Tories Support Pre-Emptive Nuclear War

Tories Support Pre-Emptive Nuclear War

Craig Murray

On Radio 4 this morning [24th April 2017] Defence Secretary Michael Fallon argued not just for Trident missiles, but for first use of nuclear weapons and “pre-emptive nuclear war”. There was no misunderstanding or circumstance – he was queried very specifically on the exact point. Not only do the Tories support having weapons of mass destruction, they support using them when none have been used against us.

The whole discussion is of course a fantasy as there is no danger whatsoever of a major attack on the UK by any foreign power. Russia has no plans to attack the UK, has never had any plans to attack the UK, and anyway has an economy the size of the Spanish economy. Mind you, the Tories have also been fantasising about war with Spain recently…

There is no sensible justification for Trident. What North Korea shows is that nuclear weapons are no deterrent against other countries developing them. Only a lunatic would actually use them – Kim Jong Un, Michael Fallon, Theresa May – and you can’t deter a lunatic. And Michael Fallon’s suggestion this morning that nuclear weapons in some way deter terrorists is risible.

But just as the media are very wrong to spend the last 24 hours telling us that Jeremy Corbyn is mad because he won’t commit to destroying mankind, it would be equally wrong of me to argue that every single person who supports Trident is a blazing fascist. There are decent people who support Trident. But they would not support the Fallon/May doctrine of “pre-emptive nuclear war” and first use of nuclear weapons.

I would like to believe that the Fallon/May enthusiasm for first use and pushing that red button, along with hard Brexit and anti-immigration rhetoric, would convince some moderate Tories and ex-Labour voters that they are being hustled very quickly down a path it is wrong to go down. But I fear the media water chute has caught them up and realisation may not set in on time.

During the referendum campaign there was a suggestion from the SNP that after Independence we might give WENI (Wales England Northern Ireland) seven years grace to prepare before removing its missiles from the Clyde. I am totally opposed to this. I rather support the Ukrainian solution, whereby an international team is brought in immediately to verify the decommissioning of any nuclear weapons on Scottish territory or in Scottish waters.

If you cut the missiles in two along the middle, they might make good children’s slides.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

READ MORE UK NEWS AT:  21st Century Wire UK Files

Twitter has ‘blocked the British government and MI5’. What about MI6 and GCHQ

Spooks Can’t Snoop: Twitter To Ban UK Government And Security Services From Accessing Public Data

21st Century Wire says…

Straight off the bat, this appears to be strategic ‘window dressing’ by Twitter. With fluctuating shares and an ever increasing trend of disgruntled users switching to alternative platforms such as Gab to avoid ‘shadow bans’ and preserve free speech, Twitter now adopts this perception management of ‘standing up to government and state intelligence’ to reassure users.

So Twitter has ‘blocked the British government and MI5’. What about MI6 and GCHQ, the British equivalent of the NSA. Is this a partial block on specific security services or fullspread.

Twitter allows the government to access profiles as freely as any other user, but opposes any attempt to pull data for the purpose of surveillance.”

Why would the government or security services have to pull primary data in the first instance when they can simply apply HUMINT on a profile. An example of an instance when data would be pulled would be to access ‘metadata’, which is the ‘data about the data’, and helps triangulation of a ‘target’ or ‘asset’. Perhaps this is what Twitter mean?

The Investigatory Powers Act was signed into British law in December 2016 which allows security services, amongst other agencies to view up to twelve months of an internet users browser history. If Twitter gives a red flag, then agencies scoot around this and proceed to other collection methodology.

And besides, Twitter faces hot water if they try to block a ‘legitimate’, genuine request by authorities to access data which could help an investigation, e.g. a missing, abducted child or adult etc.

A ‘block’, is not as simply in this case as it seems.

More on this report from RT…



Twitter has blocked the British government and its domestic spy agency MI5 from accessing data on potential terrorist threats in a bid to tackle its “surveillance” plans, according to the Telegraph.

Twitter will impede police and the intelligence service attempts to gather user data to identify terrorist plots.

Government ministers have slammed the company over the move, but their criticism seems to have been in vain.

Twitter allows the government to access profiles as freely as any other user, but opposes any attempt to pull data for the purpose of surveillance.

In a post in November, Twitter’s Vice-President Chris Moody expressed the company’s commitment to “social justice.”

“Recent reports about Twitter data being used for surveillance … have caused us great concern. As a company, our commitment to social justice is core to our mission and well established.  And our policies in this area are long-standing,” he wrote in a blog post.

Moody then turned to slam the indiscriminate use of APIs, or application programme interfaces, consisting of a series of codes and functions through which developers can create new apps in pre-existing platforms like Twitter.

“Using Twitter’s Public APIs or data products to track or profile protesters and activists is absolutely unacceptable and prohibited.”

Although the company has blocked police and MI5 access for the purpose of snooping on user data, it still sells data to developers seeking public trends and interests through Gnip, a former start-up which is now part of Twitter.

“Over the coming months, you’ll see us take on expanded enforcement and compliance efforts, including adding more resources for swiftly investigating and acting on complaints about the misuse of Twitter’s Public APIs and Gnip data products,” Moody added.

Twitter has already blocked the CIA from accessing its data after it emerged it had signed a deal with Dataminr, a third party company which is also thought to have been working with the Home Office.

Twitter owns five percent of Dataminr, the only company having real time access to its data.

Ministers have already hit out at the company for failing to do enough to tackle terrorist propaganda videos and networks from spreading online.

The news also comes after Home Secretary Amber Rudd last month called on police and intelligent services to be granted access to social media platforms’ encrypted messaging systems in a bid to thwart future terrorist plots.

Khalid Masood, who killed five people with his car and a knife on Westminster bridge and the Parliament estate at the end of March, is thought to have used the encrypted messaging platform WhatsApp moments before the attack…
Continue this report at RT

21st Century Wire UK Files

Lavrov Dismantles UK-Led Sarin ‘Investigation’ in 30 Seconds

Lavrov Dismantles UK-Led Sarin ‘Investigation’ in 30 Seconds

Lavrov blows the whistle on the OPCW and its ‘investigations’ in Syria

Tue, Apr 25, 2017

Lavrov is not amused
Lavrov is not amused

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has a simple message for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: Stop with the bullshit.

Speaking with journalists in Moscow on Monday, Lavrov pointed out that the OPCW has taken more than four months to ‘analyze’ chemical samples from Aleppo, which would likely implicate Syrian ‘opposition’ forces in war crimes. And surprise, surprise — the OPCW needs even more time before it can release a report.

Meanwhile, it took this prestigious organization only four days to declare that Sarin was used in the April 4 attack in Khan Sheikhun.

Lavrov is not amused:

Four months ago, together with our Syrian colleagues, we sent samples that we got from Aleppo, after it was liberated. We believe these samples are evidence of the fact that opposition armed groups used chemical weapons.

Four months later — no results. And they say they need more time.

But this other unit, that processes complaints about the Syrian regime, as we were told, released a statement several days after the Idlib incident. And that statement confirms the initial allegations, allegations by NGOs and the White Helmets, that it was Sarin. So in one case we have 4 months — nothing happens, no information is released. But in the other case the other unit issues that statement in just 4 days. But there’s no data — what laboratory was used, what were the samples like, where were they taken?

How can this be? Lavrov knows:

The mission should provide for geographical diversity. As I said, this mechanism is comprised of two units, one receives applications and complains from the Syrian government, and the other processes complaints about the Syrian government.

And both of the units are chaired by UK citizens.

Lavrov then delivers the final blow:

Jokes aside, it’s an attempt to create a distorted perspective, and then to use this distorted reality to in an attempt to avoid an inclusive dialogue and switch to regime change operations. Another regime change operation in this region.

Okay, we lied. It probably took Lavrov 45 seconds to completely demolish this fraudulent organization and its benevolent ‘investigations’.

Invoking Bobby Sands and Mandela, 95 Israelis endorse Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike

Invoking Bobby Sands and Mandela, 95 Israelis endorse Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike

Berlin, 19 April 2017

Dear Comrades, friends, and partners in the struggle,

We, a group of conscientious Israeli-Jews, would like to express our deep respect and solidarity with you – the 1,500 or more Palestinians who embarked on a collective open ended hunger strike to demand your basic rights.

Given the brutal measures inflicted on political prisoners around the world, be it in the former apartheid regime in South Africa, the imperial British rule over Ireland or in present-day Palestine-Israel, hunger strikes remain a peaceful, non-violent, and legitimate tool of resistance.

The Israeli prison authorities employ mass incarceration, solitary confinement, administrative detentions, torture, and even the incarceration of minors as a matter of state policy. These unlawful practices of imprisonment are used as a tool of political repression and are carried out with the full backing of Israel’s apartheid judicial system. This system deprives the Palestinian society of its voice, identity, and collective hope of liberation from the chains of colonialism.

Caged under inhumane conditions, Palestinian prisoners who fight the “battle of empty stomachs” demonstrate once again that the active Palestinian leadership is the one located behind prison walls. From the confines of their prison cells, the prisoners embody the voice of Palestinian unity and struggle, along with the millions of exiled refugees who struggle daily for their right to return.

We draw inspiration from your courage and determination as well as from past hunger strikers such as Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands, Alice Paul, and other outstanding figures who had confronted their oppressors to liberate themselves and liberate others. We stand with you in the struggle for freedom, equality, and justice, until the fall of apartheid.

In solidarity,

Zohar Atai, Shir Hever, Shajar Rachel, Barith Ball, Guy Hirchfeld, Shira Ramer Wittlin, Ronnie Barkan, Tammar Hoffman, Adi Raz, Ronnen Ben-Arie, Lihi Joffe…

CLICK HERE to view the full list of signatories and endorsers. 

– See more at:

How The Australian Labour Party Elites & US War Hawks Put The “Fix” In For Ex PM Rudd in 2010 To Hasten Confrontation With China.

Former Australian PM Rudd quits parliament

By Peter Symonds
18 November 2013

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced last Wednesday evening, on the first full parliamentary sitting day of the new Abbott government, that he was quitting parliament. In a move that was sudden, but not entirely unexpected, his departure produced an outpouring of nauseating accolades from his own Labor Party, the Greens and the ruling Liberal National Coalition. Numerous media commentaries dissected his career, but left the most obvious question unanswered: why was Rudd retiring from the parliamentary stage?

Relegated to the backbench after losing the September 2013 federal election, Rudd’s own explanation was that there was no point “being here for the sake of being here.” That only begs another question: why had Rudd become so marginalised just six years after winning a clear victory over the Coalition government of John Howard in 2007? According to conventional political wisdom, such a win should have assured Rudd at least two terms in office. Yet, in an unprecedented inner party coup, Rudd was ousted in June 2010 and replaced by his deputy Julia Gillard before even serving out his first term, setting the stage for three years of leadership infighting.

The media explanations for this turmoil focus entirely on Rudd’s “egocentric” personality, his “flawed” leadership style and political “bastardry,” as well as Gillard’s overweening ambition. These traits, however, are hardly out of the ordinary for bourgeois politicians and, in normal times, would have largely remained in the background, at least in Rudd’s first term. But the past six years have been far from normal. The upheavals in the Labor leadership have been the manner in which the deepening global crisis of capitalism, sharpening geo-political rivalries—especially between the US and China—and developing working class opposition to the agenda of austerity have been refracted in Australia.

Rudd has not been sidelined because he failed to carry out the economic dictates of the corporate elite. During the 2007 election campaign, he positioned himself as a “fiscal conservative,” echoing the criticisms of the corporate media that Howard had failed to press ahead with pro-market restructuring and had squandered the opportunities provided by booming mineral exports to China. Moreover, Rudd was the first Labor leader to openly embrace the legacy of the 1983-1996 Hawke-Keating Labor governments that ruthlessly deregulated the economy and presided over a massive shift of wealth up the income scale.

Labor, Coalition and Greens parliamentarians hailed what Treasurer Joe Hockey described, during Wednesday night’s parliamentary session, as Rudd’s “magnificent” apology to the Aboriginal people in February 2008. In fact, the “apology” was a cynical ploy designed to cover up the Labor government’s continuation of Howard’s military-police “intervention” into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, aimed at enforcing punitive measures such as welfare quarantining. The “apology” epitomised the Labor government’s modus operandi—“progressive” window-dressing to implement the regressive policies of the corporate establishment.

When Rudd’s government was rapidly overtaken by the global financial meltdown that erupted in September 2008, he provided an open-ended guarantee to the banks and implemented stimulus measures designed to prevent a slide into recession. Speaking for sections of finance capital, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry last week paid tribute to the Labor prime minister. Rudd “was so far ahead of where the world was, and a long way ahead of where we were in the Treasury,” Henry declared. Moreover, in early 2010, as the demands of global capital shifted from stimulus to austerity, Rudd signalled that his government would rein back the public spending measures that were coming increasingly under fire in the media.

The real reason for Rudd’s decision to quit parliament lies in the growing tensions between the United States and China in the Indo-Pacific region. But the great unmentionable in Australian politics is the war preparations being made by the US, in collaboration with its allies, most particularly Australia, against China. That is why the past week’s commentary has totally ignored Rudd’s foreign policy. As a former career diplomat and fluent Mandarin-speaker, Rudd envisaged himself as a significant player on the international stage. But he took office as the worsening global economic crisis was producing sharp shifts in world politics. Significant sections of the American ruling elite, frustrated that President Bush had bogged the US down in unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amid rising Chinese economic and political influence, backed Obama as the means for reasserting US dominance in Asia.

What became known as Obama’s “pivot to Asia”—a comprehensive diplomatic and military build-up against China—quickly came into conflict with Rudd’s own initiatives. Rudd enunciated a “middle power” role for Australia in mediating rising tensions between the US and China through the establishment of an Asia Pacific Community. The proposal was an attempt to resolve the basic dilemma facing Australian imperialism, increasingly dependent economically on China, but completely reliant on the US military alliance to prosecute its own interests in the Pacific.

Rudd in no way opposed the US alliance, even telling US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that war against China might be necessary if all else failed. The Obama administration, however, was intent on confronting, not appeasing, China, and was not prepared to brook any vacillation from a key American ally. Rudd’s ousting in June 2010 was orchestrated behind the scenes by Labor and union factional bosses, who, as WikiLeaks cables later revealed, were “protected sources” of the US embassy in Canberra. Immediately after her installation, Gillard emphasised her loyalty to Washington, holding a meeting with the American ambassador and a 20-minute phone conversation with Obama. In November 2011, Obama used the Australian parliament to formally announce the “pivot” in the Australian parliament and signed a deal with Gillard, behind the backs of the Labor party, the parliament and the Australian population, to station US Marines in Darwin.

Rudd returned to the cabinet as foreign minister in the unstable Greens-backed minority Labor government that emerged from the August 2010 election. But Gillard set the foreign policy orientation. Rudd patched up relations with the Obama administration, but he never resiled from his concerns that Washington and Beijing were heading toward a conflict that had to be avoided. Rudd continued to mount leadership challenges to Gillard—testimony to the continuing divisions within ruling circles over Australia’s close integration into the US war preparations against China. Rudd also forged relations with political figures internationally, such as former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, similarly worried about the lurch toward a catastrophic war.

Rudd stood down as foreign minister in February 2012 in a failed bid to wrest the leadership from Gillard. In March 2013, another abortive leadership attempt collapsed ignominiously. In both cases, the factional heavyweights who installed Gillard stood firm. By June 2013, the Labor Party was facing electoral oblivion. Reviled for her role in Rudd’s anti-democratic ousting and her government’s anti-working class policies, Gillard’s poll ratings plunged to historic lows. With a chorus of voices in the media warning of the collapse of the two-party system, Labor re-installed Rudd, the only political figure with any public standing, largely because of his status as the martyr of the 2010 coup.

The media and political establishment backed Rudd’s reinstallation, but only to retain the Labor Party as a viable opposition. The press, with the Murdoch newspapers in the lead, campaigned to ensure that Rudd had no prospect of winning the September election. Bill Shorten, head of the “praetorian guard” that ousted Rudd in 2010, and a trusted figure in Washington, was installed as Labor leader.

In Shorten and Prime Minister Abbott, the Obama administration has two leaders committed to the “pivot” to Asia. Former Labor ministers supportive of Rudd’s foreign policy have either quit parliament or been relegated to relatively insignificant posts. Ex-foreign minister Bob Carr, who was critical of Obama’s speech to the Australian parliament, has retired. Former defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon is shadow agriculture spokesman.

Since Rudd was ousted in mid-2010, US-China tensions throughout the Indo-Pacific have sharpened dramatically. Just how central Australia is to US war plans against China was underlined by a recent report by the US-based thinktank, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). The report details the basing requirements and military support that Washington requires from Canberra for its naval and air operations in the Indian and Pacific oceans. It comments on the divisions in Australian ruling circles over the US “pivot” and concludes that the debate is all but over, because Gillard “crossed the strategic Rubicon” by agreeing to position US Marines in Darwin.

This conclusion is somewhat premature, not least because the discussion has been made largely behind closed doors. The working class—the overwhelming majority of the population—is yet to speak. Nevertheless, Rudd is quitting parliament precisely because he no longer has any significant open support within the ruling establishment for his foreign policy orientation. While praising Rudd in parliament this week as “an extraordinary person,” Abbott put the nail in his coffin by flatly ruling out appointing him to a diplomatic post, ensuring that Rudd has no official government platform from which to advocate his views.


Note from blogger: The bolding is mine for those Brits who recognize the similarities to the British Parliament.  It’s rigging of democratic First Past The Post boundaries and the so-called democratic Labour Party – a socialist and democratic party who have systematically tried to silence it’s party members (who fund it) in order to remove the popular (with 62% of the members and only socialist) leader. They too(the elitist right wing majority of Blairites), in line with the fiercely class driven Conservative Party, have been chasing the colonialist and imperialist pursuit of class division and US/EU hegemonic warmongering in defiance of International Law and the will of the British people. The Murdoch Press is only equal in it’s propagandist misrepresentation of facts to other MSM in the form of the pro-Zionist, pro Israeli anti Russian bigots of  The Guardian, The Daily Mail who were Hitler supporters in the 30’s and 40’s along with other anti Russian bigots represented by the remaining MSM, to varying degrees, followed by pure theatre and lies from the BBC & Channel 4 propaganda platforms. etc.

One difference between the self serving Australian and British Parliamentarians is that, despite the British politicians giving themselves a hefty pay rise and a reduction in the age qualification for State Pension below the mere mortals who pay into that pension fund, the Australian Politicians have even higher salaries than their British counterparts.

Ain’t life grand eh?

Susan O’Neill.

How Theresa May’s preferred US system to replace the NHS featured in the Nixon Watergate scandal

Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can—the reason he can do it—I had Edgar Kaiser come in—talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because— President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: —the less care they give them, the more money they make.President Nixon: Fine. [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] and the incentives run the right way.President Nixon: Not bad.This is the real nature of the system being lined up by the Theresa May government after the election.To replace the NHS in England with a private US healthcare system interested only in making a profit.

Source: How Theresa May’s preferred US system to replace the NHS featured in the Nixon Watergate scandal