empire watch, latest
Comments 12

British MPs want to defend al Qaeda in Syria, “enforce no fly zone” even if UN vetoes

threestooges

According to several articles in the Guardian, here and here and here, a number of Labour and Conservative MPs are arguing that Britain and other western nations should enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, even if the UN Security council vetoes the proposal. The two major advocates are Conservative Andrew Mitchell and Labour’s Jo Cox, but “at least fifty” Labour MPs, including shadow foreign secretary Hillary Benn, are said to be sympathetic.

Let’s be clear these stalwarts of democracy are suggesting British forces should – once again – break international law by entering Syrian air space without either Syrian invitation or a UN mandate. Nothing new there. But this time they are saying our forces should enforce a no-fly zone, which would mean engaging, and likely shooting down, Russian aircraft bombing ISIS and “non-ISIS terrorists.”

Of course the MPs themselves don’t put it quite that way. They waffle in Westminster-speak about “safe havens” (Newspeak for no-flyzones), “saving lives” (Newspeak for western bombing), and “protecting civilians from Assad and ISIS”.They resurrect weasel-worded and discredited claims about “Assad killing more civilians than ISIS”. But there is no question this is what they are actually advocating. Here’s what Jo Cox, says:

I don’t think we as a party should let China and Russia stop international action to save lives in Syria … Three times they have vetoed action in Syria and each time the crisis has escalated and escalated.

I always back UN action where we can find it but I do not think it should be a limit to our help. There have been multiple UN resolutions that say [to] Assad: stop killing indiscriminately your own citizens.

This is not about escalating a conflict directly to take on Russia. This is is about a deterrence effect to stop the Syrian regime targeting their own civilians.

Let’s not bother to ask why Jo thinks Russia is stopping “international action to save lives”, by doing the very same thing the west claims it has been doing for a year – viz bombing terrorists. Let’s not bother asking why Jo thinks western-imposed no-fly zones “save lives”, when the latest example she has is Libya. Let’s just focus on her claim that such a no-fly zone would not be “about escalating a conflict directly to take on Russia.”

if Jo really thinks enforcing an illegal no-fly zone in Syria would not be about “taking on Russia” then Jo – apologies for the directness – is an idiot. If she believes this, Jo is so naively under-informed about the Syrian situation, and what a no-fly zone means, she has no business entering the debate. Someone needs to take her aside urgently and tell her that if the west really were to try and “enforce a no-fly zone” in Syria right now they would be shooting down the Russian planes on their bombing runs. Because that is what “enforcing a no-fly zone means”.

Someone should explain to Jo that Moscow would probably view that as “taking them on”. Jo needs to be told that Moscow would likely see this as a declaration of war, as indeed it would be under international law. Jo needs to be told Russia would have no choice but to retaliate, and that soon after this happened there would be an exchange of nuclear ICBMs that wiped out the entire human race – including Jo and all her chums.

And all in defence of al Qaeda.

By and large Jo would probably not consider that a good outcome.

The likelihood is this is just about trying to embarrass Jeremy Corbyn, because he has principles and is therefore anathema to most of political careerists. They want to make Corbyn look “weak” on Syria. They are advocating lunatic hawkishness they know they’ll never be in a position to put into practice, simply as a tactic.

But that is not an excuse. It does’t make such posturing sane. It just makes it cynical as well as crazy. The “fifty Labour MPs” threatening to vote for military action in Syria, if they exists beyond the Guardian’s imagination, are still living in the Blair days. Back then, while the US empire was riding high, “New Labour” grew used to being handsomely rewarded for supporting genocidal war crimes. It was the kewl way to be. It got them shed loads of cash, seats at the high table, and total immunity from recrimination or justice.

It seems some of them haven’t picked up that things are changing. Even the President of the empire is backing off from the final lunacy of starting WW3 to defend terrorism. But some of those dumb, greedy little puppets in Westminster didn’t get the memo.

They need to be told, and soon. Before their ignorant posturing does accidentally kick off something that can’t be stopped.

Maybe our readers would like to contact the principle names and ask them directly if they approve shooting down Russian planes in order to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. And while we’re about it, could they name those elusive “moderate rebels”; can they confirm they are talking about risking confrontation with Russia in defence of al Qaeda.


Contact information for those wanting to pursue the issues raised here:

Andrew Mitchell:
Email
andrew.mitchell.mp@parliament.uk

Jo Cox
Email:
jo.cox.mp@parliament.uk
Twitter:
@jo_cox1

Hillary Benn:
Email:
hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk
Twitter:
@hilarybennmp

We’d be interested to see any correspondence that ensues, so feel free to email anything you wish, or you can include us in tweets at @OffGuardian0


12 Comments

  1. Pingback: Sociopath Media report – October 12th, 2015 | Fort Russ

  2. It gets so much worse
    US Senate Hearing Discusses Using Refugees As Human Shields In Syria

    A recent US Senate hearing regarding Russia’s ongoing air campaign in Syria plumbed dark depths when it was actually proposed by retired US Army General John M. Keane that “free zones” be established for armed militants, and populated with refugees to deter Russian attacks. In essence, General Keane’s plan is to use refugees as human shields, and leverage any attack on this established “free zone” as a means of manipulating public opinion.

    The US Strategy Until Now

    The recent multinational anti-terror operation led by Russia at the request of the Syrian government has dealt the United States and its narrative regarding its own military intervention in Syria a severe blow.

    It has become abundantly clear that not only has the United States been arming and funding extremists inside of Syria, including groups operating in tandem with listed terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front, it also appears that the US has feigned its campaign against the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL).

    While the US now poses as determined to “defeat” ISIS in Syria, just last year talking points circulated about instead “containing” the terrorist organization within Syria – essentially letting it ravage the country, degrade the fighting capacity of the Syrian government and hopefully, lead to the collapse of Damascus.

    Within the pages of the Brookings Institution – a corporate-financier funded think-tank whose policymakers have helped engineer much of America’s plans now playing out on the global stage – was a report titled, “The Big Questions on ISIS.” It stated:

    Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future. The United States has no desire to build nations, and without a stable Middle East, terror groups will continue to find safe haven; if not in western Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Yemen or Somalia. The Middle East and Africa have no shortage of ungoverned or poorly governed territories. The current strategy of prolonged engagement, development and training of local militias, logistic support and air strikes against real targets may be the best solution after all.

    However, the instability the US claims ISIS is sustaining itself on was created by the US itself as it attempts to violently overthrow the Syrian government, intentionally dividing and destroying the country in the process. “Containing” ISIS in Syria is not unlike an assassin “containing” a poisonous snake under the covers of their sleeping victim until they are bitten and die.

    But as abhorrent as it is to create, unleash, and “contain” a terrorist threat within a targeted nation to ravage it, the US seems ready to stoop lower still.

    Using Refugees as Human Shields

    With Russia and its allies setting out to destroy all terrorist groups operating within Syria and making moves to cut them off from their foreign sponsors, the strategy of waging a proxy war as the US has been doing through Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and ISIS is no longer viable.

    At a recent US Senate hearing on Russian strategy and military operations, sitting US Senators, retired generals and representatives from various think-tanks and lobbying groups attempted to produce a response to Russia’s most recent move.

    Rather than interpreting Russia’s actions as a welcomed addition to the supposed “War on Terror,” the hearing appeared to interpret the entire Syrian conflict as a mere pawn in a wider proxy war Washington clearly believes it is waging against Moscow. Those attending the hearing admitted to the deterioration of American foreign policy, its global legitimacy and credibility, and the diminishing returns US State Department media operations are having worldwide.

    Using Refugees as Human Shields

    With Russia and its allies setting out to destroy all terrorist groups operating within Syria and making moves to cut them off from their foreign sponsors, the strategy of waging a proxy war as the US has been doing through Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and ISIS is no longer viable.

    At a recent US Senate hearing on Russian strategy and military operations, sitting US Senators, retired generals and representatives from various think-tanks and lobbying groups attempted to produce a response to Russia’s most recent move.

    Rather than interpreting Russia’s actions as a welcomed addition to the supposed “War on Terror,” the hearing appeared to interpret the entire Syrian conflict as a mere pawn in a wider proxy war Washington clearly believes it is waging against Moscow. Those attending the hearing admitted to the deterioration of American foreign policy, its global legitimacy and credibility, and the diminishing returns US State Department media operations are having worldwide.

    It should also be noted that America’s proposed “free zone” is located in precisely ISIS’ last remaining supply corridor leading from Turkey. Should Syrian and Russian forces finally seal off the border, ISIS’ fighting capacity within northern and eastern Syria would quickly collapse.

    An abominable proposition echoing through the halls of one of America’s highest institutions, met with either nodding heads or silent approval, portend the next chapter of American intervention in Syria.

    A Dangerous Policy Born of Desperation

    Keane’s testimony, provided by the official US Senate’s website (pdf), also includes the following points:

    Putin has begun a proxy war with the U.S. when Russian combat aircraft struck, continuously, moderate rebel forces trained by the CIA. This was no accident, targets were provided by the Syrian regime and they were accurate. How can the U.S. stand by and do nothing? U.S. military should have been given the mission to retaliate. Options likely to be considered among others: crater the Al Assad runway, establish free zones that are sanctuaries for refugees, strike Assad’s helicopter fleet that is barrel bombing, just to name a few.
    Similar testimony and agreement was also provided by retired US Marine Corps General and former USMC Commandant James Jones, as well as Heather Conley and Stephen Sestanovich representing a milieu of corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks. Their talking points can be heard echoing across the summation of American and European policy circles and in turn, repeated faithfully by the Western media.

    Besides American hegemony, what purpose would “cratering” Russia’s airbase in Syria serve? Would that aid in the battle against ISIS? Would it be worth triggering a potential war with Russia to protect militants the entire world has come to understand are in fact terrorists no different or any less dangerous than the ISIS threat itself?

    That US policymakers and politicians are not asking themselves these questions before they propose such “solutions” publicly gives the world some insight into the intellectual and moral deterioration taking place within America’s ruling elite itself – which has in turn directly fed the deterioration of American influence, power, and legitimacy globally.




    0



    0
  3. Mick McNulty says

    I think Cameron’s threat to Russia was part of the price for neo-con help in rigging our election in May. The rigging lacked subtlety and did not take into account the disparity between wiping out the despised Lib Dems while returning the even-more despised Tories with a majority of 17. And some Tories now say in interviews “we have a mandate”, which if you need to repeat it actually suggests you don’t. The UK is the neo-con’s bitch which is Israel’s bitch.




    0



    0
  4. Corbyn’s “party unity” at all costs line is looking more and more like a house built on shifting sands given these revenant Blairite dregs who are beneath contempt. The only “our bombs” will do crowd are a cancer so why does ‘democratic inclusiveness’ have to enable the ideologically deluded?




    0



    0
  5. dave P says

    Thanks for a great piece, and those timesaving email addresses. I’ll share what I send. I recommend different approaches to each recipient, though. Mitchell is a Tory and speaking for his boss, so he’s a lost cause. Cox is a sheep who probably doesn’t know where Syria is and was clearly put up to this by others with a pro-government agenda, and needs educating and reminding of which party she’s in. I’m not so convinced re Benn though: as a front-bencher his job is to represent his Party and support his leader. Is there evidence that he’s contemplating rebellion? It would be pretty outrageous. I did say within minutes of his appointment that he’s have to go, but even I wasn’t expecting anything this soon – I suspect this could be a Tory fabrication to make Labour look divided. I’ll eat my hat if there are 50 others ready to support this either.




    0



    0
  6. I think they have better find new script writters cause the ones they have hired from disneyland is really so revealling of how morally and intellectually bankrupt the neo-cons and the neo-liberals in the west are . Thje Mogharini said that the Eu is willing to find a political solution with Russia and Assad so Assad can clear the way for a pol;itical transition. Is int nice of her and her western cabalist . Syrians do not have a chioce in the matter. I think that these western minions of anglo-american lunatics should change their supplier of what ever they are smoking or putting up thier noses for it really sounds like they are on hulicinagens.Like the british sirforce or military aor defence ministry publicly tooting that they have thier permission to shoot down russian airplanes . Last I read of this is that Nato has just declared war on the Russian federation. Thank goodness the likes of Lavarov and Putin are statesman and not lunatic Fascist like their western counterparts. Lo Stato Corporato the manual of modern fascism written by the one and only Bennitto Mussolini these morons are taking it page by page on what Mussolini wrote The Corporate state has its tentacles on all facets of modern western society MSM education health economy. All werhave in the west at the moment is fear loathing xenaphobia an economy that is tanking infrastructure in bad need of upgrading adn al;l we get from our politicos is selling off public assets realestate asset bubbles and fiat monetary policy the rich get richer and the middle class get poorer. Yesterdays news gets wrapped in todays fish. Balfourt and picot accord is coming back to bite the west in the arse.




    0



    0
  7. Pingback: British MPs want to defend al Qaeda in Syria, “enforce no fly zone” even if UN vetoes | Aussiedlerbetreuung und Behinderten - Fragen

  8. Dear Sir,

    We have already been taken into one illegal war by the previous leader of the Labour Party, which many of us have still not forgiven the Labour Party for. Not content with giving the British people the middle finger and a big F U apparently you intend to invade a Sovereign states airspace, but plan to murder the soldiers trying to defend the Syrian people against the US sponsored al Qaeda and their sister group Jabhat a Nusra.

    These terrorists you wish to protect are the reason why so many Syrians have had to flee their homeland and also why so many of the refugees are adult males. The reason for this, is because if you are of fighting age you are given a stark choice: take up arms against the Assad Syrian Army or we will kill you as an enemy.

    Condoning the slaughter of innocent civilians then blaming Assad and the Syrian Arab Army is not only cowardly and vicious but also leaves you open to a UN prosecution for inciting terrorist activity in a foreign state and hopefully, an appearance before the Hague for Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes.

    The UN has already submitted an exhausting report on “the two improvised chemical munitions” used to bomb the eastern suburb of Ghouta, using illegal chemical weapons and has emphatically reiterated on pages 11 and again on page 28 of that report, that the “The US Government’s interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21st Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT”. A team of security and arms experts, met to discuss the matter concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions.

    In other words, the whole basis of Obama’s call for Assad to be removed was a lie he perpetuated in order to serve Washington’s interests and those of the UE/UK insofar as the west’s desire to stem Russia’s advance across Europe to Iran through Syria.

    If you choose to ignore the majority lead within the Labour Party on this matter of illegal bombing it is my fervent hope that you will resign your position within the Labour Party as soon as is practicable or as soon as any petition mounted can call for your resignation. The feeble and wholly transparent excuses you and your cohorts have offered are a disgrace both to the party and to the Syrian people whose needless deaths you will cause.

    Yours,

    Susan O’Neill




    0



    0
  9. Reblogged this on wgrovedotnet and commented:

    Sent emails to all three agents of death with details about the lie Obama used to kick start it via the misrepresentation of the UN report




    0



    0
    • You don’t have to be a Brit to tell them that, let them know what you think of them wherever you are from! Please?




      0



      0

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole