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?

The British government continue to deny responsibility for chaos in the Middle East

tunisia

The murder of up to 30 British tourists on a Tunisian beach last week is yet another consequence of David Cameron’s disastrous ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Libya. This follows the rape and assault of several UK citizens by ‘former revolutionaries’ in Cambridgeshire last year, who were visiting the country as part of a Ministry of Defence programme to train Libyan forces. While it has not yet been verified whether or not the Tunisian shooter had spent time at a training camp in the neighbouring country, it would take a huge amount of cognitive dissonance to view the two events as unrelated. Daesh took responsibility for the attack; there would be no Daesh without the war on Libya then Syria.

Another consequence is the current refugee crisis, which has so far led to over 2000 deaths in the Mediterranean this year. In 2010 the number of refugees/migrants departing from Libya was 5000. In April Ed Miliband caused an uproar by ‘controversially’ stating that Cameron shared responsibility for the deaths at sea; typically this opinion was rubbished by the media and political establishment. The Tories have flat-out refused to take in any refugees, and are currently leading a military campaign to destroy boats used to make the journey.

David Cameron Responds to Ed Miliband’s Libyan Comments

The government and most of the British public may tell themselves that our foreign policy is not at fault for the current violence engulfing the Middle East and the north of Africa, but history will not judge us as kindly. A Guardian commenter noted on a related article that the Treaty of Versailles is largely accepted as the predominant factor that led to the rise of Nazi Germany; the connection between Western foreign policy (and their GCC cronies) and ISIS is a far simpler one to make. It is possible that the PM is increasingly coming to realise this, judging by his recent ill-conceived and irresponsible speech where he accused British Muslims of ‘quietly condoning’ Daesh, without offering any evidence to support this. These kind of statements are only likely to result in more hate crimes being committed against minorities, and further isolation of those who already feel sidelined by British society. For example, a number of Muslim graves were vandalised in a Nottingham cemetery over the weekend.

Meanwhile, the government’s answer to this latest tragedy is more of the same – more training and weapons for supposedly moderate murderers in Syria, more divisive McCarthyism-style ‘counter-extremism’ policies here.

UK Program to Train Libyan Soldiers Ends in ‘Disarray and Scandal’

The White Helmets: not so ‘unarmed and neutral’

The White Helmets, or ‘Syrian Civil Defence’, claim to be a private non-profit company registered in the UK.

They call themselves:

A global advocacy group standing in solidarity with non-violent Syrians and their struggle for a peaceful and dignified future.

They began their campaign 3 years into the Syrian insurgency…just when the Syrian army’s luck seemed to be on the upside…

We started on the 3rd anniversary of the uprising at a time when Syria was slipping off the media and political agendas of countries around the world. The violence has never been as fierce as it is now or the humanitarian needs as great. Now more than ever the world needs to engage on Syria.

about-the-bombs

helmets-logo


helmets-yet-again unarmed-neutral

They only seem to operate in areas controlled by the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda) such as Idlib…

and can be seen here cleaning up after a Nusra execution in Aleppo…

They were standing right off-camera with a body-bag at the ready.

white-helmets-1 white-helmets-2 white-helmets-3 white-helmets-4 white-helmets-5 white-helmets-6 white-helmets-7 white-helmets-8 white-helmets-9 white-helmets-10 white-helmets-11 white-helmets-12

…notice the logo?

Watch the video for yourself… (graphic)

https://vid.me/e/uHCh

Here’s the post-execution statement they released:

whitehelmets

However the images below highlight the complicity between the so-called ‘NGO’ and Nusra.

They have huge media access and are behind most claims of ‘Assad’s chlorine barrel bombs’…

From the Guardian:

guardian

Assad regime accused of 35 chlorine attacks since mid-March

Here they can be seen jubilantly waving the Nusra black flag…

helmets-again-1

white-helmets-again-2

CFZmkI4UEAAQ1RA

and here (minus a White Helmet uniform) holding a weapon:
CGLSCgNUgAI9NXo

This time in uniform and armed:

CFZou87UUAA5-x0

Who are they?

The Syria Campaign’s four listed ‘campaigners’ have worked for companies such as the BBC and Avaaz – both known for their rabid anti-Syria propaganda. The BBC disgraced itself with its ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ episode of Panorama (see Fabrication in BBC Panorama’s ‘Saving Syria’s Children for more details), as well as numerous other outright lies on the conflict,

This image was actually taken by photographer Marco di Lauro in Iraq, 2003.
This image was actually taken by photographer Marco di Lauro in Iraq, 2003.

and Avaaz for its countless petitions calling for a no-fly zone.

avaaz

Basically they are what is now par for the course in these imperialistic proxy interventions: a shadowy non-governmental organisation funded by governments and their corporate cronies, and passing themselves off as being motivated solely by altruism. It was a letter signed by dozens of NGOs such as Human Rights Watch that resulted in the UN Security Council voting to implement a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011, based on wild claims which all turned out to be false. We know how that turned out; unleashing a similar hell on the whole of Syria would be far worse.

https://thesyriacampaign.org/about/

 http://voiceproject.org/

Hillary Clinton is not a Feminist

Hillary-Clinton-Israel

Hillary Clinton says she’s a feminist, and claimed, astonishingly, while promoting her book “Hard Choices” last year:

“Women and girls … [are] central to our foreign policy,” saying that countries that value the rights of women are “less likely to breed extremism.”

However this statement is completely at odds with her actions as Secretary of State, such as with Libya – of which it has been said was her own project rather than Obama’s – where she put her own vile agenda ahead of the rights of women in Libya, which were light-years ahead of most other Middle Eastern countries. Since the death of Gaddafi, the rights of Libyan women have been rolled back by decades, with them now having to leave the house covering their heads, if not also their faces. It should be noted that the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – Abdelhakim Belhadj – whose group was backed by NATO air strikes and who afterwards had his photograph taken with leading Washington warmongers John McCain and Lindsey Graham, is now said to be leading ISIS in Libya.

Clinton was also central to the “Friends of Syria” group, an ironic name if ever there was one, which advocates for the violent overthrow of the country’s President Bashar al-Assad. Syria is also one of the few countries in the Middle East where women are treated as human beings. In November, Al Arabiya reported that nightlife has returned to the besieged ancient city of Aleppo. In the government-held half citizens dance the night away underneath the lasers, even on weeknights…whilst in the rebel-held half of the city, cafes and restaurants are divided into men only and family sections, and women do not leave the house without their husbands.

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue she has staunchly defended Israel’s massacres in Gaza, and has said that if she were the Israeli Prime Minister, she would not give up “security” in the West Bank, suggesting that she does not support a two-state solution.

Therefore, Hillary proclaiming herself a feminist, and her claim that women’s rights are important to the Obama administration’s foreign policy is crude and absurd. As Kelley Vlahos wrote in The American Conservative last year:

Hillary Clinton just may prove to be what the defense establishment has been waiting for, and more. Superior to all in money, name recognition, and influence, she is poised to compete aggressively for the Democratic nomination for president. She might just win the Oval Office. And by most measures she would be the most formidable hawk this country has seen in a generation.

“It is clear that she is behind the use of force in anything that has gone on in this cabinet. She is a Democratic hawk and that is her track record. That’s the flag she’s planted,” said Gordon Adams, a national security budget expert who was an associate director in President Bill Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget.

Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has spent her post-service days protesting the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is more blunt. “Interventionism is a business and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it,” she tells TAC. “She is for the military industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives.”

Clinton in a state of ecstasy when asked about the brutal death of Gaddafi:

References:

Hillary Clinton Wants You to Call Her a Feminist
http://time.com/2864425/hillary-clinton-hard-choices-feminist/

Washington’s Al Qaeda Ally Now Leading ISIS in Libya
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/washingtons-al-qaeda-ally-now-leading.html

The Military-Industrial Candidate
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-military-industrial-candidate/

Sliver of Aleppo’s once thriving nightlife returns
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/11/23/Echoes-of-a-once-famed-nightlife-of-Aleppo.html

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 Ominous Symbolism of Libya & Syria’s Rebel Flags

There is something slightly ominous about the reemergence of a number of colonial-era flags in the twenty-first century.

Libya
In 2011 rebel militias in Libya took the old flag of the Kingdom of Libya as their standard, and this is now used as the official Libyan flag in the post-Gaddafi era.

Flag of the Kingdom of Libya under King Idris (1951-1969), and the current Libyan flag since 2011.

Although this symbol – red, black and green with a white star and crescent in the centre – was used in the African nation following its independence in 1951, ordinary Libyans continued to be treated like second-class citizens during this period, as the country was home to several British and American military installations. The bloodless coup that brought Colonel Muammar Gaddafi  to power took place in 1961. In 1977 he renamed the state the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” –  “Jamahiriya” roughly translating to “state of the masses” – and the country’s flag was reborn as a plain green field.

Flag of the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” from 1977-2011.

Despite the simplicity of this insignia-free flag, it was a powerful representation of Libya’s national identity, with the green symbolising both Gaddafi’s Green Book, and green being the traditional colour of Islam.

Syria
As with Libya, the armed groups currently attempting to overthrow the government of Syria – led by President Bashar al Assad – have raised the banner that first came into being as the country struggled to win its independence from France in the 1930s.

Flag of the Syrian Republic, from 1930-1958, and current standard used by the SNC and FSA.

However, despite the creation of a treaty of independence to end official French rule in 1936, the French government refused to accept this agreement. Due to the outbreak of WWII and the fall of France in 1940, Syrian independence was deferred until after the war.

Khaled Kamal, an official of the Syrian National Council, has commented: “We are using the old flag because it symbolises independence. It’s a symbol of independence and the end of the Bashar regime.”

Flag of Syria, 1980-present.

 The Financial Times says that the return to such earlier flags in Libya and Syria is an attempt by the opposition to distance themselves ideologically from both country’s periods of Arab nationalism. Despite the Western-backed SNC’s insistence that the old flag represents independence, it can alternatively be considered as an emblem of dependence; dependence on the old colonial powers – and the new American superpower – for survival. This is certainly true when considering that the SNC consists of Western-educated elites that haven’t set foot in Syria for years – possibly decades.

In reality war is being waged on Syria for refusing to give up its sovereignty to the forces of globalisation, just as Libya was destroyed by NATO for it’s self-determination. Syria is one of the world’s remaining nations to have a state-run banking system and gold reserves which fall outside of the global private central banking syndicate; Iran is another, and Libya was pre-2011. The use of these twentieth century flags by the proxy armies are a sinister symbol of the fate that awaits those nations whom attempt to follow an independent path.

Iran be warned.

References:

Syrian rebels raise a flag from the past
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c332676-32f4-11e1-8e0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3UFIkUyFD

German Media Reveals ISIS Supply Routes

Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) have released a report containing concrete evidence that supplies for the Islamic State are entering Syria via its Turkish border. Hundreds of trucks containing billions of dollars worth of supplies such as food, weapons, and cement are allowed to pass freely through checkpoints. One driver tells DW that his vehicle is bound for Raqqa – ISIS’s self-appointed capital. Militants are also allowed to cross the border freely, while the Turkish army has used tear gas, water cannon, and even shot dead Turkish Kurds attempting to make their way to Kobani.

Much of the British public has been shocked by the clear display of cooperation between Ankara and ISIS, saying that they should be chucked out of NATO. However NATO teamed up with Islamic militants in its war on Libya in 2011, so Turkey’s attitude is not that different – both the wars on Syria and Libya were fought to remove secular dictators. The ‘coalition’ to fight ISIS had already proved itself to be an utter farce, as the Americans and their Arab ‘partner nations’ have refused to include any of the actors who are actually on the ground fighting the jihadists: the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Quds Force, preferring instead to ally themselves with all those complicit in the creation of ISIS.

Their campaign to ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’ ISIS has so far failed to do the group any damage, and the US State Department actually released a statement a few days ago condemning the Syrian Air Force’s own strikes on ISIS. This does have to make you wonder what the Americans are trying to achieve here. Other rebel groups are complaining that the US has secretly allied itself with Assad, but with training camps currently being hosted in Qatar and Turkey, and another one planned to operate in Saudi Arabia, it looks like regime change for Syria is still on the menu.

UK Programme to Train Libyan Soldiers Collapses In ‘Disarray and Scandal’

cameron-libya

A programme by the Ministry of Defence to train Libyan soldiers has ended ahead of schedule, due to a string of criminal offences committed by several of the men. Initially planning to train 2000 soldiers at the Bassingbourn base in Cambridgeshire, the first group of 300 will leave the UK in a few days time – weeks ahead of schedule – and it is unlikely that the programme will continue elsewhere.

Many of the original 300 recruits were what the Guardian labels ‘former revolutionaries’, meaning rebels that fought alongside NATO and the SAS, in the 2011 war that destroyed Libya’s Jamahiriya  government. An MOD spokesman claims that each of the men went through a special vetting process prior to their selection, however this does not seem to have been too successful.

Apparently ninety of the men have ‘withdrawn’, some due to personal reasons, while others had behavioural and disciplinary issues. Twenty more have claimed asylum. Five soldiers have been charged with various sexual offences, including the rape of a man in Cambridge by two of the officers.

It has been reported that many of the recruits had taken little interest in the training and were not doing what they were being asked to do. The men had been instructed not to leave their barracks, but many have been seen by residents in the area scaling the fences to buy food and vodka from nearby shops. Others have left their houses to find Libyan men hiding under their cars, causing a great sense of alarm and fear for the locals.

Other countries that planned to train soldiers have also suffered setbacks. An American-run training camp in Libya had to be abandoned following an attack by militants, and troops trained in Italy and Turkey were not returning to the army when back in Libya but joining militant groups instead.

This episode marks another stunning success for David Cameron’s foreign policy and Libya’s flourishing democracy, with the resource-rich African nation now consisting of not one, but two governments. The internationally recognised parliament was run out of Tripoli by Islamist militia Libya Dawn in August, and are now holding court in a hotel in the eastern city of Torbruk, after initially taking refuge offshore on a Greek car ferry. Meanwhile, the second, self-declared government that now reside in the capital are calling for new elections to be held; following other recent elections in 2012 and 2014.

Ironically, following the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the new Libyan General National Congress passed a series of sweeping laws that limits citizens’ rights to freedom of assembly and peaceful protest, as well as curbing freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

Of course the 2011 war was never a fight for democracy, as if it was then why would Qatar have sent troops?

Cameron speaks in Benghazi: