As the White house prepares it's excuse for another attack on the Syrian government, we needn't look far to find the reason why.
With Assad gaining ground, and IS facing defeat if not yet extinction, the US imperative to protect it's investment in the destabilization process and keep a foothold in the region seems to outweigh any desire or rational thought in imagining what happens next.
The middle East is littered with the results of unintended consequences of outside, and particularly Western, actions. Each one, it appears, more catastrophic than the previous.
But it all seemed to start so well.
Afghanistan fell quickly in the post 9-11 consensus, and, with Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda sent into hiding, there was a real chance of bringing some stability and order to the region, but Bush Jnr. had other ideas, so forgetting Afghanistan, and with Blair in tow and WMD as the excuse, he decided to invade Iraq and we are now experiencing how that turned out.
All the while, we have ignored the Gulf States and Turks funding and supplying the terrorists, with the excuse of supporting our 'allies' (who just happen to also be our ideological, and sometimes physical, enemies).
I suggest that president Trump should not take too much comfort from knowing that somewhere in Washington someone is busily working on the excuse for when it all goes horribly wrong, again.
Tuesday, 27 June 2017
Tuesday, 20 June 2017
US: Who is in charge?
When president Trump announced that he was relinquishing control of the US military, it was met with neither astonishment nor outrage.
Understandably so, because the Left were delighted to see the President's authority diminished, while the Right were equally ecstatic that their military were to be unleashed on the wider world.
And the results of this ability to supposedly tackle Islamic State more decisively?
The first was to attack a Syrian army convoy and the second was to shoot down a Syrian air force jet, anyone spot the pattern?
Whatever claptrap is spoken about warnings given, and encroachment etc, nobody should be fooled. Following the gratuitous salvo of 59 cruise missiles, Assad and Russia know only too well that America is disposed to strike whenever the opportunity arises, so it's difficult to believe that any significant notification was given before either attack.
None of this even begins to address the legality of hostile actions against sovereign governments, however much they may displease.
Military commanders have limited objectives, which revolve around conflict and logistical supply (more troops and weapons), for them, a period of peace is just the time spent between wars.
There is a horrible irony that the sort of conflict president Trump was supposed to inflict upon us all, should be brought closer, not by his position of power, but by his abdication of responsibility.
Dear Donald,
It's time to take back control of your military.
The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief for a very good reason.
Understandably so, because the Left were delighted to see the President's authority diminished, while the Right were equally ecstatic that their military were to be unleashed on the wider world.
And the results of this ability to supposedly tackle Islamic State more decisively?
The first was to attack a Syrian army convoy and the second was to shoot down a Syrian air force jet, anyone spot the pattern?
Whatever claptrap is spoken about warnings given, and encroachment etc, nobody should be fooled. Following the gratuitous salvo of 59 cruise missiles, Assad and Russia know only too well that America is disposed to strike whenever the opportunity arises, so it's difficult to believe that any significant notification was given before either attack.
None of this even begins to address the legality of hostile actions against sovereign governments, however much they may displease.
Military commanders have limited objectives, which revolve around conflict and logistical supply (more troops and weapons), for them, a period of peace is just the time spent between wars.
There is a horrible irony that the sort of conflict president Trump was supposed to inflict upon us all, should be brought closer, not by his position of power, but by his abdication of responsibility.
Dear Donald,
It's time to take back control of your military.
The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief for a very good reason.
Friday, 9 June 2017
UK:No time for tears
It was impossible to escape the media saturation coverage of yesterday's election as the results were confirmed this morning, but one moment particularly caught my attention.
A group of presenters were sitting around their TV studio, commenting on the contrast between the glum faced 'winner', Theresa May, and the jubilant, though second placed, Jeremy Corbyn. A female reporter then elicited a little sympathy for May's puffy eyed demeanor by stating that 'She had obviously, probably, been crying', to which there was a respectful murmur, before the group continued their broadcast. All well and good, I thought.
But now I feel compelled to ask:
Did anyone, see, or was there ever even a suggestion, that Mrs May cried when she heard about the innocents killed and maimed in the Manchester bombing?
Did we witness those puffy eyes when she spoke of the London Bridge victims, or before, of those who perished and were brutalized, on the bridge outside and even at the very gates of Westminster?
This is not to be especially critical of May, or any woman in politics, for we saw the same when Mrs Clinton was defeated and when Mrs Thatcher lost her position, but we also saw a gruesome joy in the former's infamous giggle when she boasted of Gaddafi's demise, and a strange indifference to the death of more than 300 young sailors, by the later.
So what is it, do women in politics really need to be tougher than men, to the point where they cannot pretend any longer; or are tears even such a bad thing?
Perhaps if Mrs May had wept at the horrors of 7/7, she might have determined, that when she became Home Secretary she would actually do something to halt any further such atrocities and prevent other mothers, daughters and sisters from shedding their, altogether more innocent, tears.
A group of presenters were sitting around their TV studio, commenting on the contrast between the glum faced 'winner', Theresa May, and the jubilant, though second placed, Jeremy Corbyn. A female reporter then elicited a little sympathy for May's puffy eyed demeanor by stating that 'She had obviously, probably, been crying', to which there was a respectful murmur, before the group continued their broadcast. All well and good, I thought.
But now I feel compelled to ask:
Did anyone, see, or was there ever even a suggestion, that Mrs May cried when she heard about the innocents killed and maimed in the Manchester bombing?
Did we witness those puffy eyes when she spoke of the London Bridge victims, or before, of those who perished and were brutalized, on the bridge outside and even at the very gates of Westminster?
This is not to be especially critical of May, or any woman in politics, for we saw the same when Mrs Clinton was defeated and when Mrs Thatcher lost her position, but we also saw a gruesome joy in the former's infamous giggle when she boasted of Gaddafi's demise, and a strange indifference to the death of more than 300 young sailors, by the later.
So what is it, do women in politics really need to be tougher than men, to the point where they cannot pretend any longer; or are tears even such a bad thing?
Perhaps if Mrs May had wept at the horrors of 7/7, she might have determined, that when she became Home Secretary she would actually do something to halt any further such atrocities and prevent other mothers, daughters and sisters from shedding their, altogether more innocent, tears.
Sunday, 4 June 2017
UK: Sleeping on the front line
Most people in London are familiar with the sound of helicopters patrolling our night skies, and the occasional extended period of hovering overhead, central London all the more so, and the inhabitants of Lambeth more accustomed than most, so last night's events weren't particularly unusual, and the initial rumours of a stabbing in or around the station were nothing new for a warm Saturday night.
But news of what was happening just along the river added an altogether more ominous tone to the whirring above and sirens of emergency response vehicles passing below. Sleep, therefore, became a reluctant partner for many.
So this is what happens when ramadan comes to town?
Teresa May again called a halt to election campaigning, no doubt worried about the inevitable tough questions that she and her dhimmi cohorts will face. But, to be fair, she also seems genuinely bemused, after all, we have accepted sharia and dutifully pay the jizya, yet still these attacks keep coming with increasing regularity and violence.
'Oh dear,' her sad little face appears to say: 'What are we to do?'
'Let's re-order the words a bit, maybe shift the emphasis a little', and thus she pulls a different face and changes the script a tad, anything it seems, except address the damned issue.
When she started talking about tackling the "safe spaces" of jihadis, I thought she was getting somewhere, but no, she wasn't talking about their mosks, but rather, some notional nooks and crannies of the Internet, where all this 'radicalization' supposedly takes place.
The weirdest thing in all this, is that she is probably not quite bought and paid for by the saudis (although their patronage surely contributes greatly to our government's mental frailties), nor is she willfully ignorant of the threat we all face, but that she really just does not get it.
This became clear when she claimed, with apparent sobriety, that the fake suicide vests were worn to create greater fear and confusion, as if anyone seeing a machete wielding muslim screaming his allegiance to lahlah, would not be enough frit, and that bystanders and victims would pause to check what the murderers were wearing.
Could somebody please advise her, and the political and police cronies who she is surrounded by, that the intention of those canisters was not to fool the public, but to ensure that the police would shoot to kill, thus expediting a fast-track exit to allah's absurd resting place, complete with bonus points for killing and being killed during this month of muslim 'piety'.
But news of what was happening just along the river added an altogether more ominous tone to the whirring above and sirens of emergency response vehicles passing below. Sleep, therefore, became a reluctant partner for many.
So this is what happens when ramadan comes to town?
Teresa May again called a halt to election campaigning, no doubt worried about the inevitable tough questions that she and her dhimmi cohorts will face. But, to be fair, she also seems genuinely bemused, after all, we have accepted sharia and dutifully pay the jizya, yet still these attacks keep coming with increasing regularity and violence.
'Oh dear,' her sad little face appears to say: 'What are we to do?'
'Let's re-order the words a bit, maybe shift the emphasis a little', and thus she pulls a different face and changes the script a tad, anything it seems, except address the damned issue.
When she started talking about tackling the "safe spaces" of jihadis, I thought she was getting somewhere, but no, she wasn't talking about their mosks, but rather, some notional nooks and crannies of the Internet, where all this 'radicalization' supposedly takes place.
The weirdest thing in all this, is that she is probably not quite bought and paid for by the saudis (although their patronage surely contributes greatly to our government's mental frailties), nor is she willfully ignorant of the threat we all face, but that she really just does not get it.
This became clear when she claimed, with apparent sobriety, that the fake suicide vests were worn to create greater fear and confusion, as if anyone seeing a machete wielding muslim screaming his allegiance to lahlah, would not be enough frit, and that bystanders and victims would pause to check what the murderers were wearing.
Could somebody please advise her, and the political and police cronies who she is surrounded by, that the intention of those canisters was not to fool the public, but to ensure that the police would shoot to kill, thus expediting a fast-track exit to allah's absurd resting place, complete with bonus points for killing and being killed during this month of muslim 'piety'.
Friday, 2 June 2017
UK: Secrets R US
So the statutory period of 'mourning' is over, and our politicians have returned to their politicking before next week's general election, but what at first seemed like a genuine attempt to be respectful to the dead of Manchester, can clearly be seen now as a cruel and conscious trick to ensure that our next government would not face awkward questions about security and islamic terror.
But it all started so differently, and the days after that event were full of searching and largely honest, inquisition.
I must insist on calling it an 'event' rather than an outrage, or horrendous or any other of the usual descriptors, because anyone even vaguely familiar with the course of global jihad, will know that attacks targeting children and innocents is nothing new, or especially outrageous, and simply something which we should get used to, according to politicians, both here and abroad.
When we ask why was the immediate inquiry into Manchester so different, from all the other 'incidents'?
We are left to overwhelmingly conclude that the Truth made it different.
Unlike those horrors of the Bataclan which the French government managed to hide and deceive the world about, our special relationship with US meant that information was shared with them, even as we were being fobbed off. American media got the message, and the whistle was blown
Thus, just as our politicians, police and other sundry experts were preparing to read from their well worn scripts of a 'mentally ill', 'lone wolf', who was not 'religious', and nothing to do with refugees or islam, we got the news that he was non of these things, that he was a devout muslim, a migrant's son who had memorized the koran and attended a salafist mosk regularly in between frequent trips to Libya and who knows where else?
That such a damning profile did not affect his ability to commit his chosen crime will be cheered by liberals, muslims and other left wing activists, it is surely scant consolation to the families and victims of 22nd May.
There is another interesting consequence of the early outbreak of Truth.
It is common after these tragedies, to release bits of information in dribs and drabs, over many days following the attack, so that no proper debate ensues, and the full picture remains veiled and elusive for weeks or even months to come. But with the cat out of the bag and running loose among our political establishment, we at least found otherwise taboo subjects openly discussed, in particular, whether or not we should talk to terrorists.
Ignoring for a moment, the ludicrous conflation of jihad, with the well defined political aims of IRA and their very Western concept of terror:- i.e. to telephone a handy warning prior to detonation in order to minimize casualties; there is indeed great merit in talking to IS, for maybe then, and only then, our leaders will finally understand the scale and depth of what we are all up against.
But, I accept such a move is probably too sensitive at this time, so perhaps they will allow me to describe that conversation, because it won't be a long meeting. Our negotiators will be given a simple choice: one of either, or.
Either submit (to islam by conversion, or to dhimmitude) or die.
But it all started so differently, and the days after that event were full of searching and largely honest, inquisition.
I must insist on calling it an 'event' rather than an outrage, or horrendous or any other of the usual descriptors, because anyone even vaguely familiar with the course of global jihad, will know that attacks targeting children and innocents is nothing new, or especially outrageous, and simply something which we should get used to, according to politicians, both here and abroad.
When we ask why was the immediate inquiry into Manchester so different, from all the other 'incidents'?
We are left to overwhelmingly conclude that the Truth made it different.
Unlike those horrors of the Bataclan which the French government managed to hide and deceive the world about, our special relationship with US meant that information was shared with them, even as we were being fobbed off. American media got the message, and the whistle was blown
Thus, just as our politicians, police and other sundry experts were preparing to read from their well worn scripts of a 'mentally ill', 'lone wolf', who was not 'religious', and nothing to do with refugees or islam, we got the news that he was non of these things, that he was a devout muslim, a migrant's son who had memorized the koran and attended a salafist mosk regularly in between frequent trips to Libya and who knows where else?
That such a damning profile did not affect his ability to commit his chosen crime will be cheered by liberals, muslims and other left wing activists, it is surely scant consolation to the families and victims of 22nd May.
There is another interesting consequence of the early outbreak of Truth.
It is common after these tragedies, to release bits of information in dribs and drabs, over many days following the attack, so that no proper debate ensues, and the full picture remains veiled and elusive for weeks or even months to come. But with the cat out of the bag and running loose among our political establishment, we at least found otherwise taboo subjects openly discussed, in particular, whether or not we should talk to terrorists.
Ignoring for a moment, the ludicrous conflation of jihad, with the well defined political aims of IRA and their very Western concept of terror:- i.e. to telephone a handy warning prior to detonation in order to minimize casualties; there is indeed great merit in talking to IS, for maybe then, and only then, our leaders will finally understand the scale and depth of what we are all up against.
But, I accept such a move is probably too sensitive at this time, so perhaps they will allow me to describe that conversation, because it won't be a long meeting. Our negotiators will be given a simple choice: one of either, or.
Either submit (to islam by conversion, or to dhimmitude) or die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)