Tag Archive | Chad

The U.S. and the Wars in the Sahel*

The U.S. and the Wars in the Sahel*

By Gary K. Busch

Washington has been at war in Africa for years.  But in French-speaking parts of the continent it is Paris that is fully in control. Who becomes president and how national affairs are conducted is a matter determined by the French for their own interest under the colonial-era doctrine of Françafrique. And American tax-payers foot much of the bill for this neo-colonialism.

At the end of his first week in office, newly elected President Emmanuel Macron visited French troops in the West African country of Mali. Macron flew into Gao, a city in Mali’s north, where political unrest and ethnic strife have raged for more than five years. He met some of the 1,600 French soldiers stationed there, at the largest French military base outside of France. The French had intervened in its former colony in January 2013 in an effort to drive out al-Qaeda-linked groups which had taken advantage of the unrest and conflict created by a rebellion of the ethnic Tuaregs in 2012 to try to take control of the central government in Bamako, Mali’s capital. This rebellion spread throughout the Sahel; an ecoclimatic and biogeographic zone of transition in Africa between the Sahara to the north and the Sudanian Savanna to the south covering more than 3.053 million km².

Before one can explain the role played by the U.S. in the fight against terrorism in the Sahel it is important to understand the continuing role of the French Government and army in the region. France established military bases in Africa during the colonial period and maintained a military presence in Africa after the ‘flag independence’ of its former colonies in the 1960s. The independence struggle of French Africa resulted, with the exception of Guinea, in the notional independence of the African states, each with a flag, a national anthem, a football team, and a continuing dependence on France under the terms of a Colonial Pact. The terms of this pact were agreed at the time of independence as a condition of the de-colonialization of the African states.

The Colonial Pact Agreement enshrined a number of special preferences for France in the political, commercial and defence processes in the African countries. On defence, it agreed two types of continuing contact. The first was the agreement on military co-operation or Technical Military Aid (AMT) agreements. These covered education, training of soldiers and officers of African security forces. The second type, secret and binding, were defence agreements supervised and implemented by the French Ministry of Defence, which served as a legal basis for French interventions within the African states by French military forces. These agreements allowed France to have pre-deployed troops and police in bases across Africa; in other words, French army and gendarme units present permanently and by rotation in bases and military facilities in Africa, run entirely by the French. The Colonial Pact was much more than an agreement to station soldiers across Africa. It bound the economies of Africa to the control of France. It made the CFA franc the national currency in both former colonial regions of Africa and created a continuing, and enforceable, dependency on France.

In summary, the colonial pact maintained the French control over the economies of the African states:

  • it took possession of their foreign currency reserves;
  • it controlled the strategic raw materials of the country;
  • it stationed troops in the country with the right of free passage;
  • it demanded that all military equipment be acquired from France;
  • it took over the training of the police and army;
  • it required that French businesses be allowed to maintain monopoly enterprises in key areas (water, electricity, ports, transport, energy, etc.).
  • it required that in the award of government contracts in the African countries, French companies should be considered first; only after that could Africans look elsewhere. It didn’t matter if Africans could obtain better value for money elsewhere, French companies came first, and most often got the contracts.
  • The African states must make a contribution to France each year for the infrastructure created by the French colonial system and left behind when independence was granted.
  • France not only set limits on the imports of a range of items from outside the franc zone but also set minimum quantities of imports from France. These treaties are still in force and operational.

The system is known as Françafrique. These policies of Françafrique were not concocted by the French National Assembly or the result of any democratic process. They were the result of policies conducted by a small group of people in the French President’s office, the ‘African Cell’, starting with Charles DeGaulle and his African specialist, Jacques Foccart. For the past half-century, the secretive and powerful “African Cell” has overseen France’s strategic interests in Africa, holding sway over a wide swath of former French colonies. Acting as a general command, the Cell uses France’s military as a hammer to install leaders it deems friendly to French interests and to remove those who pose a danger to the continuation of the system. Sidestepping traditional diplomatic channels, the Cell reports only to one person: the president.

Under Chirac, African policy was run by the president himself. He worked with the “Cellule Africaine” composed of African Advisor Michel De Bonnecorse, Aliot-Marie (the Defence Minister) and DGSE chief Pierre Brochand. They were aided by a web of French agents assigned to work undercover in Africa, embedded in French companies like Bouygues, Delmas, Total, and other multinationals; pretending to be expatriate employees.

Under Sarkozy the “Cellule Africaine” was run by the president and included Bruno Joubert and an informal adviser and Sarkozy envoy, Robert Bourgi. Claude Guéant, secretary general of the presidency and later interior minister, played an influential role. Hollande’s “Cellule Africaine” was composed of his trusted friends: Jean-Yves Le Drian (Minister of Defence); the chief of his personal military staff, General Benoît Puga; the African Advisor Hélène Le Gal, and a number of lower-level specialists from the ministries of foreign affairs and the treasury. It isn’t clear yet who will make up Macron’s African Cell.

What is important about the effects of Françafrique on African states is that the French resisted any locally-engendered change in the rules and had troops and gendarmes available in Africa to put down any leader with different ambitions. During the last 50 years, a total of 67 coups happened in 26 countries in Africa; 61% of the coups happened in Francophone Africa. The French began the ‘discipline’ of African leaders by ordering the assassination of Sylvanus Olympio in Togo in 1963 when he wanted his own currency instead of the CFA franc.

  • In June 1962, the first president of Mali, Modiba Keita, decreed that Mali was leaving the CFA zone and abandoning the Colonial Pact. As in Togo the French paid an African ex-Legionnaire to kill the president. In November 1968 Lieutenant Moussa Traore made a coup, killed Modiba Keita, and became President of Mali.
  • The French use of African ex-Legionnaires to remove presidents who rebelled against the Colonial Pact, the CFA or Françafrique became commonplace. On 1 January, 1966, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, an ex-French foreign legionnaire, carried out a coup against David Dacko, the first President of the Central African Republic.
  • On 3 January 1966, Maurice Yaméogo, the first President of the Republic of Upper Volta, now called Burkina Faso, was victim of a coup carried out by Aboubacar Sangoulé Lamizana
  • On 26 October 1972, Mathieu Kérékou who was a security guard to President Hubert Maga, the first President of the Republic of Benin, carried out a coup against the president.
  • There were several other assassinations managed by the French which took place without the use of Legionnaires. These included:
  • Marien Ngouabi, President of the Republic of the Congo, assassinated in 1977.
  • In Cameroon, Felix Moumie, who was the successor to previously-assassinated Reuben Um Nyobe, was murdered by thallium poisoning in Geneva on 15 October 1960. His killer was a French agent, William Bechtel, who posed as a journalist to meet Moumie in a restaurant and poisoned his drink.
  • François Tombalbaye, President of Chad, was assassinated by soldiers commanded by French Army officers in 1975. Then, in December 1989 the French overthrew the government of Hissan Habre in Chad and installed Idriss Deby as President because Habre wanted to sell Chadian oil to U.S. oil companies.
  • Perhaps the most tragic was the assassination of Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso in 1987. Sankara seized power in a popular coup in 1983 in an attempt to break the country’s ties to its French colonial power. He was overthrown and assassinated in a coup led by his best friend and childhood companion Blaise Compaoré on French orders.
  • In March 2003 French and Chadian troops overthrew the elected government of President Ange-Felix Patasse and installed General François Bozize as President when Patasse announced that he wanted French troops out of the Central African Republic. A few years later the French deposed Bosize as well.
  • In 2009, the French supported a coup in Madagascar by Andry Rajoelina against the elected government of Marc Ravalomanana who wanted to open the country to investments by international companies in mining and petroleum and refused to allow Total to unilaterally raise its contracted price for oil by 75%.
  • The French used its troops in the Ivory Coast to provoke an attempted overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Gbagbo. When the rebellion to oust Gbagbo failed, the French troops divided the country into two areas and continued to plan coups against Gbagbo. When Gbagbo won the election in 2010, despite French interference, the French troops (and the UN ‘peacekeepers’) used helicopter gunships to attack the Ivorian citizenry and took over the country in 2011.

Burkino Faso

French military involvement in Africa

The current problem for France is that it maintains wide engagement of its military in operations outside of metropolitan France. These are very expensive. There are currently 36,000 French troops deployed in foreign territories-such operations are known as “OPEX” for Opérations Extérieures (“External Operations”).

Since colonial days France has stationed its troops across Africa in permanent bases. These participate in controlling the internal politics of the African nations of Franćafrique as well as their borders.

These included:

  • Côte d’Ivoire, where the French troops in Operation Licorne and its helicopters recently overthrew the government of Gbagbo and supervised the killing of numerous Ivoirian citizens in collaboration with UN “peacekeepers”.
  • Chad, with the Epervier Mission. Established in 1986 to help re-establish peace and maintain Chad’s territorial integrity, and establish and protect the government of Deby
  • France has been present in Mali since January 2013 in support of the Malian authorities in the fight against terrorist groups. 2,900 men were deployed with the Serval operation.
  • Since December 2013, France also has operated in the Central African Republic in support of the MISCA, the African Union peacekeeping operation. 1,600 men are deployed with the Sangaris operation.

France also supports the participation of African soldiers in peacekeeping operations through the Reinforcement of African Peacekeeping Capabilities (RECAMP) program.

Recently the French have concentrated their troop deployments in West Africa to fight the rising threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Around 3,000 soldiers remain in the expansive Sahel area of Africa to check Islamist violence and arms trafficking, with no specified exit date. French forces are organised around four base camps, each with its own focus, and with headquarters based in the Chadian capital of Ndjamena. Their primary aim is not entirely the suppression of fundamentalist forces; their primary aim is to safeguard the French Areva uranium mines in Niger which provide France with it supply of fuel for its nuclear power programs.

This operation is known as Operation Barkhane (the name refers to a sickle-shaped sand dune). It is an effort to streamline French military activity in the region and to retain the military power but reduce the costs of duplication of tasks. Following diplomatic agreements with Chad, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mauritania (the “Sahel G-5”), over 3,000 French troops are involved in securing the Sahel-Sahara region in cooperative operations involving G-5 troops. Other assets deployed in the operation include 20 helicopters, 200 armoured vehicles, 200 trucks, six fighter-jets, ten transport aircraft and three drones

The initiation of Operation Barkhane brought to an end four existing French operations in Africa; Licorne (Côte d’Ivoire, 2002-2017), Épervier (Chad, 1986-2014), Sabre (Burkina Faso, 2012-2014) and Serval (Mali, 2013-2014). Licorne is coming to an end in June 2017 (though 450 French troops will remain in Abidjan as part of a logistical base for French operations) while the other operations were folded into Operation Barkhane. Operation Sangaris (Central African Republic, 2013-present) is classified as a humanitarian rather than counter-terrorism mission and the deployment of some 2,000 French troops will be reduced to 1,200 French soldiers who will remain in northern Mali. Existing French military deployments in Djibouti, Dakar (Senegal) and Libreville (Gabon) are expected to be scaled back significantly.

France military bases

France’s problem in maintaining its military presence in Africa is that it has run out of money. It cannot afford to maintain such a strong military posture in Africa. It has been able to get the assistance of its European Union partners in a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in programs like EURFOR in Chad which notionally confronts the terrorist organisations with European troops, but the funds needed to provide a real challenge to the terrorists are wanting.

The notion of intrinsic forces is important in the evaluation of warfare in the Sahel. These terrorists are not, for the most part, invading foreigners coming to seek domination, power or advantage. They are locals who have taken up the Salafist ideology to further their joint aims of setting up an Islamic State and in preserving the smuggling routes across the Sahel. The ancient salt caravans across the Sahel from Mali making their way to Europe and the Middle East have evolved into caravans of drugs, diamonds and gold from Mali to Europe and the Middle East. The large revenues earned from this smuggling have helped fund the AQIM, the MNLA, MUJAO and other bands and have generated financial and political support from the Wahhabi extremists of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. The collapse of Libya under Kaddafi left these smugglers without a protector so the radical extremists who supplanted Kaddafi offered the smugglers of the Sahel the same protection as before and lots of weapons.

The Sahel is still a major centre of illicit trafficking in goods. The tribes of Northern Mali are emboldened and protected by terrorist organisations in the barren wastes of Northern Mali and live, symbiotically, with the terrorist forces. Their paths are overlapping. While the tribes continue their smuggling Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) engages in illegal taxation in its areas of control, ISIS in Libya is active in human and narcotics trafficking, and Boko Haram generates significant revenues from trade in cocaine and heroin.

Illicit trafficking and threat networks

The trafficking overlaps the terrorist threats. It is matched by a large influx of weapons. Conflict Armament Research, a U.K. organization that monitors armaments transfers and supply chains, published an important report in late 2016, “Investigating Cross-Border Weapon Transfers in the Sahel.”  The report confirms that a flow of weapons from Libyan dictator Qaddafi’s stockpiles after his fall played a major role in the Tuareg and Islamist insurgencies in Mali in 2012. That same stockpile supplied weapons systems that included man-portable air defence systems to insurgents throughout the Sahel region. But, the report documents that weapons flows since 2011 are no longer predominantly from Libya. Instead, the weapons now come from African countries with weak control of their own weapons stockpiles, notably the Central African Republic and Ivory Coast. Sudan has also been an important source since 2015 of weapons used by insurgents in the Sahel. The report posits that the jihadist attacks in 2015 and 2016 on hotels and government installations specifically in Mali, Burkina Faso and the Ivory Coast also included weapons from a common source in the Middle East; Iraqi assault rifles and Chinese-manufactured weapons are also used by the Islamic State.[i]

The logistical challenge in opposing the terrorist threat

The terrain of the Sahel does not lend itself to conventional warfare. There are broad expanses of sand and dunes, broken up by small villages and, occasionally, a town or city. There are no petrol stations, wells, repair shops, water stores, food stocks or fuel reserves in most of the region. Trucks and buses, as well as conventional armour, are difficult to transport in such a terrain. Air bases are usually suited only to small aircraft and lack the scissor-tables, cranes, fork-lifts and loading equipment which allow the free flow of cargo.

On the positive side, in the war in the Sahel the lack of ground cover and a tree canopy in the region enables a strategy of using the most modern weapons, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) which can seek out, observe and destroy small and mobile enemy forces. This has meant that the logistical demands of the war in the Sahel have generated a strategy of the use of high-tech weaponry deployed by Western forces combined with African troops on the ground as garrison forces for towns and cities.

Warfare, in general, in Africa requires a policy of expeditionary war. This is a polite way of saying that massed troop formations have no real use as there are few opposing forces of equal size to fight. African insurgents are bands and groups of often irregular soldiers. Across most of Africa troops must pass through jungles, deserts, mangrove swamps and hostile terrain to get to the enemy, often under heavy fire from the bush. The enemy of the peacekeepers is rarely an army battalion of any strength. Large-scale troop concentrations can sit in a city or town and maintain order, but they rarely can take the battle to the enemy. African armies have virtually no equipment which will allow them to fight an expeditionary war. This is a war of helicopters – in and out movement of troops to desert encampments or remote landing zones or the shooting up of ground formations by helicopter gunships when the enemy can be located.

This is how African wars are fought. Except for rented MI-8 and MI-24 helicopters leased from the Ukraine and Russia, most of Africa is bereft of air mobile equipment. They are certainly bereft of African pilots (other than South Africans and a small band of Angolans and Nigerians). There are very few African military aircraft capable of fighting or sustaining either air-to-air combat or performing logistics missions. Either they don’t exist or they are in such a state of disrepair that African combat pilots are unwitting kamikazes. There are very few airbases in the bush which allow cargo planes to land safely when a war is on given that every rebel group has its share of rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and mortars. There are no fuel reserves at the airports outside most African capitals, and there are no repair facilities. There is no air-to-air refuelling, except that provided by foreign militaries. Indeed, except for Denel in South Africa and the main airbase in Ethiopia there are no places on the continent which perform sophisticated aircraft or weapons maintenance. Indeed most Western European armies themselves don’t have sufficient helicopters or heavy-lift capacities. The Africans have less. This lack of transport is critical to moving out the wounded. This takes its toll on the soldiers. This is mirrored in the lack of effective battlefield communications. In Africa the phone system doesn’t work in peacetime; why should it work in a period of war? Sending orders and receiving information between the central staff and outlying units is a ‘sometimes’ process. It sometimes takes days to contact units operating far from command headquarters.

The Europeans are not really ready to assist in the Sahel, despite the E.U. plans. In 2015 when Angela Merkel made the grand gesture of sending weapons to Kurdish rebels fighting Isil, she learned that her cargo planes couldn’t get off the ground. At the time, the German military confessed that just half of its Transall transport aircraft were fit to fly. Of its 190 helicopters, just 41 were ready to be deployed. Of its 406 Marder tanks, 280 were out of use. In 2016 it emerged that fewer than half of Germany’s 66 Tornado aircraft were airworthy. The French Transall fleet is out of date and few are being replaced.

This matches the debacle of the European military effort to conduct warfare on its own, starting in Kosovo. The Europeans wanted to show they had some independent military capability.  The amount of bombs, missiles and other tactical devices used in the first two weeks of the Kosovo campaign exceeded the total arsenal storage of the totality of the European Community. The amount spent per day on the bombing of Kosovo, including indirect costs, amounted to over $12.5 million. It would have been far cheaper to buy Serbia than to bomb it. NATO could have offered each Serb $5,000 a head plus moving costs and still saved money. Under NATO rules the US was obliged to pay two-thirds of these costs.

This was just as true in Libya. The Europeans (calling themselves NATO) quickly ran out of ammunition, bombs and money. The U.S. spent almost $1.5 billion in the first wave of attacks by the French and British. As Secretary of Defence Gates said in his speech, “Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform – not counting the U.S. military – NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops — not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters; transport aircraft; maintenance; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; and much more.” He went on:

“We have the spectacle of an air operations centre designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150. Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.”

That is the key point in analysing the struggle against terrorism in the Sahel. Despite the good wishes of the French and the other Europeans, success relies on an active U.S. participation and engagement.  The French have requested the support of the U.S. military (through NATO) in its ambition to retain control of its former African colonial empire.

There is an ironic side to French requiring assistance from NATO to support its neo-colonial policies. France withdrew from being a full member of NATO in 1966, and remained separated for decades. The reason for French withdrawal was that France believed that NATO was not militarily supportive enough.  France’s effort to develop its own non-NATO defence capability, including the development of its own nuclear arsenal in the 1960s, was to ensure that the French military could operate its own colonial and post-colonial conflicts more freely. Under de Gaulle, France had attempted to draw NATO into France’s colonial conflicts (on France’s side). De Gaulle claimed that Algeria was part of France and thus was part of NATO. Therefore, NATO was required to intervene to assist France in putting down Algerian independence movements. After the British and Americans refused to assist with French colonialism, de Gaulle expelled NATO troops from France and set up a more independent French military. Now that France is back in NATO it is making the same request of its partners as De Gaulle.

The Germans lead the EUTM Mali which trains Mali’s armed forces and EUCAP Sahel Mali which is training and advising the country’s police, gendarmerie and National Guard. The Eucap Sahel Mission, under the command of the German diplomat Albrecht Conze, is coordinating European aid to the region.  Gunther Nooke, Angela Merkel’s representative to Africa, a Commissioner for Africa at the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, has proposed a “German Marshall Plan” for Africa to relieve a continent struggling with terrorist bands in the region coupled with a drought which is causing mass famine. However, no money is yet attached to such a plan.

The U.S. has its own strategic interests in fighting the Islamic terrorists in the Sahel because they pose a major danger to U.S business interests in the area; a threat to political stability in Africa as a whole which has produced a human tide of refugees; and, most importantly, this terrorism in the Sahel produces a major source of revenue to the international terrorist structures of Al-Qaeda, Daesh and the myriad sub-groups of these in the Middle East as well as Africa.

The U.S. has agreed to support the French and European efforts to fight terrorism in the Sahel but has been unwilling to commit U.S. regular forces to fighting on the ground. It has offered training, equipment and Special Forces participation in military programs in the Sahel and frequently arranges mass exercises to make sure the trained remain so.

The U.S. military presence in Africa

The U.S. is at war in Africa and has been so for many years. The U.S. has had practical experience in African wars. America has been fighting wars in Africa since the 1950s – in Angola, the DRC, Somalia, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Morocco, Libya, Djibouti to name but a few counties. In some countries they used U.S. troops, but in most cases the U.S. financed, armed and supervised the support of indigenous forces. In its support of the anti- MPLA forces in Angola it sent arms and equipment to the UNITA opposition. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Larry Devlin of the CIA was an unofficial minister of Mobutu’s government; the U.S. ran its own air force in the Congo at WIGMO. US airmen supported the South African forces in Kwando, Fort Doppies and Encana bases in the Caprivi from WIGMO. At these bases one could also find soldiers from Southern Rhodesia (in their DC3s) and German, French, Portuguese and other NATO troops.

One of the largest of these bases was at Wheelus Field, in Libya. Wheelus Air Base was located on the Mediterranean coast, just east of Tripoli, Libya. With its 4,600 Americans, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya once called it “a Little America.” During the Korean War, Wheelus was used by the US Strategic Air Command, later becoming a primary training ground for NATO forces. Strategic Air Command bomber deployments to Wheelus began on 16 November 1950. SAC bombers conducted 45-day rotational deployments in these staging areas for strikes against the Soviet Union. Wheelus became a vital link in SAC war plans for use as a bomber, tanker refuelling and recon-fighter base. The US left in 1970.

Another giant U.S. base was Kagnew Field in Asmara. The base was established in 1943 as an Army radio station, home to the U.S. Army’s 4th Detachment of the Second Signal Service Battalion. Kagnew Station became home for over 5,000 American citizens at a time during its peak years of operation during the 1960s. Kagnew Station operated until April 29, 1977, when the last Americans left.

However, with the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has found itself fighting a much more difficult and insidious war: the war with Al Qaeda. This is much less of a war that involves military might and prowess. It is a war against the spread of drug dealing, illicit diamonds, illicit gold, human trafficking and the sheltering of Salafists (Islamic militants) who use these methods to acquire cash which has sustained the Al Qaida organisation and now Daesh throughout the world. It is a conflict between organised international crime and states seeking to maintain their legitimacy.

There are now several ‘narco-states’ in Africa. The first to fall was Guinea-Bissau where scores of Colombian Cartel leaders moved in to virtually take over the state. Every day an estimated one tonne of pure Colombian cocaine was thought to be transiting through the mainland’s mangrove swamps and the chain of islands that make up Guinea-Bissau, most of it en route to Europe. This was equally true of Guinea under President Lansana Conte whose wife (and her brother) was shown to be a kingpin in the Guinean drug trade. Many in the National Army were compromised and active participants. This drug trade has spread to Senegal, Togo, Ghana and Nigeria. There are very few jails anywhere in the world which are not home to West African ‘drug mules’ tried or awaiting trial or execution. This drug trade is spreading like wildfire in West Africa, offering rich remuneration to African leaders, generals or warlords well in excess of anything these Africans could hope to earn in normal commerce.

According to a U.S. Congressional Research Service Study published in November 2010, Washington has dispatched anywhere between hundreds and several thousand combat troops, dozens of fighter planes and warships to buttress client dictatorships or to unseat adversarial regimes in dozens of countries, almost on a yearly basis. The record shows the U.S. armed forces intervened in Africa forty-seven times prior to the now-concluded LRA endeavour. The countries receiving one or more U.S. military intervention include both Congos, Libya, Chad, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, Central African Republic, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea. Between the mid-1950’s to the end of the 1970’s, only four overt military operations were recorded, though large scale proxy and clandestine military operations were pervasive. Under Reagan-Bush Sr. (1980-1991) military intervention accelerated, rising to eight, not counting the large scale clandestine ‘special forces’ and proxy wars in Southern Africa. Under the Clinton regime, US militarized intervention in Africa took off. Between 1992 and 2000, seventeen armed incursions took place, including a large-scale invasion of Somalia and military backing for the Rwandan Kagame regime. Clinton intervened in Liberia, Gabon, Congo and Sierra Leone to prop up long-standing troubled regimes. He bombed the Sudan and dispatched military personnel to Kenya and Ethiopia to back proxy clients assaulting Somalia. Under Bush Jr. fifteen US military interventions took place, mainly in Central and East Africa.

Most of the U.S.’s African outreach is disproportionally built on military links to client military chiefs. The Pentagon has military ties with fifty-three African countries. The Bush Administration announced in 2002 that Africa was a “strategic priority in fighting terrorism”. Henceforth, U.S. foreign policy strategists, with the backing of both liberal and neoconservative congress people, moved to centralize and coordinate a military policy on a continent-wide basis forming the African Command (AFRICOM) and Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA). These organise African armies, euphemistically called “co-operative partnerships,” to support anti-terrorist activities in the continent. U.S. special operations teams are now deployed to 23 African countries and the U.S. operates bases across the continent.

In his 2015 article for TomDispatch.com, Nick Turse, disclosed that there are dozens of U.S. military installations in Africa, besides Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti (Main Operating Base). These numerous cooperative security locations (CSLs), forward operating locations (FOLs) and other outposts have been built by the US in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Senegal, the Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda. According to Turse, the US military also had access to locations in Algeria, Botswana, Namibia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Zambia and other countries.

Gen. Charles F. Wald divided these into three types:

  • Main Operating Base (MOB) is an overseas, permanently manned, well protected base, used to support permanently deployed forces, and with robust sea and/or air access.
  • Forward Operating Site (FOS) is a scalable, “warm” facility that can support sustained operations, but with only a small permanent presence of support or contractor personnel. A FOS will host occasional rotational forces and many contain pre-positioned equipment.
  • Cooperative Security Location (CSL) is a host-nation facility with little or no permanent U.S. personnel presence, which may contain pre-positioned equipment and/or logistical arrangements and serve both for security cooperation activities and contingency access.

There are a large number of UAV bases as well.

AFRICOM’s two forward operating sites are Djibouti’s Camp Lemonnier and a base on the United Kingdom’s Ascension Island off the west coast of Africa.  Described as “enduring locations” with a sustained troop presence and “U.S.-owned real property,” they serve as hubs for staging missions across the continent and for supplying the growing network of outposts there. [ii]

One of the most important of these bases is in Niamey, the capital of Niger, and nearby at Agadez, into which the U.S. has just spent $100 million on improvements.  N’Djamena, in Chad, has been heavily used in the battle against Boko Haram.

AFRICOM’s programs

The main thrust of AFRICOM programs involves the training and equipping of local forces. It engages in regular exercises with African armies and conducts JCET training programs. Most of these involve working alongside and mentoring local allies.  SOCAFRICA’s showcase effort, for instance, is Flintlock, an annual training exercise in Northwest Africa involving elite American, European, and African forces, which provides the command with a plethora of publicity. More than 1,700 military personnel from 30-plus nations took part in Flintlock 2016. There are a wide range of programs in addition to the U.S. participation in various UN programs like AMISOM in Somalia.

Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative/Partnership (formerly Pan Sahel Initiative) (TSCTI) Targeting threats to US oil/natural gas operations in the Sahara region Algeria, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Nigeria, and Libya.

Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program (ACOTA) (formerly African Crisis Response Initiative) (ACRI)) Part of “Global Peace” Operations Initiative (GPOI) Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia.

International Military Training and Education (IMET) program Brings African military officers to US military academies and schools for indoctrination Top countries: Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa.

Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) (formerly Africa Center for Security Studies) Part of National Defence University, Washington. Provides indoctrination for “next generation” African military officers. This is the “School of the Americas” for Africa. All of Africa is covered.

Foreign Military Sales Program sells U.S. military equipment to African nations via Defence Security Cooperation Agency Top recipients: Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe.

African Coastal and Border Security Program Provides fast patrol boats, vehicles, electronic surveillance equipment, night vision equipment to littoral states.

Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) Military command based at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. Aimed at putting down rebellions in Ethiopia, Somalia, and Somaliland and targets Eritrea. Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti.

Joint Task Force Aztec Silence (JTFAS) Targets terrorism in West and North Africa. Joint effort of EUCOM and Commander Sixth Fleet (Mediterranean) Based in Sigonella, Sicily and Tamanrasset air base in southern Algeria Gulf of Guinea Initiative, US Navy Maritime Partnership Program Trains African militaries in port and off-shore oil platform security Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Nigeria, Sao Tome & Principe, Togo.

Tripartite Plus Intelligence Fusion Cell Based in Kisangani, DRC, to oversee “regional security,” i.e. ensuring U.S. and Israeli access to Congo’s gold, diamonds, uranium, platinum, and coltan. Congo-Kinshasa, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, United States.

Base access for Cooperative Security Locations (CSLs) and Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) U.S. access to airbases and other facilities Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Tunisia, Namibia, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, Algeria.

Africa Command (AFRICOM) Headquarters for all U.S. military operations in Africa in Stuttgart.

Africa Regional Peacekeeping (ARP) Liaison with African “peacekeeping” military commands East Africa Regional Integration Team: Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania. North Africa Regional Integration Team: Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya. Central Africa Regional Integration Team: Congo (Kinshasa), Congo (Brazzaville), Chad.

Regional Integration Teams: South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola. West Africa Regional Integration Team: Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Western Sahara.

Africa Partnership Station (APS) Port visits by USS Fort McHenry and High Speed Vessel (HSV) Swift. Part of US Navy’s Global Fleet Station Initiative. Training and liaison with local military personnel to ensure oil production security Senegal, Liberia, Ghana, Cameroon, Gabon, Sao Tome & Principe.

AFRICOM’s view based on U.S. interests

The U.S. taxpayer is paying for French neo-colonialism

The U.S. military is engaged in over 34 nations in Africa in the fight against terrorism and the growth of the various Al-Qaeda and ISIL affiliates in the region. One of the key problems in conducting this on-going battle is that the political situation in each Francophone country is determined by the needs of Françafrique to keep their chosen president in power; not necessarily what the Africans want. A good example is Mali, where the French intervened militarily in January 2013 to stop an uprising of various militant groups in the north.

As the price for this assistance, France signed a new defence agreement with Mali, which would allow it to maintain a considerable military presence in the country. The agreement’s eleven pages of mostly general statements say that French military troops and civil servants will be allowed to stay in Mali, build military bases, operate, if needed, with Malian troops, etc., for the next five years. The five years’ term, as written in the document, is renewable.

This was a great triumph for France. Ever since the inauguration of the first President of Mali, Modibo Keïta, Mali had resisted the military aspects of the Colonial Pact. The last French soldier departed Mali in 1961. Keita refused to sign the defence protocols. Keita didn’t allow French military bases or troops on Malian soil. Even after the French had him assassinated by Lt. Moussa Traore, the Malians continued to refuse the defence pact. Traore’s successors Alpha Oumar Konare and Amadou Toumany Toure also refused, despite huge diplomatic and economic pressure. The most France could get in Mali was a 1985 military cooperation accord which allowed France to give military training and technical assistance to Malian troops.

Now, after engaging French troops to fight the Islamic forces in the North, France took over military control of Mali. After having defeated the invaders, and chasing them out of Timbuktu and other northern cities, and disarming factions of the rebellions, the French military banned the Malian army from Kidal, the central city of the northern Azawad region. The territory is claimed by different rebel groups, but it is under the de facto control of the mainly Tuareg MNLA (National Movement for Liberation of the Azawad). France allowed the rebels to occupy the area, reorganise and later gain a place at the post-war negotiations table.

France has openly supported the MNLA for a long time and insisted that they be a party to the negotiations with the Malian government who did not want to negotiate with the Tuareg rebels. Then the French put on the agenda the division of Mali into two parts, despite the Malian refusal. There was a short interval of peace and hostilities started again. The French realised that they could no longer afford the military costs of the Malian war and persuaded the UN to send peacekeepers to Mali.  In December 2013 France announced 60% reduction in its troops deployed in Mali to 1,000 by March 2014. Interim peace deals were agreed but were quickly broken. By August 2016 there continued to be attacks on foreign forces. More than 100 peacekeepers have died since the U.N. mission’s deployment in Mali in 2013, making it one of the deadliest places to serve for the U.N.

The French were satisfied that the bulk of the expenses for the capturing of Mali in the web of Françafrique were being paid for by the “international community” (the UN, the US, and ECOWAS). In 2015, the European Union also joined to promote France’s ambitions. France got its military pact with Mali and control of the country. This seemed such a good idea the French then expanded its ambitions to pursue the military options of Operation Barkhane based in Chad to cover Mali, Burkina Faso, Mauritania and Niger and make sure that the costs of this expansion of the reach of Françafrique were being passed on to the ‘international community’; the large part of which is the U.S. taxpayer (directly and indirectly).

The same situation emerged in Niger and the Central African Republic. The French intervened militarily in domestic disputes which they created and took over de facto control of the countries. Claiming that this was a battle against “terrorism” the French were able to pass on the costs of their reoccupation of their former colonies using European, UN and, mainly, U.S. taxpayer money. Both African countries remain at war with domestic enemies in conflicts created by France and perpetuated by French policies towards reinstalling the rigours of Françafrique; all in the name of counter-terrorism. The U.N., the E.U. and the U.S. don’t get a chance to decide who is the enemy in francophone Africa; this is decided by France. They only get to pay for it and use their military to train the soldiers who keep Françafrique in place.

Perhaps the current NATO meeting in Brussels will make it clear to the new Macron Government that the U.S. is capable of choosing its own enemies and, as in the time of de Gaulle, the U.S. is not in the business of preserving French neo-colonial rule on the continent.

Source*

Related Topics:

Should a Country Like France Be Indicting African Leaders?

Stop E.U. from Hijacking Africa’s Clean Energy Future*

At the World Economic Forum-Africa Germany Pitched a Dubious New G20 Corporate Strategy*

French Draft Resolution on Syria Reflects its Longing for its Colonial History in Africa*

French Terrorists Dispatched to Sub-Saharan Africa*

E.U. Bullies its Way through an Reciprocal Trade Access in Africa*

Hiding Africa’s Looted Funds and the Silence of Western Media*

African Court Sentences Former Chadian Military Dictator to Life in Prison for Crimes against Humanity*

France is Broke, but Still Reaping from the Colonial Tax!*

Colonial France out for Niger’s Uranium*

In Madagascar, One of the Deadliest French Colonial Wars in History is Remembered*

The Rise of the French Right and the CFA Franc

When the Sahara was Green*

When the Sahara was Green*

Researchers Peter deMenocal and Jessica Tierney examine a core of marine sediments taken off the coast of West Africa. The two used that and other marine cores to figure out the Sahara’s climate 25,000 years into the past. (Photo: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)

Researchers Peter deMenocal and Jessica Tierney examine a core of marine sediments taken off the coast of West Africa. The two used that and other marine cores to figure out the Sahara’s climate 25,000 years into the past. (Photo: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)

A UA-led team has identified the climate pattern that generated a “Green Sahara” from 5,000 to 11,000 years ago. The region had 10 times the rainfall it does today.

The Sahara Desert extends eastward from the Atlantic Ocean some 3,000 miles to the Nile River and the Red Sea, and southward from the Atlas Mountains of Morocco and the Mediterranean shores more than 1,000 miles to the savannah called the Sahel. More than 16 times the size of France, the Sahara Desert blankets nearly all of Mauritania, Western Sahara, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Niger; the southern half of Tunisia; and the northern parts of Mali, Chad and Sudan. Image credit: NASA’s MODIS instrument (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer)

The Sahara Desert extends eastward from the Atlantic Ocean some 3,000 miles to the Nile River and the Red Sea, and southward from the Atlas Mountains of Morocco and the Mediterranean shores more than 1,000 miles to the savannah called the Sahel. More than 16 times the size of France, the Sahara Desert blankets nearly all of Mauritania, Western Sahara, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Niger; the southern half of Tunisia; and the northern parts of Mali, Chad and Sudan. Image credit: NASA’s MODIS instrument (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer)

The Sahara Desert extends eastward from the Atlantic Ocean some 3,000 miles to the Nile River and the Red Sea, and southward from the Atlas Mountains of Morocco and the Mediterranean shores more than 1,000 miles to the savannah called the Sahel. More than 16 times the size of France, the Sahara Desert blankets nearly all of Mauritania, Western Sahara, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Niger; the southern half of Tunisia; and the northern parts of Mali, Chad and Sudan. Image credit: NASA’s MODIS instrument (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer)

By Mari N. Jensen

Rainfall patterns in the Sahara during the 6,000-year “Green Sahara” period have been pinpointed by analyzing marine sediments, according to new research led by a UA geoscientist.

What is now the Sahara Desert was the home to ‘hunter-gatherers’ who made their living off the animals and plants that lived in the region’s savannahs and wooded grasslands 5,000 to 11,000 years ago.

“It was 10 times as wet as today,” said lead author Jessica Tierney of the University of Arizona. Annual rainfall in the Sahara now ranges from about 4 inches to less than 1 inch (100 to 35 mm).

Although other research had already identified the existence of the Green Sahara period, Tierney and her colleagues are the first to compile a continuous record of the region’s rainfall going 25,000 years into the past.

The team’s paper, “Rainfall regimes of the Green Sahara,” was scheduled for publication in the journal Science Advances on Wednesday.

The multi-corer device being lowered into the ocean takes eight one-foot cores from the seafloor. Scientists analyze such cores for clues to the climate of the past several thousand years. (Photo: Peter deMenocal)

The multi-corer device being lowered into the ocean takes eight one-foot cores from the seafloor. Scientists analyze such cores for clues to the climate of the past several thousand years. (Photo: Peter deMenocal)

Archaeological evidence shows humans occupied much of the Sahara during the wet period, but left for about a thousand years around 8,000 years ago — the middle of the Green Sahara period.

Other investigators have suggested the Sahara became drier at the time people left, but the evidence was not conclusive, said Tierney, a UA associate professor of geosciences.

Her team’s continuous rainfall record shows a thousand-year period about 8,000 years ago when the Sahara became drier. That drier period coincides with when people left, she said.

“It looks like this thousand-year dry period caused people to leave,” Tierney said.

“What’s interesting is the people who came back after the dry period were different — most raised cattle. That dry period separates two different cultures. Our record provides a climate context for this change in occupation and lifestyle in the western Sahara.”

Tierney and her colleagues also used their rainfall record to suggest ways current climate models can better replicate the Sahara’s ancient climate and therefore improve projections of future climate.

Tierney’s co-authors are Francesco Pausata of Stockholm University in Sweden and Peter deMenocal of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the National Science Foundation and the Swedish Research Council funded the research.

Researchers had long known the Sahara was much greener in the past, but how much of the Sahara was wetter and how much wetter was not well understood, Tierney said. Although scientists can learn about past climate by examining ancient lake sediments, in the Sahara the lakes dried up long ago and their sediments have blown away.

Instead of lake sediments, Tierney and her colleagues used cores of marine sediments taken off the coast of West Africa at four different sites. Because the cores were taken over a north-south distance of about 800 miles (1,300 km) — from offshore Cape Ghir, Morocco, to the northwestern corner of Mauritania — the cores revealed both the ancient rainfall patterns and the areal extent of the Green Sahara.

In terrestrial plants, the chemical composition of a leaf’s wax changes depending on how dry or wet the climate was when the plant was growing. Leaf wax also washes into the ocean and can be preserved in the marine sediments that are laid down year after year.

“The waxes record the climate conditions on land,” Tierney said.

By analyzing the leaf wax from ancient marine sediments, the team determined the region’s past rainfall patterns and also gathered clues about what types of plants were growing.

The team also wanted to know whether the conditions on land interacted with the atmosphere to affect climate, because most of the current climate models don’t simulate the Green Sahara period well, she said.

The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives during the Northern Hemisphere summer depends on where the Earth’s “wobble,” known as precession, is in its 23,000-year cycle.

At the beginning of the Green Sahara, the Northern Hemisphere was closer to the sun during summer. Warmer summers strengthened the West African monsoon and delivered more rain. Toward the end of the Green Sahara, the Northern Hemisphere was farther from the sun and the West African monsoon was weaker.

There’s a feedback between vegetation, dust and rainfall, Tierney said. Right now the Sahara Desert is the planet’s biggest source of dust — but a vegetated Sahara would produce much less dust.

Co-author Francesco Pausata added additional factors — more vegetation and less dust — to a climate model. His changes improved how well the model replicated the amount of rainfall during the Green Sahara and dry periods.

“Getting a better handle on the important influence of the vegetation and dust feedback will help us simulate future climate change in the Sahara and Sahel,” Tierney said.

Source*

Related Topics:

The Sahara and the Amazon, a Tale of Interdependence*

Rare Snow Falls on the Sand Dunes of Algeria*

The Igbo’s Traditional View on the Sanctity of Life*

Hidden Human History*

Biblical Garden of Eden Discovered in Iraq’s Marshes?*

Rujm el-Hirri: The Stonehenge of Syria

Looted Palmyra Treasures Discovered in Geneva Warehouse*

Olmecs: The People behind the Long Count were not Mayans*

Secret History of the British People*

The Genocide of the Peoples of Europe*

Erasing a People from History: Australian Pygmies*

Last Member of 65,000-year-old Tribe Dies*

The End of Times and ‘The Lost Book of Enki’: Sumeria

Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Australia Prove the Ancient World Was Connected*

A 200,000 Year-Old City in Southern Africa pre-Dates Sumer*

DNA study Proves Indigenous Australians Date Back 50,000 yrs*

DNA Testing Proves Genealogy of indigenous Americans is One of the Most Unique in the World*

African Court Sentences Former Chadian Military Dictator to Life in Prison for Crimes against Humanity*

African Court Sentences Former Chadian Military Dictator to Life in Prison for Crimes against Humanity*

By Amando Flavio

An African Union-backed court in Senegal has sentenced the former strongman of the Republic of Chad, Hissene Habre, to life in prison.

The court convicted Habre of crimes against humanity, torture and sexual slavery. Habre is said to have committed all these heinous crimes during his regime.

Chad is a former French colony in Central Africa. Even though independence was granted to the country by the French in 1960, France has a considerable economic interest in the nation. The business elites in the United States also joined the ‘party’ to exploit the country’s resources, which included petroleum, gold, sodium carbonate and cotton, among others.

Due to the resources, the Americans and the French have set the country’s citizens at odds with each other, completely destabilizing the country. Just after independence, the country became synonymous with rebels’ violence, with the Americans and the French arming their factions. This has made the country impoverished.  The United Nations Human Development Index ranks Chad as the seventh poorest country in the world, with 80% of the population living below the poverty line.

It was out of this chaos that Habre led a rebel force to seize power in 1982. Both the American and the French governments supported him in his brutal seizure of power. In return, he also granted his sponsors free range to operate in the mining and the petroleum sectors of the country.

However, the relationship between Habre and his sponsors later deteriorated. The sponsors shifted their support to another rebel movement, and in 1990, after spending eight years in power, Habre was overthrown by the armed rebel movement led by the current president, Idriss Déby.

Habre fled the country, later seeking political asylum in Senegal, which was granted to him. In 2005, he was put under house arrest. This was after a domestic Chadian commission of inquiry claimed that as many as 40,000 people were killed and another 200,000 subjected to torture, under his reign. Human rights groups who followed the inquiry also confirmed the atrocities he committed during his stay in power. Human Rights Watch even referred to him as “Africa’s Pinochet,” comparing him to the former brutal dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet.

After intense pressure from rights groups, and with the backing of the African Union, Habre was officially arrested in 2013. The special court known as the Extraordinary African Chambers was created in Senegal to trial him. The African Union refused to hand him to the International Criminal Court (ICC), because of the growing resentment in Africa that the ICC is unfairly targeting African leaders.

“Hissene Habre, this court finds you guilty of crimes against humanity, rape, forced slavery, and kidnapping. The court condemns you to life in prison,” the president of the court Gberdao Gustave Kam announced Habre’s sentence.

Mr Kam also added that Habre has 15 working days to appeal against the sentence. But on hearing the verdict, Habre raised his arms in the air, shouting “down with France-afrique!” referring to the term used for France’s continuing influence on its former colonies. It is believed the European Union and the United States supported the creation of the court to prosecute Habre. Since the trial began, Habre has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the court. He was even physically dragged into the courtroom in July.

Victims who survived his brutalities, travelled to Senegal to witness the sentence. Many were moved with emotions as they broke down crying, remembering the suffering they went through.

Reed Brody, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch, who has spent the last 15 years working with victims to bring Habre to justice, said the landmark case could encourage others to bring similar action.

“The trial of Hissene Habre shows that it is possible for victims, with tenacity and perseverance, to bring their dictator to court. We hope that other survivors, other activists will be inspired by what Habre’s victims have been able to do,” Reed told the French news agency AFP in an interview.

Source*

Related Topics:

How France Loots its Former Colonies*

The Spirit of Sankara Resurges in Burkina Faso*

Africa Human Rights Body Rejects New World Bank Proposals*

South Africa Delays Court Decision on Black Ownership of Mines*

Africa to Obama: Mind Your own Business*

WATCH: THE UTILIZATION OF WESTERN NGOS FOR THE THEFT OF AFRICA’S VAST RESOURCES

Why Apartheid Still Exists in South Africa*

Embedding Transnational Agribusiness and GMO’s into African Agriculture*

BRICS Under Attack: NWO Tentacles Extending into South Africa*

African High Court Allows Largest Class Action for Miners*

The Case for Reparations to Africa: Britain Apology is Cheap*v

The Sahara and the Amazon, a Tale of Interdependence*

The Sahara and the Amazon, a Tale of Interdependence*

It is common knowledge, at least in indigenous circles, that the Earth is a living entity, a being in and of herself.

Moreover, everything we are not only springs from the Earth but also returns to it. After all, we do not call her our Mother for nothing.

In recent years, science has begun to catch up with traditional knowledge, and now NASA has come out with a video connecting, of all things, two of the most disparate places on the planet: The Sahara Desert of Africa and the Amazon Basin of South America. Apparently the dust of the one nourishes the soil and plants of the other.

“What do these seemingly different climates have in common?

They are intimately connected by a 10,000-mile-long intermittent atmospheric river of dust,” says NASA in the video below.

In short, the winds of the desert pick up phosphorus-rich dust from an ancient lakebed in Chad and send it floating over the ocean to the Amazon basin, NASA said, where it feeds the lush vegetation.

Source*

Related Topics:

Brazil Signing Away Our Amazonian Legacy

Murder in the Amazon

Amazonian Hunter-Gatherers Isolated from Western Medicine Have the Most Diverse Microbiome Ever Recorded*

The Sahrawi of Morocco: When Medicine is What is Within Your Hands

The Winds of S’afar

ISIS/L and European Neo-Nazis United under Pentagon’s 5th Generation Warfare*

ISIS/L and European Neo-Nazis United under Pentagon’s 5th Generation Warfare*

By Wayne Madsen

The U.S., British, Canadian and other Western military training of Ukrainian forces that include neo-Nazi gangsters from Ukraine and other parts of Europe and the NATO/CIA training support in Turkey and Jordan being provided to Islamist jihadis tied to ISIS, Al Nusra Front, and Al Qaeda represents the application of 4th generation warfare (4GW) and 5th generation warfare (5GW) tactics from the Pentagon’s and Central Intelligence Agency’s think tanks to the battlefield.

The use of 4GW/5GW primarily involves the use of what are known as «violent non-state actors» (VNSAs). In the case of Ukraine, these VNSAs have become, with the integration of neo-Nazi battalions into the regular Ukrainian army, «violent state-supported actors», or VSSAs.

The concept of 4GW was first drawn up by a gang of Pentagon war college types in the late 1980s to describe a post-Cold War threat of insurgents like VNSAs in failed states. After honing the war concept of 4GW, the world now faces groups like ISIL and its various spin-offs which have nested in failed states like Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — all thanks to U.S. military and intelligence intervention by Republican and Democratic U.S. administrations — and threaten regional and global stability.

The appointment of neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia leader Dmytro Yarosh to be an advisor to Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Viktor Muzhenko and the integration of neo-Nazi militia gangsters into the Ukrainian army is a clear-cut example of VNSAs being transformed into VSSAs. This also represents a move by the CIA and NATO from 4GW to the much more dangerous 5GW, in which criminal syndicates, computer hackers, and state-supported terrorists play significant roles. Yarosh played a significant part in the «Euromaidan» uprising, which overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in a coup d’état in early 2014.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been seen in northern Syria in the company of neo-conservative politicians like John McCain and CIA liaison officers from the U.S. embassy in Ankara

A similar situation exists with regard to ISIL, whose self-proclaimed «caliph,» Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been seen in northern Syria in the company of neo-conservative politicians like John McCain and CIA liaison officers from the U.S. embassy in Ankara. In what bodes ill for global security, Yarosh, who has taken on cult leader status among his neo-Nazis, as well as a larger number of Ukrainian nationalists, particularly around Lvov, has allegedly teamed up with ISIL volunteers provided from the Syrian and Iraqi killing zones. Yarosh and Al-Baghdadi, a one-time prisoner of U.S. occupation forces, represent textbook VNSAs. Yarosh has become a VSSA while al-Baghdadi’s connections to Turkey’s «Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı» (MIT) National Intelligence Organization and Saudi Arabia’s «Al Mukhabarat Al A’amah» General Intelligence Directorate indicate he, also, has phased into a VCSA from a VNSA.

Neo-Nazi and ISIL recruits are fighting for quasi-state entities that are heavily involved in international organized crime. Ukraine’s regime relies heavily on its support from oligarchs like Ukrainian and Israeli citizen Ihor Kolomoisky, who runs a virtual mafia in Ukraine and abroad. ISIS irregulars swear allegiance to a caliphate that kidnaps for ransom, sells looted antiquities on the open market (sometimes in concert with Ukrainian-Israeli criminal syndicates), hack into computer systems and networks, and robs banks. Criminal syndicates and VNSAs/VSSAs live at the heart of 5GW. A few experts see 5GW as combining barbarism and guerrilla warfare. Certainly, under such a definition, the beheadings and other mass atrocities carried out by ISIL in Libya, Syria, and Iraq and the well-planned assassinations by state-supported gangsters of politicians and journalists in Ukraine who are critical of the Kiev regime fit the bill for 5GW.

An ISIL organization chart recovered from the battlefield in Iraq and published by «Der Spiegel» reveals that ISIL is set up as an intelligence service. That should come as no surprise when it is considered that among ISIL’s chief overlords are the security services of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, acting with more than mere «winks and nods» from the CIA, Britain’s MI-6, and Israel’s MOSSAD. ISIL is affiliated with the U.S.-trained and -supported “Free Syrian Army,” which largely consists of Al Nusra Front and “Al Qaeda” loyalists of ISIL. Saudi surrogates fighting Houthi rebels in Yemen have affiliated with «Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula» (AQAP) irregulars who have looted, with pleasure, from abandoned armouries in Sana’a, Mukalla, Taiz, and Aden, U.S. arms provided to past Yemeni regimes. The AQAP storming of Mukalla in South Yemen also resulted in the freeing from prison of the self-proclaimed AQAP emir of Abyan province, Khaled Batarfi. Not only has al-Baghdadi gained another ally in Yemen but the Saudis have another jihadist leader to rely on to fight the Houthis.

The arming of AQAP with captured U.S. weapons in Yemen mirrors the capture by ISIL of U.S.-supplied arms from abandoned Iraqi army bases in the northern and western parts of Iraq. The U.S. has been more responsible for the Middle East becoming awash in small arms and other military weaponry than any other nation. However, by allowing groups like ISIL and AQAP to receive U.S. weapons, the Middle East has now entered full-blown 5GW.

It was recently revealed that when Syrian guerrillas «captured» NBC correspondent Richard Engel and his five-man crew in 2012, they were not being held by Shi’a loyalists of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, as originally reported by NBC, but by the U.S.-supported Free Syrian Army. Engel knowingly misreported the following after his release:

“I think I have a very good idea of who they [the kidnappers] were. This was a group known as the Shabiha. This is a government militia. These are people who are loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. They are Shiite. They were talking openly about their loyalty to the government, openly expressing their Shia faith. They are trained by Iranian Revolutionary Guard. They are allied with Hezbollah.”

Engel’s report was totally false but NBC News stood by it. Engel was also putting forth the Israeli propaganda line that Hezbollah and Iran were chiefly responsible for the Syrian civil war.

Had it not been for the U.S.- and NATO-led overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, Nigeria’s Boko Haram would not have been able to obtain the weaponry from jihadists who declared an emirate in eastern Libya. In fact, the Libyan and Nigerian jihadists later swore allegiance to ISIS headed up by al-Baghdadi. Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan, who was roundly criticized for not doing enough to stem Boko Haram and was tossed out by Nigeria’s electorate as a result, nevertheless collected massive amounts of American military aid as a result of the Boko Haram «bogeyman.» Jonathan’s inaction has resulted in Boko Haram not only being a continuing threat to the new Nigerian government of Muhammadu Buhari but also the neighbouring countries of Niger, Cameroon, and Chad. All this, of course, fits nicely into the U.S. Africa Command’s 5GW strategies for Africa, a continent which has become an important source for raw materials for the U.S. war machine.

With the Pentagon’s decision to arm neo-Nazi insurgents who have been integrated into the Ukrainian army, the U.S. and NATO military planners have now embarked on the dangerous road of 5GW. Today, VNSAs such as neo-Nazi gangs from Ukraine and other European countries and Islamist jihadis from around the globe who have joined the ranks of the Islamic State-aligned Syrian Al Nusra Front and other splinter groups have graduated from VNSAs to VSSAs. The «Obama Doctrine,» which is partly based on intervention in the affairs of destabilized nations, has enabled the introduction of 5GW on the world stage.

Source*

Related Topics:

U.N. Western Terrorist States Refuse To List ISIS a Terror Group*

Military Admits ‘Martial Law’ Training in the U.S for to Imposed around the World*

Top 10 Ways Islamic Law Forbids Terrorism*

ISIS: On the Frontline*

Four Million Muslims Killed and Counting since 1990*

Zionist-Saudi Onslaught Reveals Civilian Casualities*

Greek Neo-Nazi Party Trial Begins On Hitler’s Birthday*

Ukraine’s Campaign of Political Assassinations of Critics*

The Daily Show – Start Wars*

Israeli-Zionist Investigative Journalist Ties Netanyahu to Charlie Hebdo Massacre*

Greater Israel” Requires the Breaking up of Existing Arab States*

ISIS Preserving Jewish Cultural Heritage in Iraq*

The Foreign Fighters of Boko Haram, and El Shebaab*

The Lie of a U.S. – Israeli Fallout for the Global Stage*

CIA + Contractors = ISIS in Afghanistan*

And One Ring to Bind Them All*

Occupy World: India Takes Legal Action against Bill Gates for His Vaccine Crimes*

Occupy World: India Takes Legal Action against Bill Gates for His Vaccine Crimes*

By Christina England

As Bill Gates faces a lawsuit for the illegal testing of tribal children in India, it appears that his crimes against humanity have finally caught up with him.

A recent report published by Health Impact News has reported that the Gates Foundation has found itself facing a pending lawsuit, due to an investigation that is being carried out by the Supreme Courts of India.

Health Impact News stated:

“While fraud and corruption are revealed on almost a daily basis now in the vaccine industry, the U.S. mainstream media continues to largely ignore such stories. Outside the U.S., however, the vaccine empires are beginning to crumble, and English versions of the news in mainstream media outlets are available via the Internet.

One such country is India, where the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and their vaccine empire are under fire, including a pending lawsuit currently being investigated by the India Supreme Court.”

The Health Impact News article centered largely on a four-page report that was recently published by Economic Times India.

Eager to know more, I investigated their story and discovered that the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation and two organizations funded by them, PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) and GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), have found themselves under fire, after a writ of petition originally submitted to the Supreme Court of India, by Kalpana Mehta, Nalini Bhanot and Dr. Rukmini Rao in 2012, was finally heard by the courts.

The petitioners submitting the petition stated:

“BMGF, PATH and WHO were criminally negligent trialling the vaccines on a vulnerable, uneducated and under-informed population school administrators, students and their parents who were not provided informed consent or advised of potential adverse effects or required to be monitored post-vaccination.”

Young Tribal Girls Tested With HPV Vaccines

The Economic Times India published their report August 2014. They stated that in 2009, tests had been carried out on 16,000 tribal school children in Andhra Pradesh, India, using the human papiloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil.

According to the report written by KP Narayana Kumar, within a month of receiving the vaccine, many of the children fell ill and by 2010, five of them had died. A further two children were reported to have died in Vadodara, Gujarat, where an estimated 14,000 tribal children were vaccinated with another brand of the HPV vaccine, Cervarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmitheKline (GSK).

Shockingly, the report stated that many of the consent forms used to vaccinate the girls were signed “illegally,” either by the wardens from the hostels where many of the girls resided, or using thumbprints from illiterate parents.

Gates and WHO partner to create the global vaccine action plan

This travesty was not discovered until a team of health activists from the non-government organization SAMA, an organization specializing in women’s health, decided to investigate what had been going on.

According to the report, they were shocked to discover that a total of 120 girls had been taken ill, suffering from a variety of symptoms, including “epileptic seizures, severe stomach aches, headaches and mood swings.”

The Economic Times stated:

“The Sama report also said there had been cases of early onset of menstruation following the vaccination, heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps among many students. The standing committee pulled up the relevant state governments for the shoddy investigation into these deaths.

It said it was disturbed to find that ‘all the seven deaths were summarily dismissed as unrelated to vaccinations without in-depth investigations …’ the speculative causes were suicides, accidental drowning in well (why not suicide?), malaria, viral infections, subarachnoid hemorrhage (without autopsy) etc.”

This information is even more shocking when you discover that the organization funding the study was none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who declared the project a total success.

Kumar wrote:

“According to the BMGF, the WHO, the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, and the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India have all recommended vaccination ‘as a proven and highly effective preventive measure for cervical cancer.’ The project used vaccines that are licensed in India and that have been administered safely around the world tens of millions of times, preventing countless cases of cervical cancer illness and death, ‘maintains a BMGF spokesperson in an emailed response (see GAVI & PHFI create incentives …’”

He continued:

“BMGF’s role in funding the controversial studies, however, has led to many healthcare activists in India voicing their apprehensions. ‘BMGF has to take full responsibility because PATH is funded by them. It is also unethical when people championing the cause of vaccines are the same ones who are also investing in vaccine development,’ said V Rukmini Rao, one of the activists who filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court in connection with the HPV vaccine studies.”

Absolutely, and this is not the first time that these organizations have been caught illegally testing vaccines in developing countries.

Gates Foundation, WHO, PATH, GAVI, UNICEF Behind Chad Vaccine Disaster

In December 2012, in the small village of Gouro, Chad, Africa, situated on the edge of the Sahara Desert, five hundred children were locked into their school, threatened that if they did not agree to being force-vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine, they would receive no further education.

These children were vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge. This vaccine was an unlicensed product still going through the third and fourth phases of testing.

Within hours, one hundred and six children began to suffer from headaches, vomiting, severe uncontrollable convulsions and paralysis. The children’s wait for a doctor began. They had to wait one full week for a doctor to arrive while the team of vaccinators proceeded to vaccinate others in the village.

When the doctor finally came, he could do nothing for the children. The team of vaccinators, upon seeing what had happened, fled the village in fear.

The original report written in a small, local newspaper called La Voix, the only newspaper to have published the original story, stated that forty children were finally transferred to a hospital in Faya and later taken by plane to two hospitals in N’Djamena, the capital city of Chad.

After being shuttled around like cattle, many of these sick, weak children were finally dumped back in their village without a diagnosis and each family was given an unconfirmed sum of £1000 by the government. No forms were signed and no documentation was seen. They were informed that their children had not suffered a vaccine injury.

However, if this were true, why would their government award each family £1000 in what has been described as hush money?

The only mainstream news channel to have highlighted the plight of these poor children was a local channel called Tchad, which filmed footage of the then-Prime Minister of Chad visiting the children in hospital.

VacTruth has copies of both reports, along with medical and government documents.

Despite this evidence and VacTruth’s detailed and extensive coverage, including highlighting television footage, once again, the vaccine program was hailed a success. To watch videos reporting the story, see the references at the end of this article.

The groups involved with this project were PATH, WHO, UNICEF, and the Gates Foundation. During investigations, it was discovered that the whole project was being run by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In a press release, the Gates Foundation stated:

“MenAfriVac is a tremendous success story for the global health community. It is the first vaccine developed specifically for Africa, and it proves that global partnerships can develop and deliver high-quality, low-cost vaccines.

Ten years ago, we invested in the Meningitis Vaccine Project,  an innovative model that brought together PATH, the World Health Organization, African health ministers and the Serum Institute of India today, we celebrate the result: a modern vaccine selling for less than US 50 cents per dose with the potential to end Africa’s deadly meningitis epidemics.

We believe that vaccines are one of the best buys in global health. In January, Bill and Melinda Gates called on the global community to make this the Decade of Vaccines. There is no better way to launch this decade than with a new vaccine that will improve and save lives.”

VacTruth can prove otherwise.

Government Inquiry Holds GAVI Accountable for Multiple Deaths

Despite the fact the Gates Foundation call vaccines “one of the best buys in global health,” a government inquiry in Pakistan has found the complete opposite.

In 2011, the Express Tribune published a story stating that:

“ISLAMABAD: A government inquiry has found that polio vaccines for infants funded by the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation are causing deaths and disabilities in regional countries including Pakistan.

The startling revelation is part of an inquiry report prepared by the Prime Minister’s Inspection Commission (PMIC) on the working of the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI). The PMIC, headed by Malik Amjad Noon, has recommended that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani immediately suspend the administration of all types of vaccines funded by the GAVI.”

According to the Express Tribune, the main vaccinations in question were the polio vaccine and the 5-in-1 pentavelent vaccine, which were said to be responsible for the deaths and disability of a number of children in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Japan.

The vaccines were funded by the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization (GAVI) an organization financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank.

Writing on the official report, made exclusive to the newspaper, the Express Tribune stated:

“The report states, ‘The procured vaccines are not tested in laboratories to confirm their efficacy and genuineness. This leaves room for use of spurious and counterfeit vaccines.’” (emphasis added)

If this is true, then once again the Gates Foundation has been linked to mass vaccination initiatives using untested, unsafe vaccinations.

The Gates Foundation and WHO Labeled Unethical by Medical Experts

In 2012, Ramesh Shankar Mumbai, an author writing for the Pharmabiz website, reported that two medical experts from India had accused the Gates Foundation and WHO of being unethical.

In his report, Mumbai stated that Dr. Neetu Vashisht and Dr. Jacob Puliyel of the Department of Pediatrics at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi, wrote the following information in their report in the April issue of Indian Journal of Medical Ethics.

“It was unethical for WHO and Bill Gates to flog this program when they knew 10 years back that it was never to succeed. Getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical.”

Pharmabiz.com reported that Dr. Vashisht and Dr. Puliyel had continued their report by stating:

“Another major ethical issue raised by the campaign is the failure to thoroughly investigate the increase in the incidence of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) in areas where many doses of vaccine were used. NPAFP is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly.”

Pharmabiz.com continued:

“The authors noted that while India was polio-free in 2011, in the same year, there were 47500 cases of NPAFP. While data from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project showed NPAFP rate increased in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses received, independent studies showed that children identified with NPAFP ‘were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection.’”

The corruption and deceit by these organizations does not stop there.

The Gates Foundation Blamed for 10,000 Vaccine-Related Deaths

In 2013, yet another report named the Gates Foundation and GAVI as being responsible for multiple deaths using untested vaccinations on children from the developing world.

The report, published on the website Occupy Corporatism and written by Susanne Posel stated:

“It was found out through an investigation, that GAVI was using an untested vaccine; giving this dangerous vaccine to Pakistani children shows the lack of empathy associated with these organizations.

GAVI was blamed for the deaths of 10,000 children in Pakistan when they came in and administered polio vaccines that resulted in casualties.”

As we know, GAVI is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation.

So, what was the name of the organization that investigated GAVI and found them using untested polio vaccinations in Pakistan?

According to the Express Tribune article, which I referred to earlier in this article, it was none other than the Indian government, who, upon discovering the shocking truth, recommended the immediate suspension of the administration of all types of vaccines funded by GAVI.

In a recent radio show hosted by Sallie O. Elkordy, Susanne Posel gave her frank and honest views on the whole sorry mess that we find ourselves in today.

Warning: This report is not for the faint-hearted.

Conclusion

It is difficult to believe that, despite the mounting evidence outlining the many crimes against humanity that have been committed by the Gates Foundation, GAVI, UNICEF and PATH, Bill Gates is portrayed as a hero among many.

However, according to the definition of hero in the Oxford Dictionary, the word hero means:

“A person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.”

The dictionary I used said nothing about vaccinating innocent, vulnerable children with untested and unsafe vaccinations, causing them to suffer agonizing, untimely deaths.

Source*

Related Topics:

India: Bill Gates Financing Untested Vaccines that Spread the Disease It Claims to Cure!

Poor Asian, African, and Latin American Children Targeted by Gates and Others with Questionable Vaccines*

Bill Gates’ Polio Vaccine Program Eradicates Children, Not Polio*

Monsanto and Bill Gates: More Superbugs in the Making!

Gates Next Contribution to Eugenics*

Ebola as a Bio and Psych Warfare from Soros and Gates*

Further Proof Bill Gates is Linked to Ebola*

50 African Children Paralyzed by Gates-Funded Meningitis ‘Vaccine’*

Death by Vaccine: 34 Syrian Children Die*

Meet Eugenicist Bill Gates GMO Banana*

50 African Children Paralyzed by Gates-Funded Meningitis ‘Vaccine’*

50 African Children Paralyzed by Gates-Funded Meningitis ‘Vaccine’*

billGatesPsychoVaccinator

Bill and Melinda Gates have been on a crusade for at least the past decade to vaccinate every single child on the planet. And one of their primary geographical targets has been the continent of Africa, where poor sanitation’s and lack of clean water have created conditions in which diseases like meningitis and malaria run rampant. But rather than try to meet these basic needs, the multi-billionaires and their many allies have instead thrust vaccines on indigenous populations as the solution, which has in turn sparked a wave of paralysis among Africa’s younger populations.

As covered by investigative journalist Christina England over at Vactruth.com, the small village of Gouro in northern Chad, for instance, recently fell victim to the dark side of this vaccine agenda after at least 50 youth in the area developed paralysis following vaccination with “MenAfriVac,” a new meningitis vaccine developed specifically for Africa. Touted as a preventive cure for meningitis, MenAfriVac reportedly caused each of the children, some of whom were as young as seven, to suffer hallucinations, convulsions, and ultimately paralysis.

According to a cousin of two of the vaccine-injured children, the horrific side effects of MenAfriVac began to appear within 24 hours of its administration. Many of the children affected by it immediately began to experience headaches and vomiting, which later progressed into “uncontrollable convulsions while bent over with saliva coming from their mouths.” But when parents and local authorities tried to call on higher-up government officials to take action and help the affected children, their petitions for relief were all but ignored.

Government of Chad attempts to bribe parents into silence

This same cousin, who is referred to by England as “Mr. M.,” added that when Chad’s Minister of Health and Minister of Social Security finally showed up to Gouro nearly a week after the series of paralyzations first took place, they decided to evacuate the 50 paralyzed children to a hospital more than 300 miles away, as there is only one available doctor in the entire region of Gouro.

But rather than try to get to the bottom of why MenAfriVac caused such a serious reaction in the first place, and immediately halt all further distribution of the vaccine until this could be determined, these same government officials actually tried to bribe suffering parents with money to keep quiet about it. According to Mr. M., these officials were more concerned with covering up the dangers of ManAfriVac than with protecting villagers from harm.

 “[T]he government and the media have gone silent about the tragedy, while there are still facts requiring clarification,” stated Mr. M. in an email to England about the incident. At this point in time, virtually no media has picked up on this important story. “All this disturbs us and makes us fear the worst effects for the future. [I]t is very sad that (the) entire city is paralyzed.”

Gates Foundation, WHO lie about safety of MenAfriVac

Worse is the fact that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO), and The Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP), all of which heavily promote MenAfriVac, have openly lied about the safety of the vaccine by repeatedly claiming it can be transported without refrigeration. The vaccine’s package insert clearly states that it must be stored refrigerated and protected from light.

 “Why have major organizations spent $571 million on a vaccination project, when wells to provide access to clean drinking water have been constructed for less than $3,000 by the International Committee of the Red Cross?” asks England in a series of important questions regarding this disastrous situation. “Why has this vaccination program not been suspended, (and) what are these organizations going to do about the atrocity that has happened in Gouro?”

Source*

Related Topics:

Bill Gates’ Polio Vaccine Program Eradicates Children, Not Polio*

Polio Vaccine Spreads Polio-like Disease*

Death and Autoimmune Diseases the Price of HPV Vaccines on 24,000 Indian Girls

Poor Asian, African, and Latin American Children Targeted by Gates and Others with Questionable Vaccines*

Education Rights of a Child Denied because she didn’t take the Vaccine that Could Kill Her!*

NYC Mayor Wants to Force Vaccinate Under 5′s with Two Dangerous Vaccines*

Eight Infants Added to the Hit List of 5-in-1 Vaccine*

War on Syria Unofficial, Unabated and Eugenic (Vaccines)*

Millions of Americans Contaminated with SV40 Virus through Polio Vaccine

Baby Girl Dies After 5 Shots of Vaccine*

Three Newborn Babies Die After Hepatitis B Vaccine*

Scientists Explain Why HPV Vaccines are Unsafe*

The Eugenics of HPV Vaccine*

The Cabal Exploits Filipino Trauma with unneeded Polio Vaccines*

Increased Reaction to Drugs Caused By Vaccines

Child Abuse or Vaccine Induced Scurvy!?*

CIA Vaccine Program in Pakistan*

Victim of Flu Vaccine Paid off by Aussie Government*