SYRIA AND THE 'ISIS' CON

A point I meant to add to this https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/12325475 but didn't: shouldn't someone be asking the government to supply a detailed list of strategic targets bombed in Syria, what they were for, who and how many were harmed as a result of it? We the population might then be able to get a somewhat more accurate picture of what, 'embedded' with the American forces we have achieved or caused. There are some that mischieviously might suspect that many of the 'ISIS' targets are actually Syrian ones and may even include humanitarian infrastructure as has occurred elsewhere. Only by studying an accurate list will we ever learn or know what our government is doing in our name and after the damage is done. No wonder Mr Cameron doesn't want to tell us and prefers instead to conjure up imaginary domestic threats, that are shamelessly likened to the 'Battle of Britain'.
24 Jul 2015 15:02



There is no rational or consistent western policy for Syria and until there is we (the British) should certainly not be adding to the indiscriminate death and destruction of people there.

We are all by now aware, or certainly should be, of the deeply disingenuous and deceitful involvement in the wider region and Syria in particular. However much government attempts to spin or delay the truth, realisation will eventually dawn on the British public, how much they have been mislead and implicated in historically one of the most brutal and disruptive examples of imperialism ever known.

Apart from the millions killed by starvation and military action, there are now record-breaking numbers of displaced and desperate people, with all the implications for the west as hundreds of thousands seek safe refuge. Yet the architects of this chaos show no contrition or remorse let alone responsibility, as with the shameless Tony Blair.

All we are offered is more of the destructive same, as if killing more people ever solved anything. The mentality of the First World War is being repeated, proving we have learned nothing other than the enemy is now even more remote and dismissable.

If there was a clear enemy, target or 'sides' it might be something. As it is, there is clear evidence that 'ISIS' has not only been 'bigged-up' by the west for political purposes, but actively trained and financed by it with of course financial support from a number of Middle Eastern States, ultimately paid for by oil receipts from the West. The British Government should immediately 'come clean' on what it has done and what it knows.

Turkey facilitated these violent radical 'ISIS' groups that arrived from Libya, entry into Syria through its territory, with the specific purpose of destabilising Assad's regime. Now it is saying it is attacking them! The west has actively supported and trained the Kurds. Now Turkey at the same time as allowing America use its air bases, intends to bomb these also! (It has a long history of doing so) Will that mean that a NATO member will be killing our personnel embedded with the Kurds?

Meanwhile Israel continues to actively support the 'Al Nusra Front', another 'Al Qaeda' outfit (allegedly) in the north of the country, rather belying the whole 'Al Qaeda/ISIS' fabrication, set up to pursue a published US/Zionist policy for the region, dating back twenty years. This of course also included Iran, to the chagrin of Israel, temporarily put on hold owing to Russian/Chinese opposition.

Although Britain has apparently contributed something over 150 missions (at about a million pounds each) and about a tenth of the American led operation, including 'embedded' forces making war in a foreign sovereign country, without ever declaring it, or getting Parliamentary approval, we have been told virtually nothing about the actual targets, damage or deaths that has resulted from it. What could be more despicable?

Meanwhile the Prime Minister, conveniently ignoring what WE are doing blowing people and things up, grandstands on the esoteric threat to this country from Muslim terrorists! Could the British State have ever reached a lower nadir in its oppugnant history?