Archive | September 19th, 2012

British blowback and the killing of the US ambassador in Libya


Inevitably and tragically the United States has once again experienced a blowback of a policy not of its sole provenance.

On the evening of 11th September 2012 the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed in Benghazi alongside three other Americans apparently during demonstrations against an internet video clip defaming the Prophet Muhammad, the Islamic religion’s last prophet. His killing was also on the heels of the announcement that al-Qaeda’s second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi had been taken out by an American drone.

The ambassador is officially said to have died of asphyxiation after an armed group stormed the compound of the American mission. Currently the finger of blame points to an Islamist-Salafi militia, Ansar al-Shari’ah, as the culprits behind the fatal deed.[1]

Members of the militia had originally and quickly taken up arms during the uprising against Gadhaffi’s rule. Gadhaffi had made wild threats on television against the demonstrators and western media erroneously and falsely reported that his troops were committing rape crimes and employing foreign “African” mercenaries to do his violent bidding. Yet the only known foreigners in the early period of the uprising were the captured British MI6 agents.

Overlooked during this period was not only the racist lynching of black Libyans and Sub-Sahara African migrant workers by some of the demonstrators but also the fanatical calls of the British media, especially the right wing media, for the United States to lead an intervention in Libya.

My initial focus here is deliberately on the main bugles of Britain’s right-wing media, the Daily Telegraph and the Times because by virtue of, at least circulation figures, they are the most consequential.

A mere eleven days after the uprising, 26th February 2011, the British media reported that there was a British and French plan to impose sanctions on Libya at the United Nations.[2]

In the week commencing 28th February 2011, the British media stepped up the tempo in promoting intervention. In the London Times, Deborah Haynes, reported that “Britain was ready to use force”.[3] The report went on to say that:

“Going further than any world leader, David Cameron said yesterday that he had ordered General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, to work on how to impose a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace. Fighter jets would shoot down any encroaching Libyan aircraft…”

In the London Telegraph, the British urge to drop bombs on Libya was dressed up as a western initiative to do so: a report claimed that the “West is ready to Use Force against Gadhaffi.”[4] For David Cameron, the elected British Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

“…Gaddafi’s departure was Britain’s “highest priority”, adding: “If helping the opposition would somehow bring that about, it is certainly something we should be considering.””[5]

As such certain individuals close to the British military informed the readership that it was ready for a ‘Libyan mission’.[6]

British plans for intervention hit a stumbling block according to Christopher Hope of the Telegraph, when other world leaders shunned the idea.[7]

In the right-wing media, the British urge to intervene was coupled with another bout of British Obama-bashing.[8] British militarism is not keen on Obama. The British right-wing media seemed to have identified that the American administration and specifically Obama, as not being as enthusiastic as they in wanting intervention in Libya.

“Waiting for Washington” declared the The London Times in late February as it praised the ‘success’ of Geroge W. Bush and Tony Blair in the ‘War on Terror’ and compared their decisiveness and clarity with Obama’s “hesitancy”.[9] In another editorial titled the “Essence of Indecision” the paper urged Obama to show “leadership” and referred to ex-Defence Secretary Robert Gates’s rebuke of David Cameron’s call for military intervention as “inglorious”. Naturally, because the Obama administration wasn’t then keen on intervention it accuses it of “sowing discord” amongst the western alliance as well as insubstantially accusing Gadhaffi of using foreign mercenaries and child soldiers.[10]

On the 10th March 2011, a report in the London Times, confirms that it is Britain that is taking the lead in wanting intervention and delightedly declared that there is a “glimmer of hope” in the Obama administration in that it is maybe coming round to seeing the Libyan situation their way:

“…British and French officials seeking quicker action from the US, the White House distanced itself for the first time from a policy tied to UN approval, creating a chance for rapid movement after indecision by the White House.”[11]

The following, day on the 11th March, a report in the London Telegraph openly queried the nature of Obama’s strategy:

“Is it cowardice? Is it indecisiveness? Or is it clever diplomacy?” before concluding that because of “America’s size and military power, the American president does not have the option to remain neutral indefinitely…”[12]

As we all know, the Great Britain, the United States’s former imperial master, has always known what’s best when it comes to what direction American foreign policy should take.

A comment piece, in the Sunday Telegraph on the 13th March, contrasted Cameron’s urge to intervene in Libya with Obama’s “paralysis”. The author goes go on to “hope” that Obama “follows Cameron’s lead, as Clinton followed Blair’s lead in Kosovo”. However, the writer does possess the honesty, to argue that intervention is in Britain’s interests:

“The argument for intervention in Libya is not purely or even primarily humanitarian, however. Even if one sets aside its importance as an oil-producing nation, Libya remains central to Britain’s strategic and commercial interests in the region.”[13]

It is only natural that the Telegraph editorialized over the next couple of days that Obama’s “silence” is “hurting the West” (the ‘West’ here is a generic metaphor meaning British interests). One of the ways the silence is hurting the ‘West’ is because: “…staying out of other people’s quarrels in the most volatile and oil-rich region on the planet is not a realistic foreign policy.”[14]

Is the London Telegraph truly arguing that other people’s resources belongs to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whose head of state wears a crown partly decorated with blood drenched and stolen jewellery, the most famous being the Kohinoor diamond from India?[15]

On the 16th March The London Times once again accuses Obama of dithering or as it says, Obama “hovers and havers” while the British are attempting “to get support for more robust action.”[16]

Almost synchronically, both the London Times and London Telegraph reported that David Cameron, the elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is finding it “frustrating” working with Obama.[17]Did the journalists who regurgitated Cameron’s feelings in their respective reports, sit at the same governmental briefing meeting?

On 17th March, The Times in an editorial claimed that Obama is nowhere to be seen and also seems to be threatening that there would be “consequences” for his treatment of European opinion. They further argued, not for the first time, that Obama has been a “brutal disappointment”.[18] That is, he has disappointed the British urge to war or is even, God forbid, a liability to British warmongering.

On the same day the Times included a report which confirms that it is Britain and France which have taken the lead in tabling a UN resolution to implement a no-fly zone.

Enough pressure seems to have been exerted on Obama by not only the British but also members within his own administration to intervene. The United Nations adopted a no-fly zone over Libya which was clearly and practically interpreted (or misinterpreted) by NATO to be the spearhead of the “rebels” as they consolidated their positions in Benghazi and advanced into Tripoli before pulverising Gadhaffi’s hometown Sirte with Apache helicopters.

It was known all along that the “rebels” included a good proportion of Islamists and specifically members of the, al-Qaeda affiliated, “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group”(LIFG). Indeed, a central figure in this group, Abdel Hakim Balhadj, soon became the “Emir” of Tripoli after NATO led the way in displacing Gadhaffi’s forces.

In the mid-nineties British military intelligence were said to have co-ordinated an assassination attempt with Libyan Islamists on Colonal Gadhaffi and hosted Libyan Islamist up until the London Tube bombings of July 2005. In this period Britain’s MI6 and the LIFG were drawn together in their mutual hatred of Gadhaffi.[19]

This co-ordination with Libyan Islamists was merely a specific case of Britian’s relationship with the political Islamism which actually runs very deep in history. After all it was the British Empire which armed the Salafist, Saudi-Wahhabi clan when it captured Riyadh in 1902.[20]

However, for Great Britain, two issues arose with taking the lead in instigating intervention in Libya. The first was that it had ‘uneasily’ left Britain “exposed”, as a British minister informed the Times.[21]It would have been much better to remain in the background so if there are reprisals no-one would blame the UK for initiating the intervention.[22]

The strategy of not being exposed or seen also runs deep into Britain’s imperial history. In the nineteenth century Lord Cromer based his rule of Egypt on the concealment of political realities which behind the scenes “was only known to a few” and he prided himself on the fact that he remained “more or less hidden and to pull the strings.”[23]

The second issue was no sooner than had the military intervention began than Britian (and France) had to crawl back to the United States to bail them out. Or as former U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said, “The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country. Yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.”[24]

This clearly abysmal performance of the European states during the intervention has not deterred or dimmed David Cameron, who had let be known that he found it “frustrating” working with Obama and the British media which had openly asked whether Obama is a ‘coward’, from wanting another intervention in Syria.

And naturally, once again Cameron, is “frustrated” in that he cannot do more to intervene in Syria.[25]Even the killing of the American ambassador in Libya by an Islamist groups has not deterred the British media from clamouring for intervention in Syria.

Lecturing the United States on what its interests are is a British forte and if these interests happily coincide with British global interests, then that is nothing more than a quaint geo-political synchronicity. Iran, the Economist magazine informs in its latest issue is a “committed” enemy.[26] Obviously, the origins of why Iran became an enemy is best left unmentioned. The British initiated coup of 1953 against Iranian democracy, which the Americans bought into (or “dipped their beak” into as Funnici said to the young Don Corleone) and which Obama referred to in his Cairo 2009 speech has no place in this narrative.

As the Economist continued to advocate intervention in Syria over the cold body of the American ambassador, it does so on the basis that “anti-American violence thrives under the tyrants and dictators”[27]. Putting aside that the death of the American ambassador occurred almost a year after Gadhaffi’s lynching and also after democratic elections in Libya, the real historical fact is that anti-American violence largely thrives when the United States unquestioningly inherits and applies the strategies and policies of its former imperial master. Whether that be employing political Islamists to target governments perceived to be unfriendly to the United States, overthrowing Iranian democracy or supporting the British-Zionist colonisation of Palestine project.[28]  Indeed, when United States in 1956, helped to bring to a halt the British led invasion of Egypt it briefly enjoyed a period of popularity.

The London Times and Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister and Britain’s leading warmonger, have now joined the Economist in showing disdain for the killing of the American ambassador and are prioritising and demanding more American intervention.[29]

The stark issue now is whether the United States will continue listening to its former imperial master or will it accord Arabs the space and non-interference to shape their own future as in Egypt and Tunisia and not in accordance with British interests as in Libya and possibly Syria?


[1] Chris Stephen, ‘You know who controls Benghazi? Nobody’, The Guardian, 15th September 2012, pg.27 and Martin Fletcher, ‘Ambassador’s killer ‘planned raid with al-Qaeda’’, The London Times, 17th September 2012, pp.26.

[2] Jon Swaine and Bruno Waterfield, “UN Plans sanctions to turn up heat for Gadhaffi”, Daily Telegraph, 26th February 2011.

[3] Deborah Hayne, “Britain ready to use force to free Libya”, The Times, 1st March 2011

[4] Robert Winnett, James Kirkup, Nick Meo and Bruno Waterfield “The West is ready to Use Force against Gadhaffi”, Daily Telegraph, 1st March 2011.

[5] ibid.

[6] James Kirkup and Richard Spencer, “Army ready for Libyan mission…”, Daily Telegraph, 5th March 2011

[7] Christopher Hope, “Cameron plan for no-zone shunned by world leaders”, Daily Telegraph, 2nd  March 2011

[8] The British right-wing media have had intermittent spouts of Obama-bashing since Obama’s election. The first bout was when he removed the Churchill’s busk from the Oval office and another was the way he treated Gordan Brown in the early part of his presidency.

[9] Editorial, “Waiting for Washington”, The Times, 26th February, 2011

[10] Editorial, “Essence of Indecision”, The Times, 4th March, 2011

[11] David Charter, Roland Watson and Giles Whittel, “Britain pushes US to agree no-fly zone”, The Times, 10th March 2011.

[12] Anne Applebaum, “Libya: Gaddafi is about to force Barack Obama’s hand”, Daily Telegraph, 11th March 2011.

[13] Matthew D’Ancona, “David Cameron knows what to do about Libya, but does Obama?”, Sunday Telegraph, 13th March 2011

[14] Editorial, “America’s silence is hurting the West”, Daily Telegraph, 17th March, 2011.

[15] Raja Murthy, “India wants its crown jewel”, Asia Times, 5th August 2010.

[16] Editorial, “Leadership Needed”, The Times, 16th March 2011.

[17] Phillippe Naughton and Deborah Haynes, “Cameron calls for ‘leadership’ on Libya as rebels lose ground”, The Times, 16th March 2011 and Editorial, “America’s silence is hurting the West”, Daily Telegraph, 17th March, 2011.

[18] Editorial, “Deserted by Obama”, The Times, 17th March 2011.

[19] Mark Curtis “Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam”, London, Serpent Tail, 2010, pg. 225-231

[20] Gary Troeller, The Birth of Saudi Arabia, London, Frank Cass, 1976, pg.20

[21] Will Pavia, Roland Watson and Giles Whittel, “Britain welcolmes US change of heart over Libya no-fly zone”, The Times, 17th March 2011.

[22] ibid.

[23] Hannah Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, New York, Meridian Book Inc., 1958, pg.214

[24] Ian Traynor, “US defence chief blasts Europe over Nato”, The Guardian, 10th June 2011.

[25] Niall Ferguson, “The British Prime Minister is coming to Washington.”, Newsweek, 12th March 2012.

[26] Editorial, “Murder in Libya”, The Economist, 15th September, pg. 11.

[27] ibid.,pg.12

[28] Nu’man Abd al-Wahid, “Britain’s denial of democracy and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.”, Mondoweiss, 20th June 2011 and my “An account of the Guardian’s racist endorsement of the Balfour Declaration.”, Mondoweiss, 30th April 2012.

[29] Editorial, “Arab Autumn”, London Times, 17th September 2012, pg2 and Haroon Siddique, ‘Tony Blair says west must rachet up pressure on Asad’, The Guardian, 17thSeptember

Posted in LibyaComments Off on British blowback and the killing of the US ambassador in Libya



SYRIA: Examples of Foreign Mercenaries in Syria

Hopefully, this brief video helps explain what the Syrian government is really facing in terms of having its neighbor Turkey practice open-border 
2 months ago | 5,889 views

French Surgeon in Aleppo: Many Syrian and Foreign Jihadists among Injured

War surgeon and co-founder of “Doctors without Borders”, Jacques Bérès, tells his experience treating injured Jihadists in Aleppo, Syria, among ..

Syria: Jordanian Salafi Terrorists go to Syria to join FSA for Jihad – September 11, 2012

Syria: Jordanian Salafi Terrorists go to Syria to join FSA for Jihad – September 11, 2012 A Jordanian terrorist, Abu Sayyaf, has made a public 




The deceased Rebbe, Chabad Lubavitch’s Rabbi Schneerson, gentile hater extraordinaire, considered by many Lubavitchers to have been the Moshiach.

Below, just one of his views towards non Jews.

OK People, tell me what you think about THIS call for international peace from the group who are pushing for world destruction through its relentless drive for the eradication of Iran.  Fellow bloggerLe Gall from France sent me this link, so I am gathering that event is not so publicized in North America.

Just a few days before the recitations of Kol Nidre….Timing is everything….

How about peace in Palestine?  Are we naive enough to consider that is on the menu here?



What might Netanyahu do if Romney’s defeat becomes inevitable?


By Alan Hart
Alan Hart examines whether Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is mad enough to order an attack on Iran in what remains of Obama’s first term without the president’s blessing and American participation?

Even before his latest reported gaffe the polls were indicating that Mitt Romney will fail in his Zionist-backed bid to deny President Barack Obama a second term in the White House.

After the Republican presidential candidate tried and failed to make political capital out of the killing of the American ambassador and three of his colleagues in Libya, Obama said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” programme: “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” Staying with the shooting metaphor, it seems to me that with his latest gaffe Romney has shot himself in both feet and possibly elsewhere in his anatomy.

Self-satisfied, inept and ignorant millionaire

Here is what he said to a behind-closed-doors meeting with Republican fundraisers:

“There are 47 per cent of the country who will vote for the president no matter what.” And this 47 per cent are people, he added, “who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. It is not my job to worry about these people.” (We know that’s what Romney did say because he was secretly filmed saying it).

This was the same Romney whose campaign propaganda had previously proclaimed that he wanted “to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy”.

In a New York Times opinion piece, David Brooks argues the case for saying that Romney is running

a desperately inept presidential campaign… There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own… As a description of America today, Romney’s (47 per cent ) comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

In his secretly recorded statement to Republican fundraisers Romney also said, according to the Associated Press, that “the Palestinians are committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel” and that the prospects for a two-state solution to Mideast peace are dim. “You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”

In what was said to be a “rambling response” to a question about the “Palestine problem” (it’s actually a Jewish problem), he also asserted that “The Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace,” and “the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish”.

And there was more nonsense where that came from. He was, he said, against applying any pressure on Israel to give up disputed territory for a two-state solution with the Palestinians. “The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world.”

It’s because Romney is so ignorant about foreign policy matters that he is delighted to read from Zionism’s script. What a disaster for America and the world a President Romney would be!

So to my headline question: What might Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu do when his American sponsors tell him, possibly in the coming few days, that Romney isn’t going to win?

Netanyahu’s quandary

In my view the question is worth asking because Netanyahu already knows there is no way the America of a second-term Obama is going to become engaged in a war with Iran. Netanyahu may also know that though they are now on hold until after the American election, secret talks between the Obama administration through a third party and Iran have made significant progress. According to my source with access to these talks, the clear implication is that early in his second term Obama will bring the nuclear crisis with Iran to an end by politics and diplomacy.

“…there is … a growing realization in America that, on Netanyahu’s behalf, the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress have overplayed their hand in trying to influence the American election and push the US into war.”

A few weeks ago I would have answered my headline question by saying there was more than a 50-50 chance that if and when he was told that Romney was not going to win the race for the White House, Netanyahu would give the “Go” signal for an attack on Iran, in the belief that in order to best protect his election prospects Obama would be forced to commit American weapons and forces.

But in a few weeks things have changed a lot. Not only is Obama now well placed to secure a second term, if only by default on Romney’s part, there is also a growing realization in America that, on Netanyahu’s behalf, the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress have overplayed their hand in trying to influence the American election and push the US into war. (In my last post I quoted Time’s much respected Joe Klein describing this influence as “outrageous and disgusting … as cynical as it is brazen”. I have no doubt that Klein was speaking for many Americans, and probably more than a few Republicans as well as most Democrats.)

Most significant of all are poll findings that most Americans do not want their country to go to war with Iran even if Israel starts it. Perhaps most remarkable of all was a poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. More than half of the respondents said that if Israel starts a war with Iran, the US should not leap to Israel’s defence.

So if and when he is told that Romney won’t be the next president, Netanyahu will have a problem. He could no longer be certain that he can cause Obama to go to war in what remains of his first term.

“Mad enough to nuke the entire … Arab world”?

While I was thinking about what Netanyahu might actually do, I recalled a conversation I had with Ezer Weizman in early 1980 when he was the defence minister in Begin’s coalition government. What follows is a part of that conversation as set down in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 3 sub-titled “Conflict Without End?”, Chapter 12, “The Blood Oath”. Weizman was half an hour late for an appointment I had with him and I had been shown into his outer office to wait for him.

I heard the sound of heavy, weary footsteps coming up the stone stairs. When Ezer filled the frame of the doorway to the outer office of his inner sanctum it was obvious that he was not his usual energetic, breezy self. He had the look of a haunted man. He managed a smile and said “Shalom.” Then, without another word, he put an arm around my shoulder and walked me into his office. He closed the door, nodded me to a seat on the other side of his ministerial desk and flopped into his own chair. He pushed it back and plonked his feet on the desk. He was looking straight at me but through me, to something only visible in his imagination.

I let the silence run and then, eventually, I said: “Ezer, you’ve obviously got a major problem on your mind. Shall I make an appointment for another day?”

Eventually he spoke. On reflection I am sure he told me what he did only because I was there. He needed to tell somebody and it happened by chance to be me.

He said, slowly and with quiet emphasis:

“This lunchtime Sharon convened a secret meeting of some of our generals and other top military and security people. They signed a blood oath which commits them to fight to the death to prevent any government of Israel withdrawing from the West Bank.” Pause. “I know that’s what happened at the meeting because I’ve checked it out, and that’s why I am late.”

In the event of a government decision to withdraw, Ezer said, Sharon was pledged to set up headquarters on the West Bank, and those in Israel’s armed forces who were loyal to him would make common cause with the armed settlers who wanted to fight.

I told Ezer what Peres had said to me weeks previously – that Begin was creating the conditions for a Jewish civil war, knowing, as Peres had put it, that no Israeli prime minister would trigger it by agreeing to withdraw from the West Bank.

Ezer nodded and then asked me a question. Did I think Sharon would act in accordance with the blood oath he and others had signed?

I said: “What I think is of no consequence. I’m a visiting goy [gentile]. You’re Israel’s defence minister, what do you think?”

Ezer replied: “Of course, he would. He’s mad enough to nuke the entire fucking Arab world!”

Question: Is Netanyahu mad enough to order an attack on Iran in what remains of Obama’s first term without the president’s blessing and American participation?

Who knows?

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on What might Netanyahu do if Romney’s defeat becomes inevitable?

Revolt of the Plebs; Broadcast Judaism–the Judas Goat of organized Jewish interests.

Revolt of the Plebs Broadcast Sept 18, 2012

by crescentandcross

The one and only Keith Johnson interviews Dr. Harrel Rhome of concerning ‘Reform’ Judaism–the Judas Goat of organized Jewish interests.


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on Revolt of the Plebs; Broadcast Judaism–the Judas Goat of organized Jewish interests.

Malaysian police make first arrest in Bin Hammam case




By James M. Dorsey

Malaysian authorities have arrested an associate of suspended Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and world soccer body FIFA vice president Mohammed bin Hammam on suspicion of theft of documents from AFC’s offices in Kuala Lumpur.

A AFC lawyer, Mohamad Bustaman Abdullah, identified the associate as Tony Kang, the husband of AFC’s finance director under Mr. Bin Hammam, who was let go after allegations of financial misconduct surfaced against the Qatari national, according to Agence France Press (AFP).

Mr. Abdullah said Mr. Kang had surrendered himself to Malaysian police and is expected to be charged in court in Kuala Lumpur after police reports identified him as having participated in the theft.

Mr. Kang’s arrest came as FIFA launched a new probe into allegations that Mr. Bin Hammam had last year sought to buy the votes of Caribbean soccer officials in his failed bid to challenge FIFA president Sepp Blatter in elections for the group’s presidency. Investigators have demanded documents from those involved at an extraordinary meeting of the Caribbean Football Union (CFU), where the bribes were allegedly paid on Mr. Bin Hammam’s behalf, according to The Telegraph.

A Fifa-headed letter dated Sept 7 gave recipients a week’s notice for the delivery of “all correspondence including emails, texts, SMS messages, letters or notes related to Fifa, CFU, Concacaf (the Caribbean, North and Central American confederation) or any other football-related entity with which you’ve been affiliated. A list of all email addresses and accounts — including personal, CFU, Concacaf accounts, as relevant — you have used… All financial records related to Fifa, CFU, Concacaf or any other football-related entity with which you’ve been affiliated,” the newspaper said.

The FIFA investigation is in response to a ruling in July of the Court of the Arbitration of Sport (CAS) that overturned FIFA’s banning for life in July of last year of Mr. Bin Hammam from all involvement in professional soccer because of the bribery allegations. The court said FIFA had produced insufficient evidence for the ban, but made clear that its verdict was not a declaration that Mr. Bin Hammam was innocent and urged FIFA to do a more thorough investigation.

Malaysian police are investigating the theft of documents from the AFC’s premises after the Asian soccer body reported that documents related to a payment by International Sports Events (ISE), a shareholder of Singapore-based World Sports Group (WSG), to Mr. Bin Hammam, had gone missing and were allegedly handed over to an associate of Mr. Bin Hammam, according to Malaysian police reports and sources close to the AFC.

The AFC report was filed on July 31 by AFC finance director Kuan Wee Hong. Mr. Hong told the police in subsequent statements that the documents had been handed over to a Chinese male by the name of Tony Kang.

Mr. Kang’s wife has since her departure from the AFC been employed in Mr. Bin Hammam’s home country as a club licensing officer by Qatar Stars League, which is headed by a member of the Qatari royal family, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Bin Ahmad Al Thani.

The missing documents relate to a $2 million payment in 2008 by Saudi Arabia-based ISE, one of three shareholders of Singapore-based World Sports Group (WSG), according to the company’s website. A recent internal AFC audit conducted by PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PwC) said that the money had been paid to Mr. Bin Hammam for his personal use. The PwC report said the payment by ISE, which is believed to have a ten per cent stake in WSG, as well as a second payment of $12 million by a related company, Al Baraka Investment and Development Co., were “of interest. Transactions of significant value between these parties (of both a business and purportedly personal nature) occurred around the time of the MRA contract (a controversial $1 billion master rights agreement) negotiations with WSG,” PwC said in its report.

PwC said that Al Baraka “may (through the Arab Radio & Television Co., which it owns) have been a 20% beneficial owner of the group at that time (of the payment). Further, our enquiries indicate that Mr Mohyedin Saleh Kamel, the Assistant Chief Executive Officer (Investments) of the Dallah Al-Baraka Group may have been (from 2005 2009) the Managing Director of ISE.” Al Baraka is a finance arm of Dallah Al Baraka that is owned by Saudi billionaire Saleh Kamel. PwC said that Mohyedin Saleh Kamel is believed to be Mr. Kamel’s son. It said that ART and ISE appear to share a post office box in Saudi Arabia. Neither Messrs. Kamel or their companies could be reached for comment.

In its report, PwC said that “it is highly unusual for funds (especially in the amounts detailed here) that appear to be for the benefit of Mr Hammam personally, to be deposited to an organization’s bank account. In view of the recent allegations that have surrounded Mr Hammam, it is our view that there is significant risk that…the AFC may have been used as a vehicle to launder funds and that the funds have been credited to the former President for an improper purpose (Money Laundering risk)” or that “the AFC may have been used as a vehicle to launder the receipt and payment of bribes.”

WSG has refused to comment on the PwC report and has threatened reporters, including the author of this report, with defamation proceedings. WSG has filed legal action against this writer, who has reported extensively on the Bin Hammam affair, in a bid to force him to disclose his sources and intimidate potential sources. Qatar Holding LLC, an investment arm of Qatar, holds a ten per cent stake in France’s Lagardere Unlimited, WSG’s largest shareholder, according to Lagardere’s 2011 annual report.

However in an August 28, 2012 letter to this reporter WSG Group Legal Advisor Stephanie McManus asserted that “PWC are incorrect and misconceived in suggesting that the MRA was undervalued. They have neither considered the terms of the contract correctly, the market, nor the circumstances in which it was negotiated,” Ms. McManus wrote.

The agreement is controversial both because of the unexplained payments as well as assertions by sources close to the AFC that the soccer group, in line with common practice among international sport associations, should have concluded a service provider rather than a master rights agreement with WSG. The sources said such an agreement would have given the AFC greater control of its rights and how they are exploited and enabled it to better supervise the quality of services provided by WSG.

A July 31 Malaysian police report of AFC finance director Hong’s complaint says that he noticed that an “important document, which contained a bank report/statements belonging to former AFC president (Mohammad b Hammam), was missing from my office.” Mr. Hong told the police that he and a colleague, James Johnson, had last reviewed the document on July 13 and that “after that I kept the document back in a storage drawer” until he discovered that it was missing.

Sources close to the AFC said that the soccer body within hours of reporting the missing document received a letter from Mr. Bin Hammam’s Malaysian lawyers accusing it of being responsible for the disappearance. The sources said the AFC had asked the Malaysian police to give it several days to conduct its own internal investigation before looking into the matter.

A second Malaysian police report dated August 11 corroborated by sources close to the AFC quoted Mr. Hong as reporting to the police that AFC staffer Selina Lee Siew Choo, “had admitted taking the file (containing the documents) and said she had handed them to a male Chinese known as Tony, the husband of Ms Amelia Gan, who was the former (AFC) Finance Director. Selina had also admitted making a copy of a bank document advice for a transaction worth USD $2 million, which was a payment from ISE.”

A August 15 Malaysian police report, also corroborated by sources close to the AFC, quoted Mr. Hong as saying that Ms. Choo on August 2 had “admitted stealing the file from the drawer in my office as instructed by Ms Amelia Gan (former finance director at AFC). Her instructions were to steal the file which showed the document/ bank advice containing the US$2 million transaction from ISE and surrender them to her husband, Tony Kang.”

The report quoted Mr. Hong as further saying that “I have my suspicions/reasons to believe that the theft of the file was to dispose evidence involving a case of wrongful management of AFC accounts by Mohammad Bin Hammam in the wake of a financial audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers.”

The PwC report constituted the basis on which Mr. Bin Hammam’s suspension from the AFC and FIFA was extended. The report allowed the two groups to postpone any reinstatement of Mr. Bin Hammam after his banning was overturned by CAS.

Posted in South AsiaComments Off on Malaysian police make first arrest in Bin Hammam case

Romney: Palestinians not interested in peace




ed note–Romney being seen with the notorious, screeching, anti-Muslim, Jewish supremacist harpie Pamela Geller tells us everything we need to know concerning his Middle East views.

Republican Mitt Romney faced a new challenge Tuesday for saying Palestinians “have no interest” in peace with Israel, comments captured on newly released videotape of his private remarks to wealthy donors.

“You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem … and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it,” Romney said. He said pushing Israel to give up disputed territory for a two-state solution with the Palestinians “is the worst idea in the world.”

The clip is the second to surface this week of Romney’s remarks at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., on May 17. Romney’s campaign spent part of Monday trying to mitigate fallout from the first clip, in which Romney tells donors that 47 percent of Americans “believe they are victims” entitled to help from the government that permeates their lives.

At an impromptu news conference Monday night, Romney offered no apologies, conceding the comments were not “elegantly stated” and were spoken “off the cuff.” The Republican presidential nominee said the remarks showed a contrast between President Barack Obama’s “government-centered society” and his belief in a “free-market approach.”

“Of course, I want to help all Americans, all Americans, have a bright and prosperous future,” Romney told reporters.

Obama’s campaign pounced on the first video, which was obtained by the magazine Mother Jones and released only hours after Romney’s campaign outlined a new strategy to try to rejuvenate a struggling campaign. The video’s emergence came as advisers to the former Massachusetts governor tried to reassure party leaders and donors about Romney’s strategy amid concerns that the race could be slipping away.

Romney has not addressed his remarks about the Middle East. He had no public appearances scheduled Tuesday.

His words put him in sync with hard liners in the Israeli government, including some aides to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior Israeli cabinet ministers. Netanyahu himself has publicly advocated for a two-state solution.

The Obama administration favors a two-state solution with Israel and a future Palestine. But it says Palestinian statehood can only come about through a negotiated agreement between the parties, not through the United Nations.

Palestinian lawmaker and scholar Hanan Ashrawi accused Romney of “destroying the chances for peace” and called his remarks “irresponsible and dangerous and both ignorant and prejudiced.”

Netanyahu’s office declined to comment. The office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also had no comment.

Romney’s comments in the first video appeared to focus more on the economy, the No. 1 issue for voters in November.

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney is shown saying in the video of a May 17 fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Romney said in the video that his role “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

In a seven-minute news conference with reporters before a fundraiser near Los Angeles, Romney did not dispute the authenticity of the hidden-camera footage. He called for the release of the full video, instead of just the clips posted online. He sought to clarify his remarks but did not apologize when asked if he was concerned that he may have offended people.

“It’s not elegantly stated, let me put it that way. I was speaking off the cuff in response to a question. And I’m sure I could state it more clearly in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that,” Romney said.

About 46 percent of Americans owed no federal income tax in 2011, although many of them paid other forms of taxes. More than 16 million elderly Americans avoid federal income taxes solely because of tax breaks that apply only to seniors, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Real estate magnate Donald Trump, a Romney campaign surrogate, said he thought the former Massachusetts governor should not say he’s sorry for his remarks.

Interviewed on NBC’s “Today” show Tuesday, Trump said: “What he said is probably what he thinks. … He’s saying that that’s not what he really meant. I’m sure he wishes he hadn’t said it.”

But Trump said Romney “won’t get the votes of a lot of people he’s discussing. … Do not apologize.”

The videos were the latest troubles for Romney’s campaign, which has tried to focus attention on a weak economic recovery and make the case that the Republican’s business background would help spur the economy. In recent weeks, the campaign has dealt with the fallout from Clint Eastwood’s rambling conversation with a chair at the Republican convention and Romney’s omission of the war in Afghanistan or thanks to the troops in his prime-time convention speech.

The eruption of violence in Egypt and Libya last week prompted Romney to issue a statement assailing the Obama administration before it was known that an American ambassador and three other U.S. citizens had died in Libya, a move that generated criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.

A series of polls have shown Obama with an edge nationally and in key battleground states, leading Republicans to implore Romney to give voters more specifics on how he would govern. The new approach aims to improve Romney’s standing in the lead-up to the first presidential debate on Oct. 3.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina quickly issued a fundraising appeal based on the initial video, telling supporters: “If we don’t come through for President Obama right now, this will be the guy making big decisions that affect us and our families every single day.”

An Obama adviser said the Democratic campaign might use Romney’s comments from the fundraising video in television advertisements. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss campaign strategy publicly and requested anonymity.

Romney’s campaign released a separate television ad Tuesday, arguing that the president’s policies “are making it harder on women.” It cited unemployment and poverty statistics for women in an attempt to close the gender gap that has shown women favoring Obama.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on Romney: Palestinians not interested in peace

Ex-US Ambassador to IsraHell–U.S. will go to war with Iran in 2013


Martin Indyk tells CBS there is not much time left until Iran has a nuclear weapon, but says Netanyahu’s demands for ‘red lines’ on Iran are ‘unreasonable.’

By Haaretz

 Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk said on Sunday that he thinks the U.S. will go to war with Iran over its nuclear program in 2013.

Speaking during a panel on the CBS program Face the Nation, Indyk said, “I’m afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we’re going to have a military confrontation with Iran.”

The former ambassador stated that “Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon,” but added that there’s not a lot of time left until it does.

“There is still time, perhaps six months, even by Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s own time table to try to see if a negotiated solution can be worked out,” Indyk said.

Regarding the recent friction between U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu over “red lines” on Iran, Indyk said that he doesn’t think “the difference between Netanyahu and Obama on this is that great, in terms of the president’s commitment not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

He added, however, that Netanyahu’s insistence on public “red lines” was unreasonable.

“That is an unreasonable requirement. The idea of putting out a public red line – in effect issuing an ultimatum – is something that no president would do. If you noticed, Governor Romney is not putting out a red line; Senator McCain didn’t, either. And neither is Bibi Netanyahu for that matter, in terms of Israel’s own actions.”

Indyk went on to speak about instability across the Mideast region, saying that is making Israel “very nervous.”

“The turmoil we see from here, they see from a much closer perspective, and that combines with the, as the prime minster puts it, the race of Iran towards weapons capability,” he said.

“The fear that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty will start to come apart, the concern that in Syria what is happening there could lead to an Islamist government taking over eventually there as well, but before that a descent into chaos on the northern border – all that makes them very nervous and that’s why I think the prime minister is coming out much more vocally than one might have expected in the midst of an election campaign here saying, you know, we need reassurances, we need red lines aginst the Iranians because from his point of view, that’s the greatest threat they face.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Sunday that Iran would be on the brink of nuclear weapons capability in six to seven months, adding new urgency to his demand that President Barack Obama set a clear “red line” for Tehran in what could deepen the worst U.S.-Israeli rift in decades.

Taking his case to the American public, Netanyahu said in U.S. television interviews that by mid-2013, Iran would be 90 percent of the way toward enough enriched uranium for a bomb. He urged the United States to spell out limits that Tehran must not cross or else face military action – something Obama has refused to do.

“You have to place that red line before them now, before it’s too late,” Netanyahu told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, saying that such a move could reduce the chances of having to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Ex-US Ambassador to IsraHell–U.S. will go to war with Iran in 2013



The New York Times, not known for being a fountain of truth when it comes to Middle East reporting, has stepped out of character and published an op-ed piece on the 30th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre that contains some striking revelations. The massacre in the two Palestinian refugee camps took place in 1982 over a three-day period from September 16-18. Those killed were mainly women, children and elderly men. The slaughter was carried out by Phalangist militia though under the auspices of the Israeli military, which not only controlled the area but even lit up the night sky with flares as the murderers went about their task. Details about the massacre itself is available here.

But the new, never-before-released material concerns conversations between Israeli and American officials that were occurring quite literally as the massacre was in progress. What the author of the piece, Seth Anziska, informs us is that American diplomats, both in Washington and Tel Aviv, were urging Israelis to withdraw their troops from Beirut. Of particular interest is a meeting in Israel on September 17 between Israeli officials, including Ariel Sharon, and US Envoy to the Middle East Morris Draper. I’m only going to provide excerpts, but you can access the full article here. (Hat tip to our friend msa.)

Mr. Draper opened the meeting by demanding that the I.D.F. pull back right away. Mr. Sharon exploded, “I just don’t understand, what are you looking for? Do you want the terrorists to stay? Are you afraid that somebody will think that you were in collusion with us? Deny it. We denied it.” Mr. Draper, unmoved, kept pushing for definitive signs of a withdrawal. Mr. Sharon, who knew Phalange forces had already entered the camps, cynically told him, “Nothing will happen. Maybe some more terrorists will be killed. That will be to the benefit of all of us.” Mr. Shamir and Mr. Sharon finally agreed to gradually withdraw once the Lebanese Army started entering the city — but they insisted on waiting 48 hours (until the end of Rosh Hashana, which started that evening).

Excerpt from transcript of meeting of Sept. 17, 1982

The story goes on about what seems to have been a rather heated exchange between Draper and Sharon, with the latter proclaiming at one point, “So, we’ll kill them. They will not be left there. You are not going to save them. You are not going to save these groups of the international terrorism.” The position of the Israelis was that the camps were overrun with terrorists, which was nonsense—and the Americans knew it was nonsense—since PLO forces under Yasser Arafat had been evacuated out of Lebanon, mainly in August. What remained by September 16 was an unarmed, and extremely vulnerable, civilian population. Anziska goes on to comment:

By allowing the argument to proceed on Mr. Sharon’s terms, Mr. Draper effectively gave Israel cover to let the Phalange fighters remain in the camps. Fuller details of the massacre began to emerge on Sept. 18, when a young American diplomat, Ryan C. Crocker, visited the gruesome scene and reported back to Washington.

Years later, Mr. Draper called the massacre “obscene.” And in an oral history recorded a few years before his death in 2005, he remembered telling Mr. Sharon: “You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore responsible for that area.”

On September 18, as news of the massacre was first coming out in the media, President Ronald Reagan expressed his “outrage and revulsion over the murders.” But as Anziska comments, “the belated expression of shock and dismay belies the Americans’ failed diplomatic effort during the massacre. The transcript of Mr. Draper’s meeting with the Israelis demonstrates how the United States was unwittingly complicit in the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila.”

sraeli colonel takes pot-shot at US soldier—excerpt from secret talking points memo drawn up by Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger regarding meeting with Israeli Ambassador Moshe Arens on Sept. 16, 1982

In a way, it was the beginning of the plummeting of America’s prestige and moral influence in the world, and particularly in the Middle East. On April 18, 1983, the US embassy in Beirut was bombed, and on October 23 that same year the US Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed, with 241 Marines killed. Anziska comments:

The archival record reveals the magnitude of a deception that undermined American efforts to avoid bloodshed. Working with only partial knowledge of the reality on the ground, the United States feebly yielded to false arguments and stalling tactics that allowed a massacre in progress to proceed.

The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all.

The only part of Anziska’s article I would take issue is his comment about Israel being a “close ally” of America. Israel is not our ally. Israel is our mortal enemy, and the sooner Americans wake up and realize this the better.

Also see:
Reflections on the Sabra and Shatila massacre, by Franklin Lamb, whose wife, Janet Stevens, died in the attack upon the US embassy in Beirut.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Human Rights, Lebanon1 Comment

Muslim protesters rage at United States in Asia, Middle East


Afghan protesters shout slogans during a demonstration in Kabul September 17, 2012. Thousands of protesters took to the streets of the Afghan capital on Monday, setting fire to cars and shouting "death to America", the latest in demonstrations that have swept the Muslim world against a film mocking the Prophet Mohammad.       REUTERS/Omar Sobhani (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: RELIGION POLITICS CIVIL UNREST TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

ed note–as we pointed out on the program last night, this was the reason (s) for riling up the Islamic  world with this latest ‘Mohammed’ video–to make it believable when something goes ‘BOOM” somewhere in order to justify more military aggression by the West against those in the Middle East. 

Afghan militants claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a suicide bomb attack on a minivan carrying foreign workers that killed 12 people saying it was retaliation for a film mocking the Prophet Mohammad.

A short film made with private funds in the United States and posted on the Internet has ignited days of demonstrations in the Arab world, Africa, Asia and in some Western countries.

In a torrent of violence blamed on the film last week, the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack in Benghazi and U.S. and other foreign embassies were stormed in cities in Asia, Africa and the Middle East by furious Muslims. At least nine other people were killed.

On Tuesday, a suicide bomber blew up a minivan near the airport in the Afghan capital and a spokesman for the Hezb-e-Islami insurgent group claimed responsibility.

“A woman wearing a suicide vest blew herself up in response to the anti-Islam video,” said militant spokesman Zubair Sediqqi. Police said the woman may have been driving a Toyota Corolla car rigged with explosives, which she triggered.

But the claim will raise fears that anger over the film will feed into deteriorating security as the United States and other Western countries try to protect their forces from a rash of so-called insider attacks by Afghan colleagues.

Thousands of protesters clashed with police in Kabul the previous day, burning cars and hurling rocks at security forces in the worst outbreak of violence since February rioting over the inadvertent burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers.

The protesters in Kabul and several other Asian cities have vented their fury over the film at the United States, blaming it for what they see as an attack on Islam.

The outcry saddles U.S. President Barack Obama with an unexpected foreign policy headache as he campaigns for re-election in November, even though his administration has condemned the film as reprehensible and disgusting.

In response to the violence in Benghazi and elsewhere last week, the United States has sent ships, extra troops and special forces to protect U.S. interests and citizens in the Middle East, while a number of its embassies have evacuated staff and are on high alert for trouble.

Despite Obama’s efforts early in his tenure to improve relations with the Arab and Muslim world, the violence adds to a host of problems including the continued U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear program, the Syrian civil war and the fall-out from the Arab Spring revolts.


The renewed protests on Monday dashed any hopes that the furor over the film might fade despite an appeal over the weekend from the senior cleric in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam’s holiest shrines, for calm.

Afghan police said among the 12 dead in the Kabul bomb attack were eight Russians and South Africans, mostly working for a foreign air charter company named ACS Ltd.

It followed a bloody weekend during which six members of Afghanistan’s NATO-led alliance, including four Americans, were killed in suspected insider attacks carried out by Afghans turning on their allies.

Protesters also took to the streets in Pakistan and Indonesia on Monday and thousands also marched in Beirut, where a Hezbollah leader accused U.S. spy agencies of being behind events that have unleashed a wave of anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim and Arab world.

Authorities in Bangladesh have blocked the YouTube website indefinitely to stop people seeing the video. Pakistan and Afghanistan have also blocked the site.

Iran has condemned the film as offensive and vowed to pursue those responsible for making it. Iranian officials have demanded the United States apologize to Muslims, saying the film is only the latest in a series of Western insults aimed at Islam’s holy figures.

The identity of those directly responsible for the film remains unclear. Clips posted online since July have been attributed to a man named Sam Bacile, which two people connected with the film have said was probably an alias.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, a Coptic Christian widely linked to the film in media reports, was questioned in California on Saturday by U.S. authorities investigating possible violations of his probation for a bank fraud conviction.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Muslim protesters rage at United States in Asia, Middle East

Shoah’s pages


September 2012
« Aug   Oct »