tset
amen
>>21166225
spam and shills is not really dissent
>>21166382
do you do stand - up comedy too?
African state reacts to UK’s intent to end migrant deal
Rwanda has taken note of the British plan to terminate the agreement, a government spokesperson has said
Rwanda has said it has fully honored its commitments under a migrant resettlement agreement with the UK, following British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement that the arrangement will be terminated.
In a statement on Monday, a spokesperson in Kigali said the African country had “taken note” of London’s plans to end the multimillion-pound deal.
“Rwanda takes note of the intention of the UK Government to terminate the Migration and Economic Development Partnership Agreement, as provided for under the terms of the Treaty passed by both our Parliaments,” the office of government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said.
“This partnership was initiated by the Government of the UK in order to address the crisis of irregular migration affecting the UK – a problem of the UK, not Rwanda,” the statement clarified. “Rwanda has fully upheld its side of the agreement, including with regard to finances, and remains committed to finding solutions to the global migration crisis, including providing safety, dignity and opportunity to refugees and migrants who come to our country.”
Rwanda’s response came on the heels of the arrival of the first migrants to cross the English Channel since the UK Labour Party’s general election victory.
Starmer replaced Rishi Sunak as the head of the UK government on Friday after the Labour Party he leads claimed a landslide victory in a general election, securing at least 412 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons.
On Saturday, Starmer said in his first news conference that “the Rwanda scheme was dead and buried before it started… it’s never acted as a deterrent. Almost the opposite.”
According to the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), both governments are free to terminate the agreement, but it will only officially end three months after the other party is notified in writing. The deal had been set to last until April 13, 2027.
The initiative, drawn up by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022, was first stymied by the European Court of Human Rights, which halted the first deportation flight two months later. Last November, the UK Supreme Court also ruled the plan illegal, declaring Rwanda an unsafe third country for refugee relocation.
Sunak’s Conservative government, which committed to “stopping the boats” when it took office in 2022, had insisted the Rwanda agreement would address an influx of illegal immigrants coming across the English Channel. According to recent government figures, more than 7,000 people arrived on ‘small boats’ in the first four months of this year, an increase of more than 1,400 since the same January-April period in 2023.
https://www.rt.com/africa/600713-uk-ended-rwanda-migrant-deal/
Democrat paymasters discussing ‘elegant’ Biden withdrawal – NYT
Some prominent Democrat donors reportedly believe that “dropping out sooner is better”
Major donors to the US Democratic Party are discussing ways how President Joe Biden could drop out of the 2024 race without hurting the party’s chances of beating Donald Trump in November, the New York Times reported on Monday. Democrats and their supporters have been increasingly doubting Biden’s electability after his disastrous performance during the televised debate with Trump last month.
Multiple reports said that Democrats and some of Biden’s own aides were “shocked” by the 81-year-old’s behavior on stage and have big concerns over his mental and physical fitness to serve as president for a second term.
“Some donors have discussed ‘elegant’ ways for Biden to step aside to preserve his reputation,” while others “believe that dropping out sooner is better,” the NYT’s DealBook newsletter said.
“Some donors have discussed ‘elegant’ ways for Biden to step aside to preserve his reputation,” while others “believe that dropping out sooner is better,” the NYT’s DealBook newsletter said.
Some executives told DealBook that it would be “a mistake” for Biden to quit the race without becoming the nominee first. They argued that doing so would “rob him of the power to anoint his replacement.”
Democrats will meet in Chicago in late August to officially name their candidate for the 2024 election. According to the report, an open convention where delegates are not bound to any particular candidate could create an “intraparty strife that helped Donald Trump win.”
DealBook cited its sources as saying that prominent financiers and investors, including Larry Fink of BlackRock, Jon Gray of Blackstone, and Peter Orszag of Lazard, and Robert Wolf, a former US executive “close to Barack Obama,” are discussing whether to “stick with Biden.”
The 46th president, however, refused to quit the race, albeit admitting that he does not debate “as well as [he] used to.” Speaking to MSNBC on Monday, Biden said that he is “not going anywhere,” describing himself as “the best candidate to beat Donald Trump.”
https://www.rt.com/news/600676-biden-elegant-way-dropout/
refreshing is so… refreshing
How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
moar
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/
>>21166595 (moar)
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
Hello BO
Do you happen to know how much it costs per month to keep this board going?
Seems like Jim said 20k per month?
TY
damn
generous act to give that much to keep the stream of information coming in and going out to awaken the public
would be great if Q team had a way to direct funds toward the effort
business will go out of business