Unless you know different, Booker does not seem to be up on the Telegraph website, so here it is in full - part 1. Or click the pic to the left if you want to read it "as is"...

View full article here

They have him up now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ssels.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3883 ... rming.html

At last!

It's not bizarre or appeasement at all folks. The EU/NATO/US use Islam as a geo-strategic weapon and provocateur. The real strategy behind the seeming war on terror is the creation of a continuous line of Islamist states from Saudi Arabia to the former Soviet Central Asian republics as planned by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his protégé, Zalmay Khalilzad. The US/NATO/EU establishment does not have a hostile view of Islam at all, contrary to the belief of many. It uses Islam as a tool to make the world inhospitable for forces that might seriously challenge domination by the US establishment and its partners such as China, India, and Russia.

There are a huge number of variables, and a large amount of empiria, so I shall restrict myself to a limited example which should should show that the 'Allies' and Iran often collaborate with each other. Which is most important for important for the purposes of this discussion.

The Ayatollahs were the main beneficiary of the Gulf War of 1991, which hobbled their deadly enemy, Saddam Hussein. And regarding the current invasion, the Ayatollahs have the most to gain from the destruction of Hussein's government and the removal of at least the leaders of his Baath party. Within Iraq, Iran works partly through the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which it funds, arms, trains and essentially controls. SCIRI has its own armed force, the Badr Corps, with thousands of troops in northern Iraq.

Th U.S. bombed a group called Mujahidin Khalq, which fights the Badr Corps. So, by bombing Mujahidin Khalq, the U.S. has taken a very clear step in strengthening Iran's hand within Iraq. Despite some verbal mutual attacks and demonstrations against U.S. presence, this bombing speaks volumes about U.S.-Iranian relations. (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-73314694.html)

If all the people saying the U.S. want's to attack Iran are right, why would the U.S. start by bombing an armed group which exists to fight Iran? And why would the British establishment criminalise a group, the People's Mujahideen of Iran, which just happens to be opposed the Mullah's of Tehran?

"It uses Islam as a tool to make the world inhospitable for forces that might seriously challenge domination by the US establishment and its partners such as China, India, and Russia."

This sentence should read: It uses Islam as a tool to make the world inhospitable for forces that might seriously challenge domination--such as China, India, and Russia--by the US establishment and its partners.

Hrrumph, bit more complex than that. To maintain Turkish and Iraqi allies the US has to admit that the Kurdish 'freedom fighters' are terrorists. No-one in the area has any interest in a new State for the Kurds, though the Iraqi northern province has become a de facto Kurdish stronghold.
America wants to see functioning democracies in the area, unfortunately Arabs don't do that sort of thing very well.
The idea that America uses Islam as tool is only credible if one agrees the America used Communism as a tool before that. This action isn't 'geo-strategy' it's simply local political tactics.

This reminds me of the October 2006 case of Bowland Dairies in Lancashire. That was another example of a court ruling being ignored by entities in Europe - that time the European Commission.

http://tonysharp.blogspot.com/2007/03/death-by-eu.html

Undemocratic, unaccountable and uncontrollable.