Precisely as I reported two days ago, Cameron really is in trouble over the Syria vote due to his patently ludicrous claim of the existence of 70,000 “moderate rebels”. Most MPs are pretty unpleasant people, but they do have a high opinion of their own importance. They will vote for anything they see as in their own self-interest, but not if it means kneeling and licking the floor when they are being treated with very obvious contempt, in public. Well, a great many of them will even do that if it advances their career, and the George Osborne tendency do it in private and pay for it. But not even pretending to take MPs seriously is a risky tactic, and that is what Cameron has done with his foolish ruse of just inventing 70,000 moderate fighters.
Today the government rubbed MPs faces further in the dirt by saying they could not give a breakdown of who the 70,000 are, because it is a secret.
Yes, honestly. The identity of our allies – even just in terms of what groups they belong to – is a secret.
In consequence the Tory majority Foreign Affairs Committee has refused to endorse airstrikes. Cameron will be under real pressure to come up with a more intellectually tenable line by tomorrow. He can hardly enter the debate on the basis that the entire strategy depends on allies whose existence is secret. Or perhaps he can, on the grounds the Blairites are conditioned to support bombing anybody, anywhere, and the Tories are mere lickspittles. He may look down his long Etonian nose with contempt at the Commons, and think “the peasants will do anything I ask”.
It is going to be an interesting 24 hours. The self-respect of the Commons is at stake. I still think Cameron may have overreached.
Why would Assad invite someone who was going to bomb him out of existence a few years ago to return to his country and do the same?
No doubt that Washington and their British poodle were intent on regime change until very recently.
Russia entering the fray has now made that impossible,at least not without their agreement and as others have said Cameron will have to get permission from Putin who will keep him on a tight leash?
Don’t expect we will read anything about this in HM press however?
Unfortunately most of the public have their – not so much opinions – as programming with disinformation, punched into them by the oligarch owned media, who represent firstly their proprietors, then the banking elite who stand to gain personally from the dismemberment of Syria and thinning of the Syrian population. That in itself is a terminally unhealthy and undemocratic situation. Like Iraq already weakened by long sanctions on bare essentials and four years of proxy terrorist armies butchering anyone who caught their drug and religion addled attention, terrorist armies sent there with the connivance and unlimited help and aid from western governments, including that of David Cameron. This Tory and New Labour fusion of bought and paid for MPs for hire have one well-known short term aim and that is toppling of the Syrian government and with that the complete fulfillment of ISIS/Daesh’s immediate aims. MPs we hope will, definitely should, be able to filter out and disregard the worst of that media manipulation of opinion, the hysteria and jingoism, on behalf of their constituents, they also should in my opinion ostracise those fellow MPs they know by their words and actions have masters they serve whose interests are inimical to the well-being of not only their own constituents but the entire populations of these islands.
Phils feigned naivete is charming, but wholly unconvincing. Is it just the blood spilling out you like Phil, or is there money in it for you too, or a favour expected in return? Is it just Arabs you hate Phil or is it all of humanity, all that is not ‘Phil’ deserves to die so Phil can have a new hedge-trimmer? All this ‘Christmas’ thing every year sure brings weak-minded and evil to the fore.
Again that MP in her letter comes out with the laughable 250,000 claim, 250,000 ‘Syrians’ have lost their lives’ that can only include the many civilian massacres perpetrated by ISIS, and the mercenary and jihad nutters in league with ISIS, few of whom are Syrian, eliminated by Syrian forces. It is this definition of ‘his people’ that is faulty, but I suppose they’re all ‘his’ in that many using this inaccurate possessive subscribe to racist notions, that you can’t tell one from another, pretty much they’re all the same and lends itself to genocidal had to ‘kill them all’ to save the village/Syria. This ‘his people’ claim has already long ago been debunked, at least it has been neutered slightly but the attribution of blame is still firmly and falsely pinned on the Syrian government or personified as victims of President Assad himself. I might excuse Helen Hayes, she no doubt has underlings to craft letters into which disinformation is woven, for her.
MerkinScot
1 Dec, 2015 – 8:46 pm
“I don’t want a war with Russia.”
That’s a GOOD thing.
It means you’re sane!
Amazing that butchered and bombed Syrian civilians, regular Syrian soldiers, fighting for their legitimate government and for their country (the enemy are largely foreigners) killed by ISIS terrorist outrages, by limitless American, UK and Saudi supplied weapons and explosives in the hands of our cuddly flesh-eating allies, are now victims of Assad. It’s a complete inversion of reality. It’s really sick.
Phil: I take you as a genuinely concerned person. I would be obliged if you would follow the line of reasoning here, after your own point:
“However if they were certain of a homegrown terrorist here and the only way to prevent the terrorist from acting out atrocities was to hit them with a missile i would completely understand.”
Consider that a foreign country had made this dubious determination, and killed some supposed “terrorist” in the flat below yours with such a strike. That “intelligence” may or may not have been correct. Regardless, you are now homeless, and your family has been killed, together with a number of your neighbours.
Would you still consider this a justified policy?
Consider further our esteemed policy makers deciding that a “double-tap” was appropriate. That’s where a second missile lands on the original target, to kill any rescue workers. Hey – don’t rescue a neighbour screaming in pain, another missile might be on the way!
This policy is to make the intended kill more likely, because people will eventually learn not to assist anyone caught up in a missile strike, unless they want to risk death themselves.
Does this sound like the action of the Good Guys? Because this is our policy – this is what we do. The “double-tap” is pretty much our Standard Procedure.
Now tell me again – would you be happy for assumed terrorists living near you to be “taken out” like this?
The personification of the Syrian Government as, “Assad” has been erdolnet of the personification of all enemies into a single figure which it is easy to hate and want to destroy. And so, an entire country now has become, “Assad”. Nobody seems to talk about, say, “The Baathist regime”, or, “The Syrian Government”. It’s always simply, “Assad”, as though it were “Sauron”, a personification of absolute evil. This is obvious propaganda. Yes, I know about the cult of personality. But in the past, the Syrian Government was never simply referred to as, “Assad”.
It is not, “Assad”. It is the Syrian state. It is bin-men and hospital cleners. It is the things that comprise civilisation.
In this schema of idiotic distillation, then, we all are, “Blair”.
He have not destroyed, “Saddam”, “Gaddafi” or “Assad”. Congratulations, I hope we are proud of oursleves. We have destroyed civilisation.
Typo, line one: ‘redolent’
nice interview in The Economist 26/11/2015 with Natalia Solzhenitsyn, widow of Sasha
It seems the Global news media is in a state of governmental capture, the regulators are similarly ‘bought’, there’s a handful who tell what is really happening:
Here’s some Fisk, from the Indy, Nov 30th
Tony M
“Phils feigned naivete is charming, but wholly unconvincing. Is it just the blood spilling out you like Phil, or is there money in it for you too, or a favour expected in return?”
_____________________
“Is there money in it for you” – what is the difference between that and Mr Cameron calling Jeremy Corbyn and others “terrorist sympathisers”?
You are a thoroughly filthy fellow.
Fisk: “Are we, in some auto-panic, actually working for Isis?”
No, all along ISIS work for ‘us’, so it amounts to the same thing.
How do you know that they are not representing the views of their constituents.
The British public are waking up to the war mongering, the other night on a radio phone in the presenter was saying his phone lines were lit up but everyone was against the bombing, so he was requesting for someone (dim) like Phil to ring in and give the case for bombing.
The angry artist taxi driver, loud , profanity etc
David Cameron should Resign Now!!! “terrorist sympathisers”???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeFXHMPcjs#t=17
Isn’t it rich coming from someone like him (Jihadi Cameron) The friend of Saudi, Qatar and the like. The man who bombed for al-Qaeda in Libya, who provides funding, training etc for ‘moderate’ terrorists in Syria has the fkn audacity to call peaceful people who have enough of his mendacity “terrorist sympathisers”.
What a ****!
Ohh right because everyone rings up radio chat shows. Only people with incredibly strong views ring chat shows and alike. People against something always have a stronger opinion than those for it.
Keiser Report: Moar War (E843)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4D3sy_-YU
Regarding the airstrike on flat question (I dont live in a flat so i guess im fine). Once again the claim (thats all it is, no proof) British airstrikes against ISIS have not killed a civilian in Iraq would render that question redundant.
Isn’t it rich coming from someone like him (Jihadi Cameron) The friend of Saudi, Qatar and the like. The man who bombed for al-Qaeda in Libya, who provides funding, training etc for ‘moderate’ terrorists in Syria has the fkn audacity to call peaceful people who have enough of his mendacity “terrorist sympathisers”.
I imagine that parliamentary privilege would protect Cameron from being sued for slander*. That remark would be very difficult to support in court. Unlike the suggestion that Daesh receives funding from Saudi, perhaps…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-accuses-jeremy-corbyn-of-distorting-truth-over-terrorism-funding-claims-a6756781.html
Distorting the truth? A careful choice of words, there. That is, it’s true, but we don’t like the way you said it.
*Or libel, as he hasn’t objected to it being published
Glenn_uk
2 Dec, 2015 – 2:43 am
re: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/12/70000-is-the-new-45-minutes/comment-page-1/#comment-565600
Very well put indeed, sir!
Suhayl Saadi
2 Dec, 2015 – 7:58 am
“It is not, “Assad”. It is the Syrian state. It is bin-men and hospital cleaners. It is the things that comprise civilisation.”
Excellent! (Your whole comment, that is).
@Suhayl Saidi:
‘In this schema of idiotic distillation, then, we all are, “Blair”’.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Well, that’s ruined my day – thank you very much!
‘Panicked’ ISIS moving headquarters to Libya as Syrian stronghold pounded by air strikes
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorists are setting up new headquarters along Libya’s Mediterranean coast after their Syrian stronghold in Raqqa was pounded by air strikes from the West.
According to the Daily Star, ISIS jihadis have established their new base in Sirte, the former home of Colonel Gaddafi, just a few hours across the Mediterranean from Italy. Following the capture of a 200 km stretch of the coast by ISIS, American and UK forces have been deployed in Libya.
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-panicked-isis-moving-headquarters-to-libya-as-syrian-stronghold-pounded-by-air-strikes-2151136?
Suhayl
at last some reason from someone on this thread.(worth cutting and pasting)
I am highly sceptical that anything like a peaceful or adequate functioning state can be created from the ashes of Syria, and the wider region, even in the event of the most benign possible outcome, by whatever means- bombing or not bombing.
The propagandising of Assad reveals a great deal about the kinds of people who are driving this process, as it is just a way of dehumanising an opponent to a demon -and as a demon there is no possible attachment to reason. That we play a part in that process is indeed, surely a sign of own diminished humanity. Rather than insisting on seeing the human complexity we are persuaded to become venomous and vengeful.
No one mentions what will happen to the people that Assad represents-about 40% of the population of the Syria, in the event of his defeat. Is it possible that Assad and his supporters feel they are in a terminal struggle and have acted accordingly. What plan is there to prevent the blood letting and revenge that would ensue if that group becomes exposed.
“…ISIS jihadis have established their new base in Sirte, the former home of Colonel Gaddafi…”
Well, that’s a huge improvement, isn’t it? Got rid of an elderly, eccentric national leader who had raised his country from poverty to a high standard of living, and replaced him with head-chopping, heart-gobbling Takfiri terrorists. And reduced the whole nation to chaos and anarchy in the process, killing thousands of civilians and ruining their towns.
Good show, fellows. Well done!
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/30/how-gaddafis-ouster-unleashed-terror/
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/12/fresh-twists-in-the-lockerbie-case/
Someone must have some awful secrets about piggyboy the way he is foaming at the mouth to attack women and children.
Suhayl: “It is not, “Assad”. It is the Syrian state. It is bin-men and hospital cleners. It is the things that comprise civilisation. ”
Chomsky has talked about this. The war against Iraq was not actually against real human beings, not at all. There was just a load of little cartoon Saddam Husseins running around the place, being comically blown up and then running somewhere else.
We dehumanise an entire nation by demonising the Big Bad leader, then we can do what we like to them. That’s all that matters, the rest is simply explaining it away as peace-nicks and simpletons not understanding how the world really works.
That’s at best, of course. If you don’t admit to being a wide-eyed naif, perhaps you have a bit too much sympathy towards these terrorists – you a fifth columnist or something? An Enemy of the People, at the least.
To be honest im really happy there bombing syria, about bloody time! P.s hope your well uncle craig havent heard from you in ages x
Thanks, all.