Mick Hall in Organized Rage points at a moral cataract affecting the vision of David Cameron.
David Cameron wants UK airstrikes on Syria yet cannot even admit invading Iraq caused the birth and rise of Isis.
In the last week alone Cameron has announced a 15% increase in the security and intelligence staff at M15, MI6 and GCHQ, which will mean approx 2000 new spook recruits. He has speeded up the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so called snoopers charter; which will give the security agencies new spying powers to poke around in citizens private lives.
On Monday he told parliament defence spending will rise by around 5% by 2020/21. Forty eight new F-35 fighter aircraft will be purchased from US company Lockheed Martin, and the army will have two new 'rapid strike brigades' made up of 5,000 soldiers.
He also made clear, despite this subject not having been properly debated in Parliament yet, that he will go ahead with the construction of four new Trident missile-carrying submarines, the capital cost of which has risen to £41billion, although CND claim the overall sum for replacing Trident will be nearer £100 billion.
Not having learnt a damn thing from the outcome of the UK participating in airstrikes on Libya, which helped overthrow the Qaddafi regime, he doesn't appear to feel any responsibility for the failed state, awash with ISIS, which Libya has become.
Yet despite this he now intends to rush the UK into an air-war with Syria. According to the mainstream media he plans to stage a quick Commons vote on extending airstrikes in Syria next week, saying he will make an oral statement to MPs this Thursday, and then ask them to consider his proposals over the weekend before going to a full debate and vote.
There is absolutely no need for this rush to war.
Such reckless behaviour proved disastrous for the Iraqi and Libyan people; and for the members of the UK military who had their lives stolen on a reactionary politician's whim.
Without an agreement between all of Syria's warring parties, the Assad regime, Russia, Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah, along with the Free Syrian Army and the host of smaller anti Assad militias, the US and its proxies like Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. If they reach an agreement it would need to be endorsed by a vote at the UN, thus making it legal and credible.
Without this all thought of UK participation in airstrikes should be taken off the agenda.
When you look at the middle-east today, and the West's responsibility for the hell hole much of it's become, one wonders if politicians like Cameron cannot even acknowledge invading Iraq caused the birth and rise of Isis. What is their master plan, could it be they wish to make the whole region one of failed states and permanent war? If they get their way will Nineteen Eighty Four become the reality of the age?
I will leave Frankie to sum up as his pen he far better than mine:
We saw how the war criminals G. W. Bush and Tony Blair used the attacks on the Twin Towers in 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their fanatical Neoliberal theories.
Whilst the iron was still hot, they railroaded legislation through parliament and Congress, including the disastrous decisions to invade and occupy not only Afghanistan but also Iraq. A nation which had absolutely no dealings with Al Qaeda when Saddam Hussein was in power, indeed his government along with Assad snr in Syria were ferocious when dealing with Islamic fundamentalists of all kinds.
Fast forward to the recent ISIS attacks in Paris and we find David Cameron emulating his hero Tony Blair by pushing legislation through parliament which in normal times would be poured over and the fine detail pondered and criticised by MPs and sections of the MSM media. Is it any wonder the Chilcot Report has not been published when it's absence gives our heartless prime minister an opportunity to behave like this.
As Frankie Boyle wrote yesterday:
Fast forward to the recent ISIS attacks in Paris and we find David Cameron emulating his hero Tony Blair by pushing legislation through parliament which in normal times would be poured over and the fine detail pondered and criticised by MPs and sections of the MSM media. Is it any wonder the Chilcot Report has not been published when it's absence gives our heartless prime minister an opportunity to behave like this.
As Frankie Boyle wrote yesterday:
In times of crisis, we are made to feel we should scrutinise our government’s actions less closely, when surely that’s when we should pay closest attention. There’s a feeling that after an atrocity history and context become less relevant, when surely these are actually the worst times for a society to go on psychopathic autopilot. Our attitudes are fostered by a society built on ideas of dominance, where the solution to crises are force and action, rather than reflection and compromise.
In the last week alone Cameron has announced a 15% increase in the security and intelligence staff at M15, MI6 and GCHQ, which will mean approx 2000 new spook recruits. He has speeded up the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so called snoopers charter; which will give the security agencies new spying powers to poke around in citizens private lives.
On Monday he told parliament defence spending will rise by around 5% by 2020/21. Forty eight new F-35 fighter aircraft will be purchased from US company Lockheed Martin, and the army will have two new 'rapid strike brigades' made up of 5,000 soldiers.
He also made clear, despite this subject not having been properly debated in Parliament yet, that he will go ahead with the construction of four new Trident missile-carrying submarines, the capital cost of which has risen to £41billion, although CND claim the overall sum for replacing Trident will be nearer £100 billion.
Not having learnt a damn thing from the outcome of the UK participating in airstrikes on Libya, which helped overthrow the Qaddafi regime, he doesn't appear to feel any responsibility for the failed state, awash with ISIS, which Libya has become.
Yet despite this he now intends to rush the UK into an air-war with Syria. According to the mainstream media he plans to stage a quick Commons vote on extending airstrikes in Syria next week, saying he will make an oral statement to MPs this Thursday, and then ask them to consider his proposals over the weekend before going to a full debate and vote.
There is absolutely no need for this rush to war.
Such reckless behaviour proved disastrous for the Iraqi and Libyan people; and for the members of the UK military who had their lives stolen on a reactionary politician's whim.
Without an agreement between all of Syria's warring parties, the Assad regime, Russia, Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah, along with the Free Syrian Army and the host of smaller anti Assad militias, the US and its proxies like Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. If they reach an agreement it would need to be endorsed by a vote at the UN, thus making it legal and credible.
Without this all thought of UK participation in airstrikes should be taken off the agenda.
When you look at the middle-east today, and the West's responsibility for the hell hole much of it's become, one wonders if politicians like Cameron cannot even acknowledge invading Iraq caused the birth and rise of Isis. What is their master plan, could it be they wish to make the whole region one of failed states and permanent war? If they get their way will Nineteen Eighty Four become the reality of the age?
I will leave Frankie to sum up as his pen he far better than mine:
We’re always dealing with terror in retrospect – like stocking up on Imodium rather than reading the cooking instructions on your mini kievs. The truth is that modern governments sit at the head of a well-funded security apparatus. They are told that foreign military adventures put domestic populations at risk and they give them the thumbs up anyway. Charitably, the safety of their populations just aren’t of great concern to them. Realistically, domestic terrorist attacks play into their agenda: they allow them to grab ever more authoritarian powers with which to police their increasingly unequal and volatile societies. Of course, no one wants to believe that our government isn’t interested in our safety, just like everyone really wanted to believe that Jimmy Savile cared about whether kids got to meet Duran Duran.
David Cameron Wants UK Airstrikes On Syria ...
Mick Hall in Organized Rage points at a moral cataract affecting the vision of David Cameron.
David Cameron wants UK airstrikes on Syria yet cannot even admit invading Iraq caused the birth and rise of Isis.
In the last week alone Cameron has announced a 15% increase in the security and intelligence staff at M15, MI6 and GCHQ, which will mean approx 2000 new spook recruits. He has speeded up the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so called snoopers charter; which will give the security agencies new spying powers to poke around in citizens private lives.
On Monday he told parliament defence spending will rise by around 5% by 2020/21. Forty eight new F-35 fighter aircraft will be purchased from US company Lockheed Martin, and the army will have two new 'rapid strike brigades' made up of 5,000 soldiers.
He also made clear, despite this subject not having been properly debated in Parliament yet, that he will go ahead with the construction of four new Trident missile-carrying submarines, the capital cost of which has risen to £41billion, although CND claim the overall sum for replacing Trident will be nearer £100 billion.
Not having learnt a damn thing from the outcome of the UK participating in airstrikes on Libya, which helped overthrow the Qaddafi regime, he doesn't appear to feel any responsibility for the failed state, awash with ISIS, which Libya has become.
Yet despite this he now intends to rush the UK into an air-war with Syria. According to the mainstream media he plans to stage a quick Commons vote on extending airstrikes in Syria next week, saying he will make an oral statement to MPs this Thursday, and then ask them to consider his proposals over the weekend before going to a full debate and vote.
There is absolutely no need for this rush to war.
Such reckless behaviour proved disastrous for the Iraqi and Libyan people; and for the members of the UK military who had their lives stolen on a reactionary politician's whim.
Without an agreement between all of Syria's warring parties, the Assad regime, Russia, Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah, along with the Free Syrian Army and the host of smaller anti Assad militias, the US and its proxies like Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. If they reach an agreement it would need to be endorsed by a vote at the UN, thus making it legal and credible.
Without this all thought of UK participation in airstrikes should be taken off the agenda.
When you look at the middle-east today, and the West's responsibility for the hell hole much of it's become, one wonders if politicians like Cameron cannot even acknowledge invading Iraq caused the birth and rise of Isis. What is their master plan, could it be they wish to make the whole region one of failed states and permanent war? If they get their way will Nineteen Eighty Four become the reality of the age?
I will leave Frankie to sum up as his pen he far better than mine:
We saw how the war criminals G. W. Bush and Tony Blair used the attacks on the Twin Towers in 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their fanatical Neoliberal theories.
Whilst the iron was still hot, they railroaded legislation through parliament and Congress, including the disastrous decisions to invade and occupy not only Afghanistan but also Iraq. A nation which had absolutely no dealings with Al Qaeda when Saddam Hussein was in power, indeed his government along with Assad snr in Syria were ferocious when dealing with Islamic fundamentalists of all kinds.
Fast forward to the recent ISIS attacks in Paris and we find David Cameron emulating his hero Tony Blair by pushing legislation through parliament which in normal times would be poured over and the fine detail pondered and criticised by MPs and sections of the MSM media. Is it any wonder the Chilcot Report has not been published when it's absence gives our heartless prime minister an opportunity to behave like this.
As Frankie Boyle wrote yesterday:
Fast forward to the recent ISIS attacks in Paris and we find David Cameron emulating his hero Tony Blair by pushing legislation through parliament which in normal times would be poured over and the fine detail pondered and criticised by MPs and sections of the MSM media. Is it any wonder the Chilcot Report has not been published when it's absence gives our heartless prime minister an opportunity to behave like this.
As Frankie Boyle wrote yesterday:
In times of crisis, we are made to feel we should scrutinise our government’s actions less closely, when surely that’s when we should pay closest attention. There’s a feeling that after an atrocity history and context become less relevant, when surely these are actually the worst times for a society to go on psychopathic autopilot. Our attitudes are fostered by a society built on ideas of dominance, where the solution to crises are force and action, rather than reflection and compromise.
In the last week alone Cameron has announced a 15% increase in the security and intelligence staff at M15, MI6 and GCHQ, which will mean approx 2000 new spook recruits. He has speeded up the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so called snoopers charter; which will give the security agencies new spying powers to poke around in citizens private lives.
On Monday he told parliament defence spending will rise by around 5% by 2020/21. Forty eight new F-35 fighter aircraft will be purchased from US company Lockheed Martin, and the army will have two new 'rapid strike brigades' made up of 5,000 soldiers.
He also made clear, despite this subject not having been properly debated in Parliament yet, that he will go ahead with the construction of four new Trident missile-carrying submarines, the capital cost of which has risen to £41billion, although CND claim the overall sum for replacing Trident will be nearer £100 billion.
Not having learnt a damn thing from the outcome of the UK participating in airstrikes on Libya, which helped overthrow the Qaddafi regime, he doesn't appear to feel any responsibility for the failed state, awash with ISIS, which Libya has become.
Yet despite this he now intends to rush the UK into an air-war with Syria. According to the mainstream media he plans to stage a quick Commons vote on extending airstrikes in Syria next week, saying he will make an oral statement to MPs this Thursday, and then ask them to consider his proposals over the weekend before going to a full debate and vote.
There is absolutely no need for this rush to war.
Such reckless behaviour proved disastrous for the Iraqi and Libyan people; and for the members of the UK military who had their lives stolen on a reactionary politician's whim.
Without an agreement between all of Syria's warring parties, the Assad regime, Russia, Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah, along with the Free Syrian Army and the host of smaller anti Assad militias, the US and its proxies like Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. If they reach an agreement it would need to be endorsed by a vote at the UN, thus making it legal and credible.
Without this all thought of UK participation in airstrikes should be taken off the agenda.
When you look at the middle-east today, and the West's responsibility for the hell hole much of it's become, one wonders if politicians like Cameron cannot even acknowledge invading Iraq caused the birth and rise of Isis. What is their master plan, could it be they wish to make the whole region one of failed states and permanent war? If they get their way will Nineteen Eighty Four become the reality of the age?
I will leave Frankie to sum up as his pen he far better than mine:
We’re always dealing with terror in retrospect – like stocking up on Imodium rather than reading the cooking instructions on your mini kievs. The truth is that modern governments sit at the head of a well-funded security apparatus. They are told that foreign military adventures put domestic populations at risk and they give them the thumbs up anyway. Charitably, the safety of their populations just aren’t of great concern to them. Realistically, domestic terrorist attacks play into their agenda: they allow them to grab ever more authoritarian powers with which to police their increasingly unequal and volatile societies. Of course, no one wants to believe that our government isn’t interested in our safety, just like everyone really wanted to believe that Jimmy Savile cared about whether kids got to meet Duran Duran.
No comments