شبكة الإستخبارات الإسلامية

"They plot and plan but ALLAH also plans and ALLAH is the best of Planners." Qur’an VIII – 30

‘’ويمكرون ويمكر الله والله خير الماكرين ‘’: قال الله عزَّ وجل

سورة الأنفال

رضيت بالله ربا و بالإسلام دينا و بمحمد صلى الله عليه و سلم نبيا رسولا لا إلـه إلا اللـه ... محمد رسـول اللـه

This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Showing posts with label Grande Bretagne occupee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grande Bretagne occupee. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

BNP, MI5 and the Zionist Agenda : Griffin is a british intelligence officer speaking on behalf his zionist racist jewish master Jack Straw

Griffin is a british intelligence officer, he's been working for MI5 since 20 years now. One of Griffin's task was to clean up his party from all nationalists anti-zionist, the majority in the UK, and like zionist jew Geert Wilders, or other french 'Front National' puppets, to turn their parties as mouth-pieces of the zionist jews agenda of clash of civilisation in Europe, targeting specifically Muslims for the sake of Israel. All the far-extreme right wing parties in Europe are financed and backed by Zionist jews, from Sarkosy to Berlusconi, to Merkel, Brown and Cameron. Behind the scene Griffin is the mouthpiece of the war criminals and racists Jack Straw, and Netanyahu, their agenda is cristal clear, silence the Muslims in Europe by any mean. The same agenda the Zionists implemented during WWI and WWII...


Humiliation of Nick Griffin


Appearance of Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP) on the BBC Program, Question Time1, has caused a furore and raised questions on the limitations of freedom of speech. Should an individual be permitted to express views that cause offence to a certain section of society? Even if the views are technically permitted by law, should the mass media encourage this by giving racist bigots like Nick Griffin a platform on a primetime TV? A more fundamental point in this debate is - should freedom of speech have a limit in the first place.


With the exception of Nick Griffin, there was consensus amongst all the panellists on the limitations of freedom of speech. Those limits specify that it is unacceptable to express views that are deemed racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. Most pertinently, you should not deny the holocaust; even to question this sacred subject is taboo. However, you can express anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim views, no matter how much offence it causes; in fact the more the better, because it is often used by sections of western societies as a barometer for freedom of expression. After struggling against the censorship for centuries, suddenly their freedom of expression rests on their ability to insult Islam and Muslims.


The political lightweight Nick Griffin was convincingly knocked out in the first round, and humiliated on all the issues, except when it came to the subject of Islam and Muslims. All the panellists failed to respond to the baseless anti-Islamic rants of Nick Griffin, except the ‘mufti’ ‘Syeda Warsi, whose answer was inadequate and superficial, not really worth dwelling upon.


It is not surprising for Nick Griffin to express anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim views, as a racist bigot naturally dislikes foreign people and their culture. Although, I am sure, many members of his party enjoy the Indian curry or the Turkish/Arabic kebab! I still remember the racists thugs would end up eating curry in the Indian/Pakistani restaurants in the evening, after taunting the Asian kids for smelling of curry during the day. Although these bigots were in the minority, but couple of drops of urine is sufficient to spoil a bowl of milk. The British society has progressed considerably since those times, but not the primitive members of the BNP.


When specifically asked by a member of the audience why Nick Griffin considers Islam a wicked and an evil religion, his response was on two points a) it oppresses women b) allegedly the Quran 'ordains as a religious duty the murder of Jews as well as other non-Muslims'.


Let us examine each of these points.


On the issue of women, it is perplexing as to why Nick Griffin would be concerned for Muslim women. After all, majority of the Muslims in the UK are from Asia and the Middle East, therefore clearly visible to eyes of the British National Party members, unlike the recent East European migrants!


If Islamic Laws were oppressive to women, they would naturally abandon Islamic values and exchange their modest clothing for the mini-skirt and the bikini. Nobody is forcing the Muslim women to remain as practising Muslims in secular West or in secular East. However, according to the mainstream media and major parties in the UK for some strange reasons they like to remain oppressed. What is even more puzzling, majority of the converts to Islam are in fact women, but these small details are always overlooked! How is it that such an evil religion continues to attract these women from all sections of a free society? Why do they choose to oppress themselves by embracing Islam?


The same kind of secular-prophecy was made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan; the Anglo-American forces would liberate the Afghan women from their veil. It failed. Today in certain European countries, the attitude is, if the Muslim women do not want to be liberated from their modest clothing, we will force them to do so! This is a blatant contradiction with the notion of freedom, and reflects the mindset of medieval Europe on the verge of launching a liberal-inquisition.


With regards to the second point of killing Jews and non-Muslims, Nick Griffin did not elaborate with any reference from the Quran, of substantiate it by citing scholarly works and historical examples. There is no verse in the Quran orders the indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims. On the contrary, a section of Islamic law deals with how the non-Muslim population should be protected, hence they are known as the Dhimmis, which means the protected people. It is fact that non-Muslims flourished within the Islamic Societies, Jews and Christians lived peacefully under the Muslim rule in Spain for centuries, as they did in places like India, Syria, Turkey and Palestine. In fact, facing religious persecution in Christian Europe, the Jews sought sanctuary within the Ottoman Empire, and prospered there for centuries.


The rise of BNP (British National Party) can be partially attributed to the demonisation of Muslims and Islam fanned by sections of the mainstream media. The nasty propaganda machine has often reversed the roles of victim and aggressor. The cowboys were always the virtuous people chasing the terrorists of the time, the Native Americans, often depicted as irrational wild savages; of course nothing to do with the new colonisers taking over their lands and resources. Today the impression created in the minds of the masses is that the Muslims are the anti-Semitic, illustrated by reversing the role of victim (Palestinians) and aggressor (Zionist State) in the region.


It is easy to blame others for your problem, this is the politics of the far-right according to the likes of Jack Straw and others, however, the reality is the mainstream media and the major parties have a majority share of this blame game, along with sections of the Muslim community.


Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK


www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

----------

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY

Share:

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Gravité de la corruption en Grande-Bretagne


John Pilger, 28 mai 2009

Dans sa dernière rubrique pour New Statesman, John Pilger décrit comment le scandale actuel de l'évasion fiscale et des prêts hypothécaires fantômes des députés cache une corruption bien plus profonde, qui remonte à la culture politique homogène des États-Unis.

Des membres du Parlement, dont des ministres, chapardant l’argent public, ont donné aux Britanniques un coup d’œil rare sur l'intérieur de la tente du pouvoir et des privilèges. C’est inappréciable, car pas un seul journaliste ou commentateur politique, de ceux qui remplissent les colonnes de pierres tombales et dominent le journalisme, n’a révélé une once de ce scandale. La vente de la « fuite » a été laissée à un homme des relations publiques. Pourquoi ?

La réponse se trouve dans une corruption plus grande, effleurée mais aussi dissimulée par les histoires d'évasion fiscale et de prêts hypothécaires fantômes. Depuis Margaret Thatcher, la démocratie parlementaire britannique a été peu à peu détruite, la politique des deux principaux partis ayant convergé en une seule idéologie étatique, dotée chacune de mesures sociales, économiques et étrangères presque identiques. Ce « projet » a été achevé par Tony Blair et Gordon Brown, inspirés par la culture politique homogène des États-Unis. Que tant de politiciens travaillistes et conservateurs se révèlent désormais véreux en personne, n'est rien de plus qu'un symbole du système antidémocratique qu’ils ont forgé ensemble.

Leurs complices étaient ces journalistes du « lobby de la presse, » qui font des reportages sur le Parlement, et leurs éditeurs qui ont délibérément « joué le jeu, » induisant le public en erreur (et parfois eux-mêmes), sur l’existence de différences démocratiques capitales entre les partis. Conçus par les médias, des sondages d'opinion basés sur des échantillons ridiculement petits, avec un raz-de-marée de commentaires sur les personnalités et leurs problèmes spécieux, ont réduit le « dialogue national » à une suite de potins médiatiques, dans laquelle, comme le démontre le niveau des votants historiquement bas sous Blair, le décrochage de l’assentiment populaire a été roulé dans l’indifférence.

Ayant fixé les limites et les possibilités du débat politique, les paladins présomptueux, notamment les libéraux, ont promu l'empereur nu, Blair et les « valeurs » dont il se faisait le champion, qui permettraient à « l'esprit de se déployer à la recherche d'un mieux britannique. » Et quand les taches de sang sont apparues, ils ont couru à couvert. Comme le décrivait autrefois Larry David à un ancien copain, tout ça était « un ruisseau gazouillant des conneries. »

Comme semblent contrits à présent leurs anciens héros. Le 17 mai, Harriet Harman, le chef de la majorité à la Chambre des Communes, qui aurait dépensé 10.000 livres du contribuable en « formation des médias, » a demandé instamment aux députés de « reconstruire la confiance envers les partis. » L'ironie involontaire de ses paroles rappelle l'un de ses premiers actes en tant que secrétaire à la Sécurité sociale il y a plus de dix ans : la réduction des avantages des mères célibataires. Ce fut tourné et rapporté comme s'il y avait une « révolte » parmi les députés travaillistes de base, ce qui était faux. Pas une des nouvelles femmes parlementaires de Blair, qui ont été élues « pour mettre fin à la prédominance masculine, aux politiques conservatrices, » n’a osé dénoncer cette attaque contre les plus pauvres des pauvres femmes. Tous ont voté la réduction.

Il en va de même de l’attaque autoritaire contre l'Irak en 2003, derrière laquelle s’est rallié l'establishment bipartite et la politique médiatique. Assurant le remplacement à Downing Street, avec une impatience fébrile, Andrew Marr a déclaré aux téléspectateurs de la BBC que Blair avait « dit qu'ils seraient en mesure de prendre Bagdad sans bain de sang, et que, à la fin, les Irakiens pourraient faire la fête. Et sur ces deux points, il fut constaté de manière indubitable exacte que, « Quand Tony Blair retira enfin l'armée de Bassora en mai, elle laissa derrière elle, selon des estimations savantes, plus d'un million de morts, une majorité de sinistrés, des enfants malades, l'approvisionnement en eau contaminé, un réseau énergétique paralysé et quatre millions de réfugiés.

Quant à la « fête » des Irakiens, la grande majorité disent que les propres sondages de l’administration britannique voulaient sortir l'envahisseur. Et quand Blair a finalement quitté la Chambre des Communes, il a été ovationné debout par les députés, ceux qui ont refusé de tenir un vote sur son invasion criminelle ou même de monter une enquête sur ses mensonges, que demandaient près des trois-quarts de la population britannique.

Pareille bassesse va bien au-delà de la cupidité de l’arrogante Hazel Blears.

« La normalisation de l'impensable, » la phrase de Edward Herman dans son essai The Banality of Evil, sur le partage du travail dans l'État maffieux, est applicable ici. Le 18 mai 2009, le Guardian a consacré le début d'une page à un article intitulé, « Une récompense d’un million de dollars décernée à Blair pour son travail de relations internationales. » Ce prix, annoncé en Israël peu de temps après le massacre de Gaza, récompensait son « impact culturel et social dans le monde. » Vous avez cherché en vain des signes de parodie ou l’aveu de la vérité. Il y avait à la place son « optimisme sur les chances de ramener la paix » et sur son travail « visant à forger la paix. »

C’était le même Blair qui commettait le même crime, la planification délibérée de l'invasion d'un pays, « le crime international suprême, » pour lequel le ministre nazi des Affaires Étrangères, Joachim von Ribbentrop, fut pendu à Nuremberg après que la preuve de sa culpabilité ait été repérée dans des documents de son cabinet allemand. En février dernier, le secrétaire à la « Justice » de Grande-Bretagne, M. Jack Straw, a bloqué la publication des minutes du cabinet de mars 2003, cruciales sur la planification de l'invasion de l'Irak, bien que leur diffusion avait été ordonnée par le Commissaire à l'Information, Richard Thomas. Pour Blair, l'impensable est à la fois normalisé et célébré.

« Comment nos députés corrompus font le jeu des extrémistes, » disait la couverture de New Statesman la semaine dernière. Mais leur soutien à l'épopée criminelle en Irak n’était-ce pas déjà de l'extrémisme ? Et pour l'aventure impériale meurtrière en Afghanistan ? Et pour la collusion du gouvernement envers la torture ?

C'est comme si notre langage public était finalement devenu orwellien. Le recours à des lois totalitaires, approuvées par une majorité de députés, la police mettant en place des unités secrètes de lutte contre la dissidence démocratique qu'ils nomment « extrémisme. » Leurs partenaires sont de fait les journalistes qui les cautionnent, la nouvelle génération de propagandistes ou le « lobby » d’État. Le 9 avril, le programme Newsnight de la BBC montait en épingle la culpabilité de 12 « terroristes » arrêtés lors d’un spectacle médiatique factice, orchestré par le Premier ministre lui-même. Tous ont été relâchés sans chef d’accusation.

Quelque chose est en train de changer en Grande-Bretagne, qui donne à l'optimisme. Le peuple britannique n’a probablement jamais été plus conscient politiquement et préparé à débarrasser les mythes décrépits et les autres saletés tandis que, en colère, il enjambe le ruisseau gazouillant des conneries.
Traduction libre de Pétrus Lombard pour Alter Info
Share:

Monday, August 04, 2008

David Miliband is a mossadnik, he is the one who promised Tel Aviv to launch a civil war against the Muslims in the UK






David Wright Miliband, present British Foreign Secretary, puts on the Jewish skull cap

David Miliband stabs British PM Gordon Brown in the back

One of Tony Blair’s right-hand men, David Wright Miliband, British born of Polish Jew paternal grandparents, was Head of Policy Unit of PM Tony Blair between 1997 and 2001. After his election to Parliament, he occupied junior ministerial posts and later appointed Environment Secretary under Blair. After Blair’s resignation, the new PM Gordon Brown promoted David Miliband to Foreign Secretary. However, Miliband always remained a staunch radical and fanatical Blairite, especially in his support of Apartheid Israel and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gordon Brown carries Tony Blair’s burden


Gordon Brown was a most successful Chancellor of Exchequer who, in the aftermath of the ruins left by Margaret Thatcher, gave the British people a decade of prosperity. As Tony Blair became very unpopular for becoming the poodle of George Bush and for dragging the country in two wars where he ordered the killings of Afghans and Iraqis in their own countries, for his lies and sexed-up dossier on Iraq, Gordon Brown became the most likely candidate to succeed him. The International Criminal Court in the Hague was also petitioned to probe Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon for war crimes.

Tony Blair popularity ‘improved’ after the 7/7 explosions on the London Underground and a London Bus in 2005 when he immediately put the blame on British Muslims who sympathised with Al-Qaida, an organisation which does not exist. As the official conspiracy theory is being debunked through more questions than answers and through the refusal of a public enquiry coupled with more bodies coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, Tony Blair finally resigned in June 2007. He apologised for the times he had « fallen short » and said : « I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong - that's your call. ». This is what Gordon Brown inherited.

Where did Gordon Brown go wrong?


Instead of stopping the unlawful wars and killings in Afghanistan and Iraq and bring home the British troops, Gordon Brown carried the same policy of Tony Blair. He also took the skull cap test and passed more draconian laws to curtail the freedom of the British people, such as the bill in favour of increasing detention without charge from 28 to 42 days, often used to manufacture evidence against the suspect. He continued to scare the British people to justify crimes overseas.

As an ex-Chancellor of Exchequer, he never told the public how much money is being spent to sustain the violent occupation of foreign countries, where the money is coming from and what are its effect on the British and world economies. He was most probably ordered not to do so by the same all-powerful lobby which advised Tony Blair to embark on those wars. Tony Blair effectively resigned for nothing. He might as well have stayed.

It is therefore not surprising that the price of one barrel of oil has doubled, that there is a shortage of liquidity, hence the credit crunch and a looming recession. The unpopularity of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party starts with Tony Blair and his fanatics who still form part of Gordon Brown’s Cabinet. It is more likely than not that Gordon Brown may have intimated to colleagues that he intends to put an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and bring the soldiers home. This would not have pleased Tony Blair, the European-Israelis and the European-Americans, and be a good enough reason to formant a rebellion against him.

Miliband’s dagger


David Miliband was previously urged to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour Party leadership. In November 2007 Miliband was asked by PM Gordon Brown to water down his speech on Europe (part of which speech was released beforehand) because it was too much in favour of an EU Army. Although, while visiting the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem in November 2007, Miliband was forced to deny a rift with Gordon Brown, his dagger was already drawn waiting for the right time to thrust it in Gordon Brown’s back.

While Gordon Brown is on holiday in Southwold, Suffolk, David Miliband had published in the Guardian dated 29th July 2008, his article entitled : « Against all odds we can still win, on a platform for change ». In this article, Miliband says that :


1. « The odds are against us, no question. »
2. « I agree with Jack Straw that we don't need a summer of introspection. »
3. « We needed better planning for how to win the peace in Iraq, not just win the war. »
4. « I disagreed with Margaret Thatcher, but at least it was clear what she stood for. [..] She wanted change and was prepared to take unpopular decisions to achieve it. »
5. « He [David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party] is stuck, reconciling himself to New Labour Mark I at just the time when the times demand a radical new phase. »
6. « The modernisation of the Labour party means pursuing traditional goals in a modern way. »

Throughout the article, David Miliband does not mention the PM Gordon Brown by name even once. He was speaking as if he were the PM and setting out the vision for his party by using David Cameron’s Conservative Opposition as reference when, in fact, he was thrusting his dagger deeper in Gordon Brown’s back and twisting it.

Bob Marshall-Andrews, labour MP, accused Miliband of « pretty contemptible politics » and of « duplicity », and advised Gordon Brown to sack him. Geraldine Smith, a backbencher, described Mr Miliband as a "nonentity" who should be sacked. By calling for a « radical new phase » in government policy, Miliband marked a direct challenge to the Prime Minister. He even ruled out a leadership bid against Gordon Brown.

Conclusion


From Israel as the British Middle East envoy, the indelibly blood-stained hands of Tony Blair joined David Miliband’s dagger thrust by joining in the criticism of Gordon Brown’s leadership through the publication on 3rd August 2008 of a memo written by Blair to colleagues last year and conveniently leaked to Mail on Sunday. In this memo, Blair accused Gordon Brown of « a lamentable confusion of tactics and strategy ». Although it appears that everything may have been orchestrated from Israel, Gordon Brown is certainly getting what he deserves after he paid lip service to the real reasons why Tony Blair had to resign as he continued to take orders from the same lobby which was advising Blair. If, in the days to come, after he returns from holiday, Gordon Brown does not sack David Miliband and stop the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, wars which are ruining this country, Gordon Brown himself must reconsider his position without others having to force him to do so.

M Rafic Soormally
London
03 August 2008
Share:

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Afghanistan: Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time

By Craig Murray


Daily Mail

This week the 64th British soldier to die in Afghanistan, Corporal Mike Gilyeat, was buried. All the right things were said about this brave soldier, just as, on current trends, they will be said about one or more of his colleagues who follow him next week.

The alarming escalation of the casualty rate among British soldiers in Afghanistan – up to ten per cent – led to discussion this week on whether it could be fairly compared to casualty rates in the Second World War.
Killing fields: Farmers in Afghanistan gather an opium crop which will be made into heroin
But the key question is this: what are our servicemen dying for? There are glib answers to that: bringing democracy and development to Afghanistan, supporting the government of President Hamid Karzai in its attempt to establish order in the country, fighting the Taliban and preventing the further spread of radical Islam into Pakistan.

But do these answers stand up to close analysis?

There has been too easy an acceptance of the lazy notion that the war in Afghanistan is the 'good' war, while the war in Iraq is the 'bad' war, the blunder. The origins of this view are not irrational. There was a logic to attacking Afghanistan after 9/11.

Afghanistan was indeed the headquarters of Osama Bin Laden and his organisation, who had been installed and financed there by the CIA to fight the Soviets from 1979 until 1989. By comparison, the attack on Iraq – which was an enemy of Al Qaeda and no threat to us – was plainly irrational in terms of the official justification.

So the attack on Afghanistan has enjoyed a much greater sense of public legitimacy. But the operation to remove Bin Laden was one thing. Six years of occupation are clearly another.

Head of the Afghan armed forces: General Abdul Rashid Dostrum

Few seem to turn a hair at the officially expressed view that our occupation of Iraq may last for decades.

Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell has declared, fatuously, that the Afghan war is 'winnable'.
Afghanistan was not militarily winnable by the British Empire at the height of its supremacy. It was not winnable by Darius or Alexander, by Shah, Tsar or Great Moghul. It could not be subdued by 240,000 Soviet troops. But what, precisely, are we trying to win?

In six years, the occupation has wrought one massive transformation in Afghanistan, a development so huge that it has increased Afghan GDP by 66 per cent and constitutes 40 per cent of the entire economy. That is a startling achievement, by any standards. Yet we are not trumpeting it. Why not?

The answer is this. The achievement is the highest harvests of opium the world has ever seen.
The Taliban had reduced the opium crop to precisely nil. I would not advocate their methods for doing this, which involved lopping bits, often vital bits, off people. The Taliban were a bunch of mad and deeply unpleasant religious fanatics. But one of the things they were vehemently against was opium.

That is an inconvenient truth that our spin has managed to obscure. Nobody has denied the sincerity of the Taliban's crazy religious zeal, and they were as unlikely to sell you heroin as a bottle of Johnnie Walker.

They stamped out the opium trade, and impoverished and drove out the drug warlords whose warring and rapacity had ruined what was left of the country after the Soviet war.
That is about the only good thing you can say about the Taliban; there are plenty of
very bad things to say about them. But their suppression of the opium trade and the drug barons is undeniable fact.

Now we are occupying the country, that has changed. According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60 per cent. This year will be even bigger.

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons – especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance – to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

President Karzai is a good man. He has never had an opponent killed, which may not sound like much but is highly unusual in this region and possibly unique in an Afghan leader. But nobody really believes he is running the country. He asked America to stop its recent bombing campaign in the south because it was leading to an increase in support for the Taliban. The United States simply ignored him. Above all, he has no control at all over the warlords among his ministers and governors, each of whom runs his own kingdom and whose primary concern is self-enrichment through heroin.

My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe.

I watched the tankers of chemicals roaring into Afghanistan.

Yet I could not persuade my country to do anything about it. Alexander Litvinenko – the former agent of the KGB, now the FSB, who died in London last November after being poisoned with polonium 210 – had suffered the same frustration over the same topic.

There are a number of theories as to why Litvinenko had to flee Russia. The most popular blames his support for the theory that FSB agents planted bombs in Russian apartment blocks to stir up anti-Chechen feeling.

But the truth is that his discoveries about the heroin trade were what put his life in danger. Litvinenko was working for the KGB in St Petersburg in 2001 and 2002. He became concerned at the vast amounts of heroin coming from Afghanistan, in particular from the fiefdom of the (now) Head of the Afghan armed forces, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, in north and east Afghanistan.

Dostum is an Uzbek, and the heroin passes over the Friendship Bridge from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it is taken over by President Islam Karimov's people. It is then shipped up the railway line, in bales of cotton, to St Petersburg and Riga.

The heroin Jeeps run from General Dostum to President Karimov. The UK, United States and Germany have all invested large sums in donating the most sophisticated detection and screening equipment to the Uzbek customs centre at Termez to stop the heroin coming through.
But the convoys of Jeeps running between Dostum and Karimov are simply waved around the side of the facility.

Litvinenko uncovered the St Petersburg end and was stunned by the involvement of the city authorities, local police and security services at the most senior levels. He reported in detail to President Vladimir Putin. Putin is, of course, from St Petersburg, and the people Litvinenko named were among Putin's closest political allies. That is why Litvinenko, having miscalculated badly, had to flee Russia.

I had as little luck as Litvinenko in trying to get official action against this heroin trade. At the St Petersburg end he found those involved had the top protection. In Afghanistan, General Dostum is vital to Karzai's coalition, and to the West's pretence of a stable, democratic government.

Opium is produced all over Afghanistan, but especially in the north and north-east – Dostum's territory. Again, our Government's spin doctors have tried hard to obscure this fact and make out that the bulk of the heroin is produced in the tiny areas of the south under Taliban control. But these are the most desolate, infertile rocky areas. It is a physical impossibility to produce the bulk of the vast opium harvest there.

That General Dostum is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minister of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. Dostum is known for tying opponents to tank tracks and running them over. He crammed prisoners into metal containers in the searing sun, causing scores to die of heat and thirst.

Since we brought 'democracy' to Afghanistan, Dostum ordered an MP who annoyed him to be pinned down while he attacked him. The sad thing is that Dostum is probably not the worst of those comprising the Karzai government, or the biggest drug smuggler among them.
Our Afghan policy is still victim to Tony Blair's simplistic world view and his childish division of all conflicts into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. The truth is that there are seldom any good guys among those vying for power in a country such as Afghanistan. To characterise the Karzai government as good guys is sheer nonsense.

Why then do we continue to send our soldiers to die in Afghanistan? Our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is the greatest recruiting sergeant for Islamic militants. As the great diplomat, soldier and adventurer Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alexander Burnes pointed out before his death in the First Afghan War in 1841, there is no point in a military campaign in Afghanistan as every time you beat them, you just swell their numbers. Our only real achievement to date is falling street prices for heroin in London.

Remember this article next time you hear a politician calling for more troops to go into Afghanistan. And when you hear of another brave British life wasted there, remember you can add to the casualty figures all the young lives ruined, made miserable or ended by heroin in the UK.

They, too, are casualties of our Afghan policy.
Share:

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Israel et son pantin Blair dans la tourmente...


BLAIR INTERROGÉ PAR LA POLICE DE LONDRES : « DU CASH CONTRE DES HONNEURS »



Le 14 décembre, la police de Londres a interrogé le Premier ministre Tony Blair pour la deuxième fois dans le cadre de l’affaire baptisée « du cash contre un titre de pair ». On soupçonne en effet que quatre éminentes personnalités du Parti travailliste ont été convaincues il y a deux ans de transformer en prêts leurs dons au Parti, le gouvernement Blair leur octroyant par la suite un titre de noblesse. C’est la première fois qu’un Premier ministre en exercice est ainsi entendu par la police, qui cherche à savoir si Tony Blair aurait autorisé des personnes de son entourage à proposer un titre de noblesse à tel ou tel contributeur ou fait disparaître des pièces à conviction.


Le 30 janvier, Lord Levy (connu comme Lord Cashpoint, ou « Lord Distributeur Automatique »), a été arrêté pour la deuxième fois, accusé cette fois-ci d’avoir conspiré pour faire entrave à la justice. Le 19 janvier, Ruth Turner, conseillère personnelle proche de Blair, avait été arrêtée tôt le matin à sa résidence et interrogée elle aussi au sujet d’une éventuelle conspiration pour entrave à la justice. Mme Turner et Lord Levy ont été libérés sous caution.


Le 31 janvier, le jour où la deuxième arrestation de Lord Levy a été rendue public, David Cameron, dirigeant du Parti conservateur, déclara à la Chambre des Communes que « l’intérêt national » exige la démission de Tony Blair. L’on pouvait s’y attendre de la part de Cameron, mais, comme l’écrivait The Independent le 3 février, la vraie question est de savoir à quel moment « les hommes en complet gris » se présenteront chez Blair pour lui demander « de partir sans faire de résistance ». Ces hommes en complet gris, c’est le Parliamentary Committee, les délégués des députés qui rencontrent Blair en privé chaque mercredi.


Entre-temps, Blair a déclaré sur BBC Radio 4 Today : « Je ne ferai pas de plaidoirie pro domo devant qui que ce soit. Les gens peuvent se faire leur propre idée de moi, selon ce qu’ils pensent de moi, mais je suis le genre de personne que je suis. Je ne me mettrai pas dans une situation où je dois plaider mon intégrité. »

Share:

Blog Archive

Support


Definition List

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Unordered List