Patrick Hayes on “Spiked” has referred to “anti-fascists” preparing a police state. Hayes is right. Yes they are preparing a police state. But Hayes is also wrong. These are not “anti-fascists” and certainly not of the “left” but these are indeed fascists. Groups like the SWP are Fascists. Not to be called ever “Left Fascists”.


Hayes is right on t he following report:


The modern anti-fascist left has provided plenty of justification for increased state control over political to and fro in modern Britain. It has strengthened the use of public-order laws over political freedom, and it has empowered the state to govern all forms of political speech. That control extends not just to the statements and actions of ‘fascist’ groups, but also to the statements and actions of left-wing groups and anti-fascists, too.

So for the next 30 days, any group – regardless of its grievance – is banned from marching in Walthamstow and the rest of the borough of Waltham Forest and in the nearby boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham and Islington. This blanket ban is directly down to the campaigning efforts of left-wing anti-fascist protesters, who have spent the past month taking to the streets to get people to join local Labour MP Stella Creasy in signing a petition to ban the EDL from entering Walthamstow. The successful campaign for a ban was celebrated by Creasy who, ironically, claimed it meant ‘our community can get back to its normal, peaceful and tolerant state’.



hayes is absolutely correct to draw attention to this Labourite Creasy. This very much reminds me of the Stalinist Comintern which insisted that Hitlerism was not all that bad in the months leading to Hitler grabbing state power in 1933.


Sure there are differences. It is a different historical situation. But in both cases the moves of dictatorship by the capitalist state are not being opposed but are being sanctioned by people like Creasy.


I nearly said, out of habit, “people like Creasy on the Left”


But that is precisely what I am challenging on. These are not people of the “left” at all. These like Creasy are Fascists. Everything today is reversed.


Just yesterday we on 4international wrote about this very issue. We are challenging the term “left” fascists. These people like Creasy with their hatreds of Israel and their joining with the state forces against the EDL, are not of the left but are Fascists.


In our defence of Tommy Robinson we are challenging the concept that people like Creasy are of the left.


The Vice Prime Minister of Tanzania has become the first Prime Minister of any Government in the world to make a reference to the hatefulness that is in the Islamic Koran. That in itself is quite amazing. Only one!


The method in the world today is that anybody who points out the hatefulness in the Koran is immediaely condemned as being “racist”.


That is precisely what has happened to Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League. He has been put on remand for 2 months because they allege that he broke a passport rule in entering the United States to attend a function organised by the anti-Jihad fighter Pamela Geller.


That is absurdly extreme. But the British state is moving rapidly to police dictatorship.


I think Tommy Robinson is right, right to take up a struggle in England, based on the great traditions of English Cromwellian history (republicanism), to expose just what is the real nature of Islam.


This is an amazing quote from Jihadwatch.


“Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, ‘You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.’ I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.” — Sahih Bukhari 1.9.490


That shows the utter depravity of Islam. We on 4international send Robinson our support just as much as we send Assange our support.


Remember however and also that Tommy Robinson was arrested along with 50 other members of the EDL because they were INTENDING to attend a meeting in Britain. This is full-scale repression.


The big crime of Robinson and the EDL is that they campaign against Islam, which they reckon is a political ideology, and it is indeed a political ideology, because all roads to becoming a Muslim must lead through Sharia Law, which is an  extreme political ideology.


Meanwhile in Northern Nigeria over this weekend as Robinson rots in a prison, as indeed does the freedom of speech fighter Julian Assange (a special prison) extreme Islamists planted a bomb in St Rita’s Church.


I would like to know more about St Rita’s Church. I had a very good Nigerian friend and he was educated by Irish Catholic Missionaries in Northern Nigeria. I bet Catholic Irish priests were involved with St Rita’s but I am also pretty sure that the Irish Media will be pretty silent on black Nigerian Catholics being murdered.


Julian Assange rots in his Embassy Cell, Catholics are blown to smidereens in Northern Nigeria, The President of the United States gives up so much that he allows his Ambassador (Stephens) be assasinated although it was totally within his power to save him.


meanwhile the world is totally silent as Iran speeds on its way to build Nuclear Bombs and the purpose of those bombs, IT CAN EASILY BE ARGUED JUST BY TAKING THE WORDS FROM THE MOUTHS OF THE IRANIAN MULLAHS are directed towards a Second Holocaust of the Jews.


And there is not even sympathy for the plight of Israel and the Jews of Israel.


There is much latent Antisemitism (those who are silent)


And there is just plain open Antisemitism. Much of this is now coming from a left. But here I have great difficulty in calling these Antisemites of Indymedia, Counterpunch, WSWS, SWP etc. as being of the left.


Thus I am turning more and more away from the term given by some to these folks, as being “Left Fascists”.


It must be understood that Antisemitism was not contained in the lives of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. (More on this as we go along)


Stalin yes. Stalin was filled with Antisemitism but he also was filled with hatred of Leninism, so much so that he poisoned Lenin in order to open his way to power.


Shroud of Secrecy Leaves Room for Doubt on Srebrenica DNA Evidence
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org – August 7, 2011



Written by: Andy Wilcoxson


A controversy surrounding DNA identifications made by the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) of victims of the Srebrenica massacre has erupted behind the scenes in the war crimes trial of former Bosnian-Serb President Radovan Karadzic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.


Last month, the ICMP issued a press release which claimed that “By analyzing DNA profiles extracted from bone samples of exhumed mortal remains and matching them to the DNA profiles obtained from blood samples donated by relatives of the missing, the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has so far revealed the identity of 6,598 persons missing from the July 1995 fall of Srebrenica.”[1]


The ICTY relied heavily on the ICMP’s findings to convict the defendants in the Popovic trial on charges related to Srebrenica.[2] Prosecutors in the Karadzic trial also intend to make use the ICMP’s findings. The Prosecution has announced that it intends to call the ICMP’s Director of Forensic Sciences, Dr. Thomas Parsons, as an expert witness.[3]


On July 23, 2009, Karadzic asked the Trial Chamber to “allow my experts to see every single piece of material, all the DNA analysis” he said, “my experts cannot rely on newspaper information.  They need to have the same material that the [Prosecution] experts were privy to in order to be able to see whether the facts were established correctly and whether the conclusions were established correctly.  That’s why my experts have to focus on the same body of material that their counterparts had.  This is the only way.  They must be able to see everything that the [Prosecution] experts saw and then they will be able to confront them with their expert views.”[4]


He explained to the court that “We want the entire material, and we will take a random sample and choose 300, and if there are major discrepancies among the 300, then we will broaden the sample and continue the procedure.”[5]


On February 10, 2010, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff the senior trial attorney for the Prosecution, sent a letter to Karadzic’s defense explaining why his experts would not be allowed access to the ICMP’s data. The letter said:


“The ICMP is an independent third party organization with its own mandate. The Prosecution is unable to simply, ‘contact the ICMP and disclose to the Defence for Mr. Karadzic the entirety of family DNA profiles held on ICMP databases.’ In addition the Prosecution does not possess these databases and therefore is not in a position to disclose them.


“Second, our understanding is that the ICMP has thus far declined to disclose to any party the ‘entirety’ of its family DNA profiles because this would constitute a breach of the assurances provided in the consent forms signed by the family donors. As discussed with your associate Mr. Sladojevic, the issue is not simply one of providing data ‘without names’, as donors have been promised that their DNA will not be disclosed, not merely that there names will not be disclosed or that any disclosure of DNA data would be anonymous.”[6]


Of course this only explains why the ICMP won’t share DNA from the family members of the victims, not why it won’t share the DNA of the victims themselves. Nobody ever promised the victims that their DNA would remain confidential.


Aside from the question of whether the Tribunal ought to rely on DNA evidence that neither the Prosecution, the Defense, nor the judges have any access to, the pretrial judge, Ian Bonomy of Scotland, sided with Karadzic and conceded that “there must be some substance in the suggestion that the Defence should be able to run some tests similar to those done by the [ICMP] with a view to checking the accuracy of what was actually done by them.” He said, “I find it difficult to understand that a person might consent to have material given to a Prosecutor and not realise that the inevitable result of that must be that the Defence would have a pretty strong claim at least for access to it.”[7]


The Trial Chamber, which Judge Bonomy was no longer part of because he only sat on the pre-trial bench, issued an order on March 19, 2010 noting “the Accused’s wish to challenge the conclusions reached by the ICMP” and noting “the Accused’s insistence that he should be provided with the entire family DNA database before he reveals to the ICMP the 300 cases he has selected because of his concerns about the ICMP’s impartiality and suspicion that it would adjust the database in some way in order to ensure [DNA] matches in the 300 selected cases.”


The Order directed “the Accused to immediately complete his selection of 300 cases for further DNA analysis and provide the details of his selection to the ICMP, who will, upon obtaining the necessary consents, be in a position to supply relevant data from the family database.”


The Order, however, did not require the ICMP to provide Karadzic’s experts with access to the complete database on the excuse that “the Accused has not established any basis for his concern that the ICMP would manipulate the database to strengthen its own conclusions.”[8]


The entire purpose of testing the 300 DNA samples is to “challenge the ICMP’s findings”. If they were falsifying their findings, it stands to reason that they would manipulate their database in order to prevent the deception from being uncovered.


On July 28, 2011 Karadzic’s defense team filed a brief explaining that “The testing procedure set forth by the Trial Chamber is its order has one fatal flaw. It allows the ICMP to, without detection, substitute the [DNA] electropherograms of other persons for those who the Accused selected as part of his sample … First, [the Defense] provides the ICMP with the name of a victim—victim A.


“Second, someone at the ICMP realizes that there is a problem with the identification of victim A and does not want this problem to be exposed.


“Third, the person at ICMP solves this problem by providing the defence with the DNA data for victim B, and his brother, representing it to be the DNA data for victim A

and his brother.


“Fourth, Dr. Stojkovic [the Defense expert] examines the DNA data and confirms that it is a correct match—the DNA of the victim matches the DNA of his brother.


“In this way, the substitution of the DNA data remains undetected. Through this method, the results can be cheated or manipulated.


“To prevent this, Dr. Karadzic requires the DNA data of all of the missing persons to be provided in advance. Then, he is able to add one more step to the testing process. After Dr. Stojkovic verifies the match between the Victim A and his brother, he will compare the DNA data of Victim A with the DNA data of Victim A from the database provided at the outset to verify that it is indeed Victim A’s DNA that has been tested.


“Without the ability to take this last step, there is no way for Dr. Karadzic to be sure that the DNA data provided for Victim A is indeed that of Victim A, and not Victim B.


“That is why Dr. Karadzic insists on being provided with the unique DNA bone profiles and electropherograms of all of the missing persons before he makes his selection.”[9]


The Prosecution has adopted a hard line against independent verification of the ICMP’s findings. They filed a brief against Karadzic arguing that “In light of the Accused’s position that he has no intention of testing any samples provided to him under the procedure outlined in the Trial Chamber’s Order on Selection of Cases for DNA Analysis … [the Prosecution] respectfully requests declaratory relief from the Trial Chamber in the following terms: a) The Accused is in breach of the Order; and b) The ICMP is not obliged to provide 300 sample case files to the Accused under any procedure, or subject to any preconditions, outside the terms of the Order.”[10]


One has to wonder why the ICMP gave the donors the expectation of confidentiality regarding their DNA samples in the first place. It seems irrational for anyone who isn’t living in a hermetically sealed bubble to expect confidentiality given that people leave trace amounts of their DNA everywhere they go and on practically everything they touch. A person’s DNA is in every cell of their body and in virtually every biological substance secreted by it. Forensic scientists can extract a person’s DNA from the oils left behind in their fingerprints.[11]


The ICMP was established in 1996 at the urging of the then US President Bill Clinton.[12] The Commission was described by Senator John Shattuck as “A major U.S. initiative to support the peace and reconciliation process in the former Yugoslavia” in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in a speech before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 12, 1998.[13]


The chairmen of the ICMP have, without exception, been Washington insiders since its founding in 1996. The ICMP’s first chairman, Cyrus Vance (1996-97) was the US Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter. He was succeeded by Bob Dole (1997-2001) the 1996 Republican presidential candidate and career politician who spent almost 30 years in the US Senate. In 2001 the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell handpicked James Kimsey (2001-2011) to head-up the ICMP. In 2001 Kimsey was succeeded by the former American ambassador to Bosnia, Thomas Miller (2011-current).[14]


It should also be noted that the ICMP’s lab operated for years without professional accreditation, and that the majority of identifications made by the ICMP were made before their lab obtained accreditation in late 2007.[15]  


Discrepancies have also been found between the ICMP’s findings and the original military records of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The ICMP claims to have found the mortal remains of at least 140 soldiers in Srebrenica-related mass graves whose original military records listed them as having been killed months, and in many cases years, before Srebrenica fell. The Bosnian government has resolved these discrepancies by disavowing the accuracy of their original military records and amending them to match the ICMP’s findings.[16]


Imagine for a moment that the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine if somebody like former Russian President Vladimir Putin took the initiative to establish an NGO to investigate allegations of atrocities committed by an ally of the United States against an ally of Russia during a war where the Russians attacked the same American allies they sought to investigate. Now imagine that the chairmen of this NGO were all somehow connected to the Russian Foreign Ministry.


In addition, let’s suppose this NGO publishes findings claiming the American allies had massacred — let’s say 6,598 people, and that they were able to conclusively prove this through DNA analysis in a lab that didn’t have professional accreditation when most of the DNA identifications were made.


Now let’s suppose that American scientists ask to see the underlying DNA evidence upon which the Russian NGO’s findings are based so that they can test it for themselves and verify the findings, but the Russians refuse to cooperate on the pretext that doing so would be unduly burdensome and a violation of the privacy rights of the victims and their families.


If that happened, would anyone in the West believe the Russian NGO’s findings? Not in a million years would anyone believe it. And if the Russians tried to use those findings as evidence in a criminal prosecution of the political leadership of the accused American allies, they’d be accused of staging a political show trial – and rightly so.


One can not claim with certainty that the ICMP is lying about the DNA identification of Srebrenica massacre victims, nor can anyone claim with certainty that they’re telling the truth. That’s the unfortunate position we find ourselves in today.


What is significant is that the ICMP’s founders and executives are closely linked to the American political establishment and that the ICMP will not permit independent scientific verification of its findings and the underlying data behind them. Their refusal to submit their data and their work for independent scientific review means that their claims can be falsified and it diminishes the weight that can be attached to them.


[2] Popovic judgment para. 638-649, 659-664

[3] Prosecution’s motion for admission of the evidence of eight experts pursuant to Rule 94bis and Rule 92bis; May 29, 2009

[4] Karadzic Trial Transcript; July 23, 2009 pg. 353

[5] Ibid.; Pg. 359

[6] Prosecution’s letter to Karadzic’s Defense Team entitled “Response to your request for materials from ICMP during the recent status conference as well as Mr. Sladojevic’s e-mail dated 29 January 2010” dated February 20, 2010

[7] Karadzic Trial Transcript; July 23, 2009 pg. 355-357

[8] Order on Selection of Cases for DNA Analysis; March 19, 2010

[9] Supplemental Response To Prosecution’s Request For Further Orders: DNA Testing, July 28, 2011

[10] Prosecution’s Reply To The Accused’s “Response To Prosecution’s Request For Further Orders: DNA Testing,” June 30, 2011

[11] Charles Choi, United Press International “DNA Extractable from Fingerprints”, July 31, 2003


[12] Aida Cerkez-Robinson, The Independent on Sunday, “In Bosnia, each funeral never ends; Bone by bone, victims of the Srebrenica massacre are being identified, pieced together and, finally, laid to rest.”, July 12, 2009

[13] Prepared Statement of John Shattuck Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, May 12, 1998

[14] Ibid.; See also: Deutsche Presse-Agentur, “New institute to speed up search for missing people in Bosnia”, August 28, 2000; ICMP Press Release, “ICMP Chairman Ambassador Thomas Miller Visits ICMP HQ”, July 15, 2011 http://www.ic-mp.org/press-releases/icmp-chairman-ambassador-thomas-miller-visits-icmp-hqpredsjedavajuci-icmp-a-ambasador-thomas-miller-u-posjeti-sjedistu-icmp-a/ ; http://www.ic-mp.org/funding/ ; and U.S. Department of State, Statement by Richard Boucher Spokesman, May 11, 2001 http://statelists.state.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0105b&L=dospress&P=2354

[15] Popovic trial judgment, Para 645

[16]Prosecution’s final trial brief in the Popovic Trial; paras. 1140-1141 and 3077-3078


October 26, 2012

Darkness Descending in England

By Pamela Geller


The arrest of over 53 people in the United Kingdom is the beginning of the end for once-great Britain.  The leaders of the English Defence League (EDL), Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll, were among those arrested, as well as Paul Weston of the British Freedom Party (BFP). 
It is amazing is it not that it takes a freedom loving woman who lives in New York, not Britain, to raise an opposition to these police arrests of Robinson and co. The situation in Britain is all about media frenzy over sex, but police planning dictatorship,
This more than anything shows that there is no opposition at all from the present “left” to the plans of British Capital to instal a dictatorship in Britain, in which Sharia will be a component part)
I spoke with Kevin Carroll about his recent arrest and that of Robinson and Weston, and he told me the appalling details.

Carroll told me that British authorities tried everything in the book to stop him from running for police and crime commissioner (PCC) for the Bedfordshire Police Authority.  Nonetheless, he officially won the right to run for PCC last Friday.  But then, the very next day, British authorities carried out these mass arrests of EDL and BFP members, stripping them and forcing them to wear white paper overalls like those given to incarcerated terrorists.  They were allowed no phone calls.

Meanwhile, British police raided the homes of Carroll, Robinson, and three others who had been arrested.  “They absolutely ransacked mine,” Carroll told me.  “They smashed the door off and wrecked my home.  They took my only vehicle, with all the tools of my trade inside, and impounded it, as well as Tommy’s car.”  The police, the bomb squad, forensics teams, and sniffer dogs spent seven and a half hours stripping Carroll’s van to the bone.  “When they finished,” he said, “they found nothing!  They loaded it up with bugs and GPS monitors and threw everything in the back; it looks like it’s been in a blender.”

After smashing the door to Carroll’s home off its hinges, police officials repaired it, got a locksmith to put on a new lock, and left with the new keys, leaving Carroll locked out of his own home.  When Carroll was released, still wearing his white paper prison suit, it was dark and raining; true to form, police officials offered him no transportation, even though it was late at night on a Sunday.

Robinson is being held in Wandsworth prison, an old and antiquated structure with a large population of Muslim prisoners.  Weston was arrested and later released without charge for refusing to leave a reception area without information about Robinson.  And it is clear why officials would not want that information to get out: not only has Robinson been placed with the general prison population instead of segregated for his own protection, but prison officials have even put him in a cell with hostile Muslims.  He was allowed to call his wife Jenna, and he told her that he knew it was going to be “lively” in the cell.  That was an understatement: prison officials have deliberately put Robinson in physical danger and even imperiled his life.  Carroll contacted a high-ranking police official to request that Robinson be segregated, and she received a promise that he would be, but it hasn’t happened yet — and Robinson has even been denied bail.

“They are really coming at us with everything,” Carroll told me.  “I’m even on police bail at the moment for ‘conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.'”  This is a politically motivated and trumped up charge, but in Britain it can carry a life sentence.

According to Carroll, Robinson was incarcerated for leaving the United Kingdom and entering the United States fraudulently for our September 11, 2012 Stop Islamization of Nations free speech conference in New York City.  Robinson could get twelve to eighteen months in prison just for that.  “They are really turning up the heat here, Pamela,” said Carroll.  “They are going after all of us, especially Tommy and me.”  The EDL said in a statement: “Tommy has been dragged from one court to another — almost always without any serious chance of conviction — simply in order to help disrupt our activities and to prevent us from voicing our legitimate concerns about the spread of Islamic extremism.”

Carroll’s bail hearing is set for November 30, which gives him just two weeks after the November 15 elections to prepare his defense.  Anyone who can vote for Bedfordshire police authority commissioner and who loves freedom should vote for Kevin Carroll; it could be your last hope to preserve the freedom of speech and the principle of the equality of rights for all people in Britain.

Clearly the establishment elites in Britain are extremely worried that Carroll might win and upset the entrenched culture of accommodation to Islam and sharia; in fact, one of the briefs in Carroll’s case actually stated that this was why he was arrested — because he is running for PCC.  The dhimmi elites understand that this could be the beginning of their end.  “The police,” said Carroll, “are out to finish us on behalf of the establishment.”

This is a defining moment in British history, as significant as any major turning point.  It is in many respects like the Night of the Long Knives, which marked the point of no return from Nazism for Germany.  With these outrageous and politically motivated arrests, Britain has entered a dark and dangerous new era.  Said Weston: “The full power of the State appears to be concentrating on shutting down any political dissent.  This does not really feel like a democratic country anymore.”

Carroll is organizing a demonstration outside Wandsworth prison this coming Saturday morning.  All free citizens in Britain should be there.  And is there no one is the political establishment in the U.K. who has any decency, integrity, or spine?  No one who will stand up against these outrages?

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/darkness_descending_in_england.html#ixzz2Aab029NC


ThreeAQ.jpgThe mowers

These are 2 reports from Jihadwatch about the planned mass murder in Britain by Jihadists.

No reports on this from the Fascist Left. Indymedia. SWP, and many others I have looked up…nothing.


They just ignore the reality because the reality does not fit in with their dogma, the dogma being that Islam is revolutionary and potentially socialist because it opposes American Imperialism.


The Fascist Left often add the word “objectively” against American Imperialism. And they think “potentially” socialist.

It is all total rubbish and is an insult to socialist, materialist, truthful thought.


If these bombs had gone off as the Jihadists planned! Look at the London tube bombings and the Madrid train bombings? it was workers of all ages and professional working people who were caught up and if they went off today in Madrid it would be a large percentage of unemployed working class youth.

This present left is absurd!

And they wonder why some people seem to dislike Islam. “‘Jihadists talked of building an Ultimate Mowing Machine,'” by Paul Cheston for the London Evening Standard, October 23 (thanks to Jay):

A jihadist gang accused of plotting suicide bombings more devastating than the 7/7 attacks on London talked of building an ‘Ultimate Mowing Machine’ to kill and maim.Irfan Naseer, 31, Irfan Khalid, 27, and Ashik Ali, 27, from Birmingham, have pleaded not guilty to engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts.

But the prosecution claims that in covert recordings made by police after the men returned from Pakistan they are heard talking about putting sharp blades on the front of a truck and “running” into people, the court heard.

Recorded speaking on September 10, they discussed an idea for a weapon that had been published in an outlawed extremist online magazine called Inspire under the headline “The Ultimate Mowing Machine”.

It was an article the prosecution said the defendants were clearly aware of.

Naseer said: “So Ashik, it feel like I’ve been driving a monster truck, you know.”

Khalid said: “Yeah and do what AQ (al Qaida) said, put that blades at the front of it and trample on everyone.”

He continued later: “Just drive it into people in (a) crowded area.”

The men also discussed what would happen to their bodies after they had been martyred in a suicide attack, the court heard.

In what the prosecution caled a “very telling exchange”, they discussed where they would be buried in Birmingham while being watched by surveillance officers driving through the Small Heath area of Birmingham on September 11 last year.

Khalid said: “”Nah, I’m just thinking… most likely it’ll be Handsworth (cemetery), if there’s a body left.”

Naseer replied: “One thing, one thing, remember, once that once you done, it doesn’t matter where you get buried, innit.”

Mr Altman said: “The exchange puts beyond doubt that they were planning a suicide attack.”

Khalid and Naseer also talked about people “getting killed” in their local area and how no one would come there any more because it would be a “little war zone”, the court heard.

Khalid was recorded saying: “This earth here ain’t ever be the same, how these people think that, all everyone’s gonna be merry merry kuffar are gonna come and eat and drink here, it’s not gonna happen, because after we’ve done, Insha’Allah, yeah, after later on, yeah.”

He added: “These people are gonna be getting killed and that here, there’s gonna be little war zone, yeah.”

In another conversation he described Westerners as evil, saying: “All I’m saying is look how much hatred they have for Islam.

“That does make you go mad.”


Yes, and just look at the love overflowing from these guys, and see how unjustified that hatred is!

The men were recorded taking a large flatscreen television to their flat, on which to watch violent videos.They were also heard boasting that they had been contacted by a potential “investor” who they hoped might give them up to £10,000.

A Dawah charity shop was going to be used as a cover to recruit more people to their cause and they planned to set up charity stalls selling cakes and perfume in Coventry, Leicester and Walsall.

Naseer was recorded talking about the September 11 al Qaida bombers and how they increased their iman (faith) by “doing 10 (chapters of the Koran) a day”, while talking to an associate….


Posted by Robert on October 26, 2012

“Terror trial: Estranged wife wanted to be ‘fourth lion,'” from the BBC, October 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The estranged wife of a man accused of plotting a terror attack offered herself as a helper in an attempt to win him back, a court has heard.In a reference to the spoof film Four Lions, Salma Kabal asked Ashik Ali if she could be the “fourth lion”, Woolwich Crown Court was told.

Brian Altman, QC, prosecuting, said she was snubbed by him and is not on trial.

Mr Ali, 27, Irfan Khalid, 27, and Irfan Naseer, 31, all from Birmingham, deny preparing for terrorist acts.

The jury has heard the trio planned to set off a series of suicide bombs in an attack which prosecutors said would have dwarfed the 7 July 2005 bombings in London and two of the men had received terror training in Pakistan.

Mr Altman told the jury Ms Kabal did not know what the group were planning as Mr Ali withheld details from her.


She offered to be the “lioness” of the group, the court heard.

Mr Ali told his wife he wanted to fight the jihad – or holy war – overseas but did not want to get her involved, the court heard.

Mr Ali said he still loved her but said he did not think she could adapt to fight the jihad abroad, and made reference to drone strikes, the court heard.

Mr Altman said the group made reference to the film Four Lions, in which a group of incompetent terrorists wear fancy dress in a comedy plot, and Mr Ali laughingly told his wife: “Oh, you think this is a flipping Four Lions. We’re one man short, there’s three of us. We ain’t Four Lions yet.”

Ms Kabal replied: “I’ll be your fourth one.”

Mr Ali said: “You can’t be the fourth one.”

Ms Kabal said: “Lioness.”

Mr Altman said: “That may be the arithmetic in the context of the film title, but the comment, couched in a joke, and made in order to divert her, is telling.

“It is telling because it reveals, we suggest, the truth, that there were three of them together but they were not planning a trip abroad to fight jihad.”

The prosecution claims Mr Naseer and Mr Khalid went to the Taliban stronghold of Waziristan, in Pakistan, in the summer of 2011 for training.

In another echo of a plotline in the 2010 film, Mr Ali joked with his wife about blowing up Muslims in Birmingham, the court heard.

‘Vaseline plot’

As Ms Kabal tried to ask him again about his alleged plans, Mr Ali said: “The General Saab, you know, the command we send from high above, innit, hierarchy is that you should blow your Muslims up man, yeah.

“Blow up all the Muslims around Alum Rock up innit and Washwood Heath and Aston”.

The court heard the group discussed various alternatives to a bomb attack, including mixing poisons into Vaseline or Nivea and then rubbing it on car doors, in an attempt to kill “about 1,000 people”.

In a bugged conversation, the court heard, Mr Naseer recalled: “You know like the door handles on a whole, imagine putting it on whole like area innit overnight and when they come in the morning to work they start touching the, they open the door and then five minutes they die man, all of them start dying and that, kill about 1,000 people.”…


Posted by Robert on October 27, 2012 5:10 AM


This story is from Jihadwatch. Another woman has been stoned to death in Somalia. Is there no end to this?

But what is even more crucial is the silence of the Media on these mrders of women. i also ask where are the women feminists now and why are they silent on this.

If you do some googling, say “Naomi Klein” and “Stonings”, you may see



This is a very important theme. Why are the feminists so silent on Islam, and the treatment of women under Islam?



(Start Jihadwatch story here)


Sharia in action in Somalia: Woman stoned to death for adultery

Stoning adulterers is not “extremist”; it is Islamic law. The caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, even maintained that it was originally in the Qur’an:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816)

“Allah’s Apostle” is, of course, Muhammad, who did indeed carry out stonings. Here is the hadith in which he challenges the rabbis about stoning, and in which there is amidst the barbarism and brutality a final act of love and compassion:

The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 829)

Even the monkeys practiced stoning, according to another hadith:

During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. (Bukhari, vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 188)

Muhammad’s example is, of course, normative for Islamic behavior, since “verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much” (Qur’an 33:21).

“Al-Shabaab order woman stoned to death for sex offence,” by Abdulkadir Khalif in Africa Review, October 26 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):

A young woman was stoned to death Thursday in Somalia after being convicted of engaging in out-of-marriage sex, reports say.Residents of Jamama town, 425km south of Mogadishu in Lower Juba region, said that militants loyal to Al-Shabaab carried out the stoning at the town’s main square in late afternoon.

“Many residents were called to attend the execution of the punishment,” a resident who requested anonymity for own safety told Kulmiye, an independent broadcaster in Mogadishu.

He added that Al-Shabaab officials in the town witnessed the stoning.

“The woman admitted having out-of-marriage sex,” said an Islamist official who talked to the crowd after the stoning was completed.

“This type of punishments that are compatible with Sharia (Islamic laws) will be administered,” said the official….


Posted by Robert on October 27, 2012 5:44 AM


This raises the issue of sicide bombing and what it is. The PLO of Arafat after signing the OSLO “Peace” Accords with Israel then sent wave after wave of suicide bombers to blow up ordinary Jews and also Arabs on buses and in pizza parlours, pubs etc. The Wall which the Fascist Left opposed put a stop to this.

ETA and the IRA did something similar but not “suicide”. However the Tamil Tigers did.

It goes without saying 4international as a socialist movement condemns these totally.

This latest episode of suicide bombers is most revealing. They were recruited in Malaysia, trained in Yemen, then try to enter Lebanon, and from there??? Were they going to attack Assad on behalf of Al Qaida, also though on behalf of Obama and Clinton?


(Jihadwatch covers this today)


Tiny minority of extremists update: The ideology that inspired these two as yet unidentified Malaysians to travel to the Middle East intending to commit murder is of course undisclosed and unexamined in the following Malaysian media piece. The words ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ are in fact not stated anywhere in the article, but the word ‘jihadist’ is indeed mentioned in paragraph seven. Of course everyone knows that jihad is a purely peaceful internal spiritual struggle, and that Islam is actually moderate, tolerant, peaceful, pure and noble. So how these wayward Malaysians decided to commit murder in the name of an ideology that shall not be named is no doubt fated to remain a mystery. From “Lebanon arrests two Malaysian suspected suicide bombers,” The Star, 28 October 2012:

KUALA LUMPUR: The Lebanese authorities have arrested two Malaysians believed to be suicide bombers and suspected to be linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

The two, aged 21 and 28, were nabbed at Beirut International Airport.

Malaysian ambassador to Lebanon Ilango Karuppannan confirmed that the duo were picked up several days ago.

“They will be brought to court on Monday (tomorrow) and we will ask them whether they require counsel,” he told Bernama.

On Thursday, Lebanon’s Al-Joumhouria newspaper, quoting security sources, said the Malaysians were detained by army intelligence on charges of being al-Qaeda members.

Investigations revealed they were recruited into al-Qaeda by another Malaysian before being taken to Yemen where they met other members of the organisation.

Al-Joumhouria said that about two months ago, the two Malaysians had tried to enter Syria via Turkey on a jihadist mission to carry out suicide attacks.

Their planned attacks were coordinated by a man who was said to be responsible for the entry of all jihadists into Syria.

When the two Malaysians failed to enter Syria, they decided to head to Lebanon to carry out terrorist attacks but their activities caught the eye of the army intelligence.

Meanwhile, YVONNE LIM reports that the families of the suspects had been notified.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman said that Wisma Putra [the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs] was closely monitoring the matter.

“We have been in touch with the authorities in Lebanon and we are also investigating the matter.

“The families of the suspects have been notified.

“We will reveal the details when more information is confirmed,” he said.

We shall see about that.

Posted by The Anti-Jihadist on October 27, 2012 11:25


We do confess that we have not really come to terms FULLY with THE OBAMA PHENOMENON.


But one thing we did reject always was that Obama was some kind of “Marxist”. The very thought of that, or the raising of that in conversation, would make any Marxist squirm.


With these kinds of events such as the election of Obama there is involved a kind of mass psychosis, such as that which happened in Germany when masses followed Hitlerism.


The same psychosis was present in the demonization of the Serbs and the promotion by the Media of the extreme Islamist Izetbegovic. And there was mass psychosis with the death of Princess Di.


In the election next week we call for Romney to defeat Obama. In making this call I believe it is the Media that we are targetting, because it was the Media and their Lies which created Obama.


This final post before the election is in two parts. Firstly an outstanding study of Obama. Secondly our thoughts on the election and on the Media




October 26, 2012 5:00 am

When historians look back at the presidency of Barack Obama, they will not begin with his campaign announcement in May 2007. They will not start with his election to the Senate in 2004 or with his celebrated speech to the Democratic National Convention that year. Instead, these historians will identify the beginning of the Obama phenomenon in the antiwar speech he delivered in Chicago, on Oct. 2, 2002.

To understand Obama’s political career, these historians will say, you must first understand the visceral opposition of the Democratic base to the decisions made by President George W. Bush. Without Bush, there would have been no Obama. And once Bush had faded from the scene, once he’d been replaced by a group of reform-minded GOP governors and congressmen, and once the Democratic president had to account for the failures of his own term, Obama’s appeal faded, too. He was reduced to his core. He was simply an antiwar academic liberal, similar to the intellectuals who write our newspapers and magazines and produce our news and comedy shows. He was an isolated man of the left.

Bush was the biggest endorphin boost the Democratic Party had received in a long while. The Florida showdown in 2000 polarized the country. The left was incensed when Bush, whom they expected to behave as a caretaker president, governed along the lines he’d laid out during the campaign. His Christian faith and social conservative views repulsed liberals. Above all, his determination that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power galvanized the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party, including a young state senator in Illinois. All of the energy on the Democratic side was coming from the youthful and networked and stridently leftwing grassroots. What unified them was their abhorrence of Bush and of “Bush’s war.” The Iraq war was less than one year old when a senior editor of the New Republic explained, “Why I Hate George W. Bush.”

The first political figure to embody the ascendant Democrats was Howard Dean. The little known governor of Vermont rode his opposition to the Iraq war, and to the Democrats who had voted for it, to prominence in the polls and fundraising in 2003. Dean really had little to offer his supporters besides his angry denunciations of Bush. But that did not seem to matter. The Dean campaign became the locus for young Democrats who felt out of place in the party of Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman. It used social media to bring its allies together. These tech-savvy, Millennial-generation voters understood the Dean campaign less as a bid for the White House than as a redemptive social movement. Dean’s rallies assumed the form of tent revivals. The Iraq war had sparked a second children’s crusade.

But Dean blew it. His reaction to his loss in Iowa turned him into a national joke. His campaign collapsed, and his supporters half-heartedly migrated to 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. Kerry of course lost the election. But, in retrospect, that was not the most important lesson of 2004. The biggest takeaway was the revitalized progressive movement, which conceived of itself as the antithesis of the conservative movement that had dominated American politics since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. Obama’s speech to the 2004 DNC was in some sense an announcement that a divided country eventually would be unified around the tenets of progressivism.

The progressives began replicating conservative institutions. For every Heritage Foundation, there would be a Center for American Progress. For every Fox News Channel, there would be an MSNBC. For every group of wealthy Republican donors, there would be a secretive, leftwing Democracy Alliance. For every Federalist Society bringing together conservative lawyers, there would be an American Constitution Society of liberal ones. The primary mission of all the money flowing through this network of activists, intellectuals, and publicists was to sponsor attacks on Bush, his administration, and his tax, social, judicial, and foreign policies. Half of Washington was organized around the principle of opposing one man. Bush was that despised by the left.

Anti-Bush animus was the salient characteristic of the liberal bloggers who began to call themselves the Netroots. These keyboard warriors represented the peacenik attitudes of the Democratic base. They led the charge to install Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. They launched a series of campaigns against incumbent Democrats who had voted with Bush to authorize the war in Iraq. And they had the momentum. When the Netroots gathered in Las Vegas in 2006, it seemed like every political writer in the country covered the event. The liberal bloggers were ecstatic a few weeks later when Lieberman lost his primary to liberal multimillionaire Ned Lamont. Like the conservative followers of Barry Goldwater and the liberal followers of George McGovern, the antiwar, anti-Bush Democrats were forcing their party to move in their direction. They set in motion a chain of events that would result in the closing of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council in 2011.

The criticism of Bush, of Bush Republicans, and of the war took on a specific character. The spokesmen of movement progressivism—Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert—spoke in tones of irony, sarcasm, knowing disbelief, glibness, and snark. Liberal bloggers and op-ed writers used the same voice. A television clip of a conservative would be played, a quotation cited, and the liberal would mug for his audience, whether on screen or on the page. Their basic attitude was: Can you believe this? These people don’t even believe in science! The fools! Derisive and smug laughter would ensue. The war was not going well, America seemed in decline, and it was obvious to liberals that conservatives and Republicans were to blame. The punch lines were a signal. If you laughed, you differentiated yourself from the fundamentalist prigs running the country. You established your superiority.

The movement progressives were right to feel empowered. America truly was in trouble. The inability to locate stockpiles of WMD in Iraq would have harmed any administration’s credibility. We were losing the war in Iraq until December 2006 when Bush ordered the surge, but the gains made by the surge forces were bought at a high cost in lives and wounded. The signature Bush counterterrorism policies of detention, interrogation, and surveillance were under assault as intelligence operatives leaked information selectively to an adversarial media. The cosmopolitan, under-30-years-old Americans at the vanguard of the new progressivism saw themselves as citizens of a networked global civilization, and were ashamed that much of the world considered America a pariah nation. The deflation of the housing market, the recession, and the financial crisis brought misery to millions.

Obama, whom National Journal ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007, exemplified movement progressivism. But he also had a talent for conveying liberal ideas in an inoffensive, positive way. Though he came from the university culture, where Colbert was required viewing, Rachel Maddow was “smart,” and the writings of Fareed Zakaria were gospel, Obama took pains to avoid ideological conflict. He was about hope and change, not insult and blame. He was going to be bipartisan, even post-partisan, and would govern in a manner that appealed to every American. He opposed a health care mandate. He emphasized his plans to cut middle class taxes and reduce government spending. Above all, Obama was not going to be Bush, whose approval ratings tanked as first Democrats, then independents, and finally Republicans abandoned him.

It’s been said that Americans correct for the failings of past presidents. Obama’s fluency and sharpness and cool were seen as antidotes to Bush’s inarticulateness and gut decision-making. Obama’s campaign started off with the liberal, antiwar core of the Democratic Party, the coeds and recent college graduates who had supported Howard Dean, campaigned against Lieberman, watched Hardball, and wrote screeds on their Movable Type-powered websites.

But Obama’s talents and David Axelrod’s strategy allowed the campaign to expand beyond the anti-Bush base and also take in independents and white voters. Obama won independents by 8 points. He cut McCain’s margin among white voters to 12 points (Bush had won whites in 2004 by 17 points). His hopeful and approachable demeanor, his nice family, his promise of comity and improvement—all these compensated for any doubts voters may have had about Obama’s inexperience. His first Gallup approval rating as president was 68 percent.

The untold story of the last four years is President Obama’s squandering of that good will. There’s no need to go into every detail here. Part of it was the spending. Part of it was not abandoning his unpopular health care law after Scott Brown’s shock election to the Senate in January 2010. Part of it was the failure of his economic policies to produce a durable recovery in line with historical norms. But the most important part of the story is the gradual unmasking of Obama—not as a Kenyan Marxist, but as a thoroughly typical liberal Democrat who believes there is no trouble in the world not created by George W. Bush.

Read The Obamians by James Mann and you discover that the Obama team came in thinking United States foreign policy could be fixed simply by doing the opposite of whatever Bush had done. What they found instead is that Bush’s policies are difficult to overturn because they are not as unreasonable or as superfluous as his opponents had thought. There is a resurgent global jihadist movement bent on killing Americans. Russia is belligerent not because Bush was rude but because Putin’s interests are not our own. The rise of China requires international balancing regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. American soldiers have left Iraq, but that does not mean Iraq or the world is safer. Iran is on track to obtain a nuclear weapon. Opening space between the U.S. and Israel did nothing to advance the cause of Middle East peace.

It turns out the people who supposedly knew better did not, actually, know better. Obama has been president almost for four years. Unemployment is higher than on the day he was inaugurated, economic growth is paltry, and incomes are stagnant. The cost of food and fuel and health insurance continues to rise. The deficit is double what it was in 2008 and if Obama is reelected it is not going to fall any time soon. Americans continue to tell pollsters that they see the country moving in the wrong direction.

The Obama coalition, piece by piece, has been disassembled. All that remains is the antiwar, anti-Republican core of the Democratic Party. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, so Obama could still squeak out a second term. But he has forsaken independents and whites, the groups that swung to him definitively and significantly in 2008. He is losing independents, in some polls by double-digits. His opponent Mitt Romney is “winning the white vote by more than any GOP candidate since Ronald Reagan,” according to the Washington Post. If the 2012 electorate resembles the 2008 one, it is possible for Obama to win reelection. But if the electorate turns out to be more like the electorate in 2004 or, God help him, like in 2010, Obama will lose.

Even a narrow win for Obama, though, would not reestablish anything like the mandate and amity the president enjoyed on his Inauguration Day. The reason is that, as the Obama coalition diminished, Obama no longer disguised the prejudices, inflections, outlook, and approach of the progressive movement. A confessed reader of Andrew Sullivan’s hysterical web site, the president has taken on the maximalist characteristics of the liberal blogosphere. He is scornful and contemptuous of Romney, as could be seen in his patronizing lecture on aircraft carriers and submarines during the third debate. His campaign seizes on the most trivial comments—“I like Big Bird”; “Binders full of women”—to engage in juvenile jibes that would not make the first cut at the Late Show writers’ meeting. His rallies have become self-congratulatory comedy hours in which the assembled Democrats laugh heartily at the insults and zingers the president throws Romney’s way. Obama has been on a seemingly nonstop tour of television shows hosted by late-night comics. His new attack line that the Republican nominee has “Romnesia” was, as the vice president might say, literally taken from liberal blogs. The vice president even asked his audience at a recent rally whether it had watched The Daily Show the night before. The men who hold the highest offices in the most powerful country in the history of the world have been debased to the point where they look like fill-in guests on Up with Chris Hayes.

The Democrats allowed the progressive movement’s hatred of Bush to take over their old and storied political party. That party and movement found a champion and a path to power in Obama, but the electoral forces on which his power relied were unstable. In 2008, he satisfied the left and won the middle. Once in power, though, he kept the left satisfied and lost the middle and right.

In 2012, there is just the left. The Democrats are back where they started eight years ago. And this time, Barack Obama cannot save them.











The Obama Regime is really the same as a Plague of Lies. There has never been such a thing in America. It makes the Nixon regime saintly in its truthfulness in comparision.


In anything to do with Islam in the world today, especially in Egypt Libya and Tunisia, they lie lie lie!


The exposure of these lies which is happening every minute now raises a whole new insight into the lies which were told about Yugoslavia during the 1990s.


It also raises the issue of the trials in the Hague, in what we call the Hague kangaroo Court. It is ALL interconnected.


This is an immediate conditional response and it is a deep psychosis which is not just, of course, the Obama Government but lies deep within Christian and Western Society, at any rate a very large part of it (return to that thought later)


It was clear in Debate Number 2 that Obama was in lying mode when Romney came to the issuie of the Benghazi murder of the Amarican Ambassador Stephens.


Obama had prepared well for this and he knew that he had used the word “terrorist” or “terrosism” when he spoke in the White House Garden the day after the attack. That would be September 12. Keep dates in mind here. Time in this is vitally important.


It was a throwaway word like “we oppose all terrorism”.


Obama was NOT saying on that September 12 that the attack on Stephens was a terrorist attack. He was saying the very opposite.


He and his whole Government were saying that it was a NATURAL and UNDERSTANDABLE bit of anger expressed by poor oppressed Muslim Victims against the making of a “quite horrible and disgusting film” made by who knows, and the conspiracists were claiming made by “Zionists”.


Thus Antisemitism follows in the slime laid down by this President Obama.


The very best exposure of these lies came yesterday in www.breitbart.com


This exposure concerns an e-mail that was sent by the STATE DEPARTMENT 2 hours after the attack on the Benghazi began and which Obama would have been reading immediately then.


I repeat Obama knew 2 hours in that the attack was coming from Al Qaida, that there was no protest at all against the film outside the American Embassy. There was instead of a protest against a film an attack by extreme Muslim fanatics against America.


So it is very important and instructive for us all to understand then what the President of America did. We are coming to that…



23 Oct 2012

Just over two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began on Sep. 11, the White House Situation Room was notified that a militant group with connections to al Qaeda had claimed responsibility, undermining claims by the Obama administration and the media that a video was initially the suspected cause.

The new revelations come in the form of an email sent by the State Department Operations Center to the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI and unspecified elements of the intelligence community. The email was sent at 6:07 p.m. EDT, which was 12:07 a.m. Benghazi time. The attack in Benghazi had started just over two hours earlier, at 3:50 p.m. Washington time.

Reuters reports that the email message was headlined “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” It read, in part: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.” One of the recipients listed on the email was the White House Situation Room.

A document produced by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security on Sep. 12th, based on public media reports, mentions Ansar al-Sharia but says, “There has been no substantiated claim of responsibility for the attacks, though media reports suggest members of Ansar al-Sharia participated in the attack.” The document goes on to say that Ansar al-Sharia has an affiliation with al Qaeda.

The administration’s inability to substantiate the claim of responsibility might explain its reluctance to call the attack “terrorism” in the early days. It does not explain why the White House sent surrogates Jay Carney and UN Ambassdor Susan Rice out repeatedly to insist the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video. 

On September 14th alone, White House Press secretary mentioned the video more than a dozen times. He was pointedly asked three times if he meant to connect the video to the Benghazi attack and said (the third time): “We have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise, that there was a pre-planned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.”

But the White House did have information, almost immediately, to suggest a militia aligned with al Qaeda might be responsible for the attack. The question is why that possibility was not raised at all while the other possibility, outrage over a video, was raised dozens of times that first week. 

Is it only a coincidence that the White House’s favored explanation is by far the less politically explosive of the two?


So what the writer on www.breitbart.com (John Sexton) HAMMERS HOME is that Obama lied, lied and lied again for weeks after the murder of Stephens.

Days later the bodies of Stephens and his associates came back to America and Obama and his wife met the caskets. They wore their solemn but lying faces because the lie machine was even then in full operation.

That is the level of the hypocrisy of that particular “hope for the poor oppressed black people”v president. As he met the casket of Stephens Obama did not even offer Stephens the dignity of having the truth told about how he died. Now that is low. (1)

The key paragraph in the above is the reportage on what happened in the Press Office of the White House on the 14th, that is just 3 days after the murders.

I repeat it here:

On September 14th alone, White House Press secretary mentioned the video more than a dozen times. He was pointedly asked three times if he meant to connect the video to the Benghazi attack and said (the third time): “We have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise, that there was a pre-planned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.”

The American Media as a whole cover for Obama. But the actual questioning of the Press Secretary is thorough, because America is deeply ivolved with The First Amendment.

The reporters at that Press Conference fairly tied down the liar who is Obama’s voice:

“No evidence to suggest”

They had the evidence in the White House in the form of the email within a couple of hours. The White House of Obama then went into a trailer load of lying garbage which had its lowest point in the staged Crowley/Obama theatre against Romney in debate Number 2, where Obama in avoiding Romney’s query had Obama saying to Crowley “let’s see the transcript, and Crowley had it under her desk!!!”

Now that is a Chicago set-up.

The city of Al Capone. The city of Obama.

The latest coming to light shows that the CBS had Obama admitting on the day after that there was Al qaida involved in the killing of Stephens. But they edited that out.

The very latest from www.debka.com is raising the reality that Stephens in Benghazi was not so much running an Embassy as running a depot for the supply of arms to the rebels in Syria. And if Stephens was doing that then he was not doing it off his own bat, he was only representing the Obama regime.

(1) The comments to the article from www.breitbart.com are vital. They show that the ordinary American is racing way ahead of the Media, but the only thing holding up this carcass in the White House IS the Media. Just as the Media hold up Abbas and hide the reality of Hamas, and just as the Media say nothing about Pollard, or also on a different theme that Julian Assange is kept a prisoner in a small room in London. This one is only one and not even the best

“Well stated. Even this article isn’t up front. FACT= There was a drone and they watched it in real time and that piece of s**t denied the help and went to bed!  Petreus knew. Why? I want an answer why we left our men to die. Maybe he would talk about the guns  you left there to be used against our people. He goes to bed…We are staring in the face of EVIL!!!!!!”……………Also there were suggestions that Obama turned off the truth because he went to Vegas where he had big money gathering operations for his campaign, not so far-fetched when you think that for Obama everything depends (can an EX president be impeached?) on re-election organization, in Ohio his team have THREE times as many offices opened as Romney, yet the lie is that Romney is the millionaire. Nobody has yet come to terms with this mass psychosis over Obama, which has similarities to the psychosis over the “Palestinians”, or Princess Di, or over Srebrenica which is a Lie. It has Hitlerian overtones.



Yesterday Romney and the Republicans lost the election and the Black Plague (A PLAGUE ALSO ON BLACK WORKERS!) will be elected once more.


(In fact I am not totally sure of the eventual result, but what I am sure of is that Romney gave up the fight against Obama in this Third Debate, and he did not follow up on the lies in the Second Debate of Obama and the Murder of Ambassador Stephens in Benghazi)


The crisis in world capitalism is what is dominant. Obama has squandered trillions and brought the US economy to the precipice. But Romney is also like a little baby in the face of the capitalist crisis. In America as in Greece the American capitalist class will seek out a Fascist Answer. The Lies of Obama are what brings America much closer to Fascism. There will arise in America a large fascist movement which is caught by the crisis, and which has been destroyed morally by the Lies of Obama. Perhaps the biggest Liar that America to date has ever seen. Romney withdrew in the face of these lies. Fatal I think for American Constitutional Patriots.


The result of the election of Obama and the paralysis of the bourgeois Jewish leaders will mean the obliteration of Israel and the Jews at the hands of a Fascist Hitler like Iran, which WILL build many Nuclear Bombs, and WILL be protected by the Black Obama Plague Himself.


Thus is bourgeois parliamentary democracy…a threat to all of humanity.


Romney only on one passing phrase nailed Obama. He called for the arrest of Ahmadinejad for promoting the genocide of the Jews. Actually he did not say the Jews but that is as much as you can expect from this Republican clone of Obama.


The writing WAS on the wall for all who wanted to see.


The Jewish leaders, all Jewish leaders that I know of, have been hesitating in the face of the Arab Spring, which is really the growth of Hitlerism, which will not stop until the Holocaust of the Jews (continued from the Nazis)


The American Democrats are in the bed along with Jihad. And the American Republicans did not support or defend Michelle Bachman who did challenge the Jihad.


That is the background to the surrender in the Third debate to the Obama Black Plague.

In conclusion the world is under a cloud, and that cloud is that the Media are liars, and the President of the US Obama was created by that Media, and Obama himself is a total liar. now even here in Europe we know that David Letterman the talk Show Host has been a big fan of Obama. But even Letterman is now calling Obama a liar hours after having Obama on his show. It was about debate. Romney on the Detroit Car Closures said “Check it out CHECK IT OUT check it out”

Letterman did and found out that Obama it was who was lying.

But will that matter. Remember that we proved everything about Srebrenica, that it was a giant fraud. But that did not matter. Power is held by the Media.

Now in Britain the English Defence League had over 50 of its members arrested but not charged with anything. Arrested as in Internment Northern Ireland style. And the Media are silent. You will only learn of this move to dictatorship from the New York website of Pamela Geller (google Atlas Shrugs)

In this world you can be right, you can be truthful and still lose. Remember.



Mitt Romney was completely correct in attacking Obama over the murder of HIS Ambassador in Benghazi Libya.

This analysis by Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch is completely correct and I commend Spencer for speaking thus, at a time when so called socialist movements like www.wsws.org are providing a cover for Obama by playing down the significance of the Romney disagreement with Obama.

The only thing that I disagree with Robert on, and where I think he has not given enough weight is in this:

The fact that the American Media and the European Media, as well as Governments, are so reticent to explain what Jihadism and Sharia is, and their cover on this for Obama and also Cameron/Hague, is a clear indication that we are very close to fascist forms of rule, which could take the form of a police dictatorship.




In ways Robert misunderstands what the Media is all about. The coverup by the Media on the Stephen’s murder, essentially and in reality by Obama and his Democratic Team, is a total coverup right across the board. The truth is not getting out. To me but not to Robert that is just a step away from Fascism or a Police Military Dictatorship.

The Spanish Government has recently arrested a number of Chinese business people. These people are paraded on television and the print media and here is the kicker THEY ARE BEING PRESENTED AS GUILTY even before trial!

Gone out the window is Habeas Corpus.

The presenter of sports news on Talk Radio Europe was presenting John Terry as being guilty. Again before a trial. I took this up with him on air. This man seemed not to understand what was Habeas Corpus. He is South African but it is certain that most South Africans, for example Mandela, know very well what is Habeas Corpus.

We are very close to Fascism, which is emerging out of the crisis in capitalism, that is my only point of difference of emphasis with Roberts article:









At PJ Media I discuss the principal lesson of the Benghazi massacre — the one that everyone is ignoring:

The Obama administration is approaching full meltdown over the steady stream of revelations concerning its inaction and lies over the massacre of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya. Obama and Biden are lining up against Hillary Clinton and the State Department, claiming that they weren’t told about Stevens’ requests for additional security. Meanwhile, administration officials are denying that they ever linked the attack on the consulate to the Muhammad video that has been blamed for worldwide Muslim riots, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. One fact, however, is as clear as it is little noted: the entire incident demonstrates the abject failure of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, and its analysis of the jihad threat in general.

Speaking about the Libyan revolution in March 2011, Obama warmly praised the dawning in Libya of “the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny.” After providing military aid to the anti-Gaddafi rebels despite evidence of their al-Qaeda links, the administration–whether the call really came from the White House or the State Department or both–had every reason to ignore the request from Benghazi for more security, and to pretend that the whole thing was just a spontaneous uprising over a video, not the carefully planned September 11 jihad attack that it proved to be.

To have acknowledged what was really happening would have been to admit that the Allahu-akbaring mob besieging the Benghazi consulate was nothing remotely close to a responsible citizenry enjoying their rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and self-determination. It would have been to admit that the jihad against the United States would not be turned away from its goal by hearts-and-minds gestures, even if those gestures included the removal of a brutal dictator. The people of Benghazi were no more inclined to welcome the Americans as liberators–and Ambassador Stevens had attempted to play exactly that role, sneaking into Libya during the most difficult days of the uprising and doing everything he could to aid the rebels–than were the people of Iraq when Saddam Hussein was toppled.

The reason in both cases was the same: the rebels against both Saddam and Gaddafi were largely Islamic supremacists who wanted a Sharia state, disdained democracy, and considered the United States to be their enemy not primarily because of various aspects of its foreign policy, but because it is the world’s foremost infidel polity, against whom the mujahedin believe they have a sacred duty to wage war. The Qur’an and Islamic law direct Muslims to wage war against and subjugate the “People of the Book” (cf. Qur’an 9:29)–that is, primarily Jews and Christians–not if they behave badly by supporting Israel or Middle Eastern dictators, but simply because they are not Muslims.

But the White House and State Department not only do not acknowledge this fact–they have done all they can to deny and obfuscate it. The one cardinal proposition that accepted analysts must repeat is that the present conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims have absolutely nothing to do with Islam; indeed, Obama administration officials are expressly forbidden to link Islam with terrorism, as if Islamic terrorists weren’t busy linking the two on a daily basis. The errors of analysis and wrong decisions that cost lives all follow from this initial false premise….

There is more.



The Holocaust

The Germans showed on the Channel Islands what they would have done to British Jews had they occupied Britain.

(We follow here on www.4international.me with 2 articles which show that the British fought World War 2 for its own interests and that if there had been a Nazi occupation of Britain then British Quislings would surely have joined in with the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews)

There were only a small number of foreign and British Jews on the Channel Islands. Most of the Channel Island Jews wisely evacuted (June 1940), but officials did not permit foreign Jews to leave for Britain. There were 17 Jews on the Islands when the Germans arrived. Soon after the German occuption, officials issued the first anti-Jewish Order (October 1940). They instructed the police to idetify Jews as part of the registation process. Island authorities complied. Their registration cards were marked with red “J”s. Authorities also compiled lists of Jewish property which was turned over to German authorities. [Fraser] Placard were placed on jewish-owned shops in German and English –‘Jewish Undertaking’. Jewish had to sell their businesses. The process developed differently on the three islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, and Alderney. Jersey Jews and 22 Jersey islanders died in concentration camps. Officials made some effort to mitigate anti-Semitic measures the NAZIs demanded. They refused to require Jews to wear yellow stars. They did formally Aryanise businesses, but they were returned after the war. Even so, Jewish families had to struggled to survive after being deprived of their livelihoods. Police officials on Jersey and Guernsey did investigate Jewish ancestry for the Germans. Curfews were imposed on Jews. Shopping was limited to 3-4 pm. Two Jersey Jews committed suicide. One was admitted to an asylum where he subsequntly died. There were heros. Albert Bedane hid Mary Richardson, a Dutch Jewess who married a British sea captain, for 2 1/2 years. Guernsey police handed over three East European Jewish women to the NAZIS who deported then first to France where they were rounded up and transported to Auschwitz. The Duquemin fmily, including an 18-month-old baby girl, were deported but survived. Alderney was the site of the only SS camp on British soil–the Norderney Camp. The camp was for slave labor who worked on the island. The Jews were kept separated from the other prisoners. The NAZIs transported over 16,000 slave workers to the Channel Islands to build fortifications. Among these workers were 1,000 French Jews. [Cohen] Many of these slave laborers died from exhaustion and malnutrition.










It’s not hard to understand why the British feel so proud about their role in the Second World War. The undeniable truth is that this country, led by Winston Churchill, held out against the Germans in 1940 and thus prevented the Nazi domination of Western Europe.

And, of course, by thwarting the Germans the British never had to endure Nazi occupation and so didn’t have to discover just how many people in this land would have collaborated with the enemy. It’s this, I’ve always felt, that contributes to an underlying sense in the British national consciousness – most often unspoken – that ‘we were better than they were’ (and the ‘they’ usually – again normally unsaid – means the French).

But were we? Because something that happened seventy years ago this month ought to give us pause.

In April 1942 three Jews were deported from Guernsey in the Channel Islands. The Nazi occupiers had requested that the Channel Islands authorities co-operate in the persecution of the Jews and co-operate they most certainly did. The previous year, 1941, officials in the Channel Islands had called for all Jews to come forward and be registered – something that was the beginning of their suffering. Jewish businesses were compulsorily sold and at least one Jew on Jersey, Victor Emmanuel, ended up committing suicide.

The police on Guernsey – who wore the traditional uniform of the British ‘bobby’ – ordered three Jews, Auguste Spitz, Marianne Grunfeld and Therese Steiner to report for deportation from the island on 21 April. Therese Steiner, brought before Sergeant Ernest Plevin of the Guernsey police, burst into tears and told him that she would never see him again.

She was right. Once in France all three of the women from Guernsey were caught up in further Jewish deportations and transported to Auschwitz. None of them survived the war.

Whilst the authorities on the Channel Islands didn’t know for sure what would happen to the Jews that were deported, they certainly knew how much the Nazis hated the Jews and that those Jews sent from Guernsey were almost certain to experience further suffering away from the island.

Is what happened on the Channel Islands any indicator of what might have happened here on the British mainland if the Nazis had occupied this country? Well, I’ve been on holiday to both Jersey and Guernsey with my family and can certainly say these islands appear more British than anything else…

And remember the words of a British intelligence report from August 1945: ‘When the Germans proposed to put their anti-Jewish measures into force, no protest whatever was raised by any of the Guernsey officials and they hastened to give the Germans every assistance.’





In response to the British website Harry’s Place who covers up for Obama and Crowley 4internatikonal places this comment there (http://hurryupharry.org/2012/10/17/obama-vs-romney-round-two/#comment-812521)




“While there are legitimate questions to be raised, in the wake of the Benghazi consulate attack, about adequate security and about the administration’s shifting explanations of what happened, Romney found himself being called out by the debate moderator for claiming that Obama waited two weeks before calling what happened in Benghazi an act of terror.”


Lies and More Lies!


The explanations from Obama were not “shifting” at all, they were consistent for 2 weeks. They were saying that this murder of Stephens (the American Ambassador) had nothing to do with Jihadists but grew out of the protest against the film. While Obama and Clinton were continually attacking the film and film maker, refusing to defend the First.


There is huge controversy over this debate and the role of Crowley and do not ever try to cover up this truth!

Read John Nolte of www.Breitbart.com.


What to make of the debate last night between Obama and Romney (The second of 3)?

There was a real difference between these two US capitalist politicians and the difference is that Obama was proven  by his exchange on the murder of Ambassador Stephens in Benghazi to be a total and practised liar.

As far as the economic crisis in capitalism is concerned neither had,  have or will have an answer. We clearly are heading into dictatorship country, the forms of which (fascist, police State, Army Rule) are not yet clear to anybody.

Let us look at a couple of responses to this important debate.

The anti-Marxist and anti-Troptskyist organization called www.wsws.org wrote a treacherous piece saying there were no differences between Romney and Obama, at all. You can apreciate that this covers up for the lies of Obama on Stephens, which was the key moment int he debate. The wsws writes:

“A basic purpose of the spectacle was to create the illusion of fundamental policy differences between the two candidates and their parties, when there are none. The political differences between the Democrats and Republicans reflect secondary tactical differences within the ruling oligarchy.”


By ignoring the lies of Obama on Stephens the WSWS are covering for this total liar, when workers and youth of America need to know about these lies.

If www.wsws.org is a Trotskyist organization then I will eat my hat because in order to discover the nature of the lie of Obama and the way that Crowley the interviewer was working to try to save Obama’s ass in this election WE HAVE TO TURN TO www.breitbart.com, which is opposed to socialism, but unlike these fraudsters of www.wsws.org does care about the truth, in politics and in life in general.

And Breitbart tells us:

The lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley’s disgraceful “moderation” was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama’s side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration’s lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover the claim that he had called the attack a “terrorist attack” on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement.

Romney correctly disputed that.

Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama’s side and the crowd exploded.

Here’s what Obama said that day:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this “act of terror” to … a mob action over a YouTube video — not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again.

Let’s not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror.

And during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug…The lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley’s disgraceful “moderation” was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama’s side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration’s lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover the claim that he had called the attack a “terrorist attack” on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement.

Romney correctly disputed that.

Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama’s side and the crowd exploded.


(Article by John Nolte on http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/16/Crowley-Saves-Obama-with-false-fact-check)



To go over this again. the essence to remember is that the Obama team which included Susan Rice and Mrs Clinton as well as Obama, said that the murder of Stephens was the result of the film, that it grew out of a protest against the film.

That is what Romney was saying. Obama wanted to hide this record and in front of millions Crowley helped him to hide this.

The people in the hall swallowed this Obama lies.

But the political people, even people on pro-Obama blogs and other seasoned reporters etc. saw the lie and the inhustice immediately in the discussions afterwards.

Again www.breitbart.com tells the truth and the wsws tells us lies.

***UPDATE 4: Politico’s Dylan Byers: “After the debate, even Crowley seemed to acknowledge that she had erred.”

***UPDATE 3: Even Politico’s Mike Allen is questioning Crowley’s call.

***UPDATE 2: Even Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler says Crowley got it wrong: Obama “did not say terrorism.”

***UPDATE: After the debate, Anderson Cooper was the first member of the CNN post debate group to question whether or not Romney really got the Libya issue wrong. They then brought Crowley on and after all the damage she had done during the debate, she finally admitted that Romney was “right” but “picked the wrong word.”


I also listened today to a report by Stephen Ritson ont he Talk Radio Europe show. Stephen gave a good report but missed the significance of these lies by Obama and seems not tol have understood the terrible role of the Obama team in the murder of the American Ambassador Stephens, which itself grew out of the failure of Obama to defend the Coptic Film Maker without conditions.


I am writing to Ritson so that he can put this oversight right.