I have just watched Channel 4’s excellent documentary, “True Stories, Taking Liberties”, a two hour show detailing the rights that have been removed from UK citizens by the Blair / Brown Government.

UK residents hid safely under their beds watching as the Government dealt with the terrorists. A small step here, a small step there. Well UK. You have no rights. None. Those rights are now at the discretion of the Police and the Home Secretary.

Thank you New Labour, I feel so much safer.

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.

Obama and the War on Terror Part 2 of 6.

The conservative press and its commentators in the United States have been up in arms since the day Obama was made president. Well, the truth is they had been up in arms long before that, but for our purposes, they were pretty much frothing at the mouth, by the time he took office.

The European and world media, were, however almost sycophantic in the praise they lauded upon the United States. After two terms of the hugely unpopular Bush administration, Obama was hailed as a new chance, a change for the better. IT was all but a new dawn for humanity.

You, may, dear reader, have thought that the European press had abandoned its highbrow attitude to all things American, and eased its anti American sentiment. You would too, be very wrong. What the European’s like about Obama, is his universality, in a sense he is more palatable to European sentiment than McCain, or many preceding American presidents.

It is my humble opinion that, this is an incorrect perspective, however widely held. I think Obama is starting to look as American as apple pie, and the truth is that the racial component, and the ivy leagueness, with its resultant euro centricity is waning.

Regardless of style or race, Mr. Obama is shaping up to be a man of ideals and ideas. The simple truth here, dear reader, is, whether or not you agree with him, you have to admit, the man is an extraordinary intellect, a formidable opponent, a clearly defined human being and a consummate politician.

It’s great stuff all round.

While Americans, still guilty, and reeling from the sort of isolation that was imposed, unconsciously on the red white and blue, by the world media and the European mouthpieces thereof, are feeling that the tide has turned and America is back in the good books of the world, I still fear that it is honeymoon stuff.

Already the rumblings of discontent are being heard at the G20 regarding Obama and his policies for the reconstruction of the Global economy. The olive branch is as it were, still in the hand of the US president. The deeply held dislike of the European press for America, may well be in recession, but I predict that it will show its ugly head, steeped as it is in historical and unjustifiable contempt for the American Dream.

Oh, yes, I think Obama is all about the American Dream. I can hear my European readers switching off their modems as I write this. I have previously considered this pinnacle point in anti-American sentiment before. I still hold that the European press looks upon anyone who trades in the currency of hope, with contempt.

Obama is full of hope. He speaks of hope, he speaks of the shortcomings of the system and he almost always does so in relation to his plan to turn that back around and forge the American Dream.

The American Dream, scourge of euro intellectuals and barmaids in down town Warsaw. The American Dream, not yet accomplished, much maligned and scoffed. The American Dream, now revitalized, and with a new face, and a new voice, in new circumstances, about to yet again, echo as a clarion call across the oceans.

Of course, the Europeans simply scorn the dream, the real haters of it wear dustbin bags and dishcloths, and emigrate there with the sole purpose of blowing it all to hell and gone.

This simple threat has motivated some in the conservative camp to claim that Obama is some kind of reincarnated Chamberlain waving his olive branch at the Nazi war machine.

Its easy to see how they might think that, but it is the premise of this piece that such a response ignores who the man really is, and further underestimates him intellectually and as an American, to the point of insult.

An insult with impunity. Deeply undeserved, and dare I say it, dripping with spite and ignorance and quite frankly, sour grapes.

I read with interest the responses that Obama made to those who criticized his “Olive Branch” and called it appeasement.

“Senator Barack Obama responded sharply on Friday to attacks on his foreign policy, linking President Bush and Senator John McCain as partners in “the failed policies” of the past seven years and criticizing them for “hypocrisy, fear peddling, fear mongering.”

Confronting a major challenge to his world view, Mr. Obama tried to turn the tables on his critics, saying they were guilty of “bluster” and “dishonest, divisive” tactics. He cited a litany of what he called foreign policy blunders by the Bush administration and accused Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, of “doubling down” on them.” – New York Times

Of course here, he was responding to the extraordinary attack from McCain;

“And the belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that’s a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation’s security.”

But all this is, I think beside the point. I don’t think Obama is about appeasement. I don’t think either that there is any evidence that he is “soft” on terrorism. I don’t think that you can listen to the man, and walk out and say, “He doesn’t get it.”

It’s not really possible.

I find Mr. Obama, deeply American and more  deeply committed to American ideals than previous Presidents. I don’t think that this “olive branch” is anything more than that, a gesture of peace.

Just because Mr. Obama starts off by being magnanimous, rather than  confrontational, does not make him “Soft on Terror.”

I think, that, in line with his approach to torture, this is about gaining the moral high ground.  Read between the lines, the most powerful man in the world is offering an olive branch, he knows and appreciates the risks, and he probably knows too, that in many cases it will be rejected.

And when it is, he will hold all the moral currency he needs. He wants to build the American dream. He has the support, the means and the will.

He extends the hand of friendship.

Those who refuse it will learn, it is one thing to fight an aggressor, it is another thing entirely when you have spat in the face of friendship.

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel.”


”Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people” – President Obama

Can you read between the lines?

I certainly can.

Lets hope Osama can too.

Part 3 of 4 of my response to Mr Obama’s ridiculous speech to Islam was to be about ignoring history for the sake of appeasement, but I could not write it better, or more beautifully than this piece by Micheal Gerson, published in The New York Times:

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S speech to the Islamic world was a groundbreaking event. Never before has a young, dynamic American president, beloved both by his countrymen and the nations of the world, extended so timely and eager a hand to a part of the globe that, recently, had seen fewer and fewer reasons to trust us or to wish us well.

As important, Mr. Obama did not mince words. Never before has a president gone over to the Arab world and broadcast its flaws so loudly and clearly: extremism, nuclear weapons programs and a faltering record in human rights, education and economic development — the Arab world gets no passing grades in any of these domains. Mr. Obama even found a moment to mention the plight of Egypt’s harassed Coptic community and to criticize the new wave of Holocaust deniers. And to show he was not playing favorites, he put the Israelis on notice: no more settlements in the occupied territories. He spoke about the suffering of Palestinians. This was no wilting olive branch.

And yet, for all the president’s talk of “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world” and shared “principles of justice and progress,” neither he nor anyone around him, and certainly no one in the audience, bothered to notice one small detail missing from the speech: he forgot me.

The president never said a word about me. Or, for that matter, about any of the other 800,000 or so Jews born in the Middle East who fled the Arab and Muslim world or who were summarily expelled for being Jewish in the 20th century. With all his references to the history of Islam and to its (questionable) “proud tradition of tolerance” of other faiths, Mr. Obama never said anything about those Jews whose ancestors had been living in Arab lands long before the advent of Islam but were its first victims once rampant nationalism swept over the Arab world.

Nor did he bother to mention that with this flight and expulsion, Jewish assets were — let’s call it by its proper name — looted. Mr. Obama never mentioned the belongings I still own in Egypt and will never recover. My mother’s house, my father’s factory, our life in Egypt, our friends, our books, our cars, my bicycle. We are, each one of us, not just defined by the arrangement of protein molecules in our cells, but also by the things we call our own. Take away our things and something in us dies. Losing his wealth, his home, the life he had built, killed my father. He didn’t die right away; it took four decades of exile to finish him off.

Mr. Obama had harsh things to say to the Arab world about its treatment of women. And he said much about America’s debt to Islam. But he failed to remind the Egyptians in his audience that until 50 years ago a strong and vibrant Jewish community thrived in their midst. Or that many of Egypt’s finest hospitals and other institutions were founded and financed by Jews. It is a shame that he did not remind the Egyptians in the audience of this, because, in most cases — and especially among those younger than 50 — their memory banks have been conveniently expunged of deadweight and guilt. They have no recollections of Jews.

In Alexandria, my birthplace and my home, all streets bearing Jewish names have been renamed. A few years ago, the Library of Alexandria put on display an Arabic translation of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” perhaps the most anti-Semitic piece of prose ever written. Today, for the record, there are perhaps four Jews left in Alexandria.

When the last Jew dies, the temples and religious artifacts and books that were the property of what was once probably the wealthiest Jewish community on the Mediterranean will go to the Egyptian government — not to me, or to my children, or to any of the numberless descendants of Egyptian Jews.

It is strange that our president, a man so versed in history and so committed to the truth, should have omitted mentioning the Jews of Egypt. He either forgot, or just didn’t know, or just thought it wasn’t expedient or appropriate for this venue. But for him to speak in Cairo of a shared effort “to find common ground … and to respect the dignity of all human beings” without mentioning people in my position would be like his speaking to the residents of Berlin about the future of Germany and forgetting to mention a small detail called World War II

Most Wanted is fast paced thriller set against the background of the War on Terror. A critical issue for all of us sane individuals, who look forward to victory against the terrorists, is whether or not we are actually winning this war? But before we can answer the question, we must reach a common understanding on the extent of the conflict and who are the true opponents. Many wrongly perceive the US alliance to be fighting al-Qaeda and it’s sympathizers, part of a single homogeneous organization; when in fact it faces a global, radical Islamic insurgency. During the Bush years the war on terror was narrowly equated firstly to the campaign in Afghanistan and then later to Iraq. Undoubtedly, the focus in Afghanistan is more closely aligned to the objective of fighting terror, with its aim to put al-Qaeda and the Taliban out of business. Arguably though, the war in Iraq has had very little to do with combating terrorism on a global scale. Yet, no matter how you define the war victory appears elusive.

Somali Terrorists

Radical Islam is much more insidious than just al Qaeda—comprising a whole range of loosely knit networks and organizations that are united only in their opposition to long standing Western policies. In most cases there is no obvious connection to al Qaeda—take for example the perpetrators of the 7/7 London bombings or the 2008 attackers in Mumbai. These groups are antagonized by geo-political issues such as the unquestioning US support for Israel; America’s continuing presence on the Arabian Peninsula; and Western support for regimes perceived as oppressing Muslims; and at the same time most factions have their own regional agendas superimposed.

President Obama is attempting to move the goal posts, with the withdrawal from Iraq; the renewed focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan and a rapprochement with the Arab and Muslim world. And although they would appear to be moves in the right direction it is questionable whether it is just too little too late. There seems to be never ending numbers of new jihadists prepared fight for their cause. And while Western policies continue to alienate Arabs and Muslims in general, it provides fertile ground for those who manipulate in the name of religion. If the US and their allies are ever going to win the War on Terror it is critical to recognize what victory really looks like. The capture or demise of bin Laden would certainly be a milestone, but in no way can be considered as a complete victory. Moreover, this could become a double edged sword for the US alliance, particularly if his death were to be interpreted by his supporters as martyrdom. On the other hand, would a triumph in Afghanistan be enough to declare the West winners? NATO forces seem to be bogged down like the Russians before them, so it is difficult to foresee this outcome. Moreover, it is debatable whether there will ever be peace without tackling some of the root causes of  Arab and Muslim discontent. Whether US politicians like it or not, among the many intractable problems that somehow need to be addressed are: some resolution of the Palestine question and changes in policy towards Israeli. Despite the persistent failure of the West’s peace efforts; positive change must be part of the solution or we risk a continuing cycle of violence over the coming decades. Right now it is impossible to say that anyone is winning the War on Terror.

Click to Buy the book Most Wanted.

Part 2 of 4 on Obama’s speech in Cairo

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings – President Obama.

These were the words that Obama delivered at Cairo, words which on the surface seem reasonable and fair. Words that present succinctly and directly, just what Obama wanted to say to something he called “the Muslim world.”  Words that, for lack of better words, symbolize the Obama attempt to get the USA, a nation, to engage with an idea.

For, dear reader, Islam is just that, nothing more and nothing less, an idea. Just like existentialism, individuality, freedom and fascism, ideas all. Now whilst the USA represents an Idea, and in broad strokes you could say that the USA is an idea, Obama went not as a philosopher, but as a President. As President of a nation, to a far away country, to talk to people who have an idea, to suggest that the USA was ready to engage with that idea.

It’s a first for any real leader, this notion of engaging ideas, and it’s certainly a first for global politics. The very notion is so far reaching and deeply flawed that it almost beggars belief. The question that needs to be asked, is since when did Nations engage with ideologies on an individual basis ?

Twice, actually !

With two ideas, namely Communism and National Socialism (The German variety).

However, there is a distinct difference between Obama seeking dialogue with the Mullah and Ayatollahs and Nixon making nice with the Chinese and too, with Chamberlain appeasing the goose stepping lunatics of Nazi Germany and their Italian collaborators.

Our previous engagement with opposing ideology on world stage politics was between nations who held different ideology for the sake of peace. Obama has gone to engage with the idea itself.

Breathtaking actually. Reagan never spoke of common values with communism, and Chamberlain never suggested that democracy and fascism overlapped. Unlike Obama who suggests that Secular states share values with Fascist Theocracies, and even worse that in fact the ideologies overlap.

To suggest that secular democracy shares values with Islam because they both espouse progress is like saying that Pedophiles and Buddhists share values because they both like to eat three meals a day. It might be true, but it’s irrelevant. What Mr. Obama ignores is that  all ideologies share some values, its where they differ that matters, and when it comes to Islam and Secular States on substantive ideas and values, there is no common ground, where it counts.

Never mind the blatant dishonesty of claiming that Islam believes in the dignity of Human beings in the same way as the US constitution. This to an ideology that dresses its women in dustbin bags and thrives on stoning adulteresses and dismembering thieves and so on and so forth.

Mr. Obama’s justification for this embracing nonsense is interesting, as far as he is concerned, the vast majority of Islam have been held hostage by what he calls “Violent extremists” who he suggests “have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.”

He goes further to say that as a result of this tiny band of Muslim extremists and the twin effects of what he calls “the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization”
 many Muslims have been misled into believing that the West is hostile to Islamic traditions.

Funny that.

The truth is that the ideology of the west, flies in the face of many ideologies that exist within its borders. The foundations of science fly in the face of the very Christian fundamentalists who populate large parts of the United States. The values of a society that allow abortion which is in direct conflict of the Roman Catholic Church, and yet no speeches in Rome to pacify the Vatican.

Perhaps that’s because the Vatican has not sent any priests into coffee shops wearing payloads of explosives ?

What Mr. Obama is skirting here is the very big elephant in the room. Every time the envoys of Islam blow something to hell in the name of anything from Palestine to Pornography, we get told, it’s just a small band of extremists.

Rubbish.

Where do extremists with camels in caves of desert nations get satellite phones, bombs, arms and most importantly money ? The simple convenience of throwing your hands up in the air and condemning these actions, all the while financially supporting and hiding and enabling global terror, justified by religious rights is ridiculous.

In any event, if it’s truly just a small band of people giving Islam a bad name, why then does the Muslim world not crack down on it .

Even worse, why fly to Cairo to explain to Muslims what they already know ?

And too, why talk to the Muslim world about peace and co-operation if they are already peaceful and co-operating ?

Lets get Obama to run through the streets of Tehran or Dubai in his underwear to gauge this so called tolerance. Hell, never mind Obama, lets get Britney Spears to perform in downtown anywhere in the world of Islamofascism.

Ladies and gentleman, I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but when Islam starts letting its populations watch Will and Grace, then I’ll consider the idea that it’s just a small band of extremists we face.

The simple truth is that  Secular democracy cannot engage with religious ideology, it allows them to exist, they in turn must do the same, even if fundamentally they have opposing values.

What makes this Cairo speech so pathetic is that it was delivered with a semantic twist of titanic proportions, the “Muslim World” is not in the Middle East. Obama was not talking to Muslims, he was talking to Islamofacists, or if you like, plain old fascists.

If he had wanted to talk to Muslims, he should have gone to the Pacific Rim, but then again, the Islamofascists are blowing them up too.

Not too many bomb threats from Bali.

Perhaps then there is some truth in the distinction between Muslims and “Extreme Muslims”, perhaps it should be better phrased, for lets face it, there is no Jihad from Indonesia, and perhaps we should call a spade a spade?

The long relationship between Islam and Nazis is illustrated by this image of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem inspecting Nazi Troops

Arab national fascism or Islamofascim.

That’s whom Obama was talking to.

So why was he behaving like Chamberlain?

It appears that the Conspiracy Files programme has form. As a programme it has investigated the conspiracy theories behind the death of Princess Diana, Dr David Kelly and 9/11. More often than not, because of their method of dramatising the evidence against the conspiracy theorists, they have actually given kudos to the theories they hope to destroy.

In the days before Iplayer, these shows were available to stream through real media (use real alternative – it is just better). This is yet another area where BBC Iplayer has actually reduced choice. Many of the shows that used to available for streaming are now gone from their archives.

I have to say, this was a very very poor attempt by the BBC to label all those calling for a public inquiry into 7/7 as nuts. A typical guilt by association tactic more associated with the darker arts of propaganda than journalistic research. Another blog has directly accused the BBC of siding with “spooks” on a show that was nothing more than a whitewash.

My post yesterday predicted that the BBC would fail to provide any reasonable explanation about why 7/7 happened. For a start not questioning even the basic actions of the “bombers” on that day. Buying a parking ticket for the car and return train fares? What were they worried Network rail would chase them for the fines in the afterlife?

They attacked the youtube author for his videos, accusing him of deliberately stirring up Islamic hate of the Police. They do a good enough job of that themselves anyway. The police (and indeed the BBC) have continually demonised Muslims. They continue to do so. The police launch bigger and bigger “terror raids” that result in no prosecutions. The BBC often have cameras there for the raid itself. When these raids fail to turn up any evidence the BBC is then happy to repeat the lie they were not terrorists they were kiddie fiddlers.

(Update – this is the bit I can not get over. Tony Blair said hand on his Zanu Labour v1 battery cell that his Foreign Policy of invading Muslim Countries had nothing whatsoever to do with London getting bombed. However the BBC have the gall to say that the conspiracy theorist may be responsible for any future Islamic extremist terror outrage. Someone please explain how I can make this compute)

Can the BBC seriously say that if Jean Charles De Menezes had have been Muslim the Police and the BBC would not still be claiming that another tube outrage was prevented? Which on the day of the shooting is exactly what they were trying to do.

In fact the BBC made up lies on the behalf of the Police while reporting the shooting. In one of the early articles, the BBC flat out lied.

Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said officers had challenged a known suspect they had been following.

“He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.

“They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene.”

None of that actually happened did it Ms Gilmore?

In fact does this person the BBC “interviewed” really exist?

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a “bomb belt with wires coming out”.

Or this person?

Londoner Dan Copeland was in the carriage in which the man was shot.

He told BBC News: “We were sitting for a few minutes on the platform, then we heard shouting from the concourse between the two platforms.

“Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.

“An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, ‘Everybody out!’

The fact that the police used illegal hollow point rounds in that shooting was hardly covered at all by the BBC. Yet more crimes carried out by our Government forces in our name.

It is not as thought the police did not try and besmirch his name either, early on claiming he was an illegal over-stayer. Which again the BBC reported.

The BBC do themselves a disservice by completely dismissing Israeli links. Operation Kratos, the illegal and never debated or agreed shoot to kill policy originated in Israel.

The BBC themselves asked very similar questions. The Panorama video is still available to stream. I guess that they are allowed to ask questions because they get their money at the point of a gun. They are after all responsible a large percentage of women prisoners, who were too poor to pay the BBC TV tax. Members of the public who ask questions are just nuts and must be attacked.

Well the BBC have continually stamped on their own legitimacy, they have lied for the Government as demonstrated here and by siding with the Government on this one has to question their legitimacy again. If they were prepared to lie on behalf of the police who murdered an innocent civilian on the streets of London, are they prepared to do so again?

The official version of what is supposed to have happened has never been tested at an inquiry. It is therefore nothing more than a conspiracy theory itself. Which makes their show nothing more than a hit piece.

The facts of 7/7 are very much open to question.

It seems that the BBC, who require us to fund them will now happily belittle those who simply want answers to questions. Well that as the Pet Shop Boys say in their homage to Jean Charles makes us all criminals now.

And if you criminalise a whole Country, well no one does have anything to hide any more except of course – the Government. Iran is beginning to discover the consequences of that.

In the early stages of the spy thriller—Most Wanted—we find our heroes driving hard, “wadi-bashing”; pursuing the world’s most wanted terrorist through the most spectacular landscapes on the Arabian peninsular. The chase through Yemen plays out against the backdrop of rugged mountain scenery; dotted with unique architecture; and interspersed with green verdant terraces and lush oases.

The trail takes them northward into Sada province, home to lawless Yemeni tribesmen armed to the teeth.  The tribes in this region have a different culture, are fiercely independent and for many years they have taken to kidnapping foreigners. Hostages were typically taken to pressure the government; mainly to free clan members from jail and were then generally released unharmed. However, more recently the tribesmen have developed stronger links with a resurgent Al Qaeda and tourists are now strongly advised to avoid Yemen.

Descending the mountain passes towards the largely uninhabited border area with Saudi Arabia, our fugitives make their getaway skirting the edge of the Empty Quarter, where the rocky terrain gives way to massive rolling sand dunes. This is the true Arabian Desert. Driving skills are critical to navigate in this territory, as the unwary can quickly lose a shock absorber or become trapped deep in the sand. Rescue is not usually close at hand either, as only the occasional Bedouin inhabit this desolate, barren land. Traditionally smuggling of contraband into and out of Saudi has been one of the main economic activities in the region. The Saudis found it very difficult to control illegal imports and in recent years have become concerned to stop the infiltration of terrorist groups, seeking to carry out attacks in Saudi Arabia. A network of sandbags and pipelines, three meters high, filled with concrete and fitted with electronic detection equipment was constructed in 2000, in an attempt to curb the penetration of the border. After Yemeni protests work was stopped in 2004. Somehow it is difficult to imagine that such measures would deter a stubborn tribesman never mind a trained insurgent.

Click to Buy the book Most Wanted.

Find out how much you really know about the hunt for the world’s most wanted terrorist…

Quiz Answers

Score 5 for each correct answer

How did you do?

Score 0-14: So you don’t have a clue! Small wonder bin Laden has remained undiscovered for eight years.

Score 15-24: You are getting warmer—but finding bin Laden is like searching for a needle in a haystack according to Donald Rumsfeld. Close is still not good enough.

Score 25-34: You know enough to be dangerous. Bin Laden will need to keep on the move to avoid being detected.

Score 35- 45: CIA Director Leon Panetta is getting worried about his job; with good reason it seems. We will be arranging a briefing for you with the commander of Task Force 121.

Click to Buy the book Most Wanted.

Test your knowledge on the hunt for bin Laden.

Click to Buy the book Most Wanted.

Four Chinese Muslim Uighurs have been released from the US detention centre at Guantanamo and resettled in Bermuda, US officials said.

The four men are part of a group of Chinese nationals handed over to US forces in Afghanistan, but found four years ago not to be “enemy combatants”.

But Britain has told Bermuda, a UK overseas territory, it should have consulted London before accepting them.

Beijing has demanded the return of all Uighurs held by the US forces to China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8095582.stm

I guess we wanted to not torture them in much the same way that they would not have been tortured in Gitmo, and in the same way that they would not have been tortured in China.

Bad British Dependency acting on its own immigration laws and not having consulted the Protectorate Nation who only uses it as a tax haven for the super rich.

Afghan child waiting to see doctor: DOD photo.

After having just read an article by John Pilger on Hiroshima, continuing with Howard Zinn’s reflections on the futility of war is almost a necessity we found ourselves more and more appalled by images of war, whether they are the visual backdrop on non-reflective TV news reports or the falsely proud war veterans parading in our local streets. Howard Zinn makes absolute sense when he says that no one wins a war.

by Howard Zinn

BARACK OBAMA continues to argue about war in spite of that olive branch he waived to the Muslim world in Cairo. But before making that epochal speech, Obama ordered to send more troops to fight and “win” in Afghanistan.

For someone like myself, who fought in World War II, and since then has protested against war, I must ask: Have our political leaders gone mad? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Have they not learned that no one “wins” in a war, but that hundreds of thousands of humans die, most of them civilians, many of them children?

Nine-year-old Wazir Hammond rests against a wall of sandbags that protect the hospital against rockets, shelling and bombs. He requires a prosthesis refitting every six months. Photo courtesy Robert Semeniuk

Did we “win” by going to war in Korea? The result was a stalemate, leaving things as they were before with a dictatorship in South Korea and a dictatorship in North Korea. Still, more than 2 million people – mostly civilians – died, the United States dropped napalm on children, and 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives.

Did we “win” in Vietnam? We were forced to withdraw, but only after 2 million Vietnamese died, again mostly civilians, again leaving children burned or armless or legless, and 58,000 American soldiers dead.

Did we win in the first Gulf War? Not really. Yes, we pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, with only a few hundred US casualties, but perhaps 100,000 Iraqis died. And the consequences were deadly for the United States: Saddam was still in power, which led the United States to enforce economic sanctions. That move led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, according to UN officials, and set the stage for another war.

In Afghanistan, the United States declared “victory” over the Taliban. Now the Taliban is back, and attacks are increasing. The recent US military death count in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. What makes Obama think that sending more troops to Afghanistan will produce “victory”? And if it did, in an immediate military sense, how long would that last, and at what cost to human life on both sides?

The resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan is a good moment to reflect on the beginning of US involvement there. There should be sobering thoughts to those who say that attacking Iraq was wrong, but attacking Afghanistan was right.

Go back to Sept. 11, 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000, a terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a “war on terror.”

Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat of the moment: President Bush, despite his confident bravado, had no idea how to make war against terror.

Yes, Al Qaeda – a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics – was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. “We had to do something,” you heard people say.

Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 – exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees.

Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a 10-year-old in a hospital bed: “He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner.” The doctor attending him said: “The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?”

We should be asking our president : Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?

Title Photo: Courtesy AllAmericanPatriots

Howard Zinn is author of ” A Power Governments cannot Suppress” published by City Lights Books.

Source

When my boyfriend isn’t telling me top secret information about aliens that live in the ocean, he’s showing me pictures that were taken during his tour in Iraq. I’m pretty sure I just used the term “tour” correctly, but if I didn’t, let me know. Actually, I just took them from his ipod, which is now my ipod, so technically I’ve been given the rights to them; they’re mine. Oh, and aliens really DO live in the ocean..I’m just afraid to talk about it because I feel like I’ve been marked by them. If I disappear, you know why.

The Quds are Iranian Special Forces and part of the Revolutionary Guard, as featured in the book Most Wanted.

Among the myriad military and intelligence agencies that make up Iran’s security forces, none has the skill and reach of the mysterious Quds Force. The extent to which the Quds Force is controlled by the government has been hotly debated in U.S. foreign policy circles and they are “considered quite possibly one of the best special forces units in the world.”

During his recent tour of the Mid-East, President Obama made many inaccurate references as to the place of Islam in the history of modern civilization.

The fact that the majority of them were incorrect seemed to be a moot point, as the apparent point of the trip appeared to be for the President to apologize for America being such an evil country, and that now that he is in charge, American and Islamic cultures can live in peace and harmony.

And among his many miscues made in the hope of getting radical Islamists to lay down their arms and give all of America a group hug, he did get one thing right.

The fact that Thomas Jefferson kept a copy of the Koran (Qur’an) in his Presidential library.

Allah only knows why Mr. Obama would cite Jefferson’s ownership of the Koran as an attempt to show solidarity between America and the Muslim world.

Well Mr. President, I’m not quite sure how to break this news to you, but Thomas Jefferson did not have a copy of the holy book of Islam in order to learn…Read the rest of this entry