Welcome to The Truth News.Info
Chinese troops arrive in Russian base for joint drill
July 31, 2007
The first batch of Chinese troops arrived at a Russian military base on Tuesday for a joint anti-terrorism drill sponsored by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
"Six Chinese military transport planes landed at the Shagol airbase in the Chelyabinsk region on Tuesday, delivering 287 servicemen, military equipment and supplies," Interfax and Itar-Tass quoted Assistant to the Russian Exercise Coordinator Igor Konashenkov as saying.
The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops will be divided into two groups: 147 of them will be stationed at the Shagol airbase while the others would go to the Urals Chebarkul military camp.
The transporters took off from an airport in west China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region early Tuesday and traveled for about four hours and covered a distance of 2,900 km before arriving at the drill venue.
The Russian-made Ilyushin IL-76 transporter, a major air transporter and in charge of airborne troops of the PLA, will be used as navigating planes for PLA fighters and bombers to arrive at the venue.
More soldiers and armaments will be transported from Xinjiang to the Russian base by two other air force units within days, while the main force of China's 1,600 troops already set off by train on July 19 from Xinjiang.
Four trains with Chinese personnel, armaments and military hardware were traveling across Russia on schedule, Konashenkov was quoted as saying.
Those trains will arrive at the Misyash station in the exercise area on Aug. 2 and Aug. 3, he said.
Two Chinese army aviation units, consisting of 16 Mi-17 transportation helicopters and 16 Z-9 armed helicopters, are expected to arrive at the Shagol airbase Tuesday evening and on Wednesday respectively.
The "Peace Mission 2007" drill will be carried out in Chelyabinsk in Russia and in Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang, from Aug. 9 to 17.
The SCO members -- China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan -- will stage the joint anti-terrorism drill, which will involve 6,500 military personnel.
Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham
US Creating False pretexts for Another War
In an alarming exposure of the acceleration and urgency of the American war party's push towards catastrophic war with Iran, Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter terrorism officer, in an interview  on 24th July with Anti War Radio debunked the NeoCons' repeated myth of Iran's support for AlQaeda as a pretext for war. Whilst acknowledging Iran's helpfulness in trying to establish security in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Giraldi spoke of the United States' hypocritical and illegal support for terrorist separatists groups inside Iran, and various plans and scenarios which have been drawn up to destroy Iran's military and economic infrastructure by massive bombardment, with the use of nuclear bombs a real and stated possibility.
Giraldi refuted the assumption that sharing hostilities towards the US, placed Iran and AlQaeda in the same camp and sharing similar agenda, arguing that Iran followed a very different agenda in its dealings with the US. He emphasised both the fact of Iranians' helpfulness in Iraq, in terms of pushing for greater stability, and also their help and cooperation in Afghanistan, as well as the reality of the deep hostilities between Shiia Iran and Sunni extremism of AlQaeda. Giraldi recalled the major attack against the Iranian consulate general in Afghanistan by the Taliban, a close ally of AlQaeda, in which 11 Iranian diplomats were killed, and the regular AlQaeda violent attacks against Shiia population in Iraq, and concluded that a Shiia Iranian-AlQaeda alliance was not a plausible possibility.
He described the recent New York Sun's allegation  that AlQaeda prisoners in Iran led terrorist operations inside Iraq under the advice of the Iranian government, as one of many propaganda pieces making a case for war. He said how in 2003, the Iranian government, through the Swiss embassy, had offered to hand over the six AlQaeda prisoners kept in Iran, which includes Osama Bin Laden's son, in exchange for the US ceasing its support for the MEK, and how this offer was rejected by the US. He said of the MEK that it was sheltered and armed by Saddam against Iran, and now supported and armed by Pentagon against Iran.
Highlighting what he called American "ultimate hypocrisy", Giraldi explained how the US government is supporting terrorist groups and ethnic division in Iran and charging the Iranians in Iraq for what the US was doing in Iran itself and with a lot more evidence. Giraldi talked of US's support for Jundollah which he described as a Sunni Baluchi separatist group in eastern Iran that has launched deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran. He also spoke of US support for separatists amongst the Arab minority which is closer to the border with Iraq.
Giraldi repeated the alarm call he first made in his revelations in the American Conservative Magazine in 2005 that Dick Cheney, who has no authority under the constitution, had ordered the air force to draw up plans for air strike against Iran that even included the use of nuclear weapons. He said he thought there was a lot of evidence since then to suggest that nuclear weapons are still very much on the table and named Republican Senators such as McCain, Gilliani and Romney who had not "flinched at all" in the debate about the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran.
He spoke of various war scenarios cooked up by the war party. One scenario was of the automatic use of the nuclear weapons in order to reach and destroy the Iranian nuclear sites buried under ground. Another scenario was to use the nuclear threat if the "Iranians continue to fight back after we staged our attack", the idea being "that's what the nukes are for, our nukes that everybody knows that we in fact do have, is to tell them, listen, you are going to sit there and take it while we bomb you for a week or two and you are not going to fight back and if you do fight back then we will use nuclear weapons on you", and he cited the example scenario of Iranians resisting by staging attack in the Strait of Hormouz or destabilising Afghanistan.
Setting out the horrifying context of the possibility of the US using nuclear strikes against Iran, under the pretext of destroying Iranian nuclear bombs which do not exist and Iran's cooperation with AlQaeda, another propaganda fabrication, Giraldi drew attention to the recent warning to Iran and the threat of war issued by AlQaeda for Iran's support for the Shiia government in Iraq, as well as AlQaeda's constant horrific attacks inside Iraq targeting Shiia population and mosques.
Prof. Abbas Edalat of CASMII said today: "Giraldi's revelations is consistent with and confirms the emergence of a shift in the dynamics of the American foreign policy decision making away from dialogue and in favour of war. The reality of the shared strategic interests between Iran and the US in stabilising Iraq and the possibility and great benefits for both countries in reaching a rapprochement in their bilateral relationship, based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than threat and coercion, is persistently obscured and sabotaged by the fanatical warmongers of Cheney camp and the Israeli lobby, who are relentlessly pushing for war".
It is incumbent upon the media and journalists to give active voice to informed and conscientious individuals like Giraldi who have well-established connections within the intelligence community and are warning the international community about the impending catastrophic war against Iran.
For more information please contact CASMII or visit http://www.campaigniran.org
Is the U.S. Senate Willing to Torpedo the Law of the Sea Treaty?
By Brian Farmer
It's not surprising that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) would support the Law of the Sea Treaty. After all, the CFR has always believed that promoting world government is a good idea.
Follow this link to the original source: "Is the United States Ready to Approve the Law of the Sea Treaty?"
Back in the 1970s, the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation. The objective was the transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the Third World, under the direction of the UN. A cornerstone of this international wealth transfer scheme was the so-called "Law of the Sea Treaty" (LOST).
LOST would give the UN power to tax businesses that wanted to develop the oceans' resources, which has been a long-time dream of the global government enthusiasts. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings.
The treaty attempts to conceal the power to levy international taxes by labeling the taxes with such euphemisms as "assessments," "fees," "permits," "payments," or "contributions."
Under LOST, an "International Seabed Authority" would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans' seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select Third World governments and non-governmental organizations.
Fortunately, when LOST came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he refused to sign the treaty. It appeared that the push toward global governance was halted, at least temporarily.
But that was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked to "fix" its most objectionable parts, in hopes that the United States would then support it. The UN and its supporters know that, without the participation of the United States, their schemes will not succeed.
In the 1990s, LOST supporters sent the treaty to President Bill Clinton, who quickly signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator Jesse Helms, concluded that, despite cosmetic changes, LOST remained hopelessly flawed. Taking no action on the treaty, he sent it back to the president in 2000.
It appeared that LOST was finally dead. But it wasn't. Undeterred, LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. The Committee voted to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification in February of 2004. LOST currently sits before the Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification.
Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST, along with any future UN encroachments on our sovereignty!
Click Here To Comment