Britain and Labour's shame

This isn't about the home teams' poor performance in the Rugby World Cup.   Sadly, this is a comment on the abject state of Britain's policy of appeasement and cowardice in the face of radical Islam.

The UK parliament will, at some point in the near future, vote on the UK military taking part in a coalition of countries fighting against Daesh in Syria.  The Labour party are still considering their position but their leader seems to be fundamentally opposed to any military action, whatsoever.  The Conservative leader, Prime Minister David Cameron, had his nose bloodied a couple of years ago and now wants to have a vote that produces an overwhelming majority in favour of action.  The Scottish Nationalists have yet to settle on their position but have previously been against intervention.

Bear in mind that what will be voted upon, is intervention in Syria.  The UK is already contributing, albeit very half-heartedly, in the fight against Daesh, in Iraq.  Think about that, for a moment.  You are a Royal Air Force bomber pilot about to bomb a target close to the Syria-Iraq border, but since the border is really just a line on a map, do you bomb a Daesh convoy or do you return to base?  Do you just bomb the ones you are fairly sure are on the Iraqi side and let the others close to the border proceed or what?  Do you worry that the ones you didn't bomb are now free to go off and enslave and kill people who aren't members of the Daesh death cult?  Do you think about the fact that liberal 'desk-jockeys' back in the comfort of the Ministry of Defence, in London, will, after the event sit in judgement over you and, like Sergeant Al Blackman (so called Marine A) you could end up in jail?  Do you maybe think that it would be far easier to have a leader like President Obama, who is severely restraining the USAF's bombing missions and so taking away the need to make such decisions (even though America could bomb, both sides of the border)?   Do you think that a leader like Russia's President Putin would be better - he seems to be okay with bombing and doesn't respect borders (see Ukraine) but does seem more interested in bombing anti-Assad forces, than Daesh.  Do you have time for all this thinking?

But I digress!

As said earlier, Britain's parliament will vote, in the near future.  The vote has been mooted for some time but Cameron has been postponing it because he couldn't be sure of winning it - even though the Conservatives have a parliamentary majority.  With the recent unanimous UN Security Council vote, he will perhaps feel more confident of getting wavering Labour supporters.

Labour is now led by Jeremy Corbyn and in the past he has shown very strong support for the murderous Provisional IRA terrorists as well as the terrorist Hamas organisation, so he is perhaps conflicted about taking on another terrorist organisation?  Certainly his reaction  to the death of Jihadi John - he thought it would have been better if he had been brought to justice - was typical Corbyn, since only 'boots on the ground' (something Corbyn opposes) could capture Jihadi John!  I expect that a vote when it comes, will produce the largest rebellion against Corbyn's leadership, because he will oppose a vote calling for escalation against Daesh and many of his backbenchers will not support him.

The SNP are struggling to find a way to make themselves relevant, at Westminster and only manage by performing stunts, so they may oppose, en bloc.  They are saying they will hear what the government has to argue and then decide but my sense is that they instinctively oppose the Conservatives, just on principle.

What most bothers me about all of this, is the moral vacuum in which the UK, finds itself.  We seem to be okay with others doing our fighting for us.  We accept Russian pilots putting their lives on the line, to bomb Daesh and therefore remove people that might come to the UK and kill and terrorise us but we won't fight.  That is shaming!  I don't believe that there is any cowardice on the part of the UK's military but it is certainly being exhibited by UK politicians!

These same UK politicians have seen the failure of multi-culturalism and yet continue to appease Islam.  They bend the knee to the terrorist supporting Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Iran so it is no surprise that they are unable to see a clear way out of the moral dilemma in which they have cornered themselves.

They are starting to consider that maybe, just maybe, opening the doors to the so called 'refugees' currently invading Europe isn't the best way to solve the Syrian civil war.  Especially with so many potential terrorists coming in, at the same time.  Certainly the opinion of the British public is moving very decisively away from accepting 'refugees' - post-Paris, while at the same time, majority opinion is still in favour of the RAF taking part in air strikes on Daesh.

I posted recently calling on the forces of good, to carpet bomb Raqqa and I repeat that.  Daesh need to be eradicated.  The fools in the corridors of power, in Westminster, the White House and elsewhere need to understand that there can be no negotiations or discussions with this death cult.  Daesh are interested only in killing people that do not follow their version of Islam - those UK Labour people who think that a political deal can be reached with Daesh are the same kind of fools that led to the belief that it was possible to do a deal with Hitler, in the 1930s.

Cameron must call the vote, early next week and expose Labour and the SNP for what at best might be called naivete and at worse, political opportunism.

Oh! And the vote should not be just for air strikes.  It should be for all military options.


    

If not Assad

It is clear that we are moving towards a change in approach to the Syrian civil war.

Putin's Russia has always been clear that he supports the regime of President Assad.  We can sense though, that some European leaders are also moving in that direction.  The problem for the Europeans is that they have been very publicly strident in their condemnation of Assad.  They have repeatedly said, that Assad must go and they wouldn't talk to him.

Finally, however, these leaders are recognising that Assad has to play a part in the process.  This dawning of reality, however odious it might seem (and do listen out for the knee-jerk shrieks of horror from the liberal media), also finally moves the focus very strongly onto how to eliminate Daesh (ISIS).

Russia is calling for coordination of the military effort and, if only to avoid a potential clash between East and West forces, this really has to happen.  France has now commenced air operations against Daesh, in Syria - having earlier said that such actions would be illegal!  Seems like President Hollande is putting socialist rhetoric behind realpolitik in the pecking order.  UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, is expected to bring a motion before parliament, within the coming weeks, seeking parliamentary approval for the UK to join in the bombing of Daesh targets in Syria.  If Germany can pull itself away from the silly Volkswagen matter, then they too might participate.

This coalescing towards a coordinated and focused attack on Daesh can have a number of positive effects.

Firstly, this should allow for the creation of a series of safe zones within Syria, protected by the air power available.

Secondly, this will then provide a reason to halt the flood of migrants that have been leaving Syria.  For this, real assistance, rather than just score settling with Turkish Kurds, will be need to be demanded from Turkey.  Demanded because Turkey has, throughout the whole sorry story, served only its own interests.  Indeed, it is clear that Turkey, led by the strongly Islamic Erdogan, has allowed for a significant destabilisation of its neighbours and the EU.

Thirdly, this will take the fight to Daesh.  It is clear that the Syrians do not have the capability to eliminate them.  It is equally clear that the Iraqi army does not have the stomach for a fight against Daesh.  They have very little to no support amongst Sunni Iraqis.  Their Shia militias are simply lawless and, not too different from Daesh in how they subjugate the areas they occupy.  Their Iranian allies, seem more interested in colonizing the south of Iraq than in taking on Daesh.  The Kurdish Peshmerga can, and do, hold the line against Daesh but they are poorly armed and, due to Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian pressure, the West have produced very feeble support and materiel, so the Peshmerga are being under-used.

The issue of who succeeds Assad needn't concern us, at this point.  He is very weakened and whatever the outcome, cannot survive in the medium term.  This does not mean that Syria, free  of Daesh, will become a democracy post-Assad.  One has to question whether or not, the imposition of Western style democracy is suited for some countries, including Syria.  The Syrian civil war was a direct outcome of the so called Arab Spring.  This 'flowering' of people power has led to absolute chaos in Libya, an effective military dictatorship in Egypt (no realm change there!) and a loosening of control in Tunisia, following the ousting of long-term President Ben Ali, such that Islamic terror can stalk their tourist resorts, killing at will.

So change is coming to the Syria conflict and this will create some strange bed-fellows but the West, if Obama and Kerry's naivete  can be sidelined, has an opportunity to eliminate Daesh and then to eliminate Al Qaeda in Syria (though doing the latter might just create a vacuum for Hezbollah to fill). Now therefore, is the time for Cameron and Hollande to show backbone and stand-up to this lame-duck US President and his court-jester Secretary of State.  Who knows, they might even get some trade-off, from Russia, relative to Ukraine.

Europe's refugee crisis

This blog is principally addressed to most politicians and those in the West who have been emotionally moved by the TV pictures of the so called ‘refugees’ now invading Europe. 

I must declare an interest.  I too was moved by the pictures of the dead child, lying in the gently lapping surf.   I did though have a slightly different take on this.  Like many people, I was angry.  Such a waste of a young life and what a way to die!  However, my anger was directed towards the child’s father.  Why would this father take his child from the safety of Turkey and risk himself and his family’s lives by taking them on board a flimsy boat, heading in the direction of Greece?  I fully understand why the father took his family out of Syria, though since he apparently came from Kobane, which is now controlled by Syrian Kurds, one has to wonder a little.  

However, this father and his family were in Turkey.  So why did the father take the risk?  Why are all of those politicians who emote so on TV, wringing tears and their hands on rolling news programmes, not asking what caused this man to act, as he did? 

If he was genuinely at risk in Turkey then why is this not being addressed?  He is a Kurd and Turkey has a long-standing and very active antipathy towards Kurds.  Was that his reasoning?  I can’t think of any other.  If Twitter is to be believed though, this family had remained in Turkey, for some considerable time, between fleeing Kobane and then moving on, which raises other questions about the level of fear and its immanency. 

So why then don’t Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, David Cameron and others punish Turkey for this climate of fear that causes people to flee from a supposedly safe country?    Where are the politicians that are condemning Turkey?   Leave aside for a moment, Turkey using the guise of attacks against Daesh to launch brutal attacks on PKK Kurds and Iraqi Kurds  who themselves are fighting Daesh.  Where is President Obama taking Turkey to task?  Search the internet and see if you can find speeches railing against Turkey’s actions, from any Western leader.

So I come back to why the father took the known risk of moving his family out of Turkey and, let’s assume he thought it best, given the ‘persecution’ in Turkey.  Why then not head towards Armenia or Georgia, or take an overland route to Greece?  Why not throw themselves on the mercy of Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Qatar – why not invade their embassies in Ankara?  These countries share religion and other cultural ties, which would help the family to better assimilate.  Of course, there are far less ‘bleeding hearts’ in those countries, which may have coloured his judgement, but surely the safety of his family would come first?

Moving on from this particular family and the tragic outcome of this man’s decision, we then come to the farce that is the European Union.  I use the word farce, though in truth, there is nothing remotely funny about what is going on – please excuse my use but I cannot think of another that captures the idiocy and hypocrisy that is now on display.

The unelected President of the European Commission – Jean-Claude Juncker thinks that all EU members should take a share of up to 160,000 refugees, this year.  The quotas would be based on GDP  and other criteria.  Britain, Ireland and Denmark would be exempt from these ‘compulsory’ quotas because they have opt-outs under EU treaties.   It is not clear how this number marries up with Angela Merkel’s seeming acceptance of Germany taking in 800,000 refugees, this year. 

Mrs Merkel ‘s decision has been likened on Twitter, to those naïve teenagers who put a note on social media saying ‘party at my house’ and then are shocked to see that in addition to those they want to attend, they find their parent’s house being overrun by ‘gate crashers’ and being trashed by these people.  What seemed at first like a good idea, shows, in the cold light of morning a harsh reality. 

This though is a reality that has far and deep consequences for the whole of Europe. 

These ‘refugees’ are not some kind of homogenous group, fleeing war in Syria.  As others have said, included under this umbrella are economic migrants.  Also, we can clearly expect that Daesh will use this opportunity to infiltrate murderers into our midst.

Worryingly, these ‘refugees’ all seem to seek residency.  That is, they want to become permanent residents.  The assumption must be that were peace to suddenly descend upon Syria, they would not return.  Once they get into Europe, they stay in Europe.  And why wouldn’t they?  It isn’t as if, like with prior migrations, they are obliged to assimilate.  They can maintain, indeed, they are very actively and positively encouraged to maintain, their own separate cultural identity.  So they have many of the ‘benefits’ of their homeland, none of the drawbacks and they enjoy the fruits of a much better economic position.   Why would they ever return? 

Make no mistake, this migration is an invasion.  An alien culture is being foisted upon Europe’s peoples.   And this does affect all of the EU countries.  Once these ‘refugees’ become citizens of Germany, they have completely free movement and can go and work and live in any member state.  They can also claim welfare benefits just as if they were a local national resident.

Europeans, including countries like the UK, should not be relaxed about this.  Just because they are not opening their flood gates to a new wave of immigrants (some would say they are already wide open, anyway!), does not mean they will not be affected.  They will.  Denmark can close it’s rail links with Germany, in an effort to stop the tide but like that old Viking, King Cnut, they are wasting their time. 

Europe’s people need to stop and think.  It is no good depending upon politicians to solve this.  Do that and you get fools like Merkel and Juncker making their statements and other politicians sucking up to the liberal left and luvvies in the media.  People that never have to live with or be exposed to the consequences of their actions, on a day to day basis. 

I have a proposal for any of those media people or fools who say that they will take in a refugee family.  Will you do so, on the basis that you personally accept full economic responsibility for these people and all of their offspring, in perpetuity?   You will continue to house them, feed them, pay for schooling for them, pay for medical care for them and so on and on?  Not just today or tomorrow but for ever?  If not, why should any tax payer accept such responsibility so that you can salve your conscience and feel good at the next meeting of friends.  Can you look your children in the eye and convince them that their economic future will not be threatened by you taking on the economic burden of another family?

Of course, the reality is that caring for these refugees is about more than just passing over last season’s coats or putting a temporary roof over the head of a refugee family.  This is a long term undertaking.  Individual people doing this are grossly irresponsible.  They know that their involvement will always be short term.  They know that the burden, the true burden will be borne by the tax payer and society at large. 

What is there to suggest that these refugees have the economic resources to house and feed  themselves in the host country?  What is there to suggest that these people, many coming from an agricultural background, will find work?  Indeed, in a Europe that has very poor or non-existent economic growth,  where are the jobs to come from?  Juncker’s afore-mentioned plan calls for Spain to take a large part of the 160,000 compulsory quota.  Spain with youth unemployment at almost 50%! What is there to suggest that these people can pay for healthcare for themselves and their family? Or for education?

Consdider Britain (though most other countries would be equally applicable).  Does anyone believe that Britain has spare social housing?  Has, even with a growing economy, many spare jobs (particularly in the agricultural sector).  That the NHS isn’t already stretched and that schools have lots of free places? 

The reality is that any housing for these refugees will come from the private sector and will be funded by the tax payer.  The reality is that these refugees will not be able to find work or, if they do, will displace local nationals and so welfare payments will increase.  The reality is that the NHS will become more and more of a failure because it simply can’t cope.  The reality is that school class sizes will be increased and education outcomes will suffer.  And all of this with a further erosion of cultural traditions.  Trust me, it is not in the British tradition, to execute a serving British soldier on the streets of the country’s capital, by seeking to cut off his head.  Nor is it to mutilate young women or to blow-up fellow citizens (the murderous IRA, notwithstanding).

So I ask my readers, when you see the heart-string tugging pictures on TV or hear people prattling on about ‘we need to do something’ ask them  how much they are prepared to pay and how much they are prepared to give-up – not just money or material goods but also long-held freedoms and traditions. 

There was a very successful campaign against people giving a dog as a Christmas present.  The tag line was ‘A dog is for life not just for Christmas’  The way we now act, the phrase could be changed to ‘A refugee is for life not just for Christmas!’

EU Immigration - The solution

The European Union is facing an unprecedented invasion, right now.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are swarming into the EU, or are poised to do so.  Germany is said to be facing an influx of more than 800,000, this year.

This solution might work for some of them.

Many of these migrants are Muslims, fleeing war in Syria and Iraq or in Somalia or Eritrea or Ethiopia or Afghanistan.

Surely it would be far, far better for these migrants to be re-housed in a culture that is more in keeping with their own?

So why don't the EU authorities turn these people around and send them to Saudi Arabia or Iran - depending upon which Islamic sect, they follow.

Both are rich countries, both are strongly religious and won't persecute the migrants for practicing their religion - so long as they chose the right country.  Both are large countries with plenty of room for settling large numbers.  Saudi Arabia has a large population of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent - mainly Pakistan, it could simply replace these with the immigrants that are most in need.

This solution would reduce the burden on European countries and stop the indigenous people from feeling swamped and for their ailing economies being even more strained.  Plus, it gives the Saudis and the Iranians the opportunity to show charity and compassion to their co-religionists.  Win/Win really!

This would also take away the opportunity of those in Europe to say that these are merely economic migrants - just looking for a better life in Europe, than they can achieve at home.

If this is successful and these masses of Muslims could be accommodated within these two stalwarts of the Muslim community, then perhaps those Muslims that have migrated to Europe, during previous upheavals, could also leave and settle there, as well.

Too simplistic?  Consider how many Greeks and Turks moved in opposite directions when those nations moved apart in the 1920's.  Consider how many Muslims moved from what was to become India to what was to become Pakistan, in 1947 (and Hindus in the opposite direction.)  Mass migration can work, indeed has worked but has been most successful, when the people moving, move to an area with which they are culturally familiar.

Maybe the Americans could try this with their non-Mexican immigrants?  Let them stay in Mexico rather than take them into the USA and put them, (in an effort to disperse the large numbers) into alien environments.

If something isn't done though, watch for the further rise of far Right parties in Europe.  The French National Front is already in the ascendancy and will only be stopped from taking the French presidency by a coalition of Socialists, Communists and Conservatives.  We see, in Spain, Greece and Germany, a backlash building.  Even in my beloved UK, the UK Independence Party garnered a lot of support, in the last General Election, because of it's anti-immigration policies.

Doing nothing, isn't really an option!

Home grown terrorists

There is growing concern in Britain and the rest of Europe and Australia and the USA about the problem of so called home grown terrorists.  In Britain we have just had one of these young men becoming a suicide bomber, in Iraq.

These are most often the children of immigrants to the host country.  The problem of what to do about this is, as I understand it, that the host country cannot remove the passports or revoke the nationality of these young, mostly, men since they were born in the host country.  However,  certainly in the UK, that largely doesn't apply to the parents of these people.

I was absolutely shocked to see and hear, earlier this year, when three young girls left London and traveled to Daesh-held Syria, via Turkey, the family blaming London's Metropolitan Police for not doing more to stop their own children from leaving!  So much for their idea of parental responsibility!

So my solution is to revoke the right to stay for these parents and then deport them to their home country.  Yes, that's right - visit the sins of the children upon the father.  These families need to take responsibility for their children.  We are constantly being told that these Muslim families are close-knit families so let's see some family responsibility.  Indeed, I would not just restrict this to those that travel to join-up with Daesh.  If their children children participate in marches or protests where they carry the black flags of Daesh or protest against British troops, then the same punishment to be visited upon the parents.  Yes we live in a democracy but we will not provide Daesh with the means with which to destroy us!

It is high time that the peaceful majority in the Muslim community, stood up and showed how peaceful they really are and that they exercise control over those elements within their community, who would see our country become like the caliphate that Daesh is imposing in Iraq and Syria.  Women sold into sexual slavery, homosexuals thrown from the tops of buildings, people beheaded almost randomly.  Muslims in Britain, and other host countries, need to decide if they want to pay the price for such residency - that price is to stand-up for the things that make the host country what it is.  In Britain that means tolerance of followers other religions and of no religions.  It means acceptance of lifestyle choices made by people.  It means ceasing the barbaric practise of female genital mutilation (FGM) and above all it means treating all fellow citizens as equals and the laws of the land, as passed by Parliament as paramount and not supplantable by alien concepts such as Sharia

A recent poll, showed that more than 80% of Muslims support, to some degree or another the aims of Daesh.  Personally, I am always suspicious of such polls and how representative they truly are but the silence from the mosques of Britain might be considered telling.

Of course, the immediate effect of putting the above proposal into practice would be to get the Human Rights lawyers up in arms but the response to this has to be two fold.  Firstly, rush emergency legislation through Parliament, abrogating the relevant portions of existing Human Rights legislation and immigration laws.  Secondly, deport immediately with no right of appeal.

Of course it's harsh but take a surf on the Internet and see what playing 'nice' has done to Christians or even Muslims in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria.  Take a look at those people having their throat cut by 'peace loving' members of the religion of peace or watch people being burned alive, then tell me putting people on a plane is cruel and unusual punishment or that water-boarding is somehow evil and equal!   

Well done Bibi

 The title says it all.  Well done to Benjamin Netanyahu on his success in the recent Israeli elections.

This victory was seemingly against the odds as domestic issues - the economy etc., - tended to predominate and the story was not good.  Also because, to America's shame, it seems that President Obama went out of his way to interfere in Israeli politics and to actively work against Netanyahu's re-election.

It must have really stuck in the craw, for Islam-loving Obama, to find his only non-Bibi choice was a party bearing the word Zionist in its name but he swallowed deep and followed his political teachings, where the end justifies the means.  Except that this time, his end wasn't met.  The people of Israel did not fear the wrath of Obama.  

I trust though, that they can now depend on the support of the US Congress, whom Bibi just recently addressed.  The rumour-mill has it that in retaliation or more accurately, in a fit of childish pique, Obama will now change the US' stance at the United Nations and withdraw the previously solid and constant support for Israel.  

And why is Obama doing this?  

Well it is of course because Obama is looking to seal an agreement with Iran.  He sees this as an opportunity for a legacy.  His flagship Affordable Care Act or Obamacare as it is better known, is a miserable failure.  This will end-up being repealed wholly or in part, in the next administration. The American people are seeing through the pack of lies on which it was passed.  Not least because the people that passed it and their union backers have claimed exemptions  for themselves.  It's funny how Americans whose ancestors threw off the 'yoke of a monarchy' now have to endure an elected monarchy that sets one rule for the people and then sets themselves above those same rules.  Not so much 'let them eat cake' as let them eat higher insurance premiums'!

Benjamin Netanyahu understands that the deal being mooted, is a bad deal.  In this he is supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, who recognise the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran.  This isn't just an existential threat to Israel.  Iran is developing Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs).  The clue to their target is in the name - intercontinental.  The target is of course, the 'Great Satan' itself, the USA.  Once again, Obama is seen to be jeopardising the safety of America and Americans.  His swapping of the 5 Taliban terrorists for the deserter Bowe Bergdahl was another example. 

Obama has pussy-footed around on Syria and ISIS and in part has allowed ISIS its successes because it serves his anti-Israel and anti-America aims.  It has been left to the courageous Peshmerga forces of Kurdistan to offer any real opposition to the murderous Islamic State - which Obama still insists, isn't  Islamic!  The Peshmerga have been collecting arms from European countries but isn't being supported by the USA.  Obama prefers instead, to put minimal resources into training (again) the Iraqi army controlled by Baghdad.  This is the same army that is being supported by murderous Shia-Muslim militias.  These same militias, in recent activity, went into Sunni-Muslim tribal areas, previously controlled by ISIS and then started massacring local Sunnis.  Obama and the Baghdad government know, absolutely know, that the defeat and annihilation of ISIS in Southern Iraq, is very dependent  upon the support of Sunnis but that didn't stop them from letting the militias loose.  Is there any wonder that the Kurds want to take Mosul and Kirkuk themselves rather than leave it to the butchers from Baghdad?

It seems clear to this non-American observer, that Obama is working against the interest of the USA and its allies (sadly, a dwindling band) and it is now incumbent on the US Congress, in addition to providing support to Israel, to commence impeachment proceedings against Obama and should at the same time, use existing congressional mechanisms to de-fund Obamacare and other anti-American and anti-free enterprise legislation that has been recently passed.

Be clear, America and the World cannot successfully survive another two years of this very dangerous White House.

Do Americans still have courage? 

Answer to the ISIS dilemma

Western governments are in denial.

Right now they know that there is no appetite for any kind of 'boots on the ground' nor for any tie-up with the odious Assad regime. 

So what can they do to address this very significant threat? 

They are no doubt counting on ISIS' fifth columns within the USA, UK and France to commit bombing atrocities such that a groundswell of opinion for military intervention builds.  They must calculate how many bombings are needed.  Another Boston or maybe a spectacular like 9/11 or another Fusilier Lee Rigby or 7/7 in London?  Or maybe this time in Paris, which has a very special concern about its growing and self-alienated Muslim minority?

We should be alarmed because these atrocities will occur.  There is an inevitability about this that has escaped the media.

Islam is a religion of dominance.  Its adherents allow for no 'non-believers'.  You are either a Muslim and follower of Mohammed or you are an infidel.  Simply put, ones that doesn't follow Islam.  It will come as no comfort to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Atheists or those that follow the Jedi tradition, that their long and  often deeply held beliefs, count for nothing.  They are infidels and they must either convert to Islam or be punished.

The punishment is now being meted out on a daily basis in Iraq, to Christians and to Yazidis.  Also now, we hear, to Shiite Muslims.  The punishment is death.  There is no concept of co-existence, no 'my way or the highway'.  It's the Muslim way or death! Nothing extreme about this Sunni Muslim religion!  Think about this when you next hear some liberal fool tell you that Islam is the religion of peace!   Look twice and listen thrice at the 'moderate' Islamist that says that these fanatics don't represent the true face of Islam.  Simply put, these fanatics do represent Islam.

Catholics and Protestants fought many wars and caused countless deaths in furtherance of the schism in Christianity but the numbers have the potential to fade into insignificance compared to the deaths that will flow from the conflict between the two strands of Islam.  The 8 year long Iraq/Iran war cost the lives of an estimated million souls but that can be viewed as an appetizer for the multi-course banquet of death that awaits.  The 200,000 deaths in the proxy war being fought in Syria is also barely a taste of things to come. 

Right now, Sunni Saudi Arabia, with its extreme (though that term is relative) Wahabi sect, is at war with Shiite Iran and, in Syria and Iraq, the Saudis are in the ascendancy.  I say this, not to seek support for Iran, who are as likely to be as murderous as are the Saudi and Qatari backed ISIS fanatics.   Rather, this is a statement of the current state of play, however, should as seems ever more likely, Iran complete its quest for nuclear weapons, then the whole dynamic changes. 

In this goal of achieving a nuclear capability,  the Iranians are being aided by the inept policies of the Obama administration and a resurgent Russia (also a beneficiary of Obama's failed policies) as well as a feeble European Union foreign affairs effort.

The civilised world faces an existential battle. 

Communist China is feeling the effects of this.  India has seen this in the recent past, so has , Argentina, France, Nigeria and the aforementioned USA and UK to name just some of the countries.  Even the peacefully neutral Swedes and Norwegians are experiencing the conflict between their open societies and those of their Islamic migrant communities.  Denmark too has seen the illiberal consequences of allowing a cartoonist to publish his works.  Indeed Russia too, has tragic experience of trying to co-exist with the 'religion of peace' but Putin, having, some in the West say 'brutally dealt' with Islamic dissidents and terrorists, is currently playing a different game to secure Russia's borders and to poke America and the EU, in the eye at every opportunity.

So the solution?

First some history. 

When the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait in 1990, Margaret Thatcher was reported as telling the American President, George H Bush, not to go 'wobbly' and to have 'stiffened his spine' on the issue of confronting Saddam.  She saw the threat posed by Saddam and so too did Bush #1 quickly come to this realisation.

With, ISIS, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the civilised world faces a similar choice - either we fight now, in the sands of Arabia and Persia or we fight soon on the streets of London, Paris, New York, Beijing and Dehli.

Make no mistake, this is a fight that isn't going to go away.  It takes a certain type of fanaticism to hack-off the heads of people that don't follow your brand of religion.  The same kind of fanaticism that causes people to fly planes into buildings or walk into a hotel and randomly shoot people or to strap on a suicide bomb vest and detonate the bomb in a crowded market place.  Does it sound like these are people that can be reasoned with?  The lure of the 72 virgins is just too great for these people.  So since death is what they most want, death should be visited upon them and their supporters.

The solutions are not pretty but there is nothing nice about the aftermath of a suicide bombing or the beheading of innocents.

The world needs to decide where it stands and then back-up their declared position.  Russia needs to say if they are with the West or against it.  There can be no fence-sitting or neutrality.  Why?  Well this is about all-out war.  And it will be bloody and terrible.  ISIS and similar intolerant organisations need to be destroyed, not neutered, annihilated completely. 

Similarly Saudi Arabia and Qatar need to be brought to heel.  They cannot enjoy the fruits of western civilisation and industry while at the same time seeking the destruction of those societies.  The leadership of these countries need to be changed to reflect the required new direction that these countries must take.

Iran must immediately cease funding its proxies in Lebanon and Palestine and completely destroy its nuclear programme.  Again, regime change is needed.

Pakistan must give-up its nuclear weapons.  At this time the state is too unstable to be trusted with such weapons.  Its security services operate as a 'state within a state' and must be brought under democratic control before they decide to pass on enriched uranium to Islamic terrorists.

In Iraq and Syria, the allies - those that are 'with us' - need to impose a very heavy and brutally ruthless, military solution.  Any opposition, any, must be crushed and crushed completely.  There can be no hand-wringing in the media or from liberals in the West.  The consequences of a softly-softly approach can already be seen on the streets of our cities where ISIS fellow-travelers become ever more bold in pushing their murderous ideologies.  Where Islamsists kill a British soldier , on the streets of the capital and try to hack-off his head.  Where Islamists explode bombs at the finish-line of a marathon race.  Unfeeling brutality and force must be met with the a multiplied version of the same.  Make no mistake though, this will mean bombs dropped by planes and so called civilian casualties but we will also require to put 'boots on the ground'.  We will also need to impose economic sanctions against these people - starve them of the goods and yes, foods,  that their people need.  Frankly faced with pictures of the victims of ISIS or the pictures of starving ISIS followers, I would always be moved by the former and never by the latter.

The approach to Iraq and Syria must also be applied in North Africa and Nigeria.

In the home countries, Islamists must also make a decision.  Are they with their home country, in the existential fight against radical Islam or are they with the enemy?  If the latter, then they must be imprisoned - yes whole families interred.  You, as an Islamist, cannot live in the USA, UK or France etc., and burn the flags of those countries or spit on its soldiers.  You cannot declare certain areas as alcohol-free or forbid people to have dogs or women to walk around without a hijab.  These home countries and their traditions existed ever before you did.

Immediately, the oxygen of publicity must be deprived to Islamic organisations, the Muslim Council in the UK and CAIR in the USA are at best, just apologists for their murderous co-religionists.  They place an equivalence on the actions of these barbarians with those of the West  They insist on applying the laws of the host countries when it suits them, while all the time trying to impose Sharia law.

Immediately, any of the ISIS fighters, from western countries, that return 'home', must be imprisoned.  They must be taken out of circulation.

Immediately, the 'hate' legislation that exists in so many countries must be applied against these people that would threaten our very existence.  They may not all be prepared to be front-line 'fighters' but they support, with their hate-filled words, the elimination of Western ways.    There is a 'hands-off' policy linked to the failed  multi-culturalist policies that the West has adopted, which exempts Muslims from the application of law.  This has to stop.

Immediately, the Palestinian boil needs to be lanced.  The Abbas regime in the West Bank must be issued with an ultimatum.  Either you accept the right of Israel to exist or we (the West) will immediately cease all aid and impose a blockade to starve you into submission and we will fund opposition to Fatah, that does want peace.

In respect of Gaza, a similar ultimatum.  Either give-up the ISIS like Hamas terrorists or face the brutal consequences of your continued intransigence.  You have to decide if you want war or peace but know that war will be total and Gaza flattened!

The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron has talked of a generational struggle against this poisonous ideology and other politicians are coming to realise the battles that must be fought.  As said earlier though, this isn't about the traditional 'West'  This struggle affects India, China, Latin America, Africa and indeed, all of the world.

Who are you with?

Syria again

Following on from my recent post.

The British media seems dumbfounded that the House of Commons voted against British participation in any military intervention in Syria.

Let me help them understand.

Firstly, there are all those memories of Iraq and the sexed-up dossier.  Sadly, the UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, wasn't the only person to lose his life over this.  100,000's of Iraqis lost their lives too.  As did UK, US and troops from other nations.  And still the heartache continues for the Iraqi people.

Linked to the above, the most oft-cited criticism of the 2003 invasion was the lack of any coherent plan for the next stage.  Everyone wanted rid of Saddam Hussein but no one gave thought to what or who would replace him.  The Iraqi people are still suffering the effects.

Ordinary people in the UK and US (overwhelmingly opposed to intervention, polls suggest) know, that without some kind of plan for the post-Assad era, then the current regional instability will only increase.  The business author/guru has one of his Seven Habits of Successful People as 'start with the end in mind'.  I can't believe that the aim here is just to remove Assad.

I suspect that the people of the UK also have two over-riding thoughts on Syria.

Yes the pictures and events are truly horrible but what is it to do with us?  Why should the UK get involved?  The US sets itself as the 'world's policeman' so let them stick their nose in, keep ours out!

Secondly, why should the UK spend money it doesn't have, interfering in another country? Such interference will only lead to negative consequences for the UK economy.  The UK simply cannot afford to intervene - financially so.  How can we spend millions on bombs and jet fuel while preaching the need for austerity at home?  If there are millions of £ to spare, how about putting that by and giving it back to taxpayers?  Or, since government simply chokes on the idea of reducing taxes, how about paying out to people suffering from fuel poverty as a result of idiotic green policies?

I think that it comes down to that.  I don't think that most people look to the regional instability that is now in play and the tremendous uncertainty that we all face, as a consequence.  Perhaps they do see Syria as the proxy war battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran but the questions remain - what is this to do with the UK? 

There are of course humanitarian reasons to intervene but these reasons have prevailed in many other places and the West has closed its eyes.  I think though, that this time the scales have fallen from the eyes of the UK people and, fortunately from the eyes of UK parliamentarians.  

Oh and I won't be misled (and I suspect neither will the British public) by so called American intelligence reports.  These presumably come from the CIA?  The same CIA that couldn't protect the US Ambassador and three fellow Americans at Benghazi, Libya, last September 11? 

Ask yourself this.  Suppose that there is military intervention - we know this will only involve bombing or missiles - how will the interventionists ensure only the 'guilty' are targeted?  Then ask yourself, what's next?  I don't have the answer and I suspect that neither do our so called leaders.

Syria - The Vote! Questions for the Syrian opposition.

Well done to the UK Parliament! 

The opposition of the Labour Party to the UK Coalition government's motion was entirely predictable.  Though the performance of Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, lacked any passion and consisted of more froth than a bad latte! 

What was very encouraging, indeed heartening, was the 30 Tory MPs that voted against their own government.  And, to be fair,the 9 Lib Dem MPs who did the same.

Here is my 'take' on Syria and those chemical weapon attacks.

At best the House of Commons vote was premature.  The UN inspection team has not yet reported on the latest attacks but the UK and US government have both jumped-in and stated that they know this is the work of the Assad regime. 

Consider though, what did the Assad regime have to gain by such an action?  By most accounts, the regime were in the ascendancy in the civil war.  The fractious 'rebels' had been indulging in internecine squabbling and murder within the areas that they controlled and their lack of a serious 'government in waiting' (more in a moment on this) as well as seeming, at times, more focused on gaining localised advantages (see the stories about the attacks on Syria's non-Shiite people) rather than on regime change surely must put on the table the possibility that it was the 'rebels' that carried out the attacks. 

Just think about it!  They are losing.  They have heard the ever more foolish Obama speak of 'red lines', they have heard France's Hollande and Britain's Cameron and Hague talk of the need to stop the carnage caused by the Assad regime (the deaths caused by the 'rebels' somehow are always overlooked), so what to do?  How about finding a means to convince the world that the 'red lines' have been crossed?  A way to suck in the media obsessed Obama with shots of children, suffering hideously, on TV

In a dirty war such as Syria, no bets are off of the table.  And frankly, I would be very sceptical of any evidence produced by either side or the UN.  Everything is tainted. 

The 'rebels', heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda, know the value of dragging-in the 'West', both in the short term by bolstering their own failing military efforts and in the medium/longer term in showing the 'infidel West' as forever interfering in the region and pursuing a pro-Israel policy etc.. 

The Assad regime is of course, beyond the Pale.  Their subjugation of their own people and inhumane treatment, has been going on for years though.  David Cameron alleges that this latest chemical attack was number eleven, by the Syrian government, on its own people.  So why did the previous ten  attacks not warrant action or comment? 

I don't have the 'answer' to Syria but I do believe that military intervention by the 'West' will be akin to pouring petrol onto a fire rather than water. 

The 'water' needed must come from the Russian inspired political process which seeks to get people talking rather than killing.  It is galling that the odious Putin is leading the right way for a resolution!  That though is one outcome of Syria.  Strange bed-fellows abound.  Just look at the Syrian 'rebels'.  This includes people and groups who have a long history of opposition to Assad and to his father, before him.  Then you have the allegedly religiously inspired jihadists who are happy to latch on to any cause that promotes their ideal of foment and religious cleansing as well as an anti-West agenda.  These groups include Al Qaeda and its affiliates.  However, this opposition is fractured and is struggling to come together to present a united front and to coalesce around an agreed negotiating team and policy.  Exactly what do the 'rebels' want?  Obviously, the overthrow of Assad but then?  

So Obama feeds those 'conspiracy nuts' by allying the US with a group that includes the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks!   Allowing the likes of the, surely certifiably mad, British MP George Galloway, to make mendacious statements which nevertheless have a patina of plausibility.  And all the time, Obama, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is preparing for war - and make no mistake, the USA unilaterally attacking Syria, will be a declaration of war, there will be no cover of a UN resolution, no 'coalition of the willing', indeed, since Obama isn't even consulting the US Congress, no local democratic mandate.

I find it incredibly ironic that the Nobel Committee manages to give the Peace Prize to both Obama and later the European Union and both are increasingly belligerent as regards Syria.  To say the prize is devalued by such is to forget that Yasser Arafat was also a recipient!

So 'jaw jaw not war war' wins the day in the UK.  And, at a fundamental level, despite David Cameron's short term 'discomfort' (as it will be portrayed by the Labour Party and their media allies), democracy, in the UK is stronger today!

Well done to the Thirty and the Nine!

Incidentally, opinion polls suggested that public support for military intervention, in both the UK and USA was found to be 11%

Over to you, President Obama and the US Congress!

America and the C word

Don't worry your grace (@His_Grace) I haven't gone all Channel 4 on everyone, read on.

If we are to believe Edward Snowden, any thoughts we commit to all kinds of electronic communication are being monitored and then read by the NSA in America.  I guess that one of the goals of a blogger is to get their message out to the widest possible audience, so that everyone can bask in their sagacity (haha!) so maybe because this has that edgy use of the C word (trust me, don't worry) in the title and mentions the NSA and America, perhaps this post won't bomb!

So, the C word.  The word that President Obama and his advisers have banished from their vocabulary.  The word of course is coup as in a military  coup d'état  and the Obama administration is tying itself into all sorts of knots because it doesn't want to be seen to be supporting a military C word but thinks that the military C word in Egypt is a good thing because it rid America of a fractious government in the Middle East.  The administration doesn't want to use the C word because to do so, would call into question the continued giving of aid to Egypt.  Heavens, it might even mean that those F-14 fighters may need to have their delivery delayed!

It is to America's shame that Obama and his administration are conniving in the deposing of a democratically elected leader.  Having touted the benefits of 'democracy' for so long, they support the overthrow of the democratic result, simply because the answer given by the Egyptian people, was not to America's liking.

This reminds me so much of how Europe and the EU operates.   Referendums are conducted and when the people vote the 'wrong way',then the relevant government is told to go away and ask again until they get the 'right' answer!  Incidentally it is  also to the shame of the EU for their tacit support of the C word but Europe is pretty much irrelevant on the World's stage, these days, so let's not make too big a thing of it.

What is happening in Egypt is a coup - there I said it!  Pure and simple.  My view of the initial uprising in Egypt was that this too was a coup but the military needed to mask their actions with the cloak of 'democracy'.  Well that cloak has well and truly slipped!

Make no mistake.  I am no fan of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood.  By all accounts he and  they have demonstrated economic incompetence on a grand scale (but then not many governments would be safe if that was a criteria for overthrow) and perhaps more worryingly, their is strong evidence that they have promoted anti-Christian activities against the Coptic Church and other Christians.

However, he was democratically elected.  He has now been deposed and replaced by a military-appointed puppet, who is promising new elections, 'soon'.  What happens if these elections again produce the 'wrong' result?

The 'problem' with Egypt and so many of these new 'democracies' isn't so much about representative participation or however you define democracy, it is about a lack of capitalism.  People really don't care too much about votes - it comes down to basics - food on the table and  a roof over the head.  Socialism in all its forms doesn't deliver that.  Democracy doesn't deliver that.  Capitalism is the only system that will deliver that.  Democracy is a 'nice to have' that comes afterwards. 

That said, if you push democracy, and America and the West does, then you have to stand by the outcomes.  However odious the new government may be, they shouldn't be overthrown by the military.  Yes, I know that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected and yes , I still wouldn't advocate overthrowing his regime.

And so to Syria.  Not a bastion of democracy but somewhere else where America and Europe believe that their own special brand of interference will produce positive results.  How are they going to interfere  Well the talk now is providing arms to the 'right' insurgent/rebel groups.  Who was it said that madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  The absolute last thing that the Middle East needs right now, is more weapons (indeed this is something that they haven't needed for a very long time).  The West's track record of picking 'winners' is very poor (can you think of a right choice?  Libya wouldn't be a good answer!), so why would anyone think that suddenly these governments are going to get it right.

Maybe America and Europe should consider that perhaps the reasons that they are so loathed in much of the Middle East is precisely because of their hypocrisy (democracy but only if it gives the  right type of government) and their trying to make countries in their own image (picking winners).  Maybe it is time for America and Europe to back-off and let the Middle East sort themselves out.  Yes it will be bloody and many people will die but having done such a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan does the West have any kind of template that they can hold up to show the success of 'democracy'?

Is the new policy on Syria some kind of surrogate for the abject failure of Obama's policy on Iran.  All that 'positive engagement' and 'open hand' doesn't seem to have slowed down their nuclear arms development, one bit.  So, try to put a 'friendly' in charge in Syria and take away an Iranian ally?  If that is the strategic aim it presupposes that the Syrian disaster will produce something that will be to the West's liking.  I have the strongest possible doubts, that it will.