Hague Politics, not Law

While the BBC make an orgy of the reporting of Karadciz's arrest and transportation to the Hague tribunal we get this incredible piece of tongue-in-cheek spin from Olga Kavran, spokesperson for the Tribunal:

"This is a great day for the victims who have been waiting for a very long time. It's also a day for international justice because it does show that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that all fugitives will be arrested."

Oh really? Does George Bush, Tony Blair, Broon and Co. know this? These fugitives are striding the international stage with no fear of arrest or trial. Those of us who have tried to use the law, the very foundations on which the Hague Tribunal stands, find we are simply ignored by both the police and the politicians. Instead of paying attention to the law they send our complaints to the Counter Terrorism Command, treating us as if we are terrorists for daring to report the war criminals!

And who is to ignore our complaints at the CTC but that rogue Peter Clarke who has the 77 false-flag hanging round his neck!

The time will come when we have to complain to the International Criminal Court in The Hague that our complaints are getting nowhere. What will they do then to undermine the very laws they proclaim to all the world they're upholding? Clearly it's one law for the enemies of the West and quite another when it comes to our own crimes.

"Yet the larger question remains: has this Tribunal embedded the ideal of global justice into practice? Nearly all those I spoke to, including [Court President Augusto] Pocar, noted that powerful nations against whose leaders a case might be made – Russia, China and the US – would never end up in court. The International Criminal Court, which will continue after the ICTY ends and which was constructed partly on its model, is trying African cases only."

'International Law on Trial', John Loyd, Financial Times, 25 July 2008
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60d90298-57ae ... 07658.html

How can, why should, anyone take either their laws or our domestic ones seriously anymore when the powers that be, by making a mockery of the Rule of Law, have reduced their own societies to a state of anarchy?

ITN's Death Camp Fraud


Google Video

Exposed, the fraudulent Death Camp Pictures that Fooled the World! In August 1992, millions of people were shocked to see photographs of a supposed Bosnian Serb death camp. But the death camp story was a lie. The ITN crew had filmed from inside a fenced-in storage area.

By shooting through the fence ITN created footage that gave the impression that the Bosnian men were imprisoned. With a little editing, this footage was turned into pictures that gave the impression of a death camp. An extensive article about this media manipulation can be found here: www.slobodan-milosevic.org/fooled.htm

John McDonnell and the final demise of the Labour Party



You won't hear it from the muzzled mainstream media (MSM) or by the state propaganda organ, the BBC, but even prior to Nu Labor's debacle in Scotland last Thursday a leadership challenge to the disgraced Gordon Brown has been in the offings.

The challenger is John McDonnell, one of the few honourable Labour MPs left in Westminster. McDonnell represents the traditional interests of old Labour and the trades unionist base which Nu Labor threw away for the glittering bling of the City, Atlanticism and Thatcherite 'neo-liberalism'.

John McDonnell's bid for the leadership is doomed to fail but it was something that had to happen before the final demise of the Labour Party into history. Sooner or later the Labour Party will break-up into warring factions and McDonnell will become a leader, not just of the Left faction but probably of a new Left Party.

John McDonnell's Blog

The CIA-backed Atlanticists that set out to destroy Labour's social-democracy, starting with Gaitskell through the traitorous Gang of Four and finally Blair and Brown ,will have served their paymasters well in Langley, Virginia.

The 911 Truth Movement Grows in Europe

United for Truth (english)
by NuoViso

Glasgow East SNP Victory: A Step Closer to an Independent Scotland

I was up until past three this morning, waiting on the results of the Glasgow East by-election. Would the Scottish National Party (SNP) win? Well, there's an old saying that in Glasgow if you put up a donkey for the Labour Party it would be returned to Westminster. It didn't happen last night. With a nearly 23% swing to the SNP its candidate got in with a majority of 365 votes. It was too close for the ghastly Margaret Curran, Labour's loser, who insisted on a recount. But the SNP prevailed.



For the first time in thirty years, Labour has been kicked out of Glasgow East which is now SNP land. Slowly but surely the SNP is claiming Scotland for itself, constituency by constituency. If last night's swing was replicated through Scotland in a general election Labour would be wiped out left with only one MP! The same punishment that the Scots meted out to the Tories many years ago will have been dealt Labour. The SNP will have reclaimed Scotland and would be well on the road to independence.

SNP victories, it has to be said, were initially won by default, the options being so distasteful. But that cannot be said anymore for a Party that really knows how to govern and to earn the respect of the Scots thereby. Under Alex Salmond the SNP has proved itself as not only worthy of government but of being miles ahead of all the other parties. The prospect of an independent Scotland rebuilt along the Scandinavian model is something we can all look forward to.

The most unusual and significant thing about last night was that it was really more than just a by-election: it was two governments competing with each other for public approval, Westminster against Holyrood. And Holyrood won, sending out a clear message back down south: things have changed and they have changed forever. Britain will never be the same again. Get used to it!

Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
By Muhammad Cohen, Asia Times
May 28, 2008

NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.

An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration's declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that "all options remain on the table".

Rockin' and a-reelin'

Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders' minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as "Bomb Iran". Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised "total obliteration" for Iran if it attacked Israel.

The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain's Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter's pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.

But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as "the Great Satan" for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.

The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.

Sense in the senate

Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senate offices were closed for the US Memorial Day holiday, so Feinstein and Lugar were not available for comment.

Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration's plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.

The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?

Iran's options

Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel's Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.

Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.

Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.

China is Iran's biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China's reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.

Three for the money

The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.

A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it's difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.

At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.

On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.

Former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen told America's story to the world as a US diplomat and is author of Hong Kong On Air (http://www.hongkongonair.com), a novel set during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, high finance and cheap lingerie.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html

Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare



"There's no question John McCain is getting a free ride from the mainstream press. But with the power of YouTube and the blogosphere, we can provide an accurate portrayal of the so-called Maverick. We can put the brakes on his free ride!

Since we first released The Real McCain a year ago, our REAL McCain series has garnered close to 2 million views, with over 13,000 comments and tens of thousands more in petition signatures! Clearly, John McCain's record is something the public wants to discuss, and yet the corporate media is doing NOTHING to present the truth. We feel obliged to continue countering the mainstream media's love of McCain. And so we thought it was high time for a sequel: The Real McCain 2."

The Real McCain.com

Bush murder trial book, blacked out by mainstream media, thrives on Internet

07/15/2008 @ 9:43 am

from Rawstory.com

Former Los Angeles district attorney Vincent Bugliosi became widely known as the prosecutor of Charles Manson and later wrote bestselling books about that case, the O.J. Simpson trial, and other topics. However, Bugliosi's latest effort, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, has faced what CNN calls "a virtual media blackout."

Bugliosi says that no one in the mainstream media would review his book, which argues that Bush should be charged with murder for the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers in Iraq if he lied to get the nation into war. "My book was completely rejected across the board by network and cable," Bugliosi told CNN.

Larry King passed up the chance to interview Bugliosi, and neither MSNBC nor Comedy Central's The Daily Show expressed any interest when the book came out in May. (Bugliosi did finally appear on MSNBC's Morning Joe last Friday.) ABC Radio even refused an ad for The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

"So how did the book become a bestseller?" asks CNN.

The answer is that Bugliosi's publisher, the Vanguard Press, started advertising on liberal blogs. The blogs themselves then began discussing the book, and it sold 130,000 copies in six weeks.

"I'm very, very encouraged, and very grateful to them," Bugliosi stated. "Without them, the book would not be a New York Times bestseller."

"There was a decision that was made by the media that was actually really out of sync with the demand," Isabel MacDonald of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting told CNN. "With the rise of the Internet and the blogosphere, we've really seen books take off without any reviews."

Buglosi insists that his book was not merely overlooked by the media because of "Bush-bashing fatigue," but that he was the victim of a deliberate blackout. "I've had national coverage for every one of my other books," he notes. "People are extremely interested in this book, but they're terrified of it."

David Icke speaks at recent UK By-Election



I always thought that David Icke was a bit odd with all his talk about reptilian bloodlines and the like. But no longer. This is a long video but fully worth watching because everything he speaks about (bar IMO the Illuminati and his extreme views about the EU) makes total sense.

Despite his eccentricities I believe this man to be both a prophet and a true, English radical in the traditional sense. More power to him!

McCain makes more jokes about killing Iranians



McCain Issues Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians

Citing what he called the "overwhelmingly positive response to my jokes about killing Iranians," presumptive G.O.P. presidential nominee John McCain issued today a list of his favorite humorous remarks on the subject.

Titled "John McCain's Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians," the list was published on his official campaign website at www.JohnMcCain.com/funnywaystokilliranians.

Speaking in a video on the site, a smiling Sen. McCain says, "My friends, in these trying times in which we live, there's one thing all Americans can agree on: killing Iranians is hilarious."

Sen. McCain, who first joked about killing Iranians months ago by singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' hit "Barbara Ann" and who yesterday commented that the U.S. could kill Iranians with cigarettes, was apparently "just warming up," one aide said today.

"Anyone who has enjoyed Sen. McCain's side-splitting jokes about killing Iranians will be blown away by this list," the aide said. "He's in fine form."

Sen. McCain's list of funny ways to kill Iranians ranges from the caustic -- "Send Iran lead-based hookah pipes from China" -- to the whimsical -- "Tell Christie Brinkley that Iran has been cheating on her."

The list ends with what Sen. McCain dubs the number one funniest way to kill Iranians: "Vote for me."

Huffington Post

On the Dangers of Riding Two Horses at Once

As some try to give new life to the rumour that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is an agent for Mossad, something far more interesting attracts my attention. Sarko just doesn't like that arch-Machiavellian and schemer, New Labour's plant at the European Commission, Peter Mandelson, who it is widely known puts the interests of the World Trade Organisation before the EU or its people.

I have consistently argued here that the main players responsible for directing the EU away from its traditional social-democratic policies and pushing it into the anarchic world of 'neo-liberalism' (Thatcherism in another guise) have been Tony Blair, New Labour and their man in Brussels, Peter Mandelson. They have, of course, obtained sterling support from extreme right-wingers in eastern Europe like President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic and the rogue Kacinsky in Poland. Both are great supporters of the so-called free-market policies of 'neo-liberalism' because it is precisely countries like Poland and the Czech Republic which would be the first to benefit from west European businesses shutting down in, say Clermont-Ferrand or the north of England, and relocating in the East where wages would be considerably lower and unions practically non-existent.

And it was the stark policies of 'neo-liberalism', the job losses and consequent insecurity they entail, the tearing-apart of basic utilities like electricity, water and public transport and their sale to private companies at knock-down prices that made the public of France, Holland and Eire say NO in their respective referendums for first the EU Constitution and then the Lisbon Treaty. In France and Eire, neither the public or the farmers wanted an end to the Common Agricultural Policy which, whatever one might think of it, stabilises and guarantees prices to European farmers. Sarko, being first and foremost a French politician, is now beginning to take heed of the political unpopularity of the very 'neo-liberal' policies to which he first gave lip service.


Sarkozy waxwork in Madame Tussauds, Berlin

So it is hardly surprising that France comes into a head-on collision with the 'Anglo-Saxon Economics' of 'neo-liberalism' and its primary mover and shaker in Brussels, Peter Mandelson. Here we can see a fundamental collision of interests between what are essentially the traditional interests of the Anglo-American financial fraternities and their Continental counterparts, the latter now manifest as the Franco-German economic and military alliance, the basic motor behind the creation of what is now the EU.

Britain continues to be viewed with suspicion by that alliance and its supporters as the trojan horse within the EU representing the essential military-economic interests of the Anglo-American partnership and its fraternities. The same partnership which for well over a century has been behind the machinations, maneuverings and conspiracies leading to two world wars against their German competitor and the ultimate global hegemony of the Anglo-American partnership and its modern-day imperialism.

"To annihilate the German threat, the British ruling elites had gambled for high stakes; for over 30 years (1914-45) they had woven a web of financial machinations, international complicities, intelligence conspiracies, diplomatic devilry, military savvy, and inhuman mendacity, and they finally succeeded. This game for Anglo-American supremacy came at the cost of approximately 70 million lives (two world wars): a holocaust whose nature is beyond words. Both conflicts were willed and set off by Britain ... So the West has to think again --to think, in fact, that there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims."

Preface, p. XIX, 'Conjuring Hitler' by Guido Giacomo Preparata, Pluto Press, 2005.

Despite the inevitable demise of the British Empire and its being subsumed by its heir, the US Empire, the interests of every British government, irrespective of its political colour, is to carry-out the requirements of the Anglo-American fraternities and to serve its military-economic interests. The Anglo-American fraternities are joined at the hip and this is the truth behind the phrase that British politicians sometimes use when they defend the 'special relationship' and the prime-minister-in-waiting, David Cameron, points to by saying that this relationship is in the DNA structure of the Tory Party!

Whoever replaces Mandelson at the Commission when his term is finally over we can be sure that the 'Anglo-Saxon Economics' of Anglo-American 'neo-liberalism' will continue to be served enthusiastically by a new British government. The Franco-German alliance knows this and will tailor the future of the EU appropriately with a likelihood of Euro-sceptic countries like Britain and Eire on an outside second tier and the core countries committed to closer unification such as the Franco-German alliance on the inside.

For too long it has been the purpose of Britain and its Anglo-American fraternities to utterly destroy Germany and to control continental Europe. It was relatively free in the days of the Empire to do practically whatever it liked. As for example when the Bank of England could force the Indian Government to sell it its gold and silver at knock-down prices, destroying Indian agriculture, finally leading to the great Punjab Famine in the 'forties when over 4 Million died and the British Raj didn't bat an eyelid. Naturally, British students of modern European history are not reminded about these things.

Instead they are groomed to perpetuate the monstrous lie of a German responsibility for two world wars. A monstrous lie which is now being finally exposed by writers like G.G. Preparata, confirming what many of us have always suspected: that behind the lies and hypocrisy of Britain's rulers lies the stench of a decayed and unburied corpse.

"The sheer amount of lies perpetrated by the Anglo-American establishment against its public in order to preserve the myth that WWII was a 'good' war, won for a just cause, is incalculable ... In sum the Allied elites have told a story. The story that the Germans have always been disturbers of the peace; they disturbed it once and were punished for it, although a little too harshly. Out of such blundering castigation, an evil force materialized out of nowhere --a force whose evil greatly exceeded the petty severity of the Allies that caused such evil to emerge despite themselves. And, the story goes, the evil of this force grew to be such that a violent global conflict became necessary to uproot it."

"More than a cock-and-bull story, this is an insult. And what is worse, every day more and more people, for the sake of psychological tranquility, choose to believe it. Because individuals, as the loathsome Machiavelli put it in his 'classic' vademecum for subhuman conduct, are 'simple' and willing to trust the word of the constituted authorities. Constituted authorities, which we think embody our will, when in truth they are nothing but high battlements hiding oligarchy and lies, both of which must come to an end."

P. 268, 'Conjuring Hitler' by Guido Giacomo Preparata, Pluto Press, 2005.

Those who adhere to both sides of the argument, both pro- and anti-EU, would do well to study a book like Conjuring Hitler in order to better understand just how it is we find ourselves in the post-911 world today. A world where Britain, though now organically part of a developing European Union, will not give up its military-economic allegiance to the USA, finding itself evermore uncomfortably betwixt and between two power blocs.

Sarkozy may be short on history but his cunning nature has already reminded him that, unlike Britain, he cannot ride two horses at once.

COMMENT ON THIS AT THE FORUM HERE