New Labour’s Irrational Adoration of Thatcher 566


When Michael Crick embarrassed Theresa May by quizzing her on her non-existent opposition to apartheid as she visited Mandela’s old cell, the response of New Labour was to defend May by claiming the Tories had opposed apartheid all along. Progress and Labour Friends of Israel rushed immediately to the defence of the person they truly adore, who sits higher still in their Pantheon than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They rushed to defend the memory of Margaret Thatcher.

Ex-Labour MP Tom Harris and Blair’s former Political Director John McTernan (who now write for the Tory Spectator and Telegraph) led the suicide charge of the Labour Thatcherites.

The person here quoted with approval is Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, far right blogger who has stated that he never wore a “Hang Nelson Mandela” badge personally, but used to hang out with people who did.

Blair-loving ex-MP Tom Harris went one further by claiming that Jeremy Corbyn’s own anti-apartheid opposition was connected to a “rape-cult”, a stupefying bit of “guilt by association” propaganda.

Here we have Liz Kendall supporter and occasional Guardian columnist Sarah Hayward – possibly the most obscure individual to get themselves a blue tick on Twitter, as though she were worth impersonating – making the absolutely ludicrous claim that when arrested, Corbyn was supporting Thatcher’s anti-apartheid policy.

I could go on, but for a last example here is Blairite house journal the New Statesman, pretending to wrap a scholarly respectability around the Thatcher revisionism. It is worth noting that the Blairites repeatedly call in evidence the claims by another right-wing Blairite and former Ambassador in Pretoria, Lord Renwick (who resigned from the Labour Whip when Blair ceased to be Prime Minister). Renwick wrote an entirely tendentious and self-serving book on his and Thatcher’s “role in ending apartheid”.

The truth is not hard to find. Professor Patrick Salmon, the FCO’s official historian, last year published the monumental volume of official documents “The Challenge of Apartheid”. It details with mounds of evidence Thatcher’s stern resistance to any sanctions against apartheid and, repeatedly, her insistence that the ANC was “a terrorist organisation”. Here is a quote from Salmon’s synthesis of Thatcher’s views from the official history (I can’t give a page number as I received the final draft, as standard FCO practice as I feature in the book, and I quote from the draft):

“Mrs Thatcher was relentlessly hostile to all those who sought to overthrow the apartheid regime by force or undermine it through economic sanctions. The ANC was unacceptable not only because of its association with communism… but above all because of its refusal to renounce the use of violence… which inevitably meant that she regarded it as a terrorist organisation of the same stamp as the PLO or the IRA. Mrs Thatcher adamantly opposed the imposition of further economic sanctions…

South Africa’s role as a bulwark of the West against Soviet expansion was not just a rhetorical ploy but was believed implicitly by Ronald Reagan as well as by Mrs Thatcher.”

I was, to my intense frustration, banned from communicating with the ANC. Professor Salmon details at great length the sharp disagreement between Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe, Malcolm Rifkind and Lynda Chalker over South Africa. There were indeed genuinely anti-apartheid Tories. But Thatcher was not one of them. All of her instincts on this were with the pro-Apartheid right of the party, as Salmon notes explicitly.

In real life, Thatcher was not a dictator. She had to carry her Cabinet with her. Her relationship with Howe in particular was crucial to her political base, as illustrated by the fact that he more than anybody precipitated her ultimate political downfall. It is true that Thatcher did in private meetings tell P W Botha to release Mandela – but that was at Howe’s insistence, not of her own volition.

Thatcher’s 1984 meeting with P W Botha at Chequers is worth noting. There was a massive demonstration against it, on which I took part just before joining the FCO, as did Jeremy Corbyn, Peter Hain and children of both Geoffrey Howe and our then Ambassador to South Africa. At this meeting Thatcher’s briefing provided by the FCO was to call for Mandela’s release. But she did not do so in the official meetings. A minute from her Private Secretary Charles Powell (brother of Blair’s Chief of Staff) claimed that Thatcher had pressed Botha to release Mandela in a private conversation over canapes with no witnesses. It is fair to say the nature of this “pressing”, if it happened, was ever after a subject of some scepticism in the FCO. If anyone knows what the South African records say…

For two years I, among other responsibilities, wrote briefings, speeches and parliamentary answers on South Africa, cleared them through FCO ministers before being sent over to No. 10, where they would get “toned down” by Charles Powell to reflect Thatcher’s views. I cherish my first ever conversation with Powell. I called Number 10 to discuss a draft, and asked;

“Hello, is that Charles Powell?”.
“Actually, it’s Pole”, he replied.
“Oh I am sorry”, I said in genuine innocence, “It’s spelt Powell in my directory”.

I had not yet got used to posh twats.

The truth is very easy to discover, and it is not what the Blairites now claim in their deluded Thatcher worship. Sir Patrick Wright, former Head of the Diplomatic Service, was absolutely correct in observing that Thatcher supported a “Whites-only” state:

It should be noted this comes from Patrick Wright’s diary written at the time, and not a subsequent self-serving account. I can confirm it is absolutely true, from my position as the South Africa (Political) desk officer 1984-6.

What Thatcher favoured was P W Botha’s “Bantustans” or “Homelands policy”, under which an ethnically defined, whites only state possessing all of South Africa’s wealthy cities and ports and the best mineral and agricultural resources, would exist alongside a number of impoverished “independent states” housing different tribes, from which a low paid workforce could commute daily to white areas (or live there temporarily under passes). That was the planned endgame of apartheid, and a number of such “states” were created – South Africa actually declared four “Bantustans” as independent countries. Thatcher hankered after their recognition, particularly Boputhatswana.

The “Homelands policy” is of course identical to the “two state solution” which the neo-cons propose for Palestine, with an apartheid ethnically defined Israel holding all the main resources next to impoverished pockets of Palestinians in an “independent state” commuting in to provide a cheap labour force.

Not only does Patrick Wright affirm in his diaries Thatcher’s support for the “Homelands Policy”, Professor Salmon confirms it too “Mrs Thatcher was talking about a return to pre-1910 South Africa, with a white mini-state partitioned from their neighbouring black states”.

Last year I published more on my recollections of my own role at that period.

As a final rebuke to Thatcher’s New Labour acolytes, I quote Peter Hain:

[Hain] criticised Norman Tebbit, a minister under Margaret Thatcher, and Charles Moore, her biographer, for trying to rewrite history.

“If Nelson Mandela can forgive his oppressors without forgetting their crimes, who am I not to do the same to our opponents in the long decades of the anti-apartheid struggle,” he added.

“But it really does stick in the craw when Lord Tebbit, Charles Moore and others similar tried over recent days to claim that their complicity with apartheid – and that’s what I think it was – somehow brought about its end. Even, to my utter incredulity, when Lord Tebbit told BBC World, in a debate with me, that they had brought about Mandela’s freedom. I know for a fact that Nelson Mandela did not think so.”

But there is a question here of great urgency today. Why do New Labour leap in to deny what Hain called the Tories “craven indulgence of apartheid”, to defend Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, and to criticise Jeremy Corbyn for his anti-apartheid activity?

Together with reaction to the quitting the party of Frank Field, an open Thatcher and Enoch Powell reminder, I conclude that the Blairite MPs would prefer to be led by Margaret Thatcher or Theresa May than Jeremy Corbyn. Their psychology is deeply troubling:

I support Scottish Independence, so I am in a different position to voters in England. But, despite the fact large numbers of my friends have joined the Labour Party to support Jeremy Corbyn, I could not vote Labour in most of England. Could I advise somebody to vote for Wes Streeting, John Mann, Jess Phillips, Stephen Kinnock or their ilk? No, under no circumstances.

Labour party members need to bite the bullet on reselection. Being a Labour MP cannot be a sinecure granted for life irrespective of behaviour. The party is plainly dysfunctional, and it is so because the large majority of MPs are totally removed from the views of the membership. There are only two ways to resolve this. Either the MPs will have to leave parliament or the members will have to leave the party. There is no coherent party at present.

The Blairite Labour MPs have painted themselves into a corner by their decision to brand Jeremy Corbyn as personally a racist and an anti-semite. If I was in a party led by a racist and anti-semite, I would leave the party. The idea that they can continue as members of parliament for the party while expressing such views about the leader is a nonsense. But they do not wish to leave, because they would lose their comfy jobs. All of the right wing Labour MPs realise they would never win an election on their own account, without Labour Party support. It would be hilarious if not so serious, that they claim Frank Field can resign the Labour whip but this does not mean leave the party, and that he must still be the Labour Party candidate at the next election!

Their hope is twofold. Firstly, that the charges of anti-semitism against Corbyn will be widely believed and lead to a drastic drop in public support which will force Corbyn out. This is not happening. The public realise that the charges of anti-semitism are false and based on a definition of the word which simply means critic of Israel. Other than the normal polling malaise which follows any split in a party, there is no drastic plunge in support for Labour of the kind which would definitely follow if the public thought the party were led by an anti-semite.

To put it another way, either 40% of the public are anti-semites, or the public do not take these accusations seriously.

The Blairites other hope is that, by the Labour Party adopting the IHRA’s malicious definition of anti-semitism as embracing criticism of Israel, they will manage through legal action to force Jeremy Corbyn’s expulsion from the Labour Party. This attempt to use the British Establishment to circumvent party democracy is extraordinary.

By bringing things to this pitch, the Blairites have made compromise impossible. Either Corbyn and most of the members will have to go, or the Blairite MPs will.

Something must give. That is why I urge everybody who is in the Labour Party to take action today to push for mandatory reselection of MPs. The matter is urgent, and no party can resist the united force of its members for long.

————————————————————

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received. It will always be free to view and free to copy and reuse articles anywhere. I do not have advertising or sponsorship or backing from any organisation or person. Much less than 1% of readers give financial support so yours will help – select a sum from the dropdown box, from £2 a month. No particular level of output is guaranteed as there is just one of me writing and researching and I am only human!

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 


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>

566 thoughts on “New Labour’s Irrational Adoration of Thatcher

1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Vivian O'Blivion

    My, the commentariat are in a lather that the new BBC politics show had an all female panel.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/04/zero-shame-editor-defends-all-female-line-up-on-new-bbc-politics-show

    All five panellists women, how outrageously unrepresentative! Now, if you were really concerned about a lack of demographic balance you might look at the backgrounds of the individuals rather than their sex. Four out of the five were privately educated (Emily Thornberry the exception).

  • Komodo

    If Corbyn presents such a threat to the vested interests that the BBC is prepared to give a concocted issue daily headline airtime for months, and it has…

    (Concocted? How much evidence has been presented of actual antisemitism within Labour? Why is antisemitism to be treated as more heinous than any other form of racism? Concocted, I say)

    … then I will be very happy to vote for Corbyn, regardless of whether I think he can govern the country (I don’t).

    Those vested interests:
    New Labour, as Craig says, who want to drive the gravy train again, and embrace globalism. Certainly assisted by:
    EU businessmen:
    Former New Labour donors, who gave for a reason, which was to influence policy, and whose tainted money has not been solicited by the Corbyn leadership. Because it comes with strings. Don’t think they haven’t tried:
    The Xrael lobby, in the interests of shutting down any opinions hostile to Xrael, and also attempting to swing Western opinion behind the neutralisation of Iran as a regional power:

    The last two groups overlap significantly.

    • MJ

      “How much evidence has been presented of actual antisemitism within Labour?”

      Wasn’t there something about looking like letter-boxes and bank-robbers?

      • Loony

        You appear to be conflating 2 discrete issues.

        If you are looking for examples of anti semitism then allow me to refer you to a post timed at 1259 at submitted by someone going by the name of Michael McNulty.

        Odd that a number of relatively innocuous comments are speedily deleted – but the egregious example of anti semitism referred to above is allowed to stand. Perhaps it is this kind of behavior that allowed Lord Macpherson to identify the concept of “institutionalized racism”

        • MJ

          Of course I was conflating two issues. I was making a point.

          I fail to see how a remark by a poster here can be described as “institutionalized racism”. Putting aside for a moment the fact that the comment is clearly a warning against such a thing, do you have any reason to believe that Michael McNulty represents the Labour Party in any capacity?

  • Republicofscotland

    Meanwhile at the Labourbranch office north of the border.

    “Senior Scottish Labour politicians have joined calls on the UK party’s national executive to adopt internationally-recognised guidelines on antisemitism in a bid to end a damaging row over Labour’s response to accusations of anti-Jewish hatred.”

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/senior-scottish-labour-msps-join-call-for-action-on-anti-semitism-1-4794326

    Who needs enemies, when you have friends like these eh?

  • Republicofscotland

    “OPCW Issues Fact-Finding Mission Reports on Chemical Weapons Use Allegations in Douma, Syria in 2018 and in Al-Hamadaniya and Karm Al-Tarrab in 2016”

    “OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to draw final conclusions.”

    It looks like Western propaganda over chemical weapon use by Syria, was just that.

    https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-on-chemical-weapons-use-allegations-in-douma-syria-in-2018-and-in-al-hamadaniya-and-karm-al-tarrab-in-2016/

  • Dungroanin

    I’ll leave this here for the AS/AZ crew to chew over.
    https://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/open-letter-joan-ryan-mp-chair-labour-friends-israel/#sthash.Nk52PMtu.TfGJ13eI.dpbs

    And this for the associated CT accusation.
    https://mondediplo.com/2018/09/02israel-lobby

    There are many issues more important to most families, their kids and elderly parents in need of care without penuary, than AS/Brexit.

    NuLabInc shortly to be deleeched from the social body and a reassertion of the postwar ideal with a overwhelming majority.

    Only a suspension of democracy and a coup d’état using a massive ultraviolent FF operation will stop it. Even a ‘palestinian’ assassination of JC wouldn’t stop it.

    • Dennis Revell

      :

      Excellent links; but please don’t use abbreviations that are meaningless to … oh, I don’t know … occasional visitors? non residents? folks who just might be as interested in other injustices?, or if you like ?ignoramuses?.

      AKA: Just what the hell do: “AS/AZ” and “CT” signify?

      Thanks.

      Me.

      .

  • Republicofscotland

    The establishment’s slayer of all things anti-establishment has been let loose on Labour members, once this pitbull gets its teeth into the anti-Semitism row, the media will run and run with it.

    Watch out Jeremy for redirected mud aimed in your direction.

    “The Metropolitan Police is to investigate a number of Labour members over potential antisemitic hate crimes. ”

    “Specialist officers will look into whether party members broke the law when making a series of offensive comments about Jews.”

    “Cressida Dick, the Met Police commissioner, said she would ask hate crime experts to investigate after being presented with evidence of Labour members appearing to call for Jews to be murdered.”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-hate-crime-met-police-investigate-cressida-dick-ihra-jeremy-corbyn-a8522101.html

      • Republicofscotland

        I suppose some remarks are deemed offensive or hate speech for that matter.

        However the Mets Cardinal Richelieu, will surely interpret other less innocuous remarks, in a similar fashion as well.

  • Republicofscotland

    Leaving Jeremy Corbyn aside, he doesn’t have his troubles to seek at the moment.

    The northern Labour branch office, is espousing disgraceful hypocrisy here.

    “Richard Leonard opens by expressing the “full support” of Scottish Labour for any ScotGov investigations into allegations of sexual harassment, and ensuring SG “fulfils duty of care” to women involved in these cases.”

    Bear in mind the woman sitting behind Leonard, Monica Lennon, (wearing pink) had her sexual assault by a senior party member glossed over, even though there was half a dozen witnesses.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/05/scottish-labour-msp-says-senior-party-figures-glossed-over-her-assault-monica-lennon

    https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1036983641803513856u

    • ZigZag Wanderer

      I fear this is nowhere near enough …… the protesters outside Labour HQ draped in Israeli flags show this is not about antisemitism . It’s about censoring criticism of Israel.

    • laguerre

      Unfortunately they added a clause permitting non-anti-semitic criticism of Israel. That won’t do at all. Any unorthodox additions will only lead to a renewal of the attack.

      • FranzB

        The UK government proposed to add two caveats when they proposed adopting the IHRA definition.

        “Defining Anti-Semitism
        4. We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted
        by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in
        determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic.

        ‘Additional Caveats’ (point 3)

        We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure
        that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine,
        without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the
        following statements:

        It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to
        suggest antisemitic intent.

        It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal
        democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’
        s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.”

        https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576792/CM9386_-_Select_Comittee_Response_-_Antisemitism_in_UK.pdf

          • Jack

            |A definition shouldn’t need either examples or caveats. It’s perfectly easy to define anti-semitism – Britannica seems to manage. The IHRA definition is so vague that it is useless for any purpose, unless accompanied by a detailed commentary.
            This is the definition touted on MSM (e.g. the BBC) as ‘The internationally-accepted definition’. It has been accepted by 32 countries, I believe, out of some 150 recognised by the UN.

            And in the UK, this all hangs off the McPherson Inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s death. McPherson said that it was a matter for a ‘victim’ to define whether some act was a racist act; and that if a victim claims that some act involved racism, then police must treat it as an inquiry with racist connotations.

            So we end up with fundamentally anti-socialist organisations such as the Board Of Deputies of British Jews dictating to a socialist political party how their rule-book should define anti-semitism.

            And the Labour Party seems to be set to adopt the IHRA definition in its entirety, with no caveats.

            Can’t Jeremy find some advisors with a bit more steel in their backbones? The IHRA definition is fine for touchy-feely parties and organisations where these things don’t matter. But Jeremy has campaigned on principle for Palestinian rights for decades; those 32 nations that have adopted the IHRA definition cannot make that claim. They can adopt IHRA without any cost.

            Labour should have rejected the IHRA definition out-of-hand, from the very beginning.

    • Tony_0pmoc

      Pathetic. Total Cop Out. Labour – Now the same Waste of Space it has been since Blair destroyed it.

      My kids were right – “Don’t Vote for any of These Creeps”.

      “They are not worth your vote Dad”

      Disgusted.

      Tony

      • Ingwe

        My view entirely, Tony. Totally gutless by the NEC. Labour continue their betrayal of their members yet again. Pathetic.
        And do those snivelling opportunists, like Tom Watson, who would wade lip deep through a sea of snot if he thought it’d give him power, really think this will end the smears against Corbyn?

        • Jo1

          Agree. This victory today will simply encourage Hodge, Berger, Phillips and the rest to move up yet another gear.

  • Komodo

    I can’t post subcomments without losing the site for some reason: my box doesn’t like one of the many scripts attached. This is a response to subcomments on mine at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/new-labours-irrational-adoration-of-thatcher/comment-page-2/#comment-775174

    I would welcome evidence that ‘Michael McNulty’ is even a member of Labour, let alone that he represents a significant strand of opinion in Labour. My remarks stand, therefore.

    I’d just add that the BBC in its daily headline coverage of the antisemitism ‘issue’ never fails to mention the definition that Labour is required to swallow whole is, and I quote, ‘the IHRA’s internationally accepted definition of antisemitism’ The phrase is also used in full by apologists for its adoption – usually Friends of Xrael. Let’s check that out.

    It has been adopted by several nations, largely at the behest of the EU which seems to have accepted it on everyone’s behalf, before proceeding to pressurise its subject nations into compliance , but it is grossly misleading to say that it has been internationally adopted. As at March this year, nine countries have adopted it: Xrael being one, and another is Scotland, doubling up on the UK. Russia hasn’t adopted it – and vetoed its adoption by the OSCE, and the US is still looking at adopting it, still having reservations about its requirement that criticism of Xrael equates to antisemitism.

    Only a skilled lawyer could make the case for this being regarded as international adoption. Kenneth Stern, one of the drafters of the original working definition, himself cautioned against the uncritical adoption of the definition and its examples:

    “Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution, or claim the Palestinian people are a myth?”

    (Wikipedia: Working Definition of Antisemitism)

    Which, bye the bye, is pretty upfront about how shaky a definition this is.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Re – Lily Steinmetz
    September 4, 2018 at 11:03

    Today, My Wife and I took our 2 year old Grandson to the beach. The two of them were like kids – paddling and splashing in the warm sea pools. I couldn’t keep up, so I sat down and read Craig Murray’s blog, of which Lily Steinmetz had posted an excerpt from this – And I felt SICK.

    I have enormous Respect for Thierry Meyssan. I have been following his writings for many years. All I can say about him, is that his contacts and analyses, are better than anyone else, He typically writes stuff 4-6 weeks before it happens

    I am completely disgusted with the contents of this, but have no reason whatsoever to believe that it is not true. His track record is outstanding. Sure he occasionally gets stuff wrong and makes mistakes. That is because he is a human being. I would love to meet him.

    Read this and weep.

    “Who wants to relaunch the war in Syria?” by Thierry Meyssan

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article202717.html

    Extract

    “And yet the United Kingdom relaunched the project against Syria by preparing a false flag operation in Kafr Zita. For this purpose, specialists from the Olive company were sent to the area, and chemical weapons were moved to the governorate of Idlib. The White Helmets took 44 children, whom MI6 planned to sacrifice and blame their murder on a chemical attack by the Syrian Arab Army against the « rebels ».

    MI6 organised the dissemination of this fake news in advance via the witness testimony of a small child, Hala (photo). They created a Twitter account in her name on 29 July, and about thirty medias immediately joined up, waiting for the signal (operation « Eyes on Idlib »). Among them are the BBC [1], Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty [2], BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post [3] – these are medias which knowingly participate in British war propaganda.

    Simultaneously, the Pentagon deployed in the Gulf the destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) with 56 cruise missiles on board, and a В-1В strategic bomber carrying 24 AGM-158 JASSM air-ground cruise missiles on the air base of Al-Udeid in Qatar.

    While the responsibility of British Prime Minister Theresa May is clearly established concerning the actions of MI6, we do not know who ordered the US military deployment.

    Always paddling in the wake of London, French President Emmanuel Macron has already put forward the idea of relaunching the war, speaking before a meeting of his ambassadors in Paris. ”

    “Manic Street Preachers – If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX8szNPgrEs

    Tony

    • Sharp Ears

      Today in Syria.

      One dead, four wounded in new Israeli air strikes in Syria – state media
      4 Sep 2018 | 17:54 GMT

      An Israeli air raid has targeted government-held areas in central and western Syria, killing one and wounding four, state-run SANA news agency has reported.

      It said Israeli jets flying at high altitude over Lebanon fired a number of missiles into Wadi Ayoun in Syria’s Hama province and the town of Baniyas in the coastal Latakia province.

      The attack, which reports said killed at least one person, began at around dusk on Tuesday. It is believed that Syrian government air defenses shot down five of the Israeli missiles.

      The Syrian government has accused Israel of being behind a number of recent strikes targeting government and allied military installations, including the striking of a weapons research facility in July.

      /..
      https://www.rt.com/news/437633-israeli-air-strikes-syria/

    • laguerre

      I don’t know that I’d always take Thierry Meyssan 100%. He’s well-placed, in Damascus, but he’s talking up the dangers of a western attack, in much the same way as the MSM are talking up the risks of major casualties from the Russian-Syrian coming attack on Idlib. Everybody’s shouting danger.

      The fact is, the war in Syria can’t be turned around, without provoking a war with Russia, and even then almost certainly not. The war in Syria is lost, for the West. They need to accept it. Quagmires are in prospect for the US if they push on. Personally I think they will hesitate. There isn’t any point to be gained.

      • SA

        laguerre
        I always take what you say seriously. But there is a bit of optimism in what you say. However I will point out one contradiction. As in answer to one of my previous posts about the aim, you said it was about wrecking and not nescessarily achieving a constructive result, bolstered by Sharp Ears citing of the Yinon document. So I still am not so optimistic and very apprehensive.

    • laguerre

      Russia put in a paratroop unit in February this year to protect the presidential palace. That’s why nothing happened. I don’t know whether they’re still there.

  • Sharp Ears

    More of the same BS.

    Breaking News
    OPCW investigation confirms that Amesbury victims poisoned by the same agent as Skripals
    Published: 4 Sep 2018
    The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has confirmed that the same toxin was involved in the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents in the UK.’

    Details to follow. RT website.

    Really?

    • Clive p

      Do we know how they got the samples? Did they take them from the Amesbury 2 – if they were given to the OPCW by the British then the ‘evidence’ is worthless.

    • Doodlebug

      Hardly surprising. The question turns upon what the ‘agent’ genuinely was. Furthermore, with the fairy story of transmission from Salisbury to Amesbury as good as destroyed by Charlie Rowley’s comments concerning a ‘sealed’ bottle, one is left to conclude that this ‘same toxin’ must have migrated in the opposite direction, i.e., from Amesbury to Salisbury. I wonder who might have transported it to the Skripals? A man and a blonde woman captured on CCTV shortly beforehand perhaps?

      • mog

        So it is contradictory : a lawyer’s paradise.

        My view, this paves the way for an assualt on Iran.

        • laguerre

          “My view, this paves the way for an assualt on Iran.”

          Israel abandoned that last spring. They had the chance, but didn’t do it, mumbling about undermining the Iranian regime from within, something that the US has been trying for forty years without success.

          • SA

            Israel and US are itching to attack Iran in some way. The only problem is fear of retaliation and consequences. This is recently discussed in a Lebanese website Al Thabat, unfortunately Arabic only but you can use Google translate.
            This discusses plans about retaliation not only against Israel but also the UAE and SA much nearer to Iran.

    • Tony_0pmoc

      mog,

      I never did understand the attraction of mog & magog, but it seems some people get a kick out of sacrificing children..Unlike some catholic priests, who normally keep them alive, for re-use – the mog & magogs don’t. I find this stuff, really hard to believe, because I used to be an altar boy, and whilst I occasionally have a little bit of anal leakage, I simply put that down to old age. No one physically or sexually abused me. I was hoping the girl in my class would, but she was too sweet to ask.

      I think The Rolling Stones are fairly innocent too. Not sure about Led Zeppelin.

      https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/gog-and-magog-or-dubyas-biblical-mind-map

      Tony

      • mog

        More ‘mog the cat’ than any combination of gog or magog to be honest.

        Maybe all priesthoods need enemies like generals and politicians seem to?
        ….

        I never played those records backwards, but I understand that scholars of the Talmud make some hair raising claims about its contents.

  • Hamish Soutar

    Way back in 1997 (when I was a Green Party candidate) I remember Gordon Brown naming Thatcher as one of his political heroes, and not mentioning John Smith. So nothing new about Blairites celebrating Thatcher.

    • Herbie

      Blair was always saying something of that nature as well.

      If you look at Thatcher in terms of the Globalist/Nationalist fight, it’s clear that Thatcher was much more a Nationalist than a Globalist. You can see this in her response to NI and South Africa. There were elements of this in Reagan too, but both were dominated by the Globalists.

      Probably didn’t really know what was going on.

      But yeah, latter day Globalists praise them both for ushering in Globalism. That shitty financial system that’s destroying us all.

      Amazing that anyone supporting this nonsense is given any hearing at all,

      • SA

        Herbie
        The successful ruse here is to believe this globalist nonesense. Globalism works only for countries with big multinationals and for the super rich. Try globalising immigrants and see what you get. Globalism as practiced is an extension of financial imperialism and fits in very neatly with Rule Brittania.

        • Herbie

          “The successful ruse here is to believe this globalist nonsense. Globalism works only for countries with big multinationals and for the super rich.”

          Yes, of course. They’re the ones who want to implement this centralised garbage.

          And other countries who wouldn’t benefit from such a system are trying to stall it.

          And implement a more peer-to-peer arrangement amongst the nations.

        • Herbie

          We didn’t get the real Blair until he was elected leader, and then PM. He couldn’t really come full out and say what he was about, until he was fully ensconced in power.

          He Bambied quite well until Yugoslavia really, even perhaps 911. Clause 4, maybe.

          Early Blair, late Blair I suppose.

          Anyway, I see he’s working on something with the Italian nationalists. Weird for a Globalist.

          Dunno. Maybe he believes in nothing. Or it’s all the same thing.

  • Sid_finster

    NuLabour do not care about black or brown people, except to the extent they can be used to get what NuLabour really wants.

    What NuLabour really wants is slavish catering to neocon foreign policy and slavish catering to The City of London.

    • Michael McNulty

      Blair could have more properly called his movement New Tory but that would have been honest, and as he’s a stranger to truth the New Labour lie would have felt so right. Strange, though, how like all crooked politicians, dictators and war criminals he knew what people wanted and promised it to them, then pissed on ’em all.

      • Herbie

        Made a shed-load out of it.

        Funny watching Straw, and other of the acolytes hustling for crumbs.

        That’s it really. Out there and clear for all to see.

  • Isa

    OPCW report on Amesbury is out .

    Novichok is not mentioned by name , as in last report , and summary states the name of chemical is in full report provided to states .

    Most importantly , OPCW cannot say if the 2 come from the same batch .
    Jeremy hunt of course already went into hysterics , as one does , pointing the finger at Russia .

    11. The results of the analysis conducted by OPCW Designated Laboratories of environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that intoxicated Mr Charles Rowley and Ms Dawn Sturgess. The toxic chemical compound, which displays the toxic properties of a nerve agent, is the same toxic chemical that was found in the biomedical and environmental samples relating to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey on 4 March 2018 in Salisbury (S/1612/2018, dated 12 April 2018).

    https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1671-2018_e_.pdf

    • Isa

      12. Due to the unknown storage conditions of the small bottle found in the house of Mr Rowley and the fact that the environmental samples analysed in relation to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey were exposed to the environment and moisture, the impurity profiles of the samples available to the OPCW do not make it possible to draw conclusions as to whether the samples are from the same synthesis batch.

    • Sven Lystbak

      “The toxic chemical compound, which displays the toxic properties of a nerve agent, is the same toxic chemical that was found in the biomedical and environmental samples relating to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey on 4 March 2018 in Salisbury (S/1612/2018, dated 12 April 2018).”
      Isn´t this a very strange way to describe a military grade nerve agent of 97 per cent concentration (according to point 10 in the report summary) of the higly toxic Novichok family? How on earth did anybody survive?

      • Doodlebug

        It’s a very fair description of a synthetic opioid such as Fentanyl or Carfentanyl however.

        • Tom Smythe

          Weird! The OPCW says the exact opposite:

          3. The team received information on the medical condition of the surviving affected
          individual, Mr Charles Rowley. This included information on his acetylcholinesterase
          status since hospitalisation, as well as information on the treatment regime.

      • Tom Smythe

        Weird! The OPCW report says the exact opposite:

        10. The results of the analysis of this environmental sample conducted by OPCW
        Designated Laboratories show that the sample consists of the toxic chemical at a
        concentration of 97-98%. The sample is therefore considered a neat agent of high
        purity. The OPCW Designated Laboratories also identified a number of impurities
        constituting the remaining 2-3% of the sample.

        • Tom Smythe

          The expression ‘neat’ sample in chemistry means (higher) laboratory grade, not (lower) military-grade. The significance is huge: small scale boutique synthesis (anybody) vs crude CBW factory (nation-state) scale.

          It is shame that OPCW uses weasel words throughout this ultra-sketchy report. Curiously it suggests the full report is available to the Russian side, unlike the first round. What is the non-proliferation value of giving the structure (and implied route of sythesis) to 193 different state actors? [In fairness, this excludes 4 UN Member States that are non-members: Egypt, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan. But many of the 193 recipients would have wall2wall electronic surveillance by the first three.)

          13. The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full
          classified report of the Secretariat, available to all States Parties

          • Sven Lystbak

            On 18 april in an update to article dated 14 march the following was stated on Gov UK:
            “On 12 April the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) published their report. It confirmed the UK findings: the toxic chemical used in the attempted assassination of Sergei and Yulia Skripal was a military grade nerve agent – a Novichok.”
            I seems the substance has been upgraded.

          • Tony_0pmoc

            Sven Lystbak,

            Yes, “the neatness logically make the substance even more lethal”, but it does not exist for very long outside of a laboratory, in this pure condition and certainly not weeks after it was “smeared on a front door handle”, in the rain. The implication, is that the sample supplied to the OPCW, did not come from a front door handle, but was specifically prepared for them under laborartory conditions, and passed to them very shortly after preperation for their analysis.

            If it was a true sample from the scene of the crime, the OPCW would expect to see, an enormous degree of contamination, but what they got was nearly 100% pure, and that is what they truthfully reported, expecting that the truth would be understood, by anyone, who had an IQ above 95. An enormous number of people, and almost all Western politicians don’t.

            Sven Lystbak,

            Ja, “prydligheten gör logiken ännu mer dödlig”, men det finns inte så länge utanför ett laboratorium, i det här rena tillståndet och absolut inte veckor efter att det “smutsades på ett dörrhandtag” i regnet . Implikationen är att provet som levererades till OPCW, kom inte från ett dörrhandtag, men var speciellt förberedt för dem under laboratorieförhållanden och skickades till dem mycket kort efter förberedelsen för deras analys.

            Om det var ett sant urval av brottsplatsen, skulle OPCW förvänta sig att se en enorm grad av förorening, men vad de fick var nästan 100% rent, och det är vad de faktiskt rapporterade, förväntade sig att sanningen skulle vara förstod, av någon, som hade en IQ över 95. Ett enormt antal människor, och nästan alla västpolitiker gör det inte.

            Tony

          • Sven Lystbak

            I think the neatness referred to the latest incident with the perfumebottle. Would the bottle be able to preserve the lethality for several months and if yes why didn’t miss Sturgess die almost instantly?

          • SA

            Sorry but the term neat diesn’t mean anything in chemistry. Presumably this report was made by scientists?

          • Tom Smythe

            >SA September 5, 2018 at 03:21
            >Sorry but the term neat diesn’t mean anything in chemistry. Presumably this report was made by scientists?

            Wrong on both counts: obviously written by an admin, neat is a common term in chemistry labs.

            Illustrated Glossary of Organic Chemistry – Neat. Neat: A sample or process which is conducted in a liquid phase, without any solvent.

            What does a ‘neat sample’ mean in chemistry? – Quora
            https://www.quora.com/What-does-a-neat-sample-mean-in-chemistry
            Sep 10, 2016 – ‘Neat’ loosely means pure. If you run a reaction neat, you are only dealing with the reactants – no solvent or catalysts/initiators. One of the reactants could be solvent or it could be a solid-state or gas/plasma-phase reaction.

            Neat Chemical Agent definitions – Defined Term
            https://definedterm.com/neat_chemical_agent
            A non-diluted, full-strength (as manufactured) chemical agent in any concentration in excess of those designated exempt. A chemical agent manufactured by the …

        • Doodlebug

          The exact opposite of what? Would you care to explain how the observation No.10 which you quote identifies anything at all other than a ‘toxic chemical’?

          • Tom Smythe

            Sure. It is #3: acetylcholinesterase. Exact opposite of something that the hospital would monitor or treat for fentanyl or carfentanyls which do not target this enzyme since they are mu-opioid agonists (target unrelated proteins) not considered ‘nerve agents’ (classically: ~organophosphates, ~ACHE antagonists).

            >>>Sven: lab grade more deadly. neatness refers to wheelie-bin perfume bottle, chemical stability? why didn’t miss Sturgess die almost instantly?<<<

            Yes, more deadly than military grade per milligram but irrelevant since any grade of any nerve agent is adequately lethal in even a tiny dose makes it into the blood stream.

            Yes, OPCW is talking about the contents of the glass perfume bottle which was sealed 'like new' in a cellophane wrapper that would protect it from the miscellaneous environment contaminants, water vapor hydrolysis, oxygen, UV, temperatures, evaporation, fungal degradation, non-specific chemical reactions and so on.

            Yes, the classical organophosphates and the five novichoks (according to V Uglev) would almost all be stable for decades in such a bottle kept in a drawer at room temperature.

            The OPCW disappointed again by not mentioning whether or not the 3% impurities consisted of synthetic intermediates en route to the final product, left-over reagents, reaction byproducts, or degradation products. Once again, they deferred to Porton Down on the actual chemical structure and did not determine it independently despite have adequate sample size and purity. Shoddy.

            Ms Sturgess did in fact die almost immediately, given a relatively slow percutaneous route. She had already stopped breathing on the stretcher, never got off mechanical life support at the hospital. However she had poor health and many previous hospitalizations there; a compounding heart attack was mentioned in early reporting.

            In fact, that was the only thing of the slightest interest in the OPCW report, that they took tissue samples at the autopsy. Which tissue, for what purpose, with what outcome? Presumably diaphragm muscle, with the goal of determining what chemical changes took place (leaving groups, aging) after binding to the acetylcholinesterase.

          • Doodlebug

            @Tom Smythe

            Forgive me, I am no chemist. But I do have a sharp eye for language, and the fact that #3 explicitly refers to the ‘status’ of one aspect of the patient’s chemistry does not preclude reference to others among the ‘included information’ referred to. I dare say the hospital also took CR’s blood pressure etc. as part of the ‘treatment regime’.

            In my view, what the report makes explicit is not nearly so important as what it does not.

  • Republicofscotland

    Tom Harris on what passes for Scottish news, saying that now Labour has voted to adopt the IHRA in full. That it doesn’t let Corbyn of the hook, as he’s been seen with terrorists and anti-Semitics alike.

    It would appear Harris, has it bad for Corbyn.

    • nevermind

      The decision to adopt wooly ‘international rules’ to apeace rabid Zionists who want to.burn the Al Aqsa mosque, with or without worshippers present, who steal land imprison children and shoot to kill protesters was a grave mistake.

      And a massive come on for more of the same. Stop feeding the trolls which are despised by their own brothers.

      Off course, austerity, the NHS, lack of mental health care, the Torys utter lack of plans other than a hrad Brexit, rampant islamophobia in the Conservative party all does not swinh a stick with the media.
      they are pary of the problem and should be ignored as false news merchants.

  • Sharp Ears

    BBC South Today’s rehash of Salisbury including the local MP, a Tory stooge and Treasury Minister, John Glen.

    5 mins in.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bhn0rv/south-today-evening-news-04092018
    Available until 7pm tomorrow.

    Glen is a member of CFoI and was in Israel with them two years ago.
    There is a mysterious entry within this Wikipedia entry about linking his business with the World Economic Forum but no mention of what the business was.

    ‘He returned to business in 2006, managing his firm’s relationship with the World Economic Forum.’

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glen_(politician)

    You should watch and listen to the rot.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Craig,

    Like John McCain being whitewashed over bombing civilians in Vietnam during the war.

    Much of a much I guess: one side uses revisionism to modernise, gloss and make their history more palatable with the objective of discrediting the other.

    And political life goes on.

    • giyane

      We all know what projection is. e.g. a racist couple become convinced that the gold fish hates them and is plotting against them. Take the plank out of thine own eye and you might be able to see straight.
      Today I had to chuckle because a Seikh said I wasn’t well because I stopped to answer a Student’s question which was difficult to understand. Take no notice of him , he’s not well , he said.

      Seikhs believe that God requires them to never cut their hair. My religion does not tell me to ignore foreigners because they find it hard to talk English. I can cut my hair long or short within limits which enables me to refresh my appearance. Today’s decision by the PLP is like a Seikh deciding I am wrong to have a hair-cut. or a Hindu who worships a monkey thinking they are knowledgeable of anything.

      You’ll never make wonks happy until you too become a wonk.

  • Sharp Ears

    The version according to Kuenssberg. I have not read it. Had enough of it today.

    Is Labour a step closer to resolving its anti-Semitism mess? – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45411674

    The BBC have been fanning the flames nicely on BBC 2.

    Episode 1
    We Are British Jews, Series 1 Episode 1 of 2

    In a two-part series, eight British Jews with a broad range of opinions, beliefs and practices, go on a journey to explore what it means to be Jewish in Britain today and examine some of the most pressing questions and challenges facing the Jewish community at home and
    in Israel.

    In the first episode, the group meet in Manchester, home to the UK’s largest Jewish community outside of London. After getting to know each other, and discovering their differences, they explore what antisemitism looks and feels like in modern Britain and reflect on how perceptions of Israel affect them here at home. They meet the owner of a local restaurant which has been attacked a number of times in recent years and talk to a Labour MP who has been the focus of abuse online. The group go on to meet with Jewish students, where they hear how they have needed security when they have held Israel events on campus.

    The group then travel to Israel, the country many of the group call their homeland. Starting their journey on a Kibbutz, a communal farm, they get some stark reminders of the realities of life in the Jewish State and meet a young American woman who has volunteered to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.’

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bjj1h4

    In next week’s episode they visit Israel .

    • laguerre

      So a group of British Jews go on a visit to find their true homeland in Israel, on land filched from the Palestinians.
      There’s a bit of a problem there, isn’t there?

      • nevermind

        One wonders how the occupiers of Palestine would react if Syrian jets bomb the occupying forces in the Golan.
        a small sidenote on pg. 14 ?, a mention on the world service?
        Or will it be chaotic hysteria by some/all neocons, western propaganda Tv channels, endless warmongering by rightwing idiots arms dealers and PEOPLE WITH SPLIT LOYALTIES and agendas that do not represent the wishes of voters, or serve the interest of the country.?

  • Brian c

    The Labour right and their media cannot remove Corbyn by honestly challenging his and John McDonnell’s politics. Only by the smear of racism. They hoped to achieve by character assassination what is beyond them in open debate. But their perpetuation of the racist smear day in day out has had no impact on Labour’s standing in the polls. And now this definition of AS has been adopted they are back to being left with nothing. They put everything they had left into inflating a big dishonest balloon which has now been punctured.

    • Jo1

      Two things Brian.
      McDonnell, last weekend, appeared to be criticising Corbyn on the anti-S problem. That was seized upon right across the media.
      Second, the mob aren’t finished yet.

  • Dungroanin

    Well played by the Labour team. In a war you must draw the enemy forces out. Sometimes it is wise to lose a pointless battle by withdrawing after a feint at fighting to the death.

    Or for the non militarists a pied pipers skill at drawing the rats out!

    A pyrrhic victory for the AS accusers that is already turning into ashes in their mouths as it didn’t lead to the hoped for ‘bloodshed’ and killer blow. But has left them exposed as the enemies of JC. The ex Chief rabbii the most high peofile one included.
    https://rebellion602.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/you-were-never-my-chief-rabbi-bruv/

  • Hatuey

    I’ve never really felt motivated to talk about the disproportionate influence of Israel or any conspiracy theories of that nature. But my God, compare the influence that Israel seems to have in Britain and the US to the exaggerated influence of Russia and you really are forced to face a certain an inconvenient truth.

    Real anti-semites must be watching the battering that Corbyn has taken recently with a certain amount of self assurance and satisfaction. And they are the real winners in all this. This whole thing can only stoke anti-semitism, not root it out.

    The big loser here isn’t Corbyn, though, it’s Israel — how many previously disinterested people must have been encouraged to look into the plight of the Palestinians as a result of this hysterical crap? And rest assured, people that look into the plight of Palestinians for 5 minutes are, I’d guess, about 95% likely to come out sympathetic to their cause and very much opposed to the inhumane policies of Zionist Israel.

    We need to remind ourselves to consider the point made by eminent scholar Norman Finkelstein, a Jew whose family was more or less wiped out by the Nazis. To paraphrase, he said it would be grotesque in the extreme to use the suffering of his relatives and Jews generally at the hands of the Nazis to justify Israel’s brutality and cruelty towards Palestinians today.

    Imagine you were told you couldn’t criticise the KKK with their lynch mobs and strange fruit because doing so would make you anti-Christian. That, as I understand it, is precisely the demand made by the so-called Friends of Israel and others.

    What Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all the rest need to remember is this; there are today many people in this world who do not give a flying fuck about your irrational bullshit religions. We are human though, and humanists, and we are sick to the back teeth of you using your delusional voodoo bullshit as an excuse to commit inhumane crimes against our humanity.

    • Herbie

      “What Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all the rest need to remember is this; there are today many people in this world who do not give a flying fuck about your irrational bullshit religions. We are human though, and humanists, and we are sick to the back teeth of you using your delusional voodoo bullshit as an excuse to commit inhumane crimes against our humanity.”

      You’re kiddin, right.

      If you look more closely you’ll see that it’s the Godless ones who “commit inhumane crimes against our humanity”.

      The latest version being “Humanitarian intervention”.

      You’ll see the same thing throughout history.

      The Godful slaughtered by the Godless.

      I mean, yeah, I was a lazy leftist secularist for most of my life.

      The State would provide the morality, absent God. Same with Science, which has no morality. That would be provided by ethics committees.

      Global Finance has no integral morality, so that would be provided by regulation.

      LOL.

      Don’t work.

      Morality has to be integral to the system.

      That’s it.

      • SA

        Herbie
        What you describe as ‘humanitarian intervention ‘ is a political term which is a perversion. Religions have also been perverted for purposes of subjugating others in the name of the truth and the true god. So here we are quits.
        However religion may once have served for morality but it then begs as to why these moralities are not universal? Within the codes of each religion there are exclusions of others and feelings of moral superiority. It is the fact that all religions can’t be true because of this lack of universality that has led to seeking intellectually coherent alternatives.

      • Hatuey

        What a silly response and yet you seem smart enough.

        Humanism doesn’t require morality. And morality doesn’t require God.

        Immanuel Kant (/kænt/;[14] German: [ɪˈmaːnu̯eːl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was a German philosopher who is a central figure in modern philosophy.[15] Kant argued that the human mind creates the structure of human experience, that reason is the source of morality…
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

      • BrianFujisan

        Herbie

        yep Spot on..

        I have Been Srcreaming about the Church…Lack of Empathy.. And the Bilions of people that have their ear… YEMEMEN..MR fucking Pope.. PALESTINE..MR Pope

        • Herbie

          Dunno what this current pope is, but he sure ain’t a Catholic. I doubt he’s even a Christian in any useful sense of the term.

          We’re being run by the most grotesquely naive materialists.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.