U.K.: Al Qaeda Plot Foiled
Sunday, August 21, 2005
LONDON — Scotland Yard believes it has thwarted an Al Qaeda gas attack aimed at ministers and members of parliament. The plot, hatched last year, is understood to have been discovered in coded e-mails on computers seized from terror suspects in Britain and Pakistan.
Police and MI5 then identified an Al Qaeda cell that had carried out extensive research and video-recorded reconnaissance missions in preparation for the attack.
The encrypted e-mails are said to have been decoded with the help of an Al Qaeda “supergrass.” By revealing the terrorists’ code he was also able to help MI5 and GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre at Cheltenham (search), to crack several more plots.
The discovery of the suspected Commons nerve gas plot was behind the decision to increase security around parliament this summer.
A senior officer said the scheme had led to the intervention of Eliza Manningham-Buller (search), head of MI5, to assess parliament’s security.
The operation to deter the sarin gas attack is referred to in an internal police document obtained by The Sunday Times.
It is a minute of a meeting of senior police officers held last month at Specialist Operations 17 (SO17), the unit responsible for protecting parliament, and reveals that the team were waiting to be briefed on the plot.
This weekend a senior officer disclosed that the thwarted plot mentioned in the document involved a gas or chemical “dirty bomb” attack against parliament. “The House of Commons was one of their targets as well as the Tube,” he said.
“They were planning to use chemicals, a dirty bomb and sarin gas. They looked at all sorts of ways of delivering it.”
More
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
VirtueOnline-News - As Eye See It - THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE - by Patrick Sookhdeo
VirtueOnline-News - As Eye See It - THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE - by Patrick Sookhdeo
by Patrick Sookhdeo
11 August 2005
On Friday 20th May 2005 a crowd of some 300 Muslims burned a wooden cross outside the American embassy in London. This was part of a protest against the rumoured desecration of a Qur'an by American soldiers in Guantanamo Bay, during which British and American flags were also burned. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this event was that it was not deemed to be newsworthy, receiving little attention in the national press.
The whole scenario is reminiscent of what happens in so many Muslim-majority countries: a rumour of an insult to Islam, a violent and blasphemous anti-Christian reaction, police watching idly, and a complete lack of public interest let alone outrage. It could have been Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia or Northern Nigeria. But it was the UK.
Europe is undergoing a rapid process of change as Muslims make their presence felt in politics, economics, law, education and the media. While there is a wide range of attitudes amongst Muslims in Europe, with many who are broadly content with the status quo and just want to live their lives peacefully, others are striving deliberately to drive forward the changes.
As a result of the efforts of the latter, Europe is gradually being transformed into a society in which Islam takes its place, not just as an equal alongside the many other faith communities, but often as the dominant player. This is not purely, or even primarily, a matter of numbers, but is more a matter of control of the structures of society. It is not happening by chance but is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders.
Though the effects are only now becoming noticeable, the planning was done decades ago. In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe. When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states. The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a "good Muslim" without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam. (M. Ali Kettani "The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions" in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105) Not all Muslims would support this action plan. The more secularized are happy to become integrated within the majority society. Even amongst those who agree on the ultimate goal of creating an Islamic state, there are differences about methodology i.e. whether this should be a slow and peaceful transition, or whether it should be hastened by means of political dominance or even - say some - by violence.
Despite the variety of opinion amongst Muslims, it is not hard to recognize the different stages of the Islamic Council of Europe's strategy being put into practice within today's Europe. Muslims do tend to live in tightly concentrated areas, and show little sign of integrating into wider society. Saudi funding is paying for the erection of large and beautiful mosques, staffed by imams brought over to Europe from the "home countries". Sweden's third largest city, Malmø, is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslims, and some of the Muslim residents of the city still cannot read or write Swedish though they have lived there for 20 years. Denmark has recently seen the Nordgårdsskolen in Aarhus become the first school in the country to have 100% Muslim pupils. Britain's Muslim population (variously estimated at between 1.6 and 3 million) is concentrated in three areas: north-west England, the midlands and London. In some of these areas Muslims are now targeting the remaining Christian presence, arsoning churches, physically attacking church leaders and their property; the aim seems to be to "cleanse" these areas of non-Muslims.
European Muslims are Islamizing many aspects of life that also affect non-Muslims. Spanish Muslims have expressed their desire to "regain" the mosque of Cordoba. This building was originally a church, then turned into a mosque, and then turned back into a place of Christian worship. Halal meat is now routinely served in many British prisons, schools and hospitals, sometimes to Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and the hijab [Islamic headscarf] is worn in British schools. Muslims in the London borough of Tower Hamlets have forced name-changes for districts and local amenities if the existing name sounds too Christian for their liking.
In the UK, where Islam is making its most rapid advance, Islamic law (shari'a) is already practised unofficially, with shari'a councils and shari'a courts giving judgments on Muslim family matters. In education numerous concessions are being made to British Muslims, Islam often being given more prominence and respect than other faiths at state schools. An increasing number of university posts are being funded from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries on condition that a certain line of thinking is promoted.
The ultimate goal of taking control of society, as depicted by the Islamic Council of Europe in 1980, is clearly in the minds of at least some Muslim leaders. A Dutch Imam has stated that Islamic law is superior to other forms of legislation so there is no need to obey other laws. Some Finnish imams preach on the Islamic duty to kill a Muslim who converts to another faith, adding that it is difficult to carry this out in Finland at present because Muslims do not yet "own the state". Furthermore, the freedoms of European society are being exploited by Islamic militants and their supporters to plan terrorist activities around the world. London - or "Londonistan" as it is becoming known - is one of the most important bases for Islamic terrorism worldwide. This has been illustrated by the July bombings in London itself.
by Patrick Sookhdeo
11 August 2005
On Friday 20th May 2005 a crowd of some 300 Muslims burned a wooden cross outside the American embassy in London. This was part of a protest against the rumoured desecration of a Qur'an by American soldiers in Guantanamo Bay, during which British and American flags were also burned. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this event was that it was not deemed to be newsworthy, receiving little attention in the national press.
The whole scenario is reminiscent of what happens in so many Muslim-majority countries: a rumour of an insult to Islam, a violent and blasphemous anti-Christian reaction, police watching idly, and a complete lack of public interest let alone outrage. It could have been Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia or Northern Nigeria. But it was the UK.
Europe is undergoing a rapid process of change as Muslims make their presence felt in politics, economics, law, education and the media. While there is a wide range of attitudes amongst Muslims in Europe, with many who are broadly content with the status quo and just want to live their lives peacefully, others are striving deliberately to drive forward the changes.
As a result of the efforts of the latter, Europe is gradually being transformed into a society in which Islam takes its place, not just as an equal alongside the many other faith communities, but often as the dominant player. This is not purely, or even primarily, a matter of numbers, but is more a matter of control of the structures of society. It is not happening by chance but is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders.
Though the effects are only now becoming noticeable, the planning was done decades ago. In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe. When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states. The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a "good Muslim" without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam. (M. Ali Kettani "The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions" in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105) Not all Muslims would support this action plan. The more secularized are happy to become integrated within the majority society. Even amongst those who agree on the ultimate goal of creating an Islamic state, there are differences about methodology i.e. whether this should be a slow and peaceful transition, or whether it should be hastened by means of political dominance or even - say some - by violence.
Despite the variety of opinion amongst Muslims, it is not hard to recognize the different stages of the Islamic Council of Europe's strategy being put into practice within today's Europe. Muslims do tend to live in tightly concentrated areas, and show little sign of integrating into wider society. Saudi funding is paying for the erection of large and beautiful mosques, staffed by imams brought over to Europe from the "home countries". Sweden's third largest city, Malmø, is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslims, and some of the Muslim residents of the city still cannot read or write Swedish though they have lived there for 20 years. Denmark has recently seen the Nordgårdsskolen in Aarhus become the first school in the country to have 100% Muslim pupils. Britain's Muslim population (variously estimated at between 1.6 and 3 million) is concentrated in three areas: north-west England, the midlands and London. In some of these areas Muslims are now targeting the remaining Christian presence, arsoning churches, physically attacking church leaders and their property; the aim seems to be to "cleanse" these areas of non-Muslims.
European Muslims are Islamizing many aspects of life that also affect non-Muslims. Spanish Muslims have expressed their desire to "regain" the mosque of Cordoba. This building was originally a church, then turned into a mosque, and then turned back into a place of Christian worship. Halal meat is now routinely served in many British prisons, schools and hospitals, sometimes to Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and the hijab [Islamic headscarf] is worn in British schools. Muslims in the London borough of Tower Hamlets have forced name-changes for districts and local amenities if the existing name sounds too Christian for their liking.
In the UK, where Islam is making its most rapid advance, Islamic law (shari'a) is already practised unofficially, with shari'a councils and shari'a courts giving judgments on Muslim family matters. In education numerous concessions are being made to British Muslims, Islam often being given more prominence and respect than other faiths at state schools. An increasing number of university posts are being funded from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries on condition that a certain line of thinking is promoted.
The ultimate goal of taking control of society, as depicted by the Islamic Council of Europe in 1980, is clearly in the minds of at least some Muslim leaders. A Dutch Imam has stated that Islamic law is superior to other forms of legislation so there is no need to obey other laws. Some Finnish imams preach on the Islamic duty to kill a Muslim who converts to another faith, adding that it is difficult to carry this out in Finland at present because Muslims do not yet "own the state". Furthermore, the freedoms of European society are being exploited by Islamic militants and their supporters to plan terrorist activities around the world. London - or "Londonistan" as it is becoming known - is one of the most important bases for Islamic terrorism worldwide. This has been illustrated by the July bombings in London itself.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
SPIEGEL's Daily Take: Schroder Plays Iran Card in German Election
Bash the US all you want Herr Schroder, but on the morning of the day after the election, the German economy is still going to SUCK! As the US economy continues to grow at 3.6% and the German economy continues to grow at .01%, US influence grows and German influence whithers.
We all want to be "peace-loving" people Gerhard, but until you can say the same about the Mullahs in Iran, you're spitting into the wind. Europe is just as far from the Iranian's missiles as Israel is and stands at least as great a chance of being the target. Israel may be filled with Jews who they hate rabidly, but Europe is filled with infidels who they hate only a little less rabidly.
We've already seen that the Iranians were simply using the negotiations with the EU3, including Germany as a way to buy time to build their uranium processing plants. If Europe is going back to the bargaining table after being laughed at by the Iranians it can only mean one thing. EUROPE DOES'NT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING BUT NEGOTIATE.
Offering a non-agression pact with these madmen was madness in itself. It showed the Iranians just how weak Europe's position is. Europe has allowed their military forces to deterioriate to such an extent that they CAN'T do anything but talk. They can of course refer it to the UN Security Council, but the Iranians would just laugh at that. They've seen that coming and have stockpiled what they need to keep their nuclear program on track. Besides of course, Russia and China would veto any moves against their customer and oil supplier.
Now, the US needs to pull all its military forces from Europe and withdraw from NATO. I for one am tired of protecting EUnuchs. We spend a fortune, we prop up their economies with billions earned from our bases, we protect them and all we get for the trouble is kicked in the teeth every election cycle.
Get us out of all of these foreign entanglements, Mr. President!
SPIEGEL's Daily Take: Schroder Plays Iran Card in German Election
AP
August 15, 2005
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has publicly warned the US against military action in Iran. Opposition leaders have accused Schröder of exploiting a sensitive international issue to curry votes with peace-loving Germans. Echoes of 2002?
The chancellor likes to criticize US foreign policy. First it was Iraq -- Now it's Iran.
In an election hitherto dominated by rows over economic policy, German foreign policy has suddenly taken center-stage. Prior to the last German election, Gerhard Schröder went on the offensive against US military intervention in Iraq, and now -- like the leopard who cannot change his spots -- Schröder has pulled the same trick again, warning the US against an invasion of Iran.
At a meeting of Social-Democrat supporters in Hannover on August 13, Schröder proclaimed -- to peals of applause -- "Let's leave the military option aside; we have already seen that it doesn't amount to anything." In an interview with the tabloid Bild am Sonntag, the chancellor then repeated his warnings. "I consider the military option to be extremely dangerous. So I can definitely rule that a government under my leadership would not take part."
This last remark, directly linking his re-election to commitment against military action in Iran, particularly riled opposition parties, who have since resoundingly attacked Schröder for shameless and irresponsible electioneering.
Wolfgang Schäuble, the foreign-policy chief of conservative opposition party CDU, told Die Welt today that, "Schröder is acting completely irresponsibly for electoral purposes. He's acting as thought the problem were in Washington, rather than in Tehran even though he knows that isn't the case." "The chancellor is creating the fatal impression in Tehran that the international community is not resolute," he added.
The liberal foreign-policy expert Werner Hoyer of the Free Democratic Party echoed Schäuble's remarks in a interview with der Tagesspiegel. "The subject is too serious for it to be introduced into the German election campaign, in any form." Hoyer then pointedly referred to the last election campaign: "We have already experienced the situation, when frivolous comments -- that time from Vice President Dick Cheney -- can affect the outcome of a German election," he said.
Hoyzer was referring to a speech which US Vice President Dick Cheney made on August 26, 2002 to a meeting of the "Veterans of Foreign Wars". In it, he affirmed US preparedness for unilateral intervention in Iraq. Schröder immediately called a press conference to brand such a policy a "mistake", which led to a rapid upswing in Schröder's election fortunes. The chancellor's opposition to military intervention in Iraq was largely credited for securing his "miracle" re-election, after his Social Democrat Party looked doomed to defeat.
This time round, the chancellor seized on comments US President George W. Bush made to Israeli TV from his ranch at Crawford, Texas on August 12. When asked about the possible use of force against Iran -- which last week restarted its nuclear enrichment program -- the President answered, "All options are on the table." "The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he warned ominously.
What Schröder Is Saying about Iran
The following quotations have been excerpted from an interview with German Prime Minister Gerhard Schröder which is to be published in Thursday's issue of Super Illu, a general interest magazine targeted at readers in eastern Germany. The fact that Schröder chose an eastern German publication for his comments is a strategic move that comes like a hard punch in the gut for a handful of reasons. First, it plays to eastern German pacifism which could translate into votes for Schröder's Social Democrats. Second, it shows Schröder taking a firm stance on foreign policy at a time when his Christian Democratic opponents have made no firm stance on the issue. And finally, it shows Schröder illustrating firm leadership in the east at a time when his Christian Democratic detractors are stumbling and alienating potential voters in that part of Germany.
SUPER ILLU: Regarding foreign policy. There are concerns that the nuclear dispute with Tehran could escalate, that Iran could become the next Iraq. Should we be concerned?
SCHRÖDER: The situation is serious. I consider a military option to be extremely dangerous. For that reason I can, with certainty, rule out that a German government under my leadership would participate. I continue to believe that we can arrive at our goals in negotiations with persistence and patience.
SUPER ILLU: Will the USA play along?
SPIEGEL: My impression is that people in the USA must also realize that you may be able to win a war alone, but you cannot ensure peace afterwards alone. This is evident in Afghanistan, but even more so in Iraq.
Schröder is no doubt hoping to drive opposition parties into a tight spot by forcing them to declare their political standpoint on military action in Iran. In 2002, he accused conservatives of playing poodle to Washington, and this proved a hit with the electorate. Now, conservatives have responded by accusing the chancellor of endangering an already fragile trans-Atlantic relationship.
It is at yet unclear whether voters will be persuaded by Schröder's anti-American hyperbole, for the chancellor must do more than just overturn a far greater conservative political lead in the polls this time. The public is also far less concerned by the possibility of a military invasion of Iran in the first place.
Social Democrat Party Leader Franz Münterfering went on the radio Monday to defend his colleague and to reject claims of Machiavellian political opportunism. "The chancellor didn't direct the statements at anyone, rather he has generally made it clear that we want to be a peace-loving power," he said.
More
We all want to be "peace-loving" people Gerhard, but until you can say the same about the Mullahs in Iran, you're spitting into the wind. Europe is just as far from the Iranian's missiles as Israel is and stands at least as great a chance of being the target. Israel may be filled with Jews who they hate rabidly, but Europe is filled with infidels who they hate only a little less rabidly.
We've already seen that the Iranians were simply using the negotiations with the EU3, including Germany as a way to buy time to build their uranium processing plants. If Europe is going back to the bargaining table after being laughed at by the Iranians it can only mean one thing. EUROPE DOES'NT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING BUT NEGOTIATE.
Offering a non-agression pact with these madmen was madness in itself. It showed the Iranians just how weak Europe's position is. Europe has allowed their military forces to deterioriate to such an extent that they CAN'T do anything but talk. They can of course refer it to the UN Security Council, but the Iranians would just laugh at that. They've seen that coming and have stockpiled what they need to keep their nuclear program on track. Besides of course, Russia and China would veto any moves against their customer and oil supplier.
Now, the US needs to pull all its military forces from Europe and withdraw from NATO. I for one am tired of protecting EUnuchs. We spend a fortune, we prop up their economies with billions earned from our bases, we protect them and all we get for the trouble is kicked in the teeth every election cycle.
Get us out of all of these foreign entanglements, Mr. President!
SPIEGEL's Daily Take: Schroder Plays Iran Card in German Election
AP
August 15, 2005
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has publicly warned the US against military action in Iran. Opposition leaders have accused Schröder of exploiting a sensitive international issue to curry votes with peace-loving Germans. Echoes of 2002?
The chancellor likes to criticize US foreign policy. First it was Iraq -- Now it's Iran.
In an election hitherto dominated by rows over economic policy, German foreign policy has suddenly taken center-stage. Prior to the last German election, Gerhard Schröder went on the offensive against US military intervention in Iraq, and now -- like the leopard who cannot change his spots -- Schröder has pulled the same trick again, warning the US against an invasion of Iran.
At a meeting of Social-Democrat supporters in Hannover on August 13, Schröder proclaimed -- to peals of applause -- "Let's leave the military option aside; we have already seen that it doesn't amount to anything." In an interview with the tabloid Bild am Sonntag, the chancellor then repeated his warnings. "I consider the military option to be extremely dangerous. So I can definitely rule that a government under my leadership would not take part."
This last remark, directly linking his re-election to commitment against military action in Iran, particularly riled opposition parties, who have since resoundingly attacked Schröder for shameless and irresponsible electioneering.
Wolfgang Schäuble, the foreign-policy chief of conservative opposition party CDU, told Die Welt today that, "Schröder is acting completely irresponsibly for electoral purposes. He's acting as thought the problem were in Washington, rather than in Tehran even though he knows that isn't the case." "The chancellor is creating the fatal impression in Tehran that the international community is not resolute," he added.
The liberal foreign-policy expert Werner Hoyer of the Free Democratic Party echoed Schäuble's remarks in a interview with der Tagesspiegel. "The subject is too serious for it to be introduced into the German election campaign, in any form." Hoyer then pointedly referred to the last election campaign: "We have already experienced the situation, when frivolous comments -- that time from Vice President Dick Cheney -- can affect the outcome of a German election," he said.
Hoyzer was referring to a speech which US Vice President Dick Cheney made on August 26, 2002 to a meeting of the "Veterans of Foreign Wars". In it, he affirmed US preparedness for unilateral intervention in Iraq. Schröder immediately called a press conference to brand such a policy a "mistake", which led to a rapid upswing in Schröder's election fortunes. The chancellor's opposition to military intervention in Iraq was largely credited for securing his "miracle" re-election, after his Social Democrat Party looked doomed to defeat.
This time round, the chancellor seized on comments US President George W. Bush made to Israeli TV from his ranch at Crawford, Texas on August 12. When asked about the possible use of force against Iran -- which last week restarted its nuclear enrichment program -- the President answered, "All options are on the table." "The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he warned ominously.
What Schröder Is Saying about Iran
The following quotations have been excerpted from an interview with German Prime Minister Gerhard Schröder which is to be published in Thursday's issue of Super Illu, a general interest magazine targeted at readers in eastern Germany. The fact that Schröder chose an eastern German publication for his comments is a strategic move that comes like a hard punch in the gut for a handful of reasons. First, it plays to eastern German pacifism which could translate into votes for Schröder's Social Democrats. Second, it shows Schröder taking a firm stance on foreign policy at a time when his Christian Democratic opponents have made no firm stance on the issue. And finally, it shows Schröder illustrating firm leadership in the east at a time when his Christian Democratic detractors are stumbling and alienating potential voters in that part of Germany.
SUPER ILLU: Regarding foreign policy. There are concerns that the nuclear dispute with Tehran could escalate, that Iran could become the next Iraq. Should we be concerned?
SCHRÖDER: The situation is serious. I consider a military option to be extremely dangerous. For that reason I can, with certainty, rule out that a German government under my leadership would participate. I continue to believe that we can arrive at our goals in negotiations with persistence and patience.
SUPER ILLU: Will the USA play along?
SPIEGEL: My impression is that people in the USA must also realize that you may be able to win a war alone, but you cannot ensure peace afterwards alone. This is evident in Afghanistan, but even more so in Iraq.
Schröder is no doubt hoping to drive opposition parties into a tight spot by forcing them to declare their political standpoint on military action in Iran. In 2002, he accused conservatives of playing poodle to Washington, and this proved a hit with the electorate. Now, conservatives have responded by accusing the chancellor of endangering an already fragile trans-Atlantic relationship.
It is at yet unclear whether voters will be persuaded by Schröder's anti-American hyperbole, for the chancellor must do more than just overturn a far greater conservative political lead in the polls this time. The public is also far less concerned by the possibility of a military invasion of Iran in the first place.
Social Democrat Party Leader Franz Münterfering went on the radio Monday to defend his colleague and to reject claims of Machiavellian political opportunism. "The chancellor didn't direct the statements at anyone, rather he has generally made it clear that we want to be a peace-loving power," he said.
More
London Bomb Suspects Stood Out as Radicals - Los Angeles Times
One has to wonder if the Western Liberal tradition and Captialism doesn't work too well in some ways.
The first set of London bombers were 3 out of 4 from if not wealthy, then at least middle class families.
The second set were just the opposite. Largely criminals and grifters, several of them had 5-6 different identities, with which they were able to bilk the British social services system for large amounts of money. They received welfare checks, rent subsidies, child support subsidies, free medical care in the NHS and heavens only knows what else.
These people were PAID to kill native British citizens. They received gobs of government largesse and what did they have to do for a living? Absolutely nothing, above and beyond plan how they were going to murder innocent civilians, having no gainful employment.
They had plenty of cash available to purchase and peddle Islamic hate literature. Having no steady jobs, they were able to spend plenty of time at the Finsbury Park mosque where so many other Islamist murderers received instruction, including Richard Reid the shoe bomber and Zacharias Moussaui, the 20th hijacker. British authorities knew what was going on in that mosque. One can only see so many banners hung out at fundamentalist gatherings with such wonderful sentiments as "Sharia is the future of Britain", and not have SOME idea of what was transpiring inside.
Abu Hamza al-Masri, the one time leader of the Finsbury Park mosque is cooling his heels in a British jail on 14 anti-terrorism charges for soliciting murder etc. However, his Sharia law group and its website at www.shareea.org are still in operation, so in effect even though he's been arrested, he hasn't been silenced and continues to spew his hate worldwide. While he's still in prison, his wife is drawing British welfare checks and get this: he even has a special nurse, at British taxpayer expense, to wipe his butt, since he has two hooks for hands which he lost in Afghanistan fighting the Russians.
What's wrong with this picture?
So lets get this straight:
The 5 people who attempted the second group of murders in London, shouldn't have been in the country. They got in by lying about being Somali immigrants which get special immigration treatment in Britain (for what God forsaken reason is beyond me).
At least one of them improperly received British citizenship, even though he had a record for crimes committed in Britain.
They had 5-6 different id's which they used to bilk the British social services system.
They received welfare checks.
They received rent subsidies.
They made absolutely zero attempts to hide their islamist feelings.
And yet they got away with it.
Yes, the Western Liberal system is broken.
London Bomb Suspects Stood Out as Radicals
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Sebastian Rotella, Times Staff Writers
LONDON — They first became known to the world as blurry images from subway cameras. But the men accused of attempting to bomb London's transit system July 21 had clearly defined their militancy in the months leading up to the failed attacks.
The suspects had sharpened their radicalism in the streets, mosques and housing projects of rough ethnic neighborhoods, investigators, witnesses and friends say. They were brazen voices in an unsuspecting city, marginalized East Africans who lived by their wits, dabbling in street crime and reportedly manipulating the immigration and welfare systems. During workouts at a West London gym, they channeled their private rage into public diatribes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Brothers Ramzi and Wharbi Mohammed sold Islamic literature and recited religious verses on a gritty North Kensington street of antiques stores and cafes, skirmishing with a shop owner who chased them away. Hamdi Issac, now jailed in Rome, belonged to a gang of extremists who waged a belligerent campaign to take over a mosque in South London. Roommates Muktar Said Ibrahim and Yasin Hassan Omar were loud militants, praising Osama bin Laden to neighbors at the rundown building where Ibrahim is accused of preparing five backpack bombs.
Their agitation allegedly gave way to action after July 7, when four young British Muslims, three from the northern city of Leeds, ignited bombs on three subway cars and a bus, killing themselves and 52 others. Issac claims that his group struck two weeks later in an improvised, independent tribute to the dead bombers. Despite similar methods and targets, British authorities say they have found no link between the two plots.
In any case, those who had run-ins with the July 21 suspects remember aggressive rhetoric rooted in anger against Britain's support of U.S. policy in Iraq. During interrogations in Italy, Issac has returned obsessively to the war in Iraq, a senior Italian anti-terrorism official said.
"He's calm — he seems scared," said the Italian official, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons. "He's open, gentle, polite; he doesn't get mad even when you provoke him. But when you ask him why he did it, he starts with the speech about Iraq: They are killing women and children, no one's doing anything about it, on and on. That's when you can see there has been a brainwashing."
The men's outspokenness reflects the unpredictability of potential jihadis. The 19 hijackers involved in Sept. 11, for example, masked their deadly intentions by trying to blend into Western society. Militants in Europe in other cases have been less discreet: Before setting off to fight and die with militants in Iraq last year, a group of young Parisian jihadis first caught the attention of police with aggressive behavior at street protests against banning Islamic head scarves in schools.
The suspects in the attempted London bombings were also preoccupied with other things: They dedicated themselves to ripping off the state, authorities say. They resided in public housing, collected unemployment and welfare benefits and used multiple identities to bilk the government for large sums, investigators say.
"These were people who came as refugees, were made welcome and treated properly," said a British official who asked to remain anonymous. "And they decided to abuse the social security system to a huge degree."
Months before the failed attacks, the Mohammed brothers strolled amid the shopkeepers and cafe owners on Golborne Road in North Kensington, a stretch of dusty awnings, shops and Moroccan grills where incense whirls with scents of mint tea and fish on ice. Golborne is a testament to the neighborhood's shifting ethnic dynamic: The Portuguese who first migrated here have given way to Moroccans and East Africans and, according to residents, rising crime.
Ramzi and Wharbi set up a tarp-covered stall on the corner of Golborne and Wornington roads, half a block from the clattering cups at Lisboa Patisserie, where the men often relaxed over coffee.
"They were handing out Islamic literature, and I had a kind of altercation with them," said a neighborhood antiques dealer, who feared retribution and gave his name only as Jerome. "There were four or five of them. They spoke in Arabic and English. I thought they were being unbearable and intense and I asked them to leave. They had had the stall for months and didn't have a license."
The brothers moved down the street and eventually disappeared. Ramzi, 23, lived about two miles away in Dalgarno Gardens, a maze of brick buildings that shadow drug dealers and working-class families.
"Ramzi was a cool guy," said Jamal Kamiri, sitting the other day on a bench behind Ramzi's apartment. "When I was younger, he used to play football with us. He used to carry a 9-millimeter pistol, but guns are common here and he wasn't a troublemaker. He carried it for protection.
"Ramzi disappeared for about nine weeks in 2003. I don't know where he went. When he came back, he was more religious. He started carrying the Koran and dressed in more traditional clothing like those long Pakistani shirts."
The Mohammed brothers are now in jail. Wharbi is charged as an accomplice.
On July 21, the short, sturdily built Ramzi was photographed wearing a New York sweatshirt while sprinting away from the scene of the attempted bombing at the Oval subway station in South London, police say.
Issac, the suspect being held in Rome, lived in a ground-floor two-bedroom apartment near that station.
Neighbors remember Issac, 27, as a muscular man with a long beard who wore Islamic robes even while riding his mountain bike in the predominantly black Stockwell area. He regularly made the long trek to the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London, a notorious crossroads for multiethnic terrorist networks, according to Issac's confession in Rome.
When London police cracked down on the mosque in 2003, Issac set his sights on his own neighborhood. He joined a group of about 20 militants who had left Finsbury Park and tried to take over a mosque in Stockwell, said Toaha Qureshi, a mosque trustee.
The first set of London bombers were 3 out of 4 from if not wealthy, then at least middle class families.
The second set were just the opposite. Largely criminals and grifters, several of them had 5-6 different identities, with which they were able to bilk the British social services system for large amounts of money. They received welfare checks, rent subsidies, child support subsidies, free medical care in the NHS and heavens only knows what else.
These people were PAID to kill native British citizens. They received gobs of government largesse and what did they have to do for a living? Absolutely nothing, above and beyond plan how they were going to murder innocent civilians, having no gainful employment.
They had plenty of cash available to purchase and peddle Islamic hate literature. Having no steady jobs, they were able to spend plenty of time at the Finsbury Park mosque where so many other Islamist murderers received instruction, including Richard Reid the shoe bomber and Zacharias Moussaui, the 20th hijacker. British authorities knew what was going on in that mosque. One can only see so many banners hung out at fundamentalist gatherings with such wonderful sentiments as "Sharia is the future of Britain", and not have SOME idea of what was transpiring inside.
Abu Hamza al-Masri, the one time leader of the Finsbury Park mosque is cooling his heels in a British jail on 14 anti-terrorism charges for soliciting murder etc. However, his Sharia law group and its website at www.shareea.org are still in operation, so in effect even though he's been arrested, he hasn't been silenced and continues to spew his hate worldwide. While he's still in prison, his wife is drawing British welfare checks and get this: he even has a special nurse, at British taxpayer expense, to wipe his butt, since he has two hooks for hands which he lost in Afghanistan fighting the Russians.
What's wrong with this picture?
So lets get this straight:
The 5 people who attempted the second group of murders in London, shouldn't have been in the country. They got in by lying about being Somali immigrants which get special immigration treatment in Britain (for what God forsaken reason is beyond me).
At least one of them improperly received British citizenship, even though he had a record for crimes committed in Britain.
They had 5-6 different id's which they used to bilk the British social services system.
They received welfare checks.
They received rent subsidies.
They made absolutely zero attempts to hide their islamist feelings.
And yet they got away with it.
Yes, the Western Liberal system is broken.
London Bomb Suspects Stood Out as Radicals
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Sebastian Rotella, Times Staff Writers
LONDON — They first became known to the world as blurry images from subway cameras. But the men accused of attempting to bomb London's transit system July 21 had clearly defined their militancy in the months leading up to the failed attacks.
The suspects had sharpened their radicalism in the streets, mosques and housing projects of rough ethnic neighborhoods, investigators, witnesses and friends say. They were brazen voices in an unsuspecting city, marginalized East Africans who lived by their wits, dabbling in street crime and reportedly manipulating the immigration and welfare systems. During workouts at a West London gym, they channeled their private rage into public diatribes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Brothers Ramzi and Wharbi Mohammed sold Islamic literature and recited religious verses on a gritty North Kensington street of antiques stores and cafes, skirmishing with a shop owner who chased them away. Hamdi Issac, now jailed in Rome, belonged to a gang of extremists who waged a belligerent campaign to take over a mosque in South London. Roommates Muktar Said Ibrahim and Yasin Hassan Omar were loud militants, praising Osama bin Laden to neighbors at the rundown building where Ibrahim is accused of preparing five backpack bombs.
Their agitation allegedly gave way to action after July 7, when four young British Muslims, three from the northern city of Leeds, ignited bombs on three subway cars and a bus, killing themselves and 52 others. Issac claims that his group struck two weeks later in an improvised, independent tribute to the dead bombers. Despite similar methods and targets, British authorities say they have found no link between the two plots.
In any case, those who had run-ins with the July 21 suspects remember aggressive rhetoric rooted in anger against Britain's support of U.S. policy in Iraq. During interrogations in Italy, Issac has returned obsessively to the war in Iraq, a senior Italian anti-terrorism official said.
"He's calm — he seems scared," said the Italian official, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons. "He's open, gentle, polite; he doesn't get mad even when you provoke him. But when you ask him why he did it, he starts with the speech about Iraq: They are killing women and children, no one's doing anything about it, on and on. That's when you can see there has been a brainwashing."
The men's outspokenness reflects the unpredictability of potential jihadis. The 19 hijackers involved in Sept. 11, for example, masked their deadly intentions by trying to blend into Western society. Militants in Europe in other cases have been less discreet: Before setting off to fight and die with militants in Iraq last year, a group of young Parisian jihadis first caught the attention of police with aggressive behavior at street protests against banning Islamic head scarves in schools.
The suspects in the attempted London bombings were also preoccupied with other things: They dedicated themselves to ripping off the state, authorities say. They resided in public housing, collected unemployment and welfare benefits and used multiple identities to bilk the government for large sums, investigators say.
"These were people who came as refugees, were made welcome and treated properly," said a British official who asked to remain anonymous. "And they decided to abuse the social security system to a huge degree."
Months before the failed attacks, the Mohammed brothers strolled amid the shopkeepers and cafe owners on Golborne Road in North Kensington, a stretch of dusty awnings, shops and Moroccan grills where incense whirls with scents of mint tea and fish on ice. Golborne is a testament to the neighborhood's shifting ethnic dynamic: The Portuguese who first migrated here have given way to Moroccans and East Africans and, according to residents, rising crime.
Ramzi and Wharbi set up a tarp-covered stall on the corner of Golborne and Wornington roads, half a block from the clattering cups at Lisboa Patisserie, where the men often relaxed over coffee.
"They were handing out Islamic literature, and I had a kind of altercation with them," said a neighborhood antiques dealer, who feared retribution and gave his name only as Jerome. "There were four or five of them. They spoke in Arabic and English. I thought they were being unbearable and intense and I asked them to leave. They had had the stall for months and didn't have a license."
The brothers moved down the street and eventually disappeared. Ramzi, 23, lived about two miles away in Dalgarno Gardens, a maze of brick buildings that shadow drug dealers and working-class families.
"Ramzi was a cool guy," said Jamal Kamiri, sitting the other day on a bench behind Ramzi's apartment. "When I was younger, he used to play football with us. He used to carry a 9-millimeter pistol, but guns are common here and he wasn't a troublemaker. He carried it for protection.
"Ramzi disappeared for about nine weeks in 2003. I don't know where he went. When he came back, he was more religious. He started carrying the Koran and dressed in more traditional clothing like those long Pakistani shirts."
The Mohammed brothers are now in jail. Wharbi is charged as an accomplice.
On July 21, the short, sturdily built Ramzi was photographed wearing a New York sweatshirt while sprinting away from the scene of the attempted bombing at the Oval subway station in South London, police say.
Issac, the suspect being held in Rome, lived in a ground-floor two-bedroom apartment near that station.
Neighbors remember Issac, 27, as a muscular man with a long beard who wore Islamic robes even while riding his mountain bike in the predominantly black Stockwell area. He regularly made the long trek to the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London, a notorious crossroads for multiethnic terrorist networks, according to Issac's confession in Rome.
When London police cracked down on the mosque in 2003, Issac set his sights on his own neighborhood. He joined a group of about 20 militants who had left Finsbury Park and tried to take over a mosque in Stockwell, said Toaha Qureshi, a mosque trustee.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Telegraph - By breaking the seals at Isfahan, the Iranian president has deliberately set up a showdown with the West
Telegraph | News | By breaking the seals at Isfahan, the Iranian president has deliberately set up a showdown with t
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/08/2005)
They smuggle arms to kill our troops, they encourage Shi'ite Muslim clerics in Iraq to set up their own independent state, and now they want to build an atom bomb.
More than 25 years after the ayatollahs first seized power in Teheran, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to pose a grave threat to Western security.
Just as the West's impotence was exposed when Iran's Revolutionary Guards seized control of the American Embassy in Teheran in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, so Western diplomats have been deeply embarrassed to discover that they are rapidly running out of options to prevent Iran from pushing ahead with its plans to build its own nuclear weapons arsenal.
Certainly that is the calculation being made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Iranian president, after he authorised his nuclear scientists last week to unseal a key uranium conversion plant at Isfahan that had been mothballed by United Nations weapons inspectors at the end of last year over fears that it was being used as part of a bomb-making programme.
Uranium conversion is a key process in producing weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb. By ordering work to resume at Isfahan, Mr Ahmadinejad has deliberately set the scene for a showdown with the West over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The Iranians, of course, have always insisted that their "national nuclear industry", as they refer to it, is for purely peaceful purposes. This is despite the fact that, with known oil reserves in excess of 90 billion barrels, the country has more than enough energy reserves to last it until well into the next century.
Suspicions have been steadily growing about Iran's true intentions since the summer of 2002 when the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) revealed the existence of a top-secret underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Teheran is obliged to disclose all aspects of its nuclear programme to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Even though the Natanz complex covers 250,000 acres and employs 1,000 personnel, the Iranians somehow managed not to inform the IAEA about it. Only when the NCRI provided evidence did the Iranians own up to its existence.
When UN nuclear experts were eventually allowed to inspect the site, they were amazed to find a massive underground complex, including two large halls designed to carry out uranium enrichment sunk 25ft deep with an 8ft thick concrete shell to protect them from air strikes. Once inside the complex, officials found 1,000 gas centrifuges, used for enriching uranium, and components for the manufacture of up to another 50,000 centrifuges.
None of this had been disclosed to the UN inspectors. But the most damning discoveries were the traces of enriched uranium found in soil samples taken from the site. Enriched uranium is a key component of a nuclear bomb, and when questioned on its provenance Iranian officials came up with the somewhat lame excuse that the particles has been "inadvertently" imported into the country in equipment purchased from abroad.
That country is most likely to have been Pakistan, which managed to develop and test its own nuclear weapons arsenal without the outside world knowing about it until it was too late.
British intelligence suspects that A Q Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold key nuclear technology to Iran to fund his own research programme.
In return, the Iranians sold technology from their Shahab 3 ballistic missile to Islamabad, which might explain Pakistan's successful launch of its own cruise missile - the Hatf VII Batr - at the end of last week.
Nor was the Natanz complex the Iranians' only embarrassing omission. Questions were also asked about the development of a secret heavy water plant at Arak. If the sole purpose of Iran's nuclear research were to develop an alternative fuel supply, it would have no use for a facility to make heavy water, another key component in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Iran's controversial Busheyr nuclear power complex, which is nearing completion on the Gulf coast, is designed to run a light water nuclear reactor.
Faced with what, by any test, was pretty damning proof of Iran's duplicity with regard to its nuclear programme, the so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - have spent the past two years in a wearisome game of diplomatic cat-and-mouse, trying to cajole Teheran into giving up the more sinister elements in its nuclear programme.
In return they have indicated that they would allow the Iranians to continue developing an indigenous nuclear power industry.
More
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/08/2005)
They smuggle arms to kill our troops, they encourage Shi'ite Muslim clerics in Iraq to set up their own independent state, and now they want to build an atom bomb.
More than 25 years after the ayatollahs first seized power in Teheran, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to pose a grave threat to Western security.
Just as the West's impotence was exposed when Iran's Revolutionary Guards seized control of the American Embassy in Teheran in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, so Western diplomats have been deeply embarrassed to discover that they are rapidly running out of options to prevent Iran from pushing ahead with its plans to build its own nuclear weapons arsenal.
Certainly that is the calculation being made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Iranian president, after he authorised his nuclear scientists last week to unseal a key uranium conversion plant at Isfahan that had been mothballed by United Nations weapons inspectors at the end of last year over fears that it was being used as part of a bomb-making programme.
Uranium conversion is a key process in producing weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb. By ordering work to resume at Isfahan, Mr Ahmadinejad has deliberately set the scene for a showdown with the West over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The Iranians, of course, have always insisted that their "national nuclear industry", as they refer to it, is for purely peaceful purposes. This is despite the fact that, with known oil reserves in excess of 90 billion barrels, the country has more than enough energy reserves to last it until well into the next century.
Suspicions have been steadily growing about Iran's true intentions since the summer of 2002 when the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) revealed the existence of a top-secret underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Teheran is obliged to disclose all aspects of its nuclear programme to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Even though the Natanz complex covers 250,000 acres and employs 1,000 personnel, the Iranians somehow managed not to inform the IAEA about it. Only when the NCRI provided evidence did the Iranians own up to its existence.
When UN nuclear experts were eventually allowed to inspect the site, they were amazed to find a massive underground complex, including two large halls designed to carry out uranium enrichment sunk 25ft deep with an 8ft thick concrete shell to protect them from air strikes. Once inside the complex, officials found 1,000 gas centrifuges, used for enriching uranium, and components for the manufacture of up to another 50,000 centrifuges.
None of this had been disclosed to the UN inspectors. But the most damning discoveries were the traces of enriched uranium found in soil samples taken from the site. Enriched uranium is a key component of a nuclear bomb, and when questioned on its provenance Iranian officials came up with the somewhat lame excuse that the particles has been "inadvertently" imported into the country in equipment purchased from abroad.
That country is most likely to have been Pakistan, which managed to develop and test its own nuclear weapons arsenal without the outside world knowing about it until it was too late.
British intelligence suspects that A Q Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold key nuclear technology to Iran to fund his own research programme.
In return, the Iranians sold technology from their Shahab 3 ballistic missile to Islamabad, which might explain Pakistan's successful launch of its own cruise missile - the Hatf VII Batr - at the end of last week.
Nor was the Natanz complex the Iranians' only embarrassing omission. Questions were also asked about the development of a secret heavy water plant at Arak. If the sole purpose of Iran's nuclear research were to develop an alternative fuel supply, it would have no use for a facility to make heavy water, another key component in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Iran's controversial Busheyr nuclear power complex, which is nearing completion on the Gulf coast, is designed to run a light water nuclear reactor.
Faced with what, by any test, was pretty damning proof of Iran's duplicity with regard to its nuclear programme, the so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - have spent the past two years in a wearisome game of diplomatic cat-and-mouse, trying to cajole Teheran into giving up the more sinister elements in its nuclear programme.
In return they have indicated that they would allow the Iranians to continue developing an indigenous nuclear power industry.
More
Britain keeps distance from talk of strike on Iran - Sunday Times - Times Online
I have to wonder exactly where the EU3 negotiators learned the art of negotiation. What kind of negotiators leave the sticks at home and only bring carrots along?
Well, it's hardly surprising I suppose. With the trashing of the European militaries in order to feed their socialist states, they have very little sticks. In fact, their main stick seems to be, to sic the US on the bad guys if negotiations break down.
Both Britain and Germany have resolutely stated that they will have nothing to do with any attack on Iran and have subsequently sent new offers to the Iranian nuclear team to renew discussions. After offering Iran a non-agression pact, Europe has left itself few options outside of bigger and bigger bribes and appeasements.
Of course if the EU were to raise their hands to the Iranians, the billions of Euros worth of business they do with Iran on a yearly basis would probably dry up immediately. At the moment, the Eurozone economies would take a serious hit and probably end up in recession should these "business" dealings disappear.
Rolling out the red carpet for Mugabe, Khomeni, Arafat and now the Mad Mullahs of Iran, the EU seem to have found their soulmates and are not only are militarily unable to mount an attack on Iran, they're philosophically unable to as well.
I really don't understand why the US is still a member of NATO. If they didn't have the US military to use as a crutch, Europe might have to develop their own military. The US pulling out of NATO and pulling its troops from Western Europe where they've been posted for almost 60 years would leave Europe all but defenseless and put them in a position of sink or swim.
Britain keeps distance from talk of strike on Iran - Sunday Times - Times Online
August 14, 2005
Andrew Porter and Tom Walker
THE foreign secretary Jack Straw sought to distance Britain yesterday from comments by President George W Bush that he would not rule out a military strike against Iran.
It came as diplomats gave warning that British attempts to solve the crisis prompted by Tehran’s resumption of its nuclear programme last week were doomed to failure.
Bush raised the temperature by giving an interview to Israeli television from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Asked if he would consider force, he replied: “All options are on the table.” He added: “The use of force is the last option for any president and you know we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”
The Foreign Office reacted swiftly. “Our position is clear and has been made very, very clear by the foreign secretary,” a spokesman said. “We do not think there are any circumstances where military action would be justified against Iran. It does not form part of British foreign policy.”
So soon after the invasion of Iraq, which has led to so much political turmoil for Tony Blair’s administration, Straw is anxious not to be seen trying to talk up any future forays. But some rightwingers in Washington have criticised Straw’s position, saying that every time the foreign secretary rules out any remote chance of military action the Iranians know there is no need to compromise.
Bush’s veiled remarks came as Foreign Office negotiators launched a new round of shuttle diplomacy to try to persuade Tehran to reverse last week’s decision to resume its enriching of uranium — seen by Washington and the European Union as a smokescreen for a secret nuclear weapons programme.
A spokesman said Britain’s negotiators had “worked their socks off” to convince a meeting in Vienna of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to call on Iran to freeze activity at its Isfahan and Natanz plants.
Britain has made it clear that if Iran has not backed down by September 3, when Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA’s secretary-general, is to report on the country’s nuclear programme, it will push for Tehran to be taken to the United Nations security council. Officials in Vienna warned, however, that any attempt to impose sanctions on Iran would be likely to be vetoed by Russia and China.
“Iran has all the cards,” said one official close to the talks. “It’s going to be embarrassing for the Brits.”
Russia has a civilian nuclear contract with Iran worth £500m while China is increasingly reliant on Iranian oil and gas. Last October Sinopec, the Chinese state oil company, signed a £39 billion deal giving it a 51% stake in Yadavaran, Iran’s largest onshore oilfield.
Well, it's hardly surprising I suppose. With the trashing of the European militaries in order to feed their socialist states, they have very little sticks. In fact, their main stick seems to be, to sic the US on the bad guys if negotiations break down.
Both Britain and Germany have resolutely stated that they will have nothing to do with any attack on Iran and have subsequently sent new offers to the Iranian nuclear team to renew discussions. After offering Iran a non-agression pact, Europe has left itself few options outside of bigger and bigger bribes and appeasements.
Of course if the EU were to raise their hands to the Iranians, the billions of Euros worth of business they do with Iran on a yearly basis would probably dry up immediately. At the moment, the Eurozone economies would take a serious hit and probably end up in recession should these "business" dealings disappear.
Rolling out the red carpet for Mugabe, Khomeni, Arafat and now the Mad Mullahs of Iran, the EU seem to have found their soulmates and are not only are militarily unable to mount an attack on Iran, they're philosophically unable to as well.
I really don't understand why the US is still a member of NATO. If they didn't have the US military to use as a crutch, Europe might have to develop their own military. The US pulling out of NATO and pulling its troops from Western Europe where they've been posted for almost 60 years would leave Europe all but defenseless and put them in a position of sink or swim.
Britain keeps distance from talk of strike on Iran - Sunday Times - Times Online
August 14, 2005
Andrew Porter and Tom Walker
THE foreign secretary Jack Straw sought to distance Britain yesterday from comments by President George W Bush that he would not rule out a military strike against Iran.
It came as diplomats gave warning that British attempts to solve the crisis prompted by Tehran’s resumption of its nuclear programme last week were doomed to failure.
Bush raised the temperature by giving an interview to Israeli television from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Asked if he would consider force, he replied: “All options are on the table.” He added: “The use of force is the last option for any president and you know we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”
The Foreign Office reacted swiftly. “Our position is clear and has been made very, very clear by the foreign secretary,” a spokesman said. “We do not think there are any circumstances where military action would be justified against Iran. It does not form part of British foreign policy.”
So soon after the invasion of Iraq, which has led to so much political turmoil for Tony Blair’s administration, Straw is anxious not to be seen trying to talk up any future forays. But some rightwingers in Washington have criticised Straw’s position, saying that every time the foreign secretary rules out any remote chance of military action the Iranians know there is no need to compromise.
Bush’s veiled remarks came as Foreign Office negotiators launched a new round of shuttle diplomacy to try to persuade Tehran to reverse last week’s decision to resume its enriching of uranium — seen by Washington and the European Union as a smokescreen for a secret nuclear weapons programme.
A spokesman said Britain’s negotiators had “worked their socks off” to convince a meeting in Vienna of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to call on Iran to freeze activity at its Isfahan and Natanz plants.
Britain has made it clear that if Iran has not backed down by September 3, when Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA’s secretary-general, is to report on the country’s nuclear programme, it will push for Tehran to be taken to the United Nations security council. Officials in Vienna warned, however, that any attempt to impose sanctions on Iran would be likely to be vetoed by Russia and China.
“Iran has all the cards,” said one official close to the talks. “It’s going to be embarrassing for the Brits.”
Russia has a civilian nuclear contract with Iran worth £500m while China is increasingly reliant on Iranian oil and gas. Last October Sinopec, the Chinese state oil company, signed a £39 billion deal giving it a 51% stake in Yadavaran, Iran’s largest onshore oilfield.
KCTV5 - Iran calls for talks with E-U, says it will never stop uranium conversion
Not content with rubbing the EU's nose in the fact that the past 2 years of steady negotiating has been nothing but a sham, Iran has offered to enter negotiations anew, but dealing with unspecified goals, merely "another facility."
Your loyal editor suspects that the Iranians have need of another 5 years of negotiating sessions in order to actually construct their nuclear weapons, and since the US and Israel would undoubtedly balk, boors that they are, Tehran's nuclear officials are certain that the EUnuch negotiators will keep these inconvenient infidels off their back while they undergo their full weapons development program.
At the same time, the Iranian team has great expectations that the EU will once again offer their non-aggression pact, will assist Iran in its WTO bid and if the cards fall right, will even offer Iran a UN Security Council seat, though the last is improbable.
One has to wonder how long it will be before Europe understands that Iran is not suseptible to their chief negotiating tactics: bribery and appeasment. Their mission isn't to enrich themselves with things they can already buy. Their mission is to kill Jews, the Great Satan and every infidel on the planet.
Nuclear weapons to Tehran are nothing more than terrorism by other means. They have set up 4,000 centrifuges and have the materials necessary to set up 50,000 more. Their main heavy water plant (only usable in nuclear weapons) covers 250,000 acres of ground. They're taking this VERY seriously. They don't intend to make a bomb then forget about it. They fully intend to mass-produce these weapons and spread the knowledge far and wide thoughout the Muslim world.
A Chinese curse states: May you live in interesting times. We certainly are.
KCTV5 - Iran calls for talks with E-U, says it will never stop uranium conversion
TEHRAN, Iran A top Iranian nuclear official says his country will never again suspend uranium conversion. But he's still calling for more talks with Europe on uranium enrichment.
Conversion is a step before enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used as fuel at nuclear power plants and also as material for atomic bombs.
Last week, Iran rejected a United Nations resolution that urged it to stop the conversion. The foreign ministry spokesman says that issue "is over," but another facility is up for discussion.
Your loyal editor suspects that the Iranians have need of another 5 years of negotiating sessions in order to actually construct their nuclear weapons, and since the US and Israel would undoubtedly balk, boors that they are, Tehran's nuclear officials are certain that the EUnuch negotiators will keep these inconvenient infidels off their back while they undergo their full weapons development program.
At the same time, the Iranian team has great expectations that the EU will once again offer their non-aggression pact, will assist Iran in its WTO bid and if the cards fall right, will even offer Iran a UN Security Council seat, though the last is improbable.
One has to wonder how long it will be before Europe understands that Iran is not suseptible to their chief negotiating tactics: bribery and appeasment. Their mission isn't to enrich themselves with things they can already buy. Their mission is to kill Jews, the Great Satan and every infidel on the planet.
Nuclear weapons to Tehran are nothing more than terrorism by other means. They have set up 4,000 centrifuges and have the materials necessary to set up 50,000 more. Their main heavy water plant (only usable in nuclear weapons) covers 250,000 acres of ground. They're taking this VERY seriously. They don't intend to make a bomb then forget about it. They fully intend to mass-produce these weapons and spread the knowledge far and wide thoughout the Muslim world.
A Chinese curse states: May you live in interesting times. We certainly are.
KCTV5 - Iran calls for talks with E-U, says it will never stop uranium conversion
TEHRAN, Iran A top Iranian nuclear official says his country will never again suspend uranium conversion. But he's still calling for more talks with Europe on uranium enrichment.
Conversion is a step before enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used as fuel at nuclear power plants and also as material for atomic bombs.
Last week, Iran rejected a United Nations resolution that urged it to stop the conversion. The foreign ministry spokesman says that issue "is over," but another facility is up for discussion.
Telegraph | News | Iran 'kept EU talking' while it finished nuclear plant
I find it more than a little frightening that a group of nations with any number of nuclear weapons at their disposal could be so gullible as the EU/EU3 has recently proven to be with their negotiating position re Iran.
With fantastical delusions to superpowerhood, they allowed themselves to be batantly hoodwinked by the Mad Mullahs in Tehran as the following article shows.
How the EU3, led by Jack Straw could possibly not know that they were being duped by a regime who violated the sanctity of an Embassy and completely ignore Ambassadorial rank; could send their children into minefields to clear it for their soldiers and holds nothing sacred, would suddenly have a change of heart and hold a negotiating position and a resulting treaty sacrosanct, is frankly, beyond me.
I knew it was a con. The US govt knew it was a con. Most people I know politically knew that it was a con. How could the EUnuchs not know? One word: Multiculturalism. Everybody's equal. No people or cultures are better than any other people or culture. All people in all times are equally trustworthy. As long as the EU negotiated in good faith and appeased to its utmost, then anybody they were sitting across the table from would do the same.
What I find truly astounding, is that this isn't exactly the first time this has happened. I remember when Lord Owen was negotiating with the "Bosnian Serbs" every week they came out with a new agreement which was broken, literally, before the ink was dry. 12 agreements and not one of them was worth a damn.
And it's no different than pre-war Germany in the British negotiating position with Hitler. "Peace in our time."
This is going to get a LOT of people killed one way or the other. We're either going to have to disarm Iran like we did Iraq, or we're going to have to hide in holes in the ground when they start launching nuclear missiles at the demon Jews or the Great Satan. But not the EUnuchs. They'll sit safely on the sidelines, wringing their hands and continuing to count the profits that they're making from these madmen ruling from Tehran while other people shed their blood to make up for the dispicable arrogance and willful blindness of European "soft power."
Hey, EU diplomats, repeat after me: We're only infidels. We're only infidels. We're only infidels!
As Winston Churchill declared to Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich with Hitler's worthless treaty: "You had the choice between dishonor and war. You chose dishonor, but you will have war." There will be war over Iran and its nukes, no question.
Telegraph Iran 'kept EU talking' while it finished nuclear plant
By Colin Freeman
(Filed: 14/08/2005)
An Iranian foreign policy official has boasted that the regime bought extra time over its stalled negotiations with Europe to complete a uranium conversion plant.
In comments that will infuriate EU diplomats, Hosein Musavian said that Teheran took advantage of the nine months of talks, which collapsed last week, to finish work at its Isfahan enrichment facility.
Technicians working at the Isfahan uranium conversion facility
"Thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year in which we completed the [project] in Isfahan," he told an Iranian television interviewer.
Mr Musavian also claimed that work on nuclear centrifuges at a plant at Natanz, which was kept secret until Iran's exiled opposition revealed its existence in 2002, progressed during the negotiations.
"We needed six to 12 months to complete the work on the centrifuges," said Mr Musavian, chairman of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council's foreign policy committee. He made his remarks on August 4 - two days before Iran's foreign ministry rejected the European Union offer of incentives to abandon its uranium enrichment programme.
Critics of the regime will see his comments as confirmation that Iran never contemplated giving up its programme, despite top-level diplomacy involving Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and his French and German counterparts.
The US was always pessimistic about the talks' chance of success. Yesterday President George W Bush refused to rule out using military force to press Iran into giving up its nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is a front for weapons-making. "All options are on the table," Mr Bush told Israeli television.
Mr Musavian, whose remarks were translated by the Middle East Research Institute based in Washington, was responding to criticism from Iranian hardliners that Teheran should never have entered into the EU negotiations.
He said that until then, Iran had dealt solely with the UN-backed International Atomic Energy Authority, which had given it a 50-day deadline to suspend uranium enrichment on pain of referral to the UN Security Council.
"The IAEA give us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities," he said. "But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed the [project] in Isfahan."
The plant, about 250 miles south of Teheran, carries out an early stage of the cycle for developing nuclear fuel, turning yellowcake into UF4 and then into UF6, a gas essential to enrichment.
"Today, we are in a position of power," Mr Musavian said. "Isfahan is complete and has a stockpile of products." Mr Musavian also said that Iran had further benefited from sweeteners offered by the EU, including the invitation to enter talks on Iran joining the World Trade Organisation.
With fantastical delusions to superpowerhood, they allowed themselves to be batantly hoodwinked by the Mad Mullahs in Tehran as the following article shows.
How the EU3, led by Jack Straw could possibly not know that they were being duped by a regime who violated the sanctity of an Embassy and completely ignore Ambassadorial rank; could send their children into minefields to clear it for their soldiers and holds nothing sacred, would suddenly have a change of heart and hold a negotiating position and a resulting treaty sacrosanct, is frankly, beyond me.
I knew it was a con. The US govt knew it was a con. Most people I know politically knew that it was a con. How could the EUnuchs not know? One word: Multiculturalism. Everybody's equal. No people or cultures are better than any other people or culture. All people in all times are equally trustworthy. As long as the EU negotiated in good faith and appeased to its utmost, then anybody they were sitting across the table from would do the same.
What I find truly astounding, is that this isn't exactly the first time this has happened. I remember when Lord Owen was negotiating with the "Bosnian Serbs" every week they came out with a new agreement which was broken, literally, before the ink was dry. 12 agreements and not one of them was worth a damn.
And it's no different than pre-war Germany in the British negotiating position with Hitler. "Peace in our time."
This is going to get a LOT of people killed one way or the other. We're either going to have to disarm Iran like we did Iraq, or we're going to have to hide in holes in the ground when they start launching nuclear missiles at the demon Jews or the Great Satan. But not the EUnuchs. They'll sit safely on the sidelines, wringing their hands and continuing to count the profits that they're making from these madmen ruling from Tehran while other people shed their blood to make up for the dispicable arrogance and willful blindness of European "soft power."
Hey, EU diplomats, repeat after me: We're only infidels. We're only infidels. We're only infidels!
As Winston Churchill declared to Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich with Hitler's worthless treaty: "You had the choice between dishonor and war. You chose dishonor, but you will have war." There will be war over Iran and its nukes, no question.
Telegraph Iran 'kept EU talking' while it finished nuclear plant
By Colin Freeman
(Filed: 14/08/2005)
An Iranian foreign policy official has boasted that the regime bought extra time over its stalled negotiations with Europe to complete a uranium conversion plant.
In comments that will infuriate EU diplomats, Hosein Musavian said that Teheran took advantage of the nine months of talks, which collapsed last week, to finish work at its Isfahan enrichment facility.
Technicians working at the Isfahan uranium conversion facility
"Thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year in which we completed the [project] in Isfahan," he told an Iranian television interviewer.
Mr Musavian also claimed that work on nuclear centrifuges at a plant at Natanz, which was kept secret until Iran's exiled opposition revealed its existence in 2002, progressed during the negotiations.
"We needed six to 12 months to complete the work on the centrifuges," said Mr Musavian, chairman of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council's foreign policy committee. He made his remarks on August 4 - two days before Iran's foreign ministry rejected the European Union offer of incentives to abandon its uranium enrichment programme.
Critics of the regime will see his comments as confirmation that Iran never contemplated giving up its programme, despite top-level diplomacy involving Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and his French and German counterparts.
The US was always pessimistic about the talks' chance of success. Yesterday President George W Bush refused to rule out using military force to press Iran into giving up its nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is a front for weapons-making. "All options are on the table," Mr Bush told Israeli television.
Mr Musavian, whose remarks were translated by the Middle East Research Institute based in Washington, was responding to criticism from Iranian hardliners that Teheran should never have entered into the EU negotiations.
He said that until then, Iran had dealt solely with the UN-backed International Atomic Energy Authority, which had given it a 50-day deadline to suspend uranium enrichment on pain of referral to the UN Security Council.
"The IAEA give us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities," he said. "But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed the [project] in Isfahan."
The plant, about 250 miles south of Teheran, carries out an early stage of the cycle for developing nuclear fuel, turning yellowcake into UF4 and then into UF6, a gas essential to enrichment.
"Today, we are in a position of power," Mr Musavian said. "Isfahan is complete and has a stockpile of products." Mr Musavian also said that Iran had further benefited from sweeteners offered by the EU, including the invitation to enter talks on Iran joining the World Trade Organisation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)