vlad the impaler is actually concealing a toothbrush moustache and cow’s-lick forelock under his fake, phony synthetic reptile facial skin
as usual, we have tame al-CIA-duh, then we have a few hotheads who actually take it seriously, and you have to obliterate them cos they might talk about the rest
Notice the chilling conclusion: since we (the west, via Bandar in Saudi) have now filled the whole of west Asia with mercenary pseudo-Jihadis cranked up on drugs, who kill just about anything that moves, including each other, therefore we have to keep pretending that they really cherish a dream of wiping out the Satanic Jews (as they supposedly view them), when really they are all working alongside each other against Russia, Iran, and Syria, the actual US targets, not against the endlessly bloviating Jews at all – RB
AQ drove the Syrian armored vehicles destroyed by Jordan
DEBKAfile, Apr 16 2014
In its first air strike since the outbreak of the Syrian war, the Jordanian Air Force destroyed a number of Syrian armored vehicles trying to cross into the kingdom from Syria, Jordanian state TV interrupted its broadcasts to report Wednesday. DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that the vehicles belonging to the Syrian army had fallen into the hands of AQ, which used them to smuggle weapons to and from Syria. This fits in with AQ’s plans to penetrate Jordan from Syria and Iraq for attacks not only on the Hashemite Kingdom but also for access to Israel.
ha, well, this is the thing: every single motherfucker on the planet who isn’t one of us is a patent conspirator
UK says Iraqi murder allegations against its troops “a conspiracy”
Reuters, Apr 16 2014
LONDON – Allegations British troops unlawfully killed up to 20 Iraqi men at an army camp in 2004 were part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the British government told a public inquiry into the deaths on Wednesday. The British authorities have said that the 20 Iraqis were “armed insurgents” who were killed on the battlefield. However, relatives and local residents have said the men were captured alive and later executed and mutilated at the military camp. Lawyers for Britain’s Ministry of Defence said in a closing submission to the inquiry, which has cost at least £27m:
The untruthful allegations cannot be attributed to honest mistakes or misunderstandings. They are the product of a conspiracy between a number of the Iraqi core participants to pervert the course of justice.
Almost three years after the final British troops left Iraq in 2011, costly inquiries about the war have helped keep alive a public debate about why Britain got involved in the US-led invasion of Iraq and how the war was conducted. Lawyers for the ministry said allegations that the men’s bodies had been mutilated were “demonstrably unfounded” and “dishonestly made.” Despite their allegations, lawyers for relatives of the dead Iraqis said last month there was insufficient evidence to back their clients’ main claim of unlawful killing, which relates to events during and after a battle in southern Iraq on May 14 2004. However, the long-running al-Sweady inquiry into the matter has continued and is also looking at separate allegations that soldiers mistreated up to 9 detainees. Describing the allegations as “patently untrue”, the ministry did however say there were some instances in which the conduct of British soldiers fell below expected standards, including one detainee being shouted at and possibly slapped.
Anbar Gov’t Compound Targeted; 104 Killed, 95 Wounded Across Iraq
Margaret Griffis, AntiWar.com, Apr 16 2014
At least 104 people were killed today. Many of them were militants, but a large number of security forces and civilians were among the casualties. At least 95 people were wounded. The most significant attack was on a government compound housing the Anbar governor’s office and provincial council building. In Anbar: 2 suicide bombers blew up one car each at 2 entrances to a government compound in Ramadi. 8 security members were killed and at least 9 others were wounded. At a checkpoint, gunmen killed 4 policemen and wounded 6 others. 12 gunmen were killed. 4 soldiers were killed and 2 more were wounded when a suicide bomber attacked a Jazeera checkpoint. Shelling killed 16 civilians and wounded 19 more in Falluja. Violent clashes occurred in Garma. Elsewhere: In Baghdad, 3 people were killed and 9 more were wounded in the Mashtal neighborhood. Gunmen killed a man in Shabb. In Sabaa al-Bur, mortars killed 2 people and wounded 10 more. 3 were killed and 9 more were wounded in a bombing at a market, also in Sabaa al-Bour. 1 person was killed and 6 more were wounded in a blast in Ubaidi. 15 militants were killed in the Jisr Annaz area. A bomb in Sadr City killed 4 people and wounded 11 more. 2 Sahwa members were shot and killed in Tikrit. A bomb wounded 3 civilians. Riots took place at a prison. In Mosul, gunmen killed a policeman. A police colonel and his son were wounded in an attack. A bomb killed 2 security members and wounded 2 more. A bomb in Kirkuk killed 2 people and wounded 5 more. 2 dumped bodies were discovered in Shirqat. 5 bombs blew up in Qara Tapa, but only 2 people were wounded. 2 gunmen were killed in Jurf al-Sakhar. 8 gunmen were killed in nearby areas. Armed clashes left an unknown number of casualties. 4 gunmen were killed in Taji. 2 militants were killed in Shura. Security forces killed 2 gunmen in Baquba. A gunman was killed in Adhaim.
Ukraine Push Against Rebels Grinds to Halt
Andrew Kramer, NYT, Apr 16 2014
(Andrew Higgins contributed reporting from Kiev, and C J Chivers from the US.)
SLOVYANSK, Ukraine — A military operation that the Ukrainian government said would confront pro-Russian militants in the east of the country unraveled in disarray on Wednesday with the entire contingent of 21 armored vehicles that had separated into two columns surrendering or pulling back before nightfall. It was a glaring humiliation for the new government in Kiev. Though gunshots were fired throughout the day, and continued sporadically through the evening in this town that is occupied by pro-Russian militants, it was unclear whether anybody had been wounded. One of the armored columns stopped when a crowd of men drinking beer and women yelling taunts and insults gathered on the road before them, and later in the day its commander agreed to hand over the soldiers’ assault rifles to the very separatists they were sent to fight. Another column from the same ostensibly elite unit, the 25th Dnipropetrovsk paratrooper brigade, surrendered not only its weapons but also the tracked and armored vehicles it had arrived in, letting militants park them as trophies, under a Russian flag, in a central square here. A pro-Russian militant then climbed into the driver’s seat of one and spun the vehicle around on its tracks, screeching and roaring, to please the watching crowd. The events of the day underscored the weakness of the new government in Kiev entering critical talks with the US and Russia in Geneva on Thursday over Ukraine’s future. Unable to exercise authority over their own military, officials increasingly seem powerless to contain a growing rebellion by pro-Russian militants that has spread to at least nine cities in eastern Ukraine. In a tactical error, the Ukrainian soldiers on Wednesday had no accompanying force to control the crowds that formed around their advancing units. Their task, to confront armed militants intermingled with civilians, would be extremely difficult for any conventional army, but for this group, which apparently lacked the tools and the heart to carry it out, it proved to be impossible. Just placing the conventional army forces near this darker, more insidious mix of unconventional tactics risked such a setback. One local resident yelled at a Ukrainian soldier sitting on an armored vehicle:
You are fulfilling criminal orders!
The soldier said he was not, and showed that he had removed the magazine from his assault rifle. He said:
You are saying ‘Come over to the side of the people.’ I am a soldier. I protect the people. I won’t shoot you.
Ukrainian military helicopters buzzed over the scene but were of no help to the soldiers’ quandary below. They faced not only the civilians, but behind them a force of well-armed men in unmarked green uniforms, who Western governments have said are either Russian soldiers or Russian-equipped militants. These soldiers were well armed. They carried radios and ammunition pouches. Some had RPG launchers slung over their shoulders. The Ukrainian contingent that surrendered handed over their vehicles to men in unmarked green uniforms, who made their presence more public on Wednesday than it had been earlier. They drove them to the central plaza of Slovyansk, a town about 120 miles from the Russian border, and parked them there for all to see, the flags of Russia and the newly declared and wholly unrecognized People’s Republic of Donetsk flapping above them in the breeze. In Kiev, the Ministry of Defense initially denied that the armored vehicles had been captured. Then Sergei Sobolev, the acting head of the Fatherland Party in Parliament, claimed that the armored vehicles had flown Russian flags as part of an ingenious subterfuge to get through pro-Russian crowds. Ukrainian news media quoted Sobolev as saying it was a “guerrilla approach” to infiltrate separatist-controlled areas through pro-Russian civilian mobs. Rather than a disastrous setback for Ukrainians, he said the appearance of Ukrainian military vehicles flying Russian flags was a “breakthrough” for the Ukrainian offensive, though it proved to be nothing of the sort. Later, the Ukrainian military conceded that six vehicles had been captured but said nothing of the surrender of rifles from the other column. Others struggled to understand why things had gone so badly wrong. Dmytro Tymchuk, a former military officer and director of the Center of Military and Political Research, a Kiev-based research group, said:
We try not to criticize our authorities, but it is obvious that we have more and more problems.
After the first column of six vehicles surrendered, the second, which consisted of 15 vehicles and a radio communication van, halted on the outskirts of the town of Kramatorsk south of here, and waited through the day as several hundred people milled about, drinking beer and fraternizing with the soldiers. The paratroopers first tried to clear their path by firing in the air, residents said. A tracked vehicle rammed an unoccupied Opel car parked in the road, easily shoving it aside. But the crowd did not disperse, and in fact seemed in no danger. The soldiers adopted a passive stance, turning off their vehicles, climbing on top and removing the magazines from their rifles. Aleksei Anikov, a 33-yr-old construction worker, said residents supported the pro-Russian militants, said:
People came out of the village and stood in front of the tanks because they do not want them in their village.
Oleksandr Popov, a second lieutenant in the Ukrainian Army, said he was with a brigade of paratroopers based in Dnipropetrovsk. His orders were to shoot only if fired upon, he said, and that the column was awaiting orders on how to respond to the crowd. In the late afternoon, the commander, Col Oleksandr Shvets, negotiated with representatives of the pro-Russian militants, though the militants were nowhere to be seen in the crowd of civilians. Colonel Shvets stood on a tank and told the crowd he had agreed that the soldiers would surrender first the magazines from their rifles, then the guns themselves, in exchange for passage back the way they had come. Colonel Shvets collected magazines in a plastic bag and handed them to men in the crowd. The assault rifles went to a representative of the pro-Russian force. Some soldiers in the unit were clearly upset, and unready to hand over their rifles. One prayed and tears formed in his eyes at this form of defeat, forced to surrender for an unwillingness to fire on his own people. Four armored vehicles did break out of the crowd with the soldiers still carrying weapons, an amateur video shot in the late afternoon showed, though it was not clear if they did so in defiance of the colonel’s order not to threaten the people. Soldiers on these personnel carriers had grenades in their hands and held them out, yelling they were ready to throw them; one soldier dismounted from the vehicle and ran toward the crowd, yelling. These vehicles drove away. It was unclear by late evening what had happened to the vehicles of the soldiers who handed over their weapons; Colonel Shvets said they would not be given to separatists.
Elsewhere in Ukraine, armed pro-Russian separatists reportedly seized the City Hall building in the provincial capital of Donetsk; they had already controlled the regional administration building. Militants blockaded an administrative building in Yanakiyeve, a town east of Donetsk. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense said an officer and an enlisted soldier had been kidnapped in the Luhansk region. A Russian website news portal, Regnum, citing an unnamed source identified as a Polish diplomat, reported that ex-Pres Yanukovych intended to travel to eastern Ukraine over the weekend. In Odessa, government supporters and the police set up roadblocks outside the city. Journalists were told that the roadblocks had been established to prevent Russian militants from entering the city and completing an arc of uprising from the east through the south of Ukraine, in the country’s predominantly Russian-speaking areas. In Brussels, NATO Sec-Gen Rasmussen said Wednesday that the alliance would strengthen its military presence in Eastern Europe. Rasmussen said that NATO would immediately send forces to the region as a deterrent. He did not specify how many troops or aircraft would be involved or what kind of assets would be deployed.
Afghan govt contacts US officials for Bagram inmates’ files
Afghanistan Times, Apr 15 2014
Bagram Inmates Assessment Committee briefed Pres Karzai on its activities here on Tuesday. General Faruq, chief of Bagram prison, said:
ISAF have transferred more than 5000 detainees into Afghan government custody over the past last two years. Around 4159 of the inmates were found innocent and were released. We have yet to receive the dossiers of the 336 Afghan inmates in Bagram prison.
National security Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta was assigned to take up the issue with ISAF to submit the dossiers of the remaining 336 inmates to the Attorney General’s office. At the end of the meeting, Pres Karzai hailed the efforts of the committee in determining fate of Bagram inmates.
4159 detainees released from Bagram prison: Gen Faruq
Ghanizada, Khaama.com, Apr 16 2014
The government of Afghanistan has released 4159 prisoners from the Bagram prison after they were transferred to Afghan control. Head of the Bagram prison and commander of the military police, General Faruq said around 5021 prisoners who were detained by US forces, have been transferred to Afghan during the past three years. Gen Faruq further added 4159 prisoners have been released from the Bagram prison after their cases were reviewed by review panel. He said they have not received the files regarding 336 prisoners from the US side. The review panel presented their report regarding the progress of Bagram prisoners transfer to a meeting which was chaired by Pres Karzai on Monday. Afghan national security advisor was instructed to urge the US forces in Afghanistan for immediate transfer of remaining files to Afghan attorney general office. The responsibilities of US-run Bagram prison was handed over to the Afghan government earlier last year, after Kabul and Washington reached a deal for the transfer the detention facility to Afghan control. Transfer of Bagram prison where thousands of suspected Taliban and AQ operatives were held, was a source of tension between Afghanistan and the US. Bagram prison was transferred after Afghan government offered “private assurances” that detainees whom the US considers to be most dangerous would not be released.
i still do not really believe this, after all bandar is a covert ops man, he wants to get off the media radar
Saudi royal decree terminates Bandar’s political career
Hani Ibrahim, al-Akhbar, Apr 16 2014
After weeks of rumors and unsubstantiated information, a royal decree has put an end to countless political rumours. Bandar bin Sultan is out of the picture, and this time for good. It is a pivotal occasion, which sheds new light on the past and opens the door to speculation about the future. “Upon his request:” This phrase not only terminates Bandar bin Sultan’s job as chief of Saudi General Intelligence, it also marks the end of his political career. The royal order did not come as a routine administrative procedure, instead it was part of the fierce power-sharing disagreements between the various factions of the House of Saud. The royal decree appointed General Youssef bin Ali al-Idrissi to carry out the duties of the general intelligence chief. The decree suggests that Prince Sultan’s faction in the royal monarchy is completely out of the power equation. Bandar bin Sultan and Khaled bin Sultan, who had been relieved from his position as deputy defence minister earlier, will be followed by current deputy Defence Minister Salman bin Sultan. He is getting ready to hand over his position to one of the sons of Prince Salman, the crown prince and defence minister. Frequently the man who carried out dirty jobs, Bandar bin Sultan surrounded himself with strict regulations in relation to the royal family and its allies, especially the US. It should be remembered that Bandar was absent from major political decisions on more than four occasions since being appointed as general secretary of the National Security Council in 2006. His absence each time was due to a conflict within the royal family or the failure of a mission warranting the suspension of his political activity. His return in Jul 2012, alongside former DCIA Petraeus, was his final bet on the success of his political future.
Bandar had been bold enough to invest all his cards, including AQ, to win the deal of his life by overthrowing the Syrian regime. However, a royal order issued on Feb 3 criminalizing all Saudi fighters, civilians and military, was an indirect announcement of the failure of Bandar’s mission and the need to get him entirely out of the picture. The period following the royal decree concerning the fighters was merely in preparation for the royal decree ending his political career. It was an expected step, based on several indicators. The first could be Bandar’s departure from Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago under the pretext of medical treatment. At the time, it was merely an excuse to keep him away from the decision center in Riyadh as different factions in the Saudi monarchy were wrangling over the direction of its foreign policy. It was not long before Muqrin bin Abd’ul-Aziz was appointed deputy crown prince on the eve of a crucial visit by Obama, which had been delayed for several days. The reason behind the delay was not made clear then, neither were the three-hour deliberations between Obama on one hand and King Abdullah, crown prince Sultan, and Muqrin, on the other. But people continued to speculate, and some insinuated that the meeting was not amicable, as evidenced by the reception Obama received at the airport, which did not befit a head of state. Obama left the kingdom unceremoniously, with just an announcement broadcast by the Saudi Press Agency. However, a few days later, some spoke of Bandar’s triumphant return to the kingdom, where it was rumored he had arrived a few days earlier. These rumours ended with the royal decree issued against Bandar.
The confirmation of the leaks poses a range of questions centered around the kingdom’s next phase based on Bandar’s resignation. They relate to the distribution of power inside the royal family, bilateral relations in the region, and Saudi’s alliances. Will the leaks about the imminent stepping down of King Abdullah also turn out to be true? How will the Saudis treat the Syrian crisis? What about the relationship with Iran in light of information about Saudi-Iranian meetings taking place in the shadows recently, which aimed to mend the relations between the two countries? How will this impact the situation in Iraq or on Lebanon’s upcoming presidential elections? There is no doubt that Bandar had caused a sudden shift in the direction of Saudi foreign policy. His country became the center of great disputes in the region and globally. This should force decision-makers to undertake a radical reassessment and reevaluation of the period when Bandar spearheaded the kingdom’s foreign policy. Relieving Bandar from his duties could indicate a period of sharp conflict between the various factions of the royal family. However, with Bandar out of the way, in addition to the isolation of Ahmed, as one of the pillars of the Sudairis in the equation of inheritance, the future will be extremely uncertain and probably bloody unless the state witnesses substantial political, economic, and judicial reforms, which could save the throne from collapsing.