Britain’s sickening infatuation with israel continues

Britain’s sickening infatuation with Israel continues

 

Iran still the victim of unshakable Israeli influence over the UK’s political establishment

By Stuart Littlewood

Here in the UK the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) has initiated a judicial review in a bid to halt UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia on suspicion that they are being used against civilians in Yemen. The indiscriminate nature of Saudi air-strikes makes it highly likely that British weaponry is being deployed in breach of international humanitarian law.

The slaughter has been going on for nearly two years, leading to a humanitarian crisis of appalling magnitude and great cruelty. Since the Yemen campaign began the British government has granted export licences for more than £3.3 billions worth of war equipment when there was a “clear risk” that some of it would be used in violation of all norms of human conduct.

It is claimed that the government has ignored warnings by senior civil servants and its own arms control experts, and some records of expressed concern have gone missing. This is no great surprise when we discover that export licensing is overseen by none other than the secretary of state for international trade, Liam Fox. For Fox has “form” as a crazed stooge of Israel and a sworn enemy of Iran.

Fox, while secretary of state for defence, was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying:

… We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.

And in June 2015 Fox declared:

It is logical to assume that Iran’s intentions are to develop a nuclear weapons capability and any claims that its intentions are exclusively peaceful should not be regarded as credible… Iran’s nuclear intentions cannot be seen outside the context of its support for terror proxies, arguably the defining feature of its foreign policy. The risks are clear.

Fox was forced to resign as defence secretary in 2011 following scandalous goings-on between him, his “close friend” Adam Werritty, the UK ambassador to Israel and Israeli intelligence figures allegedly involved in plotting sanctions against Iran.

Liam Fox and his friend Adam Werritty

Liam Fox (left) and his friend Adam Werritty

Just lately, Prime Minister Theresa May has accused Iran of working with Hezbollah, interfering in Iraq, sending fighters to Syria to help Assad, and supporting the Houthis in the conflict in Yemen. The British government, of course, can meddle where it pleases and recently concluded another huge arms deal with the Saudis which, says Mrs May, is for the sake of long-term security in the Gulf. She argues that the same extremists who plot terror in the Gulf states are also targeting the streets of Europe: “Gulf security is our security.”

However, public pressure to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia is now so great that the government has adopted a new export licensing scheme that hides the value and scale of weaponry being supplied.

The reason for the British government’s current hostility towards Iran was plain from what David Cameron told the Knesset in 2014:

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to the whole world not just Israel. And with Israel and all our allies, Britain will ensure that it is never allowed to happen.

That position carries forward into the present day and beyond, and serves as an excuse for the rednecks who rule our political swamp to carry on being unpleasant to the Muslim world.

After sucking up to Trump Britain rolls out red carpet to another of the world’s undesirables

Theresa May lost no time in welcoming the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to London. The two leaders this week agreed to establish a new UK-Israel Trade Working Group to strengthen their existing trade and investment relationship and “to prepare the ground for a post-Brexit trade agreement”. What good that will do in the face of rising popularity among the public of boycotting everything Israeli remains to be seen.

Regional issues, including Syria and Iran, are to be on the agenda for discussion. And regarding Palestine May repeated the mantra that – “We remain committed to a two-state solution as the best way of building stability and peace for the future” – though she doesn’t say what that will look like.

Netanyahu also met Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and they sat alongside the desk on which the Balfour Declaration was composed in 1917. As for the forthcoming Balfour Declaration centenary celebrations, a statement said that May invited Netanyahu to attend events taking place in the UK “as a guest of government” and that Netanyahu “also invited her to visit him in Israel”.

Netanyahu didn’t miss the opportunity to warn that Iran “seeks to annihilate Israel” and called on nations to back renewed sanctions against the Iranian regime.

Israel’s ‘nest of spies’ in London

I looked up one of my old reports about how Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, argued five years ago that British policy was being driven in an underhand fashion by the Israel lobby. He linked Matthew Gould, the then British ambassador to Israel, with the Fox-Werritty scandal and raised questions about meetings between Gould, Liam Fox and Fox’s strange friend Adam Werritty. Werritty was referred to as Fox’s adviser but according to reports he was backed financially by Israel lobbyists and had no security clearance and therefore no authorised role.

Matthew Gould

Matthew Gould’s relationship with Liam Fox, his friend Adam Werritty and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad leaves many questions to be answered

Murray, with many useful contacts from his days as an ambassador, claimed to have serious evidence connecting Gould with a secret plan to attack Iran, but the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Secretary blocked questions. (To read Craig Murray’s story, “Matthew Gould and the plot to attack Iran”, click here.)

In it he pointed out that

Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a Jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in Jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “not just an ambassador who is Jewish, but a Jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.

He went on to say that Gould stood suspected of participating with Fox and Werritty “in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel”. The stonewalling by the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office led Murray to conclude that “something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government”.

Labour MP Paul Flynn remarked that no previous ambassadors to Israel had been Jewish so that a conflict of interest and accusations of going native would be avoided. He was immediately rebuked. Flynn also asked about meetings between Werritty and Gould, as some reports suggested that Gould, Werritty and Fox discussed a potential military strike on Iran with Mossad. “I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories,” said Flynn, “but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran.”

Fox had earlier made the idiotic claim: “Israel’s enemies are our enemies”, and the Jewish Chronicle hailed him as “a champion of Israel within the government”. Furthermore, Fox continually rattled the sabre against Iran which, of course, is no threat to Britain but regarded by Israel as a bitter enemy. Iraq too was Israel’s enemy, not ours. Yet Fox, according to the website TheyWorkForYou, voted “very strongly” for the Iraq war. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Afghanistan.

Given that Fox so eagerly waved the flag of a foreign military power and was a man with dangerous beliefs and demonstrably weak judgement, how could those who appointed him not see that he was unfit to serve as a Minister of the British Crown – unless they were similarly tainted?

When the Werritty relationship came to light Fox jumped before being flung from the battlements. But instead of melting into obscurity he has now been rehabilitated into the senior ranks of government and is once again a Minister of the Crown. And after watching the trail blazed by our former Jewish ambassador to the Jewish State, we now gawp with fascination at the inevitably messy conflicts of interest arising from Donald Trump’s pick for US ambassador to Israel – David Friedman, a Jewish lawyer with scant respect for international law or Middle East sensitivities.

Despite the strong whiff of misconduct, David Cameron rewarded Gould by making him head of the Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance (OCSIA), which includes e-crime, working with private sector partners on exchanging information, and engaging with international partners in improving the security of cyberspace and information security. Did it seem right for such a person to be in charge of crucial security matters at the heart of our government? What was in fellow Zionist David Cameron’s mind when he appointed him?

Could it have had anything to do with the UK-Israel academic collaboration ventures with cyber research funding, which involve partnerships between British and Israeli universities and cover research areas such identity management, regulating cyber security, privacy assurance, mobile and cloud security, human aspects of security, and cryptography?

Both countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding on digital cooperation in March 2014. And Gould’s new appointment came at a time when the Cameron government was lecturing us on threats to national security and announcing plans to trawl through our personal emails and web browsers in order to “keep us safe”. Question was, who would trawl Gould’s private emails?

The vipers in our bosom

CAAT expects a decision on the judicial review on arms to Saudi Arabia in four to six weeks. In the meantime, an undercover Aljazeera investigation has revealed that a senior political officer at the Israeli embassy in London, Shai Masot, was plotting with stooges among British MPs and other vipers in the political snake-pit to “take down” senior government figures, including Boris Johnson’s deputy at the Foreign Office, Sir Alan Duncan, a noted sympathiser of the Palestinian’s struggle. This should have resulted in the expulsion of the ambassador himself, the Israeli propaganda maestro and Netanyahu’s pet, Mark Regev, who took up the post last year. Regev is the sort of person no sensible government would let into their country. But he was let off the hook and the affair hurriedly smoothed over with an announcement from the Foreign Office that the matter was closed.

Israel's UK embassy spy Shai Masot

Shai Masot plotted with stooges among British MPs and other vipers in the political snake-pit to “take down” senior government figures

Craig Murray, however, has been digging again. The Foreign Office deflected his many questions and dismissed the idea that Masot was anything more than a member of the technical and administrative staff at the embassy. “This is plainly a nonsense,” says Murray. “Masot, as an ex-major in the Israeli navy and senior officer in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is plainly senior to many who are on the Diplomatic List.” He concludes that the Foreign Office is complicit in

a large nest of Israeli spies seeking to influence policy and opinion in the UK in a pro-Israeli direction. That is why the government reaction to one of those spies being caught on camera plotting a scandal against an FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] minister, and giving £1 million to anti-Corbyn MPs, was so astonishingly muted.

All this and the recent UN resolution 2334, which condemned Israel’s continuing squats on Palestinian land as illegal and an obstacle to peace, has done nothing to disturb the cosy relationship between Her Majesty’s Government and the obnoxious Israelis.

On the contrary, after May’s meeting with Netanyahu a Downing Street spokesperson said they focused on, yes, cyber security:

In their discussions, the prime ministers committed to working together to build on our longstanding relationship and the strong ties that already exist between our two countries in a wide range of areas, from trade and investment, to innovation and technology, and defence and security. They talked about the important work we do together on intelligence-sharing and cyber security, and committed to talk further about how we can deepen this cooperation, to help keep our people safe.

Sitting comfortably?

Boris Johnson pushed for UK to continue selling weapons to Saudi after funeral bombing

Source

https://www.rt.com/uk/376974-boris-johnson-saudi-weapons/video/

UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pushed for continued arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the wake of a deadly airstrike on a funeral in Yemen which killed 140 people, it has been revealed

In a letter to UK secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox, published by the Guardian and dated November 8, Johnson wrote: “I am aware you have deferred a decision on four export licence applications to supply the Royal Saudi Air Force with equipment which could be used in the conflict in Yemen.”

He advised Fox to proceed with the arms sales. “The issue is extremely finely balanced, but I judge at present the Saudis appear committed both to improving processes and to taking action to address failures/individual incidents.”

He went on to say “the clear risk threshold for refusal … has not yet been reached.”

Fox then recommended the licences be approved in light of the assessment provided by Johnson.

In his reply to Johnson, he warned of inherent risks because of the “grave situation” in Yemen and other reasons which were redacted.

“I agree that this is an extremely complex situation and that the issue of clear risk is extremely finely balanced. In the light of your assessment and [REDACTED] recent advice I accept that we should continue, for the present, to assess export licences for Saudi Arabia on a case-by-case basis,” Fox wrote

However, he added that, “In doing so I want to be very clear with you about the risks inherent in making this decision, not just because of the grave situation in Yemen.”

On October 8, the funeral of the father of a prominent Houthi leader was attacked in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, killing 140 people and injuring 534. Witnesses say nothing was left at the site but “a lake of blood.”

Rebel leaders accused the Saudi-led coalition of deliberately targeting the funeral.

The Saudi-led Arab coalition, which has been attacking Houthi rebels since early 2015, initially denied its involvement but later agreed to investigate the attack.

The inquiry team found: “Because of non-compliance with coalition rules of engagement and procedures, and the issuing of incorrect information, a coalition aircraft wrongly targeted the location, resulting in civilian deaths and injuries.”

The letters between Johnson and Fox were among documents disclosed in court proceedings this week, as the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) faced the government in a judicial review of the decision to continue licensing arms exports to Saudi Arabia despite the kingdom’s widely criticized offensive in Yemen

In the landmark case at the High Court, CAAT and other campaign groups are arguing British arms exports are not compatible with UK and EU legislation because they have been used to illegally kill Yemeni civilians.

The four-day judicial review ends in the closed court on Friday.

In November, the government rejected calls by two parliamentary committees and human rights groups to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, arguing that the weapons were not being used in “a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

Britain has come under frequent criticism for continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia in the face of repeated atrocities in Yemen. The UK has made more than £3 billion ($3.6 billion) from arms sales since the military campaign began in March 2015, which has seen 11,000 Yemeni civilians killed.

Britain has supplied fighter jets, bombs and missiles to Saudi Arabia, and provided training to Saudi pilots participating in the war. It has also admitted to exporting 500 cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s.

Does israel call the shots in British politics?

Does Israel call the shots in British politics?

By Linda S. Heard | Intrepid Report | January 27, 2017

Russia’s alleged attempt to sway the results of the US presidential election pales by comparison to Israel’s proven infiltration of Britain’s political sphere. However, whereas the US political establishment is up in arms, threatening a new round of anti-Russian sanctions, the British government has done its utmost to sweep the explosive findings of an Al Jazeera undercover reporter under the rug.

This is, of course, unsurprising. Israel is a special case, uniquely permitted to get away with anything from snubbing international law and UN resolutions to inserting spies and working against unsympathetic politicians in the US Congress and UK Parliament.

Much has been written about the power of the Israeli lobby in the US, and its ability to destroy the careers of out-of-step lawmakers. One of the most controversial exposés was “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, that smashed taboos and brought down an avalanche of criticism on the writers’ heads.

However, the extent to which Israel’s emissaries have succeeded in manipulating British Conservative and Labour MPs, as well as student bodies and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, had evaded the spotlight until now; a spotlight that quickly dimmed due to the government’s conciliatory responses.

Indeed, its reaction to hard evidence of a plot—discussed by a senior Israeli political officer based in Israel’s London Embassy, and the Conservative Party’s deputy chairman’s chief of staff—to take down two influential politicians, Sir Alan Duncan and Crispin Blunt, was not only muted but bordering on the apologetic.

The Israeli propagandist conceded that Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was solid on Israel, but referred to him as “an idiot.” If Johnson was offended, he did not show it. An apology from Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev was all it took for him to announce he was closing the book. The offending political officer later resigned, but when the dust settles he will probably resume his duties elsewhere in the world.

Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May was also keen to put a lid on the matter and screw it down tightly. A spokesman confirmed the UK-Israel relationship remained strong. May’s personal affiliations are no secret. Her rapping of former US Secretary of State John Kerry on the knuckles for his branding of the Israeli government as “the most right-wing in history,” which it certainly is, spoke volumes.

At a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch in December, attended by 200 MPs, she praised Balfour’s historic letter as demonstrating Britain’s vital role in creating a Jewish homeland, and displayed her rose-colored spectacles with the words: “It is only when you walk through Jerusalem or Tel Aviv that you see a country where people of all religions and sexualities are free and equal in the eyes of the law.” In any other forum, that statement would have been met with derision.

May rejected a call by Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn—an unabashed pro-Palestinian politician who features large in the lobby’s sights—to open an investigation into Israel’s reach and methods to sway the country’s democratic process.

An unnamed minister in former Prime Minister David Cameron’s Cabinet, who is afraid to reveal his identity for fear of “a relentless barrage of abuse and character assassination,” asserted in the Daily Mail: “British foreign policy is in hock to Israeli influence at the heart of our politics, and those in authority have ignored what is going on.” He condemned successive governments for allowing “Israel influence-peddling to shape policy and even determine the fate of ministers.”

To imagine Israel’s apology was genuine would take a leap of credulity. Mossad’s former motto was “by way of deception thou shall do war,” and that secret war is ongoing. As usual, Israel’s government has gone on the offensive, out to shoot the messenger, in this case Al Jazeera.

Organizations affiliated with Israel have asked the UK’s communications watchdog OFCOM to probe the televised expose for its alleged lack of impartiality and anti-Semitic content.

If the Palestinians are hoping that the US or UK will ever emerge as unbiased intermediaries in their struggle for a state, they should think again. Many years ago, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column “Does Israel rule the world?” The answer is not yet, but due to indoctrinated, fear-ridden, bribed or religiously/ideologically committed politicians, it is quietly shackling the power centers in Western capitals while conniving to silence the voices of the brave.

Linda S. Heard is an award-winning British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at

TULSI GABBARD’S TRIP TO SYRIA IS A SIGNAL EVENT IN HISTORY OF THE WAR; SUWAYDAA`: SAA AND PDC BLAST ISIS; DAMASCUS: ISIS CRUSHED AGAIN; ALEPPO: ARABIAN COCKROACHES’ LIES EXPOSED AT KHANAASSER

Ziad Fadel

SUWAYDAA`: 

Al-Rasheeda Village:  Spotters delivered coordinates to the SAA’s vaunted artillery corps who took action immediately to pulverize ISIS groupings around 4 tanker trucks hauling oil and gas to other terrorist gangs for use in their vehicles of death.  4 tanker trucks arriving from Homs Province were struck dead on by lethal mortar, Howitzer and rocket fire killing a confirmed 16 ISIS rats and destroying all the trucks and their payloads.  This area is 38 kms east of the capital of Suwaydaa` City.  Many ISIS vermin were seen leaving the area driving banshee-like into the open desert.  SAAF helicopters continued to follow them.  No details are available.

 

Al-Qassr Village:  Yesterday, northeast of Suwaydaa`, the SAA nearly surrounded a nest of ISIS maggots and forced them to flee leaving whole boxes of ammunition and light weapons which will be distributed to our militias in order to kill Wahhabists.

_____________________________________________

ALEPPO:

 

The Arabian lie machines of Al-Jazeera, Al-‘Arabiyya and other repugnant sources of disinformation claimed falsely that the ISIS terrorists had managed to retake Khanaasser Town and, thus, block the movement of vehicles to and from Aleppo City.  As I wrote, it is completely and utterly false.  Traffic is moving very normally according to all reliable sources in Aleppo.

__________________________________________

DAMASCUS:

Kassaaraat Al-Manqoora:  In the East Qalamoon area, the SAA wiped out fortifications built by the ISIS rodents managing, in the process, to target a pickup with 23mm cannon aboard, killing 2 occupants.  Also, the army confirmed the destruction of a heavy bus used to transport the filth.

 

Qarn Al-Kabsh:  (Ram’s Horn) 14 IEDs dismantled after the SAA captured several Nusra/Alqaeda rodents who confessed very quickly to the locations of the bombs.

 

Al-Naassiriya-Palmyra Road:  Way to the farthest reaches of Damascus Governorate, the SAA engineers found 3 IEDs and dismantled them.

 

West Qalamoon:  A perfectly executed ambush caught a pack of ISIS rodents unawares killing 5 of them.  The rest escaped leaving weapons and ammunition.

 

Khaan Al-Manqoora-Palmyra Triangle Road:  ISIS took a big hit here losing 17 rodents and 2 pickups with 23mm cannons.

____________________________________________

WHAT DID TULSI GABBARD TELL DR. ASSAD IN DAMASCUS?

Image result for tulsi gabbard

When Tulsi Gabbard finally admitted that she met Dr. Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus, we were free to discuss what we knew about her trip.  At first, we respected her deliberate efforts to obscure the fact that she met with the Prez.  But, she also met with President-elect Trump who told her that he wanted her to deliver a message.  The first message was that Dr. Assad had nothing to fear from the United States.  The U.S. will not truck with any party out to change governments.  This is why Boris Johnson, the U.K.’s foreign minister, has just declared that the U.K. had no objections to Dr. Assad running again for the office of the president.  Leave aside the fact that we don’t care about the opinions of some limey aristocrat or elitist, we do care about the U.K.’s constant violations of international law by its facilitating terrorism.  In any case, Donald Trump has delivered his message successfully to Dr. Assad.

The second message has to do with Trump’s willingness to help the Syrian government to control the out-flux of refugees by establishing a “safe zone” for Syrians in areas controlled by either the Syrian Army or the Russian Air Force.  I have been informed that Dr. Assad has accepted this kind of benign interference as long as it was coordinated with the Syrian government.

The third message she carried to Dr. Assad was that the U.S. is intent upon wiping out every vestige of ISIS and Alqaeda, and, that it would do so in coordination with Russia and the Syrian government.

The Zionist Khazars, whose DNA is inevitably Ukrainian, Polish, German or Russian, have gone berserk over this issue. While never condemning John McCain – the drunken mass-murdering pilot who killed Vietnamese civilians in the thousands – for his trespass on Syrian soil without so much as a visa – Tulsi Gabbard took the trouble to secure Syrian permission to enter the SAR and, thus, entered legally and properly.  Only Zionist child molesters and drug addicts attack a woman so courageous and, yet, so punctilious in the way she conducts her affairs.

With Marine LePen slated to trounce the cowardly vipers of Paris in the next elections, expect a great year for Syria and its people.  Expect that kraut schlampe, Merkel, to go down the sewer straight into the cesspool of history this time around.

_____________________________________________

NEWS AND COMMENT:

Diana Barahona sent me this shockeroo about Trump calling Dr. Assad brave in a conversation with President Sisi:

“Presidential sources in Cairo have said that U.S. President Trump, when he phoned Egyptian President Sisi, told him that he supported the fight against terrorism, and that the United States will fight terrorism in the Middle East. Washington will also carry out military operations against terrorism in Iraq and Syria in coordination with Russia. He supports the congressional decision that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.

When the two leaders spoke about the situation in Iraq, Trump said that the United States will support the Iraqi army with aerial bombing and warplanes to end terrorism in Iraq.

As for Syria, the president told President Sisi: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a brave man who stood firm in the face of terrorism, but the circumstances do not allow me access to him.

Trump added: I’ll be in touch with Russian President Vladimir Putin together to coordinate military action in Syria against terrorism and terrorists and the Daesh organization.

Egyptian presidential sources concluded that President Trump told President Sisi that Assad was brave, because Sisi conveyed the words of the American president in a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” http://www.addiyar.com/article/1296635

And from Dimitri Porfyris this article in French:

https://dimpenews.com/2017/01/24/trump-a-sisi-assad-est-un-homme-courageux/

And from Afraa Dagher the reason why the USA is helping ISIS to take Dayr El-Zor.  However, Donald Trump has put an end to that:

http://theduran.com/us-isis-deir-el-zour/

Waf sends this article and video showing our army ambushing and killing 10 ISIS rodents in DZ at the Panorama Axis:

http://www.syrianews.cc/saa-ambushes-10-isis-terrorists-eliminates-der-ezzor-panorama/

Patrick Henningsen sends more to us about the disgraced MSM:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/01/19/syria-dr-bouthaina-shaaban-on-the-weaponization-of-corporate-media/

Want to know more about Tusa Gabbard’s trip to Syria?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/01/26/syria-there-are-no-moderates-tulsi-gabbards-reports-from-syria/  (Thanks, Patrick Henningsen)

You’re going to love this article from Syrianews about illegal terrorist aliens and even mentions McCain:

http://www.syrianews.cc/who-needs-an-army-of-350000-wahhabi-terrorists

Brandon attacks Trump’s “safe zone” policy in Syria and analyzes it.  I think we will deal with this subject soon in a post by Ziad. Not to worry. It’ Trump now:

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/01/trump-orders-safe-zone-syria-reports.html

__________________________________________

PHOTO OF THE DAY FROM SILVIA:

Image may contain: 2 people, sky and outdoor

Read more 

Related Videos

 

Related Articles

London is forced to concede that Syria is a democracy

Source

Voltairenet.org — Jan 27, 2017

Boris Johnson. Click to enlarge

Boris Johnson. Click to enlarge

The British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Boris Johnson, has indicated that his country should no longer oppose President Bashar al- Assad’s right to stand at the next Syrian elections.

He conceded that this new position resembled a complete reversal and followed the example set by the new US administration. He also emphasized that he was forced to address the issue with a clean slate.

In June 2014, the Syrian Arab Republic had organized a presidential election. The Western powers were opposed to it and — in violation of the Vienna Peace Agreement — had prohibited Syrian consulates from organizing ballots for immigrants in the territories they covered. The war had prevented several millions of voters from voting. [Shamless]: all States with diplomatic representations in Syria acknowledged that it was a genuine ballot. Bashar al-Assad had been re-elected president by 10, 319, 723 citizens, that is, by 88.7 % of the votes cast and 65 % of the voting-age population. The seven-year term of President al-Assad will end in June 2021. [1].

Since 2011, the accusation levelled by Western powers at the Syrian Arab Republic is that it is a dictatorship that engages systematically in torture. Without any shred of doubt, the Syrian people do not share this belief.

In September 2015, Mr Johnson’s predecessor, Philip Hammond, had [generously] conceded that President Bashar could stay in power for a three month transitional period. But he maintained that the Arab Syrian Republic was a dictatorship and that the mandate of Mr al-Assad was illegitimate.

Translation
Anoosha Boralessa

[1] “The Syrian People Have Spoken, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 6 June 2014.

Source

Theresa May’s “No more foreign interventions” announced on same day as “British navy to lead Gulf ‘war games’

Fake News Of “Interests” And “Intervention”

British navy to lead Gulf ‘war games’ amid Iran tensions

U.S. and other media continue their strong move towards baseless, aka fake, news. We recently caught the New York Times claiming that Russia started the war in Georgia, something the NYT had earlier debunked itself. The Washington Post claimed that Russian hackers were sneaking into the U.S. electricity grid. The story fell apart within a few hours. Nothing in it was true. Hundreds of pieces were written about “peaceful demonstrator” rebels in Syria, about 250,000 civilians besieged in Aleppo or Syrian government bombings of hospitals that lacked any base in reality.

That onslaught of fake news by repudiated media continues unabated in print, web and TV.

Yesterday a sensational piece in the Washington Post claimed that The State Department’s entire senior administrative team just resigned:

The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.

The simple truth: These were people in political positions who serve “at the pleasure of the President”. They got fired even though some of them wanted to stay on. For bureaucratic reasons they had to write formal resignation letters. They did so after they were told to leave. There was also nothing sensational about that. It happens with any change of the President. As the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) explained:

While this appears to be a large turnover in a short period of time, a change of administration always brings personnel changes, and there is nothing unusual about rotations or retirements in the Foreign Service.

Only one higher manager in the State Department “survived” the 2001 change of administration from Clinton to Bush. There was no reason to think that the current change would be any different.

Another fake news item currently circling is that Trump has given order to the military to create safe zones for Syria. The reality is still far from it:

[H]is administration crafted a draft order that would direct the Pentagon and the State Department to submit plans for the safe zones within 90 days. The order hasn’t yet been issued.

The draft of the order, which will be endlessly revised, says that safe zones could be in Syria or in neighboring countries. The Pentagon has always argued against such zones in Syria and the plans it will submit, should such an order be issued at all, will reflect that. The safe zones in Syria ain’t gonna happen.

Another fake news item comes in the description of a Theresa May speech she yesterday held in front of U.S. Republicans. The BBC headlines: Theresa May: UK and US cannot return to ‘failed’ interventions. Sky News likewise headlines: Theresa May warns US and UK cannot return to ‘failed’ interventions. From the BBC piece:

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said Mrs May was signalling there would be no more wars like those in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan, and it was significant that she had chosen her US speech to signal such a shift.BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said it was a hugely significant speech, arguably the biggest by a UK PM in the US since Tony Blair’s 1999 speech in Chicago advocating armed interventionism against dictators – something repudiated by Mrs May.

The claims by these BBC commentators are ludicrous. May did not call for less intervention as those comments make seem. Indeed she argued for more intervention. She argued against interventions for “values” (which were anyway always just a propaganda ploy) but strongly called for intervention for “interests”. She of course would not like such interventions to ‘fail’. From her speech:

It is in our interests – those of Britain and America together – to stand strong together to defend our values, our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.

Shorter: “It is in the U.S. (and our ass-kissing country’s) interest to defend its interests by intervening for the sake of its interests.”

May destroys the fake facade of liberal interventionism, the “responsibility to protect” nonsense, and argues for wars of aggression for purely monetary or geo-political reasons – “interests” as she calls it.

That is not, as the BBC claims, “signalling that there would be no more wars like those in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan” but the opposite. There will be more such wars and all will predictably end with bad consequences for those invaded as well as for those who invade.

This is May’s approval for Trump’s call for stealing Iraq’s oil:

[H]e suggested the costly and deadly occupation of the country might have been offset somewhat if the United States had taken the country’s rich petroleum reserves.”To the victor belong the spoils,” Trump told members of the intelligence community, saying he first argued this case for “economic reasons.”

“So we should have kept the oil,” he said. “But, OK, maybe you’ll have another chance.”

With stealing Iraq’s oil the invasion would have been in the U.S. and UK’s “interest”. As such it would not have “failed”.

(The end result though, would have likely been the same. The U.S. and its British sidekick would have been kicked out of the country.)

To turn such talk around and argue, as the BBC does, that May “repudiated” such wars, is worse than simple fake news. It is Orwellian.

Mainstream British Press Propaganda Ramps Up Dangerous War Rhetoric against Russia

Mainstream British Press Propaganda Ramps Up Dangerous War Rhetoric against Russia

By Graham Vanbergen,

Screen-Shot-2017-01-18-at-08.54.52

The British press are in full hysteria propaganda mode when it comes to demonising our new greatest threat on planet earth; not climate change, a global pandemic, international terrorism, or America’s new foe in the South China Sea – but Russia.

The Telegraph 31/12/16: “Systemic, relentless, predatory’ Russian cyber threat to US power grid exposed as malware found on major electricity company computer.”

The Independent 13/12/16: “Highly probable Russian interfered with Brexit referendum.”

The Express 15/01/17: “Russians forcing RAF to abort missions in Syria by ‘hacking into’ their systems”

The Guardian 14/01/17: “Senior British politicians ‘targeted by Kremlin’ for smear campaigns”

In all of these newspaper reports, and there are plenty more of them, not a single scrap of actual evidence other than hearsay is published. In the case of the Express story, it’s allegations are backed up with the statement “It is entirely feasible that Russia has targeted Tornadoes and Typhoons in this way,” said air defence expert Justin Bronk, of the Royal United Services Institute think-tank.” This is not evidence.

In the case of the Telegraph, this fairy-tail has been 100% debunked as pure propaganda and the original report from the Washington Post ended with a full-on apology by its editor. The Telegraph has printed no such amendment or apology for its totally fictitious article.

The Guardian’s headline is pure misinformation as it’s sole point of evidence is an MP (Chris Bryant), explaining that incumbent Foreign Office ministers could not speak out on the (Russian hacking) issue because of security connotations, and said:  “Any minister who goes into the Foreign Office and has responsibility for Russia, they [Moscow] will be, in any shape or form, trying to put together information about them.” As if to strengthen the ‘evidence’, Bryant says he is “absolutely certain that Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Alan Duncan who has the Russia brief, and [Brexit secretary] David Davis will have been absolutely looked at.” This is not evidence.

The funny thing is this; the story may be true and quite probably is, but so what.

In October 2015, Britain’s own spy agency confirmed it was spying on Britain’s MP’s and at the time was given court immunity when challenged. It determined that MPs’ communications were not protected from surveillance by intelligence agencies. This case came about because Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, Baroness Jenny Jones and former MP George Galloway, that revelations from Edward Snowden, showed MPs’ communications were being spied on by GCHQ despite laws protecting them.

Around the same time we learn that a well known paedophile ran a lodge set up by GCHQ for its spies to monitor important political ‘targets’ ie our own MP’s and other public figures.

Back in 1983 Margaret Thatcher used Britain’s latest and most advanced surveillance system named ‘Echelon’ (Read: ECHELON – The Start of Britain’s Modern Day Spying Operations) to Spy on Government Ministers’. It was an American design and the first major state surveillance system using satellite and IT systems to spy worldwide. Indeed Echelon was originally created in the 1960s to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies throughout the Cold War by Britain and America. All of this data being shared with America – and whichever way you look at it, is a foreign government.

America’s NSA monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders in another Snowden leak three years ago. Germany’s Spiegel reported in 2014 that “Documents show Britain’s GCHQ signals intelligence agency has targeted European, German and Israeli politicians for surveillance.” So distrustful of the British that Chancellor Merkel announced a counter-espionage offensive designed to curb mass surveillance conducted by the US NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ.  Today it is reported by IntelNews that the “discord between British and German intelligence services, which began at the same time in 2014, allegedly persists and now constitutes the “biggest rift between the secret services” of the two countries “since World War II”.

Just six months ago we found out that “GCHQ and NSA routinely spy on UK politicians’ e-mails” that included privileged correspondence between parliamentarians and their constituents and before that, internal MI5, MI6 and GCHQ documents reveal routine interception of legally privileged communications. The information obtained was exploited unlawfully to be used by the agencies in the fighting of court cases in which they themselves were involved.

Amazingly, we recently find out just last week that Israeli embassy staff, quite likely Mossad operatives – “are working with senior political activists and politicians in the Conservative and Labour parties to subvert their own parties from within, and skew British foreign policy so that it benefits Israeli, rather than British interests.” And yet, there has been little comment in the British press about foreign infiltration of government minsters by Israel.

If Russia were not spying on our MP’s, they would be the only ones not at it. No-one trusts anyone. Spying is old news and fully expected. We are ALL being spied on nowadays.

The British press are complicit in their reckless rhetoric designed to instil fear into the population with dangerous propaganda that could easily lead to tensions becoming so dangerous that a real ‘hot war’ starts. Whilst America is shielded by continental Europe and the Atlantic ocean, Britain could be used as a pawn to be sacrificed on the international chess-game of winner-takes-all. We have no ‘special-relationship’, there never has been one, and an irresponsible press being a mouthpiece that ramps up the stress between the US/NATO and Russia is absolutely against the interests and national security of Britain.

As Laurence Krauss’s (chair of the board of sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and is on the board of the Federation of American Scientists) article last October alarmingly points out – “Trump has said he would consider using nuclear weapons against ISIS and suggested that it would be good for the world if Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia acquired them.” Trump could be one seriously dangerous individual for world peace – who knows!

So much for Trump but as Krauss goes on to say that “In general, during the Obama presidency, we have only deepened our dangerous embrace of nuclear weapons. At the moment, around a thousand nuclear weapons are still on a hair-trigger alert; as they were during the Cold War, they are ready to be launched in minutes in response to a warning of imminent attack.” 

Who in their right mind would support this lunacy?

%d bloggers like this: