We Can See Propaganda by Accepting Nothing and Questioning Everything

Where previously the British Military were allowing 'embedded' journalists to report on their actions this has now changed and a new unit within the army has been formed which has drawn together several previously independent units.  Known since 2015 as the 77th Brigade (which is a hat-tip to Orde Wingate the British officer who formed a 77th Brigade in WWII Burma and who is a much revered Zionist hero who trained for and established brutal and murderous fighting techniques against the indigenous Palestinian resistance www.meforum.org/2458/zionism-of-orde-wingate & www.zionism-israel.com/bio/Charles_Orde_Wingate.htm ), a renaming of the Security Assistance Group, this unit now comprises of :

• No.1 Column - Planning support focusing on the behavioural analysis of actors, audiences and adversaries
• No.2 Column - Provides the detail synchronisation and delivery of effect
• No.3 Column - Provides highly deployable specialists to other parts of the Armed Forces and other Government organisations
• No.4 Column - Provides professional specialists in Security Capacity Building in Defence
• No.5 Column - Media Operations and Civil Affairs
• No.6 Column - Apparently does not exist following just a Brigade traditional (if you want to believe that)

& more recently

• No.7 Column - The Engineer and Logistics Staff Corps - A powerful and influential specialist Army Reserve unit providing engineering, logistics and communication consultancy to both the MOD and across government agencies.

http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/39492.aspx

This page has gone - can be found via 'Way Back' machine from where the above image was clipped 

So if you want honesty and truth of what is occurring in war zones you can guess this genius club will put their spin onto wherever they can (in not only the mainstream media but also in social media and who knows where in independent media too).

Beyond perhaps the limit of their thinking would be to accept the military have been acting under illegal orders and take immediate steps to put right the wrongs they have perpetrated under the laws of war and natural law.

Note:
Under the former Security Assistance Group, the unit included the following units:^[3]

• Headquarters Element
• Media Operations Group (MOG) - Media Operations
• Security Capacity Building Team (SCBT) - Military Capacity Building
• 15 Psychological Operations Group (15 POG) - Psychological Warfare
• Military Stabilisation Support Group (MSSG)^[13] - Stabilisation and Conflict Prevention

Defending a Stateless Society from Military Attack

If we had a fully voluntary society, without any form of state, there would be considerable change, clearly, and so to predict how these changes will in reality manifest is interesting perhaps but most likely will be ludicrously wrong in the actual event.

People will pay for that which represents value.  I would insure my home with an insurance company that had a nationwide emergency service offering police protection, disaster and medical response teams.  I would insure with the best company but not at any price.  It would be the company who offered the best balance between service and price.

It is not inconceivable that these insurance companies would, maybe jointly cooperating, expand their emergency services to include a form of 'home-defence' military.  If that was a real concern to people would the majority not see a value?  What is the faster at meaningfully reacting to new challenges:  the public sector or the private sector?

From the insurance company's perspective it may be they find a strong demand for insurance cover to compensate against the threat of invasion, subsequent loss and damage.  Now, if there were enough policies up for grabs, would it not be economic to invest in protection from the threat occurring?

So some folk then think they will not bother with insurance offering cover against war.  Good luck to them - in the event of an attack they will be the ones pushing the handcarts full of all they own.

On the whole I think of the entire idea of a stateless society being racked with war as being absolutely improbable since, so far in the whole history of humanity, it has only been the state that has waged actual war and against another state too.

I think a stateless society would become, rapidly, so successful that any other remaining state's populations, or leaders even, would see the results of the model as desirable but imposable to takeover by war because, to capture a prosperous nation, you have to have a nation to take over - with a state to tax the people and so gather the tithe. 

A stateless society is by definition not actually a 'nation' at all.  Just a lump of land upon which people muddle along the best they can and coexist within their own independently developed and codified rule of law.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
--Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

Defence in a Stateless Society

The topic of 'Defence' is a very large one!  It is interesting that we have a 'Ministry of Defence' as a part of the state but not, apparently, a 'Ministry of Attack'!  Could there be some loaded words used against us here, un petit peu of subliminal propagandising brainwashing speak perchance?

If we closed the 'Ministry of Attack', disbanding the paraphernalia of destruction and sanctified killers, and replaced it with a measured system of 'home defence' would it be infinitely improbable to think that it could not just be sponsored by a willing public - if such an organisation was really needed at all?

I say people need more imagination.  I say we did not know how the cotton would get picked, the tobacco harvested or the sugar-cane cut when we said that slavery was an inhuman outrage.  We did not know.  We did not imagine robotic machines could do the work at a lower cost than unpaid men.  And if slavery had continued maybe those machines would never have emerged.

The ingenuity and imagination of mankind knows no bounds except for the limitations imposed upon us by those who would shackle us to the feudal tithe gathering system that is the state.

Who knows what is in a man’s heart?

To judge if there has been ’success in Iraq’ one would need to understand what the underlying objective was of those who worked so hard to bring the attack into being.

It is reasonable to assume that the prime objective was not because of the threat of (so called) WMD. This tissue of lies was patently cooked-up to attempt justify an otherwise unjustifiable attack.
It is reasonable to assume it was not carried-out to serve any interest of the civilian population of Iraq. They are in a manifold worse situation now, as a result of our attacking, and we cannot even answer how many innocents have died as a result (the murder and manslaughter of between 110,000 IBC to 1,100,000 Lancet).

If the object is thought to be related to ‘the war on terrorism’ this is manifestly false. Any form or threat of terrorism has only occurred as a result of attacking Iraq.

We can assume that these solemn truths will never be fully or broadly recognised because the resulting reparations due to and deserved by the people of Iraq would bankrupt us.

If the objective was related to the interests of Private Military Contractors, the complex of industries supplying Military requirements, oil production interests, central bankers and such; all their interests have been served, and served at the expense of the taxpaying public along with the populous of Iraq since and into the future. It has been a successful enterprise.

If the objective was to strengthen the security of Israel in a Middle East hostile to their presence and actions, as argued by Mark Weber here in: ‘Iraq-A War For Israel’ http://bit.ly/ccII7m then the outcome has been to reduce the threat to Israel considerably.

If the objective was to break a middle east nation that, whilst held together by a grossly unpalatable and harsh regime, did have a high standard of education, health care, women’s rights, self-determination and enterprise, a nation that had the potential to utilise its own petrochemical (and water) resource and enter the world-stage of developed nations, the attack and subsequent CPA mandate has achieved this aim.

If the objective was to demonstrate that disobedience towards the US/CIA imperialistic interests, such as that demonstrated by Iraq under Saddam Hussain, will not pass unpunished, that aim has been succinctly dealt.

For all those involved the British and American attack of Iraq has been a failure. But for all those who have stood-by whilst these events have taken place and subsequently reaped the rewards it certainly can be painted as a success.
But; who knows what is in a man’s heart?

I fancy that, however it may have been achieved, GW Bush was steered absolutely by those who advised him, those who were also a part of the political lobby group known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

To read those named on the PNAC founding Statement of Principles is illuminating: http://bit.ly/9gOQcJ – The names included Jeb Bush (brother of GW), Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Scooter), Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz amongst others.

PNAC’s stated aim was to make the case and rally support for: “American global leadership, [to] shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire”.
To President Clinton they wrote: ‘The only acceptable strategy is one that [removes] Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. http://bit.ly/a82Sr9

In their report ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ http://bit.ly/bU2a0F (PDF file) they wrote: ‘Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (Report-P51 PDF-P63)
On the 11th of September 2001 Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, wrote in The Washington Post a piece titled ‘We Must Fight This War’ proclaiming “an attack far more awful than Pearl Harbor” http://bit.ly/9HvCSZ

It is against this background that we must comprehend Britain’s part is cast. It would be clear that the US was primed to react to the attack of 9/11 in the manner prescribed by those who dominated the political administration and in a manner that had too been expressed with resounding clarity.
For Blair here was a simple choice. Would we have stopped them? I doubt it. Would the world be a better place with the US operating in isolation, without seeking any backing from the UN, without the veil of credence offered by its old comrade and diplomatic good cop. Take Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, extraordinary rendition, water-boarding, torture by proxy, shock and awe, black sites, depleted uranium, cluster bombs for some examples and imagine how the US would have behaved if utterly unrestrained.

If Blair had stood-back and demanded a clear UN mandate to attack, how would the situation have stood if then Britain was immediately struck by its own ‘Pearl Harbour’ and perhaps one of even more devastating effect?

The true controversy over the Hutton Inquiry

Lord Hutton is wrongly suggesting that controversy over his report is because he had white-washed the truth of how Tony Blair took our nation to war in Iraq. This question was not specifically relevant to his terms of reference.

The true controversy is over how the Hutton Inquiry supplanted the process of the Coroner's Inquest, commencing instead on the basis of an assumed premise for Dr David Kelly cause of death and then, without sound investigation or due legal process, inappropriately coming to a finding that his death was suicide, whilst deflecting national attention with the shenanigans between Downing Street and the BBC.

Lord Hutton has whitewash on his hands.

Kelly Inquest Quitter Coroner Helps Avoid Enquiry into Dead Solders

Because the bodies of service personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown to RAF Brize Norton, Oxon, it is the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner who should have been conducting the backlog of 111 inquests now due.

Nicholas Garner was the coroner who aborted his inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Under the 1999 section 17A amendment to the 1988 Coroners Act, provision was made that if the Lord Chancellor tells a coroner there is to be a public enquiry (into the events surrounding the death) before the coroner's inquest is likely to be completed, the coroner shall adjourn their inquest. This is only if the Lord Chancellor considers it is 'likely' the cause of death will also be investigated by the inquiry and that there is an absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary.

The Lord Chancellor was wrong to allow the presumption that Dr David Kelly's cause of death would be adequately investigated within the terms of the inquiry he had called for 'to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death' and with witness evidence not to be taken under oath. The coroner Nicholas Gardiner should have recognised the 'exceptional reason to the contrary' within the inquiry's terms and procedures allotted and hence should not have adjourned his inquest before establishing cause of death.

The same Coroners Act section 17A amendment could now be legitimately deployed to save the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner conducting these multiple individual inquests, supplanting that process with an all encompassing inquiry into 'the circumstances leading to and surrounding the deaths of these 111 servicemen'. There is not so much doubts as to how each of these men were killed but a honest answer to how they were caused to go to war would be revealing.

Who says the Pentagon did not have a plan for post-war Iraq?

Who says the Pentagon did not have a plan for post-war Iraq? Everything appears to be proceeding swimmingly to plan - the plan to allow Iraq to disintegrate into civil war so to fragment the nation into a series of weaker states that individually, on the balance of probabilities, will be easier to influence and control.

Iraq's autocratic rulers, the Bathists under Saddam Hussein, were emboldened, by the wealth of oil and autonomous power, to resist the coercions of foreign powers. Having previously succumbed, in their fruitless war with Iran, they learnt to resist the hand of their master with which they used to be fed.

The frustration of such indiscipline lead those who thought themselves to still be Iraq's masters to beat and eventually destroy their once useful hound. And to ensure that Iraq would not resurrect, phantom like, it's corpse was to be dismembered. Should one of the new smaller Iraqi states fail to tow the line (as is probable) it's power and strategic regional threat posed (to you know who) will be much diminished from that considered to exist with Saddam's Iraq and mixing it up yet again, in the hope of a preferable fresh outcome, an easier task.

As Henry Ford said "Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs"