DRAFT: I’m just starting to get a grasp on this ISIS BS – and strangely enough it’s about oil

Spread the love

I’m just starting to get a grasp of this ISIS BS. I wonder if any newspapers will be publishing this story with me tomorrow.

Kurdistan has control over its natural resources according to the constitution of the federal Iraq.

Kurdistan sold its oil in Texas independently of the central Iraqi government despite legal action by the central government to prevent that sale.

Basra in the south of Iraq is the region responsible for the vast majority of Iraq’s oil production – about 75% – together with huge oil and gas reserves.

Basra has also been attempting to assert its control over it’s oil resources in federal Iraq.

This Independent article raises objections to UK government claims that military intervention is legal since it is requested by the Iraqi government. It should also be appreciated that the Kurdish Regional Government has legitimate control of Kurdish oil.

This is a DRAFT and I will publish a fuller article

21.25 Still working on this. The least UK MPs can do if they’re going to vote on military intervention tomorrow is to try to comprehend the wider context and legal issues.

Continue ReadingDRAFT: I’m just starting to get a grasp on this ISIS BS – and strangely enough it’s about oil

Cameron, Clegg and Ed sneak in a snoopers’ charter by the back door

Spread the love

A snoopers’ charter by the backdoor: One day until Drip is forced through

by Ian Dunt

Privacy campaigners are frantically trying to brief MPs about the implications of the data retention and investigatory powers bill (Drip), before it is forced through all of its Commons stages tomorrow.

The more experts look at the bill, the more convinced they’ve become that it provides authorities with the spine of the snoopers’ charter, but without any of the public debate or parliamentary scrutiny which were supposed to accompany it.

The charter – known as the draft communications bill before it was killed off – would have forced internet service providers and mobile operators to keep details of their customers’ behaviour for 12 months.

Analysis of Drip, which was supposed to only extend the government’s current powers for another two years, suggests it forces through many of those requirements on internet firms without any of the political outrage which derailed the earlier effort.

Clause four of the bill appears to extend Ripa – the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (basically Britain’s Patriot Act) – so that the UK government can impose severe penalties on companies overseas that refuse to comply with interception warrants. It also lays out situations in which they may be required to maintain permanent interception capacity.

Clause five then provides a new definition of “telecommunications service”, which includes companies offering internet-based services. That seems to drag services like Gmail and Hotmail into the law, and very probably social media sites like Facebook too.

The government insists the extraterritoriality clause merely makes explicit what was previously implicit. It’s tosh. As the explanatory notes for the legislation – released very quietly on Friday night – make clear, overseas telecommunications companies did not believe they were necessarily under Ripa’s jurisdiction.

“Regarding the amendments to Ripa, in view of the suggestion by overseas telecommunications service providers that the extra-territorial effect of Ripa is unclear, it is considered necessary to amend the legislation to put the issue beyond doubt,” it reads.

“This includes clarifying the definition of a ‘telecommunications service’ to ensure the full range of telecommunications services available to customers in the United Kingdom are included in the definition.”

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband insist Drip merely extends their current powers for two years. That’s nonsense. These two clauses, which have nothing to do with the purported aim of the bill, provide the spine of the snoopers’ charter.

They also appear to provide a legal basis for programmes like Tempora, the project revealed by Edward Snowden to allow GCHQ to tap into transatlantic fibre-optic cables and stored data.

Notably, Privacy International, Liberty and others are taking the government to a tribunal this week on whether Tempora is legal, even though the government won’t even admit its existence. Drip could make the tribunal ruling irrelevant.

read more

Continue ReadingCameron, Clegg and Ed sneak in a snoopers’ charter by the back door

Tony Blair, Terrorist (2)

Spread the love

The BBC reported Building 7 was demolished / fekked / collapsed 23 minuted before it did. I can’t understand this except that it was scripted and Building 7 was late in being collapsed / fekked / demolished. Can it be anything other than following a script? Please explain.

edit: That there was a script to 9/11 that a section of BBC was actively participating in i.e. that would be according to UK government direction. That would be the UK government of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

ed: Please explain. The BBC editors tried …

ed: Just to make absolutely clear: The BBC reported that the Solomon Building also known as Building 7 collapsed. The BBC report was premature and the Soloman building collapsed 23 minutes later.

The BBC reported the premature collapsuation of Building 7 a full 23 minutes before it collapsed – is that a record premature collapsuation?

11/7/14. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the BBC and by extension Tony Blair’s UK government were complicit in the attacks in New York known as 911. I am suggesting that by prematurely announcing the collapse of Building 7, the BBC was following a pre-planned script and that Building 7’s collapse or destruction was delayed according to that script. How else is it explained.

While the BBC is the UK’s state broadcasting corporation, I tend to understand it as comprising of 2 parts: the normal news reporting operation and another section concerned with state propaganda. I do think of these two parts as separate and distinct although the news reporting arm is sometimes biased and misleading.

 

Continue ReadingTony Blair, Terrorist (2)

More terrorism bullshit …

Spread the love

Airport security stepped up in Britain over al-Qaida bomb plot fears

Be afraid …

what a load of nonsense to make you far more afraid

ed: Soldiers drafted in to increase Heathrow security

ed: Cor, look at that 4 days later a huge anti-war protest Weren’t they afraid? Didn’t they believe the bullshit dossiers and all that? Didn’t they believe that Tony Bliar was a truthful straight kinda guy? Didn’t they believe all that bullshit about those fantastical caves? Didn’t they believe that Tony, the UK government and establishment were only interested in protecting them – because they were in such imminent danger?

Didn’t they believe that there were evil terrrists out there?

Shouldn’t these demonstrators have realised that there were terrrists coming to Heathrow?

Shouldn’t they have realised that they can make imaginary liquid bombs?

Shouldn’t they be afraid and not question our glorious leaders?

… who are no doubt only interested in protecting them (us) …

Fascists control through fear.

We’ve not had this for a while. This is what happens to Fascists

Image of Mussolini & Co hanging out. What happens to Fascists.
Image of Mussolini & Co hanging out. What happens to Fascists.

 

Continue ReadingMore terrorism bullshit …