The death toll from the horrific recent Iraq bombings has risen over 250. If Blair had not been absolutely determined to attack Iraq on the basis of a knowing lie about WMD, they would be alive now, along with millions of other dead. ISIS would never have taken control of territory in Iraq and Syria. Al Qaeda would never have grown from an organisation of a few hundred to one of tens of thousands. We would not have a completely destabilised Middle East and a massive refugee crisis.
Do not expect a full truth and a full accounting from the Chilcot panel of establishment trusties today. Remember who they are.
Sir John Chilcot
Member of the Butler Inquiry which whitewashed the fabrication of evidence of Iraqi WMD. The fact is that, beyond doubt, the FCO and SIS knew there were no Iraqi WMD. In the early 1990’s I had headed the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, tasked with monitoring and preventing Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In 2002 I was on a course for newly appointed Ambassadors alongside Bill Patey, who was Head of the FCO Department dealing with Iraq. Bill is a fellow Dundee University graduate and is one of the witnesses before the Iraq Inquiry this morning. I suggested to him that the stories we were spreading about Iraqi WMD could not be true. He laughed and said “Of course not Craig, it’s bollocks”. I had too many other conversations to mention over the next few months, with FCO colleagues who knew the WMD scare to be false.
Yet Chilcot was party to a Butler Inquiry conclusion that the Iraqi WMD scare was an “Honest mistake”. That a man involved on a notorious whitewash is assuring us that this will not be one, is bullshit.
Sir Roderick Lyne
A good friend and former jogging partner of Alastair Campbell.
Last time I actually spoke to him we were both Ambassadors and on a British frigate moored on the Neva in St Petersburg. Colleagues may have many words to describe Rod Lyne, some of them complimentary, but “open-minded” is not one of them.
If the Committee were to feel that the Iraq War was a war crime, then Rod Lyne would be accusing himself. As Ambassador to Moscow he was active in trying to mitigate Russian opposition to the War. He personally outlined to the Russian foreign minister the lies on Iraqi WMD. There was never the slightest private indication that Lyne had any misgivings about the war.
From Uzbekistan we always copied Moscow in on our reporting telegrams, for obvious reasons. Lyne responded to my telegrams protesting at the CIA’s use of intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers, by requesting not to be sent such telegrams.
Sir Lawrence Freedman
Lawrence Freedman is the most appalling choice of all. The patron saint of “Justified” wars of aggression, and exponent of “Wars of Choice” and “Humanitarian Intervention”. He is 100% parti pris.
Here is part of his evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution on 18 January 2006:
The basic idea here is that our armed forces prepared for what we might call wars of necessity, that the country was under an existential threat so if you did not respond to that threat then in some very basic way our vital interests, our way of life, would be threatened, and when you are looking at certain such situations, these are great national occasions. The difficulty we are now facing with wars of choice is that these are discretionary and the government is weighing a number of factors against each other. I mentioned Sierra Leone but Rwanda passed us by, which many people would think was an occasion when it would have been worth getting involved. There was Sudan and a lot of things have been said about Darfur but not much has happened…
…Iraq was a very unusual situation where it was not an ongoing conflict. If we had waited things would not have been that much different in two or three months’ time and so, instead of responding either to aggression by somebody else, as with the Falklands, or to developing humanitarian distress, as in the Balkans, we decided that security considerations for the future demanded immediate action.”
Sir Martin Gilbert (died in course of Inquiry)
Very right wing historian whose biography of Churchill focussed on Gilbert’s relish for war and was otherwise dull. (Roy Jenkins’ Churchill biography is infinitely better). Gilbert was not only rabidly pro-Iraq War, he actually saw Blair as Churchill.
Although it can easily be argued that George W Bush and Tony Blair face a far lesser challenge than Roosevelt and Churchill did – that the war on terror is not a third world war – they may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill. Their societies are too divided today to deliver a calm judgment, and many of their achievements may be in the future: when Iraq has a stable democracy, with al-Qaeda neutralised, and when Israel and the Palestinian Authority are independent democracies, living side by side in constructive economic cooperation.
Baroness Prashar
A governor of the FCO institution the Ditchley Foundation – of which the Director is Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK Ambassador to the UN who presented the lies about Iraqi WMD and was intimately involved in the lead in to war. So very much another cosy foreign policy insider.
So, in short, the committee – all hand-picked by Gordon Brown – could not have been better picked to ensure a whitewash.
Over 50% of the British population were against the Iraq War, including for example many scores of distinguished ex-Ambassadors, many military men and many academics. Yet Brown chose nobody on the Inquiry who had been against the Iraq War, while three out of five were active and open supporters of the war.
Do not expect to see this truth reflected in any of the mainstream media coverage.
Blair: “There were no lies, parliament and cabinet were not misled, there was no secret commitment to war. The intelligence was not falsified and the decision was made in good faith.”
Blair: That comment took 22 seconds of my time which is 270 nicker. Now pay up and piss off.
What do you expect. Millions-Blair has never confessed to anything but acting in the best interests of the People of Britain, in Good Faith for the purest of motives throughout. What a selfless man – seeing him even being subject to criticism must be so hurtful for this purest of souls.
We shall see the extent of the Niger forgeries in time, but that’s what blair is buying….time.
It worked for Pinochet.
This article, which I found rather tough going, sustains Craig’s point about the connection between the Chilcot report and the attempted defenestration of Corbyn.
One point that the author does not seem to make is that the candidates that Labour put up to succeed MPs who had voted against the War or for the Enquiry, were almost uniformly Blairites ready to back the war retroacttvely.
They all share equal responsibility with Blair for his crimes. Constituency parties should insist on their standing down.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/06/most-labour-mps-opposing-corbyn-are-stained-blood-iraq
If I recall correctly, Blair said to IDS at PMQs, “I showed you the secret reports about WMDs” and a furious IDS said that was untrue! This to me showed Blair was a calculating and shameless liar and IDS was honest but stupid. A shameless and calculating lie, because it implied there was consensus about WMDs and that IDS would not dare deny it, because if he did it would mean IDS supported the war without seeing evidence of WMDs. And thus by being honest IDS’s stupidity proved Blair was a liar!
I don’t know who this honest IDS is you’re talking about – is that the man that made up his own qualifications?
This analysis of the Executive summary makes some interesting points:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/06/chilcot-report-tony-blair-told-george-w-bush-if-we-win-quickly-everyone-will-be-our-friend/
I find it to be a complete disgrace that all those in parliament who authorised acts of mass murder are not in prison. This sends the message to everyone in the country that you can kill and plunder if you are part of the elite, and not only will you get away with it but you will be promoted to top appointments, get filfthy rich and also have taxpayers pay millions for your police protection for the rest of your life. The whole thing is just so bloody embarrassing. I’d be so thoroughly ashamed to admit I was British to anyone outside the UK. The British are now seen internationally as the swine of the world, because they allow their politicians to screw them over so easily, take away their education and healthcare without much of a fight at all.
There will be no whitewash in the White House.There will be no whitewash in the White House.
There will be no White House in the whitewash.
There will be no shitwash in the dunghouse.
lessons will be learned lessons will be learned lessons will be learned.
tavistock tavistock chatham house brookings united services institute,pinac.project for new american century oded yinon calling.
whitewash oxy bleach action with the cleaning power pure oxygen.
strong words hard words tough tough words nobody saw the amount of lessons that would be learned.
can we process so many lessons from this whitewash who can tell me lessons from butler lessons tell me some butler lessons learned anyone heard of butler
butler whitewash lessons
breakdown breakdown system lessons breakdown breakdown
privy council privy hedge royal protection for a queens man init
job done
whoa, Nellie…
My sense is that Blair was lured into Iraq in a cleverly prepared trap by the US and probably Israel.
He was naive, rash and stupid but essentially a victim of a hoax that began with the unlikely official narrative of 9/11.
It was quite proper to have an inquiry about Britain’s entry into the war – and the inquiry appears to have been conducted thoroughly and fairly – but there are deeper and more serious questions remaining about why Bush wanted the war in the first place and who faked the intelligence.
Blaming Blair is a convenient distraction for the real culprits.
Plenty of excuses for bad behavior in every sector of bureaucratic democratic republics. No need for additional defense mechanisms from the cheering section…
Bit O/T… hope the mods will indulge me – this is the second page of comments, after all.
Wales didn’t play at their best today. Portugal was the better side, and deserved to win. The ref was fair too.
Still a bit of a disappointment, though – as the end of a dream always will be. Nevertheless, it was a good run.
Thanks everyone (Anon1 anyway, if nobody else!) for the good wishes.
https://youtu.be/XMbvcp480Y4
Thanks. Liked that one for many a long year, even wrote to the BBC (as a lad) to ask what it was. They wrote back to tell me and, after saving up enough pocket-money, I bought the production I still think as the best.
You might like this, best played on full screen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYKCNY6kUk&list=PLtj_HurkS7ZyGJyDp2zeKj5AQi3okl7_p&index=2
They Were Crap Glen… Pass back……Pass Back Pass BaCk….. But most of The Winners ALL did the same,,, Pass Back…. P S Who the fuck Who is Ed
You can download it in one go from here:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chilcot-report-in-full/comment-page-1/
And use a free program like PDFBinder to put the report in one file. You can then easily search for words or phrases like:
“Friends of Israel”
– the lobby group that so successfully lobbied for the invasion. Over 80% of Tory MPs were in Conservative Friends of Israel at the time. Its the only explanation as to why they were so strongly in favour of the invasion – ZERO MENTIONS
Sharon/Mossad
– who provided the fraudulent WMD intelligence
I can find ZERO MENTIONS
The spies who pushed for war:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa
Actually the program didn’t seem to join them properly after all. But you can still search the chapters individually.
I look forward to examining the Chilcot Report to see if there is any mention of Mark Higson FOC who worked on the Iraq desk and who was hounded out because he knew about the lies on the 45 mins claim and WMD.
Nope.
Apparently Ian Austin (Treacherous Labour Party) heckled Corbyn during his speech. Austin should be shot from a cannon, what a utter dolt. Can’t find a mention on The Guardia, obviously.
And now, charges must be laid. But they won’t be.
Wikipedia entry for Austin mentions his heckling Corbyn today.
Also says he heckled Cameron in Parliament during Prime Minister’s Questions on Oct. 18, 2006, for which he was rebuked by the Speaker. https://web.archive.org/web/20061031025103/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061018/debtext/61018-0002.htm
Daily Mail article on Corbyn’s remarks today also mentions Austin heckling him.
“But he was heckled by his own MPs, with Ian Austin branding him a ‘disgrace’ and telling him to ‘shut up’
The bad news is this discriptor of their votes. The good news is they seem to have a conscience, though misdirected.
The ‘Giardia-n’ gives you atrocious diarrhoea.
Has one single mainstream British news organ asked for a reaction to this bunch of cunts’ report from any bereaved Iraqi family? Or from any non-collaborator former official or politician of the regime that Britain criminally helped overthrow?
Blair should top himself.
And as for the “legality” of this criminal war, the point is REPARATIONS. It’s not just the murder of hundreds of thousands of people; it’s also the five million refugees fleeing the war in Syria – it all traces back to the “neocon” (what a euphemism!) invasion of 2003.
As for Jeremy Corbyn, what did he receive, or avoid getting subjected to, in payment for failing to call for Blair, all the other members of Blair’s cabinet at the time, including Gordon Brown (because there’s collective responsibility), as well as senior MI6 officers, to be prosecuted for war crime? Corbyn, you call yourself anti-war but you’re no better than the filth who are doing Margaret Hodge’s bidding by trying to replace you.
If it’s “illegal”, Jeremy, then we want prosecutions, convictions and above all we want reparations paid to the many millions of victims.
As exemplified by our host’s reticence to embrace the fringe, this would be a premier example. In hindsight, with all the wounded ducks in a row, the public can see without bottle-glasses. Daily enemas of media vitiriol herding the sheep in the pre-selected direction is what is in store before Blair, Bush, cheney, Admiral Poindexter and Oliver North are indicted, much less convicted of any crime whatsoever.
“As for Jeremy Corbyn, what did he receive, or avoid getting subjected to, in payment for failing to call for Blair, all the other members of Blair’s cabinet at the time, including Gordon Brown (because there’s collective responsibility), as well as senior MI6 officers, to be prosecuted for war crime? Corbyn, you call yourself anti-war but you’re no better than the filth who are doing Margaret Hodge’s bidding by trying to replace you….”
This is nonsense. Best not to post when ’emotional.’
Corbyn has been very consistent and there is no reason to believe that he will cease to be so. His statement today was a model (only slightly marred by PR ideas, particularly on the grieving relatives theme). The point is to ensure that these crimes must not be committed with impunity.
Of course Blair should be prosecuted and every assistance ought to be given to those best placed to carry out such a prosecution.
But Blair is not the issue. The issue is the sort of politics he represents which survived him and originated long before him. Hence Corbyn’s call for specific legislation to prevent the abuse of the prerogative-legislation which Parliament thought that it had got when it passed the first Mutiny Act and made the deployment of an army dependent on apporoval by the Commons.
The two sentences missing from Chilcot:
1. “The claimed existence of WMD was not just something Blair overlooked, or massaged, it was a blatant lie”.
2. “All parties with power and influence on the decision to go to war were party to the lie in point 1.”
The absence of those two sentences DOES make this enquiry a whitewash. I do not buy the view that the sober language of a civil servant is enough. Chilcot has failed, predictably, to emphatically state what almost everyone accepts as truth. WMD was a manufactured and blatant lie. The lack of foresight and planning to address consequences of leaving a power vacuum when Saddam was eliminated is not just an aberration. It is part of the same process which created the lie.
The FCO, MI6 and the Joint Intelligence Committee did not only fail to alert parliament to the extreme consequences of invading Iraq. They were also party to the lie.
This IS a whitewash.
Agreed, it’s a whitewash, but what did anyone expect? Not just Blair and his entire cabinet of the time, but also senior figures in MI6 and senior civil servants too should be prosecuted, and very probably some government lawyers. Let us remember that there were individuals who DID resign from their offices over this criminal war: Robin Cook resigned from the government, and I believe there were also some civil servants who resigned. Those implicated who did not resign should be prosecuted.
OK. Amend second sentence then: “All parties, whether senior civil servants or members of the government, who must have known it was a lie and had power and influence to declare it as such but did not do so, failed in their duty and are as culpable as Blair”.
Scraping the enquiry site from /the-report/ with a mad recursive wget, just for pdf files yields 365 items, 247.4 MB
From the biggest: submission-international-law-sands-2010-09-10.pdf at 16,683,884 B
to 2010-01-18-Statement-Wilmshurst.pdf at a lightweight 11,427 B
Bit of light reading eh.
Am Sure it was Macky..Said if it’s good its worth repeating –
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/blair-can-tried-war-crimes/comment-page-2/#comment-610532
And i think Also this Brilliant Talk / Speech –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zko4nlFLMX0
Here’s today’s offering from Chunky Mark;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMea23Jenkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMea23Jenk
(thanks for that link iro Craig, I never realised that he has a decent sense of humour !)
Blair’s voice cracked with emotion, according to the BBC. Sounded to me more like too much talking plus whisky and fags, but wouldn’t it be great if it shattered into razor-sharp shards and cut his throat?
To business: Blair reportedly now takes “full responsibility” for the clusterfuck that was, and is, Iraq.
What does that actually mean? Anyone? Penance? The will and ability to put it right? Something other than the notion that Chilcot has handed him the responsibility whether he likes it or not? And if he’s taking full responsibility, why has he consistently blamed other people?
If you take your anti-emetic of choice and read a Blair interview, you will find that the long, tangled sentences, often without a verb, and designed to rope the listener into complicity (“you’ve got to…we had to”), don’t actually have a point. Thay are strings of emotional hooks. “Responsibility” is one such.
If Blair were to match the word with action, he would spend the rest of his life ensuring that any senior politician using the words “I believe…” in the context of any State business would be instantly escorted from the premises and strangled in an alley. Obviously, he won’t. He will continue to offer his demonstrably flawed picture of world affairs to any audience which will pay him. That he is able to do so is an obscenity.
“…wouldn’t it be great if it shattered into razor-sharp shards and cut his throat?”
Trust me, I’m no fan. But I do find the level of hatred here directed at Blair quite disturbing. It is not uncommon to find sick fantasies of torture, rape mutilation expressed here against Blair. Yes, I wouldn’t lose sleep if he were swaying from a lampost, but let us put things into perspective. The ENTIRE Islamic world is perpetually engulfed in horrific violence, suicide bombings, beheadings and such like, on a daily basis. But the hard left ignores it, excuses it, and even makes alliances with it. For that reason it cannot be taken seriously.
Anon, I take your point. But as an amateur student of Blair, I think I can be allowed to vent my fury at what he gets away with from time to time. And will probably continue to do so. My only interest in his demise is that it reflects his life as closely as possible. Perhaps that is an unacceptably horrific prospect, but there you go.
Now, to Islam. My position is that the religion is no more inherently likely than Christianity* to give rise to appalling brutality and barbarism, as the history of both shows, effortlessly. And that in fact, the religion is nothing to do with it: it’s the misuse made of it by power-hungry elites, assisted by vested interests of any religion or none.
Most people on this godforsaken (sic) planet want nothing more than to get on with their own lives in their own way, hopefully without attracting the attention of either criminals or the authorities, and that goes for Muslims as much (perhaps more, since acceptance of God’s will is firmly built into the philosophy) as anyone else. Wild-eyed fanatics with dreams of world domination are a recurrent plague of the human race**, and they’ve always lost in the long run. They are not unique to Islam. But they really flourish when the Western (read Christian) powers attempt to meddle in the workings of Muslim states. Partly because, perhaps, on some criteria, Islam is rather more democratic, and less usurious, than our systems: it works for them.
So, while we can find points of agreement on mass immigration to the UK, and some related matters, that does not, repeat not, extend to our opinion of Islam or its adfherents at large. I hope I’ve cleared that up.
*or materialism
**Blair’s one, arguably. Globalisation, globalisation, globalisation…and he’s killed a lot of people.
@ Lysias at 16h57
“Amd when Kelly died in whatever way, Tony Blair was in Blair House across the street from the White House in D.C. (and communicating with it by an underground tunnel) being “entertained” by male prostitute Guckert/Gannon.”
_______________________
What – if anything – are you implying, Lysias?
(and thank you, Mod(s) for deleting my previous comment on the above )
“principal agitators for this war of aggression and genocide were the Israel Lobby. That explains both Blair’s craven service, and his subsequent gargantuan growth in wealth.”
And they did pay him for his services. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair wins million dollar Israeli leadership prize
Former prime minister Tony Blair has won a prestigious million-dollar (£697,000) Israeli prize for his leadership on the world stage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4643809/Former-Prime-Minister-Tony-Blair-wins-million-dollar-Israeli-leadership-prize.html
Odd use of the word ‘prestigious’, Dave. I’d prefer ‘pestiferous’ in this context.
Bravo Dave Lawton. Takes a brave man to oppose Zionism and the Zionist lobby when you know the Zionists will accuse you of Anti-Semitism. Indeed, does Blair’s connection to Isreal have anything to do with the ‘Anti-Semitism’ row manufactured at the press conference last week?
The plan behind the manufactured “anti-Semitism” issue, is both to target people who support Corbyn, and to try & weaken & discredit him, ie under his leadership, anti-antisemitism has become a grave problem.
Before the 1997 election, Tony Blair said there was “a very strong case” for a holocaust denial law.
THIS is what eating tuck in the dorm after lights-out leads to.
I have just been looking through some of our Great Leader, St. Nigel’s (pbuh), Duke of Thanet, Lord and Emperor, proud bestower of the Brexit vote, greatest living Briton and general Legend of our times, bestest ever speeches (of which it is hard to pick one), and I think it is this, addressed to one Gordon McMong, Fuckwit-in-chief during the Reign of Terror, in the European Parliament, 2009:
Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the Prime Minister has received some criticism this afternoon for his comment ‘British jobs for British workers’, but you can brush that aside, because from the moment he said it I do not think anybody seriously thought that he would ever, as a British Prime Minister, put the interests of British workers above that of his European dream. My goodness me, you showed that this afternoon, Prime Minister.
It is just a pity that, apart from UKIP, virtually nobody seems to have bothered to turn up to listen to you. You are very popular here. You are very popular indeed because within a few days of the Irish saying ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty, you had rammed that Treaty through the British Parliament, breaking a specific manifesto pledge that you would give the British people a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty.
Shame on you, Prime Minister, for doing that. You have devalued democracy in our country; you have devalued the trust that voters put in you as a British Prime Minister. Of course, we know the reason why. The reason why is that we would have voted ‘no’. You said in your speech that none but those on the extremes oppose European Union. Well, that may be right amongst professional career politicians, but a clear majority of the British people want us to have friendship and free trade with the European Union, but do not want to be members of this political Union.
You cannot continue to build this European Union against public opinion. If you do it against the will of the people, you are storing up enormous social and political problems for the future. Please let the peoples of Europe decide their destiny. Do not have it done in parliaments like this and parliaments like Westminster. It will not work!
As far as the economy is concerned, you have told us that somehow you are the economic guru; you are the man who can save the world. Well, I remember very well your first big act as Chancellor when you sold 400 metric tonnes of gold on the world’s exchanges at USD 275 an ounce. At today’s valuation, that would be USD 10 billion higher. It was not just the fact that you got it wrong, because we can all get it wrong. It was the fact that you announced in advance how much you were going to sell and on what day you were going to sell it. It was an error so basic that the average A-level economics student – even in these educationally devalued times – would not have done this. To add to that, you have destroyed our private pension system, and you took away from the Bank of England its ability to regulate the banks and gave it to the ‘tick-box’ bureaucrats of the FSA in Canary Wharf.
We have not heard an apology. Your Government has apologised for the Amritsar massacre; you have apologised for slavery; you have apologised for virtually everything. Will you please apologise for what you did as British Chancellor, and then perhaps we might just listen to you?
Amen.
What a good speech and how true.
Nigel really does have his finger on the pulse.
Ot
Clinton Vs Chelsea rule
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/06/chelsea-manning-lawyers-hospital-rumors
(and thank you, Mod(s) for deleting my previous comment on the above )
We Can All Plead This
Eh
The Muslim brotherhood was created by MI6 in 1918 in Egypt in the same way as Wahhabism was created in Saudi Arabia by the British, in order to de-stabilise the political power of Islam.
The main false teaching/ innovation created by the British in the Wahhabi sect was that you can as a Muslim make Takfir of another Muslim , who thereby relinquishes their right to property or social position in the family. the main false teaching / innovation in the Muslim Brotherhood was and still is that Islam requires a Muslim attack/ make jihad against other Muslims who are more tolerant of difference, which basically means the same thing as Wahhabism, internecine strife.
I start with this fundamental point of fact because the intelligence which Blair said he was misinformed by came from sources/ agents of the CIA and MI6 who had specifically been taught the falsehoods of these two false sects. Blair knew categorically that the informants had been groomed by their own agents teaching takfirism and internal armed struggle inside Islam. He knew categorically that the informants were selected to give misinformation.and to supply the kind of intelligence that the CIA and MI6 required for military intervention.
The neo-colonialism that has ushered into our lifetimes continuous war against the Muslims for 30 years was pre-conditioned by the security services of a disintegrating British Empire both before and after the collapse of colonialism. It took 30 years after the disintegration of the British Empire for the Zombie version of Empire, some would say Ziombie with the creation of Israel, for the mis-information to establish sectarian falsehoods upon which colonialism could be re-activated. But when it was re-activated it was pussying about like the British Raj; it was carpet-bombing Afghanistan and blowing 20 metre deep craters out of the soil of Baghdad.
The only lifeline that could rescue Blair from being convicted as a war criminal is the literally spider-silk strand of justification that he did not know he was being lied to about Saddam’s WMD, while everyone else in the country who was not already signed up to being a parliamentary friend of Israel, definitely knew he was being lied to by people who were paid agents to lie.
Chilcot will now sweep away Blair and his single strand of official British/US CIA/MI6 neo-colonial drool. The British people have already unpicked the US’ nightmare of a federal Europe in the referendum. Now the US, UK, and their subordinate puppetries throughout the world linked through the United Nations and its normally broken laws of the Geneva Convention, will unravel.
It is unfortunate that the owner of this blog still believes in the web of lies that is the United Nations. not only will international law have to be re-written, but the Muslim confederates/ Ahzab of the CIA/MI6 world will also be exposed as having cancelled their membership of Islam by following CIA/MI6 false teachings.
Allahu Akbar! It’s an ill wind etc…
I agree with the substance of what you wrote. Remember if individuals like Craig, Bono, Eno or Chomsky stepped outside the mainstream narrative would make them as anonymous as you and I. In which case the weight they so obviously place on their opinions would cease to exist..
They obviously believer their OPINIONS are humanitarian, liberal or whatever and that their fame can be used to promote human welfare. When Bono tried to schmooze GW Bush over AIDS, Bush pushed an abstinence agenda in return for the extra money. Thus showing himself a vastly smarter operator than Bono.
What matters in politics is who sets the agenda. On BBCQT, it’s the topics that matter, not the opinions.
Complete and utter ahistorical bollocks with a smidgin of anti-Semitism (the writer could just not help himself) thrown in for good measure.
I would like to see some credible sources for any of that, Giyane. And I dispute the intention. Britain had several reasons not to interfere with the regional religion, or, had not it declared for the Germans in WW1, the loosely-structured and shambolic Ottoman empire. It was much more frightened of Russian expansion, and the nascent fuel oil industry didn’t justify taking over and thus having to administer, the Middle East. As to creating wahhabism, the difficulties experienced by Westerners attempting to penetrate Muslim society were legendary…by the time a Brit had become well enough acquainted with the religion to pass, he was usually halfway to conversion, and like our FO Arabists, entirely sympathetic to Islam. Gold was far more effective in obtaining the local loyalties we then needed, and it’s a matter of record that our connection with the Saudis (then merely bandits) was based on money, arms, and insincere promises of power. As usual.
I don’t buy your version. Make me buy it. With references.
Sorry Ba’al my reply was eaten by a lousy internet connection. A key piece of evidence about USUKIS undercover relationships with Iraq is here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article184657.html
The 30 year old Islamic groups in Kurdistan were funded by the CIA MI6 to destabilise Iraq, and they are still doing so today.
If you teach a 3 year old child to repeat some phrase parrot style, you will get them to recite it parrot-style. Blair’s evidence came from various undercover workings in Iraq. They were not lying, they were repeating what the CIA MI6 had taught them to say.
A “key piece of evidence” …on Voltairenet?
You mean Thierry Meyssan’s Voltairenet??
Don’t make me laugh, Giyane*
_______________________
* I’m less polite than Baal in dealing with you- (not) sorry about that!
What a waste of millions for a whitewash enquiry. It doesn’t help the hundreds of grieving families who have lost their loved ones for ever. What was the point of millions who protested against the war? Those who profited from that unjust war were the only winners. Do they have a conscience I doubt it?
It is obvious that following (FBI) Operation Ore that members of the Blair government were vulnerable to coercion. Blair followed the Americans into Iraq. We knew (assumed) that back then.
It’s one thing to be unforgivingly wrong about almost anything in retrospect.
It’s quite something else to be wrong at the outset. as TB has been, and still has no regrets.,
Hope he is somehow eradicated from this poor world.
The Iraq war started when a “miranda” was found loitering with intent in a public toilet way back in its college days, Bush was simply its highest handler. Chilcott,Leveson,Warren, Zelikov,etc are all designed to keep the cattle chewing cud.
Totally unconnectedly, an article on MI6 recruitment at Cambridge university http://archive.varsity.co.uk/588.pdf . This obviously doesn’t refer to Blair as he was educated at St John’s College, at the University of Oxford ( which is miles away from Cambridge )
Craig are you still reading the report?
The Guardian set up a page for anyone who thinks they missed something in Chilcot to tell them. So I told them that the words “Sharon” and “Mossad” aren’t in the report… even though they were behind the WMD fraud according to their own article from 2003:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa
You’d think they’d be shouting and screaming about this. Their own journalism.
But I’ve actually had comments under their articles deleted that said nothing but reference that old article. As well as anything that connects Friends of Israel with the invasion of Iraq.
Moving, sensitive, damning, yet touching, in equal measure and without vindictiveness. i give you a statesman; Jeremy Corbyn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leCbtch2AUA