Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Home

Printer-friendly version

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

Media Release Friday, 2 June 2017

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432
Email: cec@cecaust.com.au
Website: http://cec.cecaust.com.au
 

Manchester terror attack forces the issue:

What about Prince Charles’s sponsorship of the murderous Wahhabite ideology?

Who will end MI5/MI6 assistance to killer jihadists?

The 31 May 2017 issue of the Australian Alert Service presents a six-page feature, “The Manchester terror attack: a new Peterloo massacre?” Summarising the evidence available to date on the horrific 22 May 2017 Ariana Grande concert terror bombing, we ask readers to return urgently to the demands posed in the 6 April 2017 CEC media release “Westminster terror attack: Prince Charles and Saudis must answer!”:

  • Force the reopening of the UK Serious Fraud Office investigation of al-Yamamah, the Anglo-Saudi oil-for-arms deal;
  • A Parliamentary commission in the UK should investigate the al-Yamamah connection to the 9/11 attacks in the USA in 2001;
  • Prince Charles must be called to testify before the new House of Commons hearings, in view of his long-standing close connections with Saudi figures involved in promoting terrorism.

Veteran Middle East specialist Patrick Cockburn, writing in the 25 May Independent, pointed out a reality which many suspect, but few dare to voice. He wrote that Western governments are “culpable for terrorist attacks on their own citizens”, by refusing to name the murderous Islamic sect of Wahhabism—the state religion of Saudi Arabia—as the driver for such events. “What has been termed Salafi jihadism developed out of Wahhabism and has carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent conclusion”; it is a sect that views anyone not sharing its beliefs as “sub-humans who should be massacred or enslaved”. Manchester killer Salman Abedi and his family followed the Salafi doctrine of jihad.

On the 25 May BBC Question Time programme hosted by David Dimbleby, a courageous young woman echoed Cockburn: “I am a British Muslim, and I am very proud of my heritage. But … there is an elephant in the room here: … Yes, we do have an issue within our mosques, within our religious institutions: we have children being taught the Wahhabi interpretation of the Quran; we have Saudi-trained clerics coming in and speaking to children as young as seven.... Stop, I would say—for now, temporarily, close down all Saudi-financed mosques.”

In the past 24 hours (“‘Sensitive’ UK terror funding inquiry may never be published”, The Guardian 31 May 2017) it has emerged that Liberal Democratic foreign affairs spokesman Tom Brake has written to Prime Minister Theresa May, demanding that an MI5 inquiry into Saudi funding for terrorism in the UK be made public, instead of being buried. “It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hard-line Wahhabite interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes place”, Brake wrote. Worldwide, such funding is “estimated by intelligence agencies, scholars and others at upwards of US$100 billion”, observed Australia’s former ambassador to Israel Peter Rodgers on 31 May.

In the 1 June TV debate among leading candidates, absent Theresa May, Greens leader Caroline Lucas demanded of May’s stand-in, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, “Why is Britain the second largest arms dealer in the world? ”, with the greatest portion of those sales going to the Saudis.

Charles, Prince of terrorism

As many privately suspect, the two issues are inextricably linked. But no one dares mention that the connection between them runs through Prince Charles, personally. The CEC has done so repeatedly:

These publications document that Charles personally negotiated with Saudi Arabia the later phases of the largest arms deal in history, al-Yamamah, from which a slush fund was generated that launched al-Qaeda out of the Afghanistan mujahedeen and led to virtually all modern international terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks; and that, with huge funding from then-Saudi King Fahd, Charles personally constructed the network of Wahhabite/Salafist mosques throughout the UK which has fostered the present terrorist infrastructure.

Therefore any competent investigation of the Manchester attack must also examine the following:

Fact: The board of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS), known as “Charles’s OCIS” after its very active Royal Patron, the Prince of Wales, has for the past two decades been composed almost entirely of the highest-level funders of the spread of Wahhabite ideology and orchestrators of terrorism from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, who have poured over $70 million into the Centre. Lawsuits filed by 9/11 victim families in US courts have charged four members of the OCIS board with orchestrating that event, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan (co-initiator of the al-Yamamah deal with Margaret Thatcher in 1985) and his brother-in-law, former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki. These Saudi princes were two out of the only eight foreign royal guests at the wedding of Charles to Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Fact: According to British law enforcement officers, Charles has personally intervened to stop investigations of terrorist activity in the UK, even while serving as the Patron of all three of the major intelligence agencies, MI5, MI6, and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

The Libyan connection: terror abroad, and at home

There is massive publicly available evidence on the role of MI5 and MI6 in the growth of Wahhabite/Salafist terror networks within Britain itself since the early 1990s, which growth came on the heels of the mosque-building program launched by Prince Charles and King Fahd in the late 1980s. Under the so-called “covenant of security”, MI5 and MI6 let their Wahhabite assets know that they were free to launch whatever mayhem they wanted to abroad, but no attacks within Britain itself.

MI5 and MI6 sponsored and protected a staggering growth of Wahhabite/Salafist networks in Britain, often over the fierce opposition of both local police and Islamic community leaders, and in the face of bitter official protests from dozens of other countries subject to attacks emanating from“Londonistan”. The widely-documented “covenant” continued, despite warnings from even a handful of leading military and security figures within Britain that the “radical Islam”-pivoted Anglo-American practice of “regime change”, implemented in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and attempted in Syria, would ultimately unleash terrorism within the USA and the UK themselves.

Manchester bomber Salman Abedi is a perfect example. The current AAS article assembles the evidence that has rapidly come into public view:

  • Salman Albedi’s father worked in the Salafist al-Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), backed by MI6 to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi as early as 1995.
  • When NATO led a bombing campaign in early 2011, intended to overthrow Qaddafi under cover of a “no-fly zone” for protecting civilians, MI5 and MI6 opened the floodgates for exiles in Manchester’s Libyan community, including radicals from the LIFG (officially listed as terrorist by the UK government) to return to fight Qaddafi.
  • Voting “No” on the 21 March 2011 House of Commons endorsement of the “no-fly” zone, which passed by 555 to 13, Jeremy Corbyn and now-Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell warned that the action would unleash civil war and terrorism. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, lifted the MI5-supervised “control orders” over dozens of LIFG members living in Manchester so that they could go to Libya to fight against Qaddafi.
  • Abedi’s family “were at the heart of the refugee community”, which “touches networks of radicals that reach back to Libya but also Afghanistan—and is known to have links to al-Qaeda”, and were well known to MI5 and MI6. (Financial Times, 25 May).
  • “Security services missed five opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber”, as community and even family members repeatedly called the government to report Abedi’s proclamations that “being a suicide bomber is ok” (The Telegraph, 25 May).
  • The American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alerted MI5 in January 2017 that Abedi belonged to a North African terror gang based in Manchester “that was plotting an attack in the UK”. A security source reported, “Following this US tip-off, Abedi and other members of the gang were scrutinised by MI5. It was thought at the time that Abedi was planning to assassinate a political figure. But nothing came of this investigation and, tragically, he slipped down the pecking order of targets” (Mail on Sunday, 28 May).

The strategic issues behind the 8 June election

Our 31 May AAS article calls on readers to dare to ask, “Cui bono?”—who benefits from such a terrorist attack?

At the time of the Manchester bombing, Jeremy Corbyn was closing in fast on PM Theresa May’s once commanding lead. May sent out a panicky tweet, saying that if the Conservatives lost only six seats, Corbyn would win. Given that momentum, were the MI5/MI6-sponsored Wahhabite/Salafist terrorists deployed from within Britain’s Establishment to attack yet another political adversary, but this time at home?

No one not at the pinnacle of the British Establishment can answer that question with certainty, but it is worth remembering the claim by Labour PM Harold Wilson, before his sudden resignation in 1976, that the Crown in the person of Lord Mountbatten and the intelligence services were out to overthrow him. The issue was the same reality as in the present election: Wilson had confronted the Bank of England with plans to launch a manufacturing-led renaissance “with finance the handmaiden and not the controller of our economic development”.

How afraid is the Anglo-American elite of Jeremy Corbyn? Campaigning on the pledge to govern “For the many, not the few”, Corbyn has relentlessly attacked “the elite”, the “tax dodgers”, and “the City”, and pledged to enact a “firm ring-fence” to break up The City’s Too-Big-to-Fail banks, instead of bailing them out. His promises to renationalise vital infrastructure and rebuild the National Health Service, ruined by budget cuts and privatisation, have struck a deep chord with Britons. On foreign policy, Corbyn has invoked US President Eisenhower’s 1960 denunciation of a “military-industrial complex”, pledged to end Britain’s arms sales to tyrannical powers such as Saudi Arabia, end Britain’s endless regime change wars abroad, and work with Russia in the United Nations instead of escalating toward nuclear confrontation. This platform threatens to effect the most radical shift in Britain’s policies since the Attlee Labour government of 1945-51, which nationalised the Bank of England, founded the NHS, and resisted the plans of Winston Churchill and other leaders of Britain’s “Deep State” of the day to launch the Cold War or even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union.

In the United States, the other half of the Anglo-American alliance, there is a new President who, despite his many flaws, campaigned for collaboration with China and Russia instead of the Bush-Cheney and Obama policy of confrontation, and pledged to break up Wall Street’s Too-Big-To-Fail banks, to which those of London are inextricably tied. Were Donald Trump to stick to his promises, as an elected Jeremy Corbyn would certainly stick to positions similar to those he has advocated for his entire political career, the Anglo-American Establishment would find itself facing not only the looming new global financial crash, but a political challenge to its power within both flagship countries, unprecedented in over a century. Even major US and British media boast that the campaign to impeach Trump was initiated by Britain’s GCHQ and MI6.

Whatever the truth behind the Manchester bombing, the eruption of “terrorism” facilitates a drive for police-states, by means of which “the few” might control “the many”. In a country which already has some of the most draconian anti-civil liberties laws in the world, the May government has now promised to ratchet them up still further by establishing a Commission for Countering Extremism.

What you can do

In a nation with no written constitution, where the Crown has the final say on all matters, and where the supposed oversight by the House of Commons’ Intelligence and Oversight Committee over MI5 and MI6 is a joke because all of its members must join the Crown’s Privy Council through which they are sworn to secrecy, only an aroused public—such as has taken to the streets by the thousands in venue after venue to support Jeremy Corbyn—can achieve justice for the dead and maimed of the Manchester Arena and make sure it does not happen again.

Therefore, don’t be paralysed by fear, but in all forums open to you, openly name those responsible for the Manchester and previous attacks, beginning with Prince Charles. Circulate this release and its linked material to everyone you know, and demand answers from your representatives in power, at any and all levels.

Click here for a free PDF copy of the Australian Alert Service, which features the ongoing series: "MI5/MI6 Run Terrorism".

Click here to refer others to receive regular email updates from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia.

Follow the CEC on Facebook Follow @cecaustralia on Twitter Follow the CEC on Google+




Citizens Electoral Council © 2008
Best viewed at 1024x768.
Please provide technical feedback to webadmin@cecaust.com.au
All electoral content is authorised by National Secretary, Craig Isherwood, 595 Sydney Rd, Coburg VIC 3058.