Further Betrayal of Palestinians

By The Muslim News

Global Research, October 07, 2020

The Muslim News 25 September 2020

The old idiom says, “possession is nine-tenths of the law”, but in the case of the dispossessed Palestinians, occupation represents one hundred per cent of the law after their land was usurped due to Israel’s creation some 82 years ago. Other Arab territories have been annexed in a succession of wars that followed too.

Justice is further away than ever with the UAE and Bahrain formally becoming the latest Arab countries to sell out their Palestinian brethren by normalising relations with Israel, despite Israel’s continued illegal military occupation of Palestinian land and the expansions of illegal settlements and destruction of Palestinian homes.

Both Arab dictators proceeded to formally sign agreements to normalise relations with Israel at a ceremony hosted by President, Donald Trump, the most pro-Israel US leader since Harry Truman who presided over the recognition of Israel in 1948.

Trump has torn up so many international conventions and norms by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, despite its special status, as well as handing over Syria’s Golan Heights that have been illegally occupied by Israel for over half a century.

Trump’s “No-Peace/Peace Plan” for Palestine. Netanyahu/Gantz Invited to White House to Discuss “Deal of the Century”

The move by the UAE and Bahrain to the Israeli camp is also a shift to realign the Middle East against Iran, described by Benjamin Netanyahu as Tel Aviv’s biggest enemy. Tehran was one of just a few countries to publicly condemn the normalisation of relations, describing it as “shameful” and a “humiliating act.”

Trump has tried to turn the rest of the world against Iran by trying to destroy the landmark nuclear deal by unilaterally withdrawing. According to Middle East Eye Editor, David Hearst, the new alliance in the Middle East could also be targeted against Turkey’s influence in the region.

The deal was brokered by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner and former British PM, Tony Blair, who called the deal “a massive and welcome opportunity to recast the politics of the region.”

The former envoy to the Middle East Quartet has spent much of his forced retirement time trying to encourage Arab countries to build cooperation with Israel based on a “shared outlook.”

He is credited with turning the accepted formula of “peace with the Palestinians before normalisation” on its head by effectively relegating their legitimate aspirations for a viable state to the back of the queue.

Perplexingly, apart from dangling the prospects of more US military sales, the UAE is reported to have received a pledge from Netanyahu that Israel will temporarily suspend its plans to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, not to carry out the usurpation of territories already illegally seized for decades.

The new alliances are a further trampling of Palestinian rights by Israel’s incessant illicit encroachments. The theft of their land is a legacy of British colonialism and placing a special responsibility on the UK to put right before might.

The latest Arab alliance, which some suspect comes ahead of Saudi Arabia following suit, is a sad day, not just a more betrayal and as such sets a precedent that there is little sense of justice left in the world.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.The original source of this article is The Muslim NewsCopyright © The Muslim NewsThe Muslim News, 2020

Gen. Soleimani Key Role in Counter-Terrorism Admitted by All Sides: Australian Prof.

Gen. Soleimani's Key Role in Counter-Terrorism Admitted by All Sides: Australian Prof.
A senior professor and political analyst based in Australia deplored the US move to assassinate Iran’s Lt. General Qassem Soleimani, as “a cowardice attack” and said the revered commander’s key role in combating US-backed terrorism has been acknowledged by all sides.

January, 08, 2020 – 19:16 

Source

“General Soleimani is acknowledged by all sides to have been the key commander in organizing and helping coordinate the campaign against those terrorist groups which were supported by US allies as they had freely admitted these days US allies at one stage from Qatar but also from the (United Arab) Emirates, from Saudi in particular, and from Turkey later on, from Israel as well in the South of Syria for example,” Professor Tim Anderson told Tasnim in an interview.

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and Director of the Sydney-based Centre for Counter-Hegemonic Studies. He has worked at Australian universities for more than 30 years, teaching, researching and publishing on development, human rights and self-determination in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East. In 2014, he was awarded Cuba’s medal of friendship. He is Australia and Pacific representative for the Latin America based Network in Defence of Humanity. His most recent books are: Land and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea (2015), The Dirty War on Syria (2016), now published in ten languages; and Countering War Propaganda of the Dirty War on Syria (2017). His next book Axis of Resistance is due out in 2019.

The following is the full text of Anderson comments:

The assassination and murder of General Qasem Soleimani was a terrible crime, a terrible act of terrorism, and a cowardice attack because it came when US occupation forces in Iraq were pretending to be there in the course of fighting ISIS or Daesh with which they coordinated with Iran and with Iraqi forces. So it was a treacherous attack and an unprovoked attack on people who ostensibly they were working with against the scourge of terrorism in Iraq. That was the pretext on which US forces came back into Iraq in 2014.

Now, the excuse that the Trump officials have given for this attack, this assassination, and also the murder of more than 30 Iraqi soldiers in one of the militia under the government’s forces, was that there was an imminent attack now this doctrine of an imminent attack that’s been called the Bethlehem doctrine. It’s the same type of rationale that was used for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They claimed that the government of Saddam Hussein was just about to attack either the US or Britain or both. Now, it’s been stretched by this advisor called Daniel Bethlehem, who was brought in to Tony Blair’s office and Pompeo, one of Trump’s officials, has used it as the pretext after the fact for the assassinations, for the murders. They claim that there was an imminent attack on US people.

The second pretext, the second lie that’s been put about is that General Soleimani was somehow responsible for hundreds of deaths of Americans. There’s no basis been set up for this the former British diplomat Craig Murray has pointed out. It’s quite a lie. It may be that general Soleimani helped the resistance forces to the Iraq invasion after 2003 but anyone in Iraq was entitled to resist the US illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. So the pretext put about for the assassination are quite false in the same manner as the false pretext was set up for the disgraceful and criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Now, the work that General Soleimani had done in that time since soon after 2003, helping combat the scourge of terrorism introduced by the allies of the US and the US itself in Iraq and Syria for example but also Lebanon, Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra, the other proxy forces that were introduced to divide and weaken Iraq and then to do the same to Syria. General Soleimani was a leading commander in that. He was also training other commanders from the beginning in Syria, for example, from the beginning in Iraq you recall the huge wave of terrorism that happened in Iraq that began in 2006 under al-Qaeda in Iraq or the Islamic State in Iraq which went on to become ISIS or Daesh.

General Soleimani is acknowledged by all sides to have been the key commander in organizing and helping coordinate the campaign against those terrorist groups which were supported by US allies as they had freely admitted these days US allies at one stage from Qatar but also from the (United Arab) Emirates, from Saudi in particular, and from Turkey later on, from Israel as well in the South of Syria for example. So, General Soleimani was advising the resistance to Israel in Lebanon. He was a friend of the Palestinians. They’re mourning him now in Palestine.

He played an important role in many of those early battles in Syria against the terrorist groups; Nusra in the western Syria and Daesh in the east and the course against Daesh when they were about to take over Iraq in 2014 and the Americans reentered under the pretext of fighting Daesh. Of course, they did nothing of the sort. It was General Soleimani and the people he coordinated with, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi militia, that were put together to join with the Iraqi army after 2014 when the US-sponsored army was incapable of responding to that threat, General Soleimani was there, of course also defending Iran’s interests but being a tremendously respected and leading figure in the fight against terrorism in the region. Now, we see that this act of terrorism, this cowardly act of terrorism by the Trump regime and undoubtedly there are forces on President Trump, on the one hand, to try and persist with this idea of trying to neutralize the influence of Iran in the region but perhaps also for some short-term political gains in terms of his own domestic sphere.

He’s done nothing over the sort of course. He’s exposed an extraordinary stupidity which I admit I didn’t see. I didn’t see it was as bad as that I thought Trump was a crude man, an ugly man, in many respects but he hadn’t initiated new wars and he seems to have miscalculated very badly because he has forced Iran to respond, to take a revenge because this is such an insult to Iran as a nation. I can’t see any alternative. They’ll be seen as completely useless, completely weak if they don’t make some response. On the other hand, any response directly to US interests in the region is going to assure some sort of reaction as well.

20 Years Since he Destroyed Yugoslavia And 16 Years Since he Destroyed Iraq, Tony Blair Remains a Menace to Peace — Eurasia Future

When it comes to the art of deception, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a genius worthy of the worst nightmares of Eric Blair (known more commonly by his pen name George Orwell). But while Eric Blair once wrote that “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”, […] The post 20 Years…

via 20 Years Since he Destroyed Yugoslavia And 16 Years Since he Destroyed Iraq, Tony Blair Remains a Menace to Peace — Eurasia Future

The Judgment of Jeremy Corbyn

The Judgment of Jeremy Corbyn

MARTIN SIEFF | 13.08.2018 | WORLD / EUROPE

The Judgment of Jeremy Corbyn

For a man who is assailed and accused of lacking judgment even more than US President Donald Trump, it’s amazing how often British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has already been proven courageously and presciently right.

In 1990, Corbyn opposed the most powerful and successful peace time prime minster of the 20th century, Margaret Thatcher when she tried to impose a so-called poll tax on the population of the UK. His judgment was vindicated: Thatcher’s own party rose up and threw her out of office.

At the beginning of the 21st century Corbyn was pilloried throughout the UK media for his outspoken opposition to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support for the US invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Blair was prime minister for a full decade and won three landslide general elections, yet today he is discredited and politically virtually a recluse. Corbyn‘s opposition to both wars looks wise, as well as principled and courageous.

Corbyn’s support for the revolutionary Irish Republican movement was so strong that the UK security service MI5 monitored him for two decades listing him as a potential “subversive” who might undermine parliamentary democracy. On the contrary, in the late 1990s, Prime Minister Blair engaged the Irish Republican Army and its political wing Sinn Fein in a peace process that has led to a lasting peace in Ireland. Corbyn, who supported strongly the 1998 Good Friday Agreement proved once again to be ahead of his time.

Corbyn has never been afraid of taking ferociously unpopular positions. In 2015, after shocking Islamic State terror attacks in Paris he advocated the urgent need for a political settlement to end the Syrian Civil War. His advice was ignored by every major Western government. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions more turned into destitute refugees flooding into the European Union since then.

Corbyn was also ahead of his time in seeking to engage Iran constructively. He hosted a call-in show on an Iranian TV channel for three years from 2009 to 2012 even though he knew that at the time such activities would seem to rule him out from ever being a serious contender to lead the Labour Party. But in 2015, the Conservative government of the UK, along with those of the United States, France and Germany joined in signing a far reaching nuclear agreement with Tehran.

Corbyn’s economic positions have long been despised by the Western liberal intellectual elites who have been spared the price of having their livelihoods destroyed by such policies. He strongly advocates using the power of government to encourage the rebuilding of major national industries and manufacturing power. These views are hardly radical, Robert Skidelsky, one of the most influential UK economists of the past generation has given significant support to Corbyn’s proposal of a National Investment Bank. These policies are neither Marxist nor revolutionary. But they can certainly be described as Social Democratic and humane.

Corbyn is no unprincipled careerist either. In voting his convictions and his conscience, he puts 99 percent of the UK parliamentarians of his generation to shame. Between 1997 and 2010, during the Labour governments of Blair and Gordon Brown, Corbyn voted most often against the official party line than any other member of parliament (MP) – a total of 428 times and an astonishing figure. In 2005 he was labeled the second most rebellious Labour MP of all time when his party ran the country.

One of the few areas Corbyn was clearly ambiguous on was the question of whether the UK should remain in the 28-nation European Union or leave it, and even here his ambivalence appeared honestly come by and reflected the genuine divisions in his country. Corbyn recognized the enormous differences between both extremes that have been tearing the British public apart on the EU issue.

Ironically, only Donald Trump in the United States – a figure for whom Corbyn certainly has no personal or policy sympathy whatsoever – is comparable to the degree to which he has defied the Conventional Wisdoms of the political media establishment yet done impressively well in fighting elections that were supposed to be impossible.

In fact, the record and pattern of Corbyn’s career has been very clear: His real “crime”- which he has repeated consistently – is to be years, often decades, ahead of Conventional Wisdom.

In routine, tranquil times, people like Corbyn are usually seen as troublemakers or even as dangerous lunatics. But at times of crisis when the wisdom of mediocrities is exposed as worthless, such figures prove vital to national survival.

When told that General James Wolfe, the UK’s one brilliant general of the mid-18th century, was believed to be insane, King George II replied “Mad is he? Then I wish he’d bite some of my other generals!”

The UK political establishment has sneered at Jeremy Corbyn’s bark. Perhaps it is time they need to experience his bite.

War criminal Blair advising Saudi dictatorship

Source

By Middle East Eye

Ex-PM’s group said to reach ‘not for profit’ deal earlier this year to help support Saudi’s modernisation programme

Tony Blair is advising the Saudi government under a £9m ($11.8m) deal with his “institute for global change,” the Sunday Telegraph reported.

The former UK prime minister’s group reached an agreement earlier this year to help support Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman‘s modernisation programme under a “not for profit” arrangement, the Telegraph reported.

Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 is a programme of reforms intended to open up and diversify the kingdom’s oil-centric economy by selling public assets, including a stake in the world’s biggest oil producer, Aramco, and reinvesting the funds.

The deal is the first major agreement to have emerged involving the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), which Blair established in 2016 after winding down his commercial operations, the Telegraph said.

The newspaper said the institute received a $10m payment in January for the work, which is being carried out by its staff based in the Middle East.

The payment was made from Media Investment (MIL), a Guernsey-registered firm that is a subsidiary of the Saudi Research and Marketing Group, according to the Telegraph.

Sources told the newspaper that the total provided to the institute so far exceeded $12m. The funding is not mentioned on the institute’s website, in spite of a subsequent post praising Saudi Arabia and its crown prince.

Blair’s office said the institute was “under no duty to disclose donors or donations” and declined to say what discussions Blair had held with members of the Saudi royal family or government about the funding.

Asked about the deal, a spokesman confirmed to the Telegraph that TBI “has received a donation from MIL” for the “not for profit” work of the institution.

“We work to support the Saudi change programme,” the spokesman told the Telegraph, adding that the work would be included in the institute’s first annual report.

Last month in London, Blair reiterated a call for the West to ally with Russia to fight the threat of “terrorism”.

Blair said that although there would always be “disagreements” with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, the need to tackle militant activity made cooperation necessary.

Last July, a British court blocked an attempt by a former Iraqi general to bring a private prosecution against Blair over his government’s involvement in the Iraq war.

In 2016, Blair, who after leaving office embarked on a second career as a Middle East diplomat, was successful in hammering out a deal that saw Qatar pay $30m towards the wages of public-sector workers in Gaza, senior sources within Hamas told MEE.

PRESIDENT ASSAD BIDS A FOND FAREWELL TO WAR CRIMINAL OBAMA

Ziad Fadel

Image result for bashar al assad

With a big heave-ho and a blowing of a big Bronx cheer, Dr. Bashar Al-Assad, gave the boot to the noisome and leprotic former president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

He was the U.S. leader who always confidently stated that “Assad has no place in Syria’s future”.  Well, nimrod, where is your future?  Other than scamming institutions for speeches filled with empty platitudes, where is your place in Chicago’s sewers?  Obama has just joined the list of war criminals, imbeciles, genocidal freaks of nature – and with his entourage of inept spokesmen, “advisors”, secretaries and sycophants – in the twilight world of the accursed naysaying nihilists who populate that dimension of perjury somewhere in a sphincter that opens only for them.

Au revoir Sarkozy.  Arrivederci, Berlusconi.  Ta-ta, Cameron and Blair.  Auf Wiedersehen, Westervelle. Ma’ Al-Salaama ‘Abdullah, Hamad and Madame Banana.

And a good, rousing Bye to Rasmussen, George Sabra, Ghassan Hitto, Burhan Ghalyoon, Khaled Khoja, the ‘Alloosh Brothers, Zahraan and Muhammad, Ban Ki-Myun.  Hasta la vista, Zapatero.

And let’s not forget Mark Toner, Kirby, John Kerry and that nincompoop par excellence, Josh Earnest.

Fare thee well, Morsi, enjoy oblivion in an Egyptian prison.  Sayonara, Davutoghlu.  And, not to forget, Khalomoot Paaz, Simon Perske (Peres).

Image result for flipping the bird

And now, A BIG MIDDLE FINGER UP FOR THAT PSYCHOPATH WHO INFESTED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR 8 YEARS: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.  Good riddance to bad rubbish, we always say.  Burn in Hell!  Grrrrrrrrr. You swine.

___________________________________________

NEWS AND COMMENT:

Curious article by MIri Wood from Waf Halabi describing the odd coverage of Trump’s presidency in the Zionist Apartheid State and an historical list of Zionist misdeeds for those of you who are archivists:

http://www.syrianews.cc/israel-media-hype-trump-dangerous

Long, but excellent analysis of the brain-freeze in the MSM, the opponents of Syria and the established imperialist network.  Sent by Alexander Ajay, it Is a compelling and articulate analysis by Louis Allday:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2016/allday131216.html
Read more

Related Picture

 

Related Videos

Assad speaking to Arab Leaders before the invasion of Iraq

Clinton: Assad must go

Aug 18, 2011

Related Articles

President Assad’s Swiss SRF 1 TV Interview, October 19, 2016

 

The Syria Times

President Assad’s Swiss SRF 1 TV Interview, October 19, 2016

H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad stressed that protecting civilians in Aleppo necessitates getting rid of the terrorists.

Speaking in an interview with the Swiss SRF 1 TV channel, President Assad said “Of course, it’s our mission according to the constitution and the law. We have to protect the people, and we have to get rid of those terrorists in Aleppo. That’s how we can protect civilians.”

He added that it goes without saying that the way to protect the civilians in Aleppo is to attack the terrorists who hold the civilians under their control and are killing them.

 Following is the full text of the interview, as published by SANA:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for having welcomed Swiss Television and our program Rundschau here in Damascus.

President Assad: You are most welcome in Syria.

Question 1: First, please, allow me to clarify one thing: may I ask you every question?

President Assad: Every question, without exception.

Question 2: I’m asking because one of your conditions is that interview is being broadcast in its full version. Are you afraid that we might manipulate your statements?

President Assad: You should answer that question, but I think we should build this relation upon the trust, and I think you are worried about the trust of your audience, so I don’t think so. I think you have good reputation in conveying the truth in every subject you try to cover.

Question 3: Do you see it as a lie, that the world considers you as to be a war criminal?

President Assad: That depends on what the reference in defining that word. Is it the international law, or is it the Western agenda or the Western political mood, let’s say, that’s being defined by vested-interests politicians in the West? According to the international law, as a President and as government and as Syrian Army, we are defending our country against the terrorists that have been invading Syria as proxies to other countries. So, if you want to go back to that word, the “war criminal,” I think the first one who should be tried under that title are the Western officials; starting with George Bush who invaded Iraq without any mandate from the Security Council. Second, Cameron and Sarkozy who invaded and destroyed Libya without mandate from the Security Council. Third, the Western officials who are supporting the terrorists during the last five years in Syria, either by providing them with political umbrella, or supporting them directly with armaments, or implementing embargo on the Syrian people that has led to the killing of thousands of Syrian civilians.

Question 4: But we are here to talk about your role in this war, and the US

Secretary of State John Kerry called you “Adolf Hitler” and “Saddam Hussein” in the same breath. Does it bother you?

President Assad: No, because they don’t have credibility. This is first of all. Second, for me as President, what I care about first and foremost is how the Syrian people look at me; second, my friends around the world – not my personal friends as President, I mean our friends as Syrians, like Russia, like Iran, like China, like the rest of the world – not the West, the West always tried to personalize things, just to cover the real goals which is about deposing government and getting rid of a certain president just to bring puppets to suit their agenda. So, going back to the beginning, no I don’t care about what Kerry said, at all. It has no influence on me.

 

Question 5: You’re the President of a country whose citizens are fleeing, half of your fellow citizens. The people are not only fleeing because of the terrorists, of ISIS, or the rebels, but also because of you.

President Assad: What do you mean by me? I’m not asking people to leave Syria, I’m not attacking people; I’m defending the people. Actually, the people are leaving Syria for two reasons: first reason is the action of the terrorists, direct action in killing the people. The second one is the action of the terrorists in order to paralyze the life in Syria; attacking schools, destroying infrastructure in every sector. Third, the embargo of the West that pressed many Syrians to find their livelihood outside Syria. These are the main reasons. If you can see that the second factor and the third factor are related, I mean the role of the terrorists and the West in undermining and hurting the livelihoods of the Syrians, is one and, let’s say, is commonality between the terrorists and Europe.

Question 6: When you speak of terrorists, who do you mean by that? Surely ISIS, but also the “Free Syrian Army” or the Kurds?

President Assad: What I mean is like what you mean as a Swiss citizen, if you have anyone who carries machineguns or armaments and killing people under any titles, and committed vandalism, destroying public or private properties; this is a terrorist. Anyone who adopts a political way in order to make any change he wants, this is not a terrorist. You can call him opposition. But you cannot call somebody who is killing people or holding armaments, you cannot call him opposition, in your country, in my country as well.

Question 7: Well, you don’t have any free opposition in your country.

President Assad: Of course we have, of course we have. We have real opposition, we have people who live in Syria, whom their grassroots are the Syrian people, they’re not opposition who were forged in other countries like France or UK or Saudi Arabia or Turkey. We have them, and you can go and meet them and deal with them with your camera. You can do that yourself.

Question 8: How do you explain to your three children what is happening in

Aleppo? I’m sure that you are discussing about it at the family table.

President Assad: Yeah, of course if I’m going to explain to them, I’m going to explain about what is happening in Syria, not only in Aleppo, taking into consideration that my children are full-grown now, they understand what is going on Syria. But if you want to explain to them or to any other child what is happening, I’m going to explain about the role of the terrorists, about the role of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia in supporting those terrorists with money, with logistic support, and the role of the West in supporting those terrorists either through armament or through helping them with the propaganda and the publicity. I’m going to explain to them in full what’s going on.

Question 9: Do you, as a father, also say that you have nothing to do with the bombardments of the hospitals in Aleppo?

President Assad: Look, when they say that we are bombarding the hospitals, it means that we are killing civilians. That is the meaning of the word. The question is why would the government kill civilians, whether in hospitals or in streets or schools or anywhere? You are talking about killing Syrians. When we kill Syrians, as a government, or as army, the biggest part of the Syrian society will be against us. You cannot succeed in your war if you are killing civilians. So, this story, and this narrative, is a mendacious narrative, to be frank with you. Of course, unfortunately, every war is a bad war, in every war you have innocent victims, whether children, women, elderly, any other civilian, any other innocent who is not part of this war, he could pay the price, this is unfortunately. That’s why we have to fight terrorism. When we don’t say that, it’s like saying – according to that question or that narrative, that you may reflect in your question – that the terrorists, Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, are protecting the civilians, and we as government are killing the civilians. Who can believe that story? No one.

Question 10: But who else got airplanes or bunker-busting bombs besides your army?

President Assad: It’s like you’re saying that everyone who is killed in Syria was killed by the airplanes or aircrafts, military aircrafts! The majority of the people were killed by mortars shelled by the terrorists on them while they’re at schools, in their hospitals, in the streets, anywhere. It’s not related to the aerial bombardment. Sometimes you have aerial bombardment against the terrorists, but that doesn’t mean that every bomb that fell somewhere was by airplane or by the Syrian Army. If you are talking about a specific incident, let’s say, we have to verify that specific incident, but I’m answering you in general now.

Question 11: But you have the power to change the situation also for the children in Aleppo.

President Assad: Of course, that’s why-

Journalist: Will you do that?

President Assad: Exactly, that’s our mission, according to the constitution, according to the law; that we have to protect the people, that we have to get rid of those terrorists from Aleppo. This is where we can protect the civilians. How can you protect them while they are under the control of the terrorists? They’ve been killed by them, and they’ve been controlled fully by the terrorists. Is it our role to sit aside and watch? Is that how we can protect the Syrian people? We need to attack the terrorists, that’s self-evident.

Question 12: May I show you a picture?

President Assad: Of course.

Journalist: This young boy has become the symbol of the war. I think that you know this picture.

President Assad: Of course I saw it.

Journalist: His name is Omran. Five years old.

President Assad: Yeah.

Journalist: Covered with blood, scared, traumatized. Is there anything you would like to say to Omran and his family?

President Assad: There’s something I would like to say to you first of all, because I want you to go back after my interview, and go to the internet to see the same picture of the same child, with his sister, both were rescued by what they call them in the West “White Helmets” which is a facelift of al-Nusra in Aleppo. They were rescued twice, each one in a different incident, and just as part of the publicity of those White Helmets. None of these incidents were true. You can have it manipulated, and it is manipulated. I’m going to send you those two pictures, and they are on the internet, just to see that this is a forged picture, not a real one. We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one in specific is a forged one.

Question 13: But it’s true that innocent civilians are dying, in Aleppo.

President Assad: Of course, not only in Aleppo; in Syria. But now you are talking about Aleppo, because the whole hysteria in the West about Aleppo, for one reason; not because Aleppo is under siege, because Aleppo has been under siege for the last four years by the terrorists, and we haven’t heard a question by Western journalists about what’s happening in Aleppo that time, and we haven’t heard a single statement by Western officials regarding the children of Aleppo. Now, they are talking about Aleppo recently just because the terrorists are in a bad shape. This is the only reason, because the Syrian Army are making advancement, and the Western countries – mainly the United States and its allies like UK and France – feeling that they are losing the last cards of terrorism in Syria, and the main bastion of that terrorism today is Aleppo.

Question 14: Everything is allowed in this war for you.

President Assad: No, of course, you have the international law, you have the human rights charter, you have to obey. But in every war, every war in the world during the history, you cannot make sure a hundred percent that you can control everything in that direction. You always have flaws, that’s why I said every war is a bad war. But there’s difference between individual mistakes and the policy of the government. The policy of the government, to say that we are attacking civilians, we are attacking hospitals, we are attacking schools, we are doing all these atrocities, that’s not possible, because you cannot work or go against your interests. You cannot go against your duty toward the people, otherwise you are going to lose the war as a government. You cannot withstand such a ferocious war for five years and a half while you are killing your own people. That’s impossible. But you always have mistakes, whether it’s about crossfire, it’s about individual mistakes… bring me a war, a single war in the recent history, that it was a clean war. You don’t have.

Question 15: Do you have made any mistakes too in this war?

President Assad: As President I define the policy of the country, according to our policy, the main pillars of this policy during the crisis is to fight terrorism, which I think is correct and we will not going to change it, of course, to make dialogue between the Syrians, and I think which is correct, the third one which is proven to be effective during the last two years is the reconciliations; local reconciliations with the militants who have been holding machineguns against the people and against the government and against the army, and this one has, again, proven that it’s a good step. So, these are the pillars of this policy. You cannot talk about mistakes in this policy. You can talk about mistakes in the implementation of the policy, that could be related to the individuals.

Question 16: You still believe in a diplomatic solution?

President Assad: Definitely, but you don’t have something called diplomatic solution or military solution; you have solution, but every conflict has many aspects, one of them is the security, like our situation, and the other one is in the political aspect of this solution. For example, if you ask me about how can you deal with Al Qaeda, with al-Nusra, with ISIS? Is it possible to make negotiations with them? They won’t make, they’re not ready to, they wouldn’t. They have their own ideology, repugnant ideology, so you cannot make political solution with this party; you have to fight them, you have to get rid of them. While if you talk about dialogue, you can make dialogue with two entities; the first one, political entities, any political entities, whether with or against or in the middle, and with every militant who is ready to give in his armament for the sake of the security or stability in Syria. Of course we believe in it.

Question 17: There are news from Russia about a short humanitarian pause in Aleppo on Thursday, what does it mean this humanitarian pause, can you explain?

President Assad: It’s a short halting of operations in order to allow the humanitarian supply to get into different areas in Aleppo, and at the same time to allow the civilians who wanted to leave the terrorist-held areas to move to the government-controlled area.

Question 18: This is really a step, an important step?

President Assad: Of course, it is an important step as a beginning, but it’s not enough. It’s about the continuation; how can you allow those civilians to leave. The majority of them wanted to leave the area held by the terrorists, but they won’t allow them. They either shoot them or they kill their families if they leave that area.

Question 19: Russia is on your side, what does it mean for you?

President Assad: No, it’s not on my side. It’s on the international law’s side. It’s on the other side which is opposite to the terrorists’ side. This is the position of Russia, because they wanted to make sure that the international law prevails, not the Western agenda in toppling every government that doesn’t fit with their agendas. They wanted to make sure that the terrorism doesn’t prevail in that area, that would affect negatively the Russians themselves, Russia itself as a country, and Europe and the rest of the world. That’s what it means for Russia to stand beside the legitimate Syrian government and the Syrian people.

Question 20: Mr. President, you use chemical weapons and barrel bombs in Syria against your own population, these are UN reports, you can’t ignore it.

President Assad: You are talking about two different issues. The chemical issue, it was proven to be false, and they haven’t a shred of evidence about the Syrian Army using chemical weapons, particularly before we give up our arsenal in 2013, now we don’t have it anyway. Before that, it was fiction because if you want to use such mass destruction armaments, you’re going to kill thousands of people in one incident, and we didn’t have such incidents. Beside that, we wouldn’t use it because you’re going to kill your own people, and that’s against your interest. So, this is a false allegation. We don’t have to waste our time with it. You live in Syria, there is a traditional war, but there is nothing related to mass destruction armaments.

Journalist: But the UN report is not a fiction.

President Assad: The UN report never has been credible, never, and because they put reports based on allegations, based on other reports, on forged reports, and they say this is a report. Did they send a delegation to make investigation? They sent one in 2013, and it couldn’t prove at all that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. This is first. The second, which is more important, the first incident happened at the beginning of 2013 in Aleppo, when we said that the terrorists used chemical weapons against our army, and we invited the United Nations to send a delegation. We, we did, and at that time, the United States opposed that delegation because they already knew that this investigation – of course if it’s impartial – is going to prove that those terrorists, their proxies, used chemical armaments against the Syrian Army. Regarding the barrel bombs, I want to ask you: what is the definition of barrel bomb? If you go to our army, you don’t have in our records something called “barrel bomb,” so how do you understand – just to know how I can answer you – what a barrel bomb is? We have bombs.

Journalist: The destruction… it’s the destruction, and it is against humanitarian law.

President Assad: Every bomb can make destruction, every bomb, so you don’t have bomb to make nothing. So, this is a word that has been used in West as part of the Western narrative in order to show that there is an indiscriminate bomb that has been killing civilians indiscriminately and that opposes the Western narrative, I’ll show you the contradiction: in other areas they say that we are bombarding intentionally the hospitals, and you mentioned that, and they are targeting intentionally the schools, and we targeted intentionally the convoys to Aleppo last month, those targets need high-precision missiles. So, they have to choose which part of the narrative; we either have indiscriminate bombs or we have high-precision bombs. They keep contradicting in the same narrative, this is the Western reality now. So, which one to choose? I can answer you, but again, we don’t have any indiscriminate bombs. If we kill people indiscriminately, it means we are losing the war because people will be against us; I cannot kill the Syrian people, either morally or for my interest, because in that case I’m going to push the Syrian community and society towards the terrorists, not vice versa.

Question 21: I would like to mention the subject of torture prisons, Mr. President. Amnesty speaks of seventeen thousands dead. Regarding the prison of Saidnaya, there are still horrible reports. When will you allow an independent observer into that prison?

President Assad: Independent, and Amnesty International is not independent and it is not impartial.

Journalist: ICRC?

President Assad: We didn’t discuss it with the Red Cross, we didn’t discuss it. It should be discussed in our institutions, if you want to allow… if there is allegation, it could be discussed. We don’t say yes or no, but the report you have mentioned, it was a report made by Qatar, and financed by Qatar. You don’t know the source, you don’t know the names of those victims, nothing verified about that report. It was paid by Qatar directly in order to vilify and smear the Syrian government and the Syrian Army.

Journalist: But there are a lot of eyewitnesses.

President Assad: No one knows who are they. You don’t have anything clear about that. It’s not verified. So, no.

Journalist: Then open the door for organizations like Red Cross.

President Assad: It’s not my decision to tell you yes or no. We have institutions, if we need to discuss this part, we need to go back to the institutions before saying yes or no.

Question 22: Why are you sure that you are going to win this war?

President Assad: Because you have to defend your country, and you have to believe that you can win the war to defend your country. If you don’t have that belief, you will lose. You know, part of the war is what you believe in, so, it’s self-evident and very intuitive that you have to have that belief.

Question 23: If you walk through Damascus, your picture is everywhere, in every shop, in every restaurant, in every car, a symbol for a dictator, is this your way to fix your power?

President Assad: There is a difference between dictator and dictatorship. Dictator is about the person. I didn’t ask anyone to put my picture in Syria, I never did it. This is first. Second, to describe someone as a dictator, you should ask his people, I mean only his people can say that he is a dictator or he is a good guy.

Journalist: Thank you Mr. President for having answered our questions for Swiss Television and the Rundschau.

President Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.

Related Videos

Related Articles

UK’s actions over Syria as illegal as Iraq invasion, ‘Momentum’ backs wrong side & Corbyn is as quiet as a church mouse

Syria, WW3 and the Silence of Jeremy

Nick Kollerstrom — Terror on the Tube Oct 15, 2016

boris-johnsonFor the first time, Britain has produced an utterly clueless Foreign Secretary.
Maybe, Boris was OK as Mayor of London.
Not surprisingly, he concurs with what Kerry tells him, and is now calling for a more ‘kinetic’ approach to the Syrian conflict – i.e., to threaten war with Russia.
Its all so exciting isn’t it Boris?
This is a golden opportunity for Our Jeremy. The Lion-hearted Jeremy. All those years we’ve heard his roar on the anti-war demos…. but now, is he entrapped by his own party? We are hurt by his terrible silence.
Boris Johnson has called for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy. Is that how a Foreign Secretary should behave? Where does this leave Russian diplomats in London?  That is encouraging race hate – Russians are Slavs. Isn’t that a crime? Jeremy, speak up!
As Wikileaks has revealed, for years the US has aggressively pursued regime change in Syria, which has ignited the present bloodbath.

Here is a fine summary of the crisis over Aleppo, as reported in the Boston Globe:

‘For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.
Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”
This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.
This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.
UK citizens are being given a wholly untruthful storyline here, as if trying to stimulate WW3. What a golden opportunity for Jeremy to speak out, against the war-hawks!
But wait, The hard-left group ‘Momentum’ are trying to pressure Jeremy to speak out – condemning Putin and Assad!  They, it claims, have caused  ’the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths.’ Their letter to him spoke of the ‘horrific crimes’ of Assad.
Erm, no.
The letter to Corbyn from Momentum is totally Blairite! A ‘hands off Syria’ policy, it says, will only give Assad carte blanche to continue slaughtering his own people. We heard that crap from Blair when he was starting the Iraq war – Saddam Hussein is so evil, he even gasses his own people. Then we heard it about Ghadaffy – he keeps bombing his own people, we’ve got to stop it. So Libya was destroyed. Now its Assad’s turn.

Stop the War loonies

Last Weekend Our Jeremy was heckled at a Stop the War, for failing to call for regime change! But, did not Assad just recently win a fair election with around 70% of the vote? Why do Britons believe they have a right to call for other countries’ ‘regime change’?
Here are some comments on the Mail’s article about this Stop the War meeting, the ‘best rated’:
There would be no war in Syrian if America and UK never went in with the bombs, and protected, funded, supported, trained and supplied….I* S* I* S rebels!
Do they want to see Assad suffer the same fate as Iraqi and Libyan leaders. Assad is still the Syrian President, world leaders should be talking to him, not trying to kill him.
Syria regime change is for the Syrians to decide. You don’t arm rebels and mercenaries from all over the world and send them to Syria to change the regime.
Peace activists! What kind of peace activist would demand regime change after catastrophes in Iraq and Libya? These are infiltrators and that was so obvious.
The sort who are bankrolled by Globalist Billionaires, intent on flooding Europe with migrants.
     C’mon Jeremy, speak for the Peace Movement – not the Other Side.
 Alas, Jeremy has now thrown Red Ken to the wolves, chuckled him off Labour’s NEC because of some whining Jews, after Ken had made a totally historically-correct statement about the Hasbara agreement between Jews and Nazis in the 1930s. (Ken also added, ‘The creation of the State of Israel was a great catastrophe’) Jeremy and Red Ken had been together for decades, always part of the same anti-war struggle. This is a moment when Jeremy would really need advice, guidance and support from his old friend Ken Livingstone.
Labor needs a policy in accord with international law – not piracy.

The Voice of Reason

And this – every Labour MP needs to view this:

RAF in Syria

What the hell are RAF planes doing, flying over Syria? Its a sovereign state and they have no right under international law to do this. The RAF calls this ‘Operation Shader’ and say its for ‘anti-ISIS work in Iraq and Syria.’ Will they attack Russian planes? A pilot may do so: “if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. ” So RAF Tornado pilots illegally flying over Syria can now start WW3.
Presumably this is the ‘kinetic’ approach to the crisis that Boris Johnson has called for.

 

Source

The Killings of Tony Blair

Watch the trailer for George Galloway’s film about the former Bitish  PM

 

Chilcot Inquiry: the Evidence of the Collapse of the American Empire

Syrian Free Press

In the UK, the official report of the government commission headed by Sir John Chilcot on the Iraq war was published. The Chilcot inquiry demonstrated officially that the UK’s invasion of Iraq was conducted under US pressure and was contrary to the national interests of the country.

Chilcot Inquiry-Evidence Collapse American Empire

By Katehon

There was no reason to invade Iraq

The Chilcot inqury notes that there was no real reason for the invasion in Iraq.

It clearly says:

The decision to use force – a very serious decision for any government to take -provoked profound controversy in relation to Iraq and became even more controversial when it was subsequently found that Iraq’s programmes to develop and produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons had been dismantled

In the inquiry’s view, diplomatic options had not at that stage been exhausted.

Iraq was not linked with international terrorist networks. The country did not possess weapons of mass destruction that could be used in terrorist acts and posed no threat to the UK. Such was the view of the UK intelligence community:

Sir David Omand, the Security and Intelligence Co ordinator in the Cabinet Office from 2002 to 2005, told the Inquiry that, in March 2002, the Security Service judged that the “threat from terrorism from Saddam’s own intelligence apparatus in the event of an intervention in Iraq … was judged to be limited and containable “.

Saddam’s “capability to conduct effective terrorist attacks” was “very limited”. Iraq’s “terrorism capability” was “inadequate to carry out chemical or biological attacks beyond individual assassination attempts using poisons”.

Britain did not consider Iraq as a threat to its national security.


The UK’s leadership knew all about the consequences

The report confirms that the UK intelligence community presented the Prime Minister with all the necessary analytics about the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq.

In particular, it was noted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein could lead to a sharp increase in Islamic extremists, transforming the kingdom into a priority for their purpose, mass casualties, and the fragmentation of Iraq.

Mr Blair had been advised that an invasion of Iraq was expected to increase the threat to the UK and the UK’s interests from Al Qaeda and its affiliates:

Addressing the prospects for the future, the JIC Assessment concluded:

“… Al Qaeda and associated groups will continue to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat will be heightened by military action against Iraq. The broader threat from Islamist terrorists will also increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti US / anti Western sentiment in

the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the West. And there is a risk that the transfer of CB [chemical and biological] material or expertise, during or in the aftermath of conflict, will enhance Al Qaeda’s capabilities. “


The invasion was an act of aggression based on deliberately lies

The invasion was based on deliberate lies and manipulation of public opinion. Sir John Chilcot declared while presenting the results of inquiry that the UK’s policy was based on “flawed intelligence and assessments,” they were not challenged and they should have been. “

The UK deliberately distorted facts about the alleged threat posed by Iraq. In particular, Jack Straw, British Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, insisted on the distortion of information in official documents, in order to convince other policy-makers and the public of the need for action in Iraq:

When he saw the draft paper on WMD countries of concern on March 8, Mr Straw commented:

“Good, but should not Iraq be first and also have more text? The paper has to show why there is an exceptional threat from Iraq. It does not quite do this yet. “

On 18 March, Mr Straw decided that a paper on Iraq should be issued before one addressing other countries of concern.

On March 22, Mr Straw was advised that the evidence would not convince public opinion that there was an imminent threat from Iraq. Publication was postponed.


The US’ puppets

The only reason to invade Iraq was the strong commitment to the US to do so. The report clearly shows how the rhetoric and the view of the British leadership on Iraq changed – the strategy called for smart sanctions before the invasion under the influence of the American side. At the same time, British Intelligence reported that Iraq poses no real danger or supports terrorists. Blair’s decision to invade Iraq was influenced by his interest in protecting the UK’s relationship with the United States, Chilcot said. The unconditional support was justified by:

Concern that vital areas of co operation between the UK and the US could be damaged if the UK did not give the US its full support over Iraq.

The belief that the best way to influence US policy towards the direction preferred by the UK was to commit full and unqualified support, and seek to persuade from the inside.

Thus, officially the main reason for the British invasion of Iraq was the dependence on the United States by the United Kingdom. The Commission does not oppose a pro-American orientation, but contrary declaratively supports it. However, it noted that relations with the US “do not require unconditional support where our interests and judgments differ,” said Chilcot.


The winds of change

Formally, the Chilcot inquiry should have been made public seven years ago. Its publication was postponed several times because of the position of the United States. And now it became public. Thus, it reflects the decline of US hegemony: the most loyal ally – the UK – the last two years shows that the collapse of the US-based system is a question of time and prepares for a new world.

The publication of the official report, the commission established by the initiative of Gordon Brown’s government, in which the argument of the opponents of the invasion of Iraq 13 years ago (primarily Russia) is openly repeated, became only possible in one case – if a part of the British elite is eager to distance themselves from the United States, their policies, and those inside the elite who have too close ties with the United States. The fact that in the UK there are those who look towards a post-American future demonstrates the tight integration of the owners of the British Rothschild finance with China, and Britain’s decision to participate in the Chinese project of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, contrary to the will of the United States.

This is also evidenced by the results of the referendum on EU membership. Brexit and the honest counting of votes would not have taken place without the support of the elites. At the same time, the US openly opposed Brexit. Now the UK referendum and the uncertainty after it freezes the establishment’s Transatlantic Free Trade Area. At the same time the United Kingdom is excluded from the negotiations on the agreement the entire time it is still in a state of transition. Paradoxically, the United Kingdom has consistently implemented steps to turn it away from the US-centric world. However this does not reflect the whole picture, officially it is the biggest American ally, but it seems to be an important trend. The most plausible explanation is the desire to be buried under the rubble of the American empire.

It should be recalled that the United Kingdom voluntarily became a satellite of the United States, handing to the Americans the role of the Sea Power. So nothing will prevent it from leaving the US when it deems it necessary. The weakening of the United States is the introduction of new rules of the game. And these rules are best created when the process only becomes irreversible. And changes in Britain demonstrate this irreversibility. Brexit, and the very course of the discussion around it, the ambiguous position of London in relations between Washington and Beijing, and now the report on the Iraq war, which may be followed by the trial of Tony Blair, gives London an array of new opportunities to influence policies in Europe and globally.


war-criminals-rid

~ WHEN THEY’LL PUT ON TRIAL AS A WAR CRIMINAL CAMERON AND ALL THE ROYAL FAMILY?

~ AND WHEN BUSH (FATHER AND SON), OBAMA AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIONS, AND THE ZIONIST MASS MURDERERS?

~ 20 YEARS FROM NOW? WHEN THE WORLD WILL BE ALREADY PERMANENTLY DESTROYED?

(questions by SFP-WP)

war-criminals-rid-2

bibi-war-criminal


SOURCES:
By Katehon
Submitted by SyrianPatriots 
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/chilcot-inquiry/
~

Chilcot Report on Iraq War: Whitewashes Jewish Lobby

On July 6, UK’s five-member panel headed by Sir John Chilcot admitted after seven years what most political-aware people knew by the end of 2003 that former prime minister Tony Blair’s joined American invasion of Iraq in 2003 on Purim night which was totally wrong as Saddam Hussein didn’t possessed WMDs or threatened to invade United Kingdom.

Tony Blair who made tens of millions of dollars after the Iraq War, was rewarded by heading several international forums and lately appointed by Europe’s Organized Jewry to fight anti-Semitism in Europe has refused to show remorse for killing over one million Iraqi civilians. He insists that he did it to save Brits from their own 9/11.

Tony Blair had always insisted that the on-going bloodshed in Iraq had nothing to do with US-UK invasion of the country, and that it was making of Arabs themselves. British veteran reporter and author Alan Hart wrote in January 2010:

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s testimony before the Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war marks him down once more as a war criminal. His testimony made clear that he collaborated in preparing an illegal war of aggression, in line with the policy of pre-emptive war elaborated by the Bush administration in the United States (here).”

The Chilcot report’s while accused Tony Blair and UK’s military brass, ignored the major part played by the country’s powerful Jewish Lobby and the Zionist regime to push Britain into Iraq War based on lies cooked-up by Israel’s intelligence agencies (here). In 2003 some intelligence experts insisted that the Iraq’s WMD dossier was initially produced in Tel Aviv and only ‘sexed up’ in London.

The Jewish criminals behind Tony Blair’s Middle East policy were billionaire Lord Michael Levy, Peter Henry Goldsmith, Blair’s Attorney General, and Israel’s main propaganda outlet Jewish Chronicle’s David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen. In addition to that, two members of the Chilcot inquiry, Sir Martin Gilbert (met Lucifer in course of inquiry), and Sir Lawrence Freedman are Israel-First Zionist Jews filled with hatred toward Muslims. Baroness Usha Kumari Parashar, a third member of inquiry, doesn’t care how many Iraqis died as long as they’re not Hindus. Same could be said about the fourth member, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and Sir Roderic Lyne, the vice-president of Chatham House, an Israeli advocacy think tank.

They’re all handpicked by Crypto-Jew Gordon Brown.

The Chilcot Report gave the British public what it wanted. It blamed Blair for failing in his responsibilities to them. But the report’s focus on Blair, diplomacy, the military and  intelligence failures concealed the Jewish Lobby that was pulling the strings. Since the Iraq war, the same Jewish Lobby has mounted enormous pressure on western governments, promoting more Zio-centic interventionist wars in Syria, Libya and Iran,” Gilad Atzmon wrote on July 7, 2016.

Iraq War Report Whitewash: No War Crime Charges against Bush and Blair in The Hague

Chilcot, Israel and the Lobby

July 07, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

It took seven years for Sir Chilcot and his team to reach a set of conclusions that every Brit capable of thought understood back in November, 2003.

The inquiry produced a damning assessment of Blair’s conduct as well as the British military. But the Chilcot Inquiry failed to expose the crucial close ties between Blair’s criminal war, the Jewish Lobby and Israel.

At the time Britain entered the criminal war against Iraq, Blair’s chief funders were Lord ‘cashpoint’ Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). The prime advocates for the immoral interventionist war within the British press were Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen. The attorney general that gave the green light for the war was Lord Goldsmith.

In 2008 The Guardian revealed that the “Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial.” Israel was conspicuously engaged in the vast production of WMDs. If Britain and America had any genuine concerns about WMDs, bombing Tel Aviv would have been the way to go.

In 2003 some intelligence experts insisted that the Iraq’s WMD dossier was initially produced in Tel Aviv and only ‘sexed up’ in London.

Since the Iraq war, the same Jewish Lobby has mounted enormous pressure on western governments, promoting more Zio-centic interventionist wars in Syria, Libya and Iran. So why did the Chilcot Inquiry fail to address this topic?

This crucial failure by Chilcot was to be expected. In 2010, highly respected veteran British diplomat Oliver Miles had something to say about the Jewish make-up of the Chilcot Inquiry. Two out of the five members of the inquiry were Jews, pro war and Blair supporters.

This is what Miles wrote in the Independent:

 “Rather less attention has been paid to the curious appointment of two historians (which seems a lot, out of a total of five), both strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war. In December 2004 Sir Martin Gilbert, while pointing out that the “war on terror” was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill” – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the reputed architect of the “Blair doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.”

Oliver Miles point was valid, and proved correct. The Chilcot Inquiry wasn’t just destined to fail. It was designed to subvert any scrutiny of Israel and its hawkish pro war lobby.

The Chilcot Report gave the British public what it wanted. It blamed Blair for failing in his responsibilities to them. But the report’s focus on Blair, diplomacy, the military and  intelligence failures concealed the Lobby that was pulling the strings.

The ICC Will Not Prosecute Tony Blair, Others are Planning To

 photo blairkiller_zpsqeu4k78w.jpg

[ Ed. note – I have a feeling the Chilcot Inquiry report, due out tomorrow, is not going to be what a lot of people had hoped, and as noted by Felicity Arbuthnot in the article below, the International Criminal Court is unlikely to take any action against him in any event. Of course, the ICC is rather a disgrace. War criminals who have killed millions, rather than just a few thousands, seem forever immune from its prosecutions. And yes–interesting interpretation of international law the ICC gives in the article below!!! Soldiers who commit war crimes are fair game, it seems, but the criminal leaders who gave them their orders can’t be prosecuted “retrospectively.” How convenient. If Blair is to undergo any type of criminal prosecution it presumably will have to be in Britain or possibly Scotland. ]

By Felicity Arbuthnot

But then, once in a lifetime the longed for tidal wave of justice can rise up,and hope and history rhyme. Believe that a further shore is reachable from here. Believe in miracles.” (Seamus Heaney, 1939-2013, “The Cure at Troy.”)

In an astonishing revelation, the Daily Telegraph has established that Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague will examine the Chilcot Inquiry Report in to the Iraq invasion – due to be released on Wednesday 6th July:

“ … for evidence of abuse and torture by British soldiers but have already ruled out putting Tony Blair on trial for war crimes …” (1)

Whilst the Report is “expected to strongly criticize” Blair’s role in the illegal invasion:

It means individual soldiers could be prosecuted for war crimes but not Mr. Blair.

This, in spite of the fact that it is now confirmed that Blair’s commitment to George W. Bush’s determination to invade Iraq was made personally, a year before the assault, at a meeting at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, without the knowledge of Parliament. The ICC however, whilst considering the introduction of a crime of aggression, thus brining illegal invasions in to their legal remit – to which Bush and Blair’s actions would seemingly be relevant – would “not apply retrospectively.”

Thus, currently the:

“decision by the UK to go to war in Iraq falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction.”

Whilst any British or US soldier responsible for the litany of appalling crimes committed in Iraq should be pursued relentlessly – which has broadly been less than the case to date – the ultimate responsibility for the whole tragic disaster for which both countries’ leaders and military brass will surely be haunted throughout history, lies with those at the political top. Their blatant mistruths led to the invasion and its bloody, inhuman, ignorant, culturally clueless, unending aftermath. Of the ICC decision, Reg Keys, who stood against Blair in the 2005 election and whose twenty year old son, Tom was killed in Iraq said: “It makes me very angry. They don’t call him Teflon Tony for nothing.”

However, Anthony Charles Linton Blair, QC, will still have to spend a lot of time looking over his shoulder. In what the Daily Mail describes as: “a dramatic attempt to impeach Tony Blair for misleading Parliament over the Iraq war”, a cross party group of MPs are building support: “for an attempted prosecution of the former Prime Minister”, after Wednesday’s publication of the Inquiry’s findings. (2)

The MPs are using an ancient parliamentary power, unused since 1806 to bring Blair to trial in Parliament. The groups charge is that:

“he should be impeached over allegations (that) he breached his constitutional duties as Premier.”

His pivotal claims regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – which, he had asserted, could reach the West “in 45 minutes” had been “contradicted by his own intelligence (agencies) assessments”, points out the Mail. A parliamentary source told the Mail: “Impeachment is on our minds, but we will need to digest the Report.

There is definitely a feeling that Blair must be properly held to account for his actions in the run up to what was a disastrous war.” Not so much a war but the near annihilation of a sovereign nation without even the minimal wherewithal of self defense, many will reflect. If the impeachment attempt is approved by MPs, the defendant is delivered the top parliamentary ceremonial official, known as Black Rod, ahead of a trial.

“A simple majority is required to convict, at which point a sentence can be passed, which could, in theory, involve Mr. Blair being sent to prison.”

The MPs are not alone in their potential plans. Whatever the Chilcot Report may lack in judgmental findings, it will deliver to relevant legal experts a wealth of potential for civil litigation against all responsible for crimes against sovereignty, humanity, the peace – and what many will argue has been genocide.

The Chilcot Inquiry is 2.6 million words. Many figures show that between the embargo, the 1991 desert slaughter, the silent holocaust of the residual deaths from the Depleted Uranium weapons (radioactive residue 4.5 million years) and the 2003 invasion – massacres ongoing -that may represent less than one word for every Iraqi death.

Notes  

1.    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/02/outrage-as-war-crimes-prosecutors-say-tony-blair-will-not-be-inv/

2.    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670751/MPs-say-ll-use-ancient-law-impeach-Tony-Blair-misleading-Parliament-Iraq-war-wake-Chilcot-report.html

Tony Blair: Arabs are ready to recognize Israel

Rehmat

On May 24, UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair spoke to Bronwen Maddox, editor-in-chief London-based Jewish monthly Prospect magazine. He said that Arab regimes are ready to establish diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv if Israeli regime accept the “2002 Saudi Initiative” – proposing that if Israel withdraw its occupation forces from the West Bank and Gaza, and recognize ‘Palestinians Right of Return’ – 22 member states of the Arab League wouldn’t mind foreign Jews occupying more than 80% of the historic Palestine.

With the new leadership in the region, today that is possible,” Blair said, citing Egyptian President Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a Crypto-Jew.

Things have changed a lot since 2002. Saudi ‘royals’ have been spotted sleeping inside Israeli bed lately from being scared of rising Iranian influence in the region. Egypt and Jordan have already established diplomatic relations with the Zionist entity. However, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq have stuck in Riyadh throat as they have joined Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’ against Israel and its allies.

Interestingly, in August 2015, former US president Jimmy Carter told  Bronwen Maddox that there was ZERO chance of the so-called Two-state solution as long as Netanyahu is in power.

Last week, Gen. al-Sisi called on Israeli officials and the Palestinians to groups what he termed a “real opportunity” for peace, since Netanyahu appointed Russian-born extremist Jew Avigdor Lieberman as entity’s new defense minister to replace Gen. Moshe ‘Bogie’ Ya’alon.

Blair was referring to latest France Jewish government’s proposed “Peace Talks” between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas whose mandate as president of Palestinian Authority expired in January 2009. None of the so-called “Peace Talks” arranged by the US or EU in the past involved Palestinians’ elected government of Hamas in Gaza. The French offer to attend the meeting in Paris was rejected by Netanyahu on Monday for the second time.

Tony Blair also touched on US-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, saying it’s because of “misunderstanding”, which resulted in the failure of “Mission Accomplished”. The Shi’ite regimes installed by the US occupation forces to replace Saddam Hussein have turned out to be more pro-Iran, and anti-Israel.

Democrat presidential hopeful, Bernie Sanders, has acknowledged that he was against removal of Saddam Hussein because he feared that his removal would bring Iranian threat closer to Israeli borders.

Blair also predicted that under Jeremy Corbyn leadership, Labour party has a very slim chance to win majority in 2020.

Tony Blair who has made tens of millions of dollars by lobbying for dictators and foreign butchers was convicted of ‘War Crimes’ by an International Court on War Crimes in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) in 2013. Former MP George Galloway has called Tony Blair a “War Criminal”, (Listen to him below).

Now, Jeremy Corbyn is planning to investigate Tony Blair for ‘War Crimes’ based on the Chilcot Report. The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war will publish a 2.6 million-word report on July 6, following seven years of analyzing evidence about how the British government acted before the invasion of Iraq and during the war.

Tony Blair’s Israeli-butts-licking has paid off in a new field. He is the new chairman of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a watchdog to monitor antisemitism and delegitimization of Israel.

The Prospect magazine was founded by British Jewish journalist and author Sir David Goodhart, who acted magazine’s first editor-in-chief also.

Jewdas-a glimpse into Jewish Left Duplicity

February 02, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

 

By Gilad Atzmon

The Zionist UK Jewish Chronicle reported last weekend that Jewdas, a so-called  ‘Left’ Jewish group, recently participated in an Anti-Fa march in Dover against ‘right wing extremists’ who oppose the entry of Syrian refugees into the Kingdom.

In fact, many British humanists and ethically oriented beings agree that the UK should provide shelter to refugees from a battle zone, especially when it is Britain that made Iraq, Syria and the entire region into a battle zone. One could anticipate that ‘Left’ Jews would be at the forefront of a call to help Syrian and Iraqi refugees because Jewish ‘Leftists’ ought to know that the 2003 criminal war against Islam in particular and Arabs in general was an immoral Zio-con operation. The Jewdasses must know that it was Lord Levy and the Labour Friends Of Israel who were Tony Blair’s leading fundraisers when Britain was taken into that criminal war. They should certainly remember that Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were the leading advocates for the war within British media.

So it was not a surprise that Jewdas joined the Anti-Fa campaign for Syrian refugees.  But astoundingly, none of the expected humanist concerns brought Jewdas to the streets of Dover. In fact, it was the other way around. Crude Jewish self-centric interests motivated Jewdas. Their spokesperson said:

“We think it’s important that the Jewish community takes the threat of far-right violence seriously – a point we made at various stages last year when anti-Jewish demonstrations were taking place in London.”

His statement is unambiguous. It wasn’t the plight of the refugees or any kind of acknowledgment of Jewish political complicity in the humanitarian disaster in the Middle East that brought Jewdas to the streets of Dover. Once again, it was Judeo-centrism at play. Jewdas joined the Anti Fa protest to defend their own Jewish tribal and racial interests. Their spokesman stated: “These (right wing) groups pose a clear threat to our (Jewish) community.”

Bizarre, by expressing such views, the Jewdas spokesperson revealed that Jewdas has more in common with the ‘Rightwing extremists’ than with most immigration advocates or minority support groups.

Yet, I admit that this news item left me a bit puzzled.  On the one hand, Jewdas claims to care for minorities in Britain while they seem to lack even remote empathy towards indigenous English people who have been reduced into a minority in their own capital.

I guess that within the Jewish political universe, the indigenous population is always an enemy, whether it is in Britain, Palestine or anywhere else.  Maybe this helps explain why Jewish history is a chain of countless holocausts and pogroms.

Assad will remain, so what about Saudi Arabia?

Sami Kleib

And now Washington has agreed that President Bashar al-Assad remains [in power] until March 2017. This is what was said in a leaked document, which was most probably leaked on purpose. When the foreign ministry sought to minimise the concern of Assad’s opponents towards the leak, it only added further concern by saying: “The timing of the departure of President Bashar al-Assad has not been specified according to the American view”. Washington forgot its past statements in which it used to affirm since 5 years ago that Assad must leave prior to any solution. The solution then will be with Assad, but as for its ending, we will have to wait and see. The name of Assad was completely absent from the document of the international solution in Vienna. As for postponing the elections for 18 months, the aim behind it is to see through the term of President Barack Obama. Is there anything clearer than this that indicates that Obama has left the Syrian file for his arch counterpart Vladimir Putin? There definitely is not a clearer indication.

 

Assad will remain, so what about Saudi Arabia?

In this way, with the global acknowledgment that Assad remains for a timeframe that is officially outlined and not from behind the scenes, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would have lost, even if temporarily, the main arenas of competition with Iran. Added to its losses aswell, is the killing of its military man in Syria, the leader of “Jaish al-Islam” Zahran Alloush. Huge assassinations of this type usually occur when the elites begin reaching understandings.

There are two possibilities here: either America agrees to the weakening of Saudi Arabia [from Syria to Yemen, and hence in Iraq and Lebanon] in order to put the new generation of rulers in Saudi Arabia in their place, and to produce a new throne more suitable for it [this is possible], or it has become overpowered [this is unlikely]. Yet in both cases, it will not allow Saudi Arabia to collapse.

We open two brackets here so that we recall that when leader of the “Democratic Meeting”, Walid Jumblatt, visited the White House in 2007 during the term of the “great preacher” of good and evil, George Bush junior – who killed in Iraq along with Tony Blair one million and a half Iraqis – Bush walked into a meeting between Jumblatt and the National Security advisor Steven Hadley, and his two main assistants in charge of Middle East affairs, Michael Doran, and Elliot Abrams [who has a hand in every Arab calamity]. At the time, and amidst hope by a Lebanese side for the inevitable fall of the Syrian regime, Bush said that he does not seek the overthrow of the regime, but rather “to improve its behaviour”, just as what Obama sought after him in “improving the behaviour” of Iran.

Perhaps this is what Washington wants today from Saudi Arabia, which has reached a point in which it poses as a burden, especially because of its objections to the Iranian-Western agreement and its attempts to obstruct it, and opening its markets to French military productions. The burden has increased much now, after the military, political, and economic attempts, which are particularly led by Prince Mohammad bin Salman, aimed at reviving a Sunni Arab project against “the Persian, Iranian, Shia expansion”, according to leaked descriptions.

These attempts, which are led by Prince Mohammad bin Salman, as he is the Defence Minister, puts the Western allies in an awkward situation. They believe that every further weakness to Saudi Arabia is more influence for Iran. What is required then is setting things aright, because what is needed is a dual-containment that makes Iran an acceptable and effective partner in the context of fighting terrorism and guaranteeing Western interests, and keeping Saudi Arabia as an active player.

Let us remember that America forsook its Egyptian ally Hosni Mubarak when he lost his role in ensuring its interests and securing internal stability, and it forsook its Tunisian ally due to similar reasons. Yet it never thought about letting go of Egypt or Tunisia, let alone a state with the weight of Saudi Arabia, and the role it plays according to Washington, the NATO states, and regional states.

So what does the American administration want from Saudi Arabia?

– It is well known that American decision-makers use to, and perhaps still, prefer the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Nayef over Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the deputy crown prince. The man is well known in America. He studied in the United States. He worked in combating terrorism. He established the idea of “Counselling” to convince terrorists to forsake their crazy ideas. He obtained deep Western trust, especially when he became deputy interior minister, and especially considering the long time he spent working alongside his late father Prince Nayef. He was the target of an assassination attempt by terrorists.

As for Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the deputy crown prince, he did not study in America, and he was not fit to assume an influential post due to his young age, and the first American articles and studies on him did not conduce assurances, due to his tendency to solve problems in a more vocal and adventurous way. He was the one that said that he will be the first to bring about an economic, security, and political revolution in the Kingdom. Perhaps the age of revolutions over there is not acceptable yet from the point of view of the West and the Gulf.

– If the information of the American “Washington Post” writer, David Ignatius, in his article “A political storm sweeping Saudi Arabia” is correct, then America has expressed its concern recently towards the dismissal of Saad al-Jabri, a prominent adviser to Prince Nayef. He was dismissed after the return of Salman and his son, Prince Mohammad, from Washington. According to the Americans, it may be linked to his objections to the Yemen war plan, and his concern regarding the rise of “Al-Qaeda”. In addition, Khalid Humaidan has been pushed away from the circle of Prince Nayef, and there has been a reorganisation of the Royal Court in order to confine decision-making between the king and his son.

– A while ago, the British newspaper “The Guardian” published two strongly-worded letters which were attributed to a Saudi prince, in which he calls for the overthrow of the current crown. He has been contacted by Ignatius himself and it was understood that he wants to get Prince Ahmed bin Abdul Aziz, 73, to power. That is, the return of the rule of the sons of Abdul Aziz. [Remember the story of Sudairiyeen and others].

– The Yemen war, which costs Saudi Arabia one billion dollars every month, has become a burden on both the Kingdom and the West. After each passing day criticism by human rights organizations grows over the death of innocent people. The spread of “al-Qaeda” has increased, and attempts by the Houthis to penetrate the Saudi border have also increased. In addition, pressure on the West to stop the war has grown, a war which has not prevented the Houthis, according to the Saudi spokesman, from penetrating or attempting to penetrate the border with Saudi Arabia more than 1000 times [see “Al-Safir”].

– The Obama administration has strengthened its relations with Iraq and Iran, in order to accelerate the pace of the taking control of Ramadi and other areas. This cooperation granted the Iraqi army high morale, and the defense minister began to talk of “unparalleled” battles. Nothing remained for Saudi Arabia in Iraq except for relying on the former Baathists [i.e whom they themselves contributed to their overthrow in the past], or extremists and Takfiris, to face the “Iranian expansion”. This is most likely no longer acceptable to the Americans.

– America was quick to contact Iran after the execution of Sheikh al-Nimr, and called on the two parties to ease tensions, yet a White House spokesman literally said: “America repeatedly expressed its concern regarding the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, and warned Riyadh recently of its executions”.

– Prince Mohammad bin Salman tried to allay fears. He held an interview in which he entirely ruled out war with Iran. The interview seemed to be an attempt to reassure the capitals of the West, which were unanimous in saying that the execution of al-Nimr may increase tension and deterioration. It is said that the interview was based on a US request to ease fears. This is possible but not certain. It is also said that it seemed to be an attempt to hold Prince Mohammad bin Nayef the responsibility of carrying out the execution as he is the Interior Minister.

– Now the international trend is in favour of managing the Syrian war, in parallel with some of the political breakthroughs that would no doubt be hampered dozens of times before they are settled. The thing that will stabilize it, is, at best, expanding the government to include some of the opposition, and the introduction of armed factions in the Syrian army, and parliamentary elections that lead to the entry of opposition faces. The powers of the President, and his remaining in or departing office, is no longer on the table. At least it will not be raised with slogans and statements until the departure of Obama. All things can be talked about with the arrival of the next administration.

There is no doubt, that all the fires in the region have occurred due to the desire or anger of one side, or the floundering of the West, added to the internal Arab disintegration and the stupidity that brought us to the stage of sedition. Yet after the Western-Iranian agreement, there is a serious inclination to engage the new Iran – that is to monitor it on the nuclear level, and with the positive of the presence of its Reform movement – in political solutions.

There is no doubt also, that the Saudi attempts to assume a leadership role through the mobilization of the Sunni Arabs, did not receive a large, real resonance within the main states, not even within some Gulf neighbors. It is true that Egypt is close and Turkey is getting closer, yet Saudi Arabia well knows that these compliments will not survive for long, and it also knows that other states such as Sudan, Djibouti, the Comoros Islands, and Somalia, are driven by their economic needs more than anything else. They are the same needs that made them closer to Iran and Turkey at certain times.

The Economy is a Concern Factor

Then comes the economy to add further anxiety. Prince Mohammad bin Salman himself announced the first decisive, global shift in the “Aramco” oil company. Some of its shares will be sold. This is one of the world’s largest oil companies. It is said to be the largest. It has reserves of up to 261 billion barrels. Its stocks exceed $ 323 billion, more than twice the reserves of giant American company “Exxon Mobil”. This is an indication to the change of the internal economic behavior on the one hand, and on the existence of a real economic crisis.

This caused Saudi newspapers themselves to speak about the weakening of the economy. Dr Fahd Mohammad bin Jumuah says in the “Riyadh” newspaper on the previous 7th of July: “The unemployment rate reached 11.75 % for two consecutive years, affecting 651,305 Saudis”. Global institutions, namely the International Monetary Fund, warns of a significant risk that oil prices will no longer rise. Here, too, there are real questions about the feasibility of Saudi Arabia pumping large quantities of oil in the past two years. If the matter is as Russia and Iran said, directed against them, yet it has also had a negative impact on US oil and the Saudi budget.

Now, and after the cooperation of America and Iran in the terrorism file, and involving [Iran] in finding a political solution for Syria, and their cooperation in Iraq, and the readiness to lift the sanctions off [Iran], and its abdication from seeking to acquire any nuclear weapons [according to the Energy Agency report], and after the removal of the Syrian chemical weapons [which reassures Israel, just like with regards to the Iranian nuclear program], does America feel that Iran is now more capable of securing the common interests, and striking terrorism, and perhaps later accepting a long military ceasefire at the Israel-Arab borders?

If it did in fact feel this way, will it work to reduce the Saudi explosive factor, by working to move Prince Mohammad bin Salman away from power, just like what happened before him with the distancing of Prince Bandar bin Sultan? Or will it suffice itself with usual taming tactics?

All the Israeli studies [the lecture of Avi Dikhtar, or the strategy of Israel for the 80s, which was published by the “Kivonim” magazine, which is published by the International Zionist Organisation], or American studies, speak about plans to divide Saudi Arabia. For example, this is a document published in 2006 by the US retired Colonel Ralph Peters in the US Armed Forces newspaper with the headline “Borders of Blood”, in which he says: “Saudi Arabia will suffer the biggest type of division, whereby it will be divided into two states: the holy Islamic state, like the Vatican, whereby it covers all the important religious sites for world Muslims, and a political state, and other parts of it will be cut out for other states [like Yemen and Jordan]”. The “New York Times” published a complete map outlining the process of division.

These Israeli dreams find in the Iranian-Saudi conflict the most fertile ground for it. Perhaps this flood of announcements by war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang, by expressing such love in order to get closer to the Gulf, is aimed at moving things towards a confrontation with Iran and division thereafter.

I do not believe it is in the interests of Saudi Arabia, nor America, nor even Iran, in reaching such a situation. The terrorism that strongly knocks on the doors of Saudi Arabia will be the alternative. There must then be a restructuring of the makeup of the rule in Saudi Arabia. This is what the Americans say, one voice of which was the latest article in the “Foreign Affairs” magazine, written by Richard Sokolski.

Source: As-Safir Newspaper, Translated and Edited by website team

 

And So This is Christmas…David Cameron’s Christmas Gift to the People of Syria

[War is over if you want it…key words being if you want it. You have to want something hard enough in order to achieve it, and obviously the war mongers running America don’t want to see peace, at least not yet. If peace came up and tapped them on the shoulder and said, “Take me, I’m yours,” they’d run as fast as they could in the opposite direction. Peace is just not a part of their agenda–and the same seems to hold true with the war mongers running Britain as well…as the article below makes rather clear.]

Cameron’s Bombings of Syria Equals Blair’s Iraq War Crimes: Illegal Slaughter

By Felicity Arbuthnot

“Russia bombing Syria will lead to further radicalization and increased terrorism”. Prime Minister David Cameron, 4th October 2015.

How desperately Prime Minister Cameron has been yearning to bomb the Syrian Arab Republic…

In August 2013 when his aim was defeated in Parliament by a 285-272 vote, his vision of the UK joining US-led strikes bit the dust. His dreams of illegally joining the bigger bully and bombing an historic nation of just 22.85 million people (2013 figures) three and a half thousand kilometers away, posing no threat to Britain, was thwarted.

The US threw a conciliatory bone to the snarling Cameron and according to the BBC (1): “would ‘continue to consult’ with the UK, ‘one of our closest allies and friends.’

France said (that) the UK’s vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.

After the vote … Cameron said it was clear Parliament did not want action and ‘the government will act accordingly.’

Chancellor George Osborne whined on BBC Radio 4′s flagship “Today” programme that: “there would now be “national soul searching about our role in the world “, adding: “I hope this doesn’t become a moment when we turn our back on all of the world’s problems.

Translation: “Inconsequential politicians on small island only feel like real men when sending off their depleted air force to blow modest populations far away to bits.”

The then Defence Secretary Philip Hammond: “ … told BBC’s Newsnight programme that he and the Prime Minister were “disappointed” with the result, saying it would harm Britain’s “special relationship” with Washington. Ah ha, that tail wagging, panting, lap dog “special relationship” again, for which no body part licking, no crawling on all fours, no humiliation, no deviation of international law is too much.

The excuse for the 2013 rush to annihilate was accusations that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in March and August of that year, a claim subsequently comprehensively dismissed by detailed UN investigations (2.)

Cameron’s excuse for attack had all the validity of Tony Blair’s fantasy Iraq weapons of mass destruction, but of course he regards Blair as a trusted advisor. Judgement, it might be argued, as Blair’s, is not one of Cameron’s strong attributes.

Then came the Friday 13th November tragedies in Paris and by 2nd December Cameron’s parliamentary press gangs managed to threaten and arm twist through a vote to attack Syria in an action of shame which will surely haunt him as Blair is haunted by Iraq.

As the bombs fell, on 6th December, Cameron celebrated the anniversary of his his tenth year as Leader of the Conservative Party with his very own military action, Libya’s tragedy forgotten and belonging to yesterday. That, as Blair’s Iraq, it is entirely illegal (3) apparently bothers the former PR man not a whit.

As the Parliamentary debate was taking place, before the vote, it was reported that RAF reconnaissance ‘planes had already taken off for Syria from Scotland – of whose fifty nine parliamentarians, fifty seven voted against the attack. Cameron thumbed his arrogant nose to near and far.

Apart from the illegality, did it even cross Cameron’s mind, or did he care, that using the Paris attack not only defied law, it defied reason. To repeat again, the attackers were French and Belgian born, of North African extraction, with no Syrian connections apart from that some of them had been there joining the organ eating, head chopping, people incinerating terrorists. Syria is the victim, not the perpetrator, deserving aid and protection, not cowardly retribution from 30,000 feet.

After the vote, pro-killing MPs reportedly went straight into the Commons bar to celebrate with tax payer subsidized booze. Warned that the main doors in to Parliament had been closed due to anti-war protesters outside, one woman MP apparently shouted gleefully “It’s a lock in.” How lightly mass murder is taken in the Palace of Westminster.

Chancellor George Osborne: “eschewed the celebratory drinks … and joined a carol service in nearby St. Margaret’s Church – in aid of a charity for child amputees. You couldn’t make it up”, wrote a ballistic friend.

Within a week Osborne was in the US addressing the Council on Foreign Relations stating that with the air strikes Britain had “got it’s mojo back” and stood with the United States to “reassert Western values.”

It was he said “a real source of pride” to have the authority for air strikes in Syria.

“Britain has got its mojo back and we are going to be with you as we reassert Western values, confident that our best days lie ahead.”

Britain was prepared to play a “bigger role”, he vowed.

“Mojo” according to varying dictionaries means “a quality that attracts people to you, makes you successful and full of energy”, denotes “influence” and “sex appeal.” The man needs help.

Immediately after the vote during a visit to RAF Akrotiri, the British base in Cyprus from which the airborne killers will take off to drop their human being incinerating ordnance, UK Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, told military personnel that their mission had the backing of “both the government and the people of Britain.” He lied.

A recent ITV poll showed 89.32 % of British people against bombing. Governmental “mojo” has clearly passed them by.

Pro bombing MPs though, it seems, are anything but warrior material. When angry emails arrived from their constituents condemning the bombing, the heavyweight Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson (pro bombing) complained of “bullying” saying stronger social media policy was needed to prevent such correspondence.

Anti war campaigners had also sent graphic photographs of dead Syrian children to MPs to persuade them not to vote for creating more mutilated little souls. This, the warmongers said, was “intimidation.”

One pro-war parliamentarian said the messages led him to have concerns for the health of his pregnant wife. Beyond pathetic, try being the husband of a pregnant wife, or the wife, in Syria with Britain’s bombs incinerating your neighbourhood.

Another MP was so keen to become a member of the “bullied” club, she was found to have added a death threat to herself at the end of a justifiably angry email from a member of the public. Her attempt to was speedily uncovered. The desire to tarnish those repelled by illegally murdering others is seemingly becoming common currency in the Cameron Reichstag.

A majority of British politicians, prepared to drop bombs on people, blow their children, parents, relatives, villages, towns, homes to bits and are cowed by a few words. As for “bullied”, try being under a bomb Mr Watson, one of the bombs you voted for. “Bullying” doesn’t come bigger than that.

Upset at being sent pictures of dead babies? Imagine being a mother or father holding the shredded remains of theirs. Courtesy the RAF.

Have they any idea of the reality of their “mojo” moment? People tearing at the tons of rubble that was a home, trying to dig friends, beloveds out with bare, bleeding hands?

Further reality is the demented, terrified howls of the dogs who hear the ‘planes long before the human ear can, the swathes of birds that drop from the sky from the fear and vibration, their bodies carpeting the ground, the cats that go mad with fear, rushing from a loving home, never to be seen again. And the children that become mute in their terror, losing the ability to speak for weeks, sometimes months and even years.

Yet David Cameron allegedly called Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and those who voted against this shameful act of terror: “terrorist sympathisers”, reportedly telling a meeting of a Parliamentary Committee before the vote: “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers.” (5)

This presumably was juvenile pay back time for Corbyn having stated correctly that: “Cameron’s approach is bomb first, talk later. But instead of adding British bombs to the others now raining down on Syria what’s needed is an acceleration of the peace talks in Vienna.”

Cameron also received widespread derision, including from Conservative Parliamentarian Julian Lewis, Chairman of the influential Defence Select Committee, for his claims that there were 70,000 “moderate” fighters on the ground ready to take on ISIS after British bombing.

One government source compared the claim to Tony Blair’s fantasy that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction on the West “in 45 minutes.” Lewis commented: “Instead of having ‘dodgy dossiers’, we now have bogus battalions of moderate fighters.” (6) Another commentator referred unkindly to Cameron’s “70,000 fantasy friends.”

Perhaps the best encapsulation of anger and desperation came from author Michel Faber, who sent his latest book to Cameron (7.)

In searing sarcasm, he wrote in an accompanying letter that he realized: “a book cannot compete with a bomb in its ability to cause death and misery, but each of us must make whatever small contribution we can, and I figure that if you drop my novel from a plane, it might hit a Syrian on the head … With luck, we might even kill a child: their skulls are quite soft.”

He explained:

“I just felt so heartsick, despondent and exasperated that the human race, and particularly the benighted political arm of the human race, has learned nothing in 10,000 years, 100,000 years, however long we’ve been waging wars, and clearly the likes of Cameron are not interested in what individuals have to say.”

He speaks for the despairing 89.32% who hang their heads in shame. He speaks for those of us who simply cannot find the words.

Notes

  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
  2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139
  3. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-uk-parliaments-decision-to-bomb-syria-is-illegal/5493200
  4. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14129765.Osborne__UK_has__got_its_mojo_back__with_air_strikes/?ref=twtrec
  5. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser
  6. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/dec/04/so-david-camerons-70000-syrian-forces-claim-really-is-dodgy?CMP=share_btn
  7. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/07/michel-faber-donates-book-of-strange-things-to-syria-cameron

From Iraq to Syria: Repeating a Debacle

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 02.12.2015 | 18:38

Proof that the British political class hasn’t learned anything after Iraq came with David Cameron’s ludicrous assertion that there are 70,000 moderate rebels fighting in Syria. It was an outright fabrication to rank with Blair’s sexed up dossier on Saddam’s WMD, which the then prime minister asserted could be launched against Britain within 45 minutes.

 We know Cameron’s claim is pure fiction because as far back as 2012 the US Defense Intelligence Agency produced a classified intelligence report which identified that, “The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” This was a full two years before ISIS exploded across the region at the beginning of 2014.
The British Prime Minister’s assertion was made as part of an increasingly desperate attempt by him and his supporters to win support for British airstrikes which every military expert agrees will have no appreciable impact when it comes to defeating ISIS in Syria.
 Make no mistake, crushing this menace must be the priority of all right-thinking people, with the only question one of how not if. It is a priority which makes the cognitive dissonance and contradictions that have underpinned the West’s actions and policy towards the conflict in Syria all the more grievous, ensuring we have only helped to prolong the conflict and, with it, the ability of ISIS to operate, rather than the opposite. In this regard the equivalence that continues to be drawn between the secular government of Bashar al-Assad and this medieval death cult is not just fallacious it is utterly and wholly obscene.

No sentient being would compare the Syrian president to Nelson Mandela. But comparing him to Hitler is even less credible. He leads a secular government under which the rights of Syrian minorities are upheld and protected, a government that still enjoys the support of the majority of Syrians and a government whose survival in 2015 is indistinguishable from the country’s survival. The alternative to Assad at this point – the only alternative – is Syria being turned into a mass grave of said minorities as it descends into an abyss of sectarian mass murder and slaughter that will make the status quo seem like child’s play by comparison. The Assad government can be negotiated with, ISIS cannot, and as bad as anybody believes Assad is he is not in the business of planting bombs on passenger aircraft or sending death squads to massacre British tourists in Tunisia or civilians in Beirut, Paris and anywhere else.

Attributing the refugee crisis to Assad, or claiming the majority of civilians who’ve been killed have been killed by his military, comes to us straight from the regime change playbook. We heard the same propaganda in the run up to the war in Iraq in 2003 and also in the run-up to NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011. Both countries are now failed states as a direct consequence of our military intervention.

Making the same catastrophic mistake again would be a crime that history will not forgive.

 While crashing into the third Arab country since 9/11 may titillate the Churchillian sensibilities of the British ruling class, it will do little when it comes to defeating ISIS and ending the conflict. Indeed, given the recent incident of a Russian jet being shot down by Turkish F16s the risks involved in throwing British aircraft into the mix are self evident. If the Americans, who’ve been bombing ISIS (at least so they’ve been telling us) in Syria for the best part of a year, have failed to make any appreciable difference, what makes David Cameron and his Labour supporters believe Britain’s handful of fighter-bombers will or can?

There is a glaring need for the West to coordinate its efforts with the Russians and the Syrians, who are engaged in the very joint air and ground campaign every military expert agrees is the only way to crush ISIS/Daesh. However miltary action is not by itself enough. Confronting the murky relationship that exists between ISIS and Western allies in the region is also now non-negotiable.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia in particular have been at the heart of supporting the medieval fanatacism that recently exploded onto the streets of Paris. In the case of the former, without Turkey’s Syrian border being tantamount to a revolving door for ISIS fighters, materiel, and arms to pass through, we wouldn’t be where we are now. Nor is it anymore a wild claim to make that Turkey, elements within Turkey, have actively facilitated the trade in stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil that has funded their operations and so-called caliphate. Here we are entitled to ponder the question of whether Turkey’s real motive in taking the extraordinary step of shooting down a Russian jet was because Russian airstrikes had begun targeting the huge convoys of trucks transporting this oil towards Turkey’s border?

 As for the Saudis, the fanatacism and medievalism which underpins ISIS/Daesh in Iraq and Syria is indistinguishable from the Wahhabi Sunni doctrine that bears the imprimatur of state religion in Riyadh. A major crux of this issue has been the Wahhabisation of Sunni Islam that has led to the normalisation and legitimisation of sectarianism. The Saudis have used their oil money to fund the building of mosques and other projects across the Muslim world, all with the aim of asserting the dominance of this particularly extreme literalist form of Sunni Islam. This influence must also be challenged.

Until Britain, the United States, and other Western governments are willing to deal with the role of both Turkey and Saudi Arabia in fomenting this crisis, they are not serious when it comes to defeating ISIS and the wider issue of the perverse ideology that drives it.

 As for those 70,000 moderates fighting in Syria, the only place they are to be found is in the ranks of the non sectarian Syrian Arab Army, made up of Alawites, Sunnis, Druze, and Christians fighting for their homes, their people, and their country.
John Wight, counterpunch.org

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Tony Blair: Iraq Invasion Led to Rise of ISIL

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said the US-led invasion of Iraq was partly responsible for the emergence of the Takfiri group, ISIL (so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Levant) in the Middle East.
Blair told CNN that “there are elements of truth” in the assertion that the war caused the rise of ISIL.
“Of course you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015,” he said in the interview to be broadcast Sunday, Wall Street Journal reported.
Former British PM Tony Blair
He added that the Arab Spring had also played a role in creating instability that allowed the terrorist group to flourish.
Blair’s decision to take Britain into the Iraq war—based on what turned out to be false claims about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction—remains hugely divisive, and contributed to his Labor Party’s loss of power in 2010.
Blair said he didn’t believe the world would be a better place if Saddam were still in power. But he apologized, as he has before, for failures in postwar planning.
“I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,” he said in clips released by CNN before the broadcast.
“I also apologize for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.”
Some 179 British personnel died in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. A public inquiry into decisions and mistakes in Britain’s planning and execution of the war began in 2009 but has yet to issue its findings. The process has been held up while people criticized in the report are given a chance to respond.
Critics of the war hope the inquiry will conclude that Blair was determined to back President George W. Bush in his invasion plans, whether or not it was supported by the public, Parliament or legal opinion.
Source: Websites
26-10-2015 – 10:42 Last updated 26-10-2015 – 10:4

 

You know Jeremy Corbyn is the right man for the job when the “Labour Friends of Israel” comes out against him

Corbyn will not aid MidEast peace, Labour Friends of Israel official claims

RT | August 11, 2015

The chair of Labour Friends of Israel has urged party members not to back anti-war advocate Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership race because he previously called for Arab groups Hamas and Hezbollah to be involved in Middle East peace talks.

Joan Ryan said Monday there were “deep concerns” about Corbyn’s leadership campaign and in particular the positions he has taken on Israel.

The Labour Friends of Israel official asked supporters to back a candidate who could play a “constructive” role in negotiating peace between Israel and Palestine.

Corbyn has faced criticism during his leadership election campaign for previously calling Hamas and Hezbollah “friends” and insisting they be involved in regional peace discussions.

Ryan, who replaced Anne Mcguire as head of Labour Friends of Israel on Monday, told the Jewish Chronicle that Labour must be “steadfast” in its support for Tel Aviv.

She added that last month’s Jewish community hustings for the Labour leadership contenders had been a key step in the party’s efforts to “win back the trust and confidence of the Jewish community.”

Ryan, who nominated Blairite Liz Kendall in the leadership contest, went on to caution Labour voters that members should elect the candidate that is most likely to play a “constructive” role in the peace process.

“We hope that Labour party members and supporters will consider when they vote which candidate is best placed to ensure that the next Labour government can play a constructive and engaged role in the crucial search for a two-state solution,” she said.

“We recognize the deep concerns which exist about positions taken, and statements made, by Jeremy Corbyn in the past and recognize the serious questions which arise from these.”

Ryan, a former Home Office minister and party whip, said Labour Friends of Israel would “continue to work with progressives in both Israel and Palestine who share our commitment to peace and co-existence.

“At the same time, we remain adamantly opposed to boycotts and sanctions, which delegitimize Israel, do nothing to further these goals and have no place in the Labour Party.”

Corbyn was grilled by Channel 4 journalist Kristan Guru-Murthy in an interview in July for having previously called Hamas and Hezbollah “friends.”

During the interview the veteran left-winger rejected the idea that he agreed with the two organizations, which Israel considers to be terrorist groups.

Following intense questioning by Guru-Murthy, Corbyn explained his position.

“Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No,” the Labour MP said.

“There is not going to be a peace process unless there are talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas – and I think everyone knows that.”

Corbyn added that even the former head of Israeli intelligence agency Mossad agreed that more comprehensive talks must be pursued. The Israeli intelligence chief argued at the time that any viable peace process would involve negotiations with people who hold opposing viewpoints.

The socialist candidate has faced intense criticism from Labour elites since announcing his candidacy, with a number of high-profile politicians urging voters to back other candidates.

Attacks on Corbyn’s campaign became even more heated after a YouGov poll, published by The Times newspaper on Monday night, found that Corbyn had doubled his lead over the past week and would now poll 53 percent, meaning he could secure a first-round victory without needing to count the second preferences of Labour supporters.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Blair-era PR guru Alistair Campbell have all urged Labour supporters to reject Corbyn, arguing he would make Labour “unelectable” in the 2020 general election.

%d bloggers like this: