Monday, 14 May 2012


On 10 October 2004, ic Birmigham reported thus:

"A 10-year-old Asian pupil threatened to behead a seven year-old schoolboy with a Stanley knife after watching gruesome TV images from Iraq. Paul Williams told how the young thug threatened his grandson Nathan outside the gates of Highgate Primary School in Woodside, Dudley where both were pupils.
The 10 year-old was subsequently arrested by police and it is understood that he has now been expelled.

His victim was uninjured but is now receiving counselling after suffering sleepless nights over the chilling incident. Grandad Mr Williams said: 'The 10 year-old was pretending to be an Iraqi assassin who was going to cut Nathan’s head off like the American hostages. A few of the other kids have said that he had been going around making these claims for a few weeks. He was waving the knife around in front of Nathan’s face as he made his way out of the school gates. Nathan has been in bits since. He’s really shaken up and hasn’t been able to sleep properly. He has been having counselling because it upset him so much.'

News of the school attack came just two days after it was announced that British hostage Ken Bigley had been executed in Iraq. Mr Williams, from Dudley, claimed the young knife attacker had previously targeted Nathan’s 10 year-old brother Martin. 'It had always previously been Martin who was subjected to bullying by this boy and two of his friends,' he said. 'This had been going on for some time… We have been told that the parents of the 10 year-old lad actually condone him carrying the knife and say that it is for his own protection.'

Nathan’s mum Joanna Williams, 30, from Holly Hall, Dudley, told the Sunday Mercury she was horrified that a pupil had managed to carry a knife on to school premises. 'I was livid when I heard what had happened,' she said. 'Martin had been bullied by this boy for over a year, but it was Nathan he pulled the knife out on. Three of them approached him, including the ringleader who had a Stanley knife. Nathan said he ran the knife down his arm and then down his front, telling him that he would use it. He was completely traumatised by it. We rang the police straight away when we found out what had happened and they quickly arrived… Nathan is still upset and our GP has arranged counselling for him because he hasn’t been able to sleep properly at night'."
On 11 October 2004, 24-year-old Paul Chadwick was working as a bodyguard for Armor-Group in Kirkuk, when he was accidentally killed in an incident involving his own firearm.

On 11 October 2004, a British man whose identity remains unknown was working as a bodyguard for Armor-Group in Taza near Kirkuk, was killed by sniper fire.

On 3 November 2004, 49-year-old former police frogman, firearms officer and Royal Marines Commando, John Barker, was killed by a suicide bomb in Baghdad.

He was working as a security consultant for Global Risk Strategies at the time.

Between 29 October and 8 November 2004, 5 Black Watch soldiers died at or near their camp (Dogwood) near Baghdad.

Stuart Gray, Paul Lowe, Scott McArdle, Kevin McHale and Pita Tukutukuwaqa all died on the altar of Tony Blair's evangelical desire to fight the good fight on behalf of America, oil and Israel.

They, Ken Bigley, Margaret Hassan and all the other Britons who were sacrificed in St. Tony's wagtail war, were, as far as it concerns our Prime Minister, expendable.

In November 2004, Professor Stephen Hawking said this:

"The war was based on two lies. The first was that we were endangered from weapons of mass destruction. The second was that Iraq was somehow to blame for 9/11. It has been a tragedy for all of the families that have lost members. As many as one hundred thousand may have died, half of them women and children. If this is not a war crime, what is it?"
In an arena where it is almost unheard of to condemn Jewish brutality in a forthright manner, Nick Harvey, MP, was very brave when, on 2 November 2004, he said this in the House of Commons:

"As recently as 21 October 2004, The Guardian reported that a 13-year-old schoolgirl wearing her school uniform while walking into Israel's forbidden zone at the bottom of her street carrying her satchel was shot. The schoolgirl was several hundred metres from the Israeli watchtower. Two shots caught her in the leg. She dropped her bag, tried to hobble away and fell.

Even some Israeli soldiers described the platoon commander moving in closer to put two bullets in the child's head. An Israeli soldier told the newspaper: 'The company commander approached her, shot two bullets into her, walked back towards the force, turned back to her, switched his weapon to automatic and emptied his entire magazine into her. We were in shock. We couldn't believe what he was doing. Our hearts ached for her. Just a girl of 13'... That shows that, in some units, Israeli army commanders are out of control".

I don't know about that, Nick. The actions of that Israeli platoon commander sound like the precisely controlled actions of a cold, robotic, psychopath to me. One who was as certain of the destiny-driven righteousness of his murderous cause as Stalin before the Holodomor, Himmler in Eastern Europe, Rooseveldt before Hiroshima and Churchill before Dresden.

In the 2 November 2005 edition of The Washington Post, Dana Priest first told the world about the USA's involvement in the 'rendition' of foreign nationals.

"It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.

Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as has the United States. Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,' some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as 'waterboarding,' in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.

Some detainees apprehended by the CIA and transferred to foreign intelligence agencies have alleged after their release that they were tortured, although it is unclear whether CIA personnel played a role in the alleged abuse. Given the secrecy surrounding CIA detentions, such accusations have heightened concerns among foreign governments and human rights groups about CIA detention and interrogation practices.

The contours of the CIA's detention program have emerged in bits and pieces over the past two years...More than 100 suspected terrorists have been sent by the CIA into the covert system… About 30 are considered major terrorism suspects and have been held under the highest level of secrecy at black sites financed by the CIA and managed by agency personnel, including those in Eastern Europe and elsewhere...

A second tier, which these sources believe includes more than 70 detainees, is a group considered less important, with less direct involvement in terrorism and having limited intelligence value. These prisoners, some of whom were originally taken to black sites, are delivered to intelligence services in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Afghanistan and other countries, a process sometimes known as 'rendition.'

While the first-tier black sites are run by CIA officers, the jails in these countries are operated by the host nations, with CIA financial assistance and, sometimes, direction.

Morocco, Egypt and Jordan have said that they do not torture detainees, although years of State Department human rights reports accuse all three of chronic prisoner abuse...The idea of holding terrorists outside the U.S. legal system was not under consideration before Sept. 11, 2001."
Since the above article was published, the parliaments of Canada, Italy, France, Sweden and the Netherlands have opened inquiries into CIA operations that have 'rendered' citizens or legal residents and transferred them to prisons overseas. The UK has not done so.

Indeed, on 7 December 2005, Tony Blair dismissed Liberal Democrat concerns thus in the House of Commons:

"The practice of rendition as described by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been American policy for many years. We have not had such a situation here, but that has been American policy for many, many years. However, it must be applied in accordance with international conventions, and I accept entirely Secretary of State Rice's assurance that it has been."
The following week, after it had become known that foreign nationals had been processed by the US through UK airports, Blair replied to a question from Charles Kennedy thus:

"Careful research by officials has been unable to identify any occasions since 11 September 2001, or earlier in the Bush Administration, when we received a request for permission by the United States for a rendition through UK territory or airspace, nor are we otherwise aware of such a case."
Then he cynically explained how 'unofficial' rendition might occur:

"On United States Government flights coming in and out, those take place for a whole series of reasons. We receive visits from people from the United States Government the entire time... I have to say that the Liberal Democrats are quite extraordinary sometimes. The idea that we should investigate every time that a United States Government plane flies into this country is completely absurd."
At a press conference held on 22 December 2005, Blair angrily made it clear what he thought of holding an enquiry into the matter:

"The notion that I, or the Americans, or anybody else approve or condone torture, or ill treatment, or degrading treatment, that is completely and totally out of order in any set of circumstances. I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything illegal has been happening here at all, and I am not going to start ordering inquiries into this, that and the next thing, when I have got no evidence to show whether this is right or not...I don't know anything about it, and the reason why I am not going to start ordering inquiries is that I can't see a reason for doing it". Dana Priest's exposé
On 8 November 2004, after being bombarded for many weeks, Fallujah was overrun by by more than 10,000 American ground troops.

One Agence France Presse correspondent covering the battle from the outskirts said:

"The skies above Fallujah burned red as artillery, war planes and tanks pounded the Iraqi rebel bastion... Missiles rained down indiscriminately on the city, with the action most intense in the Askari district in the northeast and Jolan in the northwest".

Marine commander Lieutenant General John Sattler described Fallujah’s defenders as 'mugs, thugs, murderers and intimidators.'

Colonel Michael Shupp ordered his troops to shoot Iraqis attempting to surrender 'because of the threat of suicide bombers.'
Colonel Pete Newell declared:

"We’re going to start at one end of the city and we’re not going to stop until we get to the other. If there’s anybody left when that happens, we’re going to turn around and we’re going to go back and finish it."

Colonel Gary Bradl lectured his troops thus:

"The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He’s in Fallujah and we’re going to destroy him".
Joseph Bowman, a 20-year-old marine, added:

“We’re ready to go. I’m just ready to get this done. I want to go and kill people, so we can go home. Kill them, and go home, that’s all we can do now.”
During the attack, around 1,000 Iraqis were killed about 600 of whom were believed to be civilians. US officials reported that 'more than half of Fallujah's 39,000 homes were damaged, and about 10,000 of those were destroyed.' However, according to Mike Marqusee, of
Iraq Occupation Focus:

"Falluja's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines".
As of 14 April 2005, of 32,000 compensation claims presented to the authorities by those civilians who had been allowed to return to Fallujah, only 2,500 had been paid.

On 9 November 2004, a Select Committee on Home Office Affairs was convened in the House of Commons.

A gentleman, most of whose ancestors are buried elsewhere on the planet, said this at that time:

"We have never seen figures at this level of young Asian kids attacking people going to and from worship… I would far rather see the young Asian Muslim kids in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham venting their anger against the BNP than going along and beating up congregants (sic) coming out of the synagogue on Friday night or Saturday morning".
So, this particular fellow would 'far rather see the young Asian Muslim kids… venting their anger against the BNP.' BNP types, whatever the rights and wrongs of their arguments, being comprised almost wholly of native, white, British types like you and me.

What do you think the response was from the member of parliament who spoke next? Was he prompted to anger on behalf of the indigenous community, perhaps? Was this ungrateful chap roundly condemned for his anti-Britishness? e.g.

"How dare you condemn the indigenous folk of these islands? It was the efforts and sacrifices of their ancestors that made this a country that your ancestors were able to seek sanctuary in!"
Was this what was said next? 'Fraid not, nothing like that was said, I'm afraid. Here's what one British MP was minded to say to a bloke who seemed to suggest that the BNP were a legitimate target for the violence of Asian youth in this country:

"Let it be said, Mr Gable, when it comes to fighting racism, over half a century or more, no-one has a better record than yourself."
A pat on the head for a chap whose heart is in the right place, then.

So, who are these gentlemen? The MP who cuddled up to the anti-BNP fellow is a bloke by the name of David Winnick and he's Jewish.

Gerry Gable, the BNP-basher, is Jewish also. Gable was te first editor of Searchlight Magazine, a periodical which arrived on the scene in 1975, at the same time as the Anti-Nazi League. Both the ANL and Searchlight were constituted to deter the rise of Nationalism in Britain.

The Anti-Nazi League, itself, was founded by the Jewish Board of British deputies and the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP was founded by Tony Cliff.
Cliff, also Jewish, was born Ygael Gluckstein in Palestine, emigrated to Britain after WWII was safely out of the way and immediately joined the leading Trotskyite grouping, the Revolutionary Communist Party. After being booted out he formed another group on the left-wing of the Labour Party called the Socialist Review Group. After a while, Cliff changed the name of his little gang to the much grander sounding International Socialists.

The I.S. metamorphosed into the Socialist Workers Party in 1977. The SWP and the Board of Deputies launched the Anti-Nazi League in the same year.

Let's have a closer look at Gerry Gable. Gable has been a member of both the Young Communist League and the Communist Party of Great Britain and has worked as a journalist on the Communist Party's Daily Worker. He has also worked as a trade union official.

He stood for the Communist Party in the local elections in Stamford Hill, North London in 1962. He was a supporter of the anti-fascist '62 Group' and has applauded them in his Searchlight articles. This militant, left-wing organisation was formed in 1962 and its activists consisted, in the main, of Jewish, Irish and Black activists.

In November 1963, Gable was arrested when he broke into the home of historian, David Irving. In January 1964, Gable and his associate Manny Carpel admitted breaking in with intent to steal and were fined £20. Gable was also fined £5 for stealing a GPO pass card.

Gable's criminal past doesn't seem to have bothered the PC crowd at the Met, however, as he is now the vice chair of the Independent Advisory Group to the Diversity Directorate of the Metropolitan Police Service at Scotland Yard.

Searchlight has links with the security services and, occasionally, passes on the information it gathers to the police and MI5. It has been sued on several occasions and it was once investigated by the British Charity Commissioners.
Gable's wife, Sonia Hochfelder, is the Secretary and the sales manager of the Searchlight Educational Trust, and works closely with her husband.

Interestingly, she is also a former member of the National Party, the National Front and the League of Saint George, all of which are/were far right Nationalist movements. However, as Gerry Gable says:

"Searchlight, as part of our work combating fascism and racism, has placed people inside far right groups. So we've got our fingers on the pulse of what's going on."
So maybe the crafty lass was a bit of an infiltrator, eh? At the time that she was a member of these 'Fascist' groups, they were aware that she was part-Jewish, indeed, she was allowed to defend Israel and the Jewish community in the League of Saint George's magazine.

Even now, the BNP has Jews within its ranks. In fact, two of its Jewish members were BNP candidates in the 2004 local elections. So, a schizophrenic racist looking for a home, or a canny, Jewish spy with her 'finger on the pulse.' You decide.

On 11 April 2002, Gerry Gable said this in Searchlight:

"Searchlight magazine was founded in 1975 by the late Maurice Ludmer, a dedicated and lifelong Jewish anti-racist and anti-fascist… Maurice, like the rest of us, was committed to a world free from hatred, racial bigotry and intolerance. That is why we have opposed tooth and claw any platform for the Nazis of the National Front and the BNP here in Britain."
Curious how a bloke so 'committed to a world free from hatred, racial bigotry and intolerance' should be so intolerant of, and display such hatred towards, those in this country who wish to preserve a Britain which still reflects the country as it was when Gable's immigrant forbears arrived here.

Gable continued:

"That is why like so many of our fellow Jews we have striven to encourage multi-racialism."
Do you get it yet? It was the Gables of this world who were always doing everything in their power to fill up our country with those who would be unlikely to fit in with our ways, outsiders who would determinedly force their own, very different cultures and behaviours upon the British people.
Always, always, always against the wishes of the vast majority of the native population.

Did the Gables and his 'fellow Jews' ever give a damn what we felt, what we wanted? They did not.

Forgive me if I repeat myself but, elsewhere in this essay, I told you what Rabbi Lewis Browne said in his 1924 book, How Odd of God. Browne states:

"We must redeem the Jews and remake the Gentiles. That is what the Communists are trying to do in Russia".
That's what the Communists did in Russia, all right. Just as a plethora of Gable clones have been doing in this country from around the same time. In 1924 Russia and the Communist East, mass terror was the tactic. In Britain and the 'democratic' West, mass propaganda and Orwellian Thought-Policing did the job just as effectively.

Gable's 11 of April 2002, article is very interesting. After lambasting the British Nationalist and admitting that it was people like himself and his fellow Jew, Maurice Ludmer, who were behind the multicultural project in Britain, he says something very different indeed.

Outside Israel, the Jewish Diaspora has been getting more and more worried over recent years, as the brutality that the Israeli Defence Forces ritually mete out to the Palestinian people is seen throughout the world.
Nowadays, even committed Zionists like Gable have felt the need to speak up. Check this out:

"In recent weeks even the American public, shackled as it is by the chains of a racist media, has woken up to the reality of the Israeli government's campaign against the Palestinian people. In Britain as in the United States, we Jews have been too afraid to speak out lest we too be smeared by the same powerful racist interests, but now we at Britain's leading Jewish anti-racist magazine have decided that enough is enough."
The 'racist media' Gable speaks of is that which is owned and run by his own tribe. The US media is almost wholly owned and run by Jewish interests. As such, the Palestinian/Iraqi and, indeed, the American Nationalist point of view is rarely heard in the States. Gable continues:

"We… call upon the Israeli government to immediately refrain from the torture and murder of innocent Palestinian men, women and children."
So you see, folks, it's not just 'Nazis,' 'bigots' and 'anti-Semites,' as Gerry Gable would, undoubtedly, call me, who are saying this stuff. It's the Zionist/Jewish/Communist/burglar/spies who are saying it as well!

The editors of The Jewish Chronicle might not have been too impressed by St Gerry's conversion to the Palestinian cause. This is what the 23 October 1987, issue of the Chronicle said way back then:

"He is certainly no friend of the Palestinian cause - not only is he a self-confessed Zionist, but one of his sons is serving in the Israeli army helping to suppress the Intifada in occupied Palestine".
So, ladies and gentlemen, you tell me: What's a communist agitator doing giving evidence to a Home Affairs select committee in the first place? Why is such a bloke treated with such reverence? Why is his name mentioned with with such fond respect on 36 occasions at the parliamentary website?

And why is a convicted criminal, whose raison d'être seems to be nothing more than the keeping of a wary, Jewish eye upon those native Britons who don't appreciate mass immigration or multiculture, treated similarly by the police and MI5? Why has the information that he has passed to them over the years been taken so seriously and acted upon so often?

Why? Because a Zionist/Jewish/Communist/burglar/spy is considered a great deal more worthy in Tony Blair's Brave New World than almost all of us. Oh yes, if your ancestors are all buried in this land, are of working-class origin, if foreigners have taken over your town in recent times and you have had the temerity to complain about it, you are as likely to get an invite to come and express your indigenous concerns in front of the Commons committee that David Winnick sits upon, as George Bush has of answering the first five questions correctly on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? That's why.

On 13 November 2004, Glenda Jackson, MP, introduced an EDM into the Commons which stated:

"This House notes that on 4th June 2003… the Prime Minister stated, in respect of those expressing doubt over his certainty that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that when a series of allegations are made, all described by the Prime Minister as untrue, that it was important, if people had evidence to justify such allegations, that that evidence be given; further notes that he stated that he had no doubt that the Iraq Survey Group would find the clearest possible evidence of weapons of mass destruction; further notes that the Iraq Survey Group has delivered its final report and has found no weapons of mass destruction; and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to follow his own prescription and provide the House with the evidence upon which he based his allegations regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction."
Tony Blair, as one might imgine, took no notice at all of this precisely worded admonition. Just one Tory signed it, just thirteen New Labour MPs (including Ms Jackson) did so and, perhaps most surprisingly of all, seeing as how the Lib Dems didn't vote for war themselves, just 12 members of their party signed.

Altogether, a mere 30 back bench members of the British parliament were concerned enough with the state of affairs in Iraq, the UK and Westminster to sign an EDM pointing out Tony Blair's culpable behaviour at this time.

On 17 December 2004, Acting Chief Petty Officer Simon Roger Owen died aboard HMS Chatham whilst on patrol in the Gulf.

On 26 December 2004, father-of-three, Sergeant Paul Connolly, was found dead from a gunshot wound within the confines of Shaibah Logistic Base in Iraq.

The MOD stated that there were no 'suspicious circumstances.' This probably means that Paul committed suicide. Another good man done to death by Blair's dirty, dishonourable war.

On 3 January 2005, four security officers working for Kroll Security Group were killed when the armoured
Toyota Landcruiser they were travelling in was blown off a flyover by a suicide bomber.

33-year-old former Marine, Nick Pears, 33-year-old John Dulman, 56-year-old John Eardley and 34-year-old New Yorker, Tracy Hushin, lost their lives in this incident.

On 19 January 2005, Andrew Whyte, a security contractor with who worked for London-based security firm Janusian Security Risk Management, was killed when his convoy was attacked outside Bayji in Iraq.

On 30 January 2005, 37-year-old father-of-three, Corporal Dave Williams; 35-year-old Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel; 35-year-old father-of-two, Flight Lieutenant, David Stead, 25-year-old L/Cpl Steven Jones, 38-year-old Sergeant Robert Michael O'Connor, 40-year-old Chief Technician, Richard Antony Brown; 42-year-old Master Engineer, Gary Nicholson, 34-year-old father-of-one, Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson, Flight Lieutenant, Andrew Paul Smith and 39-year-old Squadron Leader, Patrick Brian Marshall, were all killed following the loss of an RAF C-130K Hercules aircraft 25 miles north-west of Baghdad, which various militant groups claimed to have shot down.

Tony Blair pledged to 'stay the course' in Iraq and, following the Iraqi elections, added:

"It is doubly tragic that it happened on a day of such hope in Iraq."
On 2 May 2006, the BBC reported thus:

"The deaths of 10 UK personnel in Iraq in 2005 could have been avoided if a safety device had been fitted to their Hercules plane, the BBC has learned.
RAF pilots requested that explosive- suppressant foam devices be fitted to fuel tanks two years before the attack in which the men died, RAF papers show.

The Ministry of Defence said none of its planes in Iraq or Afghanistan had foam, but some would be fitted soon. The foam has been in use in US Hercules aircraft since the Vietnam war.

The attack happened on 30 January, 2005, when a Hercules travelling from Baghdad to Balad was hit by ground-to-air fire which caused an explosion in the right hand wing fuel tank.

A board of inquiry which published its findings in December said the crash was not survivable but did admit that the lack of a fuel tank safety system was one of the factors which could have contributed to the crash. The crash was the single largest loss of British life in Iraq since military action began in 2003.

The explosive-suppressant foam stops fuel tanks from exploding when pierced by bullets. One US plane shot 19 times in Iraq still managed to land safely. With the continued lack of foam on Hercules planes, campaigners say they will sue ministers for corporate manslaughter if any more lives are lost because of a lack of protective equipment.

An internal RAF document obtained by BBC Radio 4's Today programme suggested requests were made for the explosive-suppressant foam at least as early as 2002. The document read: 'Urgent operational requests for all Hercules aircraft should continue to be actively pursued. Specifically, all aircraft should be fitted with fire suppressants in fuel tanks.'

The programme was told one US pilot refused to fly in a British plane because of concerns he had about safety. Former RAF Hercules pilot Nigel Gilbert, who trained with the pilot killed in the attack, said: 'I believe the probability is that the crew would have survived the attack if the aircraft had explosive suppressant foam in the fuel tanks. The crew was so good they could have even put it down in a road or put their landing gear up and landed it straight ahead in the desert. It was as flat as a pancake.'

A statement from the MoD said the planes facing the highest risk of attack would be fitted with the foam. Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said: 'The board of inquiry into the very sad loss of the Hercules did make a number of recommendations and the MoD are implementing those recommendations.'

Michael Moore, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said it was 'scandalous' that only some of the planes were to be fitted with the foam, as dangerous deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq went on.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the cost would only be about £275,000 plus £50,000 per aircraft. 'If the American and Australian governments are fully protecting their servicemen and women, it's a disgrace we can't,' he said."
In February 2005, Tony Blair described himself as a 'very, very strong supporter of the Jewish community and Israel,' in a Downing Street interview for The Jewish Chronicle.

He continued:

"We introduced as a government Holocaust memorial day and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who'd dealt with us at an official level in the Jewish community who has not seen us as extremely sensitive to the concerns that the Jewish community have. We have been staunch supporters of Israel, staunch defenders of the Jewish community, and aggressively against any form of racism."
On 23 February 2005, he added:

"There has not been a bigger supporter of the state of Israel than this Government and this Prime Minister."
Which sentiment is, possibly, the most truthful thing this habitual liar has ever said.

On 2 March 2005, The Washington Post's lead correspondent, Jim Hoagland, said:

"The political price that Tony Blair pays at home for his enthusiastic partnership with President Bush in Iraq is made clear to a visitor who asks a London cabbie about the impending national election. 'Oh, Vice President Blair will get back in,' comes the sardonic reply.

Even the British prime minister's critics take it for granted that he will win a third term in the vote he is soon expected to call for May 5. But they add with satisfaction that his support for Bush, Iraq's chaotic conditions and multiplying missteps at home will slash Blair's bulging New Labor majority in Parliament. In the media here, Blair is portrayed as an exhausted, besieged and rattled politician who is running scared…

Since Churchill, British prime ministers have supported 'the special relationship' with Washington. Blair, who says he is about to start his final run for that office, has done much more than that in the polarizing time of Bush and Sept. 11."
On 12 March 2005, 21-year-old Royal Marine, David Ward, committed suicide on board HS Albion whilst it was stationed at Devonport naval base in Plymouth.

On 23 September 2005, The Guardian reported thus:

"The parents of David Ward described how the Royal Navy brushed aside requests for help after their son began drinking heavily and became depressed on returning from a six-month tour of duty in Basra in 2003.

His mother, Ann Ward, told the hearing in Plymouth that after she contacted his unit, 42 Commando, with concerns about his depression a sergeant humiliated him in front of other Marines by saying: 'Mummy has been on the phone telling us to look after you'. She said her son went to see an officer but was told to 'go back to bed' hours before he hanged himself…

David, from Whiston, Merseyside, joined the Royal Marines in 2001 and was sent to Iraq two years later. When he returned to the UK he changed from a 'joking, loving son' into a heavy drinker who also took cocaine, ecstasy and steroids.

He telephoned his parents just before 2am on March 12 and told his father: 'Dad, you're my witness, remember what I've said. I'm now going to shoot myself'."
David was seen wandering around the ship on several occasions the night before he died. Lieutenant Sara Collen said she and another officer had been on duty when they found him in a female mess room. David asked if he could speak to them several times. However, the officers warned him that he would regret it if he was found in a female mess room again. To which David replied:

"You'll regret it if I kill myself."
He was on punishment duty at the time of his death.

On 24 March 2005, the author and broadcaster, Michael Carmichael, posted the article, Islamophobia at Downing Street at the Counterpunch website.

This is it:

"This week, Tony Blair launched a scathing ideological attack on Islamism. Describing the conflict between Islamism and the world as a 'battle for modernity,' he quoted the conservative American historian, Samuel Huntington, in order to refute him. Contrasting his interpretation of a 'conflict about civilisation' in a historical chiaroscuro with Huntington's 'conflict of civilisations,' Blair blasted Islamism as the fountainhead of the world's escalating level of ultra-violence.

Promising to make further keynote speeches to address the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, Blair sought to defend the pointed attacks on Islamic fundamentalism by George Bush and Christopher Hitchens as the raison d'etre for the war in Iraq.

In his latest lamentation on the exclusively Islamic sources of ulta-violence, terrorism and war, Blair echoed the mantras of the coterie of deeply Islamophobic neoconservative intellectuals who emerged from the right-wing witches' cauldron of Leo Stein at the University of Chicago.

Blair's diatribe was the performance of a committed idealist, a demagogue mesmerized by his own ideology and not that of an intellectual, an academic, a mainstream politician or a statesman. Blair inhabits that shadowy region of Christianity that sees itself as totally separate and apart from the other faiths stemming from the house of Abraham: Judaism and Islam.

In Blair's vision of Christianity, there are no Muslims who accept the messianic status of Jesus; no Christians who launch terrorist atrocities and no Jewish terrorists, either. In the mind of Tony Blair, the trouble with world terror stems exclusively from the ideology and culture of Islamic fundamentalism. In Blair's deeply bipolar world, Christianity and Judaism are blameless for the rising tide of terror.

In Blair's definition of terror, the lynchings of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the terror bombings of Oklahoma, the brutal beatings of Muslims in Britain, the extra-judicial killings of Palestinians, the Christian bombings of pharmaceutical factories in Sudan and the Israeli military assassinations of Palestinians simply do not exist.

His selective vision of the world is troubling for it emanates from a double standard. Fundamentalist Christian terror does not exist for Blair. Fundamentalist Judaic terror does not exist for Blair. Whether Blair is capable of discerning fundamentalist Hindu terror is, at this point in time, unknown.

The question arises: Is Tony Blair Islamophobic? Islamophobia has emerged as the anti-Semitism of the twenty-first century. Blair recently gave an interview in which he revealed his inordinate commitment to Christianity. Explaining his decision to wage war on Iraq, Blair said that his religious beliefs had shaped his decision to join forces with Bush's neoconservative juggernaut.

Much has been made of Blair's personal religious idiosyncrasy. Married to a traditional Roman Catholic, Blair's solemn devotion to religious orthodoxy has been exposed to the microscope of public scrutiny. In 2004, a Roman Catholic priest was foolish enough to give a press conference stating Blair's personal desire to convert to the Church of Rome. Reliable witnesses have confirmed that Blair and Bush pray together during their wartime summits.

The extremist religious ideology of Bush is well-established. His political partnership with Blair is founded on much more than the special relationship between Britain and America. These two men share a common faith in the fundamental veracity of some of the most orthodox and conservative attitudes in Christendom and apparently some of the most extreme ones, as well.

Theirs is a partnership that not only prays, but also preys together.
Praying together, Bush and Blair consistently prey on their common enemy - the Islamic culture that has fostered what in their myopic vision is pure 'evil', i.e. terror. Their common myopia places the bombings launched by Christian fundamentalists, the assassinations committed by Jewish fundamentalists and the religious motivation of the tractor-driving assassin who fractured the skull, severed the spine and crushed the life out of Rachel Corrie outside of their narrowing cone of perception.

Their condition is simply a twin case of visual, optical and intellectual bipolarity. In their world: Islam is evil. Christianity is good. Judaism is invisible. But, does this intellectual bipolarity make Blair Islamophobic? Is he, in fact, as bipolar in his reaction to Islam as the anti-Semitic bigots of the last century?

To date, let it be noted that Blair has not called out in public for the genocidal extermination of the entire Islamic population of the world. Let it also be noted that Adolf Hitler did not publicise his plan for the final solution to what he perceived as the problem posed by the Jews he hated and feared. Hitler's tirades against the Jews led to the public acceptance of anti-Semitism. Will Blair's frontal assault on Islamists lead Britain in the same direction?

We keenly await Blair's future pronouncements on Israel and Palestine."
On 22 March 2005, the Jewish Board of British Deputies released this statement:

"The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP, together with his wife Cherie Blair QC were the guests of honour last night at the Annual President's Dinner of the Board of Deputies of British Jews…

Mr Blair congratulated the Board of Deputies on its work in representing the Jewish community and protecting its rights and freedoms. The Prime Minister noted that… 'The country would be immeasurably poorer without the Jewish voice' and the immense contribution of the Jewish community to British life.

The Prime Minister pledged to continue the fight against anti-Semitism and its increase by 'evil men and women who sought to silence the Jewish voice'…

Regarding Israel and the Middle East, Mr Blair said: 'I am, and always will be, a strong supporter and friend of the Jewish community and of the State of Israel.' He spoke of the need to 'end the scourge of terrorism, as the only way forward for lasting peace'. He added, 'Those who trade in terror are enemies of peace,' and that 'today, a true ‘friend of Palestine’ is one who supports its moderate leadership, not those who seek to undermine it'.

Board of Deputies President, Henry Grunwald QC commented: 'This was a remarkable evening, demonstrating the true value of the Board in bringing together the Jewish community across the UK. The Prime Minister’s warm words and presence bares testimony to the contribution of the Board of Deputies and the Jewish community to this great country.'

The event was attended by, amongst others, Lord Janner of Braunstone QC, Lord and Lady Levy of Mill Hill, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, Lady Morris of Kenwood, Sir Sigmund and Lady Sternberg, Sir Michael Burton, Sir Stuart Bell MP and Lady Bell, Sir Victor and Lady Blank, Gerald Ronson and Dame Gail Ronson DBE, the Papal Nuncio, and the Ambassadors of Israel, Morocco and Tunisia. Honorary Officers of the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi, members of the Scottish Assembly and senior members of the Jewish community were also present at the three events across the country."
On 28 March 2005, 41-year-old Territorial Army Private Mark Stephen Dobson is said to have taken his own life in Iraq.

In his April 2005, book, The Rise of Political Lying, Peter Oborne, the political editor of The Spectator, says this:

"The presence of a group of shameless, habitual liars at the centre of power is an amazing state of affairs, without precedent in modern British history".
On 21 April 2005, 44-year-old father-of-three, Alan Parkin, a former paratrooper, was killed by a suicide bomber on a notorious stretch of road near Baghdad Airport.

He was working as a security contractor for Aegis at the time.

On 24 April 2005, The Times reported thus:

"The right to vote is supposed in our culture to be one of the greatest goods on earth. George Bush and Tony Blair were prepared to bomb, kill and maim thousands of Iraqis to bring them this precious right. Yet in Blair’s own country, after eight years of his unconventional rule, his fellow citizens now look on their right to vote not just with apathy but with unprecedented cynicism…

New Labour has imposed upon political life a culture of lying. Of course, politicians have always lied at times and no doubt always will. What is different is that under new Labour, lying has become institutionalised.

Deliberate lies, deceptions, evasions, omissions, confusions and the thousand other tricks of bamboozlement are characteristic of new Labour and of Blair himself. This has been peculiarly demoralising in a man who came to power claiming 'to uphold the highest standards in public life,' undertaking to be 'purer than pure', promising as late as 2002 to sack any minister who lied, preening himself on his personal integrity. That is why public apathy is now spiked with a new cynicism…

People who remember with disillusion the behaviour of the government at the time of the death of Dr David Kelly, during the 'sexed up' intelligence scandal, may also remember that on July 22, 2003, Blair twice denied that he had authorised the naming of Kelly…

While Conservatives have lied for many of the conventional reasons, including personal self-interest, new Labour’s attitude to mendaciousness is different. After decades in the wilderness… those closest to the new Labour movement under Blair early on took the view that it was quite legitimate to deceive to obtain power.

This mentality took hold, it succeeded and, once new Labour was in power, it was too deeply rooted to be abandoned, as it could and should have been. Power-hungry paranoia survived even eight years of a massive and liberating majority in parliament. It’s a culture of institutionalised lying, not for personal profit but in the name of the new Labour project.

I now understand why (Alistair) Campbell was so deeply, aggressively angry during his famous interview with Jon Snow during the Andrew Gilligan affair. It seemed clear that he was morally in the wrong. But new Labour doesn’t do morally wrong. New Labour is inherently morally right, regardless. Regardless of the truth."
On 28 April 2005, Tony Blair said this in an interview with Sky News:
"I have never told a lie. No. I don't intend to go telling lies to people. I did not lie over Iraq."
On the same day, he said this to the participatory audience of ITV News's Ballot Box Jury:

"If you believe that I stood up there and told a whole lot of lies then that is a reason for not voting for me".
It sure was a reason, Tony. It was a great, big elephant-in-the-room type of reason. And yet, according to the votes that were cast in Sedgefield, more than 24,000 lemmings, teletubbies, dimwits, lickspittles and groupies voted for you in that neck of the woods, in May 2005.

If you didn't rig the result, it looks like the British people are now so dumbed-down, drugged-up, decadent and docile that they'd vote for a farting arse if it was famous.

Of course, some might point out that the only viable alternative was a Jewish chap who was right up there cheerleading the Thatcherian rape of the British working-classes. Who voted to go to war as well. It wasn't much of a choice, I confess.

But then the Sedgefield constituent could've voted for Reg Keys, a decent bloke whose son was killed in Iraq. 4,252 did, which means were not dead yet, I guess. But for the most part, when I see what the majority of the British people are prepared to tolerate, I sometimes wonder why I bother.

And then I remember that those who voted for the great traitor have children and ancestors. I also remember that the truth, in any age, even when it's utterly unfashionable, matters.

On 2 May 2005, 24-year-old father-of-three, Guardsman Anthony John Wakefield , died as a result of wounds sustained during a routine patrol in Al Amarah, Iraq.

On 24 May 2005, George Bush said this at a High School in New York:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
On 29 May 2005, 21-year-old Lance Corporal Alan Brackenbury was killed in an incident to the South of Al Amarah, Iraq.

On 14 June 2005, at least 22 people were killed in a suicide bombing in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

On the same day, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, interviewed for BBC's Newsnight, said this:

"Clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along. A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."
About 900 Iraqis had been killed since the government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafaari took power six weeks previously.

On 25 June 2005, in a radio address to the nation, George Bush said:

"The Iraqi people are growing in optimism and hope. They understand that the violence is only a part of the reality in Iraq."
Only a very dim chimp could have made a remark like this.

Zbigniew Brzezhinsky, National Security Adviser in the Carter administration, was asked to provide a response to Bush's speech on behalf of the Democrats.

Brzezhinsky stated that the war had been conducted with 'tactical and strategic incompetence,' and added:

"Two years later, America finds itself more isolated than ever before, the object of unprecedented international mistrust. As a result, we are not as safe as we should be here at home… The violence in Iraq continues at increasing rates and American casualties continue to mount."
In a Washington Post article of 16 March 2003, this sensible, Jewish gentleman was also quoted thus:

"The United States has never been so isolated in the modern era. We cannot handle the world entirely on our own. We are stronger than anyone else, but we are not capable of simply dictating to the entire world, and I think that's where the administration has really fallen down badly."
And, in March 2002, he also said:
"I can fully understand the sense of resentment at the unusual position that the United States occupies in the world today,"
Amazing, huh? A powerful Jew, who doesn't seem to be dreaming of blood and conquest, a regular Joe who says what we'd say if we got the chance. Well, not quite. Let's take a look at Brzezinski's own 'tactical and strategic competence.'

Brzezhinsky had admitted, without any suggestion of regret, that, in 1979:

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot.... The question was how to help the Cambodian people".
Which, in terms of reasonable retrospective things to have said, falls somewhere between insane and moronic to the power of 10.

Brzezhinsky had also admitted that the Carter administration began aiding the fundamentalist Mujahidin in Afghanistan, in which conflict Osama Bin laden rose to prominence, six months before the Russians invaded, even though he believed, and told Carter so, that, 'this aid is going to induce a Soviet military intervention.'

When asked if he regretted arming such terrorist groups, a 1998 edition of Le Nouvel Observateur reported Brzezinski as having said:

"Regret what?... It was an excellent idea."
Brzezhinsky had plenty of New World Order form before Carter elevated him to a place where he could screw around with the rest of us. Here is his 1970 mindset, as demonstrated by his book, Between Two Ages:

"The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities...

In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward... effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason... Human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable...

The increasing availability of biochemical means of human control... the possibility of extensive chemical mind control... A nations information grid that will integrate existing electronic data banks is already being developed... The projected world information grid… could create the basis for a common education program, for the adoption of common academic standards...

Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites... ties cut across national boundaries...It is likely that before long the social elites of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ...The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty... More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken...

Marxism supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality."."
Brzezinski also suggested a gradual movement toward 'a community of nations' by 'developing limitations on national sovereignty.'

Later on in the book we are informed that the ultimate 'goal' is 'world government.' In 1972, Brzezhinsky said:

"A global consciousness is for the first time beginning to manifest itself... we are witnessing the emergence of transnational elites... composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries; their perspectives are not confined by national traditions… and their interests are more functional than national. The one big force that can derail the rise of this new elite is the politically activated masses, whose nativism could work against the cosmopolitan elites."
You can bet your bottom dollar, folks, that Blair, Brown and co. considers themselves to be very much a part of these 'transnational elites.'

Now, what on earth, you may legitimately inquire, was that nice, smiley Nobel Peace prize winning Jimmy Carter doing when he offered the post of National Security adviser to Marxist control freak who had written such Orwellian garbage six and seven years before?

Truth is, folks, they’re all at it. We are safe from none of them. No matter how nice their smiles are.

On 29 June 2005, 18-year-old Signaller Paul Didsbury, died in a 'shooting accident' at Basra airport base. The MOD said he had 'accidentally discharged his own weapon.'

No comments:

Post a Comment