Tag Archives: isis

Hewer: Trump ‘Ban’ Worse Than 20 Years Of US Foreign Policy

One of the main questions on last night’s BBC Question Time was, as expected, around Donald Trump’s “immigration ban” and wether the Queen should revoke the invitation to him for a State visit.

Nick Hewer, presenter of Countdown and previous right hand man to Alan Sugar on the BBC’s ‘The Apprentice‘, went on a tirade about Trump’s policy indicating that the policy on Immigration will help galvanise terrorists against America.

He could not have got it more wrong despite quoting a man who is an “authority” on the subject. He said; 

“I don’t know how many people here have read Patrick Cockburn’s piece, a great journalist, who is recognised as being an authority on all this and said that “Trump has turned himself into the greatest recruiting sergeant for ISIL, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra” because, what he has done with that long winded signature of his is turn every Muslim in the world and questioned where they stand in the eyes of one of the greatest nations in the world and they think less of the States now and that inexorably leads to recruits joining (ISIS) rather than..fighting ISIS” 

– Nick Hewer, TV presenter

Nick Hewer – TV Presenter and Businessman

Patrick Cockburn is a one time Middle East correspondent for The Independent and a one time correspondent for Moscow and Washington and more recently a book writer on modern Iraq. He has also won several journalistic awards.

It’s puzzling then how such a statement can come from someone apparently so informed. Not only this but Hewer is clearly someone in bias-awe of the US.

Perhaps Cockburn has mindlessly forgotten that US foreign policy has seen the US overthrow several foreign leaders over the years of predominantly Muslim countries including Iraq and Libya, to name just two, both of which have led directly to the complete destabilisation of the entire Middle East which ultimately has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims. 

Perhaps he has forgotten that the US has illegaly targeted people in foreign nations using drones such as in Pakistan, or maybe he has forgotten that the US more recently decided to fight ISIS using other less evil Jihadist groups, through a proxy war in Syria, supplying them arms and providing them intelligence. Then gave up on them by admitting ‘defeat‘, as they see it, by Russia resulting in the defeat of the Jihadist rebels in Aleppo.

Patrick Cockburn – Book Writer and Journalist

What do you think all of that does for Anti West sentiment? But of course, Donald Trump’s temporary block on people from some high risk Muslim countries is seen by Cockburn as the greatest threat to world peace. Clearly Hewer agrees. This couldn’t be further from the truth but it is popular to be seen to condemn Trump regardless of the facts. 

This blog does not support Trump at all, but we also call out hyperbole when we see it, regardless who the hyperbole is against. 

There is though one more point to make around Hewer’s statement. The second half of his statement clearly implies, wether he meant it or not, that every Muslim is now capable of turning to terrorism because of Trumps policy. What on earth does that say for Muslims? 

We like to think that most right minded, sensible Muslims will respond in the right way, we don’t think that all Muslims will now consider terrorism as a response to a temporary block on travel. If you think that, it says more about your opinion of Muslims than anything. 

We think they will respond the way the previous speaker to Hewer did. An Iraqi Kurd in the audience who stated that it’s ‘up to the US what policy they introduce’ but politely pointed out that innocent people would be caught up in the new restrictions. 

That’s about the only response that should be given in the grand scheme of things, and it’s the only response we should expect. 

The real issues regarding US policy are coming down the track and some of those policies will lead to greater problems for the wider global Muslim community, and when that time comes we should not bury our heads like we have done for at least the last 20 years.

Advertisements

8 Point Guide to Muslim Terrorists

Muslim Terrorists: Your 8 point guide

1. The Paris bombers, the Belgium bombers and today’s Brits charged with terrorism were nearly all Nationals of those respective countries. They all held passports of those respective countries. They were NOT refugees.

2. Even though the EU has an open border policy the UK and most other EU countries still have security checks where passports are checked. We still effectively have borders. You can’t just ‘walk in’ to the UK or other countries.

3. Even if the EU did not have an open border policy passports can be faked. You don’t need to be a refugee to enter a country illegally.

4. The single biggest religious group that is targeted by Muslim extremists is not Christianity, it is Islam. Around 80% of all ISIS deaths in the world are committed in places such as Iraq and up to around 4 other countries across the globe (none of which are in Europe) against Muslim populations.

5. Muslim Extremists are not following the popular belief of Islam and Islamic teachings. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance in the same way that Christianity teaches peace and tolerance. However, like the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK claim to be devout Christians, no one would claim they follow the true meaning of Christianity just like no one with an ounce of intelligence would or should suggest that Extremists follow the true teachings of Islam. In fact the extremists use the teachings of Wahabbism, an extreme bastardised version of Islam originally taught and still exported to this day from Saudi Arabia with whom the British government is close allies with and sells millions of pounds worth of weapons to.

6. Claiming that the left wing political supporters have allowed the EU bombings to take place by being too accepting of refugees and foreigners is null and void when you consider that actually it’s the right wing political supporters that have backed the Conservative government in their clear drive against the refugees. Yet it’s this very government which is close allies with Saudi Arabia as mentioned above and has deposed two and a would-be deposed third world leader in the name of democracy which has DIRECTLY led to increased terrorism within the EU. Who’s to blame here? Other countries that have not been involved in any way have not been bothered by international terrorists such as ISIS.

7. Some people say the EU bombings are too much and start talking of actions against Muslims and refugees yet where was the anti Irish sentiment during the IRA peak years? No one was calling for Irish people to be deported or arrested at the drop of a hat and they committed far more destruction on the Streets of Britian than IS ever has.

8. Muslims hate ISIS and the people that associate themselves with ISIS and they do come out and say it. The media though rarely covers it. Look hard enough however and you will find the stories covering it.

Share this to someone who needs educating.

Is Saudi Arabia trying to ethnically cleanse the Shia Houthi rebels?

YEMEN CONFLICT: WHY ARE WE SUPPORTING CONSTANT CONFLICT AGAINST THE SHIA PEOPLE?

We know Wikipedia is open to abuse. It’s also fair to say that it is well maintained and mistakes or falsified information are often quickly corrected. 

We have read through almost the entire section on the current Yemen conflict and see it as a very accurate representation. We believe it is clear and concise and will help you come to your own conclusion. (We have linked the article below and also to a video we think you will want to see where Kawczynski, Tory MP shares his views on Saudi Arabia)

Our conclusion, as if we doubted our own original understanding of the conflict shows that it is primarily a Shia/Sunni civil war. The historical background to the war shows that far from being some kind of Coup (also some will call it that) against a legitimate government there has been back and forth between the rebels (revolutionary committee) and the government forces for years. With peace agreements made and dispensed with in equal measure. 

What appears to be apparent is that the ruler and western recognised legitimate president of Yemen, Hadi, was a tyrant and corrupt. The entire revolution and purpose for the Houthi Revolution was to try and bring equality to the Shia minority. The previous president, popular with the Shia minority may not have been perfect but he did unite North and South Yemen. 

Situation in Yemen. Link to Wiki article below
 
This should be a clear case of a civil war and revolution as the Yemeni rebels saw it. They are not a small group. They are not unrepresentative.
 
However, Saudi Arabia and its coalition does not see it that way. As such, Yemen, where it once should have been a reasonably peaceful revolutionary takeover (or Coup) is now a new hot-bed for ISIS, and bloodshed for over 6,000 civilians largely in part due to Saudi Arabia’s (alleged) war crimes. 

When you hear the reports on TV there is no mention or suggestion that what Saudi Arabia and its allies are doing is wrong. Including the support the US and Britain is providing. 

Yet again though it follows a pattern. Any kind of Shia uprising or ‘equality drive’ is met with resistance, primarily from Saudi Arabia (the 47 executions being just one drop in the ocean of an example) but also with full support by the UK and US. 

If you haven’t heard what the Conservative select affairs committee MP, Kawczynski, thinks of the recent Saudi executions, we suggest you familiarise yourself here  before reading the full wikipedia article here

It does beg the question, If Saudi Arabia has no good apparent reason for going to war in Yemen against the Houthi rebels, then what is their aim? 

They are destroying Yemen with scant regard and it would be in their interest no doubt to cleanse as many (Shia) Houthi rebels from Yemen to allow the return of the Sunni president Hadi. In that sense it would not be unrealistic to suggest we are turning a blind eye and in some cases assisting in ethnic cleansing. Something the foreign affairs select committee seems to believe Assad is doing in Syria, and we don’t like him.

Is Syria simply good Vs bad? Civilians under siege. 

Is the war in Syria simply a case of good Vs bad? 

The report via the BBC at the link below gives details on civilians starving and besieged by various groups in various locations in Syria.  
In one city around 200,000 are besieged by ISIS and in various other towns thousands of civilians are held by Al Nusra. In one other city another 200,000 are besieged by government forces which is a stronghold for rebel groups. 

Whilst the region waits for more peace talks the fighting continues. The Western backed rebels hold onto civilian cities which is helping to encourage the Syrian army to keep the cities besieged. 

It would be easy to condemn the Syrian government for allowing the people to starve and no doubt they are culpable in many ways, we must though suspect that the rebel groups would benefit from ensuring no aid got through in any case. All the whilst people suffer and it’s the Syrian army doing the attacking, the more sympathy the rebels will gain. 

There has been anecdotal evidence to suggest that the rebels have in some cases used civilians as human shields. It wouldn’t be a great leap to imagine this may indeed be happening.

What is Assad to do? Leader of the nation and faced with rebel groups attacking his forces from within the civilian population. Whilst there is no doubt that Assad could and should do more to help the civilians and should answer for any war crimes that may have been committed it’s also important to realise that he can’t just ‘leave it’ and allow the rebels free reign. Would any other president of any other nation? Assad also knows that these rebels are Western backed. It’s an invasion by any other name. 

This is why it’s important to leave revolutions and uprisings to the people of individual nations. Foreign interference muddies the waters and no longer makes it about revolution but instead makes it something far more sinister. 

This is by no means a defence of Assad but more of a way to ask you to not take what the media says at face value. 

Anyone who has seen the film ‘Bitter Lake’ will contest to the reality that what we are seeing is a narrative, again, of plain and simple ‘good vs bad’ just like in Aghanistan when the complexity of the situation makes it anything but ‘good Vs bad’.

If it is about good vs bad, are we so sure we are on the good side?

Article on numbers besieged

The one question all politicians must answer. Who?

Our leaders are meant to protect us. We entrust that our leaders will make the correct choices and make rational judgements. 

Why then are we in a situation where we are using the Paris atrocity as a reason to go into Syria militarily? The reason is because IS are in Syria, but IS have been in Syria for well over a year so why now? If you have watched the wall to wall media coverage recently you will realise that it’s in large part down to the idea that IS terrorists have infiltrated our borders via the migrant crisis and that they are all heading this way en mass. 

Not one of the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks have been shown to have come from Syria. Not one has been proven to have come via the migrant crisis. In fact every identified terrorist so far has been proven to be either a French or Belgium national. So why are we pushing to go to war in Syria? 

Yet again the people will have been duped into supporting more Bombs and more war and in the process creating more terrorists. History tells us that intervention in the Middle East ends the same way, more or less, each and every time. 

“The terrorists” already have british and U.S. weapons and vehicles. Going back until at least the middle of the 1990’s and beyond the West has been supplying and training “moderate” groups in the Middle East, to be used as proxies in our own interests and each and every time it has backfired on the West immensely. The most obvious example is Al Qaeda. Trained and armed by the U.S. When Iraq became a waste ground after the second Iraq war a group broke off from Al Qaeda and took many of the West’s weapons and vehicles and started their own organisation in their own vision. Their name? ISIS.

ISIS began their deadly assault across Iraq and it was quite some time before the West realised what was happening on the ground and soon it became apparent that IS were heading towards Syria. Syria was already in the midst of a civil war. Rebel groups there had decided that they did not want the Assad regime any longer. However it soon became apparent that other moderate terrorist groups were infiltrating the rebels including the likes of al-Nusra. The concern at the time was that IS would soon infiltrate these groups and recruit the rebels. 

Even prior to IS reaching Syria the West had been warning that IS posed the ‘single greatest threat to world stability’ and that they were ruthless and their numbers were growing day in day out, at one point figures were being quoted as the grip being 10,000 strong, possibly many more. We in the West were left in no doubt that IS were the most dangerous terrorist organisation we had ever faced. 

If anyone can recall, the efforts to stop them reaching Syria was quite frankly pathetic. The U.S. claimed they had started to Bomb them from the air and the Iraq forces were mobilised to try and stop them on the ground. They all failed. Having seemingly not even dented their numbers nor their resolve. Remember, this group were the single greatest threat to world stability and we had the access to Iraq and the permission of the Iraqi (puppet) government to be there. The efforts were paltry. 

At some stage IS entered Syria and the chance was gone. Fear not, the US and its allies promised they would follow IS into Syria and destroy them. The civil war continued but over a year and a half later.. Where are we? 

The U.S. has admitted that it is there in part to see that Assad is removed from power for his barbarous behaviour towards his people and that they have been funding and arming moderate rebel groups to fight the Assad regime. When this was discovered the US claimed they would pull the plug on the funding. Recall earlier we mentioned that these groups had been infiltrate by terrorist organisations but that didn’t seem to concern the US. As a side issue, IS remained in Syria, barely touched. What had the US been doing for a year and a half? 

Then of course Russia stepped in and within a couple of months has done more damage, along with the Kurds and support of the Iranians, to IS than America has done in the past year and a half. Think about that. How can that possibly be? 

We must not forget that if the US had been targeting just IS it is possible that the threat of European home grown terrorism would have been stifled. That the Paris attacks this year may never have happened. That intervention would have been legal. To look to tackle Assad though and to be in Syria for that purpose is against international law. Regardless of what you may think of Assad himself. Don’t be fooled. There are plenty of dictators around the world we could tackle but don’t and likely never will. 

What though does all this have to do with our intervention now? Surely tackling IS now is the way forward if everyone is on the same page. As Frankie Boyle put it, tackling IS by Bombing them is akin to dealing with a wasps nest by hitting it with a stick. If anything what you will be doing is making those bees far more angry and dispersing them.. Perhaps across Europe. 

If history in the Middle East has taught us anything it’s this; our strategy fails every single time. 

Afghanistan was a long war. The West lost plenty of troops. They said it could be another Vietnam. Unwinnable. The troops have all but left yet recent reports suggest the Taliban are beginning to take back ground and push the countries military back. Will this war have been for nothing? 

Don’t be fooled by Iraq either, it’s currently the focus of the world but it’s got a long history and it’s almost certain that rebel groups will emerge once more when the dust settles. 

The Middle East is like water. You can put pressure on it however much you like, it will just displace somewhere else until the pressure is released.

So what of the French bombing runs  on Raqqa, Syria? 

The reports coming in from the French sorties on Raqqa have already said that in some cases “empty buildings” were hit, and in other reports that IS have fled Raqqa and gone to the next town/city. Bombs dropped for nothing. Some reports have suggested that their have either been “no” reported civilian casualties or there have been  “some” civilian casualties. Any civilian casualty is too much. Especially if you haven’t found your target. 

Let’s hope that’s not the case because that’s one of the things Assad was accused of doing ‘to his own people’ and one of the reasons why the US wants to remove Assad.

But it’s France, so it probably doesn’t matter. 

We also heard that Emwarzi (aka Jihadi John) and the leader of IS in Libya were killed by US drone strikes within days of each other. 

Apart from raising the question of, if you knew where these people are why haven’t you done more to tackle IS in the last year and a half.. Have we had that ‘confirmation’ of either kill yet? Considering it was never reported as being definite or was this just part of the effort to outdo Russia’s involvement?

On PMQ’s today Jeremy Corbyn asked David Cameron what he will do about the people, institutions and countries that are funding and supporting IS. David Cameron said that it was banks “that had been taken over” by IS, the oil depos “that had been taken over by IS” that needed to be dealt with but did not address in any way whatsoever the question of countries or states that are supporting IS. Putin recently stated the same thing as Jeremy Corbyn, in fact he went further, citing the same charge but far more directly. This is not a coincidence. Someone is arming and funding IS. It’s high time the British people asked the question, “Who?”. 

It’s also high time the victims of the French terror attacks also asked the question, “Who?”

Syria is a mess and as sure as night follows day and day follows night this isn’t going to end well for someone and the effects of our actions today will continue to reverberate through generations of confused Middle Eastern citizens. One day they too will ask the same question we should be asking now. “Who?” 

Paris is our legacy

Have our military actions abroad made the UK or America any safer today? How about France? Are the French safe now? 

  

If the West had not spent the past year and a half messing around in Syria, illegally arming and backing moderate terrorists…Sorry… Rebels.. in an attempt to overthrow the Assad regime then maybe, just maybe ISIS wouldn’t have been able to carry out its atrocity in Paris last night.  

In other news this morning that you may have missed members of the Afghanistan army are beginning to defect to the Taliban taking their weapons with them. Dozens have already done so. You can read the story here. The reason for entering Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack on America was allegedly due to The Taliban providing refuge to Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda. 

Years later many British and American troops have lost their lives in “the war on terror” along with countless civilians and Afghan forces. Now it seems it may all be for nothing. 

Back on 20th October the Taliban took back a stronghold from the British in Helmund as reported here with the headline “security unravels” 

Perhaps though this will suit the Americans and the British. As no progress has been made in Syria and the West is losing face to the Russian and Kurdish forces perhaps their attention will be drawn to Afghanistan and they will use that as their get out (of Syria) clause and if that happens then the West will be engaged on four fronts in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, not to mention our intervention in Libya. 

It’s sometimes easy to forget the incredible mess that the Middle Easy is in. 

Take the Kurdish forces for example, having recently taken back a town in Syria from ISIS they are clearly intent on ridding the region of ISIS yet Turkey is targeting the Kurds in more ways than one, including previousley using American weapons on the Kurds which were originally provided to them to fight ISIS. 

Yet Turkey are the allies of the West. 

Think about that whole scenario for a moment. Our allies are targeting other allies using weapons provided by other allies. 

  
Then of course you have the issues surrounding the terrorists..Oops there we go again…rebels..in Syria fighting Assad. The US admitted they have funded the rebels to the tune of $500Million to take on Assad and as we have already touched upon, this has allowed ISIS to gain strength, uninpeded for more than a year. Yet the moment Russia stepped in, at the legal request of the elected Syrian president and directly took on ISIS, the West announced that Russia was in fact “aggressive” that they have made Syria “unsafe” (because the countless countries already there illegally along with the rebels, ISIS and Assad’s own troops weren’t already making the place ‘unsafe’) and that Russia was “the single greatest threat” to the U.S. 

Not ISIS then? 

Of course the US so far have refused to work with Russia to defeat ISIS as they are incensed that they are also supporting the elected ruler of the country to remain in power.  

Peace talks are ongoing.. without President Assad.. and Saudi Arabia appear to be calling some of the shots by suggesting that for there to be peace Assad must go and Iran must withdraw from Syria (Iran is providing support to Assad also). 

Saudi Arabia. That bastion of human rights. The same Saudi Arabia that recently was heading up the Human Right Council thanks to the backing of David Cameron who admitted on air that the reason for “the deal” was because Saudi Arabia provides “valuable intelligence” for our security. Shame they didn’t see Paris coming. 

Of course this doesn’t touch on Saudi Arabia’s export of terrorism. Wahabbism. The origins of ISIS. 

If there is one thing that is very apparent it’s this; The world is far more unsafe now that Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Gaddafi (and soon Assad?) have been dispatched from their seats of power. The void they have left has not only given rise to ISIS but also paved the way for last nights terror attack in Paris. 

You can bet your last dime or penny on one thing, the war hawks will right now be deciding on what their next move will be. Whatever decision they make, it won’t be made listening to the public. 

1 Million people marching against the Iraq war only to be ignored was proof of that.

Our advice for what it’s worth? If you can’t bring yourselves to join with Russia and the Kurds and destroy ISIS and prevent another possible terror attack on a major Western City then get out of the Middle East, withdraw all troops before we make yet another catatsrophic mistake. 

  
Every action the West has done, especially over the past 15-20 years has led to this moment. There can be no doubt. Few though will admit it, instead they want nothing but war and that’s exactly where our leaders want to take us at our peril. 

The one thing we haven’t tried over the past 15-20 years is keeping our noses out. 

On a final note for those that may say 9/11 occurred when “we hadn’t done anything to them”. The interference of Middle Eastern politics goes back a long time, to the Afghan War when the British and Russians forst fought for control of the rebel groups of the time by providing them weapons. Sound familiar? Finally the first Iraq War in the mid 1990’s. Anyone with a good memory will recall what a mess we left Iraq in at the time. The people suffered as a result. We bred terrorists. 

There is little doubt that religious fundamentalism does play its part, but what you don’t do is feed that fundamentalism. 

Nothing we have done for the past 15-20 years+ has worked. It has not achieved anything of any benefit to anyone. 

How long before we wake up to the mess our own governments have created? 

France was recently declared in many quarters as the ‘New Britain’ to America. The ‘right hand’ country to the U.S. 

If we don’t wish to reap, let us not sow any more. 

Hypocrisy Exposes U.S real target in Syria. (..and It’s not ISIS) 

Dr. Johnathan Eyal

 
Dr Jonathan Eyal is the International Director and International Studies Director at RUSI (Royal United Services Institute, an Independent think tank engaged in cutting edge defence and security research). He is Oxford educated to masters degree (with distinction)  in International Law and Relations and he Previously  advised the government on the former Yugoslavia.

 
Now you know who he is, we can now begin our thought process.

 
Dr Jonathan Eyal said in an article yesterday (22/09/15) in the Telegraph (here) that Russia’s arrival in Syria was to send a signal to the West as the Russian SU-27 jets have ‘no military use against ISIL’ as neither ISIL nor the rebels possess any airpower. 

‘The SU-27 jets…have no military use against ISIL’

We wondered if there was a technical reason for that, so we dug around to see what the main use for a SU-27 jet would be, and primarily it appears the Jet is used in an Air Superiority role and a ‘multiroll’. 

Russian SU-27, Air superiority and Multiroll

We know that the US are flying Bombing missions in Syria so we wondered; ‘What planes were the US using and did they have a different purpose away from having an air superiority role and whom exactly were they targeting?’. 

Turns out that the U.S. are using F-16 fighter jets and they have exactly the same roles as the Russian SU-27’s. The US is also ‘officially’ targeting ISIL and has no current policy to attack Assad forces.

 

Via RT news: US planes begin bombing runs on ISIS in Syria

  

 

From the same RT article, Confirmation of bombing runs on ISIL in Syria by F-16’s
 
  
U.S F-16, Air superiority and Multiroll just like Russian SU-27

 

One article at the beginning of August even confirms that the U.S. is not targeting Assad forces

 

LA Times article: No ‘push’ on assad. The official line still to this day.
 (Article here)

So, here is the Question. If the Russian SU-27 jets have ‘no military use against ISIL‘… Then what is the US doing with jets that by our reckoning are pretty much the same? 

If Dr.Eyal is correct then all the planes involved now must be useless in the fight against ISIS and if that’s the case then the only other use they could have is an Air Superiority role and the only people that allegedly have planes in Syria to be superior against are….? President Assad’s forces. 

Seeing as ISIS won’t be standing in the middle of the road screaming ‘come and get me’ at the drones flying about the place, you have to think… there is no way the US and in turn the British (embedded into Allied forces), are going after ISIS now.

Most of you reading this will already know of or believe this to be the case anyway but for the general populous who don’t always like to view things from this angle it is at least one way of connecting the dots. 

The West has indeed declared an interest in wanting to get rid of Assad, that’s no secret, but we are not meant to have started yet. Going after Assad now is undemocratic, wrong and deceitful to the respective western populations. 

Dr Eyal is surely too clever to make a mistake because its his comment about the Russian fighter jets that has raised eyebrows here. 

He works closely with the UK government and you have to ask if this kind of comment in light of Russian forces now being in Syria, is just another way of making Russia look bad, because if Russia does react then the West is going to need every excuse in the book to retaliate. Repeating a lie that Russian Jets were only there to protect Assad against the West and not, after all, to tackle ISIS, would go some way in convincing the general public. 

Right now there is no will for a war amongst the people. Especially one of the magnitude that would involve Russia. 

Satellite image of Russian build up in Syria