Secret U.K. government papers reveal direct relation between Oil firms and Iraq invasion

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

United States of Zionism & War for Oil

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show. The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd". But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture. Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to USZ plans for regime change. The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with USZ, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read:

"Baroness Symons agreed 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 USZ government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts. The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state:

"Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted:

"Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] 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."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time". BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world. Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP (British Petroleum) and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq. Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil. Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on the Fire is published next week, said:

"Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims. We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP:

"Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003:

"Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003:

"We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003:

"It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding:

"We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook
Follow PCF on Twitter

{EOP}No Peace Without The Taliban

By Rasul Bakhsh Rais
Since President Barack Obama set a deadline, though vague, to start pulling out troops from Afghanistan by the summer of this year, its regional and other allies have been grappling with three questions: How long can the US keep fighting in such a remote country as Afghanistan? Can it win the war there? What are the alternative paths to the war in Afghanistan?
From whichever angle you see it, none of these questions, or any other, about the present and future of Afghanistan can be answered reasonably without the dreaded word is not a six-letter one, but a seven-letter one:  T A L I B A N. The US and its allies, after wasting so much money and blood for almost a decade, cannot claim to have won the war, or even succeeded in crippling the power of the Taliban beyond repair. Frankly speaking, the Taliban are the ones who are fighting against the so-called International Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan, spearheaded by Britain and the United States, thus peace and stability cannot be brought about without their being routed completely or with some mutually negotiated deal.
While thinking of the future of Afghanistan, facts on the ground cannot be denied — denial may score propaganda points, but will never help form realistic expectations. What are these facts? The United States cannot hope to defeat the Taliban, as much as the Taliban cannot hope to defeat the US. The logic of their war falls into a simplistic conventional calculation — increase the adversary’s costs to force him to a reasonable solution.
Another fact is that both the Taliban and the United States, by the logic of their ideological make-up and local, regional and global responsibilities, cannot just pack up and leave Afghanistan. By the same token, the Taliban cannot just disappear, as in they are a reality and should be acknowledged as such. None of the two adversaries is likely to quit the country unless they are assured of their minimal objectives.
Thirdly, the foreign forces, with all the destructive technology and power that they have brought to bear on the Taliban and Taliban-controlled Pashtun regions, cannot compete with factors such as  home turf and support from the population. Foreign forces can rent, as they have, some territory and some sectors of the populations, but can never compensate for the foreignness in a hostile climate shaped by national and religious sentiments.
One way the foreign forces and their local Afghan allies tried to deny legitimacy to the Taliban is to portray them as foreigners — in ideas, aspirations and alignments. That has neither worked enough to establish the autonomy of those Afghan factions that support the current foreign intervention or the earlier one by the Soviet Union. Furthermore, this does not diminish the organic links that the Taliban or the mujahideen have with local populations. Without this link, no insurgency can sustain its war efforts or even hope to survive against the odds the Taliban have faced.
Of late, there appears to be latent appreciation of these facts in Washington as well as in European capitals. It seems the reading of these facts began a long time ago, but adjusting to the bitter truths took some time. Afghan leaders, notably President Hamid Karzai and some of his colleagues, understand Afghan society and people better than any one of us in Pakistan or in the western world. If I am not wrong, deadly wars have made Afghans wiser. For this reason, they have increasingly committed themselves to peace and reconciliation among themselves. Clearly, since the Taliban are the central actors in the Afghan insurgency, no peace or reconciliation may be possible without them being a part of it.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 18^th,  2011.

{EOP}Pakistan Test Fires New Nuclear Capable Missile

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s military says it has test-fired a newly developed short-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
A military statement says the “Hatf 9″ missile was successfully launched from an undisclosed location on Tuesday.
It says the missile has a range of 60 kilometers and can carry nuclear warheads with high accuracy.
Pakistan routinely test-fires what it claims are indigenously developed short and long-range missiles capable of carrying the country’s nuclear weapons.

{EOP}Libya's link to USZ economic collapse

What's NATO’s operation in Libya got to do with the previously impending shutdown of the USZ government which is still standing on shaky grounds? In short: a lot. And here's why. In Libya, fancy USZ weapon systems hammer the tanks and air-crafts of Muammar Gaddafi very successfully. Before that, the USZ war machine trampled the resistance put up by Iraq (twice), as well as by Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. In military terms there was no contest. It was clear from get-go that modern airplanes and missiles in the USZ/NATO arsenal would beat those antiquated air defenses roughly the way British machine guns mowed down tens of thousands of Sudanese Mahdist rebels roughly 100 years ago in the Battle of Atbara. Here's a caveat though. The USZ weapons used in all those wars were not exactly state-of-the-art. They surely were more modern than those of Saddam or, especially, the anti-aircraft guns of Mullah Omar. And, in a departure from the Atbara legacy where there was one machine gun per thousand attackers, this time the ratio is more like "one enemy – one gun."

F-22 Raptor

That raises a question. Why on Earth does the United States of Zionism need for instance the F-22 Raptor, the most modern plane in the world of those already mass produced and flying? On March 29, 2011 the USZ Government Accountability Office released figures indicating that, “Program acquisition unit costs for the F-22 Raptor have almost tripled, from $139 million to $412 million per airplane.” That the F-22 Raptor did not partake in the aerial campaign in Libya, despite expectations, would make sense – the “golden” machine is an air superiority fighter, not ground attack plane, it barely has that capability. The reported problems with the F-22's version of Multifunction Advanced Datalink – a network that allows NATO planes to communicate with each other- as well as reported technical glitches with this mega-expensive plane, are beyond the scope of this story.

The big question is why are they needed in principle – all 187 fifth-generation stealth air superiority fighters, designed to defeat any adversary in the skies? Initially designed to combat the Soviet planes in the 1980s (sic!), they stand as a shining example of why the United States of Zionism finds itself so much in debt. There are voices essentially saying that the F-22 program is nearly completed now that the USZ leads the rest of the world 187 to love in fifth generation fighters and you won't save nothing by wrapping it up now. Great. But there's another fifth generation fighter in the works – the F-35, currently estimated to cost around US$150M a piece. The United States of Zionism government expects to purchase some 2,400 F-35s from Lockheed Martin for an estimated USZ $323 billion. Wow. That simply makes it the Most-Expensive-Defense-Program- ever.

Overall according to the GAO 's assessment: "Since 2008, DOD's (USZ Department of Defense) portfolio of major defense acquisition programs has grown from 96 to 98 programs, and its investment in those programs has grown to $1.68 trillion!" That begs the fundamental question – to fight whom, exactly? If you look at defense spending in the rest of the world and assume that this is how you calculate who are potential enemies, it won't take you long to arrive to the conclusion that China, Russia and India are the only three countries among the top ten defense spenders not in a formal longstanding military alliance with the USZ. But their combined military expenditures are less than a third of those of the United States of Zionism. And the leaders of all three countries were given top flight receptions by globalist puppet President Obama in recent years, effectively marking them as America's friends.

They also happen to be big holders of the USZ national debt – effectively buying up the dollars that the USZ Treasury prints. And that brings us to the issue of debt and potential government shutdown. The budget of the United States of Zionism is fairly easy to read and understand. Roughly half of it goes to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid – in other parts of the world they are known as pensions and disabilities assistance. These are funded by separate laws and can't be changed at will. Another roughly quarter of the budget is military spending – and only the remaining quarter is everything else – from education to nature protection to science. Amazingly, when Obama speaks of his priorities in spending he lists "jobs, health care, clean energy, education, and infrastructure." Which bit of that plan includes spending on F-22s and F-35s? And why in that "guns versus butter" question, do guns in the USZ always, always seem to win. Make that "very expensive and unnecessary" guns.

Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

{EOP}Pakistan Army outraged at NATO-USZ protecting TTP terrorists in Kunar Province of Afghanistan

Fresh from a bloody victory against the CIA backed TTP terrorists in the rugged frontier outpost, the commander of Pakistani forces has lashed out at the NATO operation across the border in Afghanistan, where he says hundreds of TTP (CIA funded Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) terrorists have sought refuge under the noses of American troops. Colonel Nauman Saeed, the commander of Pakistani forces in the Bajaur tribal agency, has led his men on a two-year campaign to drive out thousands of TTP militants and CIA backed millitants i.e., CIA's terror boogieman named Al-Qaeda. Pakistan lost 150 soldiers during the operation, which culminated in a battle over the militant headquarters in a series of tunnels dug out of rock. At the height of their power the CIA backed TTP terrorists collected taxes (which is absolutely un-Islamic!), ran a primitive justice system and used Bajaur as a base to build bombs. Colonel Saeed pointed to a map over his desk that showed an area marked in red where insurgents were still active along the border with Afghanistan’s Kunar province, which includes the Korengal Valley from where USZ forces have withdrawn.
“We not only feel frustrated, we feel let down”, he told The Times, adding that there was intelligence to suggest that 700 TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) terrorists were just across the border.

“We still see no action (by the Americans). They are doing what they can do — we say they need to do more.”

His views, echoed by military and intelligence officers in Islamabad, mark a dramatic turn in the conflict. For years, America and Afghanistan accused the Pakistanis of not doing enough to tackle the insurgents on their territory. Since Pakistan began its campaign two years ago it is Islamabad that is complaining that America, NATO and the Afghan puppets are not pulling their weight. Colonel Saeed also criticised Western aid agencies that promised to help reconstruction and development in the tribal areas but have so far done little in his area of operations. “We have a share of the development budget and we have spent every penny,” he said. “But it is too little. The scale of what is needed is much bigger.”

Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

{EOP}80 TTP terrorists surrender in Mohmand

In the backdrop of military offensive continued against militants in Mohmand Agency, around 80 militants surrendered to security forces in Sagi area of the agency, on Tuesday. Sources said the surrendering militants announced not to be a part of any subversive activities against Pakistan. They handed over their weapons to security forces. Likewise, the tribesmen of Bezi tribe announced to fight with those who are challenging the writ of the government in the agency. Meanwhile IG Frontier Corps Nader Zeb visited the restive Mohmand Agency and assessed the overall situation of the operation. He said that he saluted the security forces for their sacrifices and directed the force to face the challenges valiantly for the cause of the country. Security forces and TTP terrorists also exchanged firing here, however no casualties were reported.
Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Libya's link to USZ economic collapse

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

What's NATO’s operation in Libya got to do with the previously impending shutdown of the USZ government which is still standing on shaky grounds? In short: a lot. And here's why. In Libya, fancy USZ weapon systems hammer the tanks and air-crafts of Muammar Gaddafi very successfully. Before that, the USZ war machine trampled the resistance put up by Iraq (twice), as well as by Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. In military terms there was no contest. It was clear from get-go that modern airplanes and missiles in the USZ/NATO arsenal would beat those antiquated air defenses roughly the way British machine guns mowed down tens of thousands of Sudanese Mahdist rebels roughly 100 years ago in the Battle of Atbara. Here's a caveat though. The USZ weapons used in all those wars were not exactly state-of-the-art. They surely were more modern than those of Saddam or, especially, the anti-aircraft guns of Mullah Omar. And, in a departure from the Atbara legacy where there was one machine gun per thousand attackers, this time the ratio is more like "one enemy – one gun."

F-22 Raptor

That raises a question. Why on Earth does the United States of Zionism need for instance the F-22 Raptor, the most modern plane in the world of those already mass produced and flying? On March 29, 2011 the USZ Government Accountability Office released figures indicating that, “Program acquisition unit costs for the F-22 Raptor have almost tripled, from $139 million to $412 million per airplane.” That the F-22 Raptor did not partake in the aerial campaign in Libya, despite expectations, would make sense – the “golden” machine is an air superiority fighter, not ground attack plane, it barely has that capability. The reported problems with the F-22's version of Multifunction Advanced Datalink – a network that allows NATO planes to communicate with each other- as well as reported technical glitches with this mega-expensive plane, are beyond the scope of this story.

The big question is why are they needed in principle – all 187 fifth-generation stealth air superiority fighters, designed to defeat any adversary in the skies? Initially designed to combat the Soviet planes in the 1980s (sic!), they stand as a shining example of why the United States of Zionism finds itself so much in debt. There are voices essentially saying that the F-22 program is nearly completed now that the USZ leads the rest of the world 187 to love in fifth generation fighters and you won't save nothing by wrapping it up now. Great. But there's another fifth generation fighter in the works – the F-35, currently estimated to cost around US$150M a piece. The United States of Zionism government expects to purchase some 2,400 F-35s from Lockheed Martin for an estimated USZ $323 billion. Wow. That simply makes it the Most-Expensive-Defense-Program- ever.

Overall according to the GAO 's assessment: "Since 2008, DOD's (USZ Department of Defense) portfolio of major defense acquisition programs has grown from 96 to 98 programs, and its investment in those programs has grown to $1.68 trillion!" That begs the fundamental question – to fight whom, exactly? If you look at defense spending in the rest of the world and assume that this is how you calculate who are potential enemies, it won't take you long to arrive to the conclusion that China, Russia and India are the only three countries among the top ten defense spenders not in a formal longstanding military alliance with the USZ. But their combined military expenditures are less than a third of those of the United States of Zionism. And the leaders of all three countries were given top flight receptions by globalist puppet President Obama in recent years, effectively marking them as America's friends.

They also happen to be big holders of the USZ national debt – effectively buying up the dollars that the USZ Treasury prints. And that brings us to the issue of debt and potential government shutdown. The budget of the United States of Zionism is fairly easy to read and understand. Roughly half of it goes to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid – in other parts of the world they are known as pensions and disabilities assistance. These are funded by separate laws and can't be changed at will. Another roughly quarter of the budget is military spending – and only the remaining quarter is everything else – from education to nature protection to science. Amazingly, when Obama speaks of his priorities in spending he lists "jobs, health care, clean energy, education, and infrastructure." Which bit of that plan includes spending on F-22s and F-35s? And why in that "guns versus butter" question, do guns in the USZ always, always seem to win. Make that "very expensive and unnecessary" guns.

 

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook
Follow PCF on Twitter

80 TTP terrorists surrender in Mohmand

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

In the backdrop of military offensive continued against militants in Mohmand Agency, around 80 militants surrendered to security forces in Sagi area of the agency, on Tuesday. Sources said the surrendering militants announced not to be a part of any subversive activities against Pakistan. They handed over their weapons to security forces. Likewise, the tribesmen of Bezi tribe announced to fight with those who are challenging the writ of the government in the agency. Meanwhile IG Frontier Corps Nader Zeb visited the restive Mohmand Agency and assessed the overall situation of the operation. He said that he saluted the security forces for their sacrifices and directed the force to face the challenges valiantly for the cause of the country. Security forces and TTP terrorists also exchanged firing here, however no casualties were reported.

 

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Follow PCF on Facebook
Follow PCF on Twitter