According to an article by Times online as many as 150 Islamic radicals have travelled from Britain to Iraq to join up with a “British brigade” that has been established by Al-Qaeda leaders to fight coalition forces.

"Senior security sources say leaders of the Iraqi insurgency have set up a “foreign legion” composed entirely of westerners to fight alongside the insurgents in the war against British and American forces. Some are preparing to carry out suicide attacks while others have received basic combat training for attacks on western troops The so-called “British brigade” is said to be operating under the direct command of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Members of the unit are thought to be in the Sunni triangle, a combat zone and Al-Qaeda hotbed west of Baghdad".

These claims surfaced after raids in Manchester, London and Merseyside 10 days ago when anti-terrorist police arrested eight men suspected of involvement in recruiting radicals for the jihad.

"Police said publicly that the men were being held on suspicion of encouraging and financing Al-Qaeda’s terrorist operations abroad. But privately Whitehall officials said they believed that there may have been links to the training and recruitment of volunteers for suicide missions in Iraq".

Jihadist websites about the British recruits who have joined this “foreign legion” have increased fears. One video, with English subtitles, issued last month, shows scenes of excited young recruits in Iraq. The message is “They are fighting; you should be too”.

Surveys by the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimate that one in 10 of the 20,000 insurgents in Iraq are foreign-born.

To date there have only been two terrorist attacks in Iraq with confirmed involvment of individuals with links to the UK.

Wail al-Dhaleai, a Yemeni asylum seeker based in Sheffield, died when he drove a car filled with explosives into a US army patrol in November 2003.

In 2005 Idris Bazis, 41, a French-Algerian who lived in Manchester, blew himself up in a suicide attack on American troops.

An investigation by Greater Manchester police reportedly "uncovered an extensive network for would-be “holy warriors” in Britain". Common methods included flying out "to Pakistan while others went to Middle Eastern countries, such as Syria, before being smuggled over the border".

But Alternative commentator Kurt Nimmo on a recent post at Another Day in the Empire suggests these claims are exagerrated, betraying a trend for alarmist media coverage relating to the "War on Terror"

"If we are to believe the Times Online, British “Islamic radicals” are so worked up over the occupation of Iraq they have joined “al-Qaeda” and have “travelled from Britain to Iraq to join up with a ‘British brigade’ According to the story, the “British brigade” is run by none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most ambitious and feared dead terrorist on earth.

Obviously, the Brits and Americans—and now Canada, under the leadership of the neocon PM Stephen Harper, where a terrorist plot was recently “foiled” in Ontario—are ramping up fake and false flag terrorism as the next phase of the neocon “clash of civilizations” agenda moves forward".

Iran's "supreme leader", Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a stark warning to the US in a speech broadcast live on state-run radio this Sunday

The most significant threat he made was that oil shipments from the Gulf region would be disrupted if the United States attacked the middle-eastern nation.

"If you make any mistake (invade Iran), definitely shipment of energy from this region will be seriously jeopardized. You have to know this," Khamenei said.

He added that if there was a disruption, the United States and its allies could not secure all the oil shipments that transit close to Iran's coast. Much of the world's oil supply passes through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which links the Gulf to the Indian Ocean and separates Iran from the Arabian Peninsula.

"You will never be able to protect energy supply in this region. You will not be able to do it," he said, addressing the West.

Khamenei, however, did not specify how oil supplies would be disrupted and insisted Iran would not start any war.

"We won't be the initiator of war," he said.

Western nations recently brokered an incentives package to persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. If Tehran refuses, the nations threaten U.N. sanctions.
But in todays speech Khamenei reiterated that Tehran is sticking to its postion that Iran rejects any such package that is conditional on the country first giving up its right to produce nuclear fuel. The United States and other Western nations suspect Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons. Tehran insists it is only for generating electricity. But the ayatollah insisted that Iran has no interest in developing a nuclear weapons capabilty as Western powers fear.

Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter and second-biggest power within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Until now Iranian officials had repeatedly ruled out using oil as a weapon in the nuclear standoff with the West.

The supreme leader's harsh rhetoric came a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said a breakthrough in negotiations over Tehran's contentious nuclear program was possible and welcomed unconditional talks with all parties, including the United States.

Ahmadinejad said late Saturday his government would not rush to judge the incentives package.

And Khamenei appeared to be enforcing this tougher line today.

"That a country has no right to achieve proficiency in nuclear technology means it has to beg a few Western and European countries for energy in the next 20 years," he said. "Which honest leader is ready to accept this?"

These statements came as a top deputy at Iran's Supreme Security Council outlined in an interview the reasons that Iran wants a nuclear energy program and is looking for compromise with Western powers intent on hindering the effort.

Both men's remarks appeared to be part of an orchestrated effort by Iranian officials to keep open the possibility of talks with the United States. Ahmadinejad's comments Saturday came first on state-run television during a report about a phone conversation with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Ahmadinejad elaborated that night during a speech marking the anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the republic's founder.

Javad Vaeidi, a top deputy at Iran's Supreme Security Council, spoke emphatically during an interview Saturday about Iran's interest in peaceful energy. As Ahmadinejad did, Vaeidi said Iran wants to preserve its right to develop nuclear energy.

"We do not need a bomb," Vaeidi said. "We are a regional power now. We have security without a bomb. ... The bomb would cause us to lose our power because other countries in the region would then pursue it."

The U.S. demand to halt nuclear activity so talks could begin, is seen as a "humiliation" because Iran has the right under current treaties to a nuclear program.

The deputy chief of international affairs, was most clear when responding to questions about Iran's nuclear ambitions. He said Iran does not want to be a nuclear power for warlike purposes. Nuclear energy has become a global business, he said, and Iran wants to preserve its interests.

"They want to prevent us developing a nuclear industrial program in Iran but they are willing to sell us this product," he said about a previous debate over whether Iran could buy enriched uranium from the West. "It's business."

Vaeidi also said that achieving a nuclear bomb would not be in Iran's interest for other reasons: Iran wants stability and to attract investors. And pursuing nuclear weapons would only legitimize Israel's existing nuclear program.

"It would also mean the United States would increase its military presence and influence in the region," he said.

"Iran is looking for compromise and we are trying to restart talks. This is the reality," Vaeidi said. "We're not after confrontation. We're not after adventure. We're not after conflict."

Reuters report that British anti-terrorist police suspected a chemical bomb plot was linked to the house raided two days ago as officers questioned two men, one of them in hospital after being shot.

Police siezed the men on Friday after 250 officers, some in bio-chemical protection, stormed the east London home.

Their intelligence sources believed the house was being used to make a toxic bomb for an attack in Britain, police sources claim.

One of the suspects, a 23-year-old man, was shot during the dawn raid and is recovering in hospital.

British firearms police have been under the spotlight since they shot dead an innocent Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, in the weeks following last year's suicide bombings in the capital. They wrongly identified him as a suicide bomber.

Friday's raid was one of the biggest operations since the July attacks.

Police said officers were seeking "some form of viable chemical device" that could kill - a conventional bomb laced with toxic material.

Both suspects are being held on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism but denied any links with a terrorism plot through their lawyers.

Asan Rehman, a spokesman for a family that was arrested from a neighbouring house but then freed, told Reuters the two men in detention were Muslim brothers of Bangladeshi origin. Neighbors described the men as friendly and "very religious".

Police have admitted nothing suspicious has been found at the House during their three day search.

By Noam Chomsky, the eminent intellectual and author, a professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This extract from his devastating new book,"Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy," sees America's leading thinker explain how his country lost its way.

Republished from Common Dreams

The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. But there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. It is important to stress the government, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree.

That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that, as Gar Alperowitz puts it in America Beyond Capitalism, "the American 'system' as a whole is in real trouble - that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy."

Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of "failed states" right at home.

No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit in the United States is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world. Declarations of noble intent by systems of power are rarely complete fabrication, and the same is true in this case. Under some conditions, forms of democracy are indeed acceptable. Abroad, as the leading scholar-advocate of "democracy promotion" concludes, we find a "strong line of continuity": democracy is acceptable if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interests (Thomas Carothers). In modified form, the doctrine holds at home as well.

The basic dilemma facing policymakers is sometimes candidly recognized at the dovish liberal extreme of the spectrum, for example, by Robert Pastor, President Carter's national security adviser for Latin America. He explained why the administration had to support the murderous and corrupt Somoza regime in Nicaragua, and, when that proved impossible, to try at least to maintain the US-trained National Guard even as it was massacring the population "with a brutality a nation usually reserves for its enemy," killing some 40,000 people. The reason was the familiar one: "The United States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations of the region, but it also did not want developments to get out of control. It wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely."

Similar dilemmas faced Bush administration planners after their invasion of Iraq. They want Iraqis "to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely." Iraq must therefore be sovereign and democratic, but within limits. It must somehow be constructed as an obedient client state, much in the manner of the traditional order in Central America. At a general level, the pattern is familiar, reaching to the opposite extreme of institutional structures. The Kremlin was able to maintain satellites that were run by domestic political and military forces, with the iron fist poised. Germany was able to do much the same in occupied Europe even while it was at war, as did fascist Japan in Man-churia (its Manchukuo). Fascist Italy achieved similar results in North Africa while carrying out virtual genocide that in no way harmed its favorable image in the West and possibly inspired Hitler. Traditional imperial and neocolonial systems illustrate many variations on similar themes.

The situation could get worse. Iran might give up on hopes that Europe could become independent of the United States, and turn eastward. Highly relevant background is discussed by Selig Harrison, a leading specialist on these topics. "The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union were based on a bargain that the EU, held back by the US, has failed to honor," Harrison observes.

"The bargain was that Iran would suspend uranium enrichment, and the EU would undertake security guarantees. The language of the joint declaration was "unambiguous. 'A mutually acceptable agreement,' it said, would not only provide 'objective guarantees' that Iran's nuclear program is 'exclusively for peaceful purposes' but would 'equally provide firm commitments on security issues.'"

Unlike Europe, China refuses to be intimidated by Washington, a primary reason for the growing fear of China on the part of US planners. Much of Iran's oil already goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons, presumably considered a deterrent to US threats. Still more uncomfortable for Washington is the fact that, according to the Financial Times, "the Sino-Saudi relationship has developed dramatically," including Chinese military aid to Saudi Arabia and gas exploration rights for China. By 2005, Saudi Arabia provided about 17 per cent of China's oil imports. Chinese and Saudi oil companies have signed deals for drilling and construction of a huge refinery (with Exxon Mobil as a partner). A January 2006 visit by Saudi king Abdullah to Beijing was expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas, and minerals."

The prospect that Europe and Asia might move toward greater independence has seriously troubled US planners since World War II, and concerns have significantly increased as the tripolar order has continued to evolve, along with new south-south interactions and rapidly growing EU engagement with China.

US intelligence has projected that the United States, while controlling Middle East oil for the traditional reasons, will itself rely mainly on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa, western hemisphere). Control of Middle East oil is now far from a sure thing, and these expectations are also threatened by developments in the western hemisphere, accelerated by Bush administration policies that have left the United States remarkably isolated in the global arena. The Bush administration has even succeeded in alienating Canada, an impressive feat.

Canada's minister of natural resources said that within a few years one quarter of the oil that Canada now sends to the United States may go to China instead. In a further blow to Washington's energy policies, the leading oil exporter in the hemisphere, Venezuela, has forged probably the closest relations with China of any Latin American country, and is planning to sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce dependence on the openly hostile US government. Latin America as a whole is increasing trade and other relations with China, with some setbacks, but likely expansion, in particular for raw materials exporters like Brazil and Chile.

Meanwhile, Cuba-Venezuela relations are becoming very close, each relying on its comparative advantage. Venezuela is providing low-cost oil while in return Cuba organizes literacy and health programs, sending thousands of highly skilled professionals, teachers, and doctors, who work in the poorest and most neglected areas, as they do elsewhere in the Third World. Cuba-Venezuela projects are extending to the Caribbean countries, where Cuban doctors are providing healthcare to thousands of people with Venezuelan funding. Operation Miracle, as it is called, is described by Jamaica's ambassador to Cuba as "an example of integration and south-south cooperation", and is generating great enthusiasm among the poor majority. Cuban medical assistance is also being welcomed elsewhere.

Some analysts have suggested that Cuba and Venezuela might even unite, a step towards further integration of Latin America in a bloc that is more independent from the United States. Venezuela has joined Mercosur, the South American customs union, a move described by Argentine president Nestor Kirchner as "a milestone" in the development of this trading bloc, and welcomed as opening "a new chapter in our integration" by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Independent experts say that "adding Venezuela to the bloc furthers its geopolitical vision of eventually spreading Mercosur to the rest of the region."

At a meeting to mark Venezuela's entry into Mercosur, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez said, "We cannot allow this to be purely an economic project, one for the elites and for the transnational companies," a not very oblique reference to the US-sponsored "Free Trade Agreement for the Americas," which has aroused strong public opposition. Venezuela also supplied Argentina with fuel oil to help stave off an energy crisis, and bought almost a third of Argentine debt issued in 2005, one element of a region-wide effort to free the countries from the control of the US-dominated IMF after two decades of disastrous effects of conformity to its rules. The IMF has "acted towards our country as a promoter and a vehicle of policies that caused poverty and pain among the Argentine people," President Kirchner said in announcing his decision to pay almost $1 trillion to rid itself of the IMF forever. Radically violating IMF rules, Argentina enjoyed a substantial recovery from the disaster left by IMF policies.

Though it is natural for doctrinal systems to seek to induce pessimism, hopelessness, and despair, reality is different. There has been substantial progress in the unending quest for justice and freedom in recent years, leaving a legacy that can be carried forward from a higher plane than before. Opportunities for education and organizing abound. As in the past, rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent authorities, or won by intermittent actions - attending a few demonstrations or pushing a lever in the personalized quadrennial extravaganzas that are depicted as "democratic politics." As always in the past, the tasks require dedicated day-by-day engagement to create - in part recreate - the basis for a functioning democratic culture in which the public plays some role in determining policies, not only in the political arena, from which it is largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic arena, from which it is excluded in principle. There are many ways to promote democracy at home, carrying it to new dimensions. Opportunities are ample, and failure to grasp them is likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the world, and for future generations.

For some it's the Mark of the Beast or the Antichrist. For centuries it's been the number that has conjured fear in the hearts of millions: 666.

And Tuesday happens to be June 6, 2006 - 6/6/06. Those numbers in a date come around only every hundred years.

What does it mean? For many, the date coincides with the number in the Bible's book of Revelation, believed by some to be when the Antichrist will exercise power over Earth,

It seems that such ideas still hold power over some of us, obstetrics and gynecology offices are getting cancellations from women who don't want appointments that day.

Law enforcement agencies will be on the lookout for Satan-worshipper activity, as well as all those Conspiracy sites that say it's a day significant to cult activities.

But the Internet is full of Web sites predicting terrible things.

Then there's Hollywood, of course.

A remake of "The Omen" comes out that day, along with another horror film called "666."

Some faiths believe that the devil is a real presence, and have seen that presence in many of the man-caused (as opposed to natural disaster) evils of the world today. But as one Catholic Bishop commented recently "there is no one day associated with the devil,"

I suppose we'll soon find out...

Apart from the tense stand-off with Iran, the hot topic among U.N. circles has been the recent sales pitches made by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for top jobs in the UN.

Former President Bill Clinton's name has been floated as a potential successor to Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations. Of course this sort of move had been on the agenda among Clinton insiders for more than two years.

The whispering in the press began in 2003 and has continued since his recovery from a heart bypass. Clinton has begun to take on a increasingly high profile recently, associated himself with various humanitarian causes. Most notably during the Tsunami relief efforts in South East Asia as well as rebuilding programmes after Hurricane Katriana closer to home.

"He definitely wants to do it," a Clinton insider is quoted as saying.

The term of Kofi Annan, the current U.N. secretary-general, ends this year and according to the report, Clinton's candidacy would receive overwhelming support from U.N. member states, particularly in the Third World. There were suggestions that due to a number of recent corruption scandals (including one which involved his own son!) Kofi Annan might resign before the end of his term in 2006.

Annan took over as U.N. chief in 1997. On the record, he has said he intends to fill out his entire term.

No American has ever been U.N. secretary-general even though the United States serves as host country and the major contributor to its budget.

As already noted, this is not the first time Clinton's interest in the job has been raised.

Back in February of 2003 there were reports of a "major international move" to engineer Clinton into the post. Those reports suggested Clinton had already lined up support for his candidacy for the secretary-general position from Germany, France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, a handful of African states, Morocco and Egypt.

Now after much fanfare, and following a series of lectures made at Georgetown University. It also seems Tony Blair is keeping open the option of a move to New York with his wife Cherie. Angling for a top job at a revamped United Nations after he steps down as Prime Minister, Government sources have indicated.

The Telegraph reported that Downing Street sources have refused to rule out the possibility of a transatlantic switch for the Blairs, which would allow them to be nearer their eldest, Euan, 22, who was recently given a free masters degree course in international relations at Yale University.

"Such a move would not only keep Mr Blair, who is only 53, on the world stage after he quits but also offers money-spinning possibilities for the couple on the lecture circuit, and a glamorous new way of life".

Although that it is seen as "highly unlikely that a Briton would be selected as the next secretary general", and succeeding Kofi Annan, who ends his term on Dec 31, as the job has never gone to a country in the Permanent five: Britain, the US, France, Russia and China.

"Within the UN it is seen as more likely that Blair could fulfil humanitarian roles akin to Clinton's position as special envoy for tsunami relief after the disaster on Boxing Day 2004"

There would also be likely problems, particulary from the Arab representative on the Security Council, to the appointment of the man who, with President George W Bush, invaded Iraq.

But it is clear that Mr Blair, ever the pragmatist is focused on his long term future and will consider any high level United Nations post;

"speculation has grown in diplomatic circles and Whitehall since he outlined his personal blueprint for UN reform in a speech last week at Georgetown University"

As well as discussing ideas on how to beef up the secretary general's powers, he explored creating a new UN environment organisation to handle issues such as climate change and a single UN humanitarian organisation for crisis response

In his view the world's multi-national organisations were completely ill-suited to the 21st century. "Increasingly there is a hopeless mismatch between the global challenges we face and the global institutions to face them," he said.

A former foreign minister said the speech "read very much like a job application".

Another post that may have caught Blair's eye, is that of the permanent president of the European Council of EU leaders. The post was to be created under the EU constitution but has been killed off after No votes in France and the Netherlands.

However, there is broad agreement that the position should still come into being to give the EU clearer policy direction and greater clout on the world stage.

Blair is obviously keeping his options open because of the instability in the Labour Party. Having promised to give Gordon Brown "his likely successor as Labour leader and Prime Minister", sufficient time to settle in before the next election, its now clear he will be forced to bring forward the time of his departure from Downing Street.