These are the 15 countries which shamefully voted against a UN General Assembly Resolution on Thursday which proposed to seek an opinion from the International Court of Justice on Britain’s continued colonial possession of the Chagos Islands. In the most absolute example of ethnic cleansing in modern history, less than 50 years ago the UK deported by force the entire population of the Chagos Islands to make way for the US military base on Diego Garcia, and to this day refuses to allow them to return.
The Dirty 15
USA
UK
Israel
Australia
New Zealand
The above are of course arguably the five countries in the world most profoundly implicated in the usurpation and destruction of native populations
Afghanistan
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Hungary
Japan
Lithuania
Maldives
Montenegro
South Korea
This second small group is dominated by countries with a particularly close security relationship with the United States on which they place particular reliance in relation to a perceived threat.
It must however be heartening that the US and UK could round up so very few supporters for their utterly immoral stance. It is particularly worth noting that none of the major players within the EU backed the UK.
The US and UK are also remarkably silent on the blockade of Qatar by their ally Saudi Arabia. The release of Saudi demands including the closing down of Al Jazeera TV and other media outlets including the excellent Middleeasteye.net show the Saudis’ true motives. Frankly I am shocked by the failure of the mainstream media in the West seriously to question the ludicrous Saudi claim that this attack on Qatar is over support for terrorism.
Mohammed Bin Salman was appointed by his father the King as Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia on 21 June. Bin Salman has been directing the major affairs of the state for the last three years. The ferocity of the prosecution of the war in Yemen is very much his baby. Bin Salman’s master plan, which he has driven through with much skill, is for a far more aggressive Saudi Arabia leading the conservative forces in the Middle East, above all in fierce opposition to Iran and Shia interests. To this end he has forged a conservative alliance incorporating Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the United States.
US and UK involvement in the war in Yemen goes beyond the enthusiastic supply of the bombs and aircraft which have killed thousands of children. Both have had special forces on the ground, and the CIA has yet again been deeply implicated in the detention, extreme torture and murder of opponents.
The Bin Salman plan is dressed up as “pro-Western” and media hacks paint him as a “reformer” because he wishes to expand a network of McDonalds in the Kingdom. But as Iran slowly does reform, and sticks meticulously to the terms of the internationally guaranteed nuclear agreement, Saudi paranoia towards its regional “rival” becomes ever more dangerous. The Iranians deserve respect for the moderation with which they reacted to the Saudi sponsored terror attack on their parliament itself. But such provocations will increase.
Saudi support for ISIL, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and the numerous other jihadist groups will only increase as Saudi Arabia seeks to deploy them in its sectarian war against the Shia and their allies. For that reason there is no prospect of terrorist violence in Syria declining. Indeed the United States shooting down of a Syrian jet in “self-defence” was almost certainly an indication that the Syrians were at the time targeting jihadist forces reinforced by US special forces. Israeli bombing and missile sorties against Syrian regime targets in support of jihadist rebels are finally being regularly reported in mainstream media.
I do not hold up Qatar or its ruling aristocracy as a paragon of virtue. But it seeks a more pacific relationship with Iran, and has more developed economic relationships including on shared offshore fields. Qatar has also consistently shown greater interest in the plight of the Palestinians, and more scepticism towards Israel, than Bin Salman is happy with. Qatar also has problems with the brutal military dictatorship of Egypt.
Most worryingly to Saudi Arabia, these slightly more liberal attitudes are closer to the views of the “arab street”, where there is disquiet at Saudi Arabia’s obvious but officially denied relationship with Israel. Qatar also has a media which can reflect these views to a wider Arab audience. Even though, following previous Saudi threats, al Jazeera’s content has been toned down, the Saudis see the station as an intolerable direct threat.
There is public fatigue in the West with regard to the affairs of the Middle East. This is a mistake as the situation is more dangerous than ever. The UK and USA both look likely to support the Saudis and Israel in their determination for conflict with Iran. The EU and Russia – and anybody not harbouring a death wish – will be working to keep the Iranian nuclear deal together. Bin Salman has chosen his time well, with slightly crazed right wing regimes in Washington, London and Tel Aviv willing to back his adventurism. The blockade of Qatar is but a symptom of something much more dangerous.
—————————————————————————————
COLLECTED WORKS
A volume of speeches, writings and interviews from when I first turned whistleblower is now available on Amazon. Many thanks to Kirsten who conceived and carried through the idea. My contribution was the totally non-controversial title to broaden the appeal! It includes some of the very first articles on this blog, which were only read by about 1,000 people.inBin
“it seeks to deploy them”, not “Iran seeks to…”, surely?
“Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and the numerous other jihadist groups will only increase as Iran seeks to deploy them in its sectarian was against the Shia and their allies.”
I think you ment “Saudi Arabia”.
Jonathan Turley on his blog has a corrections thread specifically for high lighting typos and possible failures of what is written to convey intended meaning. I suggest you introduce a similar system as you may not notice a suggested corrections in a mass of comments on another thread.
Thank you both. I find Carlyle that my readers always pick up such typos pretty immediately!
” I find Carlyle that my readers always pick up such typos pretty immediately!.
It is a bit much to expect the blog owner ie you to read every comment to make sure that you don’t miss any corrections, hence the usefulness of a corrections only thread.
Although there is a profoundly credible case to be made that Daesh is a product of Iran, Syria and Russia
No there isn’t. Utter nonsense.
Congrats on the new book! Such a subtle title! Any chance of an eBook version?
Hopefully shortly Colin.
Apparently by the magic of the internet it is now on Kindle already.
You can’t abbreviate Muhammad bin Salman to Salman – Salman is the old father. You would have to say Bin Salman, though the blogger world uses the ugly form MbS.
I have changed to Bin Salman, though it sounds like a Sun headline.
Would the moniker ibn Salman do? Am sure that was the original format, meaning ‘son of’. Having a quick google around, ‘bin’ appears to be used in the middle of two names, ‘ibn’ if just using a single last name.
Bin is simply the Peninsula/Gulf dialectical variant, as in Bin Ladin. That’s why I suggested Bin Salman, though I don’t remember seeing it elsewhere. You do have to distinguish them as the range of names is very small. Muhammad bin Salman is the one who just got in, and Muhammad bin Nayif is the one who’s out. I’d probably stick with the whole name here, if it was me writing. Muhammad bin Salman no doubt has many brothers too.
The actual Arabic is simply bn ‘son of’, which has an alif added at the front when used at the beginning of a name, as in the medieval author called Ibn al-Tiqtaqa (which means according to Wiki, the son of the chatterbox!). But I don’t think you can use Ibn in a modern context, though I could be wrong.
Look forward to buying a copy, I can already hear the howls of protests over the title, keep up the good work
These countries have no shame.
I think you want to change ‘mote’ to ‘more’. So mote it be as the Masons might say.
Yes, shameful. Of the top 5 two (UK and US) are permanent members of the UN Security Council which is troublesome in trying to get a resolution through the UN since even if the vote was more in favour of a resettlement of Chagossians to their homeland and a legal ruling against UK sovereignty, either of these two permanent members could veto it. Of course with friends like Israel and Australia it is unlikely to ever come to that.
I see Afghanistan supports the nasties after the US/UK have promoted and engaged in a seventeen year long war there. It suggests there must be a western-sponsored puppet government under Ghani now in Kabul which I am sure the populace will just love. Ghani’s wife is half-American and Ghani himself is a member of the World Bank.
The US again colludes in the most disgusting torture. From the http://abcnews.go.com article that Craig linked to:
I do think Saudi policy is going more and more off the rails, with the charge led by Muhammad bin Salman. He’s ready to go to war with everybody – quite like Saddam of course. It can’t end well, but he seems to have control of the government, or more specifically control of his father, who is supposed to have Alzheimer’s.
I don’t agree though that the main aim is to shut up Aljazeera. Blockading a nation and threatening to invade it is too big a reaction just because you don’t like its television station. Personally I suspect that the Qataris must have been supporting internal opposition movements in Saudi. Quite possible, as there are close relations between Qatari tribes and Saudi tribes. You don’t hear much about internal opposition in Saudi, in fact virtually nothing, but it certainly exists, as the Najdis treat the rest of the country tyrannically. It is not a nation, merely a territory conquered by the Saudi family, and kept quiet by payments of oil money. It is terrible the way they treat their own “citizens”. There were photos around recently of the way they’ve walled off Awamiyya and its Shi’a population by those 4 metre high concrete blocks, with only one checkpoint in and out. Only I find it unlikely that the Qataris were helping the Shi’a (Wahhabis helping Shi’a? strains the credulity). But I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other restive people, but we haven’t heard the detail.
Considering that Al Jaz castrated itself years ago I’m inclined to agree.
Of course it’s not so;e;y about shutting up Al Jazeera. I don’t believe I said it was. But that demand is a clue to the wider Saudi agenda.
The Chagos Islanders were first betrayed by a Labour government in the 1960s and by every Labour and Tory government ever since. An independent Scotland wouldn’t have voted at the UN to deny the Chaggosians their right to return home.
More accurately, betrayed by every Labour, Tory and Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government ever since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Content_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_ultimatum_to_Serbia
Plus ca change.
Up to a point. But nobody else would ever have made “The Lobby” which was great.
The 15 were defeated!
The UN’s impotence may have gone into remission.
The first three are the main axis of evil around the world, not forgetting their buddy Saudi Arabia.
On Qatar, they have ties to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s arch enemy. However, Turkey has not long announced that it will not cut ties with Qatar.
Of course Iran and Qatar share a huge offshore gas field, and the shunning of Qatar, by it’s neighbours must surely be down to its Iranian ties.
As for the Chagos Islands, morally Britain doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but morality applies less and less, in Britain now a divided island.
Better watch Ros or you’ll be up on a charge before Colonel Davidson.
Yes, I read that article, first she’s seen astride a tank, now she’s an honorary colonel, of the Signals. I’m sure her seat in the unelected, undemocratic, HoL is all but secured.
I recall seeing Rape Clause Ruth-less Davidson, astride a bull African Water Buffalo, does that then make her a honorary, Bullshitter?
I think it does. ?
Good one Ros.
I’ve had it up to here with local councils saying they care about local residents in tower blocks. Local authorities are corrupt, and everyone knows it. How the fuck did these buildings get their fire certificates in the first place?
Will any journalist fuckers ask that? Or would they all shit their pants at the thought?
It wasn’t the council’s decision to evacuate blocks on Camden, or Sajid Javid’s. The council just want to make out that things are happening because they’ve given the order. It was the fire service’s decision. Councils aren’t empowered to keep buildings open if a fire chief says they’ve got to be shut down.
The council are the culprits, not the fucking heroes.
Being a total duffer, I have to admit that I’d never heard of the Chagos Islands before I read your post, Craig. So, had no knowledge of this whatsoever. Crikey! Their mass deportation sounds like something that would have happened in Stalin’s USSR!!
Well, the Brits have form. The Highland Clearances anyone?
Have you been sleeping under a rock for 13 years?
http://johnpilger.com/videos/stealing-a-nation
No, the Grossraum, 1942-1944.
or Ireland and the Highlands 1845-1855 or Tasmania of the Great Plains….
Yes, we probably taught Stalin all he knew.
He was a mere C20th Johnny-come-lately.
The British media habitually refers to the US airbase on the ‘uninhabited’ island of Diego Garcia. When the truth is that it’s a depopulated island.
Euh, I’m not sure why you think those labels are mutually exclusive. In fact, I’d say that all depopulated islands are by definition uninhabited.
But not all uninhabited islands have been depopulated.
As the bailout of Barclays Bank in 2008 involved a massive cash injection from Quatar, will all international dealings with Barclays now be deals with terrorists, and outlawed?
One persons terrorist…..another persons financial advisor…_
@ Digger UK/
There was no cash injection by Qatar money to bail -out Barclays.
It was an illegal financial manipulation. Barclays loaned CREDIT to Qatar, thus creating a negative amount on the Barclays book.
Qatar then invested the loan in Barclays, This wiped out the Barclays debt. This is how Banks create credit, Banks do not require money deposits to create credit..
Qatar would have been compensated to offset the interest payments for the loan.
I am surprised that Barclays are being prosecuted, this racket has been ongoing for centuries. I will be even more surprised if they are convicted.
Under the Currency Act of 1844 only the Bank of England can create money/specie. The private Banks have circumvented this by creating credit, as in credit cards, bank drafts , cheque books.
Another reason they are pushing for the cashless society, to control the monetary system totally.
Thankyou for your response. Clearly one of us has misunderstood the actualite…_
“This is what Barclays Bank did in 2008, in order to avoid the use of tax money to shore up the bank’s capital: Barclays ‘raised’ £5.8 bn in new equity from Gulf sovereign wealth investors — by, it has transpired, lending them the money! As is explained in Werner (2014a), Barclays implemented a standard loan operation, thus inventing the £5.8 bn deposit ‘lent’ to the investor. This deposit was then used to ‘purchase’ the newly issued Barclays shares. Thus in this case the bank liability originating from the bank loan to the Gulf investor transmuted from (1) an accounts payable liability to (2) a customer deposit liability, to finally end up as (3) equity — another category on the liability side of the bank’s balance sheet. Effectively, Barclays invented its own capital. This certainly was cheaper for the UK tax payer than using tax money. As publicly listed companies in general are not allowed to lend money to firms for the purpose of buying their stocks, it was not in conformity with the Companies Act 2006 (Section 678, Prohibition of assistance for acquisition of shares in public company).”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001434
only the Bank of England can create money/specie.
Well, them and 3 banks in Scotland and 4 more in Northern Ireland…
Well, them and 3 banks in Scotland and 4 more in Northern Ireland…
Those 3 banks in Scotland and 4 more in Northern Ireland must have one Bank of England note in reserve for every note of their own that they issue. So no, those banks can’t create money in the same way as the Bank of England does.
I know. But the claim was that only the Bank of England can create money/*specie*, and that’s wrong because 7 other banks can create specie as well.
But the claim was that only the Bank of England can create money/*specie*, and that’s wrong because 7 other banks can create specie as well.
You’re being disingenuous again. In your sentence, the two instances of the word “create” each have different meanings.
In any case, banks create money all the time in the form of loans. It’s not the BofE that creates money. See their own document: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
This is shocking and particularly shocked by New Zealand.
Poses a concern if Scotland goes to UN for ratification of Independence if Westminster refuses a section 30 request which seems very likely.
Neoliberal politics is well and truly in the ascendancy still.
Think Britain sticks doggedly to Chagos Islands for fear losing them will just trigger losing all of them, like the Dutch Virgin Islands, Gib, and the Falklands.
Because all of those places will suddenly go from 99% in favour of the status quo to … what exactly?
It’s not about what the natives favor, but what the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice might decode.
Ah, so self-determination for me but not for thee?
(And, for the 1 millionth time, the General Assembly of the United Nations doesn’t even have the authority to buy stamps, much less to change the borders between countries.)
Oh, right, self-determination for Guam, inhabited and paid by American warmongers who want to takeover the Pacific from the people who live there.
Think of all the spots that the US has had to takeover from the withdrawing UK.
I agree with you on many points and deeply respect Iran’s stance but to say that Qatar isn’t involved in terrorism is a joke. Most of the chaos in Libya is down to Qatar and its support of the Muslim Brotherhood who in turn arm the terrorist groups. Hundreds of innocent civilians in Benghazi have assassinated with little kids blown to bits all because the people of Eastern Libya refuse to be dominated by Qatar/Muslim Brotherhood. All I can say is thank god for the support of UAE and Egypt otherwise the people would have been decimated. In Libyan affairs Al Jazeera has been highly biased in its reporting.
Where exactly do I say Qatar is not involved in terrorism?
I note that Craig uses the pejorative term ‘regime’ when referring to the democratically elected Syrian Govt. This subtle inference lends itself to Western propaganda in its illegal regime change war in Syria.
This is quite common in the Western media, when its seeks to demonise any country which resists the warm embrace of the Washington regime.
Indeed I don’t have much time for Assad. But you seem to have failed to note the bit about “the slightly crazed right wing regimes in Washington, London and Tel Aviv”.
Craig,
It is a hard pragmatic choice that has to be made:-
Remove Saddam – then what?
Remove Qaddafi – then what?
Stand up for and implement US foreign policy in Syria – then what?
You know better than most Ambassador Murray – right? But – governments oftentimes base foreign policy on perceived ‘interests’ – not humane principles – wrong!- but that is just what they do!!!!!!!!!
are you joking?
To be made by who, the UK? I don’t consider nuances within an ultimate war crime a pragmatic choice and most countries don’t do it.
This always comes up doesn’t it? i.e., “Everyones a right wing evil country” (when “we” want to be kill steal and rob) Then turns “We are a civilised democracy” making hard pragmatic choses.
What utter nonsense.
(when “we” want to * kill steal and rob) Then turns into* “We
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing
So why do you not have ‘much time’ for Assad? There is a reason why the ME is in the state it is in and being negative about Assad merely bypasses the problem which is how to transition a country from dictatorship to democracy by just overthrowing dictators and installing pseudo democracies that are puppets to the west.
I use that pejorative for this country from a foreign perspective, Or in our case the lackeys of a regime. Same difference.
“Frankly I am shocked by the failure of the mainstream media in the West seriously to question the ludicrous Saudi claim that this attack on Qatar is over support for terrorism.”
I have no idea why you are shocked, British MSM is the propaganda arm of British foreign policy as far as I can see.
I followed the legal developments in Bancoult 1 and 2 ( absolutely shameful what had been done to these people):-
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-1.htm
They’re back in the Supreme Court next week: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0022.html
Craig your “regularly reported in the mainstream media” link seems to be broken.
Hetherto Qatar has had a major role in upheavals in both Libya and Syria and had got too big for its shoes. It looks as if this is a fight for supremacy amongst the wahabis and within the Sunna nations. The role of Egypt in all this is rather baffling and the whole rigmarole in Yemen also does not add up. It really looks like there is a deeper meaning to all of this and is probably closely related to Trump’s visit and may be a coordination to redraw the whole power structure in the ME including Turkey, Iran and Israel as well as the levant and Arab Africa .
The deeper meaning of the Qatar crisis is its gas pipeline connection with Iran, the Shi’te enemy of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabias ‘influence and power is draining away along with the value of its oil deposits.This also has a direct effect on the US budget via the petro dollar. Russia is now the dominant power in the Middle East. The Syrian conflict is nearing it end. because of Russian/Iranian and Hezbollah intervention. This has not gone unnoticed in the region and worldwide.
Saudi and US economic power and the ability to finance their military power is heading down the toilet at a rapid rate.
Just out of curiosity, on what legal theory would someone dispute the legality of the UK’s sovereignty over the Chagos Islands?
Unless I’m mistaken, the Brits have been there since before the UN Charter was adopted, and indeed before any other piece of international law was adopted that constrained the ability of states to acquire title over territory through conquest. That’s how Britain got (Northern) Ireland (in 1690), and that’s how it got the Chagos Islands.
In that sense the position of the UK is completely different than the position of Turkey wrt Cyprus, Israel wrt the West Bank, or Morocco wrt Western Sahara, since in all those instances the occupation dates from after the adoption of the UN Charter. (And, for sport, South-Africa acquired control over Namibia as a League of Nations mandate, which also prevented it from annexing that country. It’s not just about the UN Charter.)
So which legal norm would one invoke before the ICJ to challenge Britain’s title over the Chagos Islands?
Are you actually saying invading before more civilised laws where about means it doesn’t count, in the now?
I notice the UK does this all the time. It stinks.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Conquests that predate the UN Charter are generally not unwound through the ICJ or other legal norms. Otherwise Ireland could take the UK to the ICJ and demand Northern Ireland back and lord knows what other centuries-old conflicts could resurface. (I’m actually not sure how one would think about an acquisition through conquest that was subsequently ratified through a treaty, which is the case for most border changes in the last few centuries.)
On the principles of decolonisation and self determination, very obviously
That assumes that the Chagos Islanders are a people (for self-determination purposes), or that their islands belong to Mauritius, a couple of thousand miles away. The former is tricky, particularly given the insistence of you and your friends that the people of Gibraltar are not similarly a people for the purposes of art. 1 ICCPR, and why Mauritius – which never had sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the past – should have a better claim than the UK mystifies me.
Better claim. ?
The uk has no legitimate claim and it’s not upto us to determine what’s better for others.
It’s simply part of your mindset isn’t it. …freaky..
It’s for those people to deterrent their government/admin et, via democratic process as we do, ..Nominally at least.
When will british imperialists just go away. God knows the untold horror so many people have faced for generations as a result of this fascistic mindset.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law. The UK has possessed the Chagos Islands since 1786. That’s all the claim it needs.
‘Possession is 9/10ths of the law. ‘
Lots of pirates could get away with that.
The rule of the law in this case appears to be international consensus which you must agree that oin this case is overwhelmingly against U.K.
Lots of pirates could get away with that.
They could, actually. Adverse possession of 20-30 years suffices in most jurisdictions.
Ah, someone else has noticed that Britain is a regime of pirates run for the benefit of pirates and has been for the last 450 years or so.
By way of background, here is a brief blog post by Marko Milanovic on the blog of the European Journal for International Law explaining how these kinds of requests work and why this resolution was drafted the way that it was: https://www.ejiltalk.org/icj-advisory-opinion-request-on-the-chagos-islands/
The Milanovic piece linked by you hints at wider issues that might influenece the ICJ investigation and opinion.
The lawyers will fill their pockets going down the sovereignty cul-de-sac; UK, & Mauritian claims both put the real estate at the centre of the issue, whereas the Chagossians are only demanding they go home (as far as I know they are not claiming independence, but they may be)
The nub there would be did the UK act legally in the depopulation and importantly the ongoing administration. If the answer to that is no then there is a case where the UN can order repatriation of the inhabitants and the relatives / decendents.
Then the UK and Mauritians can fight Chagossian claim for independence, the US can bitch about their sitting tenant rights, the French and Dutch can revitalise any claims they may have but the Chagossians will have the whip hand if they ask the UN for independent status.
And as far as I understand they do not have to inhabit their islands for the claim to be considered. In my unqualified opinion the Chagossians would be to put a claim of independence to the UN and let it run parallel to the ICJ investigation.
Lawyers in the ICJ are usually government lawyers who don’t get paid by the hour, so I don’t think anyone will be “filling their pockets”.
As for the Chagossian claim for independence, I think you’re right that they don’t have to live their to make a claim. (As long as they don’t live there for some reason that cannot be attributed to them, such as being forcibly removed by the British.)
However, the bigger issue is that there isn’t that many of them. There is some lower boundary beyond which a group of people cannot reasonably be considered a people for self-determination purposes. Gibraltar and the Falklands are nice examples. 32k and 3.000 inhabitants, respectively. I don’t think we would say that either of them has the right to self-determination in the sense of being entitled to declare independence if they wanted to. (As opposed to being entitled to be heard before something drastic changes about their constitutional settlement.) The Chagos Islanders are fewer still than the Falklanders, about 1100 at the time of their removal, presumably a bit more now. Even the Isle of Skye still has 10k inhabitants. Could they declare independence?
The Vatican City does OK.
Rather than the numbers a claim could be based on the cruel way they have been treated. Antidemocratic, humiliating behaviours, degrading practices, no consideration of human rights and ruling by oppressive force. The model for the Vatican fits pretty well.
I thought the ICJ outsourced “consultancy” work on a case by case basis to do the ground work.
The Vatican City would have no claim under art. 1 ICCPR whatsoever. Its rights are based on a separate treaty with Italy. There is nothing preventing the creation of very small states, but there is no entitlement either.
Rather than the numbers a claim could be based on the cruel way they have been treated. Antidemocratic, humiliating behaviours, degrading practices, no consideration of human rights and ruling by oppressive force.
Well, the thing about the ICJ is that it is a court, and courts deal in law not pity.
Saudi accusing another state of enabling terrorism has to be the most jaw-dropping incidence of wooden-mirror syndrome since .. well, at least since the US last berated another state for alleged use of chemical weapons.
On the issue of Saudi-related terror, though, why have demands ceased for May to release the report she’s been suppressing on Saudi support for jihadi groups in the UK? It was fleetingly mentioned by Corbyn and Farron following the London Bridge atrocity – albeit ignored by most of our supposedly terror-obsessed media – but it now seems to have been completely buried again. Did anybody hear any satisfying explanations for the cover-up?
US & torture would have made sense as a comparison, but when/where did the US use chemical weapons since Vietnam?
Why, did they not drop enough in SE Asia to undermine their authority on the issue? I’m guessing you’re also disqualifying their continuing use of white phosphorus on some spurious technicality.
Accusing people of hypocrisy usually comes with an expiry date. (With the possible exception of crazy ranting loonies on the internet, but I didn’t want to accuse you of being one of those.)
As for white phosphorus, do tell.
Sadly the effects of agent orange have still to expire in that part of the world
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/10729-the-toxic-effects-of-agent-orange-persist-51-years-after-the-vietnam-war
As to white phosphorus, it has been a key weapon in the US armory throughout its adventure in Iraq, currently being deployed in Mosul. Only a lunatic would allude to it, of course.
Okay Martinned, I’ll tell.
“In April 2004, during the First Battle of Fallujah, Darrin Mortenson of California’s North County Times reported that white phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon.”
“Embedded with the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Mortenson described a Marine mortar team using a mixture of white phosphorus and high explosives to shell a cluster of buildings where insurgents had been spotted throughout the week.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Use_in_Iraq
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have been implicated in the use of White Phosphorus.
I think that legally it’s a borderline example, but I’ll give it to you. Point conceded.
Even more recently there is resorted use of phosphorus in Raqaa by the US.
Didn’t it use chemical weapons on its own Southeast, practice for using it on pesty Iran, killing all those birds and people in preparation for, and assassinating leaker John P, Wheeler, III, a murder which has gone unnoticed and unsolved ever since?
You mean during Jade Helm 15?
Never heard of Jade Helm 15.
I’m talking about the killing of millions of birds, and an unknown number of people in December 2010 by the Air Force spraying phosphene over the area in preparation for doing it to Iran, killing Wheeler who was to make it look like Iran had done it but it al went quite wrong when his body fell out of the dumpster on its way to the Wilmington landfill.
Instead of the set up, the Air Force had t see that Iran’s missile test site was destroyed by a man-made earthquake to gain passage of the new START treaty.
Allow me: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jade+Helm+15
Jade Helm 15 just sucks, intended to give all conspiracy theories a bad name, and the people why espouse them.
Use of depleted uranium tipped shells in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria is well documented and arguably the US was involved in the use of sarin in Syria.
Well done Kirsten for that.
On topic, what about the High Court decision on the legality of BDS disinvestment?
Government suffers defeat in court by Palestine campaigners over boycott, divestment and sanctions
June 22, 2017
https://www.palestinecampaign.org/government-suffers-defeat-court-palestine-campaigners-boycott-divestment-sanctions/
In March Israel Knesset passed a bill banning the entry of BDS supporters/activists into the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’.
Last month a Gaza fisherman was shot dead. It is a daily occurrence for the Gaza fishermen to be shot at by the Israeli Navy’s gunships.
http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20170622_killing_of_fisherman_muhammad_baker
The electricity supply to Gaza has been reduced by 40%. Some of their crops were bulldozed by the Israeli army on 19th June.
Looks like Israel is intentionally making Gaza uninhabitable, it appears it wants control of the gas field off the coast of Gaza. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jul/09/israel-war-gaza-palestine-natural-gas-energy-crisis
There have been oil and gas finds in much of the territories Israel illegally occupies including the Syrian Golan Heights where the apparently biggest oil field ever found has been discovered. http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-stakes-claim-golan-after-oil-find-913890970
The continuing wars over oil and gas throw a spanner in and expose the hypocrisy of the AGW ‘consensus’.. Why aren’t the ‘climate change’ activists and signatories to the Paris accords not vehemently opposing these wars and moves to control gas and oil? The billions of public money from taxes and austerity spent of war profiteering could be spent on development of less intrusive and more efficient and reliable forms of green energy..
Well, it’s also the Palestinians who are trying to make Gaza uninhabitable. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n12/sara-roy/if-israel-were-smart
There’s enough guilt to go around.
Well, it’s also the Palestinians who are trying to make Gaza uninhabitable.
By what warped logic do you extract that meaning from the article you linked to? The spiraling suicide rate filling the graveyards? Their blood and tears making the soil salty?
Seriously, please explain yourself (though I won’t read it till I return on Sunday).
You mean apart from:
The greatest source of political tension between the Hamas government in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is the continued refusal of President Abbas, who controls the purse strings, to pay the salaries of Hamas government employees.
It is best to ignore certain posts I have found.
“Well, it’s also the Palestinians who are trying to make Gaza uninhabitable. ”
That takes the biscuit for sheer political bigotry. The article you link doesn’t make that case either.
The Directors of Genie Energy, who have the concession for the Golan Heights oil field are the usual,plundering looting clique of Dick Cheney,Larry Summr,James Woolsey (exCIA). Rupert Murdoch and Jacob Rothschild.
Israel has acquired influence pedlars for shekels.
“This second small group is dominated by countries with a particularly close security relationship with the United States on which they place particular reliance in relation to a perceived threat. ”
I note Albania is on that list and it brought to mind this interview on 21 Century wire with Olsi Jazexhi which I found very thought provoking.
From 29.40 on this link. http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/21/episode-186-sunday-wire-the-alternative-view-with-olsi-jazexhi-dr-graham-downing-plus-special-guests/
The Blairs amongst other well know names appear deeply involved in the restructuring and plundering of Albania.