Posts tagged ‘UK’

Russia: US, EU violate commitments under 1994 “Budapest Memorandum”…..

Western actions during the Ukrainian crisis run counter to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.


“The US and EU actively encouraged the coup d’etat in Kiev, acting against the political independence and sovereignty of Ukraine in breach of their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum,” the ministry said in a commentary posted on its website on Wednesday.

In the context of the situation in Ukraine, some of Moscow’s partners did not fail to point out to Russia its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the ministry said.

“In view of this we would like to remind them what these obligations are and who exactly is responsible for honoring them. In the Budapest Memorandum, Russia, the US and the United Kingdom committed to act as guarantors of the rights inherent to Ukraine’s sovereignty,” the ministry said.

“We would like to ask: how do the threats to impose sanctions on the Ukrainian authorities made repeatedly by the US and EU during the riots in Kiev fit into these guarantees? What is it, if not an economic coercion with respect to a sovereign state? How should one regard, for example, the almost continual patrolling by Western envoys in “Maidan”?” the commentary said.

“How should we qualify the US and EU statements that they are no longer regard the legally elected head of state as a legitimate partner, unlike the new leaders appointed in the square in a breach of all the constitutional procedures?” the document said.



Ben Griffin | We Will NOT Fight For Queen and Country ……

found on


Newly-released UK documents speak of Zionist Nazis, terrorists and savage…………

Redress Online

It is 65 years since Israel was forced upon the Middle East through terrorism, murder, ethnic cleansing and theft but so little has changed.

Then as now, Britain, the occupying power that handed Palestine to the European Jewish colonists on a plate, knew the truth about the Zionists yet chose be the midwife of their offspring, the state of Israel, even as they murdered British soldiers.

And now Britain, which is possibly better informed about the reality of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict than anyone other than the primary victims of Israel, remains the loyal international spokesman and facilitator of this terrorist state, working on its behalf from the United Nations to the European Union.

This week, British intelligence documents released by UK’s National Archives bring into sharp relief the extent to which the British government understood the truth about the Zionist criminals to which it was about to hand over Palestine, to be ethnically cleansed of its citizens and turned into the state of Israel.

The documents reveal that, just two weeks before Israel’s unilateral declaration of “independence”, the British government’s high commissioner for Palestine, Alan Cunningham, viewed the behaviour of Jewish terrorists as comparable to that of the Nazis.

On 30 April 1948, he wrote to his superiors that as the Jews celebrated military successes their “broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany”.

In another report, he said that the Jews were prepared for statehood and an “all-out offensive” with “all the equipment of a totalitarian regime”.

The papers, which make frequent references to Jewish “terrorists”, show the British understood that the Jews were willing “to go to almost any lengths to achieve their aim”.

In one dispatch, an account is given of the massacre at the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. In it, Cunningham wrote that 250 people were killed, with the attack “accompanied by every circumstance of savagery. Women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed and then slaughtered.”

© Unknown
Jewish terrorists murdered 250 people in Deir Yassin “accompanied by every circumstance of savagery. Women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed and then slaughtered.”

Exposing the myth of the poor “Jewish David” heroically standing up to the “Arab Goliath”, the British documents also show that while the Jews were organized, the local Arabs were poorly served by their leaders and by neighbouring countries, despite “extravagant claims of victories”.

Cunningham wrote on 30 April that the Arabs’ “much vaunted liberation army” was “poorly equipped and badly led”.

He continued: “In almost every engagement the Jews have proved their superiority in organization, training and tactics.”

Yet, 65 years on the Zionists’ barefaced big, fat lie, which claims that Israel is the victim and the Arabs are the aggressors, is still being peddled shamelessly by Western politicians and media.

It is time for the British state, which is directly responsible for the crime that is Israel, to shake itself off the Zionist yoke – the “Friends of Israel” tumours in the political parties and the Zionist fifth columnists infesting the media and the trade unions – and make amends for its criminal act in Palestine.

And it is time for the British people, who are better informed now about Palestine than at any time in the past, to bring their politicians to account for their slavish support of Israel and Zionism.


From MI6 Al Qaeda Plot to Kill Gaddafi to Spying on Domestic Dissent: An MI5 Whistle Blower’s Story ………

October 31, 2012

Annie Machon: British intelligence agencies considered themselves above the law


Annie Machon was an intelligence officer for the UK’s MI5 in the 1990s, but she left after blowing the whistle on the incompetence and crimes of the British spy agencies. She is now a writer, media commentator, political campaigner, and international public speaker on a variety of intelligence-related issues. She is also the Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) in Europe.



BBC in pedophilia cover-up? ……..

Former top star said to have 100s of potential victims, “just the tip of the iceberg” — Ties to royal family, friend of prime minister (VIDEOS)

Published: October 21st, 2012 at 2:35 am ET


>> Update: Watch the debunking of the BBC’s well-known program on Fukushima <<

Another major cover-up for the major media outlets that’s been revealed in recent weeks…

First this: Correspondent: “I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be gov’t lies into my reporting” (VIDEO)

And now: Revealed: Newsnight emails that accuse BBC of Jimmy Savile cover-upThe Independent, Oct. 20

More on the ‘Jimmy Savile cover-up’ from Saturday’s Guardian:

Sir Jimmy Savile

Credible evidence is emerging that former BBC colleagues of Jimmy Savile knew of claims that he was a serial abuser of young boys [young girls as well, see video below] at many locations, including on the corporation’s premises.

A lawyer who specialises in sexual abuse cases is taking evidence from 12 people, both men and women, who claim to have been abused by the presenter. Alan Collins, of Pannone solicitors, said he had spoken to several former colleagues of Savile, who said it was apparently well known within the BBC that the TV presenter was “interested” in young boys.


The Metropolitan police said that more than 400 lines of inquiry had been “assessed” and more than 200 potential victims have been identified.

Alan Collins said experience suggested the numbers were just the “tip of the iceberg” because “most victims don’t come forward, for obvious reasons”.

A must-see broadcast from early October providing background and evidence:

Savile with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and group of children (Wikipedia: “Savile became a friend of Margaret Thatcher, who described his work as ‘marvelous’”):

Savile describing the time he walked into a royal event with a young girl and encountered Prince Philip:

In other recent news (Telegraph, Sept. 28, 2012), “Pete Townshend, The Who’s guitarist, claims he paid for child pornography to prove British banks were complicit in channelling profits from paedophile rings.”

Update : related news from

Child rape has been taking place at BBC studios for decades: Newsnight editor steps aside over Jimmy Savile scandal

Protecting pedophile networks: BBC ordered cover-up of its own investigation into serial child rapist Jimmy Savile

update, related post :

Bombshell! Historic paedophile ring linked to 10 Downing Street, at least one former prime minister implicated



Why Tony Blair Is A War Criminal Who Should Be On Trial In The Hague ……………..

Brit Dee, Contributor
Activist Post

Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s recent condemnation of Tony Blair’s role in the invasion of Iraq, and his refusal to attend a summit with the former British prime minister, increases the pressure on war criminal Blair.

In a searing written indictment published on Sunday, Tutu slammed Blair for the devastating war. He criticised Blair’s fabrications which led to the invasion of Iraq, including his lies about the country’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, and his refusal to allow UN inspectors more time to establish whether or not Saddam Hussein posed a genuine threat to world peace.

He described Blair and Bush as immoral playground bullies, whose reckless warmongering has caused extensive suffering and loss of life, further polarised the world, and helped normalise a climate of Western aggression that currently threatens formerly stable, sovereign, and peaceful Iran and Syria.

Here are five reasons why Tony Blair is a war criminal, who should be on trial in The Hague.

1) Blair launched a war of aggression that broke international law

In attacking Iraq, Blair committed a crime against peace, defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. The Iraq war was waged for a reason other than self-defence, which made it a crime of aggression and violated Articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

2) Blair knew he was breaking international law

Eight months before the invasion, the British government’s most senior legal adviser wrote to Blair and advised him that an attack on Iraq would be a serious breach of international law, and the UN charter. Lord Goldsmith’s July 2002 letter stated that an invasion launched on the premise of self defence would be illegal because Britain was not under threat by Iraq, and that whilst in certain circumstances the UN allowed ‘humanitarian intervention’, it was not relevant in the case of Iraq.

Blair not only ignored Goldsmith’s letter, but banned him from attending cabinet meetings and gagged him so that he could not speak out publically.

Blair was explicitly warned by his Cabinet Office that a “legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers’ advice, none currently exists.” Then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw similarly advised Blair that none of the legal conditions for war had been met.

3) UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise war

Blair and his supporters argue that UN Security Resolution 1441, passed on November 8th 2002, authorised war on Iraq. This resolution did strengthen the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” – but it did not authorise war.

American ambassador John Negroponte assured the Security Council the resolution meant a “further breach” by Iraq would require “the matter…return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.”

UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG similarly confirmed that “there is no ‘automaticity’ in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12.”

4) Blair lied to help fix the intelligence and facts around the policy

There are numerous examples of Blair lying, deceiving, and misleading, in order to hype the supposed threat from Iraq, and try and justify war. Here are just a few examples.

In April 2002 he claimed that Saddam Hussein had major stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons – even though the Joint Intelligence Committee had described the intelligence as “sporadic and patchy” just the previous month. They also said that Saddam only had “some production equipment, and some small stocks of CW agent precursors”.

Blair claimed that Iraq posed a regional threat, when the previous month a secret Cabinet Office paper noted that “Saddam has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbours.”

During a press conference Blair and Bush jointly referred to a purported IAEA report, apparently confirming that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky later denied that the agency had issued any such report, said that there was no substantiated evidence for an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and that anyone who claimed to know the nuclear situation in Iraq was “misleading you”.

In late September 2002, citing a British government dossier, Blair claimed that Iraq had “existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”. When this was later revealed to be untrue, Blair claimed that he had never understood that intelligence agencies did not believe Saddam had long-range weapons of mass destruction.

However, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook confirmed that on March 5th 2003 – two weeks before the attack on Iraq – Blair told him that Saddam’s “battlefield weapons had been disassembled and stored separately”.

Blair later claimed that he did not recall Cook telling him that Saddam had no long-range weapons.

5) The illegal war on Iraq has caused an enormous amount of suffering and death

Estimates vary, but according to the Iraq Body Count Project at least 108,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of violence since the country’s invasion in March 2003, with tens of thousands wounded and traumatised and millions displaced. Nearly 5000 military personnel have been killed.

Others have been tried for war crimes which resulted in the deaths of far fewer people than the Iraq war and, as Archbishop Tutu states:

In a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

Let’s keep up the pressure on the war criminal Tony Blair – and everyone else who was complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

This article first appeared at

Brit Dee’s is an independent media website approaching global news, politics and conspiracy theory from a radical, but critical and rational perspective.


Pentagon vs Cameron :Somebody lies here ! …….

first watch this :

David Cameron’s Libya statement in full

Monday, 5 September 2011 17:16 UK

and then read this :

R2P: “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi “Fired on his Own People”

Read the Pentagon transcript
Global Research, June 3, 2011
Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi  “fired on his own people from the air”The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians. Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon. On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, “admitted their utter ignorance as to what’s happening on the ground in Libya” (for further details see Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen, Victors’ Justice and the “Responsibility to Protect”: Who are the Real War Criminals? Global Research, June 3, 2011)

Sec Gates and Adm. Mullen plead ignorance.

Q. Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.


Federal News Service

March 1, 2011 Tuesday

Q: Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen just mentioned that in Libya Moammar Gadhafi is waging war on his own people, as you put it. What — is U.S. military intervention realistic? And what specific kinds of options are you considering? Could you describe, for example, the possibility of a no-fly zone or arming rebel forces?


… I would — I would note that the U.N. Security Council resolution provides no authorization for the use of armed force. There is no unanimity within NATO for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects. So they need to be considered very carefully.

Our job is to give the president the broadest possible decision space and options, and to go into the things that we’re thinking about, the options that we’re providing, I think, have the potential to narrow his decision space. And I have no intention of doing that.

Q: Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.

Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying?

SEC. GATES: Well, the — I think the honest answer, David, is that we don’t know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we’re in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven’t seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gaddhafi’s forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are.

Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes — (inaudible) — have you heard of any of that?



Q: Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen, based on what you’ve seen to date, do you have any reason to think that Gadhafi would be prepared to leave voluntarily, or do you think that some form of force, whether it is rebels, whether ultimately it’s U.N. sanctions, Western intervention, whether some form of force would be needed to push him out of power?

SEC. GATES: Well, all I can say is that sometimes you actually have to listen to what people say. And he’s saying he’s not leaving. (Scattered laughter.)


%d bloggers like this: