'The British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has defended UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, saying the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen is not “in clear breach” of international humanitarian law.
This week MPs will decide whether to call for a ban on arms sales to Saudi in light of allegations of indiscriminate bombing by the Saudi-led coalition during the 18-month-old Yemen civil war.
Greater transparency around the arms trade would save countless lives
Anna Macdonald
Read more
In a written statement to parliament, Johnson says: “The key test for our continued arms exports to Saudi Arabia in relation to international humanitarian law is whether those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious breach of international humanitarian law. Having regard to all the information available to us, we assess this test has not been met.”
His judgment is based largely on an Saudi-led inquiry into eight controversial incidents, including the bombing of hospitals. The report, published on 4 August, largely defended the bombing runs on the basis that the Saudis had received credible intelligence that enemy Houthi forces were in the area. In one case it offered compensation to the victims.
Defending the credibility of a Saudi-led inquiry exonerating Saudi targeting, Johnson said: “They have the best insight into their own procedures and will be able to conduct the most thorough and conclusive investigations. It will also allow the coalition forces to work out what went wrong and apply the lessons learned in the best possible way. This is the standard we set ourselves and our allies.”
The Johnson statement clarifies the UK position after ministers were forced to retract some statements asserting unequivocally that there had been no breaches of international humanitarian law by the Saudis in Yemen.
Subsequent to the Saudi inquiry report, Saudi airstrikes on 15 August left 19 killed and 24 injured when a raid hit a Yemeni hospital supported by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). It was the fourth attack on an MSF facility in Yemen in a year, and led to the MSF withdrawing from parts of Yemen. MSF said it it had shared the hospital’s GPS coordinates with all parties involved in the conflict
A meeting by the Commons committee of arms export controls on Wednesday will see a cross-party push for the UK to suspend its multibillion-pound arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Such a move would infuriate Riyadh, unnerve arms manufacturers and embarrass the Conservative government.
On 25 August the United Nations’ top human rights official, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, called for an international independent inquiry into the Saudi air campaign. A UN report said 60% of the civilian deaths documented in a one-year period had resulted from airstrikes carried out by the Saudi-led coalition on weddings, markets, schools and hospitals. In several of those attacks, the UN said it was unable to identify any possible military target.
'Why do they target us?' Yemeni civilians pay the price of escalating crisis
Read more
The UK government has previously said it was not against an international inquiry, but favoured a Saudi-led inquiry.......' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
The Saudis step deeper into trouble almost by the week. Swamped in their ridiculous war in Yemen, they are now reeling from an extraordinary statement issued by around two hundred Sunni Muslim clerics who effectively referred to the Wahhabi belief – practiced in Saudi Arabia – as “a dangerous deformation” of Sunni Islam. The prelates included Egypt’s Grand Imam, Ahmed el-Tayeb of al-Azhar, the most important centre of theological study in the Islamic world, who only a year ago attacked “corrupt interpretations” of religious texts and who has now signed up to “a return to the schools of great knowledge” outside Saudi Arabia.
This remarkable meeting took place in Grozny and was unaccountably ignored by almost every media in the world – except for the former senior associate at St Antony’s College, Sharmine Narwani, and Le Monde’s Benjamin Barthe – but it may prove to be even more dramatic than the terror of Syria’s civil war. For the statement, obviously approved by Vladimir Putin, is as close as Sunni clerics have got to excommunicating the Saudis.
Although they did not mention the Kingdom by name, the declaration was a stunning affront to a country which spends millions of dollars every year on thousands of Wahhabi mosques, schools and clerics around the world.
Wahhabism’s most dangerous deviation, in the eyes of the Sunnis who met in Chechenya, is that it sanctions violence against non-believers, including Muslims who reject Wahhabi interpretation. Isis, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are the principal foreign adherents to this creed outside Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The Saudis, needless to say, repeatedly insist that they are against all terrorism. Their reaction to the Grozny declaration has been astonishing. “The world is getting ready to burn us,” Adil Al-Kalbani announced. And as Imam of the King Khaled Bin Abdulaziz mosque in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, he should know.
As Narwani points out, the bad news kept on coming. At the start of the five-day Hajj pilgrimage, the Lebanese daily al-Akhbar published online a database which it said came from the Saudi ministry of health, claiming that up 90,000 pilgrims from around the world have died visiting the Hajj capital of Mecca over a 14-year period. Although this figure is officially denied, it is believed in Shia Muslim Iran, which has lost hundreds of its citizens on the Hajj. Among them was Ghazanfar Roknabadi, a former ambassador and intelligence officer in Lebanon. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has just launched an unprecedented attack on the Saudis, accusing them of murder. “The heartless and murderous Saudis locked up the injured with the dead in containers...” he said in his own Hajj message.
A Saudi official said Khameni’s accusations reflected a “new low”. Abdulmohsen Alyas, the Saudi undersecretary for international communications, said they were “unfounded, but also timed to only serve their unethical failing propaganda”.
Yet the Iranians have boycotted the Hajj this year (not surprisingly, one might add) after claiming that they have not received Saudi assurances of basic security for pilgrims. According to Khamenei, Saudi rulers “have plunged the world of Islam into civil wars”.
However exaggerated his words, one thing is clear: for the first time, ever, the Saudis have been assaulted by both Sunni and Shia leaders at almost the same time.
The presence in Grozny of Grand Imam al-Tayeb of Egypt was particularly infuriating for the Saudis who have poured millions of dollars into the Egyptian economy since Brigadier-General-President al-Sissi staged his doleful military coup more than three years ago.
What, the Saudis must be asking themselves, has happened to the fawning leaders who would normally grovel to the Kingdom?
Footage shows extent of child malnutrition in Yemen as Britain continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia
“In 2010, Saudi Arabia was crossing borders peacefully as a power-broker, working with Iran, Syria, Turkey, Qatar and others to troubleshoot in regional hotspots,” Narwani writes. “By 2016, it had buried two kings, shrugged off a measured approach to foreign policy, embraced ‘takfiri’ madness and emptied its coffers.” A “takfiri” is a Sunni who accuses another Muslim (or Christian or Jew) of apostasy.
Kuwait, Libya, Jordan and Sudan were present in Grozny, along with – you guessed it – Ahmed Hassoun, the grand mufti of Syria and a loyal Assad man. Intriguingly, Abu Dhabi played no official role, although its policy of “deradicalisation” is well known throughout the Arab world.
But there are close links between President (and dictator) Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechenya, the official host of the recent conference, and Mohamed Ben Zayed al-Nahyan, the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince. The conference itself was opened by Putin, which shows what he thinks of the Saudis – although, typically, none of the Sunni delegates asked him to stop bombing Syria. But since the very meeting occurred against the backcloth of Isis and its possible defeat, they wouldn’t, would they?
That Chechenya, a country of monstrous bloodletting by Russia and its own Wahhabi rebels, should have been chosen as a venue for such a remarkable conclave was an irony which could not have been lost on the delegates. But the real questions they were discussing must have been equally apparent.
Who are the real representatives of Sunni Muslims if the Saudis are to be shoved aside? And what is the future of Saudi Arabia? Of such questions are revolutions made.
A video has emerged of Boris Johnson disparaging the role in the Middle East of Britain’s ally Saudi Arabia, accusing the nation of “playing proxy wars” and abusing Islam for political ends.
The Foreign Secretary was very positive about Saudi-UK relations during an appearance on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday morning.
But speaking just a few days earlier at a conference in Rome, Mr Johnson said Saudi Arabia and Iran were “moving in and puppeteering” in neighbouring states.
The video from the Med 2 event, published by The Guardian, shows Mr Johnson agreeing with Arab League secretary-general Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who said: “The issue is [countries] using religion as an instrument of politics. That should not be.”
Its release came as Prime Minister Theresa May arrived back from a visit to the Gulf where she attended a dinner with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
In the video, Mr Johnson can be seen saying: “There are politicians who are twisting and abusing religion and different strains of the same religion in order to further their own political objectives. That's one of the biggest political problems in the whole region.
“And the tragedy for me - and that's why you have these proxy wars being fought the whole time in that area - is that there is not strong enough leadership in the countries themselves.”
The Foreign Secretary said there were not enough "big characters" in the region who were willing to "reach out beyond their Sunni or Shia" group.
He told the conference: "That's why you've got the Saudis, Iran, everybody, moving in and puppeteering and playing proxy wars."
Mr Johnson spoke positively about the role leaders in Cyprus were playing in bringing the Turkish and Greek communities of that island together, adding: “I see that in Cyprus and I have to tell you, I don’t see it anywhere else in the region.”
“We need to have some way of encouraging visionary leadership in that area. People who can tell a story that brings people together from different factions and different religious groups into one nation. That’s what is missing.”
Such comments break the longstanding convention among British ministers not to criticise the conduct of key Gulf state allies.
The UK arms industry relies heavily on exports to the region, which also hosts a number of key British military bases.
And Mr Johnson is himself due to visit the region again this weekend, and faces the prospect of having to defend his statements about Islam in particular.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "As the Foreign Secretary made very clear [to Marr] on Sunday, we are allies with Saudi Arabia and support them in their efforts to secure their borders and protect their people. Any suggestion to the contrary is wrong and misinterpreting the facts."
Speaking ahead of her Middle East visit, Ms May said earlier this week that human rights abuses by Gulf states shouldn't affect British trade policy.
She said: “No doubt there will be some people in the UK who say we shouldn't seek stronger trade and security ties with these countries because of their record on human rights.
“But we don't uphold our values and human rights by turning our back on this issue. We achieve far more by stepping up, engaging with these countries and working with them to encourage and support their plans for reform.
UK arms are being used by the Saudis in Yemen, such as in this funeral ceremony in Sanaía EPA
The UK is secretly selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other countries under an opaque type of export licence, it has been reported.
The military and defence industry is a major player in the UK economy, worth about £7.7bn a year.
But many of the countries buying British arms are run by governments with dubious human rights records, even though the destinations of such exports are supposed to meet human rights standards.
READ MORE
UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia ‘must end now’
Now, according to the i newspaper, an increasing number of military consignments are being sold under the Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) after quiet Government encouragement in 2015, despite criticism from MPs.
Under the OIEL licences, numerous consignments can be exported to one destination under a single licence for up to five years after initial scrutiny. They are supposed to be “less sensitive goods” but campaigners say this vague requirement is often flouted.
Furthermore, the value of OIEL licenced goods does not need to be publicly declared, meaning it is difficult to determine their volume, though it is estimated to be in the tens of millions.
For instance, using just 32 OIEL licences, 150 different types of defence and military goods – including technology and parts for fighter aircraft – have been exported to Saudi Arabia, the newspaper reported.
World news in pictures
35
show all
Saudi Arabia has been widely condemned for its role in the Yemeni conflict, where its airstrikes have been blamed for large numbers of civilian deaths.
READ MORE
UK signed off £3.3bn arms exports to Saudi Arabia in last year
UK urged to stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia after Netherlands ban
Yemen's Prime Minister accuses UK of war crimes
Johnson says Saudi Arabia has not crossed threshold by bombing Yemen
Other British goods that have been exported around the world under OIEL licences reportedly include rifles, crowd control weapons and helicopters.
While proponents say OIEL licences help efficiency and cut red tape, opponents say they allow inappropriate sales to go through.
Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against the Arms Trade, which obtained the data, said: “Open licences only exacerbate the lack of transparency in the arms trade. UK arms are playing a central role in the devastation of Yemen, and this means the scale of arms exports could be even higher than we already thought.
“Arms exports aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet, they can have deadly consequences and send a message of support to some of the most abusive regimes in the world.”
Exports under OIEL licences have increased in recent years, i reported. While there were just 761 granted in 2009, there were 1,866 in 2015. And the figure is set to increase in 2016, when there were 1,100 OIEL licences in the first six months.
Anti-arms trade campaigners claimed this means the UK could be more deeply involved in the international arms trade than previously thought and that the exports send a “message of support” to despotic regimes.
More about: Arms tradearms exportsSaudi ArabiaREAD FULL STORY
5 College Degrees That Will Be Extinct In 20 Years
Womensarticle.com
Best Flashlight Ever is Selling Like Crazy
Lumify Flashlight X800
10 Easy Skin Secrets Dermatologists Don’t Want You to Know
Womensarticle.com
5 Things Car Salesmen Don't Want You To Know
Women's Article
by Taboola Promoted Links
MOST POPULAR
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God
China seizes unmanned US navy drone in South China Sea
Conspiracy theorist Max Spiers 'vomited black fluid before he died'
Michael Sheen will quit acting to become a full-time activist
There's more propaganda than news coming out of Aleppo
COMMENTS
3 hours ago
Little Glimmer
Shouldn't something have been said a long time ago about the conflict of interest in the May household? Nobody said "wait a minute" when for years the Home Secretary May shovelled taxpayers money to G4S "Securing Your World" on an industrial scale (the most recent trough extension being on 8th December)?
Tory Austerity is a bit of a lark, isn't it?
3 hours ago
LightnFluffy
The one thing that Tories value above all else is money, anyway they can get it. When lots of people die in order for them to buy bigger yachts or bigger collections of supercars, they don't lose a minute's sleep about it. Why the majority of the population continue to enable this kind of psychopathic behaviour is maddening.
ReplyShare+3
3 hours ago
Paine Russell Orwell
We also export security and intelligence and security personnel , and guess what it's GS4 who operate the most in these despotic countries . And who is the major share holder and director ? Mr May !
For how long will this pigeon Mrs May be accepted as our PM ? She is clearly been appointed by her husbands Cabal that have a vested interest in war and the sales of Arms ?
4 hours ago
R-32
Why on earth would we sell arms to people who support groups like ISIS? Oh that's right, for money.
ReplyShare2 replies13 _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
The Government does not make judgments over whether countries like Saudi Arabia have violated international humanitarian laws in specific cases before granting arms exports to them.
Ministers have admitted they do not reach any conclusion on whether there have been violations in particular cases, because they say it would “not be possible” in conflicts the UK is not involved in.
Ministers instead try to come to “an overall judgement” that arms sold to a country will not be used to violate international humanitarian laws (IHL), a government spokesman has told The Independent.
The revelation comes ahead of a landmark judicial review case this week in the High Court, which will determine the legality of the arms transfers to Saudi Arabia.
READ MORE
Saudi Arabia's dream of domination has gone up in flames
Campaigners have demanded to know how it is possible to reach an “overall judgement” without determining whether violations have occurred in individual instances and accused the Government of “burying its head in the sand”.
It follows the publication of a report from two committees of MPs which said it had been presented with evidence of “clear violations” of international humanitarian law in the war being waged in part by a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, including an air strike on a wedding party which killed 47 civilians and injured 58 more.
It has also emerged that Saudi Arabia recently used British-made cluster bombs in the ongoing conflict that the UN believes has led to 10,000 deaths.
There has been outrage that the Government is continuing to allow arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite many claims of violations of IHL in Yemen.
Angus Robertson questions Theresa May over arms sales to Saudi Arabia at PMQs
But when Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake called on the Government to publish the findings on which its assessment of alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen is based, he was told that while some incidents were monitored and analysed, no conclusions on individual cases are reached.
Instead, information is used to “form an overall view on the approach and attitude of Saudi Arabia” to IHL.
Tobias Ellwood, minister for the Middle East and Africa, said in a written answer: “It is important to make clear that neither the [Ministry of Defence] nor the [Foreign Office] reaches a conclusion as to whether or not an IHL violation has taken place in relation to each and every incident of potential concern that comes to its attention.
“This would simply not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party, as is the case in Yemen.”
Yemen’s Prime Minister accuses UK of war crimes
The response comes despite a joint report by MPs on the House of Commons business and international development committees calling for sales of UK weapons which could be used in Saudi Arabia’s military action in Yemen to be halted until the completion of an independent inquiry into allegations, for which it had seen “clear evidence”.
Mr Brake told The Independent: “Yet again the Government is tying itself up in knots to defend their continued sale of arms to Saudi.
“Instead of fully assessing the significant evidence of horrific attacks by Saudi on civilians in Yemen, they are burying their heads in the sand and allowing British-made weapons to be complicit in these attacks.
“This is the dark side of a Tory-Brexit government who are desperate to pursue trade, no matter the human cost.”
10 examples of Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses
10
show all
Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) said the UK regime for granting licences should be reformed.
He said: “How can the Government reach an overall judgement without making judgements on specific allegations?
“How can they possibly form an overall picture without determining whether or not allegations are true? If arms export controls mean anything then all allegations of human rights breaches must be thoroughly investigated.”
It was confirmed last month that Britain exported 500 cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia in an arms deal dating back to when Margaret Thatcher was in power.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon revealed the official figures, which relate to exports signed off by the Government between 1986 to 1989, after it emerged that a “limited number” of the weapons sold to the autocracy are still in its stockpile.
Theresa May can’t give assurances that no civilians have been killed by British arms in Yemen
The weapons are now banned after Britain signed a treaty in 2010, but Sir Michael has said he was satisfied the bombs had not been used to breach IHL.
Saudi Arabia in December admitted using the weapons in Yemen. It has now told the British government it will no longer use them, but has not confirmed it has destroyed them.
It is also investigating itself over alleged violations of international human rights law in Yemen.
On 7, 8 and 10 February, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam will make submissions to the High Court, in a legal challenge brought by CAAT, over the selling of arms by the UK to the Saudis.
James Lynch, head of Human Rights at Amnesty, said the government’s repeated refusal to halt arms transfers “beggars belief”, given the extensive and credible reporting showing the Saudi Arabia-led coalition’s ongoing serious violations of international human rights.
A poll by CAAT has revealed that two-thirds of British people think selling arms to the Saudis is unacceptable.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “The UK Government operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world.
“We do not make assessments in each and every alleged case of a breach of IHL, as we are not in a position to do so.
“However, the Ministry of Defence monitors alleged IHL violations using all available information, such as media and other reports, and this wider picture is used to form an overall judgement of the risk that any exported items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL.” _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
'The Trump administration's truculent warning last week that it was putting Iran "on notice" over its recent missile test and a missile strike on a Saudi warship off the coast of Yemen appears calculated to convince the American public that the current administration is going to be tougher on Iran than the Obama administration was.
However, despite the tough talk from National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and other senior officials, the new administration appears to be focused primarily on aligning US policy more closely with that of Saudi Arabia -- especially in its war in Yemen and its broader conflict with Iran. The Saudis have been leading a coalition of Sunni Gulf regimes in bombing most of the Yemeni territory controlled by Houthi rebels since March 2015, with US support.
An unidentified senior administration official speaking at a February 1 press briefing, a transcript of which Truthout has obtained, indicated that, apart from economic sanctions, the administration was considering options "related to support for those that are challenging and opposing Iranian malign activity in the region" -- meaning the Saudis and Israel.
During the briefing, the senior officials signaled clearly that the Trump administration will unconditionally support the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen. In response to the question of whether the administration was "reassessing" US support for the Saudi war in Yemen, the unnamed senior official answered with one word: "No.".....' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor
Thursday 13 July 2017 11.12 BST Last modified on Thursday 13 July 2017 11.41 BST
Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques throughout Europe that have become hotbeds of extremism, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sir William Patey has said.
His remarks come a day after the government published a brief summary of a Home Office-commissioned report into the funding of extremism in the UK. The full report is not being published for security reasons.
Patey said he did not believe Saudi Arabia was directly funding terrorist groups, but rather an ideology that leads to extremism, and suggested that its leaders might not be aware of the consequences. “It is unhealthy and we need to do something about it,” he said.
“The Saudis [have] not quite appreciated the impact their funding of a certain brand of Islam is having in the countries in which they do it – it is not just Britain and Europe.
“That is a dialogue we need to have. They are not funding terrorism. They are funding something else, which may down the road lead to individuals being radicalised and becoming fodder for terrorism.”
Patey said the Saudis “find it every easy to back off the idea that they are funding terrorism because they are not.
“What the World Association [sic] of Muslim Youth and the Muslim World League are doing is funding mosques and promoting an ideology – the Salifist Wahhabist ideology.”
He called for clarity on the definition of funding terrorism and “a grownup dialogue with the Gulf about what we think”. There were also “individual Gulf citizens that defied their governments to fund terrorism,” Patey added.
Patey, who was the UK ambassador to Riyadh from 2006 to 2010 and previously head of the Foreign Office Middle East desk, also questioned whether Saudi Arabia and its allies had worked out the implications of their bitter dispute with Qatar.
Three Gulf States – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – along with Egypt, have sought to isolate Qatar diplomatically and economically, citing its support for terrorism and groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
“This has all the hallmarks of a policy that has not been thought through. It does not smack of a considered strategy,” Patey said at roundtable discussion in London organised by the Conservative Middle East Council.
Anti-Qatar alliance renews attack on al-Jazeera Arabic
Read more
“It is not a smart move even if you are sympathetic to their vision. It is a short cut to achieve something quickly and I think they miscalculated and I think they did think that with Trump behind them, Qatar would back down. They raised these stakes because they thought Qatar would back down in the end, so I think they were a bit surprised.”
The boycott had backfired, he argued and far from leading to a coup in Qatar, a cult had developed around the newly popular emir. “The Qataris are rallying round their leadership,” Patey said.
He said he believed the true motive for the dispute was not Qatar’s funding of terrorism, but a wider difference in political vision. “This is about the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a battle for the future of the Middle East,” he said.
Patey also questioned whether all the emirates within the UAE were united behind the boycott. “This is about Abu Dhabi asserting its dominance in foreign policy issues, because this is not in Dubai’s interest,” he said.
Speaking at the same event, Michael Stephens, the head of the Royal United Services Institute Qatar desk, said the Gulf row may lead to an intractable dispute that could prompt investors to think seriously about disinvesting across the Gulf.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:50 am Post subject:
Mick Milton
MI6 linked to al mujahiroun [ Al Muhajiroun ] and Libyan Islamic fighting group who have attacked UK.also many other al Qaeda jihadi groups over time ..who have attacked US .yet the Muslims who are supposed to be our enemies like Syria and Iran haven't attacked the UK.neither have Russia Serbia or north Korea. It seems the only ones who attack us are our allies ! Which then gives me reason to suspect they are still working for MI6 when they attack us...
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor
Thursday 13 July 2017 11.12 BST Last modified on Thursday 13 July 2017 11.41 BST
Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques throughout Europe that have become hotbeds of extremism, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sir William Patey has said.
His remarks come a day after the government published a brief summary of a Home Office-commissioned report into the funding of extremism in the UK. The full report is not being published for security reasons.
Patey said he did not believe Saudi Arabia was directly funding terrorist groups, but rather an ideology that leads to extremism, and suggested that its leaders might not be aware of the consequences. “It is unhealthy and we need to do something about it,” he said.
“The Saudis [have] not quite appreciated the impact their funding of a certain brand of Islam is having in the countries in which they do it – it is not just Britain and Europe.
“That is a dialogue we need to have. They are not funding terrorism. They are funding something else, which may down the road lead to individuals being radicalised and becoming fodder for terrorism.”
Patey said the Saudis “find it every easy to back off the idea that they are funding terrorism because they are not.
“What the World Association [sic] of Muslim Youth and the Muslim World League are doing is funding mosques and promoting an ideology – the Salifist Wahhabist ideology.”
He called for clarity on the definition of funding terrorism and “a grownup dialogue with the Gulf about what we think”. There were also “individual Gulf citizens that defied their governments to fund terrorism,” Patey added.
Patey, who was the UK ambassador to Riyadh from 2006 to 2010 and previously head of the Foreign Office Middle East desk, also questioned whether Saudi Arabia and its allies had worked out the implications of their bitter dispute with Qatar.
Three Gulf States – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – along with Egypt, have sought to isolate Qatar diplomatically and economically, citing its support for terrorism and groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
“This has all the hallmarks of a policy that has not been thought through. It does not smack of a considered strategy,” Patey said at roundtable discussion in London organised by the Conservative Middle East Council.
Anti-Qatar alliance renews attack on al-Jazeera Arabic
Read more
“It is not a smart move even if you are sympathetic to their vision. It is a short cut to achieve something quickly and I think they miscalculated and I think they did think that with Trump behind them, Qatar would back down. They raised these stakes because they thought Qatar would back down in the end, so I think they were a bit surprised.”
The boycott had backfired, he argued and far from leading to a coup in Qatar, a cult had developed around the newly popular emir. “The Qataris are rallying round their leadership,” Patey said.
He said he believed the true motive for the dispute was not Qatar’s funding of terrorism, but a wider difference in political vision. “This is about the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a battle for the future of the Middle East,” he said.
Patey also questioned whether all the emirates within the UAE were united behind the boycott. “This is about Abu Dhabi asserting its dominance in foreign policy issues, because this is not in Dubai’s interest,” he said.
Speaking at the same event, Michael Stephens, the head of the Royal United Services Institute Qatar desk, said the Gulf row may lead to an intractable dispute that could prompt investors to think seriously about disinvesting across the Gulf.
“We are now facing five weeks of the conflict when most people thought it would last 72 hours,” he said, calling for a series of de-escalatory measures leading to a joint agreement to fight extremism.
'14 people sentenced to death on protest charges in Saudi Arabia have been prepared for execution and could face beheading within hours. They include a disabled man and two sentenced to death as juveniles.
Munir Al-Adam was born with impaired sight and hearing. In their efforts to extract a "confession" from him, Munir's captors tortured him so badly that he was rendered completely deaf in one ear. Mujtaba'a al-Sweikat was just 17 when arrested at the airport on his way to take up a place at university in the US. He was burnt with cigarettes and tortured so savagely that his shoulder was broken. He was denied medical care and sentenced to die on the basis of the forced "confession".
The world must tell the new Saudi Prince that these 14 executions are unacceptable and cannot be allowed to go ahead.
Can you sign our petition and call on King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed to stop these executions?' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
The 'mainstream' Western media is, almost by definition, the last place to consult for honest reporting of Western crimes. Consider the appalling case of Yemen which is consumed by war and an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.
Since March 2015, a 'coalition' of Sunni Arab states led by Saudi Arabia, and supported by the US, Britain and France, has been dropping bombs on neighbouring Yemen. The scale of the bombing is indicated in a recent article by Felicity Arbuthnot - in one year, 330,000 homes, 648 mosques, 630 schools and institutes, and 250 health facilities were destroyed or damaged. The stated aim of Saudi Arabia's devastating assault on Yemen is to reinstate the Yemeni president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, and to hold back Houthi rebels who are allied with the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. The Saudis assert that the Houthis, who control Yemen's capital, Sanaa, are 'proxies' for Iran: always a convenient propaganda claim to elicit Western backing and 'justify' intervention.
Philip Hammond, who was UK defence secretary when the Saudi bombing began in 2015, promised:
'We'll support the Saudis in every practical way short of engaging in combat.'
The British government has been true to its word; in this respect at least. Campaign Against Arms Trade says that UK sales to Saudi Arabia since the start of the attacks on Yemen include £2.2 billion of aircraft, helicopters and drones, £1.1 billion of missiles, bombs and grenades, and nearly half a million pounds of armoured vehicles and tanks. Just days ago, it was revealed that Britain is now the second biggest dealer of arms in the world. Is there any clearer sign of the corrupt nature of UK foreign policy?
Perhaps there is. Last month, Oxfam reported that in excess of 21 million people in Yemen, out of a total population of around 27 million, are in need of humanitarian aid, more than in any other country. Over 6,000 people have been killed, more than 3 million displaced and more than 14 million are suffering hunger and malnutrition.
Amnesty International reports that British-made cluster bombs have been used in deadly attacks on civilians. Children are among those who have been killed and maimed. The human rights organisation says that the UK should stop all arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Amnesty has also called for Saudi Arabia to be dropped from the United Nations Human Rights Council because of 'gross and systematic violations of human rights', both at home and abroad.
'They Call It Natural Death. But It's Not.'
In a two-part piece for BBC Newsnight last year, Gabriel Gatehouse commendably reported from Yemen on the plight of civilians there, including the Saudi targeting of civilian infrastructure. The BBC journalist also alluded to 'the British dimension' in which the Saudi 'coalition's efforts are supported by Britain and the United States', with British-supplied weaponry being used by the Saudis. Although a welcome deviation from the norm, his criticism of UK foreign policy was muted and not subsequently maintained by BBC News, as far as we could see (with limited recent exceptions as we will discuss later).
Peter Oborne is a rare example of a Western journalist reporting from Yemen, also pointing unequivocally to British complicity in the country's nightmare. Together with his colleague Nawal Al-Maghafi, Oborne notes in a recent article that:
'We discovered indisputable evidence that the coalition, backed by the UK as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is targeting Yemeni civilians in blatant breach of the rules of war.'
At the same time, Saudi Arabia has imposed a brutal blockade on Yemen preventing vital commodities from getting into the country. One doctor at the Republic teaching hospital in Sanaa told Oborne:
'We are unable to get medical supplies. Anaesthetics. Medicines for kidneys. There are babies dying in incubators because we can't get supplies to treat them.'
The doctor estimated that 25 people were dying every day at the Republic hospital because of the blockade. He continued:
'They call it natural death. But it's not. If we had the medicines they wouldn't be dead.
'I consider them killed as if they were killed by an air strike, because if we had the medicines they would still be alive.'
This is shocking enough. But Oborne adds that there is:
'powerful evidence that the Saudi-led coalition has deliberately targeted hospitals across the country. Four MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] hospitals had been hit by Saudi air strikes prior to the organisation's withdrawal from the country, even though MSF were careful to give the Saudi authorities their GPS positions.'
Oborne, who resigned as political commentator from the Telegraph last year, places Western complicity in Yemen's nightmare at the front and centre of his reporting. He points out that Britain has continued to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and its partners, despite copious evidence of breaches of international humanitarian law presented by human rights organisations.
This is an echo of Britain's shameful role in arming Indonesia while it crushed tiny independence-seeking East Timor, killing around 200,000 people – about one-third of its population. Noam Chomsky described it as a 'slaughter' of 'near-genocidal' levels. He noted that:
'By 1998, Britain had become the leading supplier of arms to Indonesia...over the strong protests of Amnesty International, Indonesian dissidents, and Timorese victims. Arms sales are reported to make up at least a fifth of Britain's exports to Indonesia (estimated at one billion pounds), led by British Aerospace'.
(Noam Chomsky, 'Rogue States', Pluto Books, 2000, p. 232)
In the present case of Yemen, the British Foreign Office has repeatedly denied that Saudi Arabia had broken humanitarian law, asserting until a couple of months ago that the FO's own 'assessment' had cleared the Saudis of any wrong-doing. As Oborne notes, however, on July 21 this year, the last day of parliament before the long summer recess:
'the British government was forced to admit that it had repeatedly misled parliament over the war in Yemen.'
It turns out that no such 'assessment' had taken place; a grudging and potentially damaging admission that ministers had clearly hoped to slip out quietly without proper scrutiny. Oborne describes it as 'a dark moment of official embarrassment.' You have to dig deep in the BBC News website to find scant mention of this shameful episode.
Moreover, Britain has supported the UN Security Council resolution backing a Saudi blockade, and the UK has also provided the Saudis with intelligence and logistical support.
'Perhaps most crucially of all, Britain and the United States have provided Saudi Arabia with diplomatic cover. Last year, Britain and the United States helped to block a Dutch initiative at the UN Human Rights Council for an independent investigation into violations of international humanitarian law.'
In a powerful accompanying filmed report on the destruction of Yemen's capital Sanaa, Oborne concludes:
'This city of old Sanaa is as extraordinary, as priceless, as unique as any of the masterpieces of Western civilisation – like Florence or Venice. Just imagine the outcry if bombs were falling on Florence or Venice. But because this is old Sanaa, in forgotten Yemen, nobody cares a damn.'
And least of all Britain's new Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, who callously waved away copious evidence of Saudi breaches of international humanitarian law. The Guardian's diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour writes of Johnson's assertion that the Saudis are not 'in clear breach' of humanitarian law:
'His judgment is based largely on a Saudi-led inquiry into eight controversial incidents, including the bombing of hospitals.'
To his credit, Wintour notes that Johnson was 'defending the credibility of a Saudi-led inquiry exonerating Saudi targeting'. Comment seems superfluous. He then adds Johnson's own unwittingly self-damning statement:
'They [the Saudis] have the best insight into their own procedures and will be able to conduct the most thorough and conclusive investigations. It will also allow the coalition forces to work out what went wrong and apply the lessons learned in the best possible way. This is the standard we set ourselves and our allies.'
Indeed, this is the same standard that the world saw with horror last year when the US investigated, and largely exonerated itself, over its dreadful bombing of an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Boris Johnson is sweeping aside compelling evidence of serious breaches of international law in a cynical move to maintain lucrative UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and to protect close strategic ties with a brutal kingdom of state beheaders and torturers. All this belies his carefully-crafted media image as an amiably bumbling and largely harmless P.G. Wodehouse-like character. In reality, he is a dangerous, extreme right-wing politician with too much power. Sadly, even the often admirable Peter Oborne's judgement went awry on his return from Yemen when he appealed to Johnson to 'act boldly to reset Riyadh [i.e. Saudi Arabia] relations':
'Boris Johnson has the potential to be one of the great British foreign secretaries of the modern era.'
Sadly, this line by Oborne does not appear to be satire.
Meanwhile, on September 5, the foreign office minister, Tobias Ellwood, addressed the Commons after being requested to do so by the Speaker, John Bercow, because of previously misleading statements on Yemen given by ministers to parliament. Wintour claims in his Guardian report that Ellwood 'apologised' for these 'inaccurate answers'. But the quoted wording is far from a proper apology. Indeed, the foreign minister obfuscated further in support of Saudi Arabia. Ellwood:
'said it was not for the UK government to conclude whether individual bombing incidents by the Saudis represented breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL), but instead to "take an overall view of the approach and attitude by Saudi Arabia to international humanitarian law".'
In effect, the UK would continue to rely on Saudi Arabia's assessments on whether the latter had breached international humanitarian law. Worse, while Yemenis continued to die under US/UK-supported bombing, Ellwood went on to support the Saudis:
'Defending the Saudi response to criticisms of its campaign, Ellwood said: "It was new territory for Saudi Arabia and a conservative nation was not used to such exposure."'
This was sophistry of the worst order. 'New territory' entails a murderous bombing campaign and a crippling blockade. And describing Saudi Arabia - a brutal and repressive regime which ranks amongst the world's worst offenders of human rights - as merely 'a conservative nation', speaks volumes about the mental and ethical contortions required to defend British foreign policy.
But there is even more to say about the UK's shameful complicity in Yemen's destruction. And, from what we have seen so far, it has had zero coverage in the 'mainstream' media.
Media Silence Over UK Role In 'Targeted Killing'
Last week, the online investigative journal The Intercept published an in-depth piece on revelations about spying based on top-secret documents provided to them by Edward Snowden, the US National Security Agency whistle-blower. Titled 'Inside Menwith Hill. The NSA's British Base at the Heart of U.S. Targeted Killing', the article was written by Ryan Gallagher, a UK-based journalist specialising in government surveillance, technology and civil liberties.
The RAF Menwith Hill base lies a few miles from Harrogate in North Yorkshire and is the largest electronic monitoring station in the world. As Gallagher notes: 'it is a vital part of the NSA's sprawling global surveillance network'. Consequently, its activities are shrouded in secrecy, despite the best efforts of human rights groups and a few British politicians demanding greater transparency. These efforts have been continually rebuffed by the UK government 'citing a longstanding policy not to discuss matters related to national security.'
Now, however, the NSA files released by Snowden:
'reveal for the first time how the NSA has used the British base to aid "a significant number of capture-kill operations" across the Middle East and North Africa, fueled by powerful eavesdropping technology that can harvest data from more than 300 million emails and phone calls a day.'
Over the past decade, advanced surveillance programmes at Menwith Hill have located 'suspected terrorists accessing the internet in remote parts of the world' and 'provided support for conventional British and American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.'
But, adds Gallagher, 'they have also aided covert missions in countries where the U.S. has not declared war', including Yemen. These disclosures 'raise new questions about the extent of British complicity in U.S. drone strikes and other so-called targeted killing missions, which may in some cases have violated international laws or constituted war crimes.'
Kat Craig, legal director of London-based human rights group Reprieve, told Gallagher that Snowden's revelations are:
'yet another example of the unacceptable level of secrecy that surrounds U.K. involvement in the U.S. "targeted killing" program. It is now imperative that the prime minister comes clean about U.K. involvement in targeted killing'.
Gallagher describes a number of surveillance programmes, including one called GHOSTWOLF used to monitor 'terrorist' activity in internet cafes in the Middle East. This information is being used to 'capture or eliminate key nodes in terrorist networks'.
As Gallagher observes:
'GHOSTWOLF ties Menwith Hill to lethal operations in Yemen, providing the first documentary evidence that directly implicates the U.K. in covert actions in the country.
'Menwith Hill's previously undisclosed role aiding the so-called targeted killing of terror suspects highlights the extent of the British government's apparent complicity in controversial U.S. attacks — and raises questions about the legality of the secret operations carried out from the base.'
The British government has consistently asserted that operations at Menwith 'have always been, and continue to be' carried out with its 'knowledge and consent.' In the context of the commission of war crimes, this is a damning admission.
Gallagher expands:
'For several years, British human rights campaigners and lawmakers have been pressuring the government to provide information about whether it has had any role aiding U.S. targeted killing operations, yet they have been met with silence. In particular, there has been an attempt to establish whether the U.K. has aided U.S. drone bombings outside of declared war zones — in countries including Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia — which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and are in some cases considered by United Nations officials to possibly constitute war crimes and violations of international law.'
These new, deeply damaging revelations by Snowden appear to have been completely blanked by the 'mainstream' media. Searches of the Lexis-Nexis newspaper database yield zero hits on Snowden's Menwith revelations, and there appears to have been nothing published on the BBC News website. Indeed, this dearth of coverage by UK media, including BBC News, had been anticipated by US investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald, who previously worked with Snowden.
Not unusually, one has to go to media such as RT or PressTV to find any coverage; another reason why these outlets are so often bitterly denigrated as 'propaganda' operations by corporate journalists who haven't done their job of holding Western power to account.
The Post-Brexit, $2 Trillion Saudi Carrot
On September 7, BBC Newsnight revealed how a draft report by MPs on the influential committee on arms export control was being watered down to remove the call for a suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia (clip available here). A statement in the draft report had said:
'The weight of evidence of violations of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition is now so great, that it is very difficult to continue to support Saudi Arabia.'
But a number of 'pro-defence' MPs had then tabled more than 130 amendments, including a move to remove the call to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Guardian noted cautiously that this attempt:
'underlines the sensitivity of the issue of UK-Saudi relations at Westminster, the importance of the Gulf to the UK defence industry and the concern that Britain, for a variety of security reasons, is too ready to take Saudi assurances about how it is conducting a difficult civil war in Yemen.'
That is putting it all too mildly; a point to which we return below.
The following evening (September , Tory MP Crispin Blunt refused to respond when pressed by Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark about reportedly walking out of the committee meeting in order to stall a vote. It appears that Blunt had feared his amendments were about to be rejected, and by walking out of the meeting the quorum requirement would fail and no valid vote could take place.
But the sickness of government priorities at the intersection of foreign policy and economic imperatives was really highlighted when the Saudi foreign minister declared last week that it was 'in Britain's interest' to continue supporting Saudi Arabia in its murderous assault on Yemen. Or, as the neocon Telegraph defence editor Con Coughlin put it:
'to continue supporting the Saudis in the battle to prevent Yemen falling into the hands of Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.'
Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, then dangled a carrot in front of British ministers' noses.
'Apart from maintaining traditional links on military and intelligence cooperation, Mr Jubeir also said post-Brexit Britain could look forward to forging new trade links with the kingdom as Saudi Arabia embarks on its ambitious plan to restructure its economy under a plan called Saudi Vision 2030. "We are looking at more than $2 trillion worth of investment opportunities over the next decade, and this will take the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Britain to an entirely new level post-Brexit."'
Sometimes, you have to go to the extreme right-wing press to have the crude realpolitik spelled out so clearly.
Saudi pressure is considerable and difficult to resist. In June, it was reported that even the UN succumbed when it removed Saudi Arabia from a blacklist of countries responsible for child casualties in conflicts around the globe. Saudi Arabia had been placed on the list for killing and maiming children in Yemen bombing attacks. The country, along with other Arab and Muslim countries, had reportedly threatened to withdraw funding from vital UN humanitarian programmes. One anonymous diplomat spoke of 'bullying, threats, pressure', and summed it up as 'real blackmail'.
The reports on Yemen cited in this media alert from the Guardian and BBC News show the permissible limits of occasional – very occasional – challenges to state power. What is routinely missing, and what would be prominent in coverage of British foreign policy in honest news media, has never been better highlighted than by historian Mark Curtis. For many years, he has extensively analysed formerly secret government records detailing internal discussions about state policies and priorities. In his book, 'Web of Deceit', which lays out 'Britain's real role in the world', Curtis concludes that the primary function of the British state:
'virtually its raison d'être for several centuries – is to aid British companies in getting their hands on other countries' resources.'
(Mark Curtis, 'Web of Deceit', 2003, Vintage, p. 210)
To pursue such state policies means initiating war, military interventions, threats, bullying, and other aggressive actions, usually in support of the United States and/or Nato. This global imperialism is dressed up in propaganda garb as 'countering terrorism', 'improving world security', 'working with our allies' and similar pieties propagated by the 'mainstream' media. Curtis lays particular responsibility for such propaganda at the door of the 'liberal' media, notably the Guardian and BBC News:
'The liberal intelligentsia in Britain is in my view guilty of helping to weave a collective web of deceit.... To read many mainstream commentators' writings on Britain's role in the world is to enter a surreal, Kafkaesque world where the reality is often the direct opposite of what is contended and where the startling assumptions are frighteningly supportive of state power.'
(Ibid., p. 4)
This 'surreal, Kafkaesque world' - in which Britain shares responsibility for appalling violence, while proclaiming its supposed desire for 'peace' and 'security' - will continue for as long as we do not have an honest media that seriously and consistently challenges brutal state power.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:32 am Post subject:
British police may have helped Saudi Arabia arrest men due to be executed, MPs reveal
Cross-party letter urges Theresa May to intervene in potential execution of 14 prisoners
Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud welcomes British Prime Minister Theresa May in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in April REUTERS
Training by British police may have directly helped Saudi agents arrest more than a dozen people now believed to be facing execution, it is feared.
MPs including ex-Labour leader Ed Miliband have written to Theresa May asking her to "personally urge" the Saudi royal family to halt the killings.
Human rights charity Reprieve said the 14 prisoners included a disabled man and a student, Mujtaba al-Sweikat, arrested in 2012 when he was only 17.
READ MORE
Labour joins 9/11 survivors in demanding May release Saudi report
The Prime Minister must "take urgent steps to confirm that UK assistance played no role in these individuals' conviction", the MPs wrote, according to the BBC.
Conservative Andrew Mitchell and Liberal Democrat Tom Brake also signed the letter, which demands a "full account to Parliament of any and all UK training for Saudi police and criminal justice institutions".
Mr Brake raised the issue in an urgent question to Parliament earlier this week.
He said: "The PM is promoting the UK as a global nation. How we respond to the threat of summary executions by a partner and close ally will determine exactly what kind of global nation she intends the UK to be - a global champion of human rights or an apologist for human rights abusers."
Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt replied: "The UK government opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and in every country including Saudi Arabia."
In the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury also pleaded with Ms May to intervene.
The Most Rev Justin Welby said the "depth" of the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia in areas like trade and finance offered options "for significantly more leverage than mere condemnation".
World news in pictures
101
show all
Answering for the Government, Baroness Goldie said Saudi Arabia was aware of the UK's concerns, but it was a "sovereign state" and it was not possible for the UK to "interfere with either its judicial system or its constitutional approach to these matters".
She told peers: "We can make clear, as we do, our profound disapproval and opposition to abuses of human rights and the use of the death penalty."
She added ministers were urgently seeking clarification of the situation from the highest levels of Saudi leadership and reiterating "profound concerns" about the reports.
Reprieve said Mr al-Sweikat and the others convicted of similar protest-related offences now face "imminent execution based on false confessions extracted through torture in a secretive trial".
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released statements last month calling the men's trial "grossly unfair". They said a court of appeals has upheld the convictions and death sentences.
0:00
/
0:19
Trump 'de-emphasises human rights' in Saudi Arabia speech: "We are not here to lecture"
According to Reprieve, the 14 were recently moved to the capital, Riyadh, from another prison, suggesting they could be executed soon.
Saudi Arabia has one of the world's highest execution rates. On 11 July the kingdom executed four Shiites for protest-related violence and attacks on police.
Reprieve warned last year that training from British police officers was equipping Saudi counterparts with skills that could be used to "identify individuals who later go on to be tortured or subjected to other human rights abuses".
READ MORE
How Britain taught Arab police forces all they know
At the time, the Foreign Office said UK expertise was improving the Saudi justice system, including compliance with human rights.
A spokeswoman told The Independent last summer: "It is not good enough to merely criticise other countries from the sidelines. Only by working with Saudi Arabia are we able to bring about the changes we would like to see in the country."
The Saudi embassy in the UK has been contacted for comment.
A College of Policing spokesperson said: "The College ensures that all the overseas assistance it provides complies with human rights and is guided by our code of ethics.
"Decisions about the provision of UK policing assistance overseas must reconcile the difficulties of working with countries whose standards of human rights may be at odds with our own with the opportunity to address national security concerns, help to protect UK citizens overseas and contribute to reform in those countries.
"Before undertaking any international work the College refers to advice from various government departments through the International Police Assistance Board.
"The board assesses all requests for assistance against British values and interests, including overseas security and justice assistance guidance and human rights assessments.
Saudi Arabia is the “foremost” foreign funder of Islamist extremism in the U.K., according to new report released by a British think tank on Wednesday.
The Henry Jackson Society — a right-wing think tank — claims that overseas funding primarily from the governments and private charities of Gulf countries has a “clear and growing link” to the onslaught of violence the U.K. and other Western countries.
The group estimates that the Saudi government and charities spent an estimated $4 billion exporting Saudi Arabia’s strict interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, worldwide in 2015, up from $2 billion in 2007. In 2015, there were 110 mosques in the U.K. practicing Salafism and Wahhabism compared to 68 in 2007. The money is primarily funneled through mosques and Islamic schools in Britain, according to the report.
“Influence has also been exerted through the training of British Muslim religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in a number of the U.K.’s independent Islamic schools,” the report said.
Although many Western countries, including the United States, have acknowledged the threat of foreign terrorist financing, Britain “has seen far less of a response from policy makers supporting moves to tackle the challenge of foreign-funded Islamist extremism,” the report said.
Responding to the report, Labor MP Dan Jarvis told the BBC that “in the wake of the terrible and tragic terrorist attacks we have seen this year, it is vital that we use every tool at our disposal to protect our communities.”
“This includes identifying the networks that promote and support extremism and shutting down the financial networks that fund it,” he said.
Prime Minister Theresa May created a private government commission for countering extremism in the wake of several deadly terrorist incidents in Britain, including the Manchester Arena attack in which a suicide bomber detonated during an Ariana Grande concert, killing 22 people. May has faced accusations that she is sitting on a report about terrorist financing that reportedly shows Saudi Arabia is largely to blame.
May has publicly reinforced the U.K.’s economic and security ties to the Kingdom and in turn, may be reluctant to point fingers. Saudi Arabia is one of the U.K.’s principal security partners in the Middle East, raking in $4.2 billion in weapons deals since March 2015.
Just like President Trump, one of May’s first international visits was to Saudi Arabia and she has repeatedly defended her relationship even in the face of criticism over the Saudi-led coalition airstrikes in the brutal war in Yemen.
The report also comes as Saudi Arabia and a number of other Gulf countries implemented a blockade against Qatar amid accusations that the country was itself a funder of terrorism. The report includes Qatar in its findings but still concludes that Saudi Arabia is the principal perpetrator.
Mass arrest of the elite in Saudi Arabia
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2017
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/massenverhaftung-de r-elite-in-saui.html
The King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, on Saturday issued a decree setting up a new anti-corruption committee, which has full authority to fight "corruption" in the country. The committee is chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who immediately ordered the arrest of 11 Saudi princes, four acting government ministers, numerous former ministers, heads of TV channels and many more leaders.
Mohammed bin Salman
The committee is liberated " from all laws, rules, instructions, orders and decisions " while fulfilling its mission, namely, " the identification of the crimes, persons and entities " who are guilty or complicit in corruption, and is given powers accordingly Impose punitive measures. This includes the confiscation of property, travel restrictions and arrests.
What's happening here is a massive internal "regime change" because what's surprising is the arrest of the celebrity billionaire, a member of the royal family and one of Citibank's largest shareholders, News Corp. and from Twitter, who has often appeared in the US media, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, with 10 other high-ranking princes and 38 ministers accused of corruption and money laundering. The private planes of all princes were occupied with a start ban.
Al-Waleed is Talal
Among those who were either released or arrested is the head of the royal guard, Miteb Bin Abdullah, the Planning and Economy Minister, Adel Fakeih, and Admiral Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammed Al-Sultan, the commander of the Saudi naval forces.
This cleansing by the Saudi king means that the last remnants of leaders of the late King Abdallah have been removed. Among them are the bosses of the three largest Saudi TV broadcasters, Alwalid Bin Talal (Rotana), Walid Al Brahim (MBC) and Saleh Kamel (ART).
Observers say this is a "Night of the Long Knives," as a continuation of the "soft cleansing" that took place in June, with the king replaced veteran officials with young followers, with the intention of sending Saudi Arabia out to the West to open.
Muhammad bin Salman is now the most powerful person in Saudi Arabia, after the king, because he is now subject to the whole apparatus of the military-intelligence network.
In a recent interview, bin Salman says, " Any person involved in corruption will be held accountable regardless of the person and their status, provided there is evidence. "
As I said, the arrest of Al-Walid bin Talal for alleged money laundering may also be a favor to Donald Trump, because Trump hates bin Talal for his Twitter criticism during the election campaign.
On December 11, 2015, Talal wrote: " You are a shame not only for the GOP (Republicans) but for the whole of America, pull out of the race for the US Presidency as you will never win. "
Here is the answer from Trump the next day: " Stupid Prince Talal wants to control US politicians with his daddy's money, can not do that when I'm president. "
After Election Night and Trump's victory, Talal came crawling in, " President Trump, whatever our differences in the past, America has spoken, congratulations and best wishes for your presidency. "
But a Trump never forgets and now Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is in jail for corruption. Probably Trump has reminded the Saudi king that his socks are in power only as long as Washington wants.
The accusation of corruption is a popular accusation to get rid of public officials. But arresting family members for corruption when the entire state belongs to the family is, of course, absurd because all 15,000 members are robbing the people.
It is clearly a family power struggle and a reorientation of Saudi politics.
The mass arrest and replacement of government offices was the culmination of news from the Middle East on Saturday, as the day began with the announcement of Saad al-Hariri, Lebanese-Saudi entrepreneur, politician and billionaire he is dismissed from office as a threat of death threats Lebanese Prime Minister resign.
Then came the news that Saudi Defense forces intercepted a ballistic missile targeting the airport of the Saudi capital, Riyadh. The Burqan 2H rocket was shot down by Houthi-controlled Yemen because both countries are at war.
Trump also heard something that day because he is calling for the privatization of the Saudi state-owned oil company Aramco and the IPO should take place on the New York Stock Exchange.
---------------
I would like to point out the following article:
" ARD makes PR for Saudi Arabia - for easy-to-understand motives "
The ARD is a corrupt media-*-bunch that can be paid for propaganda by the Saudis.
---------------
EVENT NOTE:
An Internet conference will be held today, Sunday, November 5, at 6:00 pm, where Vyacheslav Seewald and I will discuss live the findings of the latest release of the CIA documents on the assassination of President Kennedy. You are welcome to participate with comments and questions. Here the link ...
Freeman around 20:00
divide
Comments:
Hector November 5, 2017 at 5:03
When Aramco and IPO go public they are
Potentates but again blackmail resp. steerable,
because her oil is off again over the us $
is expected. The mistake would be fatal! For the 2nd too
Any company that makes good profits and at some point
the stock market went, only lures locusts of the fianc
industry. Because that is exactly what must be avoided!
Presumably they are from "financial experts" from the IMF
advise with which the disaster is already pre-programmed !!
And the Arabs - as it seems -
are currently reorienting themselves. It would be even better
if they would reform themselves too: Out
with the us, an opening to a multipolar,
anti-Islamic world. With Europe, Russia
and China / Brics.
Then, and only then, could we possibly arrive
be friends.
Reply
Anonymous November 5, 2017 at 09:24
That's nice to see, opposition in the elite fight against each other. The Saudis destroy themselves, that would be a great idea, please keep it up!
Reply
Oil Schleich November 5, 2017 at 10:01
Even before I clicked on the right NEW article, I read the title.
The same signals to me: Satire²³ ))
I could not find anything unusual in the article.
The names (... am here, ... am there, ... am not there) I do not know anyway.
Lack of flash player or old operating system, I can not see Twitter videos (or what is hidden in the gray boxes).
However, it seems to me that in Saudi-Brute, some leading ruler arrests dozens of members of his criminal clan - downright utopian.
Does he have STALIN's pre-war reading "Your Cramp!" read ??
Anyway, they can arrest the whole country, including every inhabitant, every officer, every soldier, every "politician", every iman, every camel whisperer ... 100% of them all live there, including some US occupiers, everyone should lock each other out !!
Qatar, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, Is .... the same thing.
Reply
deguello63 November 5, 2017 at 10:43
This stinks of dictatorship, as Erdogan.
Reply
Cavaliers offense 77 November 5, 2017 at 12:03
Dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. I'm laughing wrong.
Wahhabism is dictatorship.
Reply
Ernst Joachim Müller November 5, 2017 at 13:57
They lock them up
Others continue right there
Everything stays the same
Money does not stink
Reply
navy November 5, 2017 at 16:52
Al-Walid bin Talal, was also in August 2017 with his yacht in Durres, Albania, where the drug boss Edi Rama and his foreign minister Bushati. He once again wanted to bring in investments, where the Bin Laden financier: Yassin Kadi was already there in 2000.
Reply
navy November 5, 2017 at 5:58 pm
The Saudis have wiped out, as have as many Germans, US and EU politicians in this criminal enterprise.
The Saudis, like Qatar, are now participating in Russian companies, because of the partnership with the City Bank, Deutsche Banh, Air Berlin and other fraud companies have enough. Billions smoked in the chimney for nothing
Reply
Evillain November 5, 2017 at 19:37
what's itching for, what those goddamn weiks are doing on their camels in their weird country. as interesting as the famous sack of rice in China
Reply
skeptic November 5, 2017 at 8:13 pm
Erdogan's Turkey is and will always be a haven of humanity and the rule of law compared to Saudi Arabia, and I'm certainly not a Erdo fan.
His stupidity, Crown Prince Salami - who wanted to defeat Russia within 3 weeks in Syria - tried to save his butt, by eliminating his kinship according to good oriental custom. In order to preserve the world's most outrageous regime, it probably takes a few small, cosmetic refreshments, so it will not be too much of a burden on Western "friends." But do not worry, your stupidity, what was a French movie title? "First comes the eating and then the moral." As long as the mammoth is still abundant and bribes flow properly, there is no danger to your work ....
Reply
Anonymous November 6, 2017 at 1:22
Prince Al-Waleed bin Tala is connected to Killary Clinton, obs is now in the illegal business relationship, or the connection to the Podesta and Clinton's popular holiday island with children's buffet and pizza, that will show up .....
Reply
migeha November 6, 2017 at 11:15
Recently, there have been rapproches of the Saudis with Russia, especially in terms of oil demand and thus oil prices. Syria also seemed to be on the road to understanding, after Saudi ambitions had had more and more domestic effects in Saudi Arabia due to the flight of IS troops. The excess of men in the underclass of the region, who can not afford a harem, will probably get back partly and not be able to redirect so quickly to Yemen.
This morning, a high-ranking Saudi prince Mansur bin Mukrin died in a helicopter crash. There seems to be something brewing that can get out of hand quickly. Since Russia currently can not permanently leave the power vacuum in Syria to Iran, a new construction site in Saudi Arabia could still become a major conflict in which Russia has long been drawn. Iran, in turn, will not be able to survive without the support of China and Russia.
At the moment, big chess is being played in London, Zug, Zurich and Geneva. How much longer at the expense of the affected peoples?
Reply
Bindo November 6, 2017 at 12:24
Sekptiker
"But do not worry, your stupidity, what was a French movie title?" First comes the eating and then the moral. "As long as the Mammon is still abundant and bribes flow properly, there is no danger to your Ar ...."
Exactly, therefore, the scandal around the paradise Iland is no scandal, but strangled, just as the pedophile ring with 80,000 members, which was dug, was also strangled, almost no sound in the news, too powerful involved.
But do not worry, you come ALL, the emphasis is on EVERYONE, that's for sure
By the way, the singer Bono of U2, who always does so socially, he also stashed his money there.
Reply
Veni Vidi Vici November 6, 2017 at 23:46
Freeman is on the right track and sees it right. Among those arrested are Clintonists and IS supporters. All are Trump opponents. They all wanted to sabotage his presidency by preventing him from establishing good relations with Russia and defeating jihadism. Bin Salman may have acted on Trump's instructions. It has a connection with the sex scandals in Hollywood, because the arrested and perpetrators are all Clinton supporters! There are always stories about sexual assaults out of transatlanticists:
Fallon the British Minister of War resigns because of sexual harassment of a woman 10 years ago or more. A transatlantic.
For years, Harvey Weinstein has been pushing women into sex, and has also sexually abused women. He will hardly make any more films. He wants to go into politics and he is a Clinton supporter. Both are good friends. Also with Obama.
Kevin Spacey, he is outgoing as a gay, but it turned out that he abused a spectacle colleagues. He supported Clinton himself. Both have good relationships.
Ben Affleck, 2003 he made a bus scrapper. He also a Clinton supporter, he has also used his daughter for reincarnation Clinton propaganda.
Dustin Hoffman is also accused of sexual assault. He is good friends with the Clintons and has supported them.
All these prominent Clintonists are disposed of. It has also been officially confirmed that the DNC has favored HRC and that it only became nominee because the delegates were instructed to vote for Clinton. She got 1000 super-delegates before the Primeries. Donna Brazil is writing a book about Hillary's crime. The Trump administration seems to have turned on the Kärcher in Hollywood and the establishment.
Dolesnykov November 7, 2017 at 10:56
You just have to look at the fact that currently. everywhere "hidden" advertising for Saudi Arabia is running. Among others, the billionaire Richard Branson (Virgin) has recently published positive reports about the Saudis and the country and what he wants to invest there in the next few years. My Palestinian friend, who lives in Jordan and has pretty good contacts in the Middle East, has already confirmed to me that the Saudis want to work massively on their image in the near future, otherwise the money will soon run out. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Saudi Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, a business partner of former Lebanese PM Hariri, dies during arrest
The Saudi purges continue to become increasingly brutal as it appears that the Hariri resignation had everything to do with internal Saudi matters.
http://theduran.com/saudi-prince-abdul-aziz-dies-arrest/
by Adam Garrie ADAM GARRIE
November 6, 2017, 14:57
53K Views 40 Comments
Former FBI special agent Ali H. Soufan has confirmed that Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd has been killed during an attempt by the authorities to arrest him as part of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s great purge of the Saudi elites. He died when his security contingent got into a firefight with regime gunmen attempting to make an arrest.
Abdul Aziz is confirmed dead. He was 44 years old. Earlier, Mansour son of the former crown prince Muqrin was also declared dead. https://t.co/IsUyU896o4
— Ali H. Soufan (@Ali_H_Soufan) November 5, 2017
Prince Abdul Aziz was deeply involved in Saudi Oger Ltd, a company which until it ceased operations in the summer of this year, was owned by the Hariri family. Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was punitively in charge of the company until it ceased operations.
Prince Abdul Aziz’s strange and sudden death which is said to have occurred during an attempted arrest, sheds light on the theory that the clearly forced resignation of former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri had more to do with internal Saudi affairs than the Saudi attempt to bring instability to Lebanon.
As I wrote yesterday,
“This therefore, forces one to consider why the Saudi regime would involve itself in the Hariri affair on the same day as the ‘great purge’?
The answer lies in exploring whether the Hariri ‘purge’ was more for domestic consumption than for international consumption. As a powerful Saudi citizen, one could think of Hariri’s apparently forced resignation as the first Saudi purge of the day, on a day that saw many powerful Saudi citizens dethroned from powerful places in society.
The message to all powerful Saudis, including to Hariri, is that no one is too big to fall at the hands of MBS, even a Saudi citizen who is the Prime Minister in a foreign democracy. The fact that both Hariri and MBS are young men in a leadership role, would indicate that for the famously politically trigger happy MBS, it was also an ego boost”.
2 radically different interpretations of Saudi’s ‘great purge’ and Lebanese PM Hariri’s ‘resignation’
Furthermore, during his speech yesterday afternoon, Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah remarked that perhaps Hariri was involved with the business dealings or personal relations of some of the Saudi officials who had been victims of great purge.
The sudden death of Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd now appears to confirm this line of thinking. This also sheds light on yesterday’s helicopter crash which killed another Saudi prince, Mansour bin Muqrin. When taken in totality, the ‘crash’ does not appear to be an accident.
BREAKING: Saudi Prince and 7 others DEAD after helicopter crash
With reports of no-fly lists being drawn up by the Saudi regime to keep various princes and other official inside the country, the purge looks to be only growing in terms of its scope and its brutality. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
The sudden death of Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd now appears to confirm this line of thinking. This also sheds light on yesterday’s helicopter crash which killed another Saudi prince, Mansour bin Muqrin. When taken in totality, the ‘crash’ does not appear to be an accident[/list] _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
This has all the hallmarks and bloody fingerprints of the Israelis, in cooperation with their Western crony ‘Allies’ and Gulf 'Allies'. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
'BEIRUT, Lebanon — Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah on Friday accused Saudi Arabia of asking his archenemy Israel to launch strikes on Lebanon amid ongoing tension between Riyadh and Tehran.
“The most dangerous thing is inciting Israel to strike Lebanon,” the head of Lebanese Shiite terror group said in a televised address. “I’m talking about information that Saudi Arabia has asked Israel to strike Lebanon.”
But Nasrallah said that war with Israel was unlikely. He said that Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy which seeks to destroy Israel, was watching carefully for any Israeli attempts to use the crisis, that began with the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri last week, to initiate hostilities against Lebanon......'
Various Tweets have said Saudi Arabia offered Israel billions of dollars if it attacked Lebanon. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Beirut - Saudi Arabia says Lebanon has declared war on Saudi Arabia. Usually, a declaration of war originates from the aggressor, not the other way around.
Having lost in Syria, the Saudi-Gulf-US coalition against Iran, has switched focus to Lebanon.
Lebanon is a small country of 3 million in the Eastern Mediterranean. The main religious sect is Shia Muslims. The * have a political party named Hezbollah, which was founded in the early 1980‘s, and they have a very powerful military wing. In fact, they are more powerful than the Lebanese Army.
The Israeli Army invaded and occupied the South of Lebanon from 1982 until May 24, 2000. During that period of a brutal military occupation more than 30,000 Lebanese civilians were killed, and 120,000 injured and disabled. Hezbollah was founded as a grass-roots resistance movement, with the goal of expelling the occupiers. They were successful, and brought about the liberation. The South of Lebanon was populated by both * and Christians. Lebanon’s largest Christian party, The Free Patriotic Movement, and the El Marada Movement, and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation are all Christian parties aligned with Hezbollah.
For the Shia, they see resistance to Israel as a religious duty, and the Christians see Hezbollah as their only defense against Radical terrorists.
Part of the Lebanese Sunnis, who are aligned with Saudi Arabia and USA, are against Hezbollah, and support the Israeli position against the group. However, there are many Lebanese Sunnis who support Hezbollah because they adhere to the resistance ideology.
The resistance ideology calls for the end to all Israeli occupation: in Palestine, in Lebanon and in Syria. Resistance to the Israeli occupation would end with a peace treaty between all parties. So far, this goal is just a dream.
Hezbollah is a political party, which runs in elections and has won Parliament seats, as well as a health and social services provider in Lebanon, and also a military force capable of keeping the South of Lebanon free from invasion. The only way Hezbollah could be expected to lay down their arms would be for the Israeli government to evacuate Shebaa Farms, a small area in South Lebanon, and to evacuate the Golan Heights in Syria, which the UN passed a resolution calling on Israel to leave, and to make a peace treaty with Palestine, under the UN and US approved and accepted “Two State Solution”, also known as “Land for Peace”.
However, there has been no movement on any of those goals, and so Hezbollah remains a formidable military group, which has been in Syria fighting alongside the Syrian Arab Army as they battle Radical terrorists, some of whom are directed, supported and financed by both US-NATO coalition, and their Saudi-Gulf partners.
On the one side in Syria you have the Syrian government forces, along with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces, and the other side is Radical fighters by many different names, and most are supported by Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Syrian conflict is a “Proxy War”, pitting Iran’s partners against America’s partners.
Saad Hariri was the Prime Minster of Lebanon, and represented the Sunni sect. He was a pragmatic leader and chose to deal with Hezbollah and the various other parties who held differing views. He and other leaders were aiming for national unity, instead of divisions which would not be productive.
Saad Hariri was Lebanese, but also held a Saudi citizenship, due to the fact he was born in Riyadh, and raised in the household of King Fahd, as his mother was married to the King . Hariri’s father had been Prime Minster of Lebanon before his death. On November 2, 2017 Saad Hariri met with the top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, who later said the meeting was successful. The next day Hariri flew to Saudi Arabia, and the next day he announced his resignation there.
This was a serious breach in political protocol, and left the Lebanese President and Speaker of Parliament wondering what had happened, and why they were not informed personally and officially. They were watching his global televised resignation speech, which blamed Iran for basically everything wrong in the Middle East, and especially Lebanon.
It was obvious that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia was sending a message through Hariri’s resignation to Hezbollah, and to their supporter Iran, that the Kingdom was holding Saad Hariri responsible for the failure to de-arm Hezbollah, and holding Iran to blame for the Saudi-US coalition loss in the Syrian battlefields. The young Prince was angry, bitter and didn’t take a loss well. Someone would have to pay the price.
During these events, the Crown Prince was also rounding up and arresting many of the fellow Princes, all his own relatives, and placing them in detention against their will. This was done under the guise of an ‘anti-corruption’ crackdown. The charges were corruption and money laundering. The US official comments praised the decision, and seemed to stem from the lavish Anti-Terrorism Summit held in Saudi Arabia for President Trump. Since that meeting, Saudi Arabia and UAE took aim at Qatar; blaming them for sponsoring and funding terrorism: that is the pot calling the kettle black.
The US-NATO-GULF side lost the gamble in Syria. Now, they have to begin Plan B: an attempt to cut off Hezbollah’s military might in Lebanon, which played a role in the victory in Syria. This is strategic goal of Israeli, who views Hezbollah as a threat.
Due to the loss of ISIS in Syria, there is now a clear land bridge from Tehran to Beirut, which could be used to ship weapons to Hezbollah. Israel routinely attacks Syria, citing weapons being transported to Hezbollah. It is the Israel-US-Saudi-Gulf pact which seeks to de-arm Hezbollah and prevent the Iranian supplies to reach them. In the bigger picture: the Israel-US-Saudi-Gulf pact seeks to weaken Iran in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia King to step down and 32 year old son to take over: Israel and Saudi Arabia see Iran as an enemy; war with Iran. UN: Yemen Blockade Must End or 1000s Will Die. Israeli Military Chief Gives Unprecedented Interview to Saudi Media: 'Ready to Share Intel on Iran'. Briton’s returning from ISIS territory ‘DO NOT justify prosecution’ says terror watchdog. EXPLOSIVE: BBC admits US “coalition” working with ISIS, providing safe passage to terrorist fighters. Iraq's Kurds beef up, move back defence line around oil-rich Kirkuk. Lebanon PM accepts invite to France. Russia makes 9 media channels, connected to Radio Free Europe, foreign agents - in retaliation to US doing the same to RT America. Theresa May talking about Russia interfering with elections. On Monday, Theresa May said Vladimir Putin’s government was trying to “undermine free societies” and was “planting fake stories” to “sow discord in the West”. Although on Wednesday, the Prime Minister appeared to soften her language. She told parliament: “if [Labour MPs] cared to look at the speech I gave on Monday they will see that the examples I gave of Russian interference were not in the United Kingdom.” – West intervening in elections with 'The National Endowment for Democracy'. Another False Flag Terror Admission: Snipers in the 2014 Kiev Maidan “Protests”. US Commander in Japan: North Korea Diplomacy Requires 'Military Power'. BBC journalist deletes tweet about UK’s ‘corrupt’ relationship with Israel.
Martin Summers, Tony Gosling
www.thisweek.org.uk - BCfm 93.2 - Friday 17th November 2017 _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
What next, a Sicilian, Corsican, Albanian and Kosovan Drug Enforcement Agency? Should be a doddle to set up, as Gladio controls them already, already. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
The most dangerous foreign policy decision of the Trump administration—and I know this is saying a lot—is its decision to share sensitive nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia and authorize U.S. companies to build nuclear reactors in that country. I spent seven years in the Middle East. I covered the despotic, repressive kingdom as the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. And I, along with most Arabists in the United States, have little doubt that giving a nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia under the leadership of the ruthless and amoral Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would see it embark on a nuclear weapons program and eventually share weaponized technology with Saudi allies and proxies that include an array of radical jihadists and mortal enemies of America. A nuclearized Saudi Arabia is a grave existential threat to the Middle East and ultimately the United States.
The drive to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia is led by the half-wit son-in-law of the president, Jared Kushner, who met Tuesday with Salman in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, to discuss “ways to improve the condition of the entire region through economic investment,” according to the White House. Prominently involved in that economic program are corporations such as IP3 International, a consortium of U.S. companies led by several retired generals and admirals and others who stand to make millions from the deal.
The Saudi government, which is soliciting bids for the nuclear reactors, reportedly spent more than $450,000 over a one-month period to lobby the Trump administration to approve its purchase of the equipment and services from U.S. sources. Westinghouse Electric Co. and other American companies are preparing to construct the facilities, which would allow Saudi Arabia to enrich and reprocess uranium. The secretive effort to give Saudi Arabia a nuclear capability is not only colossally stupid, but has been done without being reviewed by Congress, as required by law, and violates the Atomic Energy Act.
Salman, whose psychopathic traits remind me of Saddam Hussein, is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. He has imprisoned dissidents, brutally ousted rivals, seized over $100 billion in extortion money from kidnapped and tortured members of the royal family and instilled a level of fear and terror inside the kingdom, always a repressive society, unrivaled in its modern history.
Donald Trump and Kushner, by shamelessly defending Salman, even in the face of CIA declarations that the agency has “high confidence” the prince ordered the killing and dismemberment of the Washington Post journalist, are accessories to murder. Not surprisingly, the White House ignored a deadline this month that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations set for making a report on Khashoggi’s assassination. Kushner, whom the Saudi leader reportedly claimed to have “in his pocket,” did not appear to have raised the Khashoggi murder in last week’s meeting, the first face-to-face encounter he has had with Salman since the assassination.
Salman has not ruled out weaponizing any nuclear facilities. He stated in 2018: “Without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” He has also refused to accept any restrictions on enriching uranium and processing plutonium.
Nuclear weapons can be made from uranium or plutonium. The uranium-235 isotope is used in nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs. However, it is less than 1 percent of the naturally occurring element and must be increased—the process is called enrichment—to about 5 percent to work in nuclear reactors. To make nuclear bombs it must be enriched to about 90 percent. Enrichment is carried out by using high-speed centrifuges. This means that the machines that produce nuclear reactor fuel for civilian use can also be used to produce nuclear bombs. It is for this reason that nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities in nations that do not have nuclear weapons, or have promised not to produce nuclear weapons, such as Iran, is closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
An enrichment plant used to fuel one nuclear reactor has the potential to produce 20 nuclear bombs a year by using some 300 centrifuges to enrich uranium-235 to the 90 percent level. A nuclear bomb requires about 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium. The more high-speed centrifuges a country has, the faster weapons-grade uranium can be produced.
Salman and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insist there is a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, despite all intelligence reports, including Israeli intelligence reports, to the contrary. So, given their unique version of reality, the time to start a weapons program in Saudi Arabia is now. Israel has a nuclear arsenal with hundreds of weapons.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, has issued an interim staff report giving testimonies of multiple whistleblowers who warn about the impending transfer of nuclear technology. It lays out in chronological detail the secretive and blatantly illegal efforts by the Trump White House to facilitate Saudi Arabia’s purchase and construction of the nuclear reactors.
The efforts by Saudis and Americans began before Trump took office. Saudi officials, including Khalid Al-Falih, the minister of energy, met with Kushner in New York before the inauguration. The Saudi delegation held out the promise of spending $50 billion on American defense contracts over four years.
IP3 executives Gen. Keith Alexander, Gen. Jack Keane, Bud McFarlane and Rear Adm. Michael Hewitt, as well as the chief executives of six other companies—Exelon, Toshiba America Energy Systems, Bechtel, Centrus Energy, GE Energy Infrastructure and Siemens USA—sent a letter to Salman three weeks before the Trump inauguration that presented a plan to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia. They called it “the Iron Bridge Program,” the report states, and characterized it as “a 21st Century Marshall Plan for the Middle East.”
Michael Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser and one of the former business partners in the venture, sent a text to Alex Copson of ACU Strategic Partners on Inauguration Day assuring him that the nuclear project was “good to go” and suggested that Copson contact his colleagues to “let them know to put things in place,” the report reads.
On Jan. 27, 2017, a week after the inauguration, Derek Harvey, who from January to July 2017 was the senior director for Middle East and North African affairs at the National Security Council, met at the White House with a group of IP3 leaders whom he had invited.
“Immediately after the meeting, Mr. Harvey directed the NSC staff to add information about IP3’s ‘plan for 40 nuclear power plants’ to the briefing package for President Trump’s [planned phone] call with King Salman [the prince’s father and the prime minister of Saudi Arabia],” the report reads. “Mr. Harvey also stated that General Flynn wanted President Trump to raise the ‘plan for 40 nuclear power plants’ with King Salman and that this was the ‘energy plan’ that had been developed and approved by General Flynn during the presidential transition.”
When the NSC staff informed Harvey that the transference of nuclear technology to a foreign country had to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, he dismissed the complaint, saying, in the words of the report, that “the decision to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia had already been made during the presidential transition and that General Flynn wanted President Trump to raise ‘the nuclear power plants’ with King Salman.”
On Jan. 28, 2017, the report reads, “General Flynn and Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland received two documents in their official White House email accounts in a message entitled, ‘Launching the Marshall Plan for the Middle East’ from Mr. McFarlane, a co-founder and Director of IP3 and a former national security advisor to President Reagan who pleaded guilty to participating in the Iran-Contra cover-up in 1988.”
The documents included a draft cover memorandum from Flynn to Trump and a draft memorandum “for the President to sign” directing agency heads to lend support to Thomas Barrack—who managed Trump’s inaugural committee and raised funds for Trump and whose investment firm, Colony NorthStar, would profit from the nuclear deal—for the implementation of the IP3 plan.
“The second document was formatted as a Cabinet Memorandum from the President to the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and Energy; the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the report reads. “It stated that President Trump had assigned Mr. Barrack as a special representative to oversee implementation of the Middle East Marshall Plan: ‘I have assigned a special representative, Tom Barrack, to lead this important initiative and I am requesting him to engage each of you over the next 30 days to gain your input and support for our Middle East Marshal [sic] Plan.’ ”
On March 14, 2017, Trump, along with Kushner, met with Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office. They discussed “a new United States-Saudi program . . . in energy, industry, infrastructure, and technology worth potentially more than $200 billion in direct and indirect investments within the next four years.”
Frances Townsend, a director on IP3’s board, a national security analyst for CBS and a homeland security adviser under President George W. Bush, “contacted White House Homeland Security Advisor Thomas Bossert about the Middle East Marshall Plan” on March 28, 2017, the report reads.
“Ms. Townsend subsequently sent NSC staff several documents: (1) an overview of the Middle East Marshall Plan that appeared to be produced by IP3; (2) a document entitled ‘The Trump Middle East Marshall Plan (White Paper by Tom Barrack)’ dated March 10, 2017; (3) the letter that IP3 leaders Mr. McFarlane, General Keane, Rear Admiral Hewitt, and General Alexander addressed to Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on March 17, 2017; and (4) the January 1, 2017, letter to Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman signed by IP3 leaders General Alexander, General Keane, Bud McFarlane, and Rear Admiral Hewitt, as well as the chief executives of six companies: Exelon Corporation, Toshiba Energy, Bechtel Corporation, Centrus, GE Power, and Siemens USA.”
Barrack’s white paper read: “The President will appoint a special representative for the Trump Middle East Marshall Plan with the diplomatic rank of ambassador or special advisor [to] the President.” It also stated, the report reads, that the special envoy should “coordinate and work hand-in-hand” with government officials, including Kushner.
“The white paper stated that the President should implement the Middle East Marshall Plan through an executive order,” the report reads. “It described the Special Envoy as building ‘long-line relationships with U.S. private sector leaders acting as their expediter in clearing the traditional regional and regulatory hurdles to their participation’ and ‘trusted relationships with top leaders of GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq.’ ”
The House committee staff report says most of the whistleblowers who spoke to the committee were able to document developments only during the early months of the administration. There have been few recent leaks from inside the White House on the nuclear deal. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Kushner and IP3 executives are currently overseeing the project.
“In January 2018, Brookfield Business Partners, a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, announced its plans to acquire Westinghouse Electric for $4.6 billion,” the report notes. “Westinghouse Electric is the bankrupt nuclear services company that is part of IP3’s proposed consortium to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia, and which stands to benefit from the Middle East Marshall Plan. In August 2018, Brookfield Asset Management purchased a partnership stake in 666 Fifth Avenue, a building owned by Jared Kushner’s family company.”
“On February 27, 2018, Goldman Sachs announced that former Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell, who had helped manage Jared Kushner’s relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and plan President Trump’s 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia, would be joining the Goldman Sachs’ sovereign wealth group,” the report reads. “Goldman Sachs wrote in an internal memorandum that ‘Dina will focus on enhancing the firm’s relationships with sovereign clients around the world.’ Ms. Powell reportedly ‘is especially close to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and the country’s ruling family.’ ”
“In March 2018, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman undertook a ‘last-minute visit to New York,’ where he housed his entourage at the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan for five days, a stay that reportedly ‘was enough to boost the hotel’s revenue’ by 13 percent ‘for the entire quarter,’ ” the report reads.
On Feb. 12, 2019, Trump met in the White House with several private nuclear power developers. The meeting, the report states, was “initiated by IP3 International.”
“The meeting was reported to include discussions about U.S. efforts ‘to secure agreements to share U.S. nuclear technology with Middle East nations, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia,’ ” the report reads.
There is little time left to halt the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. Iran, a mortal enemy of Saudi Arabia, will have no choice but to begin a nuclear weapons program if the Saudis build nuclear reactors. The thought of nuclear weapons being in the hands of Salman, an updated version of Saddam Hussein, and ultimately in the hands of nonstate radical jihadists who are supported and funded by powerful elements within Saudi Arabia, is terrifying.
Chris Hedges
Columnist
Mr. Fish
Cartoonist
IN THIS ARTICLE:
atomic energy act benjamin netanyahu congress donald trump elijah e. cummings foreign policy government ip3 international iran israel jamal khashoggi jared kushner king salman marshall plan for middle east middle east military mohammed bin salman money national nuclear reactors nuclear technology politics president republicans saudi arabia td originals trump presidency _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
The most dangerous foreign policy decision of the Trump administration—and I know this is saying a lot—is its decision to share sensitive nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia and authorize U.S. companies to build nuclear reactors in that country. I spent seven years in the Middle East. I covered the despotic, repressive kingdom as the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. And I, along with most Arabists in the United States, have little doubt that giving a nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia under the leadership of the ruthless and amoral Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would see it embark on a nuclear weapons program and eventually share weaponized technology with Saudi allies and proxies that include an array of radical jihadists and mortal enemies of America. A nuclearized Saudi Arabia is a grave existential threat to the Middle East and ultimately the United States.
The drive to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia is led by the half-wit son-in-law of the president, Jared Kushner, who met Tuesday with Salman in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, to discuss “ways to improve the condition of the entire region through economic investment,” according to the White House. Prominently involved in that economic program are corporations such as IP3 International, a consortium of U.S. companies led by several retired generals and admirals and others who stand to make millions from the deal.
The Saudi government, which is soliciting bids for the nuclear reactors, reportedly spent more than $450,000 over a one-month period to lobby the Trump administration to approve its purchase of the equipment and services from U.S. sources. Westinghouse Electric Co. and other American companies are preparing to construct the facilities, which would allow Saudi Arabia to enrich and reprocess uranium. The secretive effort to give Saudi Arabia a nuclear capability is not only colossally stupid, but has been done without being reviewed by Congress, as required by law, and violates the Atomic Energy Act.
Salman, whose psychopathic traits remind me of Saddam Hussein, is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. He has imprisoned dissidents, brutally ousted rivals, seized over $100 billion in extortion money from kidnapped and tortured members of the royal family and instilled a level of fear and terror inside the kingdom, always a repressive society, unrivaled in its modern history.
Donald Trump and Kushner, by shamelessly defending Salman, even in the face of CIA declarations that the agency has “high confidence” the prince ordered the killing and dismemberment of the Washington Post journalist, are accessories to murder. Not surprisingly, the White House ignored a deadline this month that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations set for making a report on Khashoggi’s assassination. Kushner, whom the Saudi leader reportedly claimed to have “in his pocket,” did not appear to have raised the Khashoggi murder in last week’s meeting, the first face-to-face encounter he has had with Salman since the assassination.
Salman has not ruled out weaponizing any nuclear facilities. He stated in 2018: “Without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” He has also refused to accept any restrictions on enriching uranium and processing plutonium.
Nuclear weapons can be made from uranium or plutonium. The uranium-235 isotope is used in nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs. However, it is less than 1 percent of the naturally occurring element and must be increased—the process is called enrichment—to about 5 percent to work in nuclear reactors. To make nuclear bombs it must be enriched to about 90 percent. Enrichment is carried out by using high-speed centrifuges. This means that the machines that produce nuclear reactor fuel for civilian use can also be used to produce nuclear bombs. It is for this reason that nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities in nations that do not have nuclear weapons, or have promised not to produce nuclear weapons, such as Iran, is closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
An enrichment plant used to fuel one nuclear reactor has the potential to produce 20 nuclear bombs a year by using some 300 centrifuges to enrich uranium-235 to the 90 percent level. A nuclear bomb requires about 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium. The more high-speed centrifuges a country has, the faster weapons-grade uranium can be produced.
Salman and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insist there is a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, despite all intelligence reports, including Israeli intelligence reports, to the contrary. So, given their unique version of reality, the time to start a weapons program in Saudi Arabia is now. Israel has a nuclear arsenal with hundreds of weapons.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, has issued an interim staff report giving testimonies of multiple whistleblowers who warn about the impending transfer of nuclear technology. It lays out in chronological detail the secretive and blatantly illegal efforts by the Trump White House to facilitate Saudi Arabia’s purchase and construction of the nuclear reactors.
The efforts by Saudis and Americans began before Trump took office. Saudi officials, including Khalid Al-Falih, the minister of energy, met with Kushner in New York before the inauguration. The Saudi delegation held out the promise of spending $50 billion on American defense contracts over four years.
IP3 executives Gen. Keith Alexander, Gen. Jack Keane, Bud McFarlane and Rear Adm. Michael Hewitt, as well as the chief executives of six other companies—Exelon, Toshiba America Energy Systems, Bechtel, Centrus Energy, GE Energy Infrastructure and Siemens USA—sent a letter to Salman three weeks before the Trump inauguration that presented a plan to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia. They called it “the Iron Bridge Program,” the report states, and characterized it as “a 21st Century Marshall Plan for the Middle East.”
Michael Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser and one of the former business partners in the venture, sent a text to Alex Copson of ACU Strategic Partners on Inauguration Day assuring him that the nuclear project was “good to go” and suggested that Copson contact his colleagues to “let them know to put things in place,” the report reads.
On Jan. 27, 2017, a week after the inauguration, Derek Harvey, who from January to July 2017 was the senior director for Middle East and North African affairs at the National Security Council, met at the White House with a group of IP3 leaders whom he had invited.
“Immediately after the meeting, Mr. Harvey directed the NSC staff to add information about IP3’s ‘plan for 40 nuclear power plants’ to the briefing package for President Trump’s [planned phone] call with King Salman [the prince’s father and the prime minister of Saudi Arabia],” the report reads. “Mr. Harvey also stated that General Flynn wanted President Trump to raise the ‘plan for 40 nuclear power plants’ with King Salman and that this was the ‘energy plan’ that had been developed and approved by General Flynn during the presidential transition.”
When the NSC staff informed Harvey that the transference of nuclear technology to a foreign country had to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, he dismissed the complaint, saying, in the words of the report, that “the decision to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia had already been made during the presidential transition and that General Flynn wanted President Trump to raise ‘the nuclear power plants’ with King Salman.”
On Jan. 28, 2017, the report reads, “General Flynn and Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland received two documents in their official White House email accounts in a message entitled, ‘Launching the Marshall Plan for the Middle East’ from Mr. McFarlane, a co-founder and Director of IP3 and a former national security advisor to President Reagan who pleaded guilty to participating in the Iran-Contra cover-up in 1988.”
The documents included a draft cover memorandum from Flynn to Trump and a draft memorandum “for the President to sign” directing agency heads to lend support to Thomas Barrack—who managed Trump’s inaugural committee and raised funds for Trump and whose investment firm, Colony NorthStar, would profit from the nuclear deal—for the implementation of the IP3 plan.
“The second document was formatted as a Cabinet Memorandum from the President to the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and Energy; the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the report reads. “It stated that President Trump had assigned Mr. Barrack as a special representative to oversee implementation of the Middle East Marshall Plan: ‘I have assigned a special representative, Tom Barrack, to lead this important initiative and I am requesting him to engage each of you over the next 30 days to gain your input and support for our Middle East Marshal [sic] Plan.’ ”
On March 14, 2017, Trump, along with Kushner, met with Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office. They discussed “a new United States-Saudi program . . . in energy, industry, infrastructure, and technology worth potentially more than $200 billion in direct and indirect investments within the next four years.”
Frances Townsend, a director on IP3’s board, a national security analyst for CBS and a homeland security adviser under President George W. Bush, “contacted White House Homeland Security Advisor Thomas Bossert about the Middle East Marshall Plan” on March 28, 2017, the report reads.
“Ms. Townsend subsequently sent NSC staff several documents: (1) an overview of the Middle East Marshall Plan that appeared to be produced by IP3; (2) a document entitled ‘The Trump Middle East Marshall Plan (White Paper by Tom Barrack)’ dated March 10, 2017; (3) the letter that IP3 leaders Mr. McFarlane, General Keane, Rear Admiral Hewitt, and General Alexander addressed to Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on March 17, 2017; and (4) the January 1, 2017, letter to Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman signed by IP3 leaders General Alexander, General Keane, Bud McFarlane, and Rear Admiral Hewitt, as well as the chief executives of six companies: Exelon Corporation, Toshiba Energy, Bechtel Corporation, Centrus, GE Power, and Siemens USA.”
Barrack’s white paper read: “The President will appoint a special representative for the Trump Middle East Marshall Plan with the diplomatic rank of ambassador or special advisor [to] the President.” It also stated, the report reads, that the special envoy should “coordinate and work hand-in-hand” with government officials, including Kushner.
“The white paper stated that the President should implement the Middle East Marshall Plan through an executive order,” the report reads. “It described the Special Envoy as building ‘long-line relationships with U.S. private sector leaders acting as their expediter in clearing the traditional regional and regulatory hurdles to their participation’ and ‘trusted relationships with top leaders of GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq.’ ”
The House committee staff report says most of the whistleblowers who spoke to the committee were able to document developments only during the early months of the administration. There have been few recent leaks from inside the White House on the nuclear deal. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Kushner and IP3 executives are currently overseeing the project.
“In January 2018, Brookfield Business Partners, a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, announced its plans to acquire Westinghouse Electric for $4.6 billion,” the report notes. “Westinghouse Electric is the bankrupt nuclear services company that is part of IP3’s proposed consortium to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia, and which stands to benefit from the Middle East Marshall Plan. In August 2018, Brookfield Asset Management purchased a partnership stake in 666 Fifth Avenue, a building owned by Jared Kushner’s family company.”
“On February 27, 2018, Goldman Sachs announced that former Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell, who had helped manage Jared Kushner’s relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and plan President Trump’s 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia, would be joining the Goldman Sachs’ sovereign wealth group,” the report reads. “Goldman Sachs wrote in an internal memorandum that ‘Dina will focus on enhancing the firm’s relationships with sovereign clients around the world.’ Ms. Powell reportedly ‘is especially close to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and the country’s ruling family.’ ”
“In March 2018, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman undertook a ‘last-minute visit to New York,’ where he housed his entourage at the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan for five days, a stay that reportedly ‘was enough to boost the hotel’s revenue’ by 13 percent ‘for the entire quarter,’ ” the report reads.
On Feb. 12, 2019, Trump met in the White House with several private nuclear power developers. The meeting, the report states, was “initiated by IP3 International.”
“The meeting was reported to include discussions about U.S. efforts ‘to secure agreements to share U.S. nuclear technology with Middle East nations, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia,’ ” the report reads.
There is little time left to halt the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. Iran, a mortal enemy of Saudi Arabia, will have no choice but to begin a nuclear weapons program if the Saudis build nuclear reactors. The thought of nuclear weapons being in the hands of Salman, an updated version of Saddam Hussein, and ultimately in the hands of nonstate radical jihadists who are supported and funded by powerful elements within Saudi Arabia, is terrifying.
Chris Hedges
Columnist
Mr. Fish
Cartoonist
IN THIS ARTICLE:
atomic energy act benjamin netanyahu congress donald trump elijah e. cummings foreign policy government ip3 international iran israel jamal khashoggi jared kushner king salman marshall plan for middle east middle east military mohammed bin salman money national nuclear reactors nuclear technology politics president republicans saudi arabia td originals trump presidency _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
9/11 first responders fight Congress over compensation fund
9/11 compensation fund to slash payments as new claims surge
New memorial site to honor those afflicted by 9/11-related illnesses
American killed in Kenya terrorist attack survived 9/11
In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.
That’s quite an understatement.
Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.
Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.
Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”
Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.
Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.
Enlarge Image
Prince BandarReuters
An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.
The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, “but the embassy complained to the US attorney” and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.
Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.
“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”
But Bandar held sway over the FBI.
After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.
“The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House,” said former FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was involved in the investigation of al Qaeda and the hijackers. The White House “let them off the hook.”
What’s more, Rossini said the bureau was told no subpoenas could be served to produce evidence tying departing Saudi suspects to 9/11. The FBI, in turn, iced local investigations that led back to the Saudis.
“The FBI covered their ears every time we mentioned the Saudis,” said former Fairfax County Police Lt. Roger Kelly. “It was too political to touch.”
Added Kelly, who headed the National Capital Regional Intelligence Center: “You could investigate the Saudis alone, but the Saudis were ‘hands-off.’ ”
Enlarge Image
AP
Even Anwar al-Awlaki, the hijackers’ spiritual adviser, escaped our grasp. In 2002, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was detained at JFK on passport fraud charges only to be released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.”
It wasn’t until 2011 that Awlaki was brought to justice — by way of a CIA drone strike.
Strangely, “The 9/11 Commission Report,” which followed the congressional inquiry, never cites the catch-and-release of Awlaki, and it mentions Bandar only in passing, his named buried in footnotes.
Two commission lawyers investigating the Saudi support network for the hijackers complained their boss, executive director Philip Zelikow, blocked them from issuing subpoenas and conducting interviews of Saudi suspects.
9/11 Commission member John Lehman was interested in the hijackers’ connections to Bandar, his wife and the Islamic affairs office at the embassy. But every time he tried to get information on that front, he was stonewalled by the White House.
“They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman was quoted as saying in the book, “The Commission.”
Did the US scuttle the investigation into foreign sponsorship of 9/11 to protect Bandar and other Saudi elite?
“Things that should have been done at the time were not done,” said Rep. Walter Jones, the North Carolina Republican who’s introduced a bill demanding President Obama release the 28 pages. “I’m trying to give you an answer without being too explicit.”
A Saudi reformer with direct knowledge of embassy involvement is more forthcoming.
“We made an ally of a regime that helped sponsor the attacks,” said Ali al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. “I mean, let’s face it.”
Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”
44 minutes ago
Saudi Arabia has executed at least 100 people this year, rights groups say
Saudi Arabia executes 37 in connection with terrorism
UN rights chief condemns 'shocking' Saudi mass executions
3 days ago
Dozens of Saudi Arabian nationals executed by Riyadh on Tuesday claimed to have been tortured into making false confessions, trial documents obtained by CNN revealed.
Saudi authorities said the 37 individuals were found guilty of attacking security installations with explosives, killing a number of security officers and cooperating with "enemy organisations" against the country's interests.
But the revelations on Friday by CNN suggest many of the executed men - who for the most part were members of the country's marginalised Shia minority - maintained their innocence until their dying breath.
One of the prisoners, Mohammed al-Musallam, told the court he had suffered multiple injuries while being interrogated by security forces.
READ MORE
Commission asks US to punish Saudi Arabia over Shia executions
"Nothing in these confessions is correct and I cannot prove that I was forced to do it," al-Musallam said, according to documents.
"But there are medical reports from the prison hospital of Dammam and I ask your honour to summon them. They show the effect of torture on my body."
Munir al-Adam, a 27-year-old who was partially blind and deaf, denied confessing to any of the charges levied against him.
"Those aren't my words," said al-Adam. "I didn't write a letter. This is a defamation written by the interrogator with his own hand."
Mujtaba al-Sweikat, who was 17 at the time of his arrest in 2012, had only twice participated in the protests and only for five minutes each time, argued his father, Nader al-Sweikat, in court.
"He was subjected to psychological and physical abuse which drained his strength," Nader al-Sweikat said, according to court documents.
"The interrogator dictated the confession to Sweikat and forced him to sign it so that the torture would stop. He signed it."
Sweikat was preparing to travel to the United States where he had been admitted to the Western Michigan University when he was stopped at the airport and put in solitary confinement for 90 days.
Court documents said al-Sweikat had confessed to throwing petrol bombs at security personnel and organising demonstrations through a chat group on his Blackberry smartphone.
The state executions came a day after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) said it was behind an attack on Sunday on a Saudi security building in the town of Zulfi. In that attack, all four gunmen were killed and three security officers were wounded.
READ MORE
UN rights chief condemns 'shocking' Saudi mass executions
At least one of the men's bodies was publicly hung from a pole for several hours in a process that is not frequently used by the kingdom and has sparked controversy for its grisly display.
On Friday, the US government commission on religious freedom urged action against Saudi Arabia after it emerged that Abdulkarim al-Hawaj, one of the 37 men executed, was only 16 when he was charged.
The UN human rights chief had a few days earlier condemned the mass executions as "particularly abhorrent" in that "at least three of those killed were minors at the time of their sentencing".
New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said at least 33 of the 37 men put to death were Shia, describing the event as "the largest mass executions of Shia in the history of Saudi Arabia since the 1900s".
According to a count based on official data released by the official SPA news agency, at least 100 people have been executed in Saudi Arabia since the beginning of the year.
An aerial view of the Ministry of the National Guard in the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh. Eleven embedded British soldiers are believed to be based in this building. (Google Maps)
The UK military has a team of high-ranking soldiers embedded in the Saudi Arabian armed forces who are believed to be taking their orders from Saudi commanders, it can be revealed.
Follow Save
The British programme, details of which have long been kept secret from the British parliament and public, involves training the Saudis in “internal securityâ€. Paid for by the Saudi regime – including the salaries and living costs of the British soldiers – the team’s role is controversial given the kingdom’s repressive political system.
It is also likely to raise questions since the British soldiers are embedded in a branch of the Saudi military that is involved in the devastating war in Yemen.
The British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard (BMM SANG) trains the de facto protection force of the ruling House of Saud and was established in 1964.
DISPLAY ADVERTS
An elite, 130,000-strong force with soldiers drawn from tribes loyal to the ruling dynasty, the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) is separate from the regular Saudi army. Its central role is to defend the regime from a coup.
The British government told parliament this March that the UK has 10 military personnel “embedded†in the SANG. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has told us that the number is now 11 personnel, who are believed to be based at the unit’s headquarters in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.
The British government has repeatedly told parliament that all UK military personnel in Saudi Arabia “remain under UK command and controlâ€. An MOD spokesman further told us: “The British Military Mission is commanded by a British officer, who reports directly to the Ministry of Defence, in London.â€
However, new information suggests that the chain of command on the ground is different.
The Ministry of Defence in London, UK. The MOD claims that all UK military personnel in Saudi Arabia are under UK command and control. But new information suggests the chain of command on the ground in Saudi Arabia is different. (Photo: Wiki Commons)
‘Members of the Saudi National Guard’
The British embassy in Riyadh admitted in 2012 that the UK military officers involved in the mission “take their orders directly from His Royal Highness, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Cabinet Minister and Head of the Saudi Arabian National Guardâ€. Prince Miteb, the son of the late King Abdullah, was head of the SANG until 2017.
The admission came in an internal embassy publication, called Kingdom to Kingdom, intended for distribution within government. The British embassy even referred to the British soldiers as “members of the Saudi National Guardâ€, rather than advisers or trainers.
DISPLAY ADVERTS
When presented with the document, the MOD told us the information is misleading.
However, we have also seen a 1983 document from the MOD entitled “Directive for the commander, British Military Mission to Saudi Arabian National Guard†stating that while the commander is formally answerable to the chief of defence staff in the UK, “members of BMM will ordinarily obey the orders of designated SANG superiorsâ€.
Our understanding is that, although the formal chain of command may end in London, these British military personnel report on a day-to-day basis to their Saudi superiors, who are their effective commanders.
The MOD has also informed us that BMM SANG is a “loan service personnel†scheme. Such an arrangement is ordinarily described by the MOD as British soldiers being “embedded in a wide variety of training, educational and staff posts in the host nation’s armed forcesâ€. Similarly, the MOD has previously stated that “UK embeds operate as if they were the host nation’s personnel, under that nation’s chain of commandâ€.
However, when asked about this in relation to BMM SANG, the MOD told us that its previous statement was again misleading because it did not apply to all embed programmes.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, centre, inspects the Guard of Honour with the Duke of Edinburgh, left, at the Horse Guards parade, 30 October 2007 during the king’s three-day state visit to the UK. Abdullah was commander of the Saudi Arabian National Guard when the British military mission was established in 1964. (Photo: EPA / Gerry Penny)
Operational command
British documents from 1963 when Britain and Saudi Arabia were arranging the BMM SANG programme show that the then commander of the National Guard, Prince Abdullah, wanted command and control over the British soldiers. Abdullah would go on to be king from 2005 to 2015.
DISPLAY ADVERTS
A British file marked “Secret†outlined “Principles governing the operation of a mission†and stated that “Abdullah would probably welcome a large British mission taking over, under his overall authority,†giving him “practically all executive responsibility, including operational commandâ€.
It adds, “It must be accepted by Her Majesty’s Government that, if an adviser or mission is sent at all, there must be no close or continuous restraint or direction from the United Kingdom on the adviser or head of missionâ€.
The resulting agreement, which established BMM SANG in 1964, has been secret for 55 years, but we have obtained an early version of it. The issue of British command and control is not stipulated in the document, which perhaps signals Prince Abdullah’s perceived desire for “operational commandâ€.
The agreement notes only one eventuality in which the UK government must be consulted on how the soldiers are deployed. This is if they are to “take part in any active non-training operations undertaken by the armed forces of Saudi Arabiaâ€.
A handwritten letter from Lieutenant Colonel Bruce-Merrie, a member of the British military mission in Riyadh, to the Foreign Office in London, dated 11 October 1975. Bruce-Merrie was caught smuggling British military training videos to Saudi Arabia in a diplomatic bag—a container protected by special legal status—for use by the Saudi Arabian National Guard. “If this is against the rules I apologise,†he writes. “The use of the diplomatic bag is a generous concession and I am personally very grateful for itâ€.
When the military mission began, UK personnel had “daily contact†with Abdullah, according to the British embassy in Riyadh.
Other British government files from the 1970s highlight the influence of the SANG commander over appointments to the British team. A document from 1973 shows the MOD wanted to replace the then British head of the military mission but decided against this since Abdullah “wanted him to stay on because of their personal relationshipâ€.
DISPLAY ADVERTS
The current head of the SANG, appointed in 2017, is Prince Khalid bin Abdulaziz bin Mohammed bin Ayyaf Al Muqren whose father was one of the founders of the National Guard in the 1960s.
Training of the SANG is one of Britain’s key military programmes in support of Saudi Arabia. It sits alongside another secret programme also paid for by the Saudis and staffed by MOD personnel, known as Sangcom, which provides military communications equipment and training to the SANG and costs £2-billion.
On an official visit to Saudi Arabia in 2013, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall visited the headquarters of the SANG in Riyadh to mark the 50th anniversary of the BMM SANG programme.
Then-Saudi Arabia National Guard (SANG) Minister Miteb bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, right, walks alongside Britain’s Prince Charles, left, 17 February 2014 following the latter’s arrival at Riyadh airport. The previous year, Prince Charles, with his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, had attended the 50th anniversary celebrations of the British military mission at the SANG headquarters in Riyadh. (Photo: EPA / Fayez Nureldine)
Black budget
We can further reveal that the BMM SANG programme is paid for by the Saudi regime under a “black budgetâ€, a term describing government funding for secret operations. Neither government has ever revealed the cost of the programme. Saudi funding levels remain “confidential to the two governmentsâ€, the MOD told us.
BMM SANG is not mentioned on the UK government website and UK embedded forces in Saudi Arabia are not disclosed in the MOD’s latest annual report.
Neither are the personnel involved with the military mission listed on any government website. We have learnt, however, that these teams are commanded by a brigadier who is supported by nine lieutenant-colonels, among other officers.
DISPLAY ADVERTS
The government provides almost no information to parliament or the public on what BMM SANG does. In 2016, in response to a rare parliamentary question, Defence Minister Mike Penning described the mission as “providing mentoring and advice to the Saudi Arabian National Guardâ€. The MOD told us that the programme provides “targeted military advice and some training supportâ€.
The British embassy has noted that this training has over the years “included artillery, engineers, armoured, infantry, signals… medics, logisticians, and close protection advisersâ€.
One former British commander of BMM SANG, Brigadier Nicholas Cocking – who led the mission from 1984 to 1991 – noted that his team included officers who “reflected various military disciplines from logistics to armoured and infantry and so onâ€, and that the programme was “responsible for more generalised trainingâ€. “We could turn our hands to almost anything,†he added.
The cover for the winter 2012 edition of Kingdom to Kingdom, a publication put out by the British embassy in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. Intended for distribution within government, this edition carried an unusually revealing feature marking the 50th anniversary of the British military mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard. (Photo: British Embassy, Riyadh)
‘Internal security’ and ‘riot control’
One reason for secrecy may be the controversial British support for the National Guard’s role in promoting “internal securityâ€.
The 2012 British embassy document stated that BMM SANG’s role “is to advise and assist the Guard in all counter-terrorism and internal security mattersâ€.
British support for Saudi “internal security†goes beyond BMM SANG. A current British “special security adviser†to the Saudi Ministry of National Guard says that his role is “delivering counter-terrorist and internal security training and adviceâ€. He adds that his role is also to advise Saudi officers “on all aspects of military capabilities, from procurement to continuous improvement†and “set the conditions for future reformâ€.
The largest part of the SANG being trained by Britain were previously known as “mujahadeenâ€, or holy warriors. A 1970 British government file notes, “The [British] training of mujahadeen NCO [non-commissioned officers] instructors has now been completed in the thirteen training centres set up for this purpose.â€
In the mid-1970s, two thirds of the SANG were composed of such fighters who were described as “lightly armed and equipped, and after basic training only, are distributed in centres of population throughout the countryâ€. The remaining third of the SANG were known as Fedayin, who were organised into infantry units with heavier weapons and equipment.
A Saudi National Guard officer gives orders as he and his troops try to maintain order and security as Hajj pilgrims stone the Jamarat (behind), a symbolic pillar representing the devil, on the last day of the Hajj in Mina, Saudi Arabia. (Photo: EPA / Mike Nelson)
Advantages of the training mission
The SANG’s commander, Prince Abdullah, asked the British for training support in the early 1960s during a period when the Saudi royal family was worried about being displaced in a military coup. This had been the fate of other pro-Western regimes in the region, notably Egypt in 1952, Iraq in 1958 and Yemen in 1962.
One reason the British agreed to the Saudi request was that, “The ‘White Army’†– as the SANG was then known – “is the principal prop of the present Saudi regime, and any successor regime would be worse for our interests in the Gulf than the present oneâ€, the foreign office noted in 1963. It added, “It is thus much to our interest that the ‘White Army’ should be efficient.â€
Direct support to the Saudi king was also a feature of British training. In 1970, following a request from the SANG commander, the British army sent a training team to the SANG “to fit them for special duties in connection with the personal safety of HM the kingâ€. The following year the SAS sent a four-member team to the SANG for “all aspects of bodyguard instructionâ€.
The British files offer other insights into the perceived advantages to having a military mission in Saudi Arabia. One, according to a War Office official in 1963, was that it would “would open a valuable new source of intelligenceâ€. Another file notes “the value to Her Majesty’s Government of having a point of observation and influence so close to the centre of power in this country, and at no costâ€.
Another official argued that the training team would help promote “sales of defence equipmentâ€.
One of the few arguments offered against agreeing to provide the mission in the planning stage came from a foreign office official who suggested that “it would attract the criticism that we tend to support only reactionary regimesâ€.
The UK-Saudi agreement which governs the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard (BMM SANG) has been secret for 55 years. Here is an early version, termed a “Draft Exchange of Notesâ€. We understand the final version contained only small revisions to this draft.
A role in Bahrain and Yemen
DISPLAY ADVERTS
British training of the SANG is contributing to so-called “internal security†elsewhere in the Gulf.
Members of the SANG were deployed to Bahrain in March 2011 to support the Bahraini regime in its crackdown on popular protests. The MOD later admitted, “It is possible that some members of the Saudi Arabian National Guard which were deployed in Bahrain may have undertaken some training provided by the British military mission.â€
The MOD told us that the British military personnel embedded in the SANG are “absolutely not involved at all in Yemenâ€.
However, Brigadier Hugh Blackman, who was British Commander of BMM SANG from 2015 to 2017, the first two years of the Yemen war, has admitted that his services to the SANG included “advice to the National Guard at all levels of command… for the full spectrum of military operations on the southern Yemeni borderâ€.
The nature of British advice to the SANG for its military operations in the Yemen conflict is not known.
The SANG has long been known to be active in the Yemen war both on the border and possibly inside Yemen. Earlier this year, for example, Colonel Kevin Lambert of the US military confirmed that the SANG was “executing combat operations in the Yemen conflictâ€.
Screenshot from an alleged Houthi attack on Saudi forces on the Saudi Arabia-Yemen border at the end of September 2019. The image shows an upturned light armoured vehicle of the type used by the Saudi Arabian National Guard.
The British government does not reveal the identities of BMM SANG personnel. However, the current commander of BMM SANG is believed to be Brigadier Charles Calder who was until recently defence adviser at the British High Commission in Nigeria, where Britain has a military team advising Nigerian forces on counter-insurgency operations against the terrorist group Boko Haram. Calder went straight from these operations to commanding BMM SANG in a Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
DISPLAY ADVERTS
Calder’s predecessor, Brigadier Jackman, took up his position as commander of BMM SANG in June 2015, three months after Saudi Arabia began intervening in Yemen. Jackman came from the British embassy in Libya, where he was commander of the military training team there. He was charged with assisting the Libyan military with “the integration of former revolutionaries, and wider professionalisation of the institutionâ€. Jackman subsequently planned and led the evacuation of all UK and entitled citizens from Libya.
Before that, Jackman had been a lieutenant-colonel in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards operating in Bosnia and Kosovo. He went on to command an armoured battle-group of 1,400 soldiers during the UK’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. DM
House of SaudPrince Miteb bin Abdullah bin AbdulazizSaudi ArabiaUK militaryYemen
Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis
Follow Save More
Comments - share your knowledge and experience
Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.
Related
Analysis: Is Dali Mpofu set to take on Julius Malema for party leader post?
OPINIONISTA: A student proves my point about universities and socialism
ANALYSIS: Folly upon folly as the Zille Train smashes through reason and logic
MADAM & EVE: Economic Slush Fund Fighters
#RWC 2019: ANALYSIS: Kicking away possession is key for RWC semi-finalists
Maverick Citizen: Drought: Climate change or incapable state? What’s really going down with the weather in the Eastern Cape
Daily Maverick
BUSINESS MAVERICK
Sasol fires joint CEOs as it ‘resets leadership to restore trust’ after delays, cost overruns at multibillion LCCP project
By Sikonathi Mantshantsha
QUICK SEARCH AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS PUBLIC PROTECTOR ZONDO COMMISSION JACOB ZUMA CYRIL RAMAPHOSA JULIUS MALEMA
OPINIONISTA
South Africa needs a win — and all eyes are on the Boks
Judith February 12 hours ago
Save 6 mins
ANALYSIS
There’s no place for decency in the SA political establishment. Just ask Mmusi Maimane
Stephen Grootes 11 hours ago
Save 4 mins
NEWSDECK
Argentina’s Peronists sweep back into power as Macri ousted
Reuters • 8 hours ago
BUSINESS MAVERICK
October 28: Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day
Bloomberg • 9 hours ago
NEWSDECK
Defying crackdown, thousands of Iraqis keep protesting
Reuters • 15 hours ago
AFRICA
Mozambique’s Nyusi retains power after sweeping victory in disputed poll
Reuters • 16 hours ago
DISPLAY ADVERTS
OP-ED
Russia’s scramble for Africa
Dzvinka Kachur and Mark Swilling • 11 hours ago
Save 7 mins
"Charms strike the sight but merit wins the soul." ~ Alexander Pope
ANALYSIS
Mboweni’s mini-Budget: Walking the tightrope between economic reality and political contestation
Marianne Merten • 11 hours ago
Save 5 mins
#RWC2019
Never-say-die Boks manage white-knuckle tension to see off Wales for place in final
Alide Dasnois and Chris Whitfield 11 hours ago
Save 9 mins
BUSINESS MAVERICK
Soweto residents to fight Eskom over ballooning debt and electricity disconnections
Ray Mahlaka 14 hours ago
Save 5 mins
MAVERICK CITIZEN HUMAN RIGHTS
The Bad News: Civil society setbacks in India and Zambia
Mark Heywood 11 hours ago
Save 4 mins
LOAD MORE _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
A picture taken on May 9, 2019 from northern port of Le Havre, shows Saudi cargo ship Bahri Yanbu (R) next to British crude oil tanker Nordic Space (L) waiting in the port of Le Havre. - French President defended his country's arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on 9 May 2019 [JEAN-FRANCOIS MONIER /AFP/Getty]A picture taken on May 9, 2019 from northern port of Le Havre, shows Saudi cargo ship Bahri Yanbu (R) next to British crude oil tanker Nordic Space (L) waiting in the port of Le Havre. - French President defended his country's arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on 9 May 2019 [JEAN-FRANCOIS MONIER /AFP/Getty]
February 18, 2020 at 2:23 pm
9.1K
SHARES
Italian dock workers have refused to load electricity generators onto a notorious Saudi cargo ship suspected of carrying arms to be used in the war in Yemen.
This is the latest in a string of protests by anti-war activists against the ship as it has made its way to various European ports.
At the end of last month, the Bahri Yanbu was blocked from docking in Bremerhaven, Germany, after Amnesty International sought legal action through the courts. It was then prevented from docking in Antwerp, Belgium, by “citizen weapons inspectors” before moving onto Britain where it was faced with further protests; it had to dock in Sheerness, instead of the scheduled stop at Tilbury.
Sailing onto the French port of Cherbourg, the Bahri Yanbu was greeted with yet more activists holding signs saying “War crimes in Yemen” and “Made in France”, a reference to French weapons which were suspected of being loaded onto the ship. In the Spanish port of Bilbao, Greenpeace reported that explosive material had been put on board.
Stefanie De Bock
@StefanieDeBock_
✊ After Antwerp, Tilbury, Cherbourg and Bilbao, dockworkers and activists in Genova are protesting against the arrival of the #BahriYanbu today.
Resisting the Saudi arms ship
Solidarity with allies in Italy today, protesting against the arrival of Saudi Arabian cargo ship the Bahri Yanbu.
blog.caat.org.uk
Amnesty Italia
✔
@amnestyitalia
Da questa mattina alle sette siamo con i portuali e altre realtà della società civile al porto di Genova per chiedere la chiusura del porto alle armi. La nave saudita Bahri Yanbu deve essere fermata!
View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
6
14:19 - 17 Feb 2020
Twitter Ads information and privacy
See Stefanie De Bock's other Tweets
READ: Anti-war activists force Saudi ‘weapons’ ship to reroute again
The Italian dock workers went on strike last year in a dispute about loading the same Saudi vessel and are planning further action later this year. They were reported to be going on strike and were joined by other organisations yesterday when the Bahri Yanbu docked. The trade unions have repeatedly voiced their opposition to loading “hot cargo” that is destined for use in the war in Yemen.
ANPI Brescia - #BellaCiao
@AnpiBrescia
Italy — Picket since 7 am this morning in the Italian port of Genoa against the docking of Saudi ship #BahriYanbu, bound for #Yemen, due in around 10 am.
Harbour dockers on strike were joined by parties and associations incl. @amnestyitalia. #camalli #Genova #En #17febbraio https://twitter.com/GenovaQuotidian/status/1229319569837305859 …
View image on Twitter
82
08:48 - 17 Feb 2020
Twitter Ads information and privacy
47 people are talking about this
The protesters believe that the weapons shipments violate a UN embargo as they could be used against civilians in Yemen, where the Saudi-led coalition has intervened militarily in a bid to overthrow the Houthi-led National Salvation Government based in the capital, Sanaa. Riyadh also wants to reinstate exiled President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi who has been living in the Saudi capital since he fled Yemen after the start of the war. More than 100,000 people have been killed since 2015, and Yemen now faces what has been described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
View image on Twitter
11
17:23 - 17 Feb 2020
Twitter Ads information and privacy
See ANPI Brescia - #BellaCiao's other Tweets
In the next couple of days, the Bahri Yanbu is expected to cross the Mediterranean Sea to dock at Alexandria in Egypt before it heads for the Saudi port of Jeddah via the Suez Canal next week.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
, Tory MP Crispin Blunt refused to respond when pressed by Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark about reportedly walking out of the committee meeting in order to stall a vote. It appears that Blunt had feared his amendments were about to be rejected, and by walking out of the meeting the quorum requirement would fail and no valid vote could take place.
))
