Turkish Forum English

Category: Libya

  • On the desert trail of Tony Blair’s millions

    On the desert trail of Tony Blair’s millions

    An explosive new TV documentary reveals the apparent conflict of interests that allows the former prime minister, now a Middle East peace envoy, to earn millions.

    tonyblair
    A bit rich: Mr Blair has said that he is worth 'considerably less' than £20 million Photo: REUTERS

    By Peter Oborne

    One of the first letters arranging Tony Blair’s 2008 visit to Colonel Gaddafi, the now deposed Libyan despot, was written on the notepaper of the “Office of the Quartet Representative” – the formal title of the former British prime minister, reflecting his role as Middle East peace envoy.

    Mr Blair flew into Tripoli in a jet arranged by the Libyan government, and was met by British diplomats. Yet a well-placed source has told The Daily Telegraph that his visits were little to do with Middle East peace, saying instead that the “visits were lobby visits for banking deals with JP Morgan” – the US investment bank that pays Mr Blair a consultancy fee of a reported £2 million a year. However, Mr Blair’s official spokesman categorically denied that Blair lobbied Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, on behalf of the bank, insisting that the visits were largely to do with African affairs.

    Much remains mysterious about Mr Blair’s repeated visits to Tripoli over the past few years. But they display the essential characteristic of the jet-setting billionaire lifestyle he has enjoyed ever since leaving Downing Street in June 2007: an extraordinary confusion of public duty and private interest.

    Was Mr Blair in Libya – as the headed notepaper would suggest – to discuss Middle East peace with Gaddafi? Was he working on behalf of his Governance Initiative, which claims it “pioneers a new way of working with African countries”? Was he sounding out deals for J P Morgan, as the well-placed Telegraph source insists? Or was he there on behalf of his own very lucrative money-making concern, Tony Blair Associates (TBA), whose professed objective is to provide “strategic advice” on “political and economic trends and government reform”?

    This confusion of motive and identity follows Mr Blair almost everywhere he goes, as we found when researching our forthcoming Channel 4 Dispatches film, The Wonderful World of Tony Blair.

    Let’s take the example of Mr Blair’s visit to the Emir of Kuwait, part of a wider Middle Eastern tour, made on January 26, 2009. He was introduced to the Emir – who is said to feel a profound sense of gratitude to the former British prime minister because of his role in deposing Kuwait’s greatest enemy, Saddam Hussein – in his capacity of Quartet Representative. And, indeed, Blair is charged by the Quartet with raising Middle Eastern funds to plough into Palestinian projects.

    Yet, puzzlingly, by his side was a figure who has nothing to do with the Quartet whatever: Jonathan Powell. Mr Powell, who used to be Downing Street Chief of Staff when Mr Blair was prime minister, today has a new role as senior adviser to Tony Blair Associates, the vehicle through which Mr Blair channels many of his money-earning interests. Mr Powell was perched on a sofa during the meeting.

    Shortly afterwards, the Emir handed Tony Blair Associates a lucrative consultancy deal to provide advice on the future of the Kuwaiti economy. Nobody knows how much this deal – which was kept secret for two years – is worth. Because the TBA contract was handled by the Emir’s personal office, it is exempt from scrutiny by Kuwait’s normally rigorous financial regulatory body.

    Few Kuwaitis are prepared to speak out publicly, because it is illegal to criticise the Emir. But Nasser Al Abolly, a leading Kuwaiti pro-democracy campaigner, said he had heard from good sources that Mr Blair had been paid 12 million dinars, about £27 million. “I believe this amount is exorbitant,” Abolly told us, adding that much of Blair’s eventual report was not original and had come up with many of the same recommendations as earlier reports on the future of Kuwait – an observation echoed by other Kuwaiti politicians. A spokesman for Mr Blair insists that the sum involved was far less than £27 million, though declined to say how much TBA had been paid.

    Mr Blair’s job as representative for the Quartet – the international diplomatic group that represents the US, Russia, the United Nations and Europe in their common attempt to forge peace in the Middle East – is riddled with this type of very troubling ambiguity.

    Let’s take the example of the deal trumpeted by Mr Blair as one of his greatest achievements in his role as Quartet Representative – his success in persuading the Israeli government to open up radio frequencies so that the phone company Wataniya Mobile can operate in the West Bank.

    Wataniya Mobile’s chief executive officer Bassam Hanoun cannot praise Mr Blair too highly. He told us that the Wataniya network had been built, “but it was dead, not operational” – until Mr Blair’s forceful intervention with Israeli ministers.

    Yet Wataniya’s owner, the Qatari telecoms giant QTEL, is a major client of one of the former prime minister’s most significant paymasters, JP Morgan. When QTEL bought Wataniya Mobile’s parent company, Wataniya International, in 2007, the company did so with a $2 billion loan that JP Morgan helped to arrange, and the bank stood to make huge profits once the radio frequencies were released.

    A near identical conflict involves a second major Palestinian project for which Mr Blair is lobbying heavily – the development of a huge gas field off the shore of Gaza worth more than $6 billion. Once again, he is fighting to overturn an Israeli edict blocking development, and again there is a potential conflict of interest. British Gas, which owns the rights to operate the field, is a major client of, yes, you guessed it, JP Morgan.

    JP Morgan insists it has never discussed either the Wataniya or the British Gas deal with Mr Blair – while the former prime minister insists that in both cases he was, in any case, wholly unaware of the JP Morgan connection.

    Nevertheless, the conflict is glaring – and Mr Blair would be unable to get away with this kind of confusion if he were a public servant in Britain, or working for an international organisation such as the World Bank or the IMF.

    Dr Nicholas Allen, a senior politics lecturer at the University of London, specialising in parliamentary ethics, told us: “It is not altogether clear that Blair is separating very clearly his work as the representative of the Quartet and his business interests. Clearly, if he was holding a ministerial office in Britain, that kind of conflict – even the appearance of that kind of conflict, the appearance of that influence – wouldn’t be tolerated.”

    Dr Allen says that no fewer than six out of seven of the Nolan principles – the code of ethics for public servants enforced by Mr Blair when he was prime minister – “appear to be undermined by Blair’s conduct”.

    This immunity from ordinary standards comes despite the fact that Mr Blair is partly funded by the British taxpayer and gets the support of British civil servants. It all sounds uncannily similar to the notorious so-called “sofa government” – the confusion of formal roles and identities in the run up to the Iraq invasion for which, as prime minister, Mr Blair was censured by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler.

    It must be acknowledged that Mr Blair does much philanthropic and public spirited work through his Africa governance initiative, his Faith Foundation, and also for the Quartet (even though we found very few Palestinians who were prepared to speak well of him). However, these admirable objectives have been compromised and tarnished by his apparent drive to make money.

    The Quartet cannot occupy more than one week a month of Blair’s schedule, perhaps less. He has earned a reported £6 million – though some in the City insist the real figure may be much higher – from JP Morgan since his consultancy started in 2008. Add in an estimated £1.5 million from advising the insurance group Zurich Financial services on its climate initiative.

    He has advised Mubadala, one of Abu Dhabi’s most prominent sovereign wealth funds, and the luxury goods concern LVMH. In the television programme, we calculate that the Blair family property portfolio alone – with seven houses ranging from his manor house in Buckinghamshire to his London house in Connaught Square – is worth over £14 million. And then comes a further reported £9 million or more from speeches.

    It is impossible to tell how much Tony Blair Inc is worth exactly because his finances are carefully hidden behind complex financial structures. Mr Blair himself is on record as saying that he is worth “considerably less” than £20 million. There is some reason to be sceptical of this claim.

    Mr Blair insists that his conduct since stepping down as prime minister has been honourable, above board and beyond reproach. But this much can surely be said: when Blair joined the Quartet, he was handed a priceless opportunity to earn a place in history by making a genuine commitment to world peace. He has made some progress. Yet he seems to treat his post as envoy for the Quartet as a part-time post, by allowing his private commercial interests to merge with his public duty. And – as ever – the old maestro is getting away with it.

    Additional reporting by Sasha Joelle Achilli. Watch Peter Oborne reporting for ‘Dispatches: The Wonderful World of Tony Blair’ on Monday at 8pm on Channel 4.

    www.telegraph.co.uk, 23 Sep 2011

     

     

  • Tripoli plays the Turkey card

    Tripoli plays the Turkey card

    The NTC purports to mimic the Turkish model, but the Western world should be wary of Libya’s new “moderate Islam”, warns Gamal Nkrumah

    Rarely, in the Arab Spring, has a new government taken power by force of arms in less propitious circumstances. So far Libya is the first. Now that the dueling speeches are over, Muammar Gaddafi and his adversaries clearly have a morning-after crisis. Gaddafi is at large, on the run. That could trigger unintended consequences. That is why his foes have declared that his capture dead or alive is their top priority. Gaddafi’s military defeat has done nothing to slow his growing international isolation.

    re1102
    Libya fighters raise their assault riffles in celebration for the arrival of Libyan Transitional National Council chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil at Metiga airport in Tripoli

    The refusal by the National Transitional Council (NTC) during its campaign to oust Gaddafi from office to spell out the challenges that face the country has been particularly damaging. That is in large measure because it has left many Libyans believing that every Libyan has the right to spell out his or her views on matters of post-Gaddafi Libyan politics. The NTC leaders have declared that Libyans are of a moderate Islamic disposition — “Al-Islam Al-Wasati” or middle-of-the-road, as they describe it. They should in addition take the principles they enunciated on national security and fundamental religious freedoms and convert them into terms of reference for the new post-Gaddafi democratic Libya.

    The NTC is on firmer ground in their criticism of the more militant factions of the anti-Gaddafi forces whom Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, the NTC chairman, described as constituting only five per cent of the Libyan people. He timed his arrival in Tripoli for a rally this week in Martyr Square, formerly Green Square.

    It appears that the leading proponents of Islamist orientation of the NTC are those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world. While Abdel-Jalil is entitled to air his views, not all his arguments convince. At the heart of his claims is that Libya will be run on the “Turkish model”.

    In sharp contrast, the nuances of Gaddafi’s anti-imperialist ideological outlook have been overwhelmed by the sound bytes. The ousted leader’s detractors believe that the NTC deserves praise for exposing the shabby and shoddy regime of the ousted Libyan leader, a man who did his utmost to destroy civil society in Libya.

    Of course, Gaddafi was not elected to office. He usurped power in a military coup d’etat. The leaders of the NTC are determined to demonstrate that they are not following in Gaddafi’s footsteps. They insist that free and fair elections will be held within a year, eight months if possible. However, is it fair to claim that Gaddafi’s harrumphs at the hypocrisy of Western-style multi-party pluralism and democracy are nothing more than a fanatic assault on the coalition of forces that form the NTC. His admirers and well-wishers point out that his political career was something of pluck and personal discovery and that all his famous speeches, the infamous Green Book and his outrageous costumes were all tempered by a self-mocking humour.

    Now the NTC’s Liberation Army seeks to extend its authority to the south of the country where support for the ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is still strong. More glaringly, under the NTC’s proposed parliamentary system, it would be absurd to expect the disparate factions that constitute the NTC to enact only policies spelt out by the Western democracies.

    The latter could be in for a rude awakening. A country that has been run by an iron-fisted autocratic ruler for 42 years cannot become a viable democracy overnight. It is undeniable that the NTC has important national security interests in recognising and buttressing aspects of Muslim jurisdiction into the post-Gaddafi political establishment in Libya. The political demise of the supposedly socialist secularism espoused by Gaddafi is a forgone conclusion. But maybe this was a proper outcome of the state capitalism actually practiced by the Gaddafi regime.

    Somewhat capriciously, Gaddafi’s son Saidi and seven of his father’s senior and trusted aides surfaced in neighbouring Niger to seek political asylum. Apparently, Tuareg tribesmen who have been loyal to Gaddafi assisted them in their escape from Libya as he championed their cause for many decades. Saidi and his entourage fled Libya to the oasis city of Agades, a Tuareg stronghold. Saidi’s inauspicious exit accentuates the NTC’s problem with Libya’s porous borders.

    However, the authorities in Niger insisted that Saidi move on to the country’s capital Niamey. It is not clear whether Saidi will remain in Niger or join his sister Aisha, his mother Safiya and two brothers Mohamed and Hannibal in Algeria. Seif Al-Islam, is still believed to be in Libya — either in the southern Libyan desert city of Sebha in Fezzan, Libya’s southernmost province or in Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown. Seif Al-Islam’s double failure to pursue his political raison d’etre of inheriting his father’s ideological mantle invites the conclusion that his condition is hopeless. His reaction to NTC advances was not merely hostile, but positively malevolent.

    The NTC stresses that treating Seif Al-Islam with benign neglect would be a grave mistake. This is in part due to irreconcilable political differences between Gaddafi and his foes. Then by a familiar rhetorical ploy Gaddafi could endure as the idealised Third World leader with his old-fashioned anti-imperialism from outside the grey world of Westernisation.

    Tolerance was not universal under Libya’s ousted leader. In their attempt to heal the political rifts resulting from the civil war, the NTC is trying to portray itself as tolerant. Many of Gaddafi’s henchmen have surrendered to the NTC authorities. Amnesty International has warned about atrocities committed by the NTC’s Liberation Army. However, Western governments by and large believe that the NTC has been relatively generous and restrained.

    The leaders of the NTC insist on punishment for the criminal elements in Gaddafi’s entourage. But they cautioned against unbridled vindictiveness, arguing that if there were any charges to be leveled against Gaddafi supporters, those charges were also to be the object of formal legal attention.

    The NTC’s approach so far has been impeccably fair in form and apparent content as far as Gaddafi’s followers and hangers-on are concerned. Toleration has had to be relearned by a new generation of post-Gaddafi Libyans.

    Any attempt by the NTC to replicate the so-called Turkish model must be squared with their purportedly Western liberal baggage.

    The question is whether Abdel-Jalil can be the architect of a new Libya with civil society at its heart. According to a January 2010 US diplomatic cable from Tripoli exposed by WikiLeaks, Abdel-Jalil was noted as supporting US neoliberal policy, in particular US Commercial Law Development programmes in Libya. Is really he capable of drawing up a new social contract for the Libyan people?

    Abdel-Jalil served Gaddafi for years as secretary of the General People’s Committee for Justice before he was dispatched by Gaddafi to Benghazi during the early days of the uprising in February to negotiate the release of hostages taken by militant Islamists. Once in Benghazi he switched sides, denouncing his former boss. The moral of the story is that the NTC’s posturing as a moderate Islamic democratic force cannot soberly be applied within the context of an inconclusive and unconvincing liberal agenda.

  • Tony Blair ‘visited Libya to lobby for JP Morgan’

    Tony Blair ‘visited Libya to lobby for JP Morgan’

    Tony Blair used visits to Libya after he left office to lobby for business for the American investment bank JP Morgan, The Daily Telegraph has been told.

    blair and gaddafi
    Mr Blair was flown to Libya twice at Gaddafi's expense on one of the former dictator's private jets Photo: GETTY

    By Richard Spencer, Tripoli, Heidi Blake and Jon Swaine in New York

    A senior executive with the Libyan Investment Authority, the $70 billion fund used to invest the country’s oil money abroad, said Mr Blair was one of three prominent western businessmen who regularly dealt with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the former leader.

    Saif al-Islam and his close aides oversaw the activities of the fund, and often directed its officials on where they should make its investments, he said.

    The executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, said officials were told the “ideas” they were ordered to pursue came from Mr Blair as well as one other British businessman and a former American diplomat.

    “Tony Blair’s visits were purely lobby visits for banking deals with JP Morgan,” he said.

    He said that unlike some other deals – notably some investments run by the US bank Goldman Sachs – JP Morgan’s had never turned “bad”.

    Documents found by The Sunday Telegraph published this weekend showed Mr Blair had made at least three visits to Tripoli, twice in the lead-up to the release of the alleged Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Megrahi in 2008 and 2009 and once last year. On the first two occasions he was flown to the country on planes arranged by Col Gaddafi.

    A senior diplomat told The Daily Telegraph last night that the British embassy in Tripoli had arranged transport for Mr Blair and his entourage in Tripoli and ensured that representatives were there to “greet him and see him off” at the airport.

    Mr Blair stayed overnight at the ambassador’s official residence in Tripoli and was accompanied by “several” British police officers for protection.

    The documents show that among the people he was due to meet in 2009 was Mohammed Layas, head of the LIA.

    A spokesman for Mr Blair said that the visits had largely been to discuss Africa, and categorically denied that he had lobbied Said al-Islam on behalf of JP Morgan.

    The spokesman said last night: “As we have made clear many times before, Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he does not and has never had any commercial relationship with any Libyan company or entity.”

    Mr Blair began work in January 2008 as a £2million-a-yearn adviser to JP Morgan. Last month, American officials told the New York Post newspaper that the bank managed more than half a billion US dollars on behalf of the LIA.

    The executive said that he did not see Mr Blair at the LIA headquarters in the modern Tower of the Revolution overlooking the seafront. He said officials like himself were given their instructions by two senior Saif aides, including Mohammed Ismail, a Libyan with British nationality.

    One of the letters arranging the 2008 visit, in which an aide to Mr Blair told the Libyan ambassador to Britain that the former prime minister was “delighted” that “The Leader” was likely to be able to see him, was on notepaper headed “Office of the Quartet Representative”, his formal title as Middle East envoy.

    The Quartet he represents is made up of the European Union, the United Nations, Russia and the United States. A spokesman for Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, said: “It’s up to him to explain why he did this.”

    The growing closeness of the Blair government to the Gaddafi regime has already come under fire. Abdulhakim Belhadj, former leader the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group and now head of the revolutionary Tripoli Military Council, is demanding an apology after papers showed MI6 arranged for his secret extradition from Malaysia back to Libya in 2004.

    Many ordinary Libyans have also expressed surprise at the policy. After the latest revelations, Hoda Abuzeid, a British Libyan whose dissident father was murdered in London in 1995, accused Mr Blair of “selling out”.

    “People like Blair and those who had their eyes on the business opportunities that Gaddafi could provide sold out people like my family,” said Miss Abuzeid, who has returned to the country for the first time since 1980.

    “When he had tea in the desert with the ‘Brother Leader’ did he ever ask him who killed my father?”

    www.telegraph.co.uk, 18 Sep 2011

  • The Coming World Crisis

    The Coming World Crisis

    En Route To Global Occupation“Chapter 7 – The Coming World Crisis

    […]

    Before the nations of the world ultimately embrace a system of global government, they must first have a reason to do so. Humanity, convinced that permenant world peace cannot be attanied without the creation of a powerful world authority capable of pretecting countries from one another, will eventually sacrifice the current world order – seeing no
    alternative. Significant strides have already been made in this directionsince the turn of the century, end if history repeats itself, further “progress” will be made soon.

    Two world wars have already been fought in the twentieth century. In each case, an aggresive power was used to ignite a crisis that drew in the rest of the world; and both times the aggressor was defeated. After each war, as supranational organization was established for the alleged purpose of
    promoting world peace, first the League of Nations, then the United Nations. Each organization has brought us one step closer to the realization of a one world government. The United Nations today is the closest thing to world government that humanity has ever known. Unlike the incomplete League of Nations, which consisted of only 63 countries and did not include the US, the United Nations consists of 159 nations, nearly every country in the world. Its infrastructure is all-encompassing and includes the World Court, the UN peace-keeping forces, and specialized organizations ranging from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to the World HealthOrganization (WHO). It oversees dozens of additional agencies ranging from UNESCO to UNICEF, covering virtually every aspect of life. The UN lacks only the power to implement and enforce its strategies.

    Could a third world war be used to finally lead mankind to accept a New World Order? If so, how might such a war begin? Who would be its main players? And what would be the outcome? To answer these important questions we must examine those areas where current events and the blueprints of the conspirators coincide with what the Bible teaches must yet take place.

    A Possible Scenario

    I believe that insiders will initiate a world crisis only if they feel it isnecessary to get the public to accept their New World Order. The mere threat of a major world conflict could be enough to scare the public into accepting such a change-especially when coupled with the existing problems of world hunger and global debt, and the created panic over the environment. As their campaign slogan openly proclaims, “Global Problems Demand Global Solutions!” Historically, however, wars have been effective in advancing the cause of
    world government; the fact is, major changes occur more easily during times of crisis. 

    Unlike the previous world wars in which Germany was the main instigator, the world’s next major conflict will undoubtedly be sparked by the hotbed of tensions surrounding the Middle East. If not Iraq a second time, then perhaps Iran or Syria.

    This writer believes that Syria might play a significant role in ushering in the New World Order, if not as an instigator of war, then as a middle man for negotiating peace. It is too critical a nation to remain on the sidelines for very long and, contrary to popular belief, Syria -not Iraq- is the most powerful Islamic military state in the Middle East. It therefore merits close watching.

    During the past several years, Syria appears to have been laying the groundwork for its own attack against Israel. Syrian troops now hold long sought after positions in Lebanon and have been prepared for such an invasion since early 1984. According to the USA Department of Defense publication, Soviet Military Power, Syria has also become the site of the largest Soviet arms build-up in the Third World, having contrasted for 19 billion dollars in military hardware. It currently boasts the largest number of Soviet military advisors of any Third World country. (1)

    The Syrian government, meanwhile, has effectively turned the tables by falsely warning its people of a coming Israeli attack on Syria, although Israel has repeatedly denied such allegations. (2) According to the Jerusalem Post during one of Syria’s propaganda campaigns several years ago it took a personal statement from Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzak Shamir, to maintain peace. Shamir voiced his “incomprehension” at Syrian “nervousness”, “which, he said, had triggered several strong Soviet warnings to Israel in recent days.” (3) I beleive the Syrian government was deliberately misleading its people in order to justify its own “pre-emptive” strike against Israel down the road. For these reasons, I have chosen to use Syria as our example in this scenario (although a similar scenario could beconstracted using Iraq, Iran, or even Libya).

    If the powers-that-be were to move Syria against Israel, it would be Syria’s fatal mistake, planned this way by the conspirators in order to precipitatea world crisis. Unlike previous invasions, the Jewish state this time would have almost no time to respond. Its back would be to the wall quickly as Syrian MIGs would strike over Jerusalem within 4 minutes. Israel would be faced with a very difficult decision -either allow itself to be conquered, or else launch its nuclear arsenal against Syria and possibly Iraq. In late 1986, “London’s Sunday Times printed an article stating that Israel may havea stockpile of as many as 200 nuclear warheads.” (4) So we know that a nuclear exchange is a very real possibility.
    There is an Old Testament prophesy concerning Damascus, the capital of Syria, which has yet to be fulfilled. Isaiah proclaimed: “See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.” (Is. 17:1). As it is, Damascus is the oldest standing city in the world, never having experienced mass destruction. This prophesy must be fulfilled some time before the return of Christ.

    Having lost several thousand of its military advisors in the exchange and with world opinion seemingly turned against Israel for her use of nuclear force, the Soviet Union could seize this opportunity to do what it has long desired – move against Israel. Arab pressure on the Soviets to invade Israel would add to the temptation.

    If the Soviet Union came to the rescue of Syria, it would suddenly find itself on opposite sides with the United States. What could happen next is unthinkable. Mankind will have been brought to the brink of destruction.

    Wicked man high places have been contemplating such a crisis for years. In a letter to the Italian revolutionary leader Giuseppe Mazzini dated 15 Agust 1871 Albert Pike, the leader of the Illuminati’s activities in the United States and the head of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry at the time, describeda distant final war, which he felt would be necessary to usher in the New World Order. (5) According to Pike, this conflict between two future superpowers would be sparked by first igniting crisis between Islam and Judaism. He went on to write:

    We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which, in all its horror, will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism, the origin of  savagery and of most bloody turmoil. Then, everywhere, the people, forced to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization; and multitudes, disillusioned with Christianity whose deistic spirits will be from that moment on without direction and leadership, anxious for an ideal but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the uiversal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out into public view; a  manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time. (6) (*)

    Should such a crisis be permitted to occur, the amount of destruction would be staggering. Humanity would tremble with fear believing that man is about to destroy himself. For even if Soviet Union or the United States were eliminated as military powers, over 30 countries would still have nuclear capacity. It would be a time of despair and mass confusion. Add to this the resulting chaos of global financial markets, which are already on the brink of disaster; the economic turmoil would only contribute to the world’s state of panic.

    (1) US Department of Defense, Soviet Military Power, 1986 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1986), 133

    (2) Post Diplomatic Correspondent, “Jerusalem incomprehension at Syriannervousness,” The Jerusalem Post, (12 April 1984): 1, col. 1-2.

    (3) Ibid.

    (4) “Israel’s Nuclear Prowess – A Leak by Design?” US News and World Report(10 November 1986): 8.(5) Salem Kirban, Satan’s Angels Exposed (Roseville, GA: Grapevine Books, 1980), 158-161(6) Myron Fagan, The Illuminati-CFR, Emissary Publications, TP-107, 1968.
    This letter between Pike and Mazzini is now catalogued in the British Museum in London (According to Salem Kirban, Satan’s Angels Exposed, 164). Parts of this letter are also quoted in “Descent Into Slavery” by Des Griffin

    En Route To Global Occupation back(*) It is a pure coincidence that the most powerful figures of the Middle East are Freemasons? Have they been destined to trigger the conflict about which Albert Pike wrote? A prominent Arab Christian leader recently informed me that according to his contacts in Lebanon, King Assad of Syria and King Hussain of Jordan are both Freemasons. If this is true, we could be closer to the New World Order than people realize. (He was uncartain about whetherSaddam Hussain belonged to the same secret society.)

    A few months ago, the son of this same Arab Christian gave me a masonic document – a membership certificate – which he found in Lebanon, issued by a Phoenician Lodge located in Lebanon. However, the document notes that the Lodge is under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Jordan, which is under the authority of the Arab Supreme Council. For at least several centuries,Jordan has been a bastion of secret societies in the Middle East and has much more influence in the regions behind-the-scenes politics than most people realize. The same masonic symbol appearing on our dollar bill and found at ancient occult worship sites throughout the world, the all-seeing eye, is prominently displayed on the certificate.

    Source: “En Route to Global Occupation” by Gary H. Kah, 1991, [Huntington House Publishers, Lafayette, Louisiana]

    Tanrıyı Kıyamete Zorlamak – Kağan Kurt – 1.Bölüm by HoneyMedia

    Armageddon Coalition Russia Iran Turkey Libya Ethiopia

  • Erdogan pitches Turkey’s democratic model on ‘Arab Spring’ tour

    Erdogan pitches Turkey’s democratic model on ‘Arab Spring’ tour

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan joined hands with Libya’s new leaders at Friday prayers today and promised to help their revolution succeed.

    By Alexander Christie-Miller, Correspondent / September 16, 2011

    Istanbul, Turkey

    Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan (l.) and Chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council Mustafa Abdel Jalil wave to people during a rally at Martyrs' Square in Tripoli on Friday, Sept. 16. Suhaib Salem/Reuters
    Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan (l.) and Chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council Mustafa Abdel Jalil wave to people during a rally at Martyrs' Square in Tripoli on Friday, Sept. 16. Suhaib Salem/Reuters

    Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan (l.) and Chairman of Libya’s National Transitional Council Mustafa Abdel Jalil wave to people during a rally at Martyrs’ Square in Tripoli on Friday, Sept. 16.

    Suhaib Salem/Reuters

    Given the cheering throngs who greeted Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Libya and Egypt this month, one could be forgiven for thinking he was a rock star.

    Few images of Turkey’s expanding influence are more powerful than of Mr. Erdogan joining hands with Libya’s new leaders for Friday prayers today.

    “After we thank God, we thank our friend Mr. Erdogan, and after him all the Turkish people,” prayer leader Salem al-Sheikhi told the crowd of several thousand in Tripoli’s Martyrs’ Square. Erdogan knelt in the front row beside Mustafa Ahmed Jalil, chairman of Libya’s National Transitional Council.

    “Our hands are clasped with those of the Turkish people,” said Mr. Sheikhi. “We will never forget what you did for us.”

    Erdogan replied in kind afterward, turning the prayer session into a rally where Turkish flags commingled with new revolutionary ones. “Turkey will fight with you until you take all your victory,” he said. “You proved to all the world that nothing can stand in the way of what the people want.”

    Indeed, the Turkish prime minister’s “Arab Spring tour” has been a hit as he makes his way across North Africa extolling Turkey as a democratic model for fellow Muslims who have cast off their dictators.

    As the elected leader of a thriving Muslim democracy, Erdogan portrays himself as uniquely placed to encourage an orderly transition from autocracy to democracy – one that will rein in the more extremist Muslim groups unleashed by the Arab Spring.

    But while Erdogan’s message of secular democracy may resonate with the West, the foundations of his growing prestige are worrying to US leaders. As his Islam-rooted party has increased its influence, Erdogan has taken a tougher stance against Israel, which he accuses of oppressing the Palestinian people and flouting international law.

    Some say he risks a breach with the West by antagonizing Israel, but others contend he is offering a type of Muslim leadership that Europe and the US would do well to heed.

    via Erdogan pitches Turkey’s democratic model on ‘Arab Spring’ tour – CSMonitor.com.

  • Secret Libyan files claim MI6 and the CIA aided human rights violations

    Secret Libyan files claim MI6 and the CIA aided human rights violations

    Intelligence helped Gaddafi regime track and apprehend dissidents, according to files seized from Tripoli offices

    Cherry Wilson

    Muammar Gaddafi
    Files found in Tripoli offices claim MI6 and the CIA were complicit in human rights violations by the Gaddafi regime. Photograph: Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters

    British and US intelligence agencies built up close links with Muammar Gaddafi and handed over detailed information to assist his regime, according to secret files found in Libyan government offices.

    The documents claim that MI6 supplied its counterparts in Libya with details on exiled opponents living in the UK, and chart how the CIA abducted several suspected militants before handing them over to Tripoli.

    They also contain communications between British and Libyan security officials ahead of Tony Blair’s visit in 2004, and show that British officials helped write a draft speech for Gaddafi when he was being encouraged to give up his weapons programme.

    The discovery was made by reporters and members of Human Rights Watch in the private offices of Moussa Koussa, the former foreign minister and head of Libyan intelligence, who defected to Britain in February. He is now believed to be in Qatar.

    According to the documents, Libya’s relationship with MI6 and the CIA was especially close between 2002 and 2004, at the height of the war on terror. The papers give details of how No 10 insisted that the 2004 meeting between Blair and Gaddafi took place in his bedouin tent, with a letter from an MI6 official saying: “I don’t know why the English are fascinated by tents. The plain fact is that the journalists would love it.”

    They also show how a statement made by Gaddafi during the time in which he pledged to give up his nuclear programme and destroy his stock of chemical and biological weapons was put together with the help of British officials. A covering letter states: “For the sake of clarity, please find attached a tidied-up version of the language we agreed on Tuesday. I wanted to ensure that you had the same script.”

    Other letters seem to reveal that British intelligence gave Tripoli details of a Libyan dissident who had been freed from jail in Britain. One US document stated the CIA was in a position to deliver a prisoner into the custody of Libyan authorities.

    The papers, which have not been independently verified, also suggest the CIA abducted several suspected militants from 2002 to 2004 who were subsequently handed over to Tripoli. Human Rights Watch has accused the CIA of condoning torture.

    “It wasn’t just abducting suspected Islamic militants and handing them over to the Libyan intelligence,” said Peter Bouckaert, director of Human Rights Watch’s emergencies division. “The CIA also sent the questions they wanted Libyan intelligence to ask and, from the files, it’s very clear they were present in some of the interrogations themselves.”

    Foreign secretary, William Hague, said he could not comment on security matters. Further documents found at the British ambassador’s residence in Tripoli, and obtained by a Sunday newspaper, concerned the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. A memo written in January 2009 by Robert Dixon, head of the North Africa team at the Foreign Office, and sent to then foreign secretary David Miliband, warned that Gaddafi’s ministers said there would be “dire consequences” for the UK-Libya relationship in the event of Megrahi’s death in custody.

    www.guardian.co.uk, 3 September 2011