MALALA IS A NON ISSUE-REAL ISSUE IS THAT THE WEST FATHERED ISLAMIC MAD DOG EXTREMISTS FROM 1979 Islamic

Extremisms midwife was US , UK ,Saudi Arabia and Pakistani MilitaryMalalai Attackers were created thanks to US Policy Agha H Amin This short write up is not about Malala. Malala is the wests problem because Malal attackers and all who represent Malala haters were created thanks to US , UK and Saudi policy as executed by the Pakistani military who acted as both pawn and procuress in the whole affair. Islamic radicalism in its present form was created by US policy as executed by President Reagan. At least Afghanistan and Pakistan were radicalised thanks to US policy. President Reagan of the US was naieve enough to compare the mad nut Afghan Mujahideen with USAs founding fathers. University of Nebraska churned out pamphlets in Pashto and Dari in billions glorifying explosives and Jihad ! Pakistani elite benefitted from US and Saudi aid in Afghan war and developed the dollar eating habit to use manipulated Islamist threats to get US aid ! Pakistans Musharraf perfected the art of getting US aid and also secretly helping the Taliban ! What we see today in Af Pak is radicalism multiplying ? Muslim women are as eager or as ready to get laid by their lover as any woman in this world, and she finds a way of getting laid even if she is forced to be confined in a shuttle cock burqa or chadri ! In Kabul it is 100 times more likely that a woman in a chadri is a prostitute than an uncovered woman ? Pakistani bakers ( nan bread makers) and taxi drivers have a rollicking time laying saudi women ? The issue is not emancipation ? The issue are the negative attitudes against women released when the US Saudi and their Pakistani chattels adopted Islam as a disposable tool to execute an anti Soviet foreign policy ?

The issue is not womens emancipation ? Women were getting laid by their lovers even when in a Chadri or a veil or a Burqa ! Women were getting educated in the past also ? The women of Swat , the area from where Malala hails were historically known to be easy lays and Swat produced large number of dancing girls for Pashtun parties and weddings ? It was Afghan war , the US Saudi Pakistani show that brought militancy to Swat and that too slowly but with force ? The west bears a great deal of blame for the mess for which it is now glorifying Malala ? The issue that US-UK-Saudi policy fostered an extremist mindset which has now become an avalanche ? Since Islam was used in Afghanistan , Iraq,Libya and Syria as a tool , Islam is used by psychopaths and mad nuts here in Af Pak as a tool for personal political agendas ? The midwives who brought this monster into birth sit in DC,London,Riyadh ! Even the Afghan Mujahideen were using Islam to marry young girls of their choice in Afghan war ! I know of countless such incidents ! There were cases where Swat Taliban beheaded a man to marry his pretty wife ? But the mindset was fathered in Soviet Afghan war ! And now hilariously today the NATO and the G 8 are supporting the same mad nut Islamists who they claim to fight in Afghanistan in Libya and Syria ? The issue is that when mad nut Islamists are supported by state policy as in Afghan War , in Libya and Syria today the result is collective madness which is growing by leaps and bounds in Islamic world. There is no cause to be happy in the US for destroying a secular Saddam regime or a secular Libyan regime or a secular Syrian regime which thanks to Russian support and possibly Gods support if one may agree has survived the US NATO Saudi sponsored mad dog Islamist onslaught. The US has made fatal strategic mistakes in using Islam as a tool right from Afghan war to Iraq war and in Libya and Syria. It was indeed a Quixotic US policy which helped Iran in destroying Baath Iraq and creating a strong Shia extremist bloc from Iran till Lebanon ?

It was indeed a foolish US policy that did the capacity building of Sunni Islamists from 1979 till 1990 , the direct result of which was birth of Al Qaeda and 9/11 ? US leaders are trying to fool US public with rhetoric about drones as a strategic weapon ? Drones are puny pin pricks and cannot destroy the Islamist Hydra that the US , UK and Saudi Occupied Arabia created Malala has little standing in Pakistan except in the tiny so called liberals ? The issue here in Af Pak is poverty and Malala is a side issue ?

http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/malala-is-another-illuminati-p.html

Malala is another Illuminati Psy Op

July 12, 2013

("Educating girls will change the world," Malala,16, told the UN Friday. "Change" is satanist code for social & cultural degradation.)

Malala has the hallmarks of an Illuminati psyop: the mass media rush as one to sanctify her; Illuminati whores, politicians and celebrities alike, endorse her. The article below by Zahar Bangash makes the

Illuminati connection very clear. Malala is a champion of education for girls. "Education" today comes with a heavy dose of gender-killing feminism. The Illuminati use this toxin to destroy traditional societies and reduce population by alienating women from marriage and motherhood. Who says learning only takes place in a classroom, and not in a home where the Illuminati can't control the message? Liberal (i.e. Masonic) education has degraded Western society and created many generations of lost souls. As usual, the Illuminati "do well by doing good." Mulala's father owns a chain of private schools and huge UK/US education corporations are vying for a share of the "Malala

Fund" cash grab.

Anyone who watched the hagiography that passed for TV news Friday can confirm that Western society is run by hypocritical, sanctimonious, shameless liars.
"One

cannot help but wonder whether her father's motive was in promoting girls' education or he feared his income dwindling if the girls' schools he was running were shut down [by Taliban]."

by Zafar Bangash

(The Crescent, Nov 2012)(Edited/abridged by henrymakow.com)

The attack on Malala Yousafzai [in Oct. 2012] evoked worldwide condemnation. From US President Barack Obama to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, all condemned the attack. The question is: why is Malala given so much prominence when other attacks on girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan go virtually unnoticed? The attempt on the life of Malala Yousafzai, a 15year-old Pakistani schoolgirl from Mingora in Pakistan's Swat Valley on October 9 has aroused

worldwide outrage. Two other girls were also injured in the attack as Malala was returning home in a school bus. There were rallies in her support not only in Pakistan but some very high-powered global players also weighed in on her case. In what must be a first, US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown all condemned the attack on Malala as did most politicians in Pakistan. Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie suggested Malala should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize while Madonna put Malala's name on her bare back! Let us get the basic facts straight before we proceed. She was attacked and badly injured when a gunman boarded the school bus she was riding home from school. The gunman demanded to know who Malala was. When another girl student pointed to her, the gunman opened fire, hitting Malala in the head and neck. The gunman also shot and wounded two other girls before escaping. The badly wounded girl was rushed to Peshawar, capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

After initial treatment at a

hospital in Peshawar, Malala was airlifted to the Combined Military Hospital (CMH) in Rawalpindi where Pakistan's top neurosurgeons treated her. Once her condition stabilized, she was flown to Britain where she is now receiving rehabilitative care at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham. Doctors have given a good prognosis of her recovery and say she will be able to resume normal life after some reconstructive surgery to her skull. It is impossible not to sympathize with Malala, a young girl with large beautiful hazel eyes peering from her innocent face, and her naturally distraught parents. It is shocking that a young girl would be targeted for simply wanting to go to school to acquire education, which is her birthright as it is of millions of other young girls in Pakistan as indeed elsewhere in the world. What kind of beasts would want to harm a young girl doing no more than acquiring education? But who exactly is Malala Yousufzai to attract so much international attention? What about the two other girls that were injured in the same attack? Even their names are not widely known, much less information about their parents. Apart from the fact that they are out of danger, there is little that we know about their plight. Are they not worthy of attention and sympathy? Within days of the assault on Malala, American troops killed three Afghan children on October 14 in an aerial attack in the Nawa district of Helmand Province in Afghanistan. It may not be

adjoining Swat Valley but is not very far either from where Malala was attacked and injured.

(Father with exploited daughter)

DAUGHTER OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL MOGUL Malala was born on July 12, 1997. Her father, Ziauddin Yousufzai, owns a number of for-profit schools. While almost everything else in Pakistan is going down the drain, for-profit schools and the closely related non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are generously financed from abroad are thriving businesses. [Guess where the money from the Mulala Fund is going. ] It was a BBC reporter [Abdul Hai Kakkar who discovered Malala in early 2009. His assignment was to find a courageous schoolgirl willing to share her experiences of the threats by Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) against girls getting education. The TTP led by Mullah Fazlullah was shutting down schools in Swat Valley as it flexed its muscles. Kakkar approached Ziauddin Yusufzai for help and he willingly offered his own daughter's experiences.

The plan gelled into Malala, then 11 years old, writing her diary that the BBC World Service would put on its website under the title, "The Diary of a Pakistani School Girl." In order to protect her identity, Malala was given the pseudonym "Gul Makai" (corn flower). The diary detailed Malala's life under Taliban rule, their attempts to take control of the valley, and her views on promoting education for girls. One cannot help but wonder whether her father's motive was in promoting girls' education or he feared his income dwindling if the girls' schools he was running were shut down. ENTER THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS Malala's cover, however, was blown that summer when Adam B. Ellick of the New York Times featured her in two videos describing her family's life as well as showed her at school. This was the time the Pakistani military was about to launch an attack on Swat Valley. What was the reason for the Times to go public with this information and who is Adam Ellick?

Scott Creighton, a war veteran who writes for the blog the American Everyman, had this to say about Ellick, left, on October 17. "Meet Adam Ellick, the Council on Foreign Relations member and apparent CIA mockingbird stationed at the New York Times. He's the guy who helped create the Malala Psyop in the first place, the plan to bring for-profit school systems to all of Pakistan." The Times' videos led to Malala gaining instant international fame. For the Pakistani media -- print and electronic -- this was a great opportunity to project their loyalty to America. That is where the dollar pipeline comes from. In the WikiLeaks cables released in 2010, the US embassy messages to the US State Department say Pakistani journalists are easily bought and can be made to do anything for a mere invitation to the US embassy. Despite such insulting revelations about their low character, the US-doting Pakistani journalists are not deterred. Malala's Times videos brought the Pakistani media

flocking to her door. She began giving interviews in the print and electronic media. We need to keep in mind that she was barely 11 or 12 years old at the time. At the same time, she was appointed chairperson of the District Child Assembly Swat. Further accolades followed when the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, nominated her in October 2011 for the International Children's Peace Prize. But there was something else that was even more striking. Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan who died on December 13, 2010, had also discovered Malala, or her enterprising father. Their picture together has gone viral on the internet. Why would Holbrooke, a no-nonsense diplomat, be interested in Ziauddin Yousafzai unless there was a larger plan at work? Two months after Bishop Tutu's nomination of Malala, the Pakistani government came up with its own award: the "National Youth Prize Award," a first for Pakistan, that was given to Malala.

(April 2013- One of TIME's 100 Most Influence Illuminati Pawns in the World)

Even when reminded of the risks she was courting, Malala said her father, who worked for women's education, supported her fully. Her mother was equally supportive, she said but the irony is that Malala's mother is kept inside the house while the young girl is projected internationally. As Adam Ellick tells us, Ziauddin Yousafzai "was a bit traditional, and as a result, I was unable to interact with her [Malala's] mother. I used to chide Ziauddin about these restrictions, especially in front of Malala. Her father would laugh dismissively and joke that Malala should not be listening. Malala beamed as I pressed her father to treat his wife as an equal." (emphasis added). HIDDEN AGENDAS For decades, the Pakistani establishment has been obsessed with the Indian intelligence agency RAW. In the last decade, Pakistan has become a battleground for the CIA, British MI6, Germany's BND and the Israeli Mossad, to name only a few, whose agents roam every nook and cranny of the country, mostly disguised as journalists, aid workers or businessmen. So it is not surprising to learn that poor Malala was used as a pawn by these monsters that will stop at nothing to advance their nefarious agenda. It does not require a genius to figure out what the US-BritishZionist and their allies' agenda in Pakistan is: to entangle Pakistan in a never-ending conflict with its

own people from the tribal area to provide the pretext for grabbing Pakistan's nuclear weapons. For proof of this, one only has to read the October 21 piece published in the British daily, the Guardian, by Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst. He warned, on the eve of the third and final presidential debate that Pakistan's nuclear weapons posed the "greatest security threat" to the US and urged both Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney to pay close attention to this.

(Pedophile Gordon Brown, "UN Special Envoy for Education" with Malala)

There is one other dimension worthy of attention and that is what the former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has done. He has launched a United Nations petition using the slogan "I am Malala" demanding that all children in the world should be in school by 2015. He plans to present the petition to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari later this month. Brown's activities on behalf of Malala and indeed other children would sound more noble were it not for the fact he heads the "global campaign for charter, for-profit school systems." There is tons of money to be made in this enterprise.

Brown's campaign is supposed to work in tandem with the UN's scheme run under the alluring title, "Education First." This is a global public/private partnership scheme whereby notfor-profit institutions would be privatized. The "not-for-profit" institutions are run under the label, "Global Business Coalition for Education," and set up by such Western -- mainly American - corporations as Accenture, Hess, Chevron, Pearson International and others. Their targeted countries are Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Nigeria. One is constrained to ask, what interest do these multinationals have in promoting education in the third world, especially Muslim countries? Let us be clear: the West and its corporations are not in the business of doling out cash to third world countries or care much about the children there unless there is a hidden agenda behind the faade of their good work. One is clearly to re-route the billions of dollars to their own pockets. The other equally sinister plan is to promote Western culture, thoughts and values by using the label of education. The third and equally sinister plan is to force targeted societies -- in this case Pakistan -- to launch military operations against its own people in North Waziristan to achieve America's geo-political objectives. Whether Malala knows it or not, if her father has any

sense he would realize that his family is being used as dupes for America's criminal enterprise. Malala is a tiny piece in this jigsaw puzzle. ---More details - Malala - Neo Liberal Martyr by Scott Creighton (We don't agree that the attack on her was staged.) "Charities"Gearing Up for Big Malala Haul Huffington Illuminati Mouthpiece: 10 Things about Malala Speech that gave us Goosebumps

THE BOOK TONY BLAIR DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ-- : 1942

THE BOOK TONY BLAIR DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ Saturday, October 23, 2010 By Mat Ward Photo: Flickr/Fabbio. Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam By Mark Curtis 352 pages (pb), Serpent's Tail, 2010. In Tony Blair's new memoir, A Journey, the former British prime minister says one of his biggest regrets is introducing the Freedom of Information Act, because journalists have used it "as a weapon".

Foremost in his mind would be people like Mark Curtis, who uses declassified British government documents to reveal the true recent history of the country. Curtis' previous book, Unpeople, showed that, by invading Iraq, Blair was continuing a great British tradition of plundering other nations' resources a dirty habit that has killed more than 10 million people, and counting. Curtis' latest book shows that, far from fighting Islamic terrorism,Britain has nurtured it whenever it has thought it useful to do so. Occasionally, the consequences for Australia have been horrific. For the past 100 years, Britain's real enemy in the Middle East has been not Islam, but secular nationalism. As British colonial power began to ebb in the 20th century, it tried to prop up its interests in the resource-rich region by any means possible. Radical Islamists usually fitted the bill.

Britain has long employed Machiavellian divide-and-rule tactics. Lawrence of Arabia, the "great liberator" of the Arab world in the sanitised British version of history, would be better named Lawrence of Disunited Arabia, since he wanted it sliced up and undermined. Curtis notes an intelligence memo Lawrence sent in 1916, which said the burgeoning Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire was "beneficial to us because it marches with our immediate aims, the break-up of the Islamic 'bloc'. "The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion."

Following the Arab revolt, the British didn't back the revolt's leader, Sherif Hussein, who had visions of a united Muslim world. Instead, they favoured Ibn Saud, a hardline conservative Islamist whose ambitions were limited to Arabia. In an orgy of murder that cost the lives of up to 400,000 people, Saud established "Saudi" Arabia. Britain's then-colonial secretary, Winston Churchill, noted that Saud's "austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty" forces "kill all who do not share their opinions" and "make slaves of their wives and children". But he later wrote that "my admiration for him [Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us". As a British ambassador to Saudi Arabia put it later in the 20th century, the House of Saud could be built up as "the great gookety gook of the Muslim world" to counter the rising popular Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. In 1917, the British were intent on seizing Palestine, since it opened up a clear overland route to the huge oil reserves of BritishcontrolledIraq. Britain declared it was creating a home for the persecuted Jews, but "without prejudice" to the Arab inhabitants. Historian Barbara Tuckman says the declaration "allowed Britain to acquire the Holy Land with a good conscience they had to have a good moral cause". Curtis says: "Britain also saw the Jewish national home as creating a reliable client population in a strategically important region." It also fitted the bill for a disunited Arabia. After Britain was left weak and near-bankrupt by the World War II, it was forced to end its rule over India. In doing so, it divided the country along the sectarian lines it had always exploited, pitching Hindus against Muslims. The strategically important Muslim state ofPakistan was formed. Its

creation, says Curtis, "would contribute profoundly to the development of radical Islam throughout the world". In 1959, the Cabinet Office stated that Britain's "special interest" was "continued control of sources of oil with consequential profits toUnited Kingdom". As the head of the Eastern Department of the Foreign Office put it: "Our interest lies in keeping Kuwait independent and separate, if we possibly can, in line with the idea of maintaining the four principal oil-producing areas [Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq] under separate political control." In the same period, united Indonesia under anti-imperialist president Ahmed Sukarno was also seen as a threat. Sir Robert Scott, Britain's commissioner-general in Singapore, saw an opportunity to unsettle Sukarno by nurturing the radical Islamic elements in Indonesia's outlying provinces. He told the Foreign Office: "I think the time has come to plan secretly with the Australians and Americans how best to give these elements the aid they need." The result was a strengthening of Darul Islam (House of Islam), which went on to produce the violent splinter group Jemaah Islamiyah, the perpetrator of the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings in which 202 people, including 88 Australians, died. In the oil crisis of 1973, Western industrial nations went from trading surpluses of $10 billion to deficits of $48 billion, while the oil producers accrued surpluses of $69 billion. Britain courted Saudi Arabia to invest its new wealth in indebted Britain, forging a partnership that continues today.

In return for oil, Britain supplies the Saudis with arms and military training. Britain turns a blind eye to the fact Saudi Arabia is the biggest funder of radical Islam worldwide, estimated at $50 billion so far. Similarly, Pakistan has become more violent and extreme through Western funding, arms and training. Britain, with an eye on Central Asia's huge oil and gas reserves, encouraged Pakistan to begin expanding northwards into Afghanistan and beyond. The Taliban was formed from the 400,000 pupils in Pakistani madrassas (Islamic schools). Other violent Islamists had been championed as "freedom fighters" by Margaret Thatcher in their battle for Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf (who later became president) trained Osama Bin Laden. The result, says, Curtis, was 9/11. Britain has always sought to hedge its bets by funding both sides in war or politics and did just that with Islamic terrorist groups who began using London as a base for their activities worldwide. Britaingave them free reign, so long as they supplied MI5 with information. The most notorious result was the 7/7 bombings on London public transport in 2005. A lesser-known result was the death of an Australian in 1998, who was killed after being kidnapped in Yemen by a group of jihadists trained by British ex-soldiers, funded by FinsburyPark cleric Abu Hamza, an MI5 informant. Today, says Curtis, Britain finds itself in an absurd situation. It continues to insist the real enemy is Iran and that Saudi Arabia andPakistan are moderates, when they are anything but. Almost half of all foreign jihadists

in Iraq are Saudis and the US military says they carry out more suicide attacks there than any other nationality. Curtis says 70% of terrorist activity in Britain has links to Pakistan, yet Britain continues to funnel arms and aid to the country, whichPakistan then passes on to jihadists who are fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan. Perhaps as a result of Curtis' source material, his book is a dense, dry tome less like Tony Blair and more like his doomed successor, Gordon Brown. It would have perhaps benefited from some Blair-like levity. However, if you want to find out the real dirty details of British politics, this book will tell you far more than Blair's self-serving memoir and it's guaranteed that Blair will hate it.

From GLW issue 858

BOOKS OF THE YEAR 2010 | JOHN PILGER Published 19 November 2010

In another year distinguished by the silence of fiction writers about rapacious wars and a society at home assaulted by extremists in power in Westminster - a silence exemplified by the Man Booker Prize short-list and its compromise winner - three books are a blessed relief. The first is Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam by the historian Mark Curtis (Serpent's Tail). Excavating long forgotten official files, Curtis illuminates the darkest corners of Britain's critical role in the rise of islamicism as a means of blocking Arab nationalism and guarding

western "interests". He explains much about the current colonial adventures. In Newspeak in the 21st Century by David Edwards and David Cromwell, the editors of the website Medialens.org (Pluto), brilliantly decode the propaganda that so often passes for news and give us with an A to Z of how corporate journalism demonises "our" enemies, from Venezuela to Iran. My other choice for finding out how power works is Noam Chomsky's latest bonfire of the illusions and falsehoods that masquerade as public policy. This is Hope and Prospects (Haymarket Books). All three books provide a moral and intellectual survival kit in these extraordinary times.

Secret Affairs: a book by Mark Curtis

By Paul Cochrane on March 10, 2011

Britain's collusion with radical Islam Britain has played a nefarious role in the Middle East's history. We all know that London re-drew the region's borders after World War I as part of a "divide and rule" strategy, but few are aware of Britain's divisive and often contradictory efforts in the region that have remained a core part of its foreign policy. Instead, the United States and Israel tend to get all the "credit" when it comes to the dark arts of Machiavellian political subterfuge. In 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam,' author Mark Curtis uses declassified official documents and leaked reports to lay bare Britain's policies of destabilization and the political-economic ties Britain developed to ensure energy security and financial co-dependence. What Curtis exposes is as damning toBritain as the WikiLeaks US embassy cables

have been toWashington, revealing the decisions made away from public scrutiny and what really makes up official policy. "It is clear that Britain has an interest in divide and rule in theMiddle East. If it sounds conspiratorial, it is there, spelled out in the planning files," Curtis told Executive. Shady goings-on 'Secret Affairs' is an eye opening read that charts the beginnings of British collaboration with radical Islamic forces, a relationship that began during the occupation of India over 150 years ago, was used extensively post-1945 and continues to this day. Britainworked with Islamist groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, and friendly authoritarian Islamic regimes in Egypt, Syria, Saudi ensure Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Bosnia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Afghanistan to didn't take hold. Britain would cultivate relationships on both sides of the political fence, showing a willingness to work with essentially anyone, whether the Mahaz-i-Milli Islam (National Islamic Front of Afghanistan), the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group or the ayatollahs in Iran, to achieve short-term goals, irrespective of the longer-term implications, in order to maintain a balance of power. "In [my] analysis of British foreign policy, it is not all down to economics," said Curtis. "The collaboration with Islamist groups in the Middle East has been about power status, to not be relegated to a bit player on the fringes. It has seen those groups as essential allies in a region where Britain has often lacked dependable allies. In a lot of the episodes where Britain collaborated with Islamic groups, it was essentially to do the dirty work that the US couldn't do due to Congressional oversight and the fear of being found out."

that communism, nationalism, pan-Arabism and anti-Western policies

The dirty deeds include assassination attempts for example onEgypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Libya's Muammar al-Qadhafi, andLebanon's late Ayatollah Mohammad Fadlallah military assistance and the dissemination of propaganda tools, such as Korans and Islamic literature. British operatives also orchestrated "false flag" operations, such as the one in Iran in 1953 when mosques and public figures were attacked by agents and paid supporters appearing to be members of the communist Tudeh Party. British intelligence also worked in collaboration with Ayatollah Kashani, the mentor of Ayatollah Khomeini, to stir up sentiment against nationalist Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadiq. Alongside maintaining its power status and ensuring energy security, Britain also worked to make sure oil-producing countries invested their petro-dollars in London to shore up the city's global financial position. To do so, Britain needed to maintain its status as a power broker and to curry favor with regimes, regardless of the means. One example of this is the "fabricated invasion" of Kuwait by Iraq in 1958, during which Britain intervened to protect its newly-independent former colony against a threat that they had themselves concocted, as British files explicitly show. "Britainwanted to exaggerate the threat to Kuwait so [Britain] would continue its protection and Kuwait would keep investing revenues in the British banking system," said Curtis. Blow back Such covert operations all documented in 'Secret Affairs' have been just one part of Britain's foreign policy that has gone against London's purported democratic ideals. The backing of Islamist forces, and its hidden alliance with two chief state sponsors of radical Islam, Saudi Arabia which has spent more than $50 billion to spread the Wahhabi brand of Islam around the world and is a major sponsor of Islamist groups and Pakistan, have also had major negative repercussions.

By preventing independent and secular governments from coming to power in much of the Islamic world, Britain's policies have nurtured the current socio-political malaise and resulted in what the late Chalmers Johnson famously termed "blow back," when the very forces the West aided and abetted came back to bite the hand that once fed them. Curtis shows how Britain in the 1990s allowed Islamist groups to operate out of London, which they believed could be used to destabilize governments in, among other places, Syria, Iraq and Libya. This was possible through a 'covenant of security' between radical Islamists and the security services. A former Cabinet Office intelligence analyst explained: "The longstanding British habit of providing refuge and welfare to Islamist extremists is on the unspoken assumption that if we give them a safe haven here they will not attack us on these shores." This pact meant Britain could keep tabs on such groups' memberships and finances, and enabled British intelligence access to groups linked to militancy from Afghanistan to Yemen. Even Al Qaeda had an office, the Advice and Reformation Committee, inLondon until 1998. Alongside the US and Saudi Arabia, Britain equipped and bankrolled Islamist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bosnia that were later involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States, terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, and the July 7, 2005 bombings in London. Indeed, as Curtis's research shows, the history of the ongoing "war on terror" is rooted in covert support for the Afghani Mujahedin in its fight against the Soviets and for the terrorism infrastructure co-established with Pakistan's notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which trained fighters for operations in Central Asia, India, Bosnia, the Middle East and elsewhere. It also goes further back in time, to the British-backed partition of India in 1947, which led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the current imbroglio in Kashmir. Curtis quotes former

Indian Ambassador Narendra Sarila as saying, "Many of the roots of Islamic terrorism sweeping the world today lie buried in the partition of India." More than 60 years later, Britain is still using divide and rule as a strategy and is contending with the repercussions of what in many ways its foreign policy has created. "There is still this resort to rely on particular Islamist forces to achieve objectives, whether in Southern Iraq [post-2003], where Britain worked with Islamist forces and now [has] a de-facto working arrangement with the Taliban, in the sense that Britain is reliant on them for an honorable exit from Afghanistan," said Curtis. In a previous book, Curtis called Britain's foreign policy a "web of deceit." In his latest, he has further shown how that web was spun and, crucially, how British foreign policy has nurtured global terrorism and instability. SECRET AFFAIRS: BRITAIN'S COLLUSION WITH RADICAL ISLAM

ISSUE 435 By Mark Curtis British troops are in Afghanistan, we are told, to forestall terrorist attacks on UK soil. This post hoc justification is one of the many myths about the 'War on Terror' debunked by Mark Curtis's fascinating and timely examination of the British state's collusion with radical Islamic groups. Curtis argues that the roots of more recent deals and accommodations with extremist groups lie in the Imperial era, when Britain and Russia manoeuvered for power and influence inCentral Asia, particularly Afghanistan; a grim strategy referred to as 'The Great Game'. He shows how the installation of puppet rulers and the removal by force of democratically elected ones has shaped the region, and how post-War foreign policy has been consistently bent to the maintenance of control and the expropriation of wealth, most notably oil.

In an impressively detailed sweep through the history of the region, Curtis exposes, time and again, British government support of militant groups. In Iran and Iraq, Libya and Syria, Egypt andIndonesia, Britain has provided funds and logistical support for organizations whose aims would seem inimical to the ostensible Western objectives of security and stability. He also sheds light on the murky US-British links with those two major sponsors of fundamentalist Islam, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Secret Affairs deals with a weighty subject in a meticulous manner, but Mark Curtis writes engagingly and it is surely beyond argument that his contention that post-War British foreign policy in the Central Asian region has made the world a more dangerous and more lawless place is a topic worthy of debate. www.serpentstail.com

BRITAIN AND ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

SERPENT'S TAIL, 12.99, 460PP. 11.69 FROM THE INDEPENDENT BOOKSHOP: 08430 600 030 SECRET AFFAIRS, BY MARK CURTIS Reviewed by Kim Sengupta Friday, 30 July 2010 Shot in the back by UK policy? Gurkha Rifles in Helmand For years, violent Islamist groups were allowed to settle inBritain, using the country as a base to carry out attacks abroad. This was tolerated in the belief that they would not bomb the country where they lived and that, as long as they are here, the security service would be able to infiltrate them. At the same time mosque after mosque was taken over through intimidation by the fundamentalists. Police and others in authority refused pleas from moderate Muslims with the excuse that they did not want to interfere. There was even a name for this amoral accommodation: the "covenant of security". We now know that jihadists will indeed blow up their home country and that the security agencies signally failed to infiltrate the terrorist cells while they had the chance. The part played by officials in the growth of terrorism inBritain is a relatively small-scale affair compared to what went on abroad. Successive UK governments had nurtured and promoted extremists for reasons of realpolitik often at a terrible cost to the population of those countries. Mark Curtis, in his book on

"Britain's collusion with radical Islam", charts this liaison. He points out how reactionary and violent Muslim groups were used against secular nationalists at the time of empire and continued afterwards to back UK and Western interests. The price for this is now being paid at home and abroad. I am writing this review in Helmand, where a few days ago I went on an operation with British and Afghan troops against insurgents whose paymasters, across the border inPakistan, have been the beneficiaries of US and British largesse. Curtis points out that two of the most active Islamist commanders carrying out attacks in Afghanistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalalludin Haqqani, had particularly close contacts with the UK in the past. Hekmatyar met Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street when he was a favourite of MI6 and the CIA in the war against the Russians. Haqqani, while not the "Taliban's overall military commander fighting the British" as Curtis says (he runs his own network parallel to the Taliban), was viewed as a highly useful tool in that conflict. The Western use of the Mujaheddin as proxy fighters is well documented. It resulted in the spawning of al-Qa'ida, the spread of international terrorism, and the empowering of ISI, the Pakistani secret police, who became their sponsors. Curtis examines the lesser known by-products of this jihad: the dispatch of Afghan Islamist veterans, with the connivance of Britain and the US, to the wars in the Balkans and the former Soviet republics in central Asia, and ethnic Muslim areas of China. Vast sums of money from the West's great ally, Saudi Arabia, helped fund the Reagan administration's clandestine war in support of

repressive military juntas in Latin America while, at the same time, buttressing the aggressive Wahabi faith embraced by many terrorist groups. The use of hardline Islam by the West was particularly prevalent at the time of the Cold War. In many instances, however, the targets for destabilisation were not Communist regimes but leaders who had adopted left-wing policies deemed to pose a threat to Western influence and interests. The UK attempted to combat "virus of Arab nationalism", after Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power in Egypt and nationalised the Suez Canal, by forging links with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation involved in terrorism. The nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company by the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadeq led to a British-American organised coup which was facilitated by Ayatollah Seyyed Kashani, one of whose followers was the young Ruhollah Khomeini. In Indonesia, the removal of Ahmed Sukarno in another military coup by the UK-US was carried out with the help of Darul Islam. Its followers went on to massacre socialists and trade unionists. In each of these cases the clandestine backing of Britainand the US strengthened Islamist groups at the expense of secular bodies and moderate Muslims. These groups then went to form terrorist groups whom the West would later have to confront in the "War on Terror". Here in Afghanistan, its most ferocious and violent front, moves are once again under way to negotiate with Islamists as the West seeks an exit strategy from a conflict increasingly costly in lives

and money. The UK, more than the US, has been pressing President Hamid Karzai to come to an agreement with the insurgents. This goes beyond reintegrating the foot soldiers - a sensible policy - to a settlement with the leadership of Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar. The Pakistani ISI is eager to help broker such a deal and Karzai, who no longer believes Western politicians have the stomach for a long-term military commitment, is veering towards this as the option which will keep him in power. The Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, minority communities who had fought the Pashtun Taliban in the past, warn this will re-ignite the civil war. Human rights groups fear hard-won civil liberties, especially for women, will be sacrificed in order to cut a deal with the Islamists. For Britain and the West the result is likely to follow the past pattern of the history of involvement with extremists: short-term gain followed by long-term loss as the international jihad continues to grow and gain ground. Kim Sengupta is Defence Correspondent of 'The Independent'

This densely packed history of Islamic terrorism will confirm many people's worst suspicions about the origins of al-Qaeda. Islamic radicalism was actively encouraged as part of the British Empire's strategy of divide and rule, specifically against Arab nationalists who sought to break with the West economically.

Here, Mark Curtis shows how variations of this thinking are still driving strategic choices he recounts how the British government has backed fundamentalist Muslims in coup plots in Iran, Syria and Egypt, supported the rise of the house of Saud, armed an Islamic insurgency in Indonesia and looked the other way when Islamist terrorist groups set up their headquarters in London because the security services thought it would safeguard Britain from attacks. This exclusive focus on Britain's involvement pushes the US's larger role to one side and Curtis has a pub bore's habit of lamenting too often the media's failure to report any of this. Still, Secret Affairs deserves to become a key reference point in the debate over terrorism and Middle East policy.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/lifestyle/books/835645-secret-affairsshould-be-required-reading-for-politicians#ixzz1J0F5L4ed

The Author Mark Curtis

: 2491 1002 : )(

 1592 1590 2009 . : .. . . : . ( ) . . . : * : . .2009 . * .* 2001 . . . . .

 ( ) . . 1592 1590 2009 . . . . . () . * .1592 : () () . ( ) . . () . . 1592 . . 1591 . . . () 1599

 : ... . 1599 1591 . * * . . . . . GfehcsG eGhGeehcstue ufGt ofhetGteuaG uAeueuf . 1551 : - - . . 1020/00/12 ( ) . ratt 1020/00/12 ! - 1020/00/12

 . 1020/00/12 , , , ( ) , ( ) ( ) , . 1020/00/12 , , . 1020/00/12 . . . .

SECRET AFFAIRS: BRITAIN'S COLLUSION WITH RADICAL ISLAM

by Mark Curtis (Profile Books, 12.99)

Tuesday 21 September 2010

In a detailed historical journey, Mark Curtis charts Britain's intimate involvement in the promotion of Muslim individuals and Islamic states as tools for its own imperial ambitions. It used Islam in a blatant divide-and-rule tactic from the time of the Raj onwards and Curtis amply demonstrates a continuous and intimate marriage of convenience betweenBritain and various Islamic forces over three centuries. After Britain's long-time support of the Ottoman Empire as a bulwark against Tsarist Russia and to protect its East Indian trade routes it soonsought alternative allies once the Turks had unexpectedly entered the first world war on the side of Germany. Britain then proceeded to find a suitable and subservient proxy from among the tribal groups of central Arabia. In the1920s it discovered Ibn Saud as an ideal candidate for leadership and gave him sole control over Saudi Arabia.
He proceeded to assert this in one of the most bloody repressions the region had experienced, killing over 40,000 Arab tribesmen and women and amputating the limbs of 350,000 more.

This led to the complete domination of the Saud family in the region to this day and assured Britain of a steady flow of oil and the family's complete support from Britain in the maintenance of its brutal and obscurantist regime.

It also led to the spread of the divisive and backward-looking faction of Islam called Wahabism - the founding ideology of modern jihad.

Throughout the region Britain has always propped up elements of the ruling classes against the democratic and nationalist aspirations of the people. Curtis provides a long list of such tactics from Egypt,Afghanistan and Persia to Turkmenistan. This history is little known and rarely discussed in academic circles and it will come as a surprise to many to see how Britain has meddled in Islamic affairs over such a long and continuous period. And, although it would be foolish to blame Britain solely for the present resurgence of Islamic extremism or terrorism, it is certainly not the innocent bystander it paints itself. Britain has continuously provided covert support to Muslim guerrilla forces to counteract the spread of Soviet influence in Persia, Turkey and Afghanistan, as well as in Kosovo. Curtis concludes with the present day chaos in Iraq andAfghanistan, showing how Britain and the US are very much to blame for what unravelled there even before they chose to invade. He names the "heroic" Afghan guerilla leaders who fought Soviet forces and who were backed and armed by Britainand the US only to then set up the Taliban regime and become "the enemy." Pakistan was also given massive military and financial support over many years as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the

region and to counteract India, seen as pro-Soviet and unreliable. This policy and Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan has also contributed to the present political instability and violence there.
This is a fascinating, well written and researched book.

And it is a must-read for anyone who wishes to better understand the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Britain's key role in its ascent. John Green

Perfidious Albion and the dirty little secrets of our foreign affairs
Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam by Mark Curtis Serpent's Tail, 12.99 by Ian Sinclair Saturday, September 25th, 2010 According to the respected American dissident Noam Chomsky: "The responsibility of a writer is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them." Historian Mark Curtis has been doing just that since he wrote The Ambiguities of Power in 1995. Bypassing the establishment-friendly analysis of mainstream media and academia, Curtis argues "the basic fact is that Britain is a major, systematic contributor to much of the world's suffering and horrors" carrying out brutal military interventions, large-scale human rights abuses and opposing economic developments that would benefit the poor.

Previously the director of the World Development Movement and a research fellow at Chatham House, Curtis has continued his evidencebased critique of British foreign policy with Web of Deceit in 2003 and, more recently Unpeople, in which he maintains Britain"bears significant responsibility" for around 10 million deaths since 1945. Now in Secret Affairs he turns his attention to Britain's relationship with the politics of radical Islam. Both Labour and Conservative governments have, he argues, "colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organisations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them." Why? To help promote Britain's two main foreign policy objectives "influence and control over key energy resources" and "maintaining Britain's place within a proWestern global financial order." Whether it is working with major state sponsors of Islamist terrorism such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or nonstate players such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Britain has consistently attempted to undermine secular, nationalist forces in the Arab world. As with Curtis' previous work, the first part of this historical overview makes extensive use of declassified government documents. For example, in 1957 the British ambassador to Jordan makes British policy plain in a letter to the Foreign Secretary: "I suggest that our interest is better suited by an authoritarian regime which maintains stability and the Western connection than by an untrammelled democracy which rushes downhill towards communism and chaos." Presumably because of the 30-year rule the more recent chapters on Britain's involvement with radical Islam during the wars in the Balkans rely more on newspapers and Hansard. The picture is therefore far from complete, and Curtis seems less sure of the terrain. However, there is no doubt that the claim of "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo in 1999 is

seriously undermined by the fact that Britain trained the Kosovo Liberation Army, an outfit who worked closely with al-Qaeda and who were openly described as a terrorist organisation by British ministers at the time. Turning to the present conflict in Afghanistan, Curtis notes thatBritain is now fighting the Islamist forces it had previously supported in the 1980s against the Soviet Union in what he calls "Whitehall's most extensive covert operation since the Second World War." The media have followed the government's lead, forgetting inconvenient facts like the visit of the brutal insurgent leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to London in 1988. Or, as a former literary editor of Tribune famously wrote: "Officially the change of partners had never happened.Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible." As for Pakistan's continuing support for the Taliban, highlighted by the recently leaked Afghan war logs, published on WikiLeaks, he simply says "the situation is absurd: in order to defeat the forces of the Taliban, Britain is dependent on their main ally." Bang up to date, comprehensive and clearly written, Secret Affairs is a work of great importance and sobering conclusions. Curtis remains essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand Britain's real role in the world.

About The Author

Ian Sinclair reviews books for Tribune.

SECRET AFFAIRS
Book Review by Charlotte Bence, September 2010 Mark Curtis, Serpent's Tail, 12.99 Until I read Secret Affairs I thought I was relatively well informed about the hypocrisy of the British government and the way in which the ruling class of any country will side with whoever promotes their interests, irrespective of any other considerations. I knew about the shocking use of divide and rule in India, for example, where the colonialist strategy of pitting Hindus and Muslims against each other resulted in communalism - separate electorates, jobs and education for Muslims. I knew about the role the British government played in the formation of Israel, where post-war British planners were deeply implicated in the ethnic cleansing of parts of Palestine. These shameful acts of the British government's past will not be news to readers of this magazine, and I would guess that the events reported in this book which came as a surprise to me would already be familiar to some of you. However, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be information in here that even the most knowledgeable will not be aware of, and that alone would make this worth a read. Secret Affairs is so striking because of the detail that Mark Curtis goes into, leaving no questions unanswered in his analysis of the role the British state

has played in propping up or working with Islamic regimes across the world to secure the furtherance of its own interests. The information on Saudi Arabia, for example, could make a book in its own right, as could the section on the role of the British state in Bosnia. To a lesser extent, Curtis also turns his eye to the manoeuvrings ofWashington, which is crucial for understanding the influence that the socalled "special relationship" has had on the actions ofWhitehall and how various imperialist rivalries have shaped the global political landscape. As impressive as these sections are, by far the most remarkable but also enraging elements of Secret Affairs are the parts that deal with the state's relationship with so-called Islamic fundamentalist groups and individuals across the world, but especially in what Curtis refers to as "Londonistan". In Londonistan the state provides "welfare to Islamic extremists on the unspoken assumption that if we give them a safe haven here they will not attack us on these shores" - clearly since 7/7 that attitude is changing, but not as rapidly as you might think. Curtis exposes the lies, dirty tricks and subterfuge the state will indulge in to protect its interests and attempt to keep us divided. I would argue that although there are things to disagree with here, this book is required reading for those of us who stand shoulder to shoulder with the vilified Muslim community in Britain and across the world. October 13, 2010 - 17:21 Karen Passmore reviews Secret Affairs by Mark Curtis. British historical interest in influencing Middle Eastern politics is well recognised, largely through the actions and subsequent attention paid to protagonists such as T.E. Lawrence and Sir Mark Sykes. Far less frequently discussed is the subsequent and ongoing involvement of the British

government with the internal affairs of an arc of nations stretching from Egypt to Kazakhstan. In Secret Affairs, Mark Curtis focuses on the cooperation and often collusion between the British and a variety of Islamist groups in this region, showing how these relationships are not merely historical but affect the social and political landscapes of the world today. From an initial somewhat strong position in the Middle Eastto the profoundly weaker one of today, Curtis reveals how British policies of 'divide and rule' in the region have remained unchanged. Drawing on many now declassified Foreign Office documents, he considers how the British sought to implement such policies both in countries where they held direct power (India, for example) and those where they did not (such as Iran and Egypt). During the Cold War, the overwhelming concern of the Foreign Office to maintain the balance of power produced many secret alliances with Islamist groups as Britain sought to prevent or destabilise nationalist movements in a variety of countries. Curtis shows how this often came at the expense of many allegedly core British values, including democracy, justice, women's rights and freedom, which were denied to the local population in the name of British short-sighted regional interests. Most eye-opening for the generalist reader like myself is the direct relationship between Britain and British foreign policy and modern-day terrorism. Curtis draws on an impressive range of sources to reveal the close links, both historical and contemporary, between many of today's high-profile Islamist groups that are involved in terrorist operations and the British government, military, or intelligence services. Secret Affairs follows a rough chronological timeline, from the British Empire to the present day. It is entirely possible to read the various chapters out of order; however, one of the major strengths of the book is in how Curtis shows the

patterns in British policies develop and repeat over time and over national borders this is best appreciated if read in order of inclusion. The book as a whole is accessible to a general readership and Curtis ensures that the text is not overridden with confusing acronyms and names of organisations (of which there are many). The index is particularly useful, and the extensive notes both develop ideas further and provide excellent source material should the reader wish to investigate certain aspects in greater detail. Secret Affairs is essential reading for anyone wishing to fully understand the political and social situation in the world today, in particular Britain's role in the Middle East andCentral Asia. It constitutes a historical reference, as well as an investigation into current affairs, that is both enlightening and somewhat depressing. In the words of the author, the hallmark of British foreign policy in the region has been 'expediency: the willingness to do whatever, with whomever, at the time to achieve short-term objectives irrespective of the long-term costs and any moral calculation.' This has had a profound effect on Britain's status and security in the world today.

Secret Affairs, Mark Curtis (Profile Books)

v