At 4pm on Thursday 12^th May at Southwark Crown Court the jury returned and declared Muad’Dib (Anthony John Hill) innocent of attempting to ‘pervert the course of justice’.

Mr. Hill has spent 151 days incarcerated in Wandsworth prison over the past few months and this verdict spared him, mercifully, a sentence of up to 20 years in jail.

Muad’Dib’s trial started on Monday 9^th May, with a challenge to the monarchy and, hence, the authority of the court. This was ruled ‘out of order’ by the judge. On Tuesday a jury were sworn in.

On Wednesday they watched all of his film, ‘The Ripple Effect’, in open court.

Over the Tuesday and Wednesday the jury heard in-depth discussions of both 7/7 and 9/11, with Mr Hill laying out clearly, and at his own leisurely pace under cross-examination, the reasons he believes that both these ‘attacks by terrorists’ were, in fact, false flag attacks by agencies of the state against its own people carried out with the purpose of providing a pretext for invasion of innocent countries in the middle east in order to control their natural resources.

This was surely the first ever fully-explored set of such allegations of false flag terror made against any state before an ordinary collection of the citizens of that state.

It is also clear from the verdict that, when such information is placed before such ordinary citizens the majority of them ‘get it.’ The jury had announced that it could not be unanimous, so the judge allowed a ‘majority verdict’, i.e. ten or more of the 12.

It is surely not unfair to deduce that Southwark Crown Court’s jury of ordinary persons did not reject Muad’Dib’s false-flag narrative as outrageous or even necessarily untrue. One wonders how many of that jury have now themselves been converted into active ‘troofers’?

During the trial (on Wednesday) JAH/Hill/Muad’Dib was asked why he moved to Ireland: “To pursue my study of the lost Ark of the Covenant” was his reply. Here is a character, both serious and refreshing, who brings a mythic dimension into life. Onlookers were impressed by the way he was able to conduct himself without fear in the witness-box, sometimes pausing 5-10 seconds to reflect, before replying. A group of up to 25 supporters attended the four days of the trial, a couple travelling from as far afield as Finland and the state of Montana.

Let’s hope that will be the end of the persecution of Mr JAH by the British state – and, that he soon starts on a 2nd edition of his Ripple Effect.

It’s the opinion of Sheffield University philosophy professor Ridley-Duff, that Mr Hill’s Ripple Effect’s narrative of what happened on that day, is more plausible than that of the BBC’s 7/7 ‘Conspiracy Files program. His study focussed very much on what happened at Canary Wharf on that morning, seeing the Ripple narrative, whereby the young alleged bombers had been inveigled into a terror drill that morning, then fled to Canary wharf where they were shot – as the best account yet. The new 3^rd edition of my book Terror on the Tube endorses this view. In contrast, the so-called ‘July 7^th Truth Campaign’ has scoffed at this narrative calling it ‘evidence-free conjecture,’ a quite breathtaking (and very revealing) remark.

Source

////////////////////////////////////

Gaddafi gold-for-oil

Dollar-doom plans behind Libya 'mission'?

Related read:

The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System

by Prof. Peter Dale Scott

/////////////////////////////////////

'US To Recoup Libya Oil From China'

Interview with Paul Craig Roberts

Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.

Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that “leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.

We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don't they?

Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is – they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it's not in American hands.

Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don't know who they're dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries – Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?

Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under “revolutionaries” depends if the CIA wins – we don't know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.

But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the “world community,” succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi, the next target will be Syria. Syria has already been demonized.

Why are they targeting Syria? – Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.

Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It's a greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don't know the answer.

Possibly the countries are thinking to let the Americans get further over-extended, or they may not have wanted to confront the US with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don't know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy, and they continue to criticize it.

Press TV: A sizeable portion of Qaddafi's assets have been frozen in the US as well as some other countries. We also know that the Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we've never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution. Don't you find that bizarre?

Roberts: Yes it's very bizarre and very suggestive. It brings back the fact of all the reports that the CIA is the originator of this so-called revolt and protest and is fomenting it and controlling it in a way that excludes China from its own Libyan oil investments.

In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.

The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American hubris – the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

Press TV: In the context of America's expansionist policies, how far do you think the US will stretch beyond the UN mandate? Are we going to see boots on the ground?

Roberts: Most likely – unless they can find some way of defeating Qaddafi without that. Ever since we've had Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Obama, what we've learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don't obey our own laws; they don't obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus, no crime without intent, and the ability for a defendant to be legally represented.

They don't pay any attention to law so they're not going to pay any attention to the UN. The UN is an American puppet organization and Washington will use it as a cover. So, yes, if they cannot run Qaddafi out they will put troops on the ground – that's why we have the French and the British involved. We're using the French elsewhere in Africa also; we use the British in Afghanistan – they're puppets.

These countries are not independent. Sarkozy doesn't report to the French people – he reports to Washington. The British PM doesn't report to the English people he reports to Washington. These are puppet rulers of an empire; they have nothing to do with their own people and we put them in office.

Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?

Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It's a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It's an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It's taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China.

Press TV: Where do you see the situation headed? There seems to be a rift between NATO countries with Britain and France wanting to increase the momentum of these air strikes, but the US saying no, there is no need.

Roberts: The rift is not real. The rift is just part of the cover, just part of the propaganda. Qaddafi has been ruling for 40 years – he goes back to Gamal Abdel Nasser (before Anwar Sadat) who wanted to give independence to Egypt.

He (Qaddafi) was never before called a brutal dictator that has to be removed. No other president has ever said Qaddafi has to go. Not even Ronald Reagan who actually bombed Qaddafi's compound. But all of a sudden he has to go. Why?

Because he's blocking the US African Command, he controls part of the Mediterranean and he has let China in to find its energy needs for the future. Washington is trying to cripple its main rival, China, by denying China energy. That's what this is really about; a reaction by the US to China’s penetration of Africa.

If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn't be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it's civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.

Roberts: We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We've had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You're talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy – how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until Washington put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they're told.

Washington wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. Washington wants hegemony over the world. That's what the word hegemony means. And Washington will pursue it at all costs.

Reprinted from Press TV. Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail], a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House.

//////////////////////////////////////////

EU to spend £225 million on propaganda campaigns

Telegraph 08.05.2011
By Bruno Waterfield

Europe to spend £225million on army of 1,000 spin doctors to promote EU

The European Commission will next year spend over £225million on propaganda campaigns and the employment of over one thousand spin doctors to sell the EU to a hostile public.

The costs of “communicating” the EU are contained in the small print of an inflation-busting Brussels budget that will cost British taxpayers an additional £682 million in 2012.

Almost half the cost, £115 million, will be spent on administration and the 1,078 staff who work in the commission’s directorate general for communications.

Another £84 million is earmarked for “informing about European policy and better connecting with citizens” and £7 million will used on events, including a “Year for Citizens 2013″.

Publicity promoting “Europe for citizens” will cost £25million.

Mats Persson, the director of the Open Europe campaigning group, said: “British taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for PR exercises that vainly try to make them love the EU. The EU needs reform not more spin.”

A commission spokesman defended the spending. “The 258 million euros for communications amounts to less than 0.2 per cent of the overall budget, and the commission has frozen its own budget,” he said.

An example of “information” produced by the commission describes the EU budget as a way of “building our common future”.

“The focus of spending decisions is on meeting the challenges of the modern world to our society in the interests of a better life for the citizens of the EU,” says an “explanatory” leaflet.

Internal commission documents require EU-funded communication campaigns not to be “neutral” and for them to take a “didactic stance” with the aim of “boosting awareness of the Union’s existence and legitimacy, polishing its image and highlighting its role”.

Projects that are part commission spending next year include £31million over four years on “information events” targeting journalists.

“Informing journalists in a proper way about the EU and its institutions is an important step since they are the link between these two parties. “Journalists get more targeted and precise information and the tools they need to provide citizens with qualified, reliable and timely coverage of the EU.”

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, attacked a “sinister” attempt to “indoctrinate” journalists. “Do they think journalists, or the public, are stupid? No amount of money or PR can make people like the EU or stop the press reporting the political reality of Brussels.”

////////////////////////////////////

Dedicated to Madeleine Albright, on Behalf of the Children of Iraq, whose Lives were a "Price Worth It."

by Felicity Arbuthnot

May 12, 2011

Dedicated to Madeleine Albright, on Behalf of the Children of Iraq, whose Lives were a "Price Worth It." ("60 Minutes", 12th May 1996.)

" ... war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children." Howard Zinn. (1922-2010.)

It was Kathy Kelly - relentlessly, lovingly, committed to the people of Iraq, constantly risking the draconian wrath, jail terms, and impossible fines of the US., government for her compassion - who alerted me. The 'phone rang, it was 12th May 1996, and Kathy was calling from Chicago, stunned. Madeleine Albright, then US., Ambassador the the UN., had just appeared on "Sixty Minutes."

Lesley Stahl, said Kathy, had said, of the US., driven embargo on Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright had responded: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

Some things really are indelibly seared in to memory. I remember a feeling of disbelief; somehow even the meticulous Kathy must have some way misconstrued. Was there any way she could fax me a transcript I asked, in those, for most, pre-home computer days. Magically, she obtained one within the hour. Reading it, the images of the children I had watched helplessly, their lives ebbing away, for want of embargoed medicines, treatments, frequently the ability to perform vital surgery, flooded my mind.

I thought of the sudden look of hope, in the eyes of parents sitting by the bed of a child, as one walked in to the ward. One was from outside Iraq, perhaps there was some miracle one could work, then the look died. As did so, so, many of the small, frail little souls, their lives snatched away. Now I knew that they were a "price" that was "worth it." And with it, the realization that total evil really exists.

Iraq imported seventy percent of virtually everything. On Hiroshima Day 1990, with the implementation of the embargo rational life ended. From school books, to childrens' toys, lipstick to sanitary items, washing up liquid to shampoo, normality died. But it was the health sector, formerly possibly the finest in the Middle East, free to all, which was uniquely devastated. After the 1991 bombing, it was - literally - largely in ruins.

The viciousness with which the UN., Sanctions Committee acted, made a mockery of the fine founding words of their Charter in general and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in particular. From incubators to paediatric syringes, cancer medications to dialysis machines and equipment, from pain killers to scalpels, anti-biotics to asthma inhalers, all were vetoed.

Six months before Albright's pronouncement, in December 1995, Sara Zaidi and Mary Smith Fawzi of the Center for Economic and Social Rights and the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote to the Lancet, pointing out that by August 1991, just one year in to the embargo: "baseline mortality for the under five population rose from 43.2 to 128.5 per 1,000, reflecting a three fold increase in child mortality." In their further survey (1995) under the auspices of UN., Food and Agricultural Organization: "the under five mortality rate increased five-fold." Stunting and wasting had become prevalent in a country where food was formerly cheap and plentiful.

I first went to Iraq after the 1991 bombing, less a year later, and within a couple of hours witnessed the reality behind the statistics. In what had been a flagship teaching hospital, I watched a young nurse, frantically trying to clear the throat of a perfect, new born baby boy, his young parents standing, their faces frozen with terror. A friend, a doctor from Scotland was with me, she looked round and said: "In a situation like this, in near any hospital, you know where the vital items will be, there is nothing here." We watched helplessly, as the little mite turned, white, grey, near blue, and lost his fledgling fight for life, as the sun streamed through broken, bomb damaged windows. The glass factories had been bombed - and glass too was vetoed. The baby had died for little more than cents worth of basic, plastic suction.

By 1993, mothers too malnourished to breast feed and unable to afford milk powder, fed their babies on sugared water, or sugared black tea. Virtually all became bloated, chronically malnourished and died. Doctors created a new diagnosis. They called them: "the sugar babies."

For children who survived, experts on children in war zones, warned that this was possibly the most traumatized child population on earth. With the austerity, the ongoing (illegal) bombings by the US., and UK., they had no way to recover from their experiences.

An unforgettable example was a child of about five, in a small grocery store, early one morning. He came in, in the proud mode of children everywhere, entrusted with an important errand. He bought one egg. At the time, a tray of eggs cost a university Professor's monthly salary. To go to a meal and find minute pieces of egg in it, was to be honoured indeed. The child carried it carefully to the door - and dropped it. He fell to his knees, trying to scrape it up up in his hands, tears streaming down his face. I reached in to my pocket, the shop keeper tapped him on the shoulder and gave him another one.

Two more children that were "worth" the "price", were suffering from acute myeloid leukaemia, bleeding internally, covered in bruises from their leaking capillaries and in intractable pain. There was no pain relief. The younger one, aged three, was lying rigid, his eyes full of unshed tears. He had taught himself not to cry, since it wracked his agonized little body further. I turned away, unable to take a picture, or take notes, just wanting to comfort him; but to touch would have brought further agony.

Near the door, I bent to stroke the head of the older child, just five. In a gesture which must have cost him the unimaginable, he responded as children everywhere, to affection, and squeezed my hand tightly. I wrote at the time: "I walked from the ward, leant against the wall, and knew that it was actually possible to died of shame."

Ms Albright would have been no doubt, pleased at the progress of her project in Basra. On one visit to the paediatric and maternity hospital, dear friend, Dr Jenan Hussein came running out to hug me. Then a moment's silence, and I had a near premonition. She said: "Felicity, you know those children you wrote about in June?" (It was November) "I am sorry, they have all died." They were seventeen babies in the premature baby unit, without even oxygen. (Vetoed.)

That was the visit when I nearly lost the plot. I walked in to one ward and a group of distraught women, aunts, grandmothers, were standing by a cot, of another perfect new born, who had just died. The mother had rushed from the unit beside herself in grief. I asked if I could hold the tiny still warm being. "Please, of course." I put him over my shoulder, stroked his head, back, certain I could bring him back to life, he was warm, fluid, total. How long I stroked his small form, willing him back, I do not know. Finally, defeated, I laid him down, wrapped him and we wept together.

Further down the corridor was another new born. He was in an incubator, wrapped in blankets, since the incubator did not work (replacements vetoed) in the looking glass world Iraq had become. He needed an exchange transfusion, premature and yellow with jaundice as he was. I thought I had the blood type needed and offered mine if they checked to be sure, since wrong blood is as lethal as no blood. There were no facilities to check. Vetoed. My premature son had been saved by and exchange transfusion. I looked in to the mother's eyes and resonated with her agony. We, the doctors, the baby, were all as helpless as each other.

As cancers soared (children in the mid 90's were sometimes born with cancer - an unheard of phenomenon) cancer treatments were vetoed. The cancer has been linked to the weapons used, especially depleted uranium.

The UK Atomic Energy Authority in a "self initiated" Report, estimated that if fifty tonnes of the residual dust remained after the 1991 hostilities, there would be half a million excess cancer deaths by 2000. In fact the highest estimates of that left is 700 tonnes. In 1998 a John Hopkins University study estimated that if cancers continued on the current curve, 44% of the population would develop it by 2000.

The 2003 blitzkrieg may have left 2,000- 3,000 further tonnes of DU. For years many years couples have feared having children, given the equal epidemic of birth defects, as would be expected if nuclear waste is dropped on populations.

I have written much of Jassim, the child poet, who, hearing I was a writer, glowed with delight, and took a note book from under his pillow in the cancer ward he was lying in. Could he read me his poem? Of course:

"The name is love

The class is mindless

The school is suffering

The government is sadness

The city is sighing

The street is misery

The home number is one thousand sighs. "

"Jassim", I said, finally finding my voice, if you can write this at thirteen, think what you will do at twenty. I asked if I could use his poem and credit him. He was thrilled. He never saw it in print, in many places and languages. He died before an aid agency could get the medications he needed to him, circumventing the embargo.

Just before the invasion, I asked the father of another terminally ill child, Mohammed, (10) what he would like to ask of George W. Bush and Tony Blair. He responded: "Please ask them, do they want all out children as child sacrifices?"

"Liberating" Iraq has resulted in an estimated five million orphans, one million widows, nearly five million displaced, internally and externally and an infrastructure, social distortion, medical tragedy which makes the embargo years seem mild. Between the embargo and the invasion - 1990 - 2011, higher estimates are three million dead, the unborn, new born and under fives, still paying the highest price. A "price worth it."

Happy Anniversary, Madam Albright.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Russia: Speaker of the House Threatens to Destroy Any Part of the Planet with Secret Unknown Weapon

Zhirinovsky

"The world is facing great financial crisis, and possibly a third world war.

Washington has no future, this artificial state will collapse; then the old Europe, that continent, which has no importance whatsoever; China is on the verge of explosion; and what remains is Russia possessing orbital launch capability: space power.

Russia with lots of money, resources, and new weapons, that no one knows about them yet.

With them WE WILL DESTROY any part of the planet within 15 minutes.

Not an explosion, not a ray burst, not some kind of a laser, not a lightning, no, but a quiet and peaceful weapon.
Whole continents will be put to sleep forever.
And thats all

You will have to dig in the wreckage and debris of your buildings.
And all of you 120 million will die, if you will ever demand the Kuriles from us!

And then there will be another tsunami.
On the other side of the planet, in the Caucasus.
Thats it for you."

Read full transcript here

Click Here To Comment

Home