Leon Speed ---
 
Back in 2010 the New York Times reported that the United States has discovered very large, previously unknown, mineral deposits in Afghanistan. They suggest the deposits are of Lithium, Iron, Cobalt, Gold, and Copper. A Pentagon memo suggests that Afghanistan can become the “Saudi Arabia of Lithium”. They also reported it was discovered by Pentagon officials and American geologists. Although according to a research paper by Ali and Shroder the British started mineral resource assessments in Afghanistan from 1841. A Russian geologist wrote a paper in regards to Afghanistan mineral riches in 1927, and American geologists made discoveries around 1943. According to the same paper the US Department of State were a bit slow in the sixties and seventies:
“With its attention on resources accordingly diverted elsewhere for decades to come, the US Department of State thus quite missed the resource ball when in the 1960s and 1970s; as many as ~ 250 Soviet geologists went to work mapping geology in the country while only one American geologist (co author of this paper, John Shroder) was in the country”.
A Chinese company also won a contract to extract Copper from Afghanistan in 2009. So to say it was discovered by Pentagon officials and American geologists is a bit rich to say the least.
 
According to NBC news from 2014 one carbonatite deposit in Helmand province is worth an estimated $89 billion, not bad for one of the poorest countries in the world. With the recent developments in Afghanistan such as the UK troops returning to Helmand province and the US possibly adding to their already 9,800 troops in the country will we see the US and the UK gaining contracts for mineral extraction, or will China and Russia gain the contracts? The countries wealth could even possibly be shared among competing Nations but I doubt it. I just hope Afghanistan gets their fair share of the pie as well as economic and job growth. At the moment it’s wait and see.

Leon Speed

This is a short 10 minute video by Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson. She worked for CBS news and has won many investigative journalism awards. In light of the recent news in regards to the UK's BBC funding by the European Union, and the Telegraph in the UK recently facing a large fine, this video is a powerful message to anyone who relies on news for making informed decisions. Sharyl Attkisson exposes the tricks used to manipulate viewers into thinking a certain way. Spread the word.

Leon Speed ---
 
The British Broadcasting Commission (BBC) has admitted to accepting cash from the EU. The cash comes before the referendum vote by the UK to stay in the EU or leave the EU. Some critics suggest this takes away from the broadcasters impartiality and it looks as though the BBC gets paid for swaying the people one way or the other. They have admitted to accepting only $2million pounds, although a report from March 2014 suggests it is much higher.
The 2014 report by EUReferendum.com states the information was received under the freedom of information act which costs a certain amount of cash to obtain. The information from the BBC suggested that $3 million pounds was accepted from the EU. The EU’s very own transparent website suggested a different story;
“It might have come up with an altogether more weighty sum - £20,152,022 (€24,435,906) to be precise. That is the sum dispersed to the BBC from EU funds between 2007-2012 inclusive”. The rundown of what was spent on what can be seen here.
The Telegraph reports that the money was paid to deliver key parts of the EU’s political strategy in countries on the fringes of Europe. Now the Telegraph has been fined $30,000 pounds for emailing readers and suggesting they vote Tory.
 
RT news has come up with what they call the ‘ultimate guide to mainstream media’. It gives a little insight into some countries mainstream media outlets such as who owns them and a little background on the hosts of the news shows, and some controversies (oooh).
I particularly like the couple of paragraphs in which Greenpeace paid for an advertisement to be run on channel Nine Australia implicating Coca-Cola was blocking the cash for containers concept which aims to help with removal of plastic bottles from the environment. Nine’s director of marketing at the time said after the ad was pulled;
"We had no issue in taking the original booking from Greenpeace, but on reviewing the content we deemed it to be offensive to our viewers and so advised the client we would not proceed with the placement on the Network”.
 
Is the news you sit down to watch on your television after a hard day’s work unbiased and all it’s cranked up to be? This is one reason why I do not watch mainstream media.

Leon Speed ---
 
So Canada has a contract to supply the Saudi Arabian regime with arms to the value of $14.8 billion even though Canada has an export control mechanism in place to ensure Canadian exports do not fuel human rights violations abroad. The deal was hailed as an economic victory for Canada, not a loss of innocent civilian lives in Yemen. Canada also has an automatic firearms country control list which restricts arms sales to foreign countries but that can also be bypassed by simply adding more countries to the list, which is now risen from 13 to 39 since 1991.
How on earth can this deal still go through with the Saudi Arabian regimes constant human rights violations ongoing not only in their own country, but other countries as well? Canada’s plan is just don’t tell anyone;
‘DFATD (department of foreign affairs, trade, and development) will not divulge details of the export permit application process, citing commercial confidentiality’.
 
Back in November the UK suggested they could freeze arms sales to Saudi Arabia over alleged violations in Yemen. Saudi’s have been bombing wedding parties, schools, hospitals, and refugee centres to name a few. Amnesty International has called it “damning evidence” of war crimes by the Saudi Arabian regime. The UN has called for an investigation by the UN human rights council but that has been halted by intense pressure from the Saudi regime because they chair the council. This still has not stopped British arms sales to the Saudi regime even though they “are fuelling the civil war in Yemen and breach domestic, European and International law obligations, according to legal opinion obtained by Amnesty and other human rights groups”.
 
Meanwhile the Saudi Arabian regime in August of 2014 alone beheaded 19 people in 17 days, mainly for drug smuggling and one for sorcery. What exactly does the Saudi regime constitute as sorcery? The most recent human rights violation is the sentencing to 4 years jail of a 62 year old civil activist and writer, Zuhair Katbi. He has also been banned from writing for 15 years, travelling for 5 years, and a $26,000 plus fine. His crime was to write about political change in Saudi Arabia.
 
The Saudi Arabian regimes 2015 Human Rights Watch report can be read here.
Why the hell are countries selling arms to a known human rights violating regime? Oh, that’s right because money, profits, and Corporations rule the world.

Leon Speed ---
 
This is a report on Prince Charles’ involvement with the Saudi royals and terrorism financing. The full article from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia can be read here. The views and opinions in this article are not necessarily my own.