The UK Parliament has been recalled to discuss military intervention in Syria tomorrow.
There are strong suggestions that there will be opposition to Cameron, Hague, et al’s obvious determination to go to war for imperialist reasons. There are suggestions that many Conservative MPs are very uneasy and talk of the Labour Party abstaining and promoting their own amendment. The Lib-Dems only ever pretended not to be Tories and they are nowhere to be seen now.
What I would like to see tomorrow is an absolute commitment to international law. That’s respect for human rights – they are universal after all – including respect to the right to life and an absolute commitment to enforce international law. I’m saying that people need to be tried for war crimes. It’s not going to happen since Israel have been bombing Syria. There’s also the absolute hypocrisy of USUK using chemical weapons at Fallujah and Israel’s use of White Phosphorous. It would appear for some reason that Depleted Uranium is not classed as a chemical weapon, probably because it’s used by USUK.
What’s happening is that there is a huge rush to war before the US weapons inspectors have reported. There’s a rush because the UN inspectors are very likely to report that it’s unclear who was responsible, unclear if there was actually any use of chemical weapons and that they were not obstructed by the Syrian government.
Obomber has turned out to be a disappointment breaking many commitments on Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and transparency on drones. Now he wants war. Drones killing people in distant lands is criminal anyway, never mind being transparent about it.
A former French foreign minister says Britain had been planning a war against Syria some two years before to the unrest broke out in the Arab country.
The statement by Roland Dumas came during a recent interview with French Parliamentary TV network, LCP.
“I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria,” said Dumas.
He continued by saying, “This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.”
‘Chemical Weapons’ media propaganda in US, UK is designed to hide the truth in Syria.
Revised and Updated
The Mail quickly pulled the story down within 24 hours, offering no formal retraction, but simply wiped it clean from their website, but we have a screen shot (below).
US Backed Plan to Launch Chemical Weapon Attack on Syria and Blame it on Assad Government
The Mail was later sued by Britam Defense, and forced to publish a retraction. The Guardian reported on June 26th:
“The Daily Mail has apologised and paid £110,000 in libel damages to a London defence firm it wrongly linked with an alleged chemical weapons plot in Syria.
Britam Defence Limited complained that an article on the Daily Mail’s website Mail Online falsely accused two of its executives of conspiring in a “nefarious and illegal plot” in the Middle Eastern state “for enormous financial reward”.
The article quoted one email supposedly sent between two executives at the company which claimed to show that Britam had agreed to supply chemical weapons to Homs for use in an attack. However, the emails turned out to be forged.”
One of the original leaks which led to this brief, but buried story, was contained in the Britam Leaks, which detailed the alleged plan to be carried out which was said to have received a green light from Washington and was to be financed by Qatar.
Although a libel settlement was reached regarding naming the two Britam executives mentioned in the Mail article, it’s hard to prove that the plot itself did not happen – and herein lies the problem with the secretive shadow state and its array of private contractors in both the US and UK.
Let’s brief the files. The key finding is a mail dated December 24, 2012 sent by Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding to Dynamic Director of the firm Phillip Doughty, who is a former SAS officer:
Britamgate email: Let’s deal banned Chemical Weapons
Phil
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards David
To clarify the things, CW is a standard abbreviation for Chemical Weapons; ‘g-shell’ is a bomb consisting of an explosive projectile filled with toxic gas.
According to a report in Turkey’s state media agency Zaman, agents from the Turkish General Directorate of Security (Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü) ceased 2 kg of sarin gas in the city of Adana in the early hours of yesterday morning. The chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists believed to have been heading for Syria.
Sarin gas is a colourless, odorless substance which is extremely difficult to detect. The gas is banned under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
The EGM identified 12 members of the AL Nusra terrorist cell and also ceased fire arms and digital equipment. This is the second major official confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria after UN inspector Carla Del Ponte’s recent statement confirming the use of chemical weapons by the Western-backed terrorists in Syria.
…
Thanks to intelligence analyst Martin Summers for background.
A repost from Deep DT’s reality cracking pages from 1998. Thinking about it, I’ve only just realised how deep this article is ~ I had no idea first time round. There are still copies of this article published and accessible.
Altruism* and charity
* – altruism, giving without any personal benefit.
In Britain, and quite possibly worldwide(?), students are actually taught at colleges and universities that altruism does not exist. It happened to me when I did my degree some time ago and it happened to a friend taking his degree last year. I think that it’s taught to new students before they are practiced at analysing an argument and before they are encouraged to have their own opinions and to argue with their lecturers. It is presented as accepted, objective fact without a real opportunity to disagree.
The argument goes like this. Social Psychology’s ‘reward theory’ states that for every act of giving, there is an equivalent ‘value’ received in return so there can never be altruism because the giver always receives something of equal value. Just search the net on altruism and I’m sure that you’ll see the argument. The trouble with the argument which seems lost on the academics is that it’s a totally ‘tautological’ or circular argument – you are within the argument – it can’t be disproved because of the way it’s stated. Now, if the argument was stated that altruism does exist, that there is never such a thing as an equal exchange – that could not ever be disproved either.
Let’s take an example. I’m on a crowded bus and I give up my seat to allow a pregnant woman to sit. Now according to ‘reward theory’, I didn’t do this because I am willing to help strangers when I’m able to and when it’s fairly easy to do so. No, I received from this ‘exchange’, good feelings for myself equal to the value of the effort expended. What nonsense, but the trouble is I’m within the argument which ASSUMES that a trade occurs and defines the reward in terms of that trade.
To disprove this theory, people are forced to find an example where there is obviously no reward for the ‘altruism’. The normal example is the anonymous kidney donor. Oh no, say the reward theorists, he receives a kidney’s-worth of good feelings. And any other example you think about, freeware, helping a blind person across the road, anything at all. The point is that the theory is based on the assumption that it’s innate for people to trade. It supports the dominant Capitalist ideology and states that you don’t and can’t do anything for nothing and that everything has it’s price.
Is there any hope for humanity if we teach and are taught that we cannot relate to each other than on this basis?. The implications are quite horrendous – that the concept of charity does not exist, that economic aid requires an economic return (which is often the case in practice) but I think the main point is that we are being taught to be fantastically selfish – worse than that – we are being taught that there is no other way except to be fantastically selfish, individualistic and self-centered.
By accepting this teaching we are transformed into individual consuming units. Individual consuming units are important because they mean greater demand for consumer products. However, they also mean loneliness, solitude and alienation from others. Can you really love someone on this basis? I think that it was Caesar who originally developed the theory of divide and conquer …
George Monbiot has a very good article on Neonicatinoid poisoning being the nu DDT, our environment, government support support for such poisoning using discredited, flawed studies, etc. Strange that I missed it first time.
It’s the new DDT: a class of poisons licensed for widespread use before they had been properly tested, which are now ripping the natural world apart. And it’s another demonstration of the old truth that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
It is only now, when neonicotinoids are already the world’s most widely deployed insecticides, that we are beginning to understand how extensive their impacts are. Just as the manufacturers did for DDT, the corporations which make these toxins claimed that they were harmless to species other than the pests they targeted. Just as they did for DDT, they have threatened people who have raised concerns, published misleading claims and done all they can to bamboozle the public. And, as if to ensure that the story sticks to the old script, some governments have collaborated in this effort. Among the most culpable is the government of the United Kingdom.
As Professor Dave Goulson shows in his review of the impacts of these pesticides, we still know almost nothing about how most lifeforms are affected. But as the evidence has begun to accumulate, scientists have started discovering impacts across a vast range of wildlife.
Slightly later edit: The article is well worth reading and I should have quoted this section. (and it should be Neonicotinoid in the title.)
Most people who read this newspaper will be aware by now of the evidence fingering neonicotinoids as a major cause of the decline of bees and other pollinators. These pesticides can be applied to the seeds of crops, and they remain in the plant as it grows, killing the insects which eat it. The quantities required to destroy insect life are astonishingly small: by volume these poisons are 10,000 times as powerful as DDT. When honeybees are exposed to just 5 nanogrammes of neonicotinoids, half of them will die. As bees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths, beetles and other pollinators feed from the flowers of treated crops, they are, it seems, able to absorb enough of the pesticide to compromise their survival.
