German police seize terrorist suspects on plane

German police commandos grabbed two terrorist suspects from an Amsterdam-bound flight early Friday before the plane took off from Cologne, police said.

Feeding on Fear

"The al-Qaeda attacks on New York City and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, truly changed the United States, and not for the better. National pathologies and suppressed xenophobia have been unleashed as never before, fanned by the belligerent rhetoric coming out of Washington and from the U.S. media. As James Madison put it, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." That enemy has been terrorism."

McCain disavows aide's comment about terrorism

"A top adviser to John McCain said another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential candidate, drawing a sharp rebuke Monday from both the presumed GOP nominee and Democrat Barack Obama."

In Case You Missed It: Odigo says workers were warned of attack

"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack."

Muslim women to curb terror

"Amid fears that extremists are becoming more sophisticated in their recruitment, Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, has concluded that a key way to stop extremist ideas further permeating Muslim communities is to give “the silent majority” a stronger voice."

Grandparents branded "terrorists" - for taking photos of grandchildren

Barred for life: Grandparents Kim and Trevor Sparshott were banned from a shopping centre for taking photos of their grandchildren

"Kim and Trevor Sparshott were ordered to stop taking photos because they were causing a security threat."

Judge Declares Mistrial For Six Of Liberty City 7

"The judge in the trial of the so-called "Liberty City Seven" has declared a mistrial for six of the seven defendants."

Are Americans 'Better Than That'?

"The Dec. 11 report by the Post’s Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen, which describes Kiriakou’s experience in interrogating suspected terrorists, raises in an unusually direct way an abiding question: Should the United States of America be using forms of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition?"

Neo-cons have it wrong on Pakistan

"The argument pushed by Bolton and others that if not for Musharraf and the military, Pakistan would have fallen into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, is a beaten, much repudiated idea. Nothing displays the neo-cons' ignorance of Pakistani society and politics more clearly than this drummed-up fear."

Attorney: Informant in Fort Dix plot a felon

"A paid government informant who infiltrated a group of men accused of plotting an attack on soldiers at a New Jersey military installation was an Egyptian national on probation for bank fraud, an attorney in the case said Tuesday."

Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to 'Disrupt' Radical Movements in the United States

"Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of "homegrown terrorism," Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties advocates, scholars and historians."

India's VP blames US for terrorism

"Vice President of India Shri M. Hamid Ansari says the foreign policy adopted by the US is fueling the flames of terrorism in the world."

Dubai Police Chief: US created al-Qaeda

"We (Arabs) are charged with terrorism no matter how much we try to reassure them (the Americans)," Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, Dubai's Police Chief said.

Warning, this film could make you very angry

by Robert Fisk, The Independent - November 4, 2007

At university, we male students used to say that it was impossible to take a beautiful young woman to the cinema and concentrate on the film. But in Canada, I've at last proved this to be untrue. Familiar with the Middle East and its abuses – and with the vicious policies of George Bush – we both sat absorbed by Rendition, Gavin Hood's powerful, appalling testimony of the torture of a "terrorist suspect" in an unidentified Arab capital after he was shipped there by CIA thugs in Washington.

Why did an Arab "terrorist" telephone an Egyptian chemical engineer – holder of a green card and living in Chicago with a pregnant American wife while he was attending an international conference in Johannesburg? Did he have knowledge of how to make bombs? (Unfortunately, yes – he was a chemical engineer – but the phone calls were mistakenly made to his number.)

He steps off his plane at Dulles International Airport and is immediately shipped off on a CIA jet to what looks suspiciously like Morocco – where, of course, the local cops don't pussyfoot about Queensberry rules during interrogation. A CIA operative from the local US embassy – played by a nervous Jake Gyllenhaal – has to witness the captive's torture while his wife pleads with congressmen in Washington to find him.

The Arab interrogator – who starts with muttered questions to the naked Egyptian in an underground prison – works his way up from beatings to a "black hole", to the notorious "waterboarding" and then to electricity charges through the captive's body. The senior Muhabarat questioner is, in fact, played by an Israeli and was so good that when he demanded to know how the al-Jazeera channel got exclusive footage of a suicide bombing before his own cops, my companion and I burst into laughter.

Well, suffice it to say that the CIA guy turns soft, rightly believes the Egyptian is innocent, forces his release by the local minister of interior, while the senior interrogator loses his daughter in the suicide bombing – there is a mind-numbing reversal of time sequences so that the bomb explodes both at the start and at the end of the film – while Meryl Streep as the catty, uncaring CIA boss is exposed for her wrong-doing. Not very realistic?

Well, think again. For in Canada lives Maher Arar, a totally harmless software engineer – originally from Damascus – who was picked up at JFK airport in New York and underwent an almost identical "rendition" to the fictional Egyptian in the movie. Suspected of being a member of al-Qa'ida – the Canadian Mounties had a hand in passing on this nonsense to the FBI – he was put on a CIA plane to Syria where he was held in an underground prison and tortured. The Canadian government later awarded Arar $10m in compensation and he received a public apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But Bush's thugs didn't get fazed like Streep's CIA boss. They still claim that Arar is a "terrorist suspect"; which is why, when he testified to a special US congressional meeting on 18 October, he had to appear on a giant video screen in Washington. He's still, you see, not allowed to enter the US. Personally, I'd stay in Canada – in case the FBI decided to ship him back to Syria for another round of torture. But save for the US congressmen – "let me personally give you what our government has not: an apology," Democratic congressman Bill Delahunt said humbly – there hasn't been a whimper from the Bush administration.

Even worse, it refused to reveal the "secret evidence" which it claimed it had on Arar – until the Canadian press got its claws on these "secret" papers and discovered they were hearsay evidence of an Arar visit to Afghanistan from an Arab prisoner in Minneapolis, Mohamed Elzahabi, whose brother, according to Arar, once repaired Arar's car in Montreal.

There was a lovely quote from America's Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and Alberto Gonzales, the US attorney general at the time, that the evidence again Arar was "supported by information developed by US law enforcement agencies". Don't you just love that word "developed"? Doesn't it smell rotten? Doesn't it mean "fabricated"?

And what, one wonders, were Bush's toughs doing sending Arar off to Syria, a country that they themselves claim to be a "terrorist" state which supports "terrorist" organisations like Hizbollah. President Bush, it seems, wants to threaten Damascus, but is happy to rely on his brutal Syrian chums if they'll be obliging enough to plug in the electricity and attach the wires in an underground prison on Washington's behalf.

But then again, what can you expect of a president whose nominee for Alberto Gonzales's old job of attorney general, Michael Mukasey, tells senators that he doesn't "know what is involved" in the near-drowning "waterboarding" torture used by US forces during interrogations. "If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional," the luckless Mukasey bleated.

Yes, and I suppose if electric shocks to the body constitute torture – if, mind you – that would be unconstitutional. Right? The New York Times readers at least spotted the immorality of Mukasey's remarks. A former US assistant attorney asked "how the United States could hope to regain its position as a respected world leader on the great issues of human rights if its chief law enforcement officer cannot even bring himself to acknowledge the undeniable verity that waterboarding constitutes torture...". As another reader pointed out, "Like pornography, torture doesn't require a definition."

Yet all is not lost for the torture lovers in America. Here's what Republican senator Arlen Spector – a firm friend of Israel – had to say about Mukasey's shameful remarks: "We're glad to see somebody who is strong, with a strong record, take over this department."

So is truth stranger than fiction? Or is Hollywood waking up – after Syriana and Munich – to the gross injustices of the Middle East and the shameless and illegal policies of the US in the region? Go and see Rendition – it will make you angry – and remember Arar. And you can take a beautiful woman along to share your fury.

Pakistan's Musharraf declares emergency

by MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press - Nov 3, 2007

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday, state TV said.

"The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order," a newscaster on Pakistan TV said.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was preparing to impose a state of emergency amid rising violence and political tensions, lawmakers said Saturday after an extraordinary meeting of Cabinet ministers and other officials.

A senior official in the ruling coalition said the decision was reached at the meeting chaired by Musharraf.

"The switch could be turned on anytime," the official said.

But a minister said the decision still had to be approved by a full meeting of the Cabinet, which would convene at 7 p.m.

"If the Cabinet approves it, it will be declared," the minister said. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The private Geo TV network, citing unnamed official sources, reported that a final decision to declare an emergency had been taken and that Musharraf may address the nation later tonight.

Another government lawmaker and a Western diplomat, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had received similar information and expected an emergency as early as Saturday night.

It’s Time to Fire Washington!

by Debbie Lewis, Global Research - November 2, 2007

When will United States Citizens ever decide enough is enough and fire Washington?

Congress is pulling another fast one and no one is paying attention. As if wanting to control the entire population via the latest proposed commission, H.R. 1955, otherwise known as the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” is a slick piece of legislation. The way it reads, we are heading straight for an Authoritarian style government (like we are not in one already!).

This new bill is to be added to Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, another questionable piece of legislation. Where, may one ask, is representation for “We the People?” The vote for passage in the House of Representatives was 404 ayes to 6 nays and 22 representatives not voting. People on the right or the left think their representation is the best, but quite frankly, there is clearly little difference. Of the fifteen sponsors for this bill, eleven of them are Democrats. The bill has now moved to the Senate for approval, with its two sponsors being Republican.

The title, alone, is offensive. “Homegrown Terrorism?” It will come as no surprise, but the language is also extremely vague. Take the very first line: “To prevent homegrown terrorism and for other purposes.” The Senate version has similar language: “To establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes.”

Honestly, “…for other purposes?” We pay these people how much and we get “…for other purposes” in a piece of legislation governing the United States of America? Can they be more vague? Furthermore, why aren’t more US citizens outraged at such unclear language?

The definitions for the phrases “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” as well as “ideologically based violence” are almost as interesting as the terminology “…for other purposes.”

To radicalize means to go through sweeping change, while radicalization means to go from an active or passive stance to one of a more militaristic or intense stance. Are they talking about the United States citizens or the US government? Our government has taken on a vastly more violently radicalized stance in this War on Terror, but, so far, the citizens are taking a more peaceful approach, that of public protests. Do they mean to say that these protests are somehow violently radicalizing? I attended the rather large End the War rally in Washington DC on September 15, 2007, and it wasn’t violent at all. In fact, it was inspiring!

What about the oh-so-cleverly coined phrase “ideologically based violence?” According to the framers of this piece of legislation, this string of words is to mean the “use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious or social belief.” First of all, planned use? Are they now referring to thought crimes? Secondly, what about the threats of government to try and force the Real ID card on us, or vaccines, or the loss of our civil liberties? Would that not fall under this same category? If so, it appears to me the first casualty of this new legislation should be…The USA PATRIOT Act!

In light of these definitions, one must wonder if the current Congress would see our founding father’s actions as homegrown terrorism using violent radicalization and ideologically based violence to set our country free from the tyrannical government of England. Better yet, can the citizens of the United States consider the current administration as using violent radicalization and ideologically based violence to promote their agenda around the world or promote an idea, here at home?

This is sounding more and more like the War on Terror is coming home, and not in a good way! The internet has been sited as an aid in “facilitating violent radicalization….” (Our government hasn’t figured out a way to take a controlling interest in the internet yet, now have they?) Also, according to HR 1955, preventing such behavior cannot be readily brought about by the “traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts.” They plan to include state and local efforts, as well as including the US Postal Service and university-based Centers of Excellence, these latter being established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This Commission sounds like it is being governed by…The USA PATRIOT Act!

If I’m not mistaken, though, I do believe President Bush did say, “…either you are with us, you are with the terrorists.” In light of the growing disenchantment of the US citizens with regards to this illegal war, does that make United States citizens the enemy of the United States government it elects? Apparently so, hence the need for this commission and legislation!

This newly proposed ten member Commission for the prevention of these so-called violent radicalizations, homegrown terrorists, and ideologically based violent groups and individuals is going to look toward governments in other countries that have knowledge and “significant experience” in dealing with such behavior, such as the UK, Canada and Australia. We know that the UK is one of the most surveilled countries on the planet and Canada was financially worse off than the US, until recently. I guess I didn’t realize the UK, Canada, and Australia had such problems with their citizens behaving so badly!

It is past time for us, as good US Citizens, to hold our elected officials responsible for the shoddy legislation they are enacting, especially since they are enacting it on our behalf! When will we learn? When will we take up the fight for our own freedoms? When will we be educated enough to realize we need to fire our representatives in Washington and find a better way to preserve our way of life that doesn’t include thousands of pieces of unnecessary legislation?

Endnotes:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 House of Representatives Text of H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993 House Vote for HR 1955

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959 Senate Text of S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization Radicalization is the transformation from passiveness or activism to more revolutionary, militant or extreme postures. Radicalization is often associated with youth, adversity, alienation, social exclusion, poverty or the perception of injustice to self or others.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/radicalization.html Radicalize-change fundamentally: to undergo fundamental change, or introduce sweeping change in something. Make or become politically radical: to adopt politically radical views or cause somebody to do this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People

http://www.undersiegemovie.com/moreinfo.html Documentary “One Nation Under Siege”

http://www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/editorial_0498.shtm Homeland Security Centers of Excellence

http://www.washingtonyourefired.com/

Man angry with son-in-law fingers him as terrorist to FBI

Another one of Chertoff's "hot" tips...

AFP - Nov 2, 2007

A man in Sweden who was angry with his daughter's husband has been charged with libel for telling the FBI that the son-in-law had links to al-Qaeda, Swedish media reported on Friday.
The man, who admitted sending the email, said he did not think the US authorities would stupid enough to believe him.

The 40-year-old son-in-law and his wife were in the process of divorcing when the husband had to travel to the United States for business.

The wife didn't want him to travel since she was sick and wanted him to help care for their children, regional daily Sydsvenska Dagbladet said without disclosing the couple's names.

When the husband refused to stay home, his father-in-law wrote an email to the FBI saying the son-in-law had links to al-Qaeda in Sweden and that he was travelling to the US to meet his contacts.

He provided information on the flight number and date of arrival in the US.

The son-in-law was arrested upon landing in Florida. He was placed in handcuffs, interrogated and placed in a cell for 11 hours before being put on a flight back to Europe, the paper said.

The FBI contacted Swedish intelligence agency Saepo, which discovered that the email tipping off the FBI had been sent from the father-in-law's computer.

The father-in-law has been charged with aggravated libel.

He has admitted sending the email, but said he didn't think "the authorities were so stupid that they would believe anything. But apparently they are."

He said he "couldn't help the US authorities' paranoid reaction".

The calamity of Iraq has not even won us cheap oil

We knew the war was built on lies - but to have increased petrol prices as well as terror will surely seal history's verdict

by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Guardian - November 2, 2007

Although "the judgment of history" has a sonorous ring, it doesn't necessarily require the long gestation that phrase might imply: sometimes there's no need for the owl of Minerva to hang around waiting for the sun to go down. When one eminent historian, Sean Wilentz of Princeton, pronounces bluntly that George Bush the Younger is "the worst president in American history", and another, Tony Judt of New York University, calls the Iraq war "the worst foreign policy error in American history", not many of us will argue with them.

And yet history still doesn't know the half of it. It has long since ceased to be a matter for debate that the Iraq adventure began in mendacity and ended in calamity. Sir Richard Dearlove's public penitence this week merely confirmed what he had already said privately, and not only has every single one of the original official reasons for the invasion been falsified, they have all been stood on their heads. Now even what many suspected was the ulterior motive - a war for oil - has gone awry

Speaking at the LSE on Wednesday, Dearlove said the government had put "too much emphasis on intelligence" as a justification for the war in order to win parliamentary support. But even before the notorious specious dossiers were compiled - which is what he meant - he had already said with deadly candour in the July 2002 memo, written in greatest secrecy by Dearlove as head of MI6 for the eyes of Blair and his colleagues, that a decision for war had been taken, and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

He might have added that, while there were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, there was a great deal of noxious weaponry, which went missing at the time of the invasion and has since been put to dreadful effect. Nor were there any fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq five years ago - Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant, and had a very short way with Islamic zealots - but today the country is awash with jihadists. Many of them come from Saudi Arabia, whose monarch we have just greeted in such obsequious fashion so that we can continue corruptly to sell his country arms.

As to the idea, flourished after the event by the dreaded liberal hawks as well as neoconservatives, that an invasion would bring democracy to Iraq, it's tempting to say that comment is superfluous. In fact there is still something to be said - and it was said by Jacques Chirac at a meeting with Tony Blair that has been described by Sir Stephen Wall.

While reiterating his opposition to the war that was about to begin, Chirac made a number of specific points. He reminded Blair that he and his friend Bush knew nothing of the reality of war but that he did: 50 years ago, the young Chirac served as a conscript in the awful French war in Algeria, which Iraq resembles in all too many ways. Then he said that the Anglo-Saxons seemed to think that they would be welcomed with open arms, but they shouldn't count on it. In a very percipient point, Chirac added that a Shia majority shouldn't be confused with what we understand as democracy.

He ended by asking whether Blair realised that, by invading Iraq, he might yet precipitate a civil war there. As the British left, Blair turned to his colleagues and said, doubtless with that boyish grin we happily see less of nowadays, "Poor old Jacques, he just doesn't get it." Well, who got it?

Even supposing that it had been possible to spread democracy at gunpoint, it's curious that anyone thought this would actually serve western interests. Reporting recently from Dubai under the droll headline "US promotes free elections, only to see allies lose", Hassan Fattah of the New York Times observed drily that "the paradox of American policy in the Middle East - promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the west - is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose". Well, yes.

Then there's Blair's apparently sincere belief that he had an obligation to follow Washington's lead, because "it would be more damaging to long-term world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so", and that by offering such unconditional support he would "keep the United States in the international system". Absurd in any case as theory, this too has been drastically confuted by events.

As the hair-raising BBC programme No Plan No Peace has just confirmed beyond doubt, the British government had no influence whatsoever on American policy or conduct. Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary at the time of the invasion, has comically and humiliatingly contradicted himself as to whether he did or didn't oppose the crazy decisions to disband the Iraqi army - thereby setting loose large numbers of resentful armed fighters - and to dismiss all Ba'ath party members - thereby denuding the country of administrators. In any case, what is now quite clear is that his views didn't matter one way or the other. If London meekly agreed with Washington, the Americans went ahead; if London shyly expressed reservations, the Americans took no notice and still went right ahead.

Finally there is what has sometimes been dismissed as a conspiracy theory: that it was really a war for oil. This idea looks a little less cranky now that Alan Greenspan, the former head of the Federal Reserve Board, has acknowledged "what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil". But here again, there was no need to await his verdict. After all, the most powerful man in British politics had told us the same thing even before the war began. "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy," said Rupert Murdoch, "would be $20 a barrel for oil."

And so, on top of the whole list of false predictions and collapsed justifications, we have this final absurdity. As both Greenspan and Murdoch have very likely noticed, the price of oil hit a record $96 a barrel yesterday, and is still going up.

In April 2003, our previous prime minister confidently pronounced that "just as we had a strategy for war, so we have a strategy for peace". It is not pre-empting the judgment of history to say with even greater confidence that no good whatever has come out of this war, that no single good reason for it can any longer be adduced - and that "we" had never had any plan at all, not to say the faintest idea what "we" were doing.

Saudi king accuses UK of ignoring tip-off which could have stopped London bombings

by UK Daily Mail - October 29, 2007

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has attacked Britain's record on terrorism - and accused the Government of ignoring a tip-off which may have averted the 2005 London bombings.

In an astonishing attack, the monarch claimed his country had passed on information that could have stopped the atrocity but it was ignored.

The King's outspoken comments were made in a BBC interview ahead of a state visit to the UK this week.

His presence in the country is already mired in controversy with protestors planning mass demonstrations and Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable boycotting an official function.

In a scathing critique of the ongoing battle against terrorism, King Abdullah said the fight needed much more effort by countries such as Britain and that al Qaida continued to be a big problem for his country.

"We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy," he said, speaking through an interpreter.

Liberal Democrat acting leader Vince Cable yesterday took the highly unusual step of announcing that he would be boycotting a visit which, he said, should not be taking place.

It also emerged today that Foreign Secretary David Miliband has pulled out of a meeting with Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud.

But his decision was nothing to do with the controversial visit as he has gone on leave after he and his wife Louise adopted a new baby.

A mass demonstration is planned outside the Saudi embassy in London later in the week in protest at the kingdom's human rights record.

Mr Cable said that he was boycotting the visit - which begins formally tomorrow - in protest at the corruption scandal over the infamous Al Yamamah arms deal.

In a letter to the Saudi ambassador, he said: "I have introduced three debates in Parliament this year expressing serious concerns over the Al Yamamah contract and the corruption allegedly involved.

"I have, in my arguments, also been very critical of members of the Saudi royal family and the Saudi record on human rights, including its maltreatment of British citizens.

"In my opinion, it is quite wrong for the British Government to have proposed a state visit at this time."

It is normal practice for opposition party leaders to be invited to attend the main events involved in a state visit, including the state banquet hosted by the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Lib Dem leadership candidate Chris Huhne backed Mr Cable's boycott, saying: "The accolade of a full state visit is quite wrong. We are feting the reactionary leader of a society that discriminates against women, tortures prisoners, conducts public executions, amputates limbs as a punishment, and bans freedom of expression, assembly and religion. Saudi Arabia's human rights record is atrocious.

"Our intimate relationship with this regime is also corrupting our own institutions. It was Saudi pressure that forced the abandonment by the Serious Fraud Office of the criminal inquiry into bribery over the al-Yamamah contract, the biggest arms deal in history.

"A report by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons has even been suppressed, which has never happened before.

"Gordon Brown and the Labour Government have come a shamefully long way from the brave morning in 1997 when Robin Cook as Labour's first foreign secretary promised an ethical dimension to our foreign policy."

Mr Cable's decision follows the controversy which erupted last year when Tony Blair halted a long-running Serious Fraud Office inquiry into the £40 billion Al Yamamah deal signed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

Mr Blair argued that Saudi security co-operation in the fight against international terrorism could be jeopardised if the investigation continued.

Critics however claimed that he was more concerned that Britain could lose out on a fresh £20 billion contract to supply the Saudis with 72 Eurofighters.

The Conservatives branded Mr Cable's boycott as "juvenile gesture politics", while the Foreign Office said only that it was a matter for the Lib Dem acting leader.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said that the decision to invite King Abdullah now reflected the "long-standing friendship" between the two nations.

She said that British and Saudi interests were "intertwined and inseparable" across a range of issues from counter-terrorism to ensuring stability in the Middle East.

King Abdullah faces further controversy later in the week. Left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell said that protesters would be staging a mass demonstration outside the Saudi Embassy on Wednesday.

"The British people will be aghast at the Government entertaining on a state visit one of the most prominent anti-democratic and human rights- abusing leaders in the world," he said.

"Why is it that in the same breath the Prime Minister condemns the lack of democracy in Burma and the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe but remains silent when it comes to the Saudi dictatorship?"

One good Arab

Hollywood has moved on from portraying all Arabs as villains. Several recent films include one token 'good Arab' who likes the US.

by Sharif Nashashibi - Oct 29, 2007

I could not help but watch The Kingdom without feeling throughout that I had seen this all before many times. The film uses the same tired, and sadly successful, Hollywood formula of so many of its predecessors: Arab villains, American heroes, and lots of weapons.

In The Kingdom, a major terrorist attack is committed in Saudi Arabia by Saudis, targeting American civilians and causing FBI agents to travel there to track down terrorist mastermind Abu Hamza.

There are two differences between the recent crop of such films and their older counterparts: they now employ real Arabs to perpetuate the old stereotypes, and they utilise a token Arab "good guy" to make up for the fact that the rest of the Arab characters are bad.

Tony Shalhoub in The Siege is a striking example, an Arab-American cop trying to stop Arab terrorist cells from continuing their large-scale bomb attacks on US soil.

The vast majority of the Arabs in The Kingdom, young and old, are portrayed negatively - from the brutal, hate-filled, anti-western, religiously fanatical terrorists, to the inept, corrupt, heavy-handed, secretive and frustratingly bureaucratic Saudi authorities.

The "good Arab" is Saudi Colonel Faris al-Ghazi, played by Israeli-Palestinian actor Ashraf Barhoum. He helps the FBI team and is fond of American culture, having grown up watching The Six Million Dollar Man and The Hulk, who was his inspiration in his career choice in law enforcement because the superhero "killed only the bad guys". Al Ghazi is the only Arab in The Kingdom who we get to know and empathise with (this is even the case with Saladin and Prince Nasir in the far more balanced Kingdom of Heaven and Syriana, respectively). On the other hand, we are exposed in depth to the humanity, grief, compassion, determination, ability and patriotism of most of the American characters.

The overall message of this gung-ho film is as simple as it is dangerous: America's allies in the Middle East are unreliable and unstable, so whatever the objections and consequences, the US can and must project its power in the region to defend itself, safeguard its interests and secure justice against those who inherently seek the demise of the west and - we are reminded several times at the end of the film - Israel.

Put simply, The Kingdom perpetuates negative stereotypes for a quick buck and an adrenaline rush, at a time in the world where breeding such ignorance and prejudice has proven catastrophic.

This is not simply confined to the film. The media reported that the cast was treated "like royalty" in the United Arab Emirates - where the film was partly shot - with the main actor Jamie Foxx given security guards, paramedics, Rolls-Royce transport, a palatial hotel and even a food taster.

However, I recently watched him on The Daily Show on the More4 channel being interviewed about his stay in the UAE.

He mocked the Arabic language and food, talking about eating "baked tiger paws" and "boiled camel hump." It seems it is not just audiences that are being brainwashed.