Posts Tagged ‘Saddam Hussein’

Will anyone bring the War Criminal Tony Blair to justice?

July 6, 2016

Will anyone bring the War Criminal Tony Blair to justice?

By Dark Politricks

www.darkpolitricks.com

Now the Chilcot report is out, does this mean that the Tory Government have the balls to go and arrest Tony Blair for pushing the illegal Iraq war?

Here was someone who knew that the evidence was false yet still promised George W Bush to be with him whatever, despite the UN and his own legal advisers, saying that the war was illegal.

Just like the many EU referendums before BREXIT, it was “no that’s the wrong answer, go and find the right one”, until a dodgy legal basis was provided to give Blair cover for his actions by Lord Goldsmith. I wonder how and why he got given his title….

I doubt any Tories will do anything to put their establishment buddy Blair’s head in the block as it would mean putting their own heads in as well. Many of them eagerly went along with the falsehood that many in the world knew was a blatant lie.

It does however make sense why the Blairite push for power against their Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was planned just before this week’s revelations. They were hoping to take the sting out of the massive news story it will surely become, their own names off the front pages, and provide a different headline for the newspapers. However we must ensure that #Chilcot stays in the news and social media despite other political manoeuvrings.

If we have to wait for the Blairites to return to the Labour fold and for Corbyn to get elected before seeing Blair in the Hague then we could be waiting a long time. However hopefully a massive class action case by the families of dead UK soldiers, and maybe millions of Iraqi’s hurt by the war, could be formed to take him to civil court instead.

Hopefully they could win and sting Blair with a massive monetary punishment as OJ Simpson was, to take away all the millions he has made since leading the country into Iraq by selling speeches, and pretending to be a “Peace Envoy”. All whilst making money for himself in the Middle East advising dictators and lobbying the UN to vote against Palestinian statehood in 2011 – on the payroll of the Israelis no doubt.

The Palestinians had this to say about Tony Blair:

There is no one within the Palestinian leadership that supports or likes or trusts Tony Blair, particularly because of the very damaging role he played during our UN bid.

He is considered persona non grata in Palestine. Although we can’t prevent him from coming here, we can hopefully minimise the role he can play because he is not a mediator, he is totally biased on one side.

So what were the main findings of the Chilcot report which we have had to wait 7 years for?

  • There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
  • The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
  • On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him “whatever”. But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
  • Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – known as WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
  • Intelligence had “not established beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
  • Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
  • The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were “far from satisfactory”.
  • The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10’s response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
  • The UK’s actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN’s Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the Security Council”. But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
  • In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded
  • Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas – including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were “wholly inadequate”.
  • The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
  • The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK’s relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.

So will anyone apart from Jeremy Corbyn whose whole party seems to have deserted him despite having overwhelming support from the Labour membership and Trade Unions do anything about the lies of Tony Blair that led us to war and the creation of ISIS which haunts us all now?

Despite the massacres, huge car bombs killing hundreds almost on a daily basis during the Iraq civil war, journalists getting their heads cut off by ISIS and al-Qaeda and the strengthening of Iran, Tony Blair still thinks he made the right decision. He said this in the report:

Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country

So no remorse then for the many people killed and injured from 2003 to this very day, all coming from his decision to back George W Bush who had some narcissistic desire to achieve what his father didn’t in the earlier Gulf War, remove Saddam from power. This was despite any links to 9.11 or any evidence that he posed a threat to the region.

Saddam and RumsfeldThis was a dictator that was supported by the USA during the 80’s in it’s war with Iran, and many in George W Bushes cabinet were players from that era such as Donald Rumsfeld who is seen here having a good time with his favoured dictator of the region.

I have no doubt that the USA believed Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction because they used to sell him so many of them, including the nerve gas which he used against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi rebels. No complaint was made about it at the time of the event but when it came to the standard demonisation of the enemy before a war all this was put into the heads of the public to paint a horrible picture of their ex friend and enabled dictator.

Despite warnings by the CIA that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily Donald Rumsfeld who was at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, continued to make it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

This included biological weapons and viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Also during the time the US was selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons the UK under Maggie Thatcher was selling up to 78 different types of military equipment including Land Rovers, tank recovery vehicles, terrain-following radar and spare tank parts according to released government reports.

Apparently this pleased Maggie very much. She said she was “very pleased” with the “Contracts worth over £150m [that] have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months including one for £34m (for armoured recovery vehicles through Jordan),” which was written by a junior minister, Thomas Trenchard, in 1981. This letter also stated that meetings with Saddam Hussein “represent a significant step forward in establishing a working relationship with Iraq which should produce both political and major commercial benefits”.

So not only did the UK and USA help stock up Saddam Hussein with all the WMD they then accused him of having, a very hypocritical move but to be expected by the two major powers in the axis of continual war, but we actually helped him use those weapons on Iranians.

Iran was finally brought to the negotiating table by providing Iraq the location of Iranian troops, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defences once they had learned that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage in the 8 year long war.

They were fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin and mustard gas prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence.

These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favour and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

So not only were we totally hypocritical when dealing with Saddam helping him use WMD that we sold him in the first place, but we started a war of aggression against his country that was not thought out, had no plans for after the invasion, spilled over into sectarian violence and civil war and the formation of terrorist groups where there were none before.

So how many dead people does Blair and Bush have on their hands from their decision to go to war “on faulty intelligence” or as normal people say “illegally”?

How many dead and injured victims have their been over the last 12+ years and the years prior…

-The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible were responsible for over half a million deaths, mainly children.
-The Illegal war which Blair promised Bush to support even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it is thought to have killed at least half a million people.
-The depleted uranium weapons used in Fallujah that are still causing babies to be born without legs and arms and horrible birth defects.
-The long civil war came after the fall of Saddam between the Sunnis, Shia’s and Kurds.
-The forming of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 when no al-Qaeda terrorists had existed before.
The forming of ISIS which is now fighting Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian and Russian soldiers and inspiring terrorist attacks in the west. All whilst we do very little to stop them (and even support them) whilst allowing our ally Turkey to bomb the Kurds instead.
-And that’s not even counting all the dead US/UK soldiers.
-And those who came home with missing limbs from IEDS and PTSD now living in poverty on the streets or in jail.

I wonder what the total death count is, or will ever be……

I also wonder if the world has the strength to punish a war criminal that wasn’t on the losing side for once?

By Dark Politricks

View the original article on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.

 

© 2016 By Dark Politricks

The Islamic State and why Saudi Arabia should be attacked

March 17, 2015

The Islamic State and why Saudi Arabia should be attacked

By Dark Politricks

This is what I mean when I stated in my last article that we are hypocritical when it comes to our treatment of Saudi Arabia in relation to ISIS.

Saudi Arabia, has decided to lash a woman 200 times for being gang-raped by seven men. Her actual crime was leaving her house, thus making being gang-raped her own fault, – Gang Raped Saudi Woman Sentenced to 200 lashes, 6 months in jail.

Two “Islamic States”, one gets massive arms supplies, Royal visits and ignored when it comes to their human right abuses. Whilst the other gets bombed and denounced as terrorists for doing the same thing in a cruder manner.

Whilst I have no problem admitting these evil ISIS bastards are terrorists. We must remember that we helped create them with our divide and conquer strategy in the Middle East that seems to be for the Greater Israel project.

Keep the enemy fighting amongst themselves whilst Israel expands and Bibi gets standing ovations at Congress for denouncing Iranian bomb making that is based on flimsy evidence at best, on top of a whole lot of lies and ignored data from reputable Atomic inspectors and agencies.

It seems as if the Israeli PM is more concerned about a non factual threat from Iran, whilst sitting on a whole pile of nuclear weapons that could destroy the Middle East himself, than the threat of ISIS on his door. Why?

Why would the Israelis who were so concerned about al-Qaeda not feel the threat of ISIS on their borders and concentrate instead on Iranian bomb making.

Here we have 3 Islamic States all being treated differently because of what they CAN do for their allies, and who they are allied to, rather than their actual potential threat to the outside world.

If we had to order the three by the amount of death and evil they have done to the world then Saudi Arabia, Israel’s ally against Iran and funder of terrorism around the world including 9.11 would surely sit at the top and Iran at the bottom.

The Saudi’s practise a form of 18th century Wahhabist Islam that the European Parliament in 2013 labelled as the main source of global terrorism.

This brutal form of anti Shi’ite Islamic brutality has even led to attacks on American citizens on their homeland. In fact entire sections of the 9.11 commission report was blacked out keeping Saudi Arabia’s name from their findings.

Even this nypost.com. explains it clearly.

“The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.”

“The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast.“

View the full article at nypost.com.

This can only be down to the close relationship between ex Saudi US ambassador, Prince Bandar and the Bush clan that prevented the natural course of a post 9.11 war on the real attackers, Saudi Arabia and their white washing from the attacks.

According to the official conspiracy theory, 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, with Saudi financing and Saudi help according to the leaked sections from the 28 full pages of the 800 page 9/11 commission report that were classified due to George W Bush’s say so.

Where 7,200 words once stood in the 9/11 commission report there are now just dots where a huge section related to the involvement of Saudi Arabia in the attacks were laid out.

“A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.”

So why didn’t we see Saudi Arabia burned to a crisp rather than two unrelated countries that seemed to only further US and Israeli geopolitical goals?

Could it be the Bandar-Bush close ties or as some say “terrorist network”, that kept Saudi Arabia’s name from the report, despite their deep involvement in the killing of thousands of American citizens.

I keep being reminded of ex Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky in his book “By Way of Deception”, named after the Mossad Motto, when he repeats what he was told was the future of Saddam Hussein in the Middle East.

“After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt it’ll work.”

“But isn’t Saddam regarded as moderate toward us, allied with Jordan, the big enemy of Iran and Syria?”

“Yes, that’s why I’m opposed to this action. But that’s the directive, and I must follow it. Hopefully, you and I will be done with our little operation before anything big happens. After all, we have already destroyed his nuclear facility, and we are making money by selling him technology and equipment through South Africa.”

In the following weeks, more and more discoveries were made regarding the big gun and other elements of the Saddam war machine. The Mossad had all but saturated the intelligence field with information regarding the evil intentions of Saddam the Terrible, banking on the fact that before long, he’d have enough rope to hang himself. It was very clear what the Mossad’s overall goal was. It wanted the West to do its bidding, just as the Americans had in Libya with the bombing of Qadhafi.

After all, Israel didn’t possess carriers and ample air power, and although it was capable of bombing a refugee camp in Tunis, that was not the same.

The Mossad leaders knew that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he’d been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear.

By Way Of Deception – Victor Ostrovsky

It seems as if the Israeli’s are up to their old tricks again regarding Syria and Iran using proxies such as ISIS to do their fighting for them plus of course the axis of war, the US/UK, who think they can win wars by bombing from planes.

In reality many people think this war from the air is an excuse to supply ISIS with weapons to keep the war going. Numerous papers have reported on this.

Iraqi army downs 2 UK planes carrying weapons to ISIL

Here is the Washington Post trying to excuse the dropping of weapons to ISIS by saying it was an accident.

We can’t have the war on terror ending too soon can we! Not when the militarisation of our police forces at home isn’t yet complete and we still have a few liberties left.

Remember this war on terror was because we had to fight these evil terrorists who hated our freedoms.

Doesn’t anyone think it strange we have lost more freedoms in the years since this war started than in any time before. Even when the IRA was at war with us for 30+ years we didn’t give up our liberties at home.

It was only with the installation of MI5 mole Tony Blair in the Labour party, who brought it so far into the centre ground that there was hardly any difference between it and the Tories, that we started handing our freedoms over on a plate and misusing them, such as Gordon Brown using anti-terrorism laws to freeze Icelandic money in UK banks after their financial crash.

I think the only left-wing party left with any MP’s in the UK parliament is the Green Party who has one! All the rest are pro-war, pro-austerity, pro-US foreign policy and pro-globalist.

So whilst Saudi Arabia is allied with Israel due their common hatred of Iran, the ISIS terrorists that Iran are actually doing the main fighting against along with the Kurds are being built up as the next big bogey man we should attack.

A repeat of Mossads built up of Saddam Hussein as the big bogey man so that their “big brother” could beat it up in the school playground years before.

If ISIS don’t attack Israel with all their weapons, money from oil sales to western companies, supplies from the US/UK and a supposedly rabid fundamentalist approach to Islam then something is very strange!

Either it’s due to factions within Saudi Arabia that are still financing them and commanding them not to disturb their Israeli ally or the Israeli’s have some kind of control over the group.

Even al-Qaeda made repeated calls to annex the evil Zionist state but I have been dearth of hearing anything of that kind from the head of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Are Mossad following their motto “by way of deception” or is something else going on?

© 2015 Dark Politricks

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com.

10 Years On – Was the War in Iraq Worth a Million Deaths?

March 21, 2013

10 Years On – Was the War in Iraq Worth a Million Deaths?

By Dark Politricks

As you should know by now the 10 year anniversary of the Iraq war has just passed.

The question is still hotly debated – was the war in Iraq worth it?

Was it worth the deaths of up to a million Iraqi civilians?

Was it worth the contamination of whole cities like Fallujah. Polluted so much by powerful weaponary that not only were the citizens affected but so were the soliders using the weapons.

Was it worth the new “Gulf War Syndrome” that returning soldiers are already facing. The fatigue, fevers, rashes, joint pain, intestinal problems, memory loss, mood swings, cancers and even the coughing up of blood and black goop that has been nicknamed “plume crud”?

Was it worth the deaths of so many American soldiers who were conned into thinking they were fighting al-Qaeda “over there” so they didn’t have to fight them at home?

Was it worth the debasement of the US media which parroted government press briefs as if real news. Newpapers and TV channels taking George W Bush and Dick Cheney’s word on matters that had no basis in truth. “Facts” such as the hidden WMD, Yellow Cake Uranium, or stockpiles of Anthrax waiting to be used against invading US forces. All weapons we had sold Saddam Hussein when he was “our friend” during the 80’s  for fighting a war with Iran. Weapons that for some reason he decided not to use whilst being attaacked by us. Was it worth showing the rest of the world another example of western hypocrisy?

Was it worth the destruction of all our civil liberties as suspiciously staged scare tactics such as the sending of Anthrax to US senators forced the passing of the pre-prepared PATRIOT ACT without anyone bothering to read it?

Was it worth the setting up of “Free Speech Zones” where first amendment rights that should be allowed at all places were limited to caged in areas where demonstrators could be filmed, monitored and logged onto watch lists?

Was it worth the destruction of a country that was only held together by a strong man dictator like Saddam Hussein into sectarian violence?

Iraq was a country that was created by the west after earlier wars, forcing the Kurds, Sunnis and Shi’ites to live together when logic dictated that three countries would have been a more sensible arrangement if partitioning was even required in the first place. Was it worth the continuing sectarian strife that will rock the region for years to come?

Was it worth the strengthening of Iran who has now become a major power player in the area. They now control and arm forces within Iraq as well as being linked to political parties, some of which are no better when it comes to liberty for the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein.

Was it worth the huge dive in moral standing that the USA took when pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib came out and showed that America had stooped to the same standards as the enemies it claimed to fight on moral lines?

We only have to ask Tony Blair, a now hated figure on the world stage what it meant to him as he keeps on claiming that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

This is the same man who kissed Gaddafi and made up with the suspected architect of the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie in return for oil deals and the patsy served up on a platter to serve time in a Scottish jail.

Politicians like Blair or Rumsfeld can be photographed standing next to future targets after selling them massive amounts of arms and then turn on them a few years later when their alliance based on the maxim “the enemy of your enemy is my friend” is no longer of use.

They are people who sell them the same weapons that they turn around and accusse them of having!

I wonder how “absolute” their morals relly are.

Donald Rumsfeld and best friend / arms purchaser of the 90's Saddam Hussien

What we know is that the Iraq war didn’t end when George W Bush stood on that aircraft carrier claiming that the war had ended only months after starting “shock n awe”.

Mission Accomplished

Instead the country did what all smaller armed forces do when attacked by larger forces.

They hid amongst the public and launched a guerrilla war of terror and attrition using IED’s and massive car bombs designed to kill and maim allied soldiers plus thousands of Iraqi civilians.

This is the same tactic the Taliban are using, the Viet Cong did successfully during the Vietnam war and former allies, including Osama bin-Laden, then called the Mujahideen not al-Qaeda during the Soviet war against Afghanistan.

We dragged the Iraqi peoples leader out of a hole in the ground, paraded him in front of camera’s and then tried him in front of a victors court before hanging him in front of the world.

The Iraqi resistence captured and tortured allied soldiers and contractors before cutting their heads off with knives and showing it online.

The Iraqi war showed us that the political process in supposed democratic governments and the UN is nothing more than a farce and that when the axis of war want a war they get it.

Despite the wishes of the people who marched in their millions across the world and the resignation of politicians like Robin Cook in the UK. The war was pushed through using false propaganda including the 45 minute attack time, WMD that had been sold to Iraq by our own countries, dodgy dossiers and false stories about links with al-Qaeda from dubious intelligence sources.

Don’t even get me started on the 9.11 commission which was used as a tool to drive home the need for another war against Iraq as witnesses claimed that every major terrorist act in modern times, incuding 9.11, had been backed or supported by Saddam Hussein.

Un-educated people still believe we went to war with Iraq because of the Twin Towers and not because we were worried about Saddam swapping from petrodollars to it’s own currency for oil purchases. Or the massive Halliburton contracts that were signed before hand to rebuild the country after we demolished it.

They think “the surge” worked not knowing about the £12 billion dollars that went missing due to plane loads of cash being flown in and then used to bribe tribes and insurgents into not attacking our troops. A tactic used by some allied forces in Afghanistan now.

I don’t even need to go on to the next level about false flag attacks carried out by SAS soldiers caught red handed dressed as insurgents with bombs and detonators.

Or the WikiLeaks video that caused outrage as it showed the blood lust of US pilots as they murdered reporters and civilians, shooting bursts of bullets into an ambulance that tried rescuing a survivor, and baying for an injured man to pick up a gun so they could finish him off.

Lest you think otherwise – I don’t think the war was worth it but what do you think?

Let me know your views in this poll.

View the original article on the main site Dark Politricks.