Russell Brand Summarises the Dishonesty of David Cameron’s Tunisia Response

Tunisia Minute Of Silence – Total Bullshit: Russell Brand The Trews (E350)

I don’t usually pay much attention to Russel Brand, but it is good to see someone in the public eye speaking out about power structures in society and challenging the status quo; something the British press is loathe to do.

He really nails David Cameron’s response to the Tunisia attack; asking why, if the various incidents from London 7/7 to Mumbai to Charlie Hebdo are all connected to one another, then why are our invasions and drone attacks etc not part of the picture?

According to Cameron, there is no relationship between Britain waging aggressive wars against countries that haven’t done anything to us and the animosity that is felt towards the UK. Since 9/11 Britain has taken part in three wars of choice – Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – as well as covertly waging a devastating war against Syria, resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent people. The government has also given its full support to Israel and Saudi Arabia to destroy Gaza and Yemen, and provided them with the weapons to do so. No one has been held accountable for any of this, and the public doesn’t seem to care.

Now, as part of the new Anti-Terrorism Act, the Home Office is legislating against the very ‘extremist’ language that the government itself is guilty of:

radicalisationlaw

In his speech following the Tunisia attack, the PM predictably declared that “they” had declared war on Britain. As Brand points out, who is this “they” Cameron refers to? How is this different to the message he says ‘Islamic extremism’ conveys? Brand notes that the ‘war on terror’ is a self-perpetuating business and until there is recognition that wars and arms deals are part of the problem not the solution then nothing will change.

What exactly is the point of the Chilcot report when Cameron’s government has continued to wage illegal wars and lie about them to the public?

Benghazi-2015

Benghazi 2015 – who will rebuild Libya?

Omar Khadr: The Boy Who Lived

6665935687_57f0f7c7eb_2

Omar Khadr was the youngest inmate ever to be held at Guantanamo Bay. A Canadian, he was in Afghanistan with his family when the government invaded in 2001, and being 15 years of age, should have been declared a child soldier – thus a victim of war, not an active combatant. The images of him after having been seriously wounded by the U.S. invaders are horrific, and to think that he then spent 12 years first in Bagram then in Guantanamo is unconscionable; he was subjected to brutal torture methods while the Canadian government did nothing to help and actively participated in his interrogation. Omar eventually pleaded guilty to murder and was charged with committing a war crime by an American kangaroo court. Killing an enemy soldier by throwing a grenade in the midst of a war isn’t a war crime, and all the evidence suggests that Omar’s victim, Speer, was actually killed by friendly fire; there is no evidence that he was killed by Omar. The U.S. government claimed that Speer was a medic and therefore not legally a target, however in actual fact Speer had only taken a medical course and was in Afghanistan as a soldier. Omar states that he only pleaded guilty as he did not see any other way of leaving Guantanamo, and was eventually moved to a Canadian prison, where he spent two years in solitary confinement.

Despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper doing all he could to block Omar’s release, as of this week he is a free man (his lawyer has labeled Harper an anti-Muslim bigot). He is living with his lawyer’s family, and already had been granted a place at a Christian university while in his Canadian prison. His story is a serious indictment of the American legal system and the post-9/11 War on Terror, which should actually be renamed the War of Terror. A child tortured by America in the name of freedom, the US media are still referring to him as a ‘terrorist’, ‘murderer’ and ‘war criminal,’ in their coverage of his new found freedom. Here is a visual history of Omar Khadr’s horrific journey:

omarkhadr

20150509-175443.jpg

6665935687_57f0f7c7eb_2

628x471

12 years ago yesterday, Tony Blair “liberated” Iraq

In this clip from the BBC News at 10 – 9th of April 2003 – political editor Andrew Marr tells the public that Tony Blair has been vindicated in his decision to invade Iraq. Marr also states that Blair’s critics will not now turn around and thank him for having been right all along, because “they’re only human.” The editor notes that nobody will be able to say that Tony Blair is the type of person who is driven by opinion polls and “the drift of public opinion.” However isn’t a leader who will listen to public opinion exactly what we expect our PM to do?  In fact isn’t that what democracy is all about? A Guardian article from January 2003 notes:

The results of the tracker question on an Iraq war shows that opposition to a war has risen steadily from 37% in October to 47% now. Over the same period support for military action has fallen from a peak of 42% to only 30% now.

British public opinion is never consulted before going to war, or in fact before deciding to covertly build a mercenary force, and provide them with money and weapons, as has been going on in Syria since 2011. On issues of war the public are a liability, as if given a vote, it is unlikely that we would have voted yes to British involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Thanks to Ed Miliband’s revolt we were saved from entering another conflict – and on the wrong side – but our covert operations against the Syrian government continue.

It is ironic how Marr says that on that night of April 9th 2003, Blair “stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result” of not having listened to his critics, but in 2015 he is now so, pretty much universally, reviled, that he can’t go out in public here for fear of attack, or of someone trying to make a citizens arrest.

Reference:

Support for war falls to new low
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jan/21/uk.iraq2

The Pentagon: Promoting Fundamentalism Abroad and Mindless Militarism at Home

Bush+Hosts+Summit+Financial+Markets+World+89xmBpVDdCax

It’s often pointed out that the US/UK policy towards the Middle East and our ‘War on Terror’ is highly hypocritical. Our politicians cosy up with the Gulf monarchies – undoubtedly the most oppressive regimes in the world – and trip over themselves to please Israel, whilst simultaneously condemning the more liberal countries in the region.

An often-quoted example of this double standard is the lack of acknowledgment by the Bush administration – or indeed any high-ranking US politician – that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. However not only is the KSA the birthplace of al-Qaeda, the country’s population are indoctrinated with the intolerant Wahhabi breed of Islamic fundamentalism from a young age.

080721_for_textbooksex_VzoZd_19672

Schoolbooks in Saudi Arabia are written entirely from a religious perspective: teaching creationism, as well as the virtues of jihad. A 2011 survey found that 75% of Saudi citizens deny the theory of evolution. Maps inside geography textbooks do not include Israel, and instead children are taught that they will one day reclaim Jerusalem from the evil Zionist colonisers. One might think that Washington would strongly object to this seemingly fundamental clash of interests between itself and its foremost Arab ally – following 9/11 George W. Bush did make a halfhearted attempt to address the schoolbook issue – but it seems that this matter is not of great importance when considering that the US government has itself produced such texts.

afgh-textbook-jihad

Between 1984-1994 the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spent millions of dollars producing textbooks for Afghan children. These books were used to convey militant Islamic teachings and promote violence in order to indoctrinate a generation of kids with hateful and intolerant ideology, instilling in them the belief that communists were infidels. This was part of the Pentagon’s policy to bankrupt the Soviet Union by drawing them into a long and un-winnable conflict against the mujaheddin. A 2002 article in the Washington Post stated:

The textbooks [were] part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. In the absence of any alternative, millions of these textbooks continue to be used long after 1994, and the Taliban were still using them in 2001. In 2002, the US has started making less violent versions of the same books, which Bush touts will have ‘respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.’ Bush fails to mention who created those earlier books.

Washington Post, 23/03/02

 However it should be pointed out that while the Soviet-Afghanistan war has been framed as an invasion/occupation, the Soviets actually became involved at the request of Afghanistan’s communist government, who were themselves under attack by US and Pakistani-backed insurgents.

v0_master

While it is now accepted that the CIA provided covert support for the Afghan Mujaheddin during the eighties, that they also poured their efforts into raising a whole new generation of extremists is further evidence that radical Islam is being used as an external threat to justify military operations abroad and curtail civil liberties at home.

Additionally, the Pentagon has also infiltrated the US education system with its ‘Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps’: a school programme sponsored by the military in order to ‘instill in students in [United States] secondary educational institutions the values of citizenship, service to the United States, and personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment’. While JROTC’s official aim is not army recruitment, between 30-50% of those who take part do end up joining the military. In reality, JROTC instills young students with militaristic thinking and the blind following of authority; preparing them for future participation in America’s imperial adventures. One quote from a JROTC textbook reads:

Americans generally place a high value on human life. This may not necessarily be the case in other cultures or countries that might be willing to gamble lives for political or economic gains. Certain of the terrorist-sponsoring nations of the Middle East may display such behavior.

This is essentially a form of propaganda that teaches American students that they are exceptional and other cultures – specifically those of the Middle East – are inferior. Such teachings work to discourage critical thinking, and limit resistance to the US government.

080628-N-IK959-355

The Daily Beast reported earlier this year that the State Department produced a comprehensive study of Saudi school books at the end of 2012, but the contents of this have so far been kept under wraps from the public. A June 2006 cable from the US embassy in Riyadh released by WikiLeaks gives an example of contemporary Saudi educational material. An eighth grade textbook says: ‘God will punish any Muslim who does not literally obey God just as God punished some Jews by turning them into pigs and monkeys’. Elsewhere Christians were likened to apes. As with the missing pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that are said to implicate Saudi in the Twin Tower attacks, Washington seems determined to keep information regarding their close ally’s links to Islamic terrorism a closely guarded secret.

The creation of an external threat through the covert sponsoring of religious fundamentalism, in conjunction with the psychological conditioning of the American population to ensure support for the government and military, are likely a long-term strategy in an attempt to retain the US’s global hegemony.

U.S. Keeps Saudi Arabia’s Worst Secret
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/25/u-s-keeps-saudi-arabia-s-worst-secret.html