Did Mandela’s friend supply chemical weapons to Syrian rebels?

September 8, 2013
Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Nelson Mandela
REPORTS from Syria by Jordanian journalists allege that it was Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia who distributed those chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels.
If true, it indicates the chemical attack in Damascus to have been a false-flag operation by the American war business.
This would be entirely in keeping with Prince Bandar’s history of organising the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s, the Iran-Contra weapons exchanges, Libya in 2011, the suppression of the Shia uprising in Bahrain, Saudi support for the coup d’etat in Egypt and support for Syrian rebels.
Other reports confirm that Prince Bandar also went to see Russian President Vladimir Putin last month and offered to buy $15bn worth of Russian weapons provided Mr Putin abandoned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr Putin gave him short shrift.
Prince Bandar was not only the Saudi ambassador in Washington for 22 years and friends of Ronald Reagan and the Bush family, but he also negotiated the 1985 £43bn Al-Yamamah weapons deal with Margaret Thatcher, which Tony Blair renewed in 2007 with the Al-Salaam weapons deal.
When the British Serious Fraud Office investigated the bribes which BAE Systems paid him, Prince Bandar allegedly threatened blood in the streets of London.
Mr Blair squelched the investigation citing “national security.” The Guardian newspaper revealed a couple of months later how BAE with collusion of the British government had laundered bribes to Prince Bandar of over £1bn through Riggs Bank in Washington DC and other US banks.
Most importantly, Prince Bandar and Ms Thatcher negotiated the Al-Yamamah deal under the British Official Secrets Act, meaning that it cannot be investigated in Britain.
Saudi Arabia ships thousands of barrels per day of oil consigned to the Bank of England, which is then distributed to Shell and BP.
Over the years a surplus has developed, which is guesstimated to be worth over $150bn. Its purpose is a) to guarantee British and US support for the Saudi royal family against domestic insurrection and b) to fund covert destabilisation of resource-rich countries in Asia and Africa under the guise of the war on terror.
Having targeted Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and other countries over the years, Syria and Egypt are Prince Bandar’s current targets. When will SA be targeted by the American and British “war business” given our country’s mineral wealth?
Saudi Arabia made lavish donations to the African National Congress. Prince Bandar was also the only foreigner present at Nelson Mandela’s secret wedding to Graca Machel, and was a frequent visitor to SA when the arms deal was being negotiated.

NO HOT BREAKFAST FOR U.S. TROOPS in Afghanistan

February 3, 2013


MRE loading(bokertov)(SultanKnish)UPDATE: While it’s true that not all our servicemen in Afghanistan are receiving HOT breakfasts, they are being given MRE’s (Meals Ready to Eat). Lori Lowenthal Marcus reports the unimaginable at The Jewish Press: As originally reported on the congressional website of Republican Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa (IA-01), the U.S. Army has stopped serving breakfast to American troops serving on 17 bases in Afghanistan.  The measure, which will be extended further beginning this weekend, is one of the earliest stages in the U.S. military pull-out from Afghanistan.House of husseinOn his website, Braley explained he learned about the military’s cutbacks from Iowa constituents whose family members are serving in Afghanistan. What did you expect, when you put an anti-American community organizer in the White House? STOP OBAMA at the corner of Hagel and Brennan. Call AND write: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfmAnd “for good measure”  http://www.house.gov/representatives/


New library shows off 1000-year-old Jewish documents from Afghanistan

January 5, 2013
(yourjewishnews.com) Ancient Jewish documents that were discovered in Afghanistan recently, were put on public display in Israel, according to press reports from Israel.

The National Library of Israel, the current holder of the documents also promised to have all the documents put online in the near future, according to press reports in Israel.
Media_httpts3mmbingne_cozboThe collection of ancient manuscripts, most of them in Hebrew characters were rescued from the caves in a Taliban stronghold in northern Afghanistan, and is providing the first physical evidence of a Jewish community that flourished there for at least a thousand years.
The National Library of Israel Thursday revealed the stash of newly acquired documents that cover the full range of life experiences, including biblical commentaries, personal letters and financial records.
Researchers say the “Afghan Genizah” marks the largest such file found since the “Cairo Genizah” was discovered in an Egyptian synagogue over 100 years ago. The documents comprise a large deposit of medieval manuscripts among the most valuable collections of historical documents found.
Genizah, a Hebrew term that loosely translates as “storage” refers to a storeroom next to a synagogue and a Jewish cemetery for Hebrew-language books and papers. According to Jewish law, it is forbidden to throw away writings containing the formal names of God, so they are buried or stored.


Top U.S. commander in Afghanistan under investigation, scandal widens

November 13, 2012

(Reuters) – The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, is under investigation for allegedly inappropriate communication with a woman at the center of the scandal involving former CIA Director David
Petraeus, a senior U.S. defense official said on Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The shocking revelation threatens to fell another one of the U.S. military’s biggest names and suggests that the scandal involving Petraeus – a former four-star general who had Allen’s job in Afghanistan before moving to the CIA last year – could expand much further than previously imagined.
The U.S. official said the FBI uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of communications – mostly emails and spanning from 2010 to 2012 – between Allen and Jill Kelley, who has been identified as a long-time friend of the Petraeus family and a Tampa, Florida, volunteer social liaison with military families at MacDill Air Force Base.
It was Kelley’s complaints about harassing emails from the woman with whom Petraeus had had an affair, Paula Broadwell, that prompted an FBI investigation, ultimately alerting authorities to Petraeus’ involvement with Broadwell. Petraeus resigned from his job on Friday.
Asked whether there was concern about the disclosure of classified information, the official said: “We are concerned about inappropriate communications. We are not going to speculate as to what is contained in these documents.”
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a statement given to reporters flying with him to Australia that he asked that Allen’s nomination to be Commander of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe be delayed “and the president has agreed.”
Allen, who is now in Washington, was due to face a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday, as was his slated successor in Afghanistan, General Joseph Dunford.
The FBI referred the case to the Pentagon on Sunday and Panetta directed the Defense Department’s Inspector General to handle the investigation. Panetta informed the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee during the flight to Australia. The House Armed Services Committee was also notified.
The U.S. defense official said that Allen denied any wrongdoing and that Panetta had opted to keep him in his job while the matter was under review, and until Dunford can be confirmed to replace him – a process that gains urgency given the potentially lengthy review process and the cloud it could cast over the mission in Afghanistan.
“While the matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined, General Allen will remain commander of ISAF,” Panetta said, referring to the NATO—led force in Afghanistan.
Only hours earlier, Panetta had said he was reviewing Allen’s recommendations on the future U.S. presence in Afghanistan after most troops withdraw by the end of 2014.
Commending Allen’s leadership in Afghanistan, Panetta said in his statement: “He is entitled to due process in this matter.”
At the same time, he noted that wanted the Senate to act “promptly” on Dunford’s nomination.
The U.S. official said Panetta was informed of the matter involving Allen on Sunday, as he flew to Hawaii, after the Pentagon’s top lawyer called Panetta’s chief of staff. The White House was informed next.
(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)


Lilly Pad Solution: Afghanistan is a Charade?

March 17, 2012
Media_httppooltwincit_yxchv
This is what I’ve been trying to say since 911. I kept on saying we need little bases all over the place… sometimes little Israels in places where there are resources… but for the most part there is no point in occupying our enemies and nation building. I’m not a military general… so no one listened to me, but here is a guy who has the same idea I had… and he has the credentials.

Trying to Define Victories for America In the Middle East
(h/t Docs Talk) By Paul E. Vallely

A charade is defined in several ways but in this case the definition is an empty act or pretense. A Victory means winning. I have some questions for our civilian and military leadership today regarding a war that is appearing more and more like an empty act that seems to be losing its character and “raison d’etre”. First the pretense that this war must continue under the current strategy and that we are achieving results when the facts appear each day to refute that. I have not had one serious politician or senior Military leader describe or delineate any victories for America in our quest for nation building and exporting Democracy. We see more casualties each day and the leadership standbys a self-destructive and self-defeating strategy of “counter-insurgency” (COIN) doctrine and nation-building. Please define for me since January 2002 what the victories are for America in Afghanistan?

The COIN principle is not based on winning; it is based on political whims and is not a true tenet of warfare. Warfare is, and always should be, about WINNING or do not go to War. Great Generals and Admirals of battles past had enough acumen and understanding of the tides of battle to change the strategies and tactics to turn the tide on the enemy. I had the opportunity to attend a dinner a few weeks ago with young NFL quarterback Tim Tebow of the Denver Broncos. He remembered in grade school in Florida that some parents and even some coaches would discuss with the young players in football that it was not about “winning” but about other touchy feely experiences in playing the game. Tim found out very soon that it was “about winning” and life is about winning for your cause, your efforts, your values and that no one wants to be a loser or feel like a “loser”. Our troops never want to lose and they are not trained to lose but our government and naïve leaders cannot even say “Victory” today in our battles to secure America.
Winning this specific war against forces impelled by Islamic ideology calls for unconventional measures and not the conventional actions followed by lengthy occupations such as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such an unconventional war doctrine heavily leverages the core capability to break enemy states, target and destroy the enemy’s capability to bring harm to America”. Why do the United States and its military/political leaders and strategists still languish in failed strategies from World War II to the present?
LTG Tom McInerney and I have stated previously in many interviews and published articles that America needs a 2012 “Forward Strategy” that positions our Armed Forces to protect America, its assets and its borders.
Jihadists with small arms and IEDS in faraway places cannot harm the United States so there is no reason to order massive armies that require large and extensive bases and massive logistical support to fight them on their home turf. But that is the essence of failed “counterinsurgency” (COIN) strategies that has bewitched US military political leaders. We all want to support our senior military leaders but at some point they have to face the realities of this enemy and protect and secure our American troops before we continue sparing the lives of the Taliban and civilians with bizarre, restrictive rules of engagement (ROE). The latest being the order last week for our Marines to disarm during a conference event in Kabul during the visit of Leon Panetta , the SECDEF.
It disturbs me anytime our policy wonks and senior officers talk about withdrawal of Forces. A great General always repositions his forces to prepare for battle for today and tomorrow. I would reposition all of our Armed Forces out of the Middle East into secure lily pad bases. From our secure bases, we can strike and counter any and all threats against America. Strike anywhere, anytime with our Joint Strike Force capability and make sure the enemies firmly understand this….from jihadists to narco-terrorists or cyber-terrorists. Time to face the realities of today’s world.
Yes, we have made great and innovative technological advances in weapons systems in the air, sea, and ground, in communications, in advanced intelligence systems and command and control systems. Yes, we have operational war planners at all levels of command, senior policy and politicos in the White House and Department of Defense, a National Security Team and a multitude of military commands positioned around the globe to guide and lead us in national security. But where are the common sense and rational senior General and Admiral Strategists that we have trained and schooled to be innovative, aggressive and win our nation’s wars quickly and decisively?
I rarely hear any of them talking about the valued Principles of War that successful combat leaders in the past have used to achieve success and victory. They cannot even talk in terms of victory, winning and bringing the troops home. Or maybe, they do not want to for politically correct reasons at home. Unfortunately, American leaders are increasingly trying to transform this force into one optimized for counterinsurgency missions (when, in fact, we are not, in my opinion, fighting insurgencies but rather, Islamic Jihadis and a fomenting global Caliphate) and conventional war followed on by long-term military occupations. Track back if you will to Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq, and Afghanistan.
It is true that not all political goals are achievable through the use of military power. However, “victory” in war appears lost in the world of political correctness and appeasement. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan – often seen as proving the necessity for COIN-capable forces as well as a commitment to nation-building — demonstrate in reality that the vast majority of goals can be accomplished through quick, decisive joint strike military operations from selected “Lily Pad” friendly bases. Not all political goals are achievable this way, but most are, and those that cannot be achieved through conventional operations likely cannot be achieved by the application of even the most sophisticated counterinsurgency doctrine either.
We cannot seem to be able to discern between the differences in conventional and non-conventional warfare. The war against mainstream Islamic Jihadist forces and a sick ideology has been, and will continue to be, one requiring unconventional solutions. This is a point that the White House and the Pentagon fear to call this war against a pronounced ideology. It is not a war on terror as we first analyzed; it is a war against people subscribing to Jihad and a derived ideology from the Koran that has evil global intentions as much as the Nazis and Third Reich.
Why can we not understand that our military is for national security, defending our country and defeating our enemies before they bring havoc and harm to our citizens? Why can we not understand how important our resources are in terms of our trained Armed Forces and assets of our country and not to drain them across the globe in futile nation building operations but to leverage the military to counter threats to our country? And, as well, to realize and understand in a profound way that you cannot Nation Build in an area of conflict until the enemy is defeated.
A fundamental challenge in devising a strategy for the use of future American military power is that the world has literally never seen anything like our capability. The U.S. today has military capabilities at least equal to the rest of the world combined. There is virtually no spot on the globe that could not be targeted by American forces, and at most a small handful of countries that could thwart a determined U.S. effort at regime change – and some of those only by virtue of their possession of nuclear weapons. This is the driving point; why are we so worried about what others think? Did these so-called allies not have to be bailed out numerous times for their failed thinking? Why do we want to kowtow to the same intellectual vacuity that caused the greatest conflicts on earth?
As a consequence, the U.S. must adopt a national military strategy that heavily leverages the core capability to break enemy states, target and destroy the enemy’s capability to bring harm to America. Such a strategy could defeat and disrupt most potential threats the U.S. faces. I will discuss in detail, in later follow-up articles, where the strategy of joint strike operations and the unheralded “Global Lily Pad” strategy prove to be the best method for success.
While America’s adversaries today may prefer to engage the U.S. using proxies and develop radical Islamist organizations and jihadists, there is no rationale in declaring to the people of the United States that we are in a long war and accept that as a reason to not achieve a quick and decisive victory. It appears we fight more in agreement with the so called United Nations, allies, and the likes of China and Russia than to stand up for own sovereignty. It is time to relegate these so-called allies to the sidelines.
Let them wail and whimper as we achieve the success that is necessary; wiping out and neutralizing radical Islamism and nation states that support it. There must be an ENDGAME. Because our capability is so novel, American strategists lack a clear framework to guide the utilization of this force. They have sought to match capabilities to conceptions of the use of force from a different era, one in which the Cold War made regime change unpalatable due to the risk of escalation and that tended to make localized setbacks appear as loses in a perceived zero-sum competition with the Soviets. Like Reagan, it is time to call their bluff. They know we hold the big cards, so why are we so timid? This only fosters eastern thought that placation is a sign of weakness. A weakness they will turn into an asset and a political card to play to the uneducated masses they control.
Many describe our efforts as helping to recruit more fighters and more ideologues. This is no way to stop all the threat to our homeland. The only true way to stop that threat is to give them what they respect; pure force of arms and will. Otherwise, they sit in their sanctuaries and count up the moral victories they have achieved, and embolden future efforts. However, significant threats to the U.S., ranging from the military capacity of regional powers to weapons of mass destruction development programs to significant terrorist infrastructures, can be targeted and destroyed by conventional and unconventional military capabilities.
Again, we must stop thinking like westerners, and understand the way our enemy thinks. A lily pad is much more preferable because it gives them no moral high ground to propagandize, but at the same time instills sheer terror in their hearts as they guess at what is coming next. Force of will and resolve is required by our leaders that our enemies indeed respect and understand. Only when we understand that one objective of Global Jihad is imposition – by force or by stealth – of Shari’a (Islamic law) and the other is the re-establishment of the Caliphate/Imamate), can we even begin to formulate the enemy threat doctrine and strategic concept to DEFEAT THE ENEMY and WIN.
Paul E. Vallely – MG, US Army (Ret) is the Chairman of Stand Up America
Paul E. Vallely MG, US Army (ret)
Chairman – Stand Up America
Standupamericausa1@gmail.com
www.standupamericaus.org


Ribbit


American soldiers die to protect Muslim feelings

March 13, 2012

(Sultan) The numbers alone tell the tale, the bloody Afghan surge where our men and women were sent out with their hands tied behind their backs, in a final sacrifice, to win hearts and minds with their lives, is one long body count whose responsibility lies with Obama and his advisers.

Afghan girl locked in toilet for 5 months: officials

December 30, 2011

(h/t  Vlad Tepes/Yahoo)Afghan police have rescued a teenage girl who was beaten and locked up in a toilet for over five months after she defied her in-laws who tried to force her into prostitution, officials said Tuesday.
Sahar Gul, 15, was found in the basement of her husband’s house in northeastern Baghlan province late on Monday after her parents reported her disappearance to the police.
She was beaten, her fingernails were removed and her arm was broken,” district police chief Fazel Rahman told AFP.

Three women including the teenager’s mother in-law had been arrested in connection with the case but her husband had fled the area, he added.
The case highlights how women continue to suffer in Afghanistan despite the billions of dollars of international aid which has poured into the country during the decade-long war.
“The 15-year-old girl was brought to hospital with severe shock,” said Pul-i-Khurmeri hospital chief Dr Gul Mohammad Wardak.
“She had injuries to her legs and face and the nails on her left had been removed.”
Sahar Gul was married to her husband seven months ago in the neighbouring province of Badakhshan, but she was brought to Baghlan to live with her husband, said Rahima Zareefi, the provincial head of women affairs.
During this time her parents were unable to contact her, she said.
The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission logged 1,026 cases of violence against women in the second quarter of 2011 compared with 2,700 cases for the whole of 2010.
And according to figures in an Oxfam report in October, 87 percent of Afghan women report having experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence or forced marriage.
Sahar Gul’s case comes after a woman known as Gulnaz was pardoned and released earlier this month after spending two years in prison for “moral crimes”.
She was jailed after she reported to police that her cousin’s husband had raped her. Gulnaz gave birth to the rapist’s child in prison.
Media_httpassetsnydai_jarczLast month, the United Nations said that a landmark law aiming to protect women against violence in Afghanistan had been used to prosecute just over 100 cases since being enacted two years ago.
…but the media is worried about Naama Margolese getting her feeling hurt by Orthodox Jews who have conventions in their community. Waaaaah! I don’t remember the ladies getting their panties all bunched up when I was a kid and they forced me to pay a dollar because I forgot to bring a Yamikah to Yeshiva. Feminist hypocrites.