The embassy said the claims were âunfounded and maliciousâ and criticised British individuals and media outlets for attempting to link Iran to the incident at RAF Fairford.
The embassy also threatened legal action to âsafeguard the rights and interests of the country and its peopleâ over what it described as misleading and damaging media reports.
Hundreds of people have been arrested as the Defend our Juries group protested against the governmentâs âproscriptionâ (terrorism ban) on anti-genocide group Palestine Action. While al-Qaeda subsidiary HTS in Syria has been de-proscribed and whitewashed by the UK and US, Palestine Action remains banned. The Crown Prosecution Service and judiciary continue to collude to try to ensure the longest and harshest possible sentences.
More than 3,000 people, mostly pensioners and disabled people, have been arrested for âterrorâ offences for opposing the proscription. That total is climbing rapidly.
Streeting begins by addressing the terror probe related to an incident at RAF Fairford yesterday.
He says he can‘t provide much further detail than that already reported – but talks up the strength of the UK-US alliance.
„Our friendship with America is the closest alliance of any two nations on Earth, and we will always stand together against those who hate our freedom and those who wish us harm,“ he says.
„What we saw yesterday from our security services, our armed forces and our police was just a small glimpse of the extraordinary work they do everyday.“
(11.15 UK time)
Defence Secretary Wes Streeting has just begun his speech to the Labour Party conference in Liverpool.
The suspected plot appears to have been foiled by chance when a member of the public spotted unusual behaviour late at night in the countryside from a group of men and called 999.
Annual Conference returns to Liverpool from Sunday 27 to Wednesday 30 September.
Experience inspiring speeches, an exciting programme of events, and a vibrant exhibition, all coming together to make every minute count. It‘s your opportunity to be part of democracy in action.
âDie DĂ€nen haben am meisten gelogenâ, sagen Beobachter, die den mittlerweile veröffentlichten Grönland-Deal gelesen haben. Was sich hinter dem Schlagzeilen tatsĂ€chlich verbirgt.
Long story short – which may surprise some – the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.
Let‘s look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.
1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one „does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent.“
It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state „affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement.“
2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can „modernize and expand its activities“ at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and „shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.“ Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of „the American continent,“ a US interest rather than a NATO one.
Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that „the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland“ and that consultations are then held „to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement.“ What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.
Article VII also gives the US „the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use“ of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.
3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.
The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US „may enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea,“ but only „in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.“
The new one says: „the United States of America shall enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea.“
That‘s it: „May“ becomes „shall,“ and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules „issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.“ The US also gets something new on top: „undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters,“ i.e. submarines.
4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.
5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. „States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state“ (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), „shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information…within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties.“
Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.
6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.
The 1951 agreement existed only „for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.“ The new one lists the defense of „the American continent“ as an objective, celebrates „the irreplaceable role“ of the United States military as well as „the United States‘ indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland,“ and names the establishment of Trump‘s „Golden Dome“ missile defense system as a key goal.
So, to sum up:
– The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not
– The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)
– Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the „implementation details“
– Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island
– And all of it is now justified by the defense of „the American continent“
I don‘t know in which universe this even remotely „recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people‘s right to self-determination,“ as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (stm.dk/en/press/pressâŠ).
Yes, the preamble of the text cynically „reaffirms“ Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but „recognized sovereignty“
Aka Hansen, a filmmaker and opposition political party member in Nuuk, said she had been told earlier this year to prepare for the worst. She stored five daysâ worth of water in case of an American invasion.
âNow, suddenly, everything is fine,“ Hansen said, according to The New York Times. âWhat happened in between?“
âMy immediate reaction is that it makes me nervous and skeptical,â Ellen Frederiksen, a retired teacher in Narsaq, a town in southern Greenland, said by telephone.
âThe way Trump presents it, it sounds as if he is being given a monopoly over Greenland,â she said. âI sincerely hope that isnât the case.â
Das neue Abkommen zementiere den amerikanischen Zugang aus der alten Verteidigungsvereinbarung von 1951 und stelle klar, dass kein anderer Staat militĂ€rischen Zugang zu Grönland habe, erklĂ€rt Dahl â wobei der Grundkonflikt, ob Grönland zum Königreich DĂ€nemark gehöre und allein das grönlĂ€ndische Volk ĂŒber seine Zukunft entscheide, bestehen bleibe.
Sollte Trump das Abkommen spÀter als Niederlage empfinden, könne er jederzeit neue Forderungen stellen, warnt der Kommentator.
(Updated 1 hr 49 min ago)
âThe United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States!â Trump wrote on Truth Social, going on to call the arrangement âan âInfinite Lifeâ Agreement.â
Trumpâs announcement Friday means Greenland remains under Danish control and came ahead of the official text being released. It is unclear how far this agreement differs from an existing 1951 pact between the US and Denmark that allowed broad US military presence in Greenland.
Italy will deploy warships to ensure safe passage for its commercial vessels through the Bab al-Mandeb strait, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said, adding that Rome would not wait for a joint decision from the European Union.
âWe have the capabilities to protect the passage,â Crosetto said, warning that if the waterway became impassable, the economic consequences would be severe.
(September 16, 2026)
Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio Tajani had a telephone conversation today with the Yemeni Minister of Foreign Affairs Al-Zouba. During the conversation, Tajani expressed Italyâs concern at the ongoing escalation in the country, reiterating its firm condemnation of the recent attacks by Houthi militias against the civilian population, the Yemeni regular forces and Saudi Arabia.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs then expressed Italyâs full support for the internationally recognised government of Yemen, as well as Italyâs commitment to facilitating the resumption of the peace process and to providing humanitarian assistance to the local population, which has been ravaged by years of conflict.
âThis proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major non-Nato ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf region,â the State Department said in its official notification.
Officials said the proposed deal would enhance Saudi Arabiaâs ability to deter existing and future threats, strengthen its homeland defence and improve interoperability with US, regional and Nato forces.
(26.4.2018)
As Barbara Lee presciently warned her colleagues before she cast her lone dissenting vote in 2001, we have âbecome the evil we deplore.â But these wars have not been accompanied by fearsome military parades (not yet) or speeches about conquering the world. Instead they have been politically justified by âinformation warfareâ to demonize enemies and fabricate crises, and then waged in a âdisguised, quiet, media freeâ way, to hide their cost in human blood from the American public and the world.
After 16 years of war, about 6 million violent deaths, 6 countries utterly destroyed and many more destabilized, it is urgent that the American public come to terms with the true human cost of our countryâs wars and how we have been manipulated and misled into turning a blind eye to them â before they go on even longer, destroy more countries, further undermine the rule of international law and kill millions more of our fellow human beings.
Less than a month after 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan, launching what President George W Bush called the âWar on Terrorâ – a series of seemingly endless wars and military campaigns spanning Afghanistan, Iraq and countries across the Middle East, South Asia and Africa.
According to the Cost of War project at Brown Universityâs Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs estimates that US-led wars since 2001 have directly or indirectly killed an estimated 4.5 to 4.7 million people – including approximately 940,000 direct deaths and 3.6 to 3.8 million indirect deaths from disease, malnutrition and health complications.
On that ill-fated day, 25 years ago, the world stood united. The attack on the US was seen as a brutal assault on the very idea of a modern, open society. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1368, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) invoking Article 5 for the first and only time, and the global outpouring of support: Washington enjoyed empathy and credibility in spades.
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) was not seen as a US-led war but as one against a medieval ideology that used jihadi terror as an instrument…
Es sei „die schwerste Wahlniederlage, die die CDU seit Jahren, seit Jahrzehnten eingefahren hat“, so Merz. „Das Ganze wird natĂŒrlich Konsequenzen haben mĂŒssen.“ Es sei klar, dass die CDU nicht zur Tagesordnung ĂŒbergehen könne. Das Wahlergebnis löse groĂe ErschĂŒtterungen aus, im Land und in der CDU. Er werde versuchen, dem Ernst der Lage Rechnung zu tragen.
Das Wahlergebnis mache auch etwas mit ihm persönlich, sagte Merz. Es habe zudem Auswirkungen auch auf die internationale Lage und finde international Beachtung.
(Dezember 17, 2016)
Zwei Essays von Hermann Ploppa aus 2005 mit dem Titel âEin neuer Mantel fĂŒr die PDSâ beleuchten, wie die ehemalige DDR-Staatspartei (ab 1990 âPDSâ) im Jahre 2004 mithalf die âWahlalternative fĂŒr Arbeit und Soziale Gerechtigkeitâ (WASG) zu grĂŒnden, auf deren RĂŒcken anschlieĂend wieder in den Bundestag einzog, sie anschlieĂend schluckte und sich selbst in âdie Linkeâ umbenannte.
Zu Hermann Ploppa: Autor (âDie Macher hinter den Kulissen: Wie transatlantische Netzwerke heimlich die Demokratie unterwandernâ, Ăbersetzer von Tim Andersons âDer Schmutzige Krieg gegen Syrien: Washington, Regime Change, Widerstandâ.
Die Essays sind hier zu finden (Teil 1, Teil 2) und hier gespiegelt (Teil 1, Teil 2). Teil 1 wurde veröffentlicht im Juni 2005, Teil 2 im August 2005, also noch vor der vom damaligen Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder so plötzlich vorgezogenen Bundestagswahl im September 2005.
Dass Schröder damals die Wahl ĂŒber eine selbst organisierte âgescheiterteâ Vertrauensfrage im Bundestag so plötzlich vorzog â eine vom Grundgesetz nicht vorgesehene faktische Auflösung des Parlaments nach dem Gusto eines Kanzlers! â erschlieĂt sich nur vor dem Hintergrund eben dieser Entwicklungen.
Kanzler Schröder lieĂ das Vorziehen der Bundestagswahl noch am Abend der Landtagswahl in Nordrhein-Westfalen am 22. Mai 2005 von seinem damaligen GeneralsekretĂ€r Franz MĂŒntefering verkĂŒnden. An der NRW-Wahl hatte der Landesverband der WASG, gegen den massiven Widerstand des WASG-Bundesvorstands, eigenstĂ€ndig teilgenommen und 2,2 Prozent erreicht.
The battery was moved from the eastern island of Karpathos to Crete, where there is a major US base at Souda, the reports said.
The aim is to bolster air defence around Souda‘s strategically important naval and air facilities, which serve both the Greek Armed Forces and the United States and NATO.
The Souda base plays a pivotal role in supporting allied operations across the wider region, making its protection particularly critical under the current security conditions.
638,400 views Jul 31, 2026 The Tucker Carlson Show
Elizabeth Lane on the secret NATO propaganda network pushing the West toward world war.
(December 8, 2016)
Am 30. Mai 1968 beschloss der Bundestag mit den Stimmen der damaligen âgroĂen Koalitionâ das âSiebzehnte Gesetz zur ErgĂ€nzung des Grundgesetzesâ. Diese VerfassungsĂ€nderungen, die u.a. die Gewaltenteilung fĂŒr das Grundrecht der BĂŒrger auf Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis aufhob und damit die Grundlage fĂŒr den jahrzehntelangen Totalausfall der Demokratie und WillkĂŒr im geheimdienstlichen Komplex schufen, wurden seinerzeit âNotstandsgesetzeâ genannt.
Die eigentlichen Notstandsgesetze aber entstanden erst nach 1968. Ăber die Jahrzehnte wurden eine bis heute öffentlich nicht bekannte Zahl von ausfĂŒhrenden Gesetzen, Verordnungen bzw âBestimmungenâ oder âRechtsvorschriftenâ (z.B. Dienstvorschriften in MilitĂ€r und Geheimdiensten) quasi als juristische âSchlĂ€ferâ geschaffen, um ânach MaĂgabeâ des neuen Verfassungsartikels 80a im Falle des Falles in Kraft zu treten.
Aber welchen Falles? Und durch wen?
(…)
Ein âinternationales Organâ kann also âim Rahmen eines BĂŒndnisvertrages mit Zustimmung der Bundesregierungâ âRechtsvorschriftenâ unter Bezug auf Grundgesetz Artikel 80a zur Anwendung bringen. Und das selbst unter Umgehung der Feststellung von Verteidigungsfall und Spannungsfall durch den Bundestag.
Wie Absatz 3 Satz 2 von Artikel 80a besagt, mĂŒssen diese âMaĂnahmenâ von derart in Kraft getretenen Notstandsgesetzen bzw âRechtsvorschriftenâ wieder aufgehoben werden, âwenn der Bundestag es mit der Mehrheit seiner Mitglieder verlangtâ.
Was aber, wenn der Bundestag gar nicht weiĂ, dass solche âMaĂnahmenâ ĂŒberhaupt existieren? Oder nichts vom entsprechenden Beschluss eines âinternationalen Organsâ erfahren hat? Oder zumindest die ĂŒberwĂ€ltigende Mehrheit der Abgeordneten im Dunkeln gehalten wurde, z.B. von den eingeweihten FraktionsfĂŒhrungen?
âDer Zustimmungsfall wird dann relevant, wenn der Bundestag einzelne Regelungen in Kraft setzen will, die im Spannungsfall gelten wĂŒrden, aber den Spannungsfall insgesamt noch nicht ausrufen willâ, sagt Hegemann. FĂŒr diese einzelnen Regeln reicht dann wie bei regulĂ€ren Gesetzen grundsĂ€tzlich eine einfache Mehrheit im Parlament.
Das geplante BND-Gesetz formuliert fĂŒr alle drei FĂ€lle Regeln. Vor allem aber Ă€ndert es den Mechanismus, wie der Zustimmungsfall fĂŒr das BND-Gesetz ausgelöst werden kann. Das soll sich am Zustimmungsfall aus dem Grundgesetz âorientierenâ, aber umgeht dabei das Plenum des Bundestags.
An die Stelle eines regulĂ€ren parlamentarischen Verfahrens soll nĂ€mlich ein Vorschlag der Bundesregierung treten, dem das Parlamentarische Kontrollgremium zustimmen mĂŒsste. Dann könnten einzelne oder alle Regelungen des Gesetzes zum Spannungs- und Verteidigungsfall âfreigeschaltetâ werden. Dass der Bundestag als Ganzes dabei auĂen vor bliebe, hat noch einen weiteren Effekt: âEine Veröffentlichung ist nicht vorgesehen.
Oil prices rose, and stock markets dropped in shaky trading worldwide Wednesday after President Donald Trump raised doubts about the temporary truce in the war with Iran.
The S&P 500 fell as much as 1.1% after Trump said the agreement to pause fighting was âover,â but the index then trimmed its loss to 0.3% after Trump said the most recent exchange of fire with the Islamic Republic did not herald a return to full-scale war. Theyâre his latest mixed messages on what will happen with the war, which threatens to worsen inflation for the world.
This comes as Trump meets world leaders at the NATO summit in Turkey, where the Strait of Hormuz is expected to be a key topic.
As the minister recalled, to provide the country with anti-ballistic missiles, in April the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense signed a record-breaking contract for hundreds of PAC-2 missiles for the Patriot system, with Germany‘s support. Deliveries will begin over the next few years.
A first step has also been taken toward purchasing about a hundred missiles for the Patriot system for $1 billion using an EU loan. This year, Ukraine also began receiving missiles from the stockpiles of its European partners for the first time.
Die Kriegstreiber in diesem Land und anderen LĂ€ndern haben ein BĂŒndnis geschlossen, um Geld aus den USA, der EU, aus jedem NATO-Staat heraus- und zu den eigenen (Finanz-)Eliten zurĂŒckzuschleusen, indem sie es im Blut der Menschen waschen, das in den Kriegen in Afghanistan, dem Irak, Somalia, dem Jemen, Pakistan vergossen wird.â
JĂŒngere werden vielleicht erschrecken, und vielleicht auch Vergessliche unter den Ălteren, weil die SĂ€tze, die Julian Assange 2011 auf der Antikriegsdemonstration in London gesagt hat, SĂ€tze sind, die er gestern gesagt haben könnte. Sie beschreiben nĂ€mlich ein Muster: das Muster westlicher Wertekriege und ihrer drei wiederkehrenden Wesensmerkmale: Die Werte, mit denen sie legitimiert werden, gibt es nĂ€mlich nicht – jedenfalls nicht bei denen, die vorgeben, sie mit vorgehaltener Waffe zu vertreten. Und: Sie – ausnahmslos Angriffs- & Profitkriege – werden von der als âVerteidigungsbĂŒndnisâ vermarkteten NATO âantizipiertâ, orchestriert & exekutiert und ziehen die weitere Vermögenskonzentration in den HĂ€nden Weniger nach sich, womit sie – ausnahmslos, aber nicht ausschlieĂlich – der Profitmehrung professioneller Kriegsprofiteure dienen.
Immer dasselbe – in zeitlichen Schleifen, auratischen Wellen, historischen Episoden. Dasselbe eine Muster, wieder und wieder: dieselben knarzenden Argumentationsschemata & Narrationsabsolutismen. Dieselben Behauptungen, Tatsachenverdrehungen, Selbstvergewisserungen.
Dazu der immer selbe Raub an der Gesellschaft und den Menschen, die sie tragen. Dieselbe soziale Verarmung, dieselbe geistige Leere und dieselbe ethische Verelendung. Und immer dasselbe Elitenbereicherungs-, âSicherheitsâ-, âFeindesâ- & Tötungsmuster. Wieder und wieder und wieder.
Wir, die wir alt genug sind, uns (mit Assange) an die letzte Welle westlicher Wertekriege zu erinnern, können den erinnerungslosen JĂŒngeren heute nur eines sagen, nĂ€mlich: dass sie sich einmal erinnern werden. Wenn sie, nachdem (in 15 Jahren) die nĂ€chste Welle westlicher Wertekriege losgebrochen sein wird, ihrerseits auf erinnerungslose Junge treffen.
Assange hatte schon damals und hat noch heute recht. Wir mĂŒssen eigene Netzwerke und BĂŒndnisse schlieĂen, um unsere Werte gegen den eigennĂŒtzigen Zynismus der Kriegstreiber zu behaupten. In diesem Land und anderen LĂ€ndern.
Heute vor 2 Jahren war Julian Assange nach 14jÀhriger politischer Verfolgung & Haft endlich wieder frei.
Trump has thanked Chinaâs Xi Jinping and Russiaâs â Vladimir Putin for being âneutralâ during the US-Israel war on Iran.
âI just want to thank them because they made it â a lot better,â Trump said, adding that China was âterrificâ and made efforts to help settle the conflict.
(June 16, 2026)
Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa may travel to Ankara to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the upcoming NATO summit, though he has not received an official invitation to the gathering, according to information obtained by TĂŒrkiye Today.
Contrary to the reports published earlier in Turkish media, the Syrian leader is not included on the official guest list for the alliance‘s formal event. However, sources indicate a face-to-face meeting with Trump remains a possibility as global leaders converge on the Turkish capital.