The planned scenario for a war with Iran is playing out before our eyes at frightening speed now. Unfortunately. as I have frequently said, Iran has a regime that is not only thuggish but controlled by theocratic nutters: the attack on the British Embassy played perfectly into the hands of the neo-cons. William Hague is smirking like the cat who got the cream.
The importance of the Fox-Gould-Werritty scandal is that it lifts the lid on the fact that the move to war with Iran is not a reaction to any street attack or any nuclear agency report. It is a long nurtured plan, designed to keep feeding the huge military industrial war machine that has become a huge part of the UK and US economies, and whose sucking up of trillions of dollars has contributed massively to the financial crisis, and which forms a keystone in the whole South Sea Bubble corporate finance system for servicing the ultra-rich. They need constant, regenerative war. They feed on the shattered bodies of small children.
Gould, Fox and Werritty were plotting with Israel to further war with Iran over years. The Werritty scandal was hushed up by Gus O’Donnell’s risibly meagre “investigation” – a blatant cover-up – and Fox resigned precisely to put a cap on any further digging into what they had been doing. I discovered – with a lot of determination and a modicum of effort – that Fox, Werritty and British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould had met many times, not the twice that Gus O’Donnell claimed, and had been in direct contact with Mossad over plans to attack Iran. Eventually the Independent published it, a fortnight after it went viral on the blogosphere.
The resignation of the Defence Secretary in a scandal is a huge political event. People still talk of the Profumo scandal 50 years later. But Fox’s resignation was forgotten by the media within a fortnight, even though it is now proven that the Gus O’Donell official investigation into the affair was a tissue of lies.
Take only these undisputed facts:
Fox Gould and Werritty met at least five times more than the twice the official investigation claims
The government refuses to say how often Gould and Werritty met without Fox
The government refuses to release the Gould-Werritty correspondence
The three met with Mossad
How can that not be a news story? I spent the most frustrating fortnight of my life trying to get a newspaper – any newspaper – to publish even these bare facts. I concentrated my efforts on the Guardian.
I sent all my research, and all the evidence for it, in numeorus emails to the Guardian, including to David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Rupert Neate and Seumas Milne. I spoke to the first three, several times. I found a complete resistance to publishing anything on all those hidden Fox/Werritty/Gould meetings, or what they tell us about neo-con links with Israel.
Why? Guardian Media Group has a relationship with an Israel investment company, Apax, but the Guardian strongly denies that this has any effect on them.
The Guardian to this day has not published the fact that there were more Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings than O’Donnell disclosed. Why?
I contacted the Guardian to tell them I intended to publish this article, and invited them to give a statement. Here it is, From David Leigh, Associate Editor:
I hope your blogpost will carry the following response in full.
1. I know nothing of any Israeli stake in the ownership of the Guardian. As it is owned by the Scott Trust, not any Israelis, your suggestion sems a bit mad.
2. The Guardian has not “refused” to publish any information supplied by you. On the contrary, I personally have been spending my time looking into it, as I told you previously. I have no idea what the attitude of others in “the Guardian” is. I form my own opinions about what is worth publishing, and don’t take dictation from others. That includes you.
3. I can’t imagine what you are hinting at in your reference to Assange. If you’ve got a conspiracy theory, why don’t you spit it out?
I can understand your frustration, Craig, when others don’t join up the dots in the same way as you. But please try not to be offensive, defamatory, or plain daft about it.
As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.
Possible some Guardian readers will get drawn to this post: at least then they will find out that Werritty, Fox and Gould held many more meetings, hushed up by O’Donnell and hushed up by the Guardian.
It should not be forgotten that the Guardian never stopped supporting Blair and New Labour, even when he was presiding over illegal wars and the massive widening of the gap between rich and poor. My point about Assange is that he has done a great deal to undermine the neo-con war agenda – and the Guardian is subjecting him to a campaign of denigration. On the other hand Gould/Fox/Werritty were pushing a neo-con project for war – and the Guardian is actively complicit in the cover-up of their activities.
The Guardian. Whom does it serve?
Here’s an interesting essay, from an economics pov, on the military industrial complex and its ruination of the US economy:
.
“The Military-Industrial Complex is Ruining the U.S. Economy”
.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16400.html
@Passerby :
“This is the ultimate expression in democracy, alas the “MSM” carry on with vilification of Hamas as “terrorist” organisation.”
– Alas, Hamas has carried out terrorist attacks – as has the IDF. Being a democratically elected government and a terrorist organization are not mutually exclusive, unfortunately, otherwise we’d have to disqualify the US and British for starters, as well as many others (Israeli, obviously). The question is which terrorist attacks are acceptable, and which are unacceptable – depends on your viewpoint.
Add “Conficker” to the list of possible US/Israeli inventions in the cyberwarfare department :
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/02/us-cybersecurity-iran-idUSTRE7B10AP20111202
NO terrorist attacks are acceptable. Questions: which sponsors of terrorism kill most people? Which sponsors of terrorism make a song and dance about democracy and Western values? Which sponsors of terrorism claim to be seeking peace (for their own privileged demographic) while their actions can only result in continued conflict? Is it illegitimate to prioritise these?
Here is leon Panetta last epilogue, it is to be seen what actually happens on the ground. I can’t say that I like the current EU foreign policy drive towards more sanctions for Iran. These measures are not improving life as it exists in the EU, or in Iran, it is a reactionary tool, nudges on a propaganda wheel.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1203/mideast.html
All we can do is try andopen up these channels that feed on taxpayers money, those interests that demand wars as a means. How much is the US economy dependent on its wars for oil? have the interests for oil merged with those who need to sell arms? US hegemonial trade/supply policies are merged with regional ME power games.
There are a few alarm bells ringing at the same time now, and it is natural that we should expect people to come on here and throw us off course, any of us should be prepared for this. When you come on this site, come with an extra skin, easy to loose, a menatl condome you can easily offload, detritus we can leave outside the front door.
I do not post for any personal gratification, still I’m easily wound up and recognise that my openess can easily be abused.
If I have ever abused anyone here, I expect to be told off for it, fine, we all can say things when the steam rises from sweaty hands on keyboards. Further, I peel no skin of my teeth saying sorry, should I have personalised my post, rather than dealt with the issue which I cocked up.
If you come to Craigs blog, be prepared that others do not come here to contribute or be informed, some will take their time to gain trust, others favour the bolderdash approach, it should not faze us one little bit. We do not need to answer to Holocaust denier or the global Shoah ‘R’ us movement for that matter. If we know our historic facts, meaning not one sole historic view of a given situation, then we have the background to withstand any of these diversion tactics, indeed in many cases we can see right through them.
We have no right to attack Iran for its internal justice system or how it wants to be paid for its resources. It is not up to us to denigrate their intend to develop a lesser polluting, reduction in fossile fuel policy and adopt nuclear power, despite having more power in its deserts than they could ever consume or needm. Were’nt it for the sanctions Iran could have a flourishing concentrated solar power plants, but thats not the argumentor main problem.
Our weak and unsustainable financial and economic systems, undermining our standing in world ranks is the problem, the rise of China and Russia beyond what we would like to see, our dependencies on these two and the shift of economic power to Asia, without us earning much on it, thats what bugs the west something rotten, our economic impotence in a global market, our inability to manufacture and compete.
I hope China can reject the western speculative approach to financing large mega projects and develop more sustainable systems and methods, because too many economies depend on them.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/david-pratt/demonisation-of-iran-carries-a-whiff-of-war-1.1137797
@Komodo :
“NO terrorist attacks are acceptable.”
– This is clearly not the opinion of the Western political and media power elite.
@Stephen.(No – this is exactly the same fallacy that was employed by the original fellow travellers with regard to what was happening in Stalinist Russia. I’m afraid that the left ignoring basic truths just means that you leave the argument open to the conservativesand end up fighting the debate on their terms. You also end up in letting ends justify the means – and that ultimately distorts what you are. What Orwell said in the 30s and 40s is just as relevant today as it was then.)
I believe that the left(and that is where I stand)have thru history generally supported various thuggish totalitarian states because they did not want to support the right wing imperial ambitions of the west. The westerners who tramped thru Stalins Russia then ran back to their own states with stories about how great it all was were as we now know duped big time and come across as very foolish idiots. If you cannot criticise despotic regimes because you think this might help a call for war against such states then you are doing a disservice to the people in those same states that are being imprisoned and tortured/executed for no good reason at all. It is up to moral people to speak up against these regimes whoever they may be,you cannot pick and choose who to criticise out of some phony sense of loyalty to the anti war movement and to not be seen as a warmonger. If you know your own heart then criticise away I say and take no notice of others who will call you names for expressing your righteous views,these people are scared to upset their group of peers and want to wander like sheep.If there is no criticism of these regimes then they carry on with what they are doing. In the case of Iran world wide criticism of the way they act towards their own people has saved the lives of a few people there as the Iranian government have decided that they would not kill them,if we listened to some of the people on here then those same prisoners would now be dead.
‘
Just like to thank Nuid for his/her summing up of remarks made yesterday and glad to see that Nuid indeed has a free mind and is not a sheep.
Thanks for the great link Suhayl
May I just add to my previous post to say that generalisations as to persons here can sound very childish.
ken your thank to Nuids post was denigrated by insinuating that we are ‘sheep’ here is something I deeply regret.
That said its like mere water down a ducks back, the issues are more important to us. Baaahhhh.
For linking purposes, future revelations can find a receptive clientle for Werritty Gould connective tissue revelations on der Spiegels forums.
[Mod/Jon – name-calling posts will be moderated]
Ingo, We have no right to attack Iran for its internal justice system or how it wants to be paid for its resources.
That is right, we do not, if we had, then we should not have been dumb for 30 plus years on Egypt Justice system, (there were 20,000 prisoners in Egypt, held without charges, some for more than two decades). You see Sadat and Mubarak both were our SOBs, so who cared what happened to people of Egypt. Same goes for Saudi, the oppression and injustice is far greater than that of Iran, and look at Bahrain, there is not peep from our esteemed politicians. I totally dislike the present government of Iran, but they have majority support in Iran, irrespective of the fact that media here are trying to paint a different picture. Sanctions are actually making the government stronger in Iran, as Mullahs can blame everything wrong on sanctions, at the same time sanctions has helped Iran to become self sufficient. China is a trade partner of Iran, yet the amount of Chinese goods you see in Iran is a fraction of what you find in the west. Most goods are manufactured in Iran. I think it is all the Zionist pressure, they are the atomic power in the ME, and therefore can call the shots, it is not at all that they are worried Iran will attack them, far from it. they just want to be the power in the ME, so they can carry on with their atrocious behaviour. I hope Iran will acquire atomic power, there would be a balance and that will not prevent people of Iran to eventually change the regime.
@Ken – I fear you have misunderstood me. I’m not of the view that Leftists who won’t criticise an Official Enemy as strongly as they would otherwise are doing so out of a loyalty to the anti-war movement. I don’t sense that happens much, in the main. They are doing it to avoid being part of the drum-beat of war, which is a very different reasoning indeed.
.
Equally, enthusiastic supporters of Stalin (or whoever, in years gone by) are not a fair comparison. By and large, today’s Leftists in the category we’re discussing will *moderately* criticise an official Enemy, or may do so in careful, discursive sentences – it isn’t a question of do-they-don’t-they. Nuance is important. As I mentioned earlier, I *do* criticise Iran, on their human rights record.
.
As @Komodo touches on above, part of this nuance is a prioritisation of what should be criticised first/loudest. This is entirely compatible with saying, as Komodo does, that no terrorism is acceptable.
.
I agree with you that this situation is not ideal. But we’re in this position partly because excess criticism of a particular regime (say, Iran) might lead to a “humanitarian intervention” that increases the numbers of dead, wounded, and tortured. I think the Leftist position on criticising Official Enemies would be, in the main, very different, if Western powers used their power responsibly. But then that would be a very different world, since in such a world we’d also not be bombarded with Official Enemy propaganda, and we could be much more even-handed.
@All – can I send out a request to *everyone* to keep insults to themselves. Deciding whether to moderate edge-cases is a tricky job, but ultimately we have found here that maintaining a little order with some light modding does help people who wish to discuss things. Remember also: if you get criticised politely, please only respond with civility. We want discussions on this board, not fights!
Dear Passerby, I just read your comment, I was not abused, it was Jon, and I found his response to that extremely gracious.
Now to add to my last comment, this is an article worth reading, exactly my sentiments.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/12/01/israel-and-iran-why-war/
And Suhyal, thanks for the link, very interesting.
I think apart from the human rights issues in Iran that the country is heading in the right direction foreign policy wise. It seems they will soon be members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation at the moment they are observers. Getting cosy with the Chinese and the Russians will I believe lead to a good future as China will be in time the biggest economy on the planet and Russia with all its resources is always a good friend to have. I also think that Iran should get nuclear weapons as that would balance the middle east up a bit. If this causes an arms race in the middle east then so be it,at least they will all have nukes,well the ones who can afford it and it would put pressure on Israel to stop being the Nazis that they are now. It would also checkmate Americas ambitions in the area. I think in time that the Iranians will change their government to a more liberal one but that is up to the Iranian people and no one else.The hypocrisy of the west in its action against Iran is there for all to see. They support and supported dictatorships in Saudi,Egypt,Tunisia etc who I believe had/have much worst regimes than in Iran but of course we should know by now that the west does not care about the people who live in these lands,they are just interested in exploiting them for their own self interest.You would think that these truths would be broadcast on the MSM in the so called free democratic west but they never are.Glad to see that the Latin American states are organising themselves against the Americans as well.
Follow-on to Azra — and also to give some credit to Amnesty Int:
“Saudi Arabia rejects Amnesty repression claims”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15990712
.
Ken, you’re welcome.
.
Also, this deserves highlighting in my opinion:
.
“British soldier fired for stabbing Afghan boy”
A British soldier has been dismissed from the army after stabbing a 10-year-old Afghan boy in his kidneys with a bayonet for no reason.
Grenadier Guardsman Daniel Crook was suffering from a hangover after a heavy vodka drinking session when he bayoneted the boy, who was running an errand. He could not explain why he carried out the attack.
{http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/02/british-soldier-stabbed-afghan-boy}
.
Tell me again ‘why they hate us’ (and why Bush deserves a medal instead of arrest)?
@Jon [Mod/Jon – name-calling posts will be moderated]
‘
‘
You left out a whole load of posts on this very thread calling me Hasbara, a wanker.ziobot,troll etc etc.. If you are going to delete posts then be consistent.
Ken: Very much agreed, if you read my comment above, it is more or less what you have said.
Jon: you are right, I was impressed with your response to that Bjorn. We are all here to discuss and express our opinions, thoughts and to get hot up because someone disagrees with what we have said is childish. There should be some mechanism to ban those who cannot stick to some rules.
Jon (I fear you have misunderstood me. I’m not of the view that Leftists who won’t criticise an Official Enemy as strongly as they would otherwise are doing so out of a loyalty to the anti-war movement. I don’t sense that happens much, in the main. They are doing it to avoid being part of the drum-beat of war, which is a very different reasoning indeed.)
‘
‘
It is the same thing.You misunderstood my post.
@Nuid.“British soldier fired for stabbing Afghan boy”
‘
‘
What got me about this story was that these trials are being done in secret and the Guardian had to basically piece the story together. I expect a story like this to be headline news on the BBC at 6 o’clock, not much chance of that though.
@Jon..Equally, enthusiastic supporters of Stalin (or whoever, in years gone by) are not a fair comparison. By and large, today’s Leftists in the category we’re discussing will *moderately* criticise an official Enemy, or may do so in careful, discursive sentences – it isn’t a question of do-they-don’t-they. Nuance is important. As I mentioned earlier, I *do* criticise Iran, on their human rights record.)
‘
‘
It is certainly a fair comparison. You might criticise Iran although I have never seen that and I have yet to see anyone else on here from the left criticise them,they have done a very good job or not criticsing them. I believe my point is well made and stands.
The same bunch of pusillanimous toadies deliberately forget and choose to ignore the origins of the ziofuckwitery in Irgon, Hagana, etc. which in fact were terrorist organisations.
.
The Irgun were terrorists, certainly, but the Hagana were originally established to protect Jewish communities in Palestine around the beginning of the twentieth century.
“I expect a story like this to be headline news on the BBC at 6 o’clock, not much chance of that though.”
.
Nope. But any death of a soldier in Afghanistan is announced as if it was utterly unwarranted and unexpected (although UK soldiers are occupying another country after an attack started by Bush under 100% false pretences, and resistance should be fully expected) and he (she?) will then go up on Sky News’s wall of ‘Fallen Heroes’.
I just can’t watch these reports, on any channel.
Which is *not* to say that as a parent myself, I don’t have the utmost sympathy for the parents and families of those soldiers who have been killed.
.
Later
Ken,
.
I could berate Craig for calling the Iran leadership thugs and nutters. I do not, not only because I abhor personnel attacks and consider them a waste of keystrokes; more importantly because this thread is trying to expose, interpret and explain attempts to formulate a hidden and exhibited agenda for the destruction of a country, the
killingmurder of civilians and the maiming, disfiguring, dismembering and trauma of children..
Who are you to judge how caring a commentator is here – do you personally know anyone writes on this spot – I guess no. It follows you also do not know the ordinary Iranian on the street and your opinions/judgements on human rights are based on the same propaganda being used as instruments of war, such as proven and corrupt BBC panorama’s – politically motivated flimflam, while ignoring what was happening in Bahrain, Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza (have you been there – No?).
.
Your use of the word ‘girl’ in ‘you are done girl’ describes your personality to us as sexist, dogmatic, opinionated and a bigot to boot. You have contributed zero, zilch – here, on this thread except accusations, bum rap, insinuation and diatribe.
.
An assault on Iran will create ataxia and mayhem. It will destroy the lives of thousands in Iran and Israel and may even precipitate nuclear war. Iranians have had their share of the Wests chemicals, uranium and phosphorus and every country has human rights issues including Britain to whimper, gripe and wail about.
.
Get you facts verified Ken and use not the words of notorious Iranian dissidents, rebels and schismatist, else your words are in a vacuum, your honor debased.
I have grown increasingly disillusioned with The Guardian’s failure to pursue a more independent line over so many issues – including this one. I am especially puzzled that the Associate Editor should have requested that his reply be published “in full” in Craig Murray’s Blog (I assume it WAS published in full!) as it suggests Leigh to be of very modest intelligence judging by his comments: “bit mad”, “plain daft” and the perennial loaded and prejudicial phrase “conspiracy theory” used by all who wish to discredit without supporting arguments! None of this is likely to recommend him or his paper to traditional Guardian readers – unless the Guardian is pitching at a slightly lower readership.
The worrying inexorable drift towards yet another Middle Eastern war, on yet more spurious grounds, deserves to be fully exposed and publicly discussed. The bias of the media in all this, mirroring the approach of the UK Establishment, needs explanation – none of these wars appear to have the support of the British people and yet there is near political unanimity on them. And yet what can be done?
“your opinions/judgements on human rights are based on the same propaganda being used as instruments of war … Get you facts verified Ken and use not the words of notorious Iranian dissidents, rebels and schismatist, else your words are in a vacuum, your honor debased.” — Mark
.
Mark, it sounds like you haven’t actually read this thread. He was quoting Amnesty and HRW.
.
“An assault on Iran will create ataxia and mayhem.”
He’s not advocating one, Mark!
.
Shit … I’m really gone now.
Mark Golding..
Well thanks for that utter nonsense. You do not know where I have been sunshine so are not qualified to pass comment. If a commenter on here feels that they need to link to an Holocaust denier to try and prove that Amnesty is not a credible source for a report on Irans human rights record then I will call them on that and I do not need any permission from you sunshine.Also I have not ignored what is happening in other countries, I have actually in this very thread commented on Saudi,Israel.Tunisia etc,try reading my post about them before having your rant,it would at the least give you a bit of credibility but as it happens you never read them and now look silly as you are wrong.As it happens I was in Bahrain 2 months ago,so again you are wrong.not doing to well are you?
Pack in the name calling as well.the mod on here has warned against it but you failed to read that post as well.I also know what an attack on Iran will do,I do not need you to tell me,like I was ever condoning an attack on Iran anyway.
‘
So lessons you should learn from my reply. read what I post,all of it before ranting and then you will see you are wrong on many points. I guess in your rush for a rant you forgot to put your brain in gear.
Nice article about what is happening in Syria.Interesting reading.
The shadow war in Syria
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML02Ak01.html
Mark, I am going to add my voice to others, in fairness Ken was called on this thread repeatedly “a troll”, “a Hasbara” (I don’t know even what that is, but it sound derogatory” “a wanker.ziobo”. I think at times people are “over passionate” on the blog and let their tongue (or keyboard) run loose.
Azra ( Hasbara)
It is a person who backs the state of Israel in all its policies,they normally trawl internet forums spreading the various Israeli propaganda. Obviously some people on here cannot tell the difference between them and a person who criticises Israel on a regular basis,namely me.