Saturday, August 26, 2006


Netanyahu was a regular commentator during the recent Israeli murderous debacle in Lebanon. I suspected he was showing what a great statesman he was, and implying he would do 'the right thing' for and to defend Israel. Since the war was called off Olmert and his government have been getting some very bad press; preferential house purchases, sexual harrasment.

Here is an article examining Netanyahu's possible attempt to grab power. Netanyahu represents the Cheney interests i.e. warmongering.


Ira Chernus: Israel Prepares for the Next War

The resurrected star of Israeli politics, right-wing former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is playing this card in his bid to replace Olmert.

By Ira Chernus

As Israelis read their newspapers, the message comes through loud and clear: Get ready for the next war, the really big war. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave his people an ominous warning yesterday when he “toured northern Israel Thursday and visited, among other venues, the hospital in Nahariya directly hit by rocket fire during the Lebanon war. ‘We must be prepared for (various) scenarios and ready for anything,’ he said. ‘We must push forward deadlines and be ready for the possibility of receiving casualties under all conditions.’ … ‘At this time we shall prepare for any possible scenario of a threat, in full force.’”

But who will be the enemy? “The head of the Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that after the war with Hizbullah, Syria will try to reclaim the Golan Heights through either diplomatic or military means,” Yediot Aharonot reports.

In Ha’aretz, Akiva Eldar confirms it: “Israeli assessment sources too are recommending to the government that it immediately separate from the ‘neither-peace-nor-war’ doctrine in the Syrian arena. They are presenting two options to the leaders. One is accelerated peace talks with Syria.” Indeed, “Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter said last Monday that ‘In exchange for peace with Syria, Israel can leave the Golan Heights. … Any political process is preferable to a military-fighting process.”

But the other option is being touted more loudly, by more influential voices. Maj.-Gen. Yadlin warned: “If there won't be a [diplomatic] solution, the stance is that we must prepare to liberate the Golan through different means – there aren't many other ways. … Iran is using Syria as a giant weapons cache for Hizbullah.” (To drive the point home, a sidebar to this article in Yediot Aharonot is headlined: “Assad: We’ll liberate Golan Heights.”)

The Syria-Iran link is crucial to the picture painted by Israeli leaders: “Minister Rafi Eitan warned Tuesday that Israel should prepare for the possibility of a missile attack from Iran. ‘We are liable to face an Iranian missile attack. The Iranians have said very clearly that if they come under attack, their primary target would be Israel,’ Eitan, a member of the decision-making security cabinet, told Israel Radio. ‘We must prepare for what could come, and prepare the entire country for a missile strike attack.’ The radio said Eitan, a former spymaster, meant that Israel should prepare its bomb shelters to protect against a possible Iranian attack.”

Why all this talk of war? Olmert explained it bluntly: “This is the real answer to those who have tried to cast a shadow on the State's existence."

Here is the key to Israel’s militaristic mindset. Just days after a disastrous failed war, the Jewish state is preparing for the next war because of the belief that now, as always, dominates its political life: Israel’s enemies, every one, are anti-semites. They have no legitimate grievance against the Jewish state. They simply want to kill Jews.

“Israel is carefully watching the world's reaction to Iran's continued refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, with some high-level officials arguing it is now clear that when it comes to stopping Iran, Israel ‘may have to go it alone,’ The Jerusalem Post has learned. One senior source said on Tuesday that Iran ‘flipped the world the bird’ by not responding positively to the Western incentive plan to stop uranium enrichment. … The Iranians know the world will do nothing,’ he said. ‘This is similar to the world's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s -- they are trying to feed the beast.’ He said there was a need to understand that "when push comes to shove," Israel would have to be prepared to "slow down" the Iranian nuclear threat by itself.”

The resurrected star of Israeli politics, right-wing former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is playing this card in his bid to replace Olmert. “Every living thing must do two things in order to survive: it must identify dangers and it must arm itself sufficiently to protect itself from these dangers,” Netanyahu recently said. He cast himself as a follower of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who “saw the burning coals of anti-Semitism and understood that there was a threat of a fire that would threaten the Jews of Europe and eventually the Jews of the rest of the world. Today I say: we are standing before a grave danger. A new potential fire threatens our people. … Since Hitler, there has not risen such a bitter enemy as Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, who openly declares his desire to annihilate us and his development of nuclear weapons in order to carry out this desire.”

This view gets aired even on the op-ed page of Israel’s most liberal newspaper, Ha’aretz. Dr. Tzvia Greenfield, head of the Mifne Institute for Democracy and Judaism, warns: “It is enough to imagine the terrifying possibility of Iran beginning a missile war against Israel. … The only way to defend ourselves would be to convince the aggressor state that it, too, would be better off achieving a cease-fire as soon as possible. This is something that can best be done with the air force. If we are attacked, it would not be right to refrain from the necessary use of the air force because of the destruction that this would cause. … When it comes to saving lives, it is not necessary to treat all men as being equal. We have the moral right to save our nearest and dearest first. And that is the true calculation that we need to make.”

In other words, for Jews, Jewish lives really are more valuable than Muslim lives. That’s easier to swallow if you believe that all Muslims are anti-semites bent on killing every Jew. Ha’aretz gives space to that view too, in a column by a retired judge, Hadassa Ben-Itto: “A senior American diplomat once told me: ‘I can't believe this is happening to the Jewish people once again. You have not learned your lesson. Had you thoroughly read 'Mein Kampf,' you would have known what to expect.’… The Muslim world, which has picked up the Nazi torch, has joined the cause and set for itself the goal of destroying our nation and people."

It would not be surprising if this nameless American diplomat were a Bush administration appointee. And the Bush administration may yet come to the rescue. The “senior source” quoted by the Jeruslaem Post “did not rule out the possibility of US military action, but said that if this were to take place, it would probably not occur until the spring or summer of 2008, a few months before President George W. Bush leaves the international stage.”

Akiva Eldar has apparently heard the news about 2008 too. He sees a real possibility of “an accelerated preemptive war against Syria, before Iran is equipped with a nuclear bomb and before Tehran completes the transformation of the Syrian army into a modern army rich in new types of weaponry. According to cautious assessments, this process will take no longer than two years. Unfortunately, in the foreseeable future, we will not have a government that is capable of conducting negotiations with Syria and in the United States there is not a president who will do this for us.”

No negotiations, and a looming deadline in the summer of 2008. Eldar’s conclusion seems to sum up the prevailing thinking in the Israeli government: “Keep the shelters clean.”

-Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea and the forthcoming book "Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin." He can be contacted at


Tuesday, August 22, 2006


At a press conference yesterday President of the USA George W Bush was involved in a brief discussion with a reporter regarding Iraq and 9/11. Here is that discussion.


BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing.
Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq

Bush is in 'full-flow honest Joe' mood, pouring out his heart about not withdrawing troops from Iraq (which I agree with, in fact I think there should be a massive influx of troops into Iraq, but the plan was for Iraq to descend into hell). So when someone asks what Iraq had to do with 9/11 his instant answer is "nothing", but he then realises he might get his little bodkin smacked by Cheney so he tries to spin the statement that Iraq did not order the attack.

So let's see if this is being reported online.

The Washington Post reports on and quotes from the press conference, but does not refer to this statement.
The New York Post does both!

OK. So let's see online which British media (a) publish reports of this press conference, and (b) mention that Bush said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

BBC. (a) but not (b) (no big surprise there).
Sky News. (a) but not (b) (no big surprise there).
The Independent. Neither.
The Guardian. Neither.
The Times. Neither.
The Daily Telegraph. (a) but not (b).
The Sun. Neither (but at least we learn Jade Goody would like a role in Eastenders!).
The Daily Mirror. Neither.
The Daily Mail. Neither.
The Daily Express. Neither.

Sunday, August 20, 2006


Reidy wants internment!


Reid wants to bypass human rights law and intern suspects

By Severin Carrell and Sophie Goodchild
Published: 20 August 2006

Powers to detain terror suspects without trial are being sought by the Home Secretary. John Reid wants much tougher anti-terrorism powers in the wake of the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic flights, and has instructed his officials to draft new measures that would allow him to bypass human rights legislation.

Backed by Tony Blair, Mr Reid is also considering introducing even tougher powers to put suspects under house arrest, known as "control orders", without being charged or convicted of any offence. Detaining terror suspects without trial could, in rare circumstances, also be used against British citizens - a measure that would lead to concerted opposition from lawyers and civil rights campaigners.

The Independent on Sunday has also learnt that police searching premises linked to the alleged terror plot have recovered hydrogen peroxide - alleged to be a key component of the "liquid bombs" involved in the plot, and evidence that at least one suspect planned a "dry run" this weekend to place a bomb on board an aircraft.

The police, who are still holding 23 suspects, are also studying several "martyrdom videos" allegedly found on up to six laptops recovered during the raids.

Ministers believe that suspending key parts of the Human Rights Act would thwart the judiciary and the Lords, which has ruled it illegal to imprison foreign terror suspects without charge and has watered down existing control orders imposed on dozens of suspects.

A senior Whitehall source said: "Is there an appetite for doing whatever we need to keep these people under control? The answer is 'yes'. If we can't do it in a modified way through control orders, then no other option is currently off the agenda."

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister attacked the Court of Appeal after it ruled that it was excessive to keep five Iraqi suspects and one other man under what amounted to house arrest for 18 hours a day, forcing ministers to cut this to 14 hours. Mr Blair accused judges of frustrating the Government's efforts: "It brings home once again to me the urgency of people understanding that this is an active threat and we have to deal with it."

In a speech just a day before the wave of terror arrests 10 days ago, Mr Reid hinted that these new measures would be introduced. "Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values," he said.

The new powers could be unveiled in this November's Queen's Speech.

Powers to detain terror suspects without trial are being sought by the Home Secretary. John Reid wants much tougher anti-terrorism powers in the wake of the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic flights, and has instructed his officials to draft new measures that would allow him to bypass human rights legislation.

Backed by Tony Blair, Mr Reid is also considering introducing even tougher powers to put suspects under house arrest, known as "control orders", without being charged or convicted of any offence. Detaining terror suspects without trial could, in rare circumstances, also be used against British citizens - a measure that would lead to concerted opposition from lawyers and civil rights campaigners


The current President of the USA George W Bush is on record as saying,

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
--, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

There was a serious, possibly criminal, but definitely planned lack of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. This is the conclusion of several studies into the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq March/April 2003 ending with Bush's speech on May 1st 2003 on board USS Abraham Lincoln, which contained the following

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

It now appears that democracy in Iraq can go to hell, and the NeoCon-run Bush Administration is now considering imposing upon Iraq a US-friendly dictator. Forget the purple fingers of Iraqi democracy. Forget Iraq-for-the-Iraqis.

Andrew Sullivan in The Sunday Times comment section has a jibe at this suggestion that a new dictator is in the pipeline for Iraq. The civil war was designed for this. It would look a bit suspicious (as if nothing surrounding the rush to invade Iraq did) if the "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq to immediately install their favourite new dictator of Iraq. So why not let Iraq stew and simmer for a few years due to the lack of planning for a post-Saddam security apparatus, threatening a civil war, and then suggest imposing a new dictator to save Iraq!!


The Sunday Times August 20, 2006

Bush's final gamble: giving Iraq a dictator?
Andrew Sullivan

The news was buried in a New York Times story last week but it confirmed what others in the Washington chattering classes have been observing lately.

The context is that the White House has been inviting outsiders in to the Oval Office to discuss strategy in Iraq. The new chief of staff Josh Bolten has apparently been trying to pierce the intellectual cocoon in which the president comfortably resides. Bush family consigliere James Baker has already been asked to rescue the president’s failed Iraq policy.
[Baker = oil]

But last week the new nugget: an anonymous “military affairs expert” attended a White House briefing and reported: “Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy. Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”

Indeed. The number of civilian casualties in what can now only be called Iraq’s civil war grows with each month. The thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the past month dwarfs the civilian losses in Lebanon and Israel. The attempt by Nouri al-Maliki’s government to put down sectarian warfare in Baghdad has failed, requiring more US troops in the capital and thus abandoning the heartland of the insurgency, Anbar, to the enemy. General John Abizaid, head of American forces in the Middle East, told the Senate earlier this month that violence in Iraq is “probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular”.

Last Wednesday more grim statistics emerged. The number of roadside bomb attacks are at an all-time high. In July 1,666 “improvised explosive devices” exploded and 959 were discovered before they went off. In January 1,454 bombs exploded or were found. That’s the wrong direction, and it’s after an elected unity government has been installed.

A Pentagon official anonymously told the press last week: “The insurgency has got worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels. The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”

Remember Dick Cheney’s comments about the insurgency being in its “last throes”? Those words have become as credible as the president’s denial of torture as an interrogation policy authorised by the White House.

There comes a point at which even Bush’s platinum-strength levels of denial have to bow to reality. That point may be now. Why else would he be reading Albert Camus’s existentialist masterpiece, The Stranger, in Texas?

Recently Bush has been wondering why the Shi’ites in southern Iraq have displayed such ingratitude to the man who liberated them from Saddam. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that a populace terrorised by sectarian murder, nonexistent government and near anarchy might feel angry at the man who rid them of dictatorship but then refused to provide a minimal level of security for the aftermath. And so, the frustrated born-again neocon in Bush may be ceding to the caucus of those dubbed the “to-hell-with-them” hawks.

This conservative caucus never liked the neocon argument for removing Saddam. They didn’t like nation building and didn’t believe that Iraqis were capable of democracy. They wanted to remove a WMD threat but, most of all, they wanted to strike terror into the heart of the enemy by showing what US military might could do.

Depose Saddam, remove the weapons, install a client dictator and leave as much rubble behind: that was the game plan. It would deter the Iranians and leave a light military footprint. It had Donald Rumsfeld written all over it and it helps explain a lot about the Bush administration’s dogged refusal to add more troops in the first few months after the invasion.

Rumsfeld and Cheney may well be the key proponents of this argument. It is, of course, stupid. When you are dealing with a generational struggle to defang Islamist extremism, your central weapon is winning over moderate Muslims and Arabs. You do the reverse by bombing a country into chaos and then leaving.

When one of the biggest threats in a terrorised world are failed states in the Middle East, why create another one in Iraq? When western unity and intelligence sharing is essential, why pursue a strategy that is almost guaranteed to divide allies and unite all Muslims under the extremist banner?

What’s done is done, however. But the Bush administration knows that its Iraq debacle is central to its legacy and future. What’s interesting in the latest polls — in the middle of the Israel-Lebanon war and the foiled terror plot that shut Heathrow — is how Iraq is still more important to Americans than the more general issue of terrorism.

Pollster John Zogby opined: “President Bush’s numbers mainly reflect the country’s thinking on the war in Iraq, and most people have made up their minds that the war overall has not been worth the loss of American lives. Terrorism is an important issue to Americans, but when it comes to judging Bush’s presidency, their decision is based largely on Iraq.”

Pessimism about Iraq has deepened on every front since the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Last week’s Pew poll found that 63% believed that the US was “losing ground” in preventing a civil war in Iraq. Among Republicans, the numbers have dropped 16% on this question in the past two months alone. More worryingly, a clear majority now believes that Bush is not a “strong leader” and “not trustworthy”, two key qualities Bush once had commanding support on.

And anti-incumbent feeling is stronger than at any time since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. One poll last week had Bush’s ratings at a new low of 34%. Crunch time approaches.

If the Republicans are to recover by November 2008, let alone November 2006, they have to get Iraq behind them. They have to show progress or provide some credible strategy for victory that is not simply more of the gruelling same. Bush doesn’t have one.

The to-hell-with-them hawks do. And they’re gaining traction. Before too long a compliant US-backed dictator may not seem like such a bad option in Mesopotamia. And I feel Rumsfeld will be telling himself he knew it all along.

Thursday, August 17, 2006


I walked my dog this morning, and met a few people along the way. I looked at them, gave them a brief smile and said, "'Mornin'". We each looked at each other and knew. Not a word passed between us, but we each of us knew.

I then went for a drive onto the nearby moors. I stopped at a car park at the top to look at the fantastic view. There were some National Trust volunteers climbing into their Land Rover. I looked over, smiled, and we all glanced at each other. And we all knew.

I then carried on with my journey home, pulling into a station for some diesel. I handed my credit card over to the cashier to pay for the fuel. We briefly looked at each other, but in that moment we both of us knew.

There was no fear. No terror. Just ordinary people getting on with their ordinary lives.

Next time you meet someone, friend or stranger, look into their eyes. What do you see?

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

TREVOR KAVANAGH ASKS, "Was 9/11 a conspiracy?"

The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh has posted an email conversation between himself and a reader, Steven James, regarding the possibility that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

The second half of the posted conversation shows that the James is well read on the subject, leaving Kavanagh floundering for answers to the many questions James poses.


From: Steve James
To: Kavanagh, Trevor
Sent: Mon 14 Aug 2006 12:11

Thank you for replying to my email. As regards the Twin Towers collapsing, the official explanation is ridiculous.

I saw the documentary that explained the collapse as well. Can I ask then if the floors collapsed intact onto one another why then there were not any intact lumps of concrete? All the concrete in the Towers was pulverized, was it pulverized as it was coming down? Why did the Towers fall at such high speed? What about all the reports from the day from firemen, policemen and civilians of numerous explosions within the Towers? What about the "squibs" you can see going off as the Towers fall? If you watch a controlled demolition of similar buildings you see the exact same "squibs".

Have you seen the clip of WTC7 where you can see the explosions running up the corner of the building? Remember that WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft and only had a few small fires burning, even NIST & the 9/11 Commission couldn't explain that collapse. This was the only steel framed building before and since to collapse from a fire; the fact that no one seems worried about other steel framed buildings collapsing from fire is surely a sign of an intentional collapse.

What about the 1975 World Trade Center fire that spread over several floors? That fire never caused the Tower to collapse. What about the fact Larry Silverstein took over the leasehold six weeks before 9/11 and took out special terrorist insurance which has made him billions of dollars? What about the fact that two firemen reached the 78th floor of the South Tower three minutes before its collapse and reported only two small fires that could be put out with two lines?

Don't forget both Towers were hit differently: the North Tower head and the South Tower on the corner with most of the jet fuel exploding outside, yet they collapsed in exactly the same way. What about the molten steel found at Ground Zero weeks after the collapse? You do not get molten steel from an office fire. What about the fact the Towers were full of asbestos and it would have cost far too much to remove it properly? If terrorists had been planning the attacks for years, why did they attack first thing in the morning? If they had attacked later in the day, the death toll would have been a lot higher. Why not fly the planes in lower and trap more people?

I don't know what happend to the plane that was meant to have hit the Pentagon; all I know is there is no way you could fit a plane into the hole that was left at the Pentagon. And why was there no plane wreckage outside the hole? Why did the Pentagon announce the day before 9/11 that trillions of dollars were missing? It's well known that bad news is given on a Friday so it can be forgotten over the weekend but this was announced on the Monday. But for me above all, how can the most secure building in the world be hit by anything?

The Government's inability to answer these questions is the reason half of America believes the Government's involvement in 9/11. I know people will find a conspiracy in anything but there are so many unanswered questions over 9/11. I am not saying that I know who was behind the attacks because I don't, but I know a sick man sitting in a cave on the other side of the world wasn’t responsible.

Thank you for your time, not many journalists take the time to reply to emails so I appreciate that you did.


From: Kavanagh, Trevor
To: Steve James
Sent: Mon 14 Aug 2006 12:44

Thanks, Steve,
I always respond unless someone gets too abusive (which they occasionally do!).
But just on the points you raise, is it really feasible that a US President would order the mass murder of his own citizens; that he would be able to even begin organising such a complex act of destruction requiring split-second coordination, in full view of the billions watching live on TV and get away with it for five years without a single shred of actual (as opposed to presumed) evidence emerging from anyone of what must have been many people involved?
America is famously clumsy and even obtuse, perhaps sometimes ruthless and secretive. But its political structures are also famously assiduous in tracking down any misdeeds by its leaders - especially in the run up to elections. I haven't heard a whisper from any credible source.

Kavanagh assumes that Bush ordered "the mass murder of his own citizens". There are plenty of other sick maniacs who would order mass murder, and plenty who would carry such an order out, but I doubt Bush would. And Kavanagh's arrogance shows with this final sentence, "I haven't heard a whisper from any credible source.". As if the conspirators would tell Kavanagh!!

Although Bush is the President it is well understood that Cheney is the man running the show. And Cheney himself is just a puppet taking orders. There is no doubt that Cheney has made himself very wealthy through his association with Halliburton, but even Cheney's wealth is a mere piece of shit compared to the international bankers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and those based in the City of London. It is they who have the power. If Bush did have anything to do with the planning of 9/11 then he had approval from these people, but I doubt he had anything to do with it.

Cheney is the key. He awarded himself the power to run anti-terrorist simulations, and did so... ON 9/11!! Yeah, that's right. Cheney organised FIVE simulations of terrorist attacks for 9/11 and that week, and on the day some of them mirrored the actual attacks EXACTLY. How's that?

And further to this, while Bush was in Florida during the attacks Cheney was in the White House bunker. One attendant was Transport Secretary Norman Mineta who testified to the 9/11 commission that Cheney allowed what ever hit the Pentagon to fly unimpeded with no "shoot down" orders!! Unsurprisingly this testimony has been buried and no mention of it was made in the official 9/11 report.

But Kavanagh does not address the points that James raises, and asks the question, "how could Bush get away with it?".

I would say Bush came into the loop very late, if not at all. He was probably aware of the simulations, which could be why he sat reading "My Pet Goat", because he thought nothing of what he was being told. He expected to be told something was happening but that it was fictional, a simulation. But it wasn't. The reaction of The Secret Service should be seriously analyzed. They had access to all the reports. The same goes for NORAD and FAA, whose task it is to protect the skies, particularly over the financial centre of New York and the political centre of Washington DC.

How could 'they' get away with it for so long?

Well for starters the shock of 9/11 did the trick, and traumatized America. All the newspapers, the TV news, cable, satellite, they all bombarded America that bin Laden did it, and then Saddam did it, and they all deserve a good whoopin'. America was rushed into a war mentality in which you don't question your leaders, and it has been at war ever since, and apparenty want lots more of it! But even within minutes of the first plane hitting the WTC there were doubters. Over time the number of doubters has increased and increased. It's not just 'the usual conspiraloons' now. It's MPs, it's heads of state, it's American Military, it's moms and dads, it's blokes down the gym. They're all asking, where was the air force? why did WTC7 collapse when it wasn't hit? why did WTC1 and WTC2 collapse exactly into their footprints at free-fall speed exactly like a controlled demolition? And how come the man accused of running all this from a cave in Afghanistan is now no longer wanted by the FBI?

All I can say is, yes Trevor, there is a conspiracy.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006


Olmert claims Israel won.
Bush caims Israel won.
Nasrallah claims Hizb Allah won.

Is that why this innocent child at Qana lost?

CRAIG MURRAY ON "The Liquid Terror Plot"

Ex-Ambassador and now pain-in-the-arse-of-the-British-Government Craig Murray has provided his analysis of the liquid terror plot, or lack thereof.


August 14, 2006

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical

This is one of the most reasonable analyses of the events of last week I have read so far. It also brings into question the possible use of evidence gained from torture, which is something else the security services want legalized.

Monday, August 14, 2006


Richard 'Prince of Darkness' Perle was allowed to rant in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday. The rant was called "We should not tolerate the preachers of jihad". My comment, posted on the morning of Sunday 13th August, also the date of publication, read thus;


your signature appears on a number of letters and articles published by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In fact only 8 days after 9/11 you and many others signed a letter addressed to George W Bush (NB I did not call him 'President') in which PNAC called for action against bin Laden, Iraq and an increase in support for Israel. It also asked for action against Hezbollah as a way to get to Syria and Iran, even though this was only 8 days after 9/11 and no evidence had been provided which implicated Hezbollah, Syria or Iran. Since then the FBI has basically stopped looking for bin Laden over 9/11 due to a lack of evidence. However, the USA/UK has gone into and destroyed Iraq, increased their support for Israel and has recently engaged in support for Israel's completely disproportionate attack on Lebanon, even sending Israel via the UK missiles composed of DU. Since this recent murderous adventure into Lebanon by Israel your friends at PNAC and related organizations have been screaming and ranting for war with Iran and Syria, writing articles accusing Iran and Syria as the instigators of the current war in Lebanon, and suggesting that war with Iran is inevitable. It would appear to me that your call for action against Hezbollah as a way to get to Iran and Syria is, like the other suggestions in the letter, going to happen. This is uncanny because PNAC also produced a document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” which called for the USA to fight multiple simultaneous wars across the globe, which would also require a massive injection of finance into the US military. It was recognized that an event such as “a new Pearl Harbor” would be required for both, so the citizens of the USA would acquiesce. Fortunately for PNAC, but unfortunately for approximately 3000 others, there occurred “a new Pearl Harbor” on 11th September 2001. It seems that somebody is granting their wish and making PNAC’s ‘dreams’ come true

Among the comments are a few which do not address the subject of Perle's rant, which I also do not do. But what I am trying to address is Perle's motive. He and his fellow 'evildoers' have an agenda, an agenda that reaks of death. This current war on terror started on 9/11. 9/11 was exactly the 'new Pearl Harbor' that Perle and his fellow 'evildoers' were looking for in order to create the support from the citizens of the USA for multiple simultaneous wars across the globe and a massive injection of finance into the US military.

Needless to say, the official report into 9/11 is a complete farce and is ripped to shreds by David Ray Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed, thereby raising the terrifying possibility that 9/11 was covered-up in order to protect the masterminds and their accomplices, whoever they may be...(mentioning no names, Cheney)


That is what one NeoCon publication, Front Page Magazine, calls Ehud Olmert for agreeing to a ceasefire. The following is the last two paragraphs of the accusatory article available at,

Allowing Israel to take a few more weeks and rout Hezbollah—preferably also with some sobering strikes against Syria—would have created a different scenario and, most important, perceptions of a Western victory and humiliating jihadist defeat. That may have allowed the truly moderate Christian, Druze, and Muslim forces in Lebanon to start trying to retake control of their country while leaving the Iranian-led jihad axis reeling.

Instead the United States and the world community have chosen with this dire Security Council resolution to create a powerful scenario of perceived, and to some extent real, jihadist victory while ensuring continuing instability and endangerment of Israel. It is a moment that will come back to haunt America and the West.

Aw, diddums. Israel can't bomb Lebanon into oblivion, kill even more children, cause even more of a humanitarian disaster and cause more hate in the Muslim world.

No, instead we can hopefully agree to prisoner exchanges, rebuild Lebanon, rehouse the million+ refugees, and hopefully try to reach some sort of consensus on a road map for eternal peace and not eternal war.

This exposes the kind of mentality running the USA now. The Independent is running a story that accuses Bush, who is just a front man taking orders, of viewing the war on Lebanon as a provocation to Iran. This is what I said a few weeks ago when I pointed back to the letter from PNAC to Bush dated 20th September 2001 in which PNAC were foaming at the mouth for war against Hizb Allah, Syria and Iran just 8 days after 9/11 even though no evidence had been supplied that implicated any of them in those 'attacks'!


The Bush administration was informed in advance and gave the "green light" to Israel's military strikes against Hizbollah ­ with plans drawn up months before two Israeli soldiers were seized ­it has been claimed.

The US reportedly considered Israel's actions as a necessary prerequisite for a possible strike against Iran. A report by a leading investigative reporter says that earlier this summer Israeli officials visited Washington to brief the government on its plan to respond to any Hizbollah provocation and to "find out how much the US would bear".

The officials apparently started their inquiries with Vice-President Dick Cheney, knowing that if they secured his support, obtaining the backing of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice would be easier.

The report by Seymour Hersh quotes an unidentified US government consultant with close ties to the Israelis who says: "The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."

A former intelligence officer, also quoted, says: "We told Israel,'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office'."

That last sentence "The longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office" shows that we are on a countdown to war with Iran. Somehow. This Lebanon war failed because Olmert blinked (praise the Lord). Now it appears the knives are out to get Olmert out and Netanyahu in. Somehow.

Netanyhau would probably steam back into Lebanon.

Or there's gonna be a BIIIG synthetic terror attack.

Either way, the game's not over yet.

That last sentence also explains the rush to publication of any number of articles from Strangelove Kissinger to Gaffney to Kristol to Perle, all of them rocking back and forth, foaming at the mouth, screaming out for war with Iran.

I've said it a few times before and I'll say it again; three world wars were planned centuries ago and the third was planned to be between Islam and Zionism.

Who would plan such a thing?

Saturday, August 12, 2006


Before the recent Israeli elections I thought Netanyahu was the man the PTB wanted in power. He has been showing up all over the place trying to defend the Israeli assault/destruction of Lebanon.

But I'm beginning to wonder if it is possible that this war is designed to get Olmert out and Netanyahu in. Why?

Is it possible that the PTB have drawn up a psycho profile of Olmert and concluded that he would not use the nuke, but Netanyahu would?

Olmert is not a military man. He has, from Israeli reports, dithered at times and allowed time for some diplomacy and other non-military actions. Would Netanyahu? When you hear Netanyahu speak during interviews he sounds to me much more likely to use the nuke.

"War with Iran is inevitable", said former deputy defense minister retired Maj. Gen. Efraim Sneh. The Neocons believe so, and want it, real bad.

But what kind of war? The neocons and Israel believe Iran has the nuke already, or if not then are very close to it. If they are that convinced that Iran has the nuke are they very much prepared to use their nukes, as a first strike? Second strike?

And if so, is Olmert or Netanyahu the man to push the button?


Ehud Olmert is really getting a pasting in Haaretz. But is this to pressurize him into continuing the war on Lebanon, or to get Netanyahu in? If the latter, why?


Olmert cannot remain in the prime minister's office

By Ari Shavit

Ehud Olmert may decide to accept the French proposal for a cease-fire and unconditional surrender to Hezbollah. That is his privilege. Olmert is a prime minister whom journalists invented, journalists protected, and whose rule journalists preserved. Now the journalists are saying run away. That's legitimate. Unwise, but legitimate.

However, one thing should be clear: If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime minister for even one more day. Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say - oops, I made a mistake. That was not the intention. Pass me a cigar, please.

There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month. He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome. He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions. He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army's original plan, much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented. And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp. He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north. He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front.

Still, if Olmert had come to his senses as Golda Meir did during the Yom Kippur War, if he had become a leader, established a war cabinet and called the nation to a supreme effort that would change the face of the battle, a penetrating discussion of his failures could be postponed. But in blinking first over the past 24 hours, he has become an incorrigible political personality. Therefore, the day Nasrallah comes out of his bunker and declares victory to the whole world, Olmert must not be in the prime minister's office. Post-war battered and bleeding Israel needs a new start and a new leader. It needs a real prime minister.

This was posted on the 8th August. Yesterday Olmert sent in more troops and tanks into Lebanon, and has been blocking his Foriegn Mnister Tzipi Livni from attending UN SC meetings!

Friday, August 11, 2006


I have to agree with this article by Paul Watson at Propaganda Matrix . I truly believe we are being conditioned for some sort of synthetic terror attack which will provide the excuse for war on Iran and/or Syria which will eventually lead to a long global war.



Today's red level terror alert in symbiosis with escalation of conflict in the Middle East is the trial balloon for a massive staged false flag terror attack, blamed on Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda, that will light the blue touch paper for World War Three.

Radio host Alex Jones, who predicted a staged attack on the World Trade Center involving the use of Osama bin Laden as a fall guy in July 2001, has now gone on record with a second prediction that a staged government terror attack will occur before the end of October unless a gargantuan effort to prevent it is launched.

Only through a massively increased counter-propaganda effort on behalf of all truth activists can prevent an imminent cataclysmic horror show that will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park.

We have exhaustively documented that criminal elements in control of major western governments have carried out terror attacks and deliberately manufactured fake alerts for political purposes.

In 2002, then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told the Washington Times that terror alerts were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week," referring to political heat bestowed on President Bush when 9/11 prior knowledge evidence first surfaced.

From this point onwards smoking guns of government complicity in 9/11 became intrinsically linked with fake terror alerts.

In January of 2003 FBI and CIA whistleblowers told Capitol Hill Blue that the White House was scripting phony terror alerts to maintain hysteria, upkeep President Bush’s approval ratings and milk extra defense funding. The report that five Pakistani men had entered the States via Canada and were planning on carrying out a dirty bomb or biological attack was completely conjured up by the Bush administration’s black propaganda office. New York Harbor was shut down to visibly pump up the fear. One of the named suspects, Mohammed Asghar (pictured left), was tracked down to Pakistan by the Associated Press. He was a fat guy running a jewellers shop and had never even been to America.

World Net Daily commented,

“Other sources within the bureau and the Central Intelligence Agency said the administration is pressuring intelligence agencies to develop "something, anything" to support an array of non-specific terrorism alerts issued by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security…CHB reported that FBI and CIA sources said a recent White House memo listing the war on terrorism as a definitive political advantage and fund-raising tool is just one of many documents discussing how to best utilize the terrorist threat.”

Since those early admissions, every single major terror alert that the US, UK or Canadian government has issued has proven to be completely fraudulent and scripted.

Two months ago this website, in an article entitled 'Nexus Points Emerge For Potential Summer Attack,' predicted that, "Numerous nexus points have emerged that suggest major western governments are preparing for a summer terror attack that will come close to but not match 9/11 in scale and will provide the justification needed for an air strike on Iran before the midterm elections in early November."

Developments today indicate that the governments of the US and the UK are engaging in a process of announcing the prevention of numerous terror plots, in order to prepare the groundwork for a real attack, under protest that they did all they could to defend the people, but that one attack slipped through.

Arrests in the US, the UK and Canada of supposed terror cells that in each case turn out to be low grade morons, victims of government entrapment, or outright fabricated evidence, are part of this conditioning process.

We have provided links to all our investigations of these staged terror alerts and more at the end of this article.

Watershed leaps in the public profile of the 9/11 truth movement directly correlate to the staging of scripted terror alerts. Each time a new national poll is released showing more people questioning the official story of 9/11, a terror alert or a high profile terror arrest is announced. Last time around it was the arrest of Al-Zarqawi - now it's a re-hash of Operation Bojinka - a plot masterminded by admitted US government agent Ramzi Youssef.

The ramifications for the freedoms of all westerners and the very lives of thousands of Iranians and Syrians, as well as US troops, are too grave to even contemplate.

We must be more vigilant that ever before in an more vocal in our efforts to educate the world about who benefits from terror and where the weight of evidence points towards.


Seven Morons In A Warehouse

Sears Tower: US Government Creates Another Al-Qaeda Cell

Cooked Canary Wharf Terror Plot Recycled

Canadian 'Terror Plot' Begins To Unravel

Hyped Terror Raid Proves To Be Paper Tiger

Toledo Terrorists and Government Entrapment

Twenty-Three Intel Experts Say LA Terror Plot a Sham

Bush Plays Terror Card With Bogus LA Attack Plot

NYC Subway "Plot": Just Another Fake Terror Alert

Thursday, August 10, 2006


I'll reserve my judgement on this for a few days, and let stories and facts emerge from the relentless second-by-second repetition that our police and security services foiled a plot of "mass murder on an unimaginable scale".

The plot as outlined so far sounds very complex. The participants in the plot would need to be suicide bombers, AT LEAST TEN OF THEM. So far the friends and neighbours of the arrested in High Wycombe have nothing bad to say of them. Hmm.

The timing is also very fortuitous; Blair was in BIG trouble again over Israel/Lebanon, and Reid warned us that not all plots would be foiled and we would need to surrender some of our freedoms for our security.

But I thought we were fighting a war on terror to protect our freedoms!! And there's Reidy telling us we need to lose 'em.


The Middle East is about to blow, probably involving nukes and/or CBW.

People are being renditioned off the streets to the USA on faked evidence.

Millions, if not billions, are in dire poverty and/or working for a dollar a day.

Sex, drugs and rock 'n roll everywhere.

Who is in control?

Ordo ab chao, order out of chaos, is the name of the game.

'They' can control/influence the thoughts of billions through massive traumatising events; war, terrorism, even manipulating meteorological events.

All the events occuring today, and those yet to occur, are designed to drive us into a state of chaos, from which those guiding such planned and manipulated events will emerge as supreme rulers.

Or so they thought...


This is a fantastic short and straight to the point video which explains the development of a global identification system which was initially developed by IBM for the Nazis and is now being updated, through the mplantable microchip, and increased in scope to cover the whole planet by a corporation controlled by...IBM!

Watch "IBM, Verichip, and the Fouth Reich" at

Will you be a "new Jew", deemed undesirable and shipped off to a slave labour camp to be worked to death?

The mentality which created the Nazis still lives in Wall Street and The City of London, for it was from there that the Nazis received their money.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006


It's simple stoo-pid.

All one has to do is trace the development of the refugee camps, the largest in the world, in the Gaza Strip and The West Bank.

In 1944, were these camps there?
Were they occupied by willing indigenous Palestinians who preferred to live in squalor and deprivation rather than tending their farms and plantations?

At first the terrorist founding fathers claimed that the surrounding Arab nations told the Palestinians to run for their lives from the invading Israelis after WW2 and the holocaust was used as emotional blackmail to ship hundreds and thousands of Jewish survivors into Palestine. This claim has now been proved 100% false. What can now be proved beyond doubt is that the terrorist founding fathers of Israel drove the Palestinians from their land and have kept it ever since, not giving a damn about what happened to the previous and legal owners of the land, except when they organize a resistance which is then brutally put down, even with Israel invading neighbouring nations to destroy it, as in Lebanon in 1978, which eventually led to the creation of a possibly more dangerous enemy, Hizb Allah.

Hitler referred to this desire for 'lebensraum' as the reason for his expanding his influence across Europe.

You may think from this use of the same tactic that there was some collaboration between Hitler and the Zionist leaders. If so, you would be correct. There was a transfer agreement between the Zionists, Nazi Germany and the British (for they were awarded control of that area). However, the opportunity to safely transfer to Palestine was not taken up by German Jews. Most stayed in Germany, while some saw what was coming and fled.

But after the Holocaust...

The Zionist leaders were perfectly prepared for the deaths in their millions of the weak, the sick and the elderly to found Israel. David Ben Gurion, the Prime Minister of the terrorist state of Israel for nearly 15 years in total, said this;

"If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative."

This is the mentality that created and still controls Israel. If their leaders are prepared to sacrifice half of their children how much care and attention will they show to those they are fighting?

There is an argument that most Jews, particularly from Russia and Eastern Europe, such as Ben-Gurion, are from the tribe called the Khazars, a brutal, warmongering people who converted to Judaism in the 8th century to save themselves and subsequently moved into Eastern Europe and Russia. This would explain the mentality of Ben-Gurion and other Israeli leaders.

I have no quarrel with most Jews. They have been used as pawns in a great game. True Judaism has been usurped by the Khazars who are the driving force of Zionism.

It is the Zionists, Jewish or not, who pushed Hitler into what happened in WW2. They could have paid a ransom requested by Hitler and saved thousands of Jews, for they control the banks which create money out of nothing through a system called fractional reserve banking. They could have also founded a homeland outside of Palestine, as suggested by the British Parliament, and saved thousands of Jews. They also could have urged FDR and Churchill to agree to a proposition from Admiral Canaris for him to trick Hitler into flying into the custody of the Allies. Instead the Zionists allowed 6 million of their bretheren to die. After that, the skeletal survivors were used as emotional blackmail to grab Palestine and drive the indigenous Palestinians into refugee camps.

And ever since Israel has been the parasite sucking bloodmoney out of the USA.

This is why it is easy not to love and adore Israel, a parasitic state created by terrorism.

Wake up Israeli true Jews and smell the made-in-the-good-ol'-USofA DU!

Friday, August 04, 2006


John Kampfner is reporting in The New Statesman that Blair was told about the current bombing of Southern Lebanese villages before the current war between Israel and Hizb Allah began, which Israel blames on Hizb Allah for their capturing two Israeli soldiers. As I and others have pointed out there is still no certainty that Hizb Allah did cross the border into Israel, because several reputable sources reported that Israel had invaded Lebanon and the soldiers were captured on Lebanese soil.

From The New Statesman

I am told that the Israelis informed Bush in advance of their plans to "destroy" Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew. This exposes the calling for a ceasefire as a fraud Blair knew the attack on Lebanon was coming but he didn't try to stop it, because he didn't want to. He has made this country an accomplice, destroying what remained of our influence abroad while putting us all at greater risk of attack.

At a Downing Street reception not long ago, a guest had the temerity to ask Tony Blair: "How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've been responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis?" The Prime Minister is said to have retorted: "I think you'll find it's closer to 50,000."

No British leader since Winston Churchill has dealt in war with such alacrity as the present one. Back then, it was in the cause of saving the nation from Nazism.
Now, it is in the cause of putting into practice the foreign policy of the simpleton. During his nine years in power, Blair - and in this government it is he, and he alone - has managed to ensure that the UK has become both reviled and stripped of influence across vast stretches of the world. In so doing, he has increased the danger of terrorism to Britain itself.

Israel's assault on Lebanon is, in many respects, as disastrous as the war in Iraq. But at least then the pre-war hubris and deceit were played out in parliament and at the UN.

This latest act of folly took place suddenly, with only the barest of attempts to justify it to global public opinion. And it stems from the core Middle East problem: the decades-old conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

I am told that the Israelis informed George W Bush in advance of their plans to "destroy" Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew. This exposes as a fraud the debate of the past week about calling for a ceasefire.

Indeed, one of the reasons why negotiations failed in Rome was British obduracy. This has been a case not of turning a blind eye and failing to halt the onslaught, but of providing active support.

Blair, like Bush, had no intention of urging the Israelis to slow down their bombardment, believing somehow that this struggle was winnable.
Israel has a right to self-defence, but it could have responded to the seizure of its soldiers, and to the rocket attacks, by the diplomatic route. That would have ensured greater sympathy.

Now, growing numbers in Israel itself realise that military action will bring no long-term solution.

Even if the guns fall silent for a while, the damage has been done. This is the score sheet so far: roughly 800 deaths; shocking images of the slaughter of children in Qana; no clear Israeli military advance.

And the transformation of Hezbollah from an organisation on the periphery of Lebanese politics into an object of admiration across the Arab world.
But it is even worse than that. Is the assumption that civilians are legitimate targets if they do not flee certain areas any different from the principles that underlay the US war in Vietnam?

Blair and Bush have given their blessing to the forced displacement of a large population, in violation of the guiding principles of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Lebanon will now provide a rich source of inspiration to radical Islamists in their distorted quest for martyrdom.

Senior Whitehall sources involved in the fight against terrorism are gravely concerned about the consequences of the Prime Minister's failure to condemn Israel's actions.

The intelligence services say it is too early to tell whether Lebanon has already contributed to radicalisation in the UK; they work from the assumption that it will, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is not in any way to justify or suggest equivalence, but it is surely the duty of a leader to produce a risk assessment of his actions. If Blair is prepared to put Britain in greater danger, he has to persuade its citizens that he is doing so for good reason.

Blair, at his rhetorical best in front of friends in California, appears in no mood for self-doubt.

"I have many opponents on the subject," he told Rupert Murdoch's elite gathering at Pebble Beach on 30 July. "But I have complete inner confidence in the analysis of the struggle we face."

Either he is delusional, or he has no choice but to say what he says. One close aide recalls that when the Prime Minister was preparing a foreign-policy speech in his Sedgefield constituency in 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, he considered a mea culpa of sorts, but changed his mind, asking his team: "Do we want headlines of 'Blair: I was wrong' or 'Blair: I was right'?"

Whatever he may think alone at night, the Prime Minister is locked in a spiral of self-justification for his actions in Iraq, his broader Middle East policy and his unstinting support of Bush.

His speech in Los Angeles on 1 August was spun as a rethink. If so, it is too little, too late. Historians reflecting on the Blair-Bush "war on terror" that followed the attacks of 11 September 2001 would be right to see it as a joint venture.

Ultimately, his US policy is his foreign policy. It has, by his own admission, underpinned his every action.

But one part of the jigsaw that Blair claimed to be vital was never put in place. The "road map", drawn up in 2002 by the quartet of the US, EU, United Nations and Russia, has remained the best hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, yet it was never implemented, because Bush didn't really believe in it.

If Blair felt so passionately about it, and if his public silence did win him the influence inside the White House that he claims to have, he could and should have stood up and been counted on that issue, if on no other.

Instead, he meekly accepted American inaction. The horrific events of the past three weeks can be traced in large part to that failure. Blair's exhortations to his American audience at least to consider the Palestinian issue were lamentable.

Before taking office in 1997, Blair travelled light on foreign policy. Saddam Hussein's chemical gassing of 5,000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988 passed him by: unlike dozens of other MPs, he didn't bother to sign a motion condemning it.

Once in power, and frustrated at the pace of reform in domestic politics, Blair seized upon the theory of "humanitarian interventionism" that grew out of anger over inaction, first in Bosnia and then Rwanda.

His decision to back military action in Kosovo reflected that thinking, and led to tension with Bill Clinton over America's reluctance to commit ground forces.
Banalities of "good and evil".

Having spent a month in Rwanda in 1994, seeing attacks take place, I need no persuading that inaction can be as hideous as action.

Sometimes it is right to fight, but - as Blair should know from his Chicago speech of 1999, in which he set out the principles of humanitarian intervention - the outcome is what matters.

When I began work on my book Blair's Wars, I tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, until I realised, on speaking to many people who worked closely with him, how simplistic and impressionable he was.

Now, as Blair hides behind banalities about "good and evil" and the familiar, crude definitions of "terrorism", his ministers look on helplessly.

They talk openly to journalists - in the "you can print it, but just don't name me" deal that is the coward's life at Westminster - of Blair's "Bush problem".
Shortly before MPs left for their summer break, one senior member of the cabinet accosted me in the corridors of the Commons, and asked: "How much further up their arses do you think we can go?" I suggested that this was more up to him than to me.

At least over Iraq someone resigned. This time, ministers do nothing. Their private complaints have no moral or political value, because they will not stop Blair. Under cabinet rules of collective responsibility, they are endorsing the Israeli assault.

Blair's survival in power is no longer a game of cat-and-mouse with Gordon Brown; it is no longer a question of Labour's ability to stave off the Conservatives. It is far more serious than that

This supports the thesis that Israel sent their troops across the border into Lebanon for them to be captured. This is also explains the rapid and brutal reaction from Israel.


This would explain recent stuff.



The strikes on Lebanon's coastal highway north of Beirut were the first significant attacks on civilian targets in the north of the country during the 24-day offensive. Four civilians were killed and 10 were wounded as Israeli bombers blew up bridges during the early morning rush hour.

Witnesses reported brush fires being ignited by the attacks and cars plunging off the destroyed bridges into ravines.

Local television showed video of rescuers sifting through twisted metal and blocks of concrete to rescue people whose cars fell from the Madfoun bridge in the north of the country. A van was stuck in a hole made by a missile, its driver resting on his back on the ground outside. His face was blackened and covered with dust but he appeared still alive. Attacks also punched holes in highway bridges at Maameltein, Halat and Jounieh, according to reports

WTF are they playing at? How are civilians suppposed to escape? How is aid supposed to get in? I am deeply pessimistic about the motives for this attack on civilians and the transport infrastructure.

Israel is approaching from the South. Olmert wants to go beyond the Litani River, but how far North. Does Olmert want to go all the way to Beirut? If so, will all those civilian women and children trapped in Beirut be considered to be members of Hizb Allah?


The Center for Security Policy has today published an article which tries to equate the attack on Afghanistan by the USA following 911, and the current attack on Lebanon by Israel.

The President of The Center for Security Policy is Frank J Gaffney Jr. Gaffney was a founding member of The Project For A New American Century (PNAC), along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Libby, and signed the letter to President George W Bush dated 20th September 2001 requesting action on Iraq and Hizb Allah in response to the events of 9/11.

The aforementioned article entitled "One War" is available at

One sentence which made me laugh was this;
To paraphrase an old saw: What belongs to the Arabs is the Arabs'; what belongs to Israel is extortable.

What does exactly belong to Israel? Israel was stolen from the Arabs!!

But what really takes the limeade is the final paragraph.

The Bottom Line

For the United States, the current phase of this War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001. For others, like Israel it has been going on for decades and represents an unmistakably existential threat. We cannot afford to pretend that there is an appropriate way for the United States to fight Islamofascist totalitarians and the terror they wield against us, then insist that our allies must negotiate with and try to appease such groups when they are in the Islamofascists' cross-hairs

"War for the Free World"? "the Free World" is dominated by a group of people who have the power to create as much money as is required for wars and dictators, our press is also controlled by this same group of people, and our visible leaders are pre-selected for us through secretive meetings between these money-masters, their reps and our politicians.

And is Israel also involved in this "War for the Free World", defending human rights, fighting for justice, destroying racism?

I have rarely read such drivel.

Thursday, August 03, 2006


Listening to BBC Radio 5 Live "Drive" tonight, virtually all coverage of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon has been from Israel (expat hiding in bomb shelter), a former PM of Israel (Netanyahu), and now the Chairman of Labour Friends of Israel Ian Wright has just been on telling us that Israel should continue its slaughter, and yes its oh so sad that aid can't get through and the infrastructure has been bombed to bits (again who will get to rebuild Lebanon?), and we all want an immediate ceasefire but ...yadayadayada.

However no mention of Wright's membership and chairmanship of LFI was made!! He was simply introduced as Labour MP for Hartlepool.


Wednesday, August 02, 2006


Right now, tens, if not hundreds, of Lebanese CIVILIANS are dying a slow, dusty, painful death underneath a pile of rubble, probably their homes. Some of them will be children. Aid workers cannot reach them because the roads and bridges are blown to bits by brave Israeli Air Force dudes, the same reason they could not flee.

Just last weekend Qana was bombed with the death of 35 children, some still to be found.

In the first half of the 1960's the evil Nazi sympathiser Ian Brady and his lover Myra Hindley killed just 5 young people;
Pauline Reade, 16
John Kilbride, 12
Keith Bennett, 12
Lesley Ann Downey, 10
Edward Evans, 17

The whole of Britain was outraged!

The body of Keith Bennett has yet to be found, suspected of lying buried somewhere on Saddleworth Moor overlooking Manchester.

One of the most powerful songs ever written focused on these murders, written by The Smiths and called Suffer Little Children.

"Over the moor, take me to the moor
Dig a shallow grave
And I'll lay me down

Over the moor, take me to the moor
Dig a shallow grave
And I'll lay me down

Lesley-Anne, with your pretty white beads
Oh John, you'll never be a man
And you'll never see your home again
Oh Manchester, so much to answer for

Edward, see those alluring lights ?
Tonight will be your very last night

A woman said : "I know my son is dead
I'll never rest my hands on his sacred head"

Hindley wakes and Hindley says :
Hindley wakes, Hindley wakes, Hindley wakes, and says :
"Oh, wherever he has gone, I have gone"

But fresh lilaced moorland fields
Cannot hide the stolid stench of death
Fresh lilaced moorland fields
Cannot hide the stolid stench of death

Hindley wakes and says :
Hindley wakes, Hindley wakes, Hindley wakes, and says :
"Oh, whatever he has done, I have done"

But this is no easy ride
For a child cries :

"Oh, find me ... find me, nothing more
We are on a sullen misty moor
We may be dead and we may be gone
But we will be, we will be, we will be, right by your side
Until the day you die
This is no easy ride
We will haunt you when you laugh
Yes, you could say we're a team
You might sleep
You might sleep
You might sleep
Oh, you might sleep
You might sleep

Oh Manchester, so much to answer for
Oh Manchester, so much to answer for

Oh, find me, find me !
Find me !
I'll haunt you when you laugh
Oh, I'll haunt you when you laugh
You might sleep
Oh ...
Over the moors, I'm on the moor
Oh, over the moor
Oh, the child is on the moor"

Brady and Hindley were locked up for life.

Can someone explain to me the difference between Brady and Hindley, and the brave Israeli Air Force dudes who have killed and are killing children right now?