Tony Blair

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petit ion - please sign

Comment at end

31st August, 2009

They COULD … of course they could.

Mr Blair is right.

Middle East Envoy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gestures next a section of Israel's separation barrier in the northern West Bank town of Qalqiliya, Monday, Aug. 31, 2009. (AP Phto/Nasser Ishtayeh)

Whether they ever WILL is another matter.

And whether it is “easier” in many ways than bringing peace in Northern Ireland … well, I’m not so sure if he’s right about that given that all parties in Northern Ireland wanted the same ends (peace and democracy – eventually.)

Perhaps he, as the British leader who helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, knows something I don’t.

From Newsmax:

Tony Blair: Hamas, Hezbollah Could Play Middle East Peace Role

In an interview with Terrasanta.net, a Franciscan Web site, the Middle East Quartet peace envoy also said he supported the idea that Hamas and Hezbollah should be allowed to take part in peace talks, but only if they renounce violence and back a two-state solution.

It’s certainly better to have them in the Palestinian context as part of the process, Blair said. The trouble is that it’s difficult to bring them in unless it’s on a basis that we’re all working towards the same end.

He added: “The Quartet principles are that unless there’s a clear commitment to non-violence as the means of achieving their ends, and unless it’s clear that we’re all trying to get a two-state solution, then it becomes difficult to see what the purpose is in involving them in this. The divisions in Palestinian politics are an inhibition. It is better to overcome them, but you can only ever overcome them if there’s some basic agreement on the principles governing the process.”

Turning to the subject of religious leaders, the former British prime minister said they should play a more significant role because religion is a key factor within the context of the conflict. If people sometimes say to me, you know, this is really nothing to do with religion, I will say to them it obviously is to do with religion because religion is part of the context and background within which this dispute has come about, he said. So, of course, it would help enormously, and by and large the churches do play a very positive role.”

More here

In an exclusive interview with Terrasanta.net, Tony Blair says that religious leaders should play a greater role in the peace process in the Middle East and that, under certain conditions, including Hamas and Hezbollah should be involved in the negotiations. L’inviato del Quartetto (Onu, Usa, Unione Europea e Russia) per la pace in Medio Oriente, riconosce che l’esempio di san Francesco è anche per lui fonte di ispirazione. The envoy of the Quartet (UN, U.S., European Union and Russia) for peace in the Middle East, recognizes that the example of St. Francis is also a source of inspiration for him. Osserva poi che per certi versi la pace in Terra Santa è più facile da raggiungere di quanto lo fosse quella in Irlanda del Nord. Observes that in some ways the peace in the Holy Land is easier to achieve than it was one in Northern Ireland. Blair si sofferma infine sulla possibilità di raggiungere un accordo di pace durante il mandato di un governo israeliano come quello di Benjamin Netanyahu. Blair finally focuses on the possibility of reaching a peace agreement during the tenure of a government like Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

Terrasanta site – translated into English

Tags:Hamas, Hezbollah, Middle East peace role, Tony Blair Middle East envoy
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Hamas, Middle East Envoy Blair, from June 2007, Palestinian Issues/ Palestine state | Leave a Comment »

Iraq: Ooops we forgot. We DID have an airforce

August 31, 2009

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petit ion - please sign

Comment at end

30th August, 2009

‘Iraqi officials have been hunting for missing assets in a number of countries where Mr. Hussein had made military purchases, including Egypt, Russia, France and Italy.

The Iraqis have also found two naval vessels belonging to it in Egypt and two others in Italy, and other materiel [sic] in France and Russia, according to Mr. Askari.’

WHAT? How can ANY country’s people including officials, forces, authorities, politicians, scientists, technicians, historians etc FORGET that they once had an airforce? No chance that they might also have forgotten that they once had Weapons of Mass Destruction too?

Of course not. Silly me.

Remnants of Iraq Air Force Are Found (source here)

BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials have discovered that they may have an air force, after all.

The Defense Ministry revealed Sunday that it recently learned that Iraq owns 19 Russian-designed MIG-21 and MIG-23 jet fighters, which are in storage in Serbia. The ministry said Iraqi officials are negotiating with the Serbs to restore the aircraft.

The Serbian government has tentatively promised to make two of the aircraft available “for immediate use,” according to a press release from the ministry. The rest would be restored on a rush basis, the ministry said.

An Iraqi delegation went to Serbia as part of aneffort by the government to locate funds stashed abroad by Saddam Hussein to evade sanctions first imposed during the 1990’s. Serbia had had friendly relations with Mr. Hussein.

During that visit, the Iraqi officials discovered that Mr. Hussein had sent the 19 jet fighters to Serbia for repairs in the 1980’s, during the Iran-Iraq war, but was unable to bring them back after sanctions had been imposed on his country.

Iraq immediately sent a technical delegation, including air force chief Gen. Anwar Mohammed Amin. The web site of the Iraqi Supreme Islamic Council, the leading Shia political party, quoted Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari as saying that the aircraft had been sent in 1989 “for maintenance and everything was paid for by Iraq’s money.”

Mr. Askari said the discovery was important because Iraq has no jet aircraft with defensive or offensive capabilities. “Our air force has only helicopters,” he said.

“Everyone knows how much we need fighter aircraft,” the ministry statement said. “We have reached a tentative agreement with the Serbian side to rehabilitate the aircraft and deliver them to Iraq in the shortest possible time, in recognition of Iraq’s need for such aircraft.”

The Defense Ministry statement was issued as a rebuttal to Iraqi press reports claiming secret negotiations with Serbia indicated some sort of corrupt deal.

The American military’s training command has recently arranged for the delivery of Iraq’s first jet aircraft trainer, the T-6, in December. There are no immediate plans as yet for Iraq to purchase American fighter aircraft, although the T-6 is used to train pilots for the F-16.

U.S. officials could not immediately be reached to clarify whether Iraq would continue to develop an American jet fighter capacity.

So far, the Iraqi air force has only 87 aircraft, mostly transport and reconnaissance planes and helicopters, and only one ground attack aircraft. It has no jets.

Mr. Hussein’s government, which in 1990 had the sixth largest air force in the world with 750 aircraft, lost many of its advanced MIG and French Mirage jets when the United States bombed them during Desert Storm; nearly 100 of them were flown to Iran to escape destruction, even though Iran was then an enemy of Iraq.

Iran has still not returned the aircraft, despite otherwise warm relations between the two countries now, saying they were war reparations for the Iran-Iraq war.

The Serbian discovery would potentially give Iraq a jet fighter capability long before it could develop one for American aircraft.

Iraqi officials have been hunting for missing assets in a number of countries where Mr. Hussein had made military purchases, including Egypt, Russia, France and Italy. The Serbia discovery was a result of that hunt.

The Iraqis have also found two naval vessels belonging to it in Egypt and two others in Italy, and other materiel in France and Russia, according to Mr. Askari.

In Belgrade, the B-92 independent news channel quoted officials as saying that Serbia had reached a separate arms export deal with Iraq that would result in employment for 6,000 workers in six military factories. Last year, Serbia exported $235 million worth of arms to Iraq.

RECENT POSTS AT THIS BLOG

Tags:aircraft in Serbia, Iraq's lost airforce, WMDs
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Iraq, Iraq inquiry | 2 Comments »

Blair/Libya/Megrahi/SNP/Straw: Deal or No Deal, BLAIR IS INNOCENT

August 30, 2009

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petit ion - please sign

Comment at end

30th August, 2009

LIBYA

SHOCK NEWS!

Blair met Gaddafi for the last time as PM, June 2007

BLAIR IS INNOCENT

OF ANY & ALL BACK-DOOR DEALS

Blair, Brown, Straw and the Scottish (SDP) government. What did they ALL know?

Following today’s Times article – Lockerbie bomber ‘set free for oil’ – and its leaked letters from Jack Straw to the Scottish Justice Minister, we are all at the conspiracy theorising again. And since, like Alex Massie at The Spectator, I can’t see Salmond sitting down to a comfy chat over ANYTHING with the hated British government, we are left with few choices:

1. Megrahi’s release really WAS only on humanitarian grounds.

OR/AND

2. The Scottish government too knew it would benefit Scotland financially from the ‘prisoner for oil’ arrangement.

QUICK BACKGROUND: THE LIBYA CONNECTION

Tony Blair resigned on the 27th June 2007. Since 2003 through largely PERSONAL efforts, he had brought Libya in from the international cold. He had stopped their nuclear ambitions AND had secured hugely important and lucrative commercial deals for Britain. Then came the Lockerbie bombing and the conviction of Megrahi. Blair never ONCE agreed to include Megrahi in any future tit-for-tat arrangement on prisoner release, despite being constantly pressed by the Libyans.

TONY BLAIR’S HANDS ARE CLEAN

On this video interview Tony Blair on CNN explains WHY exactly he did not and could not have had any link with any “arrangement” over Megrahi’s release.

“I did not have the power.” More from Blair here, 22nd August 2009.

One month after Mr Blair left office, July 2007, Jack Straw attempted to hold Blair’ s line on Megrahi’s possible future release NOT being tied to trade agreements. The new SNP government also STRONGLY wanted Megrahi excluded. It may be that his inclusion would have given them a responsibility too many. Straw was not successful with the Libyans.

Six months later, December 2007, fearing the possible collapse of the commercial deals secured by Blair since 2003, Straw capitulated to Libyan demands to include Megrahi in the PTA arrangements. He immediately TOLD the Scottish government that Libya would not agree to his exclusion. (Odd how we have not been reminded of any of this until now, don’t you think?)

Six weeks later, in early 2008, BRITISH PETROLEUM signed a lucrative Libya-oil based deal with the UK government.

CONCLUSION on BLAIR:

All the way through HIS ten years in office Tony Blair NEVER EVER agreed to include Megrahi in any deal of any sort, trade or otherwise.

THAT, Blair’s fair-weather friends, should be remembered by you ALL.

BROWN’S GOVERNMENT: JACK STRAW’S INPUT

Jack Straw has been involved in any "deal" arrangement longer than Blair

POLITICAL DUCKING AND DIVING

Watch Sky News report here

Clearly there has been ducking and diving by all parties involved for ALL sorts of reasons. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, says that the Scottish Nationalist government wanted a “carve-out” for Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement. They did NOT (at that time) want any possibility of his being released under any agreement.

The Libyans would not agree with this exclusion and so Megrahi was not excluded.

“ABSURD”

Straw says it is all “an absurd argument” because the SNP government has released Megrahi outwith any Prisoner Transfer Agreement and only on “humanitarian” grounds.

On a Radio 4 interview today Jack Straw said that in 2003 “we forced Libya to abandon its nuclear weapons development.” (He may have misremembered. He meant to say – “Blair forced …”) Straw also pointed out that it was always open “at any time” to the SNP government to release Megrahi for their own reasons. Until last week Salmond’s government could have decided either way. According to Straw the whole debate is absurd and “academic because Magrehi was not transferred under PTA.”

CONCLUSION on STRAW

This is politics. Impure and simple.

THE SCOTTISH (NATIONALISTS) CONNECTION

The Prisoner Transfer Agreement, April 2009

Salmond in Scottish Parliament 7th May, 2009

Alex Salmond: “The United Kingdom and Libyan Governments ratified a prisoner transfer agreement on Wednesday 29 April 2009.”

The SNP, under Alex Salmond has found that its expected "popular" decision to release Megrahi has re-bounded at home and abroad.

[Aside: That's 29th April 2009. This year. The PTA discussions were clearly set in train by Mr Blair as were Libya's return to the international community and its dropping of its nuclear arms ambitions. However, two years have passed since Mr Blair left office. Two years to amend the PTA before final acceptance and ratification. In the end the actual wording of the agreement had nothing do with Tony Blair.]

SALMOND continued: “An application for prisoner transfer has now been received from the Libyan authorities on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi. The application will be considered according to the agreement, relevant legislation and the merits of the individual case.

Any decision on the transfer of prisoners who are held in Scotland is for the Scottish ministers. In practice, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice makes the decision on any prisoner transfer request. That emphasises our point that, whatever decisions are made elsewhere, our decisions will be made on judicial grounds, not economic or political ones.”

CONCLUSION on SALMOND’S SDP GOVERNMENT’s DECISION

They wanted to play with the big boys. They can expect the rules to be tough. This too is realpolitik, Mr Salmond

The Scottish government’s message:

They are NOT the British government. They are NOT under Westminster’s control. They will decide for their OWN reasons and through their OWN justice system, notwithstanding the British government’s and people’s interests.

That might be worth remembering, all my fellow-Scots still based in Scotland, when Salmond presents you with a referendum on Independence due within the year.

It’s also worth remembering that the SDP were NOT in power in Scotland when Blair started to discuss a PTA with the Libyans, and were possibly never expected to be. In fact they had just come into power a month before Blair left in June 2007 years after he had started to negotiate a PTA with Libya.

The new devolution arrangements since devolution in 1998 were always likely to lead to some confusion over power and authority on international issues.

With an anti-union party in place in Scotland – perhaps we ain’t seen nothing yet!

MORE ON THE STRAW MAN

Today in The Times

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A SOFT PLACE

A couple of points to sum up -

Straw’s and Brown’s inability to finalise Blair’s trade deals without excluding Megrahi from the PTA does NOT in my opinion make Straw or Brown guilty of anything other than of not being Tony Blair. He it was who brought Gaddafi and Libya in from the cold internationally. He it was who got the oil and other commercial deals in the first place. Whether there would have been backtracking on the inclusion of Megrahi if Blair were still Prime Minister in December 2007 we will never know.

Brown may have been invisible again recently, but the Scottish Nationalist government too has been illiberal with the verity. They say they made the decision to free Megrahi NOT on trade/oil/co-operating with the British government grounds, but for humanitarian reasons. They all knew that Straw had failed to carry through on Blair’s refusal to include Megrahi’s release in the PTA. None of this prior knowledge has been mentioned until today. For the SNP they wanted and NEEDED it to be known that they were above all this grubby trade shenanigans. Their holier-than-thou approach was that Scotland was particularly humanitarian (presumably in comparison to the rest of us.)

As a Scot I can tell you this -

THAT’S RUBBISH!

We Scots are no more humanitarian than anyone else in this great island or in the western world. In fact the Irish are far more generous charity givers than the Scots pro-rata.

The SNP for all its hand-wringing and whiter-than-white cries is as politically driven as any other political party.

But, for their own reasons, oil to replace Scotland’s offshore diminishing resources perhaps, they are just as ‘grubby’ as any politicians in this world where humanitarian, diplomatic and commercial considerations do not always make comfortable or vote-winning bedfellows.

So if not humanitarian what WERE the real reasons for the Scottish government releasing Megrahi early?

SIMPLER EVEN THAT ALL THE ABOVE?

Perhaps the SNP’s action and the ongoing furore is far more simple than all of this. Could it have been a desire NOT to draw attention to the fact that it was Tony Blair, Salmond’s nemesis, who stood firm for years against keeping Megrahi OUT of a PTA. That admission – that Mr Blair was on the SNP’s ORIGINAL side on this – would today be hard for Salmond to own up to and harder to admit publicly.

Instead did they choose to sell the release of Megrahi as being on humanitarian grounds, insisting that the British government had not interfered and could not interfere with their decision? With this, at least the present British government was happy to concur.

So was it just that Salmond wanted to draw attention away from the fact that on this issue, Mr Blair was and still is the only politician whose position has not moved on prisoner transfer?

Worse still, from Salmond’s angle, given all of the mishandling of the Megrahi release decision, Mr Blair above all others has particularly clean hands. His input was only ever for good. Our trade arrangements with Libya will soon come to fruition and prove their value, as will Libya’s increasing distance from its past threatening position vis-a-vis nuclear weapons.

Thank you Mr Blair.

SICKENING, ISN’T IT, MR SALMOND?

RELATED

Alan Cochrane at The Telegraph takes some stick from his commenters after telling the conspiracy theorists to cease their mindless prattle, more or less. There you go, Mr Cochrane – you can’t tell ‘em. THEY KNOW, y’know.

Tags:Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Gaddafi, Gordon Brown, jack straw, Libya, Lockerbie bomber, Megrahi, SNP, straw man, Tony Blair
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, British Politics, Brown (Gordon Brown & his Labour Government, from June 2007), Gaddafi, Libya, Megrahi | 27 Comments »

NEW!!! YouTube Video – ‘BAN BLAIR-BAITING’ Petition

August 30, 2009

Comment at end

30th August 2009

BAN BLAIR-BAITING VIDEO HERE

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petition – sign here

Julie posted this video on YouTube. Her website is here

Tags:ban blair baiting video you tube, Tony Blair, YouTube video
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Iraq, Press - Truth & Lies | 2 Comments »

Libya – Megrahi: Truth & Chinese Whispers

August 29, 2009

UPDATE: TIMES – Jack Straw and the “link” to Megrahi release. NOTE – NOT TONY BLAIR!

Comment at end

29th August 2009

CHINESE WHISPERS IN THE SANDS OF TRIPOLI

It’s long been clear to me that the diplomacy and domestic requirements of political interchange often result in people hearing and taking different things from negotiations; usually what they WANT or NEED to hear for their own public’s consumption.

The Times’ analysis below articulates this. Tony Blair did what he wanted to do to secure trade agreements AND an end to Libya’s nuclear ambitions, but it is also clear that as far as some of the Libyans were concerned there was a nod and a wink over prisoner (Megrahi) release.

Mr Blair in fact, as so often before, handled the whole episode particularly well. Libya is no longer a nuclear threat, and has been brought in from the cold by Blair’s deft handling. Commercial interests have followed. If the SNP recently had to deal with any political fallout – well, that’s power for you, Salmond.

Viz – Gaddafi’s son says ‘Blair deal linked to Megrahi but not by name’.

Quite.

I did have to smile when I heard Alex Salmond say yesterday, “Sometimes in politics you have to take difficult decisions – to do what you think is right.”

Very Blair, as in his retirement speech to his constituency in May 2007 regarding the Iraq decision.

“But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.

I may have been wrong. That’s your call. But believe one thing if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.”

Irritating, no doubt, for Salmond to have to come face to face with the responsibility of power as articulated so well by the man he sought for so long to destroy.

Times Analysis -

When truth about Britain’s dealings with Libya turns out to be a mirage

In the Libyan desert, across which Britain’s politicians and business interests have warily trodden similar routes over recent years, apparent truth can turn out to be a mirage.

What were the precise terms of the agreement that Britain reached with the US and Libya in 1999 that those convicted of the Lockerbie bombing would serve out their sentences in Scotland? Just what did Tony Blair say to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi when they met in 2004 and again, in the Libyan leader’s tent, in 2007? Exactly what was going on inside the heads of British and Scottish government ministers during the fraught negotiations in recent months over the fate of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi?

Both of Mr Blair’s trips coincided with the announcement of big trade agreements for Shell and then BP. The oil industry clearly resents media speculation that such deals were linked to politics. BP denies that the Libyans put pressure on it over the fate of al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, who until this month was languishing with terminal cancer in Greenock prison. Nor, says the company, did it lobby the British and Scottish governments over such issues.

Details of Mr Blair’s role in removing diplomatic obstacles to trade with the oil-rich Libyans were, however, slow to emerge from behind the sparkle of the huge BP oil deal in 2007. A passing reference to “judicial co-operation” turned out to be a plan for a prisoner transfer agreement with Britain.

The Scottish Government, by then controlled by the SNP, objected. There was clearly only one prisoner in whom the Libyans were interested — al-Megrahi. They asked for any agreement to preclude those convicted before the deal was done. The Libyans refused.

According to correspondence obtained by The Times, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then the Lord Chancellor, wrote to Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, offering reassurance on June 22, 2007. “Libya agreed prior to al-Megrahi’s trial that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing would serve their sentence in Scotland,” he wrote. “For this reason, any prisoner transfer agreement with Libya could not cover Mr al-Megrahi.”

The agreement to which he referred was one brokered between Britain and the US with the UN in 1999: the suspects would be tried on neutral ground in the Netherlands but serve any sentence in Scotland. According to a senior government adviser involved in those negotiations, the insistence of a Scottish jail was necessary before Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, could overcome strong US resistance to the deal from Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State.

Mr Blair, when asked this week about his conversation in Colonel Gaddafi’s tent in 2007, said: “The Libyans were raising the case of al-Megrahi all the way along . . . We made it clear the only way this could be dealt with was through the proper procedures.”

Sources close to him suggested yesterday that discussions about a prisoner transfer were vague. Libya, however, clearly regarded the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Mr Blair as having a direct bearing on al-Megrahi.

In an interview with the Glasgow Herald yesterday, Colonel Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, said: “It was part of the bargaining deal with the UK. When Tony Blair came here we signed the agreement . . . We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and politics and deals were all with the PTA.”

Britain has repeatedly denied that trade deals were tied to negotiations over al-Megrahi.

When a transfer application was made this year, however, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office appeared to backslide on the force of its 1999 deal with the US. In a letter on August 3 to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, Ivan Lewis, a Foreign Office minister, wrote: “While the US pressed us to provide a definitive commitment on the future imprisonment of the Lockerbie accused, the UK Government of the day declined … it did not wish to bind the hands of future governments.”

Mr MacAskill, having been lobbied by angry US officials, was convinced that it was more like a firm commitment — and rejected the application. He then decided to release al-Megrahi anyway on “compassionate grounds”.

Competing theories for why he did so include suggestions that he did not want to risk embarrassing the Scottish justice system with a retrial, Libyan pressure on the oil firms working the North Sea, or just old-fashioned liberal benevolence towards a dying man. Another truth lost, perhaps between the sands of Libya and the mists of Scotland.

Polls say SNP AND Brown damaged by the Megrahi release and its handling

THE FINDINGS of the Scottish opinion poll source The Herald):

68% Gordon Brown’s reputation has been damaged

60% Decision by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi was wrong

74% Scotland’s reputation has been damaged by the release

52% UK Government was right not to intervene

68% Factors other than compassion involved

52% Prison visit by MacAskill was wrong

56% MacAskill should not resign

RELATED

Julie has also blogged on this here -

Lockerbie bomber’s release aka – Blair is the scapegoat-AGAIN

Tags:Alex Salmond, difficult decisions, do what you think is right, Gaddafi, jack straw, Libya, Lockerbie, Megrahi, Scotland, SNP, The Times, Tony Blair
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Gaddafi, Libya, Megrahi | 2 Comments »

Afghan Family Interview – ‘THANK You’ to the NATO countries & forces

August 29, 2009

Stephen Frears on Blair’s “public execution” via Julie here

Again from this idiotic loudmouth Frears – “Chop off his head” – also sourced from Julie

Comment at end

29th August, 2009

First – about Julie. Through our admiration of Tony Blair I have recently come across this young lady who lives in Germany. She’s some find.

Fereba and Natascha Chaled with me (Julie) in the middle

She has been very helpful to me with her translation capabilities from German, as regulars may have noticed here (STERN interview with Blair) and here (Frears advocating public execution of Blair) and her update to Frears’ - “Put his head on a spike”.

This time she has done far more than translate. She has exclusively interviewed an Afghan family now living in Germany. Their stories of life under the Taleban and their thoughts on the NATO troops presence should be noted.

If you ever thought that we are wasting our time in Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter) this may change your mind.

As I write this I am listening to John Humphrys on ‘Today’ insisting to British military people in Afghanistan that the “low voter turnout” in the recent election means that we, Britain and the other NATO forces are “losing” in Afghanistan. Britain’s Colonel Richardson denies this completely. His radio signal has just been lost and yet another “expert” – Sam Kiley (?) – is saying that the question of the election’s legitimacy and turnout and “under-resourcing of the troops” means that we are not winning for the people there. He says there is not a great enthusiasm for the presence of NATO forces there “if we bring conflict”.

Note: “WE bring conflict”.

(Also note what this soldier says at the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here.)

As a Sgt with the Army, The Rifles Regiment (Infantry), i have nothing but praise for the man. After two CON-servative governments giving us servicemen & Women poor funding and poor kit, he changed things. Today thanks to him we have some of the best kit out there. Despite what some high ranking officers have said in the British Gutter press. Ask any soldier ON THE FRONTLINE (i.e not these high ranking Tory supporting officers) if they are happy with the kit and the answer is a resounding “YES”.

As ever, the BBC is peddling its failure line, just as it did in Iraq. It was wrong there and it’ll be wrong in Afghanistan.

See Julie’s article here and here below on this family, who now live in North Rhine Westphalia.

I am extremely grateful to Julie for permission to use this interview. You won’t find it in the mainstream press.

(The “Me” referred to in the interview exchanges is Julie. I have taken the liberty of heading certain blocks of the interview in blue for emphasis.)

Julie’s Exclusive interview (and intro):

“Please don’t leave us to the hands of the Taleban …”

From Julie:

It’s a common belief among many people that America and Britain should leave Afghanistan and bring troops back home. They claim we have no right and legitimacy to be there; that business interests rather than humanitarian intervention are the reasons for our invasion; that we are not welcome. Some even say the Afghan people don’t want democracy.

I have always regarded this attitude to be alienating. Isn’t it easy for us to judge here, at the heart of the “Free World”, when it’s not us being killed and oppressed by a fanatic regime? Doesn’t any decent human being struggling to live in peace under democratic values?

The Afghan election seems to confirm that, as I’ve reported recently at my blog:

Excerpt:

As Sky News reports : “Many Afghans remained defiant.Women were among those who ignored warnings from the Taliban that they would have their fingers chopped off if they voted.”

So if these women are facing threats to get their fingers chopped off or even getting killed (…) but still go to the ballot boxes, that is a strong indication for their support of DEMOCRACY.”

The best way to find out what the people in a country like Afghanistan REALLY think about the presence of American and British troops in the region is to talk to somebody who has been affected by and lived under these circumstances.

I’ve had the great chance and honour to talk to two Afghan women belonging to a family that has escaped from the Taleban’s reign in Afghanistan. Fereba and Natascha Chaled have taken their valuable time to tell me their side of the story.

INTERVIEW

THE TALEBAN WANTED TO KILL MY LITTLE BROTHER

Me: Mrs. Chaled, your family has escaped from Afghanistan when the Taleban took over. Can you tell me about how life used to be under their regime and how you managed to flee the country?

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: We used to have a very modern life under the King. Miniskirts in school were routine. But when the Soviets came to Afghanistan in 1971, tough fights broke out between them and the Mujahideen (kind of a predecessor of today’s Taleban). I finished school in 1981 and we decided to escape from the country in the following year. In 1982, we started our journey from central Kabul on a bus to the city of Kandahar. Suddenly the bus was stopped and controlled by some jihadists of the Mujahideen. They looked around and spotted my brother. He looked quite unusual for an Afghan, with green eyes and pale skin and the Mujahideen believed he was a Soviet. They pulled him out of the bus and wanted to kill him. By a hair’s breadth, my mum was able to confirm his identity via a passport and an oath on the Quran and ultimately rescued the little boy’s life.

Me: When you all arrived safely in Kandahar, what was your next step?

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: From Kandahar we travelled further on an old bus to the border of Pakistan. We stayed in a castle for two days, near the border of Pakistan, to hide away from the Mujahideen. We were sitting on the ground, hardly moving. Everybody was afraid when their helicopters flew over the castle to look for us. After two days, we travelled on to Pakistan, again on a bus. In Pakistan, we stayed 17 days to get fake passports for which we had to pay 70,000 Dollars. That was the only possibility to escape into the West. Finally, we managed to fly from Pakistan to Turkey but the Turkish authorities refused to let us on a plane to Germany because of our counterfeits. So we had to live in Ankara for three months and had to pay another 20,000 Dollars to get new fake passports, before we were able to travel on to Germany. We have been blessed that family members were able to send us these huge amounts of money to buy us a ticket into freedom. On July 7^th 1982, we finally arrived in Germany.

Me: You have been very lucky to escape safely from the Taleban regime. What happened to friends and relatives?

FRIENDS’ BABY DIED TRYING TO KEEP HIDDEN FROM THE TALEBAN

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: There are so many terrible and sad stories to tell. Some friends lost their baby on their escape from the country when the Taleban followed them to kill them. They were hiding away when the baby started to scream and they had to put a hand on the baby’s mouth to keep it quiet. If the Taleban had found them, they all would have been killed. Ultimately, the baby suffered death by suffocation.

Me: So life under the Taleban was unbearable and an escape the only hope?

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: Yes, indeed. It was impossible to lead a normal life under the Taleban. They came into our cities and villages, kidnapped young girls and women, raped them and killed them. Sometimes they cut off the breasts from women to stop them from suckling their babies. Or they kidnapped pregnant women to witness them giving birth. The woman was placed in the middle of the street; her legs spread widely, with many men around her, all watching her giving birth to her baby. Afterwards many of these women were raped. Life under the Taleban was not only shocking from a human perspective but also culturally. I remember when the Taleban destroyed wonderful Buddhist sculptures in the province of Bamyan.

AFGHANS ARE HONOURED THAT AMERICAN, BRITISH & OTHER ALLIED TROOPS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES. IT’S SAD THAT GERMANY & FRANCE HAVE OPTED OUT.

Me: Considering the life under the Taleban reign, are you happy that American and British troops invaded the country and displaced them from power?

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: Yes, absolutely. We are deeply thankful that some countries have taken action and helped us. We feel honoured that America, Britain and allies risk the lives of their future generations in Afghanistan for the sake of humanity. The troops have to stay in Afghanistan. Otherwise the Taleban will be back in power the next day. Please don’t leave us to the hands of the Taleban. There is no other way than to fight and ultimately defeat them. It’s sad actually that countries like Germany and France have opted out on that. They have to be involved.

Me: But here in our media, we often hear that the Afghan people don’t want our troops to be in Afghanistan. We are being told that we have to bring our troops back home, that the Afghan people don’t want democracy.

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: That is not true. Most of the Afghan people are happy that you are trying to help. It’s just that the Taleban is everywhere, similar to the Stasi in East Germany. I’d say that around 80-90% of the Afghan people want the Taleban to go away but they are afraid to speak out. They want to protect their families, they are afraid of getting killed. The informers of the Taleban are everywhere and it’s dangerous to sympathise with the Americans and Britons. It could be your death sentence.

Corruption also plays a big role. The Afghan police pay a man 70 Dollars per month. The Taleban pays double that. But actually only a few of the Taleban are Afghans. A lot of them are for example from Chechnia, Uzbekistan or Morocco.

GUANTANAMO NOT THAT BAD – WE ARE AT WAR – COLLATERAL DAMAGE

Miss. Natascha Chaled: It’s really like an honour for us to have the great support of the Western countries. They are risking their lives. That is extraordinary. Of course we are aware, and some are angry, that the Americans and allies are doing business in Afghanistan. But the most important thing is they are trying to help and free us from the terror regime of the Taleban. In the end, innocent lives are more important than money, so I don’t care about their business activities as long as they keep the Taleban away. You can’t talk to these radicals. You have to fight radicals in radical ways. That’s why Guantanamo has not been that bad. Even if some innocent people have been sent there. We are at war and “collateral damages” can happen. That’s a chance we have to take.

Me: There have been elections in Afghanistan just a few days ago. Karzai is under great pressure. You hear a lot about corruption and cooperation with war lords.

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: Karzai has to be removed. I think Dr. Abdullah is a better choice. He is more western like. He is not wearing the traditional Afghan attire but very expensive suits from America. Karzai is involved in corruption from head to toe. We have properties in Afghanistan worth several millions. We want to sell them but Karzai has nationalized them and is having a steady hand on it.

SADDAM WAS A MONSTER

Me: Afghanistan is not the only country in the Middle East, affected by terrorism. What do you think about the war in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: Saddam was a monster. It was necessary to remove him from power. He was a threat to the region and the world. He has killed so many innocent people.

Me: Many people in the West believe the war in Iraq has been illegal. That it was based on lies because no WMDS have been found….

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: Just look at the Kurds. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands Kurds with chemical and biological weapons. Even if no weapons have been found, it is fact he was in possession of them and even used them against his own people. I am convinced he would have done so again. It’s good he has been prevented from doing so.

Miss. Natascha Chaled: I agree. Tyrants like Saddam Hussein should not be in power. It’s good he has been removed. The Iraqis should be thankful like the Afghans.

Me: Probably Iran will be the next country involved in a war. Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has made clear that it is not a question if Israel attacks Iran but only when. How do you feel about that?

THE WORLD SHOULD SUPPORT THE JEWS AGAINST IRAN – “AN EVIL REGIME”

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: I’d welcome if Israel was to take action against Iran. It is a dangerous, evil and inhuman regime. They should not be allowed to gain nuclear power. America, Britain and the rest of the world should support the Jews in their war against Iran. It is just unacceptable that Ahmadinedjad calls it a duty of the Quran to kill all Jewish people. The Torah, Quran and Bible are so similar in their core values. It’s really ridiculous.

I was on holiday in Iran in 2007. It was frightening. All the women were covered up in burkhas. Some people, even women, attacked me for not wearing one. I was scared and bought a burkha immediately to cover up and co-operate. If you don’t co-operate you run the danger of bEing imprisoned or killed. Actually we had planned to stay in Iran for a week. After three days we decided to go home. It was just too dangerous.

Me: You say America should help Israel in the fight against Iran. But it doesn’t particular look like if Obama is prepared to intervene. When Netanyahu was on a trip to the White House recently Obama didn’t even shake his hand.

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: Obama Is a softie. Bush was a little too extreme but at least he took action. Obama really should support Israel on Iran.

Insertion: Dr. Nazier Chaled (husband): Bush has damaged the reputation of America in the Middle East. Obama tries to re-balance now. America has no right to be the world’s police and some are not happy about their presence in Afghanistan but in the end the situation is better than under the Taleban. And yes, they have to stay. Otherwise the Taleban is coming back.

GORDON BROWN DOESN’T SAY A LOT – IT’S NOT GOOD THAT HE HAS REPLACED BLAIR

Me: Bush is not the only world leader who has recently been replaced. Brown took over from Blair in Britain. What do you make of that?

Mrs. Fereba Chaled: I don’t know a lot about him. We don’t hear a lot of news on him here. He probably is a softie like Obama. He doesn’t say a lot but he should help like Tony Blair did. It’s not good for Britain and the world that Brown has replaced him.

Me: Thank you so much for taking your time talking to me. It was a very informative interview.

Tags:Afghanistan interview, ban blair baiting, Düsseldorf, Fereba and Natascha Chaled, Julie, Tony Blair
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Afghanistan, Iraq, Press - Truth & Lies | 1 Comment »

BLAIR’S HEAD ON A SPEAR? CHARGE FREARS WITH INCITEMENT TO MURDER

August 26, 2009

Previous post – Frears on Blair’s “public execution” via Julie here

Comment at end

26th August, 2009

It isn’t often that my whole title is written in CAPITALS. It isn’t often - EVER – that I read something like this:

Frears: “All the people in Britain wish for is Tony Blair’s head. Nothing else matters. If Gordon Brown would give them Blair’s head, he could remain as Prime Minister”.

Frears remark? Listen to this find of nonsense, Gordon, and act on it even figuratively, and you’ll get blood on your OWN nose.

SZ: “How do you mean, to give his head”?

Frears: “Well, just chip off and put it on a lance/spear. Like in old times. The people hate Blair. They despise him! He was just so devious and dishonest. Iraq, the financial crisis, the whole misery we are in, is all connected to Blair. The atmosphere is lynchmob-like, as shortly before the French Revolution.”

**Blls!

And what’s this supposed to be? Some kind of sick joke?

Just “chip it off”????

This guy is possibly CRIMINALLY insane. Which is at least a defence in a court of law. For Tony Blair – he has no defence from the kind of incitement this could raise amongst gullible idiots. He can’t be guarded every minute of his life from such mind-numbing weirdos and their virally transmitted threats.

I really do believe the authorities NEED to get on top of these liars and fools. Have we NO laws to protect us from the likes of him? No British laws? No EU laws?

If you thought the previous post was over the top, on Publicly Executing Blair, read on …

This, from Stephen Frears in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany’s most valuable papers, is criminal. This creature… this lowlife … who has profited from films about Tony Blair, should be arrested and charged with incitement to murder.

WE DO NOT HATE TONY BLAIR

NONE of this, dear German readers, is anything NEAR the truth. Frears is a mentally unbalanced individual if he thinks he is speaking for my fellow-countrymen. The people in Britain do NOT want Blair’s head. Some Guardian readers may, but they are hardly typical, being left wing disappointeds, anti-war peace-n-lovers/hangers-n-floggers or anarchists. “People” do NOT hate Blair over Iraq or anything else. The atmosphere is not “lynchmob-like”. This is utter tripe! Most people I speak to want Blair to come back as Prime Minister, even those who do not support his party! Most people KNOW who was running the economy since 1997 and it wasn’t Tony Blair. And even in their dislike of Gordon Brown (they do not generally HATE), they do NOT talk of revolution. Life is surprisingly normal, considering we are supposed to be in a recession.

Frears’ rant is utter, absolute poppycock!

As my German speaking contact, Julie says:

“What a stupid f****** moron! (Excuse me,but this is UNBELIEVABLE)…. Forget about the Teleschau interview..this is WAY WORSE!!!!”

Excerpt from here – http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/887/485315/text/:

Frears:Die Wahrheit ist – ich kann Tony Blair nicht mehr ertragen. Zwei Filme über ihn, das sollte reichen. Der Mann löst inzwischen Brechreiz bei mir aus. Was Sie auf dem Festland vielleicht nicht ganz verstehen: Alles, was die Menschen in England momentan wollen, ist Blairs Kopf. Der Rest ist egal. Wenn Gordon Brown ihnen Blairs Kopf geben würde, könnte er Premierminister bleiben.

SZ: Wie meinen Sie das – den Kopf geben?

Frears: Na, abschlagen und auf eine Lanze stecken. Wie in alten Zeiten. Die Leute hassen Blair. Sie verachten ihn! Er war so unfassbar doppelzüngig und unehrlich. Der Irak, all unsere Finanzschwierigkeiten, die ganze Misere, in der wir stecken – all das hat mit Blair zu tun. Die Stimmung ist lynchmobartig, wie kurz vor der Französischen Revolution.

SZ: Ihr eigener Tony Blair, in “The Queen”, kommt allerdings gar nicht so unsympathisch rüber.

Frears: Das ist es ja, was mich verrückt macht. Drei Monate, bevor wir “The Queen” gedreht haben, hat Blair noch einmal eine Wahl gewonnen – mit enormer Mehrheit. Er hat alle getäuscht. Er war ein Trickbetrüger, wie der Rattenfänger von Hameln.

SZ: Man ahnt das in Ihrem Film. Aber es kommt nie ganz an die Oberfläche. Müssten Sie dieses Bild jetzt nicht selbst korrigieren?

Frears: Vielleicht müsste ich das. Aber ich kann nicht mehr. Es ist zu deprimierend.

Translation:

Frears: The truth is -I can’t bear Tony Blair anymore. Two movies about him, that should be enough. By now the man acts like an emetic on me. What you maybe don’t really get here on the mainland is: All the people in Britain wish for is Tony Blair’s head. Nothing else matters. If Gordon Brown would give them Blair’s head, he could remain as Prime Minister.

SZ: How do you mean – “to give his head”?

Frears: Well, just chip off and put it on a lance/spear. Like in old times. The people hate Blair. They despise him! He was just so devious and dishonest. Iraq, the financial crisis, the whole misery we are in, is all connected to Blair. The atmosphere is lynchmob-like, as shortly before the French Revolution.

SZ: But your own Tony Blair, in “The Queen”, doesn’t seem that unlikeable.

Frears: That’s exactly what makes me kind of mad. Three months before we directed “The Queen”, Tony Blair has one another election- with a huge majority. He deceived all of us. He was a con man, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

SZ: That vaguely perceptable from your movie. But it never really hits the surface. Don’t you have to correct this image now yourself?

Frears: Actually I would have to. But I can’t. It’s just too depressing.

~~~~~~~~~~

DEPRESSING? Depressing?

As depressing as the money – you evil-minded idiot – that you made from this good man’s good name?

~~~~~~~~~~

RELATED

Julie's sweet fantasy on Stephen Frears. Sue her then, Frears!

Julie at ‘Against Mainstream Opinion’, (my source for this story), has expressesd the same outrage

Julie mentions “civil law”. My understanding is that we HAVE NO defence against this. If we did, in this “police state”, half the Guardianisto commenters would have been already charged.

Frears’ position would be that this is not an actual threat against Mr Blair, and words are only words. The EU Human Rights laws brought into British law by Tony Blair, protect Frears’ right to say what he wishes. And of course Frears is not actually saying “I am going to ‘chip off’ (dangerously facile and inappropriate terminology) Tony Blair’s head”. His cowardly words only suggest that in order to court popularity (!) – Gordon Brown, the present prime minister, should do the deed!

I can hardly believe this was said by a supposedly responsible adult.

As for criminal law charges – no chance. Mr Blair would already have to be in at least two parts before they would have any chance of being used! The Terrorism Act 2006 should cover this as incitement to violence. It was not used against Geek Lawyer’s inciteful rantings here. It will not be used against Frears. Free speech an’ all that.

John Rentoul too has written on this today at his blog – the most read of the Independent’s blogs. He suggests that “chop” it off is the more likely translation. (Good point, John. That’s a relief!) He has also written on (and signed) the Ban Blair-Baiting petition, for which we law-abiding citizens thank him profusely.

Also written up here at The Jewish Chronicle by its editor Stephen Pollard.

Thanks to both these journalists and to Oliver Kamm, Times Editor for signing the petition.

REMINDER

Ban Blair-Baiting petition – SIGN here

A recent comment at this new petition –

“The British public delivered their verdict on Blair’s role in the Iraq war in 2005 by re-electing Blair. The strident and hysterical whining of the anti-war bourgeois elite can’t alter that fact.”

Tags:atmosphere, John Rentoul, lynchmob-like, Oliver Kamm, people hate Tony Blair, Stephen Frears, stephen pollard, Tony Blair's head
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, British Prime Minister, Brown (Gordon Brown & his Labour Government, from June 2007) | 20 Comments »

Queen/Deal movie director suggests Public Execution of Tony Blair

August 25, 2009