create floods to destroy the World’s food supply.  It was during the Jimmy Cater administration that it was decided that the World population was getting too big and billions of people would have to be killed off.  Henry Kissinger, wrote: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.  Depopulation, also known as eugenics, was first proposed by the Nazis during World War II.

Eugenics wasn’t proposed again until Jimmy Carter became president of the United States.  Carter’s National Security Council’s Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy proposed a Nazi style eugenics through Henry Kissinger’s Global 2000 report.  Eugenics is the deliberate killing off of large segments of living populations.  Prince Philip of Britain is in favor of depopulation: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels” ~ quoted in “Are You Ready for Our New Age Future?” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December 1995.  Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, consort of Queen Elizabeth II, leader of the World Wildlife Fund, member of the Danish-German House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, endorses eugenics.

How will they depopulate the World?  By using the weapon of mass destruction called HAARP.  HAARP has been given the task of Eugenics.  HAARP has been actively doing it part since Barack Hussein Obama became president of the United Sates.  Obama is the first US president to order HAARP into action against foreign states and even the United States.

HAARP has been ordered by Obama to create earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and heat waves in foreign states and in the US.  The goal is to covertly kill as many people as possible.  Flooding will kill the most people.  Not immediately but through starvation.  The target of the HAARP created floods is to destroy the World’s food supply.  HAARP floods in the spring will prevent farmers from seeding their crops.  HAARP floods in late summer will destroy the crops that did get planted and survived. What crops are the US HAARP targeting?  The United States is the third largest producer of wheat in the world.

Manitoba is the “Wheat Capital” of Canada and the sixth largest producer of wheat in the world.  Corn is the largest U.S. crop, in terms of both volume and value.  The United States grew 39 percent of the world’s corn making it the largest producer followed by China which produced 21% of the World’s corn supply.  China is the world’s largest producer of rice, and the crop makes up a little less than half of the country’s total grain output. China accounts for 26% of all world rice production. China also produces 108,712 TMT of wheat annually. This makes China the world’s largest wheat producer, producing 42,856 TMT more than India, the world’s second largest wheat producer. Do you see what is happening?

Flooding is only occurring in the regions that produces the largest portion of the World’s supply or corn, rice and wheat.  Three crops; wheat, corn, and rice provide nearly 60 percent of total plant foods that humans consume. Rice is the world’s number one staple food and feeds half the world’s population.  Wheat is the largest source of carbohydrates for human consumption.

Wheat is the world’s second most popular staple food. Corn is the world’s third most popular staple food. Wiping out just these three crops can cause as much as half the World’s population to starve to death.  Today food is being used as a weapon.

The lack of it is being used as a means of depopulation and conquering destitute countries (under the pretext of humanitarian aid). “We are going to get Global 2000 implemented, one way or another by famine, starvation, or by choice … We need a real economic shock, a depression to get our message across.” ~ GLOBAL 2000 – Depopulation Program.

To cause by means of limited wars in the advanced countries, by means of starvation and diseases in the Third World countries, the death of three billion people.  Under the terms of the Global 2000 Report, the population of the US is to be reduced by 100 million.


Golden Dawn Immigrants-Fake NeoNazi’s

All those links were sent to me on Twitter and I am more than glad to post them,I do beleive I will find more on those people due time.No threats allowed according to the WP policy or the HR declaration. So please stay vigilant of what you are going to post :)I checked all blog categories so that the post can get the most views possible. Regards!

“##Spiros Macrozonaris## IMMIGRANT Golden Dawn Deputy leader in Montreal, Canada” :

Facebook profile :

INTERESTING FACEBOOK POST MR. MACROZONARIS, HE CANNOT EVEN WRITE GREEK! BAD NAZI BAD! :

His NON 100% PURE GREEK son’s Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/macrozonaris?ref=ts&fref=ts

1. Greek Immigrant who married a “foreigner” >>>>>French-Canadian Doris Morrissette, they bore a son, Nicolas Macrozonaris (World-Class Sprinter – CANADIAN Olympian 🙂 ..who unfortunately is not 100% Pure Greek…

2. Conversations with Nicolas on Twitter, lead to nothing, he is ‘pretending’ that he has NO knowledge of what Golden Dawn supports and believes YET he states that he does not condone his fathers “actions”

Twitter @Macrozonaris TWEETER CONVERSATIONS with Nicolas –>

###### MUST WATCH #####
Video from CBC Montreal, from week of Oct 12th – INTERVIEW with Spiros Macrozonaris – next to him sits LOOSER Ilias Hondronicolas : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-3rbLI4K78

#Ilias Hondronicolas ———> on PHOTO second guy from the left :

#MORE HONDRONICOLAS:

(FRIENDS WITH ELENI ZAROULIA SHARING HER PHOTOS!)
( MUST SEE )

#MORE PAPAGEORGIOU:


Mutant Avian flu: Expanding global vaccine production

 Allow me to add a personal note here .Right now I am writing I am recovering from the H5N1 flu,so is my family. It’s not a joy ride i can reassure you,i still feel my muscles stiff and my bones about to crack in pieces. BUT we took NO antibiotics,NO VACCINES- this is a is a must-not-do for my family-,nothing.  We had poor luck with all those “lethal” viruses so we got them all,Swine flu in 2009 and again the mutant swine flu last year[2011].WE didn’t die. Of course none of us belongs to the high risk groups. Yet we took a slight taste of pneumonia and other complications like otitis
I can not advise you if you belong to a high risk population group. But if you do not,just take some basic precautions and it will pass. We “survived” of five flu attacks with no harm done . You don’t need any killing Tamiflu or any vaccine that will make you more vulnerable to diseases
A friend of mine,a doctor,he said to me when i asked” you cannot predict a virus when it is bombed with antibiotics,the most possible to happen is to face new,mutant strains,resistant to known drugs”
And when i asked in return,why the Pharma industry doesn’t adapt their antibiotics to the new shown strains,he answered” if they did so,they would never claim a Pandemic“…
the rest is known..
21 June 2012

The H5N1 ‘bird flu’ virus could evolve to spread through the air between ferrets by picking up as few as five mutations, according to a long-awaited study from Ron Fouchier from the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands1. The paper is published today in Science after months of debate about whether the benefits of publishing the research outweighed the risks.

H5N1 can cause lethal infections in humans but it cannot spread effectively from person to person. Fouchier’s paper is the second of two publications describing how the virus could evolve this ability. The first, from Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, involved a hybrid virus with genes from both H5N1 and the H1N1 strain behind the 2009 pandemic2 (see ‘Mutant-flu paper published‘). Fouchier’s mutant contains only H5N1 genes.

“Coming after the Kawaoka manuscript, I thought it might be anti-climactic, but it does not fail to deliver,” says Vincent Racaniello, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

There is only one common mutation in the combinations that Fouchier and Kawaoka identified. “It just means that there are multiple ways to skin a cat,” says Robert Webster, a virologist at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Despite their differences, both sets of mutations confer similar properties on H5N1. Some mutations allow the haemagglutinin (HA) protein on the virus’s surface to stick to the kind of receptors found in the human upper airway. Others stabilize the protein, an unexpected property that now seems to be important for transmission among mammals. “Two very different strategies led to common functional changes,” says Malik Peiris, a virologist at the University of Hong Kong, who notes that these changes are “not uncommon in field strains already”.

Fouchier now wants to know whether these traits could make any flu virus go airborne, and whether previous pandemics started in this way. “The virus could evolve in a thousand different ways,” he says. “But if we can show that any receptor-binding mutations, or any that change the stability of HA, can yield airborne viruses, the story becomes completely different. We can then do surveillance for mutations that cause the same phenotype.”

Fouchier’s team began by adding three mutations to an H5N1 strain isolated from Indonesia in 2005. Two of these — Q222L and G224S — changed the HA gene such that its protein preferentially sticks to human-type receptors over those found in bird cells. The third — E627K — changed the PB2 gene, which is involved in copying the virus’ genetic material, so that the virus was able to replicate more easily in the cooler environment of mammalian cells.

The team allowed this mutant virus to evolve naturally by passing it from one ferret to the next, injecting it into the animals’ noses and collecting samples daily for four days. After ten rounds, the virus could spread between ferrets housed in separate cages.

These airborne strains spread less effectively than the 2009 H1N1 virus, and are sensitive to current antiviral treatments and potential vaccines. They are lethal if delivered directly to the ferrets’ airways in high doses, but not if the animals catch the infections naturally through the air.

Fouchier’s airborne viruses carried a diverse array of mutations, with just five mutations shared by them all, including the original three that Fouchier had inserted and two more in the HA gene: T156A, which affects receptor binding, and H103Y, which stabilizes the protein. The five mutations might be enough for H5N1 to spread between ferrets, but it may take nine or even more. “Until the changes are introduced in combinations into H5N1 virus, we won’t know the answer,” says Racaniello.

In a related paper published in Science3, Derek Smith from the University of Cambridge, UK, and his colleagues has shown that wild H5N1 viruses already have many of the mutations that Fouchier and Kawaoka identified. Some of the viruses are two to four nucleotide substitutions away from the complete sets. However, whether those mutations would allow different strains of H5N1 to spread between ferrets, let alone humans, remains unclear.

Fouchier now wants to work out the number of other individuals who catch the airborne virus for everyone who is infected. This number “needs to be higher than 1 to cause a pandemic”, he says. “We need more quantitative transmission models to start addressing that.”

But Racaniello thinks a different approach would be more effective. “I suggest that we spend research money developing more flu antivirals, and a universal flu vaccine,” he says[Source]

Will Tamiflu save the world from the avian flu?

No one wants to catch the flu! At the very least, it will put you out of commission for a week, and it can also cause  life-threatening infections – pneumonia is the most common, although other bacterial diseases like bronchitis are common too. Most people don’t think about problems with secondary infections after catching the flu, but a deadly form of the flu could be just around the corner.

The H5N1 “avian” flu is highly deadly among birds, and it has occurred in humans. Most people who contract the avian flu have had direct contact with infected birds. Fortunately, H5N1 does not appear to spread from human to human, but what if mutations occur in the virus that allow this to happen?

The 2009 H1N1 “swine” flu reminded us of the potential for flu pandemics that cross over to humans from other animals.

Based on its severity in birds and in the humans who have been infected, an H5N1 pandemic could be far more deadly than the H1N1 pandemic; it could kill a significant percentage of the world’s population! For example, in the 1918 flu pandemic, about 5% of the world’s population died. Based on the virulence of H5N1 in birds, it’s predicted that a higher percentage of humans would die as a result of a H5N1 human pandemic, although this is, of course, conjecture. In support of this conjecture, however, is the fact that 63% of the humans who have been infected with H5N1 have died (Hurt et al.).

antiviral compounds

Antiviral compounds

Fortunately Tamiflu (Oseltamivir) and a related drug, Relenza (Zanamivir), reduce the severity of the flu if they are given when the flu symptoms initially appear. But will the drugs be effective forever?

Seventy years ago, antibiotics such as penicillin seemed like miracle drugs. But now bacteria are evolving to become resistant to antibiotics, in part because the antibiotics have been overprescribed. Could the same thing occur with antivirals as they become used more frequently? It is a possibility.

Mutations, changes in the genetic code of an organism, occur rapidly in the influenza virus. Most mutations are harmful to the virus, but a few are beneficial (and, therefore, potentially harmful to humans). A mutation could occur in an influenza virus that allows it to resist the effects of Tamiflu and Relenza. Such a virus would then grow much more rapidly than a nonresistant form in the presence of the drugs.

To understand how Tamilflu and Relenza function and how the virus might become resistant to them, we need a little background on the life cycle of the flu virus. When an unsuspecting victim inhales a flu virus, a protein on the surface of the virus called hemagglutinin (the ‘H’ in H1N1, for example) binds to a receptor called sialic acid on the surface of cells in the respiratory tract (see structure of sialic acid in picture above).

Influenza life cycle

Influenza life cycle

The cell takes in the virus, which then replicates inside the host cell. The newly formed viruses leave the cell by budding off the surface. The hemagglutinin on the new viruses can then bind to the sialic acid on the surface of other host cells, thus infecting new cells. For this to occur, however, the viruses need to escape the host cells. Another viral surface protein, neuraminidase (the ‘N’ in H1N1, for example), breaks down the sialic acid receptors so the viruses can escape.

Tamiflu and Relenza are structurally similar to sialic acid and will bind to the neuraminidase, but they cannot be broken down. Therefore, neuraminidase cannot bind to sialic acid on the cell surface when it has Tamiflu or Relenza bound to it. Because they prevent neuraminidase from functioning, the two drugs are collectively referred to as neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs). When NAIs are present, some of the newly produced virus will get stuck to the original host cell and will not be able to infect other cells.  Some viruses will still escape, so NAIs don’t cure the flu but rather reduce its severity.

Are NAI-resistant viral mutants forming? Studies have identified a few flu viruses that are resistant to these drugs. A very dedicated (and patient) group of scientists (Monto et al.) grew up a whopping 2287 samples of flu virus that were collected from all over the world during the first three years (1999-2002) the drugs were prescribed. They grew these samples in the presence of each of the two NAIs. While the vast majority of the viruses were not resistant to the drugs, a few samples were. Resistance was determined by measuring the concentration of the drug needed to inactivate each virus. These results were concerning; however, another team of scientists (Yen et al.) studied two NAI-resistant flu mutants and found that they were not as contagious nor as fit as the non-resistant strains.

Ferrets

Ferrets used in nasal washes

Yen et al. (2005) also showed that the virus didn’t grow as well in vitro, and they measured how well the virus grew in an in vivo model. In those studies, three ferrets were infected with the virus: two with the mutant strains and one with a wild type (not mutated) virus.

After two days, each ferret was put into close contact with two other ferrets. Each day after exposure, the researchers took nasal washes of each ferret and quantified the amount of virus in the wash. (I wonder if there is a neti pot for ferrets.)

Neti Pot

Net pot for sinus infection

The washes showed that less virus was produced by the two resistant mutants. In fact, one of the ferrets exposed to a mutant virus was less contagious. Other studies have found this to be the case with the most resistant flu virus mutants. That is, the more resistant the flu virus is to an NAI, the less virulent is the virus.

However, exceptions were found in a further study by Yen et al. in 2006, where they found two mutants that were resistant to the drugs but still grew relatively well, which is more concerning. While these mutants did not appear naturally (they were designed by the lab) they could, in principle, occur in nature.

None of these studies looked at the H5N1 avian flu directly, but because the drug-resistant viruses were found over a wide variety of strains, there is potential for an H5N1 mutant that is resistant to Tamiflu and Relenza. Fortunately the drug-resistant mutants are usually less fit, so an H5N1 NAI-resistant mutant might not be as deadly. It appears that Tamiflu and Relenza would help reduce the impact of an H5N1 pandemic. However, we must monitor the virus for resistant mutants.

References:

Silver, G. (2003) The treatment of influenza with antiviral drugs. Canadian Medical Association Journal 168 (1), 49–57.

Monto, A., McKimm-Breschkin, J., Macken, C., Hampson, A., Hay, A., Klimov, A., Tashiro, M., Webster, R., Aymard, M., Hayden, F., & Zambon, M. (2006). Detection of Influenza Viruses Resistant to Neuraminidase Inhibitors in Global Surveillance during the First 3 Years of Their Use Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 50 (7), 2395-2402 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01339-05

Yen, H., Herlocher, L., Hoffmann, E., Matrosovich, M., Monto, A., Webster, R., & Govorkova, E. (2005). Neuraminidase Inhibitor-Resistant Influenza Viruses May Differ Substantially in Fitness and Transmissibility Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 49 (10), 4075-4084 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.10.4075-4084.2005

Hurt, A., Holien, J., & Barr, I. (2009). In Vitro Generation of Neuraminidase Inhibitor Resistance in A(H5N1) Influenza Viruses Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 53 (10), 4433-4440 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00334-09

Yen, H., Hoffmann, E., Taylor, G., Scholtissek, C., Monto, A., Webster, R., & Govorkova, E. (2006). Importance of Neuraminidase Active-Site Residues to the Neuraminidase Inhibitor Resistance of Influenza Viruses Journal of Virology, 80 (17), 8787-8795 DOI: 10.1128/jvi.00477-06

Bioweapons, Dangerous Vaccines,
And Threats Of A Global Pandemic

By Stephen Lendman
7-7-9

Bioweapons, Dangerous Vaccines,
And Threats Of A Global Pandemic
By Stephen Lendman
7-7-9

Although international law prohibits the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons, America has had an active biological warfare program since at least the 1940s. In 1941, it began secret developmental efforts using controversial testing methods. During WW II, mustard gas was tested on about 4000 servicemen. Biological weapons research was also conducted. Human subjects were used as guinea pigs in various other experiments, and numerous illegal practices continued to the present, including secretly releasing toxic biological agents in US cities to test the effects of germ warfare.

The Hague Convention of 1907 banned chemical weapons usage, and the 1928 Geneval Protocol prohibited gas and bacteriological warfare. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) “Prohibit(ed) the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction.” The 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act “implement(ed the) Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction….”

In 2001, the Bush administration rejected the 1972 BWC, took advantage of a loophole allowing “prophylactic, protective or other peaceful uses,” continued a secret Clinton administration bioweapons initiative, and asserted its right to spend multi-billions illegally to develop, test and stockpile “first-strike” chemical and biological weapons that potentially can kill millions.

In his August 14, 2008 article titled, “The Pentagon’s alarming project: Avian Flu Biowar Vaccine,” F. William Engdahl cited:

“alarming evidence accumulated by serious scientific sources that the US Government is about to or already has ‘weaponized’ Avian Flu. If reports are accurate, this could unleash a new pandemic on the planet that could be more devastating than the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic which killed an estimated 30 million people worldwide before it eventually died out. Pentagon and NIH experiments with remains in frozen state of the 1918 virus are the height of scientific folly” unless something more nefarious is afoot in collaboration with Big Pharma to produce weaponized viruses and/or dangerous mandatory vaccines that, at the least, can cause serious autoimmune diseases or, as some allege, a Swine Flu or other viral pandemic.

Alarming News about Baxter International

On February 27, 2009, various news agencies including Helen Branswell in the Canadian Press, reported:

Baxter International that “released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed (today) that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.” The WHO said the incident occurred at the company’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria, but claimed “that public health and occupational risk is minimal” thus far. What’s not known, however, “are the circumstances” behind the incident that, according to some, raise suspicions while others call it a willful criminal act. More on that below.

The contaminated product, “a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 (Avian Flu) viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company….Avir Green Hills Biotechnology.” It then “sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.”

The problem was discovered when The Czech Republic company discovered that ferrets innoculated with the product died. “Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.” Public health authorities called it a “serious error” that showed “the H5N1 virus in the product was live.” But Baxter “has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.” Christopher Bona, the company’s global bioscience communications director, did confirm that the material was a “live….experimental virus” made at the Orth-Donau research laboratory.

Security experts expressed alarm that something this serious could happen, calling the co-mingling (or reassortment) of human H3N2 with H5N1 avian viruses a dangerous practice that should never occur because of the potentially devastating effects to human health. “If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people,” who, in turn, could transmit it to enough others to potentially cause a pandemic. So far, nothing this extreme has happened, but a future threat remains.

As Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, Dr. Rima Laibow warns about dangerous, toxic drugs and vaccines. On March 6, 2009, she posted a “Pandemic Flu Emergency Action eAlert on her healthfreedomusa.org web site stating:

“World media (outside America) are reporting that Baxter Pharmaceuticals has admitted that it ‘accidently’ contaminated various vaccine batches with Avian Flu viruses. These batches were shipped to 18 countries. Clearly, either 1. stupidity and incompetence (are to blame) or 2. intentional contamination of flu vaccine lots was at work.”

Many Avian Flu vaccines compete with each other, yet they’re “profitable ONLY if used in huge numbers.” Although “Avian Flu has been slow to be become pandemic by ‘jumping the species barrier’ to humans in large numbers,” might Baxter’s “accident” be a way to do it? If so, Big Pharma will score “One of the biggest wins in history.”

In fact, it already has after the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy (CIDRAP) reported that Congress (in mid-June) “approved $7.65 billion for battling pandemic influenza, more than three times what the House and Senate had earlier proposed.” Unsurprisingly, it was part of “a $106 billion (Iraq and Afghanistan war) supplemental appropriation bill” to open a new front at home in the form of dangerous vaccines – perhaps to be mandated for everyone.

Laibow sees a “manipulated disaster of unprecedented magnitude precipitated by unprecedented avarice and greed,” and adds that “Baxter International Inc. is no stranger to recalls and lethal contaminations.” Its record includes producing faulty infusion and volumetric pumps, HIV-2 tainted Albumin Buminate 5 percent, faulty dialysis machine tubing and blood-cleaning filters, and various other products that should make everyone leery of its soon-to-be-released Swine Flu vaccine. Along with similar ones from other pharmaceutical companies, these drugs cause serious autoimmune diseases and absolutely should be avoided, even if mandated.

Laibow expresses great alarm in stating:

“Baxter mixed a virus which has a hard time infecting people (H5N1 Avian flu) with one that infects them easily (“Seasonal Flu”) in a medium which can promote mutations of the H5N1 virus into a type which can infect us easily. What will be in the vaccine you are forced/coerced/threatened into allowing into your body? Who knows?”

What is known are our constitutional and Nuremberg Code rights. The Fifth Amendment protects against abusive government authority in stating that “No person shall….be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” The Eight Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” Depriving someone of health is tantamount to the latter as well as life by harming and potentially shortening it.

The Nuremberg Code requires voluntary consent of human subjects without coercion, fraud, deceit, and with full disclosure of known risks. It also affirms that experiments should avoid “all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury,” and should never be conducted if there’s “an a priori reason to believe death or disabling injury will occur” or harm to human health.

The FDA as an Industry Front Group

As stated on its web site, the FDA is mandated to protect human health and well-being.

As an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”

Run by officials of the industries it “regulates,” it fails on all counts. Byron J. Richards is a clinical nutritionist and founder of Wellness Resources. In his book “Fight for Your Health: Exposing the FDA’s Betrayal of America,” he discusses FDA complicity with Big Pharma, dangerous drugs worth billions of dollars to the industry, and the serious risks to people who use them. He states:

“The FDA has put into mothballs its federal mandate to protect the public. In order to foster drug sales, the FDA hides important medical data from the public and from doctors, including the risks of heart attacks, suicide, seizures, and serious mental-health debility. Even worse, the FDA has changed sides. They are actively undermining the rights of citizens to claim damages if injured by drugs. And they are seeking to remove safety barriers to drug testing. They are planning to expose many individuals to unproven drugs, a new form of human experiment” that may rise to a higher level if HHS mandates dangerous Swine Flu vaccines for all Americans despite no forensic evidence of an outbreak or even a single proved death attributable to H1N1.

Yet, in advance of what looks to be coming, on June 11, the WHO declared that “The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic (in) decid(ing) to raise (its) influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to (its highest) phase 6” level.

Dr. Laibow advises that everyone has a “right to say “NO!” to vaccinations and other treatments that (they) do not want. The Police Power of the State ENDS at my skin and yours!” If a pandemic erupts, as a longtime natural health practitioner, she advises what she’ll use herself – Nano Silver as well as vitamins, minerals, and herbs like echinacea that boost the immune system, unlike dangerous vaccines that destroy it. For more information, she directs individuals to the web site: <http://www.nutronix.com/naturalsolutions>www.nutronix.com/naturalsolutions.

WHO, CDC, and Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) Fearmongering Misinformation

Besides declaring its highest Level 6 influenza pandemic alert on June 11, the BBC reported on July 3 that WHO’s Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan, warned that the spread of swine flu is “unstoppable” while admitting that most cases are mild and many people recover unaided.

On June 25, Daniel DeNoon in WebMD Health News reported that CDC’s influenza surveillance chief, Dr. Lyn Finelli, said: “Right now, we are estimating over 1 million (Swine Flu) cases in the US” in 2009 affecting about 6% of households in major cities. She, too, admitted that the vast majority of cases have been mild but avoided the fundamental issue – that no forensic evidence attributes a single death globally to Swine Flu and all or most known instances may be ordinary viral influenza or common colds, bad enough to cause fever (at times high) and discomfort, last several days and then pass for most people.

With no proof, Finelli cited 3065 Swine Flu hospitalizations and 127 deaths. In a June 26 telebriefing, Dr. Anne Schachat, CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases director, cited no verifiable forensic documentation in saying:

“The novel H1N1 (Swine Flu) influenza is continuing to spread here in the United States and around the globe. The key point is that this new infectious disease is not going away. In the US, we’re still experiencing a steady increase in the number of reported cases (and they’re just) the tip of the iceberg.” She added that vaccines are being hurriedly produced. No decisions have been made about “which populations” will need them, but “it’s very important for states and communities to begin intensifying their efforts on planning to administer a vaccine should such be necessary in the fall,” especially for “young people including school children, pregnant women, babies, and adults, particularly younger adults with those underlying conditions….” That said, it “doesn’t mean we’ve finalized any vaccine recommendations.”

On June 21, Canada’s National Post published Sharon Kirkey’s Canwest News Service report headlined, “Vaccinate Canadians under 40 and (aboriginal) natives first: experts.” She added that “Under Canada’s official pandemic plan, the entire population would ultimately be immunized against H1N1 swine flu,” but not at once as vaccines will only be available in batches.

Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) “is working on a priority list,” effective for all provinces and territories. Gymnasiums will be used for mass vaccinations of school children, but no final decisions have been made.

In a June 26 news release, PHAC reported that “The Government of Canada today launched a three-year public education campaign to encourage parents to have their children immunized against certain diseases before the age of two. The Honorable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health, made the announcement at the annual meeting of the Canadian Paediatric Society” saying that “Immunization is one of the best tools we have to protect the health of our children.”

In fact, all vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. They contain squalene-based adjuvants that cause a menu of autoimmune diseases in test subjects. In humans they include chronic fatigue, various type rashes, chronic headaches, anemia, aphthous ulcers, seizures, weakness, neuropsychiatric problems, ALS, Raynaud’s phenomenon, and multiple sclerosis, among other illnesses and diseases, some causing death.

It’s why Dr. Laibow says “No insurance company in the world will insure against” their risks. In America, a special fund “has paid out over 2 billion dollars to parents of children killed or maimed by vaccinations.” However, the vast majority of those harmed are never compensated, and US law ‘immunizes’ drug companies from lawsuits.

Laibow adds:

“In fact, vaccines are explicitly acknowledged NOT to protect against diseases they supposedly are designed to prevent (read the Package Inserts for vaccines, available on line and in your doctors’ offices if you doubt that) and often” cause them.

Yet they continue in use because they’re so “immensely, enormously and hideously profitable,” and Big Pharma has enough clout to proliferate products that “in a rational society (should) be banned forever.”

Bioterrorism Criminal Charges Filed

On June 10, Austrian journalist Jane Burgermeister filed sweeping criminal charges with the FBI in addition to earlier ones on April 8 with the Vienna State Prosecutor’s Office against Baxter AG, Baxter International and Avir Green Hill Biotechnology AG, “for manufacturing, disseminating, and releasing a biological weapon of mass destruction on Austrian soil between December 2008 and February 2009 with the intention of causing a global bird flu pandemic virus and of intending to profit from that same pandemic in an act that violates laws on international organised crime and genocide.”

Baxter operates Biosafety Level 3 (BLS-3) labs that take strict precautions to assure no possibility of accidental H3N2 and H5N1 co-mingling contamination unless something more nefarious is afoot.

BLS-3 personnel are trained in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents and are supervised by competent scientists with extensive experience with them. In addition, these labs have specially engineered design features for added safety.

On its web site, CDC lists four biosafety levels:

— BLS-1 labs are “suitable for work involving well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adult humans, and (pose) minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment.”

— BLS-2 labs are “similar to Biosafety Level 1 and (are) suitable for work involving agents of moderate potential hazard to personnel and the environment. It differs from BLS-1 in that (lab personnel) have specific training in handling pathogenic agents,” and are “directed by competent scientists.” In addition, access to the labs are limited, and “extreme precautions are taken with contaminated sharp items….”

— BLS-3 labs work with “indigenous or exotic agents which may cause serious or potentially lethal disease as a result of exposure by the inhalation route. Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents.” Labs also have “special engineering and design features,” and follow strict procedures. In addition, protective clothing, equipment, and other extreme precautions are taken.

— BLS-4 labs are for the most highly toxic and dangerous agents – ones “that pose a high individual risk of aerosol-transmitted laboratory infections and life-threatening disease.” As a result, the strictest possible procedures and precautions are always taken.

By combining human influenza H3N2 with bird flu H5N1 virus in its BLS-3 lab, “Baxter produced a highly dangerous biological weapon with a 63 per cent mortality rate. The H5N1 virus is restricted in its human-to-human transmissibility, especially because it is less airborne.”

“However when….combined with seasonal flu viruses (easily transmitted by air), a new flu virus is created which is unknown to the human immune system and which will have a severe impact on an unprotected population. A deadly virus of this kind could spread around the world in a short time and (potentially) infect millions and even billions of people.”

Baxter (via Avir) “distributed (72 kilos of) contaminated (live bird flu) vaccines using false concealment and a false labels to 16 laboratories in Austria and….other countries at the end of January/beginning of February, potentially infecting at least 36-37 laboratory staff, who (were) treated preventively for bird flu and ordinary flu.” On the same day, 18 Avir employees were as well at Vienna’s Otto Wagner Hospital.

Burgermeister cited a Baxter-Avir 2006 contract with Austria’s Health Ministry for 16 million vaccine doses in case a bird flu pandemic was declared. She maintains that this “laboratory incident shows that national and international authorities are not able to fulfill their obligations to ensure the safety of the Austrian people” and claims that authorities were engaged in a cover-up.

“If a pharmaceutical company can breach laws – and almost trigger a bird flu pandemic, which (potentially could spread worldwide) – without being made accountable for it….then there is, de facto, no rule of law on Austrian territory.”

She also contends that Baxter’s production system, “namely, the use of 1200 liter bioreactors and vero cell technology,” meets “the technical criteria to be classified as a secret dual purpose large-scale bioweapon production facility (able to produce) a huge amount of contaminated vaccine material….rapidly.”

“If (this) material were added to the 1200 liter bioreactors, it would replicate and infect the entire batch of vaccine material in (it). Contaminated material could (then) be distributed among sections of the population using false labels and secretly marked batches (able to) infect millions of people.”

Burgermeister accused high-level Austrian Health and other Ministry officials of knowledge and support of this practice. Otherwise, controls would have been in place to prevent it. In June, she named drug producers Baxter, Novartis and Sanofi Aventis, world agencies, including the WHO, UN, and CDC, and high-level officials in Austria, other European countries, and America.

Whether or not there’s enough evidence to substantiate her charges, her case is vital to alert people globally to the potential health threat they face because inadequate controls are in place if the worst occurs.

It highlights the importance of being alert to this and other potential health hazards given lax government regulations and public complicity with powerful corporate interests, that in alliance show a disturbing indifference to public safety and well-being – worse still because dominant print and broadcast media stoke fear by reporting misinformation to convince people to use dangerous drugs and vaccines they should avoid.

As they say, forewarned is forearmed. Better be safe than sorry. Something nefarious may or may not be afoot, but it’s vital to learn the truth, know the risks, and assert your legal right to refuse all dangerous vaccines and other medications, even if mandated.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre of Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listing.

http://rense.com/general86/bio.htm


Africa: Transcript – Ambassador Johnnie Carson On the Situation in Mali and the Sahel, Somalia and the DRC

The Obama administration is contemplating broad military, political and humanitarian intervention to stop a slide toward chaos and Islamic extremism in Mali, the top State Department diplomat for Africa said Thursday.

The international but largely U.S.-funded effort to expunge al-Qaeda-linked militants and restore political order in Somalia could present a model for Mali, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson said.

Since 2007, the United States has spent more than $550 million to help train and supply an African proxy force of about 18,000 soldiers in Somalia, which has brought a measure of stability to the war-torn country for the first time in two decades.

Although the United States has not committed to replicating that approach in Mali, Carson and others are holding up the routing of the al-Shabab militia and conducting of elections in Somalia as a template for actions elsewhere.

“It’s a model that should be reviewed and looked at as an element for what might be effective in that part of the world,” Carson said in an interview, “but it’s not there yet.”

The Somalia comparison offers the clearest view yet of U.S. thinking about the growing terrorism threat from Mali, a landlocked West African country the size of Texas that has imploded politically since a military coup in March.

As in Somalia, the threat to the United States and other countries from Mali is wrapped in a larger problem of lawlessness, poverty, tribal friction and weak governance.

Somalia adopted a provisional constitution in August, and a new federal government was formed after years of chaos that had fueled terrorism, piracy and famine. Security has slowly improved under the proxy force, which is led by the African Union but bankrolled and trained by the United States, European Union and United Nations.

Carson said the internationally backed plan for Somalia’s political reconstruction was working because the country’s neighbors, the United States, E.U. and United Nations had subscribed to a common set of goals.

He cautioned that a regional and international consensus would be required for the approach to work in Mali. “There needs to be that kind of a clear understanding there as well,” he said.

Mali’s military quickly lost control of the country after the March coup, which was led by a U.S.-trained army captain. Since then, Islamist militias affiliated with al-Qaeda have imposed strict Sharia law in northern Mali and, along with Tuareg rebels, declared an independent state. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled their homes.

Last week, the remnants of Mali’s central government, France and west African nations led calls at the United Nations for the creation of an African-led force to help Mali confront the militants.

The Economic Community of West African States has said it is willing to send about 3,300 troops to Mali if it gets the backing of the United Nations and Western countries.

The United States has been leery of a French-backed proposal for quick deployment of an internationally backed African force in Mali, preferring a more comprehensive plan that addresses underlying political problems and tribal divisions.

“We want to make sure that it is an African-led international response, and also be very clear that whatever is done out there should in fact be well planned, well organized and well financed,” Carson said.

The U.S. diplomat has also said that it is important to enlist support from Mali’s northern neighbors, especially Algeria and Mauritania, which share a long border with the troubled country and have also fought their own long-running Islamist insurgencies.

U.S. officials have ruled out sending American combat troops to Mali but have said the Obama administration could help train, equip and transport an intervention force drawn from other African countries.

“There will be a need for some type of security response,” Carson said, adding that the United States could support one if it is drawn up correctly.

Africa: Transcript – Ambassador Johnnie Carson On the Situation in Mali and the Sahel, Somalia and the DRC

document

The top United States diplomat for Africa has acknowledged that military action will be needed to break the control of northern Mali by … ( Resource: U.S. Acknowledges Need for Military Action in Mali

New York,New York — Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson held a briefing at the New York Foreign Press Center during which he discussed the situation in Mali and the Sahel, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and answered questions from journalists.

MODERATOR: Good afternoon to everyone from the Africa Regional Media Hub of the United States Department of State. And good morning to those joining us from the U.S. I would like to welcome all of our participants. Thank you for joining us. Our speaker today is Ambassador Johnnie Carson, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Ambassador Carson will brief us on U.S. foreign policy in Africa as it pertains to the current situation in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Mali and the Sahel.

We will begin today’s call with remarks from our speaker and then open it up to your questions. To ask a question, please press *1 on your phone and you will be placed in the question queue. As a reminder, today’s call is on the record and will last approximately 45 minutes. And now, I will turn it over to Ambassador Johnnie Carson.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Yvonne, thank you very much for the warm introduction, and thank you all for participating in this briefing. I would like this morning to talk about the U.S. participation in last week’s UN General Assembly, where there was significant discussion and debate on issues related to the situation in Mali and the Sahel, Somalia, Sudan, and the Eastern Congo. I’d also like to give you a briefing on some of the Secretary’s activities and some of our own engagement.

Last week was an extraordinarily busy week at the UN on African-related issues. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hosted no less than four regional conferences on Africa – on Sahel, Somalia, Sudan, and the Eastern Congo. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in two of those sessions, one dealing with Sahel and Mali and a second one dealing with Somalia. The U.S. Government was represented at senior levels in the Sudan discussions and in the Eastern Congo, DRC, Rwanda discussions.

In addition, the Secretary of State met in a trilateral meeting with President Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and also participating was President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. On Friday afternoon, the Secretary also met with Sudanese officials, including Foreign Minister Ali Karti from Khartoum. The Secretary also participated in sessions on HIV/AIDS hosted by the head of UNAIDS and also a session on food security, where we are also very much engaged.

Let me talk briefly about the four key areas under discussion last week that the Secretary General hosted and talk about where our policy is with respect to each of those four areas. First on Mali and the Sahel, we in the United States are deeply concerned about the ongoing situation in Mali. We think that Mali is an enormously complicated situation, comprising four separate problems that are interrelated. One is an issue of governance and the need for a return to a civilian elected creditable government, which does not exist and has not existed since the coup d’etat that took place in March of 2012.

Second is a political issue related to the Tuareg. That is an issue of political marginalization and a government which has not provided economic and social services to a minority community in northern Mali. The Tuareg feel politically marginalized; this has been a historical problem that dates back prior to Mali’s independence, and it must be resolved politically – not militarily but politically.

Third is a very serious problem, a problem that affects Mali and affects the neighboring states as well, and this is the issue of terrorism – terrorism carried out by AQIM – al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb Ã? as well as another associated group, MUJAO. Both of these groups have been responsible for the desecration of historical writings and buildings and artifacts in Timbuktu. They are responsible for trying to impose Sharia law on various parts of northern Mali. They are responsible for terrorism, for kidnapping, and for robbery. This is an issue that must be dealt with through security and military means.

And the fourth problem in Mali is the issue of the humanitarian situation. Always a food deficit region, it has been further impacted by the failure of rains sufficient this year to meet the needs of the community and by a growing refugee population displaced as a result of the al-Qaida and MUJAO activities in northern Mali. So four very complex problems.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proposed that the UN establish a position of special envoy to deal with this issue, to coordinate UN activities, to work with the regional governments, and to work with others in the international community. He also said that there would be a strategy developed by the UN that would take into account strategies being worked on by ECOWAS and others in the region. We support the establishment of a UN Secretary General Special Representative for Mali and the Sahel. We support the coordination efforts that would be under this individual. We support the development of a broad-based and comprehensive strategy. And we support the establishment of some kind of a core group or working group that will integrate the work of ECOWAS, Algeria, Mauritania, and Chad – and those three countries are not a part of ECOWAS but have great interest in the situation – as well as the United States, the European Union, France, Great Britain, and Germany, who also have interests there.

So we’re very much focused on the Sahel. We think that some progress was achieved with this meeting, and we hope that the Secretary General will move swiftly to mount a special envoy for the region.

The second major issues under focus was Somalia. Secretary Clinton also participated in this meeting. Somalia is a good news story for the region, for the international community, but most especially for the people of Somalia itself. Over the past 12 months we have seen the completion of the transitional roadmap ending the TFG and creating a new Somali Government. For the first time in nearly two decades, Somalia has a new provisional constitution. It has a newly selected parliament which is half the size of the former parliament and comprises some 18 percent women and whose membership is comprised of some 60 percent university graduates. There’s been a new speaker selected and a new president elected. Great progress has been achieved in Somalia, and this is in large measure because of the combined efforts of IGAD, the African Union, the UN and the international community, and especially the United States.

At this meeting, we heard from Somalia’s new president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and it was broadly agreed that the international community would support the new emphasis in priorities of the government.

For our part in Washington, we are determined to do three things. One is to help the new government put in place the infrastructure so that it can run effectively. This means helping to create effective government ministries, have those ministries staffed with effective civil servants and advisors so that they can carry out their government functions.

The second is to help to create a new Somali national army, an army that is subservient to civilian and constitutional control, an army that is able to work alongside of AMISOM and take on increasingly new responsibilities that are much broader than anything AMISOM has been equipped and manned to do. But creating a new strong Somali army, to eventually replace AMISOM is a second priority. And third priority is to provide assistance to the government so that it can deliver services to the people so that it can rebuild and refurbish and re-staff schools, hospitals, and medical clinics, provide assistance so that it can begin to deal with some of its smaller infrastructure issues, providing clean water to populations, helping to restore electrical power and also opening up markets. We also want to help in developing small enterprise and microcredit operations to help the government as well.

So we will be working there. As I said, Secretary Clinton was there. We think Somalia has made enormous progress. We also believe there has been significant military progress against al-Shabaab. AMISOM deserves an enormous amount of credit in driving al-Shabab out of Mogadishu and its environs and also moving against the city of Kismayo. Much credit for the operations in Kismayo go to the Kenyan forces who were a part of AMISOM, but we must praise the leadership of the Ugandan commanders who have led the AMISOM mission over the last four years. But Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti, Kenya all deserve credit, and they will soon be joined by forces arriving literally today and tomorrow from Sierra Leone to help strengthen AMISOM. But the international community has been in unison with IGAD and the AU, and the U.S. has been a significant and major contributor to this effort.

On Sudan, the third issue which was brought up and hosted by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon – we have seen very great progress there in the last three days. On Thursday evening in Addis Ababa, we saw an agreement signed by President Salva Kiir of South Sudan and President Bashir of Sudan to help resolve a number of outstanding issues related to oil, to revenue sharing, to citizenship, to pensions, and to debt. We recognize that there are a number of issues still outstanding related to Abyei, related to political consultations with respect to Blue Nile and South Kordofan, and to the important issue of humanitarian access to South Kordofan and Blue Nile, particularly in the Nuba Mountains. But progress has been made there in reducing tensions, reopening the borders, and getting those countries back to a position where we can see two viable states living in peace internally as well as with one another. So much discussion on Sudan. We were represented a high level at those meetings by Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, and we think progress has been forged there.

On the Eastern Congo, the last issue that was of great focus in New York last week, there was a meeting that brought together all of the regional Great Lakes states, including Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, but most importantly Eastern Congo with President Kabila and the DRC, with – sorry – and with Rwanda with President Kagame. Our objectives and the objectives of that conference were to do everything possible to reduce the tensions that exist between Rwanda and the DRC, and to restore trust and confidence between the leaders there, and to do as much as possible to help in the recurring violence that persists in the Eastern Congo, largely as a result of the incursion and the rebellion of the M23.

There, we are calling on all states not to support the M23 rebels; to denounce their activities publicly and to contribute as much as possible to the resolution of the problems in the DRC. We believe that it is absolutely critical that the countries in the region respect the sovereignty and the borders of their neighbors, that they not engage in supporting rebel activities across the borders, and that everyone take responsibilities for their action, the protection of their citizens and their resources, the protection of those people who are in their countries, and that they not, in effect, undermine the sovereignty and stability of regional states.

IIIÃ ll stop right there and take your questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you, Ambassador Carson. We are now ready for the question-and-answer portion of our call. To ask a question, please press *1 on your phone. Please state your name and affiliation before you ask your question. And our first question comes from Drew Hinshaw with the Wall Street Journal.

QUESTION: Hi, good afternoon. I wanted to ask – I was hoping you could elaborate a little bit on the outcome of the UN summit. You mentioned that the UN is drafting a strategy that will take into account the strategy being drafted by ECOWAS. I was wondering if you could elaborate. Is it fair to say that the UN is now the primary author of the strategy going forward? Are they working with what ECOWAS has already written? Has ECOWAS presented the broad outlines of a strategy yet? But —

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Thank you for the question. I think that the UN will try to coordinate effectively with all of the players in the region. ECOWAS clearly has a very important role to play. Many of its member states are neighbors of Mali. But we also have to recognize that there are other states in the region that have borders with Mali, whose views also need to be taken into account. And we also must recognize that there is an international dimension to this issue, and so there are reasons to make sure that the wider views of the international community are there.

ECOWAS has played a very valuable and important leadership role, but it is important to make sure that the views of Algeria are included. Algeria has a long border and history and relationship with Mali. The views of Mauritania are also critical, valuable, and important. They too share long borders with Mali. And in fact, Libya also is a critical player because they too have shared borders and shared interests there. All three of those countries – Algeria, Mauritania, and Libya – are not a part of ECOWAS. And in addition, countries like Chad have an interest and they are not a part of ECOWAS. The United States, France, the European community also are concerned about the situation there, and their views should be taken into account.

I stress that in the case of Somalia, where we have seen enormous progress over the last 12 months, and in fact, continuously over the last three, three and a half years, there has been a clear commitment by all who were engaged there to follow a common strategy and adopt a set of common views. EGAD and the East African community, who are the most important players around Somalia, the AU, the U.S., the UN and others have all had a common position. And I think that’s why Somalia has achieved so much success over the last 12 months in terms of moving to a more permanent government and making the strides in success against al-Shabaab. We look to try to have the same kind of both regional and international cooperation on Mali.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from the U.S. Mission in Kampala. Please state your name and your affiliation.

QUESTION: I am Julius Odeke from Kampala. I work with The Independent magazine. My question to Assistant Secretary is that initially, America was looking for a base to be stationed in Africa, but they recently they said they will not do that. Is that a sign that America is withdrawing from its military engagement in Africa?

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Julius, thank you very much for your question. I think you are referring to AMISOM, and I can say that there is at this moment no – and I repeat, no – intention to have an AMISOM headquarters located in Africa. AMISOM is located in Germany, and at this point its headquarters is likely to remain – sorry – I’m sorry – AFRICOM. I’m saying AMISOM; I should have said AFRICOM. AFRICOM is located in Stuttgart, Germany, and there’s no intention to move the AFRICOM headquarters outside of Germany at this point. I said AMISOM; I meant to say AFRICOM.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Tanzania. Please state your name and your affiliation.

QUESTION: My name is (inaudible). I work for the Tanzania (inaudible) newspaper. My question first of all is about the shift of America’s – or U.S. foreign policy. We have seen a lot of attention paid to Africa. We want to know whether there is any serious concern that what is going to be achieved is going to have an impact on the development of the region. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Yes. Thank you very much for the question from Tanzania. The United States has just recently published a new strategy for Africa. It was published in June of this year and is available on both the White House and the State Department website. That strategy for Africa is very clear. It says that we want to develop our friendship with Africa based on mutual respect, mutual interest, mutual responsibility. We want to base it on a partnership and not patronage. We want to elevate Africa’s importance in the international arena and we want to achieve – work with Africa to achieve four strategic objectives.

One is to strengthen democratic institutions and good governance. The second is to spur economic growth, investment, and trade between the United States and Africa. But we also want to help spur economic growth and trade amongst African states as well. Third, we want to help to bring about greater peace and security across the African continent. And in this area we continue to work with the international community – the UN, and others – to bring about greater peace and stability in places like Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan, and the Eastern Congo. And we will continue to work towards promoting peace, security, and stability in Africa. And fourthly, we want to work to help promote development and greater opportunity for all of AfricaaaÃ?s citizens, and there we will continue to focus on a number of priorities under the Obama Administration, including but not inclusive or exclusively working on things like Feed the Future, which is a program to help promote a green agricultural revolution across Africa, to end food insecurity, to grow agro industry.

And we will also work on public health issues through our Global Health Initiative, working to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, cholera, and to help build Africa’s public health institutions so that they are better able to provide services to their people. But we will do this through our USAID missions, we will do this through our centers for disease control, we will do this through the Millennium Challenge Corporation which provides multimillion dollar grants that are used to deal with major economic development and infrastructure challenges. But those are the four things that we will continue to work on.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Kigali, Rwanda. Please state your name and affiliation.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Ambassador Carson. My name is Edmund (inaudible). I work for the East African Nation Media Group. My question is about the Congo. I saw in the news in the morning that the U.S. Government has asked Rwanda to denounce M23 rebels. It appears there’s no one asking the DRC Government to address its internal issues, particularly the ones M23 are fighting for. I believe some of the issues they are asking the DRC Government to address are legitimate. So the way forward now, what is the position of the U.S. Government towards the issues inside the DRC? Are we going to see the U.S. Government asking DRC to address the issues now that we see in the papers that (inaudible) speaking Congolese feel that a genocide will happen soon? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Thank you very Ã? Edmund. Thank you very much for that question from Kigali. First of all, our desire is to see peace and security and development in the Eastern Congo just as we see peace and security and development occurring in Rwanda, in Uganda, in Tanzania, and other neighboring states in the Great Lakes. We seek for the people of the Eastern Congo what you enjoy in Kigali, what people enjoy in Tanzania, in Lusaka, in Kampala.

Each of these states in the region have responsibilities, and their leaders have responsibilities. In the DRC, President Kabila clearly has the responsibilities. His challenges are great, but his responsibilities are equally important. President Kabila, amongst other things, must in fact protect all of the Congolese citizens irrespective of their ethnicity and their language, and this includes the large Banyamulenge and Rwandaphone populations that exist there in both South Kivu and in North Kivu. He has that responsibility as the president of his country.

He also has the responsibility to protect women and girls. We know that the Eastern Congo is probably the most violent place in the world for girls and women to live. There must be better protection of the rights of women. He has a responsibility to go after and to eradicate all armed rebel groups operating in his country Ã? the exFARfar, the Interahamwe, the FDLR, and also the M23 as well. They are rebels. They are a dissident group. He has a responsibility to ensure that the minerals of his country are exported and handled in a transparent way and that they are not the source of corruption or misuse. He has the responsibility to improve dramatically his security services so that they protect people and not prey on them. All of these are responsibilities that President Kabila has in his country.

But let me also say that there are responsibilities for the neighboring states as well, and those responsibilities are clear. They are not to support rebel groups operating against the country or a neighboring country. It’s not to train or to politically influence or to ship arms to rebel groups that undermine the security of a neighboring state. And it is not and should not be too much to ask the Government of Rwanda to denounce a rebel group that is preying on the lives of people or undermining the stability of a neighbor. So the call for the Government to reject the territorial and political and rebellious ambitions of the M23 are not and should not be too much. The M23 is led by individuals who are ICC and IT. They’re led by people whoooÃ?ve carried out serious human rights violations. So it should not be too much to ask the Government of Rwanda to do this, to ask that. And that’s a responsibility on that side of the border as well.

There are responsibilities held by all, and it is when everyone exercises those responsibilities appropriately and correctly and transparently that we have peace and stability. It is important that tensions be defused between the regional states, including Rwanda and the DRC, that trust be restored between these two countries, and that confidence be rebuilt. And so each country has responsibilities, and when those responsibilities are lived up to, we have a greater chance for peace, stability, and the harmony that can and should exist throughout that region.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Jo Biddle. Please state your affiliation.

QUESTION: Good morning. Jo Biddle from Agence France-Presse, phoning in from the State Department. Thank you very much for organizing this call. Last week I was at Ã? I watched the Sahel meeting that was happening in the United Nations, and there were many calls from African countries, supported by France, for a military force to go into Mali and try to flush out the rebels, the Islamic rebels that are spreading terror in that region. You mentioned that you thought the issue of the Tuareg was Ã? should be resolved politically and not militarily, but on the Islamic side of things, is the United States going to support a military ECOWAS-led mission for the Sahel region, and – yeah, could you talk to that, please?

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Let me – thank you very much for the question from Agence France-Presse. The – all four issues that I mentioned earlier are critical, and they must be done simultaneously. It is absolutely critically important for there to be democratic progress in Mali, that there be a restoration of the civilian democratic constitutional government, and that needs to be done as soon as possible. It needs to occur alongside of progress in these other areas.

But let me tell you why I start there, because if you donnnÃ?t have a strong, creditable government in Bamako, the ability to negotiate a political solution with the Tuareg, one that has credibility, one that will be carried out, will be weakened. If you don’t have a strong, creditable government in Bamako, it will be difficult to have a military which is capable of leading as it should the liberation in the northern part of the country. Any ECOWAS military activities in Northern Mali should, in fact, have the Malian military as the lead and ECOWAS fighting alongside of it. But it is not just ECOWAS. It is important that what goes on up there have the support of all of the states in the region. The ECOWAS states, as well as Mauritania and Algeria and others in the area, must also be a part of this policy. After all, the states in the north have long borders with Mali.

But yes, I say that there will have to be, at some point, military action to push the AQIM and the MUJAO out of the north and out of the control that they are exercising over towns like Timbuktu and Kidal and Gao. But any military action up there must indeed be well planned, well organized, well resourced, and well thought through. And it must, in fact, be agreed upon by those who are going to be most affected by it.

So it is not something that should be taken lightly. There were strong calls, including from France, for action to be taken. We, too, in Washington have been appalled by the destruction of many of Mali’s valuable historical texts, by the destruction of mosque and historically important buildings, and by the attempt to impose extremist ideology on the communities. Clearly, some action must be taken. But as I said, it should be well planned, well organized, well executed, and well resourced. I think this is important.

All of these things must be done. They must be done simultaneously. But it is imperative that things move forward democratically in Bamako and that we see a restoration of democracy there. If we don’t have that, it will not – the other activities will not be nearly as effective and strong. All things must be moved simultaneously.

OPERATOR: We now have time for one more question, and that comes from Kevin Kelly with the Nation Media Group.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Thanks very much to Ambassador Carson for agreeing to do this, but I actually have two questions. One pertains to his mention before about the United States helping to build a Somali national army. I’m wondering if you could give me details on that, what the timetable and the funding might be for that.

And related to it, do you have concerns, Ambassador Carson, about what will happen next in Kismayo? Do you see that the Kenyan presence there might be interpreted eventually as an army of occupation? As you well know, there’s a lot of nationalist feeling in Somalia that outsiders are not generally welcome in these circumstances. Thanks a lot.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Thank you very much for those two questions on Somalia. First of all, we applaud the work of AMISOM and what they have done in helping to degrade and defeat and push al-Shabaab out of Somalia’s main cities and towns. We believe that this will help to bring about a return to stability in Somalia and will reduce, over time, the terrorist threat to Somalis and to neighboring states. We believe that the Kenyan role in liberating the south as a part of AMISOM is important and deserves the support of both IGAD, the African Union, and the international community.

We recognize that Kismayo is comprised of a number of clans and sub-clans in Somalia, and that there will be clan competition. We hope that the Kenyan presence there will not be seen as an occupying force, and that the government in Mogadishu, working alongside of AMISOM and the UN, will go in very quickly and establish political stability and a political system that takes into account the various clan and sub-clan interests. The Kenyan presence is not intended to be a military occupation. It is intended to be a part of a temporary – a very temporary liberation strategy that quickly allows Somali leadership to take control. And this leadership should come from Mogadishu, should come from the new government led by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.

I think that the Kenyans have no interest in trying to establish political authority there. They simply want to help drive out al-Shabaab, help liberate the country, help create the stability that has been long absent. But we hope that the Somali Government will move in quickly, working with IGAD to restore the political leadership that’s important for running Kismayo. But this has been a major step forward. We should applaud what has been done. And we want to work to encourage the political forces to move in to help stabilize the situation.

On this – on the first question that you asked, we have in Washington been strong supporters of AMISOM, major contributors to the AMISOM effort, largely by training and equipping AMISOM battalions that have gone into Somalia to help fight the al-Shabaab. Going forward, we would anticipate that most of our new and additional resources, as they come to us, will be directed at helping to train and provision a new Somali military, not to continue to expand AMISOM. The focus should be on creating a national Somali army that will take over from AMISOM and will assume the responsibilities of providing national security and defense for the nation.

I do not at this time have any dollar figures that I can share with you on what we would be providing to the Somali Government to train Somali military forces. We have done some of this in the past. We have trained small units of Somali TFG troops in Bihanga, Uganda at a military camp. We would expect that we will, over time, continue to do this and expand it and to make more of the training local in Somalia for both cost effectiveness and for political reasons. But we look at the focus going forward being directed at strengthening the Somali national military and not expanding the AMISOM effort, which has been extraordinarily valuable and important.

MODERATOR: That concludes today’s call. I would like to thank Ambassador Johnnie Carson for joining us, and thank all of our callers for participating in today’s call. I know many of you did not get the opportunity to ask your questions, so if you have any questions about today’s call, you can contact the African – the Africa Regional Media Hub at AFMediahub@state.gov. Thank you.

Source: Africa Regional Media Hub

 


Oil Wars : The BP entry in Iraq [rare documentation]

First Release, 27 April 2011

These five documents are minutes of meetings about Iraq between the UK government and oil companies BP and Shell, ion the six months before the war. They were reported in the Independent on 19 April 2011.

The documents do not demonstrate that oil was the reason for the war. But they do show that during the preparations for war, oil was a central concern for the UK government, disproving its claims that it was not interested in Iraq’s oil.

The documents also provide a remarkable insight into the interaction between oil companies and government, at the highest levels. We see that the government needed no persuasion that it should help the companies – the civil servants clearly saw themselves as on the same side as the oilmen. The companies could barely contain their excitement about Iraq – “the big oil prospect”, as BP put it in one meeting (DOCUMENT 3) – and the tone is quite unlike that usually seen in minutes of government meetings. The companies and government officials alike had no doubt that a war would take place, months before the parliamentary vote and while the government struggling (unsuccessfully) to persuade the UN Security Council to pass resolution authorising the war.

From the company perspective, the main purpose of the meetings was to ensure that they got their share (as they saw it) of Iraqi oilfields after the war. They were especially worried that the US government would naturally favour US companies, and might offer other fields to French, Russian or Chinese companies in exchange for their governments’ support in the UN Security Council. Tony Blair had already pledged British participation in the war, and so the British companies feared that with no bargaining power they’d be left out.

Trade Minister Baroness Symons – a staunch Blairite and active member of the British American Project, which had aimed since the 1980s to align the Labour Party’s foreign policy with that of the USA – was present in two of the meetings. She said [DOCUMENT 2] that “It would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis”. In other words, if British forces fight in a war then British companies should get a share of the spoils. This view is clearly unethical, but is also arguably illegal, under the Fourth Hague Convention.

BP and Shell both claimed that no such meetings took place. These minutes show such claims to be untrue. When invited to explain the discrepancy, both companies declined to comment. For her part, Symons said to Parliament in April 2003 that Iraq’s oil was “the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which should be used for their benefit, and for their benefit alone” – this was not what she said in private to the oil companies.

For more commentary on these documents, including the companies’ objectives and their history of deals with the Saddam regime, please see Chapter Four of Fuel on the Fire. For more on the UK and US governments’ strategic oil objectives, please see Chapter Three.

  • DOCUMENT  1 – Meeting of Edward Chaplin (Middle East Director, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO)) with Tony Wildig (Senior Vice President for New Business in Middle East, Shell), 2 October 2002.


Chaplin: “Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in it for the sake of their long-term future… We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.”

DOCUMENT 2 – Meeting of Baroness Liz Symons (Trade Minister) with representatives of BP (Richard Paniguian, Tony Renton), Shell (John Withrington, Gavin Graham) and BG (Bethell), 31 October 2002.

BP: Iraq “would provide an immense strategic advantage to any company which emerged in a commanding position”

Symons: “Anything of this nature would be highly sensitive and kept very close”.

DOCUMENT 3 – Meeting of Michael Arthur (Head of Economic Policy, FCO) with Richard Paniguian (Group Vice President for Russia, the Caspian, Middle East and Africa), 6 November 2002.

“Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there.”

BP: “Vitally important – more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time.”

DOCUMENT 4 – Meeting of Baroness Symons with Richard Paniguian and Tony Renton (Commercial Director Middle East, BP), 4 December 2002

Discussion of US planning efforts for Iraqi oil. “It was clear that Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the INC [Iraq National Congress] had a key role in selecting who was involved in these groups”.
“BP believed that the US authorities need to start giving some serious consideration to a number of issues on the future of Iraq’s oil industry including Iraq’s role in OPEC, the role of both existing and future Oil Ministry and State Owned Oil Company.”
Note that BP wanted more involvement of Iraqi expertise – presumably for greater stability for any investment.

DOCUMENT 5 – Meeting of John Browne (Chief Executive, BP) with Michael Jay (Permanent Undersecretary, FCO), 18 March 2003

This meeting took place less than 48 hours before bombs started falling on Baghdad, at the highest level: the head of BP with the most senior civil servant in the FCO. Of Jay’s five predecessors in that role, four had become directors of oil and gas companies on retirement from government service (two at Shell and one each at BP and BG).
BP had a team ready. But in the longer-term development of Iraq’s oilfields “They would not wish to be involved unless they were clear that administrative and other structures were in place to ensure that their involvement would be acceptable to whatever government followed military action”. This political conservatism by the major oil companies would shape the evolution of Iraqi oil policy during the early years of the occupation. Note however that Browne did not apparently make the more common point that such deals would have to be legal.

Second Release – 27 April 2011

These three documents set out the British government’s objectives for Iraqi oil, and its strategies for how to achieve them. They were reported in the Independent on 20 April 2011.

The documents stand in stark contrast to public claims by the government that it had no interest in Iraq’s oil. For example, Tony Blair said in February 2003 that “The oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it.” Three months later, a Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) strategy paper (DOCUMENT 6) would declare, “The future shape of the Iraqi oil industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of OPEC, in both of which we have a vital interest.” That paper was written less than two weeks after President Bush declared “mission accomplished” on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The nature of British and American interests in Iraqi and Middle Eastern oil is explored in Chapter 3 of Fuel on the Fire. It is not as simple as to ‘take the oil’ (as Donald Trump has been saying over the last few weeks as a launchpad for his presidential campaign). And nor is it just about getting contracts for their own companies, although that was a secondary aim, as discussed in the pre-war Whitehall meetings. The most important strategic interest lay in expanding global energy supplies, through foreign investment, in some of the world’s largest oil reserves – in particular Iraq. This meshed neatly with the secondary aim of securing contracts for their companies. Note that the strategy documents released here tend to refer to “British and global energy supplies”. British energy security is to be obtained by there being ample global supplies – it is not about the specific flow, as if physical Iraqi oil goes to China rather than Europe, another source (say, in Africa) can be re-rerouted from China to Europe in its place.
Chapters 9 and 11 of Fuel on the Fire look at how Britain and the USA sought to achieve their oil objectives during the early years of the occupation (before the formation of a permanent government in 2006). Those chapters contextualise and interpret these three British strategy documents; they also reflect on the favoured euphemism of “advice” (which implies that Iraqi leaders were independently able to take or leave the advice).
DOCUMENT 6 – Iraqi oil and British interests, FCO paper, 12 May 2003

As its title suggests, this document is quite blunt about British interests, not bothering to dress up its proposals as being in Iraqi interests. And it notes the interplay between British energy security and commercial interests.

DOCUMENT 7 – Management change in the Iraqi oil sector, 27 May 2003

Two weeks later, this document was prepared for an interdepartment meeting of the government’s Oil Sector Liaison Group, comprising officials from the FCO, the Treasury, the Department of Trade & Industry and the Department for International Development.
Unlike the previous document, this expresses its aims as being in the interests of Iraqis – yet of the seven items in the objectives list on page 4, five are quite plainly British rather than Iraqi concerns. Even the other two (the 4th and 5th) are only what outsiders imagine Iraqi concerns to be, rather inaccurately.
Note especially the aim for Iraq to be a role model for the other major oil countries in the region, and the call for it to remain within OPEC but as an advocate of lower oil prices.

DOCUMENT 8 – UK Energy Strategy for Iraq, September 2004

This too was an interdepartmental paper, and is quite clear about how Britain would influence the evolving Iraqi oil policy. Note especially the recognition that Iraqis won’t like the plans.


Thomas Mapfumo – Ndavekuenda chimurenga forever