Dear Colleagues,
"War is communication by other means" Winston Churchill.
Obviously, the telephone approach made by Conservative Ministers to
Labour M.P.s in the UK parliament has been unsuccessful so far, as the
situation over bombing Syria as a solution to conquering terrorism and
removing President Assad as the elected president is not going down very
well. UK Prime Minister Cameron needs a substantial amount of votes as
a majority for the bombing, and until he feels that a substantial
majoriy has been secured, he won't put the motion before Parliament.
Hedoesn't want to get egg on his face (a loss of face in other words, if
the UK refuses to comply) as far as ISIS is concerned.
The debate is now turning on whether there should be a 3 line whip by
the Labour Leadership placed on its M.P.s to vote against bombing Syria,
or whether the vote should be left to the individual consciences of
M.P.s. The decision to go to war on ISIS is on a knife edge, and
Conservative strategy is obviously based on the individual conscience
approach, as that would appear to be the one most likely to
win...though, they would, at a pinch, support a 3 line whip if the
Labour whip was saying " Vote To Bomb Syria".
The Conservatives are also having trouble with individual consciences
in their own political party, and amongst certain sections of the
electorate, in that many people and organisations are not convinced that
Bombing Syria and removing Assad is quite the solution to terrorist
operations being conducted against the UK, or removing terrorism or the
sources of terrorism from the Middle East in general, although there
are, as always, a substantial amount of people, vested interests and
think tanks who would support the goverment doing just that. Also,
there is a dilemma for Labour M.P.s who, if they don't obey the whip if
one is imposed, may find it difficult to get selected as an M.P. next
time, or be censored by their constituency management teams who are on
the whole, against bombing Syria. This is called the "grass roots
support" argument. Individual conscience as a voting standard has its
consequences in politics and, because of the ramifications in the
future, can have a disastrous effect.
So far, apart from "getting our own back" or "teaching the terrorists a
lesson" our Conservative government hasn't got a solution, in my view.
The terrorists who carried out the massacre in France were ISIS, who
were trained or based in Iraq, mostly, with a few elements in parts of
Syria which they have taken over are now the enemy, now that Saddam
Hussien and his evil regime has disappeared, after the success of
"Mission Accomplished" and the removal of Iraq as a threat. ISIS,
Islamic State, or ISIl, was of course, formed out of the rump of ex
soldiers mainly Sunnis and other disgruntled Iraqis, who took over
northern Iraq, stole all the international gold and arms in Iraq, that
they could get their hands on, and, due to the campaign of mass bombing
and terror conducted by those nation states involved in the air strikes,
is increasingly appealing to stupid young Muslims from all over Europe,
some of whom, "brainwashed" by the "magnificent" war propoganda and
individual acts of heroism through beheading and murdering hostages
including helpers are rushing to support their brothers and comrades
against the Kaffir...i.e. us.
see url: https://cryptome.org/2015/11/abdelhamid-abaaoud.pdf
It is interesting to note that more Muslims, combatants, non-combatants
and ordinary civilians and citizens have been killed in a day by mass
bombings from nation states air forces, drones, missiles etc. than
western citizens have been killed in years by islaamic terrorists,
including 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
As the mass migration to Europe of Syrians and other persecuted Muslims
takes place due to the increased instability and greater likelyhood of
their being bombed to bits, moves by the Turkish and European politicans
to provide funding for preventative and containment measures are taking
place with the award of a couple of billion Euros by the EC to the
Turkish government to help them to secure their borders with Syria, stop
terrorists getting access to Syria, contain the migrants, build fences
and camps, and organising passes and means of transit, for migrants
passing through their country. In return for these measures, the
Turkish government, and remember that Turkey is mainly a Muslim country
with its own problems with Kurds and other freedom fighters struggling
for territory and a fair crack of the whip, are trying to negotiate
entry into the European Community so that they can improve their
standards of living and their trading arrangements and political
influence in Europe. European politicians, though broadly in favour of
such an event, due mainly to their lust for building a bigger empire and
bigger markets, have been forced to resist so far, due to the resistance
of their constituents, the democrats, the human rights activists, some
political parties and lobby groups and the lack of business and economic
management accountancy and controls, which at present exist in Turkey.
As yet, there has been no call for a regime change in Turkey. Turkey,
at the moment, is very volatile and there could be a change in
leadership to a more Muslim centred democracy or Islaamic state...
Russia, which is trying its darndest to struggle against regime change
in Syria by laying into the terrorists who are considered by the west to
be freedom and liberation fighters, and supported by them politically,
and by supplying military materiels, intelligence and other resources,
is not helping matters by allegedly flying into Turkish and NATO airspace.
Some of you, who are old enough, may remember the Cuban Crisis where the
old Soviet Union sent missiles to Cuba and opened bases for the purposes
of getting ready to retaliate on the US for surrounding the Soviet Union
with missile bases with nuclear missiles pointing at major Soviet
cities. One of those nuclear bases was in Turkey. This US strategy was
highly disconcerting to the Soviets, who were becoming convinced that
the US was getting ready to launch a nuclear war against them. As part
of the defeat of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in the crisis,
Kennedy quietly and secretly agreed to remove such US nuclear bases, as
he wanted to save face, even though it was more important than saving
the world from nuclear disaster. It appears that helping the Muslims in
the "saving of face" by caving in, is not just a Muslim or Arab
characteristic. A little bit of hubris does one good...
It is as well to remember that the policy of getting rid of an elected
premier or president of a country by force is against the rules and
spirit of the United Nations Charter and one which the UN will never
support. Hence, all the manoeuvering going on to avoid the UN getting
involved. One wonders what the peoples and establishments of the
Western world would think if the Chinese were to start promoting regime
change in the US or the UK or Europe by violent means...but there you
are...Perish the thought....:-) .
Maybe the world would be better off if we were to get rid of the United
Nations Charter, and the U.N. and human rights all together. It would
allow for more room for military action by the world's more aggressive
nation states and they wouldn't need to differentiate between one kind
of dictator or another.
ATB
Dougie.
