Archive | June 4th, 2013

Zio-Nazi joins US-UK-al-Qaeda plot to depose Assad


Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan

 Former Gestapo Mossad chief Meir Dagan

The United States, Britain, and their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are providing weapons and funds to terrorist groups in Syria, such as the al-Qaeda affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra, which are fighting to depose Assad.

The Israeli regime has joined forces with the United States, Britain, and al-Qaeda terrorists in the plot to depose Syrian President Basher al-Assad.

Speaking at a conference in New York on Sunday, former Mossad director Meir Dagan said Tel Aviv must “do whatever it can to make sure that Syrian President Basher al-Assad is removed from power.”

Dagan added that the ouster of Assad would be hugely beneficial for Israel from a strategic point of view and asserted that it would weaken Iran and the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah.

And Tel Aviv should not be too worried about the possibility of hostile forces taking power in Syria, since Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states will make every effort to install a “moderate” regime in Damascus, the former Israeli spy chief said.

The United States, Britain, and their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are providing weapons and funds to terrorist groups in Syria, such as the al-Qaeda affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra, which are fighting to depose Assad.

The Syria crisis began in March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of soldiers and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

In an interview recently broadcast on Turkish television, Assad said that if the militants take power in Syria, they could destabilize the entire Middle East region for decades.

“If the unrest in Syria leads to the partitioning of the country, or if the terrorist forces take control… the situation will inevitably spill over into neighboring countries and create a domino effect throughout the Middle East and beyond,” he added.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Nazi joins US-UK-al-Qaeda plot to depose Assad

Woolwich murder, the MI6 connection: Younger brother of Michael Adebolajo ‘was paid thousands to spy in Middle East’


Teacher: Michael Adebolajo's brother Jeremiah, pictured, was paid thousands by MI6 to become a spy in the Middle East

Teacher: Michael Adebolajo’s brother Jeremiah, pictured, was paid thousands by MI6 to become a spy in the Middle East

The younger brother of one of the men accused of murdering Drummer Lee Rigby was paid thousands of pounds by MI6 as part of spying operations in the Middle East, The Mail on Sunday has discovered.

Jeremiah Adebolajo, who uses the name Abul Jaleel, was also asked to help ‘turn’ his brother, Michael, to work for MI5, who were already aware of Michael’s close links to extremist groups.

The claims are made by the Adebolajo family and a well-placed source who contacted The Mail on Sunday.

Jeremiah Adebolajo, 26, who works as an English teacher at a  university in Saudi Arabia and returned to Britain this week, is to be questioned about his brother by Scotland Yard counter-terrorism detectives today. 

Government sources have already confirmed that Michael Adebolajo was known to MI5. Last week it was alleged that he rebuffed efforts by the security service to recruit him as a spy.

Michael, 28, was discharged from hospital on Friday and was yesterday charged with the murder of Drummer Rigby and attempted murder of two police officers on May 22 in Woolwich, South London.

Now it has emerged that MI5’s  sister agency, MI6, had targeted Jeremiah, a married teacher based at the University of Ha’il.

MI5 and MI6 work closely together on counter-terrorism operations. MI5 focuses on home security, while MI6 targets threats from overseas.

A document seen by The Mail on Sunday details concerns raised by Jeremiah’s family about MI6’s alleged harassment in April last year.

In it, Jeremiah’s sister, Blessing Adebolajo, 32, who works as a human resources assistant in London, says her brother was approached by MI6 while he was working at the University of Ha’il – an important strategic location in the Middle East because it takes only one hour by plane to reach 11 Arab capitals.

Jeremiah Adeboljao was working at the University of Ha'il in Saudi Arabia when he was approached by MI6Jeremiah Adeboljao was working at the University of Ha’il in Saudi Arabia when he was approached by MI6
Complaint: A redacted copy of the allegations made by the Adebolajo familyComplaint: A redacted copy of the allegations made by the Adebolajo family

A friend of Jeremiah has confirmed her account.

The friend said: ‘They asked him about Michael and asked him to help “turn” him to work for MI5.

‘They also told him to go to certain hotels, order a cup of tea and wait for his contact.

‘On these occasions he was handed £300, and was paid to fly first-class and stay in five-star hotels.’

The document, prepared by case workers with the charity Cageprisoners, says Blessing approached the East London charity for help because she was worried about the harassment and intimidation of both her brothers by the security and intelligence services.

She says MI6 bought a ticket so Jeremiah could fly to an Intercontinental hotel in another Middle East country (believed to be the United Arab Emirates) and that he was given local currency worth more than £1,000.

She also alleges Jeremiah told her that he was interrogated about specific people and was shown pictures of himself with named individuals taken in the UK. But Blessing told Cageprisoners that Jeremiah had ‘strongly’ rejected MI6’s offer to work as one of their agents. 

Blessing Adebolajo says her brother Jeremiah was approached by MI6 and asked to become an informantBlessing Adebolajo says her brother Jeremiah was approached by MI6 and asked to become an informant

As a result of this rejection, his sister says he was ‘intimidated’ until he was finally told that he would be stopped from leaving the UK.

The friend said that two years ago Jeremiah was approached by UK security officers when he was held at Heathrow on his way back from Saudi Arabia.

During the interview, he was warned about what happens to Muslims who don’t help the Government and was shown documents that confirmed people he knew were being held in prisons throughout the world.

Police and security services are under huge pressure to explain what they know about Adebolajo and his alleged accomplice, Michael Adebowale. Despite warnings stretching back ten years, Michael Adebolajo is said to have been considered ‘low risk’ by MI5. He was photographed at high-profile protests – even standing next to hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

He was arrested in Kenyan 2010 over his alleged plans to travel to Somalia to join terror group Al-Shabaab before being returned to the UK. Jeremiah married Charlotte Patricia Taylor in 2008 at Sutton Register Office in Surrey.

Shortly afterwards the couple are believed to have left for Saudi Arabia where Jeremiah found work teaching. The University of Ha’il is one of Saudi Arabia’s most progressive education establishments and was established by Royal Decree in 2005. It consists of five colleges – Sciences, Medicine and Medical Sciences,  Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering, and a Community College – and has more than 16,000 students.

Posted in UKComments Off on Woolwich murder, the MI6 connection: Younger brother of Michael Adebolajo ‘was paid thousands to spy in Middle East’

Nazi-NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds


LONDON — After two years of civil war, support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was said to have sharply increased.

NATO has been studying data that told of a sharp rise in support for Assad. The data, compiled by Western-sponsored activists and organizations, showed that a majority of Syrians were alarmed by the Al Qaida takeover of the Sunni revolt and preferred to return to Assad.

“The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad,” a Western source familiar with the data said. “Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels.”

The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime. Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.

The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts.

The data was relayed to NATO as the Western alliance has been divided over whether to intervene in Syria. Britain and France were said to have been preparing to send weapons to the rebels while the United States was focusing on protecting Syria’s southern neighbor Jordan.

A report to NATO said Syrians have undergone a change of heart over the last six months. The change was seen most in the majority Sunni community, which was long thought to have supported the revolt.

“The Sunnis have no love for Assad, but the great majority of the community is withdrawing from the revolt,” the source said. “What is left is the foreign fighters who are sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are seen by the Sunnis as far worse than Assad.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Nazi-NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds

IsraHell’s Fraying Image and Its Implications


It is a privilege to have been asked to join this discussion of Jacob Heilbrunn’s account of Israel’s fraying image. His article seems to me implicitly to raise two grim questions.

The first question is how long Israel can survive as a democracy or at all. The Jewish state has left the humane vision of early Zionism and its own beginnings far behind it. Israel now rules over a disenfranchised Muslim and Christian majority whom it would like to expel and a significant minority of disrespected secular and progressive Jews who are stealing away to the safer and more tolerant environs of the United States and other Western countries. Israel has befriended none of its Arab neighbors. It has spurned or subverted all their offers to accept and make peace with it except when compelled to address these by American diplomacy. The Jewish state has now largely alienated its former friends and supporters in Europe. Its all-important American patron and protector suffers from budgetary bloat, political constipation, diplomatic enervation, and strategic myopia.

The second question is what difference Israel’s increasing international isolation or withering away might make to Americans, including but not limited to Jewish Americans.

Let me very briefly speak to some of the issues that create these questions.

For a large majority of those over whom the Israeli state rules directly or indirectly, Israel is already not a democracy. It consists of four categories of residents: Jewish Israelis who, as the ruling caste, are full participants in its political economy; Palestinian Arab Israelis, who are citizens with restricted rights and reduced benefits; Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank, who are treated as stateless prisoners in their own land; and Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza ghetto, who are an urban proletariat besieged and tormented at will by the Israeli armed forces. The operational demands of this multi-layered, militarily-enforced system of ethno-religious separation have resulted in the steady contraction of freedoms in Israel proper.

Judaism is a religion distinguished by its emphasis on justice and humanity. American Jews, in particular, have a well-deserved reputation as reliable champions of the oppressed, opponents of racial discrimination, and advocates of the rule of law. But far from exhibiting these traditional Jewish values – which are also those of contemporary America – Israel increasingly exemplifies their opposites. Israel is now known around the world for the Kafkaesque tyranny of its checkpoint army in the Occupied Territories, its periodic maiming and slaughter of Lebanese and Gazan civilians, its blatant racial and religious bigotry, the zealotry and scofflaw behavior of its settlers, its theology of ethnic cleansing, and its exclusionary religious dogmatism.

Despite an ever more extensive effort at hasbara – the very sophisticated Israeli art of narrative control and propaganda – it is hardly surprising that Israel’s formerly positive image is, as Mr. Heilbrunn reports, badly “fraying.” The gap between Israeli realities and the image projected by hasbara has grown beyond the capacity of hypocrisy to bridge it. Israel’s self-destructive approach to the existential issues it faces challenges the consciences of growing numbers of Americans – both Jewish and non-Jewish – and raises serious questions about the extent to which Israel supports, ignores, or undermines American interests in its region. Many have come to see the United States less as the protector of the Jewish state than as the enabler of its most self-injurious behavior and the endower of the many forms of moral hazard from which it has come to suffer.

The United States has assumed the role of protecting power for Israel, which depends heavily on the ability of American Jews to mobilize subsidies, diplomatic and legal protection, weapons transfers, and other forms of material support in Washington. This task is made easier by the sympathy for Zionism of a large but silent and mostly passive evangelical Christian minority as well as lingering American admiration for Israelis as the pioneers of a vibrant new society in the Holy Land. It is noteworthy, however, that those actually lobbying for Israel are almost without exception Jewish. Their efforts exploit the unscrupulous venality and appeasement of politically powerful donors that are essential to political survival in modern America to assure reflexive fealty to Israel’s rightwing and its policies. When it’s not denying its own existence, the Israel Lobby boasts that it is the most effective special-interest advocate in the country. Official America’s passionate attachment to Israel has become a very salient part of U.S. political pathology. It epitomizes the ability of a small but determined minority to extract tax resources for its cause while blocking efforts to question these exactions.

Americans tend to resent aggressively manipulative behavior and have little patience with sycophancy. The ostentatious obsequiousness in evidence during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress two years ago and the pledges of fealty to Israel of last year’s presidential campaign were a major turn-off for many. Mr. Netanyahu has openly expressed his arrogant presumption that he can manipulate America at will. Still, thoughtful Israelis and Zionists of conscience in the United States are now justifiably concerned about declining empathy with Israel in the United States, including especially among American Jews. In most European countries, despite rising Islamophobia, sympathy for Israel has already fallen well below that for the Palestinians. Elsewhere outside North America, it has all but vanished. An international campaign of boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions along the lines of that mounted against apartheid South Africa is gathering force.

Those who have lost the support of more than a passionate minority are often driven to defame and vilify those who disagree with them. Intimidation is necessary only when one cannot make a persuasive case for one’s position. As the case for the coincidence of American interests and values with those of Israel has lost credibility, the lengths to which Israel’s partisans go to denounce those who raise questions about Israel’s behavior have reached levels that invite ridicule, parody, melancholy, and disgust. The Hagel hearings evoked all four among many, plus widespread foreign derision and contempt. Mr. Hagel’s “rope-a-dope” defense may not have been elegant but it was as effective against bullying assault as nonviolent resistance usually is in the presence of observers with a commitment to decency. The American people have such a commitment and reacted as might be expected to their Senators’ overwrought busking for political payoffs.

Outside the United States, where narratives made in Israel do not rule the airwaves, the Jewish state has lost favor and is now widely denigrated. Israel’s bellicosity and contempt for international law evoke particular apprehension. Every war that Israel has engaged in since its creation has been initiated by it with the single exception of the Yom Kippur / Ramadan War of 1973, which was begun by Egypt. Israel is currently threatening to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran that it admits cannot succeed unless it can manipulate America into yet another Middle Eastern war. Many, if not most outside the United States see Israel as a major source of regional instability and – through the terrorism this generates – a threat to the domestic tranquility of any country that aligns with it.

To survive over the long term, Israel needs internationally recognized borders and peace with its neighbors, including the Palestinians. Achieving this has for decades been the major objective of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. But no effort to convince Israel to do what it must to make peace goes unpunished. Jimmy Carter’s tough brokering of normal relations between Israel, Egypt, and, ultimately, Jordan led to his disavowal by his own party. Barack Obama’s attempt to secure Israel’s acceptance in the Middle East led to his humiliation by Israel’s Prime Minister and his U.S. yahoos and flacks. The Jewish state loses no opportunity to demonstrate that it wants land more than it wants peace. As a result, there has been no American-led “peace process” worthy of the name in this century. Israel continues to ignore the oft-reiterated Arab and Islamic offer to normalize relations with it if it just does what it promised in the Camp David accords it would do: withdraw from the occupied territories and facilitate Palestinian self-determination.

Israel has clearly chosen to stake its future on its ability, with the support of the United States, to maintain perpetual military supremacy in its region. Yet, this is a formula with a convincing record of prior failure in the Middle East. It is preposterous to imagine that American military power can indefinitely offset Israel’s lack of diplomatic survival strategy or willingness to accommodate the Arabs who permeate and surround it. Successive externally-supported crusader kingdoms, having failed to achieve the acceptance of their Muslim neighbors, were eventually overrun by these neighbors. The power and influence of the United States, while still great, are declining at least as rapidly as American enthusiasm for following Israel into the endless warfare it sees as necessary to sustain a Jewish state in the Middle East.

The United States has made and continues to make an enormous commitment to the defense and welfare of the Jewish state. Yet it has no strategy to cope with the tragic existential challenges Zionist hubris and overweening territorial ambition have now forged for Israel. It is the nature of tragedy for the chorus to look on helplessly as a heroic figure with many admirable qualities is overwhelmed by faulty self-perception and judgment. The hammerlock that the Israeli right has on American discourse about the Middle East assures that America will remain an onlooker rather than an effective actor on matters affecting Israel, unable to protect Israel’s long-term interests or its own.

The outlook is therefore for continuing deterioration in Israel’s image and moral standing. This promises to catalyze discord in the United States as well as the progressive enfeeblement of American influence in the region and around the globe. Image problems are often symptoms of deeper existential challenges. By the time that Israel recognizes the need to make compromises for peace in the interest of its own survival, it may well be too late to bring this off. It would not be the first time in history that Jewish zealotry and suspicion of the bona fides of non-Jews resulted in the disappearance of a Jewish state in the Middle East. The collateral damage to the United States and to world Jewry from such a failure is hard to overstate. That is why the question of American enablement of shortsightedly self-destructive Israeli behavior needs public debate, not suppression by self-proclaimed defenders of Israel operating as thought police. And it is why Mr. Heilbrunn’s essay needs to be taken seriously not just as an investigation of an unpalatable reality but as a harbinger of very serious problems before both Israel and the United States.

Ambassador Freeman chairs Projects International, Inc. He is a retired U.S. defense official, diplomat, and interpreter, the recipient of numerous high honors and awards, a popular public speaker, and the author of five books.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on IsraHell’s Fraying Image and Its Implications

Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq, asks

Peter Hitchens
From April 2008

It makes me feel like a traitor to write this. The Second World War was my religion for most of my life.

Brave, alone, bombed, defiant, we, the British, had won it on our own against the most evil and powerful enemy imaginable.

Born six years after it was over, I felt almost as if I had lived through it, as my parents most emphatically had, with some bravery and much hardship in both cases.

What do you think? Tell in the comments section at the bottom of the page

Scroll down for more…

Heroism: Tommies commandeer a German machine gun during battle for Caen in 1944

With my toy soldiers, tanks and field-guns, I defeated the Nazis daily on my bedroom floor.

I lost myself in books with unembarrassed titles like Men Of Glory, with their crisp, moving accounts of acts of incredible bravery by otherwise ordinary people who might have been my next-door neighbours.

I read the fictional adventures of RAF bomber ace Matt Braddock in the belief that the stories were true, and not caring in the slightest about what happened when his bombs hit the ground. I do now.

After this came all those patriotic films that enriched the picture of decency, quiet courage and self-mocking humour that I came to think of as being the essence of Britishness. To this day I can’t watch them without a catch in the throat.

This was our finest hour. It was the measure against which everything else must be set.

So it has been very hard for me since the doubts set in. I didn’t really want to know if it wasn’t exactly like that. But it has rather forced itself on me.

When I lived in Russia at the end of the Soviet era, I found a country that made even more of the war than we did.

I even employed a splendid old Red Army war veteran to help me set up my office there: an upright, totally reliable old gentleman just like my father’s generation, except that he was Russian and a convinced Stalinist who did odd jobs for the KGB.

They had their war films, too. And their honourable scars.

And they were just as convinced they had won the war single-handed as we were.

They regarded D-Day as a minor event and had never heard of El Alamein.

Once I caught myself thinking: “They’re using the war as a way of comforting themselves over their national decline, and over the way they’re clearly losing in their contest with America.”

And then it came to me that this could be a description of my own country.

When I lived in America itself, where I discovered that the Second World War, in their view, took place mainly in the Pacific, and in any case didn’t matter half as much as the Civil War and the Vietnam War, I got a second harsh, unwanted history lesson.

Now here comes another. On a recent visit to the USA I picked up two new books that are going to make a lot of people in Britain very angry.

I read them, unable to look away, much as it is hard to look away from a scene of disaster, in a sort of cloud of dispirited darkness.

Same story? British soldiers at Basra Palace during the Iraq War – a conflict justified on the precedent of the Second World War

They are a reaction to the use – in my view, abuse – of the Second World War to justify the Iraq War.

We were told that the 1939-45 war was a good war, fought to overthrow a wicked tyrant, that the war in Iraq would be the same, and that those who opposed it were like the discredited appeasers of 1938.

Well, I didn’t feel much like Neville Chamberlain (a man I still despise) when I argued against the Iraq War. And I still don’t.

Some of those who opposed the Iraq War ask a very disturbing question.

The people who sold us Iraq did so as if they were today’s Churchills. They were wrong.

In that case, how can we be sure that Churchill’s war was a good war?

What if the Men of Glory didn’t need to die or risk their lives? What if the whole thing was a miscalculated waste of life and wealth that destroyed Britain as a major power and turned her into a bankrupt pensioner of the USA?

Funnily enough, these questions echo equally uncomfortable ones I’m often asked by readers here.

The milder version is: “Who really won the war, since Britain is now subject to a German-run European Union?”

The other is one I hear from an ever-growing number of war veterans contemplating modern Britain’s landscape of loutishness and disorder and recalling the sacrifices they made for it: “Why did we bother?”

Don’t read on if these questions rock your universe.

The two books, out in this country very soon, are Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler And The Unnecessary War and Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke.

I know Pat Buchanan and respect him, but I have never liked his sympathy for “America First”, the movement that tried to keep the USA out of the Second World War.

As for Nicholson Baker, he has become famous only because his phone-sex novel, Vox, was given as a present to Bill Clinton by Monica Lewinsky.

Human Smoke is not a novel but a series of brief factual items deliberately arranged to undermine the accepted story of the war, and it has received generous treatment from the American mainstream, especially the New York Times.

Baker is a pacifist, a silly position open only to citizens of free countries with large navies.

He has selected with care to suit his position, but many of the facts here, especially about Winston Churchill and Britain’s early enthusiasm for bombing civilian targets, badly upset the standard view.

In his element: Churchill preferred war to peace. claims U.S. author Patrick Buchanan
Here is Churchill, in a 1920 newspaper article, allegedly railing against the “sinister confederacy” of international Jewry.

I say “allegedly” because I have not seen the original. I also say it because I am reluctant to believe it, as I am reluctant to believe another Baker snippet which suggests that Franklin Roosevelt was involved in a scheme to limit the number of Jews at Harvard University.

Such things today would end a political career in an instant.

Many believe the 1939-45 war was fought to save the Jews from Hitler. No facts support this fond belief.

If the war saved any Jews, it was by accident.

Its outbreak halted the “Kindertransport” trains rescuing Jewish children from the Third Reich. We ignored credible reports from Auschwitz and refused to bomb the railway tracks leading to it.

Baker is also keen to show that Hitler’s decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe came only after the war was fully launched, and that before then, although his treatment of the Jews was disgusting and homicidal, it stopped well short of industrialised mass murder.

The implication of this, that the Holocaust was a result of the war, not a cause of it, is specially disturbing.

A lot of people will have trouble, also, with the knowledge that Churchill said of Hitler in 1937, when the nature of his regime was well known: “A highly competent, cool, well informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.”

Three years later, the semi-official view, still pretty much believed, was that Hitler was the devil in human form and more or less insane.

Buchanan is, in a way, more damaging. He portrays Churchill as a man who loved war for its own sake, and preferred it to peace.

As the First World War began in 1914, two observers, Margot Asquith and David Lloyd George, described Churchill as “radiant, his face bright, his manner keen … you could see he was a really happy man”.

Churchill also (rightly) gets it in the neck from Buchanan for running down British armed forces between the wars.

It was Churchill who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, demanded deep cuts in the Royal Navy in 1925, so when he adopted rearmament as his cause ten years later, it was his own folly he was railing against.

Well, every country needs men who like war, if it is to stand and fight when it has to. And we all make mistakes, which are forgotten if we then get one thing spectacularly right, as Churchill did.

Americans may take or leave Mr Buchanan’s views about whether they should have stayed out, but the USA did very well out of a war in which Britain and Russia did most of the fighting, while Washington pocketed (and still keeps) most of the benefits.

Surveying Buchanan’s chilly summary, I found myself distressed by several questions.

The First and Second World Wars, as Buchanan says, are really one conflict.

We went to war with the Kaiser in 1914 mainly because we feared being overtaken by Germany as the world’s greatest naval power. Yet one of the main results of the war was that we were so weakened we were overtaken instead by the USA.

We were also forced, by American pressure, to end our naval alliance with Japan, which had protected our Far Eastern Empire throughout the 1914-18 war.

This decision, more than any other, cost us that Empire. By turning Japan from an ally into an enemy, but without the military or naval strength to guard our possessions, we ensured that we would be easy meat in 1941.

After the fall of Singapore in 1942, our strength and reputation in Asia were finished for good and our hurried scuttle from India unavoidable.

Worse still is Buchanan’s analysis of how we went to war.

I had always thought the moment we might have stopped Hitler was when he reoccupied the Rhineland on March 7, 1936. But Buchanan records that nobody was interested in such action at the time. Nobody? Yes.

That includes Churchill, who said fatuously on March 13: “Instead of retaliating by armed force, as would have been done in a previous generation, France has taken the proper and prescribed course of appealing to the League of Nations.”

He then even more wetly urged “Herr Hitler” to do the decent thing and withdraw.

Buchanan doesn’t think that Britain and France could have saved Czechoslovakia in 1938, and I suspect he is right.

But this is a minor issue beside his surgical examination of Britain’s guarantee to help Poland in March 1939. Hitler saw our “stand” as an empty bluff, and called it.

The Poles were crushed and murdered, and their country erased from the map. Hitler’s eventual defeat left Poland under the Soviet heel for two generations.

We then embarked on a war which cost us our Empire, many of our best export markets, what was left of our naval supremacy, and most of our national wealth – gleefully stripped from us by Roosevelt in return for Lend-Lease supplies.

As a direct result we sought membership of a Common Market that has since bled away our national independence.

Would we not have been wiser to behave as the USA did, staying out of it and waiting for Hitler and Stalin to rip out each other’s bowels?

Was Hitler really set on a war with Britain or on smashing the British Empire?

The country most interested in dismantling our Empire was the USA. Hitler never built a surface navy truly capable of challenging ours and, luckily for us, he left it too late to build enough submarines to starve us out.

He was very narrowly defeated in the Battle of Britain, but how would we have fared if, a year later, he had used the forces he flung at Russia to attack us instead?

But he didn’t. His “plan” to invade Britain, the famous Operation Sealion, was only a sketchy afterthought, quickly abandoned.

Can it be true that he wasn’t very interested in fighting or invading us? His aides were always baffled by his admiration for the British Empire, about which he would drone for hours.

Of course he was an evil dictator. But so was Joseph Stalin, who would later become our honoured ally, supplied with British weapons, fawned on by our Press and politicians, including Churchill himself.

By Christmas 1940, Stalin had in fact murdered many more people than Hitler and had invaded nearly as many countries.

We almost declared war on him in 1940 and he ordered British communists to subvert our war effort against the Nazis during the Battle of Britain.

And, in alliance with Hitler, he was supplying the Luftwaffe with much of the fuel and resources it needed to bomb London.

Not so simple, is it? Survey the 20th Century and you see Britain repeatedly fighting Germany, at colossal expense.

No one can doubt the valour and sacrifice involved.

But at the end of it all, Germany dominates Europe behind the smokescreen of the EU; our Empire and our rule of the seas have gone, we struggle with all the problems of a great civilisation in decline, and our special friend, the USA, has smilingly supplanted us for ever. But we won the war.

Posted by 

Posted in IraqComments Off on Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq, asks

Churchill’s Great Mistakes by Eric Margolis

From November 2008

Churchill’s great mistake: Hitler should have been allowed to expand eastward until meeting the more dangerous Russia

Much of the western world just honoured the millions of soldiers fallen in two world wars. But we also need to look beyond post-war myths and understand the tragic political mistakes that sent these soldiers to die in wars that might have been avoided.

In his powerful new book, Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War, veteran politician and author Pat Buchanan challenges many historic taboos by claiming that Winston Churchill plunged Britain and its empire, including Canada, into wars whose outcomes were disastrous for all concerned.

Other writers, me included, have made the same point for decades, but Buchanan has marshalled a formidable array of facts and historians to support his case.

For me, the First World War was the most tragic 20th century conflict. It was triggered by Serbia and Austro-Hungary. After Russia and France began gearing up for war, Germany was dragged into the conflict by the doomsday machine of troop mobilization schedules. Britain could have halted the war, or let the continental powers fight until they came to a truce. But Churchill and his fellow imperialists determined to destroy Germany, a new rival to Britain’s wealth and power.

The war should have ended in 1917 when both sides were exhausted and stalemated. America’s entry into the war resulted in Germany’s defeat and ensuing post-war suffering. The German, Habsburg and Ottoman Empires were torn apart by the lupine victors and reduced to ruin, creating today’s unstable Balkans and Mideast.

Had Germany and its allies not been defeated, had a Carthaginian peace not been imposed upon them at Versailles and Trianon, there might never have been a Hitler, Communist Russia or Second World War. Europe’s Jews might have escaped destruction.


Churchill made the fatal error in the Second World War of backing Poland’s hold on Danzig even though Britain could do nothing to defend Poland, Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia from Hitler’s attempts to reunite millions of Germans stranded in these new nations by the dreadful Versailles Treaty.

Britain’s declaration of war on Germany over Poland led to a general European war.

After suffering 5.6 million dead, Poland ended up occupied by the Soviet Union.

Buchanan’s heretical view, and mine, is that the western democracies should have let Hitler expand his Reich eastward until it inevitably went to war with the even more dangerous Soviet Union. Once these despotisms had exhausted themselves, the western democracies would have been left dominating Europe. The lives of millions of western civilians and soldiers would have been spared.

In the end, Churchill and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt were so obsessed with crushing Germany, and so seduced by “Uncle Joe” Stalin, they handed half of Europe to the Soviet Union, a far more murderous and dangerous tyranny than Hitler’s Germany. From his Soviet gulag cell, Alexander Solzhenitsyn called Roosevelt and Churchill “stupid.”

Buchanan’s book is important because we see some western leaders making the same grave errors as in the 20th century and idolizing the arch imperialist, Churchill.

The latest example: Extension of NATO to Russia’s borders. As in the case of Poland in 1939, the West cannot defend the Baltic states, Ukraine or Georgia, and has no vital interests there.

Yet NATO is giving the rulers of these nations the ability to drag them into a potential nuclear war with Russia. Georgia’s idiotic little aggression this fall offers a striking example. Ukraine’s independence must be guaranteed, but it must not be transformed into a dagger pointed at Russia’s underbelly.


Have we learned nothing from the 20th century’s apocalyptic wars? As Buchanan says, Churchill’s giveaway of eastern Europe at Moscow and Yalta was a far graver blunder than Chamberlain’s concessions at Munich in 1938.

Buchanan’s book strips away lingering war propaganda and shows the cynicism, lust for power and foolishness of the “saintly” Allied war leaders and their “good” war.

As Ben Franklin said, there is no good war, nor bad peace.

Posted by 

Posted in UKComments Off on Churchill’s Great Mistakes by Eric Margolis

Refuge in the Sturm

by Michael Robeson
There is saying among religious progressives is that Christianity should “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” The new Pope, to his credit, is making some effort to preach against self-satisfaction, and while that appeals to the discontented, it remains to be seen whether his words can turn the stone hearts of at least some of the contented into a warm-heartedness for those less fortunate. One obstacle is that the contented psychologically and sociologically insulate themselves from personal contact with the less fortunate, so they become an easily ignorable abstraction.This is certainly true among Americans, an even more practical and rational lot than the ancient Romans. But I have found in Europe that the obstacle is not a universal one. I have regularly been surprised, in conversations with middle class and professional Italians, Germans, Spanish and Dutch, by their insistence on the necessity of using public resources on a systematic basis and accepting higher taxation to help those less fortunate, including themselves, when the time comes. This idea is, in fact, enshrined in the EU constitution that requires each country to accept refugees and to assign adequate resources for their providence. One need only compare Italy’s response to the tens of thousands of Africa boat refugees washing up on the island of Lampedusa near Sicily over the past three years to America’s fence building response to Mexican wetbacks in order to understand the cultural difference. Tens of millions of Euros are spent by the Italian government to process the incoming, all of them much black and destitute, and to provide them food and shelter until they are either sent into Europe or, far less frequently, back to Africa.

Even my current home of Landshut, Germany (population 65,000) has a well staffed and well-organized government agency specifically directed toward the living needs of refugees. I see far more non-White faces walking the streets and supermarkets in this town, an hour away from Munich, than I did in my former home, Fort Collins, Colorado that has a population over twice as large and is an hour away from Denver, a much larger city than Munich. Two evenings ago, I ate dinner with a group of 15 refugees at Landshut’s social center for immigrants – Haus International. Five of them are from Senegal and Somalia. The rest are from the Middle East. I sat at a table with three members of a family from Syria, a 46 year old father and his two adolescent sons. After our cous-cous and chicken dinner four other Syrians joined us. All but one of them spoke much better German than I do. I asked about how they ended up in the middle of Bavaria and not in a refugee camp in Lebanon. They told me that they are opponents of the Assad government and that they paid a Mafia run network of illegal immigration to take them to Europe. They, unlike the ones in Lebanon, do not want to go back. They traveled by small boat along the coast of Turkey, stopped in Athens and passed through Sicily (naturally) and were brought, after two months of travel, by the Mafia handlers into Germany. Or perhaps dumped there. It was not their chosen destination. The Mafia network decides which country to leave them in.

What is Germany’s response to thousands of Syrians that have been arriving illegally into its land? The government assigns a certain number of them to each town in Germany. Landshut has almost 150 of them. Munich has almost 2,000. Families are kept together. Agencies provide housing. Cash is provided for food. Children are sent to the local schools and taught German. Job training is offered to adults and, I believe, required for them to participate in. (Damn Nazis!) As they told me about their daily lives in Landshut and their search for their own private apartments another question formed in my head: What is the German Government’s and the EU’s knowledge of and connection to the Mafia run immigration network? But asking this would not be unlike asking rich American politicians about why they support open immigration policies. For while in theory they provide a large pool of workers for jobs that Americans don’t want, in reality the policies take jobs away from Americans who, these days, might not mind cleaning pools and picking lettuce, and also undercut American unions demands for higher wages with a large pool of willing, low waged workers.

Some leading German politicians complain about the large expenditures provided for refugees, but in general the public supports the programs. Better the refugees and the outsiders are given jobs and housing rather than have them leading lives of crime to survive. Some may call this Christianity in action, others simply a practical solution to a real life problem. No one here considers it “charity” the way Italians (and Catholics) think of it. So far, I haven’t heard anyone complaining about the primary source of the refugee problem – The soul dead American Government and its Satanic endless wars. Even the far right, anti immigration politicians and their steadily growing constituency, don’t target the Empire as the cause, but rather save their wrath for the refugees and the immigrants themselves.

Last year in Rome, I spoke to a Danish family about this issue in their country. The father is a retired banker, the mother a retired nurse and the daughter works for a bank. They told me about the strain placed upon their country’s economy by the tens of thousands of Arab refugees legally utilizing the free health care system and the subsidized housing opportunities. Health care quality for Danes has been deteriorating and people are starting to complain. Their high taxes (50 percent of wages) are now paying for an increasingly lowered standard of living. Listening to them, I compared their mild mannered complaints with what I have heard, and often had to close my ears to, from working and middle class Americans about the Mexicans. When I mentioned to the family that the refugee problem was due almost entirely to America and its foreign policy, they looked at me as if that were completely irrelevant. People needed help and something must be done.

To be honest, I hope the majority of Danes, and Europeans don’t have this attitude, for it is the opposite of “Teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for life” approach. Confronting the source of the problem – America requires something like “Make those assholes pay their fair share for the mess they’ve created!” But I fear that any politician saying this out loud would be quickly offed. Germany is still an occupied country. American military bases abound. A few months ago, the German government issued a formal complaint about the Obama administration’s plan to place a new generation of nuclear missiles on American bases in Germany. This would make Germany, again, a target for Russian nukes. But within days, the Germans withdrew their complaint, much to the chagrin of the German public and the left of center parties, which had been quite loud in their opposition to the plan. If the third largest economy in the world has no leverage on the Empire and its plans, who does?

Perhaps American citizens do. Hardly any of them complain publicly about the way many Mexicans coming back to what was once their land are treated, much less make a public stink about the endless wars to help Israel prevent Palestinians to come back to theirs. And the Government, including its Nobel Peace Prize winning, non-Whitey liberal President, listens very carefully to them.

Posted by 

Posted in USAComments Off on Refuge in the Sturm

IsraHell prepares as war clouds gather–Russia’s determination to supply S-300 missiles to Syria raises fears of arming Hezbollah


From the window of Shrifa Schlomitz’s dental surgery at the top of a high rise in the Stella Maris area of Haifa, you can clearly see the three Patriot missile batteries pointing over the Mediterranean Sea towards the Lebanese border, just 30km away.

Dr Schlomitz has no interest in seeing them removed at the moment. Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group with which Israel fought a six-week long war in 2006 – a war that brought Haifa into the firing line of Hezbollah rockets – is too close for comfort again and the group’s deepening involvement in the Syrian civil war has increased the threat of new attacks, according to some.

“The rockets make us feel safer – it gives some kind of security. If they weren’t there people would be asking the government ‘what are you doing to defend us?’,” he says.

“I don’t think they will dare attack us. We would respond immediately and erase them from the map. But we’re in a standby situation; people know what can happen. People know there is potential danger, but also we have to live our normal lives at the same time. We know the situation can change very quickly.

In recent weeks, the drums of war have been beating louder. A week ago, there were reports in the Israeli media that a rocket was fired from Lebanon towards Israel. It didn’t land  – but the tension is being ratcheted up. 

In public, Israeli politicians are at pains to suggest that they will not take sides in the Syrian conflict even though Hezbollah has publicly thrown its weight behind Bashar al-Assad’s government. Recent reports that the Netanyahu government was also hoping that Assad stays in power and maintains the quiet on the shared border were angrily countered.

Despite its protestations, Israel has attacked targets inside Syria, both last month and in February. It will not admit to the action, but officials have lined up to argue that Israel has the right to prevent sophisticated weaponry reaching Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon.

It is a calculated risk. Hezbollah – whose leader Hasan Nasrallah warns of a “strategic response” to the Israeli attacks – is known to have many short- range rockets, but longer-range, more advanced, missiles would threaten Israel’s biggest city, Tel Aviv, further south and would bring the nearby Ben Gurion airport into play.

And it is for that reason that Israeli officials are so concerned about the Russian insistence that it will deliver a batch of its advanced S300 missiles to Damascus.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu said before cabinet [last week] that Israel will act to prevent the S300 missiles becoming operational, so if they arrive in Syria, Israel must act,” says Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Centre in Herzilya.

“Otherwise, it will find that the statement is hollow and devoid of content – that’s where logic takes us. At the same time, Assad cannot carry on not acting if Israel attacks again.”

Last week, the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar, reported that the first consignment of the S300 missiles had arrived in Syria from Moscow – although privately Israeli officials have rubbished the suggestion.

The Russians insist that the weapons will help to restore balance in the region, but the Israelis – just a few weeks after Netanyahu went to  Russia to discuss the Syrian crisis with Vladimir Putin – have openly threatened to destroy them.

The Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said that Israel will “know what to do” if the S300s are delivered, adding that the deal is “clearly… a threat to us”.  Another minister, Yuval Steinitz, said that Israel would, “react to any threat. I hope Damascus understands that. We will react forcefully.”

He described the deal to supply the missiles to Syria as, “morally wrong”. Experts say that the S300s would enable Assad to shoot down manned aircraft and incoming missiles; the Israelis fear that in Hezbollah’s hands, they could become an even more lethal threat.

If the diplomatic arena is becoming ever more highly charged, on the ground there is not the same urgency. The Independent arrived in Nahariyya, just 5km from Lebanon, just before a scheduled nationwide air-raid drill. At precisely 12.30pm, the sirens started. Everyone ignored them.

That evening’s television news showed people in Tel Aviv rushing for the shelters. But not in Nahariyya. “People here are not getting too excited,” says Michael Younger, a middle-aged resident. “It was a test, everyone knew it was a test.”

Whether it’s stoicism, or just the bravado that is common in places such as Nahariyya, Younger says that people in the town are used to Hezbollah’s rockets. “What can we do? But everyone here is talking about it – we are waiting for it all to happen again.”

Spyer doubts that Hezbollah is the main threat. “I don’t think Hezbollah wants to open up another front, with Israel. It is acting on Iranian orders – it is part of a larger Iranian effort, to keep Assad in power. It is not a surprise that Nasrallah was in Tehran on 30 April, and now his fighters are engaged in the conflict.”

In Matula, Israel’s most northerly town, where Hezbollah flags can clearly be seen just a few hundred metres away, Spyer’s words may be of little comfort. The town, which saw heavy fighting in 2006, was reportedly the target of the rocket on Sunday. “I didn’t know there was a drill this morning and I got really scared when the siren went off, I thought that this was it,” says college student, Vered Idon. “I’m a bit worried. You can hear the explosions in Syria from here, and that’s scary, but it’s OK.”

In the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967 and, after occupying the area for 14 years, formally annexed in 1981, preparations are going ahead. The Independent passed numerous flatbed trucks which are used to transport armoured personnel carriers and tanks. At one point, we  saw at least 50 APCs lined up in a car park.

“I hope there’s a war,” says Ziv Peretz a father of two young children in the Golan town of Katzerin. “Then we can kill them all, finish them all off. I doubt anything will happen, because the Arabs know they will lose.”

Red Cross fears for injured in besieged town

The International Committee of the Red Cross says it is alarmed by reports of conditions in the besieged Syrian town of Qusayr and has called on all sides in the conflict to allow in aid for those injured in the fighting.

The rebel-held Qusayr has come under a bloody onslaught in recent weeks as government forces, supported by fighters from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, have tried to reclaim the town. Qusayr is only a short distance from the Lebanese border and its capture would represent a significant gain for President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.

Reports from the town suggest that there could be thousands of civilians trapped by the fighting. The Red Cross said water, food and medical supplies were becoming scarce, and many of the wounded desperately required medical attention.

“We have already requested access to Qusayr and we are prepared to enter the city immediately to deliver aid to the civilian population,” said Robert Mardini, the ICRC’s head of operations in the Middle East.

“Civilians and the wounded are at risk of paying an even heavier price as the fighting continues… Thousands of other civilians are reported to be in Qusayr still – hundreds of them severely wounded and without access to medical care.”

Despite the stark warning, on Saturday Russia rejected a draft UN Security Council declaration circulated by British diplomats, which raised “grave concern about the situation in Qusayr, and in particular the impact on civilians of the ongoing fighting”.

Russia, which like Britain has veto power over Security Council resolutions, said the UN had not condemned the original capture of Qusayr by rebel fighters, and so it would be inappropriate to endorse such a resolution now.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on IsraHell prepares as war clouds gather–Russia’s determination to supply S-300 missiles to Syria raises fears of arming Hezbollah

Zionist Puppet Tony Blair says murder of Lee Rigby PROVES ‘there is a problem within Islam’


The former Prime Minister addresses the shocking killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich by going further than he – or any front-rank British politician – has gone before over the issue of Muslim radicalism.   

Writing in today’s Mail on Sunday, he departs from the usual argument that Islam is a peaceful religion that should not be tainted by the actions of a few extremists.

Stark view: Tony Blair says that extremism is more widespread than most politicians admit
Stark view: Tony Blair says that Islamic extremism is more widespread than most politicians admit

Instead, Mr Blair urges governments to ‘be honest’ and admit that the problem is more widespread.

‘There is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology which is a strain within Islam,’ he writes.

‘We have to put it on the table and be honest about it. Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.’ 

He adds: ‘At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it.’

Mr Blair’s comments are likely to be seized on by critics who will argue that by leading us into the Iraq War he has helped to swell support for radical Islam around the globe.

Outspoken: The former Prime Minister addresses the shocking killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich by going further than he ¿ or any front-rank British politician ¿ has gone before over the issue of Muslim radicalismOutspoken: The former Prime Minister addresses the shocking killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, pictured, by going further than he – or any front-rank British politician – has gone before over the issue of Muslim radicalism

The former PM’s remarks come as David Cameron prepares to make a Commons statement about the Woolwich murder tomorrow afternoon.

The statement will come just hours after the first meeting of the Prime Minister’s Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) – made up of senior Ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders – tomorrow morning.

Whitehall sources said that it would be a ‘preliminary meeting’ to draw up the agenda for a full meeting within days. The group, which the Muslim Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi, will examine new powers to muzzle hate preachers.

Mr Cameron’s Commons speech is also expected to address the situation in Syria.

In his article, Mr Blair, who is trying to establish a Palestinian state through his work as a peace envoy, also addresses the Syrian situation, warning: ‘We are at the beginning of this tragedy .  .  . Syria is in a state of accelerating disintegration.

Charged: Michael Adebowale
Michael Adebolajo pictured

Accused: Michael Adebowale, 22, left, and Michael Adebolajo, 28, right, have both been charged with the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, who was killed last month in Woolwich, South London

‘President Assad is brutally pulverising communities hostile to his regime.’ Mr Blair says that ‘the overwhelming desire of the West is to stay out of it’, which he goes on to describe as ‘completely understandable’.

He suggests that ‘the problem within Islam’ can start to be tackled by ‘educating children about faith here and abroad’.  

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Foreign Secretary and chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, said: ‘Much of what Tony Blair says is sensible.

‘The Islamic terrorists who kill people have the silent support of many more in their community who share their ideology, if not their methods.

‘But even combined, they represent only a small minority of British Muslims, and we must never forget that.

‘However, he appears to be still trying to justify the Iraq War rather than acknowledging that that war provided an unprecedented opportunity for the Sunni and Shia extremists to slaughter so many of their co-religionists.’

Criticial: Mr Blair's comments are likely to be seized on by critics who will argue that by leading us into the Iraq War he has helped to swell support for radical Islam. He is pictured meeting British troops in Iraq in 2003

Posted in UKComments Off on Zionist Puppet Tony Blair says murder of Lee Rigby PROVES ‘there is a problem within Islam’

IsraHell spy agencies budget grew 26% under Netanyahu: Report


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The money has been used by the Mossad to recruit operatives using fake passports to carry out assassination missions against Palestinians and in other countries.”

Israel intelligence services, the Mossad and Shin Bet, have seen a 26-percent increase in their budget under the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s term in office.

Figures released by Israel’s Finance Ministry show that the Mossad and Shin Bet spent nearly a total of USD 1.63 billion (NIS 6.042 billion) in 2012, according to a Monday report by the Israeli Daily, Haaretz.

The unclassified data, which did not detailed the allocation of the funds between the two intelligence services or how the money was used, showed the two services also spent about USD 1.52 billion (NIS 5.63 billion) in 2011.

This is while in 2008, the last year Ehud Olmert served as Israel’s prime minister, the total spending of the two secret services reached about USD 1.29 billion (NIS 4.78 billion).

These figures reflect a 26 percent increase in the annual budgets of the Mossad and Shin Bet over the four years of Netanyahu’s term, based on actual spending figures, with the biggest increases taking place at 10 percent and 15.6 percent, respectively, in 2010 and 2011.

The money has been used by the Mossad to recruit operatives using fake passports to carry out assassination missions against Palestinians and in other countries.

Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet security services operate under the authority and supervision of the prime minister and not the defense minister.

According to the law, the budgets of the Shin Bet and Mossad are included under the framework of the general reserves in the state budget. They are described in the budgetary section as “an objective within the framework of the Prime Minister’s Office,” the report said.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on IsraHell spy agencies budget grew 26% under Netanyahu: Report

Shoah’s pages