Tens of thousands dead, millions forced from their homes, a terrorist state created on the borders of Europe and Europe destabilised and heading for religious war in the years to come.
Who to blame for this tragedy?
The BBC, the Guardian, Muslims backed by Corbyn and his treacherous Stop the War collaborators broke the will of the political establishment to engage in ‘muscular liberalism’, to protect human rights and to project power in order to enable repressed populations to take back their countries.
The BBC et al’s anti-war drum-beat spooked and cowed the politicians and meant the only effective military action, full-scale, boots on the ground, intensive war, was off the agenda as ‘British foreign policy’ was put into full retreat…ironically due to a few ‘extremist’ Muslims whom the BBC told us weren’t really Muslim…and yet at the same time told us the war in Iraq had radicalised the whole Muslim community and terrorism was the inevitable result…cake and eat it….the BBC fully exploited the ‘Muslim issue’ in order to promote it’s own anti-war agenda.
Now where are we?…..George Osborne speaks….
‘We have come to a point where it is impossible to intervene anywhere, that we lack the political will as the West to intervene.
‘I have some hope out of this terrible tragedy in Syria: We are beginning to learn the price of not intervening.
‘We did not intervene in Syria. Tens of thousands of people have been killed as a result. Millions of refugees have been sent from their homes.
‘We have allowed a terrorist state to emerge in the form of ISIS.’
Mr Osborne said: ‘Russia for the first time since Henry Kissinger kicked them out of the Middle East in the 1970s is back as the decisive player in that region.
‘That is the price of not intervening.’
The Syrian tragedy and the failure to intervene was of course, in major part, the fault of Ed Miliband who betrayed the Syrian people in a brazen act of political cowardice and pious, opportunistic grandstanding……
The weakness of Obama is actually best illustrated with reference to what happened in Britain, in relation to Syria. In August 2013, David Cameron, then Prime Minister, sought parliamentary approval for action. The vote was lost in the Commons when Ed Miliband, then Labour leader, led the opposition and 30 Tory MPs and nine Lib Dem MPs rebelled.
President Obama took it as a cue to offer Congress an effective veto, although no vote was needed. The result was the scrapping of US plans for greater involvement aimed at preventing the Syrian regime using chemical weapons. The Russians, and their allies the Syrians, saw their opportunity in this weakness. America was not going to get involved – other than trying doomed peace initiatives and some later air strikes – and Russia and Assad had the field of battle against the rebels to themselves. That leads to the horrors of Aleppo today.
It’s a funny thing though….Miliband made one of the most crucial and strategic blunders of this century resulting in mass murder and a refugee crisis that will end with Europe on its knees and the BBC doesn’t mention his name, doesn’t even mention that he led the West into a deadly and disastrous trap as it reports Osborne’s comments….
Aleppo: George Osborne attacks ‘vacuum’ of Western leadership
Speaking in an emergency debate about the conflict in Aleppo, Mr Osborne – in one of his first Commons interventions since losing office – said Parliament must reflect on its own actions with regard to the five-year civil war in Syria.
‘Worst decision’
In August 2013, Parliament rejected the government’s case for possible intervention in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian regime forces.
MPs voted 285-272 against the UK joining President Barack Obama’s plan for US air strikes – which never came to pass because of political opposition in the US.
Mr Osborne recalled speaking from the backbenches ahead of the 2003 Iraq War and said he feared now that “it is impossible to intervene anywhere”.
Extraordinary…how can the BBC miss out Miliband’s major role in turning the vote against intervention? Not the first time of course, the BBC has a habit of not linking Miliband to Syria. Protecting one of its own? The BBC itself of course hid a video that it had of a Syrian school being bombed with chemical weapons until after the vote had taken place. Why? Surely that was relevant and crucial evidence that might influence votes……ah..of course…the BBC didn’t want us to go to war.
I have a different take on this .
Let Russia take control of places like Syria in the Middle East , even Yemen .
Then let them become pacified and walled in as were the the commie bloc countries .
In a while they will trade with us , so goods will move between us , but not people .
If this sounds callous , remember the alternative .
The big difference I notice with the bBBC’s reporting of the atrocities being carried out by Syrian and Russian troops and their terrorist allies.
What a difference with the reporting of US and British military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan where everything they did was turned into an act of pure evil and every opportunity was given to display views of suffering women and children and, wherever possible, as many dead babies as they could find.
Had it been US and British troops in Aleppo instead of Russian and Syrian the bBBC would be in full outrage mode whipping up hysteria over the civilian deaths and screaming War Crimes and not simply reporting it as if it were some unfortunate triviality.
The bBBC are already making excuses for Russian and Syrian atrocities by trying to have us believe that it is not they who are responsible but the Militias (notice Militias and not Terrorist Organisations) who are their allies, as if that absolves Russia and Syrians from all responsibilities. I wonder if they would do the same if it were Britain or the US who were allowing the ‘Militias’ to also carry out butchery on their behalf?
The bBBC casually mention that Russia and China are blocking any UN military intervention in Syria but treat that as if it were a minor inconvenience.
They are spinning the great fib that the UN aren’t able to take any action because it does not have it’s own military under it’s own command, as if that would be a solution.
What they fail to mention is that even if the UN had it’s own troops they would still be impotent because Russia and China would still block any UN intervention and ignore the fact that the Russian and Chinese veto is purely for their own political purposes and advantage.
The bBBC have, over several decades, been spectacularly unequal in the way they vilify every action by the West whilst praising and excusing all behaviour by the former Communist Nations.
Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with their years of carefully nurturing their totally incestuous Marxism, could it?
But tell me Amounderness, why is the BBCfixated on reporting the Syrian crisis? It’s really none of our business is it?Night after night the BBC appears so anxious to tell us of the tragic mess in the Middle East, but refrains from reporting anything that might bring Islam into disrepute.
The big difference I notice with the bBBC’s reporting of the atrocities being carried out by Syrian and Russian troops and their terrorist allies.
What a difference with the reporting of US and British military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan where everything they did was turned into an act of pure evil and every opportunity was given to display views of suffering women and children and, wherever possible, as many dead babies as they could find.
Had it been US and British troops in Aleppo instead of Russian and Syrian the bBBC would be in full outrage mode whipping up hysteria over the civilian deaths and screaming War Crimes and not simply reporting it as if it were some unfortunate triviality.
The bBBC are already making excuses for Russian and Syrian atrocities by trying to have us believe that it is not they who are responsible but the Militias (notice Militias and not Terrorist Organisations) who are their allies, as if that absolves Russia and Syrians from all responsibilities. I wonder if they would do the same if it were Britain or the US who were allowing the ‘Militias’ to also carry out butchery on their behalf?
The bBBC casually mention that Russia and China are blocking any UN military intervention in Syria but treat that as if it were a minor inconvenience.
They are spinning the great fib that the UN aren’t able to take any action because it does not have it’s own military under it’s own command, as if that would be a solution.
What they fail to mention is that even if the UN had it’s own troops they would still be impotent because Russia and China would still block any UN intervention and ignore the fact that the Russian and Chinese veto is purely for their own political purposes and advantage.
The bBBC have, over several decades, been spectacularly unequal in the way they vilify every action by the West whilst praising and excusing all behaviour by the former Communist Nations.
Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with their years of carefully nurturing their totally incestuous Marxism, could it?
The big difference I notice with the bBBC’s reporting of the atrocities being carried out by Syrian and Russian troops and their terrorist allies.
What a difference with the reporting of US and British military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan where everything they did was turned into an act of pure evil and every opportunity was given to display views of suffering women and children and, wherever possible, as many dead babies as they could find.
Had it been US and British troops in Aleppo instead of Russian and Syrian the bBBC would be in full outrage mode whipping up hysteria over the civilian deaths and screaming War Crimes and not simply reporting it as if it were some unfortunate triviality.
The bBBC are already making excuses for Russian and Syrian atrocities by trying to have us believe that it is not they who are responsible but the Militias (notice Militias and not Terrorist Organisations) who are their allies, as if that absolves Russia and Syrians from all responsibilities. I wonder if they would do the same if it were Britain or the US who were allowing the ‘Militias’ to also carry out butchery on their behalf?
The bBBC casually mention that Russia and China are blocking any UN military intervention in Syria but treat that as if it were a minor inconvenience.
They are spinning the great fib that the UN aren’t able to take any action because it does not have it’s own military under it’s own command, as if that would be a solution.
What they fail to mention is that even if the UN had it’s own troops they would still be impotent because Russia and China would still block any UN intervention and ignore the fact that the Russian and Chinese veto is purely for their own political purposes and advantage.
The bBBC have, over several decades, been spectacularly unequal in the way they vilify every action by the West whilst praising and excusing all behaviour by the former Communist Nations.
Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with their years of carefully nurturing their totally incestuous Marxism, could it?
Sorry about the multiple repeats. Not sure how it happened but it certainly wasn’t intentional because I hate it when people do that on purpose.
The end of wars are always messy with civilians always suffering the most as scores are settled.
As there has not been any real political will in the west to have become involved in the conflict the best thing we could have done is not to have interfered at all (and wicked though he is) we should have let Assad reassert control over his own country rather than let our foreign policy be driven by the Saudis – Who are only interested in encouraging their Sunni friends at the expense of a society which at least under Assad was pretty diverse.
Having said that I have just been listening to a interview of a Syrian government minister by Alan Kasuja who in his always naive style was concerned about the civilian atrocities in eastern Allepo.
Whilst I fully accept that some pretty terrible stuff is happening to the civilians. The minister made the interesting point that many of these “civilians” are not quite what they seem and in all likelihood will be making their way to us. Funnily enough, Alan did not seem so interested in talking about this.
So brace yourselves everyone for another importation of “children” Yet many of this next lot may well be a bit more motivated than just another lot of chancers which we have had previously.
No wonder the BBC wants to keep us in the single market – We certainly get to import some very diverse people with some very interesting views!
Looks like the BBC may well have plenty of our own news to report soon!
Thanks Aunty!
I don’t want us to ‘intervene’ in the Middle East, we won’t win any friends and we don’t have the military might or will to go for outright military takeover, invasion and conquest, which is what it will take to bring any sense in the region.
In the meantime we have the BBC et al destroying our own civilisation by a one-sided ‘war of ideas’ and successive governments destroying us by importing demographic genocide. The imagined ‘moderate Muslims’ won’t form a barrier to the religious zealots, they will just be docile voting fodder, we only have to look at the Caliph of Londistan to see where we are headed.
Eventually Russia might decide to ‘intevene’ here, in our own civil war. The BBC having brought ‘Aleppo’ to our own doorsteps.
Whatever the faults of Putin and Russians, I believe they are the only bulwark against Islam in the West. Ditto China in the East. Apart from Russia, the European and North American politians have capitulated, fully supported by the odious BBC .
Grant and Jim
Unfortunately I am beginning to come around to that viewpoint myself.
I am afraid in the real world “Realpolitik” is the only game in town as opposed to “Islingtonpolitiik” which is only effective as far as the next sushi bar – Just ask the Soviets and ISIS.
Oak,
Same here. I never thought I would be supporting Putin and the Russians. But there are much bigger threats in the world than them.
Grant
I believe that Russia and the West have exchanged positions. The fault for this lies with Obama. He is Marxist and pro-Islam. Russia OTH is not marxist anymore, and is pro-Christian values, and anti-Islam.
I can foresee a future world where China, Russia and allied states will once and for all deal with the problem of Islamic terrorism, the failed middle-east and unwanted third world immigration. It won’t be particularly pretty. The US will need to decide which side it’s on, but that country may split – with big chunks of it seceding again.
No hope for Western Europe though, I think it’s probably too late to stop the rot.
There is no evidence at all that any ME country bar Israel has the slightest notion of what civil society under democracy is. So deposing Assad would have served no purpose or Western interest.
Far better to seal the frontiers of Europe with forces that mean exactly that. Force and no entry at all. That could have been done and still could. It will come to this in the end .
1; repressive regimes in the Middle East and other areas don’t threaten in a big way us in the West .
2; uprisings , Arab Springs , deposing dictators sound nice but the repressive regimes are not replaced by nice things .
3; the replacement of the repressive regimes will be instability until another ( and worse ) repressive regime is in place .
4; the instability means that the people of that area want to go to a stable place , but preferably not to another repressive regime .
5; Europe beckons
6 ; the borders of Europe are not strong enough to withhold a mass influx of people due to the shenanigans of the Gramscian , Common Purpose elite .
7; the hordes that are leaving the afflicted areas want to go to the most tolerant , rich countries with the best free benefits .
8; confusion and lack of will of the Western elite , with a certain degree of anti democratic sabotage means that the hordes will go into the nations that are the richest and most stable
9; the hordes that have arrived are not the best to be integrated .
10; the nations that have taken them in are destabilised .
11; that pleases the Gramscians .
Tens of thousands dead, millions forced from their homes, a terrorist state created on the borders of Europe and Europe destabilised and heading for religious war in the years to come.
I presume this also refers to the creation of an Islamic state in Europe, using the same demonisation of Serbs and Serbia, that the leftys are doing to Trump and Russia. Serbia, which has for centuries, defended the West from the Muslim Ottomans, and fought the Nazis, were bombed by the Clinton, for something to do with a blue dress. The reality is that this treacherous act against the West, was done to appease the Saudis. But then, can one expect anything else from the Clintons – fully paid by the Saudis.
Present day Russia is a far cry from the USSR. It has abandoned communism and socialism, while the Left, and so-called Libs, embrace socialism. To me it seems, that the roles of the West and Russia, are now reversed. The West armed and supported ISIS, and other Islamic groups, till their atrocities became too toxic. America and the West still supported them, via other so-called Freedom fighters. These Freedom Fighters simply took the weapons, and handed them over to ISIS.
Anyway, there is new sheriff in DC, and hopefully he sees the real existential threat to the West – Islam. In my view there is no hope for the West to survive as a historic entity, unless there is a separation from Islam and Muslims.
Perhaps this is why the globalist establishment is now trying to pin all election/referendum defeats that don’t go their way as being down to Russian hacking. Ben Bradshaw MP even blamed Brexit on Russia.
All Lives Matter
No hack. Just straightforward phishing, and a dope at the other end of the line.
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/12/podesta-email-spam/
And this dope was going to be the head of the NSA.
But then Clinton deliberately created a private email server.
And Obama appointed John Brenner as the head of the CIA. John Brenner, who was a marxist/communist sympathiser, and possible Muslim too. Just like Obama.
The dumbing down of university education, in tandem with admitting sub-IQ students to university, and their brainwashing the by the leftist media, leads to this.
Next thing these idiots will be saying that Stalin was a great and good leader.
PS : Forgot the link
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/american-students-castro-trump/
According to Diane Abbott, Labour front bencher, Mao was OK
Abbott is insane !
The end of colonialism/imperialism was the beginning of troubles for many across the world, as nations and peoples self evidently incapable of even the rudiments of democratic governance were left to get on with it.
Liberal interventionism is the most hypocritical of ideologies….liberals, who abhor and detest manliness, armed force and militarism demand that others put their lives at risk in order that the liberal may then say…”we
did what we could to save lives”.
Liberals…. the people you seek to help do not want us there, see Iraq and Afghanistan for the latest examples….you sent our men and women to salve your consciences even in the case of John Reid, the Labour defence misister, deludedly claiming no shots would be fired in anger… and when the natives cut up rough against the “occupation” what did you do? of course….you sided with the oppressed natives, well the muslim ones anyway…the Yazidis and Christians could go hang.
There should be no armed intervention involving UK forces without a clear exposition of the benefits to the UK of that armed action.
Liberals feeling good about themselves is not a benefit to the UK.
hear hear.
DaveS,
Osborne is a silly little teenager. To be ignored .
I saw Osborne’s contribution to the debate. He bemoaned the vote in parliament against intervening in Syria. He said we should have intervened. He suggested that had we intervened all the bad things that have happened since, ISIS, migrant crisis, rise of ‘fascism’ in eastern Europe et al., would not have happened.
The man is mad.
Cull,
Osborne is a pointless , ignorant , low level cretin. How on earth he and Cameron got to where they were defeats me. Osborne, just disppear , you wanker .
If we had intervened, the situation would have been far worse then in Libya.
The correct thing to have done was not to arm ISIS, and those sort of Freedom Fighters, to destabilise Syria, just to appease the Saudi Islamic fanatics.
If Syria had fallen to the Saudis, then an oil pipe line could be run from the Gulf to Europe via Turkey. Russia would have been snookered. Game and set to America.
But the migrant crisis would have been greater, as the Saudis would insist that we take in millions of RoPers,as a gratitude for not being dependent on Russia for oil.
Dead right NCBBC.
The BBC are cheesed off when they can`t blame the Tories for the crap in Syria.
As long as Britain gets blamed for Libya( getting involved) AND get blamed for not getting involved(Syria).
Meanwhile-as for the Saudis and Iran, Syrians and Turks, Yemenis and Kurds?
Well, poor poppets can`t help themselves getting excited…all Muslims, all filthy rich and plenty land-had they bothered their arses to cultivate it and NOT buy in half of Bangladesh to wash their SUVs, maybe THEY`D be able to dip into the sandbags for s few shekels to pay their zakat.
But no-blame whitey as ever. The BBC know no other story.
The BBC are now a state within a state. They have their own domestic and foreign policy.
They don’t have gun boats yet, but they have the power to pump out vile anti-Christian, and anti-Western propaganda. At our expense.
They also are in bed with the West’s, and the world’s enemy – Islam.
The BBC also collect a poll tax.
Can the BBC explain where IS and these other terrorist groups in Syria have got their weapons from?
Apparently some of them are even using tanks. Now ask yourself this, how can somebody just get into a modern sophisticated tank, drive it and operate it without being shown and trained to do so? after all its not like riding a camel.
Where have I these groups got there small arms and rocket launchers from? They don’t manufacture them do they? I suspect they have been provided by the west to other throw President Assad, who for some reason the western governments don’t like.
Regime change is illegal under international law, however if you do it in a crafty way by getting others mercenaries, rebels, terrorists etc to do it for you, that would seem perfectly acceptable to these western governments. I am waiting for the BBC to give us a full explanation of the facts.
John,
“BBC to give us full explanation of the facts “. Impossible. They would not know how to find the facts. Easier just to sit in comfort and produce fake news.
IIRC our friends at the BBC reported excitedly on the “Arab Spring”, seems it has not turned out too well overall.
I wonder if J. al Bowen is yet of the opinion that in the middle east, with the honourable exception of Israel, democracy is perhaps best left for later and what is needed to keep peace is effectively dictatoships with secret services to keep the lid on dissent allowing the majority, of not just muslim faith, to go about their daily lives