Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran 440

This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.

On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.

Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.

The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..

This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.

Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.

Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.

I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.

I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.

But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.

This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.

Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?

The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was

“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”

O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that

“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”

All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.

For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.

O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:

“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”

So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?

The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.

Hague replied to Corbyn that:

“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”

Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.

This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.

That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.

My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.

O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:

“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”

There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.

I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.

Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.

Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.

I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.

I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.

This is the story I was given.

Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.

According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.

My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.

On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.

There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?

The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.

Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?

There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.

Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.

It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.

There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?

Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.

UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:

“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.

From Israel National News. It also says that he will be trying to promote a positive atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, but the shallowest or the deepest search shows the same picture; an entirely biased indeed fanatical zionist who must give no confidence at all to the Palestinian Authority. He must be recalled.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

440 thoughts on “Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran

1 12 13 14 15
  • BGD

    RT? A site that is fast developing a global audience of the MSM sceptical

    They might have you on for an interview, now or in the future:

    Planning newsgathering producers
    Fax: +7 495 926-27-61
    E-mail: [email protected]

  • stephen


    Even if your analysis were balanced and there were no substance whatsover to the Israeli position as you believe – I fail to see how it would advance the position and actually improve the life of Palestinians. I would also note that South Africans may have been more justified in taking a similar position to yours with regard to apartheid, but fortunately Mandela showed that was not the way to progress matters.


    If you really think that MIC theory is currently widely accepted across the political/economic spectrum could I kindly suggest that you do some reading on the matter from a wider range of sources. I never claimed that the theory was believed solely by marxists – just that it was beloved by marxists in the 60s and 70s (most sensible modern day marxists have moved on btw).

  • Jon

    I should say – to detractors generally here – that on the Palestinian question there is a good deal of support for ordinary Israeli people on this blog. A peace that satisfies only one people won’t, of course, be a peace at all. However, an accord that works for both sides will not in any shape satisfy the Israeli establishment, which is largely dependent on militarism and violence. Indeed, the Israeli economy is heavily invested in security/military technology, and would struggle to reconfigure itself quickly if a lasting peace breakthrough was suddenly achieved.
    To be fair, I’d not balk at the suggestion that Hamas are hooked on violence as well, though for obvious reasons they’ve not been able to monetise theirs.

  • Jon

    @Herbie, that’s an interesting perspective on getting agreement across the political divide. I’ve found a similar approach useful in discussing current affairs with conservative (Tory-voting) friends of mine. They’re suspicious of the public sector, and have a distaste for union activities, but nevertheless experience a nagging sensation that markets are freer for some people than for others.
    My old socialist/anti-capitalist discursive position was “capitalism isn’t working”, which was pushing people with moderate right-wing views further to the right. Now, it’s “capitalism isn’t working as it should”, and it is pulling right-wing views to the centre, as it well ought. This is helping to persuade on some very moderate points, such as support for the Tobin tax, abolition of tax havens, or CEOs paying at least the same percentage of tax as their secretaries etc.

  • Scouse Billy

    Funny that both the Indy (pre-modding) and Guardian are not allowing links to this article, yet I’ve posted 3 links on the Telegraph and all are still there.
    Did you approach the Telegraph, Craig?

  • Dr Brian Robinson
    Uri Avnery (at the Arabic Media Internet Network) ‘[L]et’s be serious for a moment. Israel will not attack Iran. Period. Some may think that I am going out on a limb. Shouldn’t I add at least “probably” or “almost certainly”? No, I won’t. I shall repeat categorically: Israel Will NOT Attack Iran.

    Avnery discusses the immediate results of an invasion by Israel — Straits of Hormuz … Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs opposing the idea of an invasion … Iran about the size of Alaska … nuclear installations widely dispersed … missiles will rain down on Israel which ‘has no adequate defence’ for its towns … ‘prohibitive’ death and destruction on Israel itself … and then ALSO ‘the political price’.

    ‘[A]n Israeli assault on a major Muslim country would instantly unite Sunnis and [Shias], from Egypt and Turkey to Pakistan and beyond. Israel could become a villa in a burning jungle.’

  • stephen


    “Now, it’s “capitalism isn’t working as it should”, and it is pulling right-wing views to the centre, as it well ought”

    Welcome to social democracy and Keynesianism

    A few weeks back I gave a link to a survey of Israeli public opinion – and it actually demonstrated just your point that the attitudes of the general population were not as hawkish as some might think – although the tendency has been to become more hawkish in recent years. It also showed that the vast majority o fthe popoulation 80%+ rated the risks to their personal security as high or very high. Tackle that and I think you will find that there is a good chance of changing the Israeli establishment – if you don’t think that is possible/worth trying then the future is pretty bleak.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    To advance the ME position one must understand the reasons for so many failures in the negotiations.
    Israel wants sovereignty over Jerusalem and attachment to Israel of the West Bank settlements that the UN has declared illegal.
    Looking a little deeper we realise Israel also wants control of West Bank aquifers including some arable land and presence along the river border with Jordon. That leaves Gaza, refugee camps, Palestinian cities and arid isolated territories – so little eh?
    Undeniably Palestinians have been dispossessed from a land they previously possessed. My argument is that Israel has approached negotiations from strength, a false potency mostly granted by America and Britain that enables it to lead and act and so has the advantage. The powerless Palestine Authority can only react because the international community has not enforced the previous UN resolutions on Jerusalem and the West Bank occupation and made the contestants adhere to previous peace accord schedules.
    This is living proof of the highly unbalanced ‘balanced’ argument you are keen to galvanise on this board. Palestine needs to be a recognised State so that can protect itself and appeal to world institutions for assistance.
    It is a moral milestone in the social spirit of cooperation that Palestinians have a self-sustaining nation with functioning institutions that provide economic and social programs.
    Then and only then can both parties resolve things like border disputes, water rights, settlement status, refugee situation and the status of Jerusalem. That is exactly what Mandela has proposed and that is exactly key to enhancing, stabilising and giving hope and joy to the Palestinian underdogs who are nothing more than prisoners held in a ghetto.
    Every reasonable human being cannot fail to understand the Palestinian attrition. So how reasonable are you Stephen?

  • Joe

    A google search for matthew gould returns your article on the first page. It’s now also ‘immortalised’ on gould’s wikipedia entry.

  • ingo

    If Uri Avnery is right Dr.Robinson, why is Israel goading/operating clandestine subs armed to the teeth with tomahawks? right in front of Irans noses, was there some kind of precedent, has Iran send warships to patrol Ghaza’s territorial waters? and what outcry would such hyperthetical move by Iran cause?

    Good to have Julian here, such eloquence, suave vivre, a gentleman though and through, he must have had a sheltered upbringing on Mars.

  • Jon

    @Dr. Robinson – I agree that an attack on Iran from Israel rather than the US could well start a conflagration. But, I remember vaguely that Israel carried out a limited bombing against an “axis of evil” country a few years ago and, since reports were sparse in the media, there was not much visible international blowback. So, I am not sure I share Avnery’s confidence, but I hope he is right.

  • dickerson3870

    RE: COMMENT BY “MJ” (above), 14th November 2011: “…Israel had already supplied S Africa with the missiles, but the S Africans wanted to get rid of them before the ANC took over. The US took 6 and Thatcher agreed to take the remaining three. Cameron (then a mere researcher) and David Kelly were involved in sorting out the details. To cut a long story short, Britain was double-crossed by a shady arms dealer who sold the missiles on the black market. N Korea detonated one of them a couple of years ago, the other two remain missing.”

    MY COMMENT: This is interesting. Does anyone have a source for this? I will greatly appreciate any additional information anyone can provide. I will check back periodically and do a search for the word “Africa”, so please include the word “Africa” in any information you provide. Thanks.

  • Herbie

    Hi Jon
    Yes. Keep up with that approach. Finding consensus on the things we all care about is definitely the way forward.
    The details will no doubt be well argued over after we’ve consigned these unhumanists to another period outside the big tent of international humanity.
    In fact, the next time I hear these contemptible neocons utter that disgusting phrase “the international community” as they fly off to another turkey shoot, I’ll roar back, “What about the INTERNATIONAL HUMANITY”?
    Real Conservatives and Liberals and the British Left have always been concerned about humanity, in a very deep way. That’s something we all share.
    It’s just that the current leaders of the western world no longer share the values of the people they’ve been elected to govern.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Dr Brian Robinson,
    You are dangerously wrong and I am being serious. Israel cannot endure, knowing that Iran has the knowledge (and undeclared help from China and Russia) to match its military might. Israel knows that America’s military power would protect her and Mossad and Shin Bet are of course constrained by their charter – deception.
    Russia and China are demonstrably sensitive to world opinion and could pull back from cooperation with Iran should Iran be proven lying or effectively demonized by perfectly executed Western plots.
    Then and only then will a post Iraq war disconnected America authorise such a strike. That is why I frequently post my HUMINT on schemes and cabal, despite ridicule constantly looming on the submit button.

  • John Goss

    Jon, it’s a problem. I have written to the Iranian embassy in the past, on matters like the hanging of members of the Bahai faith for practising their religion, and the stoning of women for adultery (it’s like taking a step back to Old Testament times). Please understand I have no love for the Iranian regime. However, as Komodo and others have pointed out, the rights of Palestinians and other Arabs, appear to be virtually non-existent in some Israeli camps. Other Israelis are very much like me and you. I would dearly love to see Arabs and Israelis living side by side in perfect harmony in the Middle East. And yes, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is anathema to me. Except, as I mentioned yesterday somewhere, if the USSR had not developed nuclear weapons I think the US would have continued to use such weapons after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to achieve its ends. Israel, while denying it had a nuclear programme was developing nuclear weapons. Mossad captured and imprisoned for 18 years a journalist who told the truth about this. I find it difficult to support either Iran or Israel when their actions contravene human rights. But to my mind it is quite clear that Zionist/Neocon aims seek some kind of world domination, New World Order, or whatever you want to call it. And that, to my mind, is something we should all try to prevent. Iran does not have the influence on world affairs that Israel has. We have moved from Henry Kissinger’s triangular diplomacy, where country A was played against country B and country B played against country A and country C played against the other two. Today we have a multi-angular, multi-faceted diplomacy where countries throughout the Middle East and Africa are being destabilised by our countries, countries which are supposed to set an example.
    This wine is not the best!

  • Frank FitzWalter

    craig’s story is on What Really Happened under the headline Playground Bullying of Palestine and Iran Must Stop. It is mostly an interview with Henry Bellingham MP and Stuart Littlewood and contains a link to Craig’s website.

  • Sophia

    The first ever Birtish ambassador to visit the Jewish agency ‘Europeans for Israel’, Gould “attempted to dispel fears that the UK is moving towards recognizing “Palestine” as an independent state.”

    “Gould said that Hague had not made the Palestinian mission an embassy, nor had he given its members diplomatic immunity. Moreover he had made it clear, said Gould, “that this is not a step towards recognition.”

    Britain shares with the Palestinians the goal of the creation of a Palestinian state, Gould acknowledged, “but the way to achieve this is through negotiations. This is a conflict that can only be solved through a negotiated settlement.”

    ““We need to separate the noise from the reality,” said Gould. There is a growing concern among the British people about some Israeli policies, especially those related to the West Bank and Gaza, he continued, and those who seek to delegitimize Israel hook into that concern.”

    He is very protective of Israel. He was frontline to repel calls for academic boycott against Israel and again to change the law that enables British citizen to sue Israeli officials for war crimes. So it does not surprise me that he plots to attack Iran. Israel wants peace with a weakened Palestinian people in order to dictate its terms. Israel never respected a ‘negotiated peace’. A ‘negotiated peace’ for Israel is peace on its own terms. breaking the resistance axis, Iran-Syria-Lebanon is vital for Israel to achieve an unjust peace.

  • Herbie

    Thank you for that. I agree entirely that it’s important to trace the genesis of these ideas, in their own right.
    I hope you won’t think me churlish in suggesting that my point to Stephen was solely to indicate to his goodself that the idea was not of marxist manufacture, and a variety of opinions could agree to its veracity without demur.
    I look forward to reading the book. I’ve put it on Stephen’s reading list too. He really does need to stop watching so much television and get some other interests.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    I fully agree Sophia and an enlightening post that connects directly with my constant ‘fishing expeditions’ to find the smallest scrap of evidence of a plot to break the Iran-Syria-Lebanon resistance axis. Thank-you.
    Craig has exposed Gould and I owe him another debt of gratitude. A small number of people know why.

  • Anders

    Now on

    To the Africa guy, just use google and you will find plenty of hits about these nukes and Cameron and Kelly being involved – Kelly headed Porton Down for many years and knew far too much – including the ethnic bomb virae – thus he was taken care of, with the cover-up continung to this day. Ditto Diana. Ditto Robin Cook. Ditto John Smith, whose unfortunate “heart attack” in the hills left the door wide open for the then nobody Antonia Miranda Blair.

    Work it all out.

  • glenn

    Anders: Christ, please forget that scum-sucking Drudge cesspit of a website. Might as well throw it to the teabaggers at The Blaze as do that. While one might think any support is welcome, the enemies of my enemy and all that, I’d rather keep the filth of the Reicht simply as that – my enemy – and never get in bed with them on any issue.

  • anno

    I’ve been away, but have tried to read all the above.
    I suppose Liam Fox became a Tory because he values individual political survival over collective political survival. His personality is to out-think, out-wit and out-of-a-job his political rivals. Being pro-Israel is just a game for these political people, unlike Gould for whom it a passion.
    The smug, ball licking Zionist bankers control the whole world, not just the UK and US . Fox would never depend on the likes of Gould or Werrity as friends, allies or business partners.
    His DNA is the DNA of a slot-eyed reptile, Tyrannasaurus Rex, compared to their little games of Arms dealing and Jewishness.
    Fox is playing Israel’s game, to pretend to hate Iran, for his own devious, foxy reasons, such as proving himself to be tougher and more reliable to Israel than Cameron.
    Most technologically advanced countries have the knowledge and wish for nuclear defensive missiles. If Israel was to bomb all its enemies there wouldn’t be any world left. It’s as normal for countries to have a bomb as it is for us to own a mobile phone. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, finish.
    Zionism is about Jewish ideas gaining supremacy over the rest of our ideas, and belittling the ideas of peace and justice which currently still exist in Christianity and Islam.
    Fox likes the fascist nature of Zionism in a way that even war criminals like Blair, Brown and Cameron do not.
    So far as I’m concerned, and not for the reasons that Dr Brian Robinson mentions, fear of counter-attack, the plot which Craig has stumbled upon is pure, unadulterated political camouflage by Zionism, to divert us from the launch of their New World Order by picking off weaker countries in the EU. It is a banking controlled World Order, whose agenda is to obliterate freedom as we know it. Shi’a Iran is a quaint corner of deviated Islam and surrogate Westernism. Of all the countries the truth-loathing Liam Fox and Zionism do not need to debilitate, Iran is the one.
    The political skulduggery which Craig’s old-fashioned Tory/ diplomatic friends wanted leaked and which Craig’s keen understanding and huge experience has led to this post, is a sense of foreboding that all is not right in the state of Denmark i.e. the world.
    You get that horrible sense of tension when a wild-life program shows you the snake advancing in slow motion, and the rodent still eating among the leaf-mold.
    We are about to be gobbled by Zionism, and us little mammals of Christianity and Shi’a Islam are somehow invisibly aware of the
    snakes combination of intelligence and sensitive smell glands.

  • anno

    By that analogy, yes Iran could be about to be hit militarily, as a piece of Israeli colonialism for their water and oil, before they gain the capability to defend themselves with nuclear weapons. I do not believe this is remotely David Cameron’s agenda.
    We may see something like the deal between the USSR and US about eachother’s violent colonial oppressions, such as Chechnya and South America, to ignore and remain silent about the other’s injustices and state terror. Cameron feasting on Iraq and Libya, while Israeli feasts of Iraq and Iran.

  • eco

    Excellent and very informative piece, inevitably attracts trolls but then that’s a sign you’re doing something right.

    Went looking for your piece in the Grauniad but as predicted – not there…or at least i couldn’t find it.

    Did find this which might add a little to the background.

    Keep up the good work.

1 12 13 14 15

Comments are closed.