Pentagon Mercenaries: Blackwater, Al-Qaeda… what’s in a name?


Pentagon Mercenaries:
Blackwater, Al-Qaeda… what’s in a name?

By Finian Cunningham

CIA-linked private “security” companies are fighting in Yemen for the US-backed Saudi military campaign. Al-Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries are also being deployed. Melding private firms with terror outfits should not surprise. It’s all part of illegal war making.
Western news media scarcely report on the conflict in Yemen, let alone the heavy deployment of Western mercenaries in the fighting there. In the occasional Western report on Al-Qaeda and related terror groups in Yemen, it is usually in the context of intermittent drone strikes carried out by the US, or with the narrative that these militants are “taking advantage” of the chaos “to expand” their presence in the Arabian Peninsula, as reported here by the Washington Post.

This bifurcated Western media view of Yemen belies a more accurate and meaningful perspective, which is that the US-backed Saudi bombing campaign is actually coordinated with an on-the-ground military force that comprises regular troops, private security firms and Al-Qaeda type mercenaries redeployed from Syria.

There can be little doubt in Syria – despite Western denials – that the so-called Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)) jihadists and related Al-Qaeda brigades in Jabhat al-Nusra, Jaish al-Fateh, Ahrar ash-Sham and so on, have been infiltrated, weaponized and deployed for the objective of regime-change by the US and its allies. If that is true for Syria, then it is also true for Yemen. Indeed, the covert connection becomes even more apparent in Yemen.

Last November, the New York Times confirmed what many Yemeni sources had long been saying. That the US-backed Saudi military coalition trying to defeat a popular uprising was relying on mercenaries supplied by private security firms tightly associated with the Pentagon and the CIA.

The mercenaries were recruited by companies linked to Erik Prince, the former US Special Forces commando-turned businessman, who set up Blackwater Worldwide. The latter and its re-branded incarnations, Xe Services and Academi, remain a top private security contractor for the Pentagon, despite employees being convicted for massacring civilians while on duty in Iraq in 2007. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration awarded the contractor more than $200 million in security and CIA work.

Erik Prince, who is based primarily in Virginia where he runs other military training centers, set up a mercenary hub in the United Arab Emirates five years ago with full support from the royal rulers of the oil-rich state. The UAE Company took the name Reflex Responses or R2. The NY Times reported that some 400 mercenaries were dispatched from the Emirates’ training camps to take up assignment in Yemen. Hundreds more are being trained up back in the UAE for the same deployment.

This is just one stream of several “soldiers of fortune” going into Yemen to fight against the uprising led by Houthi rebels, who are in alliance with remnants of the national army. That insurgency succeeded in kicking out the US and Saudi-backed president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi in early 2015. Hadi has been described as a foreign puppet, who presided over a corrupt regime of cronyism and vicious repression.

Since last March, the Saudis and other Persian Gulf Arab states have been bombing Yemen on a daily basis in order to overthrow the Houthi-led rebellion and reinstall the exiled Hadi.

Washington and Britain have supplied warplanes and missiles, as well as logistics, in the Saudi-led campaign, which has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. The involvement of Blackwater-type mercenaries – closely associated with the Pentagon – can also be seen as another form of American contribution to the Saudi-led campaign.

The mercenaries sent from the UAE to Yemen are fighting alongside other mercenaries that the Saudis have reportedly enlisted from Sudan, Eritrea and Morocco. Most are former soldiers, who are paid up to $1,000 a week while serving in Yemen. Many of the Blackwater-connected fighters from the UAE are recruited from Latin America: El Salvador, Panama and primarily Colombia, which is considered to have good experience in counter-insurgency combat.

Also among the mercenaries are American, British, French and Australian nationals. They are reportedly deployed in formations along with regular troops from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE.

In recent months, the Houthi rebels (also known as Ansarullah) and their allies from the Yemeni army – who formed a united front called the Popular Committees – have inflicted heavy casualties on the US-Saudi coalition. Hundreds of troops have been reportedly killed in gun battles in the Yemeni provinces of Marib, in the east, and Taiz, to the west. The rebels’ use of Tochka ballistic missiles has had particularly devastating results.

So much so that it is reported that the Blackwater-affiliated mercenaries have “abandoned the Taiz front” after suffering heavy casualties over the last two months. “Most of the Blackwater operatives killed in Yemen were believed to be from Colombia and Argentina; however, there were also casualties from the United States, Australia and France,” Masdar News reports.

Into this murky mix are added extremist Sunni militants who have been dispatched to Yemen from Syria. They can be said to be closely related, if not fully integrated, with Al-Qaeda or IS in that they profess allegiance to a “caliphate” based on a fundamentalist Wahhabi, or Takfiri, ideology.

These militants began arriving in Yemen in large numbers within weeks of Russia’s military intervention in Syria beginning at the end of September, according to Yemeni Army spokesman Brigadier General Sharaf Luqman. Russian air power immediately began inflicting severe losses on the extremists there. Senior Yemeni military sources said that hundreds of IS-affiliated fighters were flown into Yemen’s southern port city of Aden onboard commercial aircraft belonging to Turkey, Qatar and the UAE.

Soon after the militants arrived, Aden residents said the city had descended into a reign of terror. The integrated relationship with the US-Saudi coalition can be deduced from the fact that Aden has served as a key forwarding military base for the coalition. Indeed, it was claimed by Yemen military sources that the newly arrived Takfiri militants were thence dispatched to the front lines in Taiz and Marib, where the Pentagon-affiliated mercenaries and Saudi troops were also assigned.

It is true that the Pentagon at times wages war on Al-Qaeda-related terrorists. The US airstrike in Libya on Friday, which killed some 40 IS operatives at an alleged training camp, is being trumpeted by Washington as a major blow against terrorism. And in Yemen since 2011, the CIA and Pentagon have killed many Al-Qaeda cadres in drone strikes, with the group’s leader being reportedly assassinated last June in a US operation.

Nevertheless, as the broader US-Saudi campaign in Yemen illustrates, the outsourcing of military services to private mercenaries in conjunction with terrorist militia is evidently an arm of covert force for Washington.

This is consistent with how the same groups have been deployed in Syria for the purpose of regime change there.

The blurring of lines between regular military, private security contractors with plush offices in Virginia and Abu Dhabi, and out-and-out terror groups is also appropriate. Given the nature of the illegal wars being waged, it all boils down to state-sponsored terrorism in the end.

Advertisements

The Global Murder Of Libya


The Global Murder Of Libya

By Jim Kirwan

Libya was a literal earthly paradise, before the world unleashed
Their barbaric dogs-of-war upon her.
No one mentions the REPARATIONS that must be paid
To the survivors of that Genocide

France, US Inc., Britain, Sweden, Greece, Germany, Italy and Canada, promoted that war and it was carried out by the UN, NATO and Israel.
This was a massive and totally illegal war that was started and maintained
By lies, lies and more lies ­ the time has come for the criminals
To pay for that crime!
This could all have been stopped if Russia or China
Had dared to block the vote in the UN
But no nation did.

By allowing this to happen, in and to Libya, the global outlaws paved the way for Syria, and Ukraine that will soon be followed by the end of the USA.
The media worldwide joined in creating a fake-firestorm-of-lies that was directed against one of the most prosperous and free nations on this earth. Its people shared directly in the profits from Libyan Oil, the richest oil produced, in which the entire nation had a share. Libya refused the Rothschild’s banks along with US dollars for their oil. Libya was preparing the Libyan Gold-Dinar that threatened the filth that always comes with the exclusive use of US Dollars, to buy oil. Libya had already begun to support many of the other nations in her region of the planet, and therefore she had to go.

Libya discovered and had begun to share in a Pleistocene-Age river of underground water that Libya had begun to develop – to turn the whole of North Africa into an earthly garden, and its people were some of the most well educated and the most free in all the world. Their medicine and technology were superior to most of the nations that attacked her for daring to share her wealth with her own citizens. Libya was free and she enjoyed the luxury of living life to the hilt: before the thunderstorm of lies was allowed to bury Libya before the nation was even murdered.

REPARATIONS are overdue to the Libyan people and are far more necessary than even that which was paid for what was done to the war-torn nations of WWII.

Once this Libyan crime was completed, the whole planet adopted the mantra of how brutal Qaddafi had been to his people. Hillary laughed about his murder, and many a ‘western-want-to-be’ echoed similar lies about what Qaddafi and Libya had been before they slaughtered Libya to the point of global-obliteration.

As a result the planet has seen the remaining Libyan people’ turned into “faceless-homeless-migrants” when in fact they are war refugees in need of help.

Maybe that’s why so many were locked below decks in the latest tragedy that claimed so many lives in the sinking of that ship in the Mediterranean Sea.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=15492

Link to original site, with more pictures and full article, in Croatian.
http://www.jutarnji.hr/ovo-je-kapetan-broda-smrti-covjek-na-slici-odgovoran-je-za-smrt-920-ljudi/1335069/

But the real crime that has gone unpunished were the Lies behind the War on Libya in 2011 ­ this became the “LIE” that the supposedly leading nations of the world cooperated in completing: Which remains unchallenged to this day.

The leadership from that war, with the exception of USI because it’s far too distant to reach, are all those nations that participated in the genocide of the Libyan population. The French were the leading blood-lust followed by Italy, Britain, Germany, Sweden and the others that jumped on the war-wagons of hellish destruction, to revenge themselves upon a nation that had dared to do what all of them have always refused to do for their own people…

Everyday I listen to the garbage that is still trying to cover-up the horrendous lies behind that unpaid-for war crime, and it still turns my stomach. But I’m not alone: Millions know about what Libya really was and just how much the human race lost when Libya was murdered: In public and in cold-blood that absolutely delighted themselves with the horror that they were bringing to Libya, initially, but to the whole planet now ­ so many years on.

Libya was reduced to SUBMISSION, but the day is coming for those that survived to bring back DEFIANCE into the world that has almost forgotten all the depth of meaning in everything we all do each and every day.

This crime will never be allowed to stand.

The lies behind all of this will eventually surface and those who committed this unthinkable obscenity will pay for that crime one way or another. Meanwhile the reasoning behind the refugees from the Libyan War will continue to seek refuge from the same criminal states that were and still are massively responsible for turning them into globally dislocated war-refugees. There has never been a mystery about any of this. What is transpiring over the global-airwaves is a global-cover-up that will eventually have to be told in every gory detail…

The deaths of all those ‘refugees’ in that boat, will be just the beginning of what will inch by inch be revealed about the corruption’s of this planet ­ worldwide.

 

 

The International Terrorism


The International Terrorism

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

A  wave of international terrorism is stalking the world. It is led by a horde of mujahideen mercenaries: human flotsam, like the 1920s “rootless” veterans of World War I, cast upon the world in the wake of the 1980s Afghan war. This is the worst terrorism yet; it is much worse than that of the 1970s. It is coordinated from the capital of a former U.S. ally, London; worse yet, it was created with complicity of former U.S. Vice President (and, later, President) George Bush. It threatens you, and your family: perhaps directly, perhaps indirectly. We must mobilize to fight it, and to defeat it.

Therefore, the special problem which must be addressed  on the international terrorism, is that, since persons such as Vice President George Bush, Oliver North, and numerous other U.S. and British officials, among others, were involved in helping to create it, there is a corresponding, high-level tendency, among certain authorities, to conceal key facts. The fact that the terrorism occurs, can not be hidden—not usually; what is covered up, is the fact that terrorism has a “mother,” and also, occasionally, an “uncle.”

As in the 1989 myth, that Deutsche Bank’s Alfred Herrhausen had been murdered by the (actually non-existent) Baader-Meinhof gang: Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, as now, official agencies preferred to evade the fact, that there were certain very influential agencies behind terrorist actions. Now, as then, few official intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, so far, have found the political courage to address the roots of the problem. Today, the fear, among relevant intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, of exposing a Thatcher government, or a “power-broker” such as George Bush, leaves it to private agencies, to fill the gap.

Directly to the point: As we have said, the heart of the international terrorism is a legion of trained terrorists, formerly known as the mujahideen veterans of the 1980s Afghan war, which Vice President Bush and the British Thatcher government played a leading part in creating, arming, and deploying. Once the Soviet forces had retreated from Afghanistan, the Anglo-American-sponsored mujahideen, together with their massive drug- and arms-trafficking apparatus, were dumped on the world, a legion of “special forces”-trained mercenaries, for hire.

Today, that legion of mercenaries is a keystone-element within a new international terrorism, which reaches westward across Eurasia, from Japan, coordinated through a nest of terrorist-group command-centers in London, into the Americas, from Canada down to the tip of South America. 

In this present, first, report, we concentrate upon the keystone role of the mujahideen veterans of the Thatcher-Bush Afghan war. We show how these mujahideen are functionally integrated with every London-coordinated group operating currently in, and out of South Asia. In the coming, second part of our report, will focus upon the principal London-coordinated terrorist networks currently operating in the Americas. This latter element features another leftover from the days of former Vice President Bush’s so-called “Iran-Contra” drug-and-weapons rampage. In the second report, the key is a London-based Revolutionary Communist Party and its ally, the London-directed, Fidel Castro-led terrorist army known as The Forum of São Paulo.

‘Ethnicity’: the key to terrorism

In the following sections of this first report, we present some methods to aid the professional and laymen, alike, in mapping and tracking this terrorist menace. Tracking the terrorists by that method, shows that 1990s South Asia terrorism is linked to the terrorism of earlier decades through the network of international drug- and weapons-trafficking connections which is pivotted upon a triad of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, the Sri Lanka “Tigers” (LTTE), and sundry facets of the Pakistan-centered Afghan veterans’ mujahideen. This drug- and weapons-trafficking triad, is a keystone for armed irregular-warfare activities among a large assortment of so-called “ethnic minorities,” all coordinated presently from London, which have been manipulated by British intelligence, continuously, over a period of between 150 and more than 200 years to date. That is the core of what we present, in this issue, as the South Asia component of the present wave of international terrorism.

The South Asia accumulation of so-called “ethnic and religious minorities,” is centered along the southern political borders of China (and, extending into Tibet and Sinkiang), from northern Laos, westward, through Kashmir and Pakistan, into Algeria’s anti-Islamic Salvation Front GIA terrorism, and beyond. The connections are not limited to that westward band of “ethnic and religious minorities,” but that band represents the hard core of the phenomenon.

London’s strategic use of “ethnicity” and religious sects, is not limited to South Asia. The activation of these long-standing assets, is key to all British long-term strategy in the Americas, Eurasia, and Africa, during the past 20 years. It is the basis for the British monarchy’s genocide campaign against Rwanda and Burundi, and London’s current efforts to bring about the total destruction of Nigeria and Sudan. It is also an integral component of London’s strategic orientation toward the intended dissolution of Canada, of the United States, and of every presently existing nation of Central and South America. Ethnicity, whether in the foreign-directed insurgency within Mexico’s federal state of Chiapas, Africa, and Eurasia, or the ongoing destruction of Australia, is the theme of the new, massive wave of international terrorism which London offices are directing today.

Look at British geopolitical strategy for Eurasia, and the way in which London’s South Asia terrorism operations are deployed in support of that Eurasian strategy.

First, for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with the key facts, “Britain” or “British,” as used here, does not mean institutions of self-government representing the population of the United Kingdom. England under King Henry VII was an emerging modern nation-state, modelled upon King Louis XI’s success in creating the first modern nation-state in France; with the accession of James I to the English throne, in 1603, England ceased to be a nation, and became instead a virtual mere plantation, a virtual colony of an international, Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, which, today, controls the marketing of the largest portion of those raw materials on which the world’s population depends for its existence. “British,” as used in this report, signifies a collection of several thousand either very rich, or otherwise powerful persons, from many nations, who herd around those British and Dutch monarchies, used, as were Venetian doges of old, as rallying-places for coming together to exert their global, imperial power.

Think of Royal Dutch Shell, ITT, Rio Tinto Zinc, or global British press-empires of Lord Beaverbrook’s heirs, such as Rupert Murdoch or the Clinton-haters of the Canada-based Hollinger Corporation. Think of the network of British-controlled intelligence organizations, radiating from the Chatham House for which the treasonous Sir Henry A. Kissinger has worked the past 45 years, or the fascistic swamp-creatures of Mont Pelerin Society conservatives, such as the U.S. Heritage Foundation and Prof. Milton Friedman’s acolytes. It is those agencies, like Hollywood “body-snatchers from outer space,” who employ the British Isles as their breeding place. That typifies the functional meaning of the term “British Empire” in the strategist’s, or anti-terrorist specialist’s lexicon.

That use of the term “empire,” references the example of the control still exerted by the rotting Byzantine Empire even during the process of its dismemberment, during the centuries prior to Venice’s “Fourth Crusade” creation, the Latin Kingdom. That British imperialism, formerly the world’s leading maritime power, is still the world’s leading financial imperium. Still, today, through its far-flung intelligence network, and through its corrupting cultural influence upon former colonies, and even the United States itself, London, together with Oxford and Cambridge, exerts a malignant Byzantine quality of influence over the destiny of the planet as a whole.

A Paris boulevard publication, the famous Paris Match, recently described the British population as “half-wits.[1] The mouth of Lord William Rees-Mogg, Newt Gingrich booster, former London Times editor, and U.S. President Clinton’s most tenaciously hateful enemy, has become the world’s largest open sewer-pipe of demented ravings on a large array of topics. Rees-Mogg, for years the official “Josef Goebbels” of the British oligarchical mob, echoes the Yahoo-like intellectual qualities which are presently characteristic of the leading British families whom he has so long represented.[2] Nonetheless, whether allegedly half-witted, plausibly demented, or not, those decaying oligarchical relics are still very dangerous. It is that monstrously decadent, but still very poisonous British, Byzantine-like, imperial influence, which is the guiding hand behind the deployment of the new terrorist wave we are considering here. It is the current strategic doctrine of that Byzantine agency, which must be understood, to define and to defeat the international terrorist threat.

When the British (as we have defined them here) speak of their strategy, their foreign policy, the two most indicative code-words are “geopolitics” and “balance-of-power.” “Balance of power” is the favorite gutterance in Sir Henry A. Kissinger’s obiter dicta. “Balance of power” is the term former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher uttered during a relevant recent broom-stop in South Asia. Current British balance-of-power doctrine for Eurasia as a whole, is summed up as follows.

The crux of world strategy today, is the prospect of cooperation among nations grouped around Moscow, Delhi, and Beijing, for the purpose of fostering the general economic renaissance of Eurasia. This economic boom is sought through a network of large-scale infrastructural projects which link the potential technological powerhouses of a revived European economy to the great concentrations of the world’s population on the coasts of the Pacific and Indian oceans. This network of infrastructure development is termed, in policy shorthand, “the Eurasia Land-bridge.”

The idea of creating such a railway-corridor-based land-bridge, was first put afoot during the 1890s, by such notable figures as France’s Gabriel Hanotaux, Germany’s Wilhelm von Siemens, and Russia’s Count Sergei Witte.[3] To prevent this, Britain, then led by the Prince of Wales who became King Edward VII, launched a series of ventures which put the partners of the mid-1890s—France, Germany, and Russia—at one another’s throats; the result was known as World War I.[4]

In 1933, out of fear that Weimar Germany might enter into economic cooperation with the Soviet Union, British interests, including the Prescott Bush who was the father of U.S. President George Bush, put Nazi Adolf Hitler into power in Germany, and aided Hitler into 1938, to ensure that a devastating war erupted to ruin both Germany and Russia once and for all.[5]

During October-November 1989, the government of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher responded to the crumbling of the “Wall” between eastern and western Europe, by declaring virtual war on Germany. The screeching Mrs. Thatcher’s expressed fear, was that a reunified German economy, would turn its development potential eastward. “Fourth Reich!” Thatcher’s minions shrieked! Thatcher acted with her lackey’s, President George Bush’s, support, to prevent the economic reconstruction of former East Germany. To the same purpose, Mrs. Thatcher’s Britain, supported by President Bush, launched the effort to turn the former Soviet Union into an economic wasteland, a raw-materials-exporting, “Third World” region, which could never again become a part of a Eurasian challenge to London’s imperial interests.

So, since October-November 1989, London’s greatest fear has continued to be, that continental western Europe might enter into a Eurasian economic development program, from the Atlantic, to the Pacific and Indian oceans. Since the defeat of Mrs. Thatcher’s stooge, President George Bush, in November 1992, London’s fear has been that the United States might support a policy of Eurasian economic-development cooperation among nations grouped around Germany, Russia, and China. Now, since the election of France’s President Jacques Chirac, the British oligarchy has reacted like a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy, with threats against the Presidents of both the United States and France, and with accelerated efforts to drown the world in the new wave of mujahideen-centered international terrorism.

What Baroness Thatcher’s “balance of power” utterance signifies for all Asia, is the following. Britain is currently committed, by ongoing actions, to the disintegration of Pakistan, India, and China. The mechanisms currently in play to this effect are centered around the intent to utilize a London-orchestrated balance-of-power conflict between India and Pakistan, over Kashmir issues, as a lever for prompting the degree of balance-of-power conflict between Delhi and Beijing wanted to foster the crumbling of China’s Tibet and Sinkiang regions. The internal dynamic of this overall game, is London’s deployment of its terrorist-linked “ethnic” assets, to foster the internal dismemberment of both India and Pakistan, while employing the same “ethnicity games” to catalyze the conflict among India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and China. The mujahideen veterans are the key to the quality of effectiveness of the sundry, interlinked “ethnic” assets which London offices are deploying.

London’s target: the nation-state

“Gentlemen: I must inform you, that our unsinkable ship, the Titanic, is sinking. While you were gambling in the ship’s Mont Pelerin casino, the owners boarded all the ship’s available lifeboats, and have departed. I suggest you make your arrangements accordingly, and quickly.”

The exact date this “Titanicwill sink is uncertain. It could be next week, a few weeks downwind, or months ahead. The only outcome which is certain, is that it will go under soon. The ship in question is the world’s present monetary and financial system. The “owners,” by which one signifies the international financier oligarchical families, have, in point of fact, already taken to the lifeboats: They have left the doomed stock markets of the world, taking flight in their investments in precious metals, strategic minerals, fossil fuel resources, and shrinking world food supplies. Governments might stabilize the situation, by putting the Federal Reserve System and other central banking systems into government-controlled receivership; if governments lack the courage to do that, the whole system, monetary systems, financial institutions, and the negotiability of money itself, will simply disintegrate, and that at a time not far distant.

The kernel of the international oligarchy agrees with that picture of the present world financial situation. They have expressed their agreement, as did London’s Sir Jimmy Goldsmith some time past, by taking to the lifeboats, getting off the British economic ship before it sank. The fact that the world as it has existed for all this past century, is now about to go out of existence, contributes a significant margin of added energy of desperation to every leading potential and actual crisis throughout the world. That consideration is key to the hysteria expressed by the antic Lord William Rees-Mogg, and to the vast scale and intensity with which the new wave of international terrorism is being deployed.

The question posed implicitly to every member of the Anglo-Dutch-led international financial oligarchy, is whether the oligarchy itself is going to survive, or not. Will the oligarchy outlive the obliteration of its own present, worldwide monetary and financial system? Clearly, in running out of speculation in financial paper, into physical possession of the most vital raw materials, the oligarchy has shown its determination to outlive the general extermination of money, banks, and stock markets. One might ask, therefore: What more does the oligarchy have to fear than that? The answer to that question is: the modern form of nation-state republic; to understand the oligarchy’s fear on that account, one need but conjure up the name of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.

Could a nation-state outlive the collapse of a worldwide monetary and financial system? The brilliantly successful revival of what appeared to be a hopelessly bankrupt, March 1789 U.S.A., under the leadership of President George Washington and his Treasury Secretary, Hamilton, is living historical proof that a nation-state following the same anti-British principles as did Washington and Hamilton, could survive quite nicely. To bring this about today, several principled measures are indispensable:

  1. Put the old bankrupt monetary and financial systems into receivership, and reorganization in bankruptcy, by the relevant national government.

  2. Create immediately a new supplementary issue of national currency, in the form of negotiable currency-notes of the public treasury, and put those notes into circulation through selective measures of lending for capital improvements in physical production and basic economic infrastructure.

  3. Create a national bank, as both an agency of deposit for the national government, and as a primary lender of government issues of currency-note credit for productive investment.

  4. Use the power of the state to launch a range of productive and infrastructural investments sufficient to bring about rapid expansion of productive employment up to a prescribed “full employment” level.

  5. Enter into protectionist forms of tariff and trade agreements, both to protect national productive investments (and employment), and to foster an expansion of mutually beneficial hard-commodity trade among nations.

The enactment of such emergency measures by a strategically decisive aggregation of nation-states, means an end to the power of that pack of parasites which has ruled the modern world too long, the Anglo-Dutch-centered international financier oligarchy. Such measures are the only means by which existing nation-states could survive a collapse of the severity now in progress. Governments which would, ordinarily, lack the political courage to undertake such reform measures, are being challenged by the kind of onrushing collapse which would tend to impel even the most timorous regime into bold recovery measures. Hence, the oligarchy is at the extremes of hysteria, in its determination to destroy existing nation-states, especially the United States of America, before the point is reached that such recovery measures might be forced onto the table for immediate action.

That hysteria is key to the way in which London-centered forces are pushing for Quebec separatism now: to use that as the first of a series of chain-reaction developments intended to bring about the weakening, and de-centralizing, and early dissolution of the U.S.A.—among other existing nation-states. That is why London’s terrorist and other assets are being used in the effort to destroy the present governments of Sudan, Kenya, and Nigeria, as London has already unleashed its genocide against Rwanda and Burundi. This is the consideration underlying the unleashing of ethnicity-accented international terrorism within South Asia and the border-areas of China.


[1] Sabine Cayrol, “Nous n’avons même pas à leur repondre. Une semaine à Londres et on a compris: ils sont vraiment ‘crazy,’ ” Paris Match, cited in the Daily Telegraph, Sept. 1, 1995.

[2] Scott Thompson, “His British Lordship Spills the Beans,” EIR, Feb. 17, 1995, pp. 37-40.

[3] Dana S. Scanlon, “The Defeat of Hanotaux and the Coming of the Entente Cordiale with London,” EIR, March 24, 1995. William Jones, “A Continental League for Eurasian Development,” EIR, March 24, 1995.

[4] Webster G. Tarpley, “London Sets the Stage for a New Triple Entente,” and “King Edward VII: Evil Demiurge of the Triple Entente and World War I,” EIR, March 24, 1995.

[5] Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), pp. 26-44.

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..

BELHAJ COVER

BELHAJ COVER

MAP OF LIBYA

MAP OF LIBYA

INTERVIEW WITH THE NICE MAN BELHAJ WANTED BY INTERPOL WANTED IN SPAIN FOR TERRORIST ACTS WANTED BY THE LIBYAN PEOPLE FOR ATROCITIES DONE TO LIBYAN CITIZENS. MOST HATED MAN IN LIBYA AND MI6 ASSET IN BED WITH QATAR AND SAUDI ARABIA SECOND IN COMMAND IN THE AL QAEDA HIERARCHY

INTERVIEW WITH THE NICE MAN BELHAJ WANTED BY INTERPOL WANTED IN SPAIN FOR TERRORIST ACTS WANTED BY THE LIBYAN PEOPLE FOR ATROCITIES DONE TO LIBYAN CITIZENS. MOST HATED MAN IN LIBYA AND MI6 ASSET IN BED WITH QATAR AND SAUDI ARABIA SECOND IN COMMAND IN THE AL QAEDA HIERARCHY

UN LEON GROOMING BELHAJ TO BECOME A POLITICIAN THE UN IS PAYING PR CO. TO ACHIEVE THIS.... UN LEON IS A PRO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.

UN LEON GROOMING BELHAJ TO BECOME A POLITICIAN THE UN IS PAYING PR CO. TO ACHIEVE THIS.… UN LEON IS A PRO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.

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.

MORE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
C.C.:
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.