noworldsystem.com


Pakistan: Over 700 Civilians Killed in US Drone Strikes

Pakistan: Over 700 Civilians Killed in US Drone Strikes

Dawn News
January 3, 2009

PESHAWAR: Of the 44 predator strikes carried out by US drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the past 12 months, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of over 700 innocent civilians.

According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities, the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009.

For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die. Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, claim authorities.

The success percentage for the drone hits during 2009 was hardly 11 per cent. On average, 58 civilians were killed in these attacks every month, 12 persons every week and almost two people every day. Most of the attacks were carried out on the basis of human intelligence, reportedly provided by the Pakistani and Afghan tribesmen, who are spying for the US-led allied forces in Afghanistan.

Of the five successful predator attacks carried out in 2009, the first one came on January 1, which reportedly killed two senior al-Qaeda leaders – Usama al-Kin and Sheikh Ahmed Salim – both wanted by the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Kin was the chief operational commander of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and had replaced Abu Faraj Al Libi after his arrest in 2004.

The second successful drone attack was conducted on August 5 in South Waziristan that killed the most wanted fugitive chief of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan Baitullah Mehsud along with his wife.

The US State Department had announces a $5million head money for information leading to Baitullah, making him the only Pakistani fugitive with the head money separately announced by Islamabad and Washington.

 



Lindsey Williams: By 2012 The Dollar Will Be Dead

Lindsey Williams: U.S. Economy Will Collapse in 2 Years

NoWorldSystem.com
October 27, 2009

Pastor Lindsey Williams, an insider of the elite who predicted accurately that oil prices would fall to $50 a barrel appeared on the Alex Jones show recently. He said he was told by the financial elite that the U.S. dollar will completely collapse in 2012 and that after 2 years “you will be so poor that you will not be able to rebel”. “In their timeline, inflation will escalate over a period of 2 years,” “gold and silver are all you can rely on! The elite don’t use paper, they laugh at it, it means nothing to them, gold and silver is their currency, and gold and silver will continue to escalate rapidly”.

According to Lindsey he is also worried that within 2 years you won’t even recognize America anymore; “within 2 years you will not recognize the united states of America,” that ” in 2 years everyone will be working for the federal government”. He said it will get so bad that banks all around the world will collapses leaving only 9 major banks in place.; “did you know that they want to narrow it down to 9 major banks?”.

He said after the collapse, the United States will start another major war that will eclipse the Iraq war; “I’m still shaking, I’m am appalled, he said ‘war is planned after 2 years’, folks, they plan these things!” “they have war planned in 2012 or somewhere along in that area and he even told me where it was going to start, how it was going to happen, what would happen”. “It will begin in the middle east, it will spread to the entire world” “Folks, if you have not risen up and rebelled against the tyrants within 2 years… our republic is gone”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxBlc80Ecw0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk7FuBFBd9Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi90F5hhmQ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epogVzHVnTU

 



U.S. Special Forces Training to Attack Iran Nuclear Facilities

U.S. Special Forces Training to Attack Iran Nuclear Facilities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xPWg7rc0xo

 



Ron Paul Gets Heated Over The Afghanistan War Policy

Ron Paul Gets Heated Over The Afghanistan War Policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF_H4RA2-0Q

 



Obama Steps Up Drone Bombings Despite Civilian Deaths

Obama Steps Up Drone Bombings Despite Civilian Deaths

Sherwood Ross
Prisonplanet.com
October 20, 2009

“Even if a precise account is elusive,” writes Jane Mayer in the October 26th The New Yorker, “the outlines are clear: the C.I.A. has joined the Pakistani intelligence service in an aggressive campaign to eradicate local and foreign militants, who have taken refuge in some of the most inaccessible parts of the country.”

Based on a study just completed by the non-profit, New America Foundation of Washington, D.C., “the number of drone strikes has risen dramatically since Obama became President,” Mayer reports.

In fact, the first two strikes took place on Jan. 23, the President’s third day in office and the second of these hit the wrong house, that of a pro-government tribal leader that killed his entire family, including three children, one just five years of age.

At any time, the C.I.A. apparently has “multiple drones flying over Pakistan, scouting for targets,” the magazine reports. So many Predators and its more heavily armed companion, the Reaper, are being purchased that defense manufacturer General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, of Poway, Calif., can hardly make them fast enough. The Air Force is said to possess 200.

Mayer writes, “the embrace of the Predator program has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force.” Today, Mayer writes, “there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy.” And according to Gary Solis, who teaches at Georgetown University’s Law Center, nobody in the government calls it assassination. “Not only would we have expressed abhorrence of such a policy a few years ago; we did,” Solis is quoted as saying.

David Kilcullen, a counter-insurgency warfare authority who co-authored a study for the Center for New American Security, of Washington, D.C., has suggested the drone attacks have backfired. As he told The New Yorker, “Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.”

And because of the C.I.A. program’s secrecy, Mayer writes, “there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war.”

The New Yorker further reports the Obama Administration has also expanded the sphere of authorized drone assaults in Afghanistan. An August Senate Foreign Relations Committee report said the Pentagon’s list of approved terrorist targets held 367 names and included some 50 Afghan drug lords “who are suspected of giving money to help finance the Taliban,” Mayer reports. She quotes the Senate report as stating, “There is no evidence that any significant amount of the drug proceeds goes to Al Qaeda.”

It is the military’s version of the drone assaults that operates in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the C.I.A.’s drones hunt terror suspects in countries where U.S. troops are not based and is “aimed at terror suspects around the world,” Mayer writes. The C.I.A. effort was launched by Obama’s predecessor, and a former aide to President George W. Bush says Obama has left nearly all the key personnel in place.

Running the C.I.A. program is a team of operators that handle Predator flights off runways in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Once aloft, the Predators are passed over to controllers at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., who maneuver joysticks and monitor events from a live video feed from the drone’s camera.

The magazine article reports the government plans to commission “hundreds more” of the drones, including “new generations of tiny ‘nano’ drones, which can fly after their prey like a killer bee through an open window.”

Obama to Announce 45,000 Troop Surge in Afghanistan

Obama tops Bush in troop buildup

U.S. Not Planning Major Iraq Troop Cuts Until Next Year

Obama Approved 13K More Troops To Afghanistan Unannounced

 



Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

Wired
October 14, 2009

Russia is weighing changes to its military doctrine that would allow for a “preventive” nuclear strike against its enemies — even those armed only with conventional weapons. The news comes just as American diplomats are trying to get Russia to cut down its nuclear stockpile, and put the squeeze on Iran’s suspect nuclear program.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”

Gulp. If I were in Georgia — or in any other country Russia considers part of its sphere of influence — that formulation would make me pretty anxious.

The Russian Federation is considering the “first strike” option as part of a larger overhaul of military doctrine. The new doctrine, which is supposed to be presented to President Dmitry Medvedev later this year, is supposed to provide “flexible and timely” responses to national security threats.

The United States and Russia may prepping to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty after President Obama declared a “reset” in relations between Moscow and Russia. But Patrushev, apparently, didn’t get the memo. In the interview, he takes a swipe at the United States and NATO, saying that the alliance “continues to press for the admission of new members to NATO, the military activities of the bloc are intensifying, and U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive exercises to improve the management of strategic nuclear weapons.”

In other words, Moscow is holding to a hard line, precisely at a time when Washington is trying to play nice. The administration wants the Kremlin’s help — to pressure Iran, to revive the arms-control process — but the bear still needs to brandish nukes.

 



GOP Senators: U.S., not Israel, should attack Iran ‘if necessary’

GOP Senators: U.S., not Israel, should attack Iran ‘if necessary’

David Edwards
Raw Story
October 5, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwwj4MQ9sac

Two senior Republican senators say the United States, and not Israel, should attack Iran if military action becomes “necessary.”

They also say a simple strike at the country’s nuclear capability wouldn’t be enough — the US would have to launch an “all-or-nothing” war against Iran with the aim of crippling the country’s military capabilities.

“I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they’re not aligned now. It’s too much pressure to put on Israel,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

He continued: “If the sanctions fail, and Iran’s going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, any Sunni Arab state that could, would want a nuclear weapon. Israel will be more imperiled. The world will change dramatically for the worst. Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at, and I would rather our allies and us take military action if it’s necessary.”

But Graham doesn’t think an attack should be limited to airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float,” said Graham.

Sen. , Republican of Georgia, agrees.

“The problem with military action also is that you’re probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple airstrike,” Chambliss said on Fox News Sunday. “Lindsey’s right. It’s an all or nothing deal. And is it worth that at this point in time, when we know they have the capability? We can slow them down, but a full-out military strike is what it would take,” said Chambliss.

This video is from Fox’s Fox News Sunday, broadcast Oct. 4, 2009.

 

Israel will ‘attack Iran if sanctions not in place by Christmas’

Dudi Cohen
Y Net News
October 10, 2009

Iran’s ambassador to UN demands Security Council take steps against comments made by Ephraim Sneh, who said Israel would attack Iran if sanctions weren’t in place by Christmas.

Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in which he wrote that “there is no explanation for Israel’s continuing threats against Tehran”.

He was referring to an interview given by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh to the Sunday Times in which he said that if Iran were not further sanctioned by this Christmas Israel would attack the country.

Sneh told the paper that if Israel were forced to attack the Islamic Republic on its own it would do so, remarks the Iranian ambassador deemed “irresponsible”.

Read Full Article Here