by Terence Strong

Events appear to be entering the very end game for Da’esh (Islamic State) in Syria.
While British RAF Typhoons contributed to air support with Storm Shadow and Brimstone missiles, 60 plus troops of B Squadron 22 SAS reportedly advanced on the town of Baghuz on the banks of the Euphrates river. They deployed by RAF SF Chinook helicopters and dune buggies, alongside American and French Special Forces, which were based at Al Qaim over the border in Iraq.

Fighting alongside fighters of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the elite soldiers suffered two casualties whilst killing 150 jihadis in the ongoing battle.
Over 600 mortar rounds were used, driving the remaining IS fighters into a defensive tunnel system.
The severed heads of over 50 Yazidi female sex slaves were discovered, shocking even the most combat-hardened soldiers, marking the death cult’s final act of depravityand barbarity.

Several IS commanders were apparently caught trying to escape the area disguised as women in traditional Arab dress. There appear to be now only some 200 IS fighters remaining, trapped in Hawi- al-Dandal, a mere mileage of scrub on the river bank.
They may have nowhere to run, but unfortunately the terrorists do still hold over a hundred civilian hostages.


by Terence Strong
Trouble is brewing fast in Venezuela, a troubled land I visited some 25 years ago when researching my thriller White Viper. The place was a socialist dystopian wreck even then. In the capital Caracas, roads melted in the tropical heat because of political corruption, big money changing hands between politicians and the construction industry mafia.
Drug business from neighbouring Colombia was rife as were many related murders. Rule One was don’t inform the police if you stumble across a body, because you’d be locked up as prime suspect.
Nothing worked in the city, it was like a scene from Mad Max. Now even more so.
Under another failed extreme socialist or Communist government, whose president Nicholas Maduro refuses to step down as the country sinks into chaos with hyper inflation, starvation, medical wipe-out and a surging people’s revolution and mass migration from its borders.
If the United States is put on standby, tempted to provide at least 5000 troops to deliver humanitarian aid, we already hear that the Russians have also dispatched Warners Spetsnaz-trained mercenaries to assist Maduro in shoring up his failed regime.

To date he’s keeping the army and police on his side, but for how long?
If that wasn’t enough potential fuel to the fire, the feared hard-left National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas of next door Columbia is threatening to intervene against such an American “invasion”.
It won’t take much to light the touch paper for an almighty conflagration.

(See White Viper on the Book Information page)


by Terence Strong

Things are shifting on the international stage as, in preparation for a BREXIT that may never come, Britain lifts its eyes to the far trading horizons.

The British government plans to extend its reach of the Royal Navy to east of Suez (excluding the Gulf) for the first time since the late 60s, despite having the smallest number of ships in living memory and a dire shortage of sailors.
It is looking for new bases in the Indian Ocean and the Far East.

Under renewed threat of violence from Communist Chinese President-for-life Xi JinPing, the independent Tiawan is offering facilities to the UK in return for a desperately needed friend against the bullying motherland, that wants it back at any cost.
That base will come with a defence-treaty price tag, do doubt.


by Terence Strong
The UK can join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which it helped form in the 60s, and now comprises Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It is recognised and “understood” by the EU.
Under EFTA, the UK controls its own fisheries and agriculture and it can make its own Trade Deals with nation that it wants.
Moreover, it is free of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Customs Union.
Within EFTA, the UK will represent itself at the World Trade Organisation and will no longer be subject to any EU direct or indirect taxation.
Membership of EFTA also allows the UK to “contribute” to discussions at the beginning of all new EU legislation.
EFTA is akin to what the British public thought it was voting for in the beginning.
The dreaded Freedom of Movement (FoM) does not apply except of other EFTA members. So be prepared for a flood of Icelanders some time soon.


Over time, the regime of Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin has come to feel ever more confident that it can act with impunity on the world stage. Having manipulated his own country’s constitution so that he is likely to be President-for-life, the man himself has proved to be a Grand Master in the chess game of world affairs.

He has cleverly exploited the political errors and judgements of his opponents over Syria and Iran.
He has got away with foreign incursions and annexations, without invasion. Instead he used his famous “little green men”. Like leprechauns, no one really knew who they were. Or if they did, they couldn’t prove it.
Airliners and assassinations of the President’s enemies occurred in foreign lands with no reprisals by the simple expedient of crafty denial. His regime has become ever emboldened to do whatever it likes. After all who’s going to stop it?
No one’s going to make Napoleon or Hitler’s mistake of going to war with the Russian Federation today. Putin has discovered a toolbox of devices to make himself exceedingly rich, to stay in power indefinitely and to do whatever he wants.
And if proof were needed, the much-heralded “Beast from the East” really did arrive at the end of February (2018) in a metaphorical snow-screen blizzard that completely paralysed the UK. Under its cover, assassins struck in Salisbury, Wiltshire.
As yet unidentified persons used a deadly nerve agent in spray or powder form to attempt the murder of a former British spy, a Russian who had formerly been caught and imprisoned in his own land but later released in a spy swap with America. Released but not forgiven.
It was a reckless act of terror in a very public place and put countless innocent lives at risk, breaking every accepted international rule and convention in the book.
World-renowned chemical and biological experts at nearby Porton Down quickly established incontrovertibly that the agent was of the Novichok family, an exclusively Soviet-era product.
When challenged by Britain to explain itself, Moscow ignored the questions with disdain.
The Prime Minister Theresa May, somewhat known for her indecisive character, has decided to dismiss 23 Russian diplomats in retaliation.
But is that enough to make the leopard change his spots? Unlikely.
In a previously Cold War spat back in 1971, PM Alex Douglas-Home kicked out 105 KGB and GRU members from the Russian Embassies. He named them all along with all their aliases and refused to let their numbers be replaced. Apparently that hit hard.
Foolish talk of cyber-attacks are a no go. A bit like Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) with nuclear weapons, the UK would not want to be on the receiving end of any more of those hitting the NHS, Inland Revenue or the energy industry.
Should May do the same now, knowing Moscow will respond in kind?
She could also push along the “Magnitsky Amendment”, legislation waiting in the wings of Parliament that would allow the government to freeze suspected illegal Russian assets and cancel individual visas.
No doubt BP, with its massive oil investments beyond the Urals, would feel a backlash from that one. And gas supplies from Russia may be annoyingly interrupted for one reason or another.
The beast from the East has indeed arrived, and it doesn’t seem to be going to go away any time soon.
#SergeiSkripal #Salisbury #Novichok #Putin #KGB #MI6 #Russia #Moscow

SILVER FOX takes over the Terence Strong thriller list


My own imprint – Silver Fox Press – has now taken over my entire backlist. And it will publish my new hardback thriller WOW (do enter the Guess-The-Title Competition on the ‘Terence Strong. Author’ FACEBOOK page) this autumn.

In recent years I have been published by Simon & Schuster UK, although in 2013 I set up Silver Fox Press to publish ten of my backlist titles that had become available for eBook format.

At the same time, my last thriller Some Unholy War was published by S & S without much fanfare.

As a result of this, I have decided that Silver Fox Press will now re-publish all my titles in both paperback and eBook editions. This process should be complete by the New Year.

It will also publish its first hardback, my latest thriller code-named WOW (there is a pre-launch title competition now running, see my FACEBOOK ‘Terence Strong. Author’ Page) which will be out for Christmas.

For the first time, WOW introduces the bad boys of the super-secret E Squadron SAS, veteran ‘handmaidens’ to MI6.

In the fastest growing book sector, ISIS AUDIO has already snapped up WOW and has announced that it is immediately revamping and recording missed titles and even re-recording some older editions in the Terence Strong range.




Like they’ve never been away, up to a 60 plus-man Squadron of the SAS is being redeployed to Afghanistan to support the new military “surge” planned by the Donald Trump administration.

With Marine Corps vets dominating in the White House, the new President is determined to crush reviving Taliban forces and the Islamic State and al-Qaeda forces they are harbouring.

SAS troops are likely to be joined by members of the smaller Special Boat Service (Royal Marines), which had made Special Forces’ activities their own during the prolonged conflict in the country.

Serious concerns about the regrouping and rapid growth of the extreme Taliban religious sect, which previously ran the country, were confirmed in recent weeks by the British Army’s top-secret Defence Intelligence Unit. It specialises in training and operating human intelligence (“humint”) and running agents on the ground in war-zones, being particularly adept at focusing on target recognition of terror group leaders.

Any new “surge” by the United States is likely to see a return to the Black Ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Although criticised by many neo-liberals back home, they proved to be ruthlessly efficient in smashing the rule of terror in both countries. They comprised night-after-night of surprise raids, snatch squads and harsh interrogation with immediate follow-up of intelligence gleaned. It wasn’t always a pretty sight. (See Some Unholy War).

The operations took their toll on Special Forces operators themselves as well as the terrorist networks they destroyed.

 #SAS #SBS #SpecialForces #Afghanistan #Surge #BlackOps #Trump #USMarineCorps





The city of Raqqa is the dark heart of the so-called Islamic State of Da’esh, the Sunni Muslim death cult in Syria. It still pumps and spills blood within its decimated houses of rubble as its hard-core believers continue to hold on.

They are Chechen vets, former al-Qaeda fighters and Iraqi Ba’athists who supported Saddam Hussein. And they are in no mood to give up the dying dream of being at the centre of an extreme Islamic Caliphate that would stretch halfway across the world from the UK to the Philippines.

After all, they have had three years to prepare and dig in with secret tunnels, booby-traps and car-bombs, all surrounded by a soft bubble-wrap human shield of several hundred thousand civilians in the built-up central neighbourhood.

Pitched against them for the past two months are the US-backed Syrian Democratic Force (SDF), a Kurdish-led coalition of Arab, Assyriac and Yazidi fighters.
In there somewhere, of course, are advisers from the British SAS.

Recently the SDF claim to have secured the northern half of the city, but the confusing front-line continues to ebb back and forth. Everyone knows the final push will be long and hard to win. That bloody victory will have to be achieved by scarcely-trained teenagers of YPG – part of the SDF – who make up in enthusiasm and blind courage what they lack in any kind of military expertise.

America is happy to fire them up with rhetoric, military technology and brand new Humvees that still have their protective plastic film sheaths on.

So leading the attack on Islamic State are thousands of untrained young Kurdish fighters, including deadly and fearless girl snipers who are apparently taking a deadly toll on the Christian world’s historic anti-Christ enemy.
They will need all the spiritual help they can get, and no doubt deserve.

#SDF #Kurds #YPG #Syria #Raqqa #USA #CIA #IslamicState #Daesh #alQaeda #SAS #MI6

FRENCH ELECTION – Macron & the Muslims

Dixie Hughes

Dixie Hughes

by contributor Dixie Hughes

France is a fractured country. As in the US and the UK, the rift is not between the traditional left and right. Instead, it reflects divisions; cultural, social, and economic; that came with globalisation and mass immigration.
The result of this mess is that France as one country no longer exists. One half the population (in blue-collar areas, small towns and rural areas) is shut out by the other half (the ‘white-collar’ elitists) who live in the big cities.
The “Elephant-in-the-Room,” the “French Islamist problem” remains undebated and unchanged.
After two years of continuous terrorist attacks, after five years of continuous Muslim immigration, after dozens of Muslim riots, big and small, in the suburbs of big cities, millions of French people were expecting a change; or at least a public conversation.
But, intentionally or not, these questions were avoided by the media.
MACRON EmmanuelThe expected victory of Emmanuel Macron; a perfect elite product of the French techno-sphere; dashes any hopes of addressing the frightening questions of Muslim immigration; Muslim no-go-zones (more than a hundred); the spread of Salafism among Muslim youths, and of the general secession of the French Muslim community.
Macron, young and modern, [supported by both Obama & Tony B Liar, FFS!] cautiously avoids talking about these problems. Macron, for many analysts, is the candidate of the status quo; Islamists are not a problem and reforming the job market will supposedly solve all France’s problems.
Macron is, for example, against taking away French nationality from convicted jihadists.
The words “Terrorism,” “Islam” and “Security” are almost absent from his vocabulary and platform, and he is in favour of lowering France’s state of alert.
By blaming “colonialism” for French troubles in the Arab world, and calling it “a crime against humanity,” he has effectively legitimised Islamic extremist violence against the French Republic.
In an interview with TF1, the former Rothschild banker said “If there was a simple answer to the migrant crisis, itLE PEN Marine would have been found. I want to put the Le Touquet treaty back on the table and to renegotiate the agreement.”
That is the oft repeated threat to move the Anglo-French border controls to the Dover end of the Chunnel…
French sociologist and writer Mathieu Bock-Côté has warned that Macron embodies, “all that France wants to extricate itself from.”
“Excessive globalism and cultural leftism are in contradiction with the aspirations that seem to come from the depths of the country,” he wrote in ‘Le Figaro.’
Macron has previously declared that Europe has “entered a world of great migrations” inescapable for the continent, which will only accelerate.
If Emmanuel Macron wins, France as we have known it can be considered pretty much finished.



“A deeply troubling and wrong-headed decision”

When it comes to using the prerogative for “less Europe”, there are implied limitations which do not seem to exist for “more Europe”

On 3rd November 2016 the Divisional Court handed down its judgment in R (Miller) -V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin). The court has, to the surprise of most informed observers, decided that it is outside the prerogative powers of the Crown for notice to be given under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to withdraw from the European Union.

In reaching this decision, the judgment has overturned the accepted understanding about the respective power of the Crown on the international plane to accede to and withdraw from international treaties, and the powers of Parliament to alter the internal law of the United Kingdom.
The European Communities Act 1972 was a constitutional innovation for the United Kingdom. It linked international treaties directly to the internal law of the United Kingdom by giving the European Treaties and supranational legislation made under them so called “direct effect.” That means that they have force in UK internal law – and therefore alter the content of the law – without recourse to Parliament.

The judgment argues that this feature of the 1972 Act means that the Crown has no power to withdraw from the EU treaties, because doing so would have the effect of altering domestic law, which only Parliament can do.

This argument is illogical and does not hold water. There are many acts which the government can carry out on the international plane under the European treaties which have the effect of altering UK domestic law, and in doing so either confer rights on people or deprive them of rights. Whenever the UK representative on the Council of Ministers joins in passing into law a directly applicable EU Regulation then the Crown in using the prerogative power to alter internal UK law without that alteration of the law going through Parliament. This is simply a consequence of the direct effect machinery of the 1972 Act.

So why should it be OK to have “more Europe” through exercise of the prerogative power, but wrong to have “less Europe” as a result of Article 50 being invoked and the direct effect parts of EU law ceasing to apply within the UK? Nothing in the wording of the 1972 Act supports such a distinction.

There is a further reason why this decision flies in the face of the obvious intention of Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty, which inserted Article 50 into the Treaty on European Union, was given effect in UK law by the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. That Act therefore made the Article 50 power available for use by the Crown but did not specify that its exercise would need the approval of Parliament. That Act however explicitly provides for Parliamentary control over certain prerogative acts under the EU treaties, including Article 49 on Treaty revision. But notably, the statutory scheme of Parliamentary control of prerogative power does not extend to notifications under Article 50.
BREXIT Art 50 High Court announcement
There has a been a long string of attempted challenges to the use of the prerogative power to extend EEC or EU powers, all of which have been rejected by the courts, sometimes in peremptory terms. However, when the prerogative is used to achieve “less Europe” in order to implement the decision of the British people which an Act of Parliament empowered them to take, it is suddenly found that there are implied limitations on the prerogative power which prevent it being used for this purpose.

Gina Miller

Gina Miller

We welcome the decision of the government to appeal from this judgment. We hope that the Supreme Court will apply the law in a more orthodox and logical way, allowing the government to fulfil its promise to the British people to implement their clear decision.
Martin Howe QC
Thomas Sharpe QC
Clive Thorne
Francis Hoa


Dixie Hughes

Dixie Hughes

Dixie Hughes:

The true title of the legal case that ended in the High Court on Thursday, in which three judges ruled that 650 individuals had the right to frustrate the wishes of 17.4 million voters; should have been “Parliament v the People”
By the European Referendum Act 2015, Parliament temporarily resigned its authority into the hands of those from whom it is derived: the electorate. This was voted for by 544 MPs to 53, on 9th June 2015.
The vast majority of MPs are of the Remainian ilk; but only the SNP members, possibly due to their referendum-losing heritage, actually voted against allowing the “Will of the People” to be expressed. It is arguable that they have some case for interfering with Brexit; the 544 have not the shadow of a justification for doing so.
The 544 include the Remainian rump that was so supremely confident that the People would give the “right” answer, they nodded the Bill through.
It also included the Brexit MPs who wisely kept shtum.
The Bill was approved by the House of Lords on 14th December 2015; Remainiacs again too slow to spot their chance; and the European Union Referendum Act received Royal Assent three days later.
The government pledge to be bound by the referendum result was repeated in the controversial Remainian pamphlet, announced on 6th April 2016 and delivered to every home in the UK a week or so later.
The wording used was; “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
The sending-out of that pamphlet, containing that pledge, was debated in the House of Commons; though many MPs voiced objection to the pamphlet, not one MP or Peer called for that pledge to be denied or removed.
While the 2015 Referendum Act did not specifically state that the referendum was binding, the purpose of the referendum was billed by all sides as the place at which the decision on the UK’s membership of the European Union would be made.
There would have been no point in calling a referendum if its result was not intended to be respected.
The government could have hired focus groups.

Over past decades, there has a been a long string of attempted challenges to the use of the prerogative power to extend EEC or EU powers, all of which have been rejected by the courts, sometimes in peremptory terms.
However, when the prerogative is used to achieve “less Europe” in order to implement the decision of the British people, which an Act of Parliament empowered them to do, it is suddenly found that there are limitations on the prerogative power which prevent it being used for this purpose.
So why should it be OK to have “more Europe” through exercise of the prerogative power, but wrong to have “less Europe” as a result of Article 50 being invoked and the direct effect parts of EU law ceasing to apply within the UK?

But there is another crucial point.
When Bills are presented in Parliament they are accompanied by a “Briefing Paper;” an outline; so even the dimmest Lib-Dem MP will know what he’s voting for or against.
The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 was no exception.
By invoking the Bill’s briefing paper in their ruling, the High Court referred to a paper that in one crucial respect undermines that ruling.
This is from the relevant section in that briefing paper, entitled, ‘Types of Referendum:’
“It [the referendum] does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.”
Anyone spot what the High Court missed?
The wording does not say that the result of the referendum is designed to influence PARLIAMENT, it says it is designed to influence “the GOVERNMENT.”
The reason why it says that is that it was widely understood that parliament had indeed transferred its sovereignty to the people, and that it would then be up to the Government (not Parliament) to take the process further, and implement the will of the people.
In other words, on 9th June 2015, MPs actually voted specifically for the Government to take action; to use the Royal Prerogative.
Like · Reply · 3 · 6 hrs