#Skripal The Role of the British Has Never Been Clearer

The Role of the British Has Never Been Clearer

George W. Bush and Tony Blair shake hands after receiving notification that the Coalition Provisional Authority had returned full sovereignty to Iraq and transferred control of the nation to the Iraqi interim government, June 28, 2004.

First it was Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossier” on Saddam Hussein’s WMD which unleashed the pathetic George W. Bush to turn the entire Mideast (with help from Obama) into a terrorist hell hole. Then came claims of Bashir Assad’s use of chemical weapons, tricking Trump into a missile attack on a Syrian airbase. Then came British Intelligence operative Christopher Steele’s own “dodgy dossier,” launching a regime- change effort against the government of the United States based on fairy tales about Trump and Russia. Now, Prime Minister Theresa May, typically without evidence, declares there is “no alternative conclusion” but that the “Russian state” is responsible for the nerve agent attack in the London district of Salisbury, “an unlawful use of force against the United Kingdom.” We must all unite against the evil Russians, May and her controllers are screaming.

It is all self-evidently nonsense, but there is desperation in the British Empire. For fifty years Lyndon LaRouche has documented the British Empire’s historic hatred of the United States, and the systematic takeover of U.S. government policy through Wall Street and other assets following the death of FDR and the assassination of JFK. Few listened. “The British Empire is dead,” we’d often hear, followed by the insistence that the only empire today is the Russian Empire, or the American Empire, depending on which of the British Empire’s controlled environments one chose to inhabit.

But it is not working so easily this time. The London Guardian yesterday showed the level of panic in the Empire: “Throughout the day,” they editorialize, “the UK worked hard diplomatically in Washington to persuade Trump to set aside his desire for a rapport with Putin, and recognise that Russia was the only country that had the means or the motive to seek to kill Skripal,” the Russian double agent who was hit with a nerve agent last week together with his daughter. But, they whine, “Trump offered only a reluctant acceptance of the British case, but did not directly ascribe responsibility to Russia…. It would be a blow to Anglo-US relations if Trump refused to accept the British intelligence assessment, but since his election he has felt under siege over allegations that he colluded with Russia to win the presidency, and he believes former British intelligence officers have been feeding those allegations.”

Indeed he does, and that effort to use lies concocted by MI6 to bring down his presidency has now been thoroughly discredited. The former Obama intelligence officials who peddled the British lies have been caught red-handed running a treasonous attack on the U.S. Government, and could (and should) soon be in jail.

Prime Minister May is not running free within the UK, either. It is increasingly likely that Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn would win an election if it comes to that, as it may, and the Tories are trailing Corbyn’s Labour Party in the polls for the upcoming local elections. Corbyn directly challenged May’s actions against Russia in the Parliament yesterday, asking if she would follow the rules of the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and provide Russia with samples of the nerve agent and wait the required ten days. May blustered that she had given the Russians enough time, and that there was consensus from all the back benchers, that Corbyn was out of line, and that she was expelling 23 Russian diplomats. In a move that will certainly strike terror in the hearts of the Russians, May also announced that the Royal Family will not attend the World Cup in Russia.

The British oligarchs’ fear is legitimate. The Empire will not survive the coming together of the United States, Russia, China, Africa, Ibero-America — and even the people of Europe and the U.K. — in the new paradigm represented by the spirit of the New Silk Road. They are willing to risk thermonuclear war to prevent that new paradigm, but their time is running out. It is a moment of great potential, if the human race rises to the occasion.

#Skripal- Did the USA do it? They had the motive

‘Every Laboratory in the West Has Samples of ‘Novichok’ Nerve Agent’ – Analyst

biological warfare protective clothing

The Western corporate media has failed to ask one crucial question concerning the Skripal poisoning. What would Russia have to gain from poisoning a defector using a known Russian chemical warfare agent?
It’s such an obvious give-away that it suggests that whoever was responsible for the poisoning wanted Russia to be blamed. It’s tantamount to leaving a signed confession note at the scene of a crime.
As the following points out, Britain main chemical warfare laboratory, Porton Down, is only SEVEN MILES from the scene of the crime in Salisbury. Is that where the Novichok used to poison Skripal originated rather than Russia? Ed.

‘Every Laboratory in the West Has Samples of ‘Novichok’ Nerve Agent’ – Analyst

Sputnik spoke with former Kremlin adviser Alexander Nekrassov to get insight into Sergei Skripal’s poisoning in Salisbury and to clarify the immediate response of British authorities, who appear to be ignoring the simple fact that the Porton Down chemical lab near where the incident happened stores samples of the nerve agent Novichok.

Sputnik: It seems like Theresa May rushed to throw down the gauntlet, in asking Moscow to explain the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, especially after the investigation is not complete…what effect does this have on an already volatile relationship between the UK and Russia?

Alexander Nekrassov: First of all it is very odd that the British authorities haven’t given the police and authorities evidence from their investigation. It’s important to note that investigations into chemical weapon use usually take at least a month. It was very strange to hear Theresa May coming into the commons accusing Russia and using ultimatum language such as ‘you will explain yourselves to us on the deadline on this day. If not you’re guilty’. I’m sorry this not language does not work in a modern diplomacy – this is not even civil.

The Russian government will obviously not reply and why should it. It’s not a matter for the Russian government to be concerned about. The British authorities have a situation on their territory; they are obliged to investigate it, produce some sort of proof and then come out with this proof. What we’re seeing now is a farce and especially a farce concerning the media, which is out of control in Britain.

Sputnik: Lavrov has stated that the UK should abide by the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and provide Russia with access to the samples of the nerve-agent which was allegedly used to poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter… will Lavrov’s words of reason resonate with Theresa May?

Alexander Nekrassov: I think Lavrov had a fair point to make that the British government if it’s already making allegations, should provide proof that this chemical was Russian made. That’s the first point, the second point is that the British government is saying that because the nerve agent is made in Russia and therefore Russia is behind the incident. I’m sorry but every laboratory in the West including Porton Down which is only 7 miles away from Salisbury, has a sample of this so-called ‘Novichok’, Newcomer, as they called it.

They use these samples to produce the antidotes, so why isn’t this Porton Down facility being investigated? Why aren’t the people who work there being investigated and asked if they have lost a sample of this weapons-grade chemical? This is very bizarre for the British government to come up with this ultimate without a single ounce of proof saying its highly like, and I must stress ‘highly likely’ that Russia is behind this… I’m sorry this is childish. This isn’t propaganda is some petty bitterness I would say.

Sputnik: Is there a likely explanation for this attack which isn’t just simply pointing fingers at Russia without any solid evidence?

Alexander Nekrassov: There are so many options. In a civilised manner, the police and the intelligence services should have said they were looking at different options. That is the civilised way. There are rogue agents of a different nation that have gotten access to this particular nerve agent and used it for some sort agenda such as slander and tarnish Russia or cause friction between Britain and Russia.

Source

Uptick In UK Terrorism Could Be Linked To Corbyn’s Pledge To Halt Saudi Arms Sales

Uptick In UK Terrorism Could Be Linked To Corbyn’s Pledge To Halt Saudi Arms Sales

A pair of terror attacks that have rocked the UK in the last two weeks have come just before the country’s general election. Some believe that the timing of the attacks is not coincidental, as one of the candidates has pledged to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia – a known sponsor of terrorism.

Saudi King Salman, right, receives British Prime Minister Theresa May, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 5, 2017. (AP Photo)

Saudi King Salman, right, receives British Prime Minister Theresa May, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 5, 2017. (AP Photo)

With the latest terror attack to befall London taking place less than two weeks after the concert bombing in Manchester, many are wondering about the timing and frequency of the attacks. Both attacks occurred in the lead-up to Thursday’s general election, leading some to theorize that there may be a link between the election and the uptick in terrorist activity.

However, one such explanation has been widely overlooked. Historical precedent and the high stakes of this upcoming election suggest that one of the UK’s allies – Saudi Arabia – may have had a much more active role in the attacks than has been perceived beyond its well-known penchant for funding terrorist groups.

Saudi Arabia has been known to threaten foreign governments, particularly the UK, with an uptick in terrorist activity in the event that arms deals to the Gulf monarchy are put on hold or limited in any way.



Previously released court papers reveal that the Saudis had threatened the UK with an increase in terror attacks if the government of former Prime Minister Tony Blair chose to move forward with a corruption investigation concerning sales of arms to the Gulf nation.

According to official documents, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi Arabia’s now-defunct National Security Council from 2005 to 2015, told Blair in December 2006 that the UK would face “another 7/7” and the loss of “British lives on British streets” were the investigation to continue.

In this photo released by Saudi News Agency, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, right receives Mideast envoy Tony Blair, the ex-prime minister of Britain after his arrival in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia Monday, Sept. 3, 2007. (AP Photo/Saudi News Agency)

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, right receives Tony Blair after his arrival in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 3, 2007. (AP Photo)

Bandar stood accused of taking over 1 billion British pounds in secret payments from BAE, the UK’s largest arms manufacturer – and the world’s third-largest. Blair subsequently halted the inquiry.

In the current UK political landscape, there is no greater threat to UK-Saudi arms deals than Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK’s Labour Party. In addition to being a long-time critic of UK arms sales to the Saudis and other governments that have been accused of human rights violations,  Corbyn has vowed outright to suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia if he wins this Thursday’s electoral contest.

The decision was described as part of a Labour plan to return to an “ethical foreign policy” focused on “nonproliferation and disarmament” and led by a concern for human rights.

In contrast, the Conservative Party, now led by Theresa May, has been eager to provide the Saudis with massive amounts of weapons. Under former Prime Minister David Cameron’s six-year tenure, UK arms sales to the Saudis totaled approximately 5.6 billion British pounds.

May, who became prime minister following Cameron’s resignation in 2016, has been an ardent supporter of ties between her nation and Saudi Arabia. Most recently, her government has blocked the completion of a “sensitive” report that details the funding of Islamic extremist groups, allegedly focusing on the Saudis’ leading role in such activity. By preventing that query – much like what transpired under Blair in 2006 – May’s government will keep arms flowing from the British Isles to the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps the Saudi threats to unleash terror upon the UK if its arms deals are threatened are what May was referencing when she argued that selling weapons to the Saudis helps “keep people on the streets of Britain safe.”

Britain and Jihadism: What does the Third Terrorist Attack in less than Three Months Tell Us?

Britain and Jihadism: What does the Third Terrorist Attack in less than 3 months tell us? 

564523433

 

Britain’s May Plays Terror Card, But It Could Be a Joker

Britain’s May Plays Terror Card, But It Could Be a Joker

Britain’s embattled Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May is shamelessly playing the «terror card» to bolster her «strong leader» posture, just days before the general election this week.

Breaking an informal agreement with rival political parties to temporarily suspend election campaigning, May rushed to deliver a speech in front of 10 Downing Street calling for a «robust» law and order response to a «new threat terror».

May made her nationwide appeal the morning after the deadly terror attack in London on Saturday night in which seven bystanders were killed. Her grandstanding speech also attempted to tar her main rival, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, as being «soft on terrorism».

It’s a well-worn Tory ploy of presenting the Conservative party as the strong national-security defenders, while casting others as the «enemy within». This may have worked efficaciously in the past. But in the present circumstances the trusty old terror card has become threadbare from lies and fatal contradictions.

At the weekend, all British political parties had agreed to suspend campaigning for 24 hours following the assault late on Saturday night in which three British-born jihadists launched a van and knife attack on pedestrians near London Bridge. But, in a sign of desperation, Theresa May broke ranks and appeared early Sunday morning to make her anti-terror appeal.

The latest events come at a critical time ahead of the British snap election. Since the Conservative government made the surprise call for an early election, Theresa May has seen her poll ratings collapse from a 20-plus point lead to a nail-biting margin of only a few points over Labour rival Jeremy Corbyn.

Under Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour party is campaigning on a platform that has been described as the most left-wing seen in decades. His pitch for wide-ranging socialist policies has unexpectedly rallied the British public in support. That surge has alarmed the Tories who are traditionally pro-business and advocates of neoliberal austerity policies.

The British media which is largely supportive of the Conservatives have over recent weeks been piling up negative claims against Corbyn as being «soft on terrorism». Those claims have referred to his past verbal support for groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Irish republicans during the 1980s. Corbyn contends that his past support for such groups was aimed at facilitating inclusive peace talks.

But the Conservatives have been ruthlessly vilifying the Labour leader as a «terrorist sympathizer» as well as being «anti-NATO» and «soft on Russia». The latter epithet stems partly from Corbyn’s stated reluctance to order the use of nuclear weapons if he were prime minister.

The latest terror attack in London – Britain’s third deadly jihadist-related attack in three months – has given Theresa May and her embattled Tory party more ammunition to go after Corbyn, or so they would like to think.

But just like May’s gamble to call an early general election, betting that it would strengthen her government, the ploy to use the terror card might also rebound badly.

For a start Labour and other opposition parties have pointed out that the spate of terror attacks hitting Britain have been made possible by the huge public spending cutbacks that the Conservatives have implemented over several years. Corbyn countered May’s latest posturing of «strong leadership» by reminding voters that her government has reduced police force ranks by some 20,000 personnel. That reduction, he says, inevitably impairs state security, allowing would-be jihadists to organize.

Indeed media reports have documented that the jihadist who killed four people on London’s Westminster Bridge in April, as well as the suicide bomber who killed 22 at a concert last month in Manchester, and the three suspects in the latest terror attack on London Bridge were all known to the security services.

Why these suspects were not picked up in advance suggests that police services are overstretched and under-manned. Very arguably therefore, the cost-cutting Conservative government bears responsibility for security impairment. And the angry public know that.

Some commentators have gone further and said that secretive forces within the British establishment might even be allowing these terror attacks to proceed in a nefarious calculation that the public repercussions are more harmful politically to Labour’s Corbyn. Wittingly or unwittingly it allows the Conservative party to focus attention on allegations of Corbyn being a «terrorist sympathizer».

Nevertheless, as noted above, the ploy could still go badly wrong for the Conservatives. Before she took over the premiership from David Cameron, who resigned last year over the Brexit referendum, Theresa May served as the Home Secretary for five years. It was under her watch that police services incurred swinging manpower cuts, which have inevitably undermined security measures. Her latest gambit of posing as a strong leader and calling for a «tough» law and order response is in danger of sounding hollow, if not contemptible.

Also, as veteran journalist John Pilger recently reported, there is much evidence pointing to links between Britain’s spy agencies MI5 and MI6 and their clandestine involvement in cultivating homegrown jihadists to fight in British-backed wars for regime change in Libya and Syria. This covert policy of British state collusion with jihadists was conducted during May’s stint as Home Secretary. So when May piously talks about a new threat of terrorism facing Britain, it is not a difficult stretch for the public to connect this threat as being blowback from Britain’s involvement in dirty wars.

While May and her government would like to treat the terror attacks in Britain as «isolated» manifestations of «evil ideology», there is a growing public understanding that the violence assailing British streets is inextricably linked to Britain’s criminal foreign policy of sponsoring wars for regime change and consorting with proxy terror groups.

After May’s dig at Corbyn with her claim that there was «too much tolerance towards terrorism», the Labour leader hit back, saying that Britain must look critically at its relations with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf monarchies which are systematically connected to jihadist extremism.

«We do need to have some difficult conversations starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have funded and fueled extremist ideology,» said Corbyn.

May’s government has in particular sought to increase weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states even while these regimes are increasingly seen as having a notorious record on human rights violations at home and abroad. The British-backed Saudi slaughter in Yemen is a particular cause of public disgust in Britain.

When Theresa May stood in front of Downing Street at the weekend and intoned that «terrorism breeds terrorism» she was inadvertently making a self-indicting statement on her own government’s appalling record. Her government and its consorting with terrorist-sponsoring Wahhabi oil kingdoms has not only wreaked havoc in the Middle East. Such a reckless criminal policy is ricocheting all over Britain’s streets. And the British public can see that, despite government and media deflections over responsibility.

The increasing awareness among the British public about Britain’s complicity in terrorism makes the once-trusty terror card an unreliable card to play. It’s not the ace that Theresa May thinks she is playing against Corbyn. Instead, it could turn out to be a bad joker

British Intelligence Received Warnings that Manchester Bomber Was Plotting Attacks

By Laura Tiernan

“May 31, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Explosive allegations have emerged that the UK’s MI5 intelligence agency had prior warning of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi planning a terrorist atrocity.

On May 22, Abedi detonated a shrapnel-laden improvised explosive device outside a performance in Manchester by American singer Ariana Grande, killing 22 people, many of whom were children, and wounding 116.

According to the Mail on Sunday, “the FBI told MI5 that Abedi was part of a North African Islamic State cell plotting to strike a political target in the UK.”

The FBI passed these warnings to MI5 in January, after placing Abedi on their terrorist watch list in 2016. An unnamed “security source” told the Daily Mail that the FBI informed MI5 that Abedi “belonged to a North African terror gang based in Manchester, which was looking for a political target in this country.”

He continued:

“Following this US tip-off, Abedi and other members of the gang were scrutinised by MI5. It was thought at the time that Abedi was planning to assassinate a political figure. But nothing came of this investigation and, tragically, he slipped down the pecking order of targets.”

The claims by Prime Minister Theresa May that Abedi acted as a “lone wolf” and was known by Britain’s security services only “to a degree” lie in shreds. It is simply not credible that an individual planning to assassinate a British “political figure”—that could conceivably include the prime minister, foreign secretary or the queen—would be allowed to “slip” under the radar.

Abedi was effectively given a free hand by MI5 to launch a terrorist attack. The Daily Mail’ s revelations add to mounting evidence of the role of British intelligence services and successive governments in cultivating Islamist terror networks and protecting these “assets” as part of their regime-change operations in Libya and Syria.

On Thursday, a report by Middle East Eye (MEE) exposed what it described as an “open door” policy by the previous Conservative government of David Cameron allowing members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to travel to Libya in 2011 as part of military operations to overthrow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. May was home secretary in that government. Abedi’s parents were both members of the LIFG. These individuals were able to travel freely between the UK, Libya, Syria and other locations.

Former rebel fighters interviewed by the MEE explained how British security services assisted their movements, providing them with passports and clearing them for departure. Belal Younis, who travelled to Libya in 2011, said he was asked by an MI5 officer, who had detained him for questioning after a trip to Libya in early 2011, “Are you willing to go into battle?”

“While I took time to find an answer,” Younis told MEE, “he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi.”

During a subsequent trip to Libya in May 2011, he was questioned by counter-terrorism police in a British airport lounge, but an MI5 officer interceded and he was “waved through.” The MI5 officer later called Younis to say that he had “sorted it out.”

Many of those who travelled to Libya had previously been under counter-terrorism control orders, with tight restrictions on their movement and Internet activity. However, the control orders were lifted in 2011 as Britain joined US and French efforts to topple Gaddafi.

Unknown to the British people, including the families who lost loved ones last Monday night, Manchester was at the centre of operations that funnelled rebel fighters into Libya. Younis told the MEE’s reporters, “The majority who went from here were from Manchester.” Another interviewee said of the young recruits he encountered during a visit to a rebel camp in Misrata that same year, “They had proper Manchester accents.”

Another British-born fighter told the MEE they were also allowed to travel to Syria, where Islamist groups, offshoots of Al Qaeda and backed by the US and Britain, have been fighting to overthrow the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Abedi himself was allowed to travel to Syria. “No questions were asked,” Younis said. Another British-Libyan said he had worked for the British SAS in Benghazi to edit slick video recruitment and marketing packages showing fighters being trained by both the SAS and Irish Special Forces.

In Saturday’s Daily Mail, Peter Oborne alleged direct collusion by MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence service, with terrorist organisations in Libya and Syria. Oborne, associate editor of the Spectator and former chief political commentator at the Daily Telegraph, wrote, “MI6 officers were complicit in creating a generation of British-born jihadis who are prepared to do anything, and kill anyone—even young children—in their efforts to destroy this country.

“There is every reason to speculate that Salman Abedi’s evil handiwork at the Manchester Arena on Monday night was in part a direct consequence of MI6’s meddling in Middle Eastern and North African affairs.”

Oborne singled out MI6’s role under the Labour government of Tony Blair, when its former chiefs, Sir Richard Dearlove and Sir John Scarlett, “allowed [MI6] to become a propaganda tool for the Labour PM’s clique of war-mongers.”

Scarlett drafted the infamous dossier on Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, used by Blair to stampede Britain into war.

“MI6 has failed to learn the lessons from this debacle,” Oborne wrote, pointing to the “hundreds” of British citizens who “were allowed to travel abroad to join jihadist organisations.”

Britain’s sordid dealings with the LIFG and other Al Qaeda-linked groups stretch back to the 1980s. The LIFG was spawned from the mujahedeen and built up by the US in Afghanistan as part of its destabilisation of the Soviet Union. Since then, the fate of the LIFG has directly tracked shifts in British and American foreign policy.

In 1996, British intelligence agencies paid LIFG leaders huge sums to attempt to assassinate Gaddafi, according to leaks from senior French intelligence officials and former MI5 officer David Shayler. In 2004, after the Blair government’s rapprochement with the Libyan regime, MI6 helped seize LIFG leader Abdel-Hakim Belhaj and his deputy Sami al-Saadi. According to British historian and author Mark Curtis, Belhaj was handed over to the CIA, tortured, and then sent back to Tripoli to spend six years in solitary confinement, where MI6 agents reportedly questioned him.

In 2011, in response to the Arab Spring, the US and Britain set in motion long-standing plans for regime-change operations in the Middle East. Anti-terrorism control orders against LIFG leaders were lifted because, according to Curtis, the British government “once again found that its interests—mainly concerning oil—coincided with those of Islamist forces in Libya.”

The 22 dead and scores injured in Manchester, no less than the people of Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other countries invaded and occupied, are the victims of British imperialist intrigue and are regarded as “collateral damage.”

These explosive revelations raise a number of questions that must be answered:

  • Why did MI5 drop its investigation into Salman Abedi, and who authorised this?
  • Why was he able to travel freely throughout the European Union and Middle East, including to known terror hubs?
  • Did MI5 inform Theresa May’s government of the threats to strike a political target in Britain?
  • How was he able to receive thousands of pounds in student loans to finance his activities, including travel and the renting of multiple residencies in the lead-up to last Monday’s attack, despite not attending university?

Last week, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn earned the enmity of the media for pointing to the obvious connection between Britain’s involvement in colonial-style wars and the heightened danger of terrorism. The Guardian led the attack, with Jonathan Freedland insisting, “It’s a delusion to think that the terror attacks are just about foreign policy,” and Paul Mason declaring, “The ‘blowback theory’, which blames Islamist terrorism directly on western expeditionary warfare, is both facile and irrelevant in this case.”

However, Corbyn was silent on the political responsibility of successive Labour and Tory governments for launching wars of aggression and even promised to give the army and the security services additional resources. He has so far said nothing about revelations that MI5 had forewarning of Abedi’s attack.

Copyright © 1998-2017 World Socialist Web Site

This article was first published by WSWS

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.

Manchester’s Dead: Victims of British “Regime Change” Operations in the Middle East

Source

By Robert Stevens,

More details have emerged about the prior familiarity of British intelligence agencies with the [alleged] Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, whose murderous assault Monday evening left 22 people dead.

Given Abedi’s connections and his travel movements leading up to the attack, the only explanation for him being able to remain at large for so long is that he was a protected asset—part of a broad network of operatives utilised by Britain and the US to conduct their nefarious operations in the Middle East.

It is the exposure of these operations which accounts for the fury of Prime Minister Theresa May over the US leaking of intelligence information about the UK’s investigation into the bombing. Whatever the specific reasons for these leaks, they have completely undermined the British authority’s original claims that Abedi was an unknown, “lone wolf”. Rather, it is now clear that those killed and maimed while enjoying a pop concert are the victims of British regime-change policy in the Middle East and North Africa.

We know now that British intelligence had received warnings, on at least five separate occasions in the last five years, that Abedi presented a danger, including that he had discussed committing a suicide bombing.

According to new leaks Thursday, Abedi had travelled extensively in the run-up to the attack, including flying from Istanbul to the UK via Germany’s Dusseldorf airport. For years, Turkey has been used as a transit point into Syria by European jihadists, joining Western-led efforts to topple the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.

Several sources, including French intelligence, have made public their conclusions that Abedi had been to Syria and received training there. The Financial Times also reported that a “Turkish official” said that Abedi had traveled through Istanbul on at least two other occasions over the past year. The newspaper reported,

“In mid-April he flew from Amsterdam to Libya, while in late May 2016 he flew from Manchester to Libya, transiting through Istanbul Ataturk airport both times.”

Abedi may have traveled through at least two European Union countries on his way from Turkey to Manchester. Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel reported that Abedi flew from Dusseldorf to Manchester on May 18—four days before the attack. The newspaper cited German intelligence sources who said that he arrived in Germany from Libya via Prague.

The Guardian reported,

“It is known that the 22-year-old traveled to Germany at least twice, including a visit to the financial city of Frankfurt.” It added, “Düsseldorf is in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, where Anis Amri, the Berlin Christmas market attacker, spent time.”

Further leaks were reported by the German magazine, Focus. Citing German intelligence sources, it said Abedi flew to Frankfurt from Britain in 2015. Focus said that Germany’s intelligence agency BKA had been told by police in the UK that this visit took place before Abedi undertook paramilitary training in Syria. It reported that he had not been apprehended in Germany, as he was not on any watch list.

There is no innocent explanation for the fact that Abedi was able to travel to Libya, Syria, Turkey and the UK unhindered. It has nothing to do with the spurious claims about the UK having “leaky borders”, or too few border guards. Abedi’s ability to pass through customs without interference can only mean that he had been given the all clear.

For decades, successive British governments have worked with jihadi groups, prepared to use atrocities to achieve their objectives. This has meant that, behind the “war on terror” and the relentless assault on democratic rights that it has entailed, UK authorities have been harbouring Islamist extremist operatives and groups who can be set into motion at the required time, in line with British imperialist foreign policy objectives.

Groups such as Algeria’s Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda all had bases in London. Al-Qaeda considered London the nerve centre of its operations in Europe, with the security services collaborating with some of these organisations and their leaders, the most well known being Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.

Image result for LIFG

Likewise, British imperialism worked closely with Libyan Islamists, supporting them in their opposition to then Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. As former MI5 agent David Shayler revealed, MI6 collaborated with one such organisation, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, in the attempted assassination of Gaddafi in 1996.

For years, a group of LIFG members were active in the Whalley Range district of Manchester, close to Salman Abedi’s home. Salman Abedi’s father, Ramadan Abedi, an airport security officer, was an LIFG member. He and his wife, Samia Tabbal, a nuclear scientist, fled Tripoli in 1991 after he was arrested by the Gaddafi regime. He had been employed in the regime’s internal security service and was reportedly suspected of tipping off members of anti-Gaddafi Islamist groups about pending police raids. The Daily Mail reported,

“It appears that Ramadan’s life revolved at several points around toppling Gaddafi…”

After fleeing Libya, Ramadan and his wife lived in Saudi Arabia for a period. They both then went to the UK and applied for and were granted political asylum. They lived first in London and then moved to the south Manchester area, which had become a centre for many anti-Gaddafi elements with which British intelligence maintained the closest links.

Ramadan returned to Libya some time in 2011 in order to fight in the imperialist proxy war that resulted in the overthrow and murder of Gaddafi in October of that year by US/UK-backed “rebels”. This took place after a NATO bombing campaign in which untold numbers were killed nationwide over the preceding eight months. Ramadan went on to become an administrative manager of the Central Security Force in Tripoli, one of the many militias vying for control of the country.

Samia, Abedi’s mother, is a close friend of Umm Abdul Rahman, the widow of a former Al Qaeda commander, Abu Anas al-Libi. Accused of involvement in the 1998 US embassy bombings, the Daily Mail reported that al-Libi “spent five years in Manchester—having won political asylum in Britain in 1995.” The Mail said that

“Abdul Rahman went to college in the Libyan capital with Abedi’s mother, who was studying nuclear engineering. She [Rahman] said the two women also lived together in Manchester for a number of years.”

Al-Libi was seized by US forces in Tripoli in October 2013 and died in 2015 of liver cancer before coming to trial. Following the Manchester bombing, Ramadan Abedi and his youngest son, Hashem, were arrested in Tripoli Tuesday night.

Salman Abedi was also known to have been a close associate of one of the main Islamic State recruiters in the UK, Raphael Hostey, who was killed in a drone strike in Syria in 2016. Hostey grew up in Moss Side, just a mile away from Abedi’s home in the Fallowfield district of the city.

In a statement on the bombing, the government of Abdullah Thinni in Bayda, Libya said it had warned the British government it was harbouring terrorists. Thinni’s government was driven out of Tripoli in 2013 by Islamic extremists, including UK-based Libyan exiles. It accused May’s predecessor David Cameron of backing terrorist groups who

“have been destroying our cities and towns in an attempt to shape Libya into an exporter of terror to the whole planet.”

Featured image: VOA News

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.

WATCH: Rabbi celebrates at Manchester False Flag

Rabbi Shneur Cohen of Chabad Manchester city was spotted serving coffee and donuts to cops after the terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester arena on May 21, which resulted in the death of 22 people and sending another 59 to hospital. Chabad is Jewish supremacist group with ties to Israel Mossad.

The attack came ahead of June 8 general election which Jewish lobby fears anti-Israel Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leader might win.

US officials claimed within hours of the incident that the perpetrator Salman Abedi, 22, was a suicide bomber belonging to ISIS terrorist group created by the US, Israel and Britain in the first place in order to provide humanitarian excuse to invade and destroy anti-Israel governments in region.

The UK’s Zionist-controlled mainstream media has already started blaming Muslims without any proof. Considering that Britain is the most heavily surveilled state in the world, one can only ponder.

Salman like all the false flag Muslim pasties was under observation by the British intelligence agency and London police – but was not considered as threat to the White or Jewish communities.

As happens in false flags, the security services held a counter-terrorist drill before the incident (watch below).

British pop singer Steve Brookstein, who became the first Jew to win the X-Factor award in 2005, irked his tribe by tweeting on May 23: Theresa May has a terrible day. Awful press and guess what an explosion in Manchester. Can’t make this S**t up.

Recently elected Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham just visited the Zionist entity – all expenses paid by Labour Friends of Israel. He believes that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has failed to curb antisemitism in his party. Manchester is home to second largest Jewish community after London.

Britain is home to Europe’s second largest Muslim community (2.1 million) after France (7-9 million). a great majority of Brit Muslims supports Corbyn.

American academic and author Kevin Barrett, PhD, also claimed on May 22 that Manchester carnage was a false flag operation by the British and Israeli intelligence agencies.

There Is No Anti Semitism in Britain

In the end of October (2016) we learned from the British Jewish media that Police were called to University College London (UCL)  amid claims of common assault and verbal intimidation by “pro-Palestinian protestors” at an event with an Israeli speaker.

We had to wait another three months for a single honest Jew (Jerry Lewis of Hampstead Synagogue)  to admit in front of the notorious ultra Zionist BOD, that the event at UCL was actually provoked by Jewish groups  that have nothing to do with the Jewish students community. At least one of those Jewish groups is funded by Israel according to Lewis. These groups invoke ‘hatred’ against Jews because this is how they justify their existence and sustain their funding.

Following the recent Al Jazeera expose,  the foreign office must expel the Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev. The police and the MI5 better look into Lewis’ claims.

 

For the full video: https://youtu.be/mBjprfGGJg4

Why Did the Al-Jazeera Expose Fail?

January 14, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

“The Lobby”, the Al-Jazeerah expose of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Lobby infiltration into British politics is a landmark in journalism. It seems that Qatari TV outsmarted Israeli intelligence in the UK and beyond.

In the program, an undercover journalist named ‘Robin’ managed to infiltrate into the corridors of the Jewish lobby in Britain, secured the trust of a senior Israeli intelligence officer and, most importantly, managed to reveal the depths of Israeli interference in British politics.

We learned how Israel and its lobby plot against Britain and the Brits. In the program, Shai Masot, an Israeli official was caught on camera conspiring to “bring down” a British minister.

We learned how our own treacherous MPs shamelessly serve a foreign power and foreign interests. In Episode 3 we witness British politicians and Israeli lobbyists such as MP Joan Ryan  caught on camera smearing a Labour voter as an ‘anti-Semite’, and practically conspiring against her own party. Ms Ryan does it all for the Jewish state, a state with a horrid record on human rights and war crimes.  I wonder what is it that motivates MP Ryan? Is it  greed, or is it just power seeking?

The Brits should certainly ask themselves how come it is left to a Qatari TV network  to reveal the shocking news about their democracy being taken over by a foreign Lobby. Should this not be the concern  for the BBC or the Guardian? And even after the Al-Jazeera expose, the British media remained silent and the question must be asked: would it have stayed as silent had Shai Masot been a Russian? Would it have stayed as silent if MP Joan Ryan was exposed as an Iranian lobbyist?

But Al-Jazeera fell into an all-too-common trap. Troubled by its own findings, it tried to soften them with the usual politically correct fluff.  Instead of concentrating on the British aspect of this saga and allowing the Brits to speak for themselves, Al-Jazeera allowed an Israeli – academic Ilan Pappe to speak for us. Similarly, Jackie Walker, certainly a victim of the Israeli campaign was also asked, “as a Jew” (as well as a Black person), to spell out for us her own identitarian philosophy. All other commentators on the Israeli espionage operation came from recognised Palestinian solidarity perspectives. Despite the fact that the dirty dealings of the Israeli Embassy and the treason of members of the Israeli lobby groups in Britain is a clear offence against British sovereignty and the British people, only one Brit, journalist Peter Oborne, addressed the offence from a clear British perspective.

This is wrong. “The Lobby” exposed, above all, a gross interference with British sovereignty, a crude intrusion into the British democratic process and government.  Al-Jazeera failed because it turned this British national tragedy into an internal Jewish dispute.

For obvious reasons, Al Jazeera chose not to delve into the deep, cultural meaning of the Israeli operation. Israel is, above all, the Jewish state and, as I have mentioned many times before, plotting against other people’s regimes is deeply embedded in Judaic teaching and Jewish culture. It is in practice the message of The Book of Esther, which teach the Jews how toconspire against their rulers and, by proxy, to win over their enemies.  You can read The Book Of Esther for yourselves (it’s pretty short and very entertaining): http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Esther.html

Shai Masot was no junior embassy employee as claimed. He was a senior intelligence officer operating from the safety and immunity of its embassy on behalf of the Jewish state. He was working alongside Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev and the two are seen together in the film, sitting side by side, addressing various Jewish lobby groups. Shai Masot has been recalled and, I understand, is currently seeking other employment. Mark Regev should now be expelled and the matter must be investigated by MI5.

%d bloggers like this: