Tag Archive: BBC

 photo FamilySurvivalProtocolColliseumBannergrayscale900x338_zpsb17c85d0.jpg




Published on Oct 18, 2015

Another certified moron bites the dust
JOHN SIMPSON, BBC: Western countries almost universally now believe that there’s a new Cold War and that you, frankly, have decided to create that. We see, almost daily, Russian aircraft taking sometimes quite dangerous manoeuvres towards western airspace. That must be done on your orders; you’re the Commander-in-Chief. It must have been your orders that sent Russian troops into the territory of a sovereign country – Crimea first, and then whatever it is that’s going on in Eastern Ukraine. Now you’ve got a big problem with the currency of Russia, and you’re going to need help and support and understanding from outside countries, particularly from the West. So can I say to you, can I ask you now, would you care to take this opportunity to say to people from the West that you have no desire to carry on with the new Cold War, and that you will do whatever you can to sort out the problems in Ukraine? Thank you!

Translation courtesy of Inessa S https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeix…
Link to the RI article http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/…
Keep us alive: http://russia-insider.com/support
Visit us! http://russia-insider.com/en



Russell Brand doesn’t think a revolution is coming… he knows it. ‘I ain’t got a flicker of doubt. This is the end—it’s time to wake up.’ (Screenshot: BBC)The British left weekly New Statesman has taken a chance on an up-and-coming rogue editor, but the actor-comedian and newly welcomed progressive-minded firebrand Russell Brand seems so far to be a brilliant and elegant choice.

Tapped to guest-edit the magazine’s ‘Revolution’ issue this week, Brand is making waves both for his feature-length essay on the topic but also with a televised interview that aired Wednesday night on the BBC with veteran Newsnight anchor Jeremy Paxman. In the ten-minute interview, the 38-year-old Brand points at the futility of voting in a corrupt democratic system determined to serve the interests of the ruling class and not only predicts, but guarantees, that the “disenfranchised, disillusioned underclass” created by the current economic and political system—both in the UK and worldwide—will rise up in popular revolution against the failings of the current corporate-controlled paradigm.

Paxman questioned why a comedian such as Brand, especially one who doesn’t vote, should be trusted to offer his views on the political system.

“I don’t get my authority from this preexisting paradigm which is quite narrow and only serves a few people,” Russell responded, himself questioning why voting or not voting in a corrupt lopsided system should provide moral or intellectual authority. “I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity.”

Additionally, he said: “It is not that I am not voting out of apathy. I am not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations,” said Brand.

In response to Paxman asking if he saw any reason for hope, Brand jumped at the question “Yeah, totally. There’s going to be a revolution. It’s totally going to happen,” he said. “I ain’t got a flicker of doubt. This is the end—it’s time to wake up.”

The interview is worth a complete viewing:

Asked to outline the possible revolutionary scheme, Brand explained: “I think a socialistic egalitarian system based on massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations, and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment. I think the very concept of profit should be hugely reduced. [British PM] David Cameron says ‘profit’ isn’t a dirty word. I say profit is a filthy word, because wherever there is profit there is also deficit. And this system currently doesn’t address these ideas.”

Further pressed for specifics on the mechanics of this post-revolutionary world, Brand called out Paxman for the ridiculousness of the demand. “Jeremy, don’t ask me to sit here—in a interview with you in a bloody hotel room—and devise a global utopian system.”

“I’m merely calling for change,” he add. “I’m calling for genuine alternatives.”

Later, Brand acknowledged there were many brilliant people in the world offering wonderful and specific solutions to humanity’s problems, but that those voices and their ideas are repeatedly excluded from popular debate and ignored by elected officials.

Best known in the United States for his roles in film comedies such as ‘Get Him to the Greek’ and ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall,’ Brand has increasingly emerged as an astute observer of both politics and culture. An admitted (but recovering) drug addict, in his sobriety Brand has been passionate and insightful in his comments about celebrity culture, substance abuse, and a growing number of other social issues.

As Adam Taylor, at the Business Insider, points out:

Brand’s transformation from an outrageous comedian know for puerile jokes, a history of drug abuse, and one-night stands with Hollywood starlets to one of the U.K.’s most popular essayists was certainly an unexpected turnaround.

However, recent writings on events personal (the never-ending fears of relapse for a former addict) and political (the death of Margaret Thatcher) have won a lot of plaudits.

And The Independent’s Simon Kelner (no sympathetic left-winger himself) gave the political and philosophical sparring trophy not to the establishment journalist Paxman, but to the revolutionary-minded comedian:

Brand, who sounded like the love child of Stanley Unwin and Will Self, was goaded to genuine anger by Paxman’s patronising assertion that he was “a trivial man”. Whatever Brand may be, he’s not trivial. His call for revolution may be Spartist nonsense, but Brand definitely articulates a strain of thinking among a growing number of young people who feel disenfranchised, disenchanted, disengaged and, most important, disinterested in the idea that politics can change the world.

Most politicians don’t lay a glove on Paxman. Brand made him look uncomfortable and faintly ridiculous. And his retort to Paxman’s consistent sneering was priceless. “Jeremy, you’ve spent your whole career berating and haranguing politicians,” he said, “and when someone like me says they’re all worthless, and what’s the point in engaging with them, you have a go at me for not being poor any more”. A bit of verbal slapstick it may have been, but there was just the sense, when Jeremy met Russell, that some of the old certainties may be shifting.


Enhanced by Zemanta

GlobalResearchTV GlobalResearchTV·

Published on Oct 15, 2013

Manufacturing Dissent is a documentary posthumously dedicated to Syrian Palestinian actor Mohamad Rafea, who was kidnapped, tortured and finally brutally murdered on Sunday November 4th 2012 by terrorist groups that have been set loose on the country since the US, UK and their western and Gulf State allies launched a covert war in Syria in early 2011, dressed up by the media as a “revolution”. The words spoken in this video by Rafea, and the courage he shows here, is why he was murdered.

Manufacturing Dissent is a feature about the psychological-warfare by the media and political establishment of the west and their allies aimed at facilitating the US, European and Israeli agenda of getting rid of the current Syrian government. It demonstrates how the media has directly contributed to the bloodshed in Syria.

Manufacturing Dissent includes evidence of fake reports broadcasted/published by the likes of CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and others and interviews with a cross section of the Syrian population including an actor, a craftsman, a journalist, a resident from Homs and an activist who have all been affected by the crisis.

Produced by journalists Lizzie Phelan and Mostafa Afzalzadeh.

Edited by Lizzie Phelan.

Website for the documentary here http://www.manufacturing-dissent.com/ designed by Shahinaz Alsibahie.

With thanks to the Syrian Social Club for part funding this documentary.

French version here:

Official transcription for translation and subtitling available here:

Uploaded with permission. Originally posted here:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Reblogged from:  The Grey Enigma

April 24, 2013 

Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi in the hospital.

UPDATED 5AM EST Apr 24, 2013:

Confirmation that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, the Saudi national and initial “person of interest,” is indeed being deported this week now is spreading across the Internet. More details are emerging this weekend as Arabic sources and Saudi papers themselves are confirming “rumors” swirling in the US. (more at bottom)

Moreover, the Saudi papers are detailing the visit by the Obamas, especially Michelle to the hospital and this man. The “rumors” of the President meeting with Saudi officials in the hospital just prior to his “approved deportation” is a bragging right in their press.

More notable is the assertions that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi is free an clear of terrorist ties, when in fact over 10 names from his clan are already linked to Al-Qaeda.

Michelle visits at-Harbi

Michelle Obama visits Al-Harbi in Boston Hospital? Image source and accuracy unknown

Many from Al-Harbi’s clan are entrenched in terrorism and are members of Al-Qaeda as identified by the Islamic governments.

Out of a list of 85 terrorists listed by the Saudi government shows several of Al-Harbi clan to have been active fighters in Al-Qaeda:

  • #15 Badr Saud Uwaid Al-Awufi Al-Harbi
  • #73 Muhammad Atiq Uwaid Al-Awufi Al-Harbi
  • #26 Khalid Salim Uwaid Al-Lahibi Al-Harbi
  • #29 Raed Abdullah Salem Al-Thahiri Al-Harbi
  • #43 Abdullah Abdul Rahman Muhammad Al-Harbi (leader)
  • #60 Fayez Ghuneim Humeid Al-Hijri Al-Harbi [Source]

Then you have Al-Harbi clan members in Gitmo:

  • Salim Salman Awadallah Al-Sai’di Al-Harbi
  • Majid Abdullah Hussein Al-Harbi
  • Muhammad Abdullah Saqr Al-Alawi Al-Harbi
  • Ghanem Abdul Rahman Ghanem Al-Harbi
  • Muhammad Atiq Uwaid Al-Awfi Al-Harbi [Source]

There are specific Saudi clans that are rife with members of Al-Qaeda, which has fueled critics questions the hundred thousand student visas are issued to these and how ICE officials seem clueless to make the connection with the clans when it comes to terrorism.

The BBC reported Khaled Alharbi was married to the daughter of al-Qaida’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He reportedly appeared with bin Laden in a video praising the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Another top al-Qaida operative is Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi, a Saudi national identified by the State Department as “a key member of an al-Qaida network operating in Iran.”

The State Department has offered a multimillion-dollar reward for the capture of Abdel Alharbi, saying he is an Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator who serves as the deputy to Muhsin al-Fadhl, who runs al-Qaida’s Iran network.

At a site called Sabq, Alharbi’s father talks about how a member of the Aldawsari clan – Ali Aldawsari – visited his son in the hospital. Remember what we wrote about Khalid Aldawsari here:


Read More Here

Date: 09 April 2013 Time: 10:35 AM ET

earthquake map
Map of earthquake location today (April 9, 2013) in Iran.

A nuclear reactor located near a magnitude-6.3 earthquake that struck Iran today (April 9) is working normally, news sources say.

Three people died in a quake whose epicenter was about 55 miles (89 kilometers) southeast of the Bushehr nuclear plant in southwest Iran, the BBC reported. The earthquake was followed by a series of aftershocks, the largest of which was magnitude 5.4.

However, Fereydoon Hasanvand, the governor of Bushehr province, told Iranian state TV that “No damage at all has been caused.”


An official from the Russian firm that built the plant, Atomstroyexport, also said the plant’s operation wasn’t affected by the quake.

“Personnel continue to work in the normal regime, and radiation levels are fully within the norm,” the official told the Russian state news agency Ria.

Shaking from the quake could be felt across the Gulf region.

Follow Tia Ghose on Twitter @tiaghose. Follow LiveScience @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.

Are Sharia councils failing vulnerable women?

By Jane Corbin BBC Panorama

Secret filming at Sharia council shows women at risk

BBC Panorama has uncovered fresh evidence of how some Sharia councils in Britain may be putting Muslim women “at risk” by pressuring them to stay in abusive marriages.

In a small terraced house in east London a woman and her husband argue before an Islamic scholar who sits on a dais above them in a room that looks and feels like a court.

This is Leyton Islamic Sharia Council and Dr Suhaib Hasan will decide if the woman can have a divorce. Her husband is refusing to grant her one and the couple have been coming here for a year.

She accuses him of refusing to work, ignoring the children and verbally abusing her. He vehemently denies it. When Dr Hasan orders the husband to leave the room, the woman breaks down in tears.

“I hate him, I can’t even bear to look at him, he has ruined my life,” she sobbed.

Dr Hasan sends the couple away for another month to try and save their marriage, with the help of Allah.

Fearful women

Leyton Islamic Sharia Council is Britain’s oldest and one of the most active Islamic councils, hearing about 50 cases a month, mainly marital disputes. Nine out of 10 are brought by Muslim women from all over the country.

Jane Corbin hears from Ayesha

With an Islamic marriage it is far easier for a man to divorce. The only way for women is through these councils.

“We are not here just to issue divorces,” said Dr Hasan.

“We want to mediate first. We try to save marriages so when people come to us we try to reconcile them,” he added.

But Islamic rulings given here are not always in the interests of the women concerned and can run counter to British law.


Read Full Article and Watch Video  Here


Related Stories

Iran foils ‘new sedition’ ploy hatched by BBC-affiliated network


Press TV

Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:46PM GMT
A massive network of domestic and foreign-based journalists, reporters and unofficial newsmakers working mainly for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has recently been discovered and annihilated by the Iranian Intelligence Ministry.

The massive media network, as identified by the Intelligence Ministry, is “one of the largest media networks affiliated to the global arrogance”, whose main task was to execute a new “sedition” ahead of the upcoming presidential and city councils’ elections on June 14 in Iran.

The BBC-affiliated network was being monitored by the ministry for one year and a half, according to Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi, before a crackdown was launched in January to arrest its domestic agents after acquiring legal permissions from the Judiciary.

The ministry said the main goal of the network was to “exploit what they learned during the sedition period” after the 2009 presidential election, which was incited by the West and its media apparatuses, particularly the BBC.

Britain and the U.S. established Persian services for their media outlets, including the BBC Persian, the Voice of America and Radio Farda – which is a U.S-funded Prague-based Persian radio, to especially incite ethnic rifts among the Iranian nation and prepare the ground for their hostile actions in the Islamic Middle Eastern country.

The British Foreign Office in Iran launched the BBC Persian radio on December 29, 1940 as its main propaganda arm preaching discord and sedition in the country.

BBC Persian radio, known in Iran as Radio London, stayed on waves for 50 years before the BBC launched a Persian TV broadcast in 2008.

Radio London, was one of the first foreign-language services of the British state broadcaster and began its work to counter Germany’s Radio Berlin, which aired Persian broadcasts for Iranians, during the First World War.

Radio London also played a key role in accomplishing a plot hatched by the U.S. spying apparatus, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in the early 1950s to topple the democratically-elected government of late Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in the aftermath of the nationalization of Iranian oil industry, which was formerly dominated by the UK government.

After the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, BBC Persian began distorting news about the Iraqi-imposed war on Iran in a desperate attempt to depict that the newly-formed Islamic Republic was unable to work.

Later on, six months before the 2009 presidential elections in Iran, the British Foreign Office launched BBC Persian TV news channel to effectively replace the so-called Radio London as the UK government’s propaganda apparatus against the Islamic Republic.

The channel focused on the presidential election from the very onset and effectively waged a proxy war on Iran on behalf of the British Foreign Office, and its spying apparatus MI6 in the aftermath of the vote, better known as the 2009 sedition in Iran.

BBC Persian is now focused on depicting Iran as miserable, undermining the Islamic system in the country, through employing deceived journalists and some so-called open-minded foreign educated people as well as anti-revolutionary escapees.

The Iranian Intelligence Ministry has now detained dozens of people who where members of a network serving BBC Persian interests in Iran.

The ministry later announced that most of the detainees were producing footage, news and secret reports for the British channel aimed at blackening the country’s image and to spread hate among the public.

It stressed that the information about the connection of the arrested individuals with the BBC is totally substantiated and solid.

In a recent statement, the Iranian Intelligence Ministry described the nature of the BBC-affiliated network and its destructive activities aimed at destabilizing Iran.

“In continuation of the research process, several other individuals related to the network were summoned and investigated, and several other related individuals who were unaware of the nature of the network were invited, and while they provided information and explanations, they were briefed about the hidden goals and the malicious intent of the network,” the statement said.

“Several individuals identified in the network requested to re-tell and publish their information and experiences from this network in order to provide a warning for others,” it added.



Iran creates fake blogs in smear campaign against journalists in exile

BBC Persian staff victims of online identity theft designed to discredit them, with family in Iran facing harassment as well

Iranian Journalists

Iranian Journalists Maziar Bahari, Sadeq Saba and Nafiseh Kouhnavard

Iran has been conducting a smear campaign designed to intimidate Iranian journalists living in exile, including apparent death threats. Cyber-activists linked to the Islamic republic have fabricated news, duplicated Facebook accounts and spread false allegations of sexual misconduct by exiled journalists, while harassment of family members back in Iran has been stepped up by security officials.

Staff at the BBC‘s Persian service in London are among dozens of Iranian journalists who have been subjected to what appears to be an operation sponsored by the authorities and aimed at discrediting reporters in the eyes of the public in Iran.

It is not the first time the Iranian authorities have resorted to such tactics, but Sadeq Saba, head of BBC Persian, said the number of incidents and level of harassment has increased in the last few weeks.

“In comparison to previous round of harassment, this time the language they were using in Iran [against the family members] was more threatening,” he said. According to Saba, members of journalists’ families have been summoned to the intelligence service headquarters for questioning. One journalist whose parents were interrogated several times said they were told he should stop working for the BBC or risk being killed.

In recent weeks, the pro-regime activists have set up a number of fake Facebook accounts and blogs, purporting to belong to BBC journalists or their Iranian colleagues. Web users who want to access the real BBCPersian.com, might accidentally visit its counterfeit at persianbbc.ir. The fake site mirrors the BBC’s site in design and fonts but has completely different content. “Death of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein: fabricated stories by Washington,” reads the headline of a recent article posted on persianbbc.ir.

Nafiseh Kouhnavard, a presenter on BBC Persian’s talkshow Your Turn, is one of the victims. In a fake Facebook account that carries her name and picture, she supposedly confesses to a culture of extramarital relationships among journalists working for the BBC’s Persian service. The fake comments attributed to Kouhnavard were reproduced extensively in Iran.

“You wrote about my relationships with my colleagues,” she is falsely quoted by a national newspaper in Iran as saying. “Swinging … is not only limited to me, in fact it is common and normal here.”

First carried in Vatan-e-Emrooz daily, the fake material has since been republished by state-affiliated news organisations. The fabricated contents are usually chosen carefully to target the most sensitive issues in Iran, especially among conservatives wary of western lifestyles.

In a separate article with a revelatory tone, Vatan-e-Emrooz dedicated a full page to Kouhnavard’s life and her work at the BBC, relying on information from the fake accounts.


Read Full Article  Here

West restricts access to Press TV and alternative media outlets : William Spring

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:36PM GMT
Interview with William Spring

Ofcom allows, every day, a whole host of criminal or semi-criminal organizations to dominate the satellite channels and very degrading to women, to families, attacks on family life, attacks on any type of religious belief and this is all being orchestrated by Ofcom and I feel that this is very sad that the West should have lost its way so profoundly.”

An activist says that the West has ‘profoundly lost its way’ in terms of the freedom of speech, to a degree that they take some alternative channels off air but at the same time continue to air degrading channels.

A group of Spanish lawmakers have heaped scorn on their government for pulling the plug on Iranian channels Press TV and Hispan TV under the influence of Zionist lobbies in the United States. In a letter, the United Left deputies asked the Spanish government to explain if Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo had discussed the ban on Iranian networks in his meeting with the Zionist lobbies in October 2012. An overwhelming majority of 72 percent of respondents to a recent Press TV poll from across the globe said Iran’s media are attacked by Zionist lobbies for their revelation of truth about Israel and the West. The ban on Press TV and Hispan TV in Spain followed a similar move by France’s Eutelsat company, which had already taken several Iranian satellite channels and radio stations off the air, claiming that the channels were removed because of “a wider interpretation of EU regulations.”

To shed more light on the issue at hand, Press TV has conducted an interview with William Spring, human rights activist from London. He is joined by two additional guests on Press TV’s The Debate program: Caleb Maupin, with the International Action Center from New York City and Alon Ben-Meir, with the NYU Center for Global Affairs from New York City. What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Why do you think that there is a continuous attack on Iran’s media especially during this past year?

Spring: Well, it appears an irrational outbreak, sort of, Islamophobia perhaps, I do not know.

It is certainly not something which can be analyzed in any intellectual model because there is no sense to it, no legality to it.

I can only assume that it must be to do with a power of the Christian-Zionists and the Zionist lobby in the United States because UK tends to jump into line with whatever America is doing and there is no doubt that they want to destroy freedom of speech on the issue of Palestinians, of the Palestinian question; and also many other issues relating to war and peace.

So, therefore this illegal action that the governments and companies and satellite providers are engaged in must be just directed from some malevolent but very debased sort of mind operating out of Washington.

I do not imagine that President Obama is giving the green light to it but it must be one of his hirelings, who has, sort of, said well, we cannot tolerate freedom of speech, we simply cannot allow intellectual debate.

Press TV: William Spring, let us put this into context a little bit. In Spain’s case of Hispan TV, there were two articles that were mentioned. Women’s right was one and the promotion of violence.

Now, on women’s right they have said that depicting women in a discriminatory fashion and of course we have had an editor out of Spain say, ‘but what about the fact that there are naked women being shown on other channels? So should not those channels be closed down?’

He has got a point, does not he? I mean why is not then that done?

Spring: Well, I think that the issue that we are discussing is freedom and the West does not seem to understand freedom. Their concept of freedom is license.

I am astonished that Ofcom, who are the people who took Press TV off the air, they allow, every day, a whole host of criminal or semi-criminal organizations to dominate the satellite channels and very degrading to women, to families, attacks on family life, attacks on any type of religious belief and this is all being orchestrated by Ofcom and I feel that this is very sad that the West should have lost its way so profoundly.

What we need is proper freedom in terms of being able to accept and discuss arguments not taking one spectrum dominance, which is the position of the United States and Britain.

Britain and the USA do not like to hear any form of opposition on air to their attacks on various countries, for example on Iraq. I saw the other week, a very excellent program on Press TV about the killing of Dr. Kelly, it would not be shown on BBC.

Press TV: William Spring, he [Caleb Maupin, other guest of the show] touched on a subject that are perhaps worthy to open up more and that is the fact that perhaps Press TV, Hispan TV do focus on certain issues that the respective governments do not the concentration for those issues to be on.

For example in the UK the British queen and the extravagant spending that is done, the different protests that occur for austerity for example and the police violence that ensues.

Is it because that Press TV, perhaps, highlights those issues?

Spring: Well, I think that the Press TV is not a perfect channel by any means and your other contributor was quite right to say that there is no perfect media operation.

However what I do believe is that Press TV and RT, the about the only two channels, that I have access to as a matter of fact, which are reporting the news in a regular manner.

The BBC no longer reports news, nor the Sky. For example the bombing in Aleppo, the other day, at the university was completely ignored by the BBC. I turned on looking for the news at ten o’clock, it was on RT and it was on Press TV but not a mention from the BBC.

BBC does not want people to know the degree of terrorism that is going on in Syria, which is backed by the Saudis and backed by the United States and UK and we really need to get a proper journalistic ethic reestablished in this country.

I think most of the BBC journalists are really sadly ashamed of what their channel is doing and the Sky TV, of course, is worse but at least Sky TV has some sort of news sense; BBC does not seem to have any news sense and Press TV, with a small operation in London is doing enormously well in terms of bringing news and opinion to people.

I mean I am not a Muslim, it is not therefore, as far as I can see, for Muslim propaganda but it is there to provide a bridge for intellectual discussion and that is what Press TV is doing.


TV licence evader refused to pay because the ‘BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did’

By Mark Duell

PUBLISHED: 13:49 EST, 25 February 2013 | UPDATED: 02:37 EST, 26 February 2013


Wouldn't pay: Tony Rooke (pictured at Horsham Magistrates' Court today), did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'Wouldn’t pay: Tony Rooke (pictured at Horsham Magistrates’ Court today), did not want to give money to an organisation ‘funding the practice of terrorism’

A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation ‘funding the practice of terrorism’.

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.

He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act.

Section 15 of the 2000 Act states that it is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.

‘I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,’ he told the inspector.

He added that he had already lodged a complaint with the BBC.

Rooke told the court: ‘I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.’

He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.

But the major point Rooke said he relied upon was that the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.

Fan base: Around 100 supporters of Tony Rooke arrived at Horsham Magistrates' Court in West Sussex to watch the court case - although only 40 could pack into the public galleryFan base: Around 100 supporters of Tony Rooke arrived at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex to watch the court case – although only 40 could pack into the public gallery

He also made reference to a theory about the way the skyscraper was said to have fallen in on itself, which some people believe showed signs of a controlled demolition.

Mr Rooke said: ‘The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand. Last time I was here I asked you (the judge): “Were you aware of World Trade Centre 7”?

Happy: Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'Happy: Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was ‘pleased’ with the outcome, ‘all things considered’

‘You said you had heard of it. Ten years later you should have more than heard of it. It’s the BBC’s job to inform the public. Especially of miracles of science and when laws of physics become suspended.



Read Full Article Here

Nafeez Ahmed was the original Muslim 9/11 truth scholar. His book The War on Freedom – the earliest work of its kind – made a 9/11 truther of Gore Vidal. He is also a star contributor to the book I edited, 9/11 and American Empire v.2.

Nafeez’s controlled demolition of the war-criminal BBC, reproduced below, nicely complements Tony Rooke’s moral victory over the BBC in Monday’s court case.



Seven Myths About the Iraq War: How BBC Newsnight failed journalism on the 10 year anniversary of the invasion


by Nafeez Ahmed

Veterans Today

As a participant in BBC Newsnight special, “Iraq – 10 Years On“, I found myself feeling slightly miffed at the lack of real debate on the crucial issues.

On the one hand, Newsnight presented a number of narratives of the war and its aftermath as ‘fact’, which are deeply questionable. On the other, there were no serious, factually-grounded criticisms of the war, despite a diverse panel which included people who did not support it.

As author of a major book on the war and its historical context, Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq, as well as co-author of a new report, Executive Decisions: How British Intelligence was Hijacked for the Iraq War, I consider myself to be reasonably informed. Yet BBC Newsnight failed almost entirely to bring any of these issues to light.

What follows is my Newsnight-inspired Iraq War Myth-Busting exercise, based on what was, and wasn’t, discussed on the show.

MYTH 1. Sectarian violence has increased in postwar Iraq because sectarianism has always existed in Iraq, and the removal of Saddam allowed it to erupt

One of the first Newsnight bloopers started with a short introductory clip from John Simpson, the BBC’s World Affairs Editor. Amongst other things, Simpson talked about the rise of sectarian Sunni-Shi’a violence in postwar Iraq, and argued that while Saddam’s regime had clamped down on sectarian divisions, regime change effectively unleashed those previously suppressed divisions and allowed them to worsen.

This was the first of many oversimplifications about the escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq. The reality, as pointed out on the show by my colleague in the audience, anthropologist Professor Nadje al-Ali, is that prior to the war, generic sectarian antagonism was unheard of in Iraqi society. Although Saddam’s regime was unequivocally sectarian in its own violence against Shi’as and Kurds, as a mechanism of shoring up the Ba’athist regime, Iraqis did not largely identify in sectarian terms. As one Iraqi blogger living in Baghdad noted:

“I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq)… They go on and on about Iraq’s history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven’t been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there. I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn’t know what our neighbors were- we didn’t care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.”

Missing from the BBC Newsnight discussion was the fact that the Bush administration planned from the outset to dominate Iraq by pursuing the de facto ethnic partition of the country into three autonomous cantons. The private US intelligence firm, Stratfor, reported that the US was “working on a plan to merge Iraq and Jordan into a unitary kingdom to be ruled by the Hashemite dynasty headed by King Abdullah of Jordan.” The plan was “authored by US Vice President Dick Cheney” as well as “Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz”, and was first discussed at “an unusual meeting between Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and pro-US Iraqi Sunni opposition members in London in July” 2002.

Under this plan, the central and largest part of Iraq populated largely by Sunnis would be joined with Jordan, and would include Baghdad, which would no longer be the capital. The Kurdish region of northern and northwestern Iraq, including Mosul and the vast Kirkuk oilfields, would become its own autonomous state. The Shi’a region in southwestern Iraq, including Basra, would make up the third canton, or more likely it would be joined with Kuwait.

Ultimately, of course, the specific detail of this plan did not come to fruition – but the ‘divide-and-rule’ imperial thinking behind the plan was implemented. As one US Joint Special Operations University report documented, “US elite forces in Iraq turned to fostering infighting among their Iraqi adversaries on the tactical and operational level.” This included disseminating and propagating al-Qaeda jihadi activities by “US psychological warfare (PSYOP) specialists” to fuel “factional fighting” and “to set insurgents battling insurgents.”

Pakistani defence sources thus reported in early 2005 that the Pentagon had  ”resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population,” consisting of “former members of the Ba’ath Party” – linked up with al-Qaeda insurgents – to “head off” the threat of a “Shi’ite clergy-driven religious movement.” Almost simultaneously, the Pentagon began preparing its ‘Salvador option’ to sponsor Shi’ite death squads to “target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers” – a policy developed under the interim government of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

Ironically, the same Allawi also made an appearance on Newsnight via Baghdad, rightly criticising the current government for failing to incorporate an inclusive, non-sectarian political process. But Newsnight didn’t bother to ask him about his role in engendering the very sectarian violence he now criticises by sponsoring death squads.

MYTH 2. We went to war in Iraq based on a legitimate parliamentary process, even if lots of people demonstrated against it – most Brits approved the war according to polls

When an audience member asked why the British government still went to war despite the millions of people who protested against it, Independent columnist John Rentoul argued that the war was in fact an example of proper democratic process – because ultimately the MPs voted for it. He pointed out that we don’t run democracies based on “mob rule” – i.e. just because people protesting in the street  don’t want something – but on the basis of consensual parliamentary procedures. To this, host Kirsty Wark added that 54% supported the war according to opinion polls at the time.


In mid-March, before the war, “just 26% of the public was saying in mid-March that they approved of British involvement without a ‘smoking gun’ and a second UN vote, while 63% disapproved.” It was only once the bombs began to drop that public opinion drifted slightly in favour of the war. Where did Kirsty Wark’s 54% figure come from?

Disingenuously, it comes from an ICM poll which “found a persistent majority against the war, reaching a low point of 29% support (and 52% oppose) in February. Support then rose to 38% in the final pre-invasion poll (14-16 March, the same weekend as MORI’s) and jumped to 54% just a week later, with the war only a few days old.

Kirsty’s 54% claim applies after the war – before the war, the majority of the British public was overwhelmingly opposed to the invasion, a fact which was not reflected in the parliamentary process.

And of course, since then, opposition to the war continued to grow dramatically.

MYTH 3: The Iraq War was, at worst, a colossal cock-up, simply because we didn’t have good intel on the ground about WMDs etc. So we didn’t really go to war on the basis of a lie, we went to war because our intel was wrong.

As I tried to point out in my brief intervention on the show, this whole debate about whether the public approved the war or not to some extent misses the point – which is that the Iraq War was ignited on the basis of false claims about Saddam’s WMD. Those false claims were promulgated by senior American and British officials precisely to manipulate public opinion, and pressurise the political system into a pre-made decision to go to war, irrespective of the UN, irrespective of international law, and irrespective of whether WMD really existed.

It’s this fact which ultimately brings to light the extent to which our political system, certainly when it comes to foreign policy decisions, is broken, and has yet to be repaired. The historical record confirms that all the intelligence available to British and American security services, including information passed on through the UN weapons inspections process throughout the 1990s, confirmed unequivocally that Saddam had no functioning WMDs of any kind.

Amongst the intelligence available to the allies was the testimony of defector General Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law and head of Iraq’s WMD programmes. He provided crates of documents to UN weapons inspectors, as well as authoritative testimony on the precise nature of the WMD programmes that Saddam had embarked on in preceding years. He was even cited by senior officials as the key witness on the threat posed by Saddam’s WMD’s. What these same officials conveniently omitted to mention is that Gen. Kamel had also confirmed to UN inspectors in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and banned missiles, in 1991, shortly before the Gulf War – exactly as Saddam had claimed. Yet such intelligence was ignored and suppressed.

MYTH 4: The decision to go to war was based on a legitimate parliamentary process, legal advice from the Attorney General, as well as consultations with the UN.

In reality, the decision to go to war was made jointly by senior American and British officials prior to any democratic process, behind closed doors, and irrespective of evidence or international law. This is confirmed by a range of declassified official documents.

A leaked policy options paper drafted by officials in the Cabinet Office’s Overseas and Defence Secretariat (8th March 2002), records that:


Read Full Article here