Stardust is a great romance and action movie. It is about a man who makes a promise for his beloved woman and win her heart. In order to win her heart he goes across the wall of his land to bring a star for his beloved. But there is a turn around. The star is actually a woman. After their adventures together they meet a pirate in the sky who helps them see that their love for each other cannot be hidden as well as helping the man become more of a fighter than a coward.

But not only that the 3 wicked witches are on an adventure to capture the heart of the star for eternal life and beauty. They go through the far lands to try and capture her until the end but the girl is protected by the man. Who do not know it yet but love each other. It all falls in to place.

This is practically what it is about. It has comedy romance adventure and action. A great great movie. On average I would give this movie a 10/10 it is a great movie. I love it with all my heart. A perfect movie for teenagers and adults. This is still my favourite movies of all time after all the other movies who have come out after this one. For all the people with a thirst for romance, comedy and adventure this is movie is for you!

Comment at end

YouTube video – British TV – ‘What Women Want’

What do Muslim women want in the Muslim world? Dr Nazreen Nawaz, Hizb ut-Tahrir. (45 mins video. From Islam Channel Live.)

Dr Nazreen Nawaz (Hizb ut-Tahrir) and Dalia Mogahed (Senior Analyst of Muslim Studies at Gallup, who also serves on President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships) discuss findings from survey of Muslim women. 4th Oct 2009.

WHAT GAME IS GILLIGAN PLAYING NOW?

Blair Supporter & Andrew Gilligan in agreement?

Hmmm…mm…

I was referring to strange bedfellows recently. It was with  regard to the Daily’s Mail’s turning of  a blind eye to the SWP and Military Families Aginst the War, both organisations supported by the man who accused Tony Blair of having “blood on his hands” in St Paul’s nominally “commemorative” service?  Hereafter to be dubbed “the Archbishop’s outing”.

Little did I suspect I’d find myself anywhere within touching – or rather reading and writing  distance of this fellow, Andrew Gilligan – he of the “sexed up dossier” disrepute whose “outing” of David Kelly may, just may have led to Kelly’s suicide. (You remember that? The suicide with Blair’s name written in blood.)

But life is stranger than Gilligan’s fictions.

Gilligan’s Greenwich sounds coolish on the Olympics Village. This huge spread for worldwide consumption will be clearly on view from Greenwich, which is due south across the Thames.  You will recall that the 2012 Olympics was seen as a triumph for Tony Blair’s persuasive powers.

So no co-incidental (dis)interest there then, by the whistleblowers’ favourite whistleblower.

He describes himself as – “a renowned investigative journalist and London Editor of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. He was previously at the Evening Standard and was named “Journalist of the Year” at the British Press Awards in 2008.”

Gilligan he still insists on working for Iranian state sponsored Press TV when (some ) others British jouranlists have resigned.

Back to strange bedfellows. Why is The Telegraph using this man now?

Wonders aside, his co-authored article, uncritical in tone, but nonetheless interesting, appeared here in The Telegraph.

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood

President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

By Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 8:00PM BST 08 Oct 2009

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

“The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

“The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.”

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial “Hadd offences”, crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women,” but added: “Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir’s website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

During this week’s broadcast, she described her White House role as “to convey… to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.

“There is a reason sharia has got a bad name and it is how it has been exercised. Regrettably in the US there have been acts of injustice perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia-type mindset that women are objects not human beings,” she said.

She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.

“Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”

RELATED

What Women Want also at:

• Hizb ut-Tahrir
• Doc’s Talk
• Jihad Watch
• Act For America
• Muslimz

ACT FOR AMERICA -

Did you realize that “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance”?That’s right, according to Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s advisor on Muslim affairs, who made this astonishing statement in an interview on a British television show (see story below).

Mogahed has made news before.

She was a member of the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project, which called for “engagement” with the Muslim Brotherhood — the organization that has a 100 year plan for subverting and overthrowing the West.

She teamed up with John Esposito to conduct a poll on Islam, then misrepresented some of the results (some called it “cooking the books”) in order to increase the number of Muslim “moderates.”

What makes Mogahed’s demonstrably untrue assertion about shariah even more disturbing is that she made it in an interview hosted by a member of the radical Islamist organization Hizb ut Tahrir.

Hizb ut Tahrir is committed to the overthrow of democracy and capitalism and the worldwide imposition of shariah Islamic law. The organization has been banned as a terrorist organization in several countries — but remarkably, not here in the United States.

For Mogahed to assert that shariah promotes “gender justice” would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

That she has the ear of the White House is yet another chilling reminder of how our nation is being led down the path of forced Islamification that England and Western Europe have already walked.

This is another reason why, over the past few weeks, we have been issuing such an urgent call to action to you, our members. If you have not yet responded to our fall “Call to Action,” there’s still time to help us reach our goal.

There are ample signs that a large percentage of the American people, once adequately informed about the multiple threats of radical Islam, don’t want an America that looks like England.

Help us reach them. Help us educate them. Help us mobilize them. There is time — but we don’t have ten or fifteen years. We need to act NOW, as if our very future depends on it — because it does.

 

---

---

CTBTO offices in Vienna

If anyone is planning to become a nuclear expert for the British government, perhaps they should think again: the aforementioned don’t seem to have a great life expectancy.

Four months ago a British UN nuclear weapons expert fell to his death from the UN building in Vienna, according to the Telegraph.

And yesterday a 47-year-old British nuclear expert identified as Timothy Hampton taking part in disarmament talks with Iran was found dead in the same building after falling 120ft down a stairwell. No suicide note has been found. As the paper reported:

The incident happened on Tuesday as the United States, France, Russia and Iran held talks close by aimed at cooling tensions over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Investigators refused to reveal any further background information on the official but confirmed an autopsy will be held.

I don’t think I want to be a WMD expert when I grow up. They’re either seriously depressed or being killed like flies. Neither seems like good news…

David Kelly started the whole dying-under-unpleasant-circumstances thing in 2003, telling New York Times journalist Judith Miller that there were “many dark actors playing games” and friends that if Iraq was invaded he would “probably be found dead in the woods.”

He was, of course, subsequently found dead in the woods. Incidentally, Kelly had told the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) shortly before his death that “within the defence intelligence services I liaise with the Rockingham cell.”

Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector, and a US military intelligence officer later described Operation Rockingham as a covert ‘dirty tricks’ operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq.

‘Rockingham was spinning reports and emphasizing reports that showed non-compliance (by Iraq with UN inspections) and quashing those which showed compliance. It was cherry-picking intelligence.’

It couldn’t possibly be the case that something similar is going on with Iran, could it?

Dr David Kelly before the foreign affairs select committee in 2003

Courtesy of HMG, or so the conspiracy theorists would have you believe...

Con⋅spir⋅a⋅cy [kuhn-spir-uh-see]

1: An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
2: A combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.
3: An agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

Part 1: Theory.

I imagine there’s some satisfaction to be gained by being a conspiracy theorist. Empowered by a hermetically sealed certainty that you alone have access to forbidden fruits of knowledge, you can look down with great superiority at the mindless, lumpen rabble that buy any government line with such unquestioning naïveté.

It’s a soothing position to take, conspiracy as dummy; in which the conspiracy theorist (latched and firmly sucking onto their Weltanschauung in an attempt to bring a sense of order and security into their life) looks to create a sense of order in a disorderly, fractured and unpredictable world.

After all, if some omnipotent sinister figure or group is behind the scenes manipulating events on the global stage, someone — phew — is actually in charge of this mess. Conspiracy theories are therefore all too often redolent of a distorted search for a father figure, or even an inverted form of God-longing (in which black helicopters replace cherubim in the pantheon of esoteric authorities).

Sadly — some would argue — such people have no shortage of fodder. For where there are events of political or public violence, the reason and result of which are not immediately discernible in all their naked truth to the casual eye, there will by default be conspiracies.

Yet to take a contrarian view, there is something in essence almost scientific about the determination of conspiracy theorists to continually question received truths. That admittedly sounds like a stretch: it’s a touch hard to reconcile the paranoid ramblings of those obsessed with Operation Paperclip, or the lizard-bloodline believing insanity of David Icke’s followers with the fruits of the Enlightenment.

But surely it’s nothing if not scientific to question received wisdom, collect data and formulate hypotheses, even if you can’t quite test them properly without putting on a tin foil hat first. And given that it is often those of a conspiratorial bent who are inclined to notice discrepancies in government accounts of disturbing incidents, their efforts could be construed as instrumental in ensuring full disclosure.

No matter that their hypotheses and suppositions may be wild: after all, as historian of science William Glen put it:

“The success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived “truth”, or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.”

"History's current impasse."

Part 2: Practise.

In contemporary times, it is conspiracies about September the 11th and the vociferous legions of 9/11 “Truthers” that have attracted most – and mostly mocking — attention. Harmless, if a touch wild-eyed, seems to be the general consensus. Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch, in a piece on the emergence of “Birthers” in the U.S., disagrees:

For all too many on the left, the so-called 9/11 conspiracy still remains the magic key. If it can be turned, then history at its present impasse will be unlocked and we can move on. For those on the racist right, aghast at the reality of a black man (actually a half-white, half-black) in the White House, the magic key to reversing this unpleasing development is Obama’s allegedly fake Hawaiian birth certificate. Their suppositions and claims shift, but the essence is always the same: He’s alien. He has no right to be president. And as with the Truthers, the provision of evidence rebutting their claims is merely fuel piled on the bonfire of their insanity.

He is entirely right to a point. Yet what Cockburn overlooks is that it may be precisely the kind of “moving on” by those accepting official narratives and their justification that has contributed so greatly to history arriving at “its present impasse”…

To turn to England:

The Daily Mail — a squawking, xenophobic, poster child for the bigotry of so-called Middle England — surprised not a few readers in July of this year with an excited denunciation of a DVD called “Ripple Effect” apparently doing the rounds in British Mosques.

The article, entitled “Conspiracy Fever” called for a public inquiry into the July 7, 2005 bombings in London, and blamed government opacity for the burgeoning popularity of the “outlandish and offensive” DVD (which accuses British security services and MOSSAD  of carrying out the attacks under a “false-flag” operation).

Yet the writer’s lengthy exposition of the inconsistencies and basic mistakes in official accounts of the attacks only served to cast a light on how plausible the notion seemed, and if the comments under the article are any guide, Middle England was in full baying agreement that the yarn the DVD spins sounds substantially more likely than the government account.

Before I examine some of the questions raised by both the article and the 7/7 attacks themselves, a few notes on quite how it has come about that a largely conservative, middle class readership of an established newspaper seem to be quite open to accepting that a democratically elected government of a western liberal democracy could be capable of conducting a Reichstag-like attack on its own populace and the subway system of its own capital:

Like all too many ills in the body politic circa 2009, it all goes back to Iraq.

(Sorry. Despite the title of this blog post, this is the only sex you're getting.)

Part 3: Method.

The 2002/2003 preparation for war in Iraq was bolstered, as journalist Anatol Lieven has written,

“By a propaganda programme which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime.”

Simply speaking, the government’s “systematic mendacity” met the strict definition of conspiracy: “An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot”,  and a case could be made that not one, two, or three of the adjectives in that definition could be met, but every single one.

When a government spin-doctor was allowed to chair meetings of the joint security committee and subsequently released an intelligence report to the public later found to be casually ripped from the internet with all the uncaring panache of a lazy GCSE student sure his markers don’t give a fuck, the skepticism of the general public hardened into cynicism.

When a chemical weapons expert caught up in a row with the government over his leaks to the media was found dead in the woods near his home not long after telling friends that if Iraq were invaded, “I will probably be found dead in the woods.” conspiracy theorizing went mainstream, with everyone from Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker to Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke saying outright they thought he was murdered, probably by the security services.

When two years later, plainclothes police officers and special forces personnel executed a young Brazilian man working in London in broad daylight, a growing certainty that the government was giving security forces free rein gained momentum. Shooting him seven times in the head with hollow point bullets (designed to inflict maximum damage in closed spaces) at pointblank range on a busy London tube carriage without warning, or attempting to arrest, authorities then embarked on a prolonged smear campaign against the victim in collusion with the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Politicians of the left or right were tight-lipped: a left-leaning, former radical mayor of London even praised the police for doing a tough job under hard circumstances.

Another few years trickle by, there is increased concern at heavy-handedness by the police. Welcome to 2009: a newspaper seller gets caught up in a protest against the G20 meeting in London. Smashed into the pavement by police officers entirely unprovoked, he has the temerity to die. Police lie brazenly about what happened; the Independent Police Complaints Commission backs them with all the independence of an Egyptian slave. Not a single senior politician speaks out against the police behaviour. Nobody is charged with murder or even manslaughter.

This is the history of the past few years. It is fecund ground for a revolution frankly, let alone riots; this being England people sigh with weary resignation and wait for elections to come around so they can vote in an even more establishment-friendly right-wing party of plutocrats whose policy platform revolves around massive cuts in public services. (Those who have been abused often turn their rage inwards, self-harming in despair at their impotence and shame…)

Absent a public inquiry (or a revolution), conspiracies flourish like mushrooms in the dark; the government, after all, has handed their farmers an awful lot of shit with which to grow them.

________________________________________________________________________________________

For more on the July 7th attacks, please check out the lucid and level-headed call by the apparently non-tinfoil-hat-wearing folks at the July Seventh Truth Campaign for a public inquiry.

For a small but necessary step to be taken in reforming the thoroughly rotten political system in the UK, go to Vote for a Change.

And for some proper old skool conspiracy theorising and muck-raking (you know you want to) this is a good start.

It's a public inquiry or conspiracies, HMG.

A poor boy wins a chance to visit the Wonka Chocolate Factory along with 4 other children where one of them will receive a very special present.

Directed by – Mel Stuart

Written by – Ronald Dahl, David Seltzer

Starring – Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson, Peter Ostrum, Roy Kinnear, Julie Dawn Cole, Leonard Stone, Denise Nickerson, Nora Denney, Paris Themmen, Ursula Reit, Michael Bollner, Diana Sowle, Aubrey Woods, David Battley Gunter Meisner, Peter Capell, Werner Heyking, Peter Stuart

A wonderful family flick full of great moments and songs. Even though some parts are a little creepy!

A poor boy wins a chance to visit the Wonka Chocolate Factory along with 4 other children where one of them will receive a very special present.

Directed by – Tim Burton

Written by – Ronald Dahl, John August

Starring – Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore, David Kelly, Helena Bonham Carter, Noah Taylor, Missi Pyle, James Fox, Deep Roy, Christopher Lee, Adam Godley, Franziska Troegner, Anna Sophia Robb, Julia Winter, Jordan Fry, Philip Wiegratz, Harry Taylor, Francesca Hunt

Once again, a great family film with great moments and songs but with a slightly more creepy atmosphere. I’m sure that’s thanks to Tim Burton and Johnny Depps weird portrayal of Willy Wonka.

So, who wins this weeks battle? I’m still not sure really! I really like both of these films. While I have to give Burtons vision a knock for showcasing moments in Willy Wonka’s past, it’s pure weirdness and amazing look make up for it. I like Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka better then Johnny Depp but it’s not enough to call the original the winner.

Basically both films have their strong points as well as their weak ones and neither gives or takes enough to pull out ahead. I’m calling this one a draw. If Tim Burton isn’t your thing then you’ll probably disagree but I don’t think anyone could argue that his film isn’t wonderful to look at. Colours are almost exploding off the screen and those squirrels are so freaking cute! I always thought the original had a more ‘wholesome’ tone to it. Of course it also has it’s very odd and creepy moments, much like the remake.

I just can’t pick a winner in this one, even my kids like both of them and that’s saying alot since they usually don’t enjoy anything older than they are! I’d like to hear from everyone else to see if anyone out there has a preference here. I really enjoy both of them and have seen each one numerous times. I guess this is the first real tie I’ve had here for Remake Mondays. Maybe next week I’ll really get to trash something! HAHA!

Under the marquee – Will

Dr David Kelly

Dr David Kelly

No time. There is also another day given. This one taken from his obituary in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1001459,00.html

The first call for the Tactical Voting Campaign is for Labour and Greens to support Stormin’ Norman at the General Election.  Norman Baker MP was elected to Parliament in 1997. A former local councillor he has gained a huge reputation at Westminster for his campaigning from the back benches for a public enquiry into the death of David Kelly.

There should be no difficulty in Labour and Greens voting for Norman, unless of course you are a huge fan of Peter Mandelson.  Baker is probably the MP hated most by Mandelson.  All the more reason for voting for him!

Up against him are Jason Sugarman (Conservative) and Hratche Koundarjian (Labour).  Sugarman was educated at Brighton College and Durham University. He is a barrister specialising in criminal law. Having contested Dudley South in 2001, he appears to be a Tory in search of a seat. Koundarjian was educated at Sussex University and works in public affairs. Unfortunately for him, Labour doesn’t stand a hope in hell of winning in Lewes, so Labour voters should have no hesitation in voting Lib Dem.

The result in 2005 was:

Conservative: 15902 (34.2%)
Labour: 4169 (9%)
Liberal Democrat: 24376 (52.4%)
Green: 1071 (2.3%)
UKIP: 1034 (2.2%)
Majority: 8474 (18.2%)

Since then there have been boundary changes.  The UK Polling Report has adjusted the 2005 result to reflect the boundary changes and reports a notional 2005 result as follows:

Liberal Democrat: 26140 (51.6%)
Conservative: 17212 (34%)
Labour: 4943 (9.8%)
Other: 2359 (4.7%)
Majority: 8928 (17.6%)

Unity announces its team for the AEU.

Click here for PDF of Full Size Poster!

1.  I guess they don’t want the Marines to learn anything that contradicts the propaganda fed to them:

“US Marines ban social network sites including Twitter “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/5974403/US-Marines-ban-social-network-sites-including-Twitter.html

2.  “

Amazingly, 12 other well-known micro-biologists linked with germ warfare research have died in the past decade, five of them Russians investigating claims that the Israelis were working on viruses to target Arabs.

The Russian plane in which they were travelling from Tel Aviv to Siberia was shot down on October 2001 over the Black Sea by an ‘off-course’ Ukrainian surface-to-air missile.

Dr Kelly knew the victims and asked MI6 to find out more details. However, they drew a blank.

Five weeks later, Dr Benito Que, a cell biologist known to Dr Kelly, was found in a coma near his Miami laboratory.

The infectious diseases expert had been investigating how a virus like HIV could be genetically engineered into a biological weapon.

Dr Que, 52, was found unconscious outside in the car park of his lab and died in hospital. Officially, he suffered a heart attack  -  although his family say he was struck on the head. Police refused to re-open the case.

Ten days after Dr Que’s death, another friend of Dr Kelly died. Dr Don Wiley, 57, one of America’s foremost microbiologists, had a U.S. Government contract to create a vaccine against the killer Ebola fever and other so-called doomsday germs.

His rental car was found abandoned on a bridge across the Mississippi. The keys were in the ignition and the petrol tank full. There had been no crash, but Dr Wiley had disappeared.

The FBI visited Wiley’s laboratory and removed most of his work. A month later his body was found 300 miles downstream, with evidence of severe head injuries. No forensic examination was performed and his death was ruled ‘accidental’.

Little wonder, then, that Dr Kelly had begun talking about his body being ‘found in the woods’.

And there is more. The most mysterious death of them all happened to Dr Vladimir Pasechnik  -  a Soviet defector Dr Kelly knew well.

The biochemist had left a drugs industry fair in Paris in 1989, just before the collapse of Communism, saying he wanted to buy souvenirs for family. Instead, he went to the British Embassy where he announced to a startled receptionist that he was a Russian scientist who wanted to defect.

Pasechnik was whisked secretly back to Britain, and Dr Kelly was brought in to verify his claims that the Soviets were adapting cruise missiles armed with germs to help spread killer diseases such as plague and smallpox.

As chief director of the Institute for Ultra-Pure Biological preparations in St Petersburg, Pasechnik had developed killer germs. ‘I want the West to know of this. There must be a way to stop this madness,’ he told Dr Kelly in a safe house.

Dr Kelly later told the author Gordon Thomas that he believed Pasechnik. ‘I knew that he was telling the truth. There was no waffle. It was truly horrifying.’

The two scientists became friends. And soon Vladimir had set up the Regma Biotechnologies laboratory, near Porton Down. He seemed healthy when he left work on the night of November 21, 2001.

Returning home, the 64-year-old cooked supper and went to sleep. He was found dead in bed the next day.

Officially, the reason given was a stroke. However the Wiltshire police later said his demise was ‘inexplicable’.

It is against this extraordinary background of highly suspicious deaths that Dr Kelly’s own death occurred.

As we know, an inquest on his body was ruled out by Oxfordshire’s coroner, a highly unusual move.

Instead, Tony Blair ordered an inquiry by Lord Hutton. It heard evidence from 74 witnesses and concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by slashing the ulnar artery of his left wrist with a garden knife after swallowing painkillers  -  although none had been prescribed by his GP.

A detailed medical dossier by the 13 British doctors, however, rejects the Hutton conclusion on the grounds that a cut to the small ulnar artery is not deadly.

…

On the day he died, Janice has confirmed her husband was a distressed man. Dr Kelly lunched with her, before going out for a walk on Harrowdown Hill at 3.30pm.

It was a walk he made regularly at the same time of day  -  something anyone watching his movements would have been well aware of.

That day, events were already in motion elsewhere. An hour before, at 2.30pm, a senior policeman sat down at his computer at Thames Valley Police headquarters in Oxfordshire.

He began to create a restricted file on his secure computer. Across the top he typed a code name: Operation Mason. Although its contents have never been made public, it would detail the overnight search for Dr Kelly.

Incredibly, he created this file an hour before the scientist even left home.

After Dr Kelly’s corpse was found at 8.30am by the volunteer searchers, the senior policeman made his last Operation Mason entry. It simply states: ‘9.00am. 18.07.03. Body recovered’.

Most intriguingly, at 8am, half an hour before Dr Kelly’s body was discovered under the tree, three officers in dark suits from MI5’s Technical Assessment Unit were at his house.

The computers and the hard-disk containing the 40,000 words of the explosive book were carried away. They have never been seen since.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14649

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14642

Comment at end

4th August, 2009

STOP PRESS: REPORT, IRAQ INQUIRY, February 2010

Tony Blair at his lowest ebb, just after hearing of Dr Kelly's death, July, 2003

As hundreds of placard bearers outside the Iraq Inquiry venue bayed volubly for his blood, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, turned to the hushed ‘members of the jury’ and said in a strong, clear voice …

“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”

(hat tip to Londinium at The London Echo)

So is this just wishful thinking on my part? Probably. I know that Mr Blair does not DO personal confrontation. But it’d be a start if he were able to explain, with some chance of being believed … even heard with due respect, that Dr Kelly’s death had NOTHING whatsoever to do with him.

Because have no doubt, that is the charge facing him. More serious than the charges of “lying”, more blame-worthy than the charge of “pre-war agreements with Bush”, more disconcerting than the charge that he persuaded the Attorney General to alter his advice on the invasion’s “legality”.

If Tony Blair is a murderer or even a malfunctioning prosthetic guiding hand behind Kelly’s death, my name’s Norman Baker.

AN INQUIRY TOO FAR?

The Iraq Inquiry already threatens to be multi-faceted. And all to be completed in just over a year!

Not in any particular order let’s have a quick look at just some of the ‘evidence’ to be trawled through at the trial … inquiry.

• First, there’s David Kelly’s death. Former spies and medical experts are crawling out of the woodwork to add fuel to the “Kelly could not have done it” arguments. The Mail in its “less than whole truth” habit refers to Ms Pederson only as a “linguist”. Have a dig around Wikipedia, where the world and its granny reside. NO MAI PEDERSEN page. She IS mentioned here and here and here.
• Then there’s the WMD ‘unfinished’ business – the “Ahhh-HAAA!, Mr Clever Clogs B.Liar! …  So where ARE they, eh? WHERE? Pray tell. “
• Thirdly there’s the “Blair lied, people died” catchphrase on ‘45 minutes’, to name but one. It seems it is as clear as day … mud … that Blair LIED to parliament and we the people. This is ’still a hanging offence’, according to the ignorant at The Guardian.  But “THIS time, Mr B.Liar, no more lying! If you confess we’ll dispatch you quicker.”
• Fourthly, there’s “the Iraq invasion was already agreed with Bush” … chit chat.
• Fifthly, there’s the Attorney General’s legal evidence, and any changes made – the “WHY? WHEN? UNDER WHOSE INSTRUCTION?” conspiracy.
• Sixthly, the allegations that our security services (aka the government) acquiesced – no were complict in rendition and torture during the (ongoing) war on terror, so are clearly unprincipled, cruel bas****s. (Those poor, dear terrorist suspects!)

I could go on, and the conspiracy theorists undoubtedly will.

If you have a feeling of deja-vu you’re right. We’ve been here, there and everywhere else on all of this over the years. The earlier inquiries on Iraq – Butler & Hutton – did not come up with the ‘required’ results, of course. No politician or aide was disgraced. Thus the terriers dig their teeth in again. That’s justice for you, British style, is it not?

Mr Baker, a Lib Dem MP and seller of a book, spends an amazing amount of time away from his constituency work. He has a higher aim, of course: pursuing this Kelly case to what he considers its logical conclusion.

BAKER KNOWS BLAIR HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH KELLY’S DEATH

Despite his own conclusions that Dr Kelly was “probably killed by Iraqi agents”, Baker continues, terrier-like to add succour to the wildcat calls of those who DO believe that, yes, without a doubt, Tony Blair DOES have “blood on his hands”.

I consider this irresponsible behaviour. It is anything BUT truth-seeking, imho.

Put aside, as Baker does, any personal hurt to politicians. After all they are just politicians, not real people. (Baker obviously, although an MP himself, feels no responsibility for the damage he and others like him have done to Tony Blair and even to those close to him by the constant maligning of his/their integrity. He couldnt give a toss!)

The argument is that there were goings-on going on at the top of government which somehow or other meant that we the people were being misled into war. And the ‘fact’ that we were being misled and this was about to be made public was enough to push some in authority to kill Dr Kelly and pretend it was suicide.

Some suggest that Mr Blair is up for this inquiry as a chance to prove his position was the right one politically and morally. He will then be able, finally, to leave these ghosts in the past. That may be so.

Meanwhile we are about to watch as those who may be opening a can of worms not to their own taste focus on aspects of the fallout from the 9/11 attacks on America.

WHAT IS ‘THE TRUTH’ & WHY OUR OBSESSION WITH IT?

Truth is seldom “whole” as in the pledge to tell it in court. It is complex and depends on several factors. In modern democratic governments it is complicated by the FACTS. The fact is that the TRUTH is as variable and hard to pin down as the facts.  YOUR truth may not be MY truth. That is why trials and inquiries need to grapple with complexities. And in the case of the background to Iraq, the complexities are many. No matter what the outcome we can be sure that Baker’s truth will never be Blair’s truth. The difference between dreamy idealism and responsible decision-taking power. Dream on, Mr Baker.

Have you got blood on your hands Prime Minister? David Kelly

From the YouTube channel:

“The turning point in Tony Blair’s career as Prime Minister came when he was at a press conference in Japan. A journalist asked him if he had any responsibility for the death of weapons inspector David Kelly. This video shows how Blair stood motionless, unable to answer for eight seconds. Eventually the Japanese Prime minister saved him further embarrassment by ending the news conference prematurely.”

This video is part of an excellent series on Tony Blair by David Aaronovitch. Watch more here.

Tony & Cherie Blair on 19th July, 2003, on the day Tony Blair heard of the death of David Kelly. His wife says in her book that she had never seen him so low.

NO MURDER BY BLAIR OR OUR SECRET SERVICES – NO WAY! NO CHANCE!

The very idea that Mr Blair, or indeed ANY agent of the British crown, would have killed Dr Kelly in this way, and then expected to get away with it, should discount immediately to the mentally capable, that this was NOT murder by the secret services with or without the knowledge of the then prime minister or government.

WE DON’T MURDER our own citizens.

This is not Iran.

The campaign to raise awareness of the Doctors’ views, in association with Mr Baker, are intent on proving Dr Kelly’s death was murder. By whom is for others to prove.

IF IT WAS MURDER … WHAT THEN … BAKER AND HIS ‘TRUST ME I’M A DOCTOR” FRIENDS?

Let’s suppose for a moment that it WAS murder. What would this mean? It would mean that the murderers are either known or unknown to the authorities.  If known they should be charged. But if known they probably WOULD have been charged by now. They are likely to be long gone from this country.

If unknown, how are they to be found, several years on? There were no CCTV cameras in the woods where Dr Kelly took his habitual daily walks.

COVER-UP? CONSPIRACY?

Unless of course it WAS a “cover-up”!

All credit to the London Echo writer for at least insisting that we should not make Blair a scapegoat. That perhaps it is the fault of ALL of us, and not just one man. But there is more to consider than that.

Can YOU handle the ‘TRUTH’?

RELATED

Link to ALL the ‘Trial of Tony Blair’ posts

The Spectator at the “blame game” too:   “The Iraq Inquiry should examine bureaucratic as well as political failings”

After watching the CBC documentary ‘Anthrax War‘ (which I can highly recommend to anyone, even if the Anthrax attacks do not particularly interest you), I was able to connect more dots in the Resident Evil 5 storyline. It must be said, for a videogame which according to the videogame producer only involved a trip to Africa and a marathon session of Indiana Jones movies, there’s an awful lot of real-life references that cannot be simply chalked up to mere ‘coincidences’.

Table of contents

• Themes
  • Biowarfare experiments
  • Front companies
  • Liquidated scientists
  • Interconnected research laboratories
• Footnotes
• Links

Themes

Biowarfare experiments

Chris and Sheva encounter a pile of dead bodies - recalling images of the Holocaust and apartheid South-Africa - where a eugenics campaign was being waged to get rid of the black 'undesirables' of society.

Tricell intended for the indigenous people to be routed out because they represented a threat to the underground research facility. The other Africans were mere cannon fodder and guinea pigs for ever-improving new virus strains. In one of the last scenes of the game, a huge pile of dead corpses can be seen, implying Tricell was doing orderly disposals of vast amounts of African people.

In apartheid South-Africa: During the Apartheid years, a top-secret chemical and biological weapons program was instituted by the name Project Coast. The country was waging war against Soviet-backed SWAPO, Cuban and Angolan troops, who they perceived to have the means to deploy chemical and biological weapons. The project was initiated on grounds that they were conducting research on vaccines for certain diseases. However, this altruistic aim quickly seemed to take a back seat to offensive uses of the technology.

Wouter Basson, head of the program, has been nicknamed Dr Death for his involvement in the development of several biowarfare trials and human experiments on South Africa’s own people. Like the eugenics movement in America and Nazi-Germany, the medical experiments seemed to concern themselves with fertility and the subjugation of unwanted races. The blacks were deemed undesirable and specific biowarfare experiments were initiated to reduce their numbers^[1]; a specific vaccine was developed based on a proteine that would render females infertile to sperm, thus making them sterile^[YouTube]. In the documentary Anthrax War, Wouter Basson admits to a journalist that during these years he repeatedly visited Fort Detrick in the USA and Porton Down in the UK for research purposes and was let on their premises^[YouTube]. This seems to implicate the latter two institutions into the proceedings – it has long been suspected that Porton Down gave tacid approval to the genocidal/eugenic measures in South Africa.

Elsewhere: Several chemical and biological experiments have been performed on human guinea pigs in Fort Detrick and Porton Down^[YouTube] – often without their consent or foreknowledge^[2].

Front companies

The umbrella has a long and illustrious history in biowarfare: the Soviets used poisonous umbrellas for assassination missions*; South Africa's Project Coast, inspired by this, would create similar umbrellas which would fire poison pellets - ideal tools for soldiers to use upon unsuspecting enemy forces. Other everyday repurposed tools used included screwdrivers, syringes, and beer cans.

Spencer also sets up other front companies and covers, such as the Spencer estate (which is used to disguise the Arklay research facility); they strike a deal with Raccoon City police chief Brian Irons to build underground sewage research facilities (another cover).

With Umbrella gone belly up in Resident Evil 5, Wesker uses Tricell as a front company for his Uroboros Project. Tricell begins a massive ratcheting up of its biological weapons programme and uses the abandoned research facility that Spencer had set up from the beginning in Africa.

The very name ‘Umbrella’ itself is meant to refer to an ‘umbrella’ of organizations. Think of IG Farben, the Nazi chemical/pharmaceutical company that had several separate companies/research facilities under its ‘umbrella’.

In apartheid South Africa: Project Coast used a similar practice to hide the program from the public eye. They created four front companies, Delta G Scientific Company, Roodeplaat Research Laboratories, Protechnik and Infladel. Project Coast head Wouter Basson of course had majority shares in them – in Delta G’s case as much as 75%^[3].

Liquidated scientists

'Anthrax War' investigates the mysterious circumstances surrounding the deaths of several prominent microbiologists who worked on governmental bioweapon projects - including fingered Anthrax lone gunman Bruve Ivins (from Fort Detrick), and David Kelly (from Porton Down)**.

Umbrella has its own paramilitary force that is capable of performing hits on scientists and surveilling their activities at all times. For instance, noone is to know of the African division’s existence, not even those of other Umbrella divisions. The scientists that work on the African base are kept there for life or disposed of if they intend to jump ship/get cold feet.

In real-life:: The more indispensable you are to a covert biowarfare project, the more expendable you become – particularly when you start developing misgivings on what it is you’re doing. At least that appears to be the golden rule as far as microbiology goes – Dr David Kelly, expert in biological warfare and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, told reporters he would be found ‘dead in the woods’ a few months prior to the event. The officials insisted it was suicide, but dozens of opinion leaders (including the makers of the aforementioned documentary ‘Anthrax War‘) believe otherwise.

Ken Alibek, author of ‘Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World – Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran It‘, has no illusions about his safety: “If somebody wants to kill you, there’s no problem for these people – if they’re professionals – to take care of it^[YouTube]“

Interconnected research laboratories

In the game: Umbrella has several interconnected research facilities across the world (Antarctica, France, US, and Africa) that collaborate with each other from time to time – for instance, when one branch has made a prominent breakthrough that could be of use to the other branches.

In real-life: In the documentary ‘Anthrax War‘, it is revealed that Fort Detrick (US), Porton Down (UK) and Dugway (US) have an intimate history of collaboration that seems to defy existing bioweapon proliferation treaties and geopolitical tensions. The eugenics movement operated in much the same manner – Charles Davenport’s Eugenics Record Office continued to work together with Nazi-Germany and were even proud of the fact that their eugenic laws served as the progenitor of Hitler’s ‘forced sterilization’ act. As late as in 1942, glowing endorsements of Nazi-Germany’s racial hygiene policies could be read in The Journal Of Heredity.

Footnotes

1.^{[^]}What the project was ultimately aiming for was this thing they termed a ‘black bomb’ – a race-specific bioweapon that would ’select targets based on skin color’.

Link: – http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0529-05.htm (Common Dreams.org: Biowar and the Apartheid legacy)

2.^{[^]}See the following linked articles.

Link: – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1463993.stm (BBC: Porton Down probe launched)
Link: – http://www.infowars.com/images2/ps/porton_down_bell_documents.pdf (Declassified Documents Regarding Porton Down)
Link: – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3206993.ece (TimesOnline: Porton Down guinea-pigs get apology)

3.^{[^]} See this Wikipedia article.

Link: – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_G_Scientific_Company – Wikipedia: Delta G Scientific Company

*. Also read the following excerpt from Wikipedia’s ‘Project Coast‘ article:

“To this end, a leaf was taken out of the Soviet book, with a number of devices, designed to look like ordinary everyday objects, being created with the capabilities to poison those targeted for assassination. Examples included umbrellas and walking sticks which fired pellets containing poison, syringes disguised as screwdrivers, and poisoned beer cans and envelopes.”

Link: – http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/07/19/spy.museum.opens/ (CNN: Poison umbrellas, lethal lipstick: Spy museum opens)
Link: – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Coast (Wikipedia: Project Coast)

**. Patrick Leahy (one of the members of Congress targeted by the Anthrax attack that survived) made it known at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2008 he does not believe in the FBI-promulgated theory that Bruce Ivins acted alone.

Link: – http://www.anthraxwar.com/1/?p=203 (Anthrax War: 6/8: Anthrax Conspiracy?)

Links

Anthrax War – Deadly Silence: Homepage
CBC: Anthrax War
YouTube: Anthrax War (Part 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6)

Comment at end

26th July, 2009

The STERN Daily Mail – AGAIN

Yes, I know ... the black border's getting thicker still

NOTE:  My aim in this series of  ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts is to highlight any story which I believe is prejudicial to the seeking of TRUTH and to the acceptance of the outcome of the upcoming Iraq Inquiry.

A double whammy for The Mail again, as well as a mention of  a foreign (German) publication – THE STERN Magazine.

First, in the RED corner, the STERN article and its interpretation on “Blair removing Mugabe”. As well as quick peep at their sparring partners in the BLUE corner, both contestants for the Misinformation Crown.

Secondly, in the BLUE corner,(jump to here) an article on David Kelly’s death at the Daily Tale … Mail.

MUGABE

The other day the left-wing German magazine STERN published an interview with Tony Blair. Published online with the heading that ‘Tony Blair would fall (remove) Mugabe’, it was also published in depth in a hard magazine copy.

The Daily Mail immediately grabbed the limited online version from STERN and ran with it. WHY?  British national newspapers must be in possession of ALL such magazines. They will have known that THIS was only part of the story, and a very small part.

With the valued assistance of a regular commenter here, Julia, I have published the FULL English translation of Mr Blair’s interview in the offline article.

It is clear that although Mr Blair DID mention Mugabe in response to a question, his reply was no more than a few short sentences. And from this The Mail and the sprog blogs made a story.

WHAT’S THE STORY, MORNING GLORY? (was ist die Geschichte, Winde?)

The story is NOT what Mr Blair said on Mugabe or on anything else.  The story is the political AGENDA. The agenda of STERN was probably to frighten the horses on the possible EU premiership of Tony Blair, if such a position becomes available.

That too is undoubtedly item 1 in the present agenda from the virulently anti-EU Mail.  But it is only PART of their agenda.

Item 2 for this British paper is to add fuel to their general dissatisfaction over Blair. They find it increasingly hard to swallow this:

the world’s foremost ‘interventionist’ is NOT a Conservative.

And Item 3? To remind us that Blair cannot be trusted to have learned anything about foreign policy since Iraq.

This, with the Iraq Inquiry due to start in the near future, should not go unremarked.

But first, the source of the Mugabe palaver – The Stern.

THE STERN’S ONLINE VERSION OF THIS INTERVIEW WAS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM ITS HARD COPY MAGAZINE

ONLINE Stern

Its online copy was written with a sensationalist headline for one purpose only:  to remind people that Blair stood with Bush over another dictator (in Iraq); and to imply that since he does not regret that decision he would take it again if in a position to do so, this time to remove Mugabe.

This is an important reminder from STERN, a left-wing anti-war publication because Blair is a possible EU Council Presidency candidate. THEY would clearly NOT be delighted having an EU leader who might suggest the Germans get out of their bunkers and actually DO something to protect freedom, given their lacklustre behaviour in Iraq and Afghanistan.

OFFLINE Stern

Their full magazine article does NOT focus in this way on Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and Iraq. Though it reminds us of Mr Blair’s drop in popularity in Britain after his Iraq decision and it has a few lines on Mugabe.

Odd how they forget to remind us that Blair won his third general election TWO years AFTER the Iraq invasion. Ahhhh, but that would be to confuse us with facts over his “popularity”.

Their offline publication is several pages long and far wider than just this aspect of Blair.

And now, for a quick taster of the fighter in the BLUE corner on this issue …

THE MAIL on Stern

CHERRY PICKING SPINNERS

In its coverage of this story, did the Mail draw attention to the whole, lengthy article in the Left-wing magazine? To the discrepancies? To the fact that other publications did NOT translate Blair’s words as saying that HE would remove Mugabe but that ZIMBABWE should do so?

Of course not. That would have given away the cherry -picking tactics of the “truth-seekers”.

It is clear when one reads other reports of this interview such as here that the offline magazine DID not say that he, Blair would remove Mugabe, but that Mugabe “should be removed”.

The Stern’s online headline didn’t exactly help with clarity, intentional or otherwise. But The Daily Mail, the ‘truth-seeking’, truth-distorting British rag, immediately repeated the headline WITHOUT mention of the fuller contents of the magazine.

So here we have a British newspaper of the Right supporting the political spin of a continental European publication of the Left.

WHY?  Because they have the same agenda: to keep Tony Blair out of politics.

SPINNING THE CHERRIES

The Mail is not fussy where it finds its spin. Simply because it will be read by their anti-Blair readers as damaging to Blair the ‘dictatorial warmonger’.

The very thought! Might he, if ever EU president, suggest that the EU invades Zimbabwe?

And, ooooh, what a cheek to talk about “war crimes” – ‘pot … black!’

You may say, “so what?” All of this is to be expected in today’s race to create sensationalist eye-catching headlines.

But I see it as lazy and misleading journalism, and thus manipulative of the disinterested and semi-informed reader.

What is even worse is when such papers as THE MAIL don’t actually reveal their sources until readers’ brains have been washed and addled with the belief that such papers as THE MAIL are the founts of all knowledge.

For instance here below:

DAVID KELLY

Here on 16th July, 2009, The Mail’s Sue Reid uses journalistic licence to mislead, to deceive and to smear. Her original headline:

“Did MI5 kill Dr David Kelly? Another crazy conspiracy theory amid claims he wrote tell-all book that vanished after his death”

Why do I say she is misleading, deceiving and smearing?

[This for a start. The title was later updated to read like this:

"Did MI5 kill Dr David Kelly? Just another crazy conspiracy theory? But, amid claims he wrote tell-all book that vanished after his death, it's one that refuses to go away"]

• 1. It has a misleading and deceptive title, in BOTH versions, since the “conspiracy theory” possibility is NEVER even mentioned in the body of the article.
• 2. Right from the first word the article is mostly lifted from another’s book, flavoured with a little … very little … of the Mail writer’s own input.
• 3. Ms Reid only mentions the book’s author more than half-way through the article.
• 4. She pretends by the title that the paper is NOT taken in by “mad conspiracy theories”
• 5. Her ‘get out of jail’ card on authorship of the aticle is by attributing the story to the REAL writer, late, very late in the article.
  
• 6. Oh, yes, but to get her paper “out of jail”, the author’s name is at the end.  (‘Sorry we forgot to mention to all conspiracy nuts that this article was mostly a book extract. But you can buy it here …’)

If you came across this title you would have at least expected to find the words “conspiracy theories” mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Bloggers, it is true, often start with a story title, tap away, go off at a tangent and find that they’ve failed to mention the title of the post within the post itself. That can then be corrected before or even after publishing it to the web.

But when a national newspaper has the headline below, we might be forgiven for expecting that it is going to contain SOME reference to it.

“Did MI5 kill Dr David Kelly? Another crazy conspiracy theory amid claims he wrote tell-all book that vanished after his death”

Istead, readers are presented right from the start ONLY with crazy conspiracy theories over Kelly’s death, except that they are undisputed and unmentioned as such throughout the entire article.

This deceptive technique is the latest tactic in the ‘Get Blair into Court’ strategy.

Back to The STERN article on Mugabe

Claim: Tony Blair used the 'sexed up dossier' to justify the Iraq war.

RELATED

Online sites reporting the “Blair would remove Mugabe” mis-story.

• Telegraph, 22nd July, 2009  – Blair – “Mugabe should be toppled”
• Talk Zimbabwe, 24th July, 2009 – Is Tony Blair seeing clearly?
• The Times, South Africa. 22nd July, 2009 – “Get rid of Mugabe”: Tony Blair

BLOGGERS

Digital Spy, 23rd July 2009 -  a ‘ Sprog Blog’ repeating the LIES of The Daily Mail as though they are facts

ZIMBABWE INFLATION HISTORY ETCETERA

• 22nd February 2008, Guardian: Zimbabwe inflation passes 100,000%, officials say
• 9th October 2008, Telegraph:  Zimbabwe’s inflation has rocketed to an astronomical 231 million per cent, Harare has admitted – an advance of more than 200 million per cent on the previous figure.
• 13th November, 2008, Telegraph: Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation is now the second worst in history, according to a US study.
• 14th March, 2009:  In defence of Mugabe “through the lens of western propaganda.”
• 27th July, 2009:  Spiegel Online – Blair facing resistance for EU presidency

The online introduction to STERN’S hard copy offline magazine article is translated here

Compare this with the FULL English translation of Mr Blair’s interview in the offline Stern magazine article.

A US Air Force linguist joins a host of doctors in demanding a new probe into the mysterious death of a British scientist and weapons expert who opposed the Iraq war.

The controversy surrounding Dr. David Kelly’s death was first rekindled following a Daily Express report in June that revealed the expert was in the middle of writing a book containing damaging government secrets on the Iraq war as well as biological warfare in apartheid South Africa.

The linguist, Mai Pederson, who was part of Kelly’s weapons inspection team in Iraq, has called on the Attorney General for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to carry out an ‘independent’ review of the case, reported the Mail on Sunday….(more)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=101110&sectionid=351020601

During the Hutton Inquiry in to the death of David Kelly, millions of British citizens listened to Alistair Campbell, who had so berated the BBC for suggesting the Labour Government had exaggerated the case for war, tell the inquiry that perhaps the Government had used language that helped push the case for war. They had not as the BBC suggested, sexed up the case for war, they just used language to promote war.

The Hutton Inquiry reported. Their findings were at one stage one of the biggest of UK political websites. Lord Hutton had however been set up to fail. New Labour managed to destroy the reputation of not just Dr. Kelly, but of Lord Hutton as well.

The Government deliberately confused the public about the enquiry. This was exacerbated by media coverage of key members of Government and Security forces admitting that they may have not been exactly truthful about the War. The ability of Iraq to attack the UK within 45 minutes was exposed as a lie. People watched it on tv. Surely someone was going to be punished. It was on TV after all.

The misreporting and government spin muddied the waters about the exact nature of the Hutton Inquiry. Some considered it to be an inquest, some considered it to be an inquiry in to whether the Government has mis-sold the Iraq war. It was neither of those and thus, when Lord Hutton reported on what was allowed within his remit, whether Government pressure to find the “mole” had led to the death of David Kelly, the newspapers condemned the whitewash.

The remit was narrow and simple, to “urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly.” Hutton reported on his remit. As a good judge does, there was nothing more, nothing less. He had no power to go outside of his remit.

Pressure to find the mole did not lead to the suicide of David Kelly, therefore the Government, by ensuring the wrong question was asked was in the clear.

The BBC and Andrew Gilligan in particular had however been in the right. The Government lied about the Iraq War. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair sold the war on a lie. The BBC had however won the battle, but lost the war. Hutton was The BBC v The Government. The Government had spun it that way and they had won.

Ever since Hutton the BBC went soft on this Government. New Labour had after all managed to do something Thatcher never could, intervene in the partiality of the BBC. New Labour managed to sack a BBC Director General, one whose appointment was controversial in the first place. Reporters were muzzled. New Labour would not be given tough interviews. Even Paxman was muzzled.

After Blair left office, this has changed, but this change has taken years.

In those intervening years, British and American Soldiers killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, for a war that even today, seems to have been without purpose. We do however know Bush and Blair prayed for it. Literally.

We know that a secular nation, with a lunatic Leader, who was unable to pose any real threat, became a nation run by uber religious war lords that we bribe to keep the peace. Many of these warlords more loyal to the fraudulent Government of Iran than this new Iraq.

We will get an Iraq inquiry. It will not cover the political consequences of that war, which will hurt Anglo-American Foreign Relations for years.

We still do not know why David Kelly died.

We do know the knife story was a lie. There were no fingerprints on the knife. He could not have cut himself with it.

Neither the drugs that were found in his body or the cut to his wrist were enough to kill him. There was very little blood found at the scene.

There are lots of reports about how angry he was about his treatment by a Labour MP. No one thought he was suicidal.

The family of Dr. Kelly wish that this issue was laid to rest. The widow has expressed her pain and anguish about his death, hoping that a good man can simply rest in peace. For that she has accepted the official report of suicide.

An American programme may however shed new light on this.

US television investigators have spent four years preparing a 90-minute documentary, Anthrax War, suggesting there is a global black market in anthrax and exposing the mystery “suicides” of five government germ warfare scientists from around the world.

Director Bob Coen said: ‘‘The deeper you look into the murky world of governments and germ warfare, the more worrying it becomes.

“We have proved there is a black ­market in anthrax. David Kelly was of particular interest to us because he was a world expert on anthrax and he was involved in some degree with assisting the secret germ warfare programme in apartheid South Africa.”

In addition, to add to the misery for the Labour Party, 13 Doctors are now demanding a full inquest. They have absolutely rejected that he could have died through the method he was supposed to have taken to commit suicide.

Given his scientific background, Dr Kelly would also have had access to far better, cleaner chemicals to ensure an efficient suicide.

Tony Blair is reported to feel vulnerable to the accusation that he has the blood of Dr David Kelly on his hands. It would be added to the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

It is not likely that Tony Blair personally arranged for the death of Dr David Kelly. Norman Baker, a Liberal Democrat MP has suggested the possibility of Iraqi opponents to Sadam Hussein, who had everything to gain from the invasion.

I appreciate the wishes of the family in this case, but the death of Dr Kelly meant the death of BBC impartiality and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis. What happened on Harrowdown Hill had consequences that we all now grieve over.

Many British reporters have directly accused Tony Blair of having the blood of Dr David Kelly on his hands. His culpability rests on three points.

If this was a Security Services assassination, he would have had to approve it.

If it was suicide, his Government pushed him in to it.

If as Norman Baker suggests, it was Iraqi opposition that murdered him, again by exposing him Blair was culpable.

There are far too many suspicious elements about this case. The British people need a full inquest.

Daily Express
July 5, 2009

Weapons inspector David Kelly was writing a book exposing highly damaging government secrets before his mysterious death.

He was intending to reveal that he warned Prime Minister Tony Blair there were no weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq weeks before the ­British and American invasion.

He had several discussions with a publisher in Oxford and was seeking advice on how far he could go without breaking the law on secrets.

Following his death, his computers were seized and it is still not known if any rough draft was discovered by investigators and, if so, what happened to the material.

Read the entire article

1.  “How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

So, Who is Eddie Shalev?

The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. All of which is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

…

But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters…[which] has subsequently gone out of business.”

The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the commission vet Eddie Shalev? Does his military record include service in the Israeli intelligence community?

Real people have known addresses. But Eddie Shalev’s whereabouts has been unknown for years. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.[35] Not satisfied, I conducted my own search and did turn up two possible addresses for an “Eddy Shalev” in the Gaithersburg-Rockville, Maryland area. But the lead went nowhere. The phone number had been disconnected. The 9/11 memorandum indicates that Shalev’s US visa was about to expire in July 2004, suggesting that Shalev may have returned to Israel. Clearly, the man needs to be found, subpoenaed and made to testify under oath before a new investigation, even if this requires extradition. Quinn John Tamm and the two Freeway instructors, Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, should also be subpoenaed. All are key witnesses and obvious starting points for a new investigation.”

http://www.the911mysteryplane.com/

2.  “Robert McNamara is dead.

So are two to three million people in Vietnam and Laos whom he outlived by three decades.

And so are tens of thousands of U.S. troops whom he outlived also.

McNamara wasn’t solely responsible for their deaths. Kennedy and Johnson bear the biggest burden—and Nixon after McNamara sought asylum at the World Bank.

But McNamara did more than his share, as Defense Secretary, to map out the U.S. war strategy in Vietnam and to stress body counts, as if that were any decent yardstick for winning—either morally or militarily. He also authorized the widespread use of napalm and carpet-bombing, which wreaked widespread horror.

One of the best and the brightest, he led one of the sorriest and most brutal and most foolish wars the United States has ever waged.

To his credit, he finally grasped some of the hideousness of it all.

But he never did anything significant, when he was in power, to try to extricate the United States from that war, even when he understood it might be unwinnable.”

http://www.progressive.org/wx070609.html

3.  “McNamara: A War Criminal, a Liar, and a Director of the Washington Post company

In its obituary article on Robert McNamara today, the Washington Post mentions that McNamara was a director of the Washington Post company.

Was that honor bestowed because of McNamara’s lies or because of his war crimes?

Or maybe he was just a really really great dinner guest at the homes of Post editors and owners.

And people wonder why the Washington Post grovels and helps cover up Leviathan’s worst abuses….”

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/07/06/mcnamara-a-war-criminal-a-liar-and-a-director-of-the-washington-post-company/

4.  “UK weapons inspector who was found dead was writing expose: paper”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/06/uk-weapons-inspector-dead-expose/

5.  “Case of autistic Marine brings recruiting problems to the forefront

Recruiters sometimes take ethical shortcuts to make their quotas at a time when Americans have tired of the nation’s wars and finding recruits is difficult.

According to court documents, Fry’s recruiter knew he was autistic.
…
“He’s on psychotropic drugs. He’s been diagnosed as bipolar and is having trouble holding it together.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marine-autism6-2009jul06,0,7706948.story

6.  “Ousted President Manuel Zelaya to smuggle himself across Honduran border”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/honduras/5762396/Ousted-President-Manuel-Zelaya-to-smuggle-himself-across-Honduran-border-aide-says.html

7.  Why 9/11 Truth should NEVER give up:

“What made G.Washington a great leader was his persistence.

Setbacks, defeat, betrayal, and failure did not deter Washington. He kept hope alive against all odds. Even when it seemed like all was lost, he persisted.

As I have frequently written, we never know when our efforts will bear fruit. Even when it seems like our years of struggle our futile and that our enemies have overwhelming power and resources, something we have done may suddenly and unexpectedly win the battle.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/what-made-george-washington-great.html

8.  Good news:

“Dan Froomkin hired by The Huffington Post

In yet another sign of how online media outlets are strengthening as their older establishment predecessors are struggling to survive, The Huffington Post has hired Dan Froomkin to be its Washington Bureau Chief and regular columnist/blogger.  Froomkin will oversee a staff of four five reporters and an Assistant Editor, guide The Huffington Post’s Washington reporting, and write at least two posts per week to be featured on its main page and Politics page.  I learned last night of the hiring and spoke to both Arianna Huffington and Froomkin this morning.

Under still-unclear circumstances, which executives refuse to discuss even with their own Ombudsman, Froomkin was fired by The Washington Post a little more than two weeks ago after writing an online column for almost six years that was one of that newspaper’s most popular.  Almost immediately upon the reporting of Froomkin’s firing, screenwriter Nora Ephron, an Editor-at-Large for The Huffington Post, emailed Huffington with a one-line note:  ”I hope we’re hiring him.”  Within hours, Huffington called Froomkin, met with him in Washington last week, and a deal was finalized this week.  That was just one of numerous overtures Froomkin received from various media outlets interested in hiring him (Salon was one such outlet expressing preliminary interest, but both Froomkin and Salon believed that much of what I do here already overlaps with much of the work he does).

…

Clearly, journalism itself is not dying.  What is dying — and rightfully so — is the staid, establishment-serving, passion-free, access-desperate, mindless stenographic model to which establishment journalism rigidly adheres.  As The Post’s Ombudsman reported from personal experience, Froomkin’s firing left ”an army of angry followers” and “an outcry from a loyal audience.”  People are obviously hungry for the type of real journalism Froomkin practices.  The Huffington Post immediately capitalized on the Post’s short-sighted and myopic decision to fire one of their most (and one of their very few) vibrant, passionate and innovative journalists.  In this episode lies many insights about the real reasons establishment journalism is struggling severely.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Weapons inspector David Kelly was writing a book exposing highly damaging government secrets before his ­mysterious death.

He was intending to reveal that he warned Prime Minister Tony Blair there were no weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq weeks before the ­British and American invasion.

He had several discussions with a publisher in Oxford and was seeking advice on how far he could go without breaking the law on secrets.

Following his death, his computers were seized and it is still not known if any rough draft was discovered by investigators and, if so, what happened to the material.

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/david-kelly-was-writing-book-when-he-was-murdered/

Of course Gordon Brown has said that it will be in Private. He would not of course want a repeat of the Hutton Inquiry in to the circumstances surrounding the death of Doctor David Kelly, which allowed the public to recognise a white wash when the finished report came out. The BBC was right. The British Government had “sexed up” claims that Iraq could strike the UK within 45 minutes.

Of course, the remit of the enquiry will be limited, as we will not be expecting to see any Ministers or even the previous Prime Minister banged to rights over what many still see as an illegal war. We certainly should not expect to see the public questioning of any US politician or Diplomat.

So I doubt any of the following issues will be considered:-

Full ministerial conduct including that of the Prime Minister in promoting the case for war. What level of co-ordination was there between the UK and US in promoting the case for War. At what level?
The prosecution of that war and the consequences of that War. Whether the UK was complicit in War crimes, especially in light of recent revelations by the United States of America.

The numbers of Iraqi citizens that died as a result of the War. The effects on terrorism generated by the Iraq War. The economic consequences for Iraq of the War and what our resulting liabilities are.

Whether statements made to the House of Parliament about our full involvement in Iraq and our complicity in torture still hold true. Whether Ministers, especially the Foreign Secretary misled Parliament and the Courts about their knowledge of torture during the Binyam Mohamed case.

If these issues were covered in depth, then what people will continue to regard as a great crime against humanity may take the necessary small steps towards closure.

My ears had an orgasm when I heard this. Major Lazer is an artist that I’ve heard little about, but this sh*t goes hard. This song features Baby Cham, and I think that I hear Santigold on the track too. This one is really worth the download. ➜ Call Mi (Hold The Line)

When I started researching this story, I had a short blog planned. But the more I researched, the deeper the story goes, it’s a story of huge proportions, with back stories, and secrecy, lies and propaganda that drives the veins, right to the heart of the war in Iraq, acting more like the plot of a Ludlum novel, than the core of realty. It’s a ridiculously deep story. Usually I do not give conspiracy theories much of a second thought, but when it is brought to my attention by a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist with a Columbia University Masters, my curiosity is demanding to be fed.

In December 2003, six months after the Invasion of Iraq, and with the World coming to terms with the notion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and had no ties to Al Qaeda; a document was released, dated July 2001, apparently showing a connection between the head of Saddam’s Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush and one of the terrorists behind 9/11 (Mohammed Atta). The document was supposedly found by the coalition Government in Iraq, and verified as authentic by interim Iraqi President (and long time CIA asset) Ayad Allawi shortly after the invasion. It suggests that Atta was trained as a terrorist by Abu Nidal, known at that time as the most dangerous terrorist on the planet, and who was based in Iraq. Despite the fact that Nidal was a long time critic of Saddam and was supposedly killed by the Hussain regime, after the Iraqi’s became convinced Nidal was spying for Egyptian and Kuwaiti intelligence, with the knowledge of the Americans. Nidal then, was not able to defend himself from these claims suggested in the uncovered documents.

The document, Addressed to: “To the President of the Ba’ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you.”
reads:
“Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer [the real name behind this Arabic alias remains a mystery] and we hosted him in Abu Nidal’s house at al-Dora under our direct supervision.
We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him…He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.”

Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist and Author Ron Suskind, has suggested that the Bush White House along with the CIA had forged the document to suggest a pre-war link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to back up their authority for war. He suggests that the biggest threat facing the America, and the World is a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists, and so with America losing it’s moral leadership in the World, the rise of Anti-Americanism becomes an ever increasing threat, which America fights with it’s own brand of semi truths, secrecy, and terrorism.

Suskind suggests that Habbush was an informer for the Bush Administration on Iraq. He started sending reports to both the White House and Downing Street in 2003, and confirmed that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The reports were kept secret, and during the invasion, Habbush was paid $5,000,000 in hush money and relocated to Jordan, by American intelligence. Later that year, the White House ordered the CIA to forge a document back dated to 2001, from Habbush, to Saddam, stating that Mohammed Atta had trained in Iraq, and so weaving a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, simply because the WMD claim had failed miserably. The document was thus released to the media whom took it at face value, unquestioning, severely lacking in the journalistic qualities that earned Suskind the Pulitzer. Ayad Allawi, the interim President of Iraqi in 2003, and long time CIA associate, was of course quick to verify that the document was indeed genuine, refusing to answer the question of why Nidal would be colluding with Hussain, given weapons, a training camp, and a band of terrorists given that Nidal and Saddam were not exactly the best of friends, and that Nidal was more of a hired gun, than a trusted friend of Iraq.

Suskind goes on to suggest that CIA officers Robert Richer and John Maguire supervised to creation of the document, the order coming through from the Office of Dick Cheney. Richer and Maguire have categorically denied the claims, and so it is of course possible that the CIA did not produce the document. The CIA are under 1991 guidelines that prevent them from feeding false information in the U.S. Not that they can’t get round that. They do however know that their testament, could lead to the President being impeached. It’s quite the pressure. But, if Suskind is wrong about the source of the document, then who’s the likely culprit? Who would Cheney turn to? He was afterall, manic about finding a link, regardless of how the link was found and how credible the information was, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, despite intelligence suggesting absolutely no link between the two.

My guess, and of course this is just speculation, is the Pentagon’s top policy official at the time, Douglas Feith. Feith was the head of the Officeof Strategic Influence, which until it became public was a secretive arm of the defence in the United States. It existed for a very short period and was uncovered in 2002. The Office was set up to produce false documents and propaganda to mislead the enemy. The media started to ask questions about the Office, and it’s secretive operations. Defence Secretary Rumsfeld shut it down in February 2002. However, all he did in essence, was change it’s name. Rumsfeld stated in 2002, in regard to the closing of the Office ” You can have the name, but I’m going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done.” Whether or not Rumsfeld would have closed it down, had it not been uncovered, is something one must think about when assessing this case. In any event, the newly created Information Operations Task Force (IOTF) took up much of the work where the Office of Strategic Influence left off. The IOTF has dealings with John Rendon of the Rendon Group. A PR group dedicated to supporting U.S military interventions all over the Globe, through propaganda aimed at the population of the victim nation. The field of work is known as “perception management,“, they have been accused of feeding foreign media fabricated articles in order to bring the citizens round to their clients way of thinking. Rendon’s work includes anti-Saddam covert PR campaigns in 1991, aimed at attempting to over throw the Hussain regime. Rendon has been involved in covert pro-American propaganda in Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Zimbabwe amongst others. Rendon is even supposedly the father of the Iraqi National Congress, a group of anti-Saddam Militants and Oil tycoons put together to oppose the Saddam regime and gain support for his eventual removal. Lead by Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi, and funded by the Americans, the INC was responsible for passing on false information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Bush Administration. The evidence they provided was flimsy at best, but lead to the invasion of Iraq. Chalabi had his eyes set on power after the toppling of Saddam. Any official claim that his information was flimsy, would not have been taken lightly, and was a threat to Chalabi, Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rendon itself. The apparent suicide of David Kelly, comes to mind.

Rendon had been awarded a $6,400,000 contract to create pro-war, and pro-American propaganda and target Iraqi civilians with it.
This information, and much like it (search Google for Rendon Group, it’s all there) leads me to conclude that if Cheney was indeed adamant that he needed a link, regardless of it’s credibility, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, then the most likely source of the forged Habbush document, was not the CIA, it would have been the Office dedicated to creating this type of propaganda, and given the nature of the document, and it’s obvious importance to the Administration, it must have been the responsibility of the most senior members of the IOTF and the Rendon Group. I’d put all of this at the door of Cheney, and the Rendon Group.

Like I said, this story goes so very deep. It proves much more efficiently than any other story that I’ve come across connected to the Iraq war, that the indelibly secretive Bush Administration worked tirelessly to prove a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, in order to justify a War that seems more and more likely to have been based on profit from defence and oil contracts, and that didn’t stand up to scrutiny the moment the Weapons of Mass Destruction Argument failed. All the time, hammering the American public into a sense of false Patriotism, you’re either pro-war, or you’re against us. It’s why they forged the Habbush document. It’s why they tortured. It had very little to do with Cheney’s dire need to protect America, and much much more to do with Cheney’s need to cover up the fact that his war, the death toll, the families lives destroyed, was based on such an ugly lie.
Why did we invade Iraq?

I wonder what Doctor David Kelly knew.

David and Producer Derek Williams just finished mixing on Paul Stephens newest untitled album due out this summer.  You can check out Paul at http://www.paulstephensmusic.com.