Wednesday, 10 June 2015

The New UK Government Plans To Make Us All Terrorists

The New UK Government Plans To Make Us All Terrorists

By Dark Politricks

This is a recent video from Russell Brand about the new UK Tory governments plans for a new anti terror bill that will crack down on free speech and other civil liberties.

It seems that with every new government we get a new "anti terrorism" law passed, Tony Blair passed at least 2 that I can remember. They were mostly used for memorable things such as:

  • Freezing all Icelandic money in UK banks after the Iceland Banking crisis - something which the Icelandic people have never forgiven us for. From my recent trip to Iceland I would not be surprised to see a statue of Gordon Brown put up in Reykjavik just so that people could throw tomatoes at it.
  • Throwing out and then arresting OAP protestors from Labour conferences who dared shout out "liar" as the warmongers on stage defended their illegal war on Iraq.
  • Allowing M16 / MI5 Agents to pass questions to CIA torturers at "black site" prisons and Gitmo, who then proceeded to abuse, humiliate and injure the prisoners many of which were innocent. The ones that are not, including leaders of the now destabilised mess of a country we "liberated" called Libya, are even now trying to sue the government for their complicity in torture e.g Abdul Hakim Belhaj. This included one incident in which one British jihadi’s fingernails were ripped out after MI6 suggested that a notorious Pakistani intelligence agency detain him, and MI5 and Greater Manchester police drew up questions to be put to him.
  • Cracking down on tourists and other photographers within London taking photos of buildings as they could be "planning terrorist" attacks.

We should always be careful when "new" terrorism laws are proposed. Especially as with the current one it is to be "fast tracked" through government.

This means no proper debate over the merits of the bill and no proper time to propose amendments and changes to the bill.

Hopefully enough libertarian/liberal-minded Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and hopefully Tory back benchers will stand up against this act of tyranny.

As I said in my last piece, the UK Tory Government, freed of the shackles of coalition with liberals, are planning on repealing the Human Rights Act. A piece of legislation brought in by Tony Blair in the 90's but created from the European Convention on Human Rights which was drawn up by the Tory post war government to show to the world how civilised we should all be in future.

It is sad that a future Tory government is now going to remove this legislation due to a minority of cases where they have not been able to deport criminal immigrants due to their "right to a family life".

It seems that the Tories wish that if you are born in this country and your parents are not, that if they commit a crime they can now be ripped away from you leaving you with the choice to follow them to whatever horrible war-torn country they escaped from (Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan...).

The question is what level of criminality requires this response. I can understand the Government wishing to get rid of terrorists, murderers and rapists but what about non-payment of Council Tax, a crime punishable by prison, which many British born OAPs have found themselves facing? What crimes would exact this level of response, does a list even exist?

It seems we English are sticklers for the rule of law even when we don't agree with small parts of it.

Instead of just ignoring section 8 of the Human Rights Act like France does whenever it wants to do something the EU prohibits we decide to throw the whole law away.

Instead of just declaring that the house of Commons is the supreme will of the people, and that if it votes to decide to remove someone from these shores because of a REAL terrorist crime then so be it, family or not. The problem comes with all the guff these bills include that label you and me "domestic terrorists" for speaking out against the Government, war, its foreign policy, support of Israel, or other civil rights that are being chipped away bit by bit never to return.

I have no problem if a REAL terrorist who is not a British citizen is deported at the end of his or her sentence. The problem is that the Government is proposing to throw the whole Human Rights Act away to achieve this instead of coming up with another solution.

If the House of Commons IS supposed to be the supreme will of the people because we have voted for it - try to forget the UKIP member who got 0 votes despite voting for himself for a moment, we don't have voter fraud in Western Democracies, it's just nasty evil countries like Russia that do things like that. Then a vote in the house should be enough to override any appeal on Human Rights grounds due to section 8. This is as long as the case has been proved beyond doubt, the convict has had his chance at appeal, and the criminal does in fact pose a threat to the country.

I am perfectly happy to see a UK Bill of Rights on TOP of, not INSTEAD of, the Human Rights Act, to achieve such aims if needed. I just don't want to see families ripped apart over nonsensical crimes or crimes that shouldn't even exist e.g drugs, protest, freedom of speech that goes against popular view etc.

David Cameron has gone on record to say that the belief that if you as a citizen "just followed the law you would be left alone", is now going to be turned on its head.

That in itself is worrying Hilter-esque language that could be taken to mean anything.

Wasn't an Englishman's home his castle?

Were we not the creators of law as it exists in many countries through the Magna Carta, Due Process, the idea that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

What about the social contract between citizen and state that meant we plebs had our rights and the government protected them and the country as long as we paid our taxes?

As Russell Brand says in the piece below, a similar piece of legislation which the Tories are basing their own law on, was recently brought into Canada and the people were appalled by it.

It meant that:

  • Innocent words can be interpreted as terrorism - make of that what you will.
  • Speaking "recklessly" which could lead to a terrorist act being committed is a crime. So speaking out about the increasing authoritarian nature of our world on this blog could lead to a mentally disturbed reader to go and fly a plane into a skyscraper and I would spend 5 years in jail - fair?
  • Protesting could lead to government surveillance. So any kind of protest by Unions, Students, Occupy, or anybody against the increasing Police State be warned.
  • Meddling with ANY CORPORATE INTERESTS could be interpreted as terrorism under the new UK act. So protests that prevent Vodafone from opening their doors (UKUncut beware!) or the use of Bitcoin or other electronic currencies that stopped the banks from monitoring your money could now be considered a crime.

Watch the video to see more and spread it.



Our rights are being eroded and we could all soon be considered terrorists for speaking our minds, protesting corruption and the corporate take over of our life.

Is that really terrorism or just the rights we should expect to enjoy as a member of a supposedly free country?



View the original article at Dark Politricks.

© 2015 By Dark Politricks

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

What do you feel about the recent UK election results?

What do you feel about the recent UK election results?

By Dark Politricks

Did any of you foresee the result of the recent UK general election in which the Tories won an overall majority despite every poll leading up to the election calling it too close to call. 

There was a general expectation across the media that there would be another hung parliament and probable coalition government with the Lib Dems as King Makers.

The multitude of polls preceding the election were very wrong, whilst the exit poll was spot on.

This led to ex Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown to embarrassingly have to "eat his cake" on the subsequent BBC's Question Time due to his comments on election night TV that:
"If these exit polls are right I will eat my hat" - Paddy Ashdown
His party, the Lib Dems were almost wiped out and went down to single figures losing 49 seats and leaving just 8 MP's in parliament.

Major party figures including Danny Alexander the ex chief secretary to the Treasury, lost their seats in the decimation of the party.

Along with 2 other party leaders, one of which changed his mind after a day (Mr Farage), the Lib Dems leader Nick Clegg immediately resigned leaving the future of the party in doubt along with Labours.

The Labour party also had a bad night, almost being wiped out in Scotland, and losing 26 seats. However Labour still managed a 30% share of the popular vote despite pundits calling the election "too close to call" right up until the votes came rolling in for the Tories across England.

The Lib Dems were never going to be forgiven by their core voters for joining the right-wing Tories instead of their natural cohorts, the left leaning Labour party, in a coalition. Many Tory back benchers were very unhappy at the unequal number of Lib Dem ministerial posts that were given out to their junior partners in the collation that was, as we were kept reminded, in "national interest".

Whilst they may have helped prevent some Tory excesses and helped push the amount you can earn before paying income tax up above £10k, they showed their lack of respect for the voters, mostly young and left leaning, when they broke a much publicised pre-election promise never to raise University tuition fees. This promise was broken almost as soon as Nick Clegg got made Deputy PM and access to ministerial chauffeurs and apartments.

Lib Dems sign pledge with top students
The Lib Dems sign pledge with top students never to raise tuition fees in 2010

Tax breaks for the rich, a raise in VAT which is a tax raise that affects the poorest the most, a massive failure to reverse the huge police state Labour had built up and a decimation of the benefit system to save money instead of taxing the banksters who had caused the financial crisis were all unforgivable as well.

We were kept being told that the deficit was shrinking whilst in fact it grew along with the national debt. The last Government was not a success story at all.

Maybe Nick Clegg saw joining the Tories as his only chance to get some modicum of power whilst he could. He must have known the writing was on the wall when he basically stuck two fingers up at his constituents and joined the Tories. 

Letting the banksters get off scot-free, supporting the Tories war on Libya and speaking out for Israel instead of condeming it when it attacked Gaza which was quite common to hear when they were the third-party with no expectation of favours for power were just some of the things that pissed off grass root Lib Dem voters.

He thought the electorate were willing to vote for constant coalition with a referendum on a change in voting but the country wasn't ready for the watered down choice they had to make. Maybe if they had made their point after the recent election more people would have been willing to vote for a change.

You just need to look at how the popular vote in the recent election matched seats to see how many people would be pissed about the current voting system.

The Green party and UKIP together won around 16% of the popular vote (5,038,712 votes) yet only returned one MP each to Westminster.

Yet on the other hand the SNP won far less when it came to the popular vote, Scotland has a population of 5.2 million and only 1,454,436 people voted for the SNP, yet they took all but 3 Scottish seats, 56, a massive gain of 50!

They almost managed to take every single seat in Scotland but instead chose to leave one each for the major 3 parties taking the remaining 50 seats. The SNP are sending a nationalist mob down South who want to see an end to the union and more Scottish powers devolved. This includes the articulate and always enjoyable to watch debate, former leader of the party, Alex Salmond as an MP.

People who had never thought about electoral reform are now calling for it.

Those people who say we only just had a referendum on changing our first past the post system seem to forget that the choice on the cards for voters was not a proper proportional system but instead a form of alternative voting. This is where you would mark an alternative candidate who would take your vote if no-one managed an overall majority.

It does seem odd that Scotland's 1.5 million voters can send 56 MPS to Westminster yet England can vote over 5 million to achieve just 2 MP's.

UK vote share after 650 of 650 seats

Political Party% of Popular Vote
Conservative Party36.9%
Labour Party30.4%
United Kingdom Independence Party12.6%
Liberal Democrats7.9%
Scottish Nationalist Party4.7%
Green Party3.8%
So now without the Lib Dem's "Steadying Hand", as one of their election adverts put it. There to prevent Labour spending all the cash again and there to prevent the Tories from being too mean, we are now left with an overall Conservative majority.

That means that there is no-one to stop them hammering away at the poor whilst letting their rich benefactors and friends all off with tax cuts and a far too complicated tax system that provides enough loop holes for most of the Tory front bench to keep multi million pound trust funds overseas and away from the UK tax man.


Surely this is a money bomb for accountants and the rich looking for loop holes.
The Hong Kong tax code, widely held by tax lawyers to be the most efficient in the world, is a mere 276 pages long.
The British tax code which has tripled in size since Blair got into government in 1997 is currently in excess of 17,000 pages!
If our government really wanted to claw back some money from waste they would surely shorten this gargantuan piece of legislature.

As anyone knows the longer and more complicated a piece of legislation the more loopholes and get out of jail cards are to be found within its pages.

Instead they will carry on using their right-wing supporter rags of papers, the Sun and The Daily Mail, to attack benefits claimants and the poor. Obviously forgetting the fact that benefit claimants had nothing to do with the banking crash or the dramatic rise in the national debt and deficit under the previous two administrations.

Why is it we have still not seen any bankers jailed from the illegal behaviour from banks like HSBC who laundered drug cartel money, terrorist funds and more?

Instead they get $1.9 billion fines in-case the banking system is "destabilised".

I don't understand why their banking licence could have been kept whilst still jailing the bankers in control of the slush funds and drug cartel accounts as an example. London must continue to be the bankster capital of the world it seems. This won't change under any Tory administration.

What will change under the new Government?

Well let's watch embarrassingly as our country, who actually came up with the European Convention on Human Rights, pulls out of the Human Rights Act. This is despite the fact that it was written by Conservatives after World War II to show the newly freed countries that some things related to a countries ethics and morals should be set in stone and not relative to a countries current situation.

This will be something that will not only be a massive blow to civil rights in this country unless replaced by an English Bill of Rights that actually means something and is kept to, not invalidated bit by bit over the years as the US Bill of Rights has  been.

People don't seem to realise that the Human Rights Act although abused by a small minority of terror suspects in jail or on control orders trying to prevent extradition to countries where they will be tortured - including the USA - is there to protect them as well.

You may read the odd cherry picked Daily Mail horror story about the new Abu Hamza we can't extradite to a country X or Y where they maybe tortured or executed. Why, because we have morals and see ourselves as a civilised country not a 7th century Islamic State where heads roll as often as the weapons we sell them are unboxed.

The national debt will continue to grow due to the lack of GDP, plus the interest rate apartheid which sees banks loan money from the Bank of England at half a percent whilst the average man now has to rely on WONGA loans with an APR of 1,500%.

The current national debt stands at £1.36 trillion, almost triple the £0.53 trillion it stood at in 2008, the time of the economic collapse and grows at £5,170 per second.
As stated on the National Debt Clock website:
"Mainstream media headlines today are focused on Britain's record national debt, which just surpassed £1 trillion, a figure that can only exponentially increase unless the entire mechanism of Government finance is overhauled.
The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK."
 Our National Debt Problem

UK National Debt

UK National Debt Over Recent Years

During 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit). However during the last government during 2013, the Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested.

So when you hear George Osborne talk about fixing the hole in the roof or reducing the deficit / national debt, take it with a big pinch of salt.


Instead of recouping and saving billions by doing just some of the following ideas they are mostly going to attack the poorest in society, both here and abroad.

Saving some money...


It really pisses me off when I hear MP's call our rotating Trident submarines at sea an "independent" nuclear deterrent. This is because they all rely on US GPS satellite systems. Unless we put our own GPS system up into space we would always have to ask the permission of our US allies to fire any nuclear missiles anyway. Therefore it makes the whole system redundant. 

What if we had to go to war with the USA? Why not save the £34bn and spend it on the NHS instead. Nukes are not going to help in the war against terror and when China and the USA finally duke it out our piddly number of missiles is going to be inconsequential when it comes down to it. 

Satellites will be one of the first victims of any war between the US and China. Falling from the skies like rain drops in any major conflict as China and the USA race to become the superior technological and information power house before any real bullets or nukes are fired. 

As China showed the world in 2007 when it downed one of it's own Satellites with weapons from earth, it is willing and able to take the modern battlefield that one step further and into space by making the US armies massive reliance on information and technology redundant.


We seem to blindly follow US policy as if it's our own. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the UK £20bn by 2010 and the final cost when you add in extras such as the cost to society due to the fact that a large proportion of homeless people, those with mental health problems and prisoners are ex service men will increase that by the end of 2015. 

Add to that the £1.75bn cost of David Cameron's war in Libya and the cost we are now dealing with due to the failed states we have created across North Africa, people smuggling into Europe, and increased security checks on immigrants due to fears ISIS is using people trafficking to implant sleeper cells in the country and the cost of recent wars reaches £12bn. This does not even include secret wars such as our involvement training fighters in Syria, Ukraine and Yemen.


During 2010-11, the HMRC estimated that companies were avoiding tax worth £4.1bn however some campaigners such as Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK, think that the real figure could be £12bn or more. 

This is not even including the amounts of money "legally" avoided by our huge tax code that gives corporations such as Vodafone the means to avoid £6bn in tax during 2010, an act which spawned the anti-austerity protest group UK Uncut.

Added together legal and illegal tax avoidance could easily be in the £20bn+ figure per fiscal year.

These are just 3 things that could be done to prevent more austerity whilst increasing spending, generating growth by creating jobs and not wasting money on pointless exercises in hubris by going to war to destroy a country only to spend more money trying to re-construct it and deal with the aftermath of failed states such as Libya and the recent people smuggling epidemic.

Has David Cameron even admitted that the hundreds of people dying in the Mediterranean are related to the failed states of Libya and it's neighbours which we helped create. From Tony Blairs 2004 kiss with Gaddafi in the desert to blockades to prevent immigrants reaching Europe in two easy steps.

Blair meets Gaddafi
Tony Blair makes up with Col Gaddafi in 2004

The problem with people smuggling from Libya to Europe
A cramped boat full of desperate people trying to flee the failed state caused by David Cameron and the Axis of Wars destruction

Will the Tory government do any of these 3 easy ways to save dozens of billions of pounds?

The answer is obviously no.

The divide between the rich and poor will get wider.

The people who keep the lights on in London won't even be able to afford to live in the city they work in due to the average house costing £350,000. Even in certain rich areas of London like Kensington, up to 70% of houses are classified as "Second Homes". Even the local paper shops for the rich people of Chelsea are shutting down due to the influx of rich Chinese and Russians buying up our capital city.

Instead the Tories will attack immigrants, benefit claimants, people who cannot get good jobs and rely on job seekers allowance and more diversionary tactics as they continue Maggie Thatcher's dream of a total privatised country.

We only have 5 more years until we get another chance to vote for a party to represent us. The problem is there doesn't seem to be a party on the horizon I can see myself putting a cross against anytime soon.

Labour is Tory Lite, and with the resignation of Ed Milliband, a person many could never imagine seeing as PM, much in the same way I can never imagine Boris Johnson as PM, let alone Mayor of London, we have no real party that represents the people anymore.

The Greens did well to get 1 million votes but with our current system of voting, one MP per million votes in England is not going to get us far and they still have an environmental edge that puts many off them despite the fact that if you read their manifesto there would be many aspects to it that you could find yourself agreeing with. 

Maybe it is just the fact that they are led by a woman and their only MP, Caroline Lucas from Brighton is a woman who puts many working class men off from voting for them.

Personally this election, I did as I said I would and spoilt my ballot paper. This was because there was no-one on it that represented my views. I live in an area where Tories have always ruled and there is no chance of Labour or Lib Dems getting in instead. In one election in my ward Labour and the Lib Dems didn't even try to contest the seat which allowed the racist BNP to come 2nd!

I hoped enough people would do the same so that even this amount of spoiled papers would have to be recorded along with party numbers and shown in graphs such as the one from the BBC website I put on this page.

From anecdotal evidence from people I spoke to at various events and groups I know quite a few people also spoilt their papers.

The news even carried a story about someone who spent the time and effort to draw a tiny little penis inside the square of an incumbent Tory in Wales. However because the drawing was within the confines of the box it was actually counted as a vote rather than a spoilt ballot!

I would still love to know how many people did write "None of the above" or spoilt their ballot in some way or another.

If you took the effort and time out of your day to go and vote there should be a "None of the above" option by default to measure peoples dissatisfaction with local politicians or political parties. However because there isn't we should create our own.

Hopefully by the time of the next election a party which doesn't represent the Axis of War, Austerity, Tax cuts for the rich and attacks on the poor will emerge, a bit like how the Unions created Labour. The only exception is that we don't want to see our new party being taken away from us slowly and infiltrated by MI5 to ensure when it becomes electable it's going to be "establishment ready" like MI5 asset Tony Blairs successful attempt to turn Labour from a real Left wing socialist party to Tories with northern accents.

We have plenty of protest groups about but no political consensus or a political body that we can use as an umbrella for them to rest under.

Students, the young unemployed, the people who cannot afford to live anywhere due to the lack of cheap housing, the anti-war brigade, the pro privacy, anti GCHQ/NSA Pirate groupsUK Uncut, Occupy, anti-austerity groups, religious organisations and charities that manage food banks and support the poor. These are just a few of the protest groups around at the moment.

Groups helping wounded soldiers and soldiers disillusioned with the wars they have been forced to fight. People working 50 hour weeks on minimum wage or not being able to take loans out at decent interest rates due to interest rate apartheid. These are more people who might be looking for a new political home.

Basically anybody who doesn't want to see the gap between the rich and poor get wider would be a perfect member or voter for such a Peoples Party.

In the meantime let's just hope we still have a public NHS, good public schoolmma decent benefit system and proper jobs with decent pay in 5 years time rather than another tripling of the National Debt and more lies about reducing our debt that the current Chancellor likes to spiel.

View the original article Did you foresee the Tories winning the UK election at the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.


© 2015 Dark Politricks

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

ISIS, Israel, Iran and the "War on Terror"

ISIS, Israel, Iran and the "War on Terror"

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 President 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” 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 hlm 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.

Monday, 23 February 2015

Killing the Islamic State

Killing The Islamic State

By Dark Politricks

ISIS or "Islamic State" as they call themselves, is as barbaric a group as they come. However the misnomer of the term Islamic State is being used to justify attacks on all Muslims whether they are fundamentalists or moderates.

Not all Muslims are the same just as not all Christians or Jews are. The same goes for Atheists, Buddhists and any other group of people on this planet whether the Daily Mail tells you differently or not.

Whilst ISIS may believe they are an Islamic State or a new Caliphate for the 21st century. Other Islamic States such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting or preparing to fight against them. 

Not all Islamic States are the same either whether they put that title in their countries name or not. 

There have been many Islamic Caliphates ( Islamic Governments ) throughout history and as with most religions the concept itself is split on tribal lines with Sunnis believing that the leader of any Caliphate should be elected by the Muslim people themselves whilst the Shia's believe that only a direct descendant from Muhammad's family can call himself a leader.

History shows that Islamic Governments who ruled from the Middle East to EuropeNorth Africa and at one point encompassing half of Spain, had at times more welcoming views to other religions than even the Christian Empires of the time. They allowed Jews and Christians to live amongst them and society was pluralistic as it could be under the circumstances of the age. Not all empires were welcoming but during the "golden age" of Islam the leaders of their lands did nothing to harm people of different belief systems living amongst them.

At one point the Umayyad Caliphate covered 5.17 million square miles, making it the largest empire the world had yet seen, and the fifth-largest ever to exist in history. The Ottoman Empire was Islamic in nature and trade, science and culture flourished throughout Islamic States at various points.
It was never the home to such people as those now calling themselves the new Islamic Caliphate.

However ISIS, just like the Taliban with their fundamentalist nature,believe in a strict interpretation of the Koran, and therefore ban music, dancing, and many modern items which seems to contradict directly their love of social media as a tool to spread their message on YouTube and Facebook. Most importantly pictures of the prophet are banned 100%. We have all witnessed the attacks on journalists who print cartoons of him, and it seems to be the ultimate insult that one can take to many Muslims around the world.

It seems as if these people believe the 7th century was the end of all human advancement in Culture, Science and Ethics.

Most importantly this group of people believe that it is okay to kill any human, whether woman, child or OAP, Christian or Muslim, who doesn't believe in their cruel barbaric form of governance.

You may have seen all the videos, accompanied by beautiful Islamic music, as people in cars film themselves doing drive by shootings on main roads in northern Iraq. Swerving back to ensure the occupants of any vehicle are killed fully and properly and any survivors of their attacks are filmed pleading for their lives before being shot in dug outs or cut to bits with knives and swords. They seem to think this indiscriminate slaughter is a propaganda tool for anyone witnessing it and they seem to be right as many young people flock to the Middle East to join their cause.

Even with all the numerous witnesses and dead victims appearing all over the place people, websites, news stations such as FOX and even forensic analysts are claiming that the recently heavily edited ISIS videos of Jihad John beheading captured journalists and aid workers, and even the burning alive of the captured Syrian pilot, are actually faked or staged.


Why ISIS would need to stage brutal killings when they have proven themselves to be sick murdering bastards by raping young girls and killing opponents by the truck load I don't know. 

I have seen videos of whole convoys of trucks carrying captured Iraqi males being driven to a ditch where they are taken and shot. These are in no way heavily edited films and many are shot on phone cameras by the soldiers fighting for ISIS themselves.

However leaving aside any debate on fakery when it comes to beheadings, what I do know is that the rise of ISIS is a foreign policy error of the axis of war, and the US/UK's training and funding of "moderate" anti Assad groups like the Free Syrian Army have not helped one bit.

These groups have shown themselves to be just as barbaric as the rest of the groups fighting in Syria and any funding or training by Qatar, Saudi Arabia or the CIA have just helped to make ISIS into one of the most formidable terrorist groups in histpry.

We can all follow the trail of this conflict back to the "successful" overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, a country which is now a mess and a huge training base for pro ISIS groups and then to Iraq and Afghanistan and 9.11.

From our intervention in Iraq, which was basically three countries held together by a Western backed dictator, to our war on the Taliban who only asked for some proof of Osama bin-Laden's guilt in the 9.11 attacks, before being denied it and bombed into Halliburton's pockets, the foreign policy decisions of our leaders have either been totally foolish or carefully planned to ensure we have a well equipped army to fight for the next few decades.

We can even go all the way back to the 1st World War and the Balfour Agreement which let Jews immigrate to Palestine in return for US help for Britain in the war, and then the carving up of captured Ottoman Empire holdings into countries that never existed such as Iraq.

Yes our foreign policy is immoral and imbalanced with support for dictators one moment when they serve our purposes and then their overthrow when they stop being useful. To be honest it did seem as if the Middle East was a whole lot calmer when Gaddafi and Hussein were in power.

To go back to the concept of a Caliphate, the whole area from Africa to Iraq and Afghanistan is tribal and localised in nature. These tribes have fought each other for centuries and it was only when their lands were controlled by Caliphate leaders, dictators, and leaders of Western Empire that they seemed to settle and stop their religious and tribal strife.

Take that firm grip away and the old rivalries return unabated.

Personally I have no love for any organised religion and whether it's the break up of the Roman Empire, Henry VIII leaving the Catholic Church and setting up the Church of England so he could get his leg over, or Protestants and Catholics fighting in Ireland, Christians cannot claim to be any less tribal when it comes to irrational belief systems.

One must also remember that Islam is the 3rd branch of the Abrahamic faith.

Please remember that the first books of the old Testament, which allow for the stoning to death of adulterers and other capital punishments for eating shellfish and other stupid laws were at one stage all carried out by JewsChristians and Muslims.

The fact that Jews are now mostly atheists and Christians have followed their own testament based on the belief that Jesus was the Messiah doesn't take anything away from the core beliefs that all 3 religions once held, and the laws and punishments dealt out for breaking them.

The fact we are not criticising Islamic States like Saudi Arabia for their beheadings whilst attacking the new Islamic State for theirs is total hypocrisy.

Iran's stoning to death of people can be seen on websites along with Iraqi's brutal slaying of rapists in which the whole male community take part in the killing.

Video proof of such "punishments" can all be found on certain "death sites" on the Internet if you want to look hard enough for them.

So whilst we are no way clean when it comes to the rise of ISIS, we should absolutely oppose it for its fundamentalist religious nature.

The fact that I would like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Taliban to be classed in the same group takes nothing away from the brutality we are facing from this group of 7th century loving killers.

We may have helped stir the pot, and even funded the initial groups who became part of ISIS.

Most definitely the criminal Bandar-Bush enterprise needs it's terrorist tentacles chopping off ASAP.

The close ties between oil rich Saudi Arabia, it's ex ambassador and now terrorist group funding Prince Bandar and the Bush family, whose tarnished history goes way back to Prescott Bush and his Nazi funding days, is long over due some legal oversight.

We have funded Islamic groups to fight Communism and then used them to destabilise countries we wanted to encroach into. The history of our involvement is there for anyone who wants to see it.

One only need research Operation Gladio and Gladio 2 to see why we have allowed these groups to flourish and the benefits we got from allowing them to.

However once again blowback is going to bite the hand that fed it hard and fast.

To get down to basics I don't want to see anymore UK working class men sign up for the Army or RAF to go and fight ISIS.

We have already fought and lost against similar terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq so why keep the military industrial complexes wheels waxed with tax payers money?

Anyway the UK Armed Forces are no match to anyone's anymore due to cuts from Tory and Labour governments. Faced with ISIS captured US anti-aircraft weapons from fleeing Iraqi forces I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more English people being beheaded by Jihad John or burned alive in cages if we were to return to the killing fields of Iraq and Syria.

The UK military cannot even face the threat from a resurgent Russia, no matter how many times our Eurofighter Typhoons have to be scrambled to fend off Russian Bombers from the coast of Cornwall.
We have cut our armed forces to the bare bones. We are certainly not fit for any war worth fighting unless Jersey tried invading Sussex.

Anyway, on a side note, I wonder why Cornwall is Russia's target for "probing"?

It couldn't be anything to do with the huge amount of under-water cables taking Internet and Phone messages across the Atlantic to the USA from Europe could it? Or is it just the western edge of NATO's Europe?

Remember folks if the war in Ukraine actually gets hot between Russia and NATO then China's recent demo of a laser fired into space to destroy a satellite it had "no use for" or in other words, a warning to the USA that they could take down any US satellites they wanted, making the techno dependent US military redundant, will become true. Russia will most certainly do the same.

Russia is well-known to have far superior missiles and rockets than the US and it would be no surprise to see Satellites falling from the skies during the first days of any war.

So whilst some ignorant people may feel that a hot war with Russia over Ukraine and broken promises post Berlin wall are worth going head into, some other fools think that re-sending defeated forces back into Iraq to bomb ISIS from afar will defeat them.

If we want to crush ISIS, and we should, then we should allow the countries most involved to do the fighting. We should also stop funding Nazi's in Kiev and ask Russia to help by arming its proxies in Syria and Iran. With Russian military weapons these two countries could crush them fully without a Western jet being flown.

Jordan is already keen to bomb the hell out of ISIS because of their burned alive pilot, and Iran has been helping the Shia's in Iraq fight ISIS for a long while now.

The Kurds are also well into a hot war at the other end of Iraq and if only we agreed that ISIS was worse for the world than President Assad of Syria then we could allow Syria a free hand to attack from the north.

Why we keep on insisting that President Assad is the real bad guy when there are clearly worse figures about in the area I don't know. We could easily let Syria and Iran with Russian arms squash ISIS in the middle like a cockroach in the night with a heavy shoe.

Then if only we could get Israel who take US arms, de-construct them, and sell them on to Russia and other countries join the fight from the West it would be game over.

I know that sounds like a dream but logically it makes sense. It's just a shame logic pays no part in foreign affairs or Israel's behaviour in the world.

Israel has one of the biggest and most sophisticated armies in the world yet they spend their time either setting up fake al-Qaeda groups to then "catch" or allowing the US to instead. Just like leading a blind and dumb rat to a piece of poisoned cheese.

If only Israel could stop using their military might to crush the cornered and starving people of Gaza and instead realised the threat to their east. Their weaponry would be no match to ISIS if they actually fought them.

However if they are not worried about ISIS then it can only be due to their infiltration of, or setting up of, ISIS networks. Nothing else makes sense.

For the Islamic State, who should in all theory from their previous and past behaviour, hate Jews and Zionists, not try to attack Israel it can only be down to the fact that they are bought and paid for terrorists - like so many al-Qaeda networks before them.

If ISIS do attack Israel then they will have a real enemy to fight for once instead of pretend Iranian nukes and Gazan fire cracker rockets.

They could then join the pincer movement by Assad from the north and the Kurds, and Iraq and Iran from the south to crush this disgusting beast as hard as it likes. They don't even have to hold hands with Iran to do it, they are all neighbours with an unwelcome guest, so they should all want to resolve the problem.

It doesn't matter who created ISIS.

It doesn't matter which Saudi Royals still fund it as their government cries out for help between beheadings every Friday after prayers.

It doesn't matter if ISIS are owned, created or stage-managed actors, they are still scum that need demolishing.

The only thing that matters is that the axis of war doesn't go back into an area they have just left tails dangling between their legs.

If Islamic countries (and hopefully Jewish) can come together in their area of influence to destroy this beast on their own then it will do more for the social cohesion of the Middle East than anything the Western nations have done since World War One when the French and English carved up the lands that created Iraq in the first place.

Let's leave the fighting to the people who have most to lose.

It will be clear to see if ISIS don't attack Israel that something very, very wrong is occurring, and on any account Israel joining Iran to destroy this evil creation can only be a good thing, whether together or by separate means.

Lets just agree to not send anymore of our boys out to these deserts to fight.

We have already done enough damage.

It's someone else's turn to turn the tide.

View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com.