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 War on Islaam in the UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Islaam in the UK. Show all posts

Monday, October 08, 2012

How the British goverment erased evidences of his direct involvement in international terrorism (9/11, 7/7, Beslan, Istanboul, Bali) by avoiding embarassing trials and lying all along without showing an ounce of evidence

PRESS RELEASE: It’s Rendition NOT Extradition

 PRESS RELEASE:  It’s Rendition NOT Extradition


CagePrisoners condemns today’s ruling permitting the extradition of Abu Hamza, Khalid al Fawwaz, Adel Abdel Bary, Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan to the United States. 

The men collectively spent four decades without charge in British prisons. They have never had the opportunity to challenge in any meaningful manner the allegations made against them. 

Today’s decision marks a dark day for British justice and undermines the rule of law. It sets an alarming precedent for future cases and renders the British courts powerless to prevent the extradition of innocent people under an unbalanced extradition treaty. There are no safeguards for anyone against the whims of the FBI or CIA ,discredited bodies that have a well-documented history of oppression , a witch hunt by the media and the political dictat of the government of the day.

Share:

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Murder Of UK Muslims Goes Unpunished

Birmingham Crown Court has acquitted eight men who were allegedly involved in the killing of three British Muslims during the country’s unprecedented unrest last year.

Death of UK Muslims goes unpunished
Press TV – Haroon Jahan and brothers Shazad Ali and Abdul Musavir were killed during last year’s unrest after they were hit by a car in Winson Green, Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city.

The three Muslim men were protecting public property and local businesses against the looters when they were killed. Tariq Jahan, Haroon’s father, won national praise after he brought calm in the community and called for peace.

Share:

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Racism is the only motivation that drives May and political gains for the future elections. Like in the UK, Jordanian rulers are Zionist Jews, Arab descent like the House of Saud, worst enemies of Islaam.

The real issue would be to talk about the fake Islamic groups set up by the MOD, like the ones very active now in Syria or Libya, Mali, Nigeria. Maybe May can explain us how NATO clandestine terror groups work with the British government to destabilize Muslim countries and steal oil and gas of the Arab peoples in the Middle East and North Africa under 'humanitarian help' ? 

We would like to hear her  'Geo-strategical' explanations! Otherwise MI5 should explain to the Britons how it funds and trains fake Islamic groups for geopolitical purposes. Now if May wants to speak about the French intelligence fake islamic groups, the algerian GIA. Any normal investigation will confirm that the GIA was a French government asset group created and used to fight the FIS, terrorize the Algerian who voted for the FIS in 1992, and make sure that oil and gas, and kick backs money from military and oil industry contracts, keep flowing to France and Europe. The first emir of this group Abdelqader Layada, went public on the French TV, France 24, explaining that the French intelligence services, DST now DCRI, were financing him and using him to fight the FIS and start a civil war. He explained how the DST used their assets in the Muslim world to back the GIA.

It would be very interesting to confront the MOD and the British government publicly on these points, as we can prove either that the creator of these GIAs, general Larbi Belkheir, now dead, was a closest friend of Tony Blair and helped him set up false flags in the UK,  the fake chemical attacks on the Manchester stadium were Belkheir's job. Now the link to the next MI5 false flag's this summer will be easier to understand to anybody on this earth....   Knowing that one of the British Lord, Blackheath, confirmed that he was used to launder money for these fake french-israeli-algerian groups and the Algerian military junta. 

Come on Theresa May and Jonathan Evans, make this investigation public or show us what MI5 has of secret intelligence against Abu Qatada, you'll end up in jail with Cameron for supporting and training fake islamic groups, the fake AQIM. Jonathan Evans has absolutely nothing, just lies! We've got you by the balls!

Abu-Suleyman
Islamic Intelligence Blog

Absent Justice with Moazzam Begg: the case of Abu Qatada

This week: the case of Abu Qatada, the Jordanian national accused of being one of the UK's most dangerous extremist preachers. With journalist Victoria Brittain

Read From Bethlehem to Belmarsh: Abu Qatada's ordeal in Britain

by Moazzam Begg,
http://www.cageprisoners.com/



Absent Justice is a new television series which looks at case studies from around the world relating to human rights and civil liberties violations. Join Moazzam Begg as he speaks to some inspiring and courageous individuals as they recount their struggle for justice. This week, Moazzam discusses the case of Abu Qatada, the Jordanian national who is accused of being one of the UK's most dangerous extremist preachers. This week, Moazzam is joined by Victoria Brittain, a journalist and author. Every second Friday at 9.30pm, only on the Islam Channel (Sky channel 813).
Share:

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Israel behind civil wars in the West : The case of the 'English' Jewish Defense League (EDL another MI5 creature designed to spark a civil war to protect the zio elite in London)


EDL - the writing on the wall


Written by Karima Hamdan
Another weekend, another EDL protest in a city in England. This time it is Peterborough and early reports suggests that despite the heavy police presence, the 500 plus tattooed protesters screaming out anti-Muslim invective engaged in several acts of violence and there were several arrests.
Share:

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

UK general election: Shhh... don’t mention the Israeli occupation

By Stuart Littlewood

5 May 2010

Stuart Littlewood views the conspicuous absence of any mention of the Israeli occupation in the British general election campaign, against the background of the paralysing influence of the Israel lobby on the three main political parties and the silent complicity of the mainstream media, including the BBC, and the Church in Israeli crimes.

In the run-up to Britain’s general election we’ve heard next to nothing about Middle East policy from the three main party leaders in their much-publicized debates on TV.

They have studiously avoided all mention of the outrage in the Holy Land and the way it impacts so directly on world peace.

The plight of the Palestinian people ever since Britain abandoned its mandate responsibility, and their endless struggle for freedom from Israel's military occupation, threatens our safety but word of it never passes their lips. And the programme bosses appear to block questions on the subject.

Early in the campaign I received a message from a local Liberal Democrat MP saying: "I urge everyone to get to Norwich and help elect our fantastic candidate Simon W."

But hang on, before rushing to volunteer I wanted to know just one thing. What was Mr W's personal stance on Middle East policy and especially Israel's 43-year illegal occupation of the Holy Land?

It's an important question for the simple reason that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has such a vice-like grip on the private parts of US congressional representatives that Israel’s interests are put ahead of America's. And due to the influence of the Israel lobby here in the UK we too are so embroiled in their perpetual strife with the Islamic world that we’ve been sucked into the same stinking swamp.

"Britain is now one of the most hated nations on earth thanks to our cosy association with US-Israeli ambitions in the Middle East. Party leaders talk passionately about cleaning up politics but carefully avoid addressing this, the most corrupting and dangerous influence of all."

Britain is now one of the most hated nations on earth thanks to our cosy association with US-Israeli ambitions in the Middle East. Party leaders talk passionately about cleaning up politics but carefully avoid addressing this, the most corrupting and dangerous influence of all.

A recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme alleged that 80 per cent of Conservative MPs and MEPs are signed-up Friends of Israel. The Conservative shadow foreign minister, David Lidington, has promised that Conservatives will be staunch defenders of the State of Israel.

The Liberal Democrats allow a similar lobby group to flourish within their party. Its main aim is to "maximize support for the State of Israel within the Liberal Democrats and Parliament". And I note that when the MP who contacted me visited Israel and the occupied West Bank he went with a Friends of Israel delegation.

I emailed the candidate Simon W twice with my question but he didn’t reply. Needless to say, he got no help from me.

All our political parties, strangely, have little to say in their manifestos about action (rather than meaningless words) to end the ethnic cleansing and blockading of the Holy Land and the terrorizing of its residents, including the Christian communities. I have seen not so much as a hint of sanctions like those they are eager to apply against Iran for much less reason.

It has been reported that powerful Christian businessmen are now bankrolling the Conservatives. This is the party that backed the Iraq war, has a majority of Israel flag-wavers among its MPs and whose leader, David Cameron, is a self-proclaimed Zionist.

Cameron says: “If I become prime minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on her... Israel is a democracy – Hamas want to create a theocracy. Israel strives to protect innocent life – Hamas target innocent life…” Side-splitting stuff. But what’s truly scary is that if the Conservatives get elected it'll be business as usual – full steam ahead - with the loons and psychopaths in Washington and Tel Aviv.

The party also has the support of a Christian organization, the Conservative Christian Fellowship (CCF), which claims to include in its ranks a large number of election candidates. The group says it "contributes to the life and thinking of the Conservative Party". When its chairman, David Burrowes, visited the Holy Land the trip was paid for by Conservative Friends of Israel and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and judging from his remarks in Parliament it is clear that his sympathies lie with the lawless entity that blitzed, vaporized and shredded the jam-packed citizens of Gaza and a year later still has them on the torture rack, allowing a paltry 81 items only to be imported for the starving and homeless among the tiny enclave’s ruins. The huge range of forbidden goods includes jam, chocolate, wood for furniture, fruit juice, tinned fruit, textiles and plastic toys.

Israel, with typical bloody-mindedness, has made life for humanitarian groups exceedingly difficult by refusing to actually publish a list of banned items. They make it up as they go along to create a permanent state of confusion and deprivation. Is this the sort of thing real Christians endorse and defend? I don’t thinks so.

Christian Conservatives are put to shame by the Israeli human rights group Gisha, who have been trying for more than a year to squeeze information from the Zionist regime about what exactly they allow and forbid to cross into Gaza, and why.

Gisha has even taken the Israeli authorities to court to force them to come clean. Gisha's director, Sari Bashi, says: "Preventing children from receiving toys, preventing manufacturers from getting raw materials – I don't see how that's responsive to Israeli security needs."

"We’ve arrived at the point where we can’t even take the piss out of Israel's illegal occupation on the airwaves. Comedian Frankie Boyle was rebuked for doing just that by the BBC governors."

The Israelis explain their rationale thus: "The limitation on the transfer of goods is a central pillar in the means at the disposal of the State of Israel in the armed conflict between it and Hamas." You and I know it as collective punishment. They take their spite for Hamas out on women and kids. Nice "friends" you have there, CCF. You realize, of course, that the thugs who run the Israeli regime are persecuting your Christian brethren as well as the Muslims.

Or maybe they don’t count because Palestinian Christians are some sort of lesser breed?

Now the final straw. We’ve arrived at the point where we can’t even take the piss out of Israel's illegal occupation on the airwaves. Comedian Frankie Boyle was rebuked for doing just that by the BBC governors. He explains in an open letter:

In case you missed it, the jokes in question are:

  • I've been studying Israeli army martial arts. I now know 16 ways to kick a Palestinian woman in the back.
  • People think that the Middle East is very complex but I have an analogy that sums it up quite well. If you imagine that Palestine is a big cake, well ... that cake is being punched to pieces by a very angry Jew.

I think the problem here is that the show's producers will have thought that Israel, an aggressive, terrorist state with a nuclear arsenal, was an appropriate target for satire. The Trust's ruling is essentially a note from their line managers. It says that if you imagine that a state busily going about the destruction of an entire people is fair game, you are mistaken. Israel is out of bounds.

So there you have it. Party managers, political leaders, election candidates, the mainstream media, the rest of the Establishment, including our state broadcaster, and even the Church and its assorted hangers-on, are all working to suppress any debate about what’s probably the biggest menace to world peace – and praying that most British people go to the polls on 6 May blissfully ignorant of their country’s complicity.


Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

http://www.redress.cc/global/slittlewood20100505
Share:

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Cameron for a civil war against the Muslims in Europe to empower Zionist Jews ? Sarkozy, Merkel and Cameron will turn Europe to a new Iraq

Cameron: 'I will empower UK Jews'


David Cameron this week insisted a Conservative government would do "much more to protect and empower the Jewish community" and described learning about his Jewish ancestors as one of the highlights of his year.

The Conservative leader's comments came in a message to members of the Movement for Reform Judaism, which he used to make pledges on tackling anti-Semitism and education and to appeal for the support of community members in the upcoming election.


Cameron said: "To me, one of the biggest contributions of Judaism is its understanding of what makes a responsible society. Last summer, I gave a speech to Jewish Care where I talked about this idea. I quoted a phrase of Rabbi Hillel�s which I think captures it beautifully: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?" That urgent, selfless moral compulsion to change the world for the better is right at the heart of the Jewish way of life. If I become Prime Minister, I want to see that idea of responsibility extend right across our society.

"A key part of that will be about building a stronger, more cohesive society - and that means doing much more to tackle the rise in anti-Semitism. I was appalled when the Community Security Trust told me that there were more anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2009 than in the whole of any previous year. We need big changes to root out this extremism - stopping preachers of hate from entering this country, banning those extremist groups who are already here, and doing much more to tackle radicalisation in our universities."

The man hoping to succeed Gordon Brown as prime minister also touched on a prominent theme of the party's platform. "I want to build a bigger society," he said: "And we can't do that without backing faith-based organisations in the good work that they do. Take faith schools, for example. They are a really important part of our education system and often have a culture and ethos which helps to drive up standards. Through our school reform plans, there will be a real growth in new good school places, and I'm sure some of these will be in faith schools."

Cameron also spoke of learning about his ancestors, the Levitas, as a personal highlight. He said: "I am a great admirer of the Jewish people and your extraordinary achievements. I've long seen your community as a shining light in our society." Messages from Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg will be published in the Movement's newsletter in the coming fortnight.


http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-13853/cameron-i-will-empower-uk-jews/

Share:

Monday, April 19, 2010

Israel’s stooges battle for British votes


By Stuart Littlewood

18 April 2010

Stuart Littlewood considers the British shadows of the US administration’s pro-Israel spivs and pimps – the Conservative and Labour parties – and argues that the unexpected rise in fortunes of Britain’s third main party, the Liberal Democrats, is likely to make its leader Nick Clegg, who is no rabid Zionist, a target of US-Zionist smears.

We can already see how disastrously the US election turned out, not just for Americans but the rest of us also. “The US president is simply the voice of the Zionist parasite,” writes a friend in Norway. “It is sickening and frightening that Obama is seen toeing the Zionist line.

“Zionism has the US administration and other Western governments by the balls.”

Well, that’s certainly the way it looks. Last month Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, slapped America in the face by approving more illegal settlements during Vice-President Joe Biden’s visit. What did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton do? She repeated the pathetic mantra: “We have an absolute commitment to Israel’s security. We have a close, unshakeable bond between the United States and Israel and between the American and Israeli people”.
“Zionism has the US administration and other Western governments by the balls.”

Clinton completed her surrender to the Israeli terror machine by sharing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference platform with a triumphant Netanyahu.

Whereupon over half of America’s lawmakers topped Clinton’s performance by signing a letter committing to the US’s “unbreakable” bond with the racist regime.

Nine months earlier, speaking in a BBC interview, Obama said he believed the US was "able to get serious negotiations back on track" between Israel and the Palestinians. And when asked about Israel's defiance when called on it to halt construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, he urged patience. "Diplomacy is always a matter of a long, hard slog. It's never a matter of quick results."

The fact is, diplomacy doesn’t work with the Israelis. Everyone knows the problem: Israel’s contempt for international law and UN resolutions. And now we see Obama’s contempt too. In this wobbly leader's mind Israel is somehow exempt from the laws, conventions, codes of conduct and respect for the rights of others that apply to everyone else in the civilized world.
Forcing negotiations is immoral

And Obama should know better than to keep harping on about peace negotiations. It is absurd to put a weak party and a strong party together and expect fair results when the strong party is in permanent occupation and has its military boot on the weak party's neck.

It is immoral to expect the weak party to negotiate while the strong party is in flagrant breach of international law, commits acts of piracy, maintains a crippling blockade, carries out daily air strikes on civilians and continues to steal the weak party’s land and resources.

It is immoral for sponsors of negotiations to be so partisan as to refuse to recognize the democratically elected representatives of the weak party or its right to self-determination and territorial integrity.

It is immoral to force negotiations without first establishing a level playing field and ensuring both sides are compliant with international law. The international community has shirked this responsibility for decades, not because the peoples of the community of nations lack the will but because their leaders are gutless and corrupt.
"...the US taxpayer has been cheerfully funding Israeli operations to destroy Palestinian infrastructure ... and bring the whole civil society to its knees."

Then there’s the scandal of the US government’s aid to Israel which runs at nearly 3 billion dollars annually and totals well over 100 billion dollars since 1949. The money helps pay for Israel’s costly occupation of Palestinian territory, its F-16s, helicopter gunships, tanks, ordnance, Caterpillar bulldozers, and all the other tools of military oppression and territorial grand theft.

Israel gets more billions of dollars in indirect aid – military support, loan write-offs, rich technology transfers and special grants. Before George W. Bush left office he agreed an assistance package of 30 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

So the US taxpayer has been cheerfully funding Israeli operations to destroy Palestinian infrastructure (which in many cases has been paid for by British, EU and – yes – US taxpayers) and bring the whole civil society to its knees.

Most of this aid violates US laws that stipulate US-supplied weapons can only be used for "legitimate self-defence" and military assistance is prohibited to any country that engages in “a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights". Military assistance is also banned to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or allow inspection of its nuclear facilities. But thanks to the “unbreakable” bond with Israel these inconvenient laws might as well not exist.

Israelis fiercely attack any attempt to “delegitimize” their ill-gotten gains while more and more people argue that the state of Israel had no legitimacy in the first place. Nevertheless, the Zionist menace now has nuclear fangs and the capability to target most European cities and, as we have seen, has no sense of restraint whatever.

Gee, thanks, America. Before you go accepting any more peace prizes, Obama, how about bringing to heel this monster the US has been nurturing?
Israel’s “voices” compete for British vote

Here in Britain we have our own version of AIPAC. The Foreign Office has been under Zionist influence for decades. Our most important security bodies – the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee – are headed by Israel flag-wavers. They have embedded themselves in nearly ever nook and cranny of parliamentary life.
"Labour has been in power for 13 years and is now under Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, a Zionist sympathizer and patron of the Jewish National Fund."

Right now these stooges are battling for our votes in a general election.

Before the election campaign the main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, were so wedded to the Zionist cause that both wished to change our laws to protect Israeli leaders from arrest on war crimes charges and provide them with a safe haven in Britain.

Now they keep very quiet about their pro-Israel antics, no doubt hoping the question won't be brought under the public spotlight or need explaining.

Labour has been in power for 13 years and is now under Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, a Zionist sympathizer and patron of the Jewish National Fund. The party’s 115-page manifesto barely mentions the fate of the Holy Land except to say: "We support the creation of a viable Palestinian state that can live alongside a secure Israel." Note that it's a secure Israel but only a viable Palestine. Israel must remain comfortably secure while continuing its ethnic cleansing and thieving.

The Conservative Party is favourite to win the election – or was until its leader, David "I'm-a-Zionist" Cameron, flunked a televised leaders’ debate. Cameron too is a dutiful patron of the JNF. His party's 118-page manifesto says nothing about Britain’s responsibility towards the Palestinians apart from promising support for a two-state solution to the Middle East Peace Process. That's all, full stop.
"Eighty per cent of Conservative MPs and MEPs, it is claimed, are passionate admirers of racist Israel."

Eighty per cent of Conservative MPs and MEPs, it is claimed, are passionate admirers of racist Israel. But they don’t shout it from the rooftops at election time. No, they are furtive because they know deep down that it is a grubby, indefensible position and the public would react with revulsion if the party’s allegiance to a foreign military power that makes war of Christian communities was exposed in the mainstream media.

Sad to say, then, there is no sign of Labour or the Conservatives deviating from the path of betrayal.

Thankfully a third party, the Liberal Democratic Party, is emerging strongly. Its leader, Nick Clegg, is no rabid Zionist though readers will remember he recently sacked Baroness Jenny Tonge to appease the Israel lobby. However, the Liberal Democrats at least believe Britain and the EU must put pressure on Israel and Egypt to end the blockade of Gaza and talk of borders “which are secure and based on the situation before the 1967 conflict”.

This party looks less corruptible than the others and less likely to worship at the altar of Zionism. Not being considered serious contenders till now, Clegg and his team probably haven’t been groomed by the US administration’s spivs and pimps. So we can expect big efforts to discredit them in the days ahead.

In my simple way I see a glimmer of hope here.

When a proper history comes to be written, Americans will struggle to explain how the most powerful nation on earth was so easily conned and mugged for countless billions of tax dollars to finance the ambitions of a bunch of extremists bent on defiling the Holy Land and spreading their tentacles into every crevice of the Western world.

The British also will have some explaining to do.
Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk
Share:

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

UK politics and the Israel lobby: has anything changed?

Press TV | February 17, 2010


Amina Taylor asks if Channel 4 TV’s “Dispatches” programme of November 2009 on the power of the Israel lobby has encouraged other broadcasters and public figures to question whether it is right that the interests of a foreign state – Israel – should be so predominant in Britain’s main political parties, especially the Conservative Party.



http://alethonews.wordpress.com/


Share:

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

British jews again caught in terrorism in Dubai, our sources confirmed that Dubai government is complice




Team of 11 Europeans killed senior Hamas leader, claims Dubai police chief

British and Irish passport holders are among an alleged 11-man hit squad wanted in Dubai for the apparent Assassination of a Hamas commander are tonight being investigated by London and Dublin. Dubai police say the main suspect is a french citizen Peter Elvinger, 49. Dubai and UAE and their ruling families are under british zionist jewish control, MI6 posesses one of his biggest office in the region, in charge of drug smuggling and terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, as well as in India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Xinjuang and China. MI6 is like MI5 under direct israeli control. Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Manama are places were israeli mossad regularly meet secretly with 'Arab government members', most of them sefardims (Arab Jews).

Al Qassam website - The police of Dubai Emirate revealed on Monday the details about the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf Mabhouh on the twentieth of last January.

Dubai Police revealed the names and identities of the mercenaries involved in the crime and offered a video monitor the movements of the 11 assassins with European passports, including a woman.

"We have identified the suspects and will issue arrest warrants against them and will take legal action against anyone or any party which will prove to stand behind the murder," Tamim added, as police released photos and CCTV videos of the accused European nationals.

The alleged assassins, 10 men and one woman, used "advanced technologies" not available in the UAE to execute their mission, moving from hotel to hotel dressed as tennis players, Tamim said. All carried European Union passports – six British, three Irish and one each from France and Germany, he said.

The National, an English-language newspaper in the UAE, said police identified the main suspect at French citizen Peter Elvinger, 49. He was the logistical coordinator and the one who booked a room down the hall from Al-Mabhouh's hotel room, the report said.

The other suspects were identified by the newspaper as Irish nationals Gail Folliard, Kevin Daveron and Evan Dennings; UK nationals Paul John Keely, Stephan Daniel Hodes, Melvyn Adam Mildiner, Jonathan Louis Graham, James Leonard Clarke and Michael Lawrence Barney. German national Michael Bodenheimer is also a suspect, according to the report.

http://www.qassam.ps/news-2414-Dubai_police_revealed_pictures_of_Al_Mabhouh_killers.html



Share:

Monday, February 15, 2010

Broken Britannia

This week saw David Miliband’s attempt to suppress documents demonstrating MI5’s collusion in the torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed whilst in US custody stunningly fail. It also saw the US’s veiled threat that releasing the torture papers ‘could harm existing intelligence information-sharing between our two governments’ - tantamount to saying that if you rat us out we won’t help you anymore.

We should digest this news with the shock and disbelief of a householder who awakes in the morning to find that he has been burgled whilst he slept. Why is it that our own elected officials seem so disinterested in protecting a resident of this country? Why is it that our closest ally with whom we share the famed ‘special relationship’ is making threats against us due to the legitimate workings of our legal system?

Could it be that with this the United Kingdom - the oldest of all democracies and the mother of all Parliaments - has been confined to the nursing home of nations? And it is not one of those nice nursing homes with chintzy decor and a bridge club on the weekends. No, it is one of those awful ones that smell of stale urine and boiled cabbage and have mysterious brown stains on the threadbare carpet. In here, the poor Britannia seems destined to live out the rest of her existence parked in front of a flickering communal TV screen - an observer rather than a partaker of world events, only existing due to the faint hope of a charitable visit by her more powerful relatives.

Leaving the fictional nursing home for a while, let us recap the events of this week. It was a week that saw one of the most senior judges in the UK, Lord Neuberger, criticise MI5 in a draft judgement as having ‘deliberately misled’ parliament and sharing a ‘culture of suppression’ concerning the torture of Binyam Mohamed whilst he was in US custody.

To make matters even worse, it then emerged that the Foreign Secretary’s own QC had secretly contacted Lord Neuberger asking him to remove these damning parts of his judgement lest it lead the public into thinking that MI5 ‘does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights’.

Neuberger agreed to remove the selected sections and by engaging in this secret communication with only one side’s legal team, Neuberger overlooked 400 years of legal precedent. Since then Neuberger has admitted that removing the passage of his judgement containing ‘exceptionally damning criticism’ of MI5 was an ‘over hasty’ response.

Britannia

Since then the MI5 publicity machine has been wheeled out with contemptible trash being printed by the columnist of a right-wing newspaper rhetorically asking, ‘Why don't our judges just come clean and sign up with the Taliban,’ and then followed up with an article by the head of MI5, John Evans, who baldly stated that allegations that MI5 had been trying to ‘cover up’ its activities were ‘..the opposite of the truth’.

Strangely enough, Simon Jenkins writing in The Guardian feels that if one wants an example of ‘the opposite of the truth’, one need look no further than John Evans’ own earnest declarations last October when he reassured the British public that,-

‘I can say quite clearly that the Security Service does not torture people, nor do we collude in torture or solicit others to torture people on our behalf.’

...Oh dear, what hasty words. It seems that three of the UK’s most senior judges beg to disagree.

On top of the drama of the actual judgement (and what was suppressed and what was not, and was it a cover up or not), we have the overlay of the sideshow of bluster laid on by various government ministers. The first to step up to the plate was David Milliband who was then joined by Kim Howells and Alan Johnson, all of whom blustered and blasted anyone daring to suggest that MI5 was anything less than squeaky clean when it came to torture.

All these protestations have to be viewed through the post-Chilcot prism. The last few weeks have been awash with ministers, government advisers and former spin doctors writhing and contorting themselves as they desperately try to extract themselves from the quicksand of Iraq. One feels that if we had but a penny for every person that sat on those faded chairs and said with eyes brimming with sincerity that they had, ‘Tried to tell Tony about their concerns,’ we would easily be able to pay off Greece’s national debt and have some left over for afters.

We have seen Lord Goldsmith's protestations that he was indeed not pressured to change his mind about the legality of invading Iraq but would rather have us believe that he executed a complete U-turn in his thinking within such a short space of time for no obvious reason, as well as the spectacle of Alistair Darling on the the Andrew Marr Show responding to Marr’s insistent questioning regarding the inquiry by breaking down and tearfully saying that, ‘I've been through a lot on this... I'm a bit upset’ (and thus avoiding answering the question).

Maybe he has, but considering he hasn’t had his country bombed to bits by a foreign invader, or had to watch as an estimated 1 million of his fellow countrymen die in the ensuing chaos, or witness the descent into anarchy of Iraq following its ‘liberation’, I would suggest that he hasn’t been through as much as the average Iraqi.

We have also seen Tony Blair’s consummate ‘no regrets’ performance coupled with the revelation of how a foreign power effectively decided when to send British soldiers off to war. And there was the line of cabinet ministers like Clair Short describing the complete lack of consultation and discussion that occurred after Bush had given his instructions to Blair, as well as the bizarre revelation that whilst the advice of the UN’s Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix was ignored (he found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction), the rumour and gossip of the internet (including an Iraqi taxi driver who said he had overheard Iraqi ministers speaking about WMD in the back of his cab) was accepted largely without question.

All of these point to a culture of contempt present in Whitehall. Contempt for the law – seen by what is becoming clear as a shameless scramble for legal justification after the decision to invade Iraq was taken (by the US). Contempt for democracy – evidenced by Tony Blair’s sidelining of the Cabinet in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Contempt for human rights – just ask Binyam Mohamed if he felt valued as a human as he was suspended from the ceiling by his wrists whilst having his genitals repeatedly cut with a razor (all courtesy of our Muslim security service brethren in Morocco) at the behest of US Intelligence. And lastly contempt for us the British people by a government who seems unwilling or unable to protect its own citizens whether they be Muslims, or indeed even geeky computer hackers searching for evidence of UFOs.

Either way, I have only the faintest hope that we will ever find out - in this life - what really occurred. The truth will probably come out in the usual way. Picture the scene in about 30 or 40 years time when the papers are declassified and our (now grown-up) children will hear about it on Radio 4’s Today programme with perhaps a few historians debating the historical significance and maybe the grandson of one of the protagonists coming on to give his perspective. And throughout it all everyone will sigh and wonder, how strange it was that decisions like that were made then and isn’t it marvellous that we have such a transparent and open government today that would never resort to such dirty deeds. The next story on the Today Programme's running order will probably be about another invasion of another Muslim country justified by credible evidence of a real and present danger, or it may be of another Muslim ‘disappeared’ into the US’s network of shadowy secret prisons facing unspeakable horrors there and uncaring politicians here. And where will we be? I pray that we do not find ourselves parked in a wheelchair next to the dear old Britannia in that fictional nursing home: unable to act to help ourselves, dependent on the mercy of those more powerful, locked into our trap of joyless existence, seemingly oblivious to our pain, so drugged up on platitudes and rhetoric that we have forgotten what it means to be autonomous.

The events of this week demonstrate how close the UK is to giving up everything it means to be a sovereign state. Unable to make its own decision, unwilling to protect its own people. As British citizens we have a duty to bring Britannia home from the wasteland of servitude that she is in and allow her to express her once vaunted moral authority and remind her that she is there to protect and serve the British people and not be a mindless spectator as the world is being pushed down a path of violence and polarisation.


http://www.ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=550:broken-britannia&catid=22:jumahpulses&Itemid=130

Share:

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Bunch of Zionist Jewish in MI5 involved in torture, rendition

Details of British Resident's Brutal Torture by CIA Officers Released

by: Andy Worthington, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis



photo

British resident Binyam Mohamed was tortured by the CIA while in Pakistani custody in April and May 2002. (Photo: art makes me smile; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

Three senior UK judges on Wednesday ordered the British government to publicly disclose previously highly classified information that reveals how Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, was brutally tortured by the CIA while in Pakistani custody in April and May 2002.


In one short session, the Court of Appeal brought an end to a transatlantic game of cat and mouse that for the last year and a half has prevented two high court judges from making public a seven-paragraph summary of an intelligence briefing, supplied by US intelligence services to their British counterparts, which provided information about Mohamed's treatment after his capture in Pakistan in April 2002.


Disclosure of the summary, which was written by the high court Judges Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones, had been opposed by the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, since August 2008, when the judges delivered a stern rebuke to the British government, ruling that, "by seeking to interview BM [Binyam Mohamed] in the circumstances found and supplying information and questions for his interviews, the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the United States authorities went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing." However, Miliband argued that releasing any information publicly would damage the valuable intelligence-sharing relationship between the UK and the US, and the judges, with some reluctance, accepted his claims.


However, the judges ordered 42 documents in the possession of the British government to be released to Mohamed's lawyers, on the basis that they were vital to his defense in a planned trial by military commission, in which he might face the death penalty. In the months that followed, further wrangling over the disclosure of these documents was transferred to the US courts, where the Justice Department (DOJ) tried in vain to keep them away from Mohamed's legal representatives.


By November 2008, however, these last-ditch attempts had failed, and, as a result, the central allegation against Mohamed - that he was involved in a "dirty bomb" plot (noticeably, one that never existed) - was dropped by the DOJ, his planned trial by military commission was also dropped, and on February 23, 2009, he was flown back to the UK as a free man.


The manner in which Mohamed's case was fast-tracked to the top of the pile of cases being reviewed by President Obama's interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force strongly suggests that both the US and UK governments hoped that releasing Mohamed would seal the lid on further embarrassing disclosures about his torture - not only in Pakistan, but also in Morocco, where he was sent by the CIA for 18 months, and in the CIA's own "dark prison" near Kabul.

However, instead of backing down, the high court judges refused to let go of the case, arguing that, although it was appropriate for the contents of the 42 documents to remain secret, it was in the interests of "open justice" for their own summary of those documents to be made available to the public.


Miliband disagreed, maintaining, as he had in August 2008, that releasing the summary would threaten the intelligence-sharing relationship between the US and the UK, with dire consequences for national security, even though the judges maintained that their summary contained "nothing secret or of an intelligence nature," as it merely comprised "admissions by officials of the United States Government as to BM's [Mohamed's] treatment by them."


Throughout 2009, the case rumbled on, as the judges maintained pressure on the government, and in November, the most revealing information to date was disclosed, when two previously redacted paragraphs in an earlier ruling were reinstated. These, as I noted at the time, were extremely significant, because they revealed that the judges had referred to the memos released by the Obama administration last April, written by lawyers in the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 and 2005, which purported to redefine torture and approved the use of banned techniques by the CIA.


The judges had also noted that "the techniques described were those employed against [Abu] Zubaydah," the supposed "high-value detainee," captured in Pakistan on March 28, 2002, who was, officially, the first prisoner to be subjected to ten "enhanced interrogation techniques," which included physical violence, stress positions, sleep deprivation and waterboarding.


The Court of Appeal Judges Order the Release of the Torture Summary


On Wednesday, after 18 months of obstruction on the part of the government, the judges in the Court of Appeal - Sir Igor Judge, the Lord Chief Justice; Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls; and Sir Anthony May, President of the Queen's Bench - finally dismissed Miliband's claims, and, as the Guardian described it, "shattered the convention that the courts should not question claims by the executive relating to national security."


In the ruling, Sir Igor Judge said that the case raised issues of "fundamental importance," of "democratic accountability and ultimately the rule of law itself." He added that the reasons for publishing the summary were "compelling," because they concerned the involvement of British agents in the "abhorrent practice of torture," and because the information contained in the summary helped to "vindicate Mr. Mohamed's assertion that UK authorities had been involved in and facilitated the ill-treatment and torture to which he was subjected while under the control of USA. authorities."


Finally accepting defeat, Miliband made the summary available on the web site of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The seven paragraphs are reproduced below:



It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May [2002] as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.


v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM [Binyam Mohamed] had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.


vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.


vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews.


viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.


ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS [the British intelligence services] made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.


x) The treatment reported, if it had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972 [in the 1972 torture convention]. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.



As can be seen, the summary describes a range of techniques, which, in the judges' opinion "could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," including "continuous sleep deprivation," combined with "threats and inducements," including the threat of "disappearing." As the judges also explained, "the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics" was "causing him significant mental stress and suffering," to the extent that he was being "kept under self-harm observation."


The Evidence Demonstrates That Torture Began Before It Was Sanctioned by the DOJ in August 2002


That such tactics were being used by US agents in April 2002, four months before the ten previously banned techniques - including sleep deprivation and waterboarding - were approved by lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), should come as no surprise. As I pointed out in an article last April, "CIA Torture Began In Afghanistan 8 Months Before DoJ Approval," lawyers for Rafiq Alhami, a Tunisian prisoner in Guantánamo, demonstrated in court submissions that the CIA was torturing prisoners in Afghanistan from December 2001.


In a lawsuit, Alhami stated that he was held in three CIA "dark sites," where "his presence and his existence were unknown to everyone except his United States detainers," and where, at various times, he was "stripped naked, threatened with dogs, shackled in painful stress positions for hours, punched, kicked and exposed to extremes of heat and cold." He also stated that his interrogators "sprayed pepper spray on his hemorrhoids, causing extreme pain."


Nevertheless, Alhami's statements, which reflect similar statements made by other prisoners held in secret CIA prisons at this time, were largely ignored last April, and it is to be hoped, therefore, that the official confirmation of Binyam Mohamed's torture in April and May 2002 will put pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate how it came to pass that prisoners were tortured - or, at least, subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment - so many months before the OLC provided what senior Bush officials referred to as their "golden shield," providing a twisted rationale for the torture and abuse that followed in the memos issued on August 1, 2002.


According to Newsweek, the conclusions of a long-awaited internal report into the behavior of the OLC lawyers who drafted the "torture memos" - conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) - have been fatally watered down in the report's final version, so that the primary authors, John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, are no longer regarded as having "violated their professional obligations as lawyers" when they drafted the memos, and have only been mildly reprimanded for showing "poor judgment."


Even if this is the case, however, it fails to explain who was responsible for authorizing the infliction of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment before August 1, 2002, and this is a question that needs to be answered.


How Binyam Mohamed's Torture Was Revealed in a US Court


Further disturbing evidence of the use of torture emerged through close scrutiny of a statement issued by Miliband in the wake of the ruling by the Court of Appeal. Miliband noted, "At the heart of this case was the principle that if a country shares intelligence with another, that country must agree before its intelligence is released," and that "This 'control principle' is essential to the intelligence relationship between Britain and the US." With some satisfaction, he added that the government had "fought the case to preserve this principle," and that "today's judgment upholds it," explaining that the court only ordered the release of the summary "because in its view their substance had been put into the public domain by a decision of a US court in another case," and that "Without that disclosure, it is clear that the court of appeal would have overturned the divisional court's decision to publish the material."


This is an accurate assessment, although it glosses over the importance of the material that "had been put into the public domain by a decision of a US court in another case." The case in question was the successful habeas corpus petition, in November 2009, of an Algerian prisoner in Guantánamo, Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed. In her ruling, made available in December, Judge Gladys Kessler expressed serious doubts about the reliability of allegations made by other prisoners, as she had in previous cases, and as the judges in general have throughout the habeas process. These doubts have contributing significantly to the 32 out of 41 rulings that have resulted in the judges concluding that the government failed, by a preponderance of evidence, to establish that the prisoners in questions were involved with either al-Qaeda or the Taliban.


In the case of Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed, one of the dubious witnesses identified by Judge Kessler was Binyam Mohamed. As she described it, Mohamed's statements, placing bin Mohammed at a training camp in Afghanistan,



cannot be relied upon, because he suffered intense and sustained physical and psychological abuse while in American custody from 2002 to 2004. Petitioner [bin Mohammed] argues that while Binyam Mohamed was detained in locations in Pakistan, Morocco, and Afghanistan, he was tortured and forced to admit to a host of allegations. When he arrived at Guantánamo Bay, Binyam Mohamed implicated Petitioner in training activities ... However, after being released from Guantánamo Bay, he signed a sworn declaration claiming that he never met Petitioner until they were both detained at Guantánamo Bay, thereby disavowing the statements he made at Guantánamo Bay about training with Petitioner.



Judge Kessler also made some important points about torture, refuting the government's claims that he had made statements voluntarily at Guantánamo, and concluding that the effects of the torture he endured from 2002 to 2004 had not dissipated by the time of the later statements. This is undoubtedly an important precedent for future cases, but with specific reference to Binyam's court case in the UK, the significance of Judge Kessler's ruling relates to the government's refusal - or inability - to challenge the assertions made about Binyam Mohamed's torture.


In response to bin Mohammed's claims about Binyam Mohamed's statements, Judge Kessler noted, "The Government does not challenge Petitioner's evidence of Binyam Mohamed's abuse," and at another point, after running through the whole horrendous story of Mohamed's abuse in Pakistan, Morocco and the dark prison, as recounted in statements to his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, she noted, "The Government does not challenge or deny the accuracy of Binyam Mohamed's story of brutal treatment."


Further Evidence of a British Cover-Up


It is somewhat ironic that information that the British government tried so hard to suppress was actually disclosed in greater detail in a judicial ruling in a US court, which made its protestations worthless, but this is not the last piece of shocking evidence to emerge from the Court of Appeal ruling.


Just hours after the ruling was announced, the Guardian reported that one of the judges, Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, had included in the ruling a statement regarding the behavior of the British security services that was so critical that Jonathan Sumption QC, representing the government, had written to the court, warning that the paragraph in question was "likely to receive more public attention than any other parts of the judgments."


As referred to in Sumption's letter, which came to light following intervention by lawyers and media organizations including the Guardian, Lord Neuberger's statements included assertions that MI5 did not respect human rights, had not renounced participation in "coercive interrogation" techniques, deliberately misled MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee, which is supposed to be able to scrutinize its activities, and had a "culture of suppression" in its dealings with Miliband and the court.


With reference to the MI5 officer known as Witness B, who interrogated Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in May 2002 (and is now the subject of a police investigation), Neuberger apparently indicated that he did not believe that he was acting alone and that he believed that his conduct was "characteristic of the service as a whole," and also noted that MI5's culture of suppression "penetrates the service to such a degree" that, as the Guardian explained, "it undermines any government assurance based upon information that comes from MI5 itself."


At the government's request, Lord Neuberger dropped his comments from the final ruling, without advising any of the other parties involved in the case. However, after Sumption's letter was disclosed, Lord Neuberger conceded that it was "over-hasty" to withdraw it without allowing other voices to be heard, and provided objectors with a deadline of 4:00 PM on Friday to make representations, to enable him to decide whether to reinstate his judgment.


Throughout this whole tawdry saga, Binyam Mohamed was not present, but it must come as some relief to him, after his long ordeal, to realize that, one year after his release, his torture by US agents in April 2002 will cause questions to be raised regarding the authorization of prolonged sleep deprivation and threats to make him "disappear," and that the British security services face questions about their entire way of operating, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when the UK zealously embraced its role as America's closest foreign ally.


Source : truthout

http://www.truthout.org/details-british-residents-brutal-torture-cia-officers-released56831

Share:

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Britain’s Jewish Chronicle warns Gordon Brown: change UK law to accommodate Israeli war criminals or you are finished

How long will it take before the British people say no to Israeli and Zionist infiltration of their politics, laws and values?

By Gilad Atzmon

31 January 2010

Gilad Atzmon comments on an editorial in Britain’s top Zionist newspaper in which the paper’s editor, Stephen Pollard, and its chief political editor, Martin Bright, appeared to be threatening British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with electoral defeat unless he restricts the application of universal jurisdiction to ensure that suspected Israeli war criminals can travel to the UK without risk of prosecution.

”In plain language the Jewish Chronicle is suggesting that Gordon Brown, as far as the Jews are concerned, is basically finished. I wonder how long it will take for the British people to wake up and say enough is enough? How long will it take before they say NO to Israeli and Zionist infiltration of their politics, laws and values?”

Britain’s Jewish Chronicle is apparently stupid enough to unveil the ferocity of Zionist lobbying within the British government and its corridors of power. The Jewish newspaper is happy to outline the relentless measures that are being taken by Jewish lobbyists in order to Zionize the British legal system and the values underlying it.

One can assume the supporters of Israel in Britain are anything but happy with Britain’s magistrates being able to implement universal jurisdiction laws – laws that allow local magistrates to issue arrest warrants for high profile foreign visitors accused of war crimes. The rabid Zionist Jewish Chronicle is obviously outraged because universal jurisdiction puts most of the Israeli political and military echelon at severe risk. Last month former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini cancelled her visit to Britain over fears that arrest warrants would be issued in connection with accusations of war crimes under laws of universal jurisdiction.


Surely, universal jurisdiction is not a bad thing. It is actually an ethically-based idea that is there to prevent world leaders from abusing their powers and committing crimes against humanity. It is also there to prosecute war criminals and to stop them from celebrating their crimes. Yet, it is not very surprising that the only political lobby in Britain that acts against such a set of universal laws is the Zionist lobby.

While in the past Zionist activists tried to hide their conspiratorial actions, Jewish Chronicle political editor Martin Bright and chief editor Stephen Pollard are providing us with a glimpse into the relentless Jewish political activity here. “Will the government ever act?” they ask in their latest editorial, as if the British government has to act in order to satisfy the Zionist will.

Interestingly enough, the Jewish Chronicle editors do not offer a single ideological, ethical or legal argument to suggest that universal jurisdiction is wrong, except that it is not good for the Jews or Israel.

The Jewish Chronicle is rather outraged with Justice Secretary Jack Straw who apparently fails to bow to Israeli pressure. Considering that Jack Straw is of Jewish descent, the Jewish Chronicle must believe that it is entitled to use some measures to put him in the line of fire. Despite the fact that Straw is known in Britain for his notorious call for Muslim women to remove their veils and also as a backer of the illegal invasion of Iraq. The Jewish Chronicle blames him for being too friendly with Muslims. “Mr Straw is known to be highly sensitive to the views of his Muslim constituents in Blackburn and is close to the Muslim Council of Britain, which opposes a change to the law.”

The Jewish Chronicle should have also accepted the fact that, bearing in mind Straw’s Jewish origin, it is just natural for him to be reluctant to initiate a change in British law solely to serve Israeli interests and in total opposition to every universal and ethical value.

According to the Jewish Chronicle, the Jews of Britain should not be too worried. The shadow Middle East minister, David Lidington, is already in their pockets. ”This has to be sorted and quickly”, says the shadow man. “It is very clear to me that this issue is doing serious damage to relations with Israel.”


The Jewish Chronicle also assures its Zionist readers that they have a man within the government who is working hard to serve their interests willingly and even enthusiastically. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary who is also listed as an “Israeli propaganda [Hasbara] author” on an official Israeli propaganda website already announced his intention to change the law late last year. According to the Jewish Chronicle, he is “pushing hard within Whitehall for a solution”. Earlier this month, says the Jewish Chronicle, “the Foreign Office briefed that an announcement of the law change was imminent”. I wouldn’t except less from a listed “Hasbara author”.

But the Jewish Chronicle is taking it even further. In its editorial, it says it is “Crystal clear who is to blame,” referring to Justice Secretary Straw and Prime Minister Gordon Brown

“The time for excuses is over,” says the paper. “For weeks the government has been giving every possible off-the-record promise that it would change the law on universal jurisdiction. No longer would unsuitable magistrates be able to issue warrants for the arrest of some of our closest allies.” One may wonder why exactly “on the record” genocidal murderers such as Livni, Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert should be considered as “Britain closest allies”. In fact, these people are primary enemies of humanity and as such they are also enemies of Britain and any other nation.

Seemingly, the Jewish Chronicle, doesn’t just speak on behalf of its editors. For some reason it prefers to speak in the name of the “Jewish community”. “Mr Straw must take the Jewish community for mugs if he thinks his behaviour is not transparent.” The only possible interpretation of this statement is that British Jewry wants Britain to give up on universal Jurisdiction just to appease its Zionists.

In case Prime Minister Brown is slightly confused and doesn’t know how to react, the Jewish Chronicle tells him how he should run Britain just to keep the Jewish community happy. “As for the prime minister: all he has ever needed to do is make clear that he backs Mr Miliband, and the issue would have been over”. Considering Miliband is a listed “Israeli propaganda author”, the message here is clear: Britain had better start to work for Israel and even change its laws accordingly so it can easily comply with Israel’s unethical conduct.

Britain is heading towards election, and the Jewish Chronicle is advising Prime Minister Brown that he is about to pay the ultimate political price for his unwillingness to succumb to the Zionist will. “That he [Brown] has done precisely nothing since promising action speaks volumes about his own bona fides. If – and now it looks like when – the deadline for action passes and nothing is done, it will be crystal clear who is to blame.”

In plain language the Jewish Chronicle is suggesting that Gordon Brown, as far as the Jews are concerned, is basically finished. I wonder how long it will take for the British people to wake up and say enough is enough? How long will it take before they say NO to Israeli and Zionist infiltration of their politics, laws and values?


Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner. His latest jazz album, "In loving memory of America", was released on 1 March 2009 and can be purchased here.

http://www.redress.cc/global/gatzmon20100131

Share:

UK war criminals will be prosecuted in 2010, israeli puppets Blair, Brown, Straw. Watch out ! Israel terror operations in the UK !

Chilcot War Inquiry: Professor to launch 'Nuremberg' war crimes prosecution against Blair



By Glen Owen

January 31, 2010

Plans to bring a war crimes prosecution against Tony Blair based on last week’s bombshell evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry have been launched by a leading law professor.

The move could see Mr Blair follow former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic into a dock in The Hague.

Professor Bill Bowring says the revelation that the Government rejected Foreign Office warnings not to invade Iraq means there is a good chance Mr Blair can be 'investigated, at the very least’ for war crimes.

'We now know that the Government was explicitly warned beforehand that the UK risked being prosecuted for going to war,’ said Prof Bowring.

Professor Bowring has launched plans to bring a war crimes prosecution against Tony Blair

He says that he will deploy the same law used to convict the killers of Garry Newlove, the Cheshire father of three kicked to death in front of his family in 2007, and Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945-46.

He is drafting a submission to the International Criminal Court (ICC) arguing that Mr Blair is guilty under the law of 'joint enterprise’, which holds people responsible for the actions of a wider group if they know they are involved in criminal enterprises.

It means the former Prime Minister would be liable for any crimes committed by US forces, such as disproportionate bombing.

On Tuesday, Sir Michael Wood, the chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office from 2001 to 2006, said he warned the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that invading Iraq without UN backing would 'amount to the crime of aggression’ and could lead

to the prosecution of British soldiers and politicians. Mr Straw rejected the warning.

Prof Bowring said the April 2002 meeting between Mr Blair and George Bush at the President’s Texas ranch, described as the moment the agreement to invade was 'signed in blood’, would be critical in the case.

'Joint enterprise’ was used to convict the killers of Mr Newlove in 2008. Though one kick killed Mr Newlove, three men were convicted of his murder because they were aware they were engaged in joint criminality.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor has said that he could 'envisage’ a situation in which Mr Blair found himself in the dock.

An ICC spokeswoman said that the mandate of the chief prosecutor’s office covered the conduct of Allied forces in the war, but would not comment on Prof Bowring’s specific legal argument.

http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m62806&hd=&size=1&l=e
Share:

Blog Archive

Support


Definition List

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Unordered List