There is no obvious reason why the Western powers should care whether it was the friends or the family of Mohammed which took over the leadership of his movement upon his death. However there is plainly an agenda led by the USA to support the Sunnis in their spiralling regional conflict with the Shia.
This is not hard to rationalise. The ultra wealthy members of the Gulf regimes continue to act as the West’s proxies in the region and provide harbour to its neo-imperialist armed forces, while at the same time maintaining themselves a obscurantist version of Islam which would have horrified Mohammed and breaks virtually every precept of the Koran, particularly as regards treatment of women and of minority religions within their territory.
In Bahrain the large Shia majority is brutally repressed with active western collusion; in Saudi Arabia the Shia minority in the East is degraded. Iran is the great Shia bogey, and the West is so determined to maintain it as “the enemy” that they refuse the most basic diplomatic openings. The UK turned down an invitation to be represented at the inauguration of a new more moderate President and hold initial conversations. Meanwhile, Shia groups have mustered the only effective military resistance to Israeli aggression, and in Syria a Shia friendly regime is under intense pressure from the West and its Gulf allies. Peculiarly, in Iraq Western invasion resulted in the installation of a Shia regime, but that was only one of the entirely unforeseen consequences of that most stupid of invasions, and the Western response is to try to split up the country and fuel multiple insurgencies.
Meantime the CIA have now got a controlled and pro-Israeli military dictatorship back in power in Egypt, while the extraordinary complicity of the mainstream media and entire political class in the United States has never been more evident than in the acceptance that the military coup will not be designated a military coup. The manipulation of Western public opinion in the Syrian chemical weapons episode has, rarely, been too blatant to work. But events in Turkey and Egypt have shown that western public opinion is easily manipulated by the “secularist” angle. No matter how ugly political forces are – and in Turkey the Kemalists are very ugly – call them “secularist” and hide the rest, and you can attempt to topple elected governments in their favour with the full throated support of the media cheerleaders.
Last night’s vote in the Commons is welcome, but a blip. It owes more to political tribalism than to principle. Miliband and New Labour did not oppose military action, they merely wanted to be seen to be dictating the terms. As neither Tories nor Labour were prepared to accept the other’s terms for military action, the anti war minority could combine with the tribalists of each to make sure everything got defeated. Good but fortuitous.
The media are still in full war cry. Ashdown has never been so ashamed, apparently. He is not ashamed by extraordinary rendition and our torturing people. He is not ashamed of our responsibility for the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, with 2,000 people a day still meeting terrible deaths. He is ashamed that we don’t respond to the deaths of children by chemical weapons, we don’t really know at whose hands, by blasting to pieces a lot more children. Well, Paddy, you are a merciless fool who thinks a spiral of death is the answer, and I have never been more ashamed that I was for most of my adult life a member of the Liberal Democrats.
Ashdown did say bitterly that there was now no point in having such large armed forces. Hallelujah! The danger to the establishment that people might realise that spending more on weapons systems than on hospitals is a poor choice, is one reason this is not over. Much is at stake for the security state. Expect a mounting barrage of propaganda on the need for action in Syria. This is just the start.
@ Herbie
“Have you got a fav philosopher, habby?”
___________________
I decline to answer that question on the grounds that you have mortally offended me by implying that BHL is a “philosopher” 🙂
It’s good to see you back Craig and I hope you are well.
The result of the recent Commons vote gives some cause for optimism in that it seems to reflect the sickness and disgust with which most of us view these hideous and obscene bombing campaigns which our leaders promote with such enthusiasm. But it seems that most M.Ps. still don’t “get” that we have no business interfering in other peoples’ civil wars anyway. “We” don’t have the right to intervene in sovereign nations which we don’t like and those who advocate such intervention are always highly selective in the place they choose to be the next beneficiary of their homicidal largesse. Furthermore, despite endless interviews in the press, on radio and tv, I’ve noticed that nobody ever asks the advocates of this policy from whence comes their right to act as international policemen. Even the opposition in the recent parliamentary debate – or what passes for it these days – is predicated on the assumption that we DO have such a right. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
So, two or three points really:-
Since I am given to understand that at any time there are 12, 15 or more conflicts going on somewhere on this planet, who decides which one is to be given saturation airtime on the lobotomy box?
Isn’t there enough high explosive and shrapnel being tossed about in Syria as it is? How will more raining in from the Med help matters? It will just add to the victim toll, will it not.
Rather like the “weapons of mass destruction” tripe that preceded the Iraqi outrage, this “use of chemical weapons” doesn’t provide casus belli even it it’s true. They aren’t being used against us and they aren’t being used on anyone else beyond the borders of Syria. As yet, I’ve never seen any of those whose arguments are built on the assumption that it is cause for further legalised murder advocate bombing the terrorists … er, sorry, activists … should it turn out that they are responsible. I wonder why?
Lethal force using obscenely murderous and environmentally corrosive weapons is for use only as a last resort and in self defence. It should be used only when all other means of arbitration have been exhausted and there is absolutely no alternative left – a bit like the Eurovision Song Contest.
If Britain has any international influence left worth speaking of, surely it should be used to promote peace in such regions, not simply add to the total of human misery.
By the way, since I wrote this earlier, I’ve read a comment on Peter Hitchens’s blog which reckons ’twas the rebels wot done it’. According to this guy, the rebels got their hands on some ordinance, didn’t know what it was and dropped it, so to speak. I don’t know if anyone else has heard that or can confirm.
Best wishes all, and though we can’t count our chickens, perhaps the tide has turned.
Overheard: “From now on, in the US, English Muffins must be called Freedom Muffins.”
Otherwise, something which is not about Habbabkuk – the Onion article Komodo posted about US bombing history:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-point-to-long-glorious-history-of-successf,33642/
@ all
I was just googling up John Marcus when I came across two websites the existence of which it might be of interest to note.
They are “BBC Watch” and “CiF (ie, the Guardian’s Comment is free) Watch.
That’s a lot of watching. The BBC is obviously getting it in the neck from both sides.
Someone: with ref to earlier post, think the fact that there are votes in rational, peaceful behaviour rather encouraging, as should our politicians.
@ NR
“Overheard: “From now on, in the US, English Muffins must be called Freedom Muffins.””
__________________
What, if anything, was said about English crumpet? Tasty or not?
God, my English is wonderful!
NR,
“Overheard: “From now on, in the US, English Muffins must be called Freedom Muffins.”
**********
Does it then follow the UK’s a ‘ curry and lager eating surrender monkey?
🙂
http://rt.com/news/russia-us-syria-intelligence-236/
Whilst Freedom Fries are reverted back to French Fries, and TSA now mandates every one passing through any airport in US ought to be sipping French wine whilst getting fondled, and the security personnel doing the fondling will also French kiss the
victimspassengers!I was amused at the phrase repeatedly used by the BBC’s Political Editor, Nick Robinson today that the Prime Minster “is no longer in control of his foreign and defence policy”. The unintended implication is that for just one brief but historic moment, through our elected representatives acting for once as the organ they are meant to constitute, we, the people, controlled OUR foreign and defence policy.
Of course, as Craig rightly suggests, we should not be deluded, it won’t last – the structures of hard power are relentless – but perhaps this particular moment, Mr Robinson, in a soundbite which did not seem to occur to you, was OUR “red line”.
Remember this moment well.
John; Thanks for your perspective. You might have more to contribute than you believe.
cheers
Ben
Yeah for those who are sitting a fucking continent away, but if they can get up close and personal soon they will find the average hooligan boozed up and curried up thereafter is ready to rumble just for the sake of fuck of it!
Suhayl, yes – Gove’s reaction very instructive too.
I find the absence of Syrian voices almost as disturbing as many things?
Welll Fedup,how about:
M&S £10 Dine In For Two Surrender Monkeys?
Whats French for bourgois tho??
Suhayl Saadi,
Perhaps Ed is thinking, “Fuck, how did I manage that?”
Ed as a guest (twice now) on Test Match Special comes across as a real person who genuinely loves cricket. Cameron doesn’t.
He wasn’t supposed to lead the Labour Party. But he does. He wasn’t supposed to defeat the government on a war motion. But he did.
Maybe there are more surprises to come.
Halfasausageroll
‘night
Now then. Enough is enough. This trick, or mixup, or whatever it is, has clearly rattled our friend Habbakuk, who is quite thin-skinned at the best of times. It seems to have elicited a rare bit of emotional intimacy from our friend, in the form of a somewhat poignant boast of independent means. (Commendably abstemious for a wealthy gadabout, I’d say, posting scores of meticulous belles-lettres each day – many smelling strongly of the lamp. Now that’s what I call living quietly!) I happen to be acquainted with our friend, and while I respect even the most cursory stab at pseudonymity, I don’t think I’m speaking out of school when I say that you really ought to lighten up. There’s a question of, how to put it? Fragilità. So please. Be nice.
At least the Russians are keeping to language that allows the US to back down whilst still saving face.
This is very red-liney for both.
Any change in register would be significant.
I liked this! rofl
======
Mind Paddy was talking about president Putin being happy too!
These guys have got a real problem with this democracy lark, at this rate Cameron will be the next Morsi, and we will see the Army coming to rescue the nation from the latter day Cromwell and his Parliamentarians.
======
Anyone recollect Putin Bu$h meeting in China getting disrupted for the Georgian war?
Ahh, yes habby, only a philosophe.
So who’s your fav?
“By the way, since I wrote this earlier, I’ve read a comment on Peter Hitchens’s blog which reckons ’twas the rebels wot done it’. According to this guy, the rebels got their hands on some ordinance, didn’t know what it was and dropped it, so to speak. I don’t know if anyone else has heard that or can confirm.”
The MPs showed a bit of common sense and voted to wait till we have hard evidence one way or the other. Let’s do the same and see what the UN investigators have to say.
As what happens I think it’s safe to say that the Syrian government are a nasty piece of work and that the rebels are equally nasty.
The one question which should be answered, should the UN investigations show chemical weapons were used will we intervene against those who used them regardless of which nasty piece of work it was?
Somehow I don’t think so.
Open Letter to Barack Obama
Have a look at this. I picked it off Norman Finkelstein’s website. It is signed by most of the people you would expect to sign such a document – go and have a look.
I think it’s amazing. Now I’m off to bed – good night all. John
Foreign Policy Experts Urge President Obama to Respond to Assad’s Chemical Attack
By James Kirchick, Christopher J. Griffin, Dan Senor, Robert Zarate, Robert Kagan, William Kristol | August 27, 2013
MEDIA CONTACT
Kali McNutt, FPI Director of External Affairs
Mobile: 205-527-9508
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Seventy-four former U.S. government officials and foreign policy experts have now signed a bipartisan open letter to President Barack Obama, urging a decisive response to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s recent large-scale use of chemical weapons. The group recommends direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime, along with accelerated efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s internal opposition.
“Left unanswered, the Assad regime’s mounting attacks with chemical weapons will show the world that America’s red lines are only empty threats,” the group warned in the letter. “It is therefore time for the United States to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the Assad regime’s relentless aggression, and help shape and influence the foundations for the post-Assad Syria that you have said is inevitable.”
The full text of the letter follows. The letter was organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a non-profit and non-partisan 501(c)3 organization that promotes U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military engagement in the world.
________________________________________
August 27, 2013
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has once again violated your red line, using chemical weapons to kill as many as 1,400 people in the suburbs of Damascus. You have said that large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria would implicate “core national interests,” including “making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies [and] our bases in the region.” The world—including Iran, North Korea, and other potential aggressors who seek or possess weapons of mass of destruction—is now watching to see how you respond.
We urge you to respond decisively by imposing meaningful consequences on the Assad regime. At a minimum, the United States, along with willing allies and partners, should use standoff weapons and airpower to target the Syrian dictatorship’s military units that were involved in the recent large-scale use of chemical weapons. It should also provide vetted moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition with the military support required to identify and strike regime units armed with chemical weapons.
Moreover, the United States and other willing nations should consider direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime. The objectives should be not only to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America, our allies in the region or the Syrian people, but also to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants. At the same time, the United States should accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country.
Left unanswered, the Assad regime’s mounting attacks with chemical weapons will show the world that America’s red lines are only empty threats. It is a dangerous and destabilizing message that will surely come to haunt us—one that will certainly embolden Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability despite your repeated warnings that doing so is unacceptable. It is therefore time for the United States to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the Assad regime’s relentless aggression, and help shape and influence the foundations for the post-Assad Syria that you have said is inevitable.
Sincerely,
Fred the data trickling out, indicates the ordnance were provided by the Saudi and these had been placed in the usual tunnels rebels operate from, but the nasty and noxious smells and side effects of proximity to these had compelled the said rebels to scupper out of the tunnels and sleep and fight from various “unsafe” locations, that has resulted in the deaths of many of the rebels.
This in turn has resulted in an unprecedented success of Syrian forces, hence the operation Libya Redux in a hurry!
The criminally insane wankers in US are trying to help the rebels by bombing the shit out of the Syrian forces.
“meticulous belles-lettres each day – many smelling strongly of the lamp.”
Well, this is it. They spend long long hours, drafting, redrafting, writing, rewriting and on and on.
Then they post it here as if they just thought it up on the spot.
It’s all a fraud.
Telly’s like that too, and the movies.
With these neocon ziofuckwits Enough said!
Apologies if this has been covered already but does anyone else believe that this Panorama video being pushed by the BBC, using the heading ‘Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims like the walking dead’, at the very least, seems to be somewhat dubious? A very selective use of convenient chemical masks by some but not by others? Where are the balanced BBC reports showing the results of the horror and carnage inflicted by the foreign mercenaries on the thousands of innocent Syrian civilians?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594
It is not an ‘either or’. What is our response to violence? The message from the people is ‘not more violence’.
Ed Miliband,
Phone Obama. I bet he takes your call.
” I don’t think I’m speaking out of school when I say that you really ought to lighten up. There’s a question of, how to put it? Fragilità. So please. Be nice.”
What cognitive response should we take?
Jon; ?