BLAIR’S EUROPEAN OBSESSION PUTS ALL OUR LIVES AT RISK

 

*

 

[In the Eurofacts journal of 5^th November 2004 an anniversary of the bomb plot at Westminster in 1605 the above title is very apt and unless we can today put some fire underneath the occupants of the present House then our dangers will increase. A coup- de- main –a sudden overpowering attack by Patriots – will soon be the only way to save our country from Traitors.

 

It is now time for each to take their side.  In the last civil war it was the Cavaliers and Roundheads and the Cavaliers in our day as then are those who will sell their country, and those who will not sell their country or their Parliament, their Common Law or their Freedom are the Roundheads-at least with the government’s mania with safety their head gear will meet with their most stringent regulations and be a match with the forces of Law and Order in Trafalgar Square. ]

 

*          *

 

[Comments in Brackets]

*

 

‘Step by step the foundations of British defence policy are being dismantled in favour of untested and grandiose EU plans that will leave us vulnerable to attack.’

 

The most urgent security threat to Britain is that posed by transnational Islamic terrorism.  This has been clear since the events of 11^th September, if not before, intelligence reports have recently brought home the scale of the problem.

*

[Our difficulty is in believing the Intelligence Services, as certain senior members of the service have been less than truthful and have therefore put their own credibility at risk- now we are asked to believe everything they say but like the tale ‘of crying wolf too often’ the Intelligence Services need to clear out the proven liars in order for us to take their word in the future.  This is not to say that we are not in danger but that we appear to be at less of a risk otherwise why have we not been targeted when one sees how easy it was for anyone to penetrate any of the potential targets in London. 

 

The fear of terrorism has enabled the Government to introduce measures, which are only in place when at war, but it fits in with their agenda to frighten the life out of us in order to bring in even more oppressive legislation, which fits in with their European dream.  In one word ‘CONTROL’.

 

From our point of view, the Government and particularly Mr Blair are more of a threat to our Freedom and way-of -life.

Tony Blair has divided the Nation at a time when the terrorists could attack us for what they term our decadent society and the wish to force [the West] to bring a settlement of the Middle East question.  

 

It is back to the Intelligence Services to put their houses in order- then we may possibly believe them]

 

*

 

The most recent of these [intelligence reports], the Military Balance 2004-5, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggests that al-Qaeda is present in 60 countries and at least 20,000 jihadists have been trained in its camps since 1996.  Half of its leaders and 2,000 rank and file members may have been killed, but a rump leadership is still intact and 18,000 of its members are at large. Recruitment is now thought to be on the increase. [Thanks to Blair and Bush]

 

*

 

[With the antics of Tony Blair and George Bush illegally invading Iraq and the incompetence in Afghanistan where every fighter was expected to be from al-Qaeda and treated as such and as a result the increased numbers in Iraq there is no doubt that large numbers are joining the al-Qaeda band-wagon –thanks again to Blair and Bush].

 

*

 

More Menacing.

 

The new terror threat is significantly more menacing than the old.  Whereas terrorists formally sought to kill and injure a limited number in order to frighten a much larger number, the contemporary terrorist aims at killing as large a number as possible in order to demoralise nations and to deflect them from protecting their interests.

 

According to the IISS: “ The principal threat to Europe is now transnational terrorism, which potentially entails mass-casualty attacks that the old groups eschewed.”

 

Moreover, the threat to Europe is thought to be growing for several reasons.

 

The First: - is that the grievances of European Muslims-from whom the terrorists recruit-appear to be multiplying.  These are mainly to do with feelings of economic, social and political marginalisation in the host nations.

In the words of the IISS: “The ‘universalisation’ of Muslim complaints dovetails with al-Qaeda’s anti –Western and pan-Islamic agenda.”

 

A further reason for believing that the threat may be escalating is that new-style terror is judged to be inexpensive in relation to its benefits.

The Bali bombings are estimated to have cost under 35,000 dollars, the USS Cole Operation about 50,000 dollars and the 11^th September less than 500,000 dollars.

Given recent successes in freezing the accounts of terrorist groups and in hindering cross-border transfers of their funds, such measures are reckoned to represent a veritable bargain.

 

Attractive Target

 

Further, effective counter-terrorist measures in America may have had the effect of making Western Europe relatively more desirable as a target.

 

According to the IISS: “Whereas Europe was most valuable to al-Qaeda and its followers as a platform for attacking America before the 11^th September, improved homeland security and the involvement of some European countries in the Iraq intervention alongside the US have since made it more attractive as a direct target.”

 

If Islamic terrorists armed with modern weaponry constitute the greatest threat to British interests it follows that British defence policy must reflect that fact.  It must also take account of a related threat that posed by the proliferation of missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction, whether in the possession of sub-national groups such as those to be found in the al-Qaeda network or of ‘rogue’ states such as Iran, Syria and North Korea.

 

The fact that Iraq was found not to be in possession of WMD at the time of the Iraq war does not diminish that threat.

 

*

 

[Tony Blair and George Bush have made certain of that  -We now have thousands of terrorists in Iraq and more joining them by the day- some would call many of them freedom fighters-after all Iraq was invaded and illegally]

 

*

 

For obvious reasons of geography Europe is coming into range of ICBM’s based in the Middle East at an earlier date than the US.

 

Unconditional Determination

 

All changes to UK defence policy must be judged on the basis of an objective assessment of whether or not they help counter these threats, whether by pre-emption or by frustrating the terrorists in the execution of their plans.  For fundamental requirements of anti-terrorist policy are not difficult to understand.

To deal effectively with terrorism, agents are needed to penetrate Islamic networks and ‘turn’ their members, linguists who can analyse the propaganda, and high quality surveillance- both human and technical.  Above all, we need, an unconditional determination never to yield or to seek an accommodation with terrorists since such accommodation only demonstrates the effectiveness of their action and invites more of the same.

 

 In the case of missile proliferation the choice lies between pre-emption (to destroy-prevent)-[the Israeli solution which is a better alternative to an illegal invasion-even if it is itself illegal in International Law –though self-defence could be a mitigating factor.] and the development of systems capable of preventing missiles reaching their target.

 

Political symbolism is therefore important, ambivalence dangerous.

 

When Mrs Thatcher said that she would not deal with terrorists her enemies had a greater reason to believe her than Britain’s enemies today.

 

The draft EU Constitution states:

“… the union shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy.”

“The Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity.”

 

If Britain was a member of a political union whose members, opposition to terrorism was unequivocal and whose readiness to defend themselves robustly was beyond question we would have less reason to fear the security implications of the EU membership.

 

But this is not the case. Some EU members have struck deals with terrorists, others have declined to track down the terrorists in their own midst for cynical political reasons,

 

*

 

[As in the UK before 9/11 and even after the outrage until the Government was shown to be so accommodating in so many ways such as to send e-mails asking them to leave the country and it is now the same people telling us know that we are indeed now at risk.] 

*

-others have put obstacles in the way of the US in pursuing the perpetrators of September 11^th.  The fact that one of the biggest recipients of EU aid continues to be the Palestinian Authority which is widely believed to have passed on large sums to terrorist gangs itself speaks volumes about the EU’s inability to express itself unambiguously on the subject of terror.

The practical consequences of Britain’s gradual absorption into the structures of’ European defence market’ are equally alarming since they threaten to diminish our independence of action while limiting our future ability to take part in joint military operations with the US, the ally upon whom we remain crucially dependent for intelligence.

 

*

 

[George Bush needs to tell his greatest friend Tony to give up trying to take away the ‘Rights and Liberties ‘ of the English, their Common Law and Parliament, and to forget the nonsense of any thought of the UK being submerged in the EU. where our security is already undermined by some European countries who have in the past refused to supply parts or arms or even pull their weight in providing troops on the ground. There is only one security for our Nation and that is for we ourselves to defend our country with where possible British arms procurement- from our traditional allies.

 

The Belgium fiasco in the Falklands War when they refused to supply ammunition is one of a number of instances when our forces have been placed in danger because of insecurity of supply.  Some nations in the EU have no intention of pulling their weight – in equipment or troops should our back be against the wall. We should have a policy of trust no one but proven allies and look in the main to our own defence.]

 

*

Click for Part 2

 

[Font altered –bolding used-comments in brackets]