Prisoners were not maltreated and statements were not coerced

April 6, 2007 at 10:20 pm | Posted in Britain, Iran, IRGC, Media, Pasdaran, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

The recently released British Royal Marine Commandos and Royal Navy Sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian territorial waters, were “paraded” in front of the British media to deliver scripted speeches, in a press conference blatantly stage-managed by the Ministry of Defence. Contrast this to their statements given to al-Alam, that were by the former prisoners’ own admission unscripted and freely given.

Moreover, their self-described treatment at the hands of Iran was by any military standard, exemplary. They were not physically coerced; threatened with physical coercion; subject to sleep deprivation; stress positions; or cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, they were only blindfolded when transported and adequately cared for. Segregation of suspects during interrogation and plea bargains are not unreasonable.

However, the British claims of harsh treatment are undermined by the recently released Iranian video.

And least we not forget; they were arrested for entering Iranian water. A point the British government can no longer sensibly contest, it now having been revealed by Royal Marine Commando Captain Air that their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran. A point buttressed by Royal Navy Lieutenant Carman’s admission that Occupation forces have only made sixty-six boardings in a four week period in the Persian Gulf. Tellingly, the Royal Navy has now ceased all boardings. Carman admission that the HMS Cornwall is tasked with guarding vital Iraqi oil platforms, which are situated outside Iraqi territorial waters, cast further doubt on the British claims to be operating within Iraqi water.

Furthermore, there is no internationally recognised border between Iran and Iraq in this waterway; a point that has been clarified by the United Nations. Thus the British government suggestion to the contrary is manifestly untrue.

All of which seems to have escaped the ever compliant British media.

Prisoner negotiations

April 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Britain, hostage-taking, Iran, UK | Leave a comment

The Royal Navy and the U.S. 5th Fleet have been playing chicken in Iran’s territorial waters for sometime, Iran responded to this posturing with its own, hence the recent Iranian war games and the Pasdaran’s recent etching of their symbol on to a U.S. warship situated in the Persian Gulf.

However after the abduction of Iranian diplomats who were serving members of the Pasdaran, the U.S. elevated it security levels and warned Britain to do the same. So it is curious they did not and continued to violate Iranian water, particularly as Sartip Dovom Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Pasdaran al-Qods force stated that Iran would respond to these abductions. Thus the capture of 15 Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors in Iranian waters should come as no surprise.

Moreover, Iran has always been very clear that this was a preplanned move, Sartip Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Pasdaran, gave the order to intercept Royal Navy and U.S. Navy vessels that stray into Iranian waters the day before. Iran has been equally clear that the intent was to deliver a message that Iran would not tolerate such violations anymore. Iran has positively avoided conflating this issue with the release of the abducted Iranian diplomats, which is of considerably less concern to Iran than violations of its territorial waters. The release today of the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was abducted by the 36th Commando battalion – a death squad that operate closely with U.S. forces – was welcomed by Iran but ultimately inconsequential.

Furthermore Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, ordered that the matter should be dealt with by the Supreme National Security Council, hence contrary to British claims, the Foreign Office was well aware that the matter was being dealt with by Ali Larijani, yet they maintained the facade that they was confusion. In any event, negotiations could have taken place through the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki. Britain choose not to pursue this route.

Britain miscalculated, believing Iran would not respond to these repeated provocations, then was ill-prepared to deal with the consequences when Iran did. Blair found it politically inconvenient to acknowledge that the Royal Navy has for some considerable time been operating illegally in Iranian waters, thus he has produced a cacophony of allegations and claims, none of which he can substantiate.

The British government, for reason best known to itself, sought to internationalise the conflict and vilify Iran. Yet this was to no account. The issues was expediently resolved once British Foreign Office issued a letter to the Iranian foreign ministry, giving assurances that such an incident would not occur again and that Britain would respect Iran territorial sovereignty. Hence, agreeing not to operate inside what Iran regards as its territorial waters.

Iranian Propaganda

April 2, 2007 at 1:07 am | Posted in Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Media, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

The Western MSM is incensed by Iran’s blatant use of the captured Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors for propaganda purposes. The occidental chauvinism and hypocrisy is astounding. one would never have thought that it was in fact the British media who first sought to use their personnel for propaganda purposes; that the British media, without any evidence, followed the British Foreign Office line that the prisoners were detained illegally in Iraqi territorial waters, failing to accurately report that Iraqi territorial waters have yet to be established and consequently the British claims have no merit in international law; the Royal Navy acknowledged that the waters they were detained in are claimed by Iran.

Instead the British media ran stories about Faye Turney and vilified Iran for holding a mother hostage. Of course, forgetting to mention that had an Iranian mother been on the crew of a fully armed Commando team entering British water, she too would have been detained. Iran’s response was a calculated quid pro quo. Iran is on the one hand showing how these prisoners are unharmed and well treated, yet on the other how vulnerable and helpless they are. Knowing that this places pressure on the British government to resolve the issue.

However, having seen that despite being obviously scripted the World’s media would eagerly report what they said, Iran has adeptly used the prisoners to convey messages to the World public. As much as the Western media will never admit it; it own anti-Iranian propaganda has been shamelessly, thus it is hardly surprising that Iran would respond in this way. Moreover, despite Western claims there is no treaty that prevents it. They are not prisoners of war, and whilst the environment they are in is coercive, there is no evidence of physical coercion. I imagine that Iran will continue to exploit the prisoners for propaganda purposes, whilst the British government continues to do the same.

Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

April 2, 2007 at 12:51 am | Posted in Blair, Britain, hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

Consortiumnews.com has published a rather good article on the eight RM Commandos and seven RN sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian waters questioning the sense of the British strategy.

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

Call that humiliation?

April 2, 2007 at 12:45 am | Posted in Britain, hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, UK | Leave a comment

Terry Jones writing in the Guardian quips,

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this – allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world – have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

Iran replies to Blair’s sabre rattling

March 29, 2007 at 2:05 am | Posted in Britain, Iran, Pasdaran, Terrorism, UK | Leave a comment

Faye Turney in her own words:

“My name is Faye Turney. I come from England, I live in England at present. I have served on F99. I have served in Navy nine years, I was arrested on Friday on 23rd of March which obviously has passed internal waters.

“I was treated friendly and hospitable they are nice people, they explained why we were arrested, and there is no aggression, no hurt, no harm, they are very very compassionate.”

Rarely has the Pasdaran been described such. When members of the British created Jundallah terrorist group were captured they were asked to reveal all they knew, in turn they were offered a swift execution for this information: most willingly accepted the offer, which was how Iran was able to prove British links. The old adage is true, everyone talks.

The Iranian government was under no illusion that Turney appeared terrified: she was supposed to be. The purpose of the interview was not to comfort the British public; rather it was to demonstrate the reality of the Royal Marine Commandos situation: one of desperation, helplessness and fear, that it might pressure the British government to resolve this situation with an apology. Instead, of maintaining it current unnecessarly confrontational stance.

Blair’s bellicose has proved counterproductive; maintaining the extraordinary fiction that they were in Iraqi waters, when they were in Iranian waters, and threatening to elevate the situation to the “next phase”, has demonstrable improved Iran’s international standing. The Iranian Foreign Minister received a late invite to the Arab summit after the event occurred and received support from Saudi Arabia, no less, over its position. Both Russia and China have warned The United States against military action and contrary to U.S. claims of conducting war games, the Occupation forces are being decidedly less provocative.

Britain threat to take the matter to the security council, led to Iran threatening to retract its goodwill gesture of releasing Faye Turney. It may be possible to expedite the release of the prisoners by the return of the Iranian diplomats abducted by the United States, although I am doubtful: Iran wants a straight admission that the British forces were in Iranian waters. However Blair is not prepared to do that at this stage, thus he is unnecessarily jepordising the safety of those 15 Royal marines Commandos and sailors.

Iraqi General confirms that Royal Navy were in Iranian waters when captured

March 26, 2007 at 12:17 am | Posted in Blair, Britain, Iran, Iraq, Pasdaran, UK | Leave a comment

IRIB reports

The Commander of Iraq’s Coastal Guard Brigadier General Hakeem Jassem, in an interview with al-Alam News Network Saturday, condemned the illegal entry of British forces into Iran’s territorial waters and said the 15 British troopers were detained outside Iraq’s waters by Iran’s naval border guards.

The Iraqi Commander termed the intrusion of British forces into Iran’s coastal regions as questionable, making it clear that his forces cannot support the British claims that their forces were captured by the Iranians in the Iraqi side of the waterway.

He disclosed that British marines and sailors stopped a commercial ship inside Iran’s territorial waters and boarded it, forcing the Iranian border guards to interfere and arrest the British troopers.

The detained British forces have confessed to their illegal entry into Iran’s territorial waters.

The Arrest of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim

February 24, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Posted in Britain, Hakim, Imperialism, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Kurd, Pasdaran, Propaganda, SCIRI, Shia, UK, USA | Leave a comment

Commenting on Friday’s arrest and 11 hour detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim – the son of SCIRI president and United Iraqi Alliance leader, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim – spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor said:

“What I can tell you is that at this point we understand that Mr. Hakim was arrested by soldiers who were doing their duty. He was not singled out, and we understand the soldiers were following standard procedure since the border was closed.”

This is simply untrue. Sayyed Mohsen Al-Hakim, said that his older brother was unlawfully arrested and detained along with several bodyguards in Badre, located in the border between Iran and Iraq on the pretext that his passport had expired, even though it expires in September 2007 and that in any event, it is not the responsibility of the Occupation forces to check passports at entry points; that responsibility belongs to the Iraqi police. Moreover, both the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani, have denounced the arrest as illegal.

Talabani’s office issued a statement declaring:

“President Talabani judges that the treatment of Seyyed Al-Hakim was uncivilized and indecent, and he has demanded that the American leadership hold those behind it responsible”.

Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim said of his arrest and detention: “Senior (U.S.) officials intended to arrest me, and these officials gave instructions to personnel at the site.” He also asked: “Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq’s sovereignty”.

This was undoubtedly a deliberate preplanned act of aggression against the SCIRI, the United Iraqi Alliance, the Iraqi government (including the PUK and KDP), Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and the Shia. The United States has publicly accused Iran of interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs and supporting the insurgency. A claim that was dismissed on Saturday by Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim as “unfounded and mere propaganda,” and has never been supported by the Iraqi government, President or Prime Minister. Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim also stated that Iran is a friend of the Iraqi people and a benevolent country.

In fact, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has previously accused the Occupation forces of destabilising region, saying: “If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition”.

Moreover, if there was ever any question as to the United States implacable hostility towards Shia Islam and the Islamic Republic Iran, President George W. Bush, spelt it out in his State of the Union Speech 2007 when he stated: “In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East.” Bush also attributed much of the blame for this too the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that the elected Iraqi government is predominately Shia and pro Iranian, hence the very people whom Bush refers to as “Shia extremists”. In fact, not only is the United Iraqi Alliance pro-Iranian, so too are the main Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP.

Far from supporting the elected Iraqi government, the Occupiers are actively undermining it. The United States is not interested in stabilising Iraq; quite the reverse, the United States is opposed to an autonomous Shia government of Iraq – much of the anarchy in Iraq can be attributed to this. Thus General Sir Richard Dannatt statement, “we can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life”, applies not only to the insurgents in Iraq but also to the elected “Islamist” Iraqi government.

Over eighty percent of the popular vote in Iraq’s last national election went to political parties with close political connections to Iran and the Shia constitute over sixty percent of the electorate and even more of the population – individuals of Iranian descent were denied Iraqi citizenship under Saddam Hussein, a policy that has been continued by the Occupiers. Conversely the United States is regarded as a colonial occupier, which has fermented ethnic and sectarian factionalism.

Recent U.S. allegations that Iran’s Pasdaran Qods force has supplied EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) to Iraqi insurgents, which have been flatly rejected by the Iraqi government, are part of a concerted propaganda campaign to demonise Iran. The United States has used these allegations as a pretext to carry out illegal raids on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, in which five Iranian diplomats were abducted, and on an SCIRI compound, in which two Iranian diplomats were abducted. Moreover, earlier this month, U.S. warplanes attacked a PUK guard post in Mosul killing eight Pesh Merga after President Talabani visited Iran. These acts were all clearly designed to serve as warnings to Iraqi politicians not to engage with Iran.

The arrest and detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim has to be seen in the same light: as a warning to his father, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, vis-a-vis his strong political relationship with Iran. However, the United States massively underestimated the significance of abducting Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim. The reaction from within the Iraqi government has been robust and defiant. President Talabani demanding the culprits be punished and the SCIRI calling for the occupiers to leave Iraq has ended all pretense that the Iraqi government and the United States are on the same side. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was forced to issue a speedy apology and to preposterously claim that the United States did not “mean any disrespect to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim or his family”. It is very significant that Kurdish and Shia politicians have rejected the apology and explanation; the balance of power has now firmly shifted into Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim favour.

British Surrender of Basra

February 21, 2007 at 7:38 pm | Posted in Basra, Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment
The announcement of the British surrender of Basra to Iraqi forces and the announcement of a phased troop withdrawal serves as a timely refutation of the U.S. claims that Iran is arming the insurgency and the much touted prospect of a U.S. military attack on Iran. If either was true, then it would be pure insanity for British forces to scale down or hand control of Basra over to Shia militias, when the city is situated on the Arvandrud – the easiest cross-way for Iran’s Pasdaran (IRGC) to enter into Iraq.

War with Iran

February 17, 2007 at 7:06 pm | Posted in Afghanistan, Crusade, EU, Imperialism, Iran, IRGC, Islam, Media, Monafiqeen-e-Khalq, Propaganda, Shia, UK, USA, Zionism | 19 Comments

Despite the Bush administration’s sabre rattling, it is far from certain that the United States will go to war with Iran; in fact, there is every indication that it will not be able to do so during George W. Bush’s presidency. For it is important to recognise that for this current U.S. administration, diplomacy is war by other means. Their belligerence is not incidental, it is intentional; this administration is fundamentally Zionist and hegemonic, and have repeatedly demonstrated a disinclination for diplomacy where they believe strategic or ideological objectives could be realised through force of arms alone. Furthermore this administration is committed to the overthrow of the legitimate and democractically elected Iranian government (Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005). From the Bush administration’s perspective, they are already at war with Iran; in fact, George W. Bush used his State of the Union Speech to emphasis that point, broadening the enemy to Shia Islam. Thus, this begs the question: why has this U.S. administration not already launched an attack against Iran?

If one sees the United States as already at war with Iran, as this administration does, then it is clear that they are losing. U.S. diplomacy and economic warfare has failed to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and will not stop Iran from continuing its nuclear fuel programme, as both the Bush administration and European Union have already conceded; in fact economic warfare has shown that Iran does not need European investment or European custom. Conversely, the European Union and Turkey are very venerable to an Iranian oil and gas embargo. Hence the avoidance of military action to date is very telling. It would be extraordinarily naïve to think that Bush has thus far been prevented from trying to emulate Alexander the Macedonian by the niceties of international law, which he ignored when he waged war on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, whilst the Bush administration has been able to manipulate a series of confrontations and fabricated confrontations with Iran to its advantage in the English speaking media – hence they have been able to present an image of Iran (and thus Islam) as inherently evil – there is still little domestic support in the United States for military action against Iran – U.S. public opinion is very much opposed to military action against Iran. Moreover, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has stipulated, George W. Bush categorically does not have the legal authority to launch a military attack on Iran, without the House’s approval. Thus the likelihood of war with Iran during George W. Bush’s presidency is not a measure of his intent; it is a measure of the willingness of the House of Representatives to authorise such a course. The Iranian government does not believe that they would and with good cause: any attack would run contrary to the U.S. national interest unless it brought about regime change in Iran and regional stability to the Middle East, which even the most optimistic of Pentagon military strategists do not envisage.

The U.S. military is currently hampered by its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; even were this not so, any U.S. force invading Iran would be heavily outnumbered. Moreover, whilst 52% of the U.S. military consists of badly trained and poorly motivated reservists and National Guard (46% of the US army in Iraq in 2005), Iran conversely has a highly motivated and well trained army, Pasdaran (IRGC), and Basij (volunteers), as well as an armed civilian population, with nearly every man having served two years in the military. The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon saw the Iranian trained Hezbullah guerrilla force, outnumbered 20 to 1, yet they defeated the U.S. armed Israeli army in the battlefield within 34 days. That is a good indicator of the utter infeasibility of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran – the United States simply does not have the military capability.

Moreover, not only would the United States need exponentially more men under arms to occupy Iran than it presently has to commit, the likely reduction in Iranian oil and gas production on its own would send the energy markets spiralling out of control, however the consequences of an invasion are likely to lead to anarchy and insurgency throughout the Middle East. There are 200M Shia in the World over 100M situated in the Middle East, as the map indicates Shia are sitting on the majority of the World’s oil and natural gas reserves. Even most Saudi oil is situated is the predominately Shia Eastern Province, in the Qatif and Abu Sa’fah oil fields. A Shia uprising would certainly disrupt Middle Eastern oil and natural gas exports – most the World’s natural gas reserves are held by Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan – and both the U.S. and European economies are utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. For this reason, any U.S. military attack on Iran that threatens Middle Eastern oil exports would be economic suicide.

Therefore the most likely scenario for a U.S. military attack would be an aerial assault against the nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz in the aim of destroying them. However, it is hard to see what strategic benefit this would be: at the most this would only set Iran’s nuclear energy programme back, although the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear facilities in Osirak in June of 1981 failed to set back Iraq’s nuclear programme. Iran would still have the technology and would be able to resume its nuclear energy programme unabated outside of the auspicious of the IAEA.

Moreover, Iran would almost certainly respond militarily. Iran has already demonstrated this week the ability to sink U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf at will and thus block off the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The situation in Iraq is precarious enough for the U.S. military, were the United States at war with Iran, the Shia population would rise up and the situation would be unmanageable. Furthermore, Iranian forces can easily cross the border into Iraq, should they so desire and U.S. military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan are venerable to Iranian missile attacks. Even were Iran only initially to target the U.S. military in Iraq, the potential for escalation is obvious. Thus once again raising the prospect of a conflict that would destabilise the entire Middle East, which the United States cannot afford. Hence it is more likely that the Bush administration will to continue to support terrorist attacks in Iran by groups like Monafiqeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah under the guise of the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, since these are deniable and unlikely to provoke a severe response.

Recalling the Bush administration’s view that diplomacy is war by other means – whilst attacking Iran would require an even greater degree of folly than the occupation of Iraq – the more unlikely it is, the keener they will be to inflate the possibility. This strategy is foolhardy and risks the law of unintended consequence. This said it is still hard to envisage the House of Representatives disregarding all reason and authorising a military attack on Iran during Bush’s presidency.

US and Britain behind terrorist attack in Iran

February 16, 2007 at 2:43 am | Posted in Britain, Iran, Terrorism, UK, USA | Leave a comment

It was confirmed that the bombing of a Pasdaran (IRGC) bus in Zahedan, which resulted in 11 deaths and 30 other casualties, was carried out by the Jundullah terrorist group. The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari said that three of the perpetrators were arrested in a raid on one of the groups safe houses. The three have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services. British SIS have previously orchestrated terrorist attacks in Khuzestan.

UK and US do not Deserve to be Members of the P5

August 5, 2006 at 9:31 pm | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Iran, UK, USA | Leave a comment

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday:

“The US and UK do not deserve to be permanent member of the Security Council. They have abetted Israeli war crimes and should stand trial.”

Whilst it is unlikely that either would relinquish their place or veto, that there is a permanent Security council and that the P5 hold vetoes fundamentally undermines the credibility of the United Nations as an internationalist organisation rather than the plaything of the hegemonic powers. The United States and the United Kingdom have consistently served Zionist interests at the expense of World security; not once has a chapter seven resolution been issued against the Zionist state.

President Ahmadinejad went on to say,

“Lebanon, is a scene to present the true face of the so-called advocates of human rights. It depicts the oppression to which the Lebanese nation have been subject.”

This is a point that cannot be easily dismissed; for all the nations of arrogance bombast human rights, they deny the the right of nationality to Palestinians and give succour to a succession of pro Zionist tyrannical regimes, who have not the least respect for human dignity. The concept of human rights is pure sophistry, they have never been applied with equity. Yet still the West maintains the illusion that the United Nations Security Council is the international community.

British Terrorism

March 6, 2006 at 11:26 am | Posted in Britain, Iran, Terrorism, UK | Leave a comment

British involvement in the Ahvaz bombings in southern Iran on the 15 October 2005 have once again escaped Western media attention, as has all the British involvement in bombings and political assassinations in Southern Iraq, despite two SAS terrorists being captured in the act in Basra in October of this year. The inability of a heavily self-centred media that is intrinsically linked to the British government is to be expected but the constant denials of reality, voiced, I have to say, by the majority of British people is staggering and borders on national delusion.

It ought to have occurred to the British public that their government’s foreign policy is malevolent, colonial and aggressive. It does not invade countries to free people – this is absurd: it invades country to pursue national self-interest. What inevitably ensues is genocide, terror and oppression.

Far from being a bastion of democracy, it is the exact opposite; it has consistently been against indigenous self-governance, free trade or national ownership of natural resources, it colonial during the Twentieth Century was greater than during the Nineteenth Century. The policy of neo-colonialism or the colonisation of national industries rather than nations and the installation of puppet regimes has proved far more effective than occupation. It is a policy that was adopted by the Americans but now is falling apart as exemplified by Iraq and Afghanistan.

The inability of the British public to accept the true nature of British foreign policy shows no sign of averting not one of the main political parties will ever concede British involvement in a contemporary act of terrorism, they will all admit to historic examples. But they will say: “that was then this is now” something which has been repeated by the major three political parties decade after decade.

For example whilst the SAS has many functions, however its primary function is as a terrorist organisation, whether in Northern Ireland, Rhodesia, Iraq or Iran, hardly any of the three SAS regiments’ activities are conducted during wars. Most of its assassinations, sabotage, bombings, kidnappings and reconnaissance mission occur in foreign countries that are not at war with the UK. Hence in international law they would constitute acts of terrorism. This is why there is a British parliamentary convention not to discuss special forces or intelligence services operations because they are in the main illegal.

The failure to understand the nature of British foreign policy has had disastrous repercussions for British domestic policy; Britain claims to be the victim of Irish terrorism, persistently failing to acknowledge that Irish Republican political violence was reciprocity for British political violence in Ireland and later Northern Ireland.

However it has far more serious consequences now, the bombing on the 7 July were known about in advance by the British government because a warning was given to the Israeli former prime minister and war criminal, Netanyahu in advance of both bombings, as anyone watching ITN on the 7 July or viewing the internet will recall. This has never been satisfactorily explained. Most people are prepared to ignore this and assume that the British government had no involvement in the bombings either directly or indirectly. It may well be the case that the bombings were not engineered by the British government and that the advance notice is being covered up simply to conceal the incompetence of British intelligence agencies but such an assumption cannot be made in advance of the facts.

The British government was quick to accuse Iran of involvement in the insurgency a claim denied by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Kurdish leader and Iraqi government officials , yet they expect the benefit of the doubt, even when they have a proven track record of perpetrating such acts of terrorism and maintain the SAS regiments to the that effect. If the British government can carry out a “terror outrage” in Iran and in Iraq, it can also do so in London.

Of course there will be the usual collection of block heads ready to denounce any suggestion of British complicity in the London bombings as a “conspiracy theory”, as if this discredits a legitimate line of enquiry. Yet there is a difference between an unfounded conspiracy theory, such as the British government’s claim that Iran was involved in insurgency in Southern Iraq (a claim from which they have now all but retreated from) and a conspiracy theory that is based upon sound evidence. There is certainly enough plausible evidence for this to be a legitimate line of enquiry.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.