The Beauty and the the Beast: Being in time 1st interview

May 25, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon  Interviewed by the witty and glamorous Nedka Babliku.

We covered many of the aspect of the book: Athens & Jerusalem, controlled opposition, holocaust religion, the post political condition, Corbyn, Trump, cognitive partitioning and the bell curve and many more topics.

Being in Time is now available on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  &  here

https://youtu.be/NE0-ERPbWok

Truth Has Become Un-American

By Paul Craig Roberts

May 25, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Those of us who have exited The Matrix are concerned that there are no checks on Washington’s use of nuclear weapons in the interest of US hegemony over the world.

Washington and Israel are the threats to peace. Washington demands world hegemony, and Israel demands hegemony in the Middle East.

There are two countries that stand in the way of Washington’s world hegemony—Russia and China. Consequently, Washington has plans for preemptive nuclear strikes against both countries. It is difficult to imagine a more serious threat to mankind, and there is no awareness or acknowledgment of this threat among the Congress, the presstitute media, and the general public in the United States and Washington’s European vassal populations.

Two countries and a part of a third stand in the way of Greater Israel. Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, but cannot get them, despite twice sending in the Israeli Army, because of the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which is supplied by Syria and Iran. This is why Syria and Iran are on Washington’s hit list. Washington serves the military/security complex, Wall Street and the over-sized US banks, and Israel.

It is unclear if the Russians and Chinese understand that Washington’s hostility toward them is not just some sort of misunderstanding that diplomacy can work out.

Clearly, Russia hasn’t interfered in the US presidential election or invaded Ukraine, and does not intend to invade Poland or the Baltics. Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as the empire was expensive and of little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European empire comprised Stalin’s buffer against another Western invasion. The Warsaw Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in Washington, of Soviet world domination.

I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia faces in Russian media reports and articles posted on Russian English language websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov work out an accommodation with Washington when Washington intends to dominate or isolate Russia?

Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always show awareness that it is not Washington’s intention to accommodate other national interests.

It cannot be otherwise for these three reasons:

  1. The budget for the US military/security complex is the largest in the world. It is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It includes not only the Pentagon’s budget but also the budgets of 16 US intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the location of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories. When all the elements are added together, the military/security complex has annually the power and profit from $1,000 billion. An empire of this sort just doesn’t give up and go away because some president or some part of the electorate want peace. The “Russian Threat” is essential to the power and profit of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 56 years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
  2. The neoconservatives, who control both US foreign policy and the Western media’s explanation of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are dual Israeli-US citizens. The neoconservatives believe that the collapse of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States as the socio-politico-economic system, and that the US government has the responsibility to assert the hegemony of America over the earth. Just read the neocon documents. They assert this over and over. This is what it means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you are the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. The claim that the neoconservatives make for the US is similar to the claim that Hitler made for Germany.
  3. As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel’s expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government and chaos in Iraq, Washington’s war on Syria, and Washington’s demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.

For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is possible to reach an accommodation with Washington, other than a Russian surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov’s use of diplomacy to delay the US attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who sticks to his last, despite the facts.

Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign language broadcasts and websites, thinks that the Western misrepresentation of Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are established, can rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don’t understand that Washington could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and Russia is the enemy of choice.

The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street and US corporations are too dependent on the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, which keeps the US system fueled with profits, to jeopardize these profits by going to war.

By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail to mobilize world opposition to Washington’s recklessness and, thereby, enable Washington’s move toward war.

The presstitutes serving the National Security State continue to drive toward conflict. Consider Newsweek’s May 26, 2017, cover story with Putin on the cover and the caption: “The Plot Against America: Inside Putin’s Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S.”

It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in America has been destroyed by special interest groups, by a US Supreme Court decision that gave the reins of power to special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the US Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying American democracy. Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the Western media. The Western presstitutes are either corrupt beyond belief or ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.

Consider Time magazine’s cover. It depicts Trump turning the White House into the foundation for the Kremlin and St. Basil’s Cathedral, which rise above the White House, symbolizing America’s subservience to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be readily accepted by the bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die as a result of their insouciance.

Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul Street’s recent article on CounterPunch and the English language Russian website, Strategic Culture Foundation, cannot bring themselves to state the truth that the US military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected Russia for that role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of humanity on earth.

Street writes about “How Russia Became ‘Our Adversary’ Again.” According to Street, Russia became the enemy of choice because Russia protected part of the world’s population and resources from being exploited by global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the US also because Putin stopped the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way of Washington’s exploitation of the world.

Much of what Street says is correct, but he is hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner. He has to dilute his message by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally wanted normal relations with Russia, an “orange-haired brute . . . [who admires] Putin’s authoritarian manliness.”

Trump’s problems originated in his goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute who intended to worsen the relations.

Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street and CounterPunch know this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically incorrect truths about the US and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin propaganda and denigrating President Trump.

That peace with Russia and China would undermine the justification of the $1,000 billion military/security budget, and that the military/security complex is the American government, is too much truth for most writers to state.

Truth is the most rare element in the Western world, and we will not be permitted to have much of it much longer. Increasingly, truth is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Interesting message I received yesterday linking the Libya Embassy in London with the terrorism in Manchester

Most of you know me that I am a Libyan, here is an information that till today I haven’t read in the English newspapers about the Manchester attack. Salman Obeidi’s father was a policeman in Tripoli can 1991 when for his own reasons he joined the radical group called L.I.F.G <= LIBYAN Islamic fighting group. Qaddafi had banned it aka the reason for escaping the same year and asking for asylum in 🇬🇧. The father Ramadan Abdulgassem Obeidi never stpd his affiliation with the grp & continued to work with the leaders of LIFG who are Belhaz who has a British passport & one of the worst terrorist known, the other is Abdul Basset Gweli from Zliten and has Caribbean passport. I’m sure the above info u already know what isn’t mention is Faousi Camoucha who is more dangerous than Belhaz & Gweli is a diplomat in the LIBYAN embassy in 🇬🇧 & was in an everyday contact with Salman Obeidi which is believed that CAMOUCHA gave the order. Please do not forget that all the above ppl were working with MI5/6 you can use the information as u wish if u have to say my name pls use only abbreviations thank you for your time

Independent Journalists Reveal America’s Sinister War in Syria

UK Proscribed terrorist organization, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), maintains large presence in Manchester area and is now being linked to recent blast. 

May 24, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – As suspected and as was the case in virtually all recent terror attacks carried out in Europe – including both in France and Belgium – the suspect involved in the recent Manchester blast which killed 22 and injured scores more was previously known to British security and intelligence agencies.

The Telegraph in its article, “Salman Abedi named as the Manchester suicide bomber – what we know about him,” would report:

Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.

While initial reports attempted to craft a narrative focused on a a “lone wolf” attacker who organized and executed the blast himself, the nature of the improvised explosive device used and the details of the attack revealed what was certainly an operation carried out by someone who either acquired militant experience through direct contact with a terrorist organization, or was directed by a terrorist organization with extensive experience.

A Thriving Terrorist Community in the Midst of Manchester 

The same Telegraph article would also admit (emphasis added):

A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range.

Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz, a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of al-Qaeda. 

Azzouz, 48, an expert bomb-maker, was accused of running an al-Qaeda network in eastern Libya. The Telegraph reported in 2014 that Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bomb-making. 

Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi.

Thus, the required experience for the recent Manchester attack exists in abundance within the community’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) members.

LIFG is in fact a proscribed terrorist group listed as such by the United Kingdom’s government in 2005, and still appears upon its list of “Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations,” found on the government’s own website.

The accompanying government list (PDF) states explicitly regarding LIFG that:

The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi.

Thus, astoundingly, according to the Telegraph, a thriving community of listed terrorists exists knowingly in the midst of the British public, without any intervention by the UK government, security, or intelligence agencies – with members regularly travelling abroad and participating in armed conflict and terrorist activities before apparently returning home – not only without being incarcerated, but apparently also without even being closely monitored.

LIFG also appears on the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Astoundingly, it appears under a section titled, “Delisted Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” and indicates that it was removed as recently as 2015.

Elsewhere on the US State Department’s website, is a 2012 report where LIFG is described:

On November 3, 2007, [Al Qaeda (AQ)] leader Ayman al-Zawahiri announced a formal merger between AQ and LIFG. However, on July 3, 2009, LIFG members in the United Kingdom released a statement formally disavowing any association with AQ.

The report also makes mention of LIFG’s role in US-led NATO regime change operations in Libya in 2011 (emphasis added):

In early 2011, in the wake of the Libyan revolution and the fall of Qadhafi, LIFG members created the LIFG successor group, the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change (LIMC), and became one of many rebel groups united under the umbrella of the opposition leadership known as the Transitional National Council. Former LIFG emir and LIMC leader Abdel Hakim Bil-Hajj was appointed the Libyan Transitional Council’s Tripoli military commander during the Libyan uprisings and has denied any link between his group and AQ.

Indeed, a literal senior Al Qaeda-affiliate leader would head the regime put into power by US-led military operations – which included British forces.

Not only this, but prominent US politicians would even travel to Libya to personally offer support to Bil-Hajj (also spelled Belhaj). In one notorious image, US Senator John McCain is seen shaking hands with and offering a gift to the terrorist leader in the wake of the Libyan government’s collapse.

The US State Department’s report regarding LIFG ends with information about its “area of operation,” claiming (emphasis added):

Since the late 1990s, many members have fled to southwest Asia, and European countries, particularly the UK.

For the residents of Manchester, the British government appears to have categorically failed to inform them of the threat living openly in their midst. While the British population is divided and distracted with a more general strategy of tension focused on Islam, Muslims, and Islamophobia, the very specific threat of US-UK sanctioned terrorists living and operating within British communities is overlooked by the public.

However – for British security and intelligence agencies – it is unlikely that such an obvious security threat was merely “overlooked.” That extremists thrive within British communities without government intervention indicates complicity, not incompetence.

LIFG Terrorists Are Anglo-America’s Helping Hands

The Guardian in a 2011 article titled, “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – from al-Qaida to the Arab spring,” would claim:

British intelligence and security service interest in Libya has focused for 20 years on the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), whether it was opposing Muammar Gaddafi and working with al-Qaida, later renouncing its old jihadi worldview – or taking part in the armed uprising that has now overthrown the regime.

The article in reality is nothing more than an attempt to portray a listed terrorist organization as “reformed” ahead of increased public awareness regarding the true nature of Libya’s US and British-backed “rebels.”

LIFG members would not only assist the US and British governments in the 2011 overthrow of the Libyan government, they would also move on – with Western arms and cash – to NATO-member Turkey where they staged an invasion of northern Syria.

The Telegraph in a November 2011 article titled, “Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would report:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

The article would continue by reporting:

The meetings came as a sign of a growing ties between Libya’s fledgling government and the Syrian opposition. The Daily Telegraph on Saturday revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad. 

Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, the source said. Having ousted one dictator, triumphant young men, still filled with revolutionary fervour, are keen to topple the next. The commanders of armed gangs still roaming Tripoli’s streets said yesterday that “hundreds” of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime. 

Revealed once again is a convenient intersection of terrorist and US-British interests – this time in pursuit of regime change in Syria in the wake of successful US-UK backed regime change in Libya.

Confirming that these plans to send Libyan extremists to fight in Syria were eventually executed is CNN’s 2012 article, “Libya rebels move onto Syrian battlefield,” which reported:

Under the command of one of Libya’s most well known rebel commanders, Al-Mahdi al-Harati, more than 30 Libyan fighters have made their way into Syria to support the Free Syrian Army rebels in their war against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Al Harati’s army of Libyan terrorists would expand to hundreds, possibly thousands of fighters and later merge with other Syrian militant groups including Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise – Jabhat Al Nusra. In Libya, LIFG fighters have divided themselves among various warring factions, including Al Qaeda and Islamic State affiliates.

As these terrorists filter out of Syria and back home, those hailing from LIFG are mainly returning to the UK where they have been known by US and British security and intelligence agencies for years to exist. With them they will be bringing back the technical knowledge and experience needed to carry out devastating attacks like the recent blast that targeted Manchester.

It is terrorism that follows as a direct result of British foreign and domestic policy – supporting terrorists abroad and deliberately refusing to dismantle their networks at home – all as they feed fighters and resources into the US-UK proxy war still raging in Syria.

The British government is directly responsible for the recent Manchester blast. It had foreknowledge of LIFG’s existence and likely its activities within British territory and not only failed to act, but appears to have actively harbored this community of extremists for its own geopolitical and domestic agenda.

The recent blast will only reinforce the unsophisticated “tolerance versus bigotry” narrative that has gripped British society, entirely sidestepping the reality of government sanctioned terrorism wielded both abroad and against its own people – not for ideological or religious purposes – but purely in pursuit of geopolitical hegemony.

That the US and UK are using terrorists to expedite their respective geopolitical objectives should come as no surprise – particularly in regards to LIFG – since the organization itself branched out of Washington’s mercenary fighters used against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

What is surprising is that the Western public continues to react emotionally to each terrorist attack individually rather than rationally, seeing the much larger picture and pattern. And until the Western public sees that bigger picture and pattern, fear, injustice, murder, and mayhem will continue to dominate their lives and futures.

The British Establishment is Putting Our Lives at Risk

By Mark Curtis

Our State’s Key Ally Is a Major Public Threat

May 25, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  The country is in shock after the worst terrorist attack in 12 years. The deranged extremist who detonated the bomb bears sole responsibility for the outrage and is not a soldier – for Islam or whoever – but a murderer. The Manchester suicide bombing is an act of barbarism inflicted on entirely innocent people.

This wave of terrorism driven by Islamic State, which has claimed responsibility for the attack, derives from a complex infrastructure of forces, working over time. But it springs ultimately from the ideology promoted by the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, who were at least until recently funding and backing IS: they have done so to support their goal of overthrowing Assad in Syria and championing Sunni Islam in the face of rivalry with Iran. These are Britain’s allies. Whitehall has a deep, long-standing special relationship with the extremist Saudis: it is arming them, backing them, apologising for them, and supporting their regional policies. At the same time, the Saudis have been helping to create the monster that now threatens the British public. So, too, have the policies of the British government.

This is terrible, in the true sense of the term: the British establishment is putting our lives at risk in its obsessive obsequiousness in backing the Saudi state. We have to recognise that we are caught between two extremisms – that of IS and that of our own state’s priorities.

The British elite is perfectly aware of the insidious role that Saudi Arabia plays in fomenting terrorism. In October 2014, General Jonathan Shaw, a former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, told the Telegraph that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires IS terrorists. He said:

“This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop.”

He noted that UK/US bombing of IS would not “stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity” because:

“It’s not addressing the fundamental problem of Wahhabi Salafism as a culture and a creed, which has got out of control and is still the ideological basis of Isil – and which will continue to exist even if we stop their advance in Iraq.”

Shaw added:

“My systemic worry is that we’re repeating the mistakes that we made in Afghanistan and Iraq: putting the military far too up front and centre in our response to the threat without addressing the fundamental political question and the causes. The danger is that yet again we’re taking a symptomatic treatment not a causal one.”[1]

Last December Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, in off-the-cuff remarks, accused Saudi Arabia of ‘puppeteering and playing proxy wars’ in the Middle East by ‘abusing religion and different strains of the same religion in order to further their own political objectives’.[2]  Johnson was correct and it was a rare public admission of British awareness of the Saudi role, in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, which, as he and other officials must know full well, has had terrible consequences.

Saudi support for extremism

The Saudi role in exporting Wahhabism is surely well-known by now. In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent billions spreading its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide, funding mosques and free madrassas – religious schools – supplying them with imams and textbooks. In 2013, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a private speech (leaked in 2016) that “the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years.”[3]

This Saudi funding has included support for terrorism. EU intelligence experts estimate that 15 to 20 per cent of Saudi funding for its Wahhabist causes has been diverted to al-Qaeda and other violent jihadists.[4]A June 2013 report by the European Parliament deemed Wahhabism the main source of global terrorism. A classified 2009 cable signed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (also released by WikiLeaks) acknowledged: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”[5] A State Department cable of 2009 released under Clinton’s name in December 2009 states that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan].”[6]

The Saudis have been funding terrorism for decades while Whitehall (and Washington) has been supporting them. In May 1974, for example, the US State Department warned Britain not to go ahead with its reported offer to sell Blowpipe surface-to-air missiles to Saudi Arabia, for fear of “seepage of this type of weapon into the hands of terrorists”.[7] The US ambassador to Saudi Arabia told his British equivalent that the US had refused to sell similar equipment, the Redeye, for fear of their ending up in the hands of terrorists and being “used against civil aircraft or similar targets”.[8]

Islamic State

IS, which is believed to have been formed in 2006, has grown out of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq and the terrorist infrastructure built up with Saudi money and Western covert action seeking to oust Assad of Syria. IS is certainly not a creation of the UK, US and its allies, but the latters’ policies have contributed to its growth.

Donors in the Gulf, including Saudis, have funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars to rebel groups in Syria in recent years, including to IS.[9] A secret memo written by Hillary Clinton in August 2014 (which appeared on the WikiLeaks website in 2016) noted that the Saudi and Qatari governments “are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [IS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region”.[10]Following IS’s capture of Mosul in northern Iraq in June 2014, former Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told US secretary of state John Kerry that “Daesh is our [Sunni] response to your support for the Da’wa,” the Shia Islamist party the US installed in power in Iraq.[11]

Saudi Arabia’s neighbour Qatar, the world’s only other predominantly Wahhabi state with whom Theresa May’s government has recently signed large commercial deals, may have been the biggest funder of the Syrian rebels, with some estimates suggesting the amount may be as much as $3bn.[12] In 2012, the New York Times reported, based on military sources, that “most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups… are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster”.[13]

This was of course all well-known to officials in London and Washington as they pretended to their publics to be supporting only ‘moderate’ rebel groups. In October 2014, Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden harshly criticised Saudi Arabia and Turkey in a talk at Harvard University. He noted that “they were so determined to take down” Assad that they:

“poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad – except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra, and al-Qaida, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world.”

He added, “We could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.”[14]

As Nafeez Ahmed has argued, Western governments have deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Assad. A 2012 Defence Intelligence Agency document notes that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” and that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition”. The document stated that al-Qaeda in Iraq, the precursor to IS, “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.” But the document also forecast the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces”. Further the document noted that:

“there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

As Ahmed comments, the document provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting IS had previously welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran.[15]

US journalist Rania Khalek has written[16] that it was not until 2014, when IS started beheading westerners on video, that the group became a major concern for the West. Prior to that, Western covert operations in Syria were so focused on weakening Assad, they acquiesced as Saudi Arabia and Qatar funded and armed IS, following which IS brutally swept across swathes of Syria and Iraq.[17] The US then put heavy pressure on Saudi Arabia and Qatar to stop their support to IS and other radical groups in Syria, which is believed to have happened. However, Saudi Arabia still supports anti-Assad groups in Syria, which has been reported as including the Islamist Jaysh al-Islam.[18] Now, the Saudi regime is pledging support, including military operations, for the fight against IS in Syria. But the point is: the genie has long been out of the bottle.[19]

Britain’s covert role in Syria has served to prolong the war and, in alliance with the US and Saudi Arabia, de facto helped strengthen the hard-line groups who are now our enemies. There is some evidence that Britain had planned covert action in Syria to oust Assad as early as 2009, even before the uprising began in 2011.[20] But Britain is reported to have begun training Syrian rebel forces from bases in Jordan in 2012.[21] Although focussed on ‘moderate’ rebels, the ever-changing nature of the opposition forces and inter-operability between them has blurred any useful distinctions between ‘moderate’ and ‘hardline’. In 2015, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told parliament that “the vast majority of [Syrian] opposition groups are Islamist”.[22] Foreign Office Minister Baroness Anelay said in 2017 that the situation among the opposition groups in Syria “can indeed be fluid” and that “there can be splintering of those groups and some which appeared in the past to be moderate then change their view and join up with those with whom this country will have no truck”.[23] There is some evidence that some Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels receiving elite training from British and French forces went straight into IS, with one IS commander quoted as saying: “Many of the FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us.”[24]

Support for Saudi Arabia

All the while the Saudis have been exporting Wahhabism and backing Islamist groups and terrorists, they have enjoyed a special relationship with London and Washington. The history is so long and deep it is hard to summarise: basically the relationship is characterised by extreme sycophancy, total military support, constant apologias and carefully-controlled media lines that serve to keep the public in the dark about the true extent of relations and the nature of the Saudi regime. It is hard to pinpoint whether Saudi Arabia is a client of the UK or the other way round: probably both, since both set of elites have been happily joined at the hip.

The terrible bombing of Yemen by Saudi aircraft supplied by Britain, armed by Britain and conducted by British-trained pilots is but the latest episode in extreme UK support for Saudi foreign policy. The blood covers the hands of the entire British establishment. As Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has pointed out, the Royal Family, successive governments, parliamentarians, a good number of institutions and people with clout collectively suck up to the Saudi ruling clan.[25]

The result of all this is catastrophic. The ‘war on terror’ is a joke when your leading ally is the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Independent journalist Patrick Cockburn has written that in the 20 years between 1996 and 2016, the CIA and British security and foreign policy agencies have consistently given priority to maintaining their partnership with powerful Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan over the elimination of terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Isis and the Taliban.[26]

That is completely correct, and this is not just turning a blind eye. As I try to show in my book, Secret Affairs[27], the backing of Saudi Arabia is part of a broader story: that British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called ‘national interest’ abroad, colluded for decades not only with the arch-sponsor of radical Islamism in Riyadh but sometimes with radical groups themselves, including terrorist organisations. They have connived with them, and often trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain’s global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain’s imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world.

Theresa May’s government, as previous governments, have endangered the British public by the relationship they choose to have with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. In recent months, May has signed up Britain to a new generation of special relationships with these states, based on selling more arms and providing more training of their militaries and security forces to keep the ruling families in power. All this has been done on the quiet, with scant government or media reporting. We are set for another generation of domestic tyranny in Gulf and foreign Islamist adventures, all now helped by raising the enemy of ‘Iran’ – a foreign policy agenda being set by Riyadh and recently helped by President Trump’s preposterous invocation of Iran as the major sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.

We are in serious trouble unless this all changes. Our leaders’ policies are endangering us, and are among our major threats. The terrorism that we, ordinary people, face, derives from an ideology and infrastructure to which our leaders, claiming to protect us, have contributed. We desperately need another foreign policy entirely, one based on support for those promoting democracy and human rights – rather on than those with contempt for them.

 Mark Curtis is an author and consultant. He is a former Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and has been an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde and Visiting Research Fellow at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, Paris and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Auswartige Politik, Bonn. http://markcurtis.info

REFERENCES

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/boris-johnson-accuses-saudi-arabia-of-twisting-and-abusing-islam

[3] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hacked-clinton-said-saudis-responsible-for-exporting-extreme-ideology/article/2604049

[4] http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/isis-having-spent-billions-the-wahhabists-of-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-find-they-have-created-a-monster-30533853.html

[5] http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

[6] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

[7] US State Department to US embassy, Jedda, 4 May 1974, National Archives, FCO8/2344

[8] A.Rothnie to Ministry of Defence, undated [March 1974], National Archives, FCO8/2343

[9] http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis

[10] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-leak-wikileaks-saudi-arabia-qatar-isis-podesta-latest-a7355466.html

[11] https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/us-support-syrian-rebels-drove-refugee-crisis

[12] http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/isis-having-spent-billions-the-wahhabists-of-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-find-they-have-created-a-monster-30533853.html

[13] http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/

[14] http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

[15] https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

[16] https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/us-support-syrian-rebels-drove-refugee-crisis

[17] http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/isis-having-spent-billions-the-wahhabists-of-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-find-they-have-created-a-monster-30533853.html

[18] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/saudi-arabia-isis-riyadh-terror-threat

[19] http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/isis-having-spent-billions-the-wahhabists-of-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-find-they-have-created-a-monster-30533853.html

[20] http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/

[21] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan

[22] http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-10-19/12468/

[23] https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2017-03-20/debates/7B7DBFFE-DEC4-471E-BD2A-5709AB4B7289/Syria

[24] http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/

[25] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-evil-empire-of-saudi-arabia-is-the-west-s-real-enemy-a6669531.html

[26] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/confused-about-the-us-response-to-isis-in-syria-look-to-the-cias-relationship-with-saudi-arabia-a7087791.html

[27] http://markcurtis.info/2010/07/20/secret-affairs-britains-collusion-with-radical-islam/

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

See also –

Theresa May Knew of Manchester Bomber’s Terrorist Family: Col. Gadaffi had expelled the Manchester bomber’s father from Libya!

‘Sorted’ by MI5: How UK government sent British-Libyans to fight Gaddafi; Fighters say government operated ‘open door’ policy allowing them to join rebels, as authorities investigate background of Manchester bomber

‘Forgive me’: Manchester bomber final words to his nuclear scientist mother: Tabbal told interrogators her son left Libya for England only four days before the bombing and called her on the same day of the attack.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

A Very British False Flag

A Very British False Flag

MATTHEW JAMISON | 25.05.2017 | OPINION

A Very British False Flag

The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. Historically, the term «false flag» has its origins in naval warfare and operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, can (by extension) also be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation.

Within the last 24 hours in the UK there was a terrorist attack in Manchester on a pop concert venue. This incident comes just a little over two weeks before voters in Britain decide on the next Government.

Just before the Manchester attack the Conservative Party had been experiencing a sharp decline in the opinion polls. Their lead has been cut in half in the space of a few weeks and with the roll out of their «Dementia Tax» it looked as if they were really headed on to the rocks. Then events took a dreadful turn in Manchester with many innocent people losing their lives. It would appear, on the surface, to have been the work of a British born individual of Libyan descent. With a stroke the news agenda has been completely changed from stories of declining Tory opinion poll leads; Tory melt downs over the monstrous «Dementia Tax» and replaced by non-stop coverage of the appalling attack in Manchester as well as the Prime Minister Theresa May playing up to her self-styled image of the second coming of the Iron Lady. Campaigning in the General Election has been suspended. Curiously just before the attack took place the anti-Jeremy Corbyn media had been attempting to regurgitate issues surrounding Mr. Corbyn and the IRA, seeking to portray him as «soft» on terrorism and some how supportive of terrorists. Then came the Manchester terrorist attack.

It is hard to overstate the hatred and loathing there is for Jeremy Corbyn at the highest levels of the British Establishment and State because he represents a fundamental rejection of and break with many of their outdated, backwards and reactionary practices, mind-sets and policies of the English elites. From the military to the domestic security service MI5 to the hedge funds, «wealth management» funds, off shore tax havens (with 1/3 of the planet’s controlled by the UK) and investment banks to the Monarchy, the public school educated upper-middle classes and aristocracy to virtually nearly all of the London media both print and television they loath and fear what a Jeremy Corbyn Government would for mean for them, their vested interests and how he would fundamentally remake Britain. The anti-Corbyn campaign to portray him as even worse than Joseph Stalin has been unprecedented and disgusting. Mr. Corbyn is actually a very decent, thoughtful, calm, intelligent and compassionate man. He may not be the greatest of Leaders or the most exciting and charismatic but he is a deep thinker and has been right on a lot of issues including one of the biggest foreign policy disasters the UK has been involved with in decades that of the Iraq War.

Over the last few weeks as Labour have rolled out policy after policy designed to enhance the standard of living and quality of life for the vast majority of working middle class people and not just a minority of the ultra-rich and powerful who sit at the very top, something has been shifting within British politics. Suddenly, by cutting through the traditional London media and with a Parliamentary Party finally focused on taking the fight to the Tory Party rather than at war with itself, voters began to think perhaps this man Corbyn is not so bad and perhaps a Labour Government under him would make life easier. The standard of living and quality of life in the so-called United Kingdom ranks as one of the worst in the developed Western world and has one of the lowest rates of social mobility. Just as Churchill won the war for the British but then was rejected at the July 1945 General Election in favour of the socialist Labour Party and its unflappable Leader Clement Attlee because British people wanted a better life after the misery of the Great Depression of the 1930s and then the World War of the early 1940s, and did not want a return to the cruel and callous policies of the Tories. So while Churchill won the war, so to speak, it was the Labour Party of Clement Attlee who the British people turned to secure the peace. Perhaps something similar was at work in the decline in the Tory opinion poll lead with people perhaps sensing that they have got their Brexit and now it is time for some Jam and Honey in the form of a social democratic, progressive Labour Government taking the country through Brexit.

It still remains to be seen what impact the attack in Manchester will have on the final result. But the current regime of Theresa May has wasted no time in trotting out all the old Blairite/Bushite «war on terror» psychological control techniques. The terror threat level has been raised to its highest. The truly ghastly Home Secretary Amber Rudd has been telling the public that more attacks are imminent. The military are to be deployed around the country and a heavy police presence. Does one not remember Mr. Blair shortly before the Iraq War in February 2003 deploying armoured tanks at Heathrow and talking about the rising threat level? I feel as though I have seen this film before. These kind of «shock and awe» or «shock and unnerve» tactics reek of the psychological operations carried out by British intelligence services. By creating a climate of fear and panic, by replacing the emphasis in the media on issues of national security and terrorism rather than domestic quality of life matters this will no doubt help stabilise and reinvigorate the Conservative Party lead. Or perhaps not. There have been a number of terrorist related incidents under the tenure of Theresa May both as Home Secretary and now as Prime Minister. The last three major terrorist attacks to occur in Britain the individuals involved had been already known to MI5 and had been under surveillance. Some of them such as the murderers of Lee Rigby had been previously working for MI5 and had been under surveillance only three days before the killing. And there was such strange reporting by the BBC in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Manchester. For instance, the BBC carried a newsline in one of its first reports which stated: ««Unconfirmed reports from two unnamed US officials suggested the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber.» What where these «unconfirmed reports»? Who were these two «unnamed US officials» and how did they know before the Greater Manchester Police had confirmed the facts?

The Prime Minister is well known to be deeply involved with Britain’s domestic security service, colloquially known as MI5, which she as Home Secretary was ultimately responsible for. During her time at the Home Office she developed very close connections, perhaps too close for a democratic politician, with the Whitehall leadership of MI5. She employs many of their number within her Downing Street team. Theresa May is nothing if not MI5’s woman in Downing Street. She has backed them all the way giving them as much «investigatory» powers as they ask for and giving them free reign to do whatever they want. They in turn have and will back her all the way and will do all they can to protect her political position, not something a so-called security agency should really be doing, but there you have it. MI5 is more than just a security service and has a deep anti-Labour bias as evidenced by the conspiracy theory propagated by MI5 that British Prime Minister Harold Wilson was really a KGB sleeper agent, which was complete nonsense.

Meanwhile the latest puppet and mouthpiece for MI5, the harsh and severe looking Amber Rudd, has said an «uplift» in PREVENT, the government’s anti-radicalisation programme, will occur after June. This had already been planned before Monday’s attack, she added. The PREVENT Strategy has come in for considerable criticism from many political figures from across the divide that it is wholly counter-productive and seeks to spy on every single Muslim in Britain treating each one and their communities as hotbeds of terrorists. The Conservative Peer Baroness Warsi has called it «toxic». As with most policies carried out by the British State – they are not very well and rigorously thought through, planned and implemented – which is a hallmark of the English way of doing things – rather than decreasing the problem at hand PREVENT has actually increased it, who knows, perhaps deliberately for a certain warped political agenda.

A favoured tactic of the British State throughout the ages has been «divide and rule». They did it between India and Pakistan; between Northern and Southern Ireland; in Africa; in Palestine; in Asia – where ever they have inserted themselves through their disgusting practice known as Imperialism where they actually had no business ever being. The British State is just not that good at a lot of matters but it likes to project an image that it is. Yet people should ask themselves a very hard question: if British intelligence in collusion with the politicians were willing to tell such lies and fabricate such nonsense to get the UK into the Iraq War with the untold destruction and death that has wrought, what else are they capable of doing? To the cold, psychotic men in grey suits of the MI5 Whitehall Establishment – people – particularly working class people are merely useful idiots to be manipulated like pieces on a chess board. They do not value human life the way people who have empathy do. Indeed, Mrs. May recently said she herself: «does not do empathy.» To some of their number certain people are expendable if it will help them achieve their sordid, perverted objectives.

Trump Meets the New Leader of the Secular World, Pope Francis

Photo by thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

After two days lecturing a collection of head-choppers, dictators, torturers and land thieves, Donald Trump at last met a good guy on Wednesday. Pope Francis didn’t ask for a $100bn (£77.2bn) arms deal for the Vatican. He wouldn’t go to war with Iran. He didn’t take the Sunni Muslim side against the Shia Muslim side in the next Middle East conflict. He didn’t talk about Palestinian “terror”. And he looked, most of the time, grim, unsmiling, even suspicious.

So he should have been. Trump’s broad, inane smile on confronting the Holy Father might have been more appropriate for the first of the Borgias, Alexander VI, whose 15th century womanising, corruption and enthusiasm for war would match Trump’s curriculum vitae rather well. But the poor man’s pope, who last year suggested that Trump wasn’t much of a Christian because he wanted to build walls, didn’t seem to be very happy to see the man who called him “disgraceful” for questioning his faith. “One offers peace through dialogue, the other security of arms,” one of Francis’ advisers said of the visit. Which pretty much sums it up.

It was indeed an odd sight to see the head of the Catholic church – whose anti-war, anti-corruption, anti-violence and pro-environment beliefs must surely now represent the secular world – greeting the present if very temporary leader of the secular world, whose policies are most surely not those of the Western people he would claim to represent. For more and more, the Good Old Pope is coming to represent what the Trumps and Mays will not say: that the West has a moral duty to end its wars in the Middle East, to stop selling weapons to the killers of the Middle East and to treat the people of the Middle East with justice and dignity.

No wonder the 29 minutes which the insane president and the sane pope spent together – Francis himself suggesting that they both keep away from the microphones – remain secret. Until, I suppose, Trump starts twittering again. They supposedly chatted about climate change, immigration, even arms sales. O fly upon the wall, speak up. And they talked, we are told, about “interreligious dialogue” and the need to protect Christians in the Middle East. They shared, we were finally informed, “a commitment to life, and freedom of speech and conscience” – which is more than most of Trump’s other hosts would have approved of these past two days.

Trump duly handed over a bunch of books by Martin Luther King which he hoped Pope Francis would enjoy – whether he had read them himself remains a mystery – and the Pope gave Trump some of his own writings on the environment. “Well, I’ll be reading them,” said the US President. A likely story.

When the Pope emerged from his private meeting with Trump, he was smiling in a relieved, almost charming way – like a man who had just left the dentist’s chair – and his joke with the veiled Melania about Croatian cookies, if not quite understood, showed that even a distressed pontiff can retain a sense of humor amid spiritual darkness. Trump thought it all “a great honor”. Not for the Pope, one imagines.

And there was the inevitable send-off from Trump, the kind he probably gave to all the greedy kings and criminals of the Middle East. “I won’t forget what you said,” he told Pope Francis as he left. O but he will, reader, he will.

Robert Fisk writes for the Independent, where this column originally appeared. 

More articles by:
%d bloggers like this: