Scum-watch: Judges' blow to war on terror!
Speaking of making it up, you almost can't believe the level of bullshit in the Scum on yesterday's judges' decision that stopping the BAE SFO inquiry was unlawful:
Those liberal nancy fancy judges have only gone and hurt the "war on terror"! Naturally, nowhere in this account is it mentioned that the same man who made the threat to withdraw intelligence co-operation - an empty threat as the Saudi intelligence services not only had no intention of doing so, but also because they would never have stopped giving such information to the CIA, who would have immediately passed it on to MI5 - was the same Saudi prince that has allegedly received £1bn in payments through the al-Yamamah deal.
Well, if it did we certainly haven't heard from them, as they're keeping their silence up.
This might well also be the first and only time that the Sun defends blackmail in its leader column:
Let me just attempt to get this straight. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we meant to be fighting a war against terrorism? Surely if a country then on such petty grounds as an investigation to corruption threatens our security through not passing on vital information, doesn't that make them an accomplice? Indeed, just today the brother of Kafeel Ahmed, the man who died from his injuries after attempting to blow up Glasgow airport with patio gas canisters and petrol was jailed for 18 months for not passing information to the police that would have helpful in their inquiries. As the judges said yesterday, if such a threat had been made by a citizen of this country, he would have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Scum favours continuing arm deals to tyrants chiefly responsible for the spread of Wahhabism across the globe to the rule of law itself.
Ah, so it would be the judges' fault rather than the terrorists or the Saudis if an attack did happen as a result of the withdrawing of intelligence co-operation. Excellent reasoning and logic, but what else do you expect from a newspaper owned by the man who supported the Iraq war because of the myth of the $20 barrel of oil at the end of it? That the Saudis have been one of the chief beneficiaries of the oil price rise, enriching themselves and spending it on spreading Salafism while condemning their citizens to life in one of the most barbaric societies on the planet is neither here nor there.
Judges’ blow to war on terror
JUDGES yesterday said Tony Blair was wrong to protect a £43billion arms deal – even though he did it to prevent terror attacks.
Those liberal nancy fancy judges have only gone and hurt the "war on terror"! Naturally, nowhere in this account is it mentioned that the same man who made the threat to withdraw intelligence co-operation - an empty threat as the Saudi intelligence services not only had no intention of doing so, but also because they would never have stopped giving such information to the CIA, who would have immediately passed it on to MI5 - was the same Saudi prince that has allegedly received £1bn in payments through the al-Yamamah deal.
The ruling infuriated ministers and increased pressure on the SFO to reopen the case.
Well, if it did we certainly haven't heard from them, as they're keeping their silence up.
This might well also be the first and only time that the Sun defends blackmail in its leader column:
At stake was BAE’s sale of 72 Typhoon jets to the Saudis, a colossal export contract worth billions and securing many thousands of jobs.
Let me just attempt to get this straight. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we meant to be fighting a war against terrorism? Surely if a country then on such petty grounds as an investigation to corruption threatens our security through not passing on vital information, doesn't that make them an accomplice? Indeed, just today the brother of Kafeel Ahmed, the man who died from his injuries after attempting to blow up Glasgow airport with patio gas canisters and petrol was jailed for 18 months for not passing information to the police that would have helpful in their inquiries. As the judges said yesterday, if such a threat had been made by a citizen of this country, he would have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Scum favours continuing arm deals to tyrants chiefly responsible for the spread of Wahhabism across the globe to the rule of law itself.
The High Court has ruled against the Government and the Serious Fraud Office on a point of principle.
Which is all very well.
But those judges won’t have to pick up the pieces if thousands lose their jobs or even their lives.
Ah, so it would be the judges' fault rather than the terrorists or the Saudis if an attack did happen as a result of the withdrawing of intelligence co-operation. Excellent reasoning and logic, but what else do you expect from a newspaper owned by the man who supported the Iraq war because of the myth of the $20 barrel of oil at the end of it? That the Saudis have been one of the chief beneficiaries of the oil price rise, enriching themselves and spending it on spreading Salafism while condemning their citizens to life in one of the most barbaric societies on the planet is neither here nor there.
Labels: BAE slush fund inquiry, bullshit, Rupert Murdoch, Scum-watch, Sun-watch, tabloid mendacity
| Permalink
As one of the Lib Dem MPs pointed out, Mi5 helped foil a plot to assassinate the Saudi King. It's a two way street and Blair, if he had a spine to match his ego, could have easily called their bluff.
Posted by
Bigglesworth Drive Resident |
Friday, April 11, 2008 11:00:00 pm
Post a Comment