West interested in pure crooks, psychopaths and puppets to lead Libya

West interested in pure crooks, psychopaths and puppets to lead Libya

Reuters / Esam Omran Al-Fetori

Reuters / EsamOmranAl-Fetori


Libya is now a basket case of problems after suffering interference by western powers that are not interested in promoting peace, but rather managing the chaos, Gearoid O Colmain, an independent political analyst, told RT.

The EU has planned a naval operation in the Mediterranean to target those smuggling refugees from Libya to the EU. Such an operation would include reconnaissance runs and the destruction of human trafficking bases in Libya itself. It could even mean putting European boots on the ground.

RT: The EU wants to capture smugglers and destroy their boats off the Libyan coast. Is Europe trying to bring peace and stability to Libya? Or simply stop an inflow of illegal migrants?

Gearoid O Colmain: If you go to the streets of Paris, you can see a picture of one of the leaders of the so-called Libyan revolution in 2011. He has been portrayed and displaced on kiosks all over Paris. His name is Abdelhakim Belhadj and he is an al-Qaeda operative, he is known from official sources to be an al-Qaeda operative. In fact, he was accused by a former PM of Spain, José María Aznar, of being behind the bombing of Madrid in 2004. Abdelhakim Belhadj is now being presented as a possible future leader of Libya and being promoted all over Paris. These are the kind of people Western governments are interested in – pure crooks, psychopaths and puppets.

Here is a link just to show how MI6 asset is a victim: MI6 and multiple NGOs are working at positioning Belhadj as victim. Among them ” Reprieve ” http://www.reprieve.org.uk/case-study/abdul-hakim-belhaj/
Funded (not cited on their website but) as far as I know, Open Society Foundations, Ford foundation, and others
. In the article it says that he was tortured in Libya which is not true a known fact he betrayed all his comrades which were apprehended in the process he was put on house arrest together with his pregnant wife and wearing a bracelet anklet on both for a year, after that both of them were free all charges dropped… once he swore allegiance to the Jamahirya government… What the article fails to mention that he is an MI6 asset. I will also put you the link of the French interview of Belhaj who is pretending to be a politician while all Libyans suffer under his rule with executions, rapes, kidnapping, torture. Lets not forget that Abdulhakim Belhaj has sworn allegiance to ISIS/Daesh which is even worse than Al Qaeda..









201505-04 Interview Belhadj 2201505-04 Interview Belhadj 3

They are not interested in leaders and they are not certainly interested in having a responsible government in Libya. Libya had a responsible government, a civil society. Libya was one of the most progressive countries in Africa. In fact, it was the richest country in Africa and it was making great progress in unifying the continent. And it was attacked in 2011 by a coalition of Islamist groups backed by NATO. They bombed the entire infrastructure, they bombed schools, hospitals and they murdered up to 100,000 people. Europe is not interested in peace in Libya. They are interested in military occupation. They are interested in preventing the development of the entire global south and that what the bombing of Libya was about. I don’t think this soi-disant government in Tripoli has any clue how to resolve this problem.

These are people who probably believe in everything they were told by their masters in Brussels, Paris, London and Washington and they are now realizing that Libya has been completely destroyed. It is no longer a nation state. It’s no longer a country that has any kind of a future. This problem will grow, you will see mass influx of immigrants and of course there will be more terrorist attacks. But this war on terror is a fraud, a fake and people need to realize that. They are really mocking the intelligence people by their actions. So I don’t think that Europe will be interested in anything stable in Libya. What they want is to simply manage the chaos.

I should also point out that an influx of desperate immigrants into Europe in a time of austerity is actually an advantage to Western corporations because these people will work for nothing. They are very desperate and they will drive down wages and wages are already coming down. So they will put pressure on the work force in Europe. And in that sense they are not too bothered by it. But what it will do of course it will lead to more repression because once we see more terrorist attacks like the one we saw in Paris in January that will lead then to more police repression, more militarization of European societies. But the big problem here is that the governments of the EU and the US are clinically insane, their actions are absolutely the contrary of reason. And that is the big problem. We do not have responsible government in Europe. We in Europe and in the US live under a dictatorship and that is the deep cause of the crisis we are seeing now in Libya.

Illegal migrants who attempted to sail to Europe, sit in a boat carrying them back to Libya, after their boat was intercepted at sea by the Libyan coast guard, at Khoms, Libya May 6, 2015. (Reuters/Aymen Elsahli)

Illegal migrants who attempted to sail to Europe, sit in a boat carrying them back to Libya, after their boat was intercepted at sea by the Libyan coast guard, at Khoms, Libya May 6, 2015. (Reuters/Aymen Elsahli)

RT: How is this mission different from previous naval operations there? Is Europe trying to control and militarize the Mediterranean?

GC: The term ‘Mare nostrum’ which was the term used by fascist Italy during the 1930s when they conquered Libya – that was the first aerial bombardment in history. The term ‘Mare nostrum’ is being used again, now by the EU. In other words, “the Mediterranean belongs to us.” The big problem with Gaddafi of course is that he didn’t agree with that. Libya was also a country that had its own interests; Africa is other side of the Mediterranean after all. Europe does want to militarize the Mediterranean; it does want to control all the coast of the Mediterranean. There will be a militarization of the other side of “Mare nostrum,” which is the Italian fascist term for the Mediterranean which was used officially. So I think there will be a militarization of the North African coast, particularly Libya. Algeria has not been conquered or attacked, but Algeria is on the list. That will come. The destabilization of Algeria has already begun and that will continue. It all depends on whether or not other countries will survive. If Syria falls you will have an absolute chaos in the Eastern Mediterranean, which will spread right up into Europe. We know Islamic State – an emanation [from] US imperialism – has now made significant conquests in Syria and they have also been training in Libya.

I don’t see any way out for the Libyan government unless it realizes that if they don’t seek other forces, other global powers and perhaps make contacts with them, there is no way they are ever going to get out of this chaos. In other words, they will be well-advised perhaps to go to Beijing and Moscow and discuss possibilities of stabilization with countries that are actually fighting a war on terrorism. Let’s not forget there the world is now split up between two forces: the countries who are sponsoring, financing and promoting terrorism, the US and the EU, and the countries who are fighting terrorism – Russia, China and Iran. The Libyan government will have to make this decision if they want actually to have peace and some kind of viable economy in the future. They are going to have to make a decision about who their patrons are going to be because if they continue to take orders from the EU and the US they are going to have military occupation and chaos for very long time indeed.

EU naval mission against African migrants combines ‘deep inhumanity & stupidity’

EU foreign ministers have agreed to a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea to contain an influx of immigrants from Africa, a move Chris Nineham, vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition, said will only increase bitterness against the West.

RT: Do you think targeting smugglers will be effective in stemming the flow of immigrants?

Chris Nineham: I don’t think it will be effective. I think it’s a policy that combines deep inhumanity with real stupidity. One reason – probably the main reason – that has created this migrant crisis in the first place is the catastrophe that was unleashed on Libya particularly back in 2011 by the bombing campaign by the West, which devastated the country socially and physically, as well as killing tens of thousands of people. The idea that what is needed in these circumstances, faced with this appalling humanitarian crisis, is more bombs and more military intervention leaves me virtually speechless, frankly. It’s the last thing that we need.

RT: How would you gather intelligence? Isn’t there a chance the EU’s forces could destroy vessels with innocent people onboard?

CN: Absolutely. Any so-called war on the traffickers will in practice end up being a war on the migrants themselves because presumably they are going to be attacking the boats and there are going to be migrants on them. That’s the main and most obvious reason why this is a catastrophic decision and a very wrong-headed policy. Any further Western military intervention in Libya itself, which is apparently – unbelievably – now being considered will only increase the level of anger and bitterness against the West but it will also lead to more destruction and devastation. That’s the driver of the migrant crisis in the first place. I think this is just a phenomenally inhumane policy and a very misguided one. And it will make the situation it claims to be addressing much worse, apart from creating huge amounts of tension in the region. It really needs to be rejected and they need to think again.

RT: This EU naval mission could also need to put boots on the ground in places like Libya. How likely is that?

CN: I don’t know, I’m not part of the decision-making process. It seems almost unthinkable that the people who orchestrated the disastrous military intervention in 2011 could be considering further military action. It’s almost as if the EU and the Western powers can only think, when they think of foreign policy, when they think of problems solving, they think of killing, of military solutions.

This is clearly a situation where the military dimension doesn’t even need to be raised. What is needed is first of all an acceptance of as many as possible of the suffering migrants into European countries so that they can live some sort of a life. And secondly, there needs to be a reconstruction effort, a serious aid operation to begin to undo the massive damage the West has done in Libya.













Jihadists in the Service of Imperialism

Jihadists in the Service of Imperialism

By Thierry Meyssan


Cheikh Youssouf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s star preacher and tele-Coranist on al-Jazeera. He blesses the jihadists in Syria and Iraq, and affirms, deadpan, that if Mohammed was alive today, he would be a NATO ally.

Western governments no longer hide the fact that they’re using jihadists – NATO overthrew Mouamar el-Kadhafi by using al-Qaïda as its only ground forces; Israël displaced the UN Forces to Golan, and replaced them with al-Nosra; the international anti-Daesh Coalition allowed Palmyra to fall in order to cause more problems for Syria. But while we can understand Western interests, we fail to grasp why and how the jihadists can serve Uncle Sam in the name of the Quran.

We often ask ourselves how the Pentagon and the CIA manage to manipulate millions of Muslims and send them off to fight for Uncle Sam’s interests. Of course, it’s true that certain leaders are paid agents, but all jihadists believe that they’re fighting and dying in order to gain access to Paradise. The answer is childishly simple – using the rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood as a start, it’s possible to evade human reality and send them to kill anyone you like as long as you wave a red flag at them.

Officially, the Islamic Emirate no longer recognises the authority of Ayman al-Zawahiri, and has therefore left al-Qaïda. Nonetheless, in many places, like the Qalamun mountains, it is still impossible to distinguish between them, since the same jihadists claim allegiance to both flags at once.

Of course, one could argue that this is only a personal quarrel – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi simply wants to replace the current leader. But while the two organisations have exactly the same practices, they develop very different dialogues.

They share the slogans of the Muslim Brotherhood – « The Quran is our Constitution », « Islam is the solution ». A life of holiness is therefore very simple. It doesn’t really matter if the Creator has made us all intelligent, we must, in all cases, apply the Word of God like a machine. And when the situation is not dealt with in the Book, we should just smash it to pieces. The result is obviously catastrophic, and nowhere have these organisations been able to set up even the beginnings of the perfect society that they hope for.

History demonstrates their differences. From 1979 to 1995, in other words, from the CIA operation in Afghanistan to the Popular Arab and Islamic Congress in Khartoum, Oussama Ben Laden’s mercenaries fought the Soviet Union with public aid from the United States. From 1995 to 2011, in other words, from the Congress in Khartoum to operation « Neptune’s Spear », al-Qaïda took position against « Jews and Crusaders » while continuing its struggle against Russia in Yugoslavia and Chechnya. And since 2011, in other words, since the « Arab Spring », it has supported NATO in Libya and Israël at the Golan frontier. Generally speaking, Western public opinion has not kept up with this evolution. It remains convinced of the danger of a mythical Russian expansionism, persists in blaming the jihadists for the attacks of September 11th, has not realised what happened in Libya and at the Israeli frontier, and maintains the false idea that al-Qaïda is an anti-imperialist terrorist organisation. As for the Arabs, they do not base themselves on facts, but choose, according to the situation, between reality and Western propaganda so as to invent a romantic narrative for themselves.

From its side, the Islamic Emirate is moving away from the Quran and closer to the neo-conservatives. It claims that the main enemies are other Muslims – the Chiites and their allies. It has clearly forgotten the Bosnian episode during which Ben Laden’s Arab Legion were supported both by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Iran. But who are the allies of the Chiites? The Syrian Arab Republic (secular) and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Sunnite). In other words, the Islamic Emirate is fighting in priority against the Axis of Resistance to imperialism. De facto, it confirms that it is an objective ally of the United States and Israël in the « Greater Middle East », even though, theoretically, they are the enemy.

The malleability of these two organisations resides in their basic ideology, that of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is therefore logical that almost all of the jihadist leaders, at one time or another, have been members of one branch or another of the Brotherhood. By the same token, it is logical that the CIA has not only supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, since their reception at the White House by President Eisenhower in 1955, but also all its foreign branches and all the dissident groups. Finally, the califat that Hassan el-Bana dreamed about and that Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pretended to want, is not the reproduction of the Golden Age of Islam, but the reign of obscurantism.

This was confirmed by Laurent Fabius in 2012, in other words, before the split between al-Qaïda and Daesh, when he declared: « On the ground, they’re doing a good job! »

It’s Ok, Everyone, Nusra Says Nusra Won’t Hurt Us

It’s Ok, Everyone, Nusra Says Nusra Won’t Hurt Us

By Brandon Turbeville

Al-Nusra Front has taken to the airwaves with a message for all Westerners and Americans in particular – they really aren’t that bad. And there are no plans to attack Americans. They are just your friendly neighborhood terrorist organization, funded handsomely by the West and the GCC, raping and beheading their way across the Middle East. There’s nothing to worry about so long as the US allows them to continue to rape little girls, cut off heads, impose savage Sharia law, and eat the hearts and livers of the occasional dissident.

This message was brought to you by the feudal monarchy of Qatar and its mouthpiece organization, Al-Jazeera and conducted with a journalist whose past is checkered with a conviction of supporting al-Qaeda.

The alleged leader of al-Nusra Front, Abu Mohammed al-Julani, appeared on al-Jazeera with a setting fit for a king (or Emir *ahem*) to discuss Nusra’s plans for Syria and the West. The man alleging to be Julani and alleging to be the leader of Nusra, despite claiming to be “fearless,” sat with his face covered and his back to the camera. The set was ornately decorated and almost appeared to be some type of palace room or high government building.

Julani reassured Westerners that he had been ordered by another alleged leader, this time of al-Qaeda proper, Ayman al-Zawihiri, not to launch attacks against the West as this would jeopardize the mission in Syria.

A New York Times report cited a US intelligence official as saying that Julani’s statements were merely self-serving propaganda.

Propaganda? Yes. Self-serving? Not exactly. Julani’s statements were actually serving NATO, the US, and Israel in their own propaganda efforts to assure the American people that supporting the so-called “rebels” in Syria is a good idea and one that will not come back to bite them.

Indeed, Julani truly spoke like a paid actor or a professional trained talking monkey in his job as message delivery boy. Obviously, neither designation would set him clearly apart from any other “expert” or “reporter” in the Western/Gulf media propaganda establishment.

Still, the “fearless” hijabed Julani stated, “We are only here to accomplish one mission, to fight the regime and its agents on the ground, including Hezbollah and others. Al-Nusra Front doesn’t have any plans or directives to target the West. We received clear orders not to use Syria as a launching pad to attack the US or Europe in order to not sabotage the true mission against the regime. Maybe al-Qaeda does that, but not here in Syria.”

The only true part of his statement was that Khorosan, painted as the end of the Western world and enemy #1 for a total of about five days, was a fictional organization invented by the Americans to deceive and frighten the American public.

His presentation of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra Front as different organizations, however, is ludicrous, since Nusra was merely the Syrian version of al-Qaeda proper before the two groups were largely united by the shadowy Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and renamed the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant, later to be renamed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIS, and IS. Of course, all incarnations of the group were entirely organized, funded, and armed by the United States, NATO, and GCC.

Julani also stated that Nusra would not harm Christians or Druze who refused to fight against it and that the even the Alawites would be spared if they would refuse to fight, reject Assad, and give up their religious beliefs and convert to Sunnism.

Of course, this is disingenuous to say the least. The “opposition” in Syria was famous for screaming “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave!” as far back as 2011 when the crisis first began. Alawites have long been targeted by the so-called “rebels” from the start. Regardless, for the likes of the “moderate rebels,” no Muslim – even Sunni – is ever Muslim enough, unless he practices the Wahhabist filth that is labeled Islamic by its proponents and psychopathic adherents.

The reality of the situation is that Julani’s statements are nothing more than Western intelligence propaganda foisted upon the brains of the Western public in an effort to gin up support for the savages now bearing down on Latakia Syria as I write this article.

Of course, Nusra and al-Qaeda will still be played up as a threat to the US here at home. After all, there are a few straggler civil liberties ambling about that still need to be corralled and destroyed.

Libyan army force to battle heavily armed Islamic militias using “scraps”

Libyan army force to battle heavily armed Islamic militias using “scraps”

by Lesley Whiting

It is now recognized as an uncontested fact, that the tiny, but wealthiest state in the world, Qatar, was a major source of weapons and funding that enabled the so-called “rebels”, to overthrow the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in tandem with the firepower of the NATO countries who participated in the bombing and destruction of the thriving and prosperous state of Libya. Qatar, with the help of Turkey, is a prime sponsor of the Islamic extremist groups which now control Tripoli and Misurata under the collective name of “Libyan Dawn” as well as other violent jihadi groups such as ISIS, ISIL across the entire region.

Following this particular money trail, the extraordinarily sudden rise of the super-rich, highly trained ISIS, flaunting their arrays of brand new armoured vehicles, sophisticated weaponry, immaculate flags and jihadi uniforms, should come as no surprise! Moreover, they command formidable high-tech media capabilities, with which they apparently intend to “shock and awe” the public, via throat slitting, head chopping and other gory displays of bloodletting, into passive acceptance of their omnipotence and omniscience.

Not content with having brought to ruin of the formerly prosperous Libyan State, shipments of supplies, manpower and sophisticated weaponry continue to arrive in Misurata and Tripoli via regular flights or aboard “cargo” ships, from either Qatar or their partner state Turkey. In recent incidents, the Libyan forces have fired upon such vessels approaching Islamist controlled ports, that have ignored all warnings from legitimate authorities.

No longer a “conspiracy”, even the mainstream British conservative Daily Telegraph points out tersely:

“So it is that Qatar buys up London property while working against British interests in Libya and arming friends of the jihadists who tried to kill one of our ambassadors (referring to Dominic Asquith). A state that partly owns Hyde Park, London’s most expensive apartment block, and the Shard, the city’s tallest building, is working with people who would gladly destroy Western society”.

Such concerns apparently fall on deaf ears. The article continues:

It’s deeply concerning that these individuals, where sufficient evidence is in place to justify their inclusion on the US sanctions list, continue to be free to undertake their business dealings,” said Stephen Barclay, the Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire.

Qatar’s investment in Britain is so extensive, and the Foreign Office is so anxious to win its favour, that some question whether UK diplomats will have the resolve to ask robust questions. “If diplomats are focused on winning commercial contracts, there is a danger they will be reluctant to ask tough questions on the funding of unsavoury groups,” said Mr Barclay. (Daily telegraph Link below)


No one can deny that the vast natural gas and oil reserves upon which Qatar sits, enable it to wield huge influence in Europe. Moreover their plans to construct an oil pipeline to supply Europe, via Turkey, (in direct competition with the proposed Iraq-Iran-Syria pipeline, and the Russian Nabucco pipeline) happens to go straight through Syria; a proposal that Syria had rejected.

The key to Qatar’s power and political strategies, but also its vulnerability, lies in its abundance of natural gas. It has almost 14 percent of total world gas reserves, but most of it comes from a field that it shares with Iran. Regional experts say that Qatar’s principal security concern is that Iran may one day try to exert full control over the field.” (NY Times Link below)

Qatar is also home to a strategically important US military base. Thus, joining the dots, it would appear that a kind of balancing act is underway, both in engaging and co-operating with the US imperial plans to their mutual benefit, while keeping at bay any possible Iranian plans for extending its reach.

In Libya today, we discover a scenario where the Libyan army, still under the arms embargo imposed by the UN “in case weapons fall into the wrong hands”, is forced to defend its country against these heavily armed and trained mercenary fighters using scraps – working parts and weapons salvaged from destroyed military vehicles.

Dangerous: Images obtained by Libyan-based bloggers show a host of improvised, deadly weapons...and a picture of a hatchback with missiles perched atop being used by opposition militia Libya Dawn

Dangerous: Images obtained by Libyan-based bloggers show a host of improvised, deadly weapons…and a picture of a hatchback with missiles perched atop being used by opposition militia Libya Dawn

Surreal: The Libyan army - which has mounted machine gun turrets on trucks to take on ISIS and opposition factions - is running out of scraps to replenish its makeshift armoury

Surreal: The Libyan army – which has mounted machine gun turrets on trucks to take on ISIS and opposition factions – is running out of scraps to replenish its makeshift armoury

Improvised: The Libyan army supposedly salvaged naval guns (pictured) from defunct warships and fixed them to the back of trucks

Improvised: The Libyan army supposedly salvaged naval guns (pictured) from defunct warships and fixed them to the back of trucks

Protected: The makeshift trucks constructed by Libya's armed forces (pictured) - armed with machine guns that fire 700 rounds a minute - also have a metal casing to protect the driver

Protected: The makeshift trucks constructed by Libya’s armed forces (pictured) – armed with machine guns that fire 700 rounds a minute – also have a metal casing to protect the driver

Scraps: The Libyan army salvaged two AK-230 machine guns from a Natya-class warship (pictured) before it sunk due to lack of maintenence

Scraps: The Libyan army salvaged two AK-230 machine guns from a Natya-class warship (pictured) before it sunk due to lack of maintenence

Construction: Libyan government soldiers transform weapons dating back to the 1940s in six warehouses in the country's east and transform them into usable arms

Construction: Libyan government soldiers transform weapons dating back to the 1940s in six warehouses in the country’s east and transform them into usable arms


Whilst such creations stand as an extraordinary testimony to human ingenuity and the determination to resist under any circumstances, the situation is approaching critical as the supply of such scrap materials inevitably diminishes.

No doubt, all of this is intended to force the Libyan government to ask for “international intervention” a cry that still goes up from either the woefully ignorant or from the deliberately traitorous.

Libya’s Green Resistance insists that it does not require further “International intervention”. Libya only requires that the UN embargo be lifted, since the original stated cause of “weapons falling in the wrong hands” has been proven a farce. The Benghazi incidents revealed that the US consulate and CIA was directly involved in extensive gun-running operations between Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq, and the NATO Israel Qatar Turkey axis have been ensuring, for a very long time, that weapons, training and funding: do, in fact, get directly into the “unsavoury” hands of mercenaries, jihadists and terrorists wreaking havoc in a massive destablisation campaign across the Middle East.

Interestingly, recent indications claim that “ISIS” (include here sponsors and creators) is enraged that they are beginning to lose fighters who flee when they awaken to the “ awkward moment” when they realize that they are actually fighting for western intelligence agencies. ISIS videos and publications are now busily engaged in damage control efforts, denouncing (to their faithful) “conspiracy theories” that suggest such a thing.

This is an excellent indication that the alternative media, bloggers and all those passionate about truth are having a powerful influence. There can be no greater nightmare to the US, Israeli, Qatari and Turkish sponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood and their offspring ISIS/ISIL and associated jihadi forces, than to have them turn on their “handlers” when they realize they have been duped into fighting for the intelligence agents of Western Imperialism.




Put Britain on the List of States Sponsoring Terrorism

Put Britain on the List of States Sponsoring Terrorism

The following memorandum, dated Jan. 11, 2000, was prepared for delivery to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It is a request to launch an investigation, pursuant to placing Great Britain on the list of states sponsoring terrorism.

To:  Hon. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State
From:  The Editors, Executive Intelligence Review
Hon. William Cohen,
Secretary of Defense
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General
Hon. George Tenet,
Director of Central Intelligence
Hon. Louis Freeh,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Hon. Joseph Biden,
Ranking Democrat, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Hon. Benjamin Gilman,
Chairman, House International Relations Committee
Hon. Sam Gejdenson,
Ranking Democrat, House International Relations Committee

This is a formal request for you to initiate a review of the role of the government of Great Britain in supporting international terrorism, to determine whether Britain should be added to the list of nations sanctioned by the United States government for lending support to international terrorist organizations.

This issue has been recently highlighted, as the result of the December 1999 Indian Airlines hijacking, and the response of the British government to the request of one of the freed Kashmiri terrorists, Ahmed Omar Sheikh, to be given safe passage to England. Mr. Sheikh, a British national, was tried and convicted in India, for his role in the kidnapping of four British nationals and an American in 1995. He was sentenced to five years in prison in November 1998. Initially, the British government announced that it would provide Mr. Sheikh with safe passage to Britain, and would not prosecute him or make any effort to extradite him back to India.

However, long before the Sheikh case, Executive Intelligence Review has documented a pattern of British involvement in harboring international terrorists, dating back to 1995. As of this writing, no fewer than a dozen governments—many of them leading allies of the United States—have filed formal diplomatic protests with the British Foreign Office, over specific instances of British official support for terrorist groups, targetting those nations.

Criteria for evaluating whether Britain should be sanctioned

U.S. Government policy on sanctions against states sponsoring terrorism has been set by a series of Congressional acts, including, but not limited to: the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAAA), the Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Amendments Act of 1989 (ATAEAA), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996.

It is our understanding that, while the Congress has given the Secretary of State broad discretion in designating a country as a state sponsor of terrorism, the legislative history of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has specified seven criteria which should guide the Secretary’s action.

These criteria are:

  1. Does the state provide terrorists sanctuary from extradition or prosecution?


  2. Does the state provide terrorists with weapons and other means of conducting violence?


  3. Does the state provide logistical support to terrorists?


  4. Does the state permit terrorists to maintain safehouses and headquarters on its territory?


  5. Does the state provide training and other material assistance to terrorists?


  6. Does the state provide financial backing to terrorist organizations?


  7. Does the state provide diplomatic services, including travel documents, that could aid in the commission of terrorist acts?

As of this writing, the State Department currently designates seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea. In the case of Syria, which is presently engaged in peace negotiations with Israel, the primary reason the regime remains on the list is that several designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are headquartered in Damascus.

In the State Department Authorization Act of October 1991, specific procedures were spelled out for the President to remove a country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has a 45-day period to pass a joint resolution overriding such a Presidential decision to remove a state from the list, which carries with it a number of significant sanctions.

The case against Great Britain

The following documentary time line is intended to provide an outline of the evidence that we wish the appropriate officials at the U.S. State Department to review, to make a determination whether Great Britain should be added to the list of states sponsoring terrorism, according to the criteria outlined above.

  • In July 1998, a former British MI5 officer, David Shayler, revealed that, in February 1996, British security services financed and supported a London-based Islamic terrorist group, in an attempted assassination against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. The action, Shayler charged, in an interview with the British Daily Mail, was sanctioned by then-Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind. The incident described by Shayler did, in fact, occur. Although Qaddafi escaped without injury, the bomb, planted along a road where the Libyan leader was travelling, killed several innocent bystanders. In an Aug. 5, 1998 interview with BBC, Shayler charged, “We paid £100,000 to carry out the murder of a foreign head of state. That is apart from the fact that the money was used to kill innocent people, because the bomb exploded at the wrong time. In fact, this is hideous funding of international terrorism.” According to Shayler’s BBC interview, MI6 provided the funds to an Arab agent inside Libya, with instructions to carry out the attack.In fact, in 1996, a previously unknown Libyan “Islamist” group appeared in London to claim responsibility for the attempted assassination of Qaddafi.

  • On June 25, 1996, a bomb blew up the U.S. military barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers. The next day, Saudi expatriate Mohammed al-Massari, the head of the London-based Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, was interviewed on BBC. He warned the United States to expect more terror attacks, which he described as “intellectually justified.” The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia “is obviously not welcomed by a substantial fraction of the population there,” he warned, “and they are ready to go to the execution stand for it.” He concluded, “There are so many underground parties—so many splinter groups, many of them made up of people who fought in Afghanistan. . . . I expect more of the same.”Despite the fact that al-Massari has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the House of Saud and the creation of an Islamic revolutionary state, he has been given “exceptional leave” to remain in Britain. In April 1996, the British Home Office granted al-Massari a four-year refugee permit to remain on British soil.

    Al-Massari is allied with the well-known Saudi expatriate Osama bin Laden, who, to this day, maintains a residence in the wealthy London suburb of Wembly. And London is the headquarters of bin Laden’s Advise and Reform Commission, run by the London-based Khalid al-Fawwaz.

    Bin Laden has been given regular access to BBC and a variety of major British newspapers, to spread his calls for jihad against the United States. Thus, in July 1996, bin Laden told the London Independent, “What happened in Khobar [the U.S. Army barracks that was bombed on June 25] is a clear proof of the enormous rage of the Saudi population against them. Resistance against America will spread in many places through Muslim lands.”

  • On Jan. 25, 1997, Tory Member of Parliament Nigel Waterson introduced legislation to ban foreign terrorists from operating on British soil. His “Conspiracy and Incitement Bill,” according to his press release, would have for the first time banned British residents from plotting and conducting terrorist operations overseas. Waterson proposed the bill in the aftermath of a scandal over Britain providing safe haven for Saudi terrorist Mohammed al-Massari, who claimed credit for the bombing of U.S. military sites in Saudi Arabia in June 1996. On Feb. 14, 1997, Labour MP George Galloway succeeded in blocking Waterson’s bill from getting out of committee. Galloway, in a speech before the committee that was printed in the House of Commons official proceedings, stated, “The Bill will change political asylum in this country in a profound and dangerous way. It will change a state of affairs that has existed since Napoleon’s time. . . . We are all in favor of controlling terrorism in Britain. Surely not a single honorable Member has any truck with terrorism here, but we are talking about terrorism in other countries. . . . The legislation is rushed in response to a specific, and, for the government, highly embarrassing refugee case—that of Professor al-Massari, who was a thorn in the side of the government of Saudi Arabia. . . . By definition, a tyranny can be removed only by extraordinary measures. Inevitably, in conditions of extreme repression, the leadership of such movements will gravitate to countries such as ours where freedom and liberty prevail. The bill will criminalize such people, even though they have not broken any law in Britain or caused any harm to the Queen’s peace in her realm. They will fall open to prosecution in this country under the Bill because they are inciting, supporting, or organizing events in distant tyrannies, which are clearly offenses under the laws of such tyrants.”

  • On Nov. 17, 1997, the Gamaa al-Islamiya (Islamic Group) carried out a massacre of tourists in Luxor, Egypt, in which 62 people were killed. Since 1992, terrorist attacks by the Islamic Group have claimed at least 92 lives. Yet, the leaders of the organization have been provided with political asylum in Britain, and repeated efforts by the Egyptian government to have them extradited back to Egypt have met with stern rebuffs by Tory and Labour governments alike.On Dec. 14, 1997, British Ambassador to Egypt David Baltherwick was summoned by Egypt’s Foreign Minister Amr Moussa and handed an official note, demanding that Britain “stop providing a safe haven to terrorists, and cooperate with Egypt to counter terrorism.” In an interview with the London Times the same day, the Foreign Minister “called on Britain to stop the flow of money from Islamic radicals in London to terrorist groups in Egypt, and to ban preachers in British mosques calling for the assassination of foreign leaders.” The Times added that Moussa “was outraged by reports that £2.5 million had come from exiles in Britain to the outlawed Gamaa al-Islamiya,” and noted that the Egyptian government “has blamed the Luxor massacre on terrorists funded and encouraged from abroad, and identified Britain as the main center for radicals plotting assassinations.”

    To substantiate the charges against Britain, the Egyptian State Information Service posted a “Call to Combat Terrorism” on its official web site. The document read, in part, “Hereunder, is a list of some of the wanted masterminds of terrorism, who are currently enjoying secure and convenient asylum in some world capitals.” The “wanted list” consisted of photographs and biographical data on 14 men, linked to the Luxor massacre and other earlier incidents of terrorism. The first seven individuals listed were all, at the time, residing in London. They are:

    • Yasser al Sirri: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on the life of former Prime Minister Dr. Atef Sidqi; founded the Media Observatory in London as mouthpiece for the New Vanguards of Conquest.”

    • Adel Abdel Bari: “At present, heads Egyptian Human Rights Defense Office, affiliated to Media Observatory in London, the mouthpiece for the outlawed Jihad Organization.”

    • Mustafa Hamzah: “Commander of the military branch of the outlawed `Islamic Group.’ “

    • Tharwat Shehata: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on Dr. Atef Sidqi, former Prime Minister; associated with, and in charge of financing extremist elements abroad; involved in reactivating the outlawed `Jihad Organization’ abroad.”

    • Osama Khalifa: “Accused no. 1 in the case involving domestic and foreign activities of the outlawed Islamic Group.”

    • Refa Mousa.

    • Mohamed el Islambouli: “One of the principal leaders of the Islamic Group; sentenced to death in the case of the outlawed organization of `Returnees from Afghanistan.’ “

Groups banned by United States
are headquartered in London

Shortly before the Luxor massacre, on Oct. 8, 1997, the U.S. State Department, in compliance with the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, released a list of 30 Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), banned from operating on U.S. soil.

Of the 30 groups named, six maintain headquarters in Britain. They are: the Islamic Group (Egypt), Al-Jihad (Egypt), Hamas (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Armed Islamic Group (Algeria, France), Kurdish Workers Party (Turkey), and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka).

The Islamic Group, and its subsidiary arm, Islamic Jihad, are headquartered in London. In February 1997, the British government formally granted permission to Abel Abdel Majid and Adel Tawfiq al Sirri to establish Islamic Group fundraising and media offices in London, under the names International Bureau for the Defense of the Egyptian People and the Islamic Observatory. Abdel Majid was implicated in the October 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and he subsequently masterminded the escape of two prisoners jailed for the assassination. In 1991, he fled to Britain and immediately was granted political asylum. He has coordinated the Islamic Group’s overseas operations ever since. In fact, he was sentenced to death in absentia for the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in November 1995, in which 15 diplomats were killed.

Abdel Tawfiq al Sirri, the co-director of the movement, has also been granted political asylum in Britain, despite the fact that he was also sentenced to death in absentia for his part in the 1993 attempted assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Atif Sidqi.

In September 1997, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is in jail in the United States for his role in the Feb. 28, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, issued an order, as the spiritual leader of the Islamic Group, calling for an immediate cease-fire. The six members of the ruling council of Islamic Group residing in Egypt endorsed the Sheikh’s order, but the remaining six council member, living in London, rejected the order. Two months later, the massacre at Luxor took place.

Similarly, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), which was responsible for the assassination of Algerian President Mohamed Boudiaf on June 29, 1992, has its international headquarters in London. Sheikh Abu Qatabda and Abu Musab communicate military orders to GIA terrorists operating in Algeria and France via the London-based party organ, Al Ansar. Sheikh Abu Qatabda was granted political asylum in Britain in 1992, after spending years working in Peshawar, Pakistan with various Afghani mujahideen groups. A third London-based GIA leader, Abou Farres, oversees operations targetted against France. He was granted asylum in Britain in 1992, after he was condemned to death in Algeria for acknowledging responsibility for a bombing at Algiers airport, which killed nine people and wounded 125. Farres was believed responsible, from his base in London, for the July-September 1995 string of blind terrorist acts in France, including bombings of three Paris train and subway stations and an open-air market.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), known as the “Tamil Tigers,” have carried out a decade-long terror campaign against the government of Sri Lanka, in which they have killed an estimated 130,000 people. In addition, LTTE was responsible for the suicide-bomber murder of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, and the similar assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa on May 1, 1993.

Since 1984, the LTTE International Secretariat has been located in London. The official spokesman for the Secretariat is Anton Balsingham, an Oxford University graduate and former British Foreign Office employee. The group’s suicide-bomber division, the Black Tigers, which killed Rajiv Gandhi, is run by Pampan Ajith, out of LTTE London headquarters; another elite suicide-bomber cell, the Sky Tigers, which employs light aircraft, is coordinated by Dr. Maheswaran, also based in London.

Most of the marching orders for terrorist operations in the Indian subcontinent are delivered from London, via a string of LTTE publications, including Tamil Nation and Hot Spring, published in London, and Network and Kalathil, published in Surrey. The organization’s chief fundraiser and banker, Lawrence Tilagar, is also based in London.

Similarly, the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, maintains its publishing operations in London, including its monthly organ, Filisteen al-Muslima. In 1996, this publication issued a fatwa (religious ruling), calling for terrorist attacks against Israel. On Feb. 25 and March 3, shortly after the fatwa was published, Hamas suicide bombers blew up two Jerusalem buses and a Tel Aviv market, killing 55 people. Funding of these terrorists, who are part of the military wing, Izeddin al Kassam, comes from London, where Interpal is the chief money arm of the group.

In the case of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), the British government played an even more direct role in supporting the 17-year war against the Turkish government by the Kurdish separatists. An estimated 19,000 people have been killed in Southeast Turkey since the PKK launched its terror war in 1983. In May 1995, after the PKK was expelled from Germany, for seizing control of Turkish diplomatic buildings in 18 European cities, the British government licensed MED-TV in London, through which the PKK broadcasts four hours a day into its enclaves inside Turkey, and all over Europe. In a March 1996 broadcast, PKK leader Apo Ocalan called for the execution of German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel. And when the PKK held its founding “parliament in exile” in Belgium in 1995, three members of the British House of Lords either attended or sent personal telegrams of endorsement. The three were Lord Hylton, Lord Avebury, and Baroness Gould.

The same Lord Avebury has been an active backer of the Peru Support Group in London, which has served as a major international fundraising front for the Peruvian narco-terrorist group Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso). When Adolfo Héctor Olaechea was dispatched by Shining Path to London in July 1992, to establish the “foreign affairs bureau,” he received a letter of recognition from Buckingham Palace, which he circulated widely. The letter read in part, “The private secretary is commanded by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth to acknowledge receipt of the letter from Mr. Olaechea, and to say that it has been passed on to the Home Office.”

In addition to the six FTOs who have their headquarters in Britain, an additional 16 groups on the State Department’s 1997 list either receive funding from groups based in Britain, or receive military training and logistical support from groups operating freely from British soil. Those groups are: the Abu Nidal Organization (Palestinian Authority), Harkat ul-Ansar (India), Mujahideen e Khalq (Iran), Kach (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Kahane Chai (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Abu Sayyaf (Philippines), Hezbollah (Israel, Lebanon), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), ELN (Colombia), FARC (Colombia), Shining Path (Peru), MRTA (Peru), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Israel, Palestinian Authority), PFLP-General Command (Israel, Palestinian Authority).

The `fatwa’ against American targets

On Feb. 10, 1998, a group of well-known London-based “Islamists” and Islamic organizations issued a fatwa, calling for terrorist attacks against American targets. It was signed by Saudi terrorist supporter Mohammed Al-Massari and Omar Bakri, head of the Al-Muhajiroon, and was endorsed by 60 organizations that are based in the United Kingdom. It instructed Muslims living in the United States: “You have first to renounce the residency or acquire citizenship, then start military activities if physically capable. You are then at liberty to fight them everywhere in the world or re-enter the realm clandestinely and wreak havoc, obviously facing charges as spy, terrorist, etc.”

On Feb. 23, 1998, a second fatwa was issued, entitled “World Islamic Front’s Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.” It called for killing Americans because of their “occupation of the holy Arab Peninsula and Jerusalem” and their “oppressing the Muslim nations,” and concluded, “in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilian and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy Mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of the lands of Islam, defeated, and unable to threaten any Muslims. We—with God’s help—call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans.”

The fatwa, which was widely reported in the London-based Arabic daily Al Quds al Arabi, was signed by Sheikh Osama bin Laden, who, despite his current residence in Afghanistan, continues to maintain a lavish mansion in London; Ayman al Zawahiri, head of the Islamic Group behind the November 1997 massacre at Luxor, Egypt; Abu Yasser Rifai Ahmad Taha, another leader of the Islamic Group, residing in London; and Sheikh Mir Hamza, secretary of the Jamiat ul Ulema e, of Pakistan.

The two fatwas were the subject of testimony by an official of the Central Intelligence Agency on Feb. 23, 1998, before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, chaired by Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.). At Senator Kyl’s request, the CIA Counterterrorism Center provided the subcommittee with a declassified memorandum, titled “Fatwas or Religious Rulings by Militant Islamic Groups Against the United States.” The memorandum stated that “a coalition of Islamic groups in London, and terrorist financier Osama bin Laden, have issued separate fatwas, or religious rulings, calling for attacks on U.S. persons and interests worldwide, and on those of U.S. allies. . . . Both fatwas call for attacks to continue until U.S. forces retreat from Saudi Arabia and Jerusalem. The fatwa from the groups in London also calls for attacks until sanctions on Iraq are lifted. These fatwas are the first from these groups that explicitly justify attacks on American civilians anywhere in the world. Both groups have hinted in the past that civilians are legitimate targets, but this is the first religious ruling sanctifying such attacks.”

Two days before the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, the Islamic Jihad issued a declaration, targetting American interests all over the world. The communiqué accused the CIA of cooperating with Egyptian officials to capture three members of the group in Albania, and extradite them to Egypt where they faced prosecution on capital offenses.

Within hours of the two bombings, a number of London-based groups issued endorsements of the bombings. Supporters of Sharia, headed by Abu Hamza Al-Misri, an Egyptian who was convicted of a capital offense in Egypt, but who enjoys political asylum in London, issued one of the most virulent “endorsements.” Omar Bakri, the head of Al-Muhajiroon, as well as the Islamic Observation Center, the Islamic Jihad organization’s official propaganda and fundraising organization in London, also endorsed the bombings. The Islamic Observation Center was officially licensed by the British government in 1996 to carry out activities in Britain.

Attacks on Yemen

In the third week of December 1998, a London-based terrorist group was planning to launch operations to destabilize the Republic of Yemen. Members of the Ansar Al-Sharia, directed from London by Mustafa Kamel (a.k.a. Abu Hamza Al-Masri, a British citizen and former Afghansi “mujahid,” who trains groups of young people for terrorist activities at his Finsbury Mosque in north London, were arrested on Dec. 23, 1998 in Yemen, as they were planning armed terrorist operations. These terrorists were in contact with the Islamic Army of Abeen-Aden (affiliated with the London-based Egyptian Islamic Jihad), which had kidnapped 16 British and Australian tourists a few days earlier.

A rescue operation on Dec. 29 by the Yemeni security forces resulted in the kidnappers killing three British hostages and one Australian; 12 tourists were freed. British press and, later, government officials, accused the Yemeni security forces of “provoking the murders,” because they refused to negotiate with the terrorists.

In response, the Yemeni authorities did not mince words. In one day, Yemen kicked out the British Scotland Yard officers who had been invited to observe the investigations, withdrew its application to join the British Commonwealth, and announced that a group of British citizens had been arrested while attempting a massive terror-bombing campaign in Aden.

On Jan. 25, Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh demanded from British Prime Minister Tony Blair that Abu Hamza Al-Masri be handed over for trial in Yemen on charges of carrying out terrorist acts in Yemen and several other Arab states. This was expressed in an official message Saleh sent to Blair, conveyed by the British Ambassador to Yemen, Victor Henderson. The London-based daily Al-Hayat reported that, according to government sources in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, the message from President Saleh stressed that the Yemeni government has the right to demand that the British government hand over Abu Hamza, and evidence and documents which prove its description of Abu Hamza as a “terrorist” and “extremist.”

However, British law does not consider it a crime for individuals and groups based in Britain to plan, incite, or conduct terrorist operations outside Her Majesty’s domains.

Abu Hamza’s case is even more complicated, because he is not only an asylum seeker, but has British citizenship. The Yemeni request came in the context of investigations conducted by the Yemeni security authorities into the group whose members were arrested on Dec. 23, including five British citizens (one of them the son of Abu Hamza) and one French citizen, who were in possession of weapons and explosives and were said to be involved in carrying out “terrorist and destructive plans which undermine Yemen’s security and stability.”

The Yemeni investigations found that Abu Hamza has relations with this group, in addition to his “firm links to the Islamic Army of Aden,” led by Abu Hassan al-Muhdar, who is in custody. Al-Muhdar’s group carried out the kidnapping of the tourists in December 1998. The Yemeni government sources added that the message of the Yemeni President to the British Prime Minister expressed Yemen’s great regret over the “terrorist activities carried out by Abu Hamza al-Masri” and others from the British territories, acts which it said undermine Yemen’s security and stability, as well as similar terrorist acts in several Arab states.

Eight days earlier, Abu Hamza called for killing Yemeni officials if the Yemeni authorities sentenced the kidnappers to death. Replying to a question from the Qatari al-Jazira satellite TV network on Jan. 14, he said: “If Zein al-Abidin al-Muhdar were to be executed, there will be revenge acts and massacres.”

Abu Hamza stated in a televised debate on Jan. 18 that he had been contacted by the leader of the group that carried out the kidnapping before the rescue operation, “and asked me for advice.” Abu Hamza accordingly issued a communiqué and threatened the Yemeni authorities.

The target of these operations has been the government of the Republic of Yemen itself. Abu Hamza made this clear in the televised debate, in which he said that the ultimate goal is to overthrow the secular regime in Sanaa, and that there are supporters in Yemen who are ready to fight for establishing an Islamic state. Al-Muhdar, during his trial in Yemen, confirmed that the objective of his group is to overthrow every secular government in the region.

Formal diplomatic protests to London

This British harboring of international terrorist groups has not gone unnoticed by the nations that have been the targets of this brutality. To date, the British Foreign Office has received formal diplomatic protests from at least ten victimized countries. These include:

Egypt: British asylum for the Islamic Group and Islamic Jihad has been a persistent reason for Egyptian complaints to the British government. In April 1996, Egyptian Interior Minister Hasan al-Alfi told the British Arabic weekly Al-Wasat, “All terrorists come from London. They exist in other European countries, but they start from London.” On Aug. 29, the government daily Al-Ahram reported that the British chargé d’affaires in Cairo was summoned by the Deputy Foreign Minister, and given a letter for Foreign Minister Malcolm Rifkind, protesting Britain’s “double standard policy” and “support for international terrorism.” An official of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry was quoted in the paper, saying, “The asylum law in Britain has provided a safe-haven for terrorists.”

Egypt has been particularly incensed that the British have allowed the Islamic Group/Islamic Jihad to use London as their home-base. Continual demands that Britain extradite Islamic Group leaders Adel Abdul Majid and Adel Tawfiq al Sirri back to Cairo, where they have been sentenced to death in absentia for terrorist crimes, have been rejected.

On Feb. 13, 1997, Egyptian officials told Al-Hayat, that the Egyptian government remains “troubled” and “astonished” by Britain’s decision to allow Abdul Majid to establish officially recognized centers in London, especially after the Egyptian Supreme Court released admissions from several members of the group, at the beginning of 1997, that they had received money and marching orders from Abdul Majid, to carry out bombings and assassinations throughout 1996.

These same officials told the paper that “this only further supports Egypt’s belief that London has become the most prominent center for anti-Egypt Islamic extremist groups,” and that there will continue to be talks on the highest levels “to know the reasons that made the British government allow the establishment of that [Islamic Group] office.”

Following the Luxor massacre, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak launched a personal international crusade to spotlight the role of the British government in harboring and sponsoring the terrorists who have targetted Egypt.

Israel: On March 3, 1996, after a Hamas bomb exploded in a Jerusalem market, killing a dozen people, and a second bomb exploded in Tel Aviv, Israel’s ambassador to London met with Foreign Minister Rifkind to demand that Britain stop protecting the group. In an account of that confrontation, the London Express reported the next day, “Israeli security sources say the fanatics behind the bombings are funded and controlled through secret cells operating here. Only days before the latest terror campaign began, military chiefs in Jerusalem detailed how Islamic groups raised £7 million in donations from British organizations. The ambassador, Moshe Raviv, yesterday shared Israel’s latest information about the Hamas operations. A source at the Israeli embassy said last night, `It is not the first time we have pointed out that Islamic terrorists are in Britain.’ “

The British Foreign Office officially responded to the Israeli ambassador: “We have seen no proof to support allegations that funds raised by the Hamas in the U.K. are used directly in support of terrorist acts elsewhere.”

In early September 1997, Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon travelled to Britain, according to the Sunday Telegraph, after investigations determined that the two Hamas suicide bombers who killed 15 people in a Jerusalem market on July 30, arrived in Israel on British passports: “Israeli officials are said to have become increasingly frustrated by what they see as British foot-dragging in curbing the activities of Palestinian hard-liners. The Israeli government has made repeated calls for action to be taken against militants, said to be operating freely in the British capital.”

France: In late 1995, the GIA’s London headquarters ordered a terror war against France, leading France to loudly protest to the British government, according to the Nov. 6, 1995 London Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled “Britain Harbours Paris Bomber.” On Nov. 3, 1995, the French daily Le Figaro wrote, under the headline “The Providential Fog of London,” of the GIA’s bombing spree: “The trail of Boualem Bensaid, GIA leader in Paris, leads to Great Britain. The British capital has served as logistical and financial base for the terrorists.”

The next day, Le Parisien reported that the author of the GIA terror attack inside France was former Afghan mujahideen leader Abou Farres, who was given a residence visa in London, despite the fact that he was already wanted in connection with the bombing of the Algiers Airport. Farres’s London-based organization, according to Le Parisien, recruits Islamic youth from the poor suburbs of Paris, and sends them to Afghanistan, where they are trained as terrorists.

Algeria also filed strong protests to the British Foreign Office over the harboring of the GIA in London.

Peru: The Peruvian government has made repeated requests to the British government, since 1992, demanding the extradition of Adolfo Héctor Olaechea, the London-based head of overseas operations for Shining Path, as well as the shutdown of its fundraising and support operations there. Both requests have been refused to this day. Moreover, in 1992, during the worst of the Shining Path offensive in Peru, Channel 4, of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, a dependency of the British Home Office, coordinated with Olaechea to send two journalists to Peru, where they contacted Shining Path units, and filmed a highly favorable report. The film was broadcast throughout Britain by Channel 4 on July 10, 1992, despite an official protest from the Peruvian government.

Turkey: On Aug. 20, 1996, the Turkish government formally protested to the British government for allowing the Kurdish Workers Party to continue its London-based MED TV broadcasts into Turkey, despite documentation that the broadcasts were being used to convey marching orders to PKK terrorists there.

Germany: The Bonn government issued a diplomatic note to London, too, following a March 1996 MED TV broadcast in which PKK leader Apo Ocalan called for murdering German Chancellor Kohl and Foreign Minister Kinkel. According to the German press, the Interior Ministry stated concerning the London station: “We have requested our colleagues in neighboring countries in Europe to put measures into effect in order to not compromise internal security in our own country.”

Libya: On Feb. 7, 1997, the Libyan Foreign Ministry submitted an official protest to the British government, over Britain’s permitting of the Militant Islamic Group to operate on British soil. The letter cited the recent assassination attempt against Colonel Qaddafi by members of the London-headquartered group, and read, in part, “The decision by Britain, which is a permanent member state of the [UN] Security Council, to shelter elements of that terrorist group who are wanted to stand trial in Libya and to enable them to openly announce their destructive intentions against a UN member state, namely Libya, . . . contravenes international charges and treaties.”

Nigeria: On Feb. 28, 1997, the British government issued a denial that it had refused to extradite three Nigerians suspected of a series of bombings in the major city of Lagos in January 1997. The three men were leaders of the National Democratic Coalition (Nadeco).

Yemen: In January 1999, the government of Yemen filed formal diplomatic protests with Britain for the harboring of the terrorists who carried out bombings and kidnappings.

Russia: On Nov. 14, 1999, the Russian Foreign Ministry filed a formal protest to Andrew Wood, Britain’s Ambassador in Moscow, after two Russian television journalists were brutally beaten as they attempted to film a London conference, where bin Laden’s International Islamic Front, Ansar as-Shariah, Al-Muhajiroon, and other Islamist groups called for a jihad against Russia, in retaliation for the Russian military actions in Chechnya.

One of the victims of the beating, ORT cameraman Alexandr Panov, told Kommersant daily that he was “very surprised at the indifference of the British government. Some of the participants at the `charity’ event were people wanted by Interpol, but Scotland Yard, although evidently aware of their residence [in Britain], does not react.”

On Nov. 10, 1999, the Russian government had already filed a formal diplomatic démarche via the Russian Embassy in London, protesting the attacks on the Russian journalists, and also the admissions by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the head of the “political wing” of the bin Laden organization, Al Muhajiroon, that the group was recruiting Muslims in England to go to Chechnya to fight the Russian Army. Bakri’s organization operates freely from offices in the London suburb of Lee Valley, where they occupy two rooms at a local computer center, and maintain their own Internet company. Bakri has admitted that “retired” British military officers are training new recruits in Lee Valley, before they are sent off to camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or are smuggled directly into Chechnya.

On Nov. 20, 1999, the Daily Telegraph admitted, following the release of the U.S. State Department’s updated list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, that “Britain is now an international center for Islamic militancy on a huge scale . . . and the capital is the home to a bewildering variety of radical Islamic fundamentalist movements, many of which make no secret of their commitment to violence and terrorism to achieve their goals.”

India: In December 1999, following the conclusion of the Indian Airlines hijacking, the Indian government protested the fact that British officials publicly stated that they would allow one of the freed Kashmiri terrorists, Ahmed Omar Sheikh, to return to London, because there “were no charges filed against him in Britain.” The British government, facing growing international pressure, apparently has backed down from this decision.