Saving the Planet for the New World Order to Plunder at Will

[Imagine what could be done if these people cared half as much about saving the world from the New World Order elite as they do about saving the world FOR them If the ruling elitists succeed in their plans for world conquest then I am all for trashing the planet for them.  Live free or die trying.  Down with the pathocracy!]

Copenhagen climate summit: protests threaten to shut down talks

Thousands of activists massed outside the conference centre in Copenhagen in a protest against the lack of progress on a global deal to stop climate change.

By Louise Gray in Copenhagen

Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “untitled“, posted with vodpod

Police in riot gear were forced to push back the protesters.

Activists claim pepper spray and tear gas was used and arrests have already been made.

The protesters could not get past concrete barriers and fences put up by the police.

Meanwhile inside the centre non-governmental groups from around the world and environmental activists shouted and banged drums.

Hundreds of people who gathered outside to join the protest were trapped within the barriers.

The “Reclaim Power” protest was organised by Climate Justice Action, a coalition of groups from around the world.

It is expected the protests will go on all day and cast an ugly shadow over the climate change conference, similar to the G20 protests in London.

Over the weekend more than 1,000 people were arrested by Danish police following a march from the city centre, as anger grows at the failure of world leaders to agree a deal to stop global warming.

NGOs, civil society groups and charities, that represent millions of people in Britain, have been refused passes to get into the Bella Centre and as a consequence will be protesting outside.

It emerged later that no one from Friends of the Earth was allowed in. Executive Director Andy Atkins claimed it was an affront to democracy.

“It is a crisis of democracy when campaigning charities like Friends of the Earth are prevented from speaking up on behalf of communities around the globewithin the talks themselves,” he said.”We were stunned to discover that every Friends of the Earth delegate has been banned from attending these crucial talks – if this is a consequence of our roleas one of the most prominent groups calling for a strong and fair agreement, this is even more disturbing

“This draconian measure is completely unjustified – the Copenhagen conference isfast becoming an international shambles.”

It is estimated about 15,000 delegates, journalists and civil society representatives have been refused access to the talks.


What Is Russia’s New Game?

[Is Russia playing along to give Obama enough rope to hang himself, hoping to be better positioned when it all shakes out, or is this circumstantial evidence that Russia and the US represent two sides of the same coin in the purse of the ruling elite?  SEE:  Dr. Antony Sutton.]

Russia, NATO and Afghanistan: High stakes Great Game

Eric Walberg

What did Medvedev have up his sleeve when he welcomed Obama’s new surge in Afghanistan, wonders Eric Walberg

December 16, 2009

US President Barack Obama’s now expanding war against the Taliban is garnering support from liberals and neocons alike, from leaders around the world, even from Russia. “We are ready to support these efforts, guarantee the transit of troops, take part in economic projects and train police and the military,” Russian President Dmitri Medvedev declared in a recent press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Moscow and Washington reached an agreement in July allowing the US to launch up to 4,500 US flights a year over Russia, opening a major supply route for American operations in Afghanistan. Previously Russia had only allowed the US to ship non-lethal military supplies across its territory by train.

So far, Obama has all European governments behind him, if not their people. Despite a solid majority in all countries, from Canada to Europe East and West, who want the troops out now, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was able to deliver pledges from 25 NATO members to send a total of about 7,000 additional forces to Afghanistan next year “with more to come” with nary a dissenting voice. In a macabre statement, Fogh Rasmussen welcomed Obama’s surge: “The United States’ contribution to the NATO-led mission has always been substantial; it is now even more important.”

Explaining the willingness of Euro leaders to ignore their constituents, former US ambassador to NATO and RAND adviser Robert Hunter told the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR): “In terms of motivation, very few European countries believe that winning in Afghanistan — that is, dismantling, defeating, and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban — is necessary for their own security. A few believe that, but most do not. When they add forces, it is to protect the credibility of NATO now that it is there. NATO has never failed at anything it chose to do.” Part and parcel with this, Europeans want to keep the US “as a European power, not just as an insurance policy but also as the principal manager of Russia’s future.” He ghoulishly agreed with the CFR interviewer that Afghanistan is a way for Europe to “pay the rent” to the US for continuing to bully Russia.

The combined US and NATO forces will bring together a staggering 150,000 soldiers from more than 50 nations, not to mention the estimated 80,000 mercenaries already there, bringing the total to 230,000. Every European nation except for Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Russia and Serbia will have military forces there, as well as nine of the 15 former Soviet republics. Marvels analyst Rick Rozoff, “Troops from five continents, Oceania and the Middle East. Even the putative coalition of the willing stitched together by the US and Britain after the invasion of Iraq only consisted of forces from 31 nations.” By way of comparison, in September this year there were 120,000 US troops in Iraq and only a handful of other nations’ personnel. The Soviet Afghan occupation force in the 1980s peaked at 100,000 shortly before beginning to pull out in 1989; the British in 1839 had only 21,000 and in 1878 — 42,000.

The world’s last three major wars — Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq — have all been testing grounds for the new, global NATO. Hence the flurry of visits by US officials to prospective members to make sure they sign up for the surge. For instance, Celeste Wallander, US deputy assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, just returned from a visit to her new friend Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, to thank him for coughing up 40 “peacekeepers” who will start training in Germany in January 2010 before deployment in Afghanistan. As if to up the ante with its nemesis, Azerbaijan promised to double its 90 troops. It would be interesting if the two warring nations’ troops were to share barracks. They have far more cause to fight each other than Afghans.

It is hard to imagine this heathen Tower of Babel as an effective force against devoted Muslims ready to die to repel the invaders. But Fogh nonetheless chortles, “With the right resources, we can succeed.” Could it be that one of his “resources” is the “big one”?

What explains Russia’s quiescence at Obama’s determination to wrest Central Asia from its traditional sphere of influence? Russian suspicions about US intentions are very strong on many fronts. Sucking more than half of the ex-Soviet republics into returning to Afghanistan — this time on the US side — is surely brazen. Continuing to expand NATO eastward is strongly condemned by all Russians and is not popular in either Ukraine or Georgia, but continues nonetheless. Russian intelligence is undoubtedly following US and others’ machinations in Chechnya, which continues to be a serious threat to Russian security. Hunter’s cynical explanation to the CFR of Euro complicity in the Afghan genocide is not lost on deaf ears.

Yet, Russia dawdles on its assistance to Iran both in nuclear energy and in providing up-to-date defence missiles, clearly at US prompting. And now seems to be happy that Obama is expanding what all sensible analysts insist is a losing and criminal war virtually next door. Is this evidence of Russian weakness, an acceptance of US plans for Eurasian hegemony which could imperil the Russian Federation itself?

Russia is still in transition, caught between a longing to be part of the West and to be a mediator between the Western empire and the rest of the world. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, represents this conflict between the “Atlantist” and “Eurasian” vision of Russia’s future, terms which have been popularised by Alexandr Dugin. In a TV interview with Russia Today, loose-cannon Rogozin argued: “There is a new civilisation emerging in the Third World that thinks that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must therefore fall at its feet now. If the northern civilisation wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”

But Rogozin is not in favour of Russia merely lying down to be walked over by NATO. He would like NATO replaced by a Euro-Russian security treaty. It is no coincidence that just before Obama’s announced surge, Russia unveiled a proposal for just such a new pact, which despite talk of “from Vancouver to Vladivostok” would essentially exclude the US and include Russia. It would prevent member states from taking actions which threaten other members, effectively excluding Ukraine and Georgia from NATO and preventing Poland and the Czech Republic from setting up their beloved US missile bases. Rogozin’s Atlantist vision would see NATO defanged, and North America forced to ally with a new, independent Europe, where Russia is now the dominant power.

NATO, of course, will not go quietly into the night — unless its latest venture in Afghanistan fails. So Russia is biting the bullet on this war — for the time being. Just in case Obama was too busy with Oslo to notice, Rogozin warned last week that Russian cooperation over transit of military supplies to Afghanistan could be jeopardised by a failure to take the Russian security treaty proposal seriously. In Washington’s worst-case scenario, if its Afghan gamble implodes, not only will it have to take Russia seriously, but so will Europe, giving the Russian Atlantists the opportunity to integrate with Europe without the US breathing down their necks. If by some miracle NATO succeeds in cowing the Afghans and continues to threaten Russia with encirclement, the Eurasians will gain the upper hand, and Russia will build up its BRIC and SCO ties, forced to abandon its dream of joining and leading Europe as the countervailing power to the US empire.

As this intrigue plays itself out, any number of things could tip the apple cart. For example, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, two quarrelsome ex-Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan which are vital to Obama’s surge, virtually declared war on each other earlier this month, potentially complicating the shuttling of US materiel to the front. Uzbekistan announced its withdrawal from the Central Asian electricity grid, a move that isolates Tajikistan by making it impossible for the country to import power from other Central Asian states during the cold winter months. The Tajiks threaten to retaliate by restricting water supplies that Uzbekistan desperately need for its cotton sector next summer.Who knows how this will end? At least they haven’t any troops in Afghanistan, where, like the Azeris and Armenians, they would be sorely tempted to turn their guns against each other rather than against the hapless Taliban.


Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly You can reach him at

Replaying 1960–UN Troops Once Again Slaughtering Civilians in Congo

[It is a good time to recall the slaughter committed by UN troops against civilians and the massive bombardment of civilian facilities in the Belgian Congo in 1960.  It was an event that would have been kept from the world except for a new radical organization called the “John Birch Society,” which published the testimony of civilian doctors who treated the victims, called “46 Angry Men.”]

UN-Backed Congo Troops Killed More Civilians Than Rebels, Says Human Rights Watch


December 15, 2009

JOHANNESBURG — A U.N.-backed Congolese military operation to oust rebels from eastern Congo has caused more civilian casualties than damage to rebels, with more than 1,400 people deliberately killed over a nine-month period, human rights groups said Monday.

Human Rights Watch said it had documented “vicious and widespread” attacks against civilians by soldiers and rebels between January and September. Soldiers being fed and supplied with ammunition by the United Nations have killed civilians, gang-raped girls and cut the heads off some young men they accuse of being rebels or supporting the enemy, groups said.

“For every rebel combatant disarmed, one civilian has been killed, seven women and girls have been raped, six houses have been burned and destroyed and 900 people have been forced to flee their homes,” British-based organization Oxfam said.

Human Rights Watch said it documented the killings of 732 civilians between January and September by the Congolese army and troops from neighboring Rwanda fighting alongside it. In the same period, it counted 701 civilians killed by the rebels they are fighting.

“Some victims were tied together before their throats were, according to one witness, ‘slit like chickens.’ The majority of the victims were women, children, and the elderly,” the group said.

More than 7,500 cases of sexual violence against women and girls were registered at health centers during that nine-month period, nearly double that of 2008 and likely representing only a fraction of the total.

Human Rights Watch said that the 19,000 peacekeepers in Congo – the biggest U.N. force in the world – must “immediately cease all support to the current military operation” until it can ensure there are no violations of international humanitarian law. The group also called for the U.N. to find “a new approach to protect civilians.”

“The U.N. peacekeepers are being put in an appalling situation where they are supporting an army that is attacking its own population,” it said.

House Passes First Steps of Zionist Plan to Embargo Gasoline to Iran

House votes to sanction those helping Iran’s petroleum industry

By JIM ABRAMS , Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The House voted Tuesday to impose new economic sanctions on Iran as lawmakers cast doubt on Iran’s willingness to respond to diplomatic efforts to curtail its purported nuclear arms program.

The legislation, approved 412-12, would end access to U.S. markets for foreign companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran or helping that country develop its petroleum capacity. While Iran is a major crude oil producer, its lack of ability to produce enough gasoline and other refined petroleum products is a major economic vulnerability.

With no Senate action on the legislation expected this year, the House vote was for the time being mainly a warning that the United States is ready to act on its own if the Tehran government doesn’t respond to current international efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

The bill drew opposition from lawmakers who said it would mainly cause hardship among poor and middle-class Iranians.

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, said the Barack Obama administration was “entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran.” Sanctions legislation “might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts,” Steinberg’s letter said.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., said Iran has had ample time to respond to President Obama’s efforts at engagement. “President Obama has offered Iran an outstretched hand, but regrettably, Iran has not unclenched its fist.”

Hitting Iran in one of its weakest areas could be “the last best hope for diplomatically ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

AfPak is all about the New Great Game for the control of Eurasia

AfPak is all about the New Great Game for

the control of Eurasia


by HK

“The horror … the horror.” General Stanley McChrystal, the Pentagon supremo in Afghanistan, is being massively sold in the US as a Zen warrior – a 21st-century stalwart incarnation of the “best and the brightest”. But he may be a warrior intellectual more like Colonel Kurz than Captain Willard in Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. He led an elite death squad in Iraq and, for all of his Confucius-meets-counter-insurgency social engineering schemes, still appears not to understand what Pashtuns are really all about.
McChrystal remains bemused about why, in Afghanistan, most young Pashtuns decide to become Taliban. Because Kabul is immensely corrupt; because the Americans have bombed their houses or killed their families and friends; because they can improve their social status. They simply won’t sell out for (devalued) American dollars. Their infinite drive is geared towards throwing the occupiers out – and re-establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, governed by sharia law. In this sense, McChrystal’s soldiers are the new Soviets, no different from the Red Army that waged war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
McChrystal – with all his “secure the population” talk – cannot possibly level with the American public about the Taliban. Afghans know that if you don’t mess with the Taliban, the Taliban don’t mess with you. If you’re an opium poppy grower, the Taliban just collect a little bit of tax on it.
[Eight: Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the ISAF and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America].
Conquering Pashtun hearts and minds Westmoreland, sorry, McChrystal-style is a no-win proposition. There’s nothing McChrystal’s non-Pashto speaking soldiers can say or do to counteract a simple Taliban-to-villager one-liner “we’re in a jihad to throw out the foreigners”.
As for the Taliban/al-Qaeda nexus, the Taliban nowadays simply don’t need al-Qaeda, and vice-versa. Al-Qaeda is closely linked with Pakistani outfits, not Afghan, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. If McChrystal wants to find al-Qaeda jihadis, he should set up shop in Karachi, not in the Hindu Kush. [??? Ed]
Over the summer of 2009 alone, 20,000 US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops, practicing the iron dogma of “clear, hold and build”, were able to secure only a third of desert Helmand province. The Taliban control at least 11 provinces in Afghanistan. It’s easy to do the math on what it would take to “secure” the other 10 provinces, not to mention the whole country until, well, 2050, as the British high command has been speculating. No wonder Washington is drowning in numbers – rife with speculation that McChrystal wants 500,000 boots on the ground before 2015. If Confucian McChrystal doesn’t get them, goodbye counter-insurgency; it’s back to a devastating hell from above drone missile war.
If you break it, you control it

The Pentagon as well as NATO will never be cheerleaders for a strong, stable and really independent Pakistan. Washington pressure over Islamabad will never be less than relentless. And then there’s the return of the repressed: the chilling Pentagon fear that Islamabad might one day become a full Chinese client state.
Think-tankers in their comfy leather chairs do entertain the dream of the Pakistani state unraveling for good – victim of a clash within the military of Punjabis against Pashtuns. So what’s in it for the US in terms of balkanization of AfPak? Quite some juicy prospects – chief of all neutralizing the also relentless Chinese drive for direct land access, from Xinjiang and across Pakistan, to the Arabian Sea (via the port of Gwadar, in Balochistan province).
Washington’s rationale for occupying Afghanistan – never spelled out behind the cover story of “fighting Islamic extremism” – is pure Pentagon full spectrum dominance: to better spy on both China and Russia with forward outposts of the empire of bases; to engage in Pipelineistan, via the Trans-Afghan (TAPI) pipeline, if it ever gets built; and to have a controlling hand in the Afghan narco-trade via assorted warlords. Cheap heroin is literally flooding Russia, Iran and Eastern Europe. Not by accident, Moscow regards opium / heroin as the key issue to be tackled in Afghanistan, not Islamic fundamentalism.
68772733_a94c2aafa2The Changing Zbig, then President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski visiting ‘his boy’, Osama Bin Laden, in training with the Pakistan Army, 1981. Photo originally scanned from the New York Village Voice. Photo credited to the Sygma/Corbis Agency, Paris.
As for those think-tankers, they do remain incorrigible. Last week at a Rand-sponsored Afghanistan bash in the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, former president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who gave the Soviets their Vietnam in Afghanistan, announced that he had advised the George W Bush administration to invade Afghanistan in 2001; but he also told then Pentagon supremo, Donald Rumsfeld, that the Pentagon should not stay on “as an alien force”. That’s exactly what the Pentagon is right now.
And yet, Zbigniew believes the US should not leave Afghanistan; it should “use all our leverage” to force NATO to fulfill the mission – whatever that is. Not surprisingly, Zbigniew couldn’t help revealing what the heart of the “mission” really is: Pipelineistan, that is, to build TAPI by any means necessary.
China, India and Russia may agree that a regional – and not an American – solution to Afghanistan may be the only way to go, but still can’t agree on how to formalize a proposal which would be offered in the cadre of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Li Qinggong, the number two at the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, has been a key voice of this proposal. Washington, not surprisingly, wants to remain unilateral.
It all harks back to a 1997 Brookings Institution publication by Geoffrey Kemp and Robert Harkavy,Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East, in which they identify an (in capital letters) “energy strategic ellipse” with a key node in the Caspian and another in the Persian Gulf, concentrating over 70% of global oil reserves and over 40% of natural gas reserves. The study stressed that the resources in these zones of “low demographic pressure” would be “threatened” by the pressure of billions living in the poor regions of South Asia. Thus the control of the Muslim Central Asian “stans” as well as Afghanistan would be essential as a wall against both China and India.

So all along the watchtower, the princes of war keep their view. That spells balkanization all along. It’s full spectrum dominance against the Asian energy security grid. The Pentagon well knows that AfPak is the key land bridge between Iran to the west and China and India to the east; and that Iran has all the energy that both China and India need. The last thing full spectrum dominance wants is to have the AfPak theater subjected to more influence from Russia, China and Iran.
There could not be a more graphic illustration of empire of chaos logic in action than the AfPak theater. While the McChrystal show amuses the galleries, what’s really at stake for Washington is how to orchestrate a progressive encirclement of Russia, China and Iran. And the name of the game is not really AfPak – even with all the breaking up and balkanization it may entail. It’s all about the New Great Game for the control of Eurasia.
Source: GeoPloticalNWO
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.

Coalition Reinforces Position at Torkham Border Crossing–Main Point of Egress

Coalition forces establishing bunkers near Pakistan border

LANDIKOTAL: The coalition forces have started establishing new bunkers at the hilltops on the Afghan side of the border near Torkham, sources said. Eyewitness said that a Chinook and two gunship helicopters were Tuesday dropping Afghan and Nato troops with the heavy and light weapons on the hilltops near Torkham, Pak-Afghan border.

They also saw long-range heavy guns hanging from the helicopters being shifted from Shiraz US base to the area near Torkham border. Meanwhile, movement of the Nato forces at Torkham border was extraordinary as they established scanning equipment in container-rooms at checkpoints on Afghan side of Torkham bazaar to keep a vigil on the pedestrians’ movements, the sources said. Officials at Torkham border when contacted expressed ignorance about the fresh deployment of US and Nato forces.

‘Proof linking Jundallah to Pakistani intelligence given’

‘Proof linking Jundallah to Pakistani intelligence given’

[Iran may be overlooking the most obvious connection between the ISI and Jundullah, who is about to go on trial in New York City, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Another even more important connection may have been uncovered in the links between American (former?) CIA asset David Coleman Headley and (former?) Pak Army officer Ilyas Kashmiri, who is alleged to be part of the S. Waziristan training program which trained Rigi and the Yemeni-Baloch relatives of KSM and Ramzi Yousef.]

Abdolhamid Rigi, brother of Abdolmalek Rigi, who is the leader of Sunni militant group Jundallah (God’s soldiers), prepares for a news conference in Zahedan, 1,076 km southeast of Tehran, August 25, 2009. — Reuters

ISLAMABAD: A senior Iranian official said Iran has presented evidence to Islamabad that shows links between Pakistani intelligence services and the Jundallah militant group based in the Sistan-Balochistan province.

In an interview with the Fars news agency on Tuesday, the director of the Sistan-Balochistan provincial justice department, Ebrahim Hamidi said the documents were based on confessions obtained from Abdolmalek Rigi’s brother Abdolhamid, who is currently in prison in Iran.

Iran alleges that Abdolmalek Rigi, who heads Jundallah, is based in Pakistan. He has organised several deadly attacks inside Iranian territory over the past few years, Iranian officials say.

Hamidi urged Pakistan to capture and extradite Abdolmalek Rigi so he can be tried on charges of ordering terrorist attacks.

He said Tehran would provide Islamabad more evidence if necessary. — DawnNews