Iranian officials 'ask Taliban for leaked kill list' to 'target British spies'
Iran has reportedly asked the Taliban for the leaked 'kill list' that names MI6 spies, British special forces, and thousands of Afghans who applied for asylum in the UK.
A senior Iranian official said that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had requested that the Taliban share the list, according to The Telegraph. He told the newspaper that there was a 'special committee' assigned to find the list in Iran.
He added: 'There have been discussions on cooperation between Tehran and Kabul on this issue as it can help both countries for negotiations with the West.' It comes after NATO scrambled warplanes as Russia shoots down West's F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine onslaught.
The list, which was accidentally leaked by the British military, named thousands of Afghans. About 24,000 of those affected by the breach have either been brought to the UK or will be in the future, The Times reported last month.
The leak occurred when an official emailed the list outside of the government team processing relocation applications. The document contained names, contact details, and family information, as well as email addresses belonging to UK government officials.
More than 100 British officials' details were leaked alongside Afghan nationals, including those of spies, and serving and former members of the special forces.
The police ultimately decided that no investigation was needed, and the BBC confirmed that the official responsible is no longer in the post he occupied at the time of the leak. Most of the people affected by the leak were not warned that they were in danger, according to The Times.
Defence secretary John Healey said in a statement last month that the 'serious data incident should never have happened'. He said: It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government… But to all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today on behalf of the British government. And I trust the Shadow Defence Secretary – as a former Defence Minister – will join me in this.'
A Taliban official told The Telegraph that the group had obtained the list in 2022. He claimed that the media reports published in England made it clear 'how significant this leak was', and said that the order is to 'arrest as many individuals as possible to use them as a tool of diplomatic pressure against England'.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told the publication: 'We take the safety of our personnel very seriously and personnel, particularly those in sensitive positions, always have appropriate measures in place to protect their security.' They said that the independent Rimmer Review found that it was 'highly unlikely' that being on the spreadsheet could mean an individual is 'more likely to be targeted'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Spectator
The lies of the land
You can gauge the fragility of an ideology by the blind fury with which it reacts to questioning. So it is with neo-liberalism. Teacher Simon Pearson, for example, was sacked for suggesting that the jailing of Lucy Connolly – who said very nasty things about asylum seekers – was an example of two-tier justice and that, while her words were indefensible, she should not have been sent to prison. One could counter that opinion, but only at the risk of coming into collision with hard facts concerning sentencing – hence the sacking. Best to get shot of your political opponents, especially when he or she is demonstrably correct. Only by doing that can the ideology cling on. The other form of defence, if you are the adherent of an ideology which is palpably on its way out, is to lie to people, or to withhold information from them. Just shrug your shoulders and say: 'Search me, mate – we don't have any information on that, I'm afraid.' For a good 60 years the British public have been lied to about immigration and had information withheld from them. The reason that information was withheld is because the authorities know full well that possession of it would infuriate the great mass of people. And so, when some deranged jihadi murders somebody, we are not given his ethnicity, or we are told a lie (that he is a Norwegian, say), or a truism – that he is mental. If the police released the ethnicity of the suspect every time a serious crime was committed, the public would be even more averse to continued mass immigration from cultures dissimilar to our own than they are at the moment. I still suspect that Crimewatch was taken off air a decade or so ago because the gallery of criminals displayed each week revealed a remarkable dearth of white folks in it. The programme is back, by the way, with diverse presenters and they don't do the rogues' gallery thing any more. The lying, or obfuscation, about immigration has included withholding crime figures from us. Until recently we were un-aware that foreign nationals living in the UK were 70 per cent more likely to be convicted of sexual crimes. Meanwhile Algerians were 18 times more likely to be convicted of theft. The proportion of the under-18 prison population which is of black heritage is 30 per cent, compared with 5.5 per cent of under-18s in the general population. These figures are all comparatively new to us and they have been released for the simple reason that the dominant paradigm, the guff we've been fed for decades – that multiculturalism is terrific and immigrants commit no more crime than do the locals – is increasingly rejected as being not merely untrue, but absurd. The only comeback you will hear from the left on the issue of, say, young black offenders is that if they constitute 30 per cent of the under-18 prison population, then the majority of underage crime must be committed by white youths. This is what I call the Dave Allen argument, and it has been deployed over and over again in the case of the Pakistani rape gangs, despite what we might agree are its obvious flaws. So we have been lied to about crime rates among immigrants, or simply not told. But we have also been lied to about how many immigrants are here, how many will continue to flood in and what benefit they will be to society. It is quite common for the left to insist that an influx of 900,000 or so every year will not have any impact upon our crumbling infrastructure – housing, schools, the NHS and so on – despite the epic denial of reality that this involves. More recently, however, the truth has begun to leak out. While we are continually told that immigration boosts the economy, a report last year from the Office for Budget Responsibility showed that a low-skilled migrant costs the British taxpayer an average of £150,000 by the time he or she has reached pensionable age, and £500,000 if they make it to 80. This is the first time we have been given such information, and my suggestion is that in future the OBR breaks it down by individual ethnicity. Meanwhile, at the beginning of this year it was estimated that by 2063 white British people will be a minority in their own country. For decades anti-immigrant groups and right-wing politicians have warned of this and their claims were laughed off as ludicrous. Nope, not ludicrous: the truth. And of course any time conscientious politicians raised the issue of mass immigration, the liberal authorities wheeled out the great wicker man of Enoch and set it on fire, while denouncing all those who questioned the avidity with which this country yearned for suicide as 'racist' and 'far-right'. The slightly better news is that the public no longer buys this rubbish. For a long while, attitudes towards immigration among the general public seemed to soften, the consequence of being kept in the dark, being lied to and not wanting to seem 'racist' to the nice researchers. Not any more. The latest YouGov poll shows that a whopping 45 per cent of Brits are in favour of admitting precisely zero new migrants and wish for large numbers to be persuaded somehow to leave the country. That would have been an unthinkable proportion even ten years ago. Meanwhile, only a small minority believe that immigration has been mostly good for the country, and three-quarters oppose greater numbers still coming here. The lesson from this is that the centre cannot hold, that the disinformation no longer works – and that people are angry. Here, as in continental Europe, the indigenous populations have roused a little from their enforced slumber. A shame, really, that it's too late.
Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Spectator
Haircuts are a human right!
During the immigration deluge in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems one Afghan and one Indian national who threw themselves on the mercy of much-besieged Ireland got lost in the shuffle. Fobbed off with €25 vouchers, they were obliged to sometimes sleep rough for two months, without access to food and hygiene and exposed to hardship and fear. They've sued the Irish state. Knowing Irish NGOs, I bet they got help. The government has argued that the pressures on Ireland's hospitality at the time were severe enough to qualify as a force majeure. Their reception centres were full to bursting and there was no room at the inn (and haven't we heard that before). The Irish High Court sought a ruling from the European Court of Justice. Last Friday, the ECJ determined that being overwhelmed and full up did not reprieve the state from its obligations under the EU Reception Conditions Directive to provide all asylum seekers with, among other things, housing, food, clothing and education for minors. Therefore, having been cheated of such provisions, the petitioners are likely due compensation. Why, those 71 days of Down and Out in Dublin could really pay off. So no matter how limitless an inundation of indigent foreigners and how finite their own resources, European states literally owe nationals from all over the world a living. Because housing is a 'human right'. (Certainly it's a human right according to the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani, who hopes to extend the city's hitherto ruinously universal 'right to shelter'.) Food is a 'human right'. Healthcare is a 'human right' (often extending to sex-change operations). The umbrella of 'human rights' does nothing but expand and now protects not merely citizens but anyone from anywhere who rocks up on your patch. Imagine, then, that you were born in a rural area of an African country whose political rhetoric isn't so loftily supranational. If you don't scratch a few mouthfuls from your parched smallholding, you don't eat. Your 'accommodation' wouldn't naturally command such a grand label: a grass-roofed hut with a mud floor. Inside you cook on an open fire, the smoke from which is ravaging your lungs. Second-rate healthcare may be available only after a long, expensive journey. Education for your children requires school fees you may not be able to afford. Anyone in such circumstances who hears tell of a place where all these basic needs are 'human rights' even for foreigners and doesn't hightail it to such a Valhalla would have to be stupid, lazy or crazy. Brits shouldn't feel smug about no longer being required to follow the likes of the EU Reception Conditions Directive (yet; give our friend Sir Keir a bit more time), because in the UK asylum seekers are due not just free room and board, but often luxury hotel digs – with four-poster beds, video games and all-you-can-eat buffets – as well as group outings to the circus and safari parks. For British asylum seekers, even Netflix and Disney+ are 'human rights'. Funnily enough, Whitehall doesn't consider such subscriptions human rights for its own citizenry, some of whom, astonishingly, have to pay for them. This human rights business is a bigger issue than its influence on immigration. Is it really the case that the world, or at least your government, owes you a living from the off? At this point, too, maybe we should be asking what's not a human right. In fact, many folks seriously argue that access to the smartphones and the internet is now a human right. Well, we all grow hair. So shouldn't haircuts be a human right? Electricity, clean running water and indoor plumbing? If so, why should anyone pay utility bills? In both British and American cities, the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting – which progressives justify as the poor's response to 'inequality' – means just about any off-the-shelf good is a human right. Razor blades. Turtlenecks. Mayonnaise. A human right is anything you happen to need. Bloated welfare rolls suggest that opting for benefits in Britain has become a lifestyle choice. Taking advantage of a host of programmes, Americans, too, can amass more in state support than the average wage. But isn't that nice? Haven't we created a better world, in which everything is free and work is elective? That way you only take a job if it's fun. Alas, gifting sweeping human rights to some people takes other people's human rights away. Requiring the state to provide all-comers with housing, food, clothing, healthcare and, yeah, maybe even haircuts implicitly demands that the state requisition these resources from the few suckers who still work for a living. The suckers are punished twice: they provide their own basic needs – even their own safari park tickets! – and then they provide the basic needs of everyone else. Eventually the smarter dray horses will stop hauling the cart and jump in the hay wagon, too. The western welfare state disables the survival instinct – or at least reroutes it from foraging in the forest to foraging on governmental websites. State dependents apply all the cunning, ingenuity and resourcefulness they might otherwise have employed to keep body and soul together in a more Darwinian social landscape to filling out forms, researching on TikTok what phrases to use in Zoom interviews with bureaucrats and maximising motability schemes. This is where I'm supposed to add: 'Of course, advanced societies shouldn't let people starve!' But maybe this ostensibly unquestionable precept has sown the seeds of our destruction. A handful of genuinely hungry people could be usefully cautionary. Western refusal to house, feed and clothe every newcomer might encourage more would-be immigrants to make a go of things where they are. And without handouts, you can bet most of those anxious and depressed young people currently swelling the disability rolls would figure out how to obtain a sandwich before they fainted from malnutrition.
Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Spectator
Hiroshima and the continuing urgency of the atomic age
In August 1945, Group Captain Leonard Cheshire was stationed on the Pacific island of Tinian as an official British observer of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two decades later, he wrote for The Spectator about his experience. For him, the attack on the two cities represented 'the 'destruction of the impotent by the invincible'. Nevertheless, he argued that the Allies had been 'undeniably' right to carry out the bombings since the attack ended 'the most terrible war' and prevented an extremely bloody invasion of Japan. By 1965, the emphasis in public discussion had shifted from 'the suffering that the world was spared' to the dead – the 120,000 estimated to have been killed instantly by the blasts, and the many more who died later from burns, radiation sickness and starvation. Although Hiroshima had been a substantial military base, around nine in ten of those killed were civilians. The debate remains intractable. Supporters suggest the bombings ended the war as swiftly as possible against a Japan prepared to fight to the last man; opponents argue that Emperor Hirohito was already considering surrender and that the bombings were uniquely grotesque acts of revenge. Reflecting later, Cheshire argued that the bomb should have been dropped offshore first, as a warning. Not doing so left the 'honour and the justice of our cause… degraded in the eyes of the world'. The bombings remain the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. Despite the proliferation of other existential threats, the 80th anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this week should not only serve as an opportunity to relitigate historical debates, but also as a reminder of the continuing urgency of the atomic age. A third of a century on from the Cold War's end, nuclear weapons remain a live issue. Last week, Donald Trump sent two nuclear submarines towards Russia in response to the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev grandstanding about his country's lethal capabilities. In June, the US struck three facilities in Iran to hobble Tehran's nuclear programme. The same month, Keir Starmer announced the purchase of F-35 planes capable of delivering nuclear weapons, ending a quarter of a century of reliance on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Britain is not alone in looking to adapt and expand its nuclear arsenal. Poland, Germany and Japan have all recently toyed with acquiring or hosting nuclear weapons, as the dependability of the US nuclear shield has come into doubt. Fiona Hill, a foreign affairs scholar and former deputy assistant to the president of the United States, recently predicted that the number of nuclear powers could double in the next 20 years. For disciples of deterrence theory, this unprecedented rate of proliferation highlights the enduring relevance of nuclear weapons as a tool of peace. It was the threat of mutually assured destruction that kept the Cold War from turning hot. A similar fear helped nuclear-armed India and Pakistan step back from war over the recent terror attacks in Kashmir. The political scientist John Mearsheimer has argued that Russia would have been deterred from invading Ukraine if Ukraine had not surrendered its nuclear weapons in 1994. The abstractions of international relations tend to obscure the fact that diplomacy and war are practised by irrational, quarrelsome and bigoted human beings. Undoubtedly, nuclear weapons have raised the stakes for any country considering an attack on a fellow nuclear power. But the human appetite for destruction has not been nullified. Even if the Cold War avoided a direct US-Soviet exchange, tens of thousands still perished in proxy wars from Korea to Angola. It was only thanks to the restraint of shrewd statesmen that crises over Cuba and the Middle East did not escalate past the point of no return. Today's leaders may not possess the same perspicacity. The shadow cast by Hiroshima and Nagasaki has prevented the use of nuclear weapons for eight decades. There is no guarantee that it will continue to do so. The US pursuit of the nuclear bomb was expedited by the fear of what would happen if the Nazis acquired such a weapon first. The desire to stall Iran's nuclear programme today stems from a conviction that the ayatollahs are fanatical enough to carry out their threats against Israel. As Cheshire put it, the 'evil is not so much in the bomb itself' but 'in the hearts of men'. The further proliferation of nuclear weapons would mean an increase in the potential for devastation far beyond what the world witnessed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Disarmament may be an unlikely prospect amid a new age of great power competition. But today's statesmen should heed the words inscribed on the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, erected in what was once the city's busiest commercial and residential district: 'Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the error.'
