If bombing a country really made it better, we would have made a paradise of Iraq by now. Instead it is a total disaster, with access to electricity, drinking water, education and health services all far worse than they were before we started bombing it. That is even without the growth of the Caliphate, or ISIS, a direct result first of our deposing Saddam and conniving in the intolerant Shia rule of Maliki, and then of our connivance in arming and funding anyone willing to fight Assad.
So now we are told we have to bomb Iraq yet again, and this time, finally, that will make it all better. There are two extraordinary contradictions in the British position.
1) The justification in international law given by the neo-cons for the current bombing of Iraq is that it is at the invitation of the government of Iraq. But simultaneously they propose to bomb Syria to attack the government of Syria. This is the most astonishing hypocrisy.
2) The Caliphate forces were encouraged and trained by the CIA initially. They continue to be massively financed from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. In fact, the Caliphate is still funded to a massive degree from the very states who are currently bombing them alongside the United States – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. It is the ruling families of those states which are attacking ISIS in an official capacity, who are financing ISIS in a private capacity. The BBC manages to avoid any mention of Saudi funding for ISIS. The interests of the City of London are, as always, the most important factor for the British establishment.
The security state here in the UK needs the “War on Terror” to justify its continued existence and the power and jobs of those who administer it. One thing that is certain to keep the conflict going, and thus keep the security state going, is for us to start bombing the Middle East again.
The right wing old crawler Menzies Campbell just came on the BBC to support British bombing. Stand by to see the Unionist parties united in neo-imperialist brotherhood.
I’ve no doubt that if Saddam Hussein had possessed predator drones capable of reaching marginal constituencies none of our brave MPs would have voted for the Iraq War.
“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”
Craig are you aware through your contacts of an actual BBC policy forbidding criticism of Saudi Arabia? I was listening to an interview with a more-than-usually knowledgable MP (a Tory, I think) on Radio 4 a few weeks ago, and when he stated that to deal with IS effectively it would be necessary to cut off their main funding which was from Saudi Arabia, he was cut off immediately by the interviewer. I certainly got the impression that she’d been warned this was a no-go area.
So what is it again, Craig, that you have against Nigel Farage?
Nigel Farage: Stop the War.
Bandar stepped down, but he will be back…
http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/09/22/the-covert-operation-undermining-us-credibility-against-isis/#comments
“It suggests the theory arises from lingering suspicions tied to our occupation of Iraq.
But, given the publicly available facts, is the theory so crazy?
Let me clear: I am not saying the US currently backs ISIS, as the NYT’s headline but not story suggests is the conspiracy theory. Nor am I saying the US willingly built a terrorist state that would go on to found a caliphate in Iraq.
But it is a fact that the US has had a covert op since at least June 2013 funding Syrian opposition groups, many of them foreign fighters, in an effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Chuck Hagel confirmed as much in Senate testimony on September 3, 2013 (the NYT subsequently reported that President Obama signed the finding authorizing the op in April 2013, but did not implement it right away). We relied on our Saudi and Qatari partners as go-betweens in that op and therefore relied on them to vet the recipient groups.
At least as Steve Clemons tells it, in addition to the more “moderate” liver-eaters in the Free Syrian Army, the Qataris were (are?) funding Jabhat al-Nusra, whereas Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan gets credit for empowering ISIS — which is one of the reasons King Abdullah took the Syria portfolio away from him.
McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.
But shortly after McCain’s Munich comments, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah relieved Bandar of his Syrian covert-action portfolio, which was then transferred to Saudi Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. By mid-April, just two weeks after President Obama met with King Abdullah on March 28, Bandar had also been removed from his position as head of Saudi intelligence—according to official government statements, at “his own request.” Sources close to the royal court told me that, in fact, the king fired Bandar over his handling of the kingdom’s Syria policy and other simmering tensions, after initially refusing to accept Bandar’s offers to resign.
[snip]
ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria. The Saudi government, for its part, has denied allegations, including claims made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that it has directly supported ISIS. But there are also signs that the kingdom recently shifted its assistance—whether direct or indirect—away from extremist factions in Syria and toward more moderate opposition groups.
[snip]
The worry at the time, punctuated by a February meeting between U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and the intelligence chiefs of Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and others in the region, was that ISIS and al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra had emerged as the preeminent rebel forces in Syria. The governments who took part reportedly committed to cut off ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, and support the FSA instead. But while official support from Qatar and Saudi Arabia appears to have dried up, non-governmental military and financial support may still be flowing from these countries to Islamist groups.”
Yep, not in my name, 0 need for this crazy nonsense.
‘WE’ (those who don’t represent me and a lot of others in this) have made many ‘mistakes’, to put it kindly. This is not the way to sort them out to the good of the people of the ME or this country.
We must play a far more humble role that acknowledges the horrifying actions and the conditions that have been created. And NOT do things that further exacerbate it.
This is not just business, it’s a country of living people. No mandate for this at all.
For ISIS-or whatever todays acronym is-to be *funded* by Saudi that would really mean military tech etc..
And where does Saudi get that from?
“Yep, not in my name”
You mean you voted UKIP at the last election?
LOL. Presumably not.
It seems that liberals love democracy except when it would actually mean something, but find it abhorrent to contemplate voting for a party that is opposed to foreign wars while asserting the right of the native population to exclude from their territory millions of immigrants, by whom they will be outnumbered in a generation.
From the US, of course. The Israeli/Saudi alliance is rather thin, kinda like Labour and Tories. As long as we keep feeding the Beast, it will grow. Partnerships are economic generally.
Will Russia honor the Syrian Treaty which includes protection from outsiders?
I don’t know how so called leaders of this country bare faced lie so easily, say obviously the opposite of the reality. A truth we all really know.
Talk about Orwellian state. Do they think we are bloody stupid.
Canspeccy,
Not all people vote for a party on a single issue you know.
Yes,your tsunami of immigrants meme again i see…
Watch out Canspeccy!
They’re EVERYWHERE! Hiding in cupboards and behind sofas and everything! They’re all out to get you Canspeccy!
Have you considered building a fortress around your gaff?
A bunker even?
Syria and Russia’s O2P (obligation to protect)
http://investmentwatchblog.com/world-war-3-is-here-russia-is-treaty-bound-to-protect-assad-and-syria-flashback-to-2013/
CanSpeccy
I’d add that in addition to having been opposed to the Iraq War, Nigel Farage was also against bombing Libya and intervention in Syria. What more could a Murrayista possibly want?
Unfortunately, the UKIP also have a policy of opposing unrestricted mass-immigration, which seems to upset the left and cause them to believe that the UKIP is ‘racist’.
Jives seems to be the only hard-line Murrayite left on this blog. But is he real? In my judgement he does not pass the Turing test. Seems to me more like lefty-liberal meme-bot.
@Anon1:
Unfortunately, the UKIP also have a policy of opposing unrestricted mass-immigration, which seems to upset the left and cause them to believe that the UKIP is ‘racist’.
Yet, it’s always seemed somewhat racist to me to seek to destroy a nation through a combination of mass immigration and educational policies designed to reduce the fertility of the indigenous population — a form of genocide that the liberal-left loves. I suppose they justify it by claiming that they are saving diversity by destroying it.
Of course NATO is carefully treading water on the issue, claiming there are no joint operations ongoing
“The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that those countries initiating one-sided military scenarios take international legal responsibility for their consequences. It comes as the US-led coalition begins its anti-ISIS strikes in Syria.”
http://rt.com/news/189932-strikes-syria-russia-nato/
There’s been quite a few threads on the Ref. Take your conversation there and stop distracting from the topic.
Nigel Farage is full of it. He tries to put it on the EU?
“I want us to be (independent)”..What a joke. He is so far up America it would take about 2 seconds for any rhetoric about non intervention to evaporate…
We thought the Tory’s made a quick to turd around on Scotland concessions, I’d bet money that he’d make it look slow.
Listen to what has really saying, nothing, zilch, zero about having an antithetical policy to US interests, and when it comes to intervention, well ‘national interests’ it means what for them? A small group of rich who deal in arms etc, (He’s funded by a very rich person)
Utter fraud and a joke, if he wasn’t so harmful to this countries politics. I’d vote eveything to the EU over this US corporate trojen.
Now plaese don’t waste mine or your time on this. Your worth more than this. Shameless using of thoes who realyy do want a more peacefull world for there children etc.
thought the Tory’s made a quick turn* around on Scotland concessions
moveon.org
Ishmael
I can’t find your comment from a few days back proposing that the English were ugly, fat, chip-eating racists who were in desperate need of diversification and enrichment. I believe it centred on some girl you saw in a chip bar. Can you retrieve it? Thanks!
The threat of Ibrahim al-Asiri –who with one bomb that could not have worked and several more claimed attacks identified by double agents in Saudi employ not only created the excuse for millions of dollars in TSA scanner profits, but also the ability to label Yemen an “imminent” threat and therefore bomb it — has moved to Syria.
Label the country an “imminent” threat. Then bomb.
In Obama’s statement, he emphasized the Khorasan tie.
Some questions smart people have been asking:
Micah Zenko: If Khorasan group was truly an imminent threat, why would the US delay bombing them just so they could bomb ISIS simultaneously?
Gregory Johnsen: Are people asking why a group calling itself “khurasan” is basing itself in Syria? Or is this just a USG name for a cell?
Spencer Ackerman: Why did a senior official say, just yesterday, that Khorasan was not an imminent threat.
Also: Why was Asiri claimed to be helping ISIS back in July?
The sources on which this latest justification relies seem to be people — James Clapper and Mike Rogers are two — who have a somewhat strained relationship with the truth and a very cozy relationship with disinformation. Moreover, Congress still hasn’t been briefed on the covert ops (which both Clapper and Rogers do know about) that the CIA has been working, with their Saudi partner, in Syria.
But we’ve got some claim to “imminent” now, so it’s all good.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/09/23/obama-starts-syrian-bombing-using-cover-of-khorasan-claims/
The Lawgivers….
Canspeccy,
Oh you!
I’m not a Murrayite bro…hell i don’t even like tennis!
You do like your silly little labels though don’t you Canspeccy?
I suppose they must help you remember who you are some days,or even what socks are in what drawers..
Watch out for Kato like immigrants hiding just for you Canspeccy…in your fridge,cupboard what have you…
Anon1
Your utter twisting of my previous posts (with no nuance or corresponding to any reality of my feelings, that are in part actually sympathetic to the downtrodden of this country) tells you how much ‘debate’ you’ll get for me in the future.
‘from* me in the future’
have a nice life.
Ishmael
Then you’ll reproduce your post here.
Looking back at the Iraq war and trying to make sense of it I’m starting to wonder if maybe our leaders didn’t actually believe there was a chance Saddam had WMD. Not the chemical and biological ones, nuclear ones, Israeli South African made nukes which might have gone missing after the end of the apartheid era.
It’s only speculation but to my mind if nuclear weapons had gone missing and if Saddam wasn’t too bothered about people thinking he might have them it would explain an awful lot.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185364.html
“At the time, Senator John McCain came to Syria illegally to meet the chiefs of staff of the FSA. According to the photograph then distributed to attest to the meeting, the staff included a certain Abu Youssef, officially sought by the US State Department under the name Abu Du’a, in reality the current Caliph Ibrahim. Thus, the same man was – both and at the same time – a moderate leader in the FSA and an extremist leader in the “Islamic Emirate”.
With this information, one can appreciate at its true value the document presented to the Security Council on July 14 by the Syrian Ambassador, Bashar Jaafari. This is a letter from the commander-in-chief of the FSA, Salim Idriss and dated January 17, 2014. It reads:
“I hereby inform you that this ammunition sent by the chiefs of staff to leaders of the revolutionary military councils of the Eastern Region must be distributed in accordance with what was agreed upon: two-thirds to the warlords of the el-Nosra front, the remaining third to be distributed between the military and the revolutionary elements in the fight against the bands of IEIL (Islamic Emirate in Iraq and the Levant). We thank you for sending us the proof of delivery of all ammunition, specifying the quantities and qualities, duly signed by the leaders and warlords in person, so we can forward them to the Turkish and French partners. “In other words, two NATO powers (Turkey and France) have delivered ammunition for two thirds to the Al-Nosra Front (classified as a member of al-Qaeda by the Security Council) and one third to the FSA so that it can fight against the “Islamic Emirate”, headed by one of its senior officers. In fact, the FSA has disappeared on the ground and the munitions were therefore intended for two-thirds to al-Qaeda and one third to the “Islamic Emirate”.
Chinese Ulghurs, Chechens add to the mix. Gasoline supplied by NATO (US)
@Ishmail:
Nigel Farage is full of it.
No actual evidence to be presented.
LOL.
McCain loves the Beach Boys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg