Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

**سيف الله** · 08-29-2013

Salaam

Western governments and media are engaging in propaganda campaign to brainwash the public into getting (directly) involved in another war.

You cant make this up

.

However some do resist.

Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

I am moved to write what follows by a terrible feeling of powerlessness as the government of my country rushes towards a war for which it knows it has no mandate.

It appears that a decision has already been taken in Washington DC to launch some sort of attack on Syria. It also seems that the British government wishes to join in that attack. The House of Commons has been recalled but the behaviour of the Opposition Leader (and of the leader of the Liberal Democrats) suggests that they are not prepared to question this involvement with any vigour. If British people wish to oppose this bizarre and perilous adventure, it is therefore up to them to contact their MPs directly.

This posting is designed to help them to do so, calmly, reasonably, politely and logically while there is yet time. A decisive vote against British involvement is still quite possible, and would be an important demonstration of national maturity and responsibility, as well as a permanent check on the incurable enthusiasm of some politicians for war and its alleged glamour and glory.

Here are some arguments which you might wish to use, if and when (as I urge you to ) you contact your MP in the next two days.

It is being suggested (as it always is) that the planned attack will be precise, surgical, proportionate etc etc etc.

The truth is that nobody ever really knows the final consequence of any act of violence. Violence generally results in retaliation, which in this case might take many unpredictable forms.

Wars often begin with minor incidents, minor anyway to start with, which then bleed without ceasing until they have spread a vast red stain on much of the surface of the Earth. They are often begun on the basis of mistaken information, or indeed of lies. They are often begun by credulity, by emotionalism and by the failure of responsible persons to see through propaganda.

That is why thoughtful people hesitate greatly before even contemplating such acts, generally preferring to do them only in self-defence. When the violence involves a military attack on a sovereign country with which we are not at war, the matter is still more risky.

Precision warfare is a myth. On several occasions, supposedly super-accurate airstrikes on Libya resulted in the undisputed deaths of several entirely innocent people, including small children. Our attacks on Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis killed such dangerous persons as a make-up lady at Serbian national TV headquarters. If our concern is for the innocent, the launch of bombs and missiles is an odd way of showing it.

The moral clothing in which this attack is dressed is a mass of rags and tatters. The very same people demanding punishment for the Syrian state (including the discredited Anthony Blair) are those who defend or overlook the terrible mass killings by the Egyptian government. That government, which came to power in a blatant military coup, has - and I put this at its mildest – no more legitimacy than the government in Damascus. What is more, there is no dispute at all about who is responsible for the recent mass shootings of demonstrators in Egypt. Yet neither Washington nor London (who claim to be be to descry Syria's guilt by some sort of magic process) will even concede that a putsch has taken place in Cairo.

If we are outraged by governments that kill their own people, our outrage cannot be selective and aimed at only one government which does this. If it is selective, then it is false and has another purpose. What is that purpose? We are not told.

At the time of writing, the United Nations teams have barely begun their investigation into the episode. The Syrian government deny their involvement. There is no proof that they are lying. It is far from impossible to believe that the rebels have resorted to such weapons. In fact, it makes far more sense for them to have done so than for the Syrian government. That government has the upper hand in its civil war at present. It knows perfectly well that proof of its complicity in the use of poison gas will open it to attack. It also knows that such proof will remove the protection it has had up till now from the UN Security Council and the Russian-Chinese veto.

The rush to take action before those teams have reported is frighteningly reminiscent of the rush to attack Iraq, and the withdrawal of Hans Blix’s inspection teams from that country, which were of course on the point of discovering that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Governments simply cannot be trusted to act wisely or responsibly in such matters. They have repeatedly shown this in recent years. That is why we have a Parliament and a free press, to scrutinize and question such things. What is the rush? Why are we having the sentence first, and the evidence and the verdict afterwards? Mr Cameron should be told he cannot have his war until he has proof that it is justified, and until he can show that the actions that he plans are in the interests of this country.

Please do what you can, while you can. There are many honourable reasons for opposing this attack. Whether you are of the Left or Right, liberal or conservative, Christian, of another faith or without faith, patriot or internationalist, all can unite on the simple issues of preferring truth to falsehood, calm justice to wild, flailing vengeance , and careful deliberation to rush to judgement.

Please, do what you can to stop this.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

This video helps to understand how western propaganda systems work.

**سيف الله** · 09-05-2013

Salaam

Another comment piece, this this time referring to a specific technique of war propaganda.

Why They have to Drag Hitler into It - the Cult of the Good War

By Peter Hitchens

Here comes Hitler again, plus evil dictators in general, appeasement and the rest of the bits and pieces, board, dice, tokens, model ships and planes, and wads of other people’s money that are to be found in that much-loved Westminster and Washington DC board game, ‘How to Start a War’.

I was just wondering, on Sunday morning, how long it would be before Syria’s President Assad would be compared to Adolf Hitler, and the American Secretary of State John Kerry almost immediately obliged by saying Assad had ‘joined the list of Hitler and Hussein’ who had used evil chemical weapons. Alas, all kinds of countries have used these weapons. Many that never used them still made and stockpiled them. If the possession or use of chemical weapons is itself a crime, few major powers are clean. Winston Churchill’s own personal attitude to this matter is interesting, and characteristically robust, but does not fit too well with the ‘Assad as Hitler and Obama as Churchill’ narrative.

It was perhaps a pity that a picture of Mr Kerry, and his spouse, dining with the future Hitler-substitute Bashar Assad (and his spouse, once the subject of an admiring profile in ‘Vogue’, now withdrawn) swiftly emerged from the archives . But what is that greenish fluid they are all about be given to drink?

Perhaps it wasn’t a pity. I myself find the wild mood-swings of the leaders of the ‘West’ , in their attitudes towards foreign despots, very informative. Nicolae Ceausescu’s Order of the Bath springs to mind, not to mention the reunited German state’s belated vendetta against Erich Honecker, whom they had once entertained and met as a diplomatic partner. And of course the very-swiftly-forgotten protests over Deng Xiaoping ‘killing his own people' in Peking’s Tiananmen Square, and the amazing licence granted to Boris Yeltsin to do things (including ‘shelling his own parliament’) which we would never approve of if Vladimir Putin did them. Though perhaps the Egyptian ‘stabilisation government’ or Junta, might get away with it. I see they are now charging Muslim brotherhood figures with murder, and nobody is laughing. As for Robert Mugabe, where does one begin?

These wild mood-swings inform me that their current spasms of outrage are false, and that the reasons they give for their behaviour are not reasons but pretexts, thus encouraging us all to search for the real reason. Does it lie in them, and in their flawed characters - or in some object they privately have, but won’t openly discuss? Perhaps both.

Mr Kerry (whose public speaking style I once unkindly compared to chloroform, after witnessing him alienate and bore a huge theatre full of American Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, Tennessee) also proclaimed that ‘we’ (that is, the Executive of the US government) were ‘not going to lose’ the approaching vote on bombing Syria. This was delivered as a statement rather than a wish. Well, in that case, why hold the vote at all? I do think people should stop trying to influence votes by the stampede method, under which you persuade the more sheeplike voters that, by supporting you, they are just doing what everyone else is doing. Baaaa.

If you actually believe in debate, and people making up their minds on the basis of the arguments, this is surely an outrage. Of course, if you don’t actually believe in unpredictable votes, and cynically regard all this debate stuff as top-dressing for absolute power, then that’s another matter.

But Hitler always comes into this because he is part of a cult, the cult of the good war and the finest hour, one of whose branches is the cult of the nice bomb and the moral bomber.

According to the scriptures of this cult, a wicked dictator called Hitler was overcome by a brave and good democrat called Winston Churchill. Churchill triumphed at Dunkirk, and then fought Hitler to save the Jews from the Holocaust, also liberating Europe at D-Day, so that we all lived happily ever after. A group of people carrying umbrellas, called the ‘appeasers’ and led by a man called ‘Chamberlain’, wickedly opposed Churchill and gave in to Hitler at Munich. If it had not been for them, Hitler would have been seen for what he was, attacked and overthrown long before.

Regular readers of this weblog will know that this version of events contains some nuggets of truth – Hitler was evil and was defeated, Churchill had many noble qualities. Britain, though defeated on land in 1940, was not invaded. But they will also, I think, admit that a) it is far from complete and b) there are probably millions of people in Britain and the USA who believe something very similar to the above, about the events of 1938-45. This, alas, still influences their judgement when their leaders try to get them to go to war.

The most fanatical followers of this cult are, however, not just harmless members of a re-enactment society spending their weekends making ‘Boom!’ and ‘eeeee—ow!’ noises as they play with their Dinky toys and Airfix models in the attic.

They re-enact this myth in the form of actual red war, and are to be found among professional politicians in Britain and America. These initiates periodically choose a new person to take the role of ‘Hitler’. This can be almost anybody, including such minor figures as Manuel Noriega of Panama.

For, in the ritual of the Churchill cultists, the important thing is not who takes the part of Hitler, but who takes the part of Churchill, and who takes the part of Chamberlain.

And the smaller the would-be Churchills get, the smaller the alleged Hitlers get too. Note that, despite its many crimes against the laws of civilisation, the Chinese People’s Republic has never been called upon to play the part of Hitler, nor is it likely to be.

Invariably, the American or British leader calling for war imagines he is Churchill. Invariably, those who oppose the war are classified as appeasers and equated with ‘Chamberlain’. And invariably, the targeted dictator is classified as ‘Hitler’.

The awful truth of the Second World War is that it is much more complicated than that, that it was not fought to rescue the Jews (and largely failed to do so) and that many entirely innocent and harmless people did not experience it or its aftermath as ‘good’; also, that of its two principal victors (neither of whom was Britain, despite Churchill’s role) one, Stalin, was as evil a dictator was one might find in a long day’s search.

Which is why western schoolchildren learn little about the Soviet Army’s part in the defeat of the evil Hitler, or indeed about Churchill’s increasingly subservient, not to say appeasing , relationship with Stalin in the later years of the war. Or why so little is said about how slight Britain’s direct contact with the land forces of Nazi Germany was between 1940 and 1944. Let alone of the complex diplomacy which brought Britain into war with Germany in September 1939.

Let’s discuss some of this. Just before my recent journey to Berlin, I visited my favourite second hand bookshop in search of serendipity, and there found, in stout 1960s Penguin editions priced at three shillings and sixpence, a book I hadn’t read for years (A.J.P. Taylor’s ‘The Origins of the Second World war’ and a book I had never read but felt I should have done ,Len Deighton’s ‘Funeral in Berlin’).What could have been better travel reading, on a journey to Berlin undertaken close to the 74th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second Great War?

rest here

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

**Independent** · 09-05-2013

Originally Posted by Junon

Which is why western schoolchildren learn little about the Soviet Army’s part in the defeat of the evil Hitler

i think Hitchens is talking about his own schooldays, things have moved on.

Originally Posted by Junon

Invariably, the American or British leader calling for war imagines he is Churchill. Invariably, those who oppose the war are classified as appeasers and equated with ‘Chamberlain’. And invariably, the targeted dictator is classified as ‘Hitler’.

This is true - in the same way, the term 'genocide' is thrown around and used to describe situations which are not remotely genocidal (although they may be horrible).

I completely disagree with the commentators who call this 'appeasement'. Assad is fighting a civil war an d not on a path to invade anybody right now. What he is doing is evil, but comparisons with Hitler vastly underestimate just how exceptionally bad Hitler was.

**جوري** · 09-05-2013

Perhaps you should look for the definition of genocide the same way you google depleted uranium not being illegal and use your brain if it is functioning to assess for a change over say accepting what they tell you at face value!
You remind me of people who expect a patient to come with every text book definition of a disease in order to diagnose it when nothing presents like a textbook. Just idiots who read and nothing actually settles in their brain that enables them to distinguish one thing from another yet appear to everyone as smart for their ability to regurgitate!
Not everyone is buying what you're selling here, most everyone actually sees through the transparency of your charade!

best,

**WarriorforMarie** · 09-05-2013

Originally Posted by جوري

depeneds on your perspective -- adversity trains the soul, illuminates the mind, clarifies the thought processes and makes strong the body and sharp the mind, not sure what comes out of gluttony though.. at any rate, it is too early to tell, all empires decline and many don't rise again if they don't have a noble goal!

What is China's noble goal?

**جوري** · 09-05-2013

None I reckon but they work for what they earn instead of robbing under some inane slogan!

**WarriorforMarie** · 09-05-2013

Originally Posted by جوري

none i reckon but they work for what they earn instead of robbing under some inane slogan!

:d:d:d

**WarriorforMarie** · 09-05-2013

I'm sorry, that was suppose to be three grinning smiliees

**جوري** · 09-05-2013

I understand work ethics to be a challenge for many- yes!

**Karl** · 09-05-2013

Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie

What is China's noble goal?

China has a philosophy called "the long view", it has given up violence against other nations because it reasons that given enough time everybody will be Chinese, genetically speaking. Seems the Indians may have the same ideas too.

**Karl** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie

That sounds like an illadvised course of action. It is always preferable to have allies. Especially considering that all of the...kaffirs as you call them...are more powerful than the Middle Eastern Muslim countries. All of the major powers in the world are "kaffirs" and the only Muslim countries that even remotely resemble medium power status are Turkey, Indonesia, and Iran.

I suppose it depends on faith. The very early Christians were persecuted by the Romans and were slaughtered in droves, they did not fight the pagans just prayed to their Lord and died. Why? Because they did not want to be the slaves of Satan or Mars? They did not want power and dominion on Earth? They wanted to keep their soul pure and not full of darkness hatred and so on? So if Muslims join in the evil game with non Muslims will that save their souls?

**YusufNoor** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Karl

I suppose it depends on faith. The very early Christians were persecuted by the Romans and were slaughtered in droves, they did not fight the pagans just prayed to their Lord and died. Why? Because they did not want to be the slaves of Satan or Mars? They did not want power and dominion on Earth? They wanted to keep their soul pure and not full of darkness hatred and so on? So if Muslims join in the evil game with non Muslims will that save their souls?

that stuff about the early Christians is simply not true. no one of any intelligence believes it any more. there is no evidence to support it. there was sporadic episodes of persecutions, but most Romans could care two wits about the Christians. there were a few leaders of the Christians that lauded the idea "of dying like Jesus", but that's probably because Paul convinced them you couldn't "earn" salvation, unless you got yourself martyred.

Romans liked to enslave peoples who they conquered, those folks could see mass executions in the Circus (but you killed the men, you kept the women and children as slaves). Most Romans though Christians were just plain idiots who were trying to steal the God of the Jews. while they thought the Jews were foolish (just One God?? you nuts?), the Jews had "books" going back 1000 years. the Romans thought THAT was impressive! the Christians were just plain irritating, the big persecutions didn't come about 'till the 3rd Century. Romans loved to see conquered people die in the arena, but were less comfy with Christians letting their wives and children die (upsets the stomach). some persecution happened, but outside of Nero, not much till later. It's Catholic propaganda. (Everyone that's not Catholic is evil)

btw, THAT'S what we have now, Circuses. i would venture a guess that more people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than were Christians killed in the arena.

make dua, follow Qur'an and Sunnah.

**سيف الله** · 09-06-2013

Salaam

Just another update. Focusing more on the liberal ideology that has been constructed to give 'justification' for 'humanitarian intervention'.

Why do Sixties Peaceniks Turn into 21st Century Warmongers?

Now, and it’s one of the most interesting things in the world that this is so, in the more thoughtful regions of the Left, there’s a contrasting love for war and bombing, the Chicago School, as one might teasingly call it, of people who are inspired by the speech delivered by Anthony Blair in Chicago in April 1999. This was the one which justified dumping the 350 years of wisdom since the Peace of Westphalia had accepted that you didn’t interfere in foreign countries because you didn’t like the way they were governed.

This conclusion had been reached after the Thirty Years War had shown what happened when you *did* interfere on such grounds. Much of the continent looked like like a Hieronymus Bosch depiction of Hell.

I doubt if the Blair creature understood the implications of the words he recited to the Economic Club that evening. ( a good clear version can be read here http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html)

I have never believed that he understood what he was doing, domestically or internationally. But others did understand.

But the speech contains a beautiful, near-perfect example of the ‘Good War’ concept I wrote about yesterday, in which all our foes are versions of Hitler, and we are all versions of Churchill : ‘This is a just war, based not on any territorial ambitions but on values. We cannot let the evil of ethnic cleansing stand. We must not rest until it is reversed. We have learned twice before in this century that appeasement does not work. If we let an evil dictator range unchallenged, we will have to spill infinitely more blood and treasure to stop him later.’

Very little work has been done, in the years since, on the actual fate of Kosovo or on the real nature of the ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’ to whom we lent the airpower of the North Atlantic Treaty. It is my belief, from what I have read, that the outcome has not been an unmixed joy, especially for the Serbian minority and the Orthodox Christian heritage in that place, and that the KLA are not necessarily gentlemen. I also remain fascinated by the way in which the Yugoslav Federation could not be permitted to coexist with the rival federation of the EU (in a milder, slower way, the United Kingdom, and its one-time semi-detached but actually rather close relationship with Ireland has also been quietly loosened by devolution).

The real core of the speech lay elsewhere. It was a proclamation of the end of the Nation State: ‘Globalisation’ Mr Blair trilled ‘has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalisation is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon.

‘We live in a world where isolationism has ceased to have a reason to exist. By necessity we have to co-operate with each other across nations.

‘Many of our domestic problems are caused on the other side of the world. Financial instability in Asia destroys jobs in Chicago and in my own constituency in County Durham. Poverty in the Caribbean means more drugs on the streets in Washington and London. Conflict in the Balkans causes more refugees in Germany and here in the US. These problems can only be addressed by international co-operation.

‘We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not. We cannot refuse to participate in global markets if we want to prosper. We cannot ignore new political ideas in other counties if we want to innovate. We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure.

‘On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organising our international institutions.’

National sovereignty, a thing all previous British prime ministers had at least claimed to value, was now to be dismissed as ‘isolationism’ and ‘protectionism’. What had previously been normal was now redefined as a discredited dogma. Those who had for years seen Communism as the great revolutionary force in the world were now able to transfer their allegiance to a globalised, multicultural USA. That’s why you find so many Marxists cheering on the missiles.

These were the rules for intervention he set out.

‘Looking around the world there are many regimes that are undemocratic and engaged in barbarous acts. If we wanted to right every wrong that we see in the modern world then we would do little else than intervene in the affairs of other countries. We would not be able to cope.

‘So how do we decide when and whether to intervene. I think we need to bear in mind five major considerations

‘First, are we sure of our case? War is an imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian distress; but armed force is sometimes the only means of dealing with dictators. Second, have we exhausted all diplomatic options? We should always give peace every chance, as we have in the case of Kosovo. Third, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake? Fourth, are we prepared for the long term? In the past we talked too much of exit strategies. But having made a commitment we cannot simply walk away once the fight is over; better to stay with moderate numbers of troops than return for repeat performances with large numbers. And finally, do we have national interests involved? The mass expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo demanded the notice of the rest of the world. But it does make a difference that this is taking place in such a combustible part of Europe.’

Personally I find these rules rather incoherent. But have his heirs and successors even abided by them, especially on the questions of prudence, and of staying to see the matter through? Were they really observed at the time? Were such things as the Rambouillet accords on Yugoslavia (which no sovereign government could possibly have accepted) a real attempt to exhaust all diplomatic options? Have Britain and the USA seriously attempted to pursue peace in Syria? Who judges?

Well, here’s a intervention backed by the Chicago School, the one we engineered in Libya, by claiming (as in Kosovo and as in Syria) to be acting to prevent a massacre. I’ve always thought evidence of the likelihood of this massacre was in rather short supply, but leave that aside.

How is Libya getting on, since our humanitarian intervention? I’ve mentioned elsewhere the failed attempt by our supposed friends to kill the British ambassador, and their successful attempt to kill the US ambassador. I’ve mentioned their desecration of a British war cemetery in Benghazi, with special attention paid to smashing the gravestones of Jewish soldiers.

But, as so often if you want to know what’s really going on in the world, you need to turn to the work of that peerless foreign correspondent, Patrick Cockburn of the Independent, who keeps an eye on these liberated zones, after most people have gone. Read his article on today's Libya here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html?origin=internalSearch

One particularly striking fact is this – that ‘Free Libya’, actually an oil producing state, is now importing oil to keep its power stations going because production has almost completely stopped. I remember a similar paradox in Iraq during my visits there after the invasion, with immense queues at the petrol stations.

invasion has , it seems to me, made things worse. Muammar Gadaffi was without doubt a wicked tyrant, and more than a little unhinged. But why did anyone think that, by overthrowing him, they could guarantee that his successors would be better? The same dim vision seems to inform those who wish to overthrow the Assad state in Syria. Can they guarantee that what follows will be better? Of course they cannot. Then how can they be so hot for action? And can President Obama (holder of the Nobel Peace Prize and, so far as I can recall, not elected on a platform of war-making in either 2008 or 2012)please make up his mind? Is his Syrian intervention a self-contained punitive strike, as we are told? Or is it in fact a plan for regime change, as the BBC reported he had told neo-conservative war enthusiasts? One or the other, but not both.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

**سيف الله** · 09-06-2013

Salaam

President Barack 'Yes we can!' Obama on red lines.

And now

Spot the difference!

Since the usual assortment of American (and by extension western) moralists are getting worked up over Assads use of chemicals weapons. Let's look at Americas past record on its use and reaction to the use of 'chemical' weapons.

Lets start with the Vietnam war.

300pxUSHueyhelicoptersprayingAgentOrange 1 - Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

300pxUSHueyhelicoptersprayingAgentOrange 1 - Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

The Americans extensively used Agent orange as a defoliant between 1961 and 1971. The total cost in human lives during and after the war has been 400000 killed or maimed and 500000 born with birth defects. Courtcases has been brought (eg. by US veterans). The latest case in 2004 by Vietnamese victims was dismissed due to many factors chief being that America has sovereign immunity and its wasnt intended to be used against the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Vietnamese_victims_class_action_lawsu it_in_U.S._courts

A documentary on the effects of Agent Orange. Viewer discretion advised.

and a report on the current situation

Generation Orange: Heartbreaking portraits of Vietnamese children suffering from devastating effects of toxic herbicide sprayed by US Army 40 years ago

They were born decades after American forces had sprayed the herbicide dioxin Agent Orange in South Vietnam, but some children living in the region today continue to suffer from the horrifying effects of the chemical.

New York City-based photographer Brian Dricscoll traveled to Vietnam to document the everyday struggles of third generation Agent Orange victims battling dozens of serious ailments, physical deformities and mental disorders.

Driscoll was inspired to take up this difficult topic by his uncle, a Vietnam War veteran who may have been one of estimated 2.6 million U.S. soldiers believed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in the 1960s.

Rest of the story here, be warned disturbing images

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401378/Agent-Orange-Vietnamese-children-suffering-effects-herbicide-sprayed-US-Army-40-years-ago.html

But that's all ancient history so lets move on

The Iran Iraq war Saddam used Mustard gas against Iranian troops killing up to 100000. The American government reaction was to give Saddam a slap on the wrist and block UN action against Iraq. After the chemical weapons attack President Reagan blocks Congressional sanctions against Iraq. The UK who were more interested in doing business (among other things, selling him the equipment to manufacture chemical weapons) with their friend Saddam conveniently looked the other way as well.

This just in

Revealed: Britain Sold Nerve Gas Chemicals To Syria 10 Months After War Began

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, we can reveal today. Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago. President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action. The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime. Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.

Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.

He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.

“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.

“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?

“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.

“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.

“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.

“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”

Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.

“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.

“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”

Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld. The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black-by-zoltan-grossman.html

http://www.zcommunications.org/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-10-months-after-war-began-by-russell-findlay.html

http://kurdistantribune.com/2013/how-thatcher-helped-saddam-commit-genocide/

But again thats old hat. So lets get up to date.

Lets discuss the use of depleted Uranium used in Natos munitions in Iraq.

Though on this issue there is a different response from Western moralists namely silence. They care only for what the 'bad' guys do, not the 'good' guys.

Originally Posted by Independent

For once we are in agreement. I'm delighted at the result. In my view the UK and the US should not intervene unless they have a genuine consensus of backing from other Muslim states (even if unanimity is unlikely for obvious reasons). For instance, Gulf War 1 was a properly supported war with clear, justified objectives which were carried out to the letter (even to the extent of leaving Saddam in power).

The stuff in the UK media from some commentators talking about 'decline in world influence' is wrong. They fail to understand that world politics have changed. This decision by the UK government is a model for the future. The US will also begin to pick and choose its fights more carefully. Increasingly, they will only support allies rather than trying to be the world policeman. Once consent for this role has been lost, it can't be continued.

However, it looks like the US will still make some kind of gesture on Syria because they have said too much to back down.

On the first Gulf War I have a very different view to your 'rosy' view of that conflict put it mildly. If you want an 'alternative' view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fNtEmmTrJA

Just one point, they left Saddam in power because they wanted him to stay in power. Ideally they wanted the Saddam regime without Saddam but since you cant always get your own way you have to settle for second best. So they decided to maintain Saddam. And the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and its society during (and after) the war is hardly following the letter of the law.

And the UK has been in decline for many decades now ( Hear the latest from the G20? David Cameron has launched a passionate and lyrical defence of Britain’s history and culture after claims that Russia dismissed the UK as “a small island no one listens to”), which is not necessarily a bad thing, the weaker you are the more civilised you tend to behave. Contrast this with the rise of the USA. The more powerful it has become greater the danger to world peace, prosperity and happiness. Your reference to the US acting as a 'world policeman' is false and insult to the very idea of having a police, despite all their flaws. I think a mafia don is a far more appropriate way to describe how America acts on the world stage, it actually helps to explain why they act in seemingly irrational ways. Your last comment on Americas inability to 'back down' again demonstrates the logic of a mafia don.

Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie

It looks like many Republicans in the US are confusing their dislike for Obama as a need to prevent him from getting involved in Syria. They are also using the false assertion that the Syrian rebels are all associated with al-Qaeda. Sadly, because of the Iraq fiasco Americans in general seem reluctant to be involved overseas.

The more crass and despicable elements in America actually seem to be gleeful about the Syrian conflict going on and on because from their perspective it is "just a bunch of Muslims killing each other, no big deal"

I actually heard a jackass on the radio say this disgusting comment.

'Fiasco' an interesting use of words to describe the misery and death America unleashed on Iraq. I applaud the 'isolationist' sentiment that's building up in America. Personally wish Americans would take the Ron Paul approach and just mind their own business. Would be a major contribution to world peace.

**Independent** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Junon

On the first Gulf War I have a very different view to your 'rosy' view of that conflict put it mildly

The invasion of Kuwait by Saddam was very unusual. For perhaps the first time since WW2, a sovereign state was entirely wiped from the map. (In my view Tibet is an earlier example but not everyone accepts this.)

The great majority of other wars till that point had been versions of civil wars, albeit often with international proxy participation.

For that reason alone, Gulf War 1 was justified. It's also the reason why so many Muslim states joined the coalition. The events of Gulf War 2 have obscured and confused people's view of GW1 in a negative way.

Could a negotiated settlement been achieved? Saddam's first offer was completely unrealistic - basically, to solve all other territorial disputes in Israel, Syria and Lebanon before he would move out. There was absolutely no chance that this could be achieved and Saddam must have known that. This was not serious negotiation. Later he made a less demanding offer, but then reverted again to linking it with Palestine. After a certain point the military build up became self fulfilling and too difficult to stop.

Originally Posted by Junon

Just one point, they left Saddam in power because they wanted him to stay in power.

What evidence do you have for this? The reason why the Coalition did not invade Iraq was because the UN mandate did not permit it. This was discussed very publicly at the time. They were many US officials who wanted to continue while Saddam was plainly beaten. After the war ceased, the US plainly expected Saddam to be toppled by internal revolution, and they did what they could to encourage this. However, Saddam had preserved his elite Republican Guard from the fighting so he was able to suppress dissent again and survive. Saddam's unexpected survival was an embarrassment to the US, not an objective.

**Mustafa2012** · 09-06-2013

How can the very same countries that have been responsible for atrocities in Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, South America and Palestine etc. etc. and now after over 100,000 lives lost in Syria they talk about crossing the red line?

This is a so hypocitical.

What happened to the red line when they crossed it themselves?

**Independent** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012

This is a so hypocitical.

If you read down past the highly misleading headline on this article, you will see that the chemicals were in fact never actually exported.The initial permit was granted, but then stopped because of the sanctions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...a-8793642.html

The chemicals involved have legitimate industrial uses but, in the case of suspicions over Syria, it was correct to prevent the export.

**جوري** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012

How can the very same countries that have been responsible for atrocities in Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, South America and Palestine etc. etc. and now after over 100,000 lives lost in Syria they talk about crossing the red line?

This is a so hypocitical.

What happened to the red line when they crossed it themselves?

He already told you on the Mursi thread Their usage of chemical weapons is legal according to their law. What the others do however is illegal according to the same laws!

**IAmZamzam** · 09-06-2013

I came here so that I could spread around this link to a popular online petition: http://dontattacksyria.com/

I would also like to encourage all of my fellow Americans to email, tweet, and especially call up their local congresspeople. We need to latch onto them like a series of stubborn little dogs on a mailman’s route.

I don’t think anyone is disputing that it was a chemical weapons attack.

On the contrary that has *indeed* been disputed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et1NSxT1K4w (I don’t know how to embed videos in forum posts. An alternate link can be found here: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=64...BD336C2196AD17) Imagine that a few dead housewives in the same county of the U.S. happened to have remote traces of mustard and bleach on their skin and the papers started jumping to the conclusion that they’d been gassed to death by terrorists. You’d think your society had turned into a madhouse. Now I’m not saying that the video is valid—I don’t know enough about either chemistry or the chemical investigation to say—but I do know one thing:

Assad *shmassad*: Wikileaks has revealed the only true reason why the U.S. government cares one whit about Syria:

http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06...html#efmAcfAfB

And we already knew about the pipeline. And the ever diminishing supply of oil and other such resources on this planet which is making the hoarding of such things an increasing necessity. And about drinking buddy Israel’s stake in this game. *They’ve* got the goods, as well as lots of financial backing for ol’ Sam. In the end the energy companies (the lobbyists in general, to a fair extent) are always in charge. I don’t know who it was that first said that as long as war is profitable there will never be peace but he sure knew what he was talking about!

Call. Write. Sign. And don’t just follow the link. Feel free to find stuff, and think of stuff, on your own too.

**Independent** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by جوري

He already told you on the Mursi thread Their usage of chemical weapons is legal according to their law. What the others do however is illegal according to the same laws!

Incorrect, you seem to have trouble understanding English. I am opposed to chemical weapons anywhere and everywhere. But most of the examples you are quoting are not chemical weapons.

Back to the thread...

The example quoted by Mustafa2012 will be remembered from now on as a case of 'the UK exporting nerve gas to Syria', because people don't bother to read past the melodramatic headlines. Had this been a report on a Muslim state, similarly misrepresented, people would have been up in arms about it as another example of Islamophobia.

This also demonstrates once again that the supposedly controlled western media is in fact free enough to make mistakes of its own, even to the extent of incorrectly labelling the UK as a chemical weapons exporter. If the Uk government took this one to a lawyer I think they could sue for defamation and stand a good chance of winning. Meanwhile, the real culprits (Russia and Assad) don't get a mention.

**جوري** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Independent

Incorrect, you seem to have trouble understanding English. I am opposed to chemical weapons anywhere and everywhere. But most of the examples you are quoting are not chemical weapons.

My lack of understanding of English (per you) still can't trump your lack of understanding of science or chemistry, or mere common sense (given the outcome is similar if not worse as it is the gift that keeps on giving!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

What you endorse or oppose also evolves based on the response of your audeince such as the case with most hypocrites!

again, if your govt. or countries don't classify or have a different definition for that and you prefer to subscribe to said definitions doesn't allow you
1- to impose your understanding of the terms
2- to classify this for other than what it is (plain flat hypocrisy)
3- Expectations that others should subscribe to your folly under some concocted banner and from the looks of things you're only capable of dishing out three of those and repeatedly- You are you either incredibly under educated, or purposefully devious and also boring.
_____________

bottom line for Muslims: (if you're looking for the west to suddenly develop a conscience or see the absurdity of their double standards which they dispense almost in the same breath) They won't -- their main concern is to protect the colonial settler cockroach state.. and all their dealings and wheelings have only that mantra in mind!