This video from Britain says about itself:
Caroline Lucas – Don’t bomb Syria – Dec. 1st 2015
1 December 2015
A demonstration in Parliament Square, London, followed by a protest march. Organised by Stop The War Coalition. Protesting to insist MP’s vote against the UK government’s newly proposed attacks against Syria.
Syria air strikes: Jeremy Corbyn says it is ‘almost inevitable’ that civilians will be killed by British bombing in Syria: here.
Syria air strikes: Stephen Fry and James Corden lead voices blasting British bombing campaign: here.
By Luke James in Britain:
Thursday 3rd December 2015
MPs vote to unleash another Middle Eastern catastrophe
BRITAIN has been told to brace for civilian casualties, radicalisation and rising numbers of refugees after MPs backed air strikes in Syria last night despite growing public opposition.
Prime Minister David Cameron dragged Britain into a fourth disastrous military intervention in 15 years with the help of Lib Dem and Labour hawks.
His emergency motion to extend British air strikes from Iraq to Syria garnered the support of 397 MPs — 67 of them Labour — while 223 voted No.
The PM insisted the shadow of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya should not stop air strikes against the “medieval monsters” of Islamic State (Isis) in Syria.
“This is not 2003,” he said, recalling the year Tony Blair duped MPs into declaring war on Iraq. “We must not use past mistakes as an excuse for indifference or inaction.”
So, David Cameron, now, twelve years later, at least admits starting the Iraq war was a ‘mistake’. Yeah, an extremely bloody mistake. However, no apology by Cameron for that he, David Cameron, like most Conservative MPs in 2003, voted for Blair’s Iraq war.
Maybe, twelve years from now, in 2027, David Cameron will at last admit that starting his war on Syria was a mistake [sarcasm off].
But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the spectre of those “disastrous wars” hung over a decision which would have “unintended consequences.”
He said: “To oppose another reckless and half-baked intervention isn’t pacifism. It’s hard-headed common sense.
“It’s wrong for us here in Westminster to see a problem, pass a motion and drop the bombs pretending we’re doing something to solve it.”
With British Tornado jets, which have been bombing Isis bases in Iraq for over a year, already stationed in the region, they can begin unleashing “brimstone” missiles on targets in Syria immediately.
Mr Corbyn challenged the PM’s claim that superior RAF technology would save lives, telling him that more bombing “will kill innocent civilians.”
The Labour leader also raised concerns over the absence of ground troops, a diplomatic roadmap to peace or a plan to deal with refugees fleeing British bombing.
“It’s become increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s proposal for military action simply doesn’t stack up.”
Mr Cameron conceded it was not an “ideal situation,” but insisted the RAF “do serious damage to Daesh’s [Isis’s] ability right now to bring terror to our streets.”
The PM also shrugged off warnings from the Muslim Council of Britain and others that bombing could increase radicalisation in Britain, claiming: “We are engaged in a defence of Islam.”
He failed to convince senior back-bench Tories, such as foreign affairs select committee member John Baron and defence select committee chairman Julian Lewis.
They were among 110 MPs from six different parties who signed up to a wrecking amendment against air strikes yesterday morning, which pointed out that 10 countries are already bombing Syria.
The amendment was defeated 390-211.
“Too many aircraft are already chasing too few targets,” warned Mr Baron.
…
And shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn won applause from the Tory benches as he beat Mr Cameron’s war drum, rallying his own MPs to give solidarity to the French Socialist Party, whose President Francois Hollande has asked fellow EU states to join France’s air strikes.
…
Before the debate had even begun, Mr Cameron faced criticism for stopping the debate from continuing today.
Mr Corbyn said it was because the PM knew “public opposition to his ill-thought-out rush to war is growing — and wants to hold the vote before it slips from his hands.”
The Stop the War Coalition staged a snap protest outside Parliament last night — the second in as many days.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady also condemned the vote, saying: “Everyone shares the horror felt at the attacks carried out in Paris, Mali and elsewhere and at the suffering of people living under Isis rule. But the government’s case for air strikes in Syria remains unproven.
“Ministers have failed to counter the concern that, without a clear plan for a sustainable settlement led by the UN and the region, bombing would only make matters worse.”
How MPs voted on bombing Syria – full list: here.
This video says about itself:
‘Shame on you’: Anti-war protesters rally in London as UK government votes to bomb ISIS in Syria
2 December 2015
Some 1,500 anti-war protesters gathered outside the parliament after the vote to protest the UK’s intervention in Syria. The airstrikes could begin “very quickly,” with raids expected to begin as soon as tomorrow morning. The campaign group Stop the War Coalition organized the largest protest, blocking the roads surrounding Parliament.
By Lamiat Sabin and Peter Lazenby in England:
Thousands protest ahead of Syria vote
Thursday 3rd December 2015
People take to the streets in last-ditch attempt to halt attacks
THOUSANDS of people opposed to bombing Syria took to the streets of London yesterday, for the second time this week, to protest against RAF air strikes before MPs decided to plough on with the attacks despite overwhelming public anger.
Campaigners assembled in Parliament Square in order to “raise the volume once again” ahead of MPs voting for or against military action at 10pm after Tory PM David Cameron pushed for support from the Commons.
A die-in was also staged by organisers Stop the War Coalition (StWC) to highlight that the British government will be going into “its fourth pointless and savage war in the last 14 years.”
A woman was also reported to have chained herself under a lorry in the early evening as the vote drew nearer. …
The emergency demonstration followed another protest on Tuesday — where chants of “David Cameron, shame on you!” and “Don’t bomb Syria!” rang out across Westminster.
StWC said that conducting air strikes on Syria — with the apparent view to combat the growth of Islamic State (Isis) — will be counterproductive and MPs should learn from wars in Iraq and Libya.
National organiser Daniel Jakopovich said: “Protests have been largely focused on maximising the pressure on MPs not to vote for yet another savage bombing campaign in the Middle East.
“The Western war machine has been bombing countries for a decade and a half, at the cost of millions of lives.
“Experience shows us that bombing creates hate and perpetuates the cycle of violence and brutality.
“Britain should be pursuing creative and peaceful strategies in relation to the intractable conflicts in the Middle East instead of pouring petrol on the flames by choosing to specialise in mass murder.”
Anti-war campaigners also demonstrated in Sheffield in South Yorkshire last night. The protest, organised by STWC and backed by Sheffield Trades Union Council (TUC), took place outside Sheffield town hall.
Sheffield TUC secretary Martin Mayer said: “The UK would be better employed in diplomacy for peace including cutting off support and supplies for Isis from our so-called allies.
“Right now Syria is crying out for more peace-makers not more warmongers.”
What the MPs said
“What it will undoubtedly do, despite the Prime Minister’s assurance, which I am sure he gave in good faith, is kill innocent civilians. I am not going to be a party to killing innocent civilians for what will simply be a gesture.” – Labour MP Gerald Kaufman
“I appeal to colleagues on all sides to make sure we do not ignore the lessons of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Let us not repeat past mistakes.” – SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson
“I was in this House when Tony Blair, at his persuasive best, convinced a majority that Britain was in imminent danger of attack and that we should wage war in Iraq. We are still waiting for the Chilcot report. I do believe that its earlier publication would have been valuable in informing this debate and who knows might even have influenced the Prime Minister.” – Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams
“Instead of having dodgy dossiers, we now have bogus battalions of moderate fighters.” – Tory chairman of the Commons defence select committee Julian Lewis
“I do not think the case has been adequately made that extending British air strikes will either defeat Isis or make us safer here at home. Nearly 3,000 coalition air strikes have already been aimed at Syria and the case for what British air strikes will add is weak.” – Former Labour leader Ed Miliband
This 1 December 2015 video from London, England is called Don’t Bomb Syria. Stop The War Rally. Parliament Square.
From daily The Morning Star in Britain:
Calumny and sloganising
Thursday 3rd December 2015
AS understatements go, David Cameron’s recognition that not all his much-vaunted 70,000 moderate opposition fighters in Syria are “ideal partners” for Britain’s armed forces is pretty impressive.
His inability to provide an unequivocal character reference to this ragbag of armed groups is unsurprising, given that the 70,000 figure came from the discredited joint intelligence committee.
Yet when Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and the military top brass were quizzed by the defence select committee, none was able to identify a single group to be described as “moderate.”
Pressed by committee chairman Julian Lewis, a Tory opponent of Cameron’s bombing spree, to identify a “democratic third force” between the Assad regime and its extremist enemies, Fallon could only say: “We will certainly reflect on that.”
His squirming under forensic examination contrasts with the Prime Minister’s bold and utterly specious claim in Parliament that specifying who these “courageous groups” are would risk their safety at the hands of the government or Islamic State (Isis).
Cameron’s cavalier whitewashing of groups that often operate alongside al-Qaida affiliate the Nusra Front and the equally extreme Ahrar al-Sham is indefensible.
It is on a par with his vile, cowardly calumny directed in a private Tory meeting against “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers” for their temerity in declining to join his ill-thought-out military adventure.
The Prime Minister’s refusal to apologise to the members of six parliamentary parties who had signed an amendment to his pro-war motion epitomises his lack of moral stature.
How could dozens of Labour MPs set aside such a smear against their leader and party colleagues and troop into the lobby with the Tories?
Some are more dedicated, it appears, to overthrowing Jeremy Corbyn than Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Former Blairite insiders Margaret Beckett and Alan Johnson persisted with the canard about “unanimous UN security council backing” for military action, even though, as ex-ministers who supported the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, they must know about the need to employ Chapter VII of the UN charter to authorise it.
Beckett cited requests from Paris for Britain to join the bombing raids and asked how people here would feel if France snubbed similar pleas.
Paris rejected demands that it support British military campaigns in Iraq and, before that, in the Falklands for the simple reason that it disagreed with them. And rightly so.
After the disastrous British military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and the realisation that there is no public support for sending infantry overseas, the default response of parliamentary warmongers is to call in the air force and their “precision-guided” weaponry.
Those sceptical of this knee-jerk spasm are derided as do-nothings in the face of deadly threat.
Yet, as Tory David Davis pointed out, Isis has an annual income of about a billion dollars.
Apart from stolen oil sold in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Jordan, the death cult receives tens of millions of dollars a year from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states — Britain’s allies, all supposedly signed up to defeat Isis.
Instead of relying on symbolic air strikes against elusive targets, Britain’s government ought to authorise probes into the banks and arms-traffickers dealing profitably with Isis.
Turkey, which reports having suffered Isis terrorism — even though the bomb attacks have only targeted the Ankara government’s political opponents — ought to be encouraged to close the Syrian border, ending Isis troop infiltration and bilateral trade.
If our government were serious about defeating Isis — rather than getting a toehold in Syria to promote regime change — it would set these realistic measures in train immediately.
Unfortunately, the easy sloganising and hectoring adopted by Cameron and his cohorts fuel cynicism about its motives and justify the well-presented and soundly based arguments against war deployed by Corbyn and other anti-bombing speakers.
The German cabinet agreed on Tuesday morning to join the Syrian war. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen left no doubt that the intervention would be a combat mission: here.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
Reblogged this on Saine Corner.
LikeLike
Thank you, and other rebloggers 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: British government starts another bloody war | Dear Kitty. Some blog | sdbast
As you all know Britain has had a long time history of blood letting the elite who run the politics of Britain need to kill people? I am not sure of the stats of British citizens who do not want to there but under the pretense of a democracy the government operates as a default in power government a government that is not chosen as to whom the candidate is to be by the people but are stooges from places like Eton whom having gone through brain processing and cultural rearrangement of their mind can have no option other than to kill people when they are set up to become our politicians.
LikeLike
Thursday 3rd December 2015
posted by Morning Star in Features
It’s tempting to conclude that it’s not really Isis or Assad that Labour’s rightwingers are interested in removing but Jeremy Corbyn, says RABBIL SIKDAR
JEREMY CORBYN is not one for political point-scoring but if anyone deserves to be winning points it’s him.
Every angle has been a route of attack against him. From the inside and the outside, revolts and sieges, enemies have poured scorn over his socialist principles.
From military interventions to Trident to shoot-to-kill to anything, there has been a campaign of vitriol targeting Jeremy Corbyn. And he has endured. And been vindicated for it.
And now a mistake made 12 years ago is about to be made again, and Labour will be at the centre of it even though it isn’t in power, unlike 12 years ago.
In 2003 Britain illegally invaded Iraq without a political settlement for the country, a chaotic land divided by sectarian feuds, and inevitably catalysed the rise of violent extremist groups like Isis in that region.
Bombing Libya turned it into another wasteland now playing host to Isis. And as the Islamist fanatics run rampant in the blurred lines between Iraq and Syria, Britain considers bombing Syria and thinks this time it is different.
This is a bombing that will focus on the city of Raqqa, a stronghold of Isis but also home to thousands of civilians now terrified by what could happen.
They said bombing would solve the problems of Iraq and Libya and each time a military offensive has become a political failure that only resulted in the further radicalisation of young Muslims, whether in the Middle East or on our own streets.
Bombing Isis only fuels their propaganda and shies away from the fact that this is a murderous death cult which feeds off the anger and suffering of ordinary Sunnis.
Not tackling how the vicious jihadist ideology is exported by Saudi Arabia is, once again, a sign of how short-sighted our plans are. Public fear should not translate to hasty, injudicious decisions.
Any plans to defeat Isis without a political settlement that respects the democratic will of the people of Syria will not work.
Yet now Labour MPs are determined to make the same mistake that created so much anger the last time.
Then, and so often before, Jeremy Corbyn was right to oppose war. Yet still some have rebelled against Corbyn and will most likely vote with the Tories.
It’s tempting to conclude that it’s not really Isis or Assad that the Blairites are interested in removing but Jeremy Corbyn. A democratic mandate that included a fiercely anti-war stance is now being shredded by New Labour MPs.
They call Corbyn unelectable and have done everything in their power to make it that way.
We know what Corbyn stands for, but what Labour as a party stands for is a cloud of confusion thanks to them. At this current moment, the party is a spiralling mess.
Extremely frustrating, given this is a time when the Tories were treading on glass over the steel industry, tax credits, the failing NHS and now the potential looming catastrophe over another military incursion in the Middle East.
Oh Labour Party, when will you stop shooting yourselves in the foot?
Labour spent five years apologising for a deficit that it was not responsible for and seemed determined to fight the Tories on the most neoliberal platform it could find.
Even as the potential of Corbyn’s vision, one of ideological clarity, fizzles with spark and promise, Labour rightwingers are determined to undermine their hugely popular leader.
What they are doing is dangerously undemocratic. A “coup” is unnecessary when they seem insistent on bleeding Corbyn’s reign to death. If Corbyn is truly unelectable, who is at fault for that?
No-one knew what Miliband stood for. Corbyn is the antithesis — he stands for fair wages, taxes on the rich, strong welfare, strong labour laws and financial regulations and is an advocate of international co-operation over war.
Yet the hostile manoeuvrings of the Blairites mean that now no-one is sure what Labour stands for. What’s the party position on Trident and Syria? What’s the party position on just about anything these days?
This is not the fault of Corbyn. He has a democratic mandate and would be fully within his rights to purge the party of those holding him to ransom. The Labour Party is the political wing of the working class, a source of political expression for the class of workers.
What is vital now is for Corbyn to fully translate his ideas into an economic narrative that both resonates with the public’s wishes over jobs, housing and the NHS while dismantling the myths forged over the past five years by the Tory media.
The saga around the tax credits has demonstrated the lack of popularity around much of what the Tories do.
No-one passionately or enthusiastically campaigns for welfare cuts or immigration controls. The public is not that devoid of empathy or a heart.
Corbyn has impressed enough people to create an explosive rise in the Labour membership by offering a different economic strategy, one that revolves around answering the ageless conflict between the super-rich elite and the rest of society.
Inevitably his strategy around foreign policy will be brought into scrutiny. Corbyn risks being accused of lacking patriotism or guts. But it’s the easy thing to bow to public fear and rush into an ill-judged war.
I’m not personally opposed to bombing Isis oilfields or training camps, but the idea that air strikes will destroy Isis while they are selling oil to Turkey and are funded by the extremists in Saudi Arabia and Qatar is ludicrous.
A different strategy, one on finding political coalitions of moderate Sunnis and Shi’ites to head up a democratic Syrian government and both arming the Kurds and recognising their right to a state, would offer a different way.
The war on terror has not made anyone safe. It simply feeds a cycle of violence, raising it to astronomic levels.
But the only way Corbyn can get his message through is when his team are united with him and behind him rather than plotting to stab him in the back every time.
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-baa8-Blairite-sabotage-is-dangerously-undemocratic#.VmDP7b_iMdU
LikeLike
Thursday 3rd December 2015
posted by Morning Star in Features
By Nick Matthews
THE drum beat for war driving Britain into joining the bombing campaign in Syria is more about politics than any real military strategy.
Given that Britain has only eight very old Tornados based at Akrotiri in Cyprus available for Iraq and Syria, extending their role into Syria is clearly a political rather than military act.
The political objective seems to have two dimensions — to show our fealty to the US and to split the Parliamentary Labour Party from its leader.
Sadly the PLP is well populated with neocons who buy into the US world view, enabling the media to exaggerate any split.
This has been convenient for the Prime Minister as it conceals why he needs Labour support. He cannot command the votes of his own party. Not all of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are neocons. There are still a few genuine Conservatives left among them.
Of course the flagship policy of neocons like George W Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz was “the war on terror.”
Of course it was always morally dubious that the war on terror was to be being fought using terrorism.
My Chambers dictionary defines terrorism as: “The systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.”
So we find ourselves again as we did after the attacks on the Twin Towers in the position of attacking the random bombing, shooting and killing of civilians by the random bombing, shooting and killing of civilians.
Something we have been doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen — in fact anywhere in drone range. We seem not to have learned from our own experience that people do not respond well to terrorism.
So how is this “war on terror” going? Well, the Institute for Economics and Peace, a think tank founded by Australian tech entrepreneur Steve Killelea, produces a fascinating Global Terrorism Index.
This year’s index was released recently and the headlines are not good.
It reports that by non-state actors:
– 32,658 people were killed by terrorism in 2014 compared with 18,111 in 2013 — the largest increase ever recorded with Boko Haram and Isis jointly responsible for 51 per cent of all claimed global fatalities in 2014
– Countries suffering over 500 deaths increased by 120 per cent to 11 countries. Seventy-eight per cent of all deaths and 57 per cent of all attacks occurred in just five countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria
– Iraq continues to be the country most affected by terrorism with 9,929 terrorist fatalities — the highest ever recorded in a single country. (Think about this for a moment. Almost 10,000 dead in Iraq over a decade after Saddam Hussein was toppled).
– Nigeria experienced the largest increase in terrorist activity, with 7,512 deaths in 2014 — an increase of over 300 per cent since 2013.
These are the deaths. Many more have been injured in countries with poor health services and non-existent welfare support.
What’s more, terrorism is spreading. The number of countries that suffered more than 500 deaths has more than doubled — increasing from five in 2013 to 11 in 2014. The new additions were Somalia, Ukraine, Yemen, Central African Republic, South Sudan and Cameroon.
Remember that these are just the numbers killed by non-state actors. State-sponsored terrorism, if the word means anything, must apply to the killing of British citizens in Syria by drone.
The argument that this targeted lawless assassination was self-defence is stretching that notion beyond belief.
It is not just a huge human cost. The economic cost of terrorism reached its highest-ever level in 2014 at $52.9 billion — an increase of 61 per cent from the previous year’s total of $32.9bn, and a tenfold increase since 2000.
And the more violence we exert, the worse things get. The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria since 2011 is the largest influx in modern times.
Current estimates now range from 25,000 to 30,000 fighters, from roughly 100 countries. This flow of foreign fighters is not falling. Over 7,000 arrived in the first six months of this year.
In presenting this gory data, Steve Killelea said: “Since we can see a number of clearly identifiable socio-political factors that foster terrorism, it is important to implement policies that aim to address these associated causes.
“This includes reducing state-sponsored violence, diffusing group grievances and improving respect for human rights and religious freedoms, while considering cultural nuances.”
Instead of this sensible and logical course of action, we are turning our society into a surveillance state, destroying our civil liberties and freedoms.
We promote the idea of two opposed camps — Islam and the West — and fail to tackle the jihadists’ propaganda or society’s rampant Islamophobia.
Worst of all we fail to stem the source of the most reactionary version of political Islam by doing business with and forming alliances with those states most active in the propagation of this reactionary religious ideology.
Then acting like neocolonial and self-interested powers, we support the most authoritarian, corrupt and venal states and wonder why they alienate their own people.
Jeremy Corbyn is right. We have to tackle the underlying causes. There is no military solution. There has to be another way. If they ask you how goes the “war on terror”? Tell them we are losing it.
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-16c1-The-war-on-terror-how-long-must-we-continue-the-cycle-of-misery-and-death#.VmDQgL_iMdU
LikeLike
The realization of the individual now comprehending the Western Alliance are in the main a colonist oppressive elite, this would not be so bad if the elite moved with the times that is giving the third world a chance to catch up with the first world, whilst we keep destroying others terrorism will have no end?
LikeLike
Pingback: Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour election victory in England | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: David Cameron’s expensive bombing of Syria | Dear Kitty. Some blog