Tag Archives: Arab Spring

Liam Fox Joins NeoCons at Bahrain Symposium

Liam fox

What will Liam Fox, the former disgraced Defence Secretary, be doing this weekend?

He’s one of the chief guests at the Bahrain Symposium, that’s designed to rally Western opinion to the side of the Bahrain government in its struggle against street protests and civil rights demonstrations.

The participating institutions and key note speakers read like an A-Z of the Neoconservative directory, with the overlord himself, George W Bush’s ambassador to the UN and war-monger supreme John Bolton given top billing.

Be under no illusion as to which direction Bahrain is being pulled – further into the direction of America.

Which begs the question why has the FCO and our Government sanctioned Liam Fox to speak at this event?

It’s bad enough that the former Metropolitan Police Commander John Yates “of the yard” is working for and defending a blood-stained Middle East tyranny, but should we really be surprised with Liam Fox getting in on the blood soaked action?

After all this is a man who was at the centre of serious allegations of colluding with Mossad and Zionist interests alongside his “aide” Adam Werrity.

The further promotion of a divisive and false narrative of the “Sunni Vs Shia” schism is being played throughout the Middle East, depending on your perspective you either see it as an Arab Spring or as a Arab Firestorm – with outside influences stating their claim to how the MENA bloc should be carved up. A new Sykes-Picot.

It has been a long held prejudice of the western nations that the Muslim lands cannot manage democracy & that the only way to ensure control over the former colonies was to prop up highly controlling regimes as a way of ensuring stability.

The actions of the FCO have not gone unnoticed by Sarah Leah Whitson, the Director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa Programme, who was scathing in her assessment of the governments aims in the region:

Twitter capture

Ambassador Iain Lindsays’ only comments echoed statements from the regime about Iranian involvement in Bahrain. Speaking to the regime owned Gulf Daily News, he said:

“Iain Lindsay also said there was “increasing evidence” that Iran was “providing support to people here who are bent on violence”

Iain Lindsay UK Ambassador to Bahrain

While the Ambassador sits in the palace telling the King what to do, it leaves many British Muslims questioning the role of our Government with regards to the ongoing democracy movement and creates a real sense of anger that the UK’s Ambassador would echo the Government’s main line of attack against the opposition.

They have regularly called on opposition figures to denounce terrorism, despite it already happening, played up talk of reforms and of course regularly blame Iran for “instigating protests and violence” in Bahrain.

With the Neocons having their public relations pow-wow this weekend in Manama, one really has to question what our Government means when they throw around terms like freedom, democracy, justice and supporting human rights.

———————————-

Cross posted on the MPACUK website:

You can contact me on twitter @HotterThanCurry

1 Comment

Filed under 'Muslim' Tyrant Watch, 4GW, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military Industrial Complex, War, Western Hypocrisy

Syria the battleground for self interest of The West & Gulf States

In my article last week Syria, UN Resolutions & the Bigger Picture” I attempted to show the wider strands of the dirty game being played in Syria. I’ve been accosted by many who feel that I’m somehow Pro-Assad as I am lacking in my revolutionary zeal. The rather unfortunate truth of a manufactured regime change carried out by Muslims, ostensibly for the benefits of “The West” and her client states in the Middle East, is lost upon the people.

It is this exact cold hearted realism of RealPolitik that Muslims, rightly or wrongly lack. Unable to take a step back from the images of death and destruction the mass media pepper us with in their quest for humanitarian intervention (a lie exposed last week) that makes us jump in two footedly without thinking first. It is the kindness we have for our fellow Muslims that is being exploited.

That’s not me being cold hearted.

That is what the enemy sees of us.

Do I support the rebels and should Muslims in “The West”?

If we’re dealing in black and white answers, then the answer is a resounding yes.

Can we add conditions to our support?

Why not.

Crucially, do we have any say on what replaces the Assad regime?

No.

Whether you wish to accept it or not, the opposition in Syria are sponsored by the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Syrian National Council, assorted  ‘activists’ in exile, some closely linked to the British Foreign Office and the US State Department.

Reform is not the issue. Even our very own FCO have admitted it in their briefing titled “Syrian Government’s commitments to the Arab League: Myths & reality”

All of the players involved in this tragedy are like Saul on the road to Damascus, their agenda’s vary but they all converge at one point: their determination to destroy the current government.

For “The West” – Britain, France and the US – the elimination of a government and a political party that has long got in their way is the issue.

For Saudi Arabia, the issue is confronting Iran and containing Shia-ism across the region. The Sauds sent troops to Bahrain to quell the uprising and now face the Shia problem within their own borders in Qatif. This should come as no surprise to regular readers, as I pointed this out almost a year ago: “Saudi Arabia Invades Bahrain, Expect Sunni V Shia Angle To Be Played Out In The Media”

For the Muslim Brotherhood, the issue is revenge for Hafez al Assad’s repression of their revolt in 1982, the destruction of a secular government and perhaps the installation of a new system which they expect to dominate.

While the BBC are pushing the narrative of an all out sectarian civil war in Syria amongst Sunni’s and Shia’s, the fact that Syria has been dominated by the minority Alawis as the ruling elite politically & militarily  since the 1960’s is strangely absent from discourse. A conveniently forgotten fact.

For the US and their client state Saudi Arabia –  Iran, Syria and Hizbullah are three parts of the same problem. The Saud’s regard Iran as the ‘head of the snake’ and have pleaded with the US to attack it on many occasions under the Bush regime as well as the current US administration. As we’re all too aware a direct attack on Iran, would remove the cloak from the covert war already being waged and would be catastrophic to the countries waging it.

Far be it for me to tell the BBC & the western media what the fallout would be from a military attack on live nuclear reactors, not that the consequences of any “collateral damage” are ever discussed seriously.  Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stated  military strikes would be ”a path to disaster rather than a solution”  before adding that Iran “posed no imminent threat”.

In 2006 Iran and Syria formalised a joint defence agreement to confront ‘common threats’. Any open intervention in Syria would not be welcomed by Iran and would clearly be viewed as an opening prelude to an attack on Iran itself.

As I pointed out Russia & China are unwilling to back UN Security Council resolutions. Military planners in “The West” are using the second option to destabilise Syria. By bringing down the Syrian government and rupturing its strategic relationship with Iran and Hizbullah, the check mate position is in sight for the US and its Western, Gulf and of course Israeli partners.

Nir Rosen recently wrote a detailed piece for Al Jazeera: “Q&A: Nir Rosen on Syria’s armed opposition” of which the closing paragraphs summarise how Israel will gain from this situation.

When we take Syria in a wider context of the countries hit by the Arab Spring, we can clearly see new geopolitical boundaries being drawn. The so called “Islamist parties” (a term I dislike, but used for western discourse) have come or are likely to come to govern in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. Perhaps even in Libya if elections are ever held.

What parties say when they are in opposition and what they feel obliged to do when they are the ruling governments are two different propositions. Rashid Ghannushi, the leader of Tunisia’s Al Nahda party has held quiet talks with the Israelis in Washington and has indicated that Palestine will not be a priority for the new Tunisian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is dithering over maintaining existing peace treaties with Israel; the sticking point seems to be how many billions of dollars in aid they’ll receive for selling out.

Thus far in a area undergoing rapid change, Syria is the player not playing the game, standing firm against the US and Israel on the one hand and the rising Saudi-Gulf axis on the other.

Make no mistake “The West” is on the hunt for another war in the Middle East. War is profitable business; why else do you think military supplier BAE systems announced an 18% rise in profits yesterday, amidst a global recession.

The essence of the campaign against Syria is ultimately Iran. Provocation with scientists being assassinated and the US navy on the Straits of Hormuz are a clear intention to goad Iran into retaliating and providing a pretext for the armed attack that many in Israel and the US want.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

The image used is titled “Crocodiles of Arabia” and the credit goes to Khalil Bendib

4 Comments

Filed under 'Muslim' Tyrant Watch, 4GW, Foreign Policy, Manufacturing Consent, Middle East, Terrorism, Western Hypocrisy

Syria, UN Veto’s & Western Foreign Policy

So what are we to make of the situation in Syria?

The UK, US and France have vigorously attempted to get a UN security resolution passed on the ever worsening conditions in Syria, a resolution which has been vetoed by both permanent UNSC members China & Russia.

The Russian envoy to the UNSC, Vitaly Churkin has insisted that:

“Some influential members of the international community unfortunately… have been undermining the opportunity for political settlement, calling for a regime change, pushing the oppositionists to power”

You have to question the real motives of the Western diplomats and their Arab allies. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN has made blustering statements on the veto:

“sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant……any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands”

Our very own William Hague hasn’t been that far behind his American counterpart, stating the veto:

“lets the Syrian people down, and will only encourage President Assad’s brutal regime to increase the killing”

Almost every single player involved in this unfolding tragedy are engaged in the same manner of self righteous indignation. The same players of course that were prominent in the regime change in Libya.

I’m no fan of the regimes in Damascus, Moscow or Beijing, but are they right to veto the resolution?

Yes

But not for the whiter than white reasons they might claim.

There is a far greater game being carved out in the Middle East, sadly our media (as well as Al Jazeera) is presenting it as a simple case of acrimony amidst the geo-political self interests of China and Russia, against the benevolent and kind hearted nature of UNSC members that supported the resolution.

The resolution was of course itself driven by political machinations, by strategic demands and  potential gains. It is downright perfidious to suggest that the real concerns of the western political powers are with the Syrian people.

In fact some media commentators have stated that the unfolding conflict in Syria has been covered with “less interest in empirically collected data and more reliance on hysteria and manipulation and rumour.”

For example, last Friday’s attack on Homs was reported to have killed more than two hundred people, in reality the number was later revised to fifty five.  Fifty five deaths too many, but when your only sources are “activists” that you are using to bolster another western intervention, the veracity of the information cannot be guaranteed. The apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree where the Assad’s are concerned. Basher’s father, Hafez gave the go ahead for the Hama massacre of February 1982 that left tens of thousands of Syrians dead.

Do I condemn Assad and his regime, of course I do, whole heartedly, but not for the same reasons of self interest “The West” has.

With Libya as the new template for regime change, we have to ask the questions that no one else is asking:

Why is there not a greater split amongst the Assad regime?

Who are the “Free Syrian Army”?

Who are the “Syrian National Council”?

Who is arming the rebel factions?

Why are Qatar acting as a military and media cheerleader?

Why have the Saudi’s declared it recognises the Syrian National Council and what is their motivation in doing so?

The written testimony of Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer is worth considering. He claimed last year that:

“NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict”

If this is correct, why are NATO involved in conspiratorial schemes of regime change, deemed illegal under international law ?

Would you be surprised to know that the self styled Christian crusading knight and uber mercenary Erik Prince and his Blackwater boys have been carrying out covert operations in Syria since January 2011. In a recent interview, Prince stated:

“In Syria, we did the signals intelligence to geo-locate the bad guys in a very denied area”

So will direct intervention like in Libya improve the situation?

These are the questions to which we should be demanding answers, yet they are not even being asked. The official narrative (same as Libya) is of the archetypal evil Arab tyrant, butchering his own people. These narratives are of course promoted by the very same people who want regime change in Syria.

Are atrocities being committed?

Yes.

Can we say conclusively who is committing them all?

The Arab League observer mission (not that it carries much gravitas, when tyrants from equally abhorrent murderous neighbouring states are doing the observing) stated it is not conclusive who is perpetrating the acts of terror in Syria. If we believe NATO and effectively the US is on the ground in Syria in some capacity, could they be responsible for some of them?

The cases of full Western invention are being made, with the now well worn ‘we cannot stand idly by’ argument that “The West” should provide the opposition with special forces training of the kind that was provided in Libya

The policy for Syria is being developed in America, of that there should be no doubt.

Therefore it’s probably best to leave you with the cold hearted realism of the realpolitik espoused by neo con and “Israel firster” Charles Krauthammer. In a recent op-ed piece in The Washington Post the game plan for regime change in Syria and external intervention were made all too startlingly clear:

“His (Assad) fall would deprive Iran of an intra-Arab staging area and sever its corridor to the Mediterranean. Syria would return to the Sunni fold. Hezbollah, Tehran’s agent in Lebanon, could be next, withering on the vine without Syrian support and Iranian material. Hamas would revert to Egyptian patronage.  At the end of this causal chain, Iran, shorn of key allies and already reeling from economic sanctions over its nuclear program, would be thrown back on its heels”

He continued:

“Force the issue. Draw bright lines. Make clear American solidarity with the Arab League against a hegemonic Iran and its tottering Syrian client. In diplomacy, one often has to choose between human rights and strategic advantage. This is a rare case where we can advance both — so long as we do not compromise with Russia or relent until Assad falls.”

Does it make it clearer now?

It’s Iran and it always has been about Iran.

After the illegal invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change, “The West” quickly learnt that the blowback on their own shores from a restive Muslim population would cause immense problems. So how do “The West” engineer regime change now?

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, General Wesley Clark, the retired four-star American General and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, stated that he was privy to discussions that described how:

“we’re going to take out seven countries, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

The conditions for a similar strategy of tension are being unrolled in Lebanon, with a cargo containing huge amounts of US dollars, guns, special passports and credit cards having been seized upon arrival in Beirut this morning.

Understand that whilst our politicians in the UK pontificate about the ever worsening condition of the Syrian people, the real drivers for the resolution come from the Americans.

They are not concerned about the slaughter in Syria or anywhere else in the region. Their murderous intent of reshaping the region is polished with the veneer of respectability afforded by the useful idiots in the FCO and the media right here in the UK.

For me, the motives are clear, and that’s why I will not support any UNSC resolutions bought forward by America and her cronies.

2 Comments

Filed under 'Muslim' Tyrant Watch, 4GW, Foreign Policy, Manufacturing Consent, Middle East, Terrorism, Western Hypocrisy