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 Zionists deception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zionists deception. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Greater Middle East : A Zionist Colonial Plan from Mauritania to Indonesia


Diffusing Yemen’s ticking time bomb & the Iran-Saudi proxy war


By Webster Brooks,

Yemen is a ticking time bomb with a dangerously short fuse. President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s government is under siege; battling an al Houthi Shiia insurgency, attacks by Sunni extremists rebranded as "al Queda of the Peninsula" (AQP) and fending off a growing secessionist struggle led by the "Southern Movement." Absent urgent American intervention, Yemen is on a course leading to the collapse of President Saleh’s government or the partitioning of Yemen into autonomous zones run by non-state actors. Concerns in the United States and Saudi Arabia are mounting as Iran has entered the fray backing the al Houthi Shiia (Zaida sect) insurgency. Like Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, Yemen is emerging as a battlefield in a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi/American axis. Tehran is threatening to secure a beachhead in the strategic Southwest Arabian Peninsula, where Yemen’s oil, proximity to Saudi oilfields and control over critical Red Sea shipping lanes are up for grabs.

As the poorest Gulf oil state Yemen is the regional nerve center for trafficking arms, narcotics and harvested body parts, transiting jihadists and sponsoring Somali pirating operations. With President Saleh’s 30 year rule faltering, Saudi Arabia has intervened to contain the threat Yemen’s instability poses to its national security and to short circuit Iran’s growing influence. Saudi Arabia is actively supporting President Saleh’s war to eliminate the Zaida Shiite sect (called al Houthi’s) in the mountains of northwestern Yemen along the Saudi border. The al Houthi are fighting to restore Shiite rule over Northern Yemen they lost to the Sunni in 1962. Shiite Muslims make up 40 percent of Yemen’s population. Saudi Arabia’s Sunni royalists are mortified at the prospects of the al Houthi Shiia revolt spreading across its border with Yemen to inflame the passions of its own repressed Shiia minority concentrated around its Eastern oilfields. Reports are also surfacing that Egypt is providing arms and ammunition to President Saleh’s government with American approval.

While admitting they are "consulting" with Saleh’s regime, Saudi leaders have disavowed claims by the al Houthi that Saudi planes have bombed rebel positions in Sa’adah province where the heaviest fighting is occurring. President Saleh has promised to crush the al Houthi resistance, or force them to accept a six-point peace plan that includes surrendering their weapons and control over key highways on the Saudi border. Pressing the offensive against the al Houthi with his most elite units, tanks and artillery divisions, Saleh has been forced to recruit local tribes to fight the insurgency. Hundreds have been injured or killed and thousands displaced as the both sides battle with resolve.

The tenacity of the al Houthi insurgency has taken the Yemeni government by surprise. President Saleh has accused Iran of arming the northern rebels, and claims his government has uncovered caches of Iranian made short-range missiles and machine guns. Like the Saudi’s, Iran has denied the claims, which means the likelihood that both countries are arming proxy forces is true. In the spring Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani visited Yemen and affirmed Iran’s support for a unified Yemen. Yemen has entered into discussions with Tehran over Iranian investments in its energy platform, roads, dams and housing industry. Yemen reciprocated by announcing its support for Iran’s development of a civil nuclear program, much to the chagrin of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

Iran’s capacity to leverage Yemen’s huge Shiite community, the al Houthi insurgency and President Saleh’s weak position is substantial and can be projected over time. Indeed, Iran’s genius in cultivating ties with Hezbollah and Hamas are the result of decades of support. In addition to Iran’s support for the al Houthi insurgency, Tehran could also begin supporting the socialist-led Southern Movement coalition. Notwithstanding its Shiia roots, Iran could also funnel backdoor support to the resurgent elements of "Al Queda of the Peninsula," (AQP) if the Sunni extremist target President Saleh’s regime or more importantly use Yemen as a base to continue their battle against neighboring Saudi Arabia’s royal family.

Al Queda resurfaced in Yemen last year after its forces were routed by the House of Saud in the 2004-2007 jihadist war. Given Saudi concerns about AQP reigniting its insurgency inside the kingdom from neighboring Yemen, the Obama Administration’s plans to transfer 110 Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo Bay when the base closes has surfaced as a complicated issue. The Yemeni government wants to accept the detainees, insisting they will prosecute those who have committed acts of terrorism and rehabilitate the rest. However, after the mysterious prison break of 2006 when 23 al Queda members escaped from Yemen’s jails, the U.S. is reluctant to hand over the detainees to President Saleh. The Obama administration prefers to return the detainees to Saudi Arabia, who they believe has a better record of rehabilitating extremists. The Saudi’s don’t share the U.S.’s enthusiasm on the detainee issue. Ironically, last week in Jeddah, royal family member and Saudi counter terrorist head Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef narrowly escaped death after a Yemeni jihadist turning himself in for rehabilitation set off a suicide bomb in his presence.

With Yemen on the brink of a renewed civil war between Saleh’s regime and the secessionist "Southern Movement" in South Yemen, the Obama administration has stepped up its call for a negotiated settlement. After two years of peaceful protests led by civil service workers and soldiers whose pensions were never paid, the situation is escalating to violence. In the last few months three opposition leaders have been murdered by northern security forces and seven newspapers have been shut down. The movement has been joined by socialist forces and sympathizers of the former South Yemen government who are fed up with the Saleh government’s rampant corruption and mismanagement of the economy. Ali Salem al-Bidh, the former Marxist leader who negotiated the first reunification agreement between North and South Yemen in 1990, has been named the new leader of the Southern Movement. Because the Southern Movement has no faith in negotiating with Saleh, they have called for the United Nations to lead reconciliation talks or allow the Gulf Cooperation Council to form a new caretaker government in lieu of new negotiations.

Once again, the United States finds itself caught in a diplomatic tangle. The Obama administration wants negotiations to unify Yemen. The Southern Movement and the al Houthi Shiia have no intention of entering direct negotiations with a corrupt regime that has criminalized the machinery of national governance and used authoritarian measures to suppress their just struggles.

In the final analysis, the al Houthi Shiia sect and the Southern Movement insurgencies can be resolved through negotiations and diplomacy, but not as long as President Saleh remains in office. The U.S. must insist on his replacement, a new negotiations process and the willingness to make compromises with the insurgents to preserve Yemen’s unity. If not, Yemen’s descent in chaos will continue, marked by sectarian violence, balkanization, and foreign proxy wars. It is time for the Obama administration to diffuse the powder keg in Yemen before it explodes.

***



Webster Brooks is a Senior Fellow at the Center for New Politics (CNPP) and Policy in Washington, D.C. He also serves as Director of the Brooks Foreign Policy Review-the international affairs arm of CNPP and is the Editor of its website: www.foreignpolicyreview.org

His analysis and articles frequently appear in the international press in newspapers, websites and blogs. He also provides commentary on foreign policy issues for the New School Talk Show broadcast nationally on SIRIUS/XM satellite radio. Webster lives in Palm Beach, Florida and may be contacted at wbrooks@newpolicycenter.org


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=58167
Share:

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Myths And Facts About al-Qaeda


The media myth of a global Islamic conspiracy never got much traction in America before 2001 because the minority Muslim American population simply did not seem like much of a threat, because Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States are loyal US allies, and because Americans generally have a positive attitude toward wealthy investors. After 9/11 pro-Israel propagandists exploited public ignorance and created a nightmarish fantasy of al-Qaeda in order to put the US and allies into conflict with the entire Islamic world. What is al-Qaeda? What do they believe? What do they actually do?

Osama bin Laden first used the term "al-Qaeda" in an interview in 1998, probably in reference to a 1988 article written by Palestinian activist Abdullah Azzam entitled "al-Qa`ida al-Sulba" (the Solid Foundation). In it, Azzam elaborates upon the ideas of the Egyptian scholar Sayed Qutb to explain modern jihadi principles. Qutb, author of Social Justice in Islam, is viewed as the founder of modern Arab-Islamic political religious thought. Qutb is comparable to John Locke in Western political development. Both Azzam and Qutb were serious men of exceptional integrity and honor.

While Qutb was visiting the USA in 1949, he and several friends were turned away from a movie theater because the owner thought they were black. 'But we're Egyptians,' one of the group explained. The owner apologized and offered to let them in, but Qutb refused, galled by the fact that black Egyptians could be admitted but black Americans could not," recounts Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower. Qutb predicted that the struggle between Islam and materialism would define the modern world. He embraced martyrdom in 1966 in rejection of Arab socialist politics.

Azzam similarly rejected secular Palestinian nationalist politics as an impediment to moral virtue. He opposed terrorist attacks on civilians and had strong reservations about ideas like offensive jihad, or preventive war. He also hesitated to designate any Muslim leader as an apostate and preferred to allow God to make such judgments. Inspired by the courage and piety of Afghan Muslims struggling against the Soviets, Azzam reinterpreted Qutb's concept of individual and collective obligation of Muslims in his fatwa entitled "Defense of the Muslim Lands, the First Obligation after Iman (Faith)." Qutb would have prioritized the struggle of Egyptian Muslims to transform Egypt into a virtuous Islamic state while Azzam argued that every individual Muslim had an obligation to come to the aid of oppressed Muslims everywhere, whether they are Afghan, Kosovar, Bosnian, Thai, Filipino, or Chechen.

John Calvert of Creighton University writes, "This ideology would soon energize the most significant jihad movement of modern times."

At Azzam's call, Arabs from many countries joined America's fight against Communism in Afghanistan. No Arab jihadi attack was considered terrorism when Azzam led the group, or later when bin Laden ran the group. Because the global Islamic movement overlapped with the goals of the US government, Arab jihadis worked and traveled frictionlessly throughout the world between Asia, Arabia and America. Azzam was assassinated in Pakistan in 1989, but legends of the courageous sacrifices of the noble Arab Afghans energized the whole Islamic world.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan, bin Laden relocated to Sudan in 1992. At the time he was probably undisputed commander of nothing more than a small group, which became even smaller after he lost practically all his money on Sudan investments. He returned to Afghanistan in 1996, where the younger Afghans, the Taliban welcomed him on account of his reputation as a veteran war hero.

There is no real evidence that bin Laden or al-Qaeda had any connection to the Ugandan and Tanzanian embassy attacks or any of the numerous attacks for which they have been blamed. Pro-Israel propagandists like Daniel Pipes or Matthew Levitt needed an enemy for their war against Muslim influence on American culture more than random explosions in various places needed a central commander. By the time the World Trade Center was destroyed, the Arab fighters surrounding Osama bin Laden were just a dwindling remnant living on past glories of Afghanistan's struggle against Communism. Al-Qaeda has never been and certainly is not today an immensely powerful terror organization controlling Islamic banks and charities throughout the world.

Al-Qaeda maintained training camps in Afghanistan like Camp Faruq, where Muslims could receive basic training just as American Jews go to Israel for military training with the IDF. There they learned to disassemble, clean and reassemble weapons, and got to associate with old warriors, who engaged in great heroism against the Soviets but did not do much since. Many al-Qaeda trainees went on to serve US interests in Central Asia (e.g. Xinjiang) in the 1990s but from recent descriptions the camps seem to currently provide a form of adventure tourism with no future enlistment obligations.

Although western media treats al-Qaeda as synonymous with Absolute Evil, much of the world reveres the Arab Afghans as martyr saints. Hundreds of pilgrims visit Kandahar's Arab cemetery daily, believing that the graves of those massacred in the 2001 US bombing of Afghanistan possess miraculous healing powers.

Karin Friedemann is a Boston-based writer on Middle East affairs and US politics. She is Director of the Division on Muslim Civil Rights and Liberties for the National Association of Muslim American Women. Joachim Martillo contributed to this article.


Share:

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The Syria-Israel peace gambit

By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Few would argue that the indirect Israel-Syria talks through Turkish mediation, which were first announced 21 May, were a sign of political maturity and readiness for peace. In fact, while the discussions seemed concerned with the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and Israel’s desire for security at its northern borders, the true objective behind the sudden engagement of Syria is largely concerned with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas.

A precarious report published in The Jerusalem Post -- citing a news report in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai on 2 September -- claimed that the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has left Syria and moved to Sudan. “Palestinian sources told the paper that Meshaal had come to an understanding with Damascus whereby the Hamas chief would agree to leave the state,” according to the report. It suggested that the indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel “may have played a part in the decision.” Hamas soon denied the report.

Whether the report is fully, partially or not at all accurate, the fact remains that Israel’s key objective in engaging Syria is to further isolate Hamas and to deny its leadership safe haven. Syria opened its doors to several Palestinian factions, who have operated politically with a degree of unison, following the September 1993 Oslo Accords. The relationship between Syria and Hamas in particular was often scrutinised as a Syrian bargaining chip in any future negotiations with Israel over the fate of the Golan. It is no secret that Israel would not transfer the Golan back to its rightful owner if Hamas and other Palestinian groups continue to use Damascus as their headquarters, a platform of political freedom and a degree of legitimacy.

But this is an issue that even Hamas itself doesn’t seem to be concerned with, at least at the moment, for it’s equally understood that Israel is not serious about its negotiations with Syria, and that the whole affair is a political manoeuvre aimed at disturbing the Syria-Iran alliance, cutting off the supposed Hizbullah weapon supply route, and further delegitimising Hamas, while propping up its Palestinian rivals. Israel is “engaging” Syria because it’s simply running out of options.

Consider A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a report prepared and signed by major Washington-based neoconservatives in 1996. It made the following recommendation to the Israeli government at the time: “Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naïvely with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbours, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organisations.”

The mindset behind the report had great sway over Israeli thinking, as was made clear in 2000 when then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak froze Israeli-Syrian negotiations at a point that an agreement was reportedly at hand. The thrust of Israel’s policy towards Syria was predicated on the latter’s presence in Lebanon. Even after Hizbullah forced Israel out of Lebanon in the summer of 2000, Israel never disavowed its interests in that small country, and thoroughly focused on removing Syria, a task that was made possible with backing from Washington.

“Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathise, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon,” the Clean Break report recommended.

That was tried and failed miserably. Israel’s goals were trashed in its war on Lebanon in July-August 2006. The war delivered more than a military blow to Israel and a political blow to its benefactors in Washington. It empowered Hizbullah to emerge as Lebanon’s strongest party without any direct Syrian involvement.

Since then, Israel has resorted to a strategy of scare tactics against Syria and its Iranian ally. French President Nicolas Sarkozy used a recent four-way summit in Damascus to deliver an essentially Israeli message. He warned Iran of a “catastrophic” Israeli strike if it insists on pursuing its nuclear programme. Although the message was to Iran, the hope was for Syria to take notice as well.

But Sarkozy’s choice of Damascus to promote Israel’s ominous threat further highlights the relevance of Iran to his efforts, which would not have actualised without prior Israeli consent. Considering how quickly the Iraqi regime fell following the US invasion in 2003, and the succumbing of the Libyan government soon after, Syria is treading carefully, while trying to hold on to several winning cards, its strong relationship with Iran being one.

Although Syria is eager to reclaim the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights, its leaders must also realise that the current Israeli leadership is in no position to negotiate withdrawal from what was illegally annexed by the Israeli Knesset in 1982. To override the strong opposition to withdrawal, the Israeli leadership must be indisputably interested in ending the occupation -- which it is not -- and strong enough to pull off such a major “concession,” which is also not the case.

Nonetheless, Syria carries on with its indirect talks with Israel, one round after the other, with much enthusiasm, coupled with talks about economic development, investment, etc.

It is clear that neither Israel nor Syria is anticipating a “breakthrough” anytime soon. For now, talking is an end in itself. Concurrently, Israel wishes to woo Syria to break with Hamas and other Palestinian groups, break with Iran and, at least, twist Hizbullah’s arm in Lebanon. Syria, on the other hand, knows well that indirect talks with Israel are an unmatched act of political validation in the West; enough to lessen US threats, win France’s friendship, and appear in a positive light internationally.

Both parties want to come across as accommodating, willing partners in peace and, at a future point, there might be a few overtures, the extent of which could be devastating to Palestinian factions in Damascus. Meshaal might not be in Sudan, but if he is, or will be soon, one cannot be entirely surprised.

Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book isThe Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
Share:

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

America's Plan to Break Up Pakistan



Le Pakistan est-il la nouvelle cible des US pour une fragmentation et une « balkanisation » ? Une analyse géostratégique, politique et économique détaillée de la situation de ce pays par le Professeur Michel Chossudovsky répond par l'affirmative.



La Destabilisation Du Pakistan







Note éditoriale


Le Pakistan est situé dans la même zone d'interférence américaine que l'Afghanistan. Quelque soit le nouveau Président US élu avant la fin de l'année, les Etats Unis ont décidé depuis un certain temps déjà de déstabiliser le Pakistan et de le morceler pour assurer leur domination dans cette région. Le Pakistan possède à l'Ouest une frontière commune avec l'Iran et au Nord avec l'Afghanistan où devrait s'intensifier les opérations militaires des US/OTAN dans les mois à venir. Le Professeur Michel Chossudovsky, Directeur du Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation au Canada, Global Research www.globalresearch.ca, a publié le 30 décembre 2007 sous l'intitulé « The Destabilisation of Pakistan » une analyse géostratégique politique et économique détaillée, solidement argumentée, des interférences ouvertes et clandestines US au Pakistan et les objectifs visés. Ci dessous la traduction de l'article.


« La Déstabilisation du Pakistan. » Professeur Michel Chossudovsky – 30 décembre 2007 Global Research


L'assassinat de Benazir Bhutto a créé des conditions qui contribuent à la déstabilisation en cours et à la fragmentation du Pakistan en tant que nation.


Le processus de « changement de régime » sponsorisé par les US, qui normalement consiste en la formation d'un gouvernement de proxy renouvelé avec de nouveaux dirigeants, a été brisé. Le Général Pervez Musharaf, discrédité aux yeux de l'opinion publique pakistanaise, ne peut rester dans le fauteuil du pouvoir politique. Mais, en même temps, les élections truquées soutenues par la « communauté internationale » prévue pour janvier 2008, même si elles ont lieu, ne seront pas acceptées comme légitimes créant par conséquent une impasse politique.



Il existe des indications que l'assassinat de Benazir Bhutto a été anticipé par les responsables US :


« On sait depuis des mois que l'Administration Bush-Cheney et ses alliés ont manœuvré pour renforcer leur contrôle politique du Pakistan pavant le chemin à l'expansion et l'enracinement de la « guerre contre le terrorisme » à travers la région.


Différents plans de déstabilisation US, connus depuis des mois par des responsables et analystes ont proposé le renversement du pouvoir militaire au Pakistan…


L'assassinat de Bhutto semble avoir été anticipé. On a rapporté l'existence de « bavardages » parmi les responsables US sur les possibles assassinats soit de Pervez Musharraf soit de Benazir Bhutto bien avant que les tentatives actuelles n'aient lieu.
( Larry Chin Global Research 29/12/07).



Impasse Politique


Le « changement de régime » visant à assurer la continuité sous contrôle militaire n'est plus à la pointe de la politique étrangère US. Le régime de Pervez Musharraf n'est plus prédominant. La voie choisie par Washington pour sa politique étrangère c'est de promouvoir activement la fragmentation politique et la balkanisation du Pakistan en tant que nation.


On anticipe déjà une nouvelle direction politique mais en tout état de cause, elle aura une forme différente des régimes antérieurement sponsorisés par les US. On peut s'attendre à ce que Washington appuie une direction politique obéissante, n'ayant aucun engagement à défendre les intérêts nationaux, une direction qui servira les intérêts impériaux des US, tout en contribuant simultanément sous le prétexte de « décentralisation » à l'affaiblissement du gouvernement central et à la fracture de la structure fédérale fragile du Pakistan.

L'impasse politique est voulue. Elle fait partie d'un agenda de politique étrangère US qui a évolué et qui favorise la perturbation et la confusion dans les structures de l'état pakistanais. La gouvernance indirecte par l'armée pakistanaise et l'appareil des renseignements va être remplacée par des formes plus directes d'interférence US dont une présence accrue de l'armée US à l'intérieur du Pakistan.

Cette présence militaire accrue est également dictée par la situation géopolitique Moyen Orient-Asie Centrale et les plans en cours de Washington d'étendre la guerre du Moyen Orient à une zone bien plus large.

Les US ont plusieurs bases militaires au Pakistan. Ils contrôlent l'espace aérien du Pakistan. Selon un récent rapport :

« On s'attend à ce que des Forces Spéciales US étendent largement leur présence au Pakistan, dans le cadre d'un effort pour former et soutenir des forces de contre insurrection et des unités de contre terrorisme clandestines. (William Arkin, Washington Post Décembre 2007).

La Balkanisation du Pakistan

En 2005 déjà, un rapport du National Intelligence Council US et de la CIA prévoyait un « sort semblable à celui de la Yougoslavie pour le Pakistan dans une décennie avec le pays en proie à la guerre civile, au bain de sang, et aux rivalités entre provinces, comme on l'a vu récemment au Balochistan » (Energy Compass 2 mars 2005). Selon le NIC-CIA, le Pakistan est destiné à devenir un « état en faillite » aux alentours de 2015, car « il sera en proie à la guerre civile, une totale Talibanisation et une lutte pour le contrôle de ses armes nucléaires ». Citations de l'ancien haut commissaire pour le Pakistan en Grande Bretagne, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times de l'Inde, 13 février 2005 :

« Des réformes démocratiques naissantes ne produiront que peu de changement face à l'opposition d'une élite politique figée et des parties islamistes radicaux. Dans cette atmosphère de continuel tumulte interne, le contrôle du gouvernement central sera probablement réduit à la région centrale de Punjabi et au carrefour économique de Karachi » a dit l'ancien diplomate citant le rapport de la NIC-CIA.

Exprimant son inquiétude, Hasan s'est interrogé : « nos dirigeants militaires travaillent-ils sur le même agenda, ou sur quelque chose conçu pour eux dans les différents rapports d'estimation établis depuis des années par le National Intelligence Council conjointement en collaboration avec la CIA » (Idem)

La continuité, se caractérisant par le rôle dominant de l'armée pakistanaise et des renseignements a été abandonnée au profit d'un démembrement politique et d'une balkanisation.

Selon le scénario du NIC-CIA, que Washington à l'intention de mener à bien : « le Pakistan ne se remettra pas facilement de décennies de mauvaise gestion politique et économique, absence de loi, corruption et friction ethnique. « (Idem)

La voie choisie par les US consiste à fomenter des divisions sociales, ethniques et entre factions, et une fragmentation politique, dont le démembrement territorial du Pakistan. La nature de cette action est également dictée par des plans de guerre US en relation à la fois avec l'Afghanistan et l'Iran.

L'agenda US pour le Pakistan est identique à celui appliqué partout dans une région plus vaste comprenant le Moyen Orient et l'Asie Centrale. La stratégie US soutenue par des opérations clandestines des services de renseignement, consiste à provoquer des luttes ethniques et religieuses, se rendre complice et financer des mouvements séparatistes tout en affaiblissant également les institutions du gouvernement central.


L'objectif plus large c'est de provoquer une fracture de l'Etat Nation et de redessiner les frontières de l'Irak, l'Iran, la Syrie, l'Afghanistan et le Pakistan.

Les réserves de pétrole et de gaz du Pakistan

Les vastes réserves de pétrole et de gaz du Pakistan, sont principalement situées dans la province du Balochistan, de même que ses corridors d'acheminement par pipelines sont considérés comme stratégiques par l'alliance Anglo-Américaine, nécessitant en même temps la militarisation du territoire pakistanais.

Le Balochistan représente plus de 40% du territoire du Pakistan, possède d'importantes réserves de pétrole et de gaz naturel de même que des ressources minières étendues.

Il est prévu que le corridor du pipeline Iran-Inde transite par le Balochistan. Le Balochistan possède également un port de mer en eau profonde principalement financé par la Chine et situé à Gwadar, sur la mer d'Arabie, pas très loin du Détroit d'Hormuz où 30% de l'approvisionnement mondial quotidien en pétrole se fait par bateau ou pipeline. (Asia News.it, 29 décembre 2007).

Le Pakistan a environ 25.1 trillions de m3 de réserve en gaz dont 19 trillions sont situés au Balochistan. Parmi les entreprises pétrolières et gazières étrangères présentes au Balochistan on trouve BP, l'ENI d'Italie, OMV d'Autriche et BHP d'Australie. C'est important de noter que les entreprises de pétrole et de gaz publiques du Pakistan dont PPL qui détient la part la plus importante dans les champs pétroliers de Sui au Balochistan sont en voie de privatisation sous la supervision du FMI et de la Banque Mondiale.

Selon le Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ) le Pakistan a des réserves sûres de pétrole de 300 millions de barils, la plupart se situant au Balochistan. D'autres estimations placent les réserves de pétrole à 6 trillions de barils à la fois on shore et off shore (Environnement News Service, 27 octobre 2006).

Soutien clandestin aux séparatistes du Balochistan

Les réserves énergétiques stratégiques du Balochistan ont un lien avec l'agenda séparatiste. Suivant un procédé habituel, il existe des indications comme quoi le soulèvement Baloch est soutenu et bénéficie de la complicité de la Grande Bretagne et des US.

Le mouvement de résistance nationale Baloch remonte à fin 1940, quand le Balochistan a été envahi par le Pakistan. Dans l'actuel contexte géopolitique, l e mouvement séparatiste est entrain d'être détourné par des puissances étrangères.

Les renseignements britanniques fourniraient un soutien clandestin aux séparatistes du Balochistan (qui depuis le début subissent la répression de l'armée pakistanaise). En juin 2006, le Comité de Défense du Sénat pakistanais a accusé les serves secrets britanniques d'être « complices de l'insurrection dans la province bordant l'Iran » (Balochistan)…(Press Trust of India 9 août 2006. 10 députés britanniques ont été mis en cause dans une session à huit clos du Comité de Défense du Sénat portant sur des allégations de soutien des services secrets britanniques aux séparatistes Baloch (Idem). Sont de même pertinents des informations faisant état de soutien de la CIA et du Mossad aux rebelles Baloch en Iran et dans le Sud de l'Afghanistan.


Il semblerait que la Grande Bretagne et les US soutiennent les deux parties en conflit. Les US fournissent des avions de combat F-15 américains à l'armée pakistanaise, qui sont utilisés pour bombarder des villages au Balochistan. Pendant ce temps, le présumé soutien clandestin britannique au mouvement séparatiste (selon le Comité du Sénat pakistanais) contribue à affaiblir le gouvernement central.

Le but déclaré du contre terrorisme US c'est de fournir un soutien clandestin de même qu'un entraînement à des « armées de libération » avec finalement comme but de déstabiliser des gouvernements souverains. Au Kosovo, la formation de l'Armée de Libération du Kosovo ( KLA) dans les années 90 avait été confiée à une entreprise privée de mercenaires, MPRI (Military Professionnal Resources Inc) sous contrat avec le Pentagone.

Le BLA ressemble à s'y méprendre au KLA du Kosovo qui a été financé par le commerce de la drogue et soutenu par la CIA et la BND allemande (Bundes Nachrichten Dienst – services secrets allemands). Le BLA est apparu peu après le coup militaire de 1999. Il n'a pas de lien tangible avec le mouvement de résistance Baloch, qui s'est développé depuis la fin des années 40. Une aura de mystère entoure la direction du BLA.

Washington est favorable à la création d'un « Grand Balochistan » qui comprendrait les zones Baloch du Pakistan, celles de l'Iran et éventuellement le pointe sud de l'Afghanistan (Voir la carte ci-dessous) conduisant ainsi à un processus de démembrement politique à la fois de l'Iran et du Pakistan.

« Les US utilise le nationalisme Balochi pour monter une insurrection à l'intérieur de la province Sistan-Balochistan en Iran. La « guerre contre le terrorisme » en Afghanistan fournit une toile de fond utile pour l'ascendant pris par la militance Balochi ( Voir Global Research du 6 mars 2007).

Ce qu'à écrit Le lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters chercheur militaire dans l'édition de juin 2006 de « The Armed Forces Journal » suggère, dans des termes sans équivoque, que le Pakistan devrait être fragmenté, ce qui mènerait à la formation d'un pays séparé «le Grand Balochistan» ou « Balochistan libre « (voir carte ci-dessous). Celui-ci incorporerait les provinces pakistanaises et iraniennes Baloch au sein d'une seule entité politique.


A son tour, la province frontalière Nord Ouest du Pakistan (NWFP) devrait être incorporée dans l'Afghanistan « à cause des affinités linguistique et ethnique» . Cette fragmentation proposée, qui reflète largement la politique étrangère des US, réduirait le territoire pakistanais d'approximativement 50% (Voir carte). Le Pakistan perdrait aussi une grande partie de sa côte sur la mer d'Arabie.

Bien que la carte ne reflète pas officiellement la doctrine du Pentagone, elle a été utilisée lors d'un programme de formation au collège de défense de l'OTAN pour les hauts gradés militaires. Cette carte, de même que des cartes identiques, ont probablement été utilisées par l'Académie Nationale de Guerre de même que dans les cercles de planification militaires (Voir Malidi D. Nazemroaya Global Research 18 novembre 2006).

« Le dernier poste occupé par le lieutenant colonel Peters avant qu'il ne parte à la retraite se trouvait être au sein du bureau du sous chef du personnel des services secrets, dans le département de la défense US, et il a été l'un des auteurs du Pentagone les plus prolifiques ayant écrit de nombreux essais sur la stratégie pour des journaux militaires et sur la politique étrangère US » (Idem).

C'est important de noter que les tendances cessessionnistes ne se limitent pas au Balochistan. Il y a des groupes séparatistes dans la province de Sindh, s'appuyant principalement sur le régime militaire dominé par Punjabi du général Pervez Musharraf (Pour plus de détails voir Selig Harrisson, Le Monde Diplomatique octobre 2006).

« Remède Economique Fort » : Affaiblir le Gouvernement Central du Pakistan

Le Pakistan a une structure fédérale qui repose sur des transferts aux provinces fédérées. Dans le cadre d'une structure fiscale fédérale, le gouvernement central transfère des ressources financières aux provinces, dans le but de soutenir leurs programmes. Quand ces transferts sont gelés, comme cela est arrivé en Yougoslavie en janvier 1990, sur ordre du FMI, la structure fiscale fédérale s'effondre :

« les revenus de l'état qui auraient du aller aux Républiques dans le cadre de transferts de paiement (de la Fédération de Yougoslavie) ont été utilisés au lieu de cela pour payer la dette de Belgrade… Les Républiques ont été pour une grande part livrées à elles –mêmes financièrement…Les coupes dans le budget nécessitant une redirection des revenus fédéraux pour servir la dette, ont mené à la suspension du transfert par Belgrade des paiements aux gouvernements des Républiques et Régions Autonomes.

Les réformateurs avaient conçu l'effondrement final de la structure fiscale fédérale de la Yougoslavie et blessé mortellement les institutions politiques fédérales, le tout dans un seul plongeon. En coupant les artères financières entre Belgrade et les Républiques, les réformes ont alimenté des tendances cessessionnistes se nourrissant de facteurs économiques en même temps que de divisions ethniques, assurant en fait une cessession de facto des Républiques.
(Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Second Edition, Global Research, Montreal, 2003, Chapter 17.)

Ce n'est pas du tout par hasard si le rapport du National Intelligence Council – CIA de 2005 avait prédit un « sort semblable à celui de la Yougoslavie » pour le Pakistan mettant en avant les conséquences d'une « mauvaise gestion économique » comme l'une des causes de la fragmentation et de la balkanisation.

« Mauvaise gestion économique » est un terme utilisé par des institutions financières internationales basées à Washington pour décrire le chaos résultant du fait de ne pas suivre totalement le programme d'ajustement structurel du FMI. En fait, c'est réellement « la mauvaise gestion économique » et le chaos qui sont les conséquences des directives du FMI-Banque Mondiale, qui invariablement déclenchent une hyperinflation et précipitent des pays endettés dans l'extrême pauvreté.

Le Pakistan s'est vu prescrit le même « remède économique « mortel du FMI comme la Yougoslavie : en 1999, juste après le coup d'état militaire qui a porté au sommet du gouvernement militaire le général Pervez Musharraf, un paquet économique du FMI, incluant une dévaluation de la monnaie et des mesures drastiques d'austérité, a été imposé au Pakistan. La dette extérieure du Pakistan est de l'ordre de 40 billions de dollars US. La « réduction de la dette » du FMI dans le cadre du paquet avait comme condition la vente au capital étranger des entreprises d'état les plus profitables (dont les installations de pétrole et de gaz au Balochistan) à des prix cassés.


Le ministre des finances de Musharraf a été choisi par Wall Street, une pratique qui n'est pas inhabituelle. Les dirigeants militaires ont nommé à la demande de Wall Street, un vice président de Citigroup, Shaukat Aziz, qui à l'époque était à la tête d'une banque privée mondiale appartenant à Citigroup ((See WSWS.org, 30 October 1999). Citigroup fait partie des plus grandes institutions bancaires commerciales étrangères présentes au Pakistan.


Il existe des similitudes évidentes dans la nature des opérations clandestines des services secrets US pratiquées pays après pays dans différentes parties de ce que l'on appelle « le Monde en Développement ». Ces opérations clandestines, dont l'organisation de coups militaires, sont souvent synchronisées avec des réformes macro- économiques imposées par le FMI-Banque Mondiale. C'est dans ce cadre là que la structure fiscale fédérale de la Yougoslavie s'est effondrée en 1990 conduisant à une pauvreté de masse et des divisions ethniques et sociales accrues. Les US et l'OTAN ont soutenu une « guerre civile» déclenchée mi 91 qui consistait à couvrir des groupes islamiques de même qu'à faire passer un soutien clandestin aux groupes armés paramilitaires séparatistes en Bosnie, au Kosovo et en Macédoine.


Un scénario de « guerre civile » identique a été envisagé pour le Pakistan par le National Intelligence Council et la CIA : du point de vue des services secrets US, qui a une longue expérience dans le soutien aux « armées de libération » séparatistes, la « Grande Albanie » est au Kosovo ce qu'est le «Grand Balochistan» à la province du Balochistan au Sud Est du Pakistan. De même, le KLA est le modèle choisi par Washington pour être dupliqué dans la province du Balochistan.


L'Assassinat de Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto a été assassinée à Rawalpindi, une ville qui n'est pas ordinaire. Rawalpindi est une ville militaire qui héberge les quartiers généraux des forces Armées pakistanaises et le renseignement militaire (ISI). Ironiquement, Bhutto a été assassinée dans une zone urbaine étroitement contrôlée et gardée par la police militaire qui infiltre tout le temps les manifestations politiques. Son assassinat n'est par un évènement du au hasard.

Sans preuve, citant des sources gouvernementales pakistanaises, les médias occidentaux en chœur ont souligné le rôle d'Al Qaeda, tout en se concentrant également sur une possible implication du ISI.

Ce que ne mentionnent pas ces interprétations, c'est que l'ISI continue de jouer un rôle clé dans la supervision d'Al Qaeda pour le compte des services secrets US. Les articles de presse ont omis de mentionner deux faits importants et bien documentés :

1) L'ISI maintient des liens étroits avec la CIA. L'ISI est pratiquement une succursale de la SIA.

2) Al Qaeda est une création de la CIA. L'ISI fournit un soutien clandestin à Al Qaeda, agissant pour le compte des services secrets US.

L'implication soit d'Al Qaeda et /ou l'ISI suggère que les services secrets US étaient au courant et/ou impliqué dans le complot pour l'assassiner.


Article en anglais



Introduction, note éditoriale et traduction Mireille Delamarre pour www.planetenonviolence.org
Share:

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

US-Israeli armed Georgia attacks Ossetia and gets burnt


Mikheil Saakashvili – Trapped to take on Russia


Although Georgia became independent upon the collapse of the Soviet Union and South Ossetia and Akbhazia are inside Georgian borders, they were never under Georgian control. Their populations are mainly non-Georgian and they mostly hold Russian passports. The results of referenda of South Ossetians and Abkhaz clearly rejected any integration with Georgia, and they welcomed Russian peacekeepers on their soil to protect them.


To provoke and anger the Russians, Harvard educated President Mikheil Saakashvili has been pulling his weight and boasting about his marriage with Western corrupt, exploitative, repressive and blood-thirsty democracies. He applied to join NATO, a western military, aggressive and imperialist organisation, when Georgia is on the doorstep of Russia.

Oil
Geopolitical experts conclude that, in the immediacy « the conflict has been sparked by the race for control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region. » [ref. DEBKAfile]. Western oil companies, including Israeli firms were planning « to route the oil routes from Azerbaijan and the gas lines from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up to Russian pipelines. » Israel wants to bypass the Russian pipelines and arrange for them « to reach Turkey and thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. »

The USA and Israel have been arming Mikheil Saakashvili’s regime and providing his troops with training. According to the Israeli paper Haaretz, Israel’s military aid to Georgia runs in hundreds of millions in US$, and went on to say that « Israel has .. sold aerial drones, night-vision equipment, and rockets to Georgia, and many retired officers from the Israel's military and internal security services work as military advisors there. » There are over 1000 Israeli military advisers in Georgia. To show his gratitude, Mikheil Saakashvili even sent 2,000 US and Israeli trained Georgians to kill Iraqis in their own country.

Georgia’s attack
The US and Israel gave President Mikheil Saakashvili the greenlight to attack South Ossetia. Feeling strong with an inflated ego, Mikheil Saakashvili carried through his foolish ambition on 7th August 2008 knowing that Russian peacekeepers are stationed in Ossetia. Helped by Israeli military advisers, rockets, electronic warfare systems and intelligence, Georgia captured Tskhinvali, the capital of breakaway South Ossetia, on 8th august 2008. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin responded with even greater force, and even bombed targets within Georgia, including the capital Tbilisi. Russia also sent troops to Akbhazia and set up a blockade of Georgia via the Black Sea to prevent any weapons from reaching the country. Israel was quick to state that the weapons it sold to Georgia were purely « defensive ». At the same time, Georgia recalled her 2000 troops, regarded as terrorists, from Iraq, which troops were airlifted to Georgia by the U.S. in spite of Russia’s displeasure.

Given the many wars of aggression led by the US, Israel and other West European countries, their leaders are not in a position to call for restraint. It has also been noted how the US-controlled United Nations were so quick to react to Russia’s military response to Georgia’s attack, contrary to their slow reaction in the case of Israel’s attack against Lebanon and the Palestinians on more than one occasion.

Conclusion
Military strategists would argue that the thinking behind the European West’s use of Georgia to attack Russia in Ossetia is much more far-reaching. Given their murderous military overseas ventures, their unflinching support of Israel’s terrorist occupation of Palestine, their desire to attack Iran, their greed for oil, the Russians de facto support of Iran and objection to the West’s stationing of their so-called defensive radar systems in Eastern Europe, the European West wanted to test how a post cold war Russia would react. It appears that a retreat by Russia would have meant that they could attack Iran without fear. The response of Russia against a US and Israel armed, advised and trained Georgian army has seriously upset the outcome of their dice throw, and may very well be a turning point in their foreign policy, and even speed up their defeat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

M Rafic Soormally
London
11 August 2008
Share:

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

How british intelligence build a case against Abou Qatada with lies of an algerian officer, infiltrated in the Londonistan


Most of the groups in London are british intelligence operatives front, and when the judges of the court understood that the case build against Abu Qatada were lies manufactured by british intelligence and his puppet Reda Hussaine on the photo, they decided to release Abu Qatada.


Reda Hussaine, known as 'the prostitute of the services' is one of the several puppets used by french-algerian intelligence services to create 'false islamic groups' such as ' GIA' networks in Europe.
Like 'Operation November 1950' (a zionist network of 'false islamic groups' conducted by NATO and general Larbi Belkheir (french and israel military officer) in Algeria during the 1990s) had shown, most of the 'groups' are pure imagination and paranoia developped by westerner intelligence services to justify and legalise the colonisation and the plundering of the Muslim countries...


Now Reda Hussaine is threatening british and french intelligence to give all the names of the operatives who organised the operations in Paris in 1995 and give all the names of british 'muslims' operatives in 'Al Qaeda' in the UK... 'War on terror does not exist', it is build on lies and deceptions manufactured by a minority of people in the US, UK and Israeli governments which aim to control the Middle East...
We are expecting revelations very soon, bombshells that will surely destabilise UK and French governments...



le prédicateur islamiste Abou Qoutada a été libéré ce matin par les autorités britanniques. Une libération survenue sous caution et décidée pour éviter l’extradition vers la Jordanie de celui qu’on qualifie d’ambassadeur de Benladen en Europe.

Cette libération est un désaveu pour les services britanniques de renseignements qui avaient utilisé durant de longues années, Reda Hassaïne, un algérien qui a travaillé pour le compte de plusieurs services de renseignements comme indicateur.


Envoyé par les services secrets algériens (DRS) à Londres pour récupérer des fonds et du matériel au profit du GIA dont ils voulaient faire de lui un émir, Réda Hassaïne a refusé de s’empêtrer dans une aventure qu’il n’arrivait pas à s’expliquer. Le DRS et le GIA lui apparaissent comme deux faces d’une même pièce. Pour fuir ses officiers traitant du DRS il a fait de la capitale britannique son refuge avant de s’embarquer dans une périlleuse aventure qui lui fait découvrir le monde du renseignement à travers son infiltration des services secrets français, britanniques et l’antenne du DRS à Londres.

Agent triple, il a perdu toute crédibilité aux yeux de ses manipulateurs. Dans le jargon du renseignement il était "la pute des services". Néanmoins, après plus d'une dizaine d'années de collaboration avec les services britanniques qui ont fait de lui leur mouchard numéro un dans les milieux islamistes,la citoyenneté britannique lui a été accordée pour « services rendus ».

Journaliste et collaborateur dans plusieurs magazines et chaînes de télévision, Réda Hassaïne publiera prochainement son témoignage sur la manipulation du GIA par les services secrets algériens. Une véritable bombe qui ne manquera pas de faire réagir les organisations internationales de défense des droits de l’homme.

Selon la chaîne satellitaire Al-Arabiya, le prédicateur londonien Abou Koutada, de son vrai nom Omar Abou Omar, chef présumé d’Al-qaeda en Europe est libérable dans les prochaines 24 heures. Sa libération est soumise à certaines conditions dont les plus essentielles sont les suivantes :
Interdiction de quitter son domicile sans autorisation. Il ne lui est permis qu’une heure de sortie par jour.
Interdiction de contacter les dirigeants d’Al-qaeda dont Ben Laden et Azawahiri
Interdiction de prêcher dans les mosquées ou de diriger la prière.

Il est à rappeler que Abou Qoutada a été arrêté en août 2005. L’un de ceux qui se targuent d’avoir été à l’origine de son arrestation est Réda Hassaïne, un algérien qui a travaillé comme agent délateur pour le compte de plusieurs services de renseignements étrangers dont notamment, le DRS algérien, la DGSE française, les services britanniques le MI 5 et Scotland Yard. Ce qui lui a valu le surnom de « pute des services » comme se font appeler les agents qui émargent chez plusieurs services.

Réda Hassaïne a demandé, à la DGSE, l’obtention de la nationalité française en contrepartie des renseignements fournis sur les milieux islamistes à l’occasion de l’organisation de la coupe du monde de football en 1998 dans l’hexagone. Une demande refusée puisqu’il a du se contenter de quelques billets de banque qu’il qualifiait de minables et qui ne lui assuraient même pas le paiement d’un mois de loyer. Il accusera, alors, les services français d’avoir voulu enlever à Londres Abou Hmaza El-Misri. Une accusation rfeutée dans les colonnes du quotidien Le Figaro.

Avec les britanniques, Réda Hassaïne a été plus heureux, puisque après plus d’une dizaine d’années d’attente il a réussi, finalement, à obtenir la nationalité britannique.
Quant aux services algériens, Hassaïne leur réclame le paiement d’indemnité de plusieurs années ignorant qu’un agent délateur n’a pas de salaire fixe. D'autant plus qu'il avait été utilisé comme indicateur dans les milieux islamistes. Mais, Reda Hassaïne qui a été chargé d'infiltrer les réseaux islamistes en Algérie et en Grande Bretagne en accomplissant quelques missions, estime qu'il avait droit à une rémunération mensuelle. Chose qui n'existe nullement dans le monde du renseignement où les délateurs et les indicateuirs sont payés à la pièce.

La libération de Abou-Qoutada mettra, certainement, Reda Hassaïne dans tous ses états lui qui croyait s’être débarassé de ce prédicateur qui aurait lancé à son encontre une fetwa pour sa liquidation physique.




Share:

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Londonistan : A geo-strategical tool for geo-economical wars


Butt... I Made it all up Officer!



Written by Jamal Anderson
Friday, 06 June 2008



Over the past few months, UmmahPulse has been reporting on a number of "ex-extremists" (see here, here and here) who have been popping up all over the place.

Amazingly, all of them seem to have the answer on how to tackle extremism. People who once seemed delusional and psychotic all of a sudden seem to be calm, intellectual and worth hiring as government advisors.

One such slightly imbalanced individual is Hassan Butt.

Butt is a self-proclaimed reformist who has said that he has turned his back on his Al-Qaeda terrorist buddies. But, it has recently come to light that Butt has fabricated his claims about being an Al-Qaeda member.

Under normal circumstances, the last thing a Muslim should want is to be associated with an extremist group. In the current climate where even an ounce of tenuous information could get you locked up, these people are dying or, in Hassan Butt's case, literally bleeding to be considered as a one time member of Al-Qaeda.

It seems the source of Hassan et al's authority to speak on the matter of extremism and be in the media spot-light is dependent on the fact that they were once part of such dubious organisations.

Butt and others like him are set to make thousands from books and even films about their life-story. Butt had started a book with journalist Shiv Malik to describe his own account, dubbed "Leaving Al-Qaeda".

Not unsurprisingly, Butt's outlandish claims got him arrested as he was about to board a plane to Pakistan. He was detained for 12 days and was interviewed for hours by Greater Manchester Police. In an unprecedented step, Greater Manchester Police released transcripts of the interviews which contradict his claims of ties to extremist organisations.

The transcripts from Greater Manchester Police reported that Hassan Butt said:

"I've never met Osama bin Laden. I've never met anyone from Al-Qaeda, or anyone whose claimed to be from Al-Qaeda at all in my entire life. I just wanna make that clear, so but they did impress me."

When questioned about being attacked with a knife by extremists. This is what slightly-psycho boy had to say:

"I actually arranged for myself to be stabbed in the shoulder, sorry in my arm and in my back because I knew if I said I had been attacked Shiv was going to ask for some proof so basically I stabbed myself... you know, it was just part of the whole scam."

Butt's contact with the Tube bomber Siddique Khan was also concocted. He had claimed to have met and had tea with Siddique Khan but under arrest he confessed that he didn't even know Siddique Khan until it appeared in the news.

Now that Hassan Butt has been shown to be a sham, a liar, and slightly mental, will those who have presented him as an expert highlight this to the public?

http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=38
Share:

Friday, June 06, 2008

It's a war between zionism and Islaam



The Influence of Israel in Westminster


By Janine Roberts

We British are not like Americans – we would not tolerate having Israeli lobbyists standing over our politicians like happens in Washington and thus gathering power. Why – they might bias our decisions over our foreign policy! The influence of Israel in Washington is well documented. It is exercised both through powerful overtly Jewish Washington organisations and, increasingly, through Christian Zionist organisations.

In Jerusalem two weeks ago 600 US Christians turned up to celebrate Israel’s birthday, in the name of a powerful US pro-Israeli lobbying group claiming to represent 40 million Christians and called Christians United for Israel, led by the millionaire Rev John Hagee – head of a Texas church and of a widely syndicated Christian TV station. Their organisation is modelled on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) whose conference in Washington last year drew 6,000 participants.

The Christians came to insist that Israel must have the whole of Jerusalem – and, after marching down Jaffa Street waving US and Israeli flags, a hundred of them went on April 3rd to the major Israeli settlement of Ariel to have a party featuring dancing cow girls put on for them by the Ariel mayor in thanks for millions given for its ‘vast new sports and recreation centre’ with the name of the Reverend emblazoned on its side.

Hagee declared. "I'm delighted to be in Ariel tonight, the heartland of America in Judea and Samaria," Afterwards, at a Jerusalem rally with Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of Likud and a close friend of Hagee, they announced on April 9th further donations of $6 million to various Israeli causes

The pastor declared "Turning part or all of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians would be tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban."

Its 2007 annual conference in Washington attracted more than 4,250. The conference highlight was a “surprise appearance” by Hagee-endorsed Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate for President. His opening line was “It’s hard doing the Lord’s work in the city of Satan.” He received seven standing ovations.

Barack Obama under the Israeli lobby pressure took this position “Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel...” Hilary Clinton went further. She is calling for “an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital’ and thus is definitely the Zionist favourite. Since 2004 Obama has received $93,700 of AIPAC money, while Hillary has taken $349,073.

However, a happier note, - a day before Hagee's visit to Ariel, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish religious organisation in the United States, with over 1.5 million members, denounced Hagee and his followers for religious extremism.


But nothing like this has ever happened here in the UK? Right?

On the contrary, in some ways the Zionist lobby in this country has been even more successful – not simply historically, with getting the Balfour Declaration, but particularly in very recent times. In the US there are 13 Jews in the Senate and 30 in the House of Representatives, while in the UK, where we have a Jewish community 20 times smaller, - there are many more Jewish people in Parliament, There are 18 in the House of Commons and 41 in the House of Lords –. It is the highest Jewish representation in the West, and this achievement is due in part to Tony Blair’s patronage

Before New Labour was invented, the Labour party was more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Jon Mendelsohn of the Labour Friends of Israel has explained how it changed: '"Blair has attacked the anti-Israelism that had existed in the Labour Party. Old Labour was cowboys-and-Indians politics, picking underdogs to support, but the milieu has changed. Zionism is pervasive in New Labour. It is automatic that Blair will come to Labour Friends of Israel meetings."'

One of Blair’s first acts on becoming an MP in 1983 was to join Labour Friends of Israel. But the major change only occurred after he rose to control of the Labour party. To carry out his planned policies, he needed to try to break the funding influence of the trade unions. So he needed an ally with ample funds.

In 1994, a legal friend and colleague of his, Eldred Tabachnik, Q.C., the former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, introduced him to Michael Levy, a pop music mogul and fundraiser for Jewish and Israeli causes, a member of the Jewish Agency World Board of Governors, and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. This was at a dinner party hosted by the Israeli diplomat Gideon Meir.

Soon afterwards Blair was invited to Levy’s palatial home and tennis courts. According to Andrew Porter of The Business, Levy expressed his willingness “to raise large sums of money for the party” if there was a “tacit understanding that Labour would never again, while Blair was leader, be anti-Israel”.

The result: Levy ran the Labour Leader’s Office Fund to finance Blair’s campaign in the 1997 General Election. Levy in effect made New Labour possible. For this he was rewarded immediately with a peerage, as were some of their other donors. Levy has described himself as “a leading international Zionist” and he has since praised Blair for his ‘solid and committed support of the State of Israel’

But, Blair needed a constant source of funds if he was to reduce the influence of the unions – and, it seems, he needed to hide its source lest it be questioned. One of the better known figures at Labour Friends of Israel is David Abrahams, a Jewish property developer. The President of the Zionist Federation, Eric Moonman vouches for him: “I know David well and have travelled with him on a number of occasions.’ Abrahams took on part of the task of secretly funding New Labour. He gave more than £650,000 to the Party under four other people’s names – a move since admitted to be unlawful by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown but which has had no legal consequence.

Abrahams explains generally that he wanted to remain anonymous as he is a ‘private person.’ But he said far more to the British Jewish Chronicle. He said he gave the money to Labour secretly since he did not want ‘Jewish money’ and the Labour Party to be linked, thinking this would make people suspect there was a Jewish conspiracy.

Labour Party officials initially denied knowing about these secret methods but evidence has since emerged that Abrahams was at the time in close contact with Prime Minister Gordon Brown's election campaign adviser, Jon Mendelsohn, who also happens to be the ex-chairman of the lobby group Labour Friends of Israel. Other Jewish members of Labour Friends of Israel kicked in money. Lord Sainsbury gave a million pounds. Levy by 2001 had raised £15 million. Thus the Israeli lobby helped Labour break the power of the trade unions, in return for reshaping the entire UK political scene in the interests of Israel.

Quite astonishingly, once they had discovered them, the press treated these secret donations with kid gloves. Very few asked what was the Israeli lobby hoping to gain from such massive donations. No one asked, as far as I am aware, if it were Tony Blair who had wanted these donations kept secret – and if so, why? Few speculated on the foreign policy implications.

As we now know Iraq was never a threat to the UK – but it was potentially to Israel. Blair told his Jewish audiences, "a stable Iraq will be good news for Israel." He also held back from doing anything to bring the fighting to an end while Israel was bombing Lebanon.

Levy became our “special envoy” to the Middle-East despite having a serous conflict of Interest. He was supposed to negotiate impartially with Palestinians and Israelis but he had acted as a fundraiser for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak as well as lobbying for Israel in the UK. He has both a business and a house in Israel and calls himself an ‘international Zionist.’

A Labour campaign advert in the Jewish Chronicle has boasted that since 1997 a record 57 Labour MPs have visited Israel, mostly with and funded by Labour Friends of Israel, ‘swelling the number of MPS willing to ensure balance on the Middle East in the House of Commons. More Labour MPs have visited Israel than from any other party.’ The advert also boasted that the Terrorism Act of 2000 – for which LFI actively lobbied – “proscribes terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad,” all being enemies of Israel rather than of the UK.


Gordon Brown

Gordon is more personally immersed in Zionism than Blair. It is something he grew up with in his childhood. He told a recent gathering, ‘I have been proud to be a member of Labour Friends of Israel over three decades. My father used to spend many weeks in Israel, he was the chairman of the Church of Scotland’s Israel Committee. He went on visits to meet people twice a year for more than 20 years.’

Gordon Brown said in a speech: 'I was brought up on slides on an old projector, all these photographs that he brought back of Israel’s history, books about Israel, and I learned very young and at first hand from my father of the struggles, the sacrifices the achievements of the new state of Israel and of the Israeli people. So I just want to say to you who are also friends of Israel that I was brought up with a very strong understanding that the future of Israel matters not just to Israel itself but matters to the whole of the world and I will continue to do what I can both to defend Israel ...'

He has also stated: “I was brought up impressed by the sufferings and courage of the Jewish people, aware of the great achievements in creating the State of Israel, most of all impressed by the determination that, from whatever source, discrimination in all its forms must be fought.”

One of Gordon Brown's first acts after assuming the Prime Minister's role was to accept an appointment as Patron of the Jewish National Fund founded in 1901. The Israeli government sold to this Fund the land seized from Arab refugees – and then made this land only available for Jews to settle on. It planted forests over the uprooted olive trees of former Palestinian settlements. It currently owns about 14% of Israel.

Brown then announced that two children per UK secondary school will be funded to go to the site of the Auschwitz death camp. For this the Holocaust Educational Trust has honoured him. He has also been supporting economic schemes for the West bank advocated by Sir Ronald Cohen's Portland Trust.

But it is Brown’s appointments that are much more worrying. He has ensured continued Jewish funding of New Labour by appointing Mendelssohn of Labour Friends of Israel as his chief fundraiser for the next election. He has also appointed former British ambassador to Israel, Simon McDonald, as his chief foreign policy adviser. Israel has expressed satisfaction with the choice, saying he is "a true friend to Israel."

He also made James Purnell, the chairman of Labour Friends of Israel from 2002 to 2004, secretary of state for culture media and sport, giving him oversight over the British Broadcasting Corporation and the rest of the British media. In a letter published in Prospect in December 2004, Purell said: ‘Some people are trying to turn Israel into a global villain, the new pariah regime to take the place of apartheid-era South Africa … ‘When some people talk as if Israel is entirely to blame, I ask why. The only answer I can find is that there is something deep in our cultural memory that makes us disposed to blame Jews.’ (In 2008 Brown put Purnell in charge of Pensions.)

Gordon Brown gave Jim Murphy, Chairman of Labour Friends of Israel from 2000-02, the position of Minister of State for Europe with responsibility for the BBC World Service and the British Council. Most worrying of all, his new Middle East Minister is Kim Howells a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel. The Director of Labour Friends of Israel is David Mencer, a former volunteer for the Israeli Defence Force.

Labour Friends of Israel now has a burgeoning membership in the Commons and is seen as a certain ladder for success by aspiring politicians. Receptions hosted by the lobby usually boast a huge turnout, with such guests as Gordon Brown, the Israeli ambassador and the Israeli Deputy Minister of Defence. At Labour party conference the prime minister attends the LFI meeting, and so do a good number of cabinet members. Such high-level attendance is rare for a fringe meeting

The Labour Party’s policy-defining Smith Institute is now very much under the influence of the Israeli lobby. Its chairman is Lord Haskel who is also a member of the Parliamentary Executive of the Labour Friends of Israel. The Smith Institute's board includes Baroness Meta Ramsay, a longtime MI-6 intelligence officer who is House of Lords chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, and Tony Blair is of course now the Quartet's Envoy to the Middle East.

They actively monitor the media and try to remove criticism of Israel. Thus an alleged reference to Israel as that 'shitty little country' made by the French Ambassador at a dinner hosted by Contrad Black immediately elicited a letter from the LFI demanding that the Ambassador be sacked. LIkewise they maintained a dossier on Ken Livingstone.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown seems to be the only mainstream journalist to have dared to question the Labour Friends of Israel. In an article entitled 'Such lobbyists and their back-room influence should make us very uneasy' published on 03 December 2007 she stated:

“Pardon me for asking. Perhaps I shouldn't. For an easy life, some things, you learn, are best left unsaid. Nervous, am I? You bet. But these questions will not stand aside or lie down. They have been bothering me since the Labour party donor row broke last week. They are raised here in good faith. I have no wish to bring the wrath of Moses upon me and I can already hear the accusations of anti-Semitism because I dare to raise the question: Can someone explain what exactly is the role of the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) in our political life? And its twin, the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) too.

“In an open democracy, we are entitled to make such queries – indeed, it is a duty. David Abrahams, the strange shape-shifter at the centre of the funding furore, was once Mr Big in LFI; so is John Mendelsohn, the smart fundraiser picked by Gordon Brown to garner "election resources" to finance the next Labour win. Lord Levy is also a key member of LFI.

“We witnessed the tortuous police investigation into the peer's affairs during the cash for honours investigations, but not once was there any scrutiny of Levy's connection to LFI and how that might have led to the offer of his prestigious position as the Middle East envoy, handed to him by his tennis partner, Tony Blair.

“Mendelsohn is a passionate Zionist and infamous lobbyist, described by the Jewish Chronicle as "one of the best-connected power brokers". So we can assume LFI plays a part in shaping our foreign policies in the Middle East – the most inflammable tinderbox in the world today.

“And that is neither right nor fair. The LFI take, by definition, has to be partisan. It exists to present the official Israeli view; it cannot be nuanced or considerate to "the enemy". I would venture to suggest that Tony Blair's abject performance during the last Israeli assault on Lebanon was partly the result of the special relationship he had with LFI. It is astonishing that we have allowed it to spread through the corridors of power and infuse the air that breathed there. This corruption has no whiff, no colour. It is deadly and must now be stopped at source.”


A Recent Achievement of Labour Friends of Israel

They have strongly and powerfully lobbied for the UK and EU to cut off financial aid to the Gaza Strip as long as the elected Hamas government of Hamas is in power. Thus they share responsibility with Israel for the current atrocious and miserable living conditions in the Gaza, including the children dying because they are not allowed to go to Israeli hospitals and Gazan hospitals have been sanctioned out of medical supplies.


Labour Friends of Israel briefed the party: “

Hamas’s election manifesto is softer than its charter, in that it does not explicitly call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Yet it still advocates the continuation of the armed struggle, and offers not more than a long ‘hudna’ (truce) in return for an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Israel is tolerated as an unfortunate reality, but her right to exist as a Jewish state is not recognised. This refusal to recognise Israel’s legitimacy or any agreement signed with her by the PLO, and their insistence on the continuation of the armed struggle, makes it hard to imagine a future Hamas government as a partner for peace negotiations, not only with Israel, but in the eyes of the international community. As a result, the US, Quartet and EU, while congratulating the democratic process in Palestine, have all warned that, without renouncing terrorism and recognising Israel, there will be no negotiations with a Hamas-formed government. Bringing Hamas to change its position depends, to a large extent, on this united front in the international community.

“LFI's recommendation.... For an economy which relies so heavily on foreign aid – to the tune of $1billion annually from donor countries and a further $55 million each month from taxes collected by Israel – the withdrawal of aid would place intense pressure on a Hamas government that refused to modify its policies.

“However, the international community and Israel cannot in practice stop completely the transfer of money as it could push the Palestinian economy out of the protracted humanitarian crisis from which it currently suffers and into a full-scale disaster.”


As for the Tories

The political director of Conservative Friends of Israel claims that with over 2,000 members and registered supporters alongside 80 percent of the Conservative MPs, they are now the largest affiliated group in the party. They run six deputations to Israel a year – paid for by the organisation. They engage in intensive lobbying – including providing briefing notes to Brown, They maintain constant contact with the Israeli embassy.

Their website is stridently anti Hezbollah and they maintain a careful vetting of all new Parliamentary candidates. “Within the Conservative Party, we actively support candidates, especially in marginal constituencies. Our programme for prospective parliamentary candidates provides weekly briefings, events with speakers, and a chance to participate in delegations to Israel. Our members give financial support and campaigning help where it matters.”

Robert Halfon is Political Director of Conservative Friends of Israel and has been fast tracked to re-stand in Harlow at the next election.

Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party has stated “I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative Friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party.” His recent tour of Israel began with a two hour Black Hawk helicopter flight with the Israeli defence minister to see the country's borders

Dr Liam Fox MP, Shadow Defence Secretary has stated. Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided. He did not mention that since 2000 there have been four times more Palestinians killed than Israelis, and ten times more Palestinian children than Israeli. (Israeli B’Tselem figures)


The Liberal Democrats

They too have a parliamentary 'Friends of Israel Group' and its website is stridently pro-Israel - in fact much more so than that of the Labour group. It was the first such party group to be established. It states its prime objective is 'to influence the Party’s Middle East policy so it places a high priority on Israel’s right to peace and security. '

It also states incredibly that it is a 'myth' that 'Israel "occupies" the West Bank' and a 'myth' that 'the Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians.'


The Christian Friends of Israel (UK)

An international organisation with bases in some twenty countries. In the UK it has particularly close ties with the Tory Friends of Israel, helping to man its stall at party functions and particularly helping to make sure that future Tory MPs are selected in part because they are supporters of Israel. It runs frequent tours to Israel. A recent bus tour it organised managed to skirt around the West Bank - except of course for Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

They state that 'we are a ministry with a twin focus. We seek to: 1. Bless Israel by means of practical and moral support. 2. Serve the Church with teaching and resources about God's love and purposes for Israel and the Hebraic roots of our faith. It thus teaches Hebrew, prays in Hebrew and uses many directly borrowed Jewish elements in its rituals.

It also teaches on its website that:

"The British Empire disappeared because she was no longer the friend of the Jewish people, but became her enemy, using both her Navy and the Air Force to try to stop the Holocaust survivors from reaching the Promised Land.”


Two Comments on the USA Parent Groups

Nancy Roman, the director of the Council on Foreign Relations' Washington programme: "Part of what is happening is that the evangelical community in the U.S. is becoming more engaged in the political process .. Whereas the church used to counsel people not to engage in politics, many churches are now counseling the opposite ..It's important and it will have a huge influence on foreign policy over time"

Michelle Goldberg, author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, says that "Christian Zionism is responsible for American support for some of the most irredentist Israeli positions," including of Israel’s expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, highlighting evangelical Christians’ strong influence in shaping the U.S. Middle East policy. She says that the movement's influence is even stronger than the Jewish lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. "The influence of Hagee is to make the American public support the government's completely one-sided, hawkishly pro-Israel stance. These groups have much more influence than AIPAC or the so-called Israel lobby."


Don’t Forget the EU

Benita Ferrero Waldner, the EU's external relations commissioner, has indicated that she is keener to foster closer ties with Israel than with almost any other country in the Mediterranean region. As well as remarking that Israel is "closer to the European Union than ever before," she said that a "reflection group" is studying how relations between the two sides can be upgraded to a "truly special status." Whereas formal bodies have been set up to deal with human rights questions in Morocco and Jordan, only an informal "working group" addresses such issues in the case of Israel. Israel is generally treated as if it is a member of Europe despite being outside it - just as it is for Soccer and for the Eurovision contest - yet its religiously biased constitution is a bar from membership.

The Palestinian people have paid a very high price for the rise of New Labour – and it is surely past time to reverse this.

-Janine Roberts investigative features have been widely published in the major Australian newspapers as well as in the Independent and Financial Times in the UK. Her investigative film "the Diamond Empire" was shown on Frontline WGBH in the USA and on the BBC - it was researched partly in Israel

Source:
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13821

If you liked this artcle consider donating to The Palestine Chronical by clicking here:
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/contribution.php
Share:

Monday, May 26, 2008

IT IS WAR BETWEEN ZIONISM AND ISLAAM, NO THE WEST : AFTER MOSSAD OPERATIVE SARKOSY IN FRANCE, MOSSAD BOY DAVID MILIBAND IN UK


Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand Ruling Britain and the United States

Next UK Prime Minister a Jew ? Forces of Zion assemble behind Boy David Miliband





Ralph Miliband escaped from Belgium in 1940 and managed to obtain a place at the London School of Economics studying under Harold Laski in 1941, studies which were interrupted by 3 years service in the Royal Navy.

Born Adolphe in 1924 , the son of Jewish emigre parents in Brussels, he became a significant but fringe academic figure in post war Marxist thought . he taught , never for long at many places in the UK and US and helped launch and edit , New Reasoner and the New Left Review.

Something Jewish conducted a survey of who Jewish women in the UK would like to date ...

David Schwimmer (actor)
Sacha Baron Cohen (actor)
Larry David (actor)
Robert Kazinsky (actor)
Sir Alan Sugar (business)
Zach Braff (actor)
Henry Winkler (actor)
Paul Kaye (actor)
Tal Ben Haim (footballer)
Ed Miliband (politician)

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/2085_celebrity_dating_jew.htm



Ralph died 13 years ago but his two sons have been successful in purveying a mild blend of well connected pragmatic socialism which has resulted in them both becoming Labour MP's and Ministers in Tony Blair's Government.

Rt, Hon. David Miliband MP AKA "The Carbon Kid" , "The Boy David", was elected Labour MP for South Shields in 2001 and is now in the Cabinet as Environment Secretary - he has his own blog within the ministry here . One fascinating link to show what a "lad" he is ... Arsenal Footie ..Prop the friendly, David Dein (see Footnote) .. he is ex officio President of South Shields Football Club. Another interesting weblink is to the website of Norman Geras (b. 25 August 1943) Marxist scholar, Jew and friend of the family , and Professor Emeritus of Government at the University of Manchester. Educated at Haverstock Comprehensive he read PPE @ Corpus Christi College, Oxford University, and completed a Masters Degree at MIT as a Kennedy Scholar (Ed Balls at Treasury was as well) - married (1998) to American violinist (with LSO) Louise Shackelton and they have one adopted child Isaac.


The younger (but it is said brainier) , Ed Miliband, had some sort of minor role in Gordon Brown's think tank in the back of No 11 Downing Street. In the last election in 2005 he stood for and won the seat for Doncaster North . Rapid promotion followed and his now Minister for the Third Sector in the Cabinet Office.... whatever the hell that is.

David is transparently ambitious and has the right connections and is being boosted since early February by the pro Miliband / anti Brownite tendency in the Press such as David Aaronovitch, and Jonathan Freedland ... although Mandelson was agitating the ordure as long ago as September in the Daily Torygraph.

Now we have this weekend (Guradian) ,and now thanks to the reportage in the Daily Express, (Prop Mr Desmond porn TV promoter and (very) generous Jewish philanthropist) the thoughts of the Prime Minister which have in the mysterious way these remarkable remarks seem to do ..."emerged" ...



Mr Blair has told aides that he thinks that the 41-year-old Environment Secretary could beat the Chancellor.

He was even said to have discussed a Miliband leadership bid with a Cabinet colleague. A senior Blairite reportedly said:“I know what Tony thinks about this – he thinks that if David runs with conviction and mounts the right argument, he will win.

“He’ll win because, by the end of a leadership contest, the ground will move.”
Twice sacked the dishonest ex- Minister and EI gravy train rider, Peter Mandelson provided, as ever this weekend, a less direct but nonetheless easily decoded remark, that ..." he wanted a new generation of younger Labour MPs deciding for themselves who they want to see leading the party”....widely regarded as a plug for his fellow son of Zion at DeFRA. See comment on Mandelson's "botched coup" here.

FOOTNOTE

David Dein is of course Chairman of Arsenal, and his son, Darren's Father in Law is Accountant David Buchler, chairman of Tottenham Hotspur. David Dein wide interest in football including the scandal riven Belgian Beveren club, and he is also a major football agent and founder of Sports Entertainment and Media Group Ltd (SAM)whose clients include Dennis Bergkamp, Thierry Henry and Rio Ferdinand.

David Buchler is of course the same David Buchler brought in to try and save AIM listed Crown Corporation AKA Langbar, which mysteriously one day had huge assets and the next didn't... a company in which Mariusz Rybak, a Canadian technology executive, and Jean-Pierre Regli, a Swiss-Italian banker and the company’s co-founder were on good terms with Barry Townsley and Simon Fox of stockbroker Insinger Townsley. Barry of course was/is a good friend of the Karaoke King who promised him and Earldom and half of Surrey, and a string of live in chorus girls as well as eternal life , in exchange for a loan to the New Labour Party. Read more here about the men who run David Miliband's favourite footie team.

What's that Latin tag of Catullus .. "You can judge a man who sleazes by the company he pleazes"

The final nail on Gordon's coffin is of course the fact that Jack Straw (who has a curious and mysterious Jewish ancestry) has declared he will run the Chancellor'scampaign as Leader .. if that doesn't sink the opposition to the Boy David nothing will.

PS. Your reward for getting this far is to see how the heading banner on the Boy David's blogger has been hacked today and replaced with the above ,"slightly altered image" - evidently needs to spend more money on technical support instead of doing it on the cheap.

WIT AND WISDOM OF D MILIBAND

BBC Question Time February 2007

"I predict that when I come back on this programme in six months or a year’s time, people will be saying ‘wouldn’t it be great to have that Blair back because we can’t stand that Gordon Brown’."


30th November 2006, re the Phase II EU / ETS scheme


"Today's decision by the European Commission represents good news for the environment and good news for Europe. Emissions trading is a key tool in the UK and across the EU to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change. The EU has a responsibility to ensure scarcity in the carbon market and a sustainable price of carbon. Today's decision shows a clear determination to acheive this. "


This chart shows some fascinating changes in polling data on the popularity of the Labour Politicians - look at Goordon !

UPDATE 27/3/07

The Board of Deputies of British Jews together with the Noah Project have launched a new green initiative with the support of the Environment Minister. The Big Green Jewish website was launched at a ceremony, timed to coincide with Tu B’Shevat or Jewish Arbor Day, in London by David Miliband MP, Secretary of State for the Environment 22nd February 2007.

Thise website is suported by Hazon - what is Hazon ? well, "Our vision is of a renewed Jewish community: one that is rooted in Jewish tradition, engaged with the world around us, radically inclusive, passionate and creative."

Our vision is of a community that seeks in myriad ways to learn and ultimately to live Hazon's theme-quote:


"the Torah is a commentary on the world,
and the world is a commentary on the Torah..."



From the Something Jewish website
"It is a great pleasure to be associated with the launch of this innovative and useful initiative," said Miliband. "Climate change is one of the biggest crises we are facing. The Big Green Jewish Website is a prime example of the valuable role that faith communities and their rich traditions can play in tackling this challenge."

Something Jewish conducted a survey of who Jewish women in the UK would like to date ...

David Schwimmer (actor)
Sacha Baron Cohen (actor)
Larry David (actor)
Robert Kazinsky (actor)
Sir Alan Sugar (business)
Zach Braff (actor)
Henry Winkler (actor)
Paul Kaye (actor)
Tal Ben Haim (footballer)
Ed Miliband (politician)

Which tells you something about Jewish women if they prefer an arsehole like (a rich and successful one maybe) Alan Sugar before anybody, never mind the boy with the carbon footprint.
Share:

Thursday, May 22, 2008

We, the zionist people control US, UK, France and Germany, and you are all going to die for Yisrael in the Mideast

Persons with dual Israeli and US citizenship in the US Government


Here's a list of those who have taken over our government and who have pushed for war on Iraq, and are now pushing for war with Iran. And note too, that just about all these individuals are dual Israeli citizens. The US has been taken over by a foreign power, a fraction of its size.




Michael Mukasey: Attorney General

Michael Chertoff: Head of Homeland Security

Richard Perle: Chairman Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Paul Wolfowitz: Former Deputy Defense Secretary

Douglas Feith: Under Secretary of Defense

Elliott Abrams: National Security Council Advisor

"Scooter" Libby: Former VP Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff

Joshua Bolten: White House Deputy Chief of Staff

Marc Grossman: Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs

Richard Haass: Director of Policy Planning at the State Department

Robert Zoellick: U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position)

James Schlesinger: Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

John Bolton: UN Representative (Former)

David Wurmser: Under Secretary for Arms Control

Eliot Cohen: Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Steve Goldsmith: Senior Advisor to the President

Christopher Gersten: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

Lincoln Bloomfield: Assistant Secretary of State

Jay Lefkowitz: Deputy Assistant to the President

Ken Melman: White House Political Director

Edward Luttwak: National Security Study Group

Kenneth Adelman: Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Lawrence (Larry) Franklin: Former Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst

Robert Satloff: National Security Council Advisor

Mel Sembler: President Export-Import Bank U.S.

Christopher Gersten: Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families

Mark Weinberger: Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs

David Frum: White House Speechwriter

Ari Fleischer: Former White House Spokesman

Henry Kissinger: Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Samuel Bodman: Deputy Secretary of Commerce

Bonnie Cohen: Under Secretary of State for Management

Ruth Davis: Director of Foreign Service Institute
Share:

Monday, May 19, 2008

Are 60 Years of Agony and 94 Years of Deception Not Enough?



"They plot and plan, and Allah too plans, but the best of planners is Allah."
(Al-Qur’an 8:30)


By Husain Al-Qadi,




It is exactly sixty years ago this week that David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel under a large picture of the man who had spearheaded the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl.

The event marks not only a momentous juncture in Muslim-Western relations but also a fulfilment of promises made by the British government in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." [My emphasis] (Balfour Declaration, 2nd November 1917.)

When the news of this Declaration reached the Arab world, coming as it did on the heels of another secret deal in the notorious Sykes-Picot Agreement, it provoked a wave of protest by Arab leaders in Cairo. When the news reached King Sharif Husain, who eighteen months earlier had allied himself to the British in an "Arab Revolt" against the Ottoman Empire, he demanded an explanation. The response was captured in the words of a contemporary historian, George Antonius, writing in 1938:

"His [King Husain's] request was met by the dispatch of Commander Hogarth, one of the heads of the Arab Bureau in Cairo, who arrived in Jedda in the first week of January, 1918, and had two interviews with the King.

"The message which Hogarth had been instructed to deliver had the effect of setting Husain's mind completely at rest, and this was important from the standpoint of the morale of the Revolt. But what is equally important from the point of view of the historian is that the message he gave the King, on behalf of the British Government, was an explicit assurance that 'Jewish settlement in Palestine would only be allowed in so far as would be consistent with the political and economic freedom of the Arab population.' The message was delivered orally, but Husain took it down, and the quotation I have just given is my own rendering of the note made by him in Arabic at the time. The phrase I have italicised represents a fundamental departure from the text of the Balfour Declaration which purports to guarantee only the civil and religious rights of the Arab population. In that difference lay the difference between a peaceful and willing Arab Jew co-operation in Palestine and the abominable duel of the last twenty years. For it is beyond all reasonable doubt certain that, had the Balfour Declaration in fact safe­guarded the political and economic freedom of the Arabs, as Hogarth solemnly assured King Husain it would, there would have been no Arab opposition, but indeed Arab welcome, to a humanitarian and judicious settlement of Jews in Palestine.

"In his reply, Husain was quite explicit. He said to Hogarth that in so far as the aim of the Balfour Declaration was to provide a refuge to Jews from persecution, he would use all his influence to further that aim. He would also assent to any arrangement that might be found suitable for the safeguard and control of the Holy Places by the adherents of each of the creeds who had sanctuaries in Palestine. But he made it plain that there could be no question of surrendering the Arab claim to sovereignty, although he would willingly consider when the time came, whatever measures might seem advisable to supply the future Arab government in Syria (including Palestine) with expert administrative and technical guidance.

"In the months that followed, Husain gave ample proof of the sincerity of his attitude. He sent out messages to his principal followers in Egypt and in the forces of the Revolt to inform them that he had had assurances from the British Government that the settlement of Jews in Palestine would not conflict with Arab independence in that territory; and to urge them to continue to have faith in Great Britain's pledge and their own efforts to achieve their freedom. He ordered his sons to do what they could to allay the apprehensions caused by the Balfour Declaration among their followers. He despatched an emissary to Faisal at 'Aquaba with similar instructions. He caused an article to be published in his official mouthpiece, 'calling upon the Arab population in Palestine to bear in mind that their sacred books and their traditions enjoined upon them the duties of hospitality and tolerance, and exhorting them to welcome the Jews as brethren and co-operate with them for the common welfare.' The article appears to have been written by Husain himself and is historically valuable not only as an instance of his freedom from religious prejudice or fanaticism, but also as reflecting the general Arab attitude towards Jewry prior to the appearance of political Zionism on the scene.

"In Egypt, the efforts of the British authorities to explain away the political implications of the Balfour Declaration had met with some success. In March, a Zionist commission headed by Dr. Weizmann arrived in Cairo on their way to Palestine; and they, too, went to no little trouble to allay Arab apprehensions. Dr. Weizmann, with his great gift of persuasion, scored a temporary success in interviews he had with several Arab personalities, and in this he was ably and zealously seconded by Major the Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore who was accompanying the commission as political officer delegated by the Foreign Office. They gave their hearers such a comforting account of Zionists' aims and dispositions as dispelled their fears and brought them to a state of acquiescence in the idea of Zionist-Arab co-operation. Meetings were arranged and held between Zionist and Arab leaders. The proprietor of an influential newspaper in Cairo [Dr Faris Nimr Pasha] was so far impressed with Dr. Weizmann's and Major Ormby-Gore's assurances that he made use of the weighty columns of his journal to dispell Arab fears about their political future and advocate an understanding between the two races." (Antionius, G., 1938, The Arab Awakening, pp. 267-270.)

This turn-around in opinion, of course, should not surprise anyone. Zionist activists like Dr Weizmann had had over 20 years to perfect their skills in deceptive diplomacy, from the establishment of the World Zionist Organisation (WZO) in 1897 to their blustering their way over the Turks. There are many examples of this duplicity at work in the early 20th Century, as is evident in a letter to The Times newspaper from Theodore Herzl's right-hand aide and second President of the WZO, David Wolffsohn, who wrote in 1911:

"Sirs,- I shall be obliged if you will allow me to make a few observations upon the article of your Constantinople Correspondent on the 'Young Turks and Zionism' which appeared in your issue of April 14, and regret that my recent absence from Cologne has prevented me from writing to you before. I particularly regret this inevitable delay, as several statements in the article are quite incorrect. As they have not yet been challenged or rectified in your columns, I fear they may have found acceptance in certain quarters. Knowing, however, that you are far from desiring that any injustice should be done through any article in your paper to the cause that I represent, I feel that you will grant hospitality to a few notes of correction and explanation.

"While fully admitting the evident desire of your Correspondent to present an objective and impartial account of Zionism in the Ottoman Empire, I regret that his limited knowledge of our movement and the sources from which he appears to have derived it made it impossible for him to realize his desire. The cardinal defect of his article consists in the assumption that Zionism is a scheme for the foundation of a Jewish State in Palestine. This assumption is wrong. His comments upon our movement and his account of the views upon it in Turkish circles are mainly dependent upon this assumption. As his premise is incorrect, his conclusions are of interest only in so far as they represent the state of mind shared by others in Turkey who have likewise been misled as to our aims and intentions. [Emphasis added.]

"The object of Zionism is clearly defined in its programme adopted at our first Congress at Basel in 1897, and hence known as the Basel Programme. This programme is 'To create a publicly recognised and legally secured home for the Jewish people in Palestine.' The aim thus formulated is essentially different from the aspiration to found a State and those who attribute to us such an aspiration misrepresent us in a very serious degree, as they are likely, however, unwittingly, to cause difficulties being put in our way.

"It is because this erroneous notion has secured a strong hold upon the minds of many people that disparaging remarks were made upon Zionism in the Turkish Chamber several weeks ago. This misinterpretation of our position is all the more strange and inexcusable as I expressly declared at the ninth Zionist Congress at Hamburg in December 1909, that our work is guided and governed by the deepest respect for the Constitution and by the fullest recognition of the sovereignty of thePorte . We are simply desirous of making Palestine once again the national home of the Jewish people; and, to achieve that end, we are working for the economic and intellectual regeneration of the Holy Land in full conformity with the Law.

"Our object is so peaceful and our aims are calculated so highly to benefit the interests of the Ottoman Empire that we are painfully surprised that our movement should arouse any distrust in authoritative circles in Turkey. This circumstance can be ascribed only to the prevalence of various fantastic legends that have been put into circulation by our opponents, who, I regret to say, include may Jews. The latest of these legends is that Zionist activity is being conducted in the specific interests of Germany. This story is utterly without foundation in substance or fact, as we have no relations of any kind that can be construed as specially favouring the economic interests of Germany. The data advanced in support of the story are also incorrect. The Jeune Turc cited by your Correspondent is a purely Turkish paper, which, it is quite true, has more than once advocated a Jewish immigration into the Ottoman Empire in the interests of the Empire itself, but there is not the least ground for deducing from this that we are even in the least responsible for the policy of the paper. It is therefore immaterial to us whether the proprietor, Herr Hochberg , is a German Jew, or, as I have just been informed on excellent authority, a Russian Jew. Dr V. Jacobson, who is one of the leading Zionists in Constantinople and manager of an English company - the Anglo-Levantine Banking Company - is also a Russian subject.

"Finally, I wish to point out that the Zionist Organisation has absolutely no connection with the General Jewish Colonizing Organisation of Berlin. Hence the activity of this organisation or rather of its representative, Dr.Nossig , does not form a 'new phase' - or, indeed, any 'phase' - of Zionism, and the conclusions derived from this activity cannot be used as an argument against our movement.

"I am sure that when those who are interested in Zionism will have purged their minds of the various fantastic fables that have been put into circulation to damage it, they will realize its peaceful intentions and beneficent aims. Our organisation has already given a powerful impetus to commercial and industrial life in Palestine during the few years it has been active in the country, mainly through our companies which carry on their operations there. These companies - the Anglo-Palestine Company (Limited), the Jewish National Fund (Limited) and the Palestine Development Fund (Limited) - have all been registered in London as English companies. The part they are playing in the economic amelioration of Palestine is but an earnest of the great work that Zionism is destined to do, which, with the good will of the Ottoman Government, it will accomplish. Yours obediently, D.Wolffsohn, President of the Zionist Organisation, Cologne, May 1st." (The Times, Wednesday, May 10, 1911; pg. 8; Issue 39581; col B.)

Ninety-four years later, as I write this in 2008, five million Muslim inhabitants are dispersed as refugees in all directions away from Palestine while hundreds of Palestinian villages have been literally erased from the face of the earth, a fact articulated in the words of Moshe Dayan:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either.Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman . There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." (Moshe Dayan, in Haifa, quoted by Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969.)

I know that some may question my motive in drudging up such old statements. I can already hear the dismissive chants of "living in the past" from some quarters and, indeed, my leaning so far back into history is a reluctant one. But unlike most of the major injustices of the past two centuries that are, by and large, recognised as such, and in many cases accorded varying degrees of redemptive gestures and closure (as in the apology of the Australian Prime Minister to the Aborigines and the Vatican apology over the Holocaust), the deception and suffering flowing from Zionism, and its various manifestations in the West of hostility towards Muslims, continues as though the historical record is of no consequence.

As little or no Muslim land remains to be conquered, these Zionist forces persist by charting for themselves entire new territories for invasion. Under the pretext of fighting terror, now even mosques, Muslim schools, religious conscience, and the day to day practice of every Muslim have become targets for invasive intervention.

Given this state of affairs, how am I ever to find it within myself to consign these episodes of nearly a hundred years ago to history, where it belongs, when every day I am confronted by them like a repeating nightmare differing only in its growing intensity and widening of focus?

Perhaps Zionists expect that the tiny groups of Muslim-Jewish interfaith dialogue, which seem to be mushrooming here and there, will recreate the diplomatic successes of DrWiezmann and Wolffsohn, so as to render Muslims agreeable to the demolition of Masjid al-Aqsa?

If this is the crux of the matter, which I suspect it is, then as the world teeters on the brink of economic ruin, we all need to think long and hard about the eventual consequences of this futile pursuit for the sake of our future generations. The argument is simple: one cannot expect a fifth of the population of the globe (1.7 billion Muslims) to abandon their attachment to things they hold sacred while every aspect of their lives is being invaded by those who act on the assumption that God has given them the right do so. God does not only give but He also takes.

To put it bluntly, no number of armies (including the Neocons, the Ed Husains, the Haras Rafiqs, the Taj Hargeys and other similar clones) will ever be able to create such distance between Muslims and their Holy Book that they will agree - through deception or otherwise - to the destruction of Masjid al-Aqsa.

"They plot and plan, and Allah too plans, but the best of planners is Allah."
(Al-Qur’an 8:30)
Share:

Blog Archive

Support


Definition List

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Unordered List