Thursday, 10 December 2015

'Daesh' Bombing Rationale by Conservative MP and Reply from a Nobody

(With latest Foreign and Commonwealth Office (F&CO) Position Statement (14.1.2016) in 'Comments' Section below.)

Dear Tim,

Thank you for taking time to contact me about British military action in Syria.
As I am sure you are aware I voted in favour of British action in Syria because at this time I think it is the correct thing to do for the following reasons:
We have watched the brutalisation and murder of untold numbers of innocent people in Syria and to date we have done little to intervene.
We have worked extremely hard to cater for people in refugee camps in neighbouring countries so that one day they can go home and rebuild their country.
We are the second largest donor worldwide in terms of aid.
MPs were given a clear indication that we are now in a position to intervene - we could and we should.
Recent experience in Iraq, at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi Government, has shown that British military action can be taken to resist and push back the evil that is known as Daesh. There has been no reports of civilian casualties as a result of British military action.
We are told that we have the capability to remove the safe havens that Daesh have in Syria. Safe havens that are used to plan and direct attacks in the Middle East and further afield such as Paris. We can also take action to reduce their ability to sell oil in order to fund their terrorist activity. The United Nations Security Council on November 20th 2015 unanimously resolved that member states take "all necessary measures" to address the threat of Daesh.
The Vienna talks on Syria's future are taking place and a plan is being drawn up to establish a political solution. Our humanitarian aid work continues and we can get emergency aid to the people who need it when it is safe to do so.
You may also be aware that there is a conference in London in January to agree how Syria's infrastructure can be rebuilt and how this will be paid for.
The action we have agreed to is an extension of the work that is already taking place in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi Government. This is not a new war and, whilst the decision of the MPs may seem unpopular, every colleague I have spoken to firmly believes we are working to stop the war and our armed forces are fighting to establish peace in the Middle East.
I recognise that, for many of you, British military action in Syria is not something you support. I fully respect this. However, I am confident that it is the right course of action to take.

Yours sincerely,

9th December, 2015.

Dear Derek,

Thank you for this e-mail and for your personal telephone call a couple of nights ago. I much appreciate you taking the trouble to do so.

You appear to be a thoroughly nice chap who has worked hard over a long period to achieve your ambition. It seems you have already caught the Speaker's eye and I congratulate you on your maiden question, though I must have missed your maiden speech!! I wish you well in your new career.

Rather understandably you voted with the government on the Syrian issue. Personally I would have thought our minimal forces in the air and on the ground would have had quite enough to occupy them in Iraq - where we are told the Turkey supported group is still strong - before taking on another country, particularly as we haven't been invited there. I noticed despite your reference to the UN Resolution, you rather dodged the latter point, which as far as I am aware constitutes an act of unjustified aggression. Of course our position is in contrast to that of Iraq and Russia's position in Syria, in both of which invitations were extended. 

I wonder if the implications of another (one Russian plane has been shot down already and its pilot brutally murdered by our ally and friendly 'moderate' rebels) confrontation with Russia has been fully considered?  I am assuming it is the topic of both east and west war games as I type! No one should be in any doubt of the risks a nuclear world provides and it appears Putin has already joked about the possibility. This is not just a blase matter of a defenseless Syria, but of Russia, Iran and China that stand behind it. I am not sure our representatives in Parliament realise where they are leading us (again!) or reflected the mood of the country or adequately appreciated all the implications both military and economic.

As to your belief and assurance that, "There has been no reports of civilian casualties as a result of British military action" it rather ignores all the deaths and injuries caused by us up to this point in time and ignores the action two days ago that killed three soldiers completely unconnected to ISIS and a second that it is claimed killed a woman and two children. Assad called it 'an act of aggression', which indeed it was.  He also has every right to shoot down our planes and pilots. I am sure you are aware of this event which has already breached government assurances and illuminates the true purpose of Franco/British action that could easily envelop the whole of NATO but if you are not, it can be found here: ;

Of course Paris was used as one of the main justifications for both the French and British response, which rather conveniently in both cases was in an advanced state of preparation. There are a good many questions, coincidences and impossibilities surrounding the Paris events that make them very suspect. Unfortunately governments including western ones, have a habit of creating the pretext for actions they have already decided on. I discuss some of these in my article here should you wish to take a look:  I hope you do not mind if I put your letter and my reply (with the exception of the final paragraph) into my internet blog as it is a matter of great public importance? I will delay for a couple of days in case there is anything you might wish to amend.

Yours sincerely,

On a separate but not unrelated subject, I refer the reader to a recent article in 'Jewish News Online'

As an insight into political thinking on the Middle East and particularly the disproportionate Jewish influence in the British Parliament (it is said that 80% of Conservatives are 'Friends of Israel') I refer you to an article in 'Jewish News Online' that claims to be 'Britain's biggest Jewish newspaper' of the 9th November, 2015, entitled:

'Gove: Do “everything we can” 

to back Israel supporters in Labour'

(This part of the post was not conveyed to Mr Thomas and no suggestion or inference is being made that the contents in any way necessarily represents his view on matters contained in it.) 

It can be located in the original here: 

"Michael Gove has urged supporters of Israel to do “everything we can” to back those in the Labour party who stand up for Israel.
The Tory justice secretary was interviewed alongside Sajid Javid by cabinet colleague Nicky Morgan at the Conservative Friends of Israel lunch in Westminster.
He claimed that “antipathy” towards Israel among parts of the Left had become “almost a badge of honour” in recent years, while pointing to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as notable exceptions.
But he added: “We should do everything we can to support those – and it is a minority – in the Labour Party who recognise how important it is to support the only reliable democracy in the region.”
Gove insisted that “we must keep our eyes” on the goal of a two-state solution but that dream was not possible in the current climate of terror. He claimed that for many of those growing up in territories “the education they get is an education in prejudice” rather than one which would enable them to join companies that “are best route to economic independence”. Those running the Palestinian Authority had to hear tough messages, including he suggested that some funds from European taxpayers was being “misused”.
Javid claimed that Israel had experienced “double standards” when it comes to its effort to defend itself.
To applause, the business secretary added: “Now I think we are learning from what we sadly seen in Paris and elsewhere that what Israel has done is actually helpful to the rest of the world about how to deal with terrorism.”

All three cabinet ministers spoke of the impact of travelling to Israel with CFI." END QUOTE.


  1. 5th January, 2015.

    Derek Thomas, MP., House of Commons.

    Dear Derek,

    I understand tomorrow morning, (6th January, 2016) MPs are holding a Westminster Hall debate on child prisoners and detainees in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. You are probably already aware of this but if not, I would like to draw it to your attention, in the hope that you will be able to attend.
    Israel has dramatically increased its detention of Palestinians in the past months, including children, subjecting them to abuse and torture, and holding most of them in prisons inside Israel, in violation of international law. Yet the UK government continues its unconditional support for Israel, making it complicit in the abuse.
    The Conservative Government has miserably failed to protest to the Israel government over this and other humanitarian breaches, in respect of its illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Rather than showing our disapproval, we seem intent on furthering and deepening our relationship particularly in the military, intelligence and policing spheres. I find this trend both sinister and disreputable. I cannot help noticing not one Conservative MP appears to have signed the Early Day Motion 287 on the subject! (See below)
    I know you regard taking a moral stand on such issues as important and I therefore hope you will be able to attend and make your presence felt. What point is there holding moral scruples unless they are applied to blatent cases of inhumanity and injustice?
    Yours sincerely,
    Tim Veater.

    Early day motion 287

    Print versionOpens in a new window
    Session: 2015-16
    Date tabled: 13.07.2015
    Primary sponsor: Whitford, Philippa
    Sheppard, Tommy
    O'Hara, Brendan
    Law, Chris
    McDonald, Stewart
    Grady, Patrick
    That this House condemns the charging of Palestinian children with offences under Israeli military law and their trial in military courts since the occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967; further condemns the arrests, detention and prosecution of around 700 Palestinian children in the Israeli military court system each year; acknowledges the work that Defence for Children International - Palestine does in increasing awareness and providing legal assistance for Palestinian children; condemns the physical violence that more than three-quarters of Palestinian child detainees in 2014 endured in some form between the period of their arrest and interrogation with half of those also strip-searched; notes that, during arrest and interrogation, 93 per cent of children were denied access to legal counsel and rarely informed of their rights, particularly their right against self-incrimination; further notes that last year almost all children confessed regardless of guilt in order to stop further abuse; notes that in 2014 more than 25 per cent of children signed statements in Hebrew despite not understanding the language; notes in addition that between 2012 and 2014 Israeli military, police and security agents held 54 Palestinian children in solitary confinement for interrogation purposes, prior to charging them with any offence, and that in 2014 the average time that an individual child spent in solitary confinement for interrogation purposes was 15 days; and calls on the Government to demand immediate action from the Israeli government to behave in line with international law.

  2. From the 'Middle East Monitor' @

    "Israel debates how to stop BDS even as it continues to lose friends abroad
    Ben White
    Thursday, 07 January 2016 17:18

    On Wednesday, a debate was held in the British Parliament on the issue of Palestinian child prisoners detained by Israeli forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).

    The same day, two thousand miles away, Israel’s Knesset hosted a discussion on how to combat the growing, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Together, these two parliamentary meetings serve as a useful illustration of why Israel’s international image continues to deteriorate – and why it is not likely to improve any time soon.

    First, to Westminster, where Labour MP Sarah Champion sponsored a debate on Palestinian child prisoners. The majority of the debate was taken up by a detailed account of the situation as it currently stands, including how children are taken from their homes at night, and the injustices and discrimination inherent in Israel’s use of military courts to try and jail Palestinian children.

    Instructively, however, the debate did not just focus on the human rights abuses being perpetrated by Israel, but what can be done to stop them.

    Champion, describing the transfer of Palestinian detainees out of the OPT as a war crime, urged the government to establish “a watch list” of those responsible, and to “ensure that any individual on the watch list who attempts to enter the UK is detained for questioning and, if sufficient evidence is available, charged and prosecuted, subject to the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

    Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, meanwhile, asked Champion whether she agreed “that it is now time for action”, and suggested that “the UK could call for the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement”, on the basis that it includes “a clause saying that if there are human rights abuses, there is a right to suspend the agreement.” Champion called the recommendation “superb.”

    Two members of Labour’s frontbench similarly urged further meaningful steps to be taken: shadow Foreign Office minister Diana Johnson insisted that “the British Government need to do much more to hold the Israeli Government to account”, while shadow minister for human rights Andy Slaughter criticised what he called “the apartheid regime that exists…in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

    Interestingly, given how strong the support for Israel has been, and continues to be, within the Conservative Party, three Tory MPs also voiced criticism of Israeli policies. Tania Mathias, for example, noted the “sad coincidence” that the debate was taking place the same week the UN human rights envoy to the Palestinian territories resigned because Israel denied him access.

    Conservative MP Bob Stewart predicted that, unless Israel changes its illegal policies, “people such as me, who actually are big supporters of Israel, will lose the urge to be supporters.” Similarly, Tory MP David Jones, calling himself a friend of Israel, said that “the way that Israel is conducting itself is in a way that should bring shame to any self-respecting democracy.”

    Attempts to defend Israel during the debate were feeble and predictable. Labour MP Ian Austin was literally laughed at, after he asserted that the detention of children under-12 simply “does not happen.” Conservative MP John Howell referred to Palestinian “incitement” six times in one minute, and also declared that “we should focus our attention on the Saudi execution of minors.”

    Andy Slaughter put it succinctly when he said “government Members—and, indeed, Opposition Members—who seek to defend the occupation are increasingly clutching at straws in doing so.”" End of Copy.


    Hear! Hear! is what I say. Despite OVERWHELMING moral and humanitarian arguments, still Israel is allowed to get away with murder (literally!) Britain an d David Cameron should be utterly ashamed with themselves. They are splattered with Palestinian blood, yet they care not. It proves the chasm (should we call it a 'sink hole'?) that has appeared between our government and any semblance of being able to distinguish between right and wrong.

  4. Latest F&CO Response as of 14th January, 2016. (In two parts)

    Dear Timothy T Veater,

    The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Vote no on military action in Syria against IS in response to the Paris attacks”.

    Government responded:

    Following a lengthy debate, MPs voted for the UK to conduct airstrikes against Daesh in Syria. Military action is only one element of the UK’s comprehensive strategy for defeating Daesh.

    One week after the tragic attacks in Paris, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2249; a clear call for action against Daesh, using all necessary measures.

    The UK has always been committed to defeating Daesh. Parliament’s approval of airstrikes in Syria on 2 December has allowed the UK to join our allies in the Global Coalition in striking Daesh in Syria as well as in Iraq, where we have been active since the start of the Coalition’s campaign.

    The UK Government supported extending British airstrikes against Daesh into Syria as an integral part of a much broader strategy to degrade Daesh and reduce the threat it poses to us.

    Our comprehensive overall strategy to tackle Daesh globally includes political, diplomatic and humanitarian action, as well as military. The UK is a leading part of a Global Coalition of 65 countries and international organisations, including many in the region, united to defeat Daesh on all fronts. We are attacking Daesh militarily, but we are also squeezing its finances, disrupting the flow of fighters, challenging its poisonous ideology and working to stabilise areas liberated from Daesh. We must pursue all these tracks in parallel.

    The Prime Minister has been clear that tackling Daesh financing is a key element of our comprehensive strategy. Daesh gains most of its funding from the territory it controls – by selling oil, by taxing and exhorting local populations, and by seizing and selling prized antiquities. The UK has led UN efforts on sanctions, making it illegal to sell oil and oil products to Daesh. We are also expanding existing work with regional partners to stop Daesh’s ability to trade outside formal financial system, by cutting access to black market and international money flows and to stop smuggling. However, the military campaign is also crucial; through targeted military actions, the Global Coalition has already damaged or destroyed 260 oil infrastructure targets.

    We must tackle Daesh in Syria, as we are doing with some success in Iraq, in order to deal with the threat that Daesh poses to the region and to our security in the UK. As the threat from Daesh grows, we must take action - recognising that no course of action is without risk, but that inaction – not dealing with Daesh at source – also carries grave risk.

    The Prime Minister has also been clear that the UK will continue to support the diplomatic and political process. The UK’s priority in Syria has always been to achieve a political settlement which is the only way to stop this terrible war and give Syrians hope for the future.

  5. Second part (contd)

    As members of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) we are working with a host of countries including Russia, the US, France, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UN, towards negotiations between the Syrian parties on a transitional government, a new constitution and free and fair elections. All those countries have accepted the principles set out in the Geneva Communiqué – the need for Syrian-led and Syrian owned political transition. The composition of the transitional government will be negotiated by Syrians through the peace process, with the support of the UN and the ISSG. We welcome the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2254 on 18 December requesting UN-convened peace negotiations and formally endorsing the ISSG Vienna process. As the Foreign Secretary said at the UN on 18 December “This has given new international momentum towards the resumption of Syrian-led talks”.

    We remain committed to supporting international efforts to alleviate the terrible humanitarian suffering. The UK is playing its part. We have pledged over £1.1 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. But more is needed. The Supporting Syria and the Region London 2016 Conference in February will aim to raise significant new funding from a wider range of partners to meet the needs of all those affected by the crisis within Syria and to support neighbouring countries.

    While military operations are inherently risky, we take the protection of civilians very seriously. We employ rigorous targeting protocols. In more than a year of strikes against Daesh targets in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties resulting from UK air operations. The UK has the most advanced forms of targeting and precision weaponry, possessed by only a small number of countries, which enables us to strike accurately, with minimal collateral damage. These same high standards are being applied in Syria.

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office"

  6. We have a general problem of politicians, military/industrial interests aided by covert agencies with almost limitless secret finance from public coffers, hijacking religion for their own perverted agenda of stoking sectarian hatred and violence. Many of the so-called 'terrorist' organisations and acts are actually created and funded by the countries that claim to be fighting them! This is the biggest criminal fraud of the age but because these people also control criminal prosecution agencies, they go unaccused, unmolested and uncharged. The latest example is probably Indonesia but why do governments go along with deception. Only the internet allows the truth to be spoken which is why even 'democratic' countries wish to stifle and control it. So far the mess has been limited to the Middle East but it is clear the architects of this devilish programme will not be content until the whole world is drawn into ideological conflict - even war.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.