Search the Community

Salam Aleikom, I recently made a video on Iran and North Korea's friendship and how it began. Feedback is greatly appreciated. You can check out the video by clicking on the thumbnail below or clicking here. How Iran and North Korea became the best of friends in an age of imperialism, and challenged the world. What are the origins of this strange relationship and how does it endure? This vlog is about how Iran and North Korea became the best of friends in an age of imperialism. Information on Iran and North Korea is pretty hard to come by. And there's a reason for that. Both of these countries were born out of revolution and war. They insist on their national sovereignty, their economic, cultural and military independence. And that culminates into both of them being a thread to the American Grand Strategy, its global imperialism and the imposed hegemonic order of Bretton Woods. But these countries are more than just strategic partners in light of an American threat. The Islamic Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, they generally like each other. What are the origins of this strange relationship and how does it endure? This vlog is about how Iran and North Korea became the best of friends in an age of imperialism.

Friends Let us try to analyze the basis on which the list of 7 countries was framed, the list banning people from US shores. In my view, here are some of the points worth considering. 1. Countries which are full of terrorists, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, were excluded. Why? Well, it is common knowledge that Pakistan is a US puppet. And with massive US presence in Afghanistan, strategically, it may not be a very good idea to provoke Afghanistan at this point. 2. Countries which embody and promote the ideology that produces terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia were excluded. Why? Because Saudi Arabia is helping the US achieve its imperialist goals in the Middle East. And possibly because Saudi Arabia is rumored to have arrived at a secret pact with Israel against Iran. Qatar is also a US puppet., as are all Gulf principalities, solely interested in the countless dollars that flow from their oil. Saudi Arabia has been equipped with the finest in weaponry, by both the US and Britain, which it has used extensively to subdue poverty-stricken Yemen. And let us not forget that all (or most) of the terrorists in the biggest single episode of terrorism (the iconic 9/11) were Saudi nationals, not from any other country. Osama bin Laden himself was a Saudi. 3. Most terrorists are people with some sympathy for al Qaida or ISIS, And that ideology comes from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was born from the womb of terrorism, when the Saudis overran the land just short of 100 years ago. In fact, Saudi Arabia and ISIS have exactly the same ideology, except that the Saudis are the first cab off the rank. And they do not wish to lose the crown and trillions of dollars to ISIS. So Saudi Arabia being excepted from the ban is clear evidence that fear of terrorism is NOT the reason for the ban. 4.Turkey has produced a large number of terrorists in the recent past. But Turkey was not in the list. After all, how could a NATO ally be in the list, regardless how much terrorism there is in that country. 5. And now the big surprise! Countries with an enviable record of containing terrorist activity, such as Iran were included. If my memory serves me right, if all the instances of terror around the world in the last 20 years were to be listed, not one single episode can be traced to Iran. Or if I may have missed something in the news, Iran would definitely be at the bottom of the list. Yet Iran was listed. 6. Now let us think - why exactly was Iran in the list? Was it because the US has not yet fully avenged itself for being booted out of Iran in 1953 and then again in 1980? Or because Iran has refused to recognized Israel as a legitimate baby? Quite possibly both. And that is the whole point. If an imperialist power believes that Israel is a legitimate child, how could anyone dare to differ? If God's own country desires that every nation MUST accept that view, how could anyone support a different view? Imperialism redux! Accept what the master says or he will destroy you! Voltaire must be turning in his grave at the abuse of freedom of opinion but no freedom of opinion is allowed there. Absolutely none! All slaves (aka allies) must obey the master and ditto his views and opinions. Otherwise, they will be branded as the axis of evil. to paraphrase, George Bush the younger. 7. The US has a history of making friends with bad boys just like Mafia bosses have always enlisted murderers and hoodlums. (a) It developed Osama into becoming Osama until Osama was annoyed by US bases in Saudi Arabia and turned against them. (b) It used Saddam to build its power in the region. TIME magazine once quoted a US official as saying "Saddam is a SOB but he is our SOB". In other words, he is a horrible man, of course, but he serves our purpose. And that is all that matters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary therefore, its is clear that the basis for the list of 7 was not the fear of terrorist activity but the game of political and imperialist chess. Are you willing to work for me as a slave? Don't feel embarrassed. I won't call you a slave. You will be known as an ally. If you are willing, then I will have to work out how useful you could be to me. After all, an evil slave who is blindly obedient to the master is more useful than one who chooses ethics over his master's wishes. The latter will not help the master in his evil goals and needs to be ejected from his circle of trusted aides. And that is all that matters - not morals and not ethics. And that is why Saudi Arabia was excluded and Iran was included in that infamous list. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US was a good country until 1945 when it was suddenly pushed into the limelight. And as we all know, the limelight tends to make one lose one's head and that, in my view, is what has happened. There are good Americans and there are bad Americans just as there are good and bad people all over the world. But most of the world has tended to treat the ever more powerful US as a god. They have followed the American entertainment industry in promoting promiscuity and godlessness, instead of promoting Christian values. And that was a very big mistake. In matters of sex, the world is clearly going bonkers, thanks to the way shown by Hollywood and its ilk. If Western nations had turned to Christ, whom they have effectively abandoned, instead of the US for their values, it would be restored to its previous place in a matter of minutes. Christianity would prevail over the doctrine of hedonism which has taken hold of our senses. Likewise, non-Christian countries must also revive their own values embodied in the teachings of Buddhism, Confucius, Hinduism, Islam etc. instead of following the US blindly. We teach our children how to make money but we never encourage them to try and live by the teachings of their faith. For God's sake, let us get away from the mirage of the powerful elephant, which is destroying our world. Let us seek comfort in the teachings and values of religion, not of powerful and rich nations. Wealth and power belong to God alone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we turned away from the worldly goals of wealth and pleasure, I think, the world could be a much better place. A planet of true peace like none other in the solar system and beyond. Until then, I believe, we must learn to live in a very uncertain world, ruled by a puerile despot, that the US has become.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2014/11/should-us-get-out-latin-america-20141116111714274336.html

How to destroy the future From the Cuban missile crisis to a fossil fuels frenzy, the US is intent on winning the race to disaster What is the future likely to bring? A reasonable stance might be to try to look at the human species from the outside. So imagine that you're an extraterrestrial observer who is trying to figure out what's happening here or, for that matter, imagine you're an historian 100 years from now – assuming there are any historians 100 years from now, which is not obvious – and you're looking back at what's happening today. You'd see something quite remarkable. For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That's been true since 1945. It's now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence. And there are other dangers like pandemics, which have to do with globalization and interaction. So there are processes underway and institutions right in place, like nuclear weapons systems, which could lead to a serious blow to, or maybe the termination of, an organized existence. The question is: What are people doing about it? None of this is a secret. It's all perfectly open. In fact, you have to make an effort not to see it. There have been a range of reactions. There are those who are trying hard to do something about these threats, and others who are acting to escalate them. If you look at who they are, this future historian or extraterrestrial observer would see something strange indeed. Trying to mitigate or overcome these threats are the least developed societies, the indigenous populations, or the remnants of them, tribal societies and first nations in Canada. They're not talking about nuclear war but environmental disaster, and they're really trying to do something about it. In fact, all over the world – Australia, India, South America – there are battles going on, sometimes wars. In India, it's a major war over direct environmental destruction, with tribal societies trying to resist resource extraction operations that are extremely harmful locally, but also in their general consequences. In societies where indigenous populations have an influence, many are taking a strong stand. The strongest of any country with regard to global warming is in Bolivia, which has an indigenous majority and constitutional requirements that protect the "rights of nature." Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, is the only oil exporter I know of where the government is seeking aid to help keep that oil in the ground, instead of producing and exporting it – and the ground is where it ought to be. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died recently and was the object of mockery, insult, and hatred throughout the Western world, attended a session of the U.N. General Assembly a few years ago where he elicited all sorts of ridicule for calling George W. Bush a devil. He also gave a speech there that was quite interesting. Of course, Venezuela is a major oil producer. Oil is practically their whole gross domestic product. In that speech, he warned of the dangers of the overuse of fossil fuels and urged producer and consumer countries to get together and try to work out ways to reduce fossil fuel use. That was pretty amazing on the part of an oil producer. You know, he was part Indian, of indigenous background. Unlike the funny things he did, this aspect of his actions at the U.N. was never even reported. So, at one extreme you have indigenous, tribal societies trying to stem the race to disaster. At the other extreme, the richest, most powerful societies in world history, like the United States and Canada, are racing full-speed ahead to destroy the environment as quickly as possible. Unlike Ecuador, and indigenous societies throughout the world, they want to extract every drop of hydrocarbons from the ground with all possible speed. Both political parties, President Obama, the media, and the international press seem to be looking forward with great enthusiasm to what they call "a century of energy independence" for the United States. Energy independence is an almost meaningless concept, but put that aside. What they mean is: we'll have a century in which to maximize the use of fossil fuels and contribute to destroying the world. And that's pretty much the case everywhere. Admittedly, when it comes to alternative energy development, Europe is doing something. Meanwhile, the United States, the richest and most powerful country in world history, is the only nation among perhaps 100 relevant ones that doesn't have a national policy for restricting the use of fossil fuels, that doesn't even have renewable energy targets. It's not because the population doesn't want it. Americans are pretty close to the international norm in their concern about global warming. It's institutional structures that block change. Business interests don't want it and they're overwhelmingly powerful in determining policy, so you get a big gap between opinion and policy on lots of issues, including this one. So that's what the future historian – if there is one – would see. He might also read today's scientific journals. Just about every one you open has a more dire prediction than the last. The other issue is nuclear war. It's been known for a long time that if there were to be a first strike by a major power, even with no retaliation, it would probably destroy civilization just because of the nuclear-winter consequences that would follow. You can read about it in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. It's well understood. So the danger has always been a lot worse than we thought it was. We've just passed the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was called "the most dangerous moment in history" by historian Arthur Schlesinger, President John F. Kennedy's advisor. Which it was. It was a very close call, and not the only time either. In some ways, however, the worst aspect of these grim events is that the lessons haven't been learned. What happened in the missile crisis in October 1962 has been prettified to make it look as if acts of courage and thoughtfulness abounded. The truth is that the whole episode was almost insane. There was a point, as the missile crisis was reaching its peak, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy offering to settle it by a public announcement of a withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba and U.S. missiles from Turkey. Actually, Kennedy hadn't even known that the U.S. had missiles in Turkey at the time. They were being withdrawn anyway, because they were being replaced by more lethal Polaris nuclear submarines, which were invulnerable. So that was the offer. Kennedy and his advisors considered it – and rejected it. At the time, Kennedy himself was estimating the likelihood of nuclear war at a third to a half. So Kennedy was willing to accept a very high risk of massive destruction in order to establish the principle that we – and only we – have the right to offensive missiles beyond our borders, in fact anywhere we like, no matter what the risk to others – and to ourselves, if matters fall out of control. We have that right, but no one else does. Kennedy did, however, accept a secret agreement to withdraw the missiles the U.S. was already withdrawing, as long as it was never made public. Khrushchev, in other words, had to openly withdraw the Russian missiles while the US secretly withdrew its obsolete ones; that is, Khrushchev had to be humiliated and Kennedy had to maintain his macho image. He's greatly praised for this: courage and coolness under threat, and so on. The horror of his decisions is not even mentioned – try to find it on the record. And to add a little more, a couple of months before the crisis blew up the United States had sent missiles with nuclear warheads to Okinawa. These were aimed at China during a period of great regional tension. Well, who cares? We have the right to do anything we want anywhere in the world. That was one grim lesson from that era, but there were others to come. Ten years after that, in 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert. It was his way of warning the Russians not to interfere in the ongoing Israel-Arab war and, in particular, not to interfere after he had informed the Israelis that they could violate a ceasefire the U.S. and Russia had just agreed upon. Fortunately, nothing happened. Ten years later, President Ronald Reagan was in office. Soon after he entered the White House, he and his advisors had the Air Force start penetrating Russian air space to try to elicit information about Russian warning systems, Operation Able Archer. Essentially, these were mock attacks. The Russians were uncertain, some high-level officials fearing that this was a step towards a real first strike. Fortunately, they didn't react, though it was a close call. And it goes on like that. At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn't work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported. Take the case of Iran, which is considered in the West – not in the Arab world, not in Asia – the gravest threat to world peace. It's a Western obsession, and it's interesting to look into the reasons for it, but I'll put that aside here. Is there a way to deal with the supposed gravest threat to world peace? Actually there are quite a few. One way, a pretty sensible one, was proposed a couple of months ago at a meeting of the non-aligned countries in Tehran. In fact, they were just reiterating a proposal that's been around for decades, pressed particularly by Egypt, and has been approved by the U.N. General Assembly. The proposal is to move toward establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. That wouldn't be the answer to everything, but it would be a pretty significant step forward. And there were ways to proceed. Under U.N. auspices, there was to be an international conference in Finland last December to try to implement plans to move toward this. What happened? You won't read about it in the newspapers because it wasn't reported – only in specialist journals. In early November, Iran agreed to attend the meeting. A couple of days later Obama cancelled the meeting, saying the time wasn't right. The European Parliament issued a statement calling for it to continue, as did the Arab states. Nothing resulted. So we'll move toward ever-harsher sanctions against the Iranian population – it doesn't hurt the regime – and maybe war. Who knows what will happen? In Northeast Asia, it's the same sort of thing. North Korea may be the craziest country in the world. It's certainly a good competitor for that title. But it does make sense to try to figure out what's in the minds of people when they're acting in crazy ways. Why would they behave the way they do? Just imagine ourselves in their situation. Imagine what it meant in the Korean War years of the early 1950s for your country to be totally leveled, everything destroyed by a huge superpower, which furthermore was gloating about what it was doing. Imagine the imprint that would leave behind. Bear in mind that the North Korean leadership is likely to have read the public military journals of this superpower at that time explaining that, since everything else in North Korea had been destroyed, the air force was sent to destroy North Korea's dams, huge dams that controlled the water supply – a war crime, by the way, for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And these official journals were talking excitedly about how wonderful it was to see the water pouring down, digging out the valleys, and the Asians scurrying around trying to survive. The journals were exulting in what this meant to those "Asians," horrors beyond our imagination. It meant the destruction of their rice crop, which in turn meant starvation and death. How magnificent! It's not in our memory, but it's in their memory. Let's turn to the present. There's an interesting recent history. In 1993, Israel and North Korea were moving towards an agreement in which North Korea would stop sending any missiles or military technology to the Middle East and Israel would recognize that country. President Clinton intervened and blocked it. Shortly after that, in retaliation, North Korea carried out a minor missile test. The U.S. and North Korea did then reach a framework agreement in 1994 that halted its nuclear work and was more or less honored by both sides. When George W. Bush came into office, North Korea had maybe one nuclear weapon and verifiably wasn't producing any more. Bush immediately launched his aggressive militarism, threatening North Korea – "axis of evil" and all that – so North Korea got back to work on its nuclear program. By the time Bush left office, they had eight to 10 nuclear weapons and a missile system, another great neocon achievement. In between, other things happened. In 2005, the U.S. and North Korea actually reached an agreement in which North Korea was to end all nuclear weapons and missile development. In return, the West, but mainly the United States, was to provide a light-water reactor for its medical needs and end aggressive statements. They would then form a nonaggression pact and move toward accommodation. It was pretty promising, but almost immediately Bush undermined it. He withdrew the offer of the light-water reactor and initiated programs to compel banks to stop handling any North Korean transactions, even perfectly legal ones. The North Koreans reacted by reviving their nuclear weapons program. And that's the way it's been going. It's well known. You can read it in straight, mainstream American scholarship. What they say is: it's a pretty crazy regime, but it's also following a kind of tit-for-tat policy. You make a hostile gesture and we'll respond with some crazy gesture of our own. You make an accommodating gesture and we'll reciprocate in some way. Lately, for instance, there have been South Korean-U.S. military exercises on the Korean peninsula which, from the North's point of view, have got to look threatening. We'd think they were threatening if they were going on in Canada and aimed at us. In the course of these, the most advanced bombers in history, Stealth B-2s and B-52s, are carrying out simulated nuclear bombing attacks right on North Korea's borders. This surely sets off alarm bells from the past. They remember that past, so they're reacting in a very aggressive, extreme way. Well, what comes to the West from all this is how crazy and how awful the North Korean leaders are. Yes, they are. But that's hardly the whole story, and this is the way the world is going. It's not that there are no alternatives. The alternatives just aren't being taken. That's dangerous. So if you ask what the world is going to look like, it's not a pretty picture. Unless people do something about it. We always can. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/us-disaster-race-noam-chomsky?CMP=twt_gu

WASHINGTON: United Technologies Corp on Thursday admitted selling China software that helped Beijing develop its first modern military attack helicopter, one of hundreds of export control violations over nearly two decades. At a federal court hearing in Bridgeport, Connecticut, United Technologies and its two subsidiaries, Pratt & Whitney Canada and Hamilton Sundstrand Corp, agreed to pay more than $75 million to the U.S. government to settle criminal and administrative charges related to the violations. As part of the settlement, Pratt & Whitney Canada pleaded guilty to two federal criminal charges - violating a U.S. export control law and making false statements. Federal prosecutors said the company knew that its export of modified software to China would allow Beijing to test and develop its new military helicopter, called the Z-10, using 10 engines that had been legally exported as commercial items. They said the company's motive was to gain access to China's lucrative civilian helicopter market. "P&WC exported controlled U.S. technology to China, knowing it would be used in the development of a military attack helicopter in violation of the U.S. arms embargo with China," said U.S. Attorney David Fein of Connecticut. "P&WC took what it described internally as a ‘calculated risk,' because it wanted to become the exclusive supplier for a civil helicopter market in China with projected revenues of up to $2 billion," Fein said. The case comes amid growing U.S. concerns about China's military expansion and escalating electronic espionage. Federal authorities have brought five major cases since last February, involving everything from drone technology to radiation-hardened computers used in satellite communications. SLAP ON THE WRIST? United Technologies said it accepted full responsibility for the violations and deeply regretted that they had occurred. It said it had already spent $30 million to beef up export controls and had hired more than 1,000 full and part-time employees to address the issue. "These violations revealed important opportunities to strengthen our export compliance program," United Technologies Chief Executive Louis Chenevert said in a statement, adding that both the Justice and State departments had recognized the company's "significant remedial actions." Fein said the penalties were substantial, but analysts said they amounted to a slap on the wrist for a major global industrial conglomerate with annual revenues of $58.1 billion. Hamilton Sundstrand and Pratt & Whitney Canada also admitted that they had failed to make timely disclosures, required by regulations, to the U.S. State Department about the exports. The government said the $75 million settlement included $20.7 million in criminal fines, forfeitures and other penalties to be paid to the Justice Department, and $55 million in payments to the State Department as part of a consent agreement resolving 576 administrative export control violations. "The Justice Department will spare no effort to hold accountable those who compromise U.S. national security for the sake of profits and then lie about it to the government," said Assistant Attorney General Lisa Monaco. About $20 million of the State Department fines may be used by the company for improving its export control procedures and hiring an independent monitor, United Technologies said. As part of the agreement, the U.S. State Department also will impose curbs on new export licenses for Pratt & Whitney Canada, although the company can request licenses on a case-by-case basis. The debarment does not affect the parent company or Hamilton Sundstrand, and the Canadian unit can request full reinstatement in one year. The company's shares closed $1.56 lower on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, a drop of 2.1 percent. It said it had put money in reserve to cover the payments. A CAPABLE, MODERN HELICOPTER Western experts said the Z-10, first delivered to China's People's Liberation Army in 2009, is developing into one of the world's most modern and capable combat helicopters. Full production of the Z-10 would give China's military unprecedented levels of "aerial artillery" to support an amphibious invasion and subsequent operations against Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its own, said Richard Fisher, an expert on China's military use of so-called dual-use technologies. U.S. authorities said China had been trying to develop a specialized modern military attack helicopter since the 1980s. But since the Chinese government's 1989 crackdown on the pro-democracy movement, the U.S. government has prohibited the export to China of U.S. defense equipment and technology. The U.S. case against United Technologies said P&WC knew as early as 2000 that China's effort to develop a new helicopter involved a military variant, but repeatedly made false statements about its knowledge. U.S. authorities said that Pratt & Whitney Canada's initial involvement in the program was to deliver 10 engines to China from Canada in 2001 and 2002. The company believed the engines did not constitute defense equipment subject to the U.S. military embargo on China because the engines were identical to those it was supplying China for commercial helicopters. The problem arose when Hamilton Sundstrand delivered certain modifications to the engine control software, which allowed China to test and develop the Pratt & Whitney Canada engines as it was developing the new military helicopter. U.S. authorities say the software modifications were specifically for use on the military program, making them subject to the U.S. military embargo on China. KNEW FROM OUTSET According to court documents, Pratt & Whitney Canada allegedly knew from the outset of the Z-10 project in 2000 that China was developing a military helicopter, but failed to notify its U.S. parent and Hamilton Sundstrand until years later. According to court documents, in one 2001 internal e-mail, a Pratt & Whitney Canada manager said: "We must be very careful that the helicopter programs we are doing with the Chinese are not presented or viewed as military programs. As a result of these sanctions, we need to be very careful with the Z10C program. If the first flight will be a gunship, then we could have problems with the U.S. government." In the United States, U.S. investigators say, Hamilton Sundstrand believed it was providing its software to Pratt & Whitney Canada for use in a civilian Chinese helicopter, although it learned in 2004 about a possible export law problem and stopped working on the Z-10 program. But authorities say Pratt & Whitney Canada then modified software on its own and continued to export it to China through June 2005. A law enforcement source said the companies did not even launch an internal inquiry until a non-governmental organization involved in examining "socially responsible" investments in February 2006 asked United Technologies whether Pratt & Whitney Canada's involvement in the Z-10's development might violate U.S. export laws. The group threatened to recommend that investors sell their holdings in UTC. That investigation led to an initial disclosure, in July 2006, to U.S. authorities about the Z-10 issue. Analysts said the settlement was a setback for United Technologies, which is trying to transform itself into an aerospace giant. But the penalties are unlikely to affect the company's sales in China, which accounted for almost $10 billion of its 2011 sales. "It's certainly a black eye," said analyst Jeff Sprague of Vertical Research Partners. United Tech expects to close in coming weeks on its $16.5 billion acquisition of aircraft components maker Goodrich Corp. It has put three units up for sale, including the industrial arm of the Hamilton Sundstrand division. Jay DeFrank, a spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, said the company continued to do business in China, but it had launched major efforts to educate all 70,000 employees in United Technologies' aerospace units about export controls. "China is and remains an important market for UTC and we will continue to do business there in full compliance with the law," he said. The Obama administration has lent high-level backing to United Technologies' work in China. Then-Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, now the U.S. ambassador to China, visited a Pratt & Whitney joint venture in Shanghai in May 2010, according to the company's website. (Reuters)

Argentina calls on firms to halt imports of UK products Argentina’s Industry Minister Debora Giorgi Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:51AM GMT Amid an ongoing dispute over the Malvinas Islands between Argentina and Britain, the Argentinean industry minister has called on the country’s top companies to stop importing British products, Press TV reports. Argentina’s Industry Minister Debora Giorgi on Tuesday called the bosses of at least 20 top firms to urge them to import goods produced elsewhere instead of Britain. The move comes in the hope that it would press Britain to negotiate over the future of the Malvinas Islands as the government of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has recently stepped up its campaign to assert sovereignty over the islands. Argentina had also banned two British cruise ships from docking in a port in its southernmost city of Ushuia in the Tierra del Fuego province Monday morning. The Malvinas Islands, located about 300 miles off Argentina's coast and home to about 3,000 inhabitants, have been declared as part of the British Overseas Territories since Britain established its colonial rule on the islands in 1833. Argentina, however, has repeatedly dismissed the British claim over the island. Tension has been rising ahead of the 30th anniversary of the 74-day bloody war fought between Britain and Argentina in 1982 over the islands which ended with the British side claiming victory over Argentineans. A year after the war, the UK enforced the British Nationality Act of 1983, which offers citizenship to the islanders. Tensions between the two countries have also re-escalated since 2010 when London authorized oil prospecting around the islands. PressTv

Best. Advert. Ever.

SALAAMU ALAIKUM, ''a few gems'' .... Top Weapons Manufacturers and War Profitteers sponsor Zionist Isra-helli (front Organization),ceremony awarding US military brass already under zionist control who promote IsraHells war of terror http://thenakedfacts...turers-and.html WHO'S WHO IN NEW SYRIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL? http://thenakedfacts...al-council.html Portraits of Iran: A Discussion with Two Iranian-American Authors at Carnegie Endownment! http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/10/portraits-of-iran-discussion-with-two.html (TRANSLATED)Washington spends about nine more million more against Cuba, with nine contractors''' by Jean-Guy Allard http://thenakedfacts...-nine-more.html Sweden's King, Carl XVI Gustaf has been slammed by political parties who believe the recent visit to Saudi Arabia approves royal family's lack of concern for human rights status in the kingdom http://www.abna.ir/d...ang=3&Id=272472 ZIONIST PIG ELLIOT ABRAMS FROM CFR - FTAs for Tunisia and Egypt http://thenakedfacts...m-cfr-ftas.html (SEE SUPPLEMENTATION LINKS) Bolivian SOA(SCHOOL OF AMERICAS/ASSASSINS) Grad Jailed for Cocaine Trafficking/Two SOA Grads Sentenced in Bolivia's Black October Case massacre http://thenakedfacts...sassassins.html Alhurra - the Zionist 'Arab' news network http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629022 Bandar bin Sultan’s confession on Hariri, Mughniyeh assassinations to be aired on Syrian TV http://www.tehrantim...ed-on-syrian-tv Financial assets to the family of Mubarak in the banks of Israel http://www.islamtime...h87ei.1kbj.html Alhurra - the Zionist 'Arab' news network http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629022 United Nations review: Venezuela excels in Human Rights http://thenakedfacts...ela-excels.html VIDEO-Exposing Misleading Media against Syria - Libération Scandal http://www.youtube.c...u/0/2hXOF6nN1MI Dengue, Pakistan and CIA http://www.opinion-m...kistan-and-cia/ Source Reveals Link between Israeli Mossad and Alleged Iranian Plotter http://www.islamicin...ranian-plotter/ http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/