Military experts have compared the relative military might of Great Britain and Iran, and in a potential conflict between the two, unfortunately, the UK does not match up very well!
The once impressive military of the UK, is a shadow of its former self, so says the British newspaper The Daily Express. An editorial in the paper said, “A comparison of the UK and Iran’s military strength shows Britain falling behind when it comes to manpower, land and naval strength and petroleum resources.” The paper made this surprising proclamation, after Iran seized a British tanker in the Persian Gulf, in retaliation for Britain seizing an Iranian tanker at Gibraltar.
According to the article, Britain ranks eighth on the “Global Firepower Index,” while Iran comes in not far behind in 14th place (the U.S. comes in first place, Israel 17th). Indeed, GlobalFirepower.com lists Iran as being stronger than Britain in several categories: 873,000 military personnel to Britain’s 233,000, 1,634 Iranian tanks to 331 British vehicles and 386 Iranian naval vessels to 76 British (Britain is credited with more airpower, with 811 military aircraft to 509 Iranian). Iran has more oil, but weaker finances.
What About Nukes?
But, you may say that none of this matters, because Britain is a true nuclear power. Despite the statistics that put the numbers close on the firepower index, Britain and Iran are really not in the same league at all, when it comes to nukes. First and foremost, while Iran may or may not be developing nuclear weapons, Britain most certainly has them. And not some jury-rigged “physics package” assembled in an underground bunker, but four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines, each armed with 16 Trident thermonuclear-armed ballistic missiles. That’s enough atomic firepower to send Russia and China back to the Middle Ages, let alone Iran.
But, as you know, having nukes, and using nukes, are two entirely different animals. Britain wouldn’t use nukes against Iran for political reasons, and Iran would be committing suicide to use them against Britain or anyone else. Which leaves the more immediate prospect of a limited conflict in the Persian Gulf, most likely a reprise of the 1980s “Tanker War,” in which Iran will attack or seize oil tankers in retaliation for economic sanctions, while Britain (and the U.S., and possibly Europe) will attempt to stop them.
In that kind of conflict, with Britain’s naval resources “a shadow of what they once were,” and cut off from supply lines, Iran’s greater numbers of smaller attack vessels and missile torpedo boats would likely win the day. Currently, Britain has only a single destroyer, and a frigate, as convoy escorts in the Persian Gulf.
But here is where numerical comparisons of military strength really fail. If Iran were to invade Britain, there would be no question of which party is stronger. However, in the Persian Gulf, British forces are operating 3,000 miles from the UK. Even with access to bases belonging to Iran’s hostile Arab neighbors, the British would still be operating in Iran’s home waters, where all the tools of coastal guerrilla warfare – mines, small boat attacks – would be available to Tehran.
So hypothetically, who would win in an open conflict between Britain and Iran? Ruling out the US getting involved, which it most certainly would, the answer all depends on the circumstances.
“We will destroy you,” those are the defiant words used by the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, who in a recent speech, threatened to destroy the United States and its Middle Eastern allies.
Speaking to tens of thousands of people holding signs with anti-U.S. slogans in Tehran’s Revolution Square, Gen. Hossein Salami accused the U.S., Britain, Saudi Arabia and Israel, of instigating the violent protests that erupted earlier this month after the announcement of massive fuel price hikes.
“We have shown restraint. … We have shown patience toward the hostile moves of America, the Zionist regime (Israel) and Saudi Arabia against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said. “If you cross our red line, we will destroy you. We will not leave any move unanswered.”
The protests against the fuel price hikes and a concurrent slash in government subsidies have further divided many Iranians and their religious regime. The country has seen an economic decline since the U.S. restored sanctions after withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated during the Obama administration.
Many have complained of the inability to obtain jobs, travel abroad and soaring food prices and astronomical rises in the cost of living. Some Iranians have seen their once middle-class lifestyle reduced to day-to-day struggles to stay afloat.
At least 143 people have been killed since Nov. 15, according to Amnesty International. The human rights group accused Iranian security forces of using firearms against unarmed protesters from rooftops and helicopters.
“The rising death toll is an alarming indication of just how ruthless the treatment of unarmed protesters has been by the Iranian authorities and reveals their appalling assault on human life,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty’s research and advocacy director for the Middle East and North Africa.
Some demonstrators have accused the government of torturing those who’ve been arrested and detained.
Iran cut off Internet access for several days to quell the unrest, making it difficult for groups to ascertain the extent of the violence on the ground. Authorities said banks and government offices have been set on fire and more than 1,000 people have been arrested.
Protesters are outraged by the way President Hassan Rouhani’s administration handled the fuel price hike. Despite the more than 50% hike in prices, gas in Iran remains some of the cheapest in the world, with the hike bringing it to about the equivalent of 50 cents per gallon, up from what was about 20 cents.
The Iranian president promised that the hike in fuel prices would be used to fund new subsidies for poor families, none of which has yet to come to fruition.
As for Gen. Hossein Salami’s threats to the US and our allies – they are nothing but a bunch of baloney!
Shocking testimony in a Florida court claims that US Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar is a foreign agent on a Qatari payroll!
The English edition of Al Arabiya, the newspaper of the Arab world, says it got hold of an October 23 deposition by Alan Bender, a Kuwait-born businessman from Canada, testifying in a case against the Qatari emir’s brother. According to Bender, he met with three top Qatari officials, including the Emir for Security Affairs’ secretary, and was told that Omar is “the crown jewel” among US politicians recruited by Qatar.
The three allegedly claimed that Ilhan owed her current position to the Qatari money bankrolling her campaign. In his testimony, Al Arabiya reports that, the businessman said that Omar made use of her position within the US House of Representatives to recruit other politicians.
She also supposedly shared sensitive information with Qatar, which in turn was relayed to Iran.
According to his sworn deposition, the three officials told him, “If it wasn’t for our cash, Ilhan Omar would be just another black Somali refugee in America collecting welfare and serving tables on weekends.”
Bender testified that the officials asked him to recruit American politicians and journalists as Qatari assets and that when he objected, was told that several prominent figures were already on the payroll, including Omar.
Qatar “recruited Ilhan Omar from even way before she thought about becoming a government official… They groomed her and arranged the foundation, the grounds, for her to get into politics way before she even showed interest. They convinced her,” Bender added.
In response to the reports that surfaced in the Saudi owned Al Arabiya, a spokesperson for Omar released this statement, “The latest, outlandishly absurd story from a Saudi-funded media outlet is of course false and only the latest in that trend,” the statement said. “The only people Rep. Omar represents in Washington are the people of Minnesota’s 5th District. She will continue to speak out against human rights violations around the world – whether it is war crimes in Yemen or the caging of children at our border – regardless of who commits them.”
President Donald Trump has ‘every right’ to withhold aid to Ukraine, or from any country, where he thinks corruption is taking place, Republican Senator Rand Paul said over the weekend.
“Every politician in Washington is trying to manipulate Ukraine to their purposes,” the grassroots right-wing Senator from Kentucky said.
“I think we’ve gotten lost in this whole idea of quid pro quo,” Paul argued during an interview with Chuck Todd on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ over the weekend.
Transcripts from the House Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Trump have revealed that some administration officials think Trump withheld US military aid for Ukraine until the country opened an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who was given a lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.
Democrats allege this constitutes proof that there was quid pro quo involved in Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
“If you’re not allowed to give aid to people who are corrupt, there are always contingencies on aid,” the Kentucky senator argued.
“Well, if it’s corruption and he believes there to be corruption, he has every right to withhold aid,” Paul said.
“Presidents have withheld aid before for corruption. I think it’s a mistake to say, ‘Oh, he withheld aid until he got what he wanted.’”
Despite his arguments in support of the president, Senator Paul, who will act as a juror in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached by the House, argued that the Trump administration was making a “mistake” in arguing that the president didn’t engage in a quid pro quo.
“Every politician in Washington other than me, virtually, is trying to manipulate Ukraine to their purposes,” he said.
“Menendez tried it, Murphy tried it, Biden tried it, Trump’s tried it — they’re all doing it. They are all trying to manipulate Ukraine to get some kind of investigation, either end an investigation or start an investigation.” he declared.
Senator Paul mentioned that he opposes sending aid to Ukraine entirely.
“I wouldn’t give them the aid because we don’t have the money,” the senator said. “We have to actually borrow the money from China to send it to Ukraine, so I’m against the aid and I think it’s a mistake to do the aid so I wouldn’t have played any of these games.”
When most people think of the earth we think of a solid round sphere that orbits the sun. It’s common to consider that there is molten rock under the surface as we witness the spewing of lava from volcanos on dry land as well as underwater. It seems however that the earth is synonymous with the human brain in the sense that we know less than five percent of what’s in our oceans and seas and we only use less than ten percent of our brains’ mental capacity. Truly there is much more exploration and studying need. So, what do we really know about the earth?
For centuries dating as far back as can be recalled, there have been theories of entrances that lead to inner earth. We all heard the story of the Devil being under the surface of the earth residing in hell supposedly. Some of us may have heard of an ancient reptilian humanoid species that live in some of the porous caverns of the earth. There are also great writings like Dante’s Inferno that spoke of entering lower levels of the earth beneath the surface. So, could the Hollow Earth Theory be fact, not fiction?
Brooks A. Agnew is a writer and a scientist who supports this hollow earth theory. One of his best works is Alienated Nation. His uncle, Sir James Ross, was also a Hollow Earther. He was responsible for the discovery of Ross’s Gull. Hence the name Ross. It was a rare seabird that Sir James discovered on his travels. As far back as 1629, Edmund Halley hypothesized of a sequential series of crust theory having to do with the makeup of the earths’ layers. That was just one of his many ideas that were considered crackpot at the time. But, he is the guy that predicted that comet that comes around every 75 years I believe. We call it Halley’s Comet. Named after Edmund Halley of course. So, his theory proved true after all. He also spoke of the hollow earth.
Marshall Gardner patented in 1965 the Hollow Earth theory. He spent a lot of his time and money researching and going on expeditions to bring proof and document information supporting this theory. Unfortunately, Marshall Gardner died of pneumonia while searching through subterranean terrain. During Brooks’ research, he often met people who are called channelers. These channelers were said to be able to communicate with otherworldly beings telepathically.
Admiral Byrd is another very polarizing character. He is famous for flying over the north pole back in 1926. I find his story very interesting because he writes of his airships compasses losing their bearings due to being so true north. He also writes about seeing plush green lands where there were wild animals. Some of which he never has seen before and others like the woolly mammoth that were thought to be extinct. Admiral Byrd said that his ship was tractor beamed in by an intelligent people living in the inner earth and one of the grand entrances is the north pole. This information was in the journals of Admiral Byrd and later presented by his son. Most people don’t know but it is illegal to fly over the north pole currently. Why do you think that is?
There is scientific data supporting the hollow earth theory. There have been seismic tests done to retrieve data on the shape and formation of the earth. Dr. Wysessions at Washington University states that “We concluded after 600,000 seismograms that deep in the earth mantel there is revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the arctic ocean. Also, strange anomalies having to do with sea creatures seem to be popping up lately. Oceanographers do tests every five years on certain rays which are a form of fish, like the manta ray for instance. Usually, normal would be seeing 50 or so sea creatures one would consider anomalies. Well, in 2008 while testing they found 1500 strange sea creatures. Some say this is happening because of underwater conduits leading to inner earth seas.
Agnew is planning an expedition to and above the arctic circle. They are hoping to come in contact with some intelligent life and document the rendezvous and make the footage available to the public. Agnew believes that if there is space in the middle of the earth than there must be life there as well. Could there be an entire civilization living beneath our feet accompanied by once thought to be extinct animals like dinosaurs, etc? Seek and you shall find.
The impeachment inquisition, to the dismay of dysfunctional Democrats and in particular ringleader Adam Schiff, is taking on a life of its own that is threatening to unravel the tightly knit and well-orchestrated witch hunt.
Within recent days the motive behind the impeachment inquiry is beginning to see the light-of-day, and what we’re discovering is a coup d’etat, long in the making by an unscrupulous band of conspirators, out to frame the President.
This latest revelation concerns a shadowy figure, who first burst on the national impeachment scene last week by the name of Marie Yovanovitch, however, Yovanovitch is well known among career diplomats.
The closely cropped redhead was the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who was fired by President Trump, and is now somehow considered a key witness by House Democrats’ eager to use whatever meaningless tidbit by Yovanovitch to bolster their impeachment inquiry, regardless of the fact that she was terminated in May of 2019, several months before the infamous July phone call.
The ouster of Yovanovitch by President Trump has infuriated career State Department diplomats, who apparently view their tenure has a lifelong occupations within the deep state, rather as a temporary position, that serves at the pleasure of the President, thus her abrupt firing may be the cause for Yovanovitch’s testifying under oath, and perhaps harboring a personal grudge against the President.
This may be the reason why Yovanovitch either willfully lied or mistakenly testified under oath, that she did not respond to a personal email sent by a Democratic congressional staffer concerning a “quite delicate” and “time-sensitive” matter, just two days after the whistleblower complaint, that kick-started the inquiry.
Congressman Lee Zeldin from New York had asked the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, about the personal email she received on August 14th from Democratic staffer Laura Carey, and whether she responded to Carey’s email.
Yovanovitch responded “under oath” she never replied to the email, when in fact she did.
The career diplomat described Carey’s initial email.
“I alerted the State Department, because I’m still an employee, and so, matters are generally handled through the State Department.”
Adding that the email came “from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” and “they wanted me to come in and talk about it, I guess, the circumstances of my departure” as Ukraine ambassador months earlier.
Yovanovitch continued: “So, she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And, she emailed me again and said, you know, ‘Who should I be in touch with?”
However, State Department procedure forbids congressional staff to reach out to a current State Department employee at their personal email address for official business, which once again raises questions to how Schiff’s witch hunt probe is breaking all the rules.
Moreover, while it’s possible that Yovanovitch may not have recalled responding to a quick inquiry, a lengthy email exchange is certainly another matter.
Carey’s initial email stating to Yovanovitch, “I’m writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat — in particular, I’m hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring,” Carey then wrote to Yovanovitch. “I’d appreciate the chance to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and thus, we want to make sure we get them right.”
Carey continued: “Could you let me know if you have any time this week or next to connect? Happy to come to a place of your choosing, or if easier to speak by phone at either of the numbers below. I’m also around this weekend if meeting up over coffee works.”
Yovanovitch responds the next day (August 15th), “Thanks for reaching out — and congratulations on your new job. I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly.”
The two corresponded by personal email again on the 19th Which suggests to any reasonable individual that the former U.S. Ambassador lied under oath, perhaps thinking that no one would investigate her personal email correspondence.
Zeldin told Fox News on Thursday it was “greatly concerning” that Yovanovitch may have testified incorrectly that she did not personally respond to Carey’s email.
Adding, “I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer’s work was connected in some way to the whistleblower’s effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade,” Zeldin said. “We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff’s team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming that there was no contact. Additionally, while the contents of the email from this staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.”
Zeldin added: “I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department. It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn’t answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”
CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research. They have a statue of Shiva outside of their headquarters. Shiva is an ancient Eastern Indian God who is known to be the destroyer of worlds. Why then would CERN opt to use such a representation for their company’s image. Unless there are many more underlying factors about CERN that we all need to know and understand.
We’re in an age where technology is advancing at a break-neck pace. Computers are in everything that you can think of. Drones are flying through the air. It seems we’re getting closer and closer to living like The Jetsons. It’s the information age and with that everyone wants it now. Instant gratification with little effort to achieve it. Soon we’ll have robots doing every menial task that you can image. What a convenience. Or is it?
Artificial Intelligence is a hot topic of the times. And I’m not talking about the movie starring Will Smith. However, that particular movie does give some insight into some of the ideas that I’m going to present to the readers today. This actually gets a little bit spooky. There are certain people and institutions that have their fingers on the buttons of some dangers tech.
CERN and Google have partnered up on creating a future Large Hadron Collider. CERN stated that since Google is a data storage company, they would be the perfect company to pair with to develop their quantum computing projects. These projects involve crowd computing and machine learning. Why would a company like CERN really want to team up with a data storage company like Google? Whistleblowers speak of CERN being used to communicate with interdimensional demons. These interdimensional demons or beings are said to give the scientist at CERN information to help fuse consciousness and intelligence to robots using quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact or share spatial proximity in such a way that the quantum state can not be described independently of the state of the other. Across town or across dimensions. These beings give this information in order to create a body to house their demonic spirits.
Geordie Rose is one of the founders and former CEO of D Wave Systems, Inc. D Wave is a quantum computing company based in British Columbia and Canada. Geordie Rose is a leading advocate for A.I. and quantum computing. Geordie states that humanity may face an existential extraterrestrial threat. He says the D Wave computer is not summoning demons but rather something more closely related to the Lovecraftian Great Old Ones. Geordie speaks of there being many intelligent alien races out there in the great vastness of space. He says they’re not necessarily good or evil, benevolent or malevolent, fair or unjust they just don’t give a damn about you. These “Great Old Ones” aren’t necessarily aligned with what our needs and wants are. Geordie is convinced that lurking in the background of all of the distractions that we face on a day to day bases like politics, crime, immigration, and race relations there is a tsunami over the horizon that will destroy humanity. This tsunami he states is an invasion from an extraterrestrial alien race.
H.P. Lovecraft was a writer of weird science fiction and horror novels in the 1930s. In his works, he wrote about deities and beings including The Great Old Ones and aliens such as The Elder Things. The problem is these ‘gods’ that H.G. depicts in his books look like what the average person would consider as a demon or monster or some sort of devil. Two other gods that he writes about are Dagon and Nuclear Chaos. Lovecraft believed that humans worshipped religious gods that are aliens and have little concern for the wants and needs of humanity. The Philistines in the Bible worshipped a god named Dagon.
Geordie Rose basically is stating that they are using CERN to communicate with these elder gods and resurrect them which backs up my statement made earlier concerning housing evil spirits in A.I. CERN is being fed information from interdimensional demons. I suggest doing some of your own research on CERN, D Wave (the “D” standing for demon) or H.P. Lovecraft’s book Demon Seed. There was a movie made about this book in 1977. The book and the movie Demon Seed will give Alexa a whole new meaning. Until next time.
A top bureaucrat for the European Union says that the 28 member bloc needs a standing army of 60,000 that could be deployed around the world if need be.
During a European Parliament hearing into his candidacy as vice president for foreign affairs and security on Monday, Josep Borrell, the EU’s incoming security chief, said: “The European Union has to learn to use the language of power.”
Borrell, a 72-year-old Spanish socialist who is set to become EU’s foreign affairs chief next month, said that the union should go further than its current 35,000 men and women who are available to be deployed worldwide.
“That’s already impressive, but we have to do more,” Borrell said. He urged EU lawmakers to “reinforce the EU’s international role and further our military capacity to act”
“The EU has to be more operational on the ground. We have to be ready to deploy forces, starting with our neighborhood,” Borrell continued.
The Spanish Eurocrat called on lawmakers in Brussels to up the number of troops available to be deployed to at least 55,000 to 60,000.
“We should pull our national sovereignties together to multiply the power of individual member states. And I am convinced that if we don’t act together, Europe will become irrelevant in the new coming world,” he added.
Last November, French President Emmanuel Macron called for the creation of a “real European army” to deal with the Russian threat and to rid the EU of its dependence on the US. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was quick to back the idea and enthusiastically echo Macron’s sentiments.
Others in the bloc haven’t been so keen to accept the idea. The UK, Visegrád countries (V4), and Romania have all voiced that NATO should remain the institution that guarantees security on the continent.
A new poll has revealed that Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is the most trusted party in the country to represent the interests of the British people.
The poll, which was conducted by Ipsos MORI, surveyed 1,090 adults between the 27th and 30th of September and found that Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party had the highest level of trust among British parties, securing 31 percent of the vote.
The poll also discovered that Jeremy Corbyn’s attitude and proposals toward Brexit are not appealing to Britons, with 64 percent of respondents saying that they were dissatisfied with his proposals for leaving the European Union.
Giving respondents aged between 18 and 75 years-old the choice between 16 politicians and institutions, the Ipsos pollsters asked: “Who do you think is on the side of the British people?”
31 percent of respondents reported that they believed the Brexit Party was “more on the side of the British people” while 29 percent of respondents said the same about the party’s leader Nigel Farage.
Among the politicians or institutions which received the second-highest score, at 30 percent, were MPs who wished to leave the EU with a deal.
Less than a quarter of those who were surveyed said they were satisfied with Brexit proposals put forth by the Labor party.
Boris Johnson fared a little bit better, with 36 percent of respondents saying that they satisfied with his handling of Brexit. A whopping 54 percent reported that they were dissatisfied with Johnson’s approach toward Brexit.
The poll also asked voters: “Who do you think is on the side of the British Establishment?
To this question, 42 percent of survey respondents voted for the Conservatives while Boris Johnson came in second place. In third, were Remain MPs at 35 percent.
The survey also asked individuals how much they trusted the British Establishment to put the needs of the British people above their own interests.
Just 17 percent of respondents said they trusted the Establishment “almost always” or “most of the time” to put the needs of the nation first when it comes to Brexit.
42 percent said that they “almost never” trusted the Establishment when it comes to Brexit.
While commenting on the poll’s results, Keiran Pedley, the Research Director for Ipsos Mori, said: “In public opinion terms there is clearly political mileage in attacking the ‘British Establishment’.
At a major right-wing conference in France last weekend, former National Rally (RN) MP Marion Maréchal called on French people to resist the “Great Replacement”.
Maréchals comments came during a speech she gave at the “Convention of the Right” in Paris.
During her address, Maréchals told her supporters that the massive demographic changes that are currently taking place in France and Europe, often referred to as the Great Replacement, is a critical issue that right in France must address, Europe1 reports.
“The first major challenge, the most vital, is the great replacement, this demographic countdown, which already makes us realize the possibility of becoming a minority on the land of our ancestors,” Maréchal said.
The former populist MP then added that if Great Replacement were to continue it would produce a “multicultural society that wants to be fractured and violent”.
The idea of a Great Replacement, which asserts that mass migration and the idea of ‘replacement migration’ can only result in social and political disorder, was first put forward by the well-known French writer Renaud Camus.
For Camus, the Great Replacement has resulted primarily due to a belief held by elites which holds that interchangeability of everything can be very much applied to humans.
In the past, Camus has said that human beings were becoming “a product, a producer, and a consumer all at once, a thing, a number, not a human being”.
During her address, Maréchal also urged the crowd to set aside petty differences, to come together as a single united French right, and to “break down yesterday’s partisan barriers”.
Despite not having put herself on this list of potential National Rally candidates for the 2022 French Presidential elections, Maréchal stated: “Tomorrow, and I am deeply convinced about this, we will be in power.”
“After 40 years of mass migration, Islamic lobbies, and political correctness, France is in the process of passing from the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church to becoming the little niece of Islam. Terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg — this is not the France that our grandparents fought for,” she said.
Maréchals speech represents a major comeback for her within French politics. In 2017, she voluntary resigned as an MP to form the Institute of Social, Economic, and Political Sciences (ISSEP) in Lyon.