I always thought there was something very strange about the arrest of Moazzam Begg earlier this year. He was charged with terrorism-related offences, such as attending a terrorist training camp. He was held in custody awaiting trial, but last week the case against him was dropped and he was released without charge.
But the case was dropped because it emerged that Begg had told MI5 that he was going to Syria and told them what he was going to be doing in Syria, including going to camps. MI5 had given their blessing. But for whatever reason Begg was arrested on his return.
So, why was Begg arrested?
I think his interview with the BBC today explains a hell of a lot!!
Begg claims he was approached in December 2013 by Henning's friends to negotiate Alan's release. Begg contacted the Foreign Office about this proposal, in particular Alastair Burt, but Begg's offer of assistance was rejected by the FCO. And even after Foley and Sotloff had had their heads sawn off, Begg again offered to negotiate Henning's release, but again this was rejected. It was only when Henning was shown on video that the FCO came to see Begg in prison, but even then the FCO proposed a very, very strange procedure for making contact with IS.
THIS ALL STINKS!!
Begg had been in Guantanamo wearing an orange suit and could communicate with Islamic State much better than anyone that I can think of.
But now we know why Begg was arrested only to have the case thrown out of court, and why this proposal was rejected by the FCO: TO STOP HIM FROM NEGOTIATING THE RELEASE OF ANY BRITISH HOSTAGE!!
And this has been done for reasons of war.
We have to ask these questions:
1. why did Callous Cameron state in The Marsten House that Great Britain will not pay any ransom for any British hostage because it funds terrorism when,
(a) MI5 have been allowing Islamic terrorists to operate freely out of and recruit in London in a Covenant of Security,
(b) our allies in the war against Islamic State have been financing terrorism in Syria;
2. why did Callous Cameron then cite the beheading of David Haines as a casus belli in his motion for war?
And in addition, why were the parents of James Foley and Steven Sotloff threatened with prosecution if they paid any ransom for their sons, while other nations in the G8 have paid ransoms for hostages, yet it is the UK and USA who have been citing the beheadings of Foley, Sotloff, Haines and Henning as the casus belli for war, when any war in their name is going to cost several orders of magnitude greater than the ransoms that could have saved their lives?!
But the cruel aspect of Begg's allegation is that no ransom was on the table for the release of Alan!! Yet the FCO rejected the proposal!!
This has to be the deliberate sacrifice of British hostages to provide the casus belli for a war that is supposed to destroy Islamic State but will no doubt end up ousting Assad one way or another. And all because of a $10 billion pipeline to transport Qatari gas to Turkey and onto Europe to ween Europe off its dependency on Russia for energy.
Heads must roll for this!!
Begg's interview can be watched here.
No comments:
Post a Comment