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

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay

You have heard from the politicians, the Euro MPs, reporters and even had propaganda leaflets through your door from both the BREXIT and Better In Together sides of the EU Referendum debate.

Now I am bringing you some alternative views on the question.

So enough of the politicians lets listen to some alternative points of view. If you do like your #altnews, and don't rely purely on state news like the BBC or papers owned by people with their own reasons for wanting you to vote a certain way, then you should know this person.

David Shayler is an ex MI5 spy who was jailed after breaking the official secrets act and passing information about how we funded al-Qaeda liked LIFG terrorists to kill Col. Gaddafi but screwed it up and killed innocent civilians instead.

He was also passing info to the Daily Mail about how the security forces were scared of Labour MPS and spied on Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman. Once they had got into power under Blair it became apparent that this was true and that many Labour MP's were under the spotlight of the establishment.

This is why I suppose Blair was brought into the fold to make Labour an "establishment" party. Removing all traces of nationalisation, war mongering and following the USA's lead, and allow privatisation started under Thatcher to continue whilst creating the biggest police state in the western world.

We have the most CCTV cameras, lost our right to be silent under caution without judgement being made in court, lost the right to protest near Parliament as well as many other draconian laws which were brought in by the supposedly left leaning, people's party, Labour (or New Labour - Tory Lite).

Therefore he may have been attacked at the time for what he claimed, but when the British embassy was overrun in the aftermath of the attack on Tripoli by rebel forces, many documents were found that backed up his claims of MI6 collusion with al-Qaeda and even how we allowed certain rebel leaders to be tortured as we stood by and asked questions.

One of the main leaders of the rebels, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, even won the right to sue Jack Straw and the head of the MI6 over his kidnap and rendition due to this evidence coming to light.

Therefore don't knock what you don't know.

Sit back and listen.

You may not agree with some of the things he says but remember he was jailed for telling the truth before. Plus it is always good to get points of view from all sides whether you believe them or not.



View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com

David Cameron is a "Con Man" over the BREXIT Debate

David Cameron is a "Con Man" over the BREXIT Debate

In a blistering attack on the PM the UKIP leader stuck the boot in as he urged voters to make a stand against Brussels. 

He may have had a few too many beers though!

Days after Mr Cameron continued his Project Fear by suggesting BREXIT could spark World War Three, Mr Farage ramped up the Leave campaign by mocking the PM.

He said: “My message is Dave you’re a conman, you’re a conman."

“You told us two months ago you might consider voting for BREXIT, now you tell us it could cause World War Three.

“If it’s that serious why would you ever take the risk in the first place.

“He is a cheap second-hand car salesman not to be believed and will finish up at the end of this utterly discredited and rightly so.”

The UKIP leader also took aim at Brussels bureaucrats and tore into EU regulations.

He said: “Do you think we should govern our own country, make our own laws, control our own borders and have our own Supreme Court or do you think it better we sub-contract out the running of our nation to a bunch of old men in Brussels we can’t vote for and we can’t remove?

"I know my answer. I want my country back, I want my borders back, I want my passport back, I want my pride and self-respect back.

“Don’t forget there are 5.2 million men and women in this country who run their own companies, act as sole traders, unpaid tax collectors for the Government.

What do you think is our PM a conman over his referendum over BREXIT. His magic agreement with the EU was supposed to stop us voting to leave but it is so watered down and not worth the paper it is written on no-one believes him anymore.

And here is Nigel Farage on why Big Business love BREXIT....



So how are you going to vote?

Have you voted on the BREXIT To Stay Or Leave blog yet?

Let us know your thoughts.

View the original article at brexit-to-leave-or-stay.blogspot.co.uk

Was Ken Livingstone MAD for defending Labour MP Naz Shah?

Was Ken Livingstone MAD for defending Labour MP Naz Shah?

By Dark Politricks

Most Zionists, Israel apologists and Christians who support Israel but know little about history don't want to admit that Ken Livingstone was unfairly kicked out of the Labour party for his defence of Labour MP Naz Shah, who had made comments before becoming an MP about Israel. Her crimes:

1. Stating that Israel should be relocated to the United States. This was actually debated about during the time before Israel's creation when a plan for Jews to settle the Sitka area in Alaska, the Slattery Report, was proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes in 1939. There have also been other plans throughout the years including:

The Uganda plan where it was actually debated about giving a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland.

In 1938, the USSR wanted to introduce a policy of areas within its state reflecting the culture of the people and they were going ahead with the formation of the Khabarovsk Territory or (JAR - Jewish Autonomous Region), for the Jewish people within this policy.

During the 1930's in Imperial Japan, there was a proposal to settle Jewish refugees escaping Nazi-occupied Europe in Japanese territories.

The Madagascar plan was a suggested policy of the Third Reich government of Nazi Germany, and previously discussed by the UK, France and Polish, to forcibly relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar.

In March 1940, the issue of an alternative Jewish Homeland was raised and British Guiana (now Guyana) was discussed in this context. But the British Government decided that "the problem is at present too problematical to admit of the adoption of a definite policy and must be left for the decision of some future Government in years to come."

This is just one among many other plans for a Jewish homeland that have been previously discussed.

2. In July of 2014, she also wrote about a newspaper poll on alleged Israeli war crimes in the Gaza conflict, saying “the Jews are rallying to the poll”. She has also landed herself in hot water for comparing Israeli policies to those of Adolph Hitler on Facebook last September.

This is not exactly something only a few people have said. The treatment of the trapped people in their open prison of Gaza is just like the Jewish Ghetto's of old in which regular incursions would take place and people murdered.

The two recent wars in Gaza killed more women, kids and animals than they did Hamas fighters. It was admitted the IDF have a policy of killing innocents to try to turn them against their leaders. These are war crimes yet whenever a security resolution comes up in the UN it is vetoed by the USA however ethical it would be to punish Israel. They are like a tortured child who then goes on to torture other children.

Let's not forget the whole concept of the UN and International Law came about after WWII, the Nuremberg trials in which the UK, USA, France and USSR sat as judges and tried their victors justice against the Germans.

No trials were carried out for the Dresden or Tokyo fire-bombings or the nuclear bombings of Japan by the USA which killed millions.

However this new International law was supposed to be followed by all nations yet despite this, Israel has flagrantly broken it many time. The highest crime was starting wars of aggression on another country. How many times has Israel done this, how many times have the US with UK and French backing done this in recent years? International Law only applies to those we attack and defeat it seems.

Naz apologised for he comments in the House of Commons but was suspended for her actions.


Later though, ex London Mayor and Labour member, Ken Livingstone went onto TV to defend her giving a historical analysis which covers some of the points I have already mentioned but also talked about Hitler and how he had made a deal with the Zionists to get rid of the Jews to Palestine. If you don't know your history and believe it or not Ken DOES, then you should read up a bit more.

The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933.

The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods. The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky) and outside it.

For German Jews, the Agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support; and for the Nazis it was seen as a way of breaking the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state as a potential threat to a fragile German economy.

Here are some paper titles from the time of the Jewish anti Nazi boycott.


Judea declare a BDS war on Germany

So when the Israelis attack the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) attacks on them they should remember that they did the same thing to Germany in the 30's.

This led to Hitler wanting to get rid of the Jews, preferably through immigration though many European countries and America refused to have them in big numbers. Therefore despite their being no "smoking gun" evidence of Hitler giving a command for the "final solution" many historians believe it was because he wanted the Jews out of Europe and not killed and that it was Himmler the head of the NAZI SS who took it on himself to run the extermination camps on the eastern borders where Jews were basically robbed and then killed.

Even David Irving the revisionist English historian who was jailed for his "anti-semitic" beliefs under draconian European laws which prevent any discussion of the holocaust. Now believes that although Auschwitz was plainly not an extermination camp as it was destroyed after the war and what you see now is the rebuilt version Stalin put up. He does admit that on the Eastern border a process of robbing and pillaging of Jewish goods was going on with the people exterminated at the end. Most likely in ditches by machine gun. Auschwitz may have killed some Jews, but the photos you see of piles of emaciated bodies are those who died at the end of the war in the typhoid breakouts.


Auschwitz have constantly altered the number of people who died at the camp downwards until it lies around a million.

However despite this downwards trend the 6 million number of Jews killed remains.

How and why I don't know. Even the Israeli's tried to create a log of all 6 million Jews killed in the war and couldn't manage to get anywhere near that figure. It seems the 6 million number is sacred and it even appeared in pre-WWII papers such as this claim from 1921.



You can do a Google search and view the images of all the other mentions of the other papers mentioning this figure and the 6 million deaths that were coming to various Jewish communities.

We must also remember the word Holocaust means a "Burnt Offering". These are quite strange words to use for such a slaughter of such scale. Who was being burnt - Jews, so what was the offering for? Maybe it was for the land of Israel. As the famous Zionist Yitzhak Gruenbaum said during the war.

One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe.

and

I think it is necessary to state here – Zionism is above everything. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act

Not exactly helpful to the Jews suffering in Europe at the time.

However when Ken Livingstone is getting called "Mad", a "loon" and a "liar", we must remember that there was some measure of collusion between the Nazi's and Jews in the German 1930's to get them out the country and to migrate to Palestine. This cannot be refuted by anyone with a semblance of knowledge of history I'm afraid.

 

You can watch Ken get attacked for being right here

So just remember, that just because you don't like to believe something it doesn't make it untrue.

One thing you should also know is that Israel is the ONLY country to have threatened the rest of the world with nuclear annihilation under their Samson Operation, named after the tale of Samson who pushed the temple down onto himself and all his enemies. It is basically a "well if we are going down, so is the rest of the world" policy which you can read about in full here.

I quote...

Some have written about the "Samson Option" as a retaliation strategy. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter which the American Jewish author Ron Rosenbaum writes "goes so far as to justify" a Samson Option approach:[26]

Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?[27]

Ron Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that, in his opinion, in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option[dubious – discuss].

In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

Not exactly a nice option to know about for all the Zionist supporters of Israel.

How would you feel if your family and your grand-kids families were OR could be wiped out due to our supposed ally and friend, Israel, and their own nuclear bombs?

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com

By Dark Politricks

© 2016 Dark Politricks