Our Man In Sudan

Courtesy Of Al-Jazeera

An Ex-Wall Street Banker Jets Off To South Sudan To Show How Investors Are Rushing To Africa In A Modern-Day Land-Grab.

This film follows former Wall Street banker, Phil Heilberg, who reveals what goes on behind the scenes in the modern-day version of land grabs.

Since the collapse of the global financial markets, Western investors have been looking for lucrative opportunities, especially in countries with internal conflict, such as Sudan.

With an increasing world population and the high price of raw materials, agricultural land is seen as a safe bet.

But with so much cheap land on offer, foreign speculators are flocking to Africa.

Miss Representation

By MissRepresentation.org

The Secret Of The Seven Sisters

A Four-Part Series That Reveals How A Secret Pact Formed A Cartel That Controls The World's Oil.

On August 28, 1928, in the Scottish highlands, began the secret story of oil.

Three men had an appointment at Achnacarry Castle - a Dutchman, an American and an Englishman.

The Dutchman was Henry Deterding, a man nicknamed the Napoleon of Oil, having exploited a find in Sumatra. He joined forces with a rich ship owner and painted Shell salesman and together the two men founded Royal Dutch Shell.

The American was Walter C. Teagle and he represents the Standard Oil Company, founded by John D. Rockefeller at the age of 31 - the future Exxon. Oil wells, transport, refining and distribution of oil - everything is controlled by Standard oil.

The Englishman, Sir John Cadman, was the director of the Anglo-Persian oil Company, soon to become BP. On the initiative of a young Winston Churchill, the British government had taken a stake in BP and the Royal Navy switched its fuel from coal to oil. With fuel-hungry ships, planes and tanks, oil became "the blood of every battle".

The new automobile industry was developing fast, and the Ford T was selling by the million. The world was thirsty for oil, and companies were waging a merciless contest but the competition was making the market unstable.

That August night, the three men decided to stop fighting and to start sharing out the world's oil. Their vision was that production zones, transport costs, sales prices - everything would be agreed and shared. And so began a great cartel, whose purpose was to dominate the world, by controlling its oil.

Four others soon joined them, and they came to be known as the Seven Sisters - Exxon, Shell, BP, Mobil, Texaco, Gulf and Chevron - the biggest oil companies in the world.

Throughout the region's modern history, since the discovery of oil, the Seven Sisters have sought to control the balance of power.

They have supported monarchies in Iran and Saudi Arabia, opposed the creation of OPEC, profiting from the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the ultimate destruction of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

The Seven Sisters were always present, and almost always came out on top.

Since that notorious meeting at Achnacarry Castle on August 28, 1928, they have never ceased to plot, to plan and to scheme.

PART-1




PART-2




PART-3




PART-4

3,000 US Troops Headed For Africa

Mark P. Fancher writes:

The United States plans to permanently station a U.S. Army brigade on African soil, beginning next year. Is this the start of something big – and ominous – or “only a benign creeping U.S. military presence in Africa?”

“The obvious mission is to lock down the entire continent.”

Army Times news service reported that the U.S. is expected to deploy more than 3,000 soldiers to Africa in 2013. They will be assigned to every part of the continent. Major General David R. Hogg mused: “As far as our mission goes, it’s uncharted territory.” 

The U.S. military has at least a dozen ongoing major operations in Africa that require hands-on involvement by U.S. troops. By ensuring that U.S. troops will be found in every corner of Africa, there will be little risk that any regions where U.S. interests are threatened will be left uncovered. 

For example, Mali has oil reserves and is strategically located, but it has been destabilized by a growing secessionist movement in the north. Conveniently, Mali has also been the site of a U.S. military exercise called “Atlas Accord 12” which provided training to Mali’s military in aerial delivery.

During this year, there have been other operations in other parts of the continent that were comparable in scale if not in substance.

*“Cutlass Express” was a U.S. naval exercise that focused on what is purported to be “piracy” in the Somali Basin region.

*“Africa Endeavor 2012” was based in Cameroon and involved coordination and training in military communications.

*“Obangame Express 2012” was a naval exercise designed to ensure a presence in the Gulf of Guinea, an area that is in the heart of West Africa’s oil operations.

*“Southern Accord 12” was based in Botswana and its objective was to establish a military working relationship between southern African military forces and the U.S.

*“Western Accord 2012” was an exercise in Senegal that involved every type of military operation from live fire exercises to intelligence gathering to combat marksmanship.

There have been a number of other comparable exercises with names like: “African Lion,” “Flintlock,” and “Phoenix Express.” In addition, U.S. National Guard units from around the country have been rotating in and out of countries that include, among others: South Africa, Morocco, Ghana, Tunisia, Nigeria and Liberia.

AFRICOM’s central message is that the U.S. and African militaries are partners in a war against terrorism and other forms of unrest. 

It is, however an error for any African country to swallow the notion that Africa and the U.S. are in some way interdependent. 

The true nature of the relationship was explained by A.M. Babu, a central figure in the formation of the country of Tanzania. He said: “The alleged ‘interdependence’ can only be of the kind in which we (Africans) are permanently dependent on the West’s massive exploitation of our human and material resources.”

U.S. plans for exploitation are revealed by a Congressional Research Service report made available by WikiLeaks. It says: “In spite of conflict in the Niger Delta and other oil producing areas, the potential for deep water drilling in the Gulf of Guinea is high, and analysts estimate that Africa may supply as much as 25 percent of all U.S. oil imports by 2015.” The document quotes a U.S. Defense Department official as saying: “…a key mission for U.S. forces (in Africa) would be to ensure that Nigeria’s oil fields…are secure.”

Consequently, the U.S. would be pleased if there were African military operations that target militants who sabotage foreign oil operations in West Africa. At the same time, because of plans for increased oil imports, the U.S. would vigorously oppose efforts by an African military to exclude western companies from Niger Delta oil fields even though these companies’ leaking pipelines have ruined countless acres of African farm land and fishing waters.

The true interests of Africa and the U.S. are in perpetual conflict and the relationships between the U.S. and African countries must therefore be far from interdependent. 

Africans are well advised to react to the presence of U.S. soldiers in their countries as they would to termites in their own homes. There might be no immediate observable harm, but over time the structure will be irreparably damaged and may even collapse.

Via: "Global Research"

How To Rob Africa

Why Does The Western World Feed Africa With One Hand, While Taking From It With The Other?

The world's wealthy countries often criticise African nations for corruption - especially that perpetrated by those among the continent's government and business leaders who abuse their positions by looting tens of billions of dollars in national assets or the profits from state-owned enterprises that could otherwise be used to relieve the plight of some of the world's poorest peoples. 

Yet the West is culpable too in that it often looks the other way when that same dirty money is channelled into bank accounts in Europe and the US.

International money laundering regulations are supposed to stop the proceeds of corruption being moved around the world in this way, but it seems the developed world's financial system is far more tempted by the prospect of large cash injections than it should be.  

Indeed the West even provides the getaway vehicles for this theft, in the shape of anonymous off-shore companies and investment entities, whose disguised ownership makes it too easy for the corrupt and dishonest to squirrel away stolen funds in bank accounts overseas. 

This makes them nigh on impossible for investigators to trace, let alone recover.

A few years ago rich deposits were discovered there which held out the promise of billions of dollars of revenue that could have filled the public purse and from there have been spent on much needed improvements to roads, schools and hospitals. 

"When these diamonds came, they came as a God-given gift. So we thought now we are going to benefit from jobs, infrastructure, we thought maybe our roads were going to improve, so that generations and generations will benefit from this, not one individual. But what is happening, honestly, honestly it's a shame!"

What is happening is actually something of a mystery because though the mines are clearly in operation and producing billions of dollars worth of gems every year, little if any of it has ever been put into Zimbabwe's state coffers. 

"We have got evidence of the quantities that are being mined, the quantities that are being exported but nothing is coming to the fiscus .... All I know is that it's not coming to the treasury. So that is a self-evident question. It is not coming to us. That means someone is getting it. The person who is getting it is not getting it legally. Therefore, he's a thief, therefore she’s a thief." 

Sadly, as Stanley Kwenda has realised, it is typical of a problem found all over Africa. 

The continent is rich is natural resources that are being exploited for big profits, but the money is rarely used for the benefit of the people. Instead it goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials who then often smuggle it out to be deposited in secret offshore bank accounts in the developed world.

So who facilitates these transactions? And how and why does the developed world make it so easy to launder this dirty cash? 

Burning The Quran and The Satanic Verses

Is There A Difference?

"A partial solution to this problem is to engage them intellectually. It’s unlikely the majority of the followers of EDL or Terry Jones know the issues in depth; they do need educating. In the UK, I am sure, many Muslims would happily engage with the EDL followers when they are sober, over the nation’s favourite food: the Indian curry!"

By Yamin Zakaria
(Saturday, September 11, 2010)
Courtesy Of "Media Monitors"

Whilst some Muslims around the world demonstrate with rage, others find this cheap media stunt by the US Pastor, Terry Jones, rather amusing; he appears like the typical ignorant rugged hillbilly with a tiny band of followers. From his interviews, he fits the profile of those ignorant Americans raised on a diet of Zionist Fox News and baseball, who would struggle to comment on the US history and geography, let alone the rest of the world. 

His interview on CNN bought a smile to my face, as it did to the CNN Presenter who was trying to clarify the justification for burning the Quran; it is obvious that he lacks ability to articulate his case, compounded by the fact that he has not even read the Quran or any scholarly literature that elaborates on the subject. Indeed, he sounds like a man who does not read much. 

His allegations that Quran advocates violence is laughable, as the same teachings can be found in the Bible, some of the laws derived from the Old Testament are much harsher than the Quranic laws. It seems the pastor is also unfamiliar with the Bible. If we talk about the actions or reactions of some Muslims, that needs to be assessed against the actions of violent Christian-America. I am not talking about the daily shootings at schools and shopping malls, rape, bombings, and the high level crime rate inside America, but the killing of innocent people in distant land. 

This is the nation that dropped the Atom bombs and chemical weapons on innocent civilians; over last century it has killed millions for profit, and continues to do so in the Middle East. Allegedly, their ‘loving’ Christian god commanded George Bush to carry out the slaughter of innocent people. Numerous videos depict the cruelty of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are often killing civilians for sheer enjoyment, true to their sadistic nature. The Pastor needs to take closer look at his nation with its awful history. 

The Muslims should have ignored Terry Jones, and by the usual emotional reaction of some it has only given him far greater media attention than he deserves. I guess for sensitive issues like this, the hearts and emotions rule over the mind. 

It’s ironic that a ‘Christian’ pastor, whose flock constantly peddles the message of ‘love’ and ‘forgiveness’ can demonstrate so much blanket hate towards another community. Such hypocrisy is not surprising, as many prominent US-based preachers have consistently demonstrated this over the years. How many have swindled money from their docile flocks? How many TV-Evangelists have been caught with their pants down after lecturing about sexual morality? What bout the numerous claims about healing, later exposed as fraudulent. Not to mention the recent revelation of those celibate Priests sexually molesting children. 

Far from the central Christian message of ‘love’, this pastor represents a new breed of extremists: Christian-Zionist, who has anything but love; these people are simply evil. Incidentally, why is the Pope silent on this issue? Where are the prominent Christian Priests issuing condemnations? Had this been Muslims burning the Bible, the entire Muslim community would have been put on the docks. For the actions of few Muslims, we are all frequently held accountable; the same principle should also apply here with Terry Jones. 

Let us leave aside the religious dimension, most of us live in a secular society; thus, let us examine the secular arguments of free speech which underpins this issue. This has resurfaced the old debate of the right of freedom of speech against ‘selective’ curbing of it, to prevent incitement to hate and violence. In defence of Terry Jones, the issue of freedom of expression is pointed out, along with the example of the Muslims burning the Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie, in the past. The obliging media selectively pushes the arguments of incitement to hate and violence to the back, and the argument of the right of free speech for Terry Jones is brought to the front. It works in reverse for the Muslim action and reaction, as it is always measured against the principle of incitement to hate and violence, rather than a right to express their viewpoint. 

Both, the Satanic Verses and the actions of Terry Jones are provocation, and not a reaction; one can also include the Danish Cartoon in this category. Rather, the Muslims will point out, if the media opposed the book burning of Satanic Verses, why did they not demonstrate the same level of opposition to the burning of the Quran. Moreover, the ‘Satanic Verses’ is not a sacred scripture with millions of followers around the world. Thus, if anything, the response to curtail free speech of Terry Jones should have been greater. This merely confirms that media consistency is the exception, and media-hypocrisy is the norm.

Most Islamophobes are overt racists or closet racists. It is the culture of war on terror that has encouraged them come out and target Islam and Muslims, which has been fanned by the mainstream media for decades, significantly increased post 9/11; the racist Islamophobes are enjoying the free ride. Since racism has become unacceptable, the overt racists are quick to deny their racist motive, and make the technical argument that targeting religious group is not a racist action; however, when you prod under their white skin by examining the behaviour and track record of its prominent members, the racist agenda becomes clear. For example, the disparity in response to the decades of IRA bombings in the UK to the single incident of 7/7 makes it obvious. The entire Irish community was not put on the dock, they were not viewed with the same level of disdain, and the response was confined to the perpetrators, nor were there any calls for repatriation or curbing immigration from Republic and Northern Ireland. The National Front never marched into the areas populated by the Irish community. 

In the UK, the EDL (English Defence League) fits this profile of being over racists using the cloak of opposing radical Islam. I think it would be more accurate to call it ‘reactionary’ Islam to the ongoing oppression in the Islamic world. If you oppose radical Islam, then why is the basis of your organisation a racial one? Surely, being English has nothing to do with opposing radical Islam? Even their name gives the game away. The EDL and their ilk of racists are adopting a more politically correct slogan, and concealing their racist agenda behind targeting Islam and Muslims. To support their claim of being non-racist, the EDL present the likes of Gurmit Singh, but the core organisation is simply an unofficial branch of the BNP (British National Party). 

A partial solution to this problem is to engage them intellectually. It’s unlikely the majority of the followers of EDL or Terry Jones know the issues in depth; they do need educating. In the UK, I am sure, many Muslims would happily engage with the EDL followers when they are sober, over the nation’s favourite food: the Indian curry! 

From the days of the Civil Rights movement to the LA riots of Rodney King shows line of progression, protests can and will eventually turn violent. The oppressed ones will rise in revolt eventually. If you demonise a racial group, you will get a violent reaction eventually, and why that should be any different for a religious group. Soon, such a reaction might take place in a large scale, and gradually the targeting of a religious group might become as unacceptable, like racism is at present.