Even a man whose own daughter died in the lockerbie plane crash pronounced the libyan Al Megrahi innocent!!! that should tell you something.
all documentation surrounding this case is banned from public access for life under what the british govt call public interest immunity.
Flight from the truth The Lockerbie trial was meant to end the saga of Pan Am flight 103. But it didn't take into account the wads of US dollars, or the heroin, or the Hizbullah T-shirt found in the wreckage. As the man convicted of the bombing prepares to appeal, John Ashton and Ian Ferguson argue that there has been a top-level cover-up
Special report: Lockerbie Share 16
inShare 0 Email John Ashton and Ian Ferguson The Guardian, Wednesday 27 June 2001 There are two versions of the Lockerbie story. One - told at the trial - is neat, clearcut and, ultimately, reassuring. The other, which we believe is the true story, is far less comfortable. In the official version it was bad guys against good: Muammar Gadafy and his recently convicted henchman Abdel Baset al-Megrahi versus the heroic international investigation led by the tiny Dumfries and Galloway police force. It ends with the triumph of justice over terror. In the alternative version the heroics of the cops are obscured by dirty politics. It ends with a dreadful miscarriage of justice. The conviction of Megrahi (his co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, was acquitted) supposedly proved the official version and drew a line under the Lockerbie saga. But the case will not go away: Megrahi is planning an appeal and the relatives of the British passengers are determined to hold the Labour government to their promise, made in opposition, of an independent inquiry. If the relatives get their way, a huge can of worms will be opened for, as our book reveals, almost from the night the plane went down, vital evidence was suppressed.
[b]Monday, August 17, 2009 Tam Dalyell writes on the truths about Lockerbie which London & Washington don’t want to hear This weekend’s Mail on Sunday saw a very interesting article from former Labour MP Tam Dalyell on what many don’t want to hear about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.
The Mail on Sunday (Scottish edition) reports :
August 16 2009, The Mail on Sunday (Scottish Edition).
The truth about Lockerbie? That’s the last thing the Americans want the world to know.
By Tam Dalyell Former Labour MP for Linlithgow and former Father of the House of Commons.
WHY have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials' responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. I understand the grief of those parents, such as Kathleen Flynn and Bert Ammerman, who have appeared on our TV screens to speak about the loss of loved ones. Alas all these years they have been lied to about the cause of that grief.
Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.
It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.
The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.
Mostashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed.
This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas.
American military personnel were pulled off the plane. A delegation of South
Africans, including foreign minister Pik Botha, were pulled off Pan Am Flight 103 at the last minute.
Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.
If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed Bengt Carlsson, the UN negotiator for Angola whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.
No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.[/b]
Yewe2011: They were so happy that large segments of the population decided to launch a revolt against him?
I find it hard to believe that regardless of how they were living anyone would be happy with the same man and his family dominating state affairs for over 40+ years.
Another thing, Libya had one of the highest GDP's in Africa but that does not necessarily correlate to having a high standard o
large segments of the population? where did you get that from? majority of the people opposing him were from the eastern part of the country and they were mainly corrupt former govt officials who wanted a bigger piece of the pie, at one point Qadaffi wanted all libyan citizens to be given a monthly allowance (on top of the allowances they were already getting from oil revenues) to be paid directly into the accounts of libyan citizens - many of these corrupt govt officials were against this and preferred further privatisation of state assets and resources into the hands of western multinational ownership, Qadaffi was very much against this and wanted the wealth of his country to be in the hands of libyans not foreigners.
also i never mentioned anything about GDP - i said Libyan citizens enjoyed the highest standard of living on the african continent even higher than some european countries.
how can you easily dismiss their grievances by calling them disgruntled turncoats?
because thats all they were, do you know the first thing they did when they seized control of benghazi? they opened up a central bank!!! what sort of freedom fighters open up central banks, no concern for the welfare of the people just money.
btw, do you have any proof of these Libyan rebels being given funding, training or arms by the CIA or MI6? If not, then it's merely speculation.
of course - it is very well documented and all over the internet - research it.
again, where is the proof of this?
google Tam Dalyell - former british MP and his comments regarding lockerbie.
so after the West: 1) trained his adversaries 2) set-up him up and framed him or a passenger plane bombing and 3) tried to assassinate him
he renewed contact with them? lol
He had no choice, libya's economy was on the verge of collapse and they had been completely isolated by the west- it was the only chance he had to get libya back on its feet and build much needed infrastructure which is what he was doing up until 2011, he had also entered into a lot of trade with china but the west wanted the lion's share which he was refusing to give them.The only european country he was on good terms with was Italy mainly because Berlusconi was his personal friend, most of his european oil contracts were with Italy.
Arosa: I am not afraid of the America or European military. And I understand a thing or two about business investments and protection of interest.If most Africans countries think that the conditions of trade between them and the west do not favour them, then they should openly renegotiate a new one. Do a research on all the countries that the American military are present in at the moment compare their economies with that of Nigeria and most of Africa. Tell me how these economies are doing. America usually only invest extensively in economies that they feel are safe for their citizens.
Renegotiate really ? the way Qadaffi renegotiated with europe and america and subsequently found himself facing military bombardment from NATO?
Its like you dont understand that europe and america do not negotiate with countries that they are militarily stronger than - ask yourself why they invaded and destroyed libya and ivory coasts
Yewe2011: all 3 of these men are dictators and should be removed from power (bar Mobutu because he is no longer in power)
Omar Bongo is dead and has been succeeded by his son another french puppet !! Paul Biya will never be removed by the French unless he goes agaisnt their financial interests
Chongaiman: On paper, they won their elections. Gbagbo on the other hand was known to have lost an election. It happened unfortunately at a time when he was in the bad books of the powers that be. He too, was like Nze the bird who so far forgot himself after a heavy meal that he challenged his chi, or maybe his source of confidence lay in the lion-peppersoup he must have been eating.
if you want to keep playing games with words its up to you, the united states and belgium backed Mobutu for 32 years and he colluded with american, belgian, british and israeli mining companies allowing them to loot his country dry, in return he was allowed to amass a personal fortune running into billions of dollars. Zaire now known as DRC is the richest country on the planet with mineral wealth estimated at over $24 trillion
Gbagbo was declared the winner of the elections in his country by the highest court in the land - the supreme court - since when did the united states have the power to over rule the decision of the highest court in the land of a sovereign state, can the govt of nigeria overrule the decision of the united states supreme court?
Yewe2011: Yes. I am aware of France's history of colonialism in West Africa. But that doesn't change the fact that in this current Mali crisis they are right.
Gbagbo was just as much a puppet as Ouattara. Don't try to turn him into some Pan-African hero just because he was deposed.
FYI, at the time Qadaffi was overthrown he was trying to get back into the good graces of the West.
yes, i remember that - Qadaffi had no choice but to renew relations with the west becasue the economic sanctions imposed on his country were creating civil unrest and the MI6 and CIA sponsored al qaeda groups were closing in on him, he renewed trade with europe and american oil companies but on his terms not on theirs and that is why he is dead.
Arosa: You see contradiction while I see consistency. In all these countries you mention the majority of its citizens requested help from the international community. In the case of Libya and Syria the peeps wanted a change in their government; they were fed up with their dictators. Mali on the other hand were being invaded by Islamists, in the guise of forming a new nation. If they want to form a new nation, is it not the UN that they need to go to for that if they can't have a referendum? It's critical for you to know that this is not a war against Islam.
you are completely wrong! the libyan people were perfectly happy with a man who had given them the highest standard of living on the african continent and place them at no 52 on the UN human development index. The only people who wanted Qadaffi out were a bunch of disgruntled turncoats residing in the eastern part of libya who wanted to get their greedy hands on libya's vast oil resources, they were then given funding, training and arms by the CIA and MI6. MI6 had been trying to get rid of Qadaffi since the 1990s when they paid various libyan traitors £100,000 each to assassinate him - this information is documented in a former MI6 officer's testimony - google a british guy by the name of David Shayler - he blew the whistle on the british govts plan to assassinate Qadaffi in 1996. Britain and america framed Qadaffi for the dowing of the panam lockerbie plane crash in order to make him an international pariah, libya was also subjected to punishing economic sanctions in order to get the libyan people to turn against him and overthrow him. this is the reason why Qadaffi eventually gave in to the west and renewed contact with the west becasuse the economic sanctions were creating a lot of civil unrest and various disgruntled groups were plotting with the west to overthrow him.
Listen very carefully - the west do not give a sh.t about whether dictators run your country or not - all they care about is that your country is left wide open to them to exploit, in most cases they make sure this is possible by installing a dictator over you who will do their bidding. the only so called dictators they remove are the ones who go against them
What is wrong in a Nation protecting its interests if it can? If your investment was under threat, would you not defend it?
only a brainwashed african can make the above statement - do you not understand that europe and america are planning on ra.ping your country, deploying troops on your continent. do you not get the fact that they plan to bomb and kill thousands of civilians - just like they are currently doing in mali and just like they did in libya and ivory coast? does that not cause any feeling of outrage or even fear in you?
Chongaiman: ^^^ I choose to be aware that he lost an election but decided to hold on to piwer against all entreaties. Of course, his a55 got whooped for his intransigence.
funny - did you know that the late Omar Bongo of Gabon a french puppet was in power for 41 years?
how long has paul biya of cameroun another french puppet been in power?
What of the late Mobutu Sese seko how long was he in power in Zaire?
Yewe2011: There would be no "African solution" to the Mali crisis. Most of the ECOWAS nations did not want to interfere in the conflict. The only reason the Islamists are on the run is because of French initiative and mobilization. Most of these people complaining about French and ECOWAS intervention ego and pride is getting in the way of them recognizing the truth that France is doing the right thing.
france doing the right thing? don't make me laugh! Do you know anything about France's history in west africa?
do you know about the CFA franc and how all former french west african colonies are tied into this system of modern day slavery which compels all french west african member states to relinquish 85% of their foreign reserves to the french central bank? are you aware that it was because Gbagbo wanted to get out of that neo colonial slavery system and sign up with Qadaffi's african central bank that led to his overthrow and subsequent arrest and handover to the european run ICC?
Someone tries to setup a terrorist centre of excellence in your neighbourhood and you are complaining that hooligans are coming from outside to help beat up the terrorists.
Would you rather wait for Mali to become a new Afghanistan now that Somalia/Afghanistan/Iraq seems to be dying down?
Are you so myopic that you cant see that a successful militant Islamic regime in Mali will definitely have a follow-on effect on all other militant fringe entities in West Africa?
When Boko haram claimed to have been trained in Chad, Mali and Sudan, was it a coincidence?
people simply oppose western interventions all in the name of anti-imperialism and never seek to determine whether it is ever in their best interests.
Didnt the sovereign government of Mali request for an INTERVENTION?
Most importantly, Isnt it in Nigeria's best interest to ensure Islamic militancy doesnt take root in West Africa?
I sometimes wonder why many nigerians refuse to confront the truth even when it is staring them in the face - ask yourself this simple question why did the west train, arm and fund islamic militants in libya and syria but are suddenly opposed to them in Mali - dont you see that there is a huge contradiction in there?
Do you know that France depends on Mali and Niger's uranium for nuclear powered energy which is used to provide electricity supply to france, why has france sent its special forces to "secure" uranium mines in neighbouring NIger - i mean are you immune to knowledge and information? do you know how to research issues you dont understand?
loswhite: do u think u knw more Dan d Chinese government if really it was that easy they would hav don it. U acting like sumbody dat play chess thinking of only ur moves.
and what makes you think that they wont do this? they are making moves in that direction.
loswhite: In as much as d west have their own interest so is china.ppl kip blaming d west for everyting but d truth is d west cannot do anything witout our support. D west cannot overthrow gadaffi witout d support of Libyans d west cannot stop our development witout our ppl d west cannot cum to Nigeria to blow our churches in d north witout our ppl as sum may claim dat Boko haram is funded by d west so y do we allow ourselves to b used. It's more like doin evil n blaming d devil.as for Mali I will prefer d west to be in control of d uranium Dan for it to be in d Hands of sum Islamic extremist.commedians joke abt Jesus n pastors but as Christian we don't start rioting or burning tin cos of dat. I remember d da Vinci code movie dat didn't make us Christian to fight n riot even miss world dat was to b hosted in Nigeria ppl were rioting n destroying tins. It is obvious dat d west have their issues but d fact still remains dat we Have Islamic extremist popularly called terrorist
i dont know if you know this but the west funds, arms and places in power some of the world's most corrupt and brutal dicators.
they look for people who have one grudge or the other against a legitimate leader - usually the kind of leader who is not willing to sell out his own people in exchange for bribes and extreme wealth from western corporations and banks, they find a saboteur who will be willing to get rid of such a leader and they fund, train and arm rebel groups who are then sent in to destabilise the entire country, and kill this leader, they did this in Libya the majority of libyans were in support of Qadaffi and wanted him to remain in power. You are wrong when you say that it is our fault that we end up in this way, if the west can not get to you using saboteurs to destabilise the country they will invade your country and kill thousands of your people this happened in Iraq, it also happened in Libya when the saboteurs they trained, armed and funded could not remove Qadaffi, the same thing is also currently happening in Syria, the west have been trying to remove Basshar Al Assad for almost 2 years using al qaeda.
[b]Friendly Dictators
by Dennis Bernstein and Laura Sydell
from Eclipse Enterprises trading card series, 1995
Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.
They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.
They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world.
Friendly dictators
Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan
Manny4 life - China has a ready made export market with ASEAN - Association of South East Asian Nations :
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations[5] (ASEAN pron.: /ˈɑːsi.ɑːn/ ah-see-ahn,[6] rarely /ˈɑːzi.ɑːn/ ah-zee-ahn)[7][8] is a geo-political and economic organization of ten countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed on 8 August 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.[9] Since then, membership has expanded to include Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Its aims include accelerating economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, protection of regional peace and stability, and opportunities for member countries to discuss differences peacefully.[10] ASEAN covers a land area of 4.46 million km², which is 3% of the total land area of Earth, and has a population of approximately 600 million people, which is 8.8% of the world's population. The sea area of ASEAN is about three times larger than its land counterpart. In 2010, its combined nominal GDP had grown to US$1.8 trillion.[11] If ASEAN were a single entity, it would rank as the tenth largest economy in the world, behind the United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, Russia, France, Canada, Spain, Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Italy.
manny4life: Dude, when companies manufacture and export products, whether it's done by Chinese companies or by American companies in the China, don't that count towards their economy? Again, according to the trade dept, about 40% of ALL manufactured goods(whether by state owned or corporations), ALL manufactured goods in China is headed for the U.S. which makes the U.S. their largest stakeholder by default.
Is that easy to replace U.S. exports with alternative markets? In market operations, who matters most, the buyer or the seller? Demand or supply, which counts? If other alternative markets were exploitative, that mark will be seriously reduced, but unfortunately, figures tell for themselves. They're are reducing while U.S. and Europe is reducing as well. Other nations are spring forth their cheap labor as well, very common to Asia and Africa.
As for the slaves, corps here are finding that due to the nature of how most goods are produced, lots or patrons are rejecting it. I can only speak about U.S., that's why big box retailers like Walmart has come a long way in improving standards of the average Chinese worker, else they pull out of that market.
Unfortunately, China is vexed with U.S. standards of policies that are indirectly hurting them, whether you believe it or not, if goods are manufactured in Africa (cheap slave labor), it's no telling what the supply market will do. Just for the mere fact that U.S. and her allies want to destabilize China, they will go all out to do anything --- whether u choose to believe it, it's up to you. One thing I know is that the laws of economics - demand/supply does not lie.
manny4life: Though I was off about the 70% manufacturing thing about China, nonetheless, I've tried to get accurate figures, but I will shortly... brb
Bros if you want to keep beleiving in that lie that China needs the US more than the US needs China its up to you, i have given you a link to an article about china's plan to dump its US treasury bills as quickly and painlessly as possible.
what is the point in doing business with a country (the US) whose currency is being devalued on a daily basis? what is the point in buying up debt (treasury bonds) that is losing its value daily due to america's current practice of printing money? america is not generating enough revenue to pay for its imports and therefore it has to borrow by getting the Federal Reserve to print money in order to make up for any shortfall in revenue this in turn is causing inflation and the devaluation of the dollar, China knows this, Japan knows this and various other EU creditor countries know this hence their plan to get out of the dollar as soon as possible.
you may find this article illuminating:
Lights Out…
Delusions of Chinese dependency on the U.S consumer still abound, and those who suggest a catastrophic dump of U.S. debt and dollars in the near term are liable to hear the same ignorant talking points we have heard all along:
“The Chinese are better off with us than without us…”
"China needs export dollars from the U.S. to survive…”
“China isn’t equipped to produce goods without U.S. technological savvy…”
"America could simply revert back to industry and production and teach the Chinese a lesson…”
“The U.S. could default on its debts to China and simply walk away…”
“The whole situation is China’s fault because of their artificial devaluation of the Yuan over the decades…”
And on and on it goes. Though I have deconstructed these arguments more instances than I can count in the past, I feel it my duty to at least quickly address them one more time:
U.S. consumption of all goods, not just Chinese goods, has fallen off a cliff since 2008 and is unlikely to recover anytime soon. China has done quite well despite this fall in exports considering the circumstances. With the institution of ASEAN, they barely need us at all.
China is well equipped to produce technological goods without U.S. help, and if Japan is inducted into ASEAN (as I believe they soon will be), they will be even more capable.
America will NOT be able to revert back to an industrial based economy before a dollar collapse escalates to fruition. It took decades to dismantle U.S. industry and ship it overseas. Reeducating a 70% service based society to function in an industrial system, not to mention resurrecting the factory infrastructure necessary to support the nation, would likely take decades to accomplish.
If the U.S. deliberately defaults on debt to China, the global reputation of the dollar would implode, and its world reserve status would be irrevocably lost. We won’t be teaching anyone a “lesson” then.
Yes, China currently manipulates its currency down, but then again, so does the U.S. though quantitative easing. Both sides are dirty. Taking sides in this farce is pure stupidity...
Now that all that has been cleared up (again), the primary point becomes rather direct; the reason it is difficult to predict an exact time frame for an American collapse is because all the pieces are in place to trigger an event right now! There are, of course, stress points within the system that set a time limit, even on global banks and China, but a full spectrum catastrophe is not only a concern for some distant future. Every element needed for the so called “perfect storm” is ever present and ready to ignite at a moments notice. The destructive potential coming from China alone is undeniable. Everyday that the spark is subdued should be treated as a gift, an extra 24 hours of education and preparation. This is how close we are to the edge. It is not for us to be alarmed, but to be ready, and ever aware.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com
To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, visit our donate page here:
manny4life: It exports but you forget so quickly according to the trade department, more than 40% of China's exports is to the U.S. alone. That's a whopping 40% and their economy is about 70% manufacturing, that's a 28% that U.S. controls. Do the math. Besides, if u think I lie, Google it.
ive already explained that china has alternative export markets that will make up for the absence of US exports, how does the US control manufacturing in china - the corporations that manufacture goods in china are not owned by the US govt but by US corporations and they are only interested in making profit, dont forget that they shipped their factories out of america to china in order to make truckloads of money off the back of chinese slave labourers, they also did not give a damn that what they did caused massive unemployment in america, therefore if china replaces US export markets with alternative markets i cant see that they will be too bothered.
have a read of this article it answers your question about china liquidating its US dollar denominated assets:
China to 'liquidate' US Treasuries, not dollars By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Economics Last updated: September 15th, 2011 270 Comments Comment on this article
The debt markets have been warned. A key rate setter-for China's central bank let slip – or was it a slip? – that Beijing aims to run down its portfolio of US debt as soon as safely possible. "The incremental parts of our of our foreign reserve holdings should be invested in physical assets," said Li Daokui at the World Economic Forum in the very rainy city of Dalian – former Port Arthur from Russian colonial days. "We would like to buy stakes in Boeing, Intel, and Apple, and maybe we should invest in these types of companies in a proactive way." "Once the US Treasury market stabilizes we can liquidate more of our holdings of Treasuries," he said. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a top adviser to China's central bank has uttered the word "liquidate". Until now the policy has been to diversify slowly by investing the fresh $200bn accumulated each quarter into other currencies and assets – chiefly AAA euro debt from Germany, France and the hard core. We don't know how much US debt is held by SAFE (State Administration of Foreign Exchange), the bank's FX arm. The figure is thought to be over $2.2 trillion. The Chinese are clearly vexed with Washington, viewing the Fed's QE as a stealth default on US debt. Mr Li came close to calling America a basket case, saying the picture is far worse than when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher took over in the early 1980s. Mr Li, one of three outside academics on China's MPC, described the debt deals on Capitol Hill as "just trying to by time", saying it will not be enough to stop America's "debt dynamic" turning dangerous.
manny4life: Bros, how can you recall a payment knowing fully well it's have so much adverse effect on your economy? That will be the beginning of their end. What if they refused to pay? Liquidate their assets? If you dump all your $$$ assets, well you better have one that's equitable to the former else you're in trouble. Lot's of nations want to leave the $$$, but there isn't any viable alternative to the $$...
NSNA: they cannot do that. it is a two way thing. it is mutual benefit and would affect them as well.
China is a bit tricky with the way they do things
How is it a two way thing?
america needs china more than china needs america.
You seem to forget that china has export markets in latin america, asia and africa even parts of the EU will gladly carry on trading with china if the US dollar collapses, the only thing that will stop them is the fact that many EU countries are puppet nations of america but other than that they will gladly trade with china when the US dollar collapses.
america's national debt currently stands at a mind boggling $16 trillion which is the official figure, imagine what the real amount must be? - the only way for the US economy now is down at this point and they know it.
manny4life: Well, if they keep silent now, what does that tell you? How else do you want them to fight?
I guess after all U.S. still has greater political influence than any other state.... Same argument I was having with Mr. Bluetooth.
There are many weapons china can use against the US - but the biggest weapon they have at the moment is their position as america's biggest creditor - china holds over ver $1 trillion of US treasury bonds, if they want to mess america up big time all they need to do is demand repayment of this debt (knowing full well that america is bankrupt) and at the same time start getting rid of all their US dollar denominated assets this will trigger the immediate collapse of the US dollar as other countries will rush to offload the dollar as well as its value starts to plummet. I beleive that sooner or later China will attack them using this method because there is no way they are going to sit back and watch while europe and america locks them out of africa.
[quote author=AlterEgo™]I'm not sure I understand the point of your post, but incase you missed the point in mine, what I'm saying to the guy who who thinks the MP was ptyalising bollocks when he said 9/11 was staged is that 9/11 was concretely staged by the US![/quote]I was actually agreeing with you and criticising the post you were replying to, reading my response again i can see why you thought i was criticising you, no bro, me and you are on the same side
9/11 and 7/7 in london were all israeli/mossad false flag events staged in order to scare the american and british public into demanding that their govts escalate this fake war on terror.
[b]Imperialism plans “decades of war” in Africa 23 January 2013 The French intervention in Mali, followed by the bloody siege in Algeria, represents a turning point in what has emerged as a new imperialist scramble for Africa. With these events, following on the heels of the US-NATO war for regime-change in Libya and the Washington-backed sectarian civil war in Syria, mankind is witnessing a convulsive drive by the major powers to re-divide the world, its territories, markets and resources. There is every reason to believe that this campaign to re-colonize much of the planet will be even bloodier and more oppressive than the original colonization of Africa. As in the Libyan war, France has taken the lead in unleashing fighter bombers and deploying its dogs of war, the French Foreign Legion, in Mali. However, the other major imperialist powers have made it clear that they will not remain on the sidelines. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that the UK will “work with others to close down the ungoverned space” in northwest Africa “with all the means that we have.” Terming the developments in Mali and neighboring countries a “global threat,” Cameron declared they would “require a response that is about years, even decades, rather than months.” The Obama administration initially adopted a cautious approach to the Mali events, no doubt out of concern that it could end up helping an imperialist competitor and undercut its own predatory aims in Africa. However, with the Algerian hostage crisis, which claimed the lives of at least 80 people, including three Americans, Washington has made it clear it intends to intervene aggressively. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented last Friday: “We have a responsibility to go after Al Qaeda wherever they are. And we’ve gone after them in the FATA (Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas). We’re going after them in Yemen and Somalia. And we have a responsibility to make sure that Al Qaeda does not establish a base for operations in North Africa and Mali.” The message was unmistakable. Mali and the region are to be turned into a new front in the global US killing spree, to be carried out in the first instance with Predator drones and Hellfire missiles. The US has also announced that it is sending US Special Forces troops as “trainers” and “advisors” to the six countries—Niger, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Togo and Ghana—which are to provide the troops for an African force being cobbled together by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as a proxy for imperialist intervention. It will also provide aircraft to deliver them to Mali. So much for Obama’s inauguration rhetoric. “A decade of war is now ending,” he declared Monday, just a day after Cameron’s warning that decades of war in Africa have only just begun. We have entered a period when each new war only begets the next: Libya, Syria and now Mali in the space of less than two years. The connection between them is rarely recognized in the media, which breathlessly reports each new crisis, from the fighting in Mali to the hostage drama at the gas complex in Algeria, as if it were a senseless outrage explicable only as part of the unfolding battle between good and evil known as the global war on terrorism. The word “blowback” is not to be uttered in the polite company of network news. Yet this is precisely what is involved. The US-NATO war for regime-change in Libya destabilized the entire region. It had the effect of sending Tuaregs, many of whom who had served in Gaddafi’s security forces, fleeing back into Mali under conditions in which Libya’s NATO-backed “revolutionaries” were hunting down and murdering people with black skins. The Tuaregs, a nomadic people of the Sahel, the region on the edge of the Sahara desert, are to be found in northern Mali as well as Niger, Algeria, Morocco, Libya and Burkina Faso. In Mali, oppression and neglect by the central government led to four major revolts since independence in 1960. Similar revolts took place in neighboring Niger. The arrival of Tuaregs from Libya, together with large quantities of Libyan weapons, triggered the latest revolt, which was swelled by the wholesale defection of Tuareg troops and officers from the Mali army. The secular Tuareg nationalists, however, were quickly supplanted by better armed and funded Islamist forces. Immensely strengthened by the US-NATO war in Libya, where they were armed and backed by Washington as proxy ground forces against Gaddafi, they are now being similarly armed and funded as shock troops in the war for regime-change in Syria. It has become impossible to understand US policy in the Middle East and Africa without recognizing that Washington operates in a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda-linked forces. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the new “war on terror” bogey man, is, like its predecessor in Afghanistan, a Frankenstein monster of Western imperialism. It emerged from forces that had traveled to Afghanistan with US support to fight the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul in the 1980s, and then returned home to fight the bloody Algerian civil war of the 1990s, when US and French imperialism backed the Algerian military in seizing power to prevent the election of the Islamic Salvation Front. In the repression that followed, over 100,000 Algerians were killed. The Algerian government has charged that AQIM, like the US-backed “rebels” in Syria, is funded by Washington’s key ally, the Gulf sheikdom of Qatar. And before the present conflict, it was well known that AQIM and similar groups enjoyed the tacit approval of Mali’s US and French-backed central government, which saw the Islamists as a useful counterweight to the Tuaregs. Now we are asked to believe that this same force has become a “global” threat that may at any moment attack “the homeland.” The escalating war in Africa is neither about terror nor Al Qaeda. Time magazine succinctly outlined the real motives in Mali: “The dangers expand elsewhere, with huge oil reserves attracting Western companies to set up production across the vast Sahel. South of Algeria and Mali sits Niger, a dirt-poor desert country with the world’s fourth largest output of uranium, which supplies France’s crucial network of nuclear-power stations. East of Algeria is Libya, where a number of Western companies exploit some of Africa’s biggest oil reserves.” US imperialism and the European powers that formerly colonized Africa are determined to lay hold of these resources. Having been supplanted by China as Africa’s single largest trading partner, and badly trailing Beijing in terms of growth in foreign direct investment, Washington and the European powers are turning to military intervention as a means of offsetting economic decline. As with the inter-imperialist rivalries generated by the scramble for Africa over a century ago, the present conflicts over domination of the continent point toward the eruption of a new world war. Bill Van Auken [/b]
[quote author=AlterEgo™]If you think 9/11 was a terrorist attack on the United States, then you probably think Saddam had WMDs [/quote]Sadly many of us are still living in a dream world, many nigerians are going to have a very harsh awakening when this US/EU invasion moves into full swing, i pity all these brainwashed nigerians who still think US/EU are their friends and allies.
I wonder whether china are going to continue to fold their hands and allow US/EU to kick them out of africa without a fight. I was suprised at the way they allowed US, france and britain to force them out of Libya by overthrowing Qadaffi - it was this kind of scenario that resulted in Japan attacking the United States (Pearl Harbour) - provocation and blocking of Japanese acccess to oil in sovereign nations.
NSNA: I was been sarcastic about America saving Africa from Europe.
What Africa needs to do as a matter of urgency is to break the borders.
African relationship between countries before the Arab spring was the best ever.
Now they have starange people leading them in the North Africa that the rest of Africa really do not know.
They are moving into the West using Mali as an excuse.
They [size=15pt]really really badly[/size] want to come for Nigeria hense the Boko Haram that no one knows who is funding them.
Also Hilary Clinton as to leave because she it just does not fit for her to be handling pending issues.
did you know
what is happening in africa now was predicted by this guy about 2 years ago - watch this and listen to what he says about "the big dominoes that will fall" - nigeria is mentioned as one of the dominoes:
[quote author=val_dee]An intresting read, thought provoking.
Why can't African leaders reason beyond looting of public funds.[/quote]they are fully aware of whats going on but they havent got the balls to challenge america and europe.
NSNA: This one is interesting Anyone heard about AFRICOM
America want to come and take over Africa and scare China off.
Getting Gaddafi out of the way was their first step.
Gaddafi was going to fund a 1 million men African army, and introduce a gold diner currency that can not be devalued.
The bank headquarters in Lybia.
He got the endorsement of most countries in Africa and also many traditional rulers.
BUT
Nigeria was in the way. Nigeria was not on the same page.
If now Nigeria and South Africa should come together under a unification, all other countries will join
It is a shame that dim people are the leaders of Africa.
AFRICOM could be a good thing, America coming to deliver Africa from Europe
you are getting it muddled - america and europe are on the same side - US AFRICOM is a joint US AND EU military operation its objective is to deploy troops in all resource rich african countries and boot china out of africa. the first leg of this operation is underway in mali with the french bombing and killling thousands of malians in order to secure the gold and uranium mines in that country, these operations are going to be repeated in all resource rich african countries including nigeria, boko haram is a creation of US intelligence.
all this talk about islamists is complete bullshit.
MP Laurent Louis is spot on - what is happening in Mali is nothign more than a neo colonial showdown with china over africa's vast resources, this ongoing occupation was planned by the United States in the early 2000s when China began to overtake them in terms of trade with various african countries, their economies are in shambles and they know that without the control they have over africa's resources their economies will collapse.
anyone who doubts Laurent Louis statements about France's intentions towards Mali and africa generally should read this:
[b]France sends troops to secure Niger uranium mines By Bill Van Auken 25 January 2013 Barely two weeks after invading Mali with over 2,000 troops of the Foreign Legion, France has dispatched special forces troops to neighboring Niger to secure uranium mines run by the French state-owned nuclear power company Areva. The new French military intervention in northwest Africa was first reported by the weekly magazine Le Point and confirmed by military sources contacted by other sections of the French media. Le Point reported that French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had quickly agreed earlier this week to a “major innovation” in ordering the Special Forces Command to send troops to protect the Areva uranium production sites in Imouraren, and 80 kilometers away in Arlit. The magazine noted that this is the first ever use of the French commandos to directly defend the assets of a corporation. The magazine reported that French government officials had taken the decision following the botched attempt to rescue the French hostage, Denis Allex, in Somalia and the recent bloody hostage-taking incident and siege at the Armenas gas facility in Algeria, where over 80 people were killed. Those two events “in addition to launching the ‘Serval’ operation in Mali have significantly increased risk factors for French installations, including industry and mining in the region,” Le Point reported.
In reality, the dispatch of French commandos to the uranium mines in Niger only underscores the overriding economic and geo-strategic motives behind the French military intervention in Mali. Under the cover of a supposed war against Islamist “terrorists” and a defense of the central government in Mali, French imperialism is using its military might to tighten its grip on its resource-rich former African colonies. Official spokesmen at both Areva and the French Defense Ministry refused to discuss the new military deployment, citing security concerns. In Niger itself, officials denied any knowledge of the dispatch of the special forces commandos. “It’s true that the terrorist threat has increased today, but as far as I know there is no such agreement in place at the moment,” one official told Reuters.
A Niger army officer told the news agency that there were already security arrangements in place that had been agreed to with France and imposed after the September 2010 kidnapping of seven employees of Areva and one of its contractors in the northern Nigerien town of Arlit. “We also have counter-terrorism units in the Agadez region,” said the officer. “For now, I don’t know of a decision by the Nigerien government to allow French special forces to base themselves in the north.” Failure to inform the Nigerien government of its plans would not be out of the question. Ever since its independence in 1960, France, which had ruled the country as a colony for 60 years, has treated Niger as a semi-colony. The uranium extracted from the mines in Niger have been considered of strategic importance by successive French governments. The yellowcake produced from Niger’s uranium ore has been used to make France’s nuclear bombs as well as to fuel its nuclear reactors, which account for over 75 percent of the country’s electricity. While vast profits have been reaped from Niger’s uranium, the mining operation has benefited only a thin layer of the country’s subservient bourgeoisie. According to the United Nations human development index, Niger is the third poorest country on the planet, with 70 percent of the population continuing to live on less than $1 a day and life expectancy reaching only 45. Moreover, the mining has exacerbated ethnic and regional tensions within Niger. Uranium production is concentrated in the northern homeland of the nomadic Tuareg minority, which repeatedly has risen in revolt, charging that whatever resources do accrue from the mining operations go to the southern capital of Niamey. One of the main demands of the Niger Movement for Justice (MNJ), a largely Tuareg armed militia that has battled the Nigerien army, has been the more equitable distribution of uranium revenues. Moreover, the exploitation of uranium by Areva has created an environmental and health disaster in the mining areas. The environmental group Greenpeace found in a 2010 report that water wells in the region were contaminated with radiation levels up to 500 times higher than normal. In Arlit, site of one of the major Areva mines, deaths from respiratory diseases occur at twice the national average. France has every reason to fear that its intervention in Mali, which has already seen the bombing of civilian populations and the torture and execution of civilians by the French-backed Malian army in predominantly Tuareg areas, could cause armed conflict to spill over the border into Niger. However, in addition to securing its profitable facilities from “terrorism” or popular revolt, France has other reasons to flex its military muscle in Niger. In an attempt to increase its share of the uranium profits, the Nigerien government has recently issued exploration permits to Chinese and Indian firms. By dispatching armed commandos, Paris is asserting its domination of the former colony as part of its African sphere of influence. As France stepped up its African intervention, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used testimony before a Senate committee Wednesday to affirm Washington’s determination to escalate its own intervention in the region. “We are in a struggle, but it is a necessary struggle,” said Clinton. “We cannot permit northern Mali to become a safe haven.” Clinton acknowledged that the rebellion in Mali as well as the hostage siege at the gas plant in Algeria had been fueled in large measure by the US-NATO toppling of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, where Washington and its allies armed and supported Islamist militias as a proxy ground force in the war for regime change. “There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya,” she said. “There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya.” She argued that, while there was no evidence that any of these forces in North Africa posed a direct threat to the US, Washington should launch a preemptive campaign against them anyway. “You can’t say because they haven’t done something they’re not going to do it,” she said.[/b]
mass murder, mass rape of our resources, mass upheaval of african countries thats what we have to look forward to courtesy of the US/AFRICOM invasion and occupation of africa
New Scramble for Africa: Imperialism Plans “Decades of War”
By Bill Van Auken Global Research, January 23, 2013 World Socialist Web Site Region: sub-Saharan Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda
The French intervention in Mali, followed by the bloody siege in Algeria, represents a turning point in what has emerged as a new imperialist scramble for Africa. With these events, following on the heels of the US-NATO war for regime-change in Libya and the Washington-backed sectarian civil war in Syria, mankind is witnessing a convulsive drive by the major powers to re-divide the world, its territories, markets and resources.
There is every reason to believe that this campaign to re-colonize much of the planet will be even bloodier and more oppressive than the original colonization of Africa.
As in the Libyan war, France has taken the lead in unleashing fighter bombers and deploying its dogs of war, the French Foreign Legion, in Mali. However, the other major imperialist powers have made it clear that they will not remain on the sidelines.
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that the UK will “work with others to close down the ungoverned space” in northwest Africa “with all the means that we have.” Terming the developments in Mali and neighboring countries a “global threat,” Cameron declared they would “require a response that is about years, even decades, rather than months.”
The Obama administration initially adopted a cautious approach to the Mali events, no doubt out of concern that it could end up helping an imperialist competitor and undercut its own predatory aims in Africa. However, with the Algerian hostage crisis, which claimed the lives of at least 80 people, including three Americans, Washington has made it clear it intends to intervene aggressively.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented last Friday: “We have a responsibility to go after Al Qaeda wherever they are. And we’ve gone after them in the FATA (Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas). We’re going after them in Yemen and Somalia. And we have a responsibility to make sure that Al Qaeda does not establish a base for operations in North Africa and Mali.”
The message was unmistakable. Mali and the region are to be turned into a new front in the global US killing spree, to be carried out in the first instance with Predator drones and Hellfire missiles.
The US has also announced that it is sending US Special Forces troops as “trainers” and “advisors” to the six countries—Niger, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Togo and Ghana—which are to provide the troops for an African force being cobbled together by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as a proxy for imperialist intervention. It will also provide aircraft to deliver them to Mali.
So much for Obama’s inauguration rhetoric. “A decade of war is now ending,” he declared Monday, just a day after Cameron’s warning that decades of war in Africa have only just begun.
We have entered a period when each new war only begets the next: Libya, Syria and now Mali in the space of less than two years.
The connection between them is rarely recognized in the media, which breathlessly reports each new crisis, from the fighting in Mali to the hostage drama at the gas complex in Algeria, as if it were a senseless outrage explicable only as part of the unfolding battle between good and evil known as the global war on terrorism.
The word “blowback” is not to be uttered in the polite company of network news. Yet this is precisely what is involved. The US-NATO war for regime-change in Libya destabilized the entire region. It had the effect of sending Tuaregs, many of whom who had served in Gaddafi’s security forces, fleeing back into Mali under conditions in which Libya’s NATO-backed “revolutionaries” were hunting down and murdering people with black skins.
The Tuaregs, a nomadic people of the Sahel, the region on the edge of the Sahara desert, are to be found in northern Mali as well as Niger, Algeria, Morocco, Libya and Burkina Faso.
In Mali, oppression and neglect by the central government led to four major revolts since independence in 1960. Similar revolts took place in neighboring Niger. The arrival of Tuaregs from Libya, together with large quantities of Libyan weapons, triggered the latest revolt, which was swelled by the wholesale defection of Tuareg troops and officers from the Mali army.
The secular Tuareg nationalists, however, were quickly supplanted by better armed and funded Islamist forces. Immensely strengthened by the US-NATO war in Libya, where they were armed and backed by Washington as proxy ground forces against Gaddafi, they are now being similarly armed and funded as shock troops in the war for regime-change in Syria. It has become impossible to understand US policy in the Middle East and Africa without recognizing that Washington operates in a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda-linked forces.
Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the new “war on terror” bogey man, is, like its predecessor in Afghanistan, a Frankenstein monster of Western imperialism. It emerged from forces that had traveled to Afghanistan with US support to fight the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul in the 1980s, and then returned home to fight the bloody Algerian civil war of the 1990s, when US and French imperialism backed the Algerian military in seizing power to prevent the election of the Islamic Salvation Front. In the repression that followed, over 100,000 Algerians were killed.
The Algerian government has charged that AQIM, like the US-backed “rebels” in Syria, is funded by Washington’s key ally, the Gulf sheikdom of Qatar. And before the present conflict, it was well known that AQIM and similar groups enjoyed the tacit approval of Mali’s US and French-backed central government, which saw the Islamists as a useful counterweight to the Tuaregs.
Now we are asked to believe that this same force has become a “global” threat that may at any moment attack “the homeland.”
The escalating war in Africa is neither about terror nor Al Qaeda. Time magazine succinctly outlined the real motives in Mali: “The dangers expand elsewhere, with huge oil reserves attracting Western companies to set up production across the vast Sahel. South of Algeria and Mali sits Niger, a dirt-poor desert country with the world’s fourth largest output of uranium, which supplies France’s crucial network of nuclear-power stations. East of Algeria is Libya, where a number of Western companies exploit some of Africa’s biggest oil reserves.”
US imperialism and the European powers that formerly colonized Africa are determined to lay hold of these resources. Having been supplanted by China as Africa’s single largest trading partner, and badly trailing Beijing in terms of growth in foreign direct investment, Washington and the European powers are turning to military intervention as a means of offsetting economic decline.
As with the inter-imperialist rivalries generated by the scramble for Africa over a century ago, the present conflicts over domination of the continent point toward the eruption of a new world war.[/b]
Foreign Affairs › Re: The Facts And Fallacies Of The War In Mali by cap28: 4:22pm On Jan 27, 2013
[/quote]Sadly many of us are still living in a dream world, many nigerians are going to have a very harsh awakening when this US/EU invasion moves into full swing, i pity all these brainwashed nigerians who still think US/EU are their friends and allies.
