Tag Archives: saudi arabia

Theresa May asked 5 times to condemn Saudi Arabia

Theresa May was in fact asked just once. She wasn’t even asked to condemn Saudi Arabia, just instead asked a generic question on why we supply arms to them. The first answer she gave was accepted. (You can read of one of her recent responses to the question of Saudi Arabia here)

Contrast this to Jeremy Corbyn who on Sunday was asked to condemn the IRA on the Sophie Ridge show on Sky News. He was asked 5 times to condemn the IRA. The answer he gave was a cerebral, intelligent one but the likely highly paid journalist couldn’t seem to grasp the answer, instead looking for a headline to give credence to her Sunday morning TV slot and sure enough it became headline news across all the major news networks and on anticipation will have likely made the front pages of some if not all of the right wing print media today. 

If you’re for Jeremy Corbyn you may wish to share this with anyone asking the question “Why does Jeremy Corbyn support the IRA?” If you’re against Jeremy Corbyn you may wish to read what follows to get a better understanding of his stance before you go believing everything you read and hear. 

Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the question “Do you condemn the IRA?” was thus; 

“I condemn the bombings” and when pushed again and again went on to say ‘I condemn all bombings and violence’

The very fact that his answer was not accepted five times was for the simple reason that Sophie Ridge wanted to hear Corbyn say ‘I condemn the IRA’ no matter the nuanced point he was making because asking the same emotive question again and again without getting the response you want makes a good headline. 

The question some will have is ‘why doesn’t Jeremy just condemn the IRA?’

Here’s the thing. You can absolutely, quite legitimately hate what the IRA did and how they conducted their campaign but their claim for a unified Ireland was a justified one and they represented whole communities within Ireland. To condemn the IRA as an entity implies you are for the loyalists in Northern Ireland and you would be picking a side. 

He unequivocally condemned the bombings, he does not support war and violence and did not support the IRA’s use of those tactics. It is this kind of understanding about grievances that makes the likes of Jeremy Corbyn incredibly suitable for leading the UK in international affairs. If anything it is the attitude of the UK at the time that helped prolong the violence on our shores. Our inability to listen to the other side for many years led to the deaths of countless people. Indeed, only the IRA can be blamed for the deaths of innocent people but when you’re trying to find a solution to conflict you must be willing to engage with the other side on a certain level. That is strong leadership rather than a reactionary one which seems to be always be courted by Conservative governments.

It’s also worth remembering the atrocities committed by the British Army and the treatment of the Irish in a time when they were seen as lesser people than in Northern Ireland. 

The IRA were supported in Ireland for their cause of unifying Ireland away from the UK, it was a legitimate claim and still is. No less than Scotland asking for independence. These are all the reasons Corbyn won’t outright condemn the IRA but will condemn their tactics. To condemn the IRA might be seen to condone the loyalists and condemning or condoning either side may have been, or may be, a dangerous stance to take. 

It needs to be asked why Theresa May and the Conservatives don’t get a hard time over Saudi Arabia. The troubles in Ireland ended quite some years ago now yet Saudi Arabia is in the here-and-now. 

Saudi Arabia bombs, often indiscriminately, children and adults in Yemen in a war that once again is a war over regime change, one that is backed by the West. Saudi Arabia have used old banned bombs supplied by the UK, they have bombed civilian water supplies and then when the rebels in Yemen respond by taking pot shots at Saudi Arabia the UK respond officially by stating that Saudi Arabia “has a right to defend itself” in response to Saudi Arabia throwing all its UK and American weaponary at the rebels in responseAdd to this that Saudi Arabia is well known for being an epicentre of Middle Eastern terrorism and has a terrible human rights record and you have to begin to think that by comparison the IRA were lightweights. How can you argue any different? 

Of course the response will be that Saudi Arabia isn’t bombing mainland UK. Of course, but what that says is that you’re ok with our hand in what Saudi Arabia is doing as we sell them multi million pound contracts in arms in exchange for alleged security information. You can not possibly condemn Jeremy Corbyn for taking a neutral stance on one issue and yet not condemn Theresa May for taking a biased corrupt stance towards the corrupt and human rights breaching Saudi Arabia. It’s two faced and a blot on the reputation of our nation and it’s a scandal. 

It seems Thersea May can’t see the irony of talking of humanitarian aid when the weapons that the UK sells to Saudi Arabia are the cause of the need to supply humanitarian aid in the first place. 

‘Asked about alleged human rights abuses by the country, Mrs May said it was an issue she would bring up and pledged Britain would continue supporting the people of Yemen through humanitarian aid.’ 

Source – ITV 

Yet the media seem to by-pass this issue. It’s a conundrum of epic proportions. 

You have to remember also that the centre ground Tony Blair government and the right wing Conservative governments have all had similar international policies when it comes to conflict and especially the Middle East. There is no question that the fall of Saddam Hussein led to the destabilisation of the entire Middle East and is still felt today in Syria and with ISIS. The very fact we have Extreme Islamic terrorists within Europe can be traced back to successive foreign policies that interfere with the delicate balance that is within the Middle East. 

So instead of asking why Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t condemn the IRA why aren’t you asking Theresa May why she doesn’t condemn Saudi Arabia and instead of insisting that Jeremy Corbyn is not strong on defence why aren’t you asking Thersea May why she insists on conducting a foreign policy that proliferates international terrorism, the very same terrorism that affect us today, not 20-30 years ago. 


Hillary Clinton knew Gulf States were funding ISIL. Did David Cameron know? 

In the last 24 hours news has been breaking around more leaked emails by Wikileaks again centering around US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The email shows that Hillary Clinton knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS.

In it Clinton says;

“..we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the government of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL..”

Wikileaks leaked Hillary Clinton email

The US press has been slow to pick up on the news and Hillary Clinton’s campaign are already shutting the door on the story. 

“The Clinton campaign today tried to (s)tamp down a mounting controversy over a newly disclosed, and potentially explosive, email in which the former secretary of state appeared to accuse the Saudi and Qatari governments of secretly funding the Islamic State”

– Yahoo News, article at this link 

Clinton’s campaign has gone so far as to blame a Russian cyber attack 

“…insisting it does not want to authenticate material that it and the U.S. government now believe came from a Russian state-sponsored cyberattack. The campaign would not say whether Clinton personally wrote the email, which reads like a position or policy paper, although it was sent from her private email account”

– Yahoo News, article at this link 

They claim it’s a ploy by Russia to help elect Donald Trump into the White House.

“These are hacked, stolen documents by the Russian government, which has weaponized WikiLeaks to help elect Donald Trump,” Glen Caplin, a senior Clinton campaign spokesman, told Yahoo News”  

– Yahoo News, article at this link 

Of course all this means that the constant denials about US involvement or knowledge of who is funding ISIS was a lie and to make matters worse both of these nations are meant to be our allies. We supply arms to these regimes in multi million dollar (and £) contracts and Currently Saudi Arabia is committing war crimes in Yemen with those weapons. 

Saudi has for a long while been known to be the originating country for Wahabbism, an extreme version of Islam which ISIS base their beliefs. It has previously been revealed in documentaries that Saudi funds some specialist religious schools in the UK. 

One article claims that Saudi Arabia has funded the Clinton presidential campaign and that Qatar has funded the Clinton Foundation 

“Maybe it has something to do with the fact that The Saudi’s brag about funding 20% of Hillary’s Presidential campaign, and along with Qatar, are among the largest donors to the CLINTON FOUNDATION”

– Article at the link 

It’s also pertinent to note that recent evidence hints at Saudi involvement in the Twin Towers attack on 9/11. 

This is an untenable situation for Hilary Clinton and the entire establishment. 

It also raises questions of David Cameron, former Prime Minister to the UK who did a deal with Saudi Arabia to ensure that Saudi got to the top of the Human Rights Council. The UK also sold arms to Saudi and it’s hard to imagine that David Cameron would not have also been aware of their involvement in state sanctioned terrorism. 

It also raises a final question of just who are we supporting in Syria? 

Hate Russia? Why It’s just a distraction. 

Russia is a threat to the national security of the UK, USA, Eastern Europe and.. Oh.. Let’s just throw in the entire globe, why not? After all, Russia is the awakened bear that is snarling it’s way through conflict after conflict. It’s human rights records are the worst second to none. Clearly. I heard it from David Cameron’s own mouth so it must be true. 

Which is the odd one out? China, Russia or Saudi Arabia? No, the answer is not Saudi Arabia. 

The answer is Russia. Why? Because Russia is consistently vilified in the press, consistently vilified by governments for all sorts of ills, inlcuding invading territories, it’s human rights record and it’s threat to national security. Yet neither China nor Saudi Arabia are afforded the same response. There is a reason I am including China and Saudi Arabia in this contrasting double standard and if it doesn’t convince you to question the narrative then you can have your proverbial money back. 
Recently we have seen many news articles coming out of China in relation to prominent businessmen going missing for weeks on end with no word of there whereabouts and more recently we saw the news that Chinese duel-national book writers living in Hong Kong have also gone missing, believed abducted by Chinese agents. 

Of course there is no evidence of this an there is no word on wether these enemies of the state are dead or alive or even just alive but tortured. 

Where else have we heard about such state interference? Litvinenko. The man that UK authorities have decided was murdered by poisoning on the order of the Kremlin. In fact they go beyond that and say that President Putin ‘probably’ ordered the ‘hit’. Note the word ‘probably’. Never mind that sections of the press have called into question the allegation as shown in this article and that prominent thinkers have ridiculed the UK decision to question the findings, the UK government are so convinced of Putins guilt that they have openly condemned Russian authorities in the press and lobbed these findings into statements on the ongoing ‘threat’ that Russia poses to world stability. 

Whilst this story relates to a death  on UK soil it would be amiss to think that espionage doesn’t occur in foreign countries at the hands of the UK secret service, especially in regions of the world that would command less scrutiny such as Afghanistan, Syria and so forth. It would also be amiss to not question the alleged actions of Chinese officials in Hong Kong against duel-nationals including nations such as Sweden. No such condemnation by the UK authorities on China’s actions. China is also not a threat to world stability so their actions probably don’t count in the minds of the UK government.

Is China not a threat to world stability though? Their actions in the South China Sea would seem to suggest otherwise. The tensions in the region are felt across the globe including countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Japan. Even the Americans have been testing their military resolve by flying fighter planes within the claimed borders of Chinese territory at the disputed islands. It’s not just the disputed islands either, it’s the artificial islands that China have built in what is meant to be international waters. 

Whilst there has been condemnation against China for its actions there has been little in the way of public media statements against the regime and certainly no ridiculing the state authorities. 

The same can be said for Saudi Arabia. The clear Shia/Sunni divide is clear and present with constant allegations against Saudi Arabia of Human rights violations against the  Shia minority population including recently where around 47 people were executed by the Saudi regime for acts of terrorism. One of those was a well known Shia civil rights activist and respected figure. 

Far from condemning such actions the UK government appear to support the Saudi Regime in its actions as shown in this video

Recently we have seen Saudi Arabia accused of Human Rights violations in Yemen yet no investigation is forthcoming. They are known to export terrorism to foreign nations such as Pakistan and even countries like the UK where special schools are funded to teach a specific type of Islam that certainly is not conducive to the public good. No actions from the UK government on this yet the Conservative PM, David Cameron, has the nerve to suggest the people who recognise these aspects of the Saudi reach across the world are terrorist sympathisers. 

Of course Saudi Arabia is heading a coalition of regional nations and factions of around 40 all of which are supporters of Sunni Muslims, something Iran sees as a direct threat to itself and its easy to see why. The amount of power that seems to be coming from Saudi Arabia seems to be growing of late, maybe it has something to do with the fact Saudi Arabia are currently at the head of the United Nations Human Rights council. The only reason they got to that position is thanks to a deal they reached with David Cameron. A “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch ours” type of deal. 

No such luxury for Russia as thanks to its involvement in Ukraine it has now been singled out as the greatest threat to world stability. This is not made up. Both the UK and US openly condemn Russia, openly criticise it’s every move and openly ridicule its leader. A leader with immense internal popularity. 

Ukraine is anything but black and white. The young populous of Ukraine want change, they want rid of corruption and see allegiance to the EU as opposed to Russia as far more democratic. They experienced Russian interference in Crimea, the far right trying to impose their will during maidan, a president fleeing in what was essentially a coup and a newly reformed government beset with corruption. Ukraine is essentially as it stands a largely local issue. Certainly not one that threatens world peace. More than anything right now it needs its parliament to be rid of the corruption blocking its progress. 

Russia didn’t do Its image any favours in Syria but it’s important to tell the truth, no matter how ugly that truth is. Russia were invited into Syria by an elected government. Everyone else that is in Syria was not, with the exception of Iran. Whether we like it or not, Russia had every right to assist assad against armed insurgents and jihadist groups, whom, as it happens were armed, trained and backed by the West. That is a fact admitted by politicians in the USA. 

Then you have civil rights issues such as LGBT issues. So often we here condemnation from UK authorities and spokespeople and even do-gooder activists but it’s important to recognise Saudi Arabia’s treatment of the gay community, they openly behead people for these ‘crimes’, and China doesn’t exactly welcome homosexuality either. Yet we focus consistently on Russia. Why? 

Russia is a deeply religious country, the church there still hold much sway in what happens in society far unlike anything here in the West. To think shaming Russia into changing its laws is fantasy land. Speaking out against it is commendable but we tend to be taransfixed with changing Russian society right down to asking for a Boycott of its Winter Olympics and its upcoming football World Cup. 

Although media talks of the same issues in China and Saudi Arabia it’s not with the same regularity and we rarely see anyone focus on the LGBT rights issues in African nation’s where often they make Saudi Arabia’s discrimination towards the gay community seem tame. 

Let us here in the UK also not forget our own place in all of this. Only in recent years have we allowed gay marriage. Only under Tony Blair was Section 28 repealed as installed by Margaret Thatcher in 1988. 

“Section 28, which became law in 1988, banned local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light. It became a totemic issue for Conservative modernisers. In 2003, when it was abolished by the Labour government, Mr Cameron voted for only the partial lifting of the ban.”

Section 28 is a very similar law to what Russia has implemented recently, which has caused the recent condemnation.

With only such a recent history of writing our wrongs how dare we act as the worlds police on Gay Rights issues and how dare we vilify Russia to such a degree at the clear expense of other far worse nations. 

We move finally to trade. We sanction Russia and prevent it from trading with certain nations amongst many other minor sanctions, the effects of which has had an effect on its economy at the expense of its people. 

Yet we allow China to dump steel at low prices in Europe, an illegal practice but do nothing. We offer huge UK contracts to build our railways and our new unclear power stations. 

We sell billions of pounds worth in arms to Saudi Arabia who then use those weapons in places like Yemen where a humanitarian crisis is occurring and thanks to the instability ISIS is threatening to expand. 

Is there not a huge glaring disparity with how we treat nations? It boils down to one thing. Trade with us, ally with us, work with us and we will never criticise you or belittle your leaders in public. 

If you’re against us or just simply don’t do what we ask of you.. Think Syria.. Then you make an enemy of us. That’s all this boils down to. 

There is no reasonable logic to why Russia is vilified the way it is. We may not like all that Russia does, we may criticise its actions and arguably rightly so, but when there are such glaring contradictions and the way we allow other nations to do as they please with impunity it makes it clear that the rhetoric against Russia is nothing but that, rhetoric. The government vilifies Russia to appease its allies. The US still fears the Red Commies, Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Russia and Ukraine wants to be part of Europe and we have no trade with Russia. It’s easy. Too easy to slate the Russian regime. 

Of course for much of the UK public it’s a green light to agree with the government and by into the anti Russia, anti Putin ideology. 

If as much pressure was applied by the public against the likes of Saudi Arabia or China it may be a more justified and righteous course of action. It’s easy to ridicule Russia, not so easy to ridicule a national ally. Try it, you might just help make a genuine difference. 

Ground offensive nears, Turkey and Saudi jostle for position as media sweet talks Assad

All roads lead here. There are growing signs that a ground offensive in Syria is very near and the ground work to ensure the public is on-side is being laid in the media. 

Today Sky News released a report that is written in a way unlike anything before it. Consider that the media has always shown Syria and its leader Assad in a negative light, the instigator, the one that must go above all else, the dictator that massacres his own people. 

Then consider the report from Sky News today. 

The report states: “The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said more than 100 rebel fighters have been killed in the government offensive launched (on Aleppo) on Monday.”

“More than 60 regime troops have also died in the operation, which has been backed by Russian airstrikes.

“..In the footage, fighters and residents waved the Syrian and Hezbollah flags, and some chanted pro-regime slogans, including “God, Syria, Bashar and nothing else,” in reference to Syrian president Bashar al Assad.”

“The two villages had been under attack by rebels since 2012 and reaching them has been a goal of the government, which has also sought to cut off key rebel supply routes into Aleppo.”

The report went to to talk of the Syrian Army in a positive light which clearly unusual. There is no suggestion that the reports of the crowds cheering their liberation are false. The article does not even try to refute this. 

(It should be noted that we first saw this article around 14.00 hours today near to the time this article was released. Since then the article has been updated at around 16.00 hours and it does appear to have been watered down somewhat in its original positivity towards Assad. However without visual proof of this it is hard for us to show you or prove this, all the same the article is still largely positive with the exception of a few seemingly added ‘comments’ from Turkey and the U.S.) 

The question initially arose “why would mainstream media begin reporting on Assad in a positive light?” 

Had America and its allies decided that backing Assad now will bring an end to the refugee crisis? Will it bring an end to the war far more quickly? It would, but then what’s in it for the US and its allies? After more than a year of arming and backing the rebels it would look odd now to start backing Assad. So how would you start supporting the regime in Syria without losing face?

Cue stories in the mainstream media of Syrian army success stories. Show them as liberators, then when the West starts backing the Syrian army the public will support the move and forget all about siding with the Rebels. 

But then something else came to light on reading further news coverage today. All signs point to a ground invasion, yes it’s been suggested for a while but this may be the closest we have come to it being a reality. The public have to be on-side with a ground offensive. Goverenments can’t afford for their people to second guess a ground invasion, after all certainly with the UK government it’s what people had been calling for instead of air strikes. David Cameron though had said that he would not send troops into Syria, that it would be left to regional forces. Well, he said Rebel forces but I think even he now recognises that it’s not going to happen with the collapse of the peace talks in Geneva. Perhaps a ground offensive by Western troops will be the only option but how to get around the public concern?

Build a narrative. Build a picture that actually shows the West supporting Assad in his fight against the rebels and ISIL forces. 

The heat has been turned up to resolve the crisis in Syria with the news today that Libya is fast becoming a recruiting ground for ISIL forces with estimated insurgents on the rise. Libya in case you hadn’t noticed has gone backwards in recent days and the fears are that there will after all be no peaceful solution to Libya. 

Add to that the fear that Afghanistan is also believed to be becoming more and more unstable and is also likely to become a heavy recruiting centre for ISIL, it’s now imperative that Syria is sorted, and quickly. 

There are one or two remaining factors to mention in all of this. Saudi Arabia and Turkey. 

Saudi Arabia today has openly stated it is ready to send in troops in a ground offensive and other reports suggest that Turkey is ready to send in troops from its side although it denies this. 

It is unclear though whether Turkey would be fighting against ISIL, Rebel forces the Syrian Army or Kurdish forces or a mix of all of them. Turkey is said to be outraged that the Syrian Army have displaced more Syrians from Aleppo today of which 70,000 are thought to be headed towards the Turkish border. Turkey though has been accused of allowing ISIL fighters safe passage via the key supply line between it and Aleppo, the very town that was liberated by the Syrian Army today. 

So what is Turkeys intention? Russia appears concerned. 

Of course Turkey is meant to be within NATO and part of the coalition forces, is Turkey about to go off script perhaps with the help of Saudi Arabia? Will the ground offensive be in the name of freeing towns from ISIL and in the process getting Russia on board? 

Or has a secret deal already been prepared in that the coalition will help liberate Syria from Rebel forces in exchange for Assad stepping down afterwards. This would allow all parties to save their reputations and the coalition getting exactly what they wanted, regime change. 

There are so many variables it is hard to pin point exactly how this will pan out but one thing is fairly certain, the ground offensive is very near and the narrative in the press has now changed. 

(Source links provided within the text above) 

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


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.

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?” 

Yemen… Stop Blinking!

Blink and you’ll miss it. I certainly did.

Today I read of the rocket attacks in Yemen and questioned why I hadn’t been keeping track of what was going on over there. You may only have heard anything about it when a wedding party was recently hit by Saudi airstrikes, so off I went to do a little research. 

What I found was yet another level of Western Hypocrisy that you may not be aware of. 

Just before I lay may cards out on the table let me just give a very quick pre amble. The following has to be read with one thought on the Syrian civil war and western intervention there. Then keep in mind who our allies are and which are not. With that said, here are some of the key points. 

The President of Yemen during previous elections was the only political candidate. Exactly like Assad of Syria. 


Yemen President – Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi
Yemen has one of the worst corruption records, ranking 164 out of 182 according to one index, not too dissimilar to Syria. 

Yemen had a financial crash which caused an uprising and riots.. Just like Syria. 

As a result of all this some of the army defected and formed rebel groups.. Exactly like Syria

So what’s different? 

In Syria the West along with its allies are there to (as has openly been stated) support the anti Assad Rebels. The West wants there to be a transition. To you and I that means deposing a leader of a foreign nation.  

In Yemen however Saudi Arabia along with its allies are there to (as has been openly stated) support the presidents regime. Saudi Arabia and the West wants there to be no transition. To you and I that means leaving the leader in place and destroying the Rebels. 

The reason for this has nothing to do with right or wrong. If it was then surely the actions in both countries would mirror each other to a large degree. It has though everything to do with control. The long game of America. 

We know we haven’t actually mentioned them until now but America is in Yemen allegedly Bombing ISIS but as we know from Syria they haven’t been doing a great job of it. 

Perhaps as is becoming clearer by the day this has nothing to do with ISIS but everything to do with plausible deniability of actions conducted in foreign nations. 

You see, Yemen is what you call a puppet regime, one that has taken advice from and courted Saudi Arabia and the West including installing a set up known as federal government. 

Yemen allowed major reform of its nation at the behest of the UN via the ‘Negotiation Coalition’ after the coup. 

To keep it that way, it must be protected. 

When you compare the two situations in Syria and Yemen you can only come to one conclusion. That you are being fed a lie by the media via your governments. It’s time to look at what’s going on around us more than ever before.