BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST

BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST HIGHLIGHT FROM JOHN PILGER ARTICLE  ... British foreign policy ... alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. —John Pilger Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jihad on Britain, FBI Leak, David Cameron, Theresa May, David Blair, UK-Saudi Arms Deal, Bank of Scotland Cluster Bombs, Yemen, South Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, Libya, Uganda, Mali, MI5, Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know TERROR IN BRITAIN: WHAT DID THE PRIME MINISTER KNOW? 31 May 2017 The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy. Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review". The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida". The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria. Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May? These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology. The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders - house arrest - when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities. Suddenly the control orders were lifted. "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights. The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s - bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians". Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as a "shit show". In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence". Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion of the children killed "were under the age of ten". More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe. Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him included those secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such as the "Manchester boys". To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships". The fallen dictator fled for his life. A Royal Air Force plane spotted his convoy, and in the rubble of Sirte, he was sodomised with a knife by a fanatic described in the news as "a rebel". Having plundered Libya's $30 billion arsenal, the "rebels" advanced south, terrorising towns and villages. Crossing into sub-Saharan Mali, they destroyed that country's fragile stability. The ever-eager French sent planes and troops to their former colony "to fight al-Qaida", or the menace they had helped create. On 14 October, 2011, President Obama announced he was sending special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops were sent to South Sudan, Congo and the Central African Republic. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent was under way, largely unreported. In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities for UK defence and security companies." Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says Unicef. The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to us. This truth struggles to be heard, just as it struggled to be heard when the London Underground was bombed on July 7, 2005. Occasionally, a member of the public would break the silence, such as the east Londoner who walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude. "Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq. What did we expect? Go on, say it." At a large media gathering I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair" as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly. Yet, before he invaded Iraq, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that "the threat from al-Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq... The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly". Just as Blair brought home to Britain the violence of his and George W Bush's blood-soaked "shit show", so David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, compounded his crime in Libya and its horrific aftermath, including those killed and maimed in Manchester Arena on 22 May. The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more. The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have not. Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain? In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that? Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know Very interesting article by investigative journalist, John Pilger, written in aftermath of Manchester Arena attack and ahead of the current London Bridge attack: 3RD JIHAD ATTACK - LONDON WESTMINSTER BRIDGE SLAUGHTER MANCHESTER ARENA SLAUGHTER LONDON BRIDGE SLAUGHTER At least seven people died and 48 people were injured in a two-pronged attack on London Bridge and Borough Market, with police shooting the three suspected assailants dead. The attack started when a van rammed into pedestrians on London Bridge and ended with multiple stabbings at restaurants nearby. Police say the suspects were shot dead within eight minutes of the first call. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/04/europe/london-terror-attack-witness-borough/index.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter It appears that the Western, including British, political establishment is in fact responsible for the attacks on Britons and all Europeans, by Jihadists - as the Jihad was manifested by British and NATO-allied oil Arab (terrorist funding) alliance machinations,  coupled with imperialist Western capitalist foreign policy, as well as capitalist-serving domestic ideology & accompanying domestic policy of decades standing, the consequences of which, the hostage domestic public subsequently reaps.

Cool Finds | Superstition

COOL FINDS 1825 - China ON THE ROAD TO THE MING TOMBS One of the great animal figures hewn out of a single block of marble - the guide standing beside it is almost six feet tall. Each emperor of the Ming dynasty, which ruled China from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, was given an elaborate shrine, approached through an avenue of these marble animals.   [here]  The Jicarilla Apache formerly of New Mexico 1906 2004 Laura Gilchrist A Perfect Storm of Turbulent Gases 1995 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton It looks like Hillary Clinton has had a nose job since 1995.     the original broad base, fleshy nose, wide nostrils right nasal bone looks more refined, as do nostrils | nose on the left bumpy, fleshier Apart from the enormous lips (on the right) these two could be sisters ... LOL Britain's William Hague & Hollywood-Military-Industrial-UN-Complex Propaganda Figure:  Angelina Jolie MI5 - 1944 'Pam' Description: MI5 staff member pictured on beach. This ordinary looking snapshot was taken and planted as part of a complex WWII intelligence plan known as Operation Mincemeat. The intention was that this photograph would make other documents secreted with it seem more authentic. These documents, passed on to German agents after they were found on a body washed up on the coast of Spain (planted by British intelligence) suggested that the Allies were not planning an invasion of southern Europe via Sicily. This led to a weakening of German defence of Sicily which assisted the eventual Allied attack.  [source] AUDIO | #1.0

Britain - Illegal MI5, MI6 & GCHQ Spying on Parliamentarians

SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Intelligence agency policies 'failed to protect MPs' from spying In the last year MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have followed eight different policies governing the interception of parliamentarians communications, court told Caroline Lucas: MPs need to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers Caroline Lucas argues there is a strong likelihood her communications have been intercepted. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA Ian Cobain Thursday 23 July 2015 23.42 AEST Last modified on Thursday 23 July 2015 23.45 AEST The UK’s intelligence agencies have been operating unlawful surveillance policies that have failed to adequately protect the confidential communications of members of parliament, a court has heard. Officers of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have been operating under eight different policies in the last 12 months alone, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) heard on Thursday. Most of these policies have failed fully to comply with the law, or with the 50-year-old political convention known as the Wilson doctrine that was thought to prohibit the agencies from eavesdropping on MPs or members of the House of Lords, Ben Jaffey, counsel for the Green party parliamentarians Caroline Lucas and Lady Jones told the IPT. The Wilson doctrine is named after the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, who told the Commons in November 1966 that parliamentarians would not be spied upon and that if this policy needed be changed for national security reasons, the PM would announce this in due course. Lucas, Jones and former Respect MP George Galloway argue there is a strong likelihood that their communications have been intercepted as a consequence of the surveillance programmes exposed by the CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The IPT – a secretive court that hears complaints about the UK’s intelligence agencies – is being asked to confirm that the Wilson doctrine has force in law. The parliamentarians also say that agencies have breached the European convention on human rights. Some elements of the government’s defence against the legal challenge are being kept secret and the court is likely to sit in camera, with the public and media excluded, if it comes to consider evidence of actual surveillance of MPs and peers. Jaffey told the IPT that MI5 operated one policy governing the interception of parliamentarians’ communications from April 2012 to September 2014, when it was rewritten after Lucas and Jones lodged their challenge. It was rewritten again last February after government lawyers drafted their “open response” – or non-secret defence – to the claim. David Miliband, when foreign secretary, authorised an MI6 policy which allowed the agency to intercept parliamentarians’ communications without the prime minister being notified, the IPT was told. This policy was rewritten last February, bringing it closer in wording to the MI5 policy. GCHQ’s policy was rewritten in March this year and again three months later. Jaffey said the various policies “fail fully to comply with the law and they fail to comply with public statements as to safeguards”. It was not the parliamentarians’ case that MPs and members of the Lords should never be intercepted, he said, and there may be exceptional national security grounds for doing so. However, MPs needed to be able to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers. He said: “Strict safeguards to protect parliamentary communications are an important bulwark for the protection of the public interest.” Although the Wilson doctrine requires the prime minister to make a statement if the policy were to be reversed, all three agencies were operating internal policies that did not require them to inform prime ministers that they were intercepting MPs’ communications, the IPT was told. These were changed only once Lucas and Jones embarked upon their challenge. When GCHQ rewrote its policy last month, it did so in a way that removed all protection for communications data and for members of the devolved parliament and assemblies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Lucas and Jones argue that intercepts which capture the communications of parliamentarians should require the authorisation of a judge. SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Caroline Lucas Jenny Jones, Green Party (Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb)  George Galloway, fmr Respect Party  Is the government spying on politicians? ‘Blanket surveillance’ probed in court hearing  Prison staff have recorded 3,150 prisoner calls to MPs and downloaded 280 for playback since 2006. http://www.rt.com/uk/310579-government-spying-politicians-surveillance/ --------------------- COMMENT UK's a creepy surveillance state & the conduct of its spy agencies provides further justification for whistleblower publishers, I would think.