Paul Wolfowitz – the jewish zionist who knew.
And what you have, at West Point Academy – which Wolfowitz suggests is above average intelligence – are West Point graduates who are either as thick as shit OR they are treasonous American scum. Take your pick.
You’re trying to tell me that the graduates listening to this – MILITARY graduates – are such imbeciles that, after 9/11 happened just 3 months later, they didn’t think of assassinating this guy?
This guy knew that 3000 of their American brothers and sisters were going to die in a “surprise event” while he then sent more of their military brothers and sisters to be killed for his and his buddies oil and corporate interests.
And you want me to consider Americans and West Point graduates as intelligent?
Either way, they’re full of shit.
The Star spangled banner my ass!
Land of the free and the HOME OF THE BRAVE my ass!
Meanwhile, we have this from UK Parliament:
America: Paul Wolfowitz has a new National Anthem for you:
Lyrics (slightly amended):
We do what we’re told
We do what we’re told
We do what we’re told
Told to jew!
Staring you in the face yankees but you’re too yellow to do anything about it. Keep killing brown people for the very people who own you!
Home of the brave! hahaha. Don’t make me laugh!
Tons of Marine brawn but sod all brains.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…. and again….. and again. I’ll put my “analyst” neck on the block once more.
I read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski a few years ago and I KEEP going back to it because every single step I see in this “game” is following what I gleaned from that book. It’s a template. It’s a strategic geopolitical, warmongering blueprint and they are following it to the letter.
I created this video a few years back:
Many thought I was WAY off in the analysis. Just stupid they said because the globalists and Rothschild love Israel. Really?
And you’ll say today Israel are getting away with murder re Palestine. Yes they are (and no they’re not). Yes they are because they are committing genocide with impunity BUT haven’t you noticed? The rising disgust even in our mainstream zionist controlled press and political circles? Why’s that? Well it’s exactly the same reason that, during WW2, the zionists sacrificed jews. Yes they did! Stop ignoring this you everyday Israeli jews. You are being sacrificed once more and your “zionist” (note inverted commas because when I use them I mean the “zionism” which reflects those jews who want their racist based ‘homeland’) Israel will and is coming to an end. Who’s leading this end? Benjamin Netanyahu of course! But you think he’s on your side don’t you “zionist”? No, not at all. Benjamin Netanyahu is on the ZIONISTS side of the game NOT the “Zionist” side! 😉 Netanyahu is another Tony Blair and David Cameron. Bought and sold by the Rothschild family. These guys are just pawns on the chessboard and it’s the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and jesuits who are dangling their strings. YOU, little old israeli, working to scrape a living, are of as much interest to Netanyahu as we are to Blair or Americans are to Obama. You’re a jew but you’re a nothing to these people. Your nationalism is just damned useful and you’re being played like an old Stradivarius violin as you watch movies like Spielberg’s Schindler’s list and keep getting filled with the holocaust stories of people who benefit from it. Just like we’re led to believe in the British stiff upper lip and that Winston Churchill was a hero! hahaha. He was a schmuck working for the same zionists who are now going to cause you some severe pain.
You still don’t get it do you? And that’s why you’ll be sacrificed! You see, Rothschild didn’t create Israel because he loves you! Oh you naive little “zionist”! He created it for a “beach-head” which is now passed its sell by date because the REAL ZIONISTS who sacrificed jews in WW2 now have pretty much effective control over that region of the world. Israel is just a pain in the ass to them now when they want the muslim world on the west’s side against Russia and China.
Haven’t you noticed something else?
All the muslim immigration into the UK, the EU and the USA. Now WHY would ZIONISTS want this? Seems a ridiculous idea doesn’t it? I know, yes it does. But you see it isn’t. Not at all. I’m not talking about “Zionists” here, I’m talking about ZIONISTS!
How would muslim immigration be beneficial to ZIONISTS? Simple: What happens when there are millions of muslim immigrants in the west? Well they have family members in the islamic states don’t they? Whether children, grandparents, cousins whatever. So then what happens when there is a stand off or war between the west and China/Russia? Tell me? How many muslims are in China or Russia? Not many at all is there? So whose side are the muslim states going to be on when they have family members spread throughout the west and none in China and Russia?
And who are the muslim brotherhood? 😉
Saudi Arabia has funded the Muslim Brotherhood for over half a century. Now, as a previous blog or two of mine pointed out, Saudi and “Israel” (more correctly, ZIONISTS) are cousins. They’re on the same side!
Your time is soon up “Zionists”. The ZIONISTS are coming to get ya! How? Through the U.N. and the “International community” which Bibi is winding up into a frenzy with his genocide, entirely on purpose of course!
Now why do you think we’re getting these headlines these days? What’s with the U.N. outrage all of a sudden? You’ve been treating Palestinians like shit for decades so why now?
Because your shelf life is running out! It’s time to create the ZIONIST controlled Islamic states and keep them happy by giving them the impression that the west has finally dealt with Israel the “nasty terrorist nation that they are” and the IDF has done its job. A job they thought was for Israel but no. Again, they’ve been played. The Mossad? ZIONIST controlled NOT “Zionist” controlled.
Ah and I thought you jews were smart! Well, after all, that’s what you like us all to believe isn’t it? LOL
But hey, don’t say you haven’t been warned a number of times. I tried to tell you and you didn’t listen so please forgive me if I laugh a little as I see you destroyed. Your ignorance of the game brought it on yourselves. Oh and your “chutzpah!” 😉
HC Deb 11 July 1995 vol 263 c527W 527W
§Mr. Llew Smith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. 
§Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Freeman [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.
Nice eh? To make sure they didn’t have any problems with British export licencing and to keep their name out of the Iran -Iraq war issue as far as possible, the Rothschilds sent arms (Chemical WMDs? Although it doesn’t matter what they were) to Iran/Iraq (probably both) from their globalists little outpost in China. And you think, when thinking about world geopolitics and wars, that it’s all to do with the west versus the east, the US or UK versus China or Russia?
Listen and listen good! It’s a globalist V the rest of us issue. The globalists get the job they want done from anywhere on planet earth! That’s why they’re CALLED “GLOBALISTS” and that’s why Rockefeller speaks about “conspiring with others (internationalists as he calls himself and them) around the world”.
Meanwhile, here’s another Rothschild thing from Parliament archives:
Note how Tam Dalyell (and this goes for all other parliamentarians) shits himself at the idea of stating what he has stated outside of parliamentary privilege because he knows Rothschild would come after him in litigation. And you wonder why these guys keep their mouths shut most of the time? If Rothschild doesn’t know they shag babies then the Rothschilds will destroy them in court. NOT by necessarily winning but by the sheer knowledge they have the money to keep the case going on and on and bankrupting the other party.
Official Secrets Act (Prosecution Policy)
HC Deb 06 February 1987 vol 109 cc1291-8 1291
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter LLoyd.]
§Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent 22 minutes of the previous debate on human rights deploying the same arguments as I anticipate he is likely to deploy in the Adjournment debate. Is it possible, in those circumstances, that those of us who were not able to make a speech on the Human Rights Bill because of the hon. Member for Linlithgow’s actions should be able to take part in the Adjournment debate and deploy some of the important arguments that we were seeking to deploy on the Human Rights Bill?
§Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I cannot rule or make a judgment on a hypothesis.
§Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will be disappointed, because there is another, different aspect to the issue.
Charmingly, the Solicitor-General began his speech this morning with what he said was a platitude. I should like to start with a non-platitude. While not being his easiest parliamentary colleague, and, trying though he may find me from time to time, being over-inquisitive, I have had every courtesy from an approachable and forthcoming Attorney-General. It is no platitude to wish him a speedy return to full health.
I heard the Solicitor-General this morning and I thank him for attending the Adjournment debate. In my opinion, in the 1950s he was the most eloquent Oxford president ever to come to the Cambridge Union. He was extremely eloquent this morning.
May I say at the outset that I gave the Attorney-General a copy of my speech in relation to the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild and Mr. Bernard Sheldon on Monday, since it raises issues of byzantine difficulty and daunting delicacy, which should not be sprung out of the blue on any Minister. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I am sure that he will respond to this in the same spirit of considered seriousness.
The purpose of the first part of my speech is to give the Law Officers an opportunity to tell Parliament—these issues are ultra-party— what on earth they propose to do to clear up the Augean stables of inconsistency in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. The Law Officers will understand that my deep interest in these matters was born during the 11 days that I spent in the Old Bailey, in Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan’s court, during the trial of Clive Ponting.
Why prosecute Clive Ponting and dither, understandably—I do not use that word in a pejorative sense—over prosecuting Victor Rothschild? Why send Sarah Tisdall to prison for months and do nothing about Bernard Sheldon, albeit he is approaching retirement, in relation to Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West? Why fail to prosecute Bernard Ingham for the selective leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter? It looks as if there is one prosecution policy for the influential, the famous and the distinguished and another prosecution policy for the more junior, hitherto less famous, civil servants.
1292 Compared with what Victor Rothschild set in train, with Peter Wright and Harry Chapman Pincher, anything that Clive Ponting put in my way melts into insignificance, in terms of national security, if not political embarrassment. There is an apparent inconsistency of policy, and it would be helpful to the House to know on what principles those discriminating practices are justified and on what basis discrimination is authorised by Ministers.
It is to the position of Lord Rothschild that I wish to refer. If, for the first time, I shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, it is because Lord Rothschild can be a litigious man and, secondly, I do not think that what I am saying is to his discredit. I refer to 26 November—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait and hear what I shall say. I refer to 26 November, when I asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to proceeding against …. Mr. Arthur Franks, formerly head of MI6, and …. Lord Rothschild for breach of confidence in relation to information on matters of state security given to authors. The Attorney-General replied: I am considering with the Director of Public Prosecutions the allegations made in respect of the two named individuals.”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol 106, c. 268.]
I returned to the subject on 1 December 1986, and the Attorney-General said: The matter remains under consideration.” — [Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]
On 18 December 1986, I asked the Prime Minister whether she will now release Lord Rothschild from his obligations of confidentiality as a former member of the security services; and if she will make a statement.
The Prime Minister replied: All present and former members of the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. They may not make unauthorised disclosures of information acquired in their work. Any requests for authorised disclosure would be considered in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 613.]
Let me offer necessarily truncated points. First, in the 1930s, international Jewry, of which the Rothschilds were one of the leading families, were aghast at the anti-semitism that was then rampant in Germany. Secondly, Victor Rothschild may, as the author Douglas Sutherland suggests, have recruited Guy Burgess for a minor role in one of the Jewish intelligence services. Thirdly, as an understandably passionate anti-Fascist, Victor Rothschild may have had relations with Comintern agents. Talk of spying is jejune nonsense. Anyhow, a good agent is one who gets from foreign powers more than he gives.
Fourthly, the events of long ago fade into the past. Sleeping dogs from the 1930s and 1940s were rightly, in my view, allowed to lie. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But in 1979, Britain gets a new species of Prime Minister. On 15 November 1979, the new Prime Minister makes a statement on Blunt, against advice, with the aplomb of a cow in a china shop. Sir Charles Cunningham tells me that Sir Anthony Blunt’s activities as an agent of both sides many years previously were fully known to successive permanent secretaries at the Home Office.
Fifthly, I believe that Lord Rothschild was extremely angry about the Prime Minister’s reaction on Sir Anthony Blunt. Some of us believe that Sir Anthony Blunt’s memoir, given to his brother, and now lodged in an institution in London, will reveal a complex story, part of which is that Sir Anthony Blunt was asked by a former member of the security forces whose name I have given to 1293 the Attorney-General, and by Guy Liddell, to help get Burgess and Maclean, by that time embarrassments both, out of the country.
Sixthly, in the summer of 1980, Lord Rothschild had the Prime Minister to his flat in Saint James’s. He is subsequently quoted in the press as saying: She does not understand intelligence matters.
Seventhly, Lord Rothschild then came to believe that his own reputation was at stake, especially after the Prime Minister’s statement on Sir Roger Hollis on 23 March 1981, which appears in the Official Report at column 1079. At his own expense, Lord Rothschild brought Peter Wright from Australia. He discussed with Wright certain material which appeared to constitute a contravention of section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Section 7 states: Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour or a summary offence according as the offence in question is a felony, a misdemeanour or a summary offence, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offence. If the Attorney-General would decide to prosecute Lord Rothschild in open court, it would be possible to ask questions which are causing much public concern and which Lord Rothschild would then have to answer on oath. These are some of the questions that might be asked. First, how does Lord Rothschild explain his involvement with Sidgwick and Jackson over the Pincher-Wright book? While it is possible that Sidgwick and Jackson would consult Sir Arthur Franks about possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, that would not explain Lord Rothschild’s involvement.
Secondly, why should Lord Rothschild expose himself by suggesting an unlawful enterprise to Mr. Wright, namely that he should breach the Official Secrets Act and then procure a writer, Mr. Pincher, to act as a channel for royalties?
Thirdly, why should Lord Rothschild fly Wright to London if, as has been suggested, all he needed was a testimonial to protect himself against suggestions that he had been a Soviet agent?
Fourthly, why pay Wright? Why introduce him to Harry Chapman Pincher? Why should Mr. Pincher pay him half the royalties?
Only by proceeding in open court on oath can obscurities be made less obscure. Only by proceedings in open court can there be an end to doubt and to the suspicion of discrimination.
I ask the Law Officers why they will or why they will not prosecute Victor Rothschild. If they decline to prosecute, apologies should be winging their way to Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting.
Even more clearly, the Law Officers owe Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting an explanation as to why they take no action against Mr. Bernard Sheldon for briefing Mr. Rupert Allason — alias Nigel West — who incidentally, and I do not intend to make much of this, is Conservative candidate for Torquay, for his books. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to enter the argument about Mr. Allason being Conservative candidate for Torquay.
If I am asked in general terms after my comments this morning about sources, part of my reply would be that 1294 there is an urgent need for an appeal body to which civil servants, policemen, service men or people in the intelligence services can go without jeopardising their careers if they believe that they have been abused. That is the official policy of the Labour party put down by the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment at the party conference at Bournemouth on the Sunday. I was interested to hear on the radio that Nigel West — alias Rupert Allason—said at 8.15 am on 5 February that he supported the idea of such an appeal body.
Finally, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the Interspace articles with regard to Zircon. The question was whether the knowledge of Zircon or Skynet IV was in the public print at least two years ago. The Leader of the House said that he would draw that matter to the attention of the Solicitor-General.
I will leave the matter there, because the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have a very serious interest in these matters.
§The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind good wishes for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for his kind remarks about him, which are much appreciated. May I also thank him for his kind reference to me. I am grateful to him for having given the Law Officers advance notice of the contents of his speech, which was a helpful gesture. Even so, he made several allegations to which, as I shall explain, I shall be unable to respond.
The main theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was whether Lord Rothschild should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1986, the police were requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate allegations that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Chapman Pincher had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act. The police investigation is continuing and no decision can be taken until the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the police report, which will then be sent to the Attorney-General, or to me if the Attorney-General has not yet returned to his duties.
In those circumstances, and in accordance with the normal practice of the Law Officers, I cannot comment, except to say that I am satisfied that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the police officers who are carrying out the investigations. As far as I can recollect, most, if not all, of the allegations formed part of the evidence given by Mr. Wright in the proceedings in Sydney and, as allegations, they are common knowledge.
I emphasise once again that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no discriminatory policy in considering cases submitted to him under the Official Secrets Act. Each case is considered openly upon exactly the same criteria, and there is no foundation for a claim that importance or seniority in rank provides a person who is under investigation with any advantage.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question today which is already the subject of a question on the Order Paper for priority written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It relates to the publishers of the Interspace newsletter in respect of an article or 1295 articles that might be considered to refer to the Zircon project. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter raised in the written question and which he has raised today will be the subject of consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, on having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter” — [Official Report, 23 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 451] —that matter being the one raised by the hon. Gentleman a considerable time ago relating to the Westland affair. I mention that in relation to the name which he mentioned today of Mr. Bernard Ingham. I do not recall that, in the copy of the speech which he furnished to the Attorney-General, he said that he would make allegations against Mr. Bernard Ingham to the extent that he has done today. The words that I have just uttered formed the basis of a statement on 23 January 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
In the context of remarks about the book, “A Matter of Trust” written by Mr. Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Bernard Sheldon, who is an official. He asks why the Attorney-General has not prosecuted Mr. Sheldon. The answer is simple and I trust that it is welcome. I am informed that there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Sheldon has committed any offence under the Official Secrets Act. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mr. Sheldon in connection with the recent searches of BBC premises. I am informed that neither that official nor the security service had any involvement at all in any decisions or actions relating to this matter. During the last debate the hon. Gentleman made allegations about my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his Department in connection with the search of BBC premises. Having had no notice of the allegations made in that debate, perhaps I may be permitted to say that in his answer in another place on Wednesday 4 February my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate set out the circumstances in which the search warrants were applied for and granted.
I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation that the Crown Office, alarmed at the enormity of what it was being asked to do, made a direct or indirect approach to the Prime Minister’s office and that the Crown Office was told by the Prime Minister’s office to allow special branch officers to take everything and anything from BBC Scotland. I am informed that at no time was the Crown Office in communication with the Prime Minister’s office. I understand that yesterday the hon. Gentleman told my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would not expect him to be in his place today for this debate. Therefore, I find the allegations made earlier today a little surprising.
§Mr. Dalyell That was simply because as a Scottish Member I know that it is difficult to be here on Friday.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that, and no doubt it is an explanation. When officials enter the public service they know that throughout their service they will be unable to speak in their own defence to answer criticism and that they must rely on their Ministers to do that for them, especially when 1296 criticism is unfounded. The hon. Gentleman thinks it justifiable to allege that named officials should be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I have already repeated the Prime Minister’s words about Mr. Bernard Ingham and I should now like to say something about Mr. Bernard Sheldon.
The hon. Gentleman earlier made a speech about human rights, but has not provided a scrap of evidence to support his allegation about Mr. Sheldon. Either he has evidence, as The Independent reports him as claiming he has, in which case it is disgraceful that he has not provided it, or he has none, in which case it is disgraceful to allege an offence.
§Mr. Dalyell This is part of the problem and the reason why I said in my speech that it is of great urgency to institute some kind of appeal body to which civil servants, service men, intelligence officers or policemen who think that they are being maltreated can go without jeopardy to their careers. That is important and that is why I raised the subject at my party conference and was one of those who made it helpful to be the policy of the party.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew Civil servants must be defended by their Ministers when they have no means, at present at any rate, of speaking in their own defence. However, officials are entitled to rely on more than defence by their Ministers. They are entitled to expect that hon. Members, protected as they take pains to be by privilege, will treat officials fairly. I regret that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Ingham, both of whom have had careers of great dedication and distinction with successive Governments, have been unfairly treated in the Chamber.
§Mr. Dalyell Before the Solicitor-General sits down, may I remind him that I am talking about men of considerable power. I worked closely with the late Dame Evelyn Sharp and know how civil servants should properly be treated. The difficulty arises when civil servants become so powerful that they are not accountable in the normal sense of the word. That is why I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister’s press officer, saying that we were dealing with the most powerful “man” in British politics. Later several of the Solicitor-General’s colleagues vouchsafe to me—that I was quite right arid that he is the most powerful—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention. He cannot speak for a second time.
§ 3.5 pm
§Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Solicitor-General to speak?
§Mr. Dalyell Most certainly.
§The Solicitor-General Yes.
§Mr. Cash I am most grateful for an opportunity to speak. We have just had a debate on human rights in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a speech which stretched the procedures of the House. He has now made a series of apparently groundless allegations against certain people. I was not privy to that speech and I can only form a judgment on the basis of what he said. He said nothing specifically and he substantiated nothing with evidence.
1297 There are times when we have reason to be worried that the hon. Gentleman is as much interested in grabbing headlines as in getting at the truth. I suspect that that is true of what happened earlier this morning.
Campaigns such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an appeal body, which was apparently endorsed at the Labour party conference, raise central questions about the nature of authority and where it resides.
§Mr. Dalyell That is absolutely right.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman says that I am absolutely right, but I suspect that we disagree fundamentally about where the centre of gravity must remain.
Self regulation and the constraints that people impose on themselves to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities and, by contrast, the right to speak, are issues which go to the heart of the matter. We have become increasingly fed up — I am sure that is true for the country as well — with people who believe that their unsubstantiated opinions which appear in the media or here, and which are drawn from a fairly limited range of information, can be used to make assertions and inferences—
§Mr. Dalyell rose—
§Mr. Cash I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later. Such clashes of opinion ought to be resolved in the proper and normal way, which is within the framework of law prescribed by our procedures and Acts of Parliament. We are increasingly fed up with invasions of privilege.
§Mr. Dalyell The hon. Gentleman says that I have made unsubstantiated allegations. That was the type of speech which was made against me for 18 long months before the Old Bailey Clive Ponting trial substantiated everything that I had tried to say.
I named Colette Bow in the House and there was the matter of the Solicitor-General’s letter. Who has since been proved right about that? The Solicitor-General will not comment but, with regard to his letter, I was attacked time and again by Conservative Members, but who now thinks that I have been wrong?
§Mr. Cash I have a straight and simple answer. If the hon. Gentleman was proved right in the courts before, he should make the unsubstantiated allegations that he made today outside the House and prove his point in the courts. That is my direct and simple answer to him. Will he reply to that?
§Mr. Dalyell If I go to a court of law and name names, people’s careers are in jeopardy — not mine, other people’s careers. I have to make a judgment whether what I have been told is the truth or not. From my inquiries in Scotland, I believe that every word that I am saying is true.
§Mr. Cash The record has to stand for itself. The only person’s reputation that will be harmed by what has been going on here this morning is the hon. Gentleman’s. I have offered the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, which he is not prepared to take up. If he thinks that making statements and allegations within the privilege of the House will enable him to be able to justify what he has to say, when what he is doing—because he knows perfectly well that everything he says will be splashed over the newspapers tomorrow — is not damaging people’s reputations when they cannot reply to him, then he is absolutely wrong and we are fed up with it and the way that he carries on.
§Mr. Dalyell If there is going to be anger, I am exceedingly angry about what was done in BBC Scotland, which was a wholly un-British thing to do. What happened in Glasgow was horrific. That was something that has never happened in Britain before. I have been here for nearly a quarter of a century and previous Prime Ministers — the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Mr. Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home—know that I have behaved impeccably towards them. This is a different kind of Government and a new species of Prime Minister. As a Member who has been here for a quarter of a century, I do not like it.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is shielding himself behind the privileges of the House.
§The question having been proposed after half-past Two o’clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§Adjourned at eleven minutes past Three o’clock.
Ever wondered why these sorts of people intermarry? Well, when you combine wealth you protect yourself enormously because those who would wish to attack you don’t dare because they know you can spend them into bankruptcy. Whereas, if you were to marry a pauper, you just have what YOU have and your spouse brings no further protection to the table. If you wish to maintain your class as the ruling class, you continue to marry within it.
HC Deb 20 June 1995 vol 262 cc231-2W 231W
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. 
§Mr. Freeman In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. 
§Mr. Freeman As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. 
§Mr. Freeman The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. 
§Mr. Freeman It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. 232W
§Mr. Freeman It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Freeman The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. 
§Mr. Freeman All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.
In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; 
(2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. 
§Mr. Freeman The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.
It’s long but it truly is worth the read.
I hope you get as much a laugh out of this as I did. Well I laughed and I cried to be honest. These people are despicable, lying, deceptive bastards and it’s so clear. Corbyn, Dalyell and, yes, even Salmond know the score regarding Diego Garcia but the Crown Agents (because that is what you become when you take the seat of government – you wear two hats – Government Minister and Crown Minister) lie and evade and deceive through their teeth.
You will see, quite clearly, how the British Government (yes mine and yours) treated the Chagossians (Diego Garcia and the other island’s population). You’ll see how it just needs the UK and the US to agree a treaty and the UK buy up the land (probably at “gunpoint”) from Mauritius for a paltry £3M and then we kick out people who have lived there all their lives and then see how they fare in a land they don’t want and which doesn’t want them.
You will also pick up that Diego Garcia is also a nuclear base. Also you’ll note that the British government (Crown) just accepts whatever the Americans tell them and don’t question – because it’s not in her Majesty’s interests to question. So if the Americans simply say “We didn’t take prisoners to Diego Garcia” that’s good enough for us. Plus you will notice that DG is out of bounds for anyone but Forces personnel.
Following from that, you will recognise how Diego Garcia does not fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court – because it has no settled population! Well, it did, but they were thrown out so now it doesn’t. It just has forces. And the United States DOES NOT WANT to have a settled population because THEN it WOULD come under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction!
Do you see how, at every turn, International law is a crock of shit? Do you see how they evade it because they control what it means and what it applies to?
THAT is why we have to attack the legal system and the legal person – it is ALL a crock of utter shit!
But lastly, in among all of that, there is a wondrous beauty pointing to the global deception of what we have come to be expected to believe – Climate Change/Global Warming.
You will see there is no such thing. Either that or God has given Diego Garcia (of all places) a pass. Perhaps it’s Noah’s island?
Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands
HC Deb 21 June 2004 vol 422 cc1221-2W1221W
§Jeremy CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. 
§Mr. RammellThe US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawIn exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawThe United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman has used the words “overwhelming force” three times already. Does “overwhelming force” include the use of B61–11s? Those are the earth-penetrating nuclear weapons which, we are told, are based in the British Indian ocean territory of Diego Garcia. If there is to be overwhelming force, and if it is to involve nuclear weapons, with the B2 bombers that are based in the hangars at Diego Garcia, ought not the House of Commons to be told about it?
§Mr. AncramThe force that will be required is that which is appropriate and most effective in achieving the objective. I am certainly not going to speculate at this stage on what that force will be. Indeed, at this particular stage we need to make it clear that the United Nations resolution is the first objective to be fulfilled: only if Saddam breaches that will we consider the second option.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Mike O’BrienThe issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, “Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence”.
British Indian Ocean Territory
§Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North (Lab)I welcome the opportunity to debate what I consider to be a very serious issue. It touches on honesty in politics and in government, and it touches on issues of constitution and law and the way in which a group of people have been grievously treated by this country and, to some extent, the United States for more than 40 years.
The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra, and they inhabited an idyllic and pristine environment. Their problem was their location—the Indian ocean. The United States was eyeing it up in the 1950s and 1960s as a potential base, and subsequently decided to build what they euphemistically called a “communications facility” on the island of Diego Garcia. The communications facility turned out to be two of the longest runways that the world had seen and a base from which 4,000 US troops could operate. The base is now routinely used for the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States ‘considers it to be a crucial communications facility.
Prime Minister Wilson and President Johnson discussed the matter in the 1960s and decided to do a deal and evacuate the population of Diego Garcia to make way for the American communications facility. The Americans insisted on the evacuation of not only Diego Garcia, but the entire archipelago, despite the fact that its other islands were some distance from the putative communications facility.
The language used by the then Colonial Office was outrageous beyond belief. Simon Winchester wrote a wonderful piece on the subject in Granta magazine in which he quoted the then permanent secretary in the Colonial Office who described the population inhabiting the islands as a group of “Man Fridays” and stated that it would be simple and easy enough to move them out of the way. The deal subsequently went through and, to make ready for the American base, the British authorities proceeded to remove people from the islands. However, it was never done openly.
Only two days ago outside the Foreign Office, I met a man who was part of a demonstration there. He told me that he had left the islands in 1966 and that he was not allowed to go back, as many others were not. When they went to Mauritius or the Seychelles—mainly Mauritius—for medical treatment or education, they suddenly found that they could not go back.
When the time came for the British to remove the population in earnest, they did so —putting them on a ship, taking them to Port Louis in Mauritius and simply dumping them on the quayside. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) speaks, I am sure that he will describe the conditions that he saw when he went to Mauritius at the time. The people were dumped there in terrible destitution. To ensure that nothing was left on the islands, the British commissioner had the problem of what to do with the islanders’ domestic animals and pets. The dogs were rounded up 272WHand gassed, all the animals were killed and the islands were left empty and uninhabited to make way for the American base.
The poor islanders were forced to eke out an existence in terrible poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Ignored by everybody, they managed to survive and they never gave up two things: first, the hope, determination and desperation for the right of return; and secondly, the hope that one day, somebody, somewhere would recognise the fundamental injustice of their treatment.
Time has moved on and it is 48 years since the original and disgraceful deal was done between Wilson and Johnson, but the injustice has not gone away. I visited Mauritius a couple of years ago to meet the Chagos islanders and to see the conditions in which they live. They are very poor indeed. We have to remember, and we should remember, that the compensation that they finally won, some 15 years after the original removal from the islands had begun, was mainly eaten up by debt collectors and land agents. No one was given sufficient compensation and no one was made rich or wealthy by the process. This has been the subject of a court case that is still going on, so I cannot comment on anything more than the original facts of the case. However, it seems that the islanders were cajoled into signing what they did not believe to be a full and final settlement, and were told to accept it as such. The injustice and the poverty go on.
When I was in Mauritius, I spent a week visiting as many Chagossian families as I could. I talked to them about their lives on the Chagos Islands, when they lived there, and their lives now. They described their sustainable form of living, the type of community, religion and schools that they had and their lives in general. It was fascinating to talk to them, but one could see the hurt in their eyes at the way that they were taken from the islands and dumped on the quayside at Port Louis. Many of those families still live in desperate poverty in metal huts with outside toilets and little furniture. Although the current Mauritius Government have been kinder to them than previous ones, they are still very poor people.
Those people, however, were always going to campaign for their hope of a right of return; they would never give up. Eventually, a case was lodged in the British legal system and, in a court order of 2000, they were granted the right to return under British immigration law. It was ruled that they had the right of return. The following year, a further step forward was taken when theBritish Overseas Territories Bill was introduced in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I raised the question of the eligibility of the Chagos islanders for British citizenship, on the basis that they would be entitled to British citizenship like everyone else in overseas territories had they not been removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. To their credit, the Government accepted the thrust of our argument, and a Government amendment was tabled and accepted in Committee. Therefore, the islanders were given the right to British citizenship. There is, unfortunately, a grey area in which I hope ministerial discretion will be used to deal with the small number of those who have fallen outside the provisions of that law.
273WHThings looked quite good in 2000 and 2001, and a compensation claim was lodged to re-open the issue. In meetings we had at the Foreign Office with the Minister’s predecessor, Baroness Amos, on the right of return and the possibility of a visit, we thought that things were going very well. Indeed, in the Commons, Ministers have asserted two things. One is that there is a right to return, and the second is that there was no impediment to anyone going back at any time. Things were looking good, and we had hope, as did the islanders.
On 10 June this year, which everyone will remember as election day, staff at the Foreign Office were not out ensuring that people were voting. Instead, they were at the palace asking the Queen to sign an Order in Council. When I was told that an Order in Council had been signed, I misheard or misunderstood. I thought that it was a statutory instrument that I would be able to pray against, as I assumed other hon. Members would, so that decisions made by Ministers would be subject to some form of democratic accountability. I had to reconsider, and I spoke to Sheridans’ Richard Gifford, the excellent solicitor who has represented the Chagossians for many years. He calmly explained to me that I had misunderstood, and that an Order in Council signed by her Majesty was law. It overrides everything in which we believe about the democratic accountability of the Government.
There are two orders: one is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order and the second is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order. I shall just quote a little of one, to give the Chamber a flavour of it:Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Commissionerappointed under the constitution order—may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory”.The order then goes on to declare,without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”,that the commissioner in effect becomes the supreme Governor of everything in the territory. The order says:All laws made by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette in such manner as the Commissioner may direct. Every law made by the Commissioner under subsection (1) shall come into force on the date on which it is published”.We have handed power over to a commissioner. Never mind the fact that there were islanders living there and that several thousand people until that point had every right to live there; apparently, they now have no rights whatever. So much for the constitution order.
The immigration order was the second one passed, and I shall quote just two of its sections. Article 7 says:An immigration officer, acting in his entire discretion, may issue or renew a permit or may cancel a permit before the expiration, subject to the right of appeal provided in section 10.That is for people who wish to visit the Chagos Islands. Article 10 says:A person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer may appeal to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.274WHSo the only person to whom one can appeal if one does not agree with a decision to prevent Chagos islanders going to their own islands is a commissioner appointed specifically to control the Chagos Islands in every way for evermore.
The Minister made a written statement to the House on 10 June, although frankly it should have been an oral statement and made at a time when he could have been cross-questioned about it. At least, however, we are debating the subject here in Westminster Hall today. His statement said:Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 33WS.]I have some comments to make on that. The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands. Let us not beat about the bush: that was a disgraceful, immoral act. It is time that a Minister stood up and apologised for that act committed by the Government of the time and for the treatment of the Chagos islanders by succeeding Governments.
I was kindly given the three volumes of the feasibility study by the Foreign Office when it came out in November 2000, and it said that there were problems with water supply, periodic flooding, storms, seismic activity and so on, as the Minister points out. However, it did not say that no one could live there or that life was impossible on the islands. When pressed on the matter, the Foreign Office retreats into arguments about the potential cost of resettling the Chagos islanders. I have two points on that. First, they have a moral right to return. Secondly, would any Minister stand up in the House and say that the cost of keeping the population on Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha or the Falkland Islands was such that we were going to withdraw the entire population? They would not dare.
§Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland Islands. Has he made any comparisons between the costs that he is talking about and the amount of money spent on defending the Falkland islanders when the Argentines invaded?
§Jeremy CorbynIndeed, the costs are on two completely different scales. The costs involved in administering the Chagos Islands are very small. At the current time, all the income from fishing licences—about £50,000 a year—is taken up by administration, and other money is paid to continue that administration. Were the islands to be resettled, however, and were there to be serious discussions with the islanders about resettling them, there would be an economy on the islands. There is fishing there, and the possibility of ecotourism or copra. Quite a lot of activities could take place on the islands. However, I do not get the feeling that there is any wish, desire, hope or intention of going down that road. The whole desire is to put the issue to one side and forget about it. That is because of an American base on Diego Garcia, for 275WHwhich I suspect nothing is paid, and because the Americans have said that they do not want anyone anywhere near their base owing to security concerns.
I think that we have every right to ensure the settlement of the outer islands—at least—and that we have a right to know exactly what is happening on Diego Garcia, which is, under the terms of the colonial order, sovereign British territory. Are there any prisoners on Diego Garcia? Is it being used for the sort of vortex of American justice such as occurs in Guantanamo Bay? I am assured that it is not. I want to hear that assurance again today and it would be much better if there were an independent inspection of what is going on.
I will make only a couple more points because I want to make sure that other Members get a chance to speak. On Tuesday, a group of Chagos islanders went to the Foreign Office to demonstrate. They handed in a petition signed by a substantial number of Chagos islanders who are living in this country legally. The petition demands:
- “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
- 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
- 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
- 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
- 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
- 6. The organising of a visit to the ancestral sites in the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians living in Mauritius, Seychelles and the UK”
—and, presumably, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that that is a minimal demand. I had a response from the Minister today and I hope that he will be able to give us further positive news on the possibility of a visit and a return to it.
Mr. HopkinsIt strikes me that there is something of a parallel between what has happened to the Chagos islanders and the highland clearances in Scotland, when the rich and powerful drove the poor and weak from the land. That has scarred and informed Scottish politics ever since. Is it not significant that two of the three speakers here today are Scots?
§Mr. SalmondI am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was about to come to it. One of the first and better acts of the Scottish Parliament when it came back into existence on the mound was in a debate such as this when it apologised collectively for the historic injustice of the highland clearances. They were not the responsibility of any Scottish Parliament, but it was felt none the less by all parties in that Parliament that such an apology should be offered, and that was done by representatives of all the parties. I very much hope that the Minister will do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested and proffer some sort of apology to the few thousand Chagos islanders who deserve not just an apology but some sign that future action and policy will be different from that in the past.
The islanders won the High Court judgment in 2000, which was in the days of ethical foreign policy. I shared the hopes that were expressed earlier that at last something would be done to rectify the historical 278WHgrievance and injustice. I accepted, as I think did many islanders, that there was an American base of long standing on Diego Garcia and that it might not be possible for all the islands to be reinhabited. However, basic rights—such as the right to visit the graves of ancestors, to occupy the outer islands and to receive reasonable compensation, and the right of the duty of care that any Government and the Crown should have over these people—should have been respected as de minimis compensation for the wrongs and injustices of the past. In fact, none of that occurred, and instead the Government, in a sneaky, underhand way, passed two Orders in Council on European election day to prohibit debate, to remove what little rights had been won and to rectify loopholes in legislation that allowed the assertion of the human rights of the islanders and their descendants.
The analysis that the islands are no longer capable of sustaining occupation because of global warming must be pretty bad news for the American military base—perhaps the runway is about to disappear under water. I have an overwhelming feeling that if Mauritius could be persuaded to send just one gunboat to the outer islands to establish the Mauritian flag again in what is arguably its territory anyway, we would decide that the islands were worth reclaiming on behalf of the Crown and dispatch a taskforce to the Indian ocean.
Global warming is an interesting concept, because it conflicts rather dramatically with what is on the US navy website. In a welcoming introduction to “The Footprint of Freedom” and Camp Justice, Diego Garcia is described as a paradise on earth and it is said that one of the best stationings that any US serviceman can have is on Diego Garcia. The website states:Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island.The Minister had better explain how the Government claim to know better than many respectable outlets of the US press. The Washington Post, for example, claims that prisoners are held on Diego Garcia for “rendering” before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. How confident is the Foreign Office in the information that the US authorities have offered it on what is happening on Diego Garcia, given that the Prime Minister seems to be revising his previous confidence in judgments that he has made about the international situation? Ultimately, the Minister should accept the collective responsibility of this and previous Governments for what has been done to the islanders. An apology should be proffered, but above all there should be a change of approach and of policy by the Government, who should offer some justice and some compensation to the islanders.
It may be thought that because of indolence or lack of concern among most Members of Parliament—there are a few honourable exceptions, who are here today such an issue is of no great moment, but it is precisely such issues that are of great political moment, because no member of the public could hear and understand what has happened to the islanders without having an overwhelming sense of injustice. If the Government cannot rectify the wrongs of the past for these few thousand people, what hope is there for their having any moral compass on the great issues of the day? Unless the Government are prepared to act and rectify the wrongs of the past, they are, in a moral sense, every bit as homeless as the islanders of Diego Garcia.
Let none of us suppose that there is a complete lack of interest in this country on this issue. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had the opportunity to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was in company in Scotland. However, I subsequently heard, not only in university circles but more widely, that it was an important question. Indeed, some people went so far as to observe that it was the most sensible question asked of the Prime Minister for some weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has inspired an important debate, but perhaps it comes 40 years too late. It was in 1964 that the Government began misdescribing the long-settled population as transitory workers in order to mislead the world into thinking that they had no obligations to that population. My clear recollection is that I raised the subject with the then Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker. Frankly, having been defeated at Smethwick and about to be defeated at Leyton, his mind was on other things. A later Foreign Secretary was George Brown. When the general problem of the British Indian Ocean Territory was raised with him, he told me, in colourful language, to mind my own business. Perhaps I was not as tough then as subsequently, but George Brown was a formidable operator in his heyday. I raised the subject on the prompting of the late Sir Ashley Miles, the biological secretary of the Royal Society. It was his concern about the Indian ocean that first raised my acute interest.
Article 73 of the United Nations casts a “sacred trust” on a sovereign power to promote the welfare and advancement of the people, but the Government surreptitiously deported the islanders and misled the world about their status. At the United Nations on 16 November 1965, the British representative Mr. F.D.W. Brown, acting on the instructions of the Foreign Office, misdescribed the islands asuninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population aslabourers from Mauritius and Seychellesand misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had beenfreely worked out with the…elected representatives of the people concerned”.Instead, they bought the plantations, closed them down, forced the people to leave on boats, which incidentally were horribly overcrowded, and led them to exile, where they still remain. Their lives have been a tragedy of misery, poverty and despair, the only alleviation of which has been the heartfelt desire to return to their homeland, where their villages and ancestors lie.
In 1969, on my return from Australia, I stopped in Mauritius to stay the night with the former general secretary of the Labour party, Len Williams. Harold Wilson had wanted him out of Transport house and made him Governor-General of Mauritius. His wife Margaret Williams was a very intelligent and nice lady, and she decided that I should spend a morning with some Ilois people. It made a strong impression on me.
What is remarkable is that in the same speech by Mr. Brown representing the Foreign Office, he described the wishes of the Falkland islanders, whose 280WHrepresentatives were consulted. Here we return to a previous intervention and a proper comparison with the Falkland islanders, of whom Mr. Brown said:It has been suggested that this population is somehow irrelevant and that it has no claim to have its wishes taken into account …it would surely be fantastic to maintain that only indigenous inhabitants have any rights in the Country”.He then quoted Woodrow Wilson from 1918:Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game”.Within months, the Chagos Islands had been given to the United States and the destruction of the islanders’ homes and lives was soon to follow.
These days, we are all too familiar with conducting foreign policy on the basis of false or misleading facts. The historical record now revealed by the islanders’ legal struggle has after 30 years shown that a small and vulnerable population of British subjects can safely be written out of the history book on the pretext that they are not really a population at all. There is nothing new in deceiving the world while acting in breach of civilised standards of international and constitutional law. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his powerful speech.
When the islanders finally won their struggle to return in the High Court in November 2000, Lord Justice Laws stated:The people are to be governed, not removed.He also stated that the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was an “abject legal failure”, which hadno colour of lawful authority.That is not my view but that of a distinguished Law Lord.
We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), accepted the Court’s judgment and said:I have decided to accept the Court’s ruling and the Government will not be appealing.The work we are doing on the feasibility of resettlement of Ilois now takes on a new importance. We started feasibility work a year ago and are now well under way with phase two of the study.Furthermore, we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which allows Ilois to return to the outer islands while observing our treaty obligations.The Government has not defended what was done or said 30 years ago. As Lord Justice Laws recognised, we made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened”.History is repeating itself with the same moral turpitude. This time, given that the islanders had already been promised that the Government’s policy was to move towards their resettlement on the islands, the new banishment is a cruel change to what has already been offered. Moreover, the reasons given are again based on inaccurate and misleading information.
The Foreign Office press statement claimed that it was the feasibility study that prevented resettlement. I am glad that this Minister is replying to the debate, and I thank him for his personal courtesy in seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and me in the Foreign Office. He cited a conclusion, supposedly made by the consultants in their executive summary, that the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to 281WHbe prohibitive. However, that was not based on any work of the consultants, whose terms of reference precluded any consideration of cost. Even if he had read only the executive summary, he would know from page 3 that the consultants reported:This report has not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”.I feel entitled to ask where the conclusion came from. It was certainly not from the consultants.
The Minister further stated thathuman interference within the Atolls…is likely to exacerbate the stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effect of global warming.However, other things might accelerate global warming.Thus”,he continued,resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time”.Again, that judgment was not based on the work of the consultants, who stated in volume 3, paragraph 8.3:At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands.The Minister’s conclusion had crept in from somewhere else.
Finally, it is impossible to take seriously the suggestion that only a resettled population will face difficulties. Are we really to believe that the 64 islands offered back to the islanders by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, are going to sink under the waves, while the one island occupied by the Americans is to provide defence facilities for generations to come? It is the biggest military base outside the continental United States.
Only yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley referred to the shameful treatment to which the islanders were subjected:The deliberate misinterpretation of Ilois history and status, designed to deflect any investigation by the United Nations, the use of legal powers designed for the governance of the islands for the illicit purpose of depopulating them, the consequent uprooting of scores of families from the only way of life and means of subsistence that they knew, the failure to make anything like adequate provision for their resettlement, all of this and more is now part of the historical record.Moreover, he went so far as to compare those removals with the highland clearances of the second quarter of the 19th century. He stated:Defence may have replaced agricultural improvement as the reason, but the pauperisation and the expulsion of the weak in the interests of the powerful is the same. It gives little to be proud of.Now there has been a cruel new blow to this mistreated population. Their hopes, which were raised by this Government, have been dashed. Nothing in this game of cat and mouse is any less culpable than the lies and inhumanity that characterised the removal of the population.
It is not, however, too late to render justice. The right of the islanders to return to their homeland should now be recognised, and proper scientific studies should be undertaken, with proper, independent input from respected scientists whose conclusions ought to be binding on the Government.
I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to the debate. I am relatively new to this subject, but when I read the press reports a few weeks ago I could not believe that the Government, whom I so strongly support, are taking this action. I know the Minister to be a good man, and I cannot believe that his sleep is not a little troubled due to these problems.
The test of any Government, or any man or woman, is how they deal wit h injustices felt by powerless people. I urge the Minister to make a stand on this issue; if there are forces beyond his office, outside or within the Foreign Office, that are urging this course of action, I urge him to take a stand. I have looked at the press release—that is all we can go on as to the reasons why we are taking this action. I could see four: the risk of flooding; the precarious nature of life for any people who return; the effect on the delicate marine and terrestrial life caused by people who return; and the cost.
With regard to the risk of flooding, I have consulted one or two experts on the level of the land there, and a lot of it is higher than that in East Anglia. We know about flooding in my constituency of Selby, and if we accepted the argument on flooding that the Government are using, half of my constituency would be depopulated. Some outlying islands were inhabited in the past, and some were based on banks that were shifting in storms. There were tall copra trees on the islands and the inhabitants had worked out a mode of living—growing copra successfully, and in some cases raising huts on stills. The argument does not seem overwhelming to me.
We have talked about the precarious nature of the life that would face any islanders who returned to the outer islands. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was rather restrained and understated in quoting the American publicity about the islands. I shall detain the Chamber for a moment to give a little more flavour of what the US navy says about Diego Garcia in its message to its recruits. It says that Diego Garcia boastsunbelievable recreational facilities and exquisite natural beautyas well as “outstanding” living conditions. There is no mention of the threat of imminent demise from flooding. In fact, I understand that the US is seeking to extend the lease on its base, which would expire in 2016, so it is thinking long term. There is a windsurfers club, a yacht club, an annual Miss Diego Garcia competition, regular picnics to what the US describes as some of the best unspoiled beaches in the world, fishing, snorkelling and a beauty parlour. It does not sound that precarious to me.
As for the delicate marine and terrestrial life, the impact of the 1,500 US personnel, the British personnel, the 2,000 civilian contractors and the various military equipment must be at least as worrying, if it is the major concern, as the effect of some islanders returning to the outer islands.
The cost of returning is obviously a serious matter. From a preliminary scan of the literature, it is very difficult to work out whether any payment has ever been made by the US Government for the use of the island.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate and on setting out in stark terms a dark chapter in our history and the impact it has had on the Chagos islanders. Other Members have dwelt at length on the history of what has happened, but I want to focus on the immediate past, the present and the future.
On resettlement, the Government statement of 15 June, which banned all rights of return of the Chagos people to their homeland, relied in part for its justification on the findings of the June 2002 feasibility study on the resettlement of the islands. Several hon. Members have referred to that and I want to highlight a couple of points.
That report concluded that the resettlement of the islanders would be prohibitively expensive and precarious to their safety. The Minister will be aware that Jonathan Jenness, who is a resettlement expert, carried out an independent review of that study. He examined the claims that the Government-inspired report made and it is clear that the Government’s consultants were not given the task of assessing the financial costs and benefits of resettlement. The Department for International Development has not carried out, or received, any estimate of costs of the resettlement of the islands. I would be interested to know whether any Department has such figures.
On the safety of the environment, the review conducted by Mr. Jenness found that the Chagos Islands have a “benign environment” and that no available material can assess the possible consequences of global warming. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the Minister must explain why a micro 284WHclimate exists in Diego Garcia, which ensures that it is safe from global warming, whereas the rest of the islands are under threat.
On resettlement in general, the review of the study—undertaken by Mr. Jenness—says thatit is fatuous to imagine that the islands cannot be resettled…they were settled, successfully for several generations”.Of course, Diego Garcia is successfully settled by the Americans and the BIOT administration. What assessment have the Government conducted of the review by Jonathan Jenness? Can they make any such assessment public, so that we can see how they responded to the valid points he made? I hope the Minister can say whether any discussions took place between the UK and the US Governments on these matters in the run-up to the decision that was taken on 15 June?
On compensation, to which other hon. Members have referred, it is clear that the level provided was insufficient and that when the Chagos islanders entered into the arrangement that we are discussing it was not made clear to them precisely what they were signing up to.
On visitation rights, the Minister must say why the security concerns are so great that people are not, for instance, allowed to return to visit graves. Before I turn to the issue of Camp Justice, I will discuss the report in today’s papers that Mauritius may sue for Diego Garcia. Perhaps he can say also what discussions have taken place with the Mauritian Prime Minister on that subject. How many times has the UK been taken to the International Court of Justice—that is what is being proposed? Has the Prime Minister replied to Mr. Berenger’s letter? I understand that he is very angry not to have received a response. Can we have assurances from the Minister that the Government will not retaliate and perhaps take it out on the Mauritian Government in relation to subsidies that they receive for sugar?
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow)I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about the affront to democracy. I shall set an example by making a speech which is much shorter than 10 minutes. It is in the form of a question, and it is apposite that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence should be answering this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have been much involved in the case of the Chagos islanders. Their lawyers told us of a problem with the Ilois returning to Diego Garcia because of the building of six huge temperature-controlled hangars. We were asked what we would do to protest to the Government about that. We asked what the hangars were for. Apparently they are for B52 bombers and, particularly, B2 bombers that have to be repaired and maintained in a particular temperature. Why does one have B2 bombers? It is particularly to carry earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, specifically the B61–11.
My question, which I hope will be addressed in the reply, is this: we are talking about a British base, the British Indian Ocean Territory, of which Diego Garcia is a part and which is a House of Commons responsibility. The House of Commons should be told if nuclear weapons, albeit tactical, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy bunkers—one can understand why the American air force may wish to have this particular weapon in relation to Iraq—are to be launched from British soil, with or without agreement by the United States air force. We should be told in the winding-up speech tonight.
First, the issue is not about human rights in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary made great play of them and the dossier covers them. We need no persuading that Saddam Hussein’s regime is about the most evil in the world today. It has committed atrocities on a scale unseen almost anywhere else, but that does not justify armed intervention 52in Iraq. If I may say so, it is something of a red herring. The debate is about something wider, more important and of greater application to the world outside Iraq.
Secondly, there can be no controversy about the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed, and is continuing to develop apace, weapons of mass destruction. The dossier, which puts forward the evidence in a calm and measured way, makes the case conclusively. Surely that can no longer be a matter of dispute.
Thirdly, does Saddam having and developing such weapons amount to a threat sufficient in immediacy and gravity to justify armed military intervention, even as a last resort? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in a powerful, lucid and cogent speech—I am afraid that I did not agree with much of it—the threat issue is a matter of judgment. Everyone has to make their judgment about the gravity and immediacy of that threat.
We must look at other countries that have developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and ask ourselves what it is that distinguishes Iraq from, for example, India, Pakistan or even Iran. The answer is that there is clear evidence from the history of the Saddam Hussein regime that it is fundamentally an aggressive regime. He has developed these weapons, not as an instrument of deterrence to deter attacks on Iraq, but as weapons of aggression. In the past 20 years, the regime has twice invaded its neighbours. On a number of occasions, it has launched ballistic missiles against neighbouring states. It is not a regime under external threat that has developed these weapons to create a mutual deterrence, as is the case with India and Pakistan—regrettably, perhaps, but one can understand the reason for them doing so. Those considerations do not apply to Iraq.
In my judgment, this threat is clear, serious and present enough to justify decisive intervention by the international community in whatever shape that takes to enforce a disarmament of the regime.
My fourth point is about the threat to the stability of the middle east and was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and others. We should be very clear about this: the greatest threat to the stability of the middle east is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the actual attacks that he has mounted against his neighbours in the past 20 years, the fact that he consistently sponsors suicide attacks by Palestinians helps to prevent the peace process that we all yearn to be restarted from resuming. It is hard to see how the successful disarming and removal of Saddam Hussein can do anything other than contribute to the stability of the middle east.
Of course, the same concerns were expressed before the Gulf war, 12 years ago, but in fact the successful conclusion of the Gulf war was the trigger for the start of the Oslo process—
Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community……
In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.
12.46 Intriguing new line from The Malay Mail Online.
Police scouring Capt Shah’s flight simulator – which he installed in his home – have found five Indian Ocean practice runways.
One is in the Maldives.
One is on Diego Garcia.
The other three are in India and Sri Lanka.
So, not such a crazy idea after all. We have the Anwar/Globalist issue. Anwar now coming out to admit he’s related to the pilot. We know why the west wants to destabilise Malaysia and we know the CIA are active in Malaysia and have been for some time. We also know the Council on Foreign Relations is happy with Anwar and the west definitely want him as their man in Malaysia.
We know it is highly unlikely that this plane could have travelled across multiple territories such as the northern arc suggests without being spotted. The southern arc leads to nowhere. So what’s left?
Why fly over Maldives instead of direct to Diego Garcia? Well it makes sense to me. You see, by doing so (if, in fact it did) it would give the possibility of being spotted by the Maldives. It would then suggest that the plane was heading to Africa. The straight line between Maldives and Africa suggests the flight is heading toward…..
And we all know who live in Somalia don’t we? It’s full of pirates and Al Qaeda! 🙂 So we’re told by our wonderful media programming on behalf of our governments.
So then what do we expect next? Well, what I expect is for Israel to start screaming! “Oy vey! Oy Vey! They have a plane now in Somalia loaded up with nuclear bombs. The Iranians are in on it! We need to destroy Iran before they use it. They’re going to wipe out Jerusalem and the Temple Mount! Oy vey! Oy vey! The International community must now attack Iran and Somalia and destroy half the middle east so we, god’s people, can continue to live on this planet, in peace and suck the life out of every last living human creature with our monetary system!”
Ok perhaps I’ve slightly overdone what the Israeli’s might say and demand but have I? They’re fricking “religious” (yet atheist?!) nutters! And they’re desperate for a war!
BILDERBERG: You’re finished! The problem remains however that the people behind you aren’t… yet!
Your David Rockefellers, Tony Blairs, Gideon Osbornes, Ken Clarkes, every last one of you TREASONOUS BASTARDS who have attended this organisation’s meetings for the last 60 years and pushed through the agenda (via your working groups of the RIIA, CFR, Trilateral Commission etc etc) of destroying national sovereignty, planning and executing wars worldwide, crashing the financial system for your benefit and colluding in crimes against humanity, are finished. It is time for the people to lock you all up for life. And in our language life MEANS life!
Gerard Batten MEP in EU Parliament. He’s slow though because the UK treasury has admitted through a FOI request that, indeed, policy IS discussed (therefore made) in Bilderberg meetings. Why he doesn’t just come right out and say it is beyond me!
Now, you “Detectives” out there in your airy fairy land of just doing as you’re told by a bunch of black robe wearing judicial twats and who spend your days scouring over something pathetic which pales in any significance yet is for the purpose of exposing the REAL crimes such as this – why don’t you do a job which reflects the supposed nature of your position and investigate REAL criminals? Oh but DAMN I keep forgetting it is the real criminals who control the system which you protect and that pays your wages to scour the hard drives of people like me now isn’t it? So, in fact, you’re the criminals’ protective unit. You’re the “Mafia police” in essence. Yet you expect us, the public to trust you to keep law and order? Who’s “law” and who’s “Order”?
And you know the sad thing Detective Manchester? You all seem to be doing it believing you’re doing the right thing while the very system you protect is destroying the wealth and the safety of all your own – your mother, your father, your sister, brother, cousins, friends etc. Look in the mirror bud and work it out!
Here’s a little starter for 10 for you. See how bright you are to pick up on this and do your own investigation shall we? Or is it too big and you’d rather just have an easy life behind that desk picking on the little guy? The little guy who, in fact, is the equivalent of you and yours. You just don’t get it do you Detective?
“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is
now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial
meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the
new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis
evolving around the Cold War. ”
Asia Times May 2003: EE22Ak03.html
“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook
presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid
with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the
geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the
U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn,
President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of
monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative
bubbles of all time.
“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America
and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property
London Times Sept 2002: http://www.nogw.com/articles/rothchildmeeting.html
Now, think logically detective. How could these reports POSSIBLY have been made up as any kind of propaganda? They were YEARS before this so called “out of the blue” crash while the wars around the middle east have all come to pass as have so many others. So WHO had the “crystal ball” Detective? The reporters? Or the people in that Bilderberg meeting? It’s GOT to be one of the two right? So I’ll leave it up to the detective capabilities of the Scottish detectives themselves to figure it out. After all, by god you can “detect” me for having a bit of a ‘conflict of words’ with an alleged jew on a messageboard. Is that the best detective work you can do Detectives? 🙂 We should all sleep safe and sound in our beds thenin the comfort of knowing our detectives can detect a little spat on a messageboard and get stright into action huh? Keeping the world free of corruption and crime I see! hahahaha. It’s hilarious, sorry detective but it really is! 😉
Meanwhile, you just need to read a few things dating back into the 90s and you will see the “genesis” of all of this being prepared by Zionist neocons and Obama’s own mentor.
So here’s dear old Lord Chancellor Ken. Proven lying bastard by yours truly simply taking his words and comparing them to the reality and the words of the UK treasury. Can’t get ANY FCUKING SIMPLER than that now can we “Detective”?
But Detective, you’re not allowed to have a political opinion! That’s out of your remit! You’re forbidden from holding one and, therefore, you are simply controlled by the very people you should be enforcing the law upon! Have you ever looked up not only International law but British law regarding war crimes? If you did you would readily see that the British government (Tony Blair and now Cameron for two examples) are 100% guilty of warcrimes. Where’s the handcuffs Detective? ….. Nowhere. And you know why? Because YOU are one controlled lackey who is disallowed from intefering in politics when it is the politicians themselves who are destroying this country from the inside and out. You’re IMPOTENT man and while you steal my property, I actually feel sorry for you! You’re BLIND.
And here you have an outright confession of guilt – yes Mr Detective guilt because to state as is stated is admitting an all out attack on the sovereignty of nations. Not by tanks (unless you’re a Libya or Iraq etc) but by financial WMDs and the bribery of politicians to take the money and then legislate in your favour opposing the constitutional basis of the nation(s).
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Read again SLOWLY Detective! He says OTHERS characterize him as conspiring with others but he then states in pure hubris that he pleads guilty AND he’s proud of it!
Are you fcuking thick Detective?
If the Council as a body has stood for anything these 75 years, it has been for American internationalism based on American interests. If the Council has had influence during this period, it has derived from individual members taking the varied and often conflicting fare of Council meetings and publications to a wider American audience. From Foreign Affairs articles by W.E.B. DuBois and George F. Kennan to books by Henry A. Kissinger and Stanley Hoffmann, the Council’s role has been to find the best minds and leaders, bring them together with other Council members, and provide forum and stage.
Leslie H. Gelb
Council on Foreign Relations
Now did that say “British public interests”? No it didn’t. How fcuking clear does this have to be for you “Detectives”??
As for our War criminal extraordinaire, Tony Blair, well who do you think this guy Rockefeller is talking about when he describes himself as an internationalist and CONSPIRING with others to bring about an integrated world political and economic structure (World Government in other words run by banks and corporations and that just means purely for THEIR profit)? Well here’s an example:
And who was it that ensured our resident war criminal (who is now still being protected by you lot using OUR taxpayers money because he’s afraid the taxpayers may want his blood for the shedding of theirs due to his lies – ironic isn’t it?) got his cushy job at JP Morgan at $2M/year while it is now mainstream that Blair was in Libya during his No.10 tenancy doing deals FOR JP Morgan?
[The VERY SAME oligarch who was involved in the Rothschild/Gideon Osbourne yacht scandal just a couple of years ago! Deripaska, the Rothschild goon! Isn’t it funny how Rothschild is in on the game with the very same faces influencing (and bribing) Blair, Mandelson, Osbourne – it doesn’t matter who or what side of the political fence they are because politics is the sham to display to the unread and uneducated: Libyan-link-oligarch-funded-Blair-initiative.html
Behind the scenes you see on the telly and in the press, all these political whores work for the same masters and are rewarded for it. While you “Detectives” haven’t a fcuking clue!]
It was the fcuking Rothschilds. Yes those same scum who own and control and first funded the set up of the zionist state of Israel. Our Tony, of course, then becomes also the Middle Easy PEACE envoy! You couldn’t make this shit up Mr Detective!!
“The event is being arranged by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who hosts
influential gatherings for London’s elite. Those invited include at least seven
billionaires with a combined wealth of more than £25billion.
Invitations to Downing Street were given to tycoons willing to donate more
than $25,000 (£13,000) to the Tate gallery. Organisers of the event, American
Patrons of Tate, which Lady Rothschild chairs, claimed the No 10 evening is part
of wider fundraising efforts for the gallery, and that the main event will be a
dinner in Manhattan, which will not be attended by the Blairs.”
The coincidences eh? Now here’s another one:
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
General Charles Ronald Llewelyn Guthrie, Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, GCB, LVO, OBE, DL, KCSG, KM, KCJCO (born 17 November 1938) was Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997.
He is a cross bench member of the House of Lords. He was created a life peer as Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, of Craigiebank in the City of Dundee, after retiring as Chief of the Defence Staff. He was one of the several retired Chiefs of Defence Staff who spoke out in the House of Lords about the risk to servicemen facing liability for their actions before the International Criminal Court, particularly in respect to the invasion of Iraq. He has been appointed Colonel of the Life Guards and Gold Stick-in-Waiting to Her Majesty the Queen.
A Roman Catholic convert, he is a Knight of Malta and Patron of the Cardinal Hume Centre.
Guthrie was criticised in 2008 by George Monbiot for an alleged lack of understanding of international law. Monbiot based his argument on Guthrie’s September 2002 advocacy of an invasion of Iraq and subsequent comments, in which he appeared to support launching “surprise wars”, something forbidden by the United Nations charter.
And here’s the rub:
Extract from Guthrie’s comments in Parliament re the Iraq war which he fully supported:
“I ask the Minister to answer two questions that he has already been posed. First, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, I was assured that it was unthinkable for British service men and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court. Can the Minister assure the House that that is still so?
Secondly, can the Government give serious consideration to the British Armed Forces, like the French forces, opting out of their commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights? Many of us feel that we should, in view of our experiences in Iraq.”
Obvious then that he is well aware of the breaking of International law – something he had to support for his boss Rothschild to have Blair and the British military support the imperialistic aims of the internationalists such as Rothschild and Rockefeller.
Excerpt from George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian:
Let me dwell for a moment on what Guthrie said, for he appears to advocate that we retain the right to commit war crimes. States in dispute with each other, the UN charter says, must first seek to solve their differences by “peaceful means” (article 33). If these fail, they should refer the matter to the security council (article 37), which decides what measures should be taken (article 39). Taking the enemy by surprise is a useful tactic in battle, and encounters can be won only if commanders are able to make decisions quickly. But either Guthrie does not understand the difference between a battle and a war – which is unlikely in view of his 44 years of service – or he does not understand the most basic point in international law. Launching a surprise war is forbidden by the charter.
It has become fashionable to scoff at these rules and to dismiss those who support them as pedants and prigs, but they are all that stand between us and the greatest crimes in history. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”. The tribunal’s charter placed “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression” at the top of the list of war crimes.
If Britain’s most prominent retired general does not understand this, it can only be because he has never been forced to understand it. In September 2002, he argued in the Lords that “the time is approaching when we may have to join the US in operations against Iraq … Strike soon, and the threat will be less and easier to handle. If the UN route fails, I support the second option.” No one in the chamber warned him that he was proposing the supreme international crime. In another Lords debate, Guthrie argued that it was “unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court”, regardless of what they might have done. He demanded a guarantee from the government that this would not be allowed to happen, and proposed that the British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement.
International law is clear as day. While look at another “coincidence”. Guthrie argued in the house of Lords FOR the strike on Iraq in Septemeber 2002. Now re-check the Times article above regarding the meeting at Rothschild’s Waddington Manor – just so happens it was September 2002! How very predictable!
Now let’s take a look at Colt Defence shall we? Of which Guthrie is a non executive Director:
They supply just about the entire world with weapons so who is it we’re fighting? Martians? Otherwise it would appear they sell weapons to anyone and any one of these countries could stage an attack on any other, ignoring for a moment that they will be using the arms to kill their own people then Guthrie and crew say “hey you can’t do that! We sold those weapons to you to shoot pigeons!” (but then I suppose the World Wildlife Fund would be up in arms about that eh Philip?)
“Selecting the weapon that will equip a country’s Armed Forces is a crucial process with strong military and political implications; the best and most combat-proven weapon in the world should therefore be chosen. The example established by the U.S. Armed Forces and the armed forces of more than 90 other nations around the world confirms that Colt weapons significantly increase the field readiness as well as the operational, tactical and strategic capabilities of any country’s Armed Forces.”
“Prior to joining the company, Mr. Flaherty was a Managing Director in the equity capital markets origination business at Banc of America Securities LLC. Prior to joining Banc of America Securities in 2001, Mr. Flaherty was an investment banker at Credit Suisse First Boston.”
An investment banker no less and not only any old one but a Credit Suisse one! And who controls Credit Suisse? None other than dear old David Rockefeller! Now, do you think any and all wars might just be VERY lucrative for old Guthrie and the Rothschilds/Rockefellers of this world?
Now DEAR Detective. All I’m doing is researching and posting my findings online. If some unknown cyber personality then cries wolf and feigns offence while being quite happy to goad people (and there are many more) to be blunt with the little self proclaimed “jew” while he, like you, does not understand the historical and existing impact of zionism on the world INCLUDING the negative impact on the everyday TRUE jew, then that ain’t MY fault Mister!
So, if it’s your wish to continue to sieze MY property – not yours and not the British judiciary’s or the British Government’s – while you act as a protector of liars, thieves and war criminals in your ignorance, then I suggest you check the law. Your actions are both, enabling the ongoing cover up of war crimes and treason, and as a party to such, you are liable and effectively committing the crime of Misprision of Treason.
We urge all civilians to go to New Scotland yard, or their local police station to report UK war criminals, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lawson and around 250 MPs who are all WAR CRIMINALS
For more information and assistance please see
List of war crimes
• The Genocide Convention, 1948.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
• The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
• The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
• The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.
But hey, Detective, there may be an answer as to why you’re pissing me about rather than investigate all of this. You see, Zionist Israel can do whatever the hell it wants it seems and when David Cameron professes himself a zionist then what do you expect huh? He even changes British law in the face of International law JUST FOR THEM! Get it? Is it SINKING IN YET?
In the UK the judicial system allowed private parties and individuals to present their own evidence of war crimes before a magistrate who could then, if he or she felt the case was strong enough, issue a warrant for the suspect’s arrest. Consequently, in 2005 retired Israeli General Doron Almog only escaped arrest by skulking in his plane before being flown back to Israel, while in 2009 Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni cancelled her trip rather than face arrest. Other senior Israeli figures simply chose to stay away from Britain.
Sadly on 15 September this means of potentially achieving justice was revoked. In response to Israeli protests the UK government chose to change its laws rather than see Israelis arrested. In a move condemned by Amnesty International, the UK government amended the law on universal jurisdiction so that in future only the Director of Public Prosecutions can authorize the arrest of a suspected war criminal (“Tories make life easier for war criminals,” Liberal Conspiracy, 30 March 2011).
Oddly, the UK government defended its decision on two contradictory grounds. The first reason it put forward is that the evidence used to secure the arrests stands little chance bringing about “a realistic prospect of conviction.”
This is disingenuous, to say the least. As Geoffrey Robertson, a UN appeals judge, states: “The change in the law has nothing to do — as the UK claims — with ensuring that cases proceed on solid evidence. No district judge would issue an arrest warrant lightly (“DPP may get veto power over arrest warrants for war crime suspects,” The Guardian, 22 July 2010).” Secondly, the reason for the arrest is so the suspect cannot flee while further evidence is being gathered. Indeed, this is a common way for domestic investigations to proceed.
The other equally disingenuous reason the UK gave for the change in the law is that arresting suspected war criminals may endanger the non-existent peace process.
This absurd view was advanced by UK Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, who decried the previous law because it constituted a risk to “our ability to help in conflict resolution or to pursue a coherent foreign policy.”
Indeed, claiming that the previously granted arrest warrants had been politically motivated, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague declared, “We cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country.”
However, the UK’s retreat from the implementation of universal jurisdiction is not a lone example of the power of the Israel lobby to affect states’ domestic legislation. A similar shameful episode ensued when Ariel Sharon was indicted before the Belgian courts, in that instance not just Israel but also the United States brought pressure to bear, Donald Rumsfeld going as far as to threaten to move NATO headquarters from Belgium.
Which raises the question, if enforcing international humanitarian law is a threat to peace, then why do we have it?
And from the Guardian:
You see Detective… these people aren’t jews they are Zionist Nazis! They are the jews’ nemesis and USE the “jewishness” to create a “shield” around themselves by bringing up the fcuking holocaust for the 2o trillionth time! While they then also evade the charge of racism as they set up a JEWISH ONLY EU Parliament!!
Jewish EU Parliament: 50141
Try THAT if you’re Christian or Muslim!
But the fact is they use this “jewish oppression” tactic over and over while, if you look at who is, in fact, manipulating and controlling all of this, these people ARE NOT oppressed. THEY are the oppressors! And neither are they JEWISH they are ZIONIST first and foremost! They’d slit a jewish throat as quickly as they’d slit yours or mine! You DON’T HAVE THE POWER to create your very own EU PARLIAMENT (contrary to any and all other accepted norms of racial equality, anti-xenophobia and political correctness) UNLESS you have money, influence and power! To suggest these people are oppressed is absolutely ridiculous! Ever heard of “A wolf in sheep’s clothing”? Ask Tony our war criminal. He knows being a Fabian!
Is all this information fcuking with your little brain Detective? Can’t process it? Is that the problem?
Be a good lad Detective. Return the almost £2grand worth of euipment you stole from me for your masters while neither you nor probably them have the slightest clue what the big picture is! After all, you’re not allowed to get involved in politics therefore you’re disallowed to catch the real fcuking criminals!
The biggest crimes of the century against humanity and all you can do is scour hard drives of a bloke who knows it.
Fcuk your idea of “law” mate. The “law” IS an ass! A very corrupt one at that!
New York City Police Foundation — New York
JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York
City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the
foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen
security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops,
as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD’s main data center.
New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie
Dimon a note expressing “profound gratitude” for the company’s donation.
“These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” Dimon
said. “We’re incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know
how much we value their hard work.”
Then LEARN Detective!…..
James Dimon is the chairman & CEO for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Bailout Company), a director at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a corporate fund board member for the Kennedy Center, a director at the Partnership for New York City, a director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and a director at Catalyst (think tank).
Now look up the letter “D” in the CFR list of membership and what do you get?
And look up “D” in the Trilateral list of membership:
Well would you credit it? Not only does wee Jamie come up on both BUT you also have Evelyn’s wifey Lynn come up on the CFR list.
Now ISN’T it a small world full of nothing but JUST coincidences?
To keep who safe exactly? Answer: JP Morgan, Tony Blair, Bilderberg etc etc etc
You’re bought and paid for Detective! That’s “law” for you!
Get yourself brains detectives! “That’s not a criminal conspiracy that’s just coincidence and democracy in action!”
My lilly white ARSE!
An addendum for our American cousins who read their Constitution. Here’s a man saying he supports what the Tea Party have done to HAVE Americans read their Constitution while he is a liar, a fake and breaks the Logan Act (look up your Logan Act too).
He doesn’t like to even acknowledge the word BILDERBERG. Wake the hell up America!
But I guess just as you never heeded the warnings regarding the Kenyan you’ll not heed this one either will you? They own BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum you slow minded idiots! On BOTH SIDES of the Atlantic!
You ALL believe that Islam is the enemy. You believe Muslim Fundamentalism is at the root of all evil.
But you are wrong. The con is massive and the con stretches across the entire Islamic world also. As much as YOU (We) don’t understand the conflict NEITHER DO THE TRUE MUSLIMS!
This is why:
- Give some thought to the fact “Osama Bin Laden” came from a sect of the Wahhabi tribe.
- Consider the fact that the majority of the hijackers on 9/11 weren’t Iranian or Iraqi or even Afghani but were SAUDI NATIONALS!
- Consider the fact that the Saudi Royals and their country – while the rest of the Arab/Muslim world are demonized by the USA and it only takes ONE guy (Nigerian but boarded a plane in Yemen) to have the USA focus on “Al Qaeda in Yemen” – is NEVER a target of the USA while the MAJORITY (yes I repeat it) of the 9/11 alleged hijackers were Saudi nationals!!
- Consider that, for now, it is the Saudis who are in control of the Oil in the gulf to the greatest degree AND they set the price to the world (along with their Zionist/American “friends”) while Iran (and Iraq) have significant oil reserves and are happy to consider LOWER prices!!
- Do you never wonder why Saudi does not protest about Israeli nuclear missiles, while they object to Iranian power plants?
- Did you forget that AL SAUD were SADDAM’s biggest supporters to attack Iran in 1980?
- Isn’t it strange that Saudi is very quiet when Israel attacks Lebanon / Gaza or American/Nato troops kill civilians in IRAQ and Afghanistan?
I COULD GO ON AND ON but I won’t.
Let me just let you chew over this for a moment:
King FAISAL AL-SAUD declared to the WASHINGTON POST on Sept. 17, 1969:
“WE, THE SAUDI FAMILY, are cousins of the Jews: we entirely disagree with any Arab or Muslim Authority which shows any antagonism to the Jews; but we must live together with them in peace. Our country (Arabia) is the Fountain head from where the first Jew sprang, and his descendants spread out all over the world.”
In the 1960’s the “Sawt Al Arab” Broadcasting Station in Cairo, Egypt, and the Yemen Broadcasting Station in Sana’a confirmed the Jewish Ancestry of the Saudi Family ” – James Matthew Cantu
The Saudi Royal Family are Zionist with their origins going back to MORDAKHAI BIN IBRAHIM BIN MOSHE’.
And Wahhabism is the House of Saud SECT – a total corruption of the Islamic faith which was promoted by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism” an ‘austere’ form of Islam. al-Wahhab arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.
The research of Mohammad Sakher led to an order for his death by the Saudi Regime for the following findings: The Saudi family, who, despite claims otherwise, were descended from Jewish merchants from Iraq. Sakhir found that the Jewish Ancestor of the Saudi family was called Mordakhai Bin Ibrihim Bin Moshe but changed his name to Markhan Bin Ibrahim Musa.
There are records in the British war Museum that the British paid 15,000 pound sterling per month to the thug Ibne Saud to oppose Muslim Ottomans and with explicit instructions to share the money with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab because he introduced Ibne Saud to the British. The British ordered Ibne Saud to have a relationship with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab and now the present day Saudi family are descendants of both Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab and Ibne Saud. Also, the british sent a spy named “Hempher” to convince Muhammed bin abdul wahab to create the “wahhabi” sect…this was to create groups between muslims and divide them…..due to this, today all saudis are wahabis.
The House of Saud, therefore, works WITH the US, British and Israeli elites AGAINST the REAL Muslims of Iraq/Iran etc. The House of Saud (with their 9/11 hijackers – who, in fact, I do not believe WERE on those planes) works WITH their Zionist chums to create the vision that the true Islam is terrorist when, in fact, the House of Saud are Zionist working with the west and hate the true Islam.
Why? Because the House of Saud – if they did not play this game with the UK, USA and Israel – would be targeted for regime change as much as Iraq/Iran and Afghanistan etc. What you need to remember is that, not only are they Zionist by this ‘austere’ form of religion CREATED by a zionist BUT they also have a LOT to lose if they don’t play with the west.
The people of the Muslim world are as confused as we are about all of this. The Saudi people do not recognise this con. They know as much (generally speaking) about the history of their country and the history of their religion and politics as we do. Perhaps less because they are so controlled and conditioned.
It’s a pure mindf*ck people. It is again, the elites brainwashing the masses for divide and conquer and this little part of the story goes back to the Ottoman Empire and why that was destroyed by “us” (“us” being the Bankers again!).
Now, you may say “But the Saudis and Israelis are mortal enemies and have fought wars!!”
Yes they have fought wars. Who has died due to them? The House of Saud? No. We Brits have fought wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Are the people of these countries mortal enemies of the people of the UK? Yes IF you believe the propaganda of our governments. How many of you are willing to today? How many of you believe Blair should be convicted for lying to us? And who have died in OUR “wars”? Name a government official’s child who has died?
A country they refuse to recognise or even negotiate with: Hmmm look deeper and just read the words of the King again! “Cousins”.
You may point to the Saudis giving safe havens to Hezbollah etc….
Think on this:
Does a government do what it’s people wish? Has ours?
When our government supported the Iraq war and the people didn’t, did they care?
Again, this is nothing to do with Saudi people OR Jewish people. This is to do with governments and regimes.
When our government threw its people into Iraq and Afghanistan, did it affect our government? Have any of our government or their families died in those “wars”? No.
Did any of the House of Saud die in the Saudi/Israeli war? No.
The House of Saud (as with our own government/establishment) manouvre the pieces of a chess set as and how they wish. The House of Saud will quite happily give safe haven to organisations which are against the Israelis while the House of Saud shall support the Israeli regime. But you can’t get that in your head can you?
As for safe haven? Let’s take a look at one Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad (Islam4UK Choudary’s chum):
In Beirut, he joined Sheikh Khalil Al-Mat and the local branch of Hizb Al-Tahrir. Then, in 1983, (or according to some versions in 1979 during Syria’s invasion of Lebanon) he took the alias of Omar Fustuk and settled in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he established “Al-Muhajirun” as a front for the Hizb Al-Tahrir in the Arabian Peninsula. Al-Muhajirun now has offshoots in Lille, France, and Hanover, Germany. In 1995, 47 Sunni organizations were reported to be active in Western Europe under the umbrella of Hizb Al-Tahrir, which is headquartered in Hamburg.
In 1985, after the Saudi government deported him he then went to London where he later left Hizb Al-Tahrir following a disagreement with its leaders. While Bakri wanted to deal with numerous issues troubling the Muslim community, such as racism and unemployment, the Hizb Al-Tahrir leaders claimed that such activity would sidetrack the party from its main goal, the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.
In 1993, Bakri became a legal resident of Britain, and in March 1996 he applied for citizenship.
So: The Saudis DEPORT the guy and where does he end up going? THE UK!!
So here we have a government (the British Government) accepting a “known terrorist” who has been “thrown out” by the Saudi government and given him SAFE HAVEN in the UK.
So according to this idea of Saudi giving safe haven to terrorists, just as the Saudi government are evil because they give safe haven to what you describe as terrorist organisations and people, can’t we now say the same for OUR government?
Does that make the UK and its people (who have no say) a terrorist nation?
Think through the logic!!
So, basically, what I’m telling you is this: the entire terrorism threat is being orchestrated by the Zionists within Israel/Mossad, the USA/CIA and Britain itself along with help from Saudi Arabia in the form of the house of Saud (Saudi Royal family) who wish to retain their positions as Kings of the Middle East while collaborating with the Western Zionist machine.
There is a long time established and very respected organisation by the name of the CATO Institute based in Washington D.C. I happen to have come across a document of theirs dated 1992 which is a Policy Analysis of the US Government and the title of the document is “The “Green Peril’: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist threat”.
Again, I repeat, this is 1992.
Here are excerpts which, I hope, when you make a comparison of what I have just discussed you may well then appreciate the reality of it.
You may also clearly recognise that, if you were also to read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, you would have no shadow of a doubt about the con which is being played out in manipulating YOUR belief that we have a TRUE Muslim threat. For we never have.
Excerpts: (oh, by the way, it’s written by Leon T Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post).
Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America’s foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. Possible new villains include “instability” in Europe –ranging from German resurgence to new Russian imperialism– the “vanishing” ozone layer, nuclear proliferation, and narcoterrorism. Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating from East Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). That peril is symbolized by the Middle Eastern Moslem fundamentalist–the “Fundie,” to use a term coined by The Economist–a Khomeini-like creature, armed with a radical ideology, equipped with nuclear weapons, and intent on launching a violent jihad against Western civilization.
“Islamic fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist, and Nazi movements of the past,” according to Amos Perlmutter. It is “authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-secular,” and cannot be reconciled with the “Christian-secular universe” and its goal is the establishment of a “totalitarian Islamic state” in the Middle East, he argued, suggesting that the United States should make sure the movement is “stifled at birth.”
The Islam vs. West paradigm, reflected in such observations, is beginning to infect Washington. That development recalls the efforts by some of Washington’s iron triangles as well as by foreign players during the months leading up to the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis. Their use of the media succeeded in building up Saddam Hussein as the “most dangerous man in the world” and as one of America’s first new post-Cold War bogeymen. Those efforts, including allegations that Iraq had plans to dominate the Middle East, helped to condition the American public and elites for the U.S. intervention in the gulf.
There are dangerous signs that the process of creating a monolithic threat out of isolated events and trends in the Moslem world is already beginning. The Green Peril thesis is now being used to explain diverse and unrelated events in that region, with Tehran replacing Moscow as the center of ideological subversion and military expansionism and Islam substituting for the spiritual energy of communism.
Islam does seem to fit the bill as the ideal post-Cold War villain. “It’s big; it’s scary; it’s anti-Western; it feeds on poverty and discontent,” wrote David Ignatius, adding that Islam “spreads across vast swaths of the globe that can be colored green on the television maps in the same way that communist countries used to be colored red.”
NOW THIS NEXT PART IS AN AMAZING PIECE OF HONESTY (and REMEMBER, this was 1992 only MONTHS before the first WTC bombing which the brought the “threat” of “Islamic Militism” to light. Completely and utterly constructed.
The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious “sources” and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media’s spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.
The Israeli government and its supporters in Washington are also trying to play the Islamic card. The specter of Central Asian republics and Iran equipped with nuclear weapons helps Israel to reduce any potential international pressure on it to place its own nuclear capabilities and strategy on the negotiating table. More important, perhaps, the Green Peril could revive, in the long run, Israel’s role as America’s strategic asset, which was eroded as a result of the end of the Cold War and was seriously questioned during the Gulf War.
NOW on the specific point of the House of Saud:
As has that of Egypt and Israel, Saudi Arabia’s use of the Green Peril to mobilize U.S. support has been characterized by confusion, ironies, and paradoxes, the most dramatic of which has been the kingdom’s own commitment to Islamic fundamentalism. With the elimination of Iraq as a regional military power, the Saudi royal family, worried about the rise of Tehran as a hegemonic player in the gulf, has been fanning the anti-fundamentalist and anti-Iranian mood in Washington. The Saudis have indicated that they are interested in countering Iranian influence in Central Asia. Ironically, they are doing what they accuse Tehran of– spending lavishly to establish political and religious influence. Riyadh has spent more than $1 billion to promote the Saudi brand of Islam. Along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia has also been supporting the Somali president against a faction, supported by Iran, that is trying to overthrow him.
A series of reports about resurgent militant Islamic forces in Saudi Arabia (which also portrayed the royal family as a politically reformist regime and active supporter of the U.S.-led peace process) has been used to try to mobilize American support for the Saudis as a “moderate pillar” and anti-fundamentalist force in the gulf, the Middle East, and Central Asia.
The problem with that campaign is that the legitimacy of the Saudi regime is based on its own Islamic fundamentalist principles. The Saudi government is actually more rigid in its application of Islamic law and more repressive in many respects than the one in Tehran. For example, Saudi Arabia has no form of popular representation, and political rights are totally denied women and non-Moslems. The Saudi regime has been able to stay in power largely because it has had both direct and indirect American military support, most recently during the Gulf War. To paraphrase President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Saudis are Islamic fundamentalists–but they are our Islamic fundamentalists.
Just read that last line again! “but they are our Islamic fundamentalists”.
Full paper here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
House of Saud: On America’s side. On Britain’s side. On the Israeli side. The WESTERN DEMOCRACY BASED IMF SIDE.
So they will supply the Wahhabi sect of “Muslim Fundamentalism” which is, in fact at the core, Zionist in nature to support the Western democratic aim to undermine the Muslim world. And how better to do that than to demonise the Muslim world by presenting them as the terrorists. THEY ARE NOT.
Just like the Irgun before them, the Mossad and their collaborators within the CIA and MI6 etc etc are doing the terrorism job on behalf of the west and the media, ignorantly mostly, supports that agenda because the people who own the media are also?….. Zionist…. and all for supporting the Western democratic agenda.
You might think “Well that suits me because I’m western and I don’t want Islam” but you are completely missing the point. The only REASON Islam is affecting you is because our own elites are creating it to ensure they get the reaction from you that they need to justify the further control of you. You are supporting your own oppression!
Why do you think we get headlines such as this?
Sorry but “DUH!” comes to mind!
Now let’s get a further idea about the Saudis (from Wikileaks/Assange) and then we’ll take a look at Assange!
So, again, Saudis, wanted to (and want) to attack Iran – yes I understand full well the issues between shi’ite and Sunni Muslims but pardon me for making this analogy: I also understand the difference between Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers but when it’s Scotland V England or anyone else, both these “tribes” will work together to eliminate the common opposition. Simple but effective analogy I would say. You might not but I do.
Note also the fact that the Saudi Royals do not obey “their” own laws. What a surprise! Do you for one moment believe OUR political and establishment class obey ours? What do you think “Crown Immunity” is all about? Smell the coffee!
Now back to Assange. His Layer, MARK STEPHENS “believes in him and believes what he is doing is right”. Well he would wouldn’t he? Because Mark, Assange and someone else are VERY closely connected. That someone else having more power in his left pinky than an entire Army! In fact NATO and friends ARE to some degree, his left pinky!
And Stephens also says there are thousands who can release the documents? Ever given that a moment’s thought as to why? and WHO these thousands would consist of?
Assange is simply a new construct of the mainstream media because the powers that be recognise noone trust the mainstream media any longer. We KNOW they are controlled. So bring out into the spotlight a “hero” of the people who “leaks” things BUT ONLY THOSE THINGS YOU WISH TO BE LEAKED.
And when you want the destruction of governments and national sovereignty’s anyhow, what better way than to “sell” the world a leak merchant who’s “on your side”. 🙂
Oh we are SO gullible!