Sunday, 31 January 2010

Blair: I'd do it again

Tony Blair believes that the Iraq war has made the world a safer place.

UN Security Council approval
Tony Blair shared Mr Bush’s views that UN Security Council's support "wasn't necessary" to take military action against Iraq.

This was because they could not get the UN support. So why were they concerned about Saddam Hussein flouting UN resolutions?

Weapons of mass destruction
There were no weapons of weapons of mass destructions. Over 95% of them were destroyed by the weapons inspectors. Blair said: “could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes”. In another words he did not have any.

Saddam would “support terrorist groups"
There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeeda. The invasion of Iraq was open invitation to Al Qaeeda. It is 2010, after all the death and destruction, Iraq has 200,000 foreign troops and Al Qaeeda is still going strong.

Blair: "I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place."
Al Qaeeda in Iraq is destabilising more countries in the region. They only arrived after the invasion of Iraq and will leave after the invasion forces leave.

Blair said the UK had not taken a "cavalier" attitude to post-war planning.
After the destruction, there was no police, army or institutions. The US was the dictator in charge for the first year. Then slowly and grudgingly it handed back some responsibility to the Iraqis. How credible is a puppet Iraqi government that wants to ban current MPs from standing for election? What planning did that take?

Blair feels that Iraqis were now better off.
In 2010, Iraqis still fear 200,000 foreign troops and Al Qaeeda in Iraq. Who feels better off? A stable environment has been replaced by unpredictable chaos.

Any one with links to the Baath party will not allowed to stand in elections, even if are currently serving MPs. Was the intention to remove Saddam Hussein or deny any one who supported Saddam a say in the future of Iraq?
Read more!

Friday, 29 January 2010

Lord Goldsmith changed his view over Iraq

A month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith believed it was "safer" to get a fresh UN resolution.

Foreign Office lawyers Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst believed the invasion would be a "crime of aggression" without explicit UN approval.

But a month later Lord Goldsmith changed his mind but still told ministers that the UK could be taken to court in the event of military action.

Without his change of mind, Britain could not have gone to war.
Who or what changed his mind?

It is "complete and utter nonsense" to suggest that he could be persuaded by the establishment to tow the British government line.

Only after discussions with US diplomats did the "true meaning" of resolution 1441 became clear" to Lord Goldsmith.

That explains it.
Tony Blair was gob smacked by the status of the US President and decided to become his poodle.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, learnt the "true meaning" of law and UN Resolutions from the Americans.

A wiser man would have been brave enough to ask the French for their interpretation.
Read more!

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Israel issues stern rebuke to Turkey's ambassador?

When Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned the Turkish Ambassador to rebuke him over a fictional television series, he ensured the Turkish ambassador was seated on a much lower chair, removed the Turkish flag from the table and did not shake his hand or smile.

TV footage widely broadcast by the Israeli media shows him urging journalists to note the Turkish ambassador's low seating position at the meeting.

He is also heard saying in Hebrew that "there is only one flag here" and "we are not smiling".

The incident has been widely seen in Israel as an intentional humiliation.

According to Reuters Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said "In terms of the diplomatic tactics available, this was the minimum that was warranted.”

One Israeli newspaper marked the height difference on the photo, and captioned it "the height of humiliation".

Intentional humiliation for whom?
Israel or Turkey?

This intentional and stupid behaviour will do nothing more than show the true face of this Israeli government to the world.

When Turkey demanded an apology, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister was forced to say "It is not my way to disrespect ambassadors' honour, and "in future I will clarify my position in a diplomatically acceptable manner.”
Read more!

Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no legal mandate

A Dutch inquiry finds that the Netherlands' support for the invasion of Iraq was not justified by UN resolutions.

The Dutch Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said UN Security Council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003".

The report accuses ministers of a selective use of intelligence.

The Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK took precedence over the legality of the invasion.

The committee said “the wording of [UNl] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".

Iraq's alleged breach of Resolution 1441, was used by the coalition, and the Netherlands, to justify the invasion.

However, a leaked memo by the Dutch foreign ministry lawyers indicated that war would be illegal under international law.

Will the British enquiry conclusions be based on the evidence?
Read more!

Monday, 11 January 2010

Israel to build barrier along Egyptian border

A quote on the BBC website reads:

"We have an influx of illegal refugees, but "these poor people are being murdered trying to cross into Israel by the Egyptians"

The Egyptians are only following Israeli orders.

To stop this suffering, the Israeli's are going to build a barrier along the Egyptian border to keep them out.

In PM Benjamin Netanyahu words, it ""is a strategic decision to secure Israel's Jewish character" and keep out "illegal aliens."

Israel has also been building a controversial barrier in and around the occupied West Bank in recent years to make life more unbearable for the Palestinians.

It is also building a steel wall on the Gaza Strip border to ensure Gaza remains a prison and unable to rebuild its infrastructure.

Where will the next wall be?
Read more!

Sunday, 10 January 2010

UAE sheikh cleared in torture case!

Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the bother of the president of the United Arab Emirates, has been found not guilty of torture.

A video in circulation shows Sheikh Issa repeatedly beating Mr Poor, a grain merchan, and running him over with a car. Several other men assist in the torture, including a member of the security forces. Mr Poor survived the torture, but needed extensive hospital treatment.



The court ruled that Sheikh Issa had been drugged and so was "unaware of his actions" and was "a victim of conspiracy" over the torture of Mohammed Shah Poor.

The statement that the trial had taken place was "a sign that the UAE is showing that everyone in this country can be put in front of law and judged" is bollocks.

"At the same time, it's proven justice to Mohammed Shah Poor.”

The victim:

- was beaten with a wooden plank with protruding nails
- had a cattle prod forced into his anus and turned on
- was run over by a Mercedes SUV
- had lighter fluid poured on his genitals and set alight
- had salt poured on his wounds

In the video Sheikh Issa urges the cameraman to "Get closer. Get closer. Get closer. Let his suffering show."

Is this verdict, justice for the victim?

It merely proves once again that the extended royal family and those Emiratis in positions of power are above the rule of law.



The initial response by the UAE Ministry of the Interior that
  • the matter had been privately settled between Sheikh Issa and his victim (by more torture???)

  • "all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department" in the torture

was more beleivable.

There are alleged to be at least 25 other people being filmed and tortured by Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
Read more!