VIDEO: How the Lib-Lab-Con is Destroying Britain

A five-minute synopsis of the threat you and your family face from the criminal, corrupt and decadent regime that the fools keep voting for. (See first 6 minutes.):

 

ARTICLE AND VIDEO: Liberal Democrat M.P. Nick Harvey -TOLD HE IS A DISGRACE FOR CLAIMING TRAVEL TO REMEMBRANCE DAY

Former Royal navy engineer Fiona Laing embarrasses Sir Nick Harvey after Remembrance Day service.

A Royal British Legion worker approached a former Armed Forces minister following a Remembrance Day service and ‘reimbursed’ him for £7.20 in expenses he claimed after attending a previous ceremony.

Fiona Laing, 45, marched up to Sir Nick Harvey, 52, in front of other dignitaries, officials and members of the public, and gave him an envelope containing the money.

Read on an watch the video: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10441802/Former-Wren-to-ex-minister-You-Sir-are-a-disgrace.html

VIDEOS: ‘Beheadings-R-Us’ by Cameron and Hague-backed Syrian “Rebels” (WARNING: Graphic Images)

syrias-bullshit

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/07/18/syria-beheadings-r-us-by-obama-backed-and-armed-fsa-jihadist-rebels-warning-graphic-images/

ATICLE: Former head of MI6 threatens to expose Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’

tony_blair_war_criminal

The truth will always out -eventually. Seems the regime (“government”) doesn’t have the control it would like on the secret services. Perhaps MI5 might like to start to question to whom its loyalties really lie (the innocent people or their aggressor, corrupt, plutocratic “government”).

A former head of MI6 has threatened to expose the secrets of the ‘dodgy dossier’ if he disagrees with the long-awaited findings of the Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s role in the Iraq War.

Sir Richard Dearlove, 68, has spent the last year writing a detailed account of events leading up to the war, and had intended to only make his work available to historians after his death.

But now Sir Richard, who provided intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that was apparently ‘sexed up’ by Tony Blair’s government, has revealed that he could go public after the Chilcot Inquiry publishes its findings.

Sir Richard is expected to be criticised by the inquiry’s chairman, Sir John Chilcot, over the accuracy of intelligence provided by MI6 agents inside Iraq, which was used in the so-called ‘dodgy dossier’.

Now the ex-MI6 boss, who is Master at Pembroke College, Cambridge University, has said: “What I have written (am writing) is a record of events surrounding the invasion of Iraq from my then professional perspective.

“My intention is that this should be a resource available to scholars, but after my decease (may be sooner depending on what Chilcot publishes)

“I have no intention, however, of violating my vows of official secrecy by publishing any memoir.”

Sources close to Sir Richard said that he insists Chilcot should recognise the role played by Tony Blair and the Prime Minister’s chief spokesman Alastair Campbell in informing media reports which suggested Saddam could use chemical weapons to target British troops based in Cyprus, a claim which led to Britain entering the war in Iraq.

Sir Richard is said to remain extremely unhappy that this piece of intelligence, which his agents stressed only referred to battlefield munitions which had a much shorter range, led to media reports that UK bases were under threat.

However, he accepts that some of MI6’s information on the WMDs was inaccurate, the Mail on Sunday reported.

Mr Blair and Mr Campbell have repeatedly denied making misleading statements about WMD.

Last week it was revealed that Sir John had written to Prime Minister David Cameron informing him of his intention to write personally to those individuals he intends to criticise, with Tony Blair reported to be among those on Sir John’s list.

Sir Richard has taken a sabbatical from his duties at Cambridge University to research and write his record of events, and is expected to resume his Master’s role at the start of the new academic year.

A security source told The Mail on Sunday: “This is Sir Richard’s time-bomb. He wants to set the record straight and defend the integrity of MI6. And Sir Richard has taken a lot of personal criticism over MI6’s performance and his supposedly too-cosy relationship with Mr Blair.

“No Chief of MI6 has done anything like this before, but the events in question were unprecedented.

“If Chilcot doesn’t put the record straight, Sir Richard will strike back.”

Last night the committee’s chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was appointed in 2010, offered Sir Richard his support, saying: “I have never heard of a former MI6 chief putting something out there in these terms but I would be interested in what Sir Richard has to say in response to the Chilcot Inquiry which is clearly going to have some meat in it.

“I know Sir Richard and worked with him in the Foreign Office many years ago. He is a very able man of the highest character and a man of his own opinions. We shall have to wait to see what he says.”

Last night, Alastair Campbell and the office for Tony Blair declined to comment on Sir Richard’s account.

ARTICLE: MoD accused of risking soldiers’ lives by silencing generals

untitled

Historian expresses fears after chapters by serving generals excised from book criticising operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A leading military historian has accused the Ministry of Defence of putting the lives of British soldiers at risk by stifling debate and preventing serving generals from publicly expressing their views on the conduct of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir Hew Strachan, Chichele professor of the history of war at Oxford University, blames the decision to suppress their views on “official paranoia”. His outspoken comments appear in a series of essays, British Generals in Blair’s Wars, which contains devastating criticism from senior officers who have recently retired, but none from those still serving.

Debate and potential reform are therefore stifled at source “for fear of reputational damage and political controversy”, writes Strachan.

The book has fallen victim to “official paranoia”, he says referring to six chapters written by serving officers that were withdrawn on the orders of the MoD.

Strachan, an adviser to the chief of the defence staff, General Sir Nick Houghton, adds: “These fears put at risk lives in theatre. Like many armies in the past, the British army struggles to foster effective debate within a hierarchical command chain.”

The editors, including Strachan, make clear in their book – published by Ashgate more than a year late because of the need to find replacement authors – that the final decision to ban serving officers from contributing to it was taken by the defence secretary, Philip Hammond.

Generals prevented from publishing their views include Houghton, who took over as chief of the defence staff from Sir David Richards on Thursday, and Lt Gen Sir Richard Shirreff, Nato’s deputy supreme commander. Shirreff, a former commander of British troops in Basra, told the Chilcot inquiry that more than three years after the invasion of Iraq, the MoD was still incapable of delivering equipment badly needed by UK troops there.

The failure to provide troops with the resources they needed “beggars belief”, he said.

The opening salvo in British Generals in Blair’s Wars castigates the former Labour prime minister for not providing sufficient resources to those he sent to war. Jonathan Bailey, formerly responsible in the MoD for developing military doctrine, says Blair “does not appear to have thought through the consequences of his policies, committing the UK to prolonged conflicts intended to reorder other countries’ underlying cultures”.

The book exposes sharp disagreement between British commanders on the root causes of attacks on British troops in Basra. Jonathan Shaw, commander of British forces in south-east Iraq in 2007, came under fierce criticism for doing a deal with the Jaysh al-Mahdi, the militia led by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and for taking the view that violence was more criminal than ideologically or politically inspired. “I judged Basra to be more like Palermo than Beirut,” he writes.

Richard Iron, an adviser to Iraqi army commanders in Basra, writes: “Nothing could be further from the truth: Jaysh al-Mahdi was an extremist movement that controlled Basra by force.” British intelligence analysts failed to appreciate the depths of “malign Iranian influence”, says Iron.

An underlying theme in the essays by former generals and senior British staff officers is the almost complete lack of preparedness and failure to provide enough resources, in terms of both money and men, in Iraq. The failures, the authors write, were not learned and were repeated in Afghanistan.

Iron says that five years after the invasion of Iraq, “there was still arrogance and hubris among the British. A sense of ‘we’re here to teach you so you’d better listen'”.

Britain’s failures led to bitter disputes behind the scene with US commanders, whose marines took over from the British in Basra, and, later, in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. Alexander Alderson, former special adviser to the head of the Afghan armed forces, says that in Iraq the different tactics and attitudes of the two countries came to the point “where the UK’s military credibility was in question”.

The book describes the growing frustration among military commanders about inter-departmental rows within Whitehall and inadequate co-operation with the Foreign Office and Department for International Development. The much-mooted “comprehensive” approach – co-operation on conflict prevention, peacemaking, and peacekeeping – has not materialised. Tim Cross, the senior British officer in the US-led post-invasion reconstruction office in Iraq, writes: “We do need to have a fairly radical shakeup, both in the [defence] ministry but also pan-government.”

Strachan told the Guardian: “The MoD has got to get real … Differences and debates need to be properly gone over. Otherwise we are none the wiser”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/19/mod-risking-soldiers-iraq-afghanistan-generals

Russia Accuses West Of Arming Mali “Al-Qaeda” Rebels

syrias-bullshit

Western imperialism knows no bounds. The “British” government is a direct threat to your safety. The people that have, are, and will suffer because of the “British” government’s gun running and regime change will naturally seek revenge on the aggressor nation. The guilty politicians will not, of course, suffer the consequences. They never do. Only the British people will suffer as they did on 7/7.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Revenge will one day be upon us.

Define irony? Here is one, or rather two, tries.

Back in the 1970s, it was none other than the US that armed the Taliban “freedom fighters” fighting against the USSR in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, only to see these same freedom fighters eventually and furiously turn against the same US that provided them with arms and money, with what ended up being very catastrophic consequences, culminating with September 11.

Fast forward some 30 or more years and it is again the US which, under the guise of dreams and hopes of democracy and the end of a “dictatorial reign of terror”, armed local insurgents in the Libyan war of “liberation” to overthrow the existing regime (and in the process liberate just a bit of Libya’s oil) – the same Libya where shortly thereafter these same insurgents rose against their former sponsor, and killed the US ambassador in what has now become an epic foreign policy Snafu.

But it doesn’t end there as according to Russia, it is the same US weapons that were provided to these Libyan “freedom fighters” that are now being used in what is rapidly becoming a war in Mali, involving not only assorted French regiments, but extensive US flip flops and boots on the ground.

Via Al Jazeera,

Russia said on Wednesday the rebels fighting French and African troops in Mali are the same fighters the West armed in the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

“Those whom the French and Africans are fighting now in Mali are the [same] people who overthrew the Gaddafi regime, those that our Western partners armed so that they would overthrow the Gaddafi regime,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference.

“It’s important to lift one’s head a bit and look over the horizon, look at all those processes more widely, they are interconnected and carry very many threats,” Lavrov said, speaking of unrest across the Middle East that could play into the hands of militants.

“This will be a time bomb for decades ahead,” he said.

That is our definition of irony.

Hat tip:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-23/russia-accuses-west-arming-mali-al-qaeda-rebels

ARTICLE: Was Guy Fawkes the Last Honest Man to Pass through Westminster?

Hat tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/was-guy-fawkes-the-last-good-man-to-pass-through-westminster/

Imagine a government that would deliberately take millions away from the budget meant to educate its own nation’s children, while at the time use billions to send foreign aid to other nations who don’t need it?

That would be nothing less than treason. You cannot imagine any sane government doing such a thing. Think of, for example, China, or Japan, deliberately depriving its own people of an education while giving money to Korea? It just wouldn’t happen, because the Chinese and the Japanese would—rightly—regard that as nothing less than treason.

Of course, you guessed it: Britain’s House of Treason down by the banks of the old river, has done precisely that—and no-one seems to know or care.

The Tory-Lib-Dem-Labour party—because they are just all the same party—is busy with much-vaunted “budget cuts” to “save the economy” (after they and their big business bank cronies screwed it over in the first place) and one of the first cuts to be announced was in the education arena.

Any parent with university-age going children is well aware that uni fees have now rocketed from a manageable amount just two or three years ago, to an impossible £9,000 per year—and that is just for the tutoring fees, never mind books, resources, living allowances, residence and so on.

Even those students “lucky” enough to get loans, start off their working lives with tens of thousands of pounds of debt—an impossible burden which—even more importantly—makes starting a family next to impossible.

The nuts and bolts of the process are as follows: England’s university budgets were cut by £449 million in 2010, with similar cuts being added each following year. This means that over £1.3 billion has been cut in the last three years, and there is no end yet in sight. By the end of 2014, the total uni education budget cut will be cut by nearly £4 billion.

In practical terms, this means that the universities have had at least 6,000 fewer places each academic year.

In addition, research funding has been frozen and the uni buildings budget cut by 15 percent.

At the same time, the Government has announced that taxpayers will hand over £50.8 billion in foreign aid to the Third World by 2014. This translates to 61 percent of the total “spending review” cuts announced by the Government.

According to a press release issued by the Department for International Development (DFID), the total foreign aid budget will reach the targeted 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013.

This would mean a yearly spend of £12.6 billion, the DFID said.

This increased spending, the DFID said, is “in line with the UK’s international commitments to help those living in extreme poverty in our world. Over the course of the Spending Review period, the Department for International Development will increase resource spending by 35 percent in real terms, and increase capital spending by 20 percent in real terms.”

This means that the foreign aid budget was £8.4 billion in 2010, £8.7 billion in 2011, £9.1 billion in 2012, and will be £12.0 billion in 2013, and £12.6 billion in 2014—totalling £50.8 billion by the end of 2014.

So there you have it: cut the education budget by £4 billion, but boost the foreign aid budget by £50 billion.

Who would dare call it treason?  I for one, and I am increasingly becoming convinced that the last honest man to pass through the halls of Westminster was indeed Guy Fawkes.