UK Was Aware of Saudi Plot Against Khashoggi Weeks in Advance

Jamal Khashoggi was about to disclose details of Saudi Arabia’s use of chemical weapons in Yemen when he was killed.

UK Was Aware of Saudi Plot Against Khashoggi Weeks in Advance: Report
By TeleSur

Saudi Arabia told the U.K. about their plan of abducting Khashoggi three weeks before the incident took place. The MI6 warned them against carrying out the said operation.

The murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi was about to disclose details of Saudi Arabia’s use of chemical weapons in Yemen when he was killed, as reported by the Sunday Express, a source close to him told the media outlet Friday.

This revelation was made as different intelligence sources disclosed that the U.K. was made aware of the entire plot by Saudi Arabia three weeks before the incident took place on Oct. 2.

Intercepts by GCHQ of internal communications by the kingdom’s General Intelligence Directorate revealed orders by a “member of the royal circle” to abduct the troublesome journalist and take him back to Saudi Arabia. The report does not confirm or deny whether the order came from the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

They were supposed to abduct Khashoggi and take him back to Riyadh but could take other actions, if the journalist created problems.

“We were initially made aware that something was going in the first week of September, around three weeks before Mr. Khashoggi walked into the consulate on October 2, though it took more time for other details to emerge,” the intelligence source told the Sunday Express Friday.

“These details included primary orders to capture Mr. Khashoggi and bring him back to Saudi Arabia for questioning. However, the door seemed to be left open for alternative remedies to what was seen as a big problem. We know the orders came from a member of the royal circle but have no direct information to link them to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. Whether this meant he was not the original issuer we cannot say.”

The MI6 had warned their Saudi counterparts to cancel the mission. “On October 1 we became aware of the movement of a group, which included members of Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-‘Āmah (GID) to Istanbul, and it was pretty clear what their aim was.

“Through channels, we warned that this was not a good idea. Subsequent events show that our warning was ignored.”

Sunday Express also obtained an anonymous interview from a close friend of Khashoggi’s who revealed that the journalist was about to obtain “documentary evidence” of Saudi Arabia’s use of chemical weapon in its proxy war in Yemen.

Iran has previously claimed that the kingdom had been supplying ingredients that can be used to make the nerve agent Sarin in Yemen but Khashoggi was possibly referring to phosphorus which can be used to burn bones. Last month it was claimed that Saudi Arabia had been using U.S.-supplied white phosphorus munitions against troops and even civilians in Yemen.

Jamal Khashoggi was a Washington Post columnist who left Saudi Arabia a year ago due to the widespread crackdown on dissent by the crown prince which saw imprisoning of a large number of dissenters and activists in Saudi Arabia.

The journalist went to Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2 .to get papers for his marriage and never seen after that. Turkey maintained that he was killed inside the consulate by Saudi authorities but the latter denied any allegations against them for almost three weeks before finally accepting that he indeed was murdered but alleged it to be a rogue operation about which the crown prince had no knowledge.

The case of Khashoggi created an international uproar and diplomatic scandals where many countries are deciding to impose sanctions on the country and many companies severed their ties with Saudi Arabia.

According to the latest updates, the European Union is considering a ban on arms sale to Saudi Arabia and other sanctions. The EU will make a joint decision on how to punish the kingdom, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said Saturday in Istanbul after Russia-Turkey-France-Germany summit on Syria. A similar sentiment was expressed by France’s Emmanuel Macron.

This article was originally published by “TeleSur” –

UK Sending Its Police to Train in Israel: Here’s Why It Should Bother You

Source

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — According to the Independent, government sources say a British team is set to travel to Israel in the near future to learn Israeli counterterrorism enforcement strategies. The proposed move comes amid a spate of terrorist activity in the United Kingdom, as well as concerns about the British authorities’ response time and ability to counter terrorist attacks.

However, as the Independent notes:

“There are, of course, significant differences between political violence in the UK and Israel. The murders and maiming in the streets of Britain are in pursuit of a murderous Islamist jihad with a variety of justifications offered including retaliation for the war against Isis in Iraq and Syria. In Israel and the occupied territories it is justified as part of the struggle for Palestinian nationhood against Israel.”

The Jerusalem Post cites police involvement as being integral when it comes to “turning the tide” in Jerusalem’s battle against terrorist activity. More than 3,500 police officers are reportedly involved in multiple units, constantly patrolling and on guard with undercover officers on site at all times.

Considering this, it is curious that the United Kingdom would want to learn police tactics from an occupying force that suppresses its local population. Why would the United Kingdom want to create a similar environment and heavily arm its police force? And to what end?

Sayyed Nasrallah: Saudi Losing Int’l Support, Must Immediately Halt War on Yemen

UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia rose nearly 70%:

UK increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by two thirds: Report

A British Royal Air Force (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft perform a fly-past during the Farnborough Airshow, south west of London, on July 17, 2018. (Photo by AFP)

UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia had increased in 2017 by two thirds, according to British media reports.

From 2016 to 2017, UK military sales to the Saudis went up by two thirds, Sky News reported on Thursday.

The UK sold at least £450 million more to Saudi Arabia in 2017 than 2016, with the true figure likely to be higher, Sky News said.

Earlier reports said the UK had almost doubled its arms sales from £820 million in 2016 to £1.5 billion in arms licenses in 2017.

PressTV-UK doubles arms sales to rights violators: Report

The UK has almost doubled its arms deals with repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia despite international outrage.

Sky News reported that the UK issued 126 licenses relating to military goods in 2017, with a value of £1.129 billion – according to Department of International Trade figures.

This is compared to 103 licenses relating to military goods in 2016, with a value of £679 million, it said.

Reports of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia come out as business figures pull out of an upcoming investment conference scheduled to be held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on October 23.

The so-called Future Investment Initiative Summit, which has been dubbed Davos in the Desert, has been cancels by governments, executives and chiefs of international companies after the scandalous incident involving the disappearance of Saudi-national  Jamal Khashoggi.

Khashoggi, who was a dissident journalist, entered the Saudi embassy in Istanbul and never came out, according to Turkish police.

The incident sparked huge global outcry, resulting in widespread international criticism of the rulers of Saudi Arabia, particularly MBS.

UK trade secretary Liam Fox was among the main international figures who cancelled the Saudi summit over the humiliating Khashoggi incident.

Saudis humiliation in Yemen

Saudi Arabia has also been facing humiliating criticism over its brutal aggression in Yemen. Thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children, have died as a result of the brutal Saudi-led campaign in Yemen.

Campaigners have called on major arms suppliers to Saudi Arabia, the British government included, to stop selling weapons to the kingdom.

“The humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen is the worst in the world. UK-made fighter jets and bombs have played a central role in the destruction,” said Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade, an organization which works to abolish the international arms trade.

Human rights advocates say the UK is complicit to Saudi Arabia’s atrocities against the impoverished Yemeni nation.

“The humanitarian disaster that has been inflicted on Yemen is a man-made one, and the UK government is complicit. It’s time for the UK government to end the arms sales and end its uncritical support for the Saudi dictatorship.”

Ryan Dawson and Gilad Atzmon on Palestine and the rest of Us

October 15, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this extended discussion Ryan Dawson and yours truly delve into the Jerusalemisation of our universe. We identify that which sustains tyranny of correctness, the Zionification of our politics and even the elements that control the opposition and suppress a prospect of a better future.

CCTV released by Met does NOT show Petrov and Boshirov “in the vicinity” of #Skripal’s house

Source

Rob Slane
The Blogmire

    Save

The images and timeline released by the Metropolitan Police on September 5th, when they formally accused two men of the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, contain a number of problems and oddities. These include:

• The fact that very few of the images have the original timestamps on them, but rather have the Metropolitan Police’s own timings.
• The fact that there is an unaccounted for, yet vital, 42 minutes between the image of the men at the entrance to Summerlock Approach (said to be 13:08), and the image of the men at the train station (said to be at 13:50:56). Why is this vital? Because it not only takes just 5 minutes, rather than 42 to get from the one location to the other, but also because it potentially places the men within a few minutes walk of Sergei and Yulia Skripal within that 42 minute timeframe.
• The fact that only stills were released, rather than actual footage (public appeals for witnesses involving CCTV usually show actual footage – why not in this case?).

But there is one crucial image which I would like to focus your attention on: CCTV Image 5 (at the top of this piece). This is one of the few pictures that is properly timestamped (11:58:48), although I have to say I’m highly sceptical that the two men could have got to that location by that time, given that The Met says they were at the station at 11:48:20. It takes over 12 minutes at a quick walk, and so unless they ran some of the way (and neither picture gives the impression that they are in a particular hurry), I think it highly likely that one or other of these times is incorrect.

The reason this image is particularly crucial is that it is the only image shown to the public, which can be said to connect the men (albeit extremely tenuously) to the claim made against them by the Met. None of the other images do this at all.

If I happened to be a juror at the trial of these two men, and I was presented with the other images, my reaction would largely be “so what?” (this is of course pure fantasy, since the Blair Government, in its infinite wisdom, tore up centuries of legal practice to allow such trials to be held without a jury on the grounds of that mindless buzz phrase, “national security”). Here are some images showing them entering and leaving the UK. So what! Here are some images of them arriving in and departing from Salisbury. So what? Here are some images of them walking around the town. Actually, this one is not so much a “so what?”; more a “hang on a minute, are you telling me they went walkies around the town after allegedly carrying out the most audacious (and stupid) assassination attempt ever seen in Britain?”

Without the Wilton Road image, none of these other images would mean diddly squat. That image, assuming it to be authentic, is the closest The Met comes to backing up its claim against them. But as we shall see, it actually turns out to be no more convincing than the others.

As I said in my previous piece, it is crucial to understand what the claim being made by The Met against the two men actually is. Here goes:

“That between approximately 12:10pm and 12:40pm on 4th March, the two men named as suspects – Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov – walked up to the house of Sergei Skripal at 47 Christie Miller Road, Salisbury, and there applied a high purity, military grade nerve agent to the handle of the front door in an attempt to assassinate Mr Skripal.”

(Note: see the previous piece if you want to know why there is a 12:10-12:40pm window).

Now let’s turn back to the statement made by The Met on 5th September. This is what they said:

“CCTV shows them in the vicinity of Mr Skripal’s house and we believe that they contaminated the front door with Novichok.”

The big question that arises from this claim is this: What is this CCTV footage, which apparently shows them in the vicinity of Mr Skripal’s house? There are two basic possibilities:

Firstly, it could be that there is indeed CCTV that shows them close to Mr Skripal’s house (i.e. within a few yards of it), and perhaps which even shows them applying something to the door handle.

Secondly, it could be that The Met is simply referring to the CCTV of the men on the Wilton Road, which they released in the statement.

The second is almost certainly the case, for the following reasons:

1. If there is CCTV footage of the two men near (or at least nearer the house), why not show that rather than the Wilton Road image?
2. If such footage does exist, why does The Met only “believe” that the two men contaminated the door handle with something called “Novichok” as opposed to “know” that they did so (note: Porton Down does not call it “Novichok”, but rather “a Novichok or related agent”)?
3. When you read The Met’s statement of 5th September, it is fairly clear that the reason the Wilton Road image is there, is that it is precisely this image which is being used to back up the statement about the men being in the vicinity of the house (i.e. they say: “Image five shows the suspects ten minutes later – at 11.58 – on Wilton Road, Salisbury, we say, moments before the attack”).

This is deeply misleading. The Shell garage on the Wilton Road could plausibly be said to be in the vicinity of 47 Christie Miller Road if we were talking about the two locations in terms of Salisbury as a whole. But it can in no way be said to be “in the vicinity” of 47 Christie Miller Road, if it is being spoken of in connection with a highly specific claim about an assassination attempt at the door of the house. The claim is that they were at the door. The image, assuming its authenticity, shows them on a different street, many hundreds of yards away.

This sort of sloppiness and looseness has been the hallmark of the investigation from day one, and has been the reason why so many have come to treat the official claims with scepticism.

Let me caveat this, however, by saying that I don’t believe Boshirov’s and Petrov’s claims either. The chief reason for this is that The Met says they arrived in Salisbury at 14:25 on the Saturday, and this was not disputed by them in their interview with Margarita Simonyan. What they did claim, however, is that they came to visit Stonehenge, but were unable to do so due to the bad weather. This was kind of true. Stonehenge was indeed closed that day due to bad weather. However, had it opened that day, it would have closed at 17:00 with last admissions at 15:00. Getting to Salisbury at 14:25 with the hope of then going to see Stonehenge by 15:00 is not very plausible – even if it had been good weather.

But as I’ve said previously, it is largely irrelevant whether Boshirov’s and Petrov’s account is credible. It is The Met that has accused them, and it is therefore for The Met to come up with credible evidence to back up their claim. Showing an image of the two men in broad daylight, on a completely different street, hundreds of yards away from the alleged crime scene, does not do it. Worse still, claiming that this image “shows them in the vicinity of Mr Skripal’s house” – which it manifestly does not – is deeply misleading.

If The Met has more conclusive footage (footage that is, not another still), actually showing the two men in the vicinity of the house, they should release it. Until they do, we can assume the claim that “CCTV shows them in the vicinity of Mr Skripal’s house” is referring to the Shell garage on the Wilton Road, which since it is not in fact in the vicinity of the house, is misleading. We can therefore continue to treat their claims with the scepticism that they have so far deserved, and to believe that there is another explanation altogether for Boshirov’s and Petrov’s two Salisbury trips; an explanation that neither the British or Russian Government seem very eager to come clean on.

Theresa May Tells American Investors – Brexit Britain Is Up for Grabs (The future of the NHS is included)

Source

By Graham Vanbergen,

Britain will be “unequivocally pro-business” after it leaves the European Union, Theresa May has promised American investors. To neoliberal politicians, this was always the endgame.

The prime minister told the Bloomberg Global Business Forum in New York that the UK will be the low tax, high-skilled place to invest after Brexit.

Speaking days after EU leaders rejected her plans for future trading relations, Ms May will insist she is “confident” a deal can be reached. One wonders from where does this confidence emanate?

Do you get the feeling that Theresa May is setting up the UK/EU trade deal to fail, having primed American corporations and solicited its President in advance – or that she is using the US as a threat to bludgeon EU negotiators into capitulating to her troubled Chequers plan?

My suspicion is that one way or the other a trade deal will be agreed at the expense of the other. Either way, Theresa May will appear to have won something no matter what. But there’s a problem. Any US/UK trade deal will take years to formally agree and its net effect will be to align almost all standards and regulations to theirs.

Even more alarming is that Theresa May has said that the UK has a plan to create an economy which is appealing to investors across the world, with corporation tax the lowest among leading industrialised nations.

In 1978 corporation tax in the UK was 42%. By 1988 it was 25%, in 2008 it was 21%, is currently 19% and targeted to reach 17% by 2020 – with further reductions strongly hinted at. The current rate in Britain is the lowest in the G20 group of industrialised nations.

The two other leading economies of the EU alongside Britain do not compete on corporation tax.  In France, corporation tax is charged at 33.3% and Germany it is 32.9%. Other struggling member states like Italy charge 27.9% and Spain 25%. Only countries like Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia and Lithuania within the EU charge less. That is of course excepting tax havens such as Ireland that can only survive by charging 12.5% on corporate profits through PO Box addresses – that employs no-one.

Don’t Be Deceived – Secret Trade Talks at Heart of Trump Visit to Britain

Most economic experts agree that tax havens and very low tax countries cause unjust laws, political turmoil, increased inequality and discrimination. The reason tax havens are rich countries is simply because very little money is distributed to the rest of the economy – or in neoliberal speak – nothing ‘trickles down.’ In addition, low tax regimes also attract the wrong type of investment and have demonstrably shown historically to be little more than a race to the bottom.

Ms May said:

“My message today is that a post-Brexit Britain will be an unequivocally pro-business Britain” stating that Britain will do the “most dynamic and ambitious free trade agreements with old friends and new allies alike.” 

“Crucially we also have a plan to deliver an economy that is knowledge-rich, highly innovative, highly skilled and high quality but with low tax and smart regulation. So let me say this bit very clearly. Whatever your business, investing in a post-Brexit Britain will give you the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20.”

“You will access service industries and a financial centre in London that are the envy of the world, the best universities, strong institutions, a sound approach to public finance and a consistent and dependable approach to high standards but intelligent regulation.”

This is the language of a Prime Minister that is selling out on Britain as a country. Britain is up for sale to the highest bidder. These are either desperate measures or deliberate actions to prepare corporate America for the deregulation festival that will be on offer come April 2019.

Ms May was dealt a humiliating blow at a summit of EU leaders in Salzburg last week when they rejected her Chequers blueprint for post-Brexit relations. Was this plan designed to fail or was it designed to threaten?

Craig Murray, ex British ambassador commented:

“The humiliation of Salzburg occurred because there was never a chance of any sympathy from EU member states for an attempt to dishonour the agreement (backstop” on North/South Ireland relations) of nine months ago. There is no way out of that conundrum. The government has belatedly remembered the existence of the FCO as a potential tool in international relations, and ambassadors in our Embassies in EU countries are currently staring in bafflement at dense and complex instructions urging them to convince their hosts that black is white.”

Ms May went further:

“Our relationship with the EU will change with Brexit. This is why I am confident we can reach a deal about our future relationship that is built in this spirit.”

Ms May attended the United Nations General Assembly, where she met with Donald Trump on Wednesday evening to push for a post-Brexit trade deal. Put on the table was a desire for a “big and ambitious” post-EU trade deal with America.

The Independent reports that

“such a trade deal is considered an important way for Ms May to help offset the economic impact of leaving the EU in March next year. It was high on the agenda when the prime minister ensured she was the first foreign leader to visit Mr Trump in Washington following his inauguration last year. Support from the US president could boost Ms May’s struggle to win over her critics, who have argued her exit plan is unworkable.”*

Featured image is from the author.

The original source of this article is TruePublica

List of Labour politicians who are/were officers of or support Labour Friends of Apartheid

Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis

By Kenneth Surin | CounterPunch | September 25, 2018

Photo Source DAVID HOLT | CC BY 2.0

Several CounterPunchers, I included, have posted on the “antisemitism” campaign directed at the Labour party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn’s most virulent accusers have been from his own party, abetted by the tabloid media, and the supposedly liberal Guardian (though it has long been a Blairite holdout, and its chief op-ed writer on Israel is the ardent Zionist Jonathan Freedland).

This anti-Corbyn faction in the Labour party is made up of two overlapping groups: increasingly marginalized supporters of the former leader Tony Blair whose neoliberal “Thatcher lite” agenda has been superseded by Corbyn’s push to reclaim and revitalize Labour’s socialist origins; and a Zionist element, which turns out to be extremely well-funded, having well-documented strong links with pro-Zionist advocacy groups.

In particular, I’ve been researching organizational links and funding sources from key donors, along with associated parliamentary patterns on two significant issues–  the illegal invasion of Iraq and Saudi adventurism in the Middle East–  congruent with Israel’s declared interests.

Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, has been an unyielding supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people.

The results, presented below, have (to say the least) been more than a mild surprise.

Corrections, and updates, from readers will be most welcome, as I intend to keep this list up-to-date and free from error.

LABOUR POLITICIANS WHO ARE/WERE OFFICERS OF LABOUR FRIENDS OF ISRAEL (LFI):

Rt. Hon Joan Ryan MP, LFI Chair (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. According to the Evening Standard of October 26, 2007, in 2005-06 she made the second highest expenses claim of any MP, while in 2006-07 she managed to achieve first place, with a total of £173,691/$227,800. In May 2009 Ryan claimed more than £4,500/$5,900 under the additional costs allowance for work on a house she had designated as her second home. In February 2010 she was asked to repay £5,121/$6,700 mortgage interest, which she had wrongfully claimed. Corbyn by contrast has been the lowest claimer of expenses since these were monitored—in 2010 he claimed just £8.70/$11.40 for an ink cartridge. His expenses rose significantly when he became leader of the main opposition party, and his claim between 1 June 2017-31 May 2018 amounted to £20,397.74/$26,700, still chicken’s feed compared to Ryan’s excesses).

Dame Louise Ellman MP, LFI Vice-Chair, former chair of Jewish Labour Movement (JLM)^§. (Voted for the war on Iraq, and voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the war.  In 2011, The Jerusalem Post described Berger as “an active supporter of Israel who has visited the country over 20 times”.)

Sharon Hodgson MP, LFI Vice-Chair

Rupa Huq MP,LFI Vice-Chair (Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Pat McFadden MP, LFI Vice-Chair (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn, former LFI Chair (Tony Blair’s unofficial liaison with business. In the 1998 “Lobbygate” scandal he was caught on tape boasting to an undercover reporter (Greg Palast) posing as a businessman, about how he could sell access to government ministers and create tax breaks for their clients.

Rachel Reeves MP, LFI Vice-Chair (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports curbs on immigration, and attracted controversy by hiring unpaid interns. In 2017, she received a “donation in kind” of £12,500/$16,400 from Sir David Garrard^#)

Rt. Hon John Spellar MP, serves on the Political Council of the neoconservative and Islamophobic think-tank Henry Jackson Society (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, House of Lords LFI Chair (former MI6 (UK spying outfit) operative, specializing in Scandinavian affairs)

Jonathan Reynolds MP, LFI Vice-Chair

John Woodcock MP (resigned from the Labour party in July 2018, now sitting as an Independent MP), LFI Vice-Chair (Favoured UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Former Labour MP (1997-2010) Andrew Dinsmore, Member of the London Assembly for Barnet and Camden 2012- (Opposed the academic boycott of Israel in parliament, saying the boycott was “misguided” and “undermined academic freedoms” and contributed “absolutely nothing to trying to bring peace to the Middle East”)

Former Labour MP (2010-2017) Michael Dugher, LFI vice-chair. (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Has criticized the BDS campaign, saying in a tweet: “Boycotting Israeli institutions is ignorant, wrong and counterproductive to peace. We should be building bridges and furthering dialogue”. A keynote speaker at the ‘We Believe in Israel’ conference, he said he was “proud to be a Zionist”, and that “Each time I visit Israel, my admiration for that great country grows”. In parliament he termed a backbench motion to recognize a Palestinian state as “unnecessary and divisive”)

Former Labour MP (1997-2010) Jane Kennedy, Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner 2012- (LFI Chair 1997–98, 2000–-07)

Former Labour MP (1997-2005) Stephen Twigg, ex-LFI chair (Voted for the war on Iraq)

LABOUR POLITICIANS WHO ARE LFI SUPPORTERS:

Ian Austin MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. On 1 June 2012, he apologised after claiming that a Palestinian human rights group had denied the existence of the Holocaust. Members of Friend of Al-Aqsa made reference to the fact that Austin had written about the group in an article written on the Labour Uncut website in 2011. In 2017, he received a “donation in kind” of £10,000/$12,400 from Sir David Garrard^#, and £5,000/$6,200 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Luciana Berger MP, Director of LFI (2007-2010),also parliamentary chair of JLM (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Nick Brown MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Liam Byrne MP

Vernon Coaker MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rosie Cooper MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen.)

Yvette Cooper MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Mary Creagh MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Jon Cruddas MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Wayne David MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Gloria DePiero MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Angela Eagle MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Chris Evans MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jim Fitzpatrick MP

Rt. Hon Caroline Flint MP(Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

James Frith MP

Mike Gapes MP, former LFI Vice-Chair(Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Barry Gardiner MP, former vice-chair of LFI (Voted for war on Iraq, and supported the Israeli onslaught on Gaza 2008-09)

Preet Gill MP

Mary Glindon MP

Lilian Greenwood MP

Nia Griffith MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Andrew Gwynne MP

Fabian Hamilton MP (Voiced opposition to Ed Miliband (then Labour leader) who criticized Israel’s 2014 operation in Gaza “wrong and unjustifiable”. In parliament he opposed a backbench motion to recognize a Palestinian state. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon David Hanson MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Rt. Hon Dame Margaret Hodge MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Stemcor, the steel trading company in which she owns shares and which was founded by her father and is run by her brother, paid tax of just £163,000/$214,000 (0.01%) on revenues of more than £2.1bn/$2.75bn in 2011. Corbyn has pledged to close these tax loopholes)

Rt. Hon George Howarth MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Dan Jarvis MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. According to the Register of Members’ Interests, he accepted a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Diana Johnson MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Darren Jones MP

Helen Jones MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Kevan Jones MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Mike Kane MP

Barbara Keeley MP

Liz Kendall MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Abstained on a parliamentary motion recognizing the state of Palestine.  According to the Register of Members’ Interests, she accepted a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Peter Kyle MP(Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rt. Hon David Lammy MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Chris Leslie MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Has stated that “Marxism has no place in the modern Labour Party” )

Ivan Lewis MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Ian Lucas MP (Also member of the Labour Friends of Palestine. Opposes BDS)

Sandy Martin MP

Chris Matheson MP

Steve McCabe MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Catherine McKinnell MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Conor McGinn MP(Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Stephen Morgan MP

Melanie Onn MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Toby Perkins MP (voted for UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jess Phillips MP

Bridget Phillipson MP

Lucy Powell MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen.  Introducing legislation in the House of Commons banning private, invite-only groups on Facebook because they “promote hate speech”).

Virendra Sharma MP

Barry Sheerman MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Ruth Smeeth MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Smeeth used to work for a pro-Israel campaign group, BICOM (considereda ‘strictly protected’ source by US Intelligence). The Register of Members’ Interests shows that Smeeth declared a donation of £5,000/$6,200 from Poju Zabludowicz’s company Tamares Real Estates in June last year. Zabludowicz, a billionaire property speculator, used his wealth, inherited from his Israeli arms dealer father, to establish BICOM. Smeeth also declared a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Angela Smith MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jeff Smith MP

Owen Smith MP

Gareth Snell MP

Wes Streeting MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Graham Stringer MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Emily Thornberry MP (Shadow secretary of defence)

Anna Turley MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Karl Turner MP

Chuka Umunna MP (Received donation of £25,000/$32,700 from Sir David Garrard^#)

Rt. Hon Keith Vaz MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Tom Watson MP, Labour Deputy Leader (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Watson was keynote speaker at LFI’s 2016 “annual lunch” and praised LFI for being “fearless in its support for the state of Israel”. Since December 2015, Watson has received £50,000/$65,500 in personal donations from Sir Trevor Chinn*.  Watson has also received £15,000/$19,600 from Sir David Garrard^#, and £4,500/$5,900 from LFI. There is no Labour politician more welcoming of pro-Zionist largesse than Watson)

Phil Wilson MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rt. Hon Rosie Winterton MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Rt Hon Lord Anderson of Swansea

Former Labour MP (1987-2010) Alun Michael, South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner 2012– .

Lord Beecham DL

Rt Hon Lord David Blunkett, member of Tony Blair’s cabinet. (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP)

Lord Clarke of Hampstead CBE

Rt Hon Lord Clinton-Davis(former director of The Jewish Chronicle and former member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews)

Lord Davies of Coity CBE

Rt Hon Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP)

Rt Hon Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP, and voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the war.)

Lord Harrison

Lord Haskel

Baroness Dr Hayter

Lord Kennedy

Lord Michael Levy (Chief fundraiser for Tony Blair, he was Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East (1998-20017). Described by The Jerusalem Post as “undoubtedly the notional leader of British Jewry”)

Lord Livermore

Rt Hon Lord John Reid of Cardowan (As Blair’s minister of defence sent 3,000 British troops to Helmand province, Afghanistan. Supports curbs on immigration)

Lord David Sainsbury of Turville (Supermarket tycoon, and major donor to the Labour party (£18.5m/$24.3m until 2016). Served as Blair’s minister of science, without salary)

Lord Stone of Blackheath

Lord Turnberg

Rt Hon Lord David Watts

Lord Robert Winston of Hammersmith (Since 2017 founding member and co-chair of the UK-Israel Science Council)

Lord Young of Norwood Green

^Ψ The JLM director, Ella Rose, was an Israeli embassy officer before she became JLM director.

# Sir David Garrard: property tycoon, offshore tax-dodger. In 2006 it was revealed Garrard had made a secret “loan” to the Labour Party of £2.3m/$3m (this is in addition to donations of £1.5m/$2m since 2003 under the “New Labour” leaders Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband). He was also nominated for a peerage at that time, but the nomination was withdrawn when news of the suspect “loan” became public.  In 2013 Garrard hosted a junket to Israel by 11 Labour MPs, including shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, shadow defence minister Gemma Doyle, LFI chair Anne McGuire and vice-chair Louise Ellman. He left the Labour party in March 2018, citing Corbyn’s “antisemitism” as his reason.

*Sir Trevor Chinn: former chair of the Kwik-Fit and Lex chain of motor garages. Has funded the Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI; and he sits on the Executive Committee of the Jewish Leadership Council.  Chinn also sits on the executive committee of the Zionist advocacy group BICOM (considered a ‘strictly protected’ source by US Intelligence). Chinn has funded several leadership rivals to Jeremy Corbyn.  The Independent reports that Chinn has donated an undisclosed amount to Tony Blair, who was of course the main UK sponsor of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina. He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Russian ‘Agents’ Accused of Salisbury Poisonings: Just Tourists, or Framed?

Niall Bradley
Sott.net

England vs Russia on Russian soil in the football World Cup this summer would have been more entertaining than the dreary, farcical charade the two countries have been playing out since March. The Skripal Saga – The Salisbury Poisonings – Putin’s personal chemical warfare attack on the UK… The only thing really worth saying about it is that it’s just more sound and fury, signifying nothing. Be that as it may, the mainstream anglophone media has capitalized on this mendacity because it’s a useful distraction from the major geopolitical changes underway, as well as the socio-economic and planetary upheaval resulting from, or mirroring, the chaotic world system transition we’re undergoing.

Flush with paranoid conspiracy theories and lewd speculation, what the media’s narratives about this nonsense lack – as usual – is all-important context. In 2003, the US and UK launched a reckless invasion and occupation of Iraq under the pretext that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (which, specifically, included chemical weapons) aimed at London. Russia demanded evidence of such before that war, warning that chaos would result from such a flagrant breach of international law, and was ignored.

The US and UK later launched a proxy war against neighbouring Syria by funding, arming and training an ‘internationalist brigade’ of ‘Muslim liberators’, and, once that ‘softened up’ the country, the anglo-American establishment were ‘weapons-hot’ to swoop in and ‘decapitate the regime’ in August 2013 under the pretext that Bashar Al-Assad had ‘used chemical weapons against his own people’. Russia again intervened, but this time was listened to (likely because Russia already had a military foothold in the country via its long-term air defence contracts, not because the US Congress and UK Parliament suddenly ‘saw the light’ and agreed to adhere to international law). The OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) certified that the Syrian state was chemical weapon-free, and the matter was apparently dropped.

Except that it wasn’t. One might expect, after such a public and internationally-applauded application of non-violent legal means to quell an international scandal which prevented the collapse of the Syrian state and further destabilization of the Middle East, that the ruse of citing ‘chemical weapons’ whenever Western countries wished to justify their use of overwhelming military firepower to ‘teach dictators lessons’ was a dead duck.

Instead, as we’ve seen in recent years, the stewards of empire have gone on to play this card about a dozen more times, and the scheme has been exposed each time by Russia’s non-aligned media and Western dissidents. Combined with Russia’s successful defence of Syria from terrorist groups like ISIS – which also exposed the Western hand behind so-called Islamic terrorism – the Western elite that grew accustomed to dominating the Middle East have acquired a strong motive to misrepresent the intentions and actions of the Russian government on the world stage.

That’s why the Ado About Nothing in Salisbury attempts to connect Russia with said chemical weapons: Russia keeps ‘foiling’ the strategy of pinning WMD use on the target (Syria) – which has the dual effect of undermining the West’s diktats abroad and seeding doubt domestically in its ‘mission civilisatrice’, thus eroding public faith in Western institutions and ‘our way of life’ – so Russia must be implicated in such WMD use itself to ‘reinflate faith in the credit of Western institutions’. And if doubts remain about Western culpability in manipulating terrorists to stage chemical attacks, then at the very least Russia will have been prevented from seizing the moral high ground.

Where better to host this ‘chemical match’ between the Anglosphere and Russia than Salisbury, Wiltshire, famous for Stonehenge, but now infamous for being home to Britain’s military WMD research laboratories, corporate weapons manufacturers (including chemical weapons – CS gas, among other notorious ‘crowd-control’ weapons, was born there), and military proving grounds, the first such dedicated ‘military-industrial complex’ when it was founded during WW1.

It’s a fitting location in one sense, but not in another. A town several miles from Porton Down is probably the last place British authorities wished to draw international attention to in a ‘chemical warfare crime’, but the perpetrators – apparently equipped with a wicked sense of humor – clearly had other ideas. That this bizarrely-concocted story of shoddy origins becomes no clearer as the story-line develops speaks to the likelihood that this operation was carried out not by British intelligence per se, but by an ‘international fifth column’. Think Litvinenko, polonium, Arafat…

Asked repeatedly by the Russian government to formally present its evidence for consideration and response, the British have opted to keep this match confined to trial-by-media, strictly avoiding legal mechanisms for dispute resolution provided under international law. Besides the vitriol launched at Russia by the global anglophone propaganda network, commentators pilloried Theresa May’s government when it sold the story of a Russian conspiracy back in March, while the Russian media lampooned its British counterparts. A deadly ‘Russian’ nerve agent, despite having no factual link with Russia other than its cartoonish name, and which doesn’t even kill upon contact? The survivors walled off from media or diplomatic contact, then disappeared into witness protection? The British government had so little evidence for its outrageous claim that ’twas Putin wot dunnit, it didn’t even have any suspects!

Or so it led everyone to assume, until recently. Fully 6 months later, they have unveiled CCTV evidence placing two Russian men in Salisbury – and close to Sergey Skripal’s home – at the time of the poisoning of him and his daughter. If you haven’t yet done so, watch the whole of RT’s interview with the suspects fingered by the British government, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. US and UK media pundits are crooning over this ‘late goal’, enjoying (what they no doubt believe is) the last laugh in this ‘trial’. I suppose I should add that I’m shocked by the appalling lack of journalism by Western journalists, who have done nothing to show how they arrived at their conclusions that ‘Russia did it’ other than to repeat the British government’s policy that ‘Russia did it’, but, these days, I’m almost all out of shock anyway.

Besides the gaping lack of motive for the Russian government to whack a former Russian intel officer (and now British citizen) during his Russian daughter’s visit, in broad daylight, on the territory of its ‘Great Game’ foe, on the eve of Putin’s likely re-election, and with preparations underway for Russia to host the most-watched cultural event on the planet, it’s extremely unlikely that these two guys are Russian intel operatives who were sent to kill the Skripals. If they were, neither Sergei nor Yulia Skripal would be alive today, Petrov and Borishov would not be their real names, they would not have traveled together, they would not have been seen together, they would not have entered the country on a direct flight from Moscow, and we would not be hearing them – at Putin’s public suggestion – defend themselves in a TV interview.

Nevertheless, it’s also clear – based on their movements in Salisbury, and some of their vague answers in the interview – that Petrov and Borishov were not just visiting Salisbury to ‘take in the sights’. They are not Russian military intelligence officers, but they do appear to have been led by the nose by actual intel operatives into an intrigue they knew nothing about beforehand.

As we’ve seen with Western intelligence recruitment practices in this era of the ‘War on Terror’, it’s easy to groom people to be somewhere at a specific time. Perhaps Petrov and Borishov were led to believe that ‘business opportunities’ awaited them at or near Sergei Skripal’s address, and were expecting to meet either Skripal himself or someone else entirely. They perhaps walked up to his door, or a house nearby, saw that nobody was home, failed to find their contact-person, then left to fly back to Russia, none the wiser that they thus became two hapless Russian dupes ‘caught on camera’ walking through a crime scene – ‘framed’ for ‘attempted murder-by-nerve agents’.

This third scenario is all the more likely given that they were tracked by CCTV arriving at Salisbury train station, walking about 2kms towards a residential neighbourhood, and were last seen on camera some 400 meters from Skripal’s house. When nobody was home at whichever house they called at, they then ‘took in some sights’ instead. What will be interesting to find out is what exactly the nature of their business in Russia is, and thus what motivates them to take sudden international trips to ‘research the market for sports supplements’, and in what way they anticipated enriching their business by visiting England on a bleak March weekend.

With the two Skripals recovering as they did, and with eyewitnesses describing them as appearing to be suffering from hallucinations, and with the two Amesbury victims being drug addicts, future episodes of The Skripal Saga may see the story-line evolve from ‘sports supplements’ to powerful drugs. In fact, the Russians scored a goal earlier in the match when foreign minister Sergey Lavrov revealed that Spiez Laboratory, the Swiss firm analyzing samples from Salisbury on behalf of the OPCW, had found traces of BZ (chemically, 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate), an hallucinogenic chemical warfare agent the Pentagon has long-since tested on US soldiers.

Curiously, a carefully-timed leak to Swiss and Dutch newspapers last week revealed that two ‘Russian GRU agents’ had been detained in The Hague, Holland, where the OPCW is located, for breaking into (or remotely hacking – the report isn’t clear) the Spiez Laboratory in Switzerland, before being promptly expelled back to Russia. This all happened on the QT back in late March. Nobody said a word about it until now. A couple of weeks afterwards, Lavrov made his announcement about the BZ finding in the Salisbury sample. This revelation and counter-revelation 6 months later suggests two things:

1. Lavrov’s information came courtesy of a successfully hacked/stolen OPCW/Spiez report that has not been published;
2. These two hackers/thieves were actual Russian spies, as opposed to dupes in the wrong place at the wrong time, because they were dealt with in the manner that actual spies are generally dealt with – clinically, without the hysteria the media whips up for the purpose of diverting public attention.

But curiouser still is that BZ is also a powerful anticholinergic agent, which puts it in a class of chemicals that are antidotes to nerve agents like ‘Novichok’. Which means that both substances could plausibly have been used on the Skripals, perhaps in quick succession, or in some otherwise ‘safe’ combination. Which hints that both the British and the Russians could end up being technically correct, on that score anyway.

And on and on the Skripal Salisbury Saga goes…

Niall Bradley 

A contributing writer at SOTT.net, Niall Bradley’s articles are cross-posted on his personal blog, NiallBradley.net. Niall is co-host with Joe Quinn of NewsReal, and co-author of Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False-Flag Terror Attacks.