I have frequently heard guests on BBC programmes, and indeed BBC presenters, say that the UK is responsible for what happened in LIbya, that Britain initiated the war and is therefore responsible for the outcome and the resultant flow of migrants launching themselves from the coast of Libya.
However, just as the war in Syria has no link to the UK the war in Libya was not the responsibility of Britain. The war began, as in Syria, after Libyans began demonstrations against the regime and were subsequently attacked by the regime. The UN declared no’fly zones and authorised air-strikes to protect civilians in missions controlled by NATO.
This was a multi-nation operation conducted under UN jurisdiction to help protect civilians and to stop a massacre.
The BBC seems to think we should have stood back and let it happen….where’s that famous ‘moral obligation’ now then? Guess it only gets run up the flagpole when it suits the BBC’s agenda……perhaps the BBC should remember its own previous analysis of events in Libya:
2011 February – Arrest of human rights campaigner sparks violent protests in eastern city of Benghazi that rapidly spread to other cities, leading to escalating clashes between security forces and rebels. Gaddafi insists that he will not quit, and remains in control of the capital, Tripoli.
2011 March – UN Security Council authorises a no-fly zone over Libya and air strikes to protect civilians, over which NATO assumes command.
Western politicians have been guilty of the most spectacular misguided policy and military adventures in the Middle East.
Not having learned the lessons of Iraq they carried on doing it, and Cameron is like a Pomeranian straining at the leash to send British forces into Syria.
It is to a greater extent that the far left war mongers in the EU have been responsible for either encouraging or directly starting wars along most of their borders. Not content with failing themselves, they decided to share that failure with others!
My personal belief is that this strange course of action can only be explained by the influence of foreign powers over the leaders over Western government, a conclusion reached because it is the only one which actually works.
In Qatar, one of the oil rich Sunni Muslim Gulf states, which is known to have handed Tony BLiar enormous wealth, there has been a popular uprising against the Emir and the ruling family, so much so that the Formula 1 race had to be cancelled. I’m sure no one would dispute the effects of bribery and corruption between the Qatari’s and FIFA to win the world cup.
Where were Western forces then ? Where were the Western leaders puffing out their chests strutting around trying to be ‘statesmen’ like?
If you are able to explain the behaviour of the EU / West in any other way then I’d love to hear it, but as Sherlock Homes once ‘said’
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
“Not having learned the lessons of Iraq”
The lesson in Iran was not learned, failure to support the Shah heralded the rise of the crackpot Ayatollahs.
Further in the past, the lessons of two World Wars were not learned, keep out, no Russian Revolution etc.
Not only have the lessons of the past not been learned, history has been “revised” to show that lessons have been learned, or even that there were no mistakes.
But these mistakes, however costly, however stupid, were at least made by people who were trying “to do the right thing”.
The “right thing” now is to organise the extermination of Caucasians.
So when the next war, civil war in the UK, civil war in Western Europe, or World War begins we will have the satisfaction of morally being in the right.
The BBC, and its staff and supporters are mortal enemies and need to be treated as such, PDQ.
The BBC likes to – very lazily – fall back on the discredited meme that somehow suggests, with a wagging finger, that all the problems of North Africa, the Middle East and even the Ukraine are problems caused by us here in the UK, and of course, by the EU in general. This then allows the Corporation (and its lickspittle acolytes on other channels, such as comrade Jon Snow and his risible CH4 News) to keep repeating the tired, utterly fallacious charge that somehow Britain is ‘obligated’ to take in untold numbers of Syrian ‘refugees’ (or Palestinian, or Afghanistan, or Yemen, or…well, you get the idea).
Britain is obligated to take in nobody. We didn’t go to war with Syria. We still haven’t, so how come Merkel insists the Syrian crisis – caused by and fought by Arab-on-Arab internecine warfare – is somehow ‘Europe’s responsibility’? To put it bluntly, and factually: is isn’t. If the current strife in Syria is anyone’s problem it is a problem wholly created and wholly owned by the Arab States in the region themselves.
Until the BBC and CH4 can actually start reporting the truth about the Syrian conflict – and the real reason why Europe is suddenly being overwhelmed by an endless stream of ‘refugees’ from that worn-torn, terrorised region – I suggest we disregard everything these dissembling morons have to say on the matter.
Meet Elin Krantz. She was a young Swedish girl who fell for the kind of bullshit Pope Francis is peddling, and was a vocal proponent of “diversity” and unlimited “open immigration” of musloids into Sweden and Europe.
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/09/10/before-you-follow-pope-francis-command-to-prove-yourselves-worthy-of-him/
Elin was raped and beaten to death by a musloid invader of Sweden. Her body was dumped and concealed under rocks in a forest. This is what the koran commands. Rape of women in conquered lands is a “reward” for fighting for the islamic political system.
You are Tommy.
Christian Civilization is Becky.
The Marxist-Obamaist-Islamist Cabal are the three Gatlin Boys.
The Gatlin Boys done raped your Becky.
You know what you have to do, Tommy.
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/09/08/you-are-tommy-christendom-is-becky/
If we have to be picky, Syria (and Lebanon) were ruled by the FRENCH.
Colonial guilt – this really is tedious, as Jim Naughtie would say.
Years ago, I came up with the acronym PEGS: Post Empire Guilt Syndrome.
Stephen Glover writes a good article in the Mail today, what I found reassuring if he is correct is that the BBC is responsible for about 50% of disseminated ‘news’ in Britain. I hope sincerely that this is a downward trend.
But didn’t Lord Hall say that he wants to provide BBC sourced, (manufactured), filtered and approved ‘news’ to local newspapers?
Whilst preparing dinner last evening, I heard a R4 discussion about this proposal. Nearly chopped my fingers off with laughter when one said. ‘The use of news from local papers will be problematic as it will have to meet the BBC standard of neutrality’
All journos to attend a Common Purpose course?
The left has to perpetuate the idea that all the strife in the middle east is somehow ’caused’ by the west. Otherwise they would have to conclude that it is caused by the peoples themselves, and that wouldn’t fit the multi-culti agenda. Personally I see nothing wrong with the latter view – Europe itself was convulsed with religious and ideological strife from the Reformation until Waterloo – because its people were struggling with the ascendancy of different ideas. It’s what humans do. In a way, the left’s view that it’s all our fault is actually quite racist, because it presupposes that Europeans are somehow more warlike and violent than those from the middle east.
And the brown-skinned people are incapable of exercising the moral behaviour expected of Europeans – in other words: The Racism Of Lowered Expectations.
The whole idea of colonial guilt is an absurdity. It is as if the whole notion of empire was invented by the West. Empires existed before the West was even an idea – they still do. If the Guardian reading, BBC liberals could desist in their self-loathing for a few moments they might want to look at the various Muslim empires throughout history. But self-loathing isn’t simply guilt. It is a weapon.
‘I have frequently heard guests on BBC programmes, and indeed BBC presenters, say that the UK is responsible for what happened in LIbya, that Britain initiated the war and is therefore responsible for the outcome ‘
When was this? On which programme? By whom? ……………….I suspect you’ve made that up.
Suspicion duly noted.
Interestingly, when the BBC trots out a claim that is challenged, they fall back on editorial integrity dissembling or FoI exemptions not to answer.
Why do you think they can do this when others can not?
Your argument then is that it’s entirely fine to base a post on completely made up assertions? I see. That rather undermines credibility doesn’t it.
If you have a problem with FOI exemptions, perhaps you should take that up with the legislature.
The drone attack on the 3 ne’redowell UK citizens which Cameron announced earlier in the week provides another example.
The question has arisen in the past about whether these people should have their passports revoked the moment they go to join IS in Syria. The Left cried foul saying it was contrary to International Law to make people stateless etc etc.
That same Left group are now up in arms because a drone was used to kill three such people who were clearly acting contrary to the best interests of the UK and its people. Principle to their argument is that a British drone has been used to kill three of its citizens.
They can’t have it both ways! People who go and join an enemy force should be treated as such. There is a cognitive dissonance in their behaviour and BBC reporting
I’ve seen this banging around the net recently by idiots trying to grasp onto anything to further their let them all in mindset. Although we certainly have zero responsibility it was pretty easy to guess what would happen when Ghaddafi was removed.Again something I predicted. But if you look into recent history Tito & Saddam or even the Russians Spetsnaz assassinating Hafizullah Amin chaos followed. But who was it urging the Government to take action in Libya & Syria. My memory says BBc.
The BBC covered themselves both ways. If we had done nothing and let the innocents be slaughtered by the despots then the British Government was evil in allowing it to happen. If, however, the British Government had attacks the evil regimes then the BBC would abuse them for initiating a war and killing “innocents”. They will attack the government whichever route they follow.
Your memory coincides with mine, Dave. The BBC [R4 WatO] started again yesterday … sort of implying Assad is using chemical weapons – stating “Assad has stocks of chlorine gas” & “only the Assad regime has helicopters” (conveniently forgetting yet again that in the chaos of war, military assets are often captured & used by opponents) but only later mentioning … “it wasn’t clear who had released these weapons” … and …”chlorine gas is easily manufactured from freely available chemicals”. No mention of the TWO UN Inspectors’ reports. No mention, IIRC, of the stocks of chemicals that Assad gave up for destruction at the time of the UN inspection.
As I have stated before, I hold no brief for Assad although I believe what I have been told about him (from the time he spent studying & working in the UK) that he is not as bad as he is painted by the media, especially the BBC. I suspect (note word used) that the real villains in his regime lurk in his distant family and among some of the military in his country. A straightforward Sunni v Shia conflict becomes rather more complicated within Alawite Syria, especially as Assad also tends to protect religious minorities or at least has done in the past.
It is quite remarkable, absolutely incredible that we came within a whisker of a Parliamentary vote of a Conservative-led Coalition Government aiding AND ARMING IS/ISIS/ISIL rebels or terrorists in Syria. Not only IS but also the other radical Islamicist lot of jihadists whose name has been mentioned this week but temporarily escapes me.
I cannot understand what barmy advice they were getting from the Foreign Office, the Intelligence Services and our Military Joint Chiefs but I think we need a major Public Inquiry into that as soon as possible. It is of course possible that those three bodies were advising against ‘anti-Assad involvement’ and Dave & Cleggie were being driven more by the media and trying to ‘look big in Europe’. [If I recall correctly, our Libyan military involvement was driven, in part, by a macho little bidding-war struggle between Dave and Sarkozy.]
Certainly, I recall as you do, that the BBC were certainly hinting in that direction if not straightforwardly campaigning for it.
In relation to the paragraph above, I cannot help but mention the damage that Blair & Brown did with Hussein & the weapons of mass destruction as well as our involvement in the Afghanistan Coalition. One cannot help wondering if Syria is having an impact on the Chilcot report. Perhaps Blair & Brown left the F&CO and MI5/MI6 so traumatised that they cannot operate properly now?
There’s something funny going on … and it is starting to whiff a bit!
They will attack the government whichever route they follow.
Er, No.
They will attack all and any non Labour Governments.
And lie about Labour Governments until hell freezes over.
Who got the UK involved in Iraq, a war which was such a stunning success?
That would be Blair, Brown and Co, credit where it is due, Cook did oppose it.
But the other parties supported the war, shouts the BBC. But the BBC does not mention, even in whispers, the stupidity of these other parties.
Stupid enough to believe Blair’s dossier, a collection of mendacity worthy of the man.
Blair is only the latest in a long line of Labour Party Members who have been actual traitors, working against
the UK. Many Labour MPs were Soviet sympathisers, some were Soviet agents, some are still international socialists.
The Mail was right, “The man who hated Britain”, alter it to “The men and women who hate Britain”, that is the
Labour Party.
The Labour Party, like its political agitation department, the BBC, needs to be spoken about in the past tense,
a bad idea, created by worse people. Bury it in an unmarked grave along with its evil doers.
It was the only issue they did attack Labour on, but I’m convinced they would have supported them if the Conservatives had opposed the war. It was still attack the Conservatives, even in opposition, on every issue. So the one where the Cons gave the traditional cross-party support in time of conflict, the BBC had to oppose Labour so they would still be opposing the conservatives.
Gaddafi died about 6 months after UN military intervention. He didn’t die the way we wanted him to because we wanted to bring him to justice. Shame, because not only did we not bring him to justice, we failed to get any real evidence of the actual event of his death! He was killed by “other” rebel forces.
Let’s take Saddam Hussein as another example – he was hanged “legitimately” by a supposedly ‘democratic’ (HA!) Iraqi government whilst British troops were still patrolling the streets.
We do not have the death penalty here in Britain, but I detect that most regulars here at BiasedBBC would like to see the reintroduction of such a law. Therein lies the gulf between those who acknowledge the difference between revenge and justice.
Justice wins every day of the week! Revenge gets you nowhere!
I’m not saying that we are to blame for the troubles in the Middle East, but we have to acknowledge the hypocrisy of democracy for the sake of revenge.
The other obvious advantage of a trial, conviction and life imprisonment is that you have a nasty piece of work who people can be reminded of as a tried & convicted prisoner ‘pour encourager les autres’ for years to come.
A dead leader can instantly be accorded mythical hero status and be a focus for resistance & ongoing opposition.
The problem with putting Gaddaffi on trial may have been a few home truths coming out in Court, not least about PanAm Flight 103.
Funny thing, have just been reading the Wiki page on Vice-Admiral Byng who has a link to ‘pour encourager les autres’.
Mucky political dealings involving struggles in Parliament, major Government Ministries and money and public opinion …?
Now there’s a thing!