The mainstream media for the most part has moved on. But there are a few more gleanings to be had, of perhaps the most interesting comes from the Daily Mirror, which labels al-Hilli an extremist on the grounds that he was against the war in Iraq, disapproved of the behaviour of Israel and had doubts over 9/11 – which makes a great deal of the population “extremist”. But the Mirror has the only mainstream mention I can find of the possibility that Mossad carried out the killings. Given Mr al-Hilli’s profession, the fact he is a Shia, the fact he had visited Iran, and the fact that Israel heas been assassinating scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme, this has to be a possibility. There are of course other possibilities, but to ignore that one is ludicrous.
Which leads me to the argument of Daily Mail crime reporter, Stephen Wright, that the French police should concentrate on the idea that this was a killing by a random Alpine madman or racist bigot. Perfectly possible, of course, and the anti-Muslim killings in Marseille might be as much a precedent as Mossad killings of scientists. But why the lone madman idea should be the preferred investigation, Mr Wright does not explain. What I did find interesting from a man who has visited many crime scenes are his repeated insinuations that the French authorities are not really trying very hard to find who the killers were, for example:
the crime scene would have been sealed off for a minimum of seven to ten days, to allow detailed forensic searches for DNA, fibres, tyre marks and shoe prints to take place.
Nearby bushes and vegetation would have been searched for any discarded food and cigarette butts left by the killer, not to mention the murder weapon.
But from what I saw at the end of last week, no such searches had taken place and potentially vital evidence could have been missed. House to house inquiries in the local area had yet to be completed and police had not made specific public appeals for information about the crime. No reward had been put up for information about the shootings.
Behind the scenes, what other short cuts have been taken? Have police seized data identifying all mobile phones being used in the vicinity of the murders that day?
The idea that the French authorities – who are quite as capable as any other of solving cases – are not really trying very hard is an interesting one.
Which leads me to this part of a remarkable article from the Daily Telegraph, which if true points us back towards a hit squad and discounts the ides that there was only one gun:
Claims that only one gun was used to kill everybody is likely to be disproved by full ballistics test results which are out in October.
While the 25 spent bullet cartridges found at the scene are all of the same kind, they could in fact have come from a number of weapons of the same make.
This throws up the possibility of a well-equipped, highly-trained gang circling the car and then opening fire.
Both children were left alive by the killers, who had clinically pumped bullets into everybody else, including five into Mr Mollier.
Zainab was found staggering around outside the car by Brett Martin, a British former RAF serviceman who cycled by moments after the attack, but he saw nobody except the schoolgirl.
Her sister, Zeena, was found unscathed and hiding in the car eight hours later.
Both sisters are now back in Britain, and are believed to have been reunited at a secret location near London.
There are of course a number of hit squad options, both governmental and private, which might well involve iraqi or Iranian interests – on both of which the mainstream media have been very happy to speculate while almost unanimously ignoring Israel.
But what interests me is why the Daily Telegraph choose, in the face of all the evidence, to minimise the horrific nature of the attack by stating that “Both children were left alive by the killers”? Zainab was not left alive by design, she was shot in the chest and her skull was stove in, which presumably was a pretty serious attempt to kill a seven year-old child. The other girl might very well have succeeded in hiding from the killers under her mother’s skirts, as she hid from the first rescuers, and then for eight hours from the police.
The Telegraph article claims to be informed by sources close to the investigation. So they believe it was a group of people, and feel motivated to absolve those people from child-killing. Now what could the Daily Telegraph be thinking?
So confusing, this consular business with Kevin Rudd. I was under the impression from a link I posted that consular officials do not intervene unless the family requests help. Secondly, I read that consular officials are unable to help in cases where an individual is being held in another country where they are also a citizen. So can somebody please show me Australia’s rule that says this:
“By not telling the Australian embassy in Tel Aviv about the case, Richardson and Moriarty breached the department’s rules, which state that ‘‘consular officials are charged with protecting Australians even if they hold another nationality’’.”
From: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/spies-like-us-20130308-2frbw.html#ixzz2N9w85yxa
Maybe Kevin Rudd was confused, too. Or maybe he was unable to help a person with many names and passports, unless that person was being held under one of the names on one of those passports. Ben Zygier was Prisoner X, Mr. X, and Mister X, which I’m pretty sure wouldn’t have been on any passport. Or could it be that one of those passports had special status?
In case anyone wonders where this line of thought is heading, did anyone at the scene of the Chevaline massacre on September 5, 2012 have multiple passports, special passports or diplomatic documents? Which nation or body issued those passports, and who held them? Was anyone travelling under a family passport?
There seems to be a lot of buck-passing in the Zygier case. That could impede an investigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Nationality_Rule
What are the rules for people like Ben Zygier?
Similar questions posed here about the Master Nationality Rule:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1333372/opinion-prisoner-x-treated-as-citizen-of-nowhere/
This covers stripping a person of citizenship when they are being held in another country:
http://knowledgeempire.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/dual-citizenship-for-manning-not-according-to-master-nationality-rule/
I had posted a link some time ago about the U.K. stripping dual citizens of citizenship while they were out of the country, but the issue of doing so while someone is held in custody in another country is another aspect.
The U.K. is not allowed to leave a citizen stateless, but I do not know what would happen if the other country also revoked citizenship after the U.K. had done so. What happens to stateless people, and who is responsible for them?
Another passport issue for consideration: If the al-Hilli children were travelling under U.K. documents, and their parents were not, would this have had an effect on who showed up at the scene in the aftermath of the Chevaline incident?
Is there an expedited entry for frequent travellers to France from the U.K.? Would the type of documents needed to enter France vary depending on how the travellers got there (ferry vs. air, for example)?
Would it have been easier to enter France under certain passports than others that the travellers in the al-Hilli BMW might have had? Would any of the travellers have required visas? I believe we discussed the last question with regard to “grandma” only.
What if different passports were used to enter Switzerland than to enter or re-enter France? How would that affect which country or body is responsible for the travellers when they ran into trouble? Would children with one passport be treated differently from parents who had multiple citizenship? What authority does the state have over parentless children in these instances?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21730887
Satellite news related to the anniversary of Fukushima.
Isn’t that always the intention Q
10 Mar, 2013 – 5:45 pm? Everybody responsible: Nobody responsible. Basically the motto is “We all stand together or fall together”. However two things are clear about this case. 1 – Australia Government knew. 2 – Keeping it under wraps and not getting involved was INTENTIONAL. What other explanation could there be for the way it was handled. So the next question, which of course will never be asked or truthfully answered is “Why?”.
The sad fact is that even in parliamentary democracies, where the “Rule of Law” is respected, we cannot now trust our “representative” government to either tell the truth or do the right thing by its nationals. “Strong arm” Theresa May appears to being manoeuvred into place by hidden forces and she’s falling for it, with talk of withdrawal from human rights, having already quietly co-operated in the process of citizenship removal pending extra judicial murder! What have we come to?
Nationality is a legal bond between a state and an individual, and statelessness refers to the condition of an individual who is not considered as a national by any state. Although stateless people may sometimes also be refugees, the two categories are distinct and both groups are of concern to UNHCR.
Statelessness occurs for a variety of reasons including discrimination against minority groups in nationality legislation, failure to include all residents in the body of citizens when a state becomes independent (state succession) and conflicts of laws between states.
Statelessness is a massive problem that affects an estimated 12 million people worldwide. Statelessness also has a terrible impact on the lives of individuals. Possession of nationality is essential for full participation in society and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of the full range of human rights.
While human rights are generally to be enjoyed by everyone, selected rights such as the right to vote may be limited to nationals. Of even greater concern is that many more rights of stateless people are violated in practice – they are often unable to obtain identity documents; they may be detained because they are stateless; and they could be denied access to education and health services or blocked from obtaining employment.
Given the seriousness of the problem, the UN in 1954 adopted the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
Yet the problem can be prevented through adequate nationality legislation and procedures as well as universal birth registration. UNHCR has been given a mandate to work with governments to prevent statelessness from occurring, to resolve those cases that do occur and to protect the rights of stateless persons. A first step is for states to ratify and implement the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html
I appreciate this says little about how stateless ppl are treated in practice Q.
This might help to clarify. (New to me too)
Objectives and key provisions of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
Statelessness, 1 October 2001
Objectives
The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the primary international instrument adopted to date, to regulate and improve the legal status of stateless persons. The Convention sets the legal framework for the standard treatment of stateless persons. It was adopted to cover, inter alia, those stateless persons who are not refugees and who are not, therefore, covered by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its Protocol. The 1954 Convention contains provisions regarding stateless persons’ rights and obligations pertaining to their legal status in the country of residence. The Convention further addresses a variety of matters which have an important effect on day-to-day life such as gainful employment, public education, public relief, labour legislation and social security. In ensuring that such basic rights and needs are met, the Convention provides the individual with stability and improves the quality of life of the stateless person. This, in turn, can prove to be of advantage to the State in which stateless persons live, since such persons can then contribute to society, enhancing national solidarity and stability. Moreover, the potential for migration or displacement of large population groups decreases, thus contributing to regional stability and peaceful co-existence.
Key provisions
In Article 1 of the Convention, the definition of a stateless person is set out: “For the purpose of this Convention, the term ‘stateless person’ means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”.
Article 3 of the Convention on non-discrimination states that “The contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to stateless persons without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin”.
In Article 28 the issue of travel documents for stateless persons is addressed. An individual recognised as a stateless person under the terms of the Convention should be issued an identity and travel document by the Contracting State.
Article 31 states that stateless persons are not to be expelled save on grounds of national security or public order. Expulsions are, in principle, subject to due process of law. The Final Act of the Convention indicates that non-refoulement in relation to danger of persecution is a generally accepted principle. The drafters, therefore, did not feel it necessary to enshrine this in the articles of a Convention geared toward regulating the status of de jure stateless persons.
Article 32 of the Convention regulates the issue of naturalisation. The Contracting State shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of stateless persons. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.
The Final Act of the Convention recommends that each Contracting State, when it recognises as valid the reasons for which a person has renounced the protection of the State of which he is a national, consider sympathetically the possibility of according to the person the treatment which the convention accords to stateless persons. This recommendation was included on behalf of de facto stateless persons who, technically, still held a nationality but did not receive any of the benefits generally associated with nationality, such as national protection.
@ Tim V 10 Mar, 2013 – 7:31 pm
> However two things are clear about this case. 1 – Australia > Government knew. 2 – Keeping it under wraps and not getting > involved was INTENTIONAL. What other explanation could there > be for the way it was handled. So the next question, which of > course will never be asked or truthfully answered is “Why?”.
The real question is “why was Australian Law changed (quite recently) to allow citizens one new passport in a new name per year?
Which lawyer drafted that section of the bill?
Yup good q Good In Parts
10 Mar, 2013 – 10:02 pm. Someone needs to put the question to the Australian Govt. Incidentally does Craig register the “hits” on this blog? I just wonder if we are talking to ourselves or if there is a body of silent witnesses?
Thanks for the information on the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Tim V.
It’s clear that there are loopholes under Article 31, and that people are being expelled under the loopholes. It’s a shame that the generally accepted principles were not drafted into the document.
Human trafficking and extraordinary rendition are just two of the possibilities for stateless individuals, who are at risk for exploitation, abuse and torture. Statelessness could be an important part of the package when travelling via Rendition Air.
Defining what makes a country:
http://www.economist.com/node/15868439
Declaring myself as reader.
Fascinating Sovereign Military Order of Malta which has awesome powers seems to have Miles Dewey Davis(RIP) among its past members . . do they give posthumous honours??
Nice to see you JCave
11 Mar, 2013 – 11:45 am.
@Tim V 10 Mar 2013, 11:09 p.m.: Well, at least we know Craig Murray is reading here:
“Personally I love the comments threads. I nominate the “not forgetting the al-hillis” thread as the greatest comment thread in the entire history of the blogosphere (for ehich I claim no personal credit, no comments by me there). And I am extremely attached to the community of regular commenters – equally to those who tend to agree and to those who tend to argue, without which it would all be very dull.”
From the “In Praise of Palmerston” thread.
Anyone remember the one of the papers stating that Al Hilli had been employed by the allies to persuade Iraqi tank commanders to surrender, or offer minimal resistance?
Anyways, at the weekend one of the papers had an article about a group of approx 60 SBS who were sent over to Iraq to accept the surrender of an Iraqi division of approx 100,000 strength. This operation has presumably been secret until now.
The short story was that the Iraqis were not ready to surrender, and the SBS had to fight for their lives against enormous odds, plus got most of the blame for the debacle.
Someone set a trap, and presumably got paid for doing it. I wonder if they were held to account?
Has anyone please got a link to exactly which Iraqi forces Al Hilli was employed to persuade to surrender?
Q
Re:passports
My strong guess is that at least Saad and Suhaila were travelling with diplomats passports. The reason are the strong ties of the al Allaf (=al Qallaf), al Saffar and the al Hilli families with top representatives in the UNO as well as to top representatives in different governments (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, UAE and UK).
Given the (small and unlikely) possibility that neither the French nor the British secret services were informed in advance of that event nor involved in that event, the find of diplomats passports in a car would immediately ring alarm bells and create a D notice plus an immediate call to the British foreign ministry by French police authorities. That exactly could be the reason that the British special team was immediately deployed to Annecy.
Anyway, i would think that it is most likely that at least 2 of them were travelling with a diplomats “exempt” status. That makes border controls and border passing much easier and more convenient.
Finally, off topic – i sincerely wish that the 12th of March won’t become a North Korean provocation doomsday and that all of us will survive the Ides of March tomorrow. While al Qaida’s magic terror number was the 11, North Korea’s magic number is the 12th of a month. I bet that Iran’s magic number is the 13 …, but that show will follow later. First the 12 has to provoke “Tonkin style”. I sincerely hope for everybody that my logic will get approved as being wrong by tomorrow midnight …
Blue.
Hate to do this to you…but it’s the 15th. The Ides that is.
And I hope you’re wrong. I really do.
We have the Mayan calandar ending (approx 21st Dec 2012).
The ending of “an age” (21st Dec 2012).
The “last” Pope finishing (28th Feb 2012) The last day of the year.
And now the Ides of March (15th Mar).
So Blue, I do hope you’re very wrong. Very wrong indeed.
Fingers and toes crossed…and my lucky socks on !
Passports.
I have two passports. In my name. The same passport (the No.s are diiferent) ….and a letter.
This is because I have to get various visa’s. Therefore when one passport is away, I can use the other one. It is not uncommon in th flying business.
So me…and many others, carry two (not dual) passports.
How do they actually track them ? I don’t know. I have never been stopped or questioned (I have the letter !) but I must be “in and out” of coutries displaying either or passport (and then again, I only display my pass/lic in Europe). Is the system of tracking working ???
“The “last” Pope finishing (28th Feb 2012) The last day of the year”
Just to explain.
Sept is 7. Oct is 8. Dec is 10.
And when you add 23hr 53mins up, you have to stick it somewhere. So every four years, you tag an “extra” day on the end.
Just incase you went “huh ?”
It will not have escaped notice that Theresa May and Liam Fox have made thinly veiled indications that they are there. Who is pulling their strings? TM the tough on terrorists Home Secretary; LF the successful Minister of Defence whose downfall was precipitated by “a highly irregular” meeting in Dubai in June 2011.
“Financial backers linked to Israel and a private intelligence firm helped fund Werritty’s travels with Fox.[9] In April 2007, Werritty and Fox attended an official meeting with the Gulf Research Centre, an independently-run body that conducts research on issues concerning the Middle East. The two also attended an Israeli security conference centred on relations with Palestine, as well as Iranian sanctions, which took place in Herzliya in 2009. Fox is a strong supporter of Israel and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel.”
“Werritty’s initial meeting with Boulter in April 2011 led to discussions with Fox regarding the sale of a product called Cellcrypt.[33] The 45 minute Dubai meeting in June 2011 was primarily about the possible sale of the voice encryption software to the British MoD. Boulter has claimed that the matter of a legal battle between Porton Group and 3M concerning Acolyte, a EU regulatory approved rapid detection technology for MRSA, and a deal worth £41,000,000, was allocated no more than 5–10 minutes at the end of the meeting.[33][34][35] According to The Guardian, details relating to the nature of the visit and the business matters discussed suggest that it was “highly irregular”.(WIKI)
Israel, February 2009.
Singapore, 4–6 June 2010.
Dubai, 7–8 June 2010.
Florida, 2–3 July 2010.
Dubai, 6–8 August 2010.
Washington DC September 2010
Bahrain, 2–6 December 2010.
Dubai, 17–22 December 2010.
Hong Kong, 16–23 January 2011.
Israel, 6–7 February.
Switzerland, 17–21 February.
Dubai, April 2011.
Abu Dhabi, 14–18 April 2011.
Florida/Washington, 22–25 May 2011.
Hong Kong, 31 May – 1 June 2011.
Singapore, 2–6 June 2011.
Sri Lanka, July 2011.
Dubai, 17 June 2011.
Washington DC, 30 June – 3 July 2011.
Spain, 5–9 August.
“During his time in Dubai, Dr Fox carried out two official engagements: a briefing for Gulf-based journalists and a short visit to Al Minhad airbase. But he also found time to spend most of a night carousing, in honour of the forthcoming wedding of one of his two Special Advisers, Luke Coffey – who, most unconventionally for someone in such a delicate position in the Ministry of Defence, is an American citizen.
Mr Coffey, who wed London solicitor Emily Moore in July, is also a member of a U.S. think-tank, the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs, which has close links to the American intelligence community.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049566/Liam-Fox-Adam-Werritty-messy-night-Dubai.html#ixzz2NHT2tx3t
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
There are clearly (or in the recent past have been, close and personal links with the Middle East. There is also the well-known “revolving door” phenomenum between top MoD personnel and defense industries. http://www.againstcorruption.org/BriefingsItem.asp?id=13093 states the following:
“Drawing on answers to parliamentary questions, CAAT reveals: ‘Between 1984 and 1994, 2,002 officers in the armed forces received approval to take up employment with companies in military industry. Figures are not available for 1995 to 1998, but between 1 January 1999 and the end of June 2004, 614 officers received such approval’ (CAAT, p14).
As the Advisory Committee notes, this can lead to suspicions of impropriety and a view that officers and their civilian equivalents ‘might enter their final postings with a hope or expectation of post-retirement employment with companies with which they would be dealing officially’ (Advisory Committee, Sixth Report 2004).
CAAT shows that since the beginning of the 1990s six ministers have moved from MOD to the arms industry:
George Younger, Defence Secretary (1986-1989), became Chair of Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems in 1990, a military electronics firm bought by BAE Systems.
* Michael Portillo, Defence Secretary (1995-1997) joined BAE Systems in September 2002 as a Non Executive Director
* George Robertson. Defence Secretary (1997-1999). From 1999 to 2003 he was Secretary General of NATO. After NATO, Robertson accepted a Non-Executive Director position at military aerospace firm Smiths, starting in February 2004. This was a busy month for Robertson as he also became strategic advisor to the Royal Bank of Canada’s European operation at the time that the company was reportedly trying to raise £500 million in a private finance deal to modernise the Army’s barracks at Colchester. And in the same month he became a Non-Executive Director of the Weir group, the Glasgow-based engineering firm which is a major supplier of weapons systems for all Royal Navy submarines.
* Geoffrey Pattie, Minister of State for Defence Procurement (1983-1984), became Chair of Marconi Electronic Systems from June 1990 to 1999, Director of Marketing for GEC plc from 1997 to 1998 and Director of Communications for GEC from 1998 to 1999. Pattie is now the senior of two partners at Terrington Management, a political lobbying company whose clients include defence companies BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin.
* Jonathan Aitken, Minister of State for Defence Procurement (1992-1994). Aitken had been on the board of BMARC (1988-1990), a company allegedly involved in supplying arms to Iraq and Burma. Aitken moved to GEC Marconi in 1998 as a consultant but his contract was terminated when he received an 18-month prison sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice in 1999. He denied that aides of the Saudi Royal family paid a £1,000 Paris Ritz hotel bill in 1993. This denial was subsequently exposed as a lie. Because he was Procurement Minister at the time of his stay, he was officially banned from accepting any benefits that may affect his judgement.
* Roger Freeman, Minister for Defence Procurement (1994-1995), went on to become a Non-Executive Director of Thomson-CSF/Thales and Non-Executive Chair of Thomson CSF/Thales-UK in 1999.39
Perhaps less surprisingly, the government’s arms sales organisation DESO (Defence Export Services Organisation) has always seconded its head from the arms industry.
Arms companies have continued to offer jobs to senior MOD officials and military officers since Labour came to -power in 1997. Some of these have been identified by CAAT:
* Air Chief Marshall Sir John Day, after leaving his post as Commander-in-Chief, Strike Command, took up an appointment as a military advisor to BAE Systems in December 2003.
* Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement in the MoD from May 1996 until April 2003, became a Member of the US Board of Directors of General Dynamics in May 2004.
* Vice Admiral McAnally, Commandant of the Royal College of Defence Studies until December 2000, took up a position of Naval Adviser to Flagship Training in July 2001. Flagship, jointly owned by BAE Systems and VT Group, markets Royal Naval training abroad.
* Air Marshall Sir Peter Norris was Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (operations) until October 2000. He became Defence Advisor to Alenia Marconi Systems in June 2001 and Advisor to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd, a Swiss company that make civil and military single-engine turboprops, in December 2001.
* General Sir Roger Wheeler, Chief of the General Staff until April 2000, became a Non-Executive Director of Thomson-CSF/Thales in February 2001.
* Sir Scott Grant, Quartermaster General until March 2000, was appointed by Thomson Racal Defence Ltd/Thales as Customer Support Director in January 2001.
* Vice Admiral Sir John Dunt, former Chief of Fleet Support at the MoD until March 2000, became Principal Defence Advisor to Defence Business and Marketing International Ltd. In January 2001.
* Edmund Burton, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Systems) until September 1999, became a consultant for TRW Inc in November 2000.
* Professor Sir David Davies, Chief Scientific Advisor in the MoD until April 1999, became a Member of the Strategy Board at British Aerospace Virtual University in December 1999.
* Air Marshal Sir Colin Terry, Air Officer Commander-in-Chief at RAF Logistics and Chief Engineer of the RAF until August 1999 became Group Managing Director of Inflite Engineering Ltd
* Admiral Sir Jock Slater, First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff (1995-1998), became a Non-Executive Director of Vosper Thornycroft Holdings plc, owner of warship manufacturer VT Shipbuilding, in July 1999 and a Senior Military Advisor of Lockheed Martin UK Ltd. In January 2000.
* Mr. M. Bell, who had been on secondment from the MoD to BAE Systems for two and a half years, left the MoD permanently to became Group Head of Strategic Analysis in April 1999.
* Air Marshal Graeme Robertson, Chief of Staff RAF Strike Command until November 1998, became a Military Adviser to British Aerospace in March 1999.
* Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon, Chief of Air Staff until August 1997, became a Non-Executive Director of Thomson CSF-UK/Thales in January 1999.
* Air Marshal Sir Roger Austin was Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (operations) until May 1997. In June 1998 he became a Fellow of Strategic Forum at Serco Defence which provides the MoD with support services.
* Air Chief Marshall Sir William Wratten, former Commander-in-Chief, RAF Strike Command until November 1997, became Chief Military Advisor to Rolls Royce Military Aero Engines in May 1998.
* Lord Inge, former Chief of Defence Staff (1994-1997), 62 became a Non-Executive Director of Racal Electronics (1997-2000) and a consultant to BAE Systems.
* Sir Peter Harding, Graydon’s predecessor as Chief of Air Staff, went on to become Deputy Chair of GEC Marconi from 1995-1998.
In addition, Vice-admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, deputy chief of defence staff was barred for six months from lobbying officials or ministers after he retired from service in September 2002. He later became UK president of European Aerospace and Defence Systems.”
@James 12 Mar, 2013 – 12:20 am
“Blue. Hate to do this to you…but it’s the 15th. The Ides that is. And I hope you’re wrong. I really do.”
“Ides (the 15th day in March, May, July, and October; the 13th in the other months).”
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/ides1.html
There’s still hope for Blue’s soothsaying. If the DPRK fired a missile eastwards early on 13 April (The Ides of April) it would fly across the international dateline, backwards into yesterday, and land where it was still 12 April.
http://en.ce.cn/World/Asia-Pacific/201303/11/t20130311_24187036.shtml
Make what you will of this. A suicided or murdered spook from 1999.
“MOSSAD AND CIA CONTROL OF AUSTRALIA; ZYGIER; MERVYN JENKINS”
“‘Australia long ago outsourced much of its military and intelligence, as well as foreign affairs sovereignty, to Israel and America.'”
“Canada is in worse shape than Australia in this regard, but both are Mossad bases for Israel’s extensive international espionage…”
“On June 13, 1999, in the Washington suburb of Arlington, Virginia, Mervyn Jenkins, the North American attache for the Australian Defence Intelligence Organization (DIO) was found hanged in the backyard of his home a week before the Jenkins family planned to return to Australia.”
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/mossad-and-cia-control-of-australia.html?m=1
“The Sydney Morning Herald last week commenced a series of articles on corrupt Defence spending. People have been killed trying to expose this information. Merve Jenkins was one.”
http://diokillers.blogspot.com/
Make what you will of these two too.
More on the Fordow explosion or incident:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/iran-nuke-site-blasts-confirmed-sabotage-suspected/
“James Holmes [Aurora, Colorado, alleged theatre shooter] could be subjected to ‘truth serum’ should his attorneys enter an insanity plea at his pre-trial hearing this week.” Like what the Soviet Union did in old times?
http://news.sky.com/story/1063338/cinema-shooting-judge-approves-truth-serum
James
I was just referring to a “Tonkin style” provocation on the 12th that would cause some kind of trouble beginning in the “ides of martius”. Why is always the month of the God of War chosen for the beginning of the recent wars?
I was referring to the 12th simply because the 12 seems to be north korea’s magic number.
April 12 2012: failed launch of a rocket that can be used as a military device targetting every point on earth with a nuclear warhead.
December 12 2012: successful launch of a rocket that can be used as a military device targetting every point on earth with a nuclear warhead.
January 12 2012: NK cancels weapons agreements and threatens the world with the use of nuclear bombs as “first strike”.
February 12 2012: successful nuclear bomb test.
While CIA’s “al Qaida” always used the 11 for their atracks, NK seems to like the 12.
What’s the magic number of Iran?
Could the “5” then be Australia’s number? Or else is all of that just coincidence and we see what we want to see?
NR
While i believe the Fordow story only when somebody else than Khalili would write about that, i agree with you about Australia and the intelligence joint venture between UK, Canada, Australia and NZ that is already confirmed. However, Khaluli seems to be stubborn without presenting any kind of credible proof ever, not unlike our Mr.Ford.
I think that Israel does have its nose everywhere involved. I would not wonder if they would already run and organise ASIO.
Here are some more links adding some kind of approval:
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/26/matt-gurney-australias-known-spy-scandals-with-canadian-connections-too
Australian intelligence operations. The facility that Delisle worked at is involved in a little-known multi-lateral security agreement among the Anglosphere powers — the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91D0TM20130214?irpc=932
Israel has made little secret of seeing its influxes of foreign Jews, often from Muslim countries, as intelligence assets given their language skills and cultural savvy. Many immigrants recall being tapped by Mossad recruiters or asked to loan out their original passports, presumably a cover for spies.
http://m.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7345455/New-Zealand-caught-up-in-spy-scandal
NR,
Your Peacock report is interesting stuff. Once again there is Boeing involved. It is all about money.
Somehow i believe that ASIO was (at least as one party) involved in the Annecy event. Not only because of WBM and not just because it was happening on the 5th of a month. Not just because of the strong al Hilli links to Australia. The whole Annecy event cries “Australia”, too. Regardless of whatever kind of evidence one is investigating.
@ bluebird 12 Mar, 2013 – 8:53 am
“NR: While i believe the Fordow story only when somebody else than Khalili would write about that… However, Khaluli seems to be stubborn without presenting any kind of credible proof ever, not unlike our Mr.Ford.”
I have no reason to believe Khalili or WND. The question is why WND — right-wing, Christian, pro-Israel — sticks with the story (now changed slightly from an explosion to Stuxnet-like sabotage)? Who profits? Did Israel manage to get past Iranian security via something the North Koreans brought with them. That would sow distrust between Iran and North Korea?