Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, Wayne Madsen and Israel's covert program to provoke the Muslim riots in France

Wayne Madsen: "Mossad logo: The imprimatur of Israeli intelligence is found all over Muslim riots in France."



On 25 October 2006, Wayne Madsen published this information:

"October 25, 2006 -- A new book in Germany is casting light on Israel's
covert program to provoke violence among Muslims in Western Europe and engage in "false flag" operations in order for Western governments to blame Muslim radicals.

The book, Der Krieg im Dunkeln (War in the Dark) by Udo Ulfkotte, formerly a correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, provides details of the operations of two Israeli intelligence units -- the Metsada, which specializes in sabotage, including "false flag" terrorist attacks and assassinations; and LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit), which engages in psychological warfare.

Ulfkotte's previous book on Islamist extremism, titled The War In Our Cities, was withdrawn from the German market because of "massive legal pressures by Islamic plaintiffs."

Ulfkotte claims that British and German intelligence agents encountered Metsada and LAP agents in France stirring up violence during the November 2005 riots, blamed on Islamic extremists. WMR has also reported that Interior Minister and presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who is supported by pro-right wing Israeli (Likud/Netanyahu/Olmert) factions in France, coordinated and continues to coordinate the paying of agents provocateurs to engage in violence in the predominantly Muslim Banlieus of Paris and other cities.

The November 2005 riots spread from Paris to Rouen, Lille, Nice, Dijon, Strasbourg, Marseilles (where Mossad's Brach C, also responsible for Paris and London, maintains a large station), Bordeaux, Rennes, Pau, Orleans, Toulouse, Lyon, Roubaix, Avignon, Saint-Dizier, Drancy, Evreux, Nantes, Dunkirk, Montpellier, Valenciennes, Cannes, and Tourcoing.

Ulfkotte also quotes a British MI-6 source who reported that Israel's goal is to portray Muslims as unpredictable threats who cannot be integrated into Western society."

I wanted to check what Wayne Madsen was saying was true, so I sent an e-mail to Dr. Udo Ulfkotte on Sunday 29 October 2006, asking if this information was true. I received the following reply a few hours later:

"From: Udo Ulfkotte
Sent: domingo, 29 de octubre de 2006 18:35
To:
David Sketchley
Subject: Re: Der Krieg im Dunkeln

Hi
funny what people report who have not read the book. Its quite right that I have written a book on espionage. But I never have written any sentence like this: quote from Wayne Madsenl: The book, Der Krieg im Dunkeln (War in the Dark) by Udo Ulfkotte, formerly a correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, provides details of the operations of two Israeli intelligence units -- the Metsada, which specializes in sabotage, including "false flag" terrorist attacks and assassinations; and LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit), which engages in psychological warfare. I have written that there was rumours within the German and UK intelligence that some Israelis MIGHT (and I never mentioned "Metsada" or "LAP" - like MWayne Madson did) have jumped on the train to get the best out of the situation that you have discribed. As I am a friend of the state of Israel I clearly deny that Israel was "behind" the outbreak of unrest of muslims last october in France. What I have written is that my sources said they heared that Israel MIGHT have treid to encourage them AFTER the outbreak of the unrest but that nobody knows if this is wrong or right. It was just a question. And even beeing a clear fried of Israel I have quoted that remarks - nothing more.
I privately DON`t think that the Israeli intelligence has anything to do with the unrest in France but being honest if there is quotes like that I had to take it. The reader is intelligent enough to make up his mind ...
Best regards from Udo"

Well, after a reply like that, I then e-mailed Wayne Madsen to find out what he had to say about this reply and this afternoon I received his reply:

"From: Wayne Madsen
Sent: lunes, 30 de octubre de 2006 18:04
To:
David SketchleySubject:
RE: Der Krieg im Dunkeln

Hi This is the translation that I received from a German translator:
From pages 56 and 57 "Der Krieg im Dunkeln", War in the Dark, ISBN 3-8218-5578-9


"The departments Metsada (sabotage, covert assassinations) and LAP (psychological warfare), e.g., were jointly active in France during the riots in November 2005: in the cities of Rouen, Lille, Nice, Dijon, Strasbourg, Marseille, Bordeaux, Rennes, Pau, Orleans, Toulouse, they stirred up unrest with agents provocateurs, which soon spread to Lyon, Roubaix, Avignon, Saint-Dizier, Drancy, Evreux, Nantes, Dunkirchen, Montpellier, Valenciennes, Cannes, and Tourcoing.

While the media spread the story launched by Mossad, that [the riots] are spontaneous uprisings of socially weak immigrants from the suburbs, western intelligence circles already for a long time had observed the efforts of Mossad in France, which has been pro-Arabic for years, to foment anti-Arabic and anti-Muslim sentiments.

British and German intelligence agents reported to me in November 2005 congruently, that, in the cities mentioned, in some cases Israeli agents provocateur have been encountered. It was unclear, however, whether the Mossad had started or just secretly fuelled the riots.

According to one source from MI6, Israel's goal is to portray Muslims as unpredictable threats that cannot be integrated"

I then wrote to Dr. Udo Ulfkotte once again this time pointing out:

"If the 4 paragraphs he (Madsen) quotes are correctly translated, then your denial that "I never have written any sentence like this" or "I never mentioned "Metsada" or "LAP" - like MWayne Madson did" (sic), does not stand up.
The translation, pages 56/57, states quite clearly that "The departments Metsada (sabotage, covert assassinations) and LAP (psychological warfare), e.g., were
jointly active in France during the riots in November 2005". This is a definite fact, not as you stated in your e-mail to me "rumours" or doubts "that some Israelis MIGHT (and I never mentioned "Metsada" or "LAP" - like MWayne Madson did) have jumped on the train to get the best out of the situation".

Further you stated in your e-mail to me that " I clearly deny that Israel was "behind" the outbreak of unrest of muslims last october in France. What I have written is that my sources said they heared that Israel MIGHT have treid to encourage them AFTER the outbreak of the unrest but that nobody knows if this is wrong or right. It was just a question."

From the translation provided by Madsen:

1. " Israeli agents provocateur have been encountered" - a definite fact NOT a supposition,
2. "It was unclear, however, whether the Mossad had started or just secretly fuelled the riots" This is not a denial, Dr. Ulfkotte. This is another statement of fact, the provoceurs were encountered, and they either started or fuelled the riots, but there is no question from these quotes that they were involved in some way. There is only supposition as to the level of their involvement."

The last reply from Dr. Udo Ulfkotte is quite revealing.

"From: Dr. Udo Ulfkotte
Sent: martes, 31 de octubre de 2006 19:10
To: David Sketchley
Subject: Re: Der Krieg im Dunkeln

Dear David

thanks for your mail. As I wrote with my last mail I have written what I heared from my intelligence sources. And I personally don`t think that the Mossad was/is behind that

Best regards from Udo"

Genocide in all but name?

Not really. Its genocide pure and simple if we take the Bush Administration's own definitions as reported by the BBC in September 2004:

"Powell declares genocide in Sudan

The US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said the killings in Sudan's Darfur region constitute genocide."

So, what figures brought Powell to declare genocide in Darfur and how do they compare to Iraq:

Sudan:
"Up to 50,000 killed"
"More than 1m displaced"
"state department investigators...interviewed more than 1,800 refugees" BBC

Iraq:

"About 601 000...deaths were due to violent cause" (Lancet) or
Up to 49610 killed (IBC)
"more than 1.5 million people displaced" (UNHCR)
"data from 1849 households that contained12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered" (Lancet)

However, Powell went further than just the numbers in decribing the killings in Darfur. CNN reported:

"Powell described the three criteria used to identify genocide under the Genocide Convention:
Specific acts are committed -- killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction of a group in whole or in part, imposing measures to prevent births or forcibly transferring children to another group;
Such acts are committed against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and;
Such acts are carried out "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, [the group] as such.""

Using this definition there is no doubt there is genocide in Iraq.

Latest Lancet Report -

From: David Sketchley
Sent: jueves, 12 de octubre de 2006 17:07
To: Sarah Boseley
Cc: Media Lens
Subject: Lancet report
Importance: High



Dear Sarah
Regarding your piece this morning.

Firstly, the subtitle is inaccurate. "US and Britain reject journal's finding that death toll has topped 650,000". No, the US and Britain do not reject the findings, it is the UK and US governments that reject the findings. A very big difference.

Secondly, why did you give pride of place to comments by the US president, the Foreign Office, and the US Defence Department dismissing the report even before explaining the details of same? This gives the appearance that you attach more weight to these lay points of view than to the scientists that carried out the survey.

Thirdly, nowhere can I read in your piece that you have contacted other eminent medical epidemiologists or statisticians to find their reactions to the Lancet report. Why not? Are you statistically literate enough to judge the sampling techniques used in the Lancet report?
BBC Newsnight interviewed Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford, last night who called this study "statistically reliable".

Channel 4 News interviewed Prof. Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council who stated "They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results"

Exactly the same happened with the previous Lancet report when the mainstream media ignored the report and it was left to others to point this out:

'Michael J. Toole, head of the Center for International Health at the Burnet Institute, an Australian research organisation, has said of the Lancet report:
"That's a classical sample size." Researchers typically conduct surveys in 30 neighbourhoods, so the Iraq study's total of 33 strengthens its conclusions. "I just don't see any evidence of significant exaggeration," Toole added.
(Cited, Lila Guterman, 'Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored,' The Chronicle Of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)
David R. Meddings, a medical officer with the Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention at the World Health Organization, has said surveys of this kind always have uncertainty because of sampling and the possibility that people gave incorrect information about deaths in their households. However, Meddings added:
"I don't think the [Lancet] authors ignored that or understated. Those cautions I don't believe should be applied any more or any less stringently to a study that looks at a politically sensitive conflict than to a study that looks at a pill for heart disease." (Ibid)
Dr. Bradley Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has said, "Les [Roberts, lead author of the Lancet report] has the most valid estimate." (Ibid)
Dr. Toole agreed: "If anything, the deaths may have been higher [than the Lancet study's estimate] because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died." (Ibid)'

Fourthly, you state: "The Foreign Office also cast doubt on the findings, stating that the government preferred to rely on the body count of the Iraqi ministry of health, which recorded just 7,254 deaths between January 2005 and January 2006." and 'Yesterday the Foreign Office repeated the government's criticism of two years ago. "We will be looking at it in more detail but it is a fairly small sample they have taken and they have extrapolated across the country," said a spokesman. "We rely on the Iraqi government themselves. They are producing their own figures these days"'

These days?

Why do you only cite 1 year's count from the Iraqi MoH? Could it be anything to do with the fact that in December 2003, Iraq's Health Ministry was ordered to stop counting civilian dead from the war and its aftermath?

As a result what you write is incredibly misleading.

Moreover, note that in the same USA Today report it also quotes the then Iraqi Minister of Health, Dr. Khodeir Abbas "It would be almost impossible to conduct such a survey, because hospitals cannot distinguish between deaths that resulted from the coalition's efforts in the war, common crime among Iraqis, or deaths resulting from Saddam's brutal regime,"

Further, in your own newspaper, Peter Beaumont also throws doubt on the body count of the Iraqi ministry of health today: "Some Sunni families have stopped going to Baghdad's morgue, which is in an area controlled by Shia militias, who are responsible for the death squads. The families of two recently murdered Sunni soldiers in a largely Shia battalion of the Iraqi army, their colonel said, were followed to the morgue and attacked. Funerals have also been targeted. Death follows death. Hospitals have been used for holding and torturing the disappeared."

Why did you not challenge the FO on their statement before writing your article?

Apart from all this, as you well know and as (Lancet editor) Richard Horton wrote in his Comment piece today "we have a legal obligation under the Geneva conventions to do all we can to protect civilian populations. These findings show not only that are we not adhering to this legal obligation, but also that we are progressively subverting it year on year."

I notice this aspect did not merit any comment in your piece.

I look forward to your comments.

Yours Sincerely
David Sketchley
Seville, Spain