What an unholy mess we are in eh. Our ernest efforts to prevent the “Honourable Gentlemen” of Britain to see sense have been unsuccessful, not that we are surprised at the vote for more bloodshed, it has always been a foregone conclusion for the psychopaths desperate to see their billion dollar war toys unleashed onto the wretched souls of the Middle East.

The “Right Honourable Gentleman” David Cameron to be remembered for taking the UK to the brink of WW3
david-cameron-rtx1wsqq

How I despair at their dangerous pomposity, are we really the only ones that can see through this charade ? that can see the real objective is to oust Bashar Assad to be replaced by a tyrant of their choice ? that knew that their war-toys have been waiting in the wings with engines running ? I’ve felt unable to post much these days it’s all so blindingly obvious what’s in store for us, I cannot listen to another outright lie delivered from the twisted mouth of our contempuous Prime Minister, David Cameron, how does he sleep at night ?

ImageVaultHandler.aspx

Yesterday’s so-called debate here in Parliament on whether to be the 14th country to join the despicable destruction of Syria was a joke, the game-plan for the past few years has always been to overthrow Assad & now that Russia has combined efforts to bomb isis strongholds in Syria it became imperative that they up-the-anti & get in there ASAP.

Jeremy Corbyn, the lone voice of sanity

Here’s two brilliant articles, please take the time to read them, Cameron has pledged £ 178 billion towards defense spending for the coming 10 years ! Eh ? The UK has whole towns falling apart at the seams, shops & small businesses closing down daily, 48,000 people thrown out of their rented accomodation last year alone, austerity measures hitting the poorest the hardest, the NHS cut to the bone, local councils closing library’s up & down the country, public toilets gone forever & yet we have ONE HUNDRED & SEVENTY EIGHT BILLION POUNDS to spend on bombs & missiles to kill people !!!

ImageVaultHandler-1.aspx

Will someone please inform me as to how these detestable beings can justify this ? Anyway, I’ll try to post more regularly from now on. I attended the ‘Don’t Bomb Syria’ protests twice this week & really thought we could turn the tide in our favour but unfortunately it wasn’t to be. Anyone from outside the UK please believe me when I tell you that I don’t know one person that wanted to bomb Syria & if it was put to the people to vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ we’d be rejoicing now.
Still we must forever continue to voice our opinions & thoughts & share with all that will listen the real agenda behind the trecherous decisions of the lunatics at the helm. Love to you all, Janie, xxx

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”
? John Lennon

635838674122024097-chutercameron

Exclusive: Cameron Says Obama ‘Clearly Delighted’ by UK’s New Defense Plans

By Andrew Chuter 4:19 p.m. EST November 23, 2015
Prime Minister: Strategic Defence and Security Review Will Help UK Combat Non-State Actors, Islamic State group, State-on-State Threats

Prime Minister David Cameron and Defense News’ Andrew Chuter

RAF NORTHOLT, UK — US President Barack Obama has given his seal of approval to Britain’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, Prime Minister David Cameron said Monday morning.

“I talked to President Obama at the recent G20 meeting in Turkey and he was clearly delighted with the choices we are making,” Cameron told Defense News in an exclusive interview. “I hope they will be pleased as they see their most capable European ally is investing in equipment which will be able to work alongside the Americans extremely well.”

The prime minister, returning from an early morning meeting in Paris with French President Francois Hollande, said the review “absolutely” met the concerns voiced by senior US administration officials and military officers that Britain had been significantly weakened by capability cuts caused by severe defense budget cuts as Britain sought to repair its public finances in the wake of the financial crisis.

“I have never accepted the strategic shrinkage argument for a minute,” Cameron said. “We needed to make sure we got our economy back on track but even so we have the second-largest defense budget in NATO.”

The British prime minister said the SDSR “sends out a clear message that Britain is an engaged nation with global reach and global influence, not for national vanity but for reasons of clear-sighted national interest. We are a player in the world.”

Cameron, speaking just after he had landed at the RAF Northholt air base just outside London, said the new SDSR showed there was going to be growth not just for the next five years but beyond that as two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers and additional F-35 strike jets for the warships come into service.

Key among the capability hikes revealed ahead of the SRSR’s unveiling later Monday is a program to buy nine Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft in a foreign military sales deal with the US.

DEFENSE NEWS
Britain’s Cameron To Pledge Extra £12 Billion for Defence

Cameron said the decision to acquire the P-8 showed the SDSR was not just about combating non-state actors and the Islamic State group, but potential threats from state-on-state violence.

Asked whether US Navy P-8s with British crews might be used to plug the gaps in UK maritime defenses until the Royal Air Force gets its new jets, Cameron said: “We are now going to be talking to our allies about how to bring these aircraft into service and maintain our capability. All these things can be looked at, today is about the future capabilities we are ordering. We have always worked seamlessly with the US in these areas and I’m sure we will continue to do so.”

Britain has found an additional £12 billion (US$18.2 billion) to increase the procurement and support budget to £178 billion over the next 10 years, the prime minister’s office said in a statement released earlier Monday.

“It’s a very big statement; the extra money is a deliberate choice to invest in security and maintain our global reach with our allies. We are investing in a range of very important capabilities, which will make us a stronger ally for the US and our other NATO allies,” he said.

Cameron also said he would consider boosting British capabilities in the war against the Islamic State group in the event Parliament gave the government a mandate to attack targets in Syria. At the moment, the RAF is limited to hitting Islamic State targets in Iraq.

A parliamentary vote on the issue is expected before Christmas.

“Obviously if we do more in Syria we will … obviously need to increase the capabilities we have,” he said.

The British currently have eight Tornado strike jets, 10 Reaper remotely piloted vehicles and a number of support aircraft involved in the mission against the Islamic State group in Iraq.

Email: achuter@defensenews.com.

Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations — Paul Craig Roberts
November 16, 2015 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article
Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations

Paul Craig Roberts

Washington and its French vassal have refined how they conduct their false flag operations. With the Charlie Hebdo operation, they knew to immediately set the story in stone in order to avoid any questions from the print and TV media and in order to use the set story to take the place of an investigation.

The set story made it unnecessary to explain the mysterious “suicide” of one of the main police investigators while engaged in the investigation of the event. The set story also made it unnecessary to explain why it was necessary to kill rather than capture the alleged perpetrators, or to explain how the French authorities could be so wrong about the alleged get-away-driver but not about the two gunmen. There has been no explanation why the authorities believed there was a get-away-driver, and no such driver has been captured or killed. Indeed, there are many unanswered questions of no interest to any media except the alternative Internet media.

What the US and France learned from the Charlie Hebdo skepticism on the Internet is to keep the story flowing. Charlie Hebdo involved two scenes of violence, and the connection between the two acts of terrorism was vague. This time there were several scenes of violence, and they were better connected in the story.

More importantly, the story was followed quickly by more drama, such as the pursuit of a suspected perpetrator into Belgium, a French bombing attack on the Islamic State, a French aircraft carrier sent to the Middle East, a declaration of war by the French President against ISIL, and speculation that Hollande, pressured by Washington, will invoke NATO’s Article V, which will pull NATO into an invasion of the Islamic State. By superceding each event with a new one, the public’s attention is shifted away from the attack itself and the interests served by the attack. Already the attack itself is old news. The public’s attention has been led elsewhere. How soon will NATO have boots on the ground?

The Western media has avoided many interesting aspects of the Paris attacks. For example, what did the directors of the CIA and French intelligence discuss at their meeting a few days prior to the Paris attacks. Why were fake passports used to identify attackers? Why did the attacks occur on the same day as a multi-site simulation of a terrorist attack involving first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel? Why has there been no media investigation of the report that French police were blinded by a sophisticated cyber attack on their mobile data tracking system? Does anyone really believe that ISIL has such capability?

The Western media serves merely as an amplifier of the government’s propaganda. Even the non-Western media follows this pattern because of the titillating effect. It is a good story for the media, and it requires no effort.

Initially even the Russian media served to trumpet the set story that rescues the Western political establishment from political defeat at home and Russian defeat in Syria. But it wasn’t too long before some of the Russian media remembered numerous false stories about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, about US ABMs being placed on Russia’s borders to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.

To understand the Paris attacks, it helps to begin with the question: “What is ISIL?” Apparently, ISIL is a creation of the CIA or some deep-state organization shielded by the CIA’s operations department. ISIL seems to have been used to overthrow Quadaffi in Libya and then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. One would think that ISIL would be throughly infiltrated by the CIA, Mossad, British and French intelligence. Perhaps ISIL is discovering that it is an independent power and is substituting an agenda of its own for Washington’s, but ISIL still appears to be at least partially dependent on support, active or passive, from Washington.

ISIL is a new group that suddenly appeared. ISIL is portrayed as barbaric knife-wielding fanatics from medieval times. How did such a group so quickly acquire such extensive global capability as to blow a Russian airliner out of Egyptian skies, conduct bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, outwit French intelligence and conduct successful multi-prong attacks in Paris? How come ISIL never attacks Israel?

The next question is: “How does the Paris attack benefit ISIL?” Is it a benefit to ISIL to have Europe’s borders closed, thus halting ISIL’s ability to infiltrate Europe as refugees? Does it help ISIL to provoke French bombing of ISIL positions in the Middle East and to bring upon itself a NATO invasion?

Who does benefit? Clearly, the European and American political establishment in so many ways. Establishment political parties in France, Germany, and the UK are in trouble, because they enabled Washington’s Middle East wars that are bringing floods of refugees into Europe. Pegida is rising in Germany, Farage’s Independent Party in the UK, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France. Indeed, a recent poll showed Marine Le Pen in the lead as the next president of France.

The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed. Already Merkel’s political allies in Germany are pushing her government in that direction. “Paris changes everything,” they declare. It certainly saved the European political establishment from defeat and loss of power.

The same result occurred in the US. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were slaughtering the establishment’s presidential candidates. Trump and Sanders had the momentum. But “Paris changes everything.” Trump and Sanders are now sidelined, out of the news. The momentum is lost. The story has changed. “Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race,” declares CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/paris-attacks-isis-2016-reaction/index.html

Also among the early words from the French president, and without any evidence in support, was Hollande’s declaration that the Islamic State had attacked the French nation. Obviously, it is set for Hollande to invoke NATO’s Article V, which would send a NATO invasion force into Syria. This would be Washington’s way of countering the Russian initiative that has saved the Assad government from defeat by the Islamic State. The NATO invasion would overthrow Assad as part of the war against the Islamic State.

The Russian government did not immediately recognize this threat. The Russian government saw in the Paris attack the opportunity to gain Western cooperation in the fight against ISIL. The Russian line has been that we must all fight ISIL together.

The Russian presence, although highly effective, is small in Syria. What does the Russian government do when its policy in Syria is crowded by a NATO invasion?

The only benefactor of the Paris attack is the Western political establishment and Washington’s goal of unseating Assad in Syria. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the French, German, and British political establishments from the National Front, Pegida, and the UK Independence Party. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the US political establishment from Trump and Sanders. The Paris attack has advanced Washington’s goal of removing Assad from power.

The answer to the Roman question, “cui bono,” is clear.

But don’t expect to hear it from the Western media.

withkitties_150_120

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.