Clegg

UK parliament to discuss Syria tomorrow

Spread the love

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.

As yet there is no confirmation that chemical weapons have been used or that they were used by Assad’s government. This is a very difficult test since the terrorist ‘rebels’ supported by the West are known to have had possession of chemical weapons when they were arrested in Turkey.

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.

Continue ReadingUK parliament to discuss Syria tomorrow

Syria

Spread the love

 

UK planned war on Syria before unrest began: French ex-foreign minister

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.”

“US Backed Plan to Launch Chemical Weapon Attack on Syria and Blame it on Assad Government”

 

‘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
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.

Britamgate: Staging False Flag Attacks in Syria

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
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.

…

Turkish Police find Chemical Weapons in the Possession of Al Nusra Terrorists heading for Syria

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.

Continue ReadingSyria

I don’t want to do this any more

Spread the love

First revision 13 july 2013

I don’t want to do this any more. I would much prefer to be sailing. I’d like to buy a small boat but then I’d need to be working and earning. I’d like a regular boyfriend. I’d like to drink less and make fewer rather embarrassing remarks.

I don’t want to do this any more. I want to be working and earning so that I can buy a small boat and go sailing. The trouble is that I can’t be working and earning because these bastards get in the way all the time.

I could be working and earning or just working on earning to start with if it wasn’t for these bastards. I’ve got some skill and knowledge with puters – it’s just problem-solving, analysis, understanding systems. I think that I’ve demonstrated that I’m able and bright enough to do that. I am. I have the ability to be a sys admin, network admin, programmer, etc. These bastards will never let me do that.

I know a good crowd who run a social enterprise. Basically it means that they make very little money but at least they are doing some good and improving themselves. I could hang round with them and do some work if it wasn’t for those bastards. Those bastards that interfere all the time spying and prying and breaking networks and things. I’ve tried, I can’t work at the social enterprise that I know.

Looks like I can’t have a boat because of the bastards. [24/07/13 edit: Then earn money doing some different work.]

I don’t want to do this any more. It started years ago around 98 or 99. I was one of the early bloggers. Reality cracking, rejecting the bullshit that they feed us every day, they take us for fools. That’s asking for it.

Ian Blair is quite a pathetic figure really. He’s achieved very little apart from covering up for murder and a big pension. Corrupt and promoted far above his intellect and abilities for political reasons. New Labour to the last he even blamed Boris when he cut the deal with Jacquie. He’s just a useless bastard really, a parasitic tic with the sadim touch.

It is worth looking at Ian Blair’s tenure as boss of the Metropolitan police. You’ll see that he did a lot of politicking and very little policing. There’s a lot of very thinly disguised bullshit going on, a definite agenda other than policing being followed. He was Tony Blair’s butler. I’ve lately been having this image of the two Blairs being cheeks of the same arse sharing a mouth. Ugh.

I don’t really want to do this any more because – contrary to some speculation in the past – I have achieved what I set out to achieve. I have cracked reality. I have reached an understanding of what it’s all about. It’s about a lot of things and about the interactions of a lot of things. I’m not likely to be able to explain even if you were accepting and attentive which is unlikely but perhaps I should try explaining some main points.

The concept of parallax. [Thanks Parallax:)

Things look different according to where you’re looking from.

So, being a suspected terrorist of the self-exploding type I can reason that there are no real terrorists. Since I know for a fact that I am not a terrorist but instead labelled as a terrorist I can reasonably conclude that there are many more similar to me. I am in fact aware that there are many others similar to me. For example, in UK whole political groups of non-terrorists have been labelled terrorists.

What’s going on here then? Are there terrorists or not?

There are certainly terrorists.

There is the odd one or two obviously insane terrorists like the failed shoe bomber. This is interesting because labelling people as terrorists as the authorities do is likely to lead to self-fulfilling prophesies in some cases. It is also likely that that is the intention since there is a definite dearth of terrorist terrorists.

Then there are people who hack people to death on crowded streets in daylight. They’re not terrorists. They’re racially-motivated murderers. Incidentally, it’s interesting to see how the press and media were manipulated in such cases.

Then there are the real terrorists. The SAS got caught with bombs in Basra. Terrorists. We know that they’re terrorists because they had bombs, were disguised, didn’t have a reasonable explanation and were broken out of jail by the UK army.

Then there is the modus operandi of the terrorists. They arrange a security drill to make sure they’re all in place to control the act and the press and media. Then they blame Islam and Muslims, even sometimes making false claims on websites. Sometimes they even sneakily change laws just to make sure they will never be held to account for their terrorism. The timing is also often very convenient or accords to some higher (Non-Muslim) reason.

Then there are terrorist acts which are known as military operations like killing hundreds of thousands on innocent Iraqis or war crimes using banned chemical weapons like white phosphorous. Oh FM don’t mention that, that was the Israelis. Somehow these incidents are not recognised as terrorism.

I’ve got it. Terrorists are the people that the Fascist scum criminals in power are opposed to. So political activists and opponents to scum politicians are terrorists except of course that they’re not: they’re political activists and opponents of scum politicians. You get people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden labelled as terrorists except of course that they’re not. They’re not even traitors – they’re serving their people and opposing scum politicians / real terrorists.

So why does Islam and Muslims get blamed so much?

Islam and Muslims are a hindrance to Capitalism. Capitalism needs to make more profit and expand into Muslim countries. How can Capitalism do that if these people look after each other and indulge in charitable giving and the like? Capitalism needs to burn that oil.

Is that about it?

That’s about it except about scum politicians. Tony Blair and his bunch of shits weren’t socialists. Nick Clegg and his bunch of shits are not liberals. They’re all Neo-Liberal Neo-Conservatives who have hijacked their respective parties. The UK ‘Liberal Democrats’ are doing some awfully illiberal things because Clegg and his crew are huge Tory bastards pretending to be liberals.

I feel a bit better now. I suppose that I have to do it. Nobody else will.

 

13/07/13 7.50am typos corrected

19/07/13 11am added links

 

Continue ReadingI don’t want to do this any more

UK politics news review

Spread the love

 

Since the last UK politics news review the Labour party conference has ended and the Conservative scum conference has started. Towards the end of the Labour party conference there was the unveiling of familiar NHS imagery and the start of a criticism of the Conservative-Liberal-Democrat Con-Dem policy of austerity.

The Conservative scum party came to power illegitimately, having campaigned on many promises of protecting the NHS – “no top-down privatisation”, “I’ll cut the defecit, not the NHS”, etc – and then joining with their Liberal-Democrat-Conservatives to form the coalition government. While there was no clear winner from the 2010 general election, the ConDems have proceeded to pursue policies contrary to their election pledges for which they cannot possibly have any electoral mandate.

The Conservatives are known as the nasty party and follow Blair’s policies and philosophy. It has been noted by several commentators that their conference is a showpiece affair. Slasher Bully-boy Osborne’s speech was certainly of the reciprocal applause every sentence affair. Bully-boy and British prime minister David Cameron is expected to make his “I’m a pretty straight kinda guy” speech today – I feel that it could never be as deceitful as Blair’s on a very fundamental level.

 

Continue ReadingUK politics news review

UK politics news review

Spread the love

It’s the last day of the Liberal-Democrat-Conservatives conference at Brighton today.

  • Seumas Milne has a comment is free article on the unity of the coalitionwhile there is empty, superficial, phoney differentiation.…Some of the battles are real enough. But when it comes to the core of the government’s programme, they’re little more than shadow boxing. As the Lib Dems’ man at the Treasury, Danny Alexander, spelled out on Tuesday, the whole coalition backs a scale of cuts the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called “almost without historical and international precedent” – but is now committed to an additional £15bn squeeze for 2015-16.

    For all the Lib Dem boasts about their green credentials, a pupil premium that isn’t getting through to the poorest and increases in tax allowances that are mainly benefiting the better off, they remain fully signed up to the main agenda: an austerity, welfare cuts and privatisation programme that is cutting taxes for the rich and the banks, throttling recovery and threatening to widen inequality still further for years to come.

    We may not all be in this together – but they are. Lib Dem activists naturally don’t like it, but there’s little sign of rebellion. In what remains the most democratic of the main parties’ conferences, delegates still allowed themselves to be pushed into voting for more austerity – apparently out of loyalty and fear of what Tim Farron, their president, insisted would mean “chaos, mass unemployment and human misery”.

    When it comes to the Liberal Democrat leadership, it’s easy to forget how close the Orange Book faction around Clegg were to the Tories on economic policy to start with. In an echo of New Labour, the pro-privatisation, small state Orange Bookers – including Clegg, David Laws and Ed Davey – took over the Lib Dems at exactly the time the neoliberal model they so admired was imploding in the crisis of 2007-8.

    But their rapid rise laid the ground for the coalition with Cameron’s Tories. And any idea that they might have rethought a discredited ideology was dispelled on the Brighton fringe, where the home office minister Jeremy Browne rhapsodised about the free market, and Orange Book editor and hedge funder Paul Marshall gleefully recalled that Cable, another contributor, had endorsed privatisation of public services and a state spending cap of 40% of GDP (it’s now about 45%).

    …

  • Conservative Liberal-Democrat leader Nick Clegg is expected to make a speech today extolling the virtues of the ConDems slashing social benefits and public services while supporting super-rich bankers with huge benefits. He is expected to make the preposterous claim that the fourth, fifth or sixth party in UK politics is now a party of government. I expect the speech will be altered to avoid mention of Alan Sugar who called him a twat.

  • 6,000 nurses cut from NHS in two years

    The number of nurses and midwives working in the NHS has plummeted by almost 6,000 in the last two years, figures showed today.

    Since April 2010 the number of qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff has fallen by 5,748, according to data gathered by the Health And Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC).

    Between May and June this year a further 840 posts were lost, according to the HSCIC’s workforce statistics for England.

    The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) warned that the fall in numbers would cost the NHS more in the long run.

    RCN chief and general secretary Peter Carter said: “Our members have been highlighting the posts being slashed by NHS trusts for more than two years now and we have proved that more than 60,000 posts are at risk.

    “You simply can’t take out this many posts without profoundly affecting patient care.”

 

 

NHS privatisation: Compilation of financial and vested interests

 

 

“We do want to break up the NHS. We don’t want to privatise it, we want to break it up.” Nick Clegg.

 

Nick Clegg’s demand for the NHS to be broken up

…

Opponents said the comments about the NHS, in a 2005 interview in the Independent, showed that Mr Clegg had no understanding of the way the health service works.

In the interview, carried out while Charles Kennedy was leader and two years before Mr Clegg took the job, he said: ‘I think breaking up the NHS is exactly what you do need to do to make it a more responsive service.’

Asked whether he favoured a Canadian or European-style social insurance system, he said: ‘I don’t think anything should be ruled out. I do think they deserve to be looked at because frankly the faults of the British health service compared to others still leave much to be desired.

‘We will have to provide alternatives about what a different NHS looks like.’

Under a social insurance system, members pay into an insurance scheme, either themselves or through an employer, to guarantee their healthcare. It means that those who pay into a more expensive scheme can get better care.

Under the NHS, however, everyone pays into the same scheme through taxes – and is then guaranteed care that is ‘free at the point of use’.

In the interview, Mr Clegg said ‘defending the status quo’ is no longer an option. Instead, he called on his party to ‘let its hair down’, ‘break a long-standing taboo’ and be ‘reckless’ in its thinking.

‘We do want to break up the NHS,’ he said. ‘We don’t want to privatise it, we want to break it up. Should the debate be taboo? Of course not, absolutely not.’

A year earlier, Mr Clegg had contributed to the notorious Orange Book in which those on the right of the party discussed how policies should change under Mr Kennedy’s leadership. The conclusion of the book outlines in more detail the type of insurance scheme he was outlining.

‘The NHS is failing to deliver a health service that meets the needs and expectations of today’s population,’ it said.

John Lister, of the lobby group Health Emergency, said: ‘These comments show Mr Clegg does not understand the NHS. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that social insurance schemes in Europe are far more expensive.’

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: ‘The NHS is one of Britain’s most loved institutions. People will be worried that Nick Clegg wants to “break it up”.’ [!!! That’s Andrew Lansley pretending that the NHS is safe in Tory hands before the election !!!]

 

How the Orange Bookers took over the Lib Dems

…
What Britain now has is a blue-orange coalition, with the little-known Orange Book forming the core of current Lib Dem political thinking. To understand how this disreputable arrangement has come about, we need to examine the philosophy laid out in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, edited by David Laws (now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems’ present leadership.

Published in 2004, the Orange Book marked the start of the slow decline of progressive values in the Lib Dems and the gradual abandonment of social market values. It also provided the ideological standpoint around which the party’s right wing was able to coalesce and begin their march to power in the Lib Dems. What is remarkable is the failure of former SDP and Labour elements to sound warning bells about the direction the party was taking. Former Labour ministers such as Shirley Williams and Tom McNally should be ashamed of their inaction.

Clegg and his Lib Dem supporters have much in common with David Cameron and his allies in their philosophical approach and with their social liberal solutions to society’s perceived ills. The Orange Book is predicated on an abiding belief in the free market’s ability to address issues such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government and prisons.

The Lib Dem leadership seems to sit very easily in the Tory-led coalition. This is an arranged marriage between partners of a similar background and belief. Even the Tory-Whig coalition of early 1780s, although its members were from the same class, at least had fundamental political differences. Now we see a Government made up of a single elite that has previously manifested itself as two separate political parties and which is divided more by subtle shades of opinion than any profound ideological difference.
…

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue ReadingUK politics news review