The Chilcot Report is out will Tony Blair face any real punishment?

The Chilcot Report is out will Tony Blair face any real punishment?

By Dark Politricks
www.darkpolitricks.com

Now the Chilcot report is out, does this mean that the Tory Government have the balls to go and arrest Tony Blair for pushing the illegal Iraq war?

Here was someone who knew that the evidence was false yet still promised George W Bush to be with him whatever, despite the UN and his own legal advisers, saying that the war was illegal.

Just like the many EU referendums before BREXIT, it was "no that's the wrong answer, go and find the right one", until a dodgy legal basis was provided to give Blair cover for his actions by Lord Goldsmith. I wonder how and why he got given his title....

I doubt any Tories will do anything to put their establishment buddy Blair's head in the block as it would mean putting their own heads in as well. Many of them eagerly went along with the falsehood that many in the world knew was a blatant lie.

It does however make sense why the Blairite push for power against their Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was planned just before this week's revelations.

They were hoping to take the sting out of the massive news story it will surely become, their own names off the front pages, and provide a different headline for the newspapers. However we must ensure that #Chilcot stays in the news and social media despite other political manoeuvrings.

If we have to wait for the Blairites to return to the Labour fold and for Corbyn to get elected before seeing Blair in the Hague then we could be waiting a long time. However hopefully a massive class action case by the families of dead UK soldiers, and maybe millions of Iraqi's hurt by the war, could be formed to take him to civil court instead.

Hopefully they could win and sting Blair with a massive monetary punishment as OJ Simpson was, to take away all the millions he has made since leading the country into Iraq by selling speeches, and pretending to be a "Peace Envoy". All whilst making money for himself in the Middle East advising dictators and lobbying the UN to vote against Palestinian statehood in 2011 - on the payroll of the Israelis no doubt.

The Palestinians had this to say about Tony Blair:

There is no one within the Palestinian leadership that supports or likes or trusts Tony Blair, particularly because of the very damaging role he played during our UN bid.

He is considered persona non grata in Palestine. Although we can't prevent him from coming here, we can hopefully minimise the role he can play because he is not a mediator, he is totally biased on one side.

So what were the main findings of the Chilcot report which we have had to wait 7 years for?

• There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
• The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
• On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him "whatever". But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
• Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
• Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
• Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
• The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".
• The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10's response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
• The UK's actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN's Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community "to uphold the authority of the Security Council". But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
• In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded
• Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".
• The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
• The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK's relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.

So will anyone apart from Jeremy Corbyn whose whole party seems to have deserted him despite having overwhelming support from the Labour membership and Trade Unions do anything about the lies of Tony Blair that led us to war and the creation of ISIS which haunts us all now?

Despite the massacres, huge car bombs killing hundreds almost on a daily basis during the Iraq civil war, journalists getting their heads cut off by ISIS and al-Qaeda and the strengthening of Iran, Tony Blair still thinks he made the right decision. He said this in the report:

Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country

So no remorse then for the many people killed and injured from 2003 to this very day, all coming from his decision to back George W Bush who had some narcissistic desire to achieve what his father didn't in the earlier Gulf War, remove Saddam from power. This was despite any links to 9.11 or any evidence that he posed a threat to the region.



This was a dictator that was supported by the USA during the 80's in it's war with Iran, and many in George W Bushes cabinet were players from that era such as Donald Rumsfeld who is seen here having a good time with his favoured dictator of the region.

I have no doubt that the USA believed Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction because they used to sell him so many of them, including the nerve gas which he used against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi rebels.

No complaint was made about it at the time of the event but when it came to the standard demonisation of the enemy before a war all this was put into the heads of the public to paint a horrible picture of their ex friend and enabled dictator.

Despite warnings by the CIA that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily Donald Rumsfeld who was at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, continued to make it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

This included biological weapons and viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Also during the time the US was selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons the UK under Maggie Thatcher was selling up to 78 different types of military equipment including Land Rovers, tank recovery vehicles, terrain-following radar and spare tank parts according to released government reports.

Apparently this pleased Maggie very much. She said she was "very pleased" with the "Contracts worth over £150m [that] have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months including one for £34m (for armoured recovery vehicles through Jordan)," which was written by a junior minister, Thomas Trenchard, in 1981.

This letter also stated that meetings with Saddam Hussein "represent a significant step forward in establishing a working relationship with Iraq which should produce both political and major commercial benefits”.

So not only did the UK and USA help stock up Saddam Hussein with all the WMD they then accused him of having, a very hypocritical move but to be expected by the two major powers in the axis of continual war, but we actually helped him use those weapons on Iranians.

Iran was finally brought to the negotiating table by providing Iraq the location of Iranian troops, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defences once they had learned that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage in the 8 year long war.

They were fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin and mustard gas prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence.

These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favour and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

So not only were we totally hypocritical when dealing with Saddam helping him use WMD that we sold him in the first place, but we started a war of aggression against his country that was not thought out, had no plans for after the invasion, spilled over into sectarian violence and civil war and the formation of terrorist groups where there were none before.

So how many dead people does Blair and Bush have on their hands from their decision to go to war "on faulty intelligence" or as normal people say "illegally"?

How many dead and injured victims have their been over the last 12+ years and the years prior...

-The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible were responsible for over half a million deaths, mainly children.
-The Illegal war which Blair promised Bush to support even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it is thought to have killed at least half a million people.
-The depleted uranium weapons used in Fallujah that are still causing babies to be born without legs and arms and horrible birth defects.
-The long civil war came after the fall of Saddam between the Sunnis, Shia's and Kurds.
-The forming of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 when no al-Qaeda terrorists had existed before.
-The forming of ISIS which is now fighting Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian and Russian soldiers and inspiring terrorist attacks in the west. All whilst we do very little to stop them (and even support them) whilst allowing our ally Turkey to bomb the Kurds instead.
-And that's not even counting all the dead US/UK soldiers.
-And those who came home with missing limbs from IEDS and PTSD now living in poverty on the streets or in jail.

I wonder what the total death count is, or will ever be......

I also wonder if the world has the strength to punish a war criminal that wasn't on the losing side for once?

By Dark Politricks

View the original article on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.



© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Russell Brand on British Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

Why Was Russell Brand attacked for linking British Foreign Policy to Terrorism?

www.darkpolitricks.com

By Dark Politricks

Whilst I have the utmost respect for all the British and other victims of the Terrorist attack in Tunisia last week, I think the attack on Russell Brands podcast on today's minute of silence as "Total Bullshit", was a "Total Smokescreen" when you really listen to what he said.

If you forget the maybe crass way he says it and actually listen to what he says later on, he makes many good points about British Foreign Policy and how it has contributed to the rise of ISIS in the first place.

As David Cameron discusses extending his bombing campaign on ISIS from just Iraq to targets over the border in Syria we must remember the simple fact that no war has ever been won by just bombing from the air.

If we want to create more terrorists then yes, the plan will work. Bombs are indiscriminate no matter how much the Government and Armed Forces tell you otherwise.

We didn't win the war in Libya from our bombing campaign. It was the rebels on the ground that took advantage of our air support to defeat Gaddafi and turn Libya into the civil war mess it now is.

Libya is now  place where the "official government" has to meet on a ship at sea to protect it from attack.

Where thousands of people every day try to escape its shores by paying criminals to take them in dangerous boats to Europe, and where we wash our hands of them.


Libyan refugees risk death to flee their war-torn country
People smugglers take advantage of desperate people in the Mediterranean

Doesn't seem fair does it?

We destroy what once one of the most prosperous countries in Africa because we decided to support one side in a civil war after years of supporting al-Qaeda linked, anti Gaddafi terrorists, before making up with Gaddafi at Blairs famous meeting with the Colonel in the desert.

This was when normal relations resumed e.g arms sales in return for the Lockerbie suspects being handed over to face trial in Scotland and our oil companies being able to milk the countries reserves.

Then we decided to turn about-face, despite Gaddafi helping the CIA/MI6 with their black site torture prisons, and take him out of the picture.

Maybe he was just too much of a threat having talked about an African union, no central bank control and a shared Gold backed currency for the region.

Did you know that when Colonel Gaddafi took over Libya in 1967 it was one of the poorest nations in Africa but by the time he was killed by NATO and it's goons on the ground, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation.

It had the highest life expectancy and GDP per capita on the continent. I bet you didn't even realise that fewer people lived below the poverty line in Libya than in the Netherlands!

People in pre NATO Libya could count on free education, free health care, a free home upon getting married, oil being shared out amongst the people and no central bank run by the same bankster cartel we all know and love.

Gaddafi even wanted to unite Africa under a single currency, a bit like the Euro, except it would be backed by Gold and therefore worth the paper it was written on.

We all know what happened to the last 3 US Presidents who tried going against the Banksters and their central banks, the same fate fell Gaddafi as did JFK. Was this a coincidence or just bad luck?

Whatever the reason was, Libya fell apart was due to NATO suddenly going from an ally in the fight against the war on terror - even sending Gitmo destined prisoners there to be tortured, to a terrorist backer. They provided the air cover and bombs that destroyed Libyan infrastructure before allowing their NATO armed terrorists on the ground to put a bullet in his head.

The country is now a mess and not a good advert for British intervention. The fact we are now trying to wash our hands of the mess we have caused by preventing refugees from Libya reaching Britain doesn't exactly say much about our leaders humanitarian nature.


A victim of the Tunisian beach attack is flown home today to RAF Brize Norton

So what about the ISIS terrorist who killed British terrorists?


Seifeddine Rezgui posing with weapons for ISIS

Yes of course it was a horrible disgusting evil act when an ISIS inspired student gunman, Seifeddine Rezgui, took it upon himself to kill 38 people in Tunisia including 30 British tourists.

This was a student who received military training in the war-torn country we helped to destroy, Libya, before taking it upon himself to kill and maim dozens of British and other Europeans on the beach of a holiday resort during the supposedly peaceful Islamic holiday of Ramadan.

ISIS has taken over from al-Qaeda as the big bogey man we should all be looking under our beds each night.

Islamic State are the most well-funded, well-equipped terrorist force on the planet and as their name states, Islamic State, they DO actually have a constantly expanding border that ignores previous Middle Eastern lines that were drawn across the borders of Iraq and Syria.

So while David Cameron puts forward plans to bomb Syria, and the Tories line up legislation to remove more of our civil rights, I bet that a huge proportion of Daily Mail readers will support such "Thought Police" laws and be all too willing to denounce any opponents as domestic extremists.

So with all these new laws and previous military action carried out in the region w e should really ask the question that no Tory/Labour politician seems to want to answer - have we helped create this monster?

Whilst they may claim otherwise the answer is YES. 

Yes Islamic terrorist acts occurred before 9.11 but they were mainly all due to the never-ending issue of Israel / Palestine.

If only the USA could pull its finger out its ass, stop AIPAC owned Congressmen from railroading any attempt at a fair solution and put pressure on Israel to come to a negotiated settlement that doesn't humiliate the Palestinians and adheres to International Law.

This form of law is supposed to be respected by all countries, and it was mainly created after World War II to punish the Germans for their treatment of the Jews, plus their illegal wars. Remember after Nuremberg it was decreed that the worst crime a state could commit was a war of aggression (a pre-emptive war you could say).

Yet how many pre-emptive wars have the Axis of War started since then?

Just in the last few decades (the Taliban did not commit 9.11 no matter how far you stretch the official story), and not to mention all the other underhand wars by proxy or through the use of false flag attacks to give cover such as Vietnam in earlier years.

Don't you think it hypocritical that the Jewish People, who through their Nuremberg judges had many Nazis and Germans put to death for "following orders" but are now killing Palestinians en mass whenever they invade Gaza (as even the Zionist Judge Goldstone reported on).

Plus the US seems fine about opting out of the International Criminal Court and allowing its own soldiers to commit acts of torture on command, sometimes as MI5/MI6 officers stand around watching, as British citizens are beaten and tortured by their CIA counterparts for refusing to answer the British Security Forces questions.

To say our foreign policy has no part to play in the radicalization of a large number of disaffected Muslims is to ignore a major component in solving the problem. Does our government really just think these people kill us for no other reason than they "hate our dwindling freedoms" or that they just want to reach paradise?

If it's our freedoms they hate then that argument will soon no longer exist as we seem to be very busy handing them over on a plate. In the not too distant future even this bogus reason drummed out by FOX and other mainstream media companies won't be valid.

From our rights to protest, to our right to surf the Internet in peace without being monitored and logged to our right to free speech, our civil liberties are being demolished chunk by chunk.

If the Tories get their way we could all be labelled domestic extremists if you dare speak your mind and it doesn't fit with the Government line on a subject. Want to talk to your girlfriend in peace without anyone spying in on your saucy chat by using an encrypted chat service, well you must have something to hide under new plans by the Conservative government. Only terrorists use encryption don't you know?

As Russell Brand says in his podcast the minute silence held on Friday was a way for the Government to act as if it cared about the dead holiday makers whilst it continued to carry on selling arms to some of the most despotic regimes in the world.

Not only are we selling arms to Bahrain and Egypt, two countries who have recently cracked down on its own people, killing many and repealing the rights of millions, but we are selling billions of weapons to one of the cruelest countries on the face of the planet - Saudi Arabia.

This is a country who is engaged in a massive bombing campaign in Yemen, killing innocent civilians, using banned weapons and with hardly a whisper being mentioned about the slaughter in the mainstream news.

Why is it this Islamic State is being helped by the British whilst we are supposedly fighting another Islamic State in Iraq/Syria?

David Cameron was criticised the other day for not calling Islamic State just that, saying it was not truly Islamic and not a state. From where I am looking it seems to fit the bill perfectly. They adhere to strict Islamic law, just like Saudi Arabia and the Islamic courts in Iran and they seem to have their own state, one that issues its own gold based currency, sells oil to Syria and Turkey and is well-funded and armed.

As for fighting it, are really doing all we can or do we like the fact that a huge terrorist organisation is there to scare the masses and keep the military industrial complexes coffers full?

There have been many reports of British and US planes caught dropping Israeli and US/UK weapons to the very army we are supposed to be fighting. This is from a report in an Australian newspaper in February 2015.

Iraq’s army has shot down two British planes carrying weapons for ISIL terrorists in Iraq’s Al Anbar province.

Hakem al-Zameli, head of the Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defence Committee revealed that the committee “has access to the photos of both planes that are British and have crashed while they were carrying weapons for the ISIL,” FARS News reported. The senior lawmaker said that the Iraqi parliament has asked London for explanations and added it is receiving daily reports from security forces and people in the province on countless flights led by the U.S.-led coalition’s planes, which airdrop weapons and supplies for the group in terrorist-held areas.

The Iraqi lawmaker explained that the United States prefers the chaotic situation in the province because it reportedly does not want the ISIL crisis to come to an end. The al-Ahed news website quoted Khalaf Tarmouz, head of Al Anbar Provincial Council saying that they have “discovered weapons made in the United States, European countries and Israel from the areas liberated from ISIL’s control in Al-Baqdadi region.” Mr Tarmouz added that the weapons made by European nations and Israel was discovered from the terrorists in the Eastern parts of Ramadi.

Read more at: www.australiannationalreview.com

Apart from our lacklustre or duplicitous fight against ISIS in one region we are also busy arming some of the most human right abusing nations on the face of the earth. In fact from our own list of 28 potential human rights abusing countries, we are currently selling arms to 23 of them!

How is that for hypocrisy?

Does this list of human rights abuses mean anything as it sure doesn't look that way.

If we wanted to try to repeal the tide of Islamic extremism in the world and take our holiday makers faces out of the firing line then maybe we should be strictly adhering to lists such as these and banning companies such as BAE from selling weapons to countries who publicly whip and jail women who have been gang raped purely because they left the house by themselves. A medieval country that is no better in my eyes than the Islamic State to the North.

Maybe we should be a voice for reason and legality by not being scared of the USA or Israel and their lobby groups and say loudly that:

a) Israel is a war criminal when it slaughters children and women in the street when it attacks Gaza en mass after it feebly retaliated for the slaughter of its own citizens. It always seems to be the Palestinians fault but you only need look a few days ahead before finding some Israeli crime that was the instigator of any firecracker launched against Israel's "Iron Dome".

b) We should say that the USA is not the bastion of freedom and democracy that it pretends to be and that it's new "laws of war" that have legitimised the killing of journalists as "unprivileged belligerents" is unacceptable along with the killing of retreating troops.

We should also try to revert the tide of war by using some logic for once and realise that our foreign policy IS a major contributor to many people's radicalization that leads them into the hands of extremist groups.

1. We need to do all we can to resolve the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. Recognise Palestine as a country in the UN and give it the ability to take Israel to court for crimes it has committed. Force Israel to define its borders, return the illegal settlers to within Israeli borders as defined by the UN decades ago, stop the blockade on Gaza and attack all (recent and previous), hijackings of aid flotillas as Piracy on the high seas. Tony Blair was a Zionist stooge who cared little about peace and more about making money as Official Middle Eastern Peace Envoy. We need to get Israel to play in the same legal framework as other countries that we are expecting to such as Iran who we are expecting to bend over backwards to prove they have no nuclear ambitions without a bomb in sight, whilst Israel is sitting on a stockpile of at least 200 war heads and is not even a member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Hypocrisy!
2. We should realise that we have caused more extremism than if we had just left well alone in Iraq. Saddam Hussein may have been a horrible dictator but at least the 3 countries we cobbled together with the French after World War I stuck together without infighting. It seems cruel to say but if the Arab Spring has shown us something it is that if we remove the Western backed dictators that were ruling these countries that seem to fall apart into civil war and ethnic strife pretty quickly. We had no reason to go to war with Iraq our ex ally apart from the fact Tony Blair promised to George W (I speak to God) Bush that he would. What happened, Iran has taken control of the Shia's in the South, the Kurds have basically created their own country to the north and the Sunnis have created the beast of ISIS in the rest of the country. Splitting the country into three parts on ethnic lines seems the logical way forward if we don't want ISIS to take all before it.
3. We should admit that supporting "moderate" groups fighting Assad in Syria, like the Free Syrian Army, was a mistake. These groups are now ISIS controlled and there even been instances of western air drops of supplies falling into ISIS held locations and UK planes being shot down by Iraqi defence forces for seemingly dropping supplies to Islamic State deliberately. The FSA has been found to have sold kidnapped journalists to ISIS who were then beheaded as well as committing despicable acts of its own such as the famous video of a FSA solider ripping the heart and lungs out of a dead Syrian solider and eating them on tape. There are NO moderates to support and if we want to defeat ISIS we should be willing to admit that the only real forces on the ground willing to do the fighting for us are the Syrian Army, The Kurds and the Iranians who have been the only forces along with Shia militias preventing the US trained Iraqi forces from turning tail and running away like they have done on numerous occasions even when outnumbering their enemy. We should forget past and current issues and support Iran and Syria in their fight against ISIS as surely they are the lesser of two evils?
4. We should ask WHY is it that Israel feels no threat from ISIS on their doorstep. When every other Islamic terrorist group in history has labelled the Israeli conflict as the major point of grievance, ISIS has been very quiet on the matter. You would think Israel who is always going on about how they are fighting for their very existence in the region, would be scared shitless of such a well-funded and armed group on their borders. Instead they are more worried about firecrackers from Gaza than the tens of thousands of well equipped Islamic nutters on their flank. Could it be down to the fact they are arming them in a divide and conquer tactic? Iraq and Syria's armies are no more and the Greater Israel project could be back on seeing they have no fixed borders. Do they see this as a chance to expand or are they not scared for some other reason. Why is it ISIS are not even considering attacking Israel when any Islamic terrorist group worth its name with as much weaponry and money as they have would have them as their number one target?

Russell Brand on British Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

Whatever you think about Russell Brand he makes some good points about UK foreign policy in this podcast.

View his reaction to the horrific events in Tunisia and the response of David Cameron.

If British foreign policy is truly a force for democracy then why does the UK sell arms to repressive states?


View Russell Brand and "Tunisia Minute Of Silence - Total Bullshit: Russell Brand The Trews (E350)" on YouTube.com.

By Dark Politricks

View the original article on my main site at www.darkpolitricks.com

 

© 2015 Copyright Dark Politricks

ISIS and how our leaders are hypocrites when it comes to this Islamic State and not Saudi Arabia

ISIS and how our leaders are hypocrites when it comes to this Islamic State and not Saudi Arabia

By Dark Politricks

Whether you like Russell Brand or not I would urge you to subscribe to the Trews YouTube channel.

In the video at the bottom of the page Russell Brand dissects the recent upgrading of the terror threat in the UK due to the beheading of a US journalist by a man with a UK accent.

As he rightly says, Saudi Arabia has beheaded numerous people since August the 4th yet we continue to sell weapons and do big business with that Islamic State. If the man had a Saudi accent it probably wouldn't have made the news like the many beheadings that happen all the time in that terror state.

Why is it that we don't stop our relationships with such counties as Saudi Arabia and Qatar and others that fund the these terrorist groups that David Cameron wants more working class English and American people to go and fight.

Remember just months ago our leaders were saying that the enemy was President Assad of Syria and our governments were supporting, funding and arming groups that were fighting his government.

Now that these groups have crossed the border into Iraq and become ISIS they suddenly become the enemy. People who were "bravely" fighting Assad are now "terrorists". Groups we trained and armed are now in Iraq causing havoc under the banner of the Islamic State.

As Russell Brand rightly says. For people like millionaire David Cameron, and his fellow Etonion friends, who are directors and shareholders in arms companies and other businesses who benefit from wars, to tell us to fight another war is hypocritical.

For Cameron to lecture us that we must go over to Iraq and lose more freedoms and liberties at home due to another UK/US foreign policy that has gone awry, just like the arming of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan who then became the Taliban and al-Qaeda, is pure bullshit.

He isn't going to go an fight for his belief that we must go to war with ISIS.

No it will be the poor, working classes, who join the army as the only way out of communities that have been decimated by Tory policies, that will be doing the fighting for him. When our leaders send their own sons and daughters to war zones and don't skip military service like many US Presidents or politicians have, then we can look at them with more respect when it comes to war.

Chicken Hawks telling me that I must go and fight for their own foreign policy blowbacks can fuck off and fight themselves. I am tired of people who haven't seen real violence telling people who have to go and fight. When you have heard a knife enter a body, the sound and memory stays with you forever. When you have killed another human being it stays with you.

This is why so many ex-generals and military leaders are against war whilst people who have never been in one are for them.

The millions of people who marched against the war in Iraq through London a decade ago knew that war wasn't the answer. Some people, like Tony Blair and David Cameron, still claim that our interference in the region, in Iraq, Iran and Syria hasn't led to this creation of the monster called ISIS or Islamic State, they are blatantly wrong.

The only solution to a regional crisis such as the formation of the Islamic State has to come from the region itself, without us sending more troops to the region. We can help by stopping our crusades on former leaders who were our friends only a few years ago and instead attacking the real enemies in the region such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar who are funding these terrorist groups.

Here are just a few ideas for how regional countries could help.

Israel could do itself a massive PR job favour and use it's massive armed forces to attack ISIS instead of Palestinians for instance. The US has spent billions giving Israel tons of fighter planes, missile systems and other arms. Why can't Israel see the real terror on it's borders rather than the poor, malnourished, suffering people of Gaza, and do the world a favour by going after them instead?

Iran could be allowed to help Iraq, along with Assad, to form a pincer movement on ISIS for instance. We could help by stopping to claim Assad is a war criminal without facts and remember our leaders used to have dinner with the same people we are now trying to remove e.g Assad and former leaders Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.


President Assad having dinner with John Kerry


Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein


Tony Blair meeting Col Gaddafi

If we stopped labelling Iran and Syria as the enemy and realised that they could actually be the solution to a problem we caused then they could become rehabilitated members of the international community again.

And most of all we need to realise that countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding and arming these groups whilst we make billions from arms sales to these countries.

Let's remember that if the US Government's story of what happened on 9.11 is correct. Then the people who attacked the country was Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan or Iraq.

Logically the US should have gone to war with this despot backward 7th century country, where people are beheaded or mutilated daily as punishment for crimes we don't even send people to prison for.

A country where thousands of Princes and Royal members live a life of luxury, holiday in Dubai, send for models to have sex with or pay millions to have famous pop stars sing at their parties. All whilst the majority of the population live in absolute poverty.

This was the country the US should have attacked if the US conclusions on who the terrorists on 9.11 were was correct.

However that would have meant the Bush family falling out with their favourite despots, Bandar-Bush incorporated has been causing havoc for years. The Bushes and the leaders of Saudi Arabia were too closely linked and yet the US claimed 19 Saudi hijackers were behind the 9.11 attacks. Hypocrites and liars.



Lets listen to Russell Brand talk about ISIS and David Cameron's support for more US/UK war as the solution to it.


View the original article Russell Brand and me on ISIS and why our leaders are hypocrites when it comes to the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia at www.darkpolitricks.com.

The TerrorStorm Documentary - False Flag Attacks

The TerrorStorm Documentary - False Flag Attacks

By Dark Politricks

This is the 2nd edition of the popular Alex Jones documentary TerrorStorm that looks in detail at the proven history of false flag events and state sponsored terrorism including modern false flag attacks such as the 7/7 London bombings and 9/11.

For anyone who doesn't believe these two recent terror events were false flag attacks carried out by government intelligence agencies. Either deliberately "or allowed to happen" to further the case for our current decade of war, the loss of liberties at home, an increase in state surveillance and the rise of a modern high-tech police state, you just need to read up on the following proven events.

The Lavon Affair - an Israeli false flag attack in the 50's that aimed to attack US and British targets in Egypt so that they could be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood and keep British troops in control of the Suez canal. This is a proven false flag operation that led to the resignation of Israeli defence minister Pinhas Lavon and is admitted as such by Israel.

The Gulf of Tonkin attack - the "non event" that was used as a pretext by the US government under President Lyndon B. Johnson to start the Vietnam war. This attack has now been admitted to have never occurred however it was reported as a North Vietnamese attack on US ships and used to justify the war.

Operation AJAX - the reason the Iranians still call us the "Great Satan". The democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was other thrown by a combination of US and British intelligence operations that were used to keep control of the oil fields that had been nationalised by Mosaddegh.

After the coup the western powers installed a puppet Shah which ruled over the country ruthlessly until the Islamic revolution in 1979.

And for more recent events one must only look at the revelations from Seymour Hersh that Dick Cheney planned to stage a false flag attack in the Strait of Hormuz by staging a shoot up between US ships and more US boats painted as Iranian boats.

We also have the Iraq war and the numerous propaganda stunts (both real and planned) that drove us into this unpopular and unnecessary war.

Not only was the 9.11 commission used to justify the war with witnesses such as Laurie Mylroie claiming Saddam Hussien was behind every major terrorist attack in recent years but we had the "dodgy dossier" that was full of exaggerated claims that the Iraqi army could attack British forces with Weapons of Mass Destruction within 45 minutes and the sad spectacle of the once respected US Secretary of State Colin Powell lying to the UN about the certainty of the existence of Iraqi WMD.

The propaganda was used to scare people into a war they didn't want and as we know now couldn't afford. Yet even though millions of people marched against going to battle for oil the axis of war pushed on. Even Tony Blair and George Bush discussed staging a false flag attack to get their desired war in Iraq by tempting Saddam Hussein to shoot down a UN plane flying over his country.

So not only have false flag attacks been used many times in the past they have been discussed very recently even if you don't believe 9.11 or 7/7 were such events.

Whatever you think of Alex Jones the documentary is well worth watching and I have no reason to believe someone could "act" 24/7 as a government stooge by letting people have "controlled government information" as many claim Alex and other alternative news personalities do. Sometimes you have to realise that if you go too far down the rabbit hole everyone starts looking like a rabbit!

To those that claim he blatantly ignores Israel and the Jewish angle during his conspiracy theorising I would say his wife maybe Jewish but then so what? During the film he talks about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war and how Israel deliberately attacked and murdered US Navy troops during a false flag attack designed to draw the USA into the conflict.

As witnesses from the ship were ordered on pain of death or imprisonment to stay silent, and twice aircraft sent to help the USS Liberty were called back by Lyndon Johnson who apparently claimed "I want that boat to sink!", it is left to those survivors brave enough to speak out years later to tell the truth about this false flag attack from a supposed ally.

Not only was the US flag flying high and visible to the Israeli pilots that flew over the ship in the hours before the attack. It still flew during the torpedoing and the strafing of the survivors in the water by Israeli boats sent to ensure that no witnesses were left to tell their side of the story. Radio's were jammed to prevent calls for help and everything was done to ensure that the boat sank as the US President wished.

However an Israeli pilot has gone on record to claim he told his superiors that the ship was clearly American but was threatened with court martial for not attacking it. He refused and was arrested when he returned to base.

Also US radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon heard the pilots protests and they have been confirmed by then U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter. As well as this an Israeli Major claimed that everyone in the war room at the time knew they were attacking a US ship. He had heard the pilots statement about the ship being American but he re-canted this statement after being threatened.

This false flag attack was obviously an attempt to bring the US into the war by blaming the attack on Egypt and it was only stopped due to the appearance of a Russian boat that halted the Israeli attack and prevented the plan from succeeding.

This is not exactly sticking up for Israel as many claim Alex Jones does and he could have easily skipped this event from his list of historical attacks. There have been so many false flag attacks throughout history he didn't need to mention Israel and the USS Liberty at all. However he didn't ignore it and even if he had it doesn't matter.

What does matter is that people are made aware of the use of false flag attacks throughout history and how they are still taught at military schools and used to this day by those needing an excuse to go to war.

We just need to think about this when the next bombing or chemical weapon attack is blamed on Iran or Syria and used as a pretext to get us into another war. Watch the film if you haven't seen it already and pass it on. If you want to download a copy from youtube.com then read this article on how to go about it.



You can view the original article False Flag Attacks - TerrorStorm on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.

Facebook Group want to make Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead number one in tribute to Maggie Thatchers death

Facebook Group want to make Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead number one in tribute to Maggie Thatchers death

By Dark Politricks

At the news of the death of Margaret Thatcher my country was instantly split between those who had remembered life under her during the 80's and those who probably went "who?". However even the second group of people took the chance to party and riot like good little Englanders all around the country.

For those of us old enough to remember her and her governments time in office it was a choice between respectful mourning of a great Prime Minister, whether or not you agreed with her policies, or a chance to celebrate the death of someone who had brought great misery to large parts of the country.

For those people living outside the South East of England during the 80's it was a time in which skilled workers lost their jobs and the only replacements were service based such as IT, Sales, Marketing and other forms of employment that someone without a degree could move to unless they wanted to serve burgers in McDonalads or say "Hello" and "Goodbye" at the local B&Q.

The rest of Europe used to call the UK the "sick man of Europe" during the end of the 70's and it was a time of 3 day working weeks, power cuts, IMF bailouts and rubbish piled sky high and left in the street for rats to fester in due to regular militant union action.

Maggie Thatcher came into power in 1979 determined to smash the power of the unions and she did so using new laws and the strikes led by Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers during their famous strike of 1984 to 1985.

Scargill whose wife on news of Thatchers death called her "evil", claimed that the government had a long-term strategy to destroy the mining industry by closing unprofitable pits, and that it listed pits it wanted to close each year. Although the Government denied this at the time it didn't stop the massive strike action that led to famous battles such as those at Hatfield and Hunterston between miners and soldiers dressed up as policemen where blood was shed on both sides.

Although Arthur Scargil was a communist sympathiser and had links to the Soviet Union at the time; quoted as saying that "the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin explained the real world". He was demonised by the Tory press and ultimately failed in his attempt to stop Thatcher shutting down the mines.

This led to the wastelands of the North that weren't put right until very recently and whole towns were put on the dole. The cost to the taxpayer that came from the huge unemployment in these towns with the social ills related to it far outweighed any subsidy that would have been needed to keep the mines open and proud men in work, paying tax and supporting their families through hard work.

Although the Miners strikes were held during a time in which there was a real choice in UK politics, between those people who wanted real left or right wing policies, and had their parties to vote for that upheld those views.

With Labour on the left and the Conservatives on the right. The era of Maggie Thatcher led to the rise of the neo-Thatcherite, Tony Blair, who once elected as leader of the Labour Party took it to the centre ground and abolished a major part of it's core belief i.e clause 4.

Clause 4 of Labour's constitution committed the party to nationalisation (or re-nationalisation) of the key industries and utilities.

As Thatcher was privatising everything she could, even at rock bottom prices. There was still hope for those people who believed state built industries such as the railway should be owned and run by the state for the benefit of the people NOT private shareholders.

We can all see what a mess the railways have become with ever increasing price rises due to the lack of any "real" competition. Can someone tell me how can two competing train companies run trains on the same line at the same time? If not then how would privatising the industry have any hope of bringing fares down due to competition between competing companies?

Tony Blair is even quoted as saying that:

"Well, Margaret Thatcher is perhaps the politician I have the greatest admiration for. I am reading her memoirs at the moment."

Not exactly the thing someone who is supposed to be your opponent across the political sphere would say.

Especially about the one person who probably did the most to change UK politics in the last 30 years and remove all "socialist" tendencies from your own party - a party that was supposed to be socialist and pro-trade union in nature when it was founded!

Then again there are rumours from ex MI5 agents, including the well known whistle-blower David Shayler, that Tony Blair himself was an MI5 informant who was recruited at University to spy on the very left wing radicals he pretended to be part of.

If true was it any surprise that his rise to the top of the Labour party was so quick and that once he became leader he quickly removed any semblance of socialism from it?

These were the same industries that Thatcher was busy privatising and whilst her policies put many people out of work it also modernised many UK industries and gave the UK an advantage over it's European allies, many of which still have nationalised industries to this day. However although many people remember her as being euro-sceptic it was her government that signed the Maastricht Treaty and pushed the UK further into the hold of the European Union that controls much of our law and life to this day.

Tony Blair's reformation of Labour into "New Labour" led the party to multiple electoral victories but it also ended any real choice in UK politics as all major parties are now based in the centre ground fighting over small changes to very similar policies.

The only real choice comes from voting for smaller parties like UKIP, the Green Party, Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party or any other smaller parties which take polarising views on how the economy should work and society should be run.

Views from total liberalisation, freedom, total state control and even communism. Political Parties like this are too small to gain national traction and they create a massive disenfranchisement of the UK voting populace, many of whom show their frustration at the big 3 by refusing to vote at all.

However, whether you loved her or hated her Maggie Thatcher was one of the most dominant personalities in UK politics over the last few decades and her death has been marked by sadness as well as parties.

For example, on news that Thatcher had died multiple parties broke out all across the UK from Scotland to Brighton people took a chance to celebrate and sing the song "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!"

From the Guardian.

From Glasgow to London and Brighton and cops were injured and arrests made as protesters held street parties in cities across the UK.

Riot police clear people at a street party celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death in Brixton, south LONDON. Photograph: P. Nutt/Demotix/Corbis

From the Guardian

One officer was taken to hospital and five others were injured in clashes in Bristol after a street party turned violent. A man was arrested after revellers refused to leave the street party, and threw cans and bottles at police, according to Avon and Somerset police. A police vehicle was damaged and an officer remains in hospital. His injuries are not thought to be serious.

Police said the group "refused requests to peacefully disperse", leading to the use of shields and batons by officers. A spokeswoman said police received a number of calls from residents about the party.

She said party-goers were "throwing stuff around and starting fires" before police arrived.

People celebrate in Brixton. Photograph: George Henton/Barcroft Media

In Brixton, south London, people gathered from around 5.30pm in Windrush Square and by nightfall had attracted about 200 protesters after a party was announced on Facebook. The Ritzy cinema was festooned in banners, with the now showing sign rearranged to spell out "Margaret Thatcher dead". One banner read: "Rejoice, Thatcher is dead." Others chanted: "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, dead, dead, dead."

Revellers spray a bottle of champagne at George Square in Glasgow. Photograph: David Moir/Reuters

In Leeds a group gathered to hand out "Thatcher's dead cake", singing and cheering at one of several street parties. In this footage from YouTube.com a man is seen chanting 'If you all hate Thatcher clap your hands' into a megaphone.

While in Liverpool, where many reviled Thatcher for her role in the closure of the city's docks and her perceived role and views on the Hillsborough disaster, there was a gathering lit by red flares on the steps of Lime street station. Police said they had not been called to any disturbances in the city related to the former prime minister's death.

Around 300 people gathered in Glasgow's George Square which experienced highly charged poll tax protests in 1989, after the introduction of one of Thatcher's most divisive measures. Revellers wore party hats, and popped a bottle of champagne while streamers were thrown into the sky.

Groups such as the Communist party, the Socialist party, the Anti-Bedroom Tax Federation and the International Socialist Group were joined by members of the public. Martin Chomsky, the lead singer of Chomsky Allstars, performed his song So Long Margaret Thatcher in George Square.

"There are mixed emotions. I was never brought up to celebrate anyone's death but the pain she brought to Latin America, Europe and around the world should be remembered," he said.

"I would rather that Thatcherism was dead because she is mostly to blame for what is going on today. She is responsible, but not solely, for the massive gap between the rich and the poor."

Anti-Thatcher protesters gathered at Trafalgar Square in London. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

In Derry and Belfast, there were republican celebrations. In one incident in Derry a petrol bomb was thrown at a passing police patrol near Free Derry Corner during a street party. In the Falls Road area of west Belfast, car horns were sounded and champagne bottles cracked open as hundreds gathered to wave flags and chant.

In Trafalgar Square, central London, champagne bottles were passed around as people celebrated, while a Facebook group is calling for another celebration in Trafalgar Square on Saturday from 6pm.

A separate campaign has been launched to make Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead reach No1 in the music charts.

View the full Guardian report at The Guardian

View the Facebook protest page to make Ding, Dong The Witch Is Dead No 1 in the UK Charts this week on Facebook.

View the original article "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead – Parties thrown at news of Thatchers death" at the main site www.darkpolitricks.com