Wednesday, 2 December 2015

Facts on bombing Syria:
David Cameron is now a threat to our national security

So you've decided to bomb Syria

The UK has aimed its sights at what 'intelligence' says is ISIS / Daesh HQ in Raqqa, a Syrian town of 150k. This is despite every Paris attacker being an EU national based in France/Belgium - and not immigrants as many media outlets propagated. This raises the first suspicions that the decision is poll boosting economic imperialism rather than any long-term strategy for peace. Even David Cameron's tories admit these airstrikes will not defeat ISIS, especially as they are decentralised global entity using social media to interact and organise.



ISIS/Daesh need to be wiped-out but instead of empty war grandstanding for  furthering western interests, the solution should target the economic roots. A multilateral approach should stop their oil being exported through Turkey. This gets sold to the usual array of mercenaries and opportunists as well those resisting the cult who have no choice. All this enabled by the money transfer system of global finance which has only been addressed recently. Follow the money. These internal financial and external smuggling networks maintain the ISIS infrastructure. It is rarely understood that the proposed caliphate has fostered welfare and school systems, this doesn't happen without the involvement of western finance. So ISIS spawned from the Iraq blundering of neo-cons, is now exploited by their neo-liberal accomplices.


Selling arms to unstable regions or regions that trade arms to them is all part of the short-term profit making for the complicit west. Cash from chaos. Meanwhile Labour's Jeremy Corbyn highlighted these issues and how they could be alternatives in the fight.



What are the UK providing?

Since French and US allies have been bombing Syria precipitating the Paris attacks, not much is being offered. The UK is already bombing ISIS in Iraq but with permission. Of course we can't get it from Syrian despot Assad, who met the Queen once - see below.

A meagre force of 10-14 Tornado jets equipped with Brimstone missiles. Again war hawks confess there will still be civilian casualties with this latest technology because nothing that powerful can be 100% accurate 100% of the time - also if intelligence is flawed (hello WMDs) the missile is irrelevant. And Raqqa is densely populated and doesn't contain 150k of mostly innocents Syrians. There will be horrific collateral damage just as there has been with 28 Mosul school children killed and the Afghan Doctors Without Borders hospital deaths

What is the effect of civilian casualties?

General stoking up of the false clash of civilsations narrative between the imperialist  west and fascist pretend-muslims with their Wahhabi brainwashed followers. Ideology is how militarism is sold on both sides. The Nazis used the Reich propaganda of the master race. We let Saudis spread extremism because they have oil and it makes powerful western lobbyists money in the military-industrial complex.

Potential allies on the ground?

Obviously we can't bomb democracy into people so we need to influence those on the ground.
This chart is complicated enough to digest let alone work with in the chaos of war.
And factor in that they are unlikely to be "moderates" or sympathetic of the west.

Is there an exit plan?

Errr see above?

The complexities are obvious to anyone enquiring mind but government warmongers and their media enablers deceive for their usual purposes. Here is an example. 



David Cameron and the Queen are now a threat to our national security.


Despite the propaganda BBC Newsnight ran a debate broadcasting free un-spun opinions from both sides and several walks of life concluding in undecideds choosing not to bomb. Some polls back this up.


Does anyone without a vested interest in bombing for peace believe this will make the world a safer place?


Please support the JSFU Facebook Page hereand friend here