Podcasts about mujahedin

Show Notes and Transcript Mike Yardley joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his varied background, including military service and journalism, addressing censorship in contemporary Britain, particularly concerning vaccines and lockdowns. We examine the impact of censorship on free speech, social media algorithms, and the consequences of opposing mainstream narratives.  The conversation delves into declining democracy, globalist agendas, and the suppression of individual liberties.  Mike highlights concerns about powerful entities controlling public discourse and a lack of open debate on critical issues.  We end on political changes in Europe and the necessity of open discussions to tackle societal issues, particularly the significance of critical thinking, diverse perspectives, and unrestricted dialogue to shape a better future. Mike Yardley is well known as a sporting journalist, shooting instructor, and hunter and has written and broadcast extensively on all aspects of guns and their use. His articles (2000+) have appeared in many journals as well as in the national press. He has appeared as an expert witness in cases which relate to firearms and firearms safety. He is a founding fellow of the Association of Professional Shooting Instructors, and has formal instructing qualifications from a variety of other bodies. He is listed one of The Field's ‘Top Shots.' He retired from the press competition at the CLA Game Fair after winning it three times. As well as his shooting activities he has written books on other subjects including an account of the independent Polish trade union Solidarity, a biography of T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), and a history of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst itself. He is a contributing author and ‘Special Researcher' to the Oxford History of the British Army (in which he wrote the concluding chapter and essays on the army in Northern Ireland and the SAS). He is also a frequent broadcaster and has made and presented documentaries for the BBC. Mike has also been involved as a specialist ballistic consultant, and presenter, in many productions for various TV companies including the Discovery and History Channels. He has re-enacted on location worldwide the death of the Red Baron, the Trojan Horse incident from ancient history, and some of the most infamous assassinations, including those of JFK, RFK and Abe Lincoln. Michael has worked a photojournalist and war reporter in Syria, Lebanon, Albania/Kosovo, Africa, and Afghanistan. He was seized off the street in Beirut in 1982 (before Terry Waite and John McCarthy) but released shortly afterwards having befriended one of his captors. In 1986 he made 3 clandestine crossings into Afghanistan with the Mujahedin putting his cameras aside and working as a medic on one mission. In the late 1990s, he ran aid convoys to Kosovan Refugees in Albania and on the Albanian/Kosovo border. The charity he co-founded, ‘Just Help,' was honoured for this work which took 300 tons of relief to desperately needy people. Connect with Mike... X/TWITTER        twitter.com/YardleyShooting WEBSITE            positiveshooting.com Interview recorded 2.5.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                 heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on X/Twitter twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin  (Hearts of Oak) Hello Hearts of Oak, thank you so much for joining us once again and I'm joined by someone who I've been enjoying watching on Twitter for the last couple of years and delighted that he can join us today and that's Mike Yardley. Mike, thank you so much for your time today. (Mike Yardley) Yeah, great to be here and thank you very much for asking me Peter. Not at all, thoroughly enjoyed. I thought I would But let our audience also enjoy your input. And we had a good chat on the phone the other week about all different issues. And people can find you @YardleyShooting, which introduces the question, Yardley Shooting. Maybe you want to give just a one or two minute introduction of your background. I know you've written. You have a deep passion and understanding of history, along with many other things. But maybe give the viewer just a little bit of your background. Well, I've had a wide and varied career. I studied psychology at university. I went to the army. Wasn't really, you know, content in the army. And I resigned my commission in 1980. But I was in the army at a very interesting time. Height of the Cold War. I was on what was then the West German and East German border watching the East Germans and Russians watching us. So an intriguing place. And I really left the army to become a war reporter, a photographer, particularly initially. And also I went to Poland. I was in Poland for the rise of solidarity. I brought an exhibition back to the UK, which opened at the National Theatre. And memorably with Peggy Ashcroft doing the honours at that event, and Sir John Gielgud as patron. And then I've sort of made my way as an author and as a freelance. And I've also had a parallel career as an arms specialist. I've written a, probably millions of words in that area, but I've also written the final chapter of the Oxford History of the British Army, essays within that, books on the history of Sandhurst and co-written with another ex-officer, a book about the army, lots of technical stuff, a number of technical books. And I'm very interested in mass communication. I have made in the deep and distant past, some documentaries for the BBC. I made one on the history of terrorism for the BBC World Service. I made another on the media and the monarchy for the BBC World Service. And I think they actually let me broadcast once on another subject I'm very interested in, which is doubt. So since then, I've made my living with my pen and my camera. I was in Lebanon in the the early 1980s, again, not a good place to be there. And I made several sneaky beaky trips into Afghanistan, not as a soldier, but as a journalist when the Russians were there. And that was a very interesting time too. And, you know, gave me some ideas that perhaps other people didn't have the advantage of that experience. So yeah, quite an interesting career. I'm still a columnist for one well-known field sports magazine, The Field. And I am still at it. I don't know how long I'm going to be at it for. But one of the interesting things, I suppose, for me has been the advent of social media. And I thought social media was going to give me a chance to see what other people were thinking. But as well as what other people were thinking, to give me a chance for unfettered expression. Because I think it would be fair to say that I do feel that you cannot really say what you think in modern Britain. It comes with all sorts of disadvantages. As you get older and maybe you don't need the income as much, then perhaps not as important. You know, you can harder to cancel you as you get older and you don't really care. But I do think that's an issue in modern Britain. I think since the whole advent of lockdown and all the propaganda that was associated with it, and indeed with the Ukraine war, although I'm a supporter of the Ukrainians, I was rather horrified by the extent of the propaganda campaign to get us involved, as I have been rather shocked by all the propaganda surrounding lockdown and COVID, et cetera. And one other key point of my background is that I got very badly injured after I had the vaccine. I collapsed the next day. I had the worst headache of my life. I was in bed for a month or six weeks. I got a thrombosis in my leg, tinnitus, all sorts of other shingles, all sorts of other horrible stuff. I couldn't really walk. And even as I speak to you now, I've got shingles. I've got this blessed tinnitus ringing in my head, which a lot of other people have had post-vaccination and constant headaches. So I just have to live with that now, which means that you're always having to go through that to talk to people and to get your point across. Well, I've got a feeling that we may have you on a number of times, Mike, because there's so much to unpack there. But maybe we can start with a comment you made on censorship. And certainly we've seen this over the last four years. I've noticed in different areas, but specifically since being in the media space, I think since 2020, I've certainly seen it, had seen a little bit back in my days with UKIP during the Brexit campaign also but we have the BBC in the UK I guess they are the gatekeepers of information or have been up until this point and I know they've just the BBC have just done a series on misinformation or extremism and they of someone they employ full-time to actually cover what they see as misinformation and that kind of re-galvanizes their position as gatekeepers. But what are your thoughts on censorship? And I guess where state media fit into that? Yeah, I've been listening to that BBC series, and there's quite a lot of BBC stuff in that area at the moment. I think the first thing I'd say is this. I used to be one of the main voices heard in the media talking about security and terrorism. I hardly ever broadcast now. I don't get the opportunity because I'm not on narrative. And I think that's often because I present a nuanced position. And that doesn't seem to be popular in the modern media. Is censorship a problem now? Yes, it is. It's a problem because I can't easily broadcast anymore, having spent many years broadcasting and making lots of stuff for all sorts of different programs, as well as making a few programs of my own. I can't do that anymore. I think I may have made half a dozen or seven Discovery shows as well, but the phone no longer rings. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't ring particularly because I took up a vaccine sceptical position. And this is where it starts to get, this is the stuff we should unpack because it's really interesting. I was just listening before we started broadcasting to a BBC program that was talking about Russian operations promoting the anti-vaccine position. Well, I get that. I can see that the Russians have been involved in that. And we can come back to my own Twitter account, where I see clearly that if I put up a comment that is in any way critical of the Russians, it gets no support at all. But it might get probably half a dozen or 10 times as much pro-Russian support. And I've been trying to work out what's going on with that. It's almost as if the Russians have some way of manipulating that particular platform. But on the other hand, coming back to this point about vaccine scepticism, it's not just the Russians who are promoting that. Maybe it was in their interest to do that. But there are people in the UK, myself included, who were genuinely injured by the vaccines and who want to talk about it and feel that their point of view has completely been suppressed by these big social media platforms and by the BBC. It is just a non-subject. They don't really talk about excess deaths. They don't talk about widespread vaccine injury. You hear occasionally about VITT thrombosis with young women who've had these terrible thrombosis in their brains, but you do not hear about quite widespread vaccine injury. Now, I put up a comment on Twitter, do you know of anyone who's had a vaccine injury? I had something like, well, I think two, it depends on how you count them, but something like two million views, but 6,000 replies, and listing a lot more than 6,000 injuries. Now, I'm sure you can't necessarily take that as absolute gospel, but it is indicative of the fact that many people think they have been damaged by the vaccines, but also they can't talk about it. Their doctors aren't interested in it. The BBC don't seem to be interested in it. What in a free country are we meant to do? Well, we do this. We try and get our message out by other means, but it shouldn't be like that. And this seems to be a trend, this big state authoritarianism with a much more controlled media, which is facilitated by all the digitization that's going on. That is a real issue in modern Britain? Certainly, we came across that with YouTube putting videos up, and you daren't put a video up on YouTube critiquing the vaccine narrative or the COVID narrative. But recently, there has been some change. I know that there is legal action against AstraZeneca. I think in the last two days, there have been reports of AstraZeneca admitting that it did in in a tiny amount of cases but they haven't mentioned this before there were side effects. It does seem as though either it's the chipping away of those who've been vaccine injured demanding a voice, either it's been MPs becoming a little bit more vocal, obviously Andrew Bridgen, or it's been maybe a change in Twitter and the information out. I mean how do you see that because it does seem as though the message is slowly getting out? Well, Facebook's interesting because they've changed their policy, obviously, because before I couldn't say anything, it had come up with a note. And I have in the past had blocks from both Facebook and from Twitter. And I've also had apologies from both. I've done my best, because I don't think I ever say anything that is inappropriate or improper. That still doesn't prevent you being censored today. But twice, once with Facebook and once with Twitter, I've managed to get an apology out of them and been reinstated. So this is very disturbing stuff. And we're talking about this small number of injuries that are being acknowledged are about these brain thrombosis, the VITT thrombosis, which is an extremely rare condition, to quote an Oxford medic friend of mine. You know, rare as hen's teeth, hardly affects anyone. But it seems that thrombosis more generally, DVT and pulmonary embolism, and other things like myocarditis are comparatively common, and the re-ignition of possibly dormant cancers, which Professor Angus Dalgleish has been talking about at great length. And these are subjects which should be debated freely. I mean, when you see Andrew Bridgen in the House of Commons talking about excess deaths and he's almost talking to an empty Commons chamber. Albeit you can hear some fairly vociferous shouting coming from or cheering coming from the gallery, which the Speaker or the Assistant Speaker tried to close down, but that is a bit worrying. What has happened to British democracy? What has happened to our birth right of free speech? I mean, it isn't what it used to be. In fact, not only is it not what it used to be, on many subjects, we are not free to speak anymore. Not just the ones I discussed, there are all sorts of other things which might fall within the boundaries of PC and woke, which you simply can't talk about. You might even get prosecuted in some circumstances. I mean, we're living in some sort of mad upside down world at the moment. We've watched in Scotland the SNP collapsing, not least because of some of their very wacky legislation, which has also been enormously expensive. Meantime, I'm of the opinion, and I'm not particularly right wing, but I am of the opinion that ordinary people, sometimes they just want to see the potholes mended. You know, they don't want this sort of bit of PC legislation or another. There are far greater national priorities. And I'm not saying that there aren't small groups in society that haven't been badly treated in the past. They have. I can see that. and there has been real prejudice. But I think we have very immediate problems now. And they were all exacerbated by the COVID calamity and the government's reaction to it. I mean, I'm not afraid to say, did we really do the right thing? Should we have locked down? Should we have gone ahead with the vaccines? Or would it have made more sense to have given everybody in Britain a supply of vitamin C and vitamin D and maybe just vaccinated some people? But we don't talk about these things openly. It's a very controlled environment. And I was talking to a close friend of mine who's across the water in Northern Ireland and who's a very wise and sensible guy and involved in quite a lot of official stuff there. And I said to him, what is it? What is going on now? And he said, well, if I was to sum it up simply, Michael, I'd say that I don't feel free anymore. Well, I don't feel particularly free anymore. Peter, do you feel particularly free anymore? Have you sensed a change in the last 25 years, 20 years? Certainly in the last 10 years, I have. Well, I've certainly sensed a change, and I think that some of us actually want to speak what we believe is true, in spite of what happens, and other people cower away. And I always wonder why some of us accepted the COVID narrative and some didn't. And I mean, in the UK, I've been intrigued with the, I guess, few high profile people who are willing to talk. So you've got Andrew Bridgen in politics, but in the U.S. you've got many politicians. Or in the U.K. you've got Professor Dalgleish, on with us a few weeks ago. In the U.S. you've got much higher profile people like Dr. McCullough or Dr. Malone. And even with the statisticians, you've got Professor Norman Fenton doing the stats. But in the U.S. you've got people like Steve Kirsch who are very high profile. And I'm kind of intrigued at why in the US, those who are opposing the narrative maybe get more free reign, but are lauded more, I think. And those in the UK seem to be really pushing up a brick wall every time. I don't know if you've seen that as well. Of course I have seen that, yes. And in some senses, the US is freer than the UK, and they do have a First Amendment, which means a bit. There is a lot of, America's a strange society and I went to school there so I know it quite well and although America is free on paper and although they do have a first amendment traditionally there has been something of a tyranny of public opinion, but the people that have spoken out, as far as the vaccine is concerned, and indeed about the war in Ukraine. And I think often they're saying the wrong thing on that, but we can come on to that later. But those people have been speaking out in a way that we haven't really seen in the UK, sadly. And you have to ask, what is going on? Why is that? I heard a comment by Ahmed Malik the other day. Do you know how many doctors there are in the UK, qualified medical doctors? I was stunned when I discovered how many, but I believe it's about 300,000. And I think it's something like 75,000 GPs, which is quite a lot. But do you know how many doctors have spoken up and gone counter-narrative? I believe the correct number is 10. I mean, that is extraordinary, isn't it? 10. And I mean, just from our own experience of social media. It's very, very few. And those doctors who risk it, risk everything. They risk being cancelled. They're on comfortable livings. They're on £100,000 a year plus in most cases, sometimes quite a lot more than that. If they speak out, they risk being struck off. They risk losing a comfortable lifestyle, the mortgage, possibly the family and whatever. And the result that hardly any at all have spoken out. But what we can assume is that there are many, like one particular friend I'm thinking of, who are very sceptical of what's been happening, very sceptical of the way the vaccine was launched, the lack of testing, all this stuff that we might draw attention to. And they're not necessarily anti-vaxxers. They're just people that are normally sceptical. But it seems that we're not allowed to be normally sceptical anymore. You have to follow this big state, Big Brother, 1984 line or watch out. And that really does disturb me. And I was listening, as I said, just before we came on with this program to a BBC thing on censorship, where the BBC is chastising the Russians and the Iranians, and, all sorts, the Chinese and talking about the billions that the Russians and the Chinese spread on info spend on information now, which they do. And much of it is mis and disinformation, but they do not talk about their own authoritarianism. And how they limited discussion on anything to do with COVID and indeed on the Ukraine war. And my own position, I'll just interject very briefly. I mean, I think that, Putin has to be stopped and I'm fully with the Ukraine people in what they're doing. But it's also a fact that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, arguably more corrupt than Russia. And if we're giving them billions and billions and lots of military materiel, some of that is going to go missing. Some of that's going to go to the wrong places. And we never really discuss that. And it's not a particularly democratic place. And it's also the case that we probably pushed it politically in a particular direction because it was to our strategic interest, which is probably the right thing to do. But we can't discuss any of this anymore. And that does disturb me. Open discussion, open intellectual discussion on military matters, on health matters is becoming more and more difficult. And that's not a healthy sign, Peter. It certainly is. And actually, it's intriguing because my line would be, actually, these are, when I was younger, it would be interventionist. No, actually, it's, well, it's a separate country. They can do what they want. And if they want to have a war, they can have a war. But talking to people who have been very supportive, maybe more of the Ukraine side, talking to Krzysztof Bosak, MP in Poland yesterday. Yesterday and he was saying that Poland have given so much actually now Poland have very little to defend themselves and you look at the UK military, we didn't have much before and now it seems that we're short of munitions, short of many items and it seems that the west have poured so much into this without thinking of how to defend themselves. I mean, you understand the military side. What are your thoughts on that? Well, my thoughts at the moment, and it's been something I've been thinking about a lot recently, is that Britain is hopelessly under-defended. Our army is probably half the size it needs to be. Our navy is incapable of undertaking independent operations. It's probably just generally incapable. I think we're down to tiny numbers of jet fighters, tiny numbers of main asset ships. And we're saying, we're being told the army's around 72,000, something like that now. I think in real terms, it's actually smaller than that. And it's not big enough to meet the threat. And what's quite clear from what's going on in Ukraine is that you have to have a supply of ammunition, of missiles, of men. And this is worrying because if they came to a global conflict, it would go nuclear very quickly now, if it did go nuclear, because would our politicians actually ultimately press the button or not? I don't know. But it would have to go nuclear or something because we don't have the conventional resources. You know, they're just not there anymore. And most people have no idea of this. They have no experience of the military. But I would say that, they're talking about increasing defence spending to, you know, something under 3%. I would say that our defence spending at the moment should be probably at least 5% and maybe quite a lot more than that. This is a very, very unstable period in the history of the world. And we are not ready to meet the threat that exists. And of course, the Russians, I mean, they're routinely saying on their media that they're going to sink, you know, they'd sink Britain. They talk about sinking Britain specifically. And I don't think that they could do that. I don't think they would act on that. But we are incredibly vulnerable. We are essentially one big, you know, landing strip and It's not a good situation at all. And most people just block it. It's not that they're not worried about it, but they don't want to be worried about it. It's just one thing more and too much to think about. And they don't have any experience of the military anyway. But we're now looking to Ukraine and we're wondering, will the Ukrainians manage to hold off the Russians before the increased aid reaches them? I don't know. I don't know. No, I think the situation is not as positive for the Russians as some people might think. They do have problems. They can act at a small level. They can act operationally, but they can't necessarily act strategically. They don't have the resources to that, but they are building up resources. And I think something like, is it 30 or 40% of their available national resources are now going into defence, which is a remarkable figure. Now, they've lost a lot of men. we don't know really how many people have died in the Ukraine. It's certainly tens of thousands and maybe into the hundreds of thousands. It's a meat grinder. And the Russians, of course, just threw all their troops into this sort of first world war-like encounter. And they didn't really care about losses initially. It's not the Russian style, but also they were throwing people who'd been recruited from prisons, Pezhorin, the Wagner group, you know, many of those people were sacrificed, and I don't think anyone really cared about them in Russia very much. A dreadful situation. We won't go into the ethics and morality of that. Pretty scary, though. They will want to try and overwhelm those Ukrainian lines, and it's a huge front line. I mean, we're talking a front line, I think it's extending over a thousand kilometres or something. It's massive. They will try and overwhelm that line, and probably with the help of US and our own intelligence and a few other things, they'll probably stem the tide. But it's a 50-50. It's by no means a given. And that is worrying, because what would happen then? What would happen to the Poles? What indeed would happen to us? So yeah, good question. I was, it was fun watching the response from NATO members to Trump's call for them to actually pay the bills. Because I think it was, I remember watching Desert Storm and being just, consumed by it I guess as a young teenager and you've got the cameras following it all, now we come to whenever Britain sent tornadoes supposedly to help Israel and we were just told that's what happened, there was very little independent reporting, who knows if it happened or not. I think it was probably, it hit me, the reduction size of our military, whenever we bought, it was 67 apache attack helicopters, I think 67, wow, what are we going to do with those, I mean, half of them won't work half the time if they're in the desert with sand in their engines. But you realize that if the West do not have a strong military, then that deterrent basically is removed. And it means that other countries like Russia, who will spend more in defence, actually think, well, we can do what we like. They can do what they like because the West just aren't, one, aren't able to intervene, I guess, because of weakness in leadership, which we see in the EU, the US, Europe and in the UK, but also because of lack of military firepower. And I guess that's just a changing of the guard from the power of the West over to other centres of power. Well, I think the strategic implications of the weakness and the perceived weakness of our leadership are big. And, you know, that is in looking from Moscow. I mean, the farce we've seen in Westminster in recent years must be very encouraging to you where, you know, they have the strong, the classic Soviet era and now Russian era strongman. Putin is developing this aura as the strong man, which is a popular one in Russia. He has complete dominance of his home media, so he manages to mislead people as to what's actually going on elsewhere as well. He's looking for an external foe, an external threat, a long-time ploy of any authoritarian leader trying to make sure he stays in power. And of course, Putin doesn't have much choice, does he? If he doesn't succeed in staying in power, he's got a very scary future ahead of him. So that's another intriguing issue. The only good thing I would say, and this is, I don't think I'd like to fight the Poles or indeed the Ukrainians. They're both very, very tough nations. But where this now leads, and this is another critical question, we don't really know what's going on. When this conflict started, and I was a reporter in Lebanon, for Time, I was a photojournalist for Time in the Lebanon and we were sending stuff back that was really from the front line and it was really interesting and people, what I noticed when I went there, intriguingly to Lebanon in the 80s, was I was familiar with it all because i'd seen it all on the evening news. But I wasn't familiar with the feeling and the smell. Now, I can't say that with Ukraine, because for most of this conflict, I didn't know, and most people didn't know what the hell was going on. The quality of the reporting, I thought, was very, very poor. I've seen some better reporting since, but generally, I thought the reporting initially was awful. And there was also a tremendous amount of pro-war propaganda. I know somebody who went to the theatre in London and apparently, you know, when it came to the intermission or something, a huge Ukrainian flag came down and the whole audience were expected to cheer as we're all expected to cheer for the NHS or for all the vaccine stuff. I'm just temperamentally opposed to that sort of control, that sort of psychological manipulation. It concerns me that people should be made to support anything unthinkingly and that seems to be what's happening now and you've got Facebook for example, I mean they were at one stage I think advertising how they could turn opinion to potential advertisers and we've seen all the Cambridge Analytica stuff, we're incredibly vulnerable now to all this online stuff and the thing that bothers me if I go back to Twitter where I have something of a presence, is I can't really tell my stuff now because nobody sees it, there is some sort of censorship algorithm or something in place. I've got 77 000 followers there allegedly, I don't know how many of them are bots but sometimes it's clear that hardly anybody sees something that I put out particularly if it concerns the vaccines or if I'm making critical comment about Mr Putin. I think I blocked 2000 odd, what I thought were probably Russian accounts. But ironically, I'm actually getting taken down myself sometimes by the Twitter algorithms. I don't know who's controlling them. I don't know if they're controlled by Twitter Central or they're controlled somewhere else. But hey, I hope so. I think I'm one of the good guys. But you're not allowed to be a good guy. You've got to be a black and white guy now. That's the thing I think you see on social media, which is also meantime, in a very unhealthy way, polarizing people. It encourages the extremes. You can't be a traditional conservative very easily. You can't be a moderate very easily or a classical liberal very easily. You've got to go to one pole or the other pole. I think that's just very unhealthy. It's unhealthy apart from anything else as far as intellectual debate's concerned. Let me pick up on that with where we fit in and the ability to, I guess, speak your mind and have a position where you put your country first, which I thought was always a normal position, but now supposedly is an extremist position. But how, I mean, I'm curious watching what's happening in Europe which is me slightly separate, the European parliamentary elections and the wave of putting nations first and it's called nationalism. I think it's putting your country first which actually should be what a nation is about and the second thing is your neighbour and those around you, but we haven't really seen that in the UK. I mean do you think that will be a change of how your because Europe is really a declining force in the world, not only economically, but militarily. And of course, we haven't made the best of leaving the EU at all. We've cocked up big time on that. But then you look across to Europe and it is a declining power. And I'm wondering whether this new change, this opposition to unfair immigration. Opposition to control, central control from Brussels, wanting to put the nations first, whether that actually will be a change in Europe's fortunes. Bring me back to central control. But before we say anything else, just look at Norway. They had the wonderful resource of their oil reserves, and they spent it well. They created a sovereign national fund. And I think it means that everyone in Norway's got half a million quid or something like that. We, on the other hand, have squandered our national resources. And the country appears to be in tatters at the moment, and they can't even mend the potholes. Going to this business of Europe and the decline, yes, it's worrying that, Europe almost is losing the will to defend itself, or it seems to. But beyond that, if you look at Brexit, I mean, I was a Brexiteer, and I was a Brexiteer who could see some of the economic arguments for Remain. So again, I had a nuanced position on it. But overall, I wanted to preserve British sovereignty and democracy, and I thought it was disgraceful that we should be turning over that to some body in Brussels. But what we didn't realize, those of us who were pushing for Brexit, that the real threat wasn't Brussels, but the real threat probably was some globalist entity that we didn't even understand. And nobody was really much talking about globalism at that point. They weren't talking about Davos and all that sort of stuff. They were talking about the threat from Brussels but what we've seen since Brexit I think is an even greater threat from, I think what that Greek ex-foreign minister calls techno feudalism and the sort of, the onward march of somewhat Marxist influenced, capitalism facilitated by the whole digital deal, And you have WEF stuff where, you'll own nothing and you'll be happy, although they're withdrawing from that comment now. But who are these people? Did we elect them? We had a sort of interest in the people in Brussels, sort of, but as far as these globalist characters are concerned, they have no democratic mandate whatsoever. And that is pretty scary. Their only mandate is enormous wealth and a sort of arrogance that they know best for us, the peons, what our future should be. I do find that a bit terrifying, but I also, this is where it gets interesting, Peter, because I see where it came from. If you look at the era after the Second World War, the Americans and us, we were very worried about Soviet influencing operations. So we started to do stuff. And one of the things, the European community was perhaps one of those things, NATO was the most obvious, but there were also all sorts of influencing operations to counter the then very common, prolific, and increasingly dangerous Soviet influencing operations directed at Europe, directed at Latin America. So, for example, at Harvard, and I found this out from reading a biography of Henry Kissinger recently. At Harvard in the early 50s, they were running young leaders courses for foreign influencers. And it looked very much like the same sort of deal that the WEF was doing with everyone's Trudeau et al. They've all been a WEF young leader. Now, I would guess that that comes, that WEF stuff probably comes from Harvard or something like that via the State Department pushing into academia and then creating the WEF, maybe or having a hand in it as an influencing op. But this is where it gets really interesting. Has somebody penetrated that influencing op? Has it been turned? Whose interests does it actually operate in now? We know big money. Yeah, big money. But is it really in our individual interest as citizens of these countries and as customers of these massive corporations that seek to influence so much now and trespass onto the realm of politics and social engineering? By what right? You know, what happened to democracy? Aren't we meant to be deciding what's going on in our country, what our values are? It seems not. Democracy seems less important, I mean you look at Andrew Bridgen lecturing to an almost empty House of Commons on excess deaths and you think what on earth is going on there, what is this? I don't get it and I don't get why there is not free discussion on many other subjects in parliament now and it disturbs me. We developed this system, it's a pretty good system with faults as Churchill said, the problem with it is more the case that all the other systems are worse. And I think that's probably true. I mean, I'm a believer in democracy, but our democracy is in a pretty bad way. And it's not just our democracy, all over the Western world. We seem to have rolled over. And I do wonder to what extent the Russians, the Chinese and others have deliberately undermined us, captured our institutions, maybe captured our media. You know, these are things that one isn't allowed to say normally, but I'm saying them now. I mean, to what extent have we been captured and who by? If you saw the Yuri Bezmenov film from the 70s and 80s, have you seen that? Oh, you must, Yuri Bezmenov, about subversion and the long-term KGB operations to subvert the West. Very interesting, and it all seems to have come true. Yuri Bezmenov, you'll find it on YouTube. Yeah. What has happened to us? Our society is almost unrecognizable. Go back 20 years. I mean, think of the restrictions on driving in London, on smoking, let alone lockdown and vaccines, and thou shalt do this, and you must do that, and if you don't, we'll fine you, and you've got no power at all, and we've got complete control over your life, and it's a 200-pound fine for this and for whatever. We are so controlled and put down now. And again, I have an interesting theory and I don't get the chance to talk about it much, but I wonder if when you see a lot of crime and you see a lot of crime, particularly amongst young people, and you see a lot of strange, violent crime, I wonder if that is a consequence of too much central control. I wonder if that's a psychological and sociological consequence of a society which is becoming too controlled. And that's a subject I never hear discussed, but it's a very interesting one because I think a lot of us are concerned about crime, street crime, you know, mad people on the roads, which you see, I noticed personally, a lot more crazy driving than I was aware of maybe five or 10 years ago. But we don't discuss this stuff. We don't discuss the fact that the average person isn't really very happy now, that the average kid, this does get discussed a bit, is very anxious, maybe having treatment for this or that sort of psychological problem, that what used to be the normal tribulations of life now become things that you need to seek out treatment for. Well, maybe what you really need to do is seek out treatment for your society because your society is creating people that just aren't happy. And we should explore that. But again, that's another big subject. Well, I've been intrigued talking to friends growing up behind the Iron Curtain and talking about the Stasi or the state police reporting on people, turning everyone into informers, and then having Xi Van Fleet on the other day. And she was talking about the Red Guards, who were Mao's army, in effect, in communist China. And you realize that control whenever individuals are called out by the media because they go against the narrative. We've seen that under the COVID tyranny or seen that when Andrew Bridgen spoke the last time, the leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, warned him to be very careful of the dangerous language he is using on social media. She meant that he is saying something which is different than government, and that's not accepted. And in effect, it's the same, I guess, control as you saw under communism that we are now seeing here, where people are called out for having a different opinion and being threatened that if they continue, there will be consequences. Would you have seen that sort of control 50 years ago or before the Second World War? I mean, you know, I'm no communist, but there used to be communist members of parliament. There used to be an extremely wide range of opinion represented in parliament. Now it seems we're entering the age of the monoculture and the mono-party, and alternative opinions just aren't acceptable anymore. There is one canonized text, and you've got to repeat that mantra, and if not, you're a non-person. I mean, where did that come from? That isn't our tradition. But is that the push of the woke agenda, is it the decline of Christianity, is it weak leadership, I mean you kind of look and I want to understand where this is coming from, because if you understand where it's coming from then you can begin to tackle it. But it does seem to be many different facets of it from different angles. I think, was it GK Chesterton 'once we stop believing in anything, we'll start believing in everything' I think that is part of it, I think people don't believe in very much so they just believe in their own selfish bubble and materialism and I think this actually goes back to Oxford, I think there is actually some school of philosophy that encouraged this idea that as the old authorities declined, whether that was the the monarchy or whatever it might be, a faith in authority that you would have to find a new way of controlling the public and that the simplest way to do that was by their material self-interest and this is what Thatcher and Reagan essentially appeared to do, well actually looking back at Reagan now I actually think he said some very sensible stuff, but it appears that we were manipulated by our material desires. That replaced the old world. But it's meant that we're living in a rather scary, chaotic, morally upside down and confused world now. And it's certainly not the world that you and I remember. And it must be very scary for kids. I mean, I was speaking to a young person the other day, and I was really surprised because they told me that they didn't watch the news and they were a bright kid. And they said, well, why? They said, well, I don't want to. I don't want to have anything to do with it. And I don't want to have anything to do with history either. And I thought to myself, my God, if you have a young person who was soon to be a voting age, who's not watching any news, who doesn't want to have anything to do with history, how are they going to be able to make the right decisions for our future? And what sort of world are they living in? You know, where's their thought space now? Yeah, I thought that was very worrying. But that's, I mean, to finish on that, that's really just part of the information war because now young people get, I don't know how to define young people, but they get their information, their worldview from TikTok. So you've got the Chinese government actually pushing that and forcing that. And it is concerning whenever, from a 60 second video someone can decide what the world is and how they fit into it and that's the depth of knowledge they're going to find and I think that shallowness is where we are with the next generation coming. Yeah I mean I've got to hope that there's some young people that aren't as shallow as that and I certainly do talk to to some who aren't, I mean I've got kids of my own, four kids, and generally speaking, they're pretty switched on. We don't have the same views, generally speaking, but they're pretty switched on. But it is scary that there's a whole generation of young people that, I mean, you see them, you wander down the street, you see every kid has got, there they are, they've got the mobile phone and they're like zombies looking at the mobile phone. And it's not just kids for that matter. It's, you see middle-aged people doing the same thing. You see them sitting at tables in a restaurant and they're still tapping at the screen. Whoever controls this controls you, controls your mind, controls what you think are your opinions, because many of your opinions are not really your opinions. They're things that have been implanted in you by these massively influential modern means. Now, television always did that to a degree. The newspapers always did it to a degree. But this seems to be a more direct route into people's heads, particularly young people's heads. And that is genuinely disturbing. Now, if you look to Europe, you mentioned Europe earlier. If you look at Europe, it seems to be swaying to the right. My guess is that, Britain will probably sway to the left until maybe there's a failure of the Starmer dream after probably, they might run for two terms. And then our future is very uncertain and again, rather scary. But what I don't see is enough discussion, enough activity. I don't see a dynamic middle. Hopefully, I mean, very intriguing, isn't it? Who is Starmer? What does he represent? Is he a Blairite? So is that some sort of globalist, centrist, capitalized position? I don't know. I tend to think it is. I tend to think that's where it's coming from. It's not the traditional left. But of course, Starmer has some history of being on the left, not to a great extreme. But it is worrying that the left could still creep into power via Starmer's government. It's also a bit frightening, and am I saying this, that what happens if Starmer's government fails? I mean, as it probably will. The economics are against it. Britain is not looking in a good place at all. But what I think we need, the one thing that will save us is open discussion, proper, unfettered, open discussion about politics, about health, about philosophy, about everything else. And I try in my life in a small way to start those conversations with people. And I do it across politics. I do it across religion. I talk to almost everyone I meet, if I can, and I think I get away with it, and start bringing up some of these difficult subjects. Mike, I really do appreciate coming on. As I said at the beginning, I've really enjoyed your Twitter handle. And I know we've touched on many things on censorship, military and politics. And I'm sure we will have you back on again soon. So thank you so much for your time today. Well, I've really enjoyed the opportunity. And I'll just say this in conclusion. I've actually managed this. I've had the tinnitus and this terrible migraine all through the interview, but we got through it, which is great. I do say to people out there, do take seriously the people who tell you they've been vaccine injured because it's a big deal if you have. God bless you Peter.

Pang undrar hur han kan vara cool och Hanif befinner sig i något märkligt osynligt drev.

Raidījumā Diplomātiskās pusdienas dodamies uz valsti, kas vienam no tā veidotājiem – Uģim – asociējas ar kafiju, kafiju un vēlreiz kafiju, bet par to vairāk deserta sadaļā. Dodamies uz Albāniju. Atliek tikai apstiprinoši pamāt ar galvu, piebilst Kārlis.Taču iespējams, ka šāds žests pašā Albānijā varētu tikt pārprasts. Tas tāpēc, ka Albānijā „nē” nozīmē „jā” un galvas pašūpošana uz sāniem nozīmē apstiprinājumu, bet galvas palocīšana – noliegumu. Albāņi ir ļoti viesmīlīgi un pretimnākoši un tā ir daļa no viņu kultūras mantojuma. Daudzos Albānijas reģionos joprojām spēkā ir paaudžu paaudzēs nodotie sociālās uzvedības principi, kuri ietekmē faktiski visas dzīves jomas, sākot ar ģimeni, īpašumiem, sabiedrību kopumā. Līdz pat 20. gadsimta sākumam aptuveni 500 gadu garumā šis tā dēvētais kanuns, jeb kanons, tika mutiski nodots tālāk un, lai arī tas neskaitās juridiski saistošs, tā ietekme joprojām ir jūtama. Pieļauju, ka daudzi pirmajā brīdī pat neiztēlosies Albāniju kā potenciālo tūrisma galamērķi, taču, ziemas pārņemtajiem prātiem var atgādināt, ka Albānijā ir vidēji 300 saulainu dienu gadā. Albānija atrodas pavisam netālu no Itālijas – abas šīs valstis šķir Adrijas jūra. Tāpat Albānija dienvidos robežojas ar Grieķiju, bet līdz tūristu iecienītajai Korfu salai ir tikai kādi 35 kilometri. Starp citu Albānijā neesot atļautas ātrumlaivas, lai neveicināt nelegālo migrantu pārvadāšanu.  Tiem, kas mazāk sekojuši Eiropas kontinenta vēsturei, varētu likties, ka visas Balkānu valstis tādā vai citādā mērā varētu būt saistītas ar bijušo Dienvidslāviju. Taču Albānija ir izņēmums. Albānijas valstiskuma aizmetņi ir meklējami aptuveni 12. gadsimtā, kad tika izveidota pirmā, autonomā albāņu kopiena – Arbanona. Jau 15. gadsimtā Albānija kļuva par daļu no Osmaņu impērijas, kuras sastāvā tā palika līdz pat 1912. gadam. Tieši šajā gadā tika pieņemta Albānijas neatkarības deklarācija, tādējādi nosūtot arī citām reģiona valstīm signālu, ka Osmāņu impērija ir vāja. Šīs valsts dzīves ilgums gan nebija īpaši garš, jo jau 1928. gadā tika pasludināta monarhija. Un šī Albānija jau aktīvi sadarbojās ar fašistisko Itāliju. Un, lai cik tas dīvaini neizklausītos, tieši fašistiskā Itālija iebruka Albānijā 1939. gadā, un karalis Zogs Pirmais bija spiests doties trimdā, no kurienes tā arī nekad neatgriezās. Itāļu diktatora Benito Musolini īstenotā kampaņa bija ātra un tās mērķis bija vienkāršs – iegūt kontroli pār Albānijas ostām, tādējādi pārņemot kontroli pār iekļuvi Adrijas jūrā. Musolini gan veica arī īpašus „pētījumus”, lai pierādītu, ka albāņi vēsturiski ir saistīti nevis ar dienvidslāviem, bet gan ar itāļiem jau kopš Romas impērijas laikiem. Arī fašistiskās Itālijas valdīšanas laiks Albānijā nebija ilgs. Ar Dienvidslāvijas atbalstu veidotā Komunistiskā partija Albānijā nāca pie varas 1944. gadā un valdīja līdz pat 1991. gadam. Tiek uzskatīts, ka šajā laikā Albānijā valdīja viens no nežēlīgākajiem un izolētākajiem režīmiem pasaulē un tā priekšgalā bija premjerministrs un arī ārlietu ministrs Envers Hodža. Lai īstenotu dažādas radikālas reformas, Hodža piekopa pašu skarbāko staļinisma taktiku – viņa valdība ieslodzīja, sodīja ar nāvi vai izsūtīja tūkstošiem zemes īpašnieku, reģionālo kopienu līderus, musulmaņu un kristiešu garīdzniekus, un partijai nelojālos zemniekus, kuri pretojās kolektivizācijai. Tradicionāli komunistiskās partijas ir pazīstamas ar ciešām saitēm ar sev līdzīgiem režīmiem. Taču Envers Hodža rīkojās pretēji un faktiski centās likvidēt jebkādas attiecības ar citām komunistiskajām valstīm, kuras varētu apdraudēt Albānijas suverenitāti. 1948. gadā viņš sarāva attiecības ar Dienvidslāviju, nodibinot aliansi ar Padomju Savienību. Pēc Staļina nāves gan šīs attiecības pasliktinājās līdz 1961. gadā tika sarautas pilnībā. Līdzīgi tika veicināta sadarbība ar Ķīnu, bet attiecības tika sarautas pēc Mao Dzeduna nāves.  Ar bijušo premjerministru Enveru Hodžu ir saistīts vēl kāds savdabīgs rekords. Paranoidāli baidoties no iespējamā iebrukuma valstī un iespējamā kara ar visiem, viņa valdīšanas laikā tika izveidoti aptuveni 750 tūkstoši bunkuru. Jeb, kā bija aprēķinājuši daži kolēģi, 24 bunkuri uz vienu kvadrātkilometru. Rēķinot tālāk, tas būtu pa bunkuram uz katriem četriem valsts iedzīvotājiem. Daudzi gan nekad dzīvē tā arī netika izmantoti to primārajam mērķim, bet daudzi šobrīd kalpo kā nelieli muzeji. Pāreja no komunisma uz brīvo ekonomiku, protams, nebija viegla, un pagātnes radītās sekas ir jūtamas arī mūsdienās, kad Albānija izmisīgi cenšas tuvoties Eiropas Savienībai. Par spīti mēģinājumiem reformēt savu ekonomiku, eksperti norāda uz joprojām slikto un korumpēto valsts pārvaldi un nemākulīgo valsts uzņēmumu vadīšanu – bieži vien valsts uzņēmumi ir parādā viens otram milzīgas summas un veidojas tāds kā apburtais loks. Rezultātā Albānija joprojām ir viena no nabadzīgākajām Eiropas valstīm. Vēl viena no lielajām motivācijām Albānijai sakārtot savu valsti, ir vēlme nākotnē iestāties Eiropas Savienībā. Šis process tika uzsākts jau 2009. gadā, bet kopš 2014. gada Albānija ir Eiropas Savienības kandidātvalsts. Pirms aptuveni pusotra gada Eiropas Savienības un Rietumbalkānu reģiona samits pirmo reizi notika tieši Tirānā, tādējādi vēlreiz sūtot signālu, ka Albānija Eiropas Savienībā ir gaidīta. Šeit gan droši vien jāatgādina, ka Albānijai nebūt nav tās draudzīgākās attiecības, piemēram, ar Serbiju, tostarp etnisko albāņu apdzīvotās Kosovas atšķelšanās dēļ. Arī dažādu etnisko nesaskaņu risināšana ir viens no mājasdarbiem, kas jāpaveic ceļā uz Eiropas Savienību. Atšķirībā no sarežģītā ceļā uz Eiropas Savienību, Albānija jau kopš 2009. gada ir NATO dalībvalsts. Šajos 15 gados Albānija ir pievērsusi lielu uzmanību savu bruņoto spēku pārveidei par mazākiem un pilnībā profesionāliem spēkiem, kuri ir spējīgi pilnībā sadarboties ar citām alianses valstīm un piedalīties alianses misijās. Viens no albāņu solījumiem bija ievērojami samazināt valstī esošos munīcijas krājumus un samazināt munīcijas noliktavu skaitu. Ar munīciju, starp citu, saistāma arī albāņu vienības dalība paplašinātajā kaujas grupā Latvijā. Atgādināsim, ka pirms pieciem gadiem, 2019. gadā, incidentā Ādažos gāja bojā tieši albāņu atmīnēšanas vienības virsleitnante Zarife Hasanaja, bet vēl vairāki viņas dienesta biedri guva ievainojumus. Bet kamēr Albānija turpina rūpēties par savu sabiedroto drošību, pašmājās tai pēdējo gadu laikā ir nācies piedzīvot ļoti izaicinošus brīžus. Ja Austrumeiropā mēs esam pieraduši satraukties par Krievijas radītajiem militārajiem draudiem, vai Ķīnas radītajiem ekonomiskajiem izaicinājumiem pasaulē, Albānija saskārās ar uzbrukumu no valsts, par kuras aktivitātēm mēs vairāk esam pieraduši dzirdēt Tuvo Austrumu reģiona kontekstā. Runa ir par Irānu un tās 2022. gadā veiktajiem kiberuzbrukumiem Albānijas digitālajai infrastruktūrai, kas noveda pie diplomātisko attiecību saraušanas starp abām valstīm. Iemesls tam bija ASV un Apvienoto Nāciju Organizācijas 2016. gadā virzītais lēmums pārcelt uz Albāniju lielāko Irānas opozīcijas grupējumu „Mujahedin e_Khalq” jeb MEK. Šis grupējums, kas savulaik bija iekļauts teroristu organizāciju sarakstos, sevi pasniedz kā topošo Irānas trimdas valdību, kas paralēli dažādu politisko sanāksmju rīkošanai reizi pa reizei veic arī kiberuzbrukumus Irānas islāma republikai. Irāna parādā nepalika un īstenoja vērienīgu uzbrukumu Albānijai. Par to vairāk stāsta „Cert.lv” kiberdrošības eksperts Andris Medjānis.

*Det här avsnittet ingår i en sommarsäsong där redan publicerade avsnitt med starka och viktiga historier ur katalogen släpps på nytt under sommaren 2022. Alla 70 avsnitt av Dokumentära Berättelser finns ute på Podplay och överallt där poddar finns.* I det här avsnittet hör vi den andra delen av Hanifs berättelse, om hur det var att växa upp med föräldrar som stred för den våldsbejakande iranska oppositionsgruppen Folkets Mujahedin, och om livet på en militärbas i Irak. Vi pratar också med Rouzbeh Parsi, historiker, lektor och programchef för Mellanöstern- och Nordafrikaprogrammet vid Utrikespolitiska Institutet, om vilka Folkets Mujaheddin är och vad de har för historia och ideologi.

*Det här avsnittet ingår i en sommarsäsong där redan publicerade avsnitt med starka och viktiga historier ur katalogen släpps på nytt under sommaren 2022. Alla 70 avsnitt av Dokumentära Berättelser finns ute på Podplay och överallt där poddar finns.* I de kommande två avsnitten träffar vi Hanif som berättar om hur det var att växa upp med föräldrar som stred för den våldsbejakande iranska oppositionsgruppen Folkets Mujahedin, och om livet på en militärbas i Irak. Vi pratar också med Rouzbeh Parsi, historiker, lektor och programchef för Mellanöstern- och Nordafrikaprogrammet vid Utrikespolitiska Institutet, om vilka Folkets Mujaheddin är och vad de har för historia och ideologi.

Markos Kounalakis is a Visiting Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and an award-winning, nationally-syndicated foreign affairs columnist, author, and scholar. He's also a veritable legend in the world of Journalism, covering the developments in Eastern Europe at the end of the 20th Century, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the Velvet Revolution in Prague. He was present at the Warsaw Pact meeting, covered the early phases of Yugoslavia's civil war, and went to Afghanistan with the Soviets to cover the last stages of their military occupation and the rise of the Mujahedin. He's also the first Second Gentleman of California, married to Lt. Governor Elani Kounalakis.

If you're not a patron you can get the full episode by visiting patreon.com/workstoppage and support us with $5 a month. On the third part of our Overtime series on the history of the US repressive state apparatus, we dive into the long relationship between the CIA and the global drug trade.  From working with the Mafia to break strikes in post-war Europe and protecting their heroin smuggling, to helping the Kuomintang fight China in the 50s funded by opium traffic, to funding a secret war in Laos on the back of the drug trade, the CIA has been involved in drugs since its inception.   Knowing how these operations worked greatly affects how we view the “War on Drugs” here in the US.  We also discuss Operation Cyclone, the US war against the socialist government of Afghanistan, using Mujahedin fighters armed, trained, and paid by the CIA.  Much of the propaganda around the "Brave Mujahedin Fighters of Afghanistan" is still reflected in how our media reports on CIA backed forces in "enemy" countries today.  Finally, we cover the last major foreign operation of the series, the US post-Cold War policy of instigating “Color Revolutions” in countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to install neoliberal Western-friendly governments, and how these tactics and the use of NGOs are seen here in the US as well.  Join the discord: discord.gg/tDvmNzX Follow the pod @WorkStoppagePod on Twitter, John @facebookvillain, and Lina @solidaritybee.

I det här avsnittet hör vi den andra delen av Hanifs berättelse, om hur det var att växa upp med föräldrar som stred för den våldsbejakande iranska oppositionsgruppen Folkets Mujahedin, och om livet på en militärbas i Irak. Vi pratar också med Rouzbeh Parsi, historiker, lektor och programchef för Mellanöstern- och Nordafrikaprogrammet vid Utrikespolitiska Institutet, om vilka Folkets Mujaheddin är och vad de har för historia och ideologi. Missa inte att alla avsnitt av säsong 6 finns tillgängliga redan nu på Podplayappen eller på podplay.se helt gratis.

I de kommande två avsnitten träffar vi Hanif som berättar om hur det var att växa upp med föräldrar som stred för den våldsbejakande iranska oppositionsgruppen Folkets Mujahedin, och om livet på en militärbas i Irak. Vi pratar också med Rouzbeh Parsi, historiker, lektor och programchef för Mellanöstern- och Nordafrikaprogrammet vid Utrikespolitiska Institutet, om vilka Folkets Mujaheddin är och vad de har för historia och ideologi. Missa inte att alla avsnitt av säsong 6 finns tillgängliga redan nu på podplayappen eller på podplay.se helt gratis.

US Foreign Policy & the Deceitful Presentation of our ‘War on Terrorism' & of Iran in Iraq & Syria as a Prelude to War Bringing Light Into Darkness continues to bring forth the ‘light' of concrete examples of the fact that what we are told or led to believe about our “adversaries” by our government and the mainstream media which fails us, are so often untruths and misrepresentations. Dr Muhammad Sahimi leads a discussion on the recent misrepresentations surrounding the assassination of General Qatem Soleimani in January 2020 as well as the ‘rationale' used by the Biden Administration for June 2021 airstrikes. Current considerations regarding Iran's nuclear behavior in response to US unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA are presented that contradict the MSM led image making that it is Iran that is acting outside of international legal expectations. Is our foreign policy actions towards Iran about provoking a response that would give us an excuse to attack Iran or is it based on reasonable diplomatic expectations from both sides? Was General Soleimani deserving of being assassinated as a war enemy of the United States or was it an act of State Terrorism? Would a closer understanding of the truth reveal Soleimani instead as a national hero of Iran whose military strategic skills were invited to come to Iraq to help Iraq deal with an impending takeover of ISIS as well as help to train Shiite militias from Pakistan and Afghanistan to help fight terrorist forces fighting the Syrian government on behalf of US foreign policy interests ? The history of the creation of the Taliban and the Mujahedin by US has its roots with our relationship with Shah of Iran and their ruthless SAVAK intelligence arm. Is it true we created the very terrorist forces of al qaeda and the Taliban that most Americans believe we are so committed to defeat? What Senate testimony did Hillary Clinton testify to that further confirms the Untied States complicity in the very terrorism we all deplore? Our well informed and studied guest, Dr. Muhammad Sahimi provides an array of important insights and reminds us why if you want to get much closer to the truth you are well-advised to tune into Bringing Light Into Darkness every Monday night at 6-7pm CST on 91.7 FM in Austin Texas and through koop.org on the worldwide web, if you do not want to be played by our major media again and again. So please, listen in and study the content of our show and join the discussion by emailing the show and tell us what you think.

US Foreign Policy & the Deceitful Presentation of our ‘War on Terrorism' & of Iran in Iraq & Syria as a Prelude to War Bringing Light Into Darkness continues to bring forth the ‘light' of concrete examples of the fact that what we are told or led to believe about our “adversaries” by our government and the mainstream media which fails us, are so often untruths and misrepresentations. Dr Muhammad Sahimi leads a discussion on the recent misrepresentations surrounding the assassination of General Qatem Soleimani in January 2020 as well as the ‘rationale' used by the Biden Administration for June 2021 airstrikes. Current considerations regarding Iran's nuclear behavior in response to US unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA are presented that contradict the MSM led image making that it is Iran that is acting outside of international legal expectations. Is our foreign policy actions towards Iran about provoking a response that would give us an excuse to attack Iran or is it based on reasonable diplomatic expectations from both sides? Was General Soleimani deserving of being assassinated as a war enemy of the United States or was it an act of State Terrorism? Would a closer understanding of the truth reveal Soleimani instead as a national hero of Iran whose military strategic skills were invited to come to Iraq to help Iraq deal with an impending takeover of ISIS as well as help to train Shiite militias from Pakistan and Afghanistan to help fight terrorist forces fighting the Syrian government on behalf of US foreign policy interests ? The history of the creation of the Taliban and the Mujahedin by US has its roots with our relationship with Shah of Iran and their ruthless SAVAK intelligence arm. Is it true we created the very terrorist forces of al qaeda and the Taliban that most Americans believe we are so committed to defeat? What Senate testimony did Hillary Clinton testify to that further confirms the Untied States complicity in the very terrorism we all deplore? Our well informed and studied guest, Dr. Muhammad Sahimi provides an array of important insights and reminds us why if you want to get much closer to the truth you are well-advised to tune into Bringing Light Into Darkness every Monday night at 6-7pm CST on 91.7 FM in Austin Texas and through koop.org on the worldwide web, if you do not want to be played by our major media again and again. So please, listen in and study the content of our show and join the discussion by emailing the show and tell us what you think.

Iran hostage crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This article is about the siege of the American embassy in Tehran. For the siege of the Iranian embassy in London, see Iranian Embassy siege. Iran hostage crisis Part of the consolidation of the Iranian Revolution Iran hostage crisis - Iraninan students comes up U.S. embassy in Tehran.jpg Iranian students crowd the U.S. Embassy in Tehran (November 4, 1979) DateNovember 4, 1979 – January 20, 1981 (444 days or 1 year, 2 months, 2 weeks and 2 days) Location Tehran, Iran Result Hostages released by Algiers Accords Severance (and end) of Iran–United States relations Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan and his cabinet resigned Iran–Iraq War Sanctions imposed on Iran The U.S. designates Iran as State Sponsors of Terrorism on January 19, 1984 Belligerents Iran Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line People's Mujahedin[1] United States Canada Commanders and leaders Iran Ruhollah Khomeini Iran Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha[2] Massoud RajaviUnited States Jimmy Carter United States Ronald Reagan Canada Joe Clark Casualties and losses 8 American servicemen and 1 Iranian civilian killed during an attempt to rescue the hostages. vte Consolidation of the Iranian Revolution Part of a series on the Iran hostage crisis Iran hostage crisis - Iraninan students comes up U.S. embassy in Tehran.jpg Topics Hostage leaders Parties and organizations Events vte Fifty-two United States diplomats and citizens were held hostage after a group of militarized Iranian college students belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, who supported the Iranian Revolution, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran[3][4] and seized hostages. A diplomatic standoff ensued. The hostages were held for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. Western media described the crisis as an "entanglement" of "vengeance and mutual incomprehension."[5] U.S. President Jimmy Carter called the hostage-taking an act of "blackmail" and the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy".[6] In Iran it was widely seen as an act against the U.S. and its influence in Iran, including its perceived attempts to undermine the Iranian Revolution and its longstanding support of the shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown in 1979.[7]

Iran hostage crisisFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to searchThis article is about the siege of the American embassy in Tehran. For the siege of the Iranian embassy in London, see Iranian Embassy siege.Iran hostage crisisPart of the consolidation of the Iranian RevolutionIran hostage crisis - Iraninan students comes up U.S. embassy in Tehran.jpgIranian students crowd the U.S. Embassy in Tehran (November 4, 1979)DateNovember 4, 1979 – January 20, 1981(444 days or 1 year, 2 months, 2 weeks and 2 days)LocationTehran, IranResultHostages released by Algiers Accords Severance (and end) of Iran–United States relations Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan and his cabinet resigned Iran–Iraq War Sanctions imposed on Iran The U.S. designates Iran as State Sponsors of Terrorism on January 19, 1984Belligerents Iran Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's LinePeople's Mujahedin[1] United States CanadaCommanders and leadersIran Ruhollah KhomeiniIran Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha[2]Massoud RajaviUnited States Jimmy CarterUnited States Ronald ReaganCanada Joe ClarkCasualties and losses8 American servicemen and 1 Iranian civilian killed during an attempt to rescue the hostages. vteConsolidation of theIranian RevolutionPart of a series on theIran hostage crisisIran hostage crisis - Iraninan students comes up U.S. embassy in Tehran.jpgTopicsHostage leadersParties and organizationsEvents vteFifty-two United States diplomats and citizens were held hostage after a group of militarized Iranian college students belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, who supported the Iranian Revolution, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran[3][4] and seized hostages. A diplomatic standoff ensued. The hostages were held for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981.Western media described the crisis as an "entanglement" of "vengeance and mutual incomprehension."[5] U.S. President Jimmy Carter called the hostage-taking an act of "blackmail" and the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy".[6] In Iran it was widely seen as an act against the U.S. and its influence in Iran, including its perceived attempts to undermine the Iranian Revolution and its longstanding support of the shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown in 1979.[7]

Volvemos con este tercer podcast dedicado a las películas y la música de James Bond a lo largo de 60 años. En este capítulo nos centramos en los años 80 donde James Bond fue Roger Moore, pero tendría que vérselas con una competencia fuerte ya que Sean Connery volvería a interpretar el personaje y llegaría para tomar el relevo un actor galés llamado Timothy Dalton avalado de una buena experiencia como actor dramático. En cuanto a la música tenemos también variedad de compositores en las seis películas que se rodaron en esta década, desde John Barry, el creador del sonido Bond a Bill Conti, Michael Kamen y Michel Legrand, así que bienvenido de vuelta a los ochenta y a las películas de James Bond en una década con aventuras de 007 que lo llevaron a lo largo y ancho del planeta. 00h 00'00" James Bond theme 00h 01'02" Presentación 00h 02'17" Cabecera 00h 03'31" 1981 SÓLO PARA SUS OJOS 00h 07'08" Melina's revenge 00h 09'20" For your eyes only - Sheena Easton 00h 12'19" A drive in the country 00h 14'39" Gonzales takes a drive 00h 17'50" Runaway 00h 21'35" Cortina 00h 23'14" Take me home 00h 25'42" 1983 OCTOPUSSY 00h 29'11" Octopussy - Rita Coolidge 00h 32'10" Arrival at the island of Octopussy 00h 35'30" Bond at the Monsoon Palace 00h 38'30" Bond meets Octopussy 00h 42'03" Yo yo fight and death of Vijay 00h 45'45" That's my little Octopussy 00h 48'55" 1983 NUNCA DIGAS NUNCA JAMÁS 00h 52'07" Enter 007 00h 52'30" Never say never again - Lani Hall 00h 55'40" Bahama island 00h 58'27" The big band death of Joe Petaschi 01h 00'07" Bond and Domino 01h 02'10" Flight to the death with the tiger sharks 01h 06'57" Une chanson d'amour - Sophie Della 01h 11'20" Tango to the death 01h 13'38" Largo's waltz 01h 15'03" 1985 PANORAMA PARA MATAR 01h 18'10" Snow job 01h 20'34" A view to a kill - Duran Duran 01h 24'08" May Day jumpers 01h 26'58" Pegasus' stable 01h 30'16" He's dangerous 01h 32'30" Bond underwater 01h 34'59" Destroy Silicon Valley 01h 37'21" Golden Gate fight 01h 40'48" Wine with Stacey 01h 42'40" 1987 ALTA TENSIÓN 01h 46'30" The living daylights - A-ha 01h 50'36" Ice chase 01h 54'32" Kara meets Bond 01h 57'15" Where has everybody gone? - Pretenders 02h 00'42" Into Vienna 02h 03'26" Mujahedin and opium 02h 06'34" If there was a man - Pretenders 02h 09'18" 1989 LICENCIA PARA MATAR 02h 14'04" Pam 02h 17'50" Licence to kill - Gladys Knight 02h 22'57" His funny Valentine 02h 26'21" If you asked me to - Patti Labelle

Talibans fremmarch i Afghanistan har rystet det meste af verden, og i dag udspiller sig nogle meget kaotiske scener i lufthavnen i Kabul, hvor tusindvis af desperate afghanere forsøger at flygte. På sociale medier har man kunne se videoer af, hvordan folk forsøger kravle op på et amerikansk militærfly og nærmest klynge sig til siden af flyet for at "komme med" ud af landet. Fra samme lufthavn forsøger vestlige lande at kæmpe i mod tiden for at evakuere deres statsborgere og ansatte. Vi får seneste nyt fra Afghanistan, ligesom vi hører fra nogle af dem, der stadig befinder sig i landet, blandt andet en tolk, som lige nu gemmer sig for Taliban, mens håbet om hjælp fra de vestlige lande, han har tolket for, svinder time for time. For USAs præsident Biden er Talibans lynhurtige magtovertagelse i Afghanistan et slemt slag. Han har flere gange inden for de seneste måneder talt om, hvor meget styr der var på situationen, selvom USA trak sig ud, og han har forsvaret beslutningen. Nu bebrejder mange Biden for at have trukket sine styrker for hurtigt ud. Vi vender blikket mod USA og ser på de amerikanske reaktioner på Kabuls fald, men det er ikke bare USA og de vestlige allierede, der i årevis har forsøgt at få kontrol over Afghanistan. Det har Rusland også eller rettere det tidligere Sovjetunionen. Russerne invaderede Afghanistan tilbage i 1979 for at forhindre den daværende kommunistiske, afghanske regering i at falde. Men efter 10 år med hårde kampe mod de afghanske oprørsstyrker, Mujahedin, så trak Rusland sine tropper ud. Efter russernes tilbagetog fulgte 6-7 år med borgerkrig, indtil Taliban overtog magten i 1996. Så er vi næsten fremme ved Vestens indtog i landet, der nu også er slået fejl. Men hvorfor er det så svært for udefrakommende at skabe forandringer i Afghanistan? Det og meget mere handler dagens P1 Orientering om. Mette Vibe Utzon og Søren Carlsen er dagens værter, Tine Linde redigerer. www.dr.dk/orientering

Talibans fremmarch i Afghanistan har rystet det meste af verden, og i dag udspiller sig nogle meget kaotiske scener i lufthavnen i Kabul, hvor tusindvis af desperate afghanere forsøger at flygte. På sociale medier har man kunne se videoer af, hvordan folk forsøger kravle op på et amerikansk militærfly og nærmest klynge sig til siden af flyet for at "komme med" ud af landet. Fra samme lufthavn forsøger vestlige lande at kæmpe i mod tiden for at evakuere deres statsborgere og ansatte. Vi får seneste nyt fra Afghanistan, ligesom vi hører fra nogle af dem, der stadig befinder sig i landet, blandt andet en tolk, som lige nu gemmer sig for Taliban, mens håbet om hjælp fra de vestlige lande, han har tolket for, svinder time for time. For USAs præsident Biden er Talibans lynhurtige magtovertagelse i Afghanistan et slemt slag. Han har flere gange inden for de seneste måneder talt om, hvor meget styr der var på situationen, selvom USA trak sig ud, og han har forsvaret beslutningen. Nu bebrejder mange Biden for at have trukket sine styrker for hurtigt ud. Vi vender blikket mod USA og ser på de amerikanske reaktioner på Kabuls fald, men det er ikke bare USA og de vestlige allierede, der i årevis har forsøgt at få kontrol over Afghanistan. Det har Rusland også eller rettere det tidligere Sovjetunionen. Russerne invaderede Afghanistan tilbage i 1979 for at forhindre den daværende kommunistiske, afghanske regering i at falde. Men efter 10 år med hårde kampe mod de afghanske oprørsstyrker, Mujahedin, så trak Rusland sine tropper ud. Efter russernes tilbagetog fulgte 6-7 år med borgerkrig, indtil Taliban overtog magten i 1996. Så er vi næsten fremme ved Vestens indtog i landet, der nu også er slået fejl. Men hvorfor er det så svært for udefrakommende at skabe forandringer i Afghanistan? Det og meget mere handler dagens P1 Orientering om. Mette Vibe Utzon og Søren Carlsen er dagens værter, Tine Linde redigerer. www.dr.dk/orientering

Humans are emulative by nature.  People everywhere seem able to imagine any interpretation from what others perceive and believe as unquestionable.  Often it pertains to God, whatever serves the variously motivated purposes as an established, albeit purely imaginary, truth.  It is nothing substantiated as is the generalized design science's geometrically precise energy-synergy of Universe.  The emulators emanate from the womb of permitted ignorance. They'll usually argue words to the effect not only did God create the world, but set forth historical evolution wherein classless societies supplant capitalistic inequity.  It is but another interpretation and reinterpretation of what initiated as an emulation of an earlier prototype along similarly inculcating lines of text that indoctrinate all who could be lured into the culmination.  See The Birth of the Mujahedin-i KhalqThe culmination resulted from imbalanced distribution of resources where the slave mentality conditioning  thrived and continues enslaving humans for many ambitious reasons.  The ambitions usually implicate variously motivated interests some of which is self serving.  Some of it represents a struggle to defend the truth, to share ideals with others.  But that, too, can fall into a more problematic communications environment.  And so, starting with Universe will always result in a very different world from that which omits the conceptuality of its first subdivision, a system that divides Universe into six parts, which eventuates in more clarity concerning conceptual tuning within the optical range of humans sensing. (Synergetics 400.01) In our humanity's evolution process brain waves are being studied now as neuron prosthesis for humans who are unable to speak but who can imagine the events for which words are used to describe thought-action's thought-language.  See the Transcript.  Related links and lyrics to the song that follows this Episode 11. 

Hanif Azizi är polis i ett av Stockholms mest utsatta områden och flydde den iranska rebellgruppen Mujahedin som barn. Vid 19 års ålder tappade han fotfästet i Sverige och valde att återanslutas till den militanta rörelsens i Irak, där de skulle föra en väpnad kamp mot iranska staten. Efter intensifierade försök till hjärntvätt lyckades Hanif ändå att ändra sig och återvända till Sverige. Väl i Sverige ansökte han istället till Polishögskolan, med stor oro för att hans bakgrund inom Mujahedin skulle komma fram.   Idag är Hanif en erfaren polis och författare av självbiografin Förortssnuten där han skriver om sitt liv. Hanif är också en samhällsdebattör och en viktig röst för att bekämpa gängkriminaliteten i Stockholms mest utsatta område Järva/Rinkeby. I LoungePodden berättar Hanif Azizi om hela sin personliga resa från militärbasen i Irak till Sverige, den identitetssökande uppväxten, motgångar, återanslutningen, återvändandet, polisyrket, attentatet på Drottninggatan och om valet att välja bort offerrollen.   Det här är ett samtal om detaljer. Detaljer som gör skillnaden. Skillnaden i tankemönster, mindset, slutsatser och val i livet. Hanif har inte bara en unik och inspirerande personlig historia. Han har också en särskild förmåga att analysera sina egna erfarenheter, tankar/idéer och granska sina egna frispråkiga åsikter på ett ödmjukt sätt. Dessutom är han skitrolig. Lyssna gärna på detta grymma avsnitt med ett öppet sinne!   Gillar du det vi gör? Stötta oss gärna på Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/taimaz Mer info på https://www.loungepodden.se ❤️ Tack för ditt stöd! ❤️   Följ @loungepodden på alla sociala medier! YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLKiCeQSPOfRmhXA_1m9M2A Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/loungepodden Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/loungepodden Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LoungePodden Följ Taimaz Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/taimazghaffari/ Linkedin: https://se.linkedin.com/in/taimaz-ghaffari-22789b21

Journalister ringer gärna polisen Hanif Azizi när det har hänt något i förorten. Han är känd för sin frispråkighet. Men Hanif Azizi bar länge på en stor hemlighet. Som tjugoåring var han nära att lämna allt för att bli krigare i den iranska rebellrörelsen Folkets mujahedin. I boken Förortssnuten - och i veckans avsnitt - berättar Hanif Azizi om sin långa, krokiga och ofta förtvivlade väg till den han är idag. I avsnittet också om Anna-Karin Palms debutroman Faunen. I den aktuella nyutgåvan har Annina Rabe skrivit förord - hon gästar Pocketpodden. Programledare Lisa Tallroth See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Welcome to MintCast -- an interview series featuring dissenting voices the establishment would rather silence-- I’m your host Mnar Muhawesh Adley.Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of Iran’s most senior nuclear scientists, was assassinated in his car last week on the outskirts of Tehran. State sources in the Islamic Republic are claiming he was killed with a remote-controlled machine gun.While no party has taken responsibility, the Iranian government has already pointed the finger at a number of suspects, chiefly Israel, the United States, and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (commonly known as the MEK) a Washington-funded organization with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government. Yet no party has claimed responsibility for the attack. At Fakhrizadeh’s funeral, Defense Minister Amir Hatami vowed that no crime as great as this would go unpunished and that the killing would not hinder Iran’s nuclear program.Joining us today to discuss the assassination, its geopolitical context, and consequences, and what it means going forward for the U.S. and Iran, is Seyed Mohammad Marandi, an Iranian-American academic and political analyst. Seyed is a Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran and a frequent guest on a wide range of news and political channels.Dr. Marandi argues that not only was this assassination an act of war, but a direct attack against Iran’s COVID-19 vaccine program. Fakhrezadeh was not only Iran’s top nuclear scientist, he was also leading the research program for the Islamic Republic’s COVID vaccine. Because of crippling U.S. sanctions, Iran has been barred from importing masks, ventilators, and medical supplies to support the country in its fight against the virus.COVID-19, Marandi argues, has been weaponized against Iran’s nearly 90 million citizens to destabilize the country to a degree that no other sanctions could have accomplished.Both the US and Israel have a history of interfering in Iranian affairs. Ten months ago, Donald Trump personally gave the order to assassinate Iranian military leader and statesman, Qassem Soleimani while he was in Iraq for regional peace talks. Trump has also increased and expanded existing sanctions against the Islamic Republic and pulled the United States out of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.With only weeks until Joe Biden is set to take up office in the White House, analysts are predicting that the assassination of Fakhrezadeh put the nail in the coffin for any worthwhile agreement between the two nations.Fakhrizadeh’s death may have shocked Iranians, but it is unlikely to have surprised them, as his killing is the latest in a long line of political assassinations of high-ranking atomic scientists, at least five of whom have been murdered in the previous ten years. Some of them, like Masoud Ali Mohammadi and Majid Shahriar - both killed in separate car bombings in 2010- were Fakhrizadeh’s peers and coworkers.This program is 100 percent listener supported! You can join the hundreds of financial sponsors who make this show possible by becoming a member on our Patreon page. Support the show (https://www.mintpressnews.com/donations/)

Who are Albania’s Iranian guests? In July, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani visited an Albanian village just outside Tirana. At a tightly-guarded encampment, he addressed the Iranian group who live there - the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), or People’s Mujahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI). MEK has been a leading opposition voice against the Islamic Republic of Iran for decades. Following the revolution of 1979, MEK fell out with the Iranian government – members were persecuted, and the organisation moved to Iraq for around three decades. Migration to Albania was facilitated by the United States, and more than 3,000 members have arrived. But in Albania – a fragile democracy - there’s disquiet. Critics claim MEK’s presence compromises Albania’s security, and is fuelling a crack-down on the press. Meanwhile, dozens of Iranian MEK members have defected but find themselves living a precarious existence in Tirana because they are stateless, without passports. Assignment investigates the improbable relationship between Albania and MEK. Presenter: Linda Pressly Producer: Albana Kasapi (Photo: Gholam Mirzai has left the MEK. He would like to return to Iran. Credit: BBC Credit)

From their base in Albania, some 3,000 Iranian exiles are committed to overthrowing the government of Iran. Linda Pressly finds out how some members of the M.E.K - the Mujahedin-e Khalq – are adapting to life in Europe. Kate Adie introduces this and other stories: It's thirty years since the fall of Czechoslovakia's communist regime, but Chris Bowlby finds the ghostly remains of its past still looming large in one former steel town. Long-sleeved shirt, trousers tucked into her socks and copious amounts of insect repellent – Sian Griffiths reports from Canada where tiny black legged ticks are migrating north and spreading disease. “We Kenyan journalists joke that reporting on famine is easy: you just find your old script from a previous one - and repeat it” says Anna Mawathe as she considers one possible solution to hunger in her homeland. And what happens when you get locked out of a motorhome in rural Andalucía, in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, with no wallet and no shoes. Tim Smith reports from Spain.

Always an aloof and imperial domestic politician, Stephen Harper's ideologically-driven post-politics path is bringing the 59-year old Prime Minister into the orbit of some very interesting organizations including violent militant group The People’s Mujahedin of Iran and Zionist NGO The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. On this episode, Brad Goertz (ep28's 'Realpolitik and Big Oil: The Unconventional Social Democracy of Rachel Notley's NDP') joins host Andre Goulet to discuss the former Prime Minister's new and financially lucrative career in corporate consulting and the shadowy international Right-wing speaker’s circuit. This episode was recorded on July 15th, 2018. For more on this story, check out Jason Makusoff’s two recent pieces at Maclean’s: https://www.macleans.ca/politics/stephen-harpers-own-words-i-was-never-in-the-job-to-be-liked/ https://www.macleans.ca/economy/what-on-earth-is-stephen-harper-up-to/

On this episode of Fault Lines, hosts Garland Nixon and Lee Stranahan discuss President Trump's decision to go forward with new tariffs on steel and aluminum. The EU, Canada, and Mexico have all expressed their displeasure with this decision, and it remains to be seen how economic relationships may be impacted.Scheduled Guests: (Show 7-10 AM ET)Susan Pai - Immigration Attorney | Debate About Children and Immigration Misses the Real Story Holly Hood - Urban Libertarian [In-Studio] | Breaking the Two Party Stranglehold Ken Whittle - Associate Editor at Disobedient Media | CIA Assets in the Mainstream Media: Who is Ken DilanianJoanne Stocker - Journalist and an Editor for 'The Defense Post' | The People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) - What You Need to Know Dr. Michael Nevradakis - Host of Dialogos Radio and Contributor to Mint Press News | Greece, Macedonia, and Political Tension in the European UnionMichael Krieger - Founder of LibertyBlitzkrieg.com | The Age of Open Advocacy for Government PropagandaThere has been a lot of discussion recently about children who illegally crossed the Southern border being "lost" by The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Immigration Attorney Susan Pai has history dealing with cases involving the release of unaccompanied migrant children, and she returns to Fault Lines to provide her insight on the reality of this situation.The People's Mujahedin of Iran, also known as the 'MEK,' is a fairly unknown group that has been pushing for regime change in Iran. Joanne Stocker, a journalist and Editor for 'The Defense Post,' joins Fault Lines as a guest for the first time to break down the history of the MEK and their associations with powerful American policy makers.For the final segment of the show, Fault Lines fan-favorite Michael Krieger joins Garland and Lee to discuss his recent column entitled, 'May You Live in Stupid, Corrupt and yet Fascinating Times.' With the mainstream media and political system in a constant state of madness, what can individuals and their families do to maintain their sanity while staying on top of the news cycle?

On this episode of Fault Lines, hosts Garland Nixon and Lee Stranahan discuss the sudden resignation of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Just hours after a new report in the New Yorker co-authored by Ronan Farrow accused Scheiderman of abusing multiple women, New York's top law enforcement officer announced his hasty departure.Scheduled Guests: (Show 7-10 AM ET)George Galloway - British Politician, Broadcaster, and Writer | Topic: Straight Talk on Boris Johnson's Visit and IranJohn Kiriakou - Co-Host of “Loud and Clear” on Radio Sputnik | Topic: What is the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK)?Adam Eidenger - Cannabis Activist | Topic: What is the Status of Cannabis Legalization Heading into the 2018 Midterms?James O'Keefe - President of Project Veritas | Topic: Project Veritas Takes on Corrupt Teachers UnionsJoe Lauria - Editor at Consortium News | Topic: Foreign Policy and PropagandaYesterday, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson visited Washington DC in an effort to persuade President Trump to remain in the Iran Nuclear Deal. Former British MP George Galloway returns to Fault Lines to give his thoughts on both Boris Johnson and the importance of the Iran deal.Certain elements of the US political establishment are pushing for regime change in Iran. This has brought about an alliance with a group known as the People's Mujahedin of Iran or MEK. Former CIA analyst John Kirkiaou joins Garland and Lee to discuss what the public should know about this organization.For years, James O'Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, have captured corruption and illegal activity by using undercover videos. Today, James returns as a guest to Fault Lines to discuss Project Veritas' recent video releases which have taken aim at corruption within teachers unions.

Polisen Hanif Azizi var beredd att ta till vapen för att få återförenas med sin mamma som var rebellkrigare i den väpnade gruppen Folkets Mujahedin. Storydox 8/5 2017. Tema: Från ovan

Amir Vafa krigade för rebellgruppen Folkets Mujahedin. Han var sjutton år när han fick sitt första uppdrag, och allt gick fel. Storydox 2/10 2017. Tema: Snedsteg.

Generalinspektøren for Heimevernet, generalmajor Tor Rune Raabye: Status og utfordringer i Heimevernet God ettermiddag og takk for invitasjonen. 1. november 2013 ble jeg i statsråd utnevnt til generalmajor og 14. november for nesten tre år siden tiltrådte jeg i stillingen. Jeg må innrømme: «Lite visste jeg om alt som rører seg i denne organismen». De viktigste oppdagelsene skal jeg dele med dere. På fredag skulle Stortingets utenriks- og forsvarskomité avgitt sin innstilling til Stortinget, men det var ikke mulig å komme fram til enighet. Akkurat nå pågår viktige forhandlinger på Stortinget mellom partilederne. De skal ta et veivalg for Norge som er både viktig og vanskelig. I dag skal jeg forsøke å beskrive en status på hva dagens HV bidrar med til terskelforsvaret. Underveis vil dere også få direkte rapporter fra noen av mine områdesjefer fra nord til sør og øst til vest. De skal med egne ord og bilder dele hva de tenker. Mot slutten av mitt innlegg vil jeg trekke opp noen mulige utviklingslinjer som jeg mener HV bør ha. Men aller først; la meg minne om hvilke oppdrag vi løser i dag: Jeg må innledningsvis si litt om de overordnede sikkerhetsutfordringene og kikke litt rundt oss for å finne ut om hvilke trusler vi kan stå ovenfor. Da ser vi flere negative utviklingstrekk: • I Asia og Stillehavsregionen ser vi mange pågående og potensielle konflikter som bringer fokus bort fra Europa • Konfliktnivået i Midtøsten er stigende, og flyktningestrømmene enorme. • Russland har modernisert forsvaret og har vist vilje til å bruke militær styrke for å annektere landområder. Hva betyr dette for oss, og når kan det usannsynlige bli sannsynlig? Dersom jeg hadde svaret med to streker under, ville jeg vært synsk. Det er jeg ikke… Men det er noen trender og erfaringer jeg vil trekke fram: • Vi kommer til å bli overrasket – igjen. • Hybride operasjoner i flere dimensjoner vil sannsynligvis være en del av et mulig angrep, og jeg tenker at det er svært sentralt for oss å hindre dette. Vi bør gå ut ifra at grunnlaget for dette angrepet allerede er under utvikling. Jeg tror at nett-trollene jobber etter klare føringer fra Russlands ledelse. • Et konvensjonelt angrep fra Russland, lite som stort, må vi også være forberedt på. Jeg sier ikke med dette at krigen er i gang, men Russland må utvikle handlemåter og skaffe seg handlefrihet i fredstid. Alle stormakter gjør det. Hvordan kan vi stå i mot denne trusselen, og hindre at alternativer blir utløst: Være til stede i aktuelle områder av landet med adekvat militær styrke. Jeg kommer tilbake til dette mot slutten av innlegget. Heimevernets overordnede oppdrag Heimevernets distriktssjefer ivaretar det lokale territorielle ansvaret (LTA) på vegne av sjef Forsvarets operative hovedkvarter (FOH). Dette innebærer blant annet å: • gjennomføre overvåkning og kontroll for å bygge et situasjonsbilde både på land og i kystsonen • sikre framføringsakser, forsyningsakser, logistikkbaser • beskytte egne eller allierte styrker • etablere mottak av allierte styrker I tillegg kan det være aktuelt å bidra til forsterket grensevakthold. Mine distriktssjefer er altså territorielle sjefer for hver sin geografiske del av landet. Denne oppgaven overtok distriktene da de territorielle hærregimentene ble nedlagt i 2002. Mine «grunneiere» danner en landsdekkende og sammenhengende kjede av militære sjefer, og jeg tenker at denne oppgaven har vært lite synlig og lite verdsatt i en tid med stort fokus på internasjonale operasjoner. Men i dag er oppgavens størrelse og viktighet i ferd med å få sin rettmessige plass. Vår landsdekkende militære kapasitet, og ikke minst reaksjonsevne bidrar til en viktig krigsforebyggende terskel. En motstander skal vite at det ikke er lett å slå ut HV som organisasjon. Heimevernet har landsdekkende hovedoppgaver innenfor vakthold og sikring av viktige militære og sivile objekter. Her opplever vi en økende etterspørsel. Heimevernet skal være lokalt forankret for å dekke disse oppgavene og skal være tilgjengelig på kort varsel, slik at enheter med god lokalkjennskap kan løse militære oppdrag og støtte det sivile samfunn ved ulykker og større hendelser. HV yter bistand til politiet og bidrar i krisehåndtering, slik vi gjorde i hovedstaden 22. juli. 2011. Samarbeid med sivile myndigheter, som politi, fylker og kommuner er svært viktig, og jeg opplever at vi samarbeider godt med alle disse aktørene. Organisering: • Vi har 11 distriktsstaber som er modellert ut fra sjef FOH sitt behov. Våre operative staber har en normal G-struktur som samvirker med FOH sin stab. Våre staber er dimensjonert med arbeidskraft ut fra GIHV minimumsbehov for styrkeproduksjon. Ved krise tilføres et mobiliseringstillegg som ivaretar operativ planlegging og stridsledelse. • Under distriktene finner vi 249 HV-områder med 42 000 soldater og 15 innsatsstyrker med 3 000 soldater. Til sammen 45 000 soldater. Alle stillingene er ikke fylt i dag fordi midler er prioritert til trening og materiell. • Land: (226 områder) Sjø: (17 områder) Luft: (6 områder). Totalt 249 områder. • Områdene trener om lag 4/6 dager årlig i to av tre år. Det tredje året trener befalet uten soldater. • Vi har 11 innsatsstyrker på land og 4 innsatsstyrker på sjø. Dette er 3 000 semi-profesjonelle soldater som skriver kontrakt der de forplikter seg til å trene inntil 30 dager årlig. • Legg merke til at vi bare har 505 fast ansatte for å drifte en struktur på 45 000 soldater. La meg så gå inn på det aller viktigste: HV-soldaten: En kar i 40-åra eller ei jente i midten av 20-åra. Alle HV-soldater har gjennomført 12 mnd førstegangstjeneste. • CA 4 000 av dem har vært ute i internasjonale operasjoner • HV-soldaten har lett utrustning • HV-soldaten er lokalkjent • HV-soldaten har livserfaring • HV-soldaten har sivil kompetanse • HV-soldaten må trene jevnlig med våpenet sitt • HV-soldaten må ha god soldatutrustning inkludert beskyttelse • HV-soldatene må ha god ledelse Dette betyr at oppdraget løses av voksne, livserfarne soldater med ett års soldattjeneste som grunnmur. Vi vet at våre soldater er blant de beste i verden, så jeg tror det er smart å ta vare på den militære grunnkompetansen og utnytte maksimalt de andre egenskapene som følger gratis med i vår verneplikt. Oppsummert med de enkle fakta om HV: 45 000 soldater (land, sjø, luft). De er produsert gjennom forsvarsgrenenes førstegangstjeneste. Jeg vedlikeholder og utnytter denne soldatkompetansen. Rent numerært, har Heimevernet om lag 67 % av Forsvarets operative strukturs soldater i krise og krig, og vi forbruker under 3 % av forsvarsbudsjettet. Reaksjonstid fram til klar er svært god, og blant de beste i Forsvaret. Våre soldater er derfor «først på plass» og dette innebærer «høy risiko.» HV ivaretar mesteparten av landterritoriet og strandsonen når vi opererer. Treningsnivået for områdestrukturen har steget fra ingen trening i 2009 til om lag 67 % trening i år. Dette har vært en bevisst politisk prioritering i inneværende periode, men fire dagers trening i to av tre år gir et marginalt treningsnivå, og jeg føler meg moralsk forpliktet til å gi HV-soldaten (som til daglig er sivilister) enda mer trening for å utnytte det potensialet som ligger i strukturen. Når det gjelder antall soldater i strukturen, så ser jeg for første gang at vi nå nærmer oss et kritisk minimumsnivå, men det gledelige er at vi har over 6 000 soldater som står klare for HV-tjeneste så snart midler for dette tildeles. En av de viktigste forutsetningene for et velfungerende heimevern, er kompetente sjefer. I dag har vi et økende underskudd på kvalifiserte sjefer. Dette skyldes at våpengrenene produserer svært få befal og vi har ikke hatt de økonomiske ressursene som skal til for å intensivere kursingen av neste generasjon HV-sjefer. På materiell siden har vi hatt en svært god utvikling det siste året. HV-lagrene er i ferd med å fylles opp. Det gjør at stadig flere områder er beredskapsklare. Jeg ser altså at vi beveger oss totalt sett i riktig retning, og at de skavankene vi ser i dag kan rettes med små budsjettmessige økninger. Som en del av statusen vil jeg også fortelle at staben min på Terningmoen forbereder seg på å bli en del av den nasjonale kommandostrukturen. Og dersom Stortinget vil, kan jeg i løpet av 2017 ha en initial kapasitet med en Nasjonal territoriell kommando som kan lede alle HV-styrkene både i fred, krise og krig. Dette vil være en god utvikling og forenkling av K2. Jeg har 249 områdesjefer som samvirker med alle ordførere i hele landet. Hver områdesjef leder om lag 150 soldater. De tar på seg et verv og får en meget liten kompensasjon for jobben. Det er disse sjefene som skal stå ansikt til ansikt med trusselen først. Dette er de som leder mine soldater i strid. «Det å kunne ødelegge motstanderens militære kapasiteter, er normalt nødvendig i en militær konflikt. Men det har vist seg at det å beherske terreng, er helt nødvendig for å kommunisere til omverdenen og motstanderen at man ikke er slått». FFI-rapport 2010/00629 - Trender i militære operasjoner Jeg tenker at dette er et viktig innspill til Landmaktstudien. Det første jeg gjorde for knapt tre år siden var å ferdigstille en studie om «Fremtidens heimevern». Denne lå til grunn da vi gikk inn i FMR-prosessen. Jeg tenker fortsatt at dagens oppgaver må videreføres. • Mitt inntrykk er at antall viktige objekter har økt den senere tid, og at vi må prioritere prioriteringen dersom vi skal under 45 000 soldater. Våre lokale styrker som forsvarer hjemtraktene er viktig for å kunne oppdage hybride trusler og angrep. Videre gir den lokale tilstedeværelsen en svært god reaksjonsevne – GRATIS. Vi må selvsagt bygge opp lokale lagre, og det har en kostnad, men personellkostnadene er forsvinnende små. • Differensiering er nødvendig når vi skal designe strukturen i forhold til lokale geografiske og klimatiske forhold. Ikke minst må vi forholde oss til en lokal trussel. Jeg vil utdype dette noe etterpå. • Videre tenker jeg at vi må få lov til å ta i bruk enkel teknologi, slik som overvåkningskamera, jaktradioer, droner, osv. Jeg tror at med små hjelpemidler kan vi oppnå svært mye. Jeg ønsker å appellere til kreativitet og lokale initiativ. Når sikkerheten til familien er truet, blir man ganske oppfinnsom med tanke på å beskytte dem. Mektige Sovjetunionen klarte ikke å overvinne Mujahedin. Noe av det samme har vi sett mellom NATO-styrker og Taliban. Vi kan få til noe av det samme med Heimevernet i Norge. Sitatet kommer på neste trykk: Jeg tenker derfor at «Et modernisert HV med enkle og relevante kapasiteter utgjør en landsdekkende beredskap og er en meget sentral del av Norges krigsforebyggende terskel.» Differensiering Et landsdekkende Heimevern opptrer i forskjellig klima og topografi. I tillegg er det ingen entydig trussel over hele landet. Vi jobber nå med å bygge opp en basis kapasitet over hele landet. Det er vel og bra, særlig når vi skal møte det ukjente i en overraskende setting. Men jeg ønsker å finjustere organisasjonen, for jeg tror at litt skreddersøm vil gi oss god uttelling. Følgende kapasiteter må videreutvikles: - Bekjempningskapasitet (Panser, fartøy i kystsonen (fra land) og indirekte ild) - Kommunikasjons-ødeleggelser - Oppklaring og overvåkning - Taktisk mobilitet på og utenfor vei La meg ta Finnmark som et eksempel: Der har vi åpenbart behov for panserbekjempelseskapasitet. I dag har vi 12,7 mm MØR, Carl Gustav og M-72. HV-soldaten trenger kraftigere PV-våpen med lengre rekkevidde. Luftlandsetting kan være et aktuelt scenario, og vi vet at det beste forsvaret mot en luftlandsetting er å ha styrker på bakken i aktuelle områder. På luftvernsiden har vi 12,7 mm LV. Jeg mener at vi må innføre et bærbart luftvern som virker effektivt mot helikopter. Vi må på nytt få muligheten til å drive aktive kommunikasjonsødeleggelser. Jeg tenker stridsvognsminer og andre hindringer. Når det gjelde mobilitet, er det åpenbart behov for snøscootere og 6-hjulinger i Finnmark. Hensikten i alt vi gjør i HV er i første omgang å øke terskelen for innsetting, og dernest løse oppdraget når det uventede skjer. HV-soldaten bærer med seg et bredt spekter av kompetanse og kjenner alltid noen som kjenner noen… Det betyr at de er i stand til å ta i bruk moderne teknologi. La meg ta noen enkle eksempler: • Små og enkle droner kan effektiv brukes til overvåkning. De er billige i anskaffelse og krever ikke mer kunnskap enn det som allerede finnes i HV-strukturen. • Viltkamera kan også nyttes i tilsvarende rolle. • Enkle jaktradioer kan vi bruke på laveste nivå. Der trenger vi ikke å avanserte systemer med kryptering osv. • Vi eksperimenterer i dag med kommersielle posisjonsprogram som kjøres på IPAD/tilsvarende • En av de viktigste oppdagelser vi har gjort i det siste er at vi kan utnytte sivile leverandører til å løse oppgaver som tradisjonelt sett har vært militære oppgaver. Vår logistikk skal håndteres av sivile leverandører. Dette er samfunnsmessig svært rasjonelt og Forsvaret sparer store investerings- og driftsutgifter. • Rekvisisjonslovene har ligget brakk i noen år, men vi har revitalisert systemet og ser at vi kan utnytte sivile fartøyer i Sjø-Heimevernet. Dagens sivile fartøystruktur har fantastiske sensorer, kommunikasjonsmidler og de har mannskaper som kan håndtere fartøyet trygt. Her ser jeg at vi kan ta i bruk moderne teknologi med en liten innsats. Billig og svært effektivt. • HVs evne til samarbeid med andre militære styrker og sivile samvirkepartnere må videreutvikles gjennom bruk av sivilt tilgjengelig kommunikasjonsteknologi (f eks smarttelefoner og nettbrett) med tilrettelagt programvare som del av Forsvarets ledelsessystemer. • Mulighetene er mange og Heimevernet ønsker å ta dem i bruk. HV mot en hybrid mostander. Hva kan HV gjøre mot en hybrid motstander? Da må jeg starte med å definere hva en hybrid operasjon er: • CYBER-angrep • Informasjonsoperasjoner, der motstanderen forsøker å bryte ned motstand og spre usannheter om eksempelvis Norge og NATO • Økonomiske sanksjoner/tiltak • Støtte til lokale opprørsgrupper, gjerne ved å ha egne borgere bosatt i et annet land • Irregulære styrker • Ordinære styrker • Spesialstyrker • Diplomati Når det er sagt, så tenker jeg at appliseringen vil overraske oss. I tillegg vil jeg også hevde at Russland er i gang med påvirkningsoperasjoner på nettet. Vi ser blant annet at nett-tollene er svært aktive i sosiale medier. Case (sak i Nettavisen): Putin retter atomraketter mot Europa Utplasseringen av Iskander-missiler ved Østersjøen sammenlignes med Cuba-krisen. nettavisen.no http://m.nettavisen.no/nyheter/utenriks/putin-retter-atomraketter-mot-europa/3423271726.html Denne saken fra nettavisen fikk mye aktivitet i kommentarfeltet. Flere av disse er gjengangere med pro Putin budskap og anti NATO budskap. Deres innlegg viser typisk modus operandi: • «TopperHarly» Frir til norske islamkritikere, med budskap om at Putin som den sterke mann har kontroll på sitt hus, og svake vestlige land som ikke har kontroll på muslimer/immigranter. Det virker som om de ofte frir til høyreekstreme krefter. • «anders haver» Går direkte inn i debatten om etablering av rotasjonsstyrke på Værnes og leverer meget kritiske budskap til USA og NATO. De frir ofte åpenlyst til NATO/USA skeptikere. • «Nancy Michaelsen» Forsvarer ofte Putin som sterk mann. • «NataliaTrofimova». Leverer ofte litt mer moderate saker, med et norsk språl som bærer preg av Google translater. Felles for alle er at de backer opp hverandre og totalt sett dominerer kommentarfeltet. Forskjellige scenarier kan være: Flyktningestrømmer gjennom Russland, ispedd irregulære styrker. Klager fra en russisk minoritet i Finnmark. Uenighet om tilstedeværelse på Svalbard. Men, husk: Vi kommer til å bli overrasket. Hva kan HV gjøre med dette? HV-soldaten er til stede i hele landet og vet hva som er normalsituasjonen. HV-soldaten kan bidra til situasjonsbevissthet ved å fange opp unormale aktiviteter. I tillegg kan våre samfunnsengasjerte og sikkerhetsbevisste HV-soldater bidra til å avgrense, eller stanse irregulære styrker. Jeg tenker at HV-soldatens totale kompetanse og erfaring er unik i denne sammenheng. Hybride krigere er asymetriske motstandere sett i forhold til regulære styrker, og det er åpenbart umulig å bekjempe dem med fly og missiler. På samme måte tenker jeg at HV-soldaten med sin lokalkunnskap og sin sivile forankring, vil være en asymetrisk trussel for en hybrid kriger, så vel som en konvensjonell motstander. La meg avslutte: Flere titalls tusen soldater som til daglig er integrert i samfunnet er en krigsforebyggende terskel. Disse HV-soldatene er klare til å forsvare familien, bygda eller byen sin. Vi trenger en sterk landmakt med en slagkraftig brigade, men en småstat må også tenke asymmetrisk. HV-styrker kan på mange måter sammenlignes med irregulære styrker. Når familien trues, øker forsvarsviljen og HV-kreativiteten i takt med trusselen. Hærens brigade er liten og kan bare være på ett sted. Resten av landet forsvares av HV. Jeg tar ingen omkamp på det som står i LTP, men jeg tror fortsatt at vi skal bygge videre på det Heimevernet vi har i dag. Bygge videre på et landsdekkende Heimevern. Vi trenger et sterkt forsvar i dag med moderne kampfly, en sterk marine, og en tidsriktig landmakt. Et moderne heimevern er en naturlig og viktig del av dette. Takk for oppmerksomheten!