With what might be described as impeccable and all too convenient timing, within days of David Cameron publishing an article to warn of unending war against jihadists a provocation has occurred that the British authorities will certainly use to fuel public support for the realisation of a long planned, but somewhat thwarted agenda. The apparent death of James Foley, by beheading, and by a British man of eastern descent, is being whipped up by corporate-media and western politicians as the last straw beyond which inaction against the Islamic State (IS), who the supposed murderer is apparently affiliated with, is no longer morally acceptable. The framework of the discussion is, as has become the norm, in terms of humanitarian intervention in foreign fields, and creating anti-terror security for well being at home; but this is bogus. The real objectives are the securing of assets in Syria and Iraq for Cameron’s globalist masters, and a shoring of the British ruling elite against a growing appreciation of its criminality amongst the public.
That stirring of mass awareness in the British means that there is a wider understanding of the reality of the relationship between their governing class and Islamist terror groups. It is a dynamic that is routinely omitted in the narrative spoon fed to corporate-media audiences – and yet there is enough of a popular grasp of it that the British Government has not been able to have things as easy as it did when it was able to download documents from the internet, and bogusly claim that Britain was only 45 minutes away from a strike from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The days of such rampant naivity are long gone.
Libya – where NATO provided tactical air support to West Point-listed terror groups, and bombed civilians in the name of protecting civilians – proved to be a revelation of the method. Then, the trail of a NATO-proxy army, and their armaments, from Libya to Syria after the fall of Gaddafi was well documented in the Alternative Media (see a very small sample at the foot of the page) – mostly using corporate-media reporting that hid the truth in plain view. Observations of this trail were often made on the Luikkerland predecessor to this site, and an essay on the career of Abdel Hakim Belhadj, republished here, offers a reasonable summary of the connection between Islamist terror groups, Libya and Syria. Indeed, the evidence is such that elements of the Alternative Media have evaluated it so as to conclude that there has never been a moderate Syrian factor amongst the insurgents fighting the Assad government – they have always been mercenaries largely from outside Syria, who invaded from NATO/Saudi organised and funded training camps in neighbouring countries, and whose brutal Wahaabiist tendencies are looked for by their organising US/UK masters in order to stoke a humanitarian crisis pretext to interfere further down the line. However, any claims of a casus belli for intervention in Syria and Iraq on the grounds of protection of civilians from fanatics are, as they were in Libya, completely bogus.
Syria has proven to be a stumbling block in the domino-line of British/US/NATO aggression – the main reason may be that Assad and his generals (and his still unified people) had prior warning from events in Libya, but the vote in the UK Parliament against military intervention was certainly a great factor (it has to be said, UKIP’s anti-war stance provided the political pressure that brought this about). Quite certainly IS has been thrust into Iraq to provide a pretext to get the war on Syria back on the rails. Before its rebranding, al-Qaeda, in the guise of the Free Syrian Army, had been committing ghoulish atrocities up and down the length and breadth of Syria (an example told of here). As these were for the furtherance of British Government interests in that arena, collectively they did not motivate David Cameron to take action as this would have meant aligning with Assad; Cameron’s regime is hell bent on removing him from his elected position of power, as previous statments from Number 10 will attest.
Regime change is the objective in Syria, as it was in Libya – to remove opposition to the US/UK unipolar world order, to shatter the unity of the country, and to give global corporate business vampiric access to resources. It is not a coincidence that the supposed beheading of James Foley comes as the US bombed northern Iraq last weekend in support of Kurdish militia reportedly locked in combat with IS. In his article, Cameron wrote of sending equipment (code for arms) to the Kurdish autonomous government, and thus indicated what must become an inevitable outcome of the current strife – the empowering of that body and the inversely proportional weakening of the central Iraqi government. Indeed, al-Malaki, the out-going Prime Minister of Iraq, is openly reported to have been pressured from the job by the ‘international community’ for which one should perhaps read the Obama regime. With a new puppet in place, it is thought that previous objection to Kurdish oil sales that circumvent central Iraqi oversight (and revenue-collection) to global corporations (a list to be found here) and even neighbouring Turkey will be set aside. Therefore, cheaper and less regulated access to natural resources would be a designed consequence of the emergence of IS. Moreover, any commonality of purpose to be discovered between Iraq and Syria’s governments formed by al-Malaki’s support of Assad would be undermined (better analysis here). And so the fate intended for Syria is also one awaiting Iraq, but Iraq may well have been robbed of leadership that recognises it and can make effective international alliances to prevent it.
Then there are domestic objectives of the deployment of IS. It was only two days before the world got word of the Foley execution that Cameron had his article, entitled ‘Isil [IS] poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain’, published in the Telegraph in which he called IS an ‘exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement’ and, threatening that the same murderers will soon have the reach to commit atrocities on the streets of the UK, he warned Britons that they would have to accept inevitable decisions by his regime as absolute necessities in the context of the geopolitical climate.
Cameron wrote of a response to Islamists in Britain that involves taking down terrorist material from the internet, and what the police would do in the face of a ‘growing threat of extremism’. This is insidious in the light of the fact that Cameron’s regime was instrumental in the genesis of IS and, for instance, that leading Tory politicians have overtly stated that support for UKIP is a form of extremism. An illustration of why this is of such great concern is that action which has already filtered out from the general vague threats of intent and resolved itself in the form of a statement by the Metropolitan Police threatening the British public regarding the downloading and viewing of the James Foley execution video: that it could be deemed an act of terrorism in itself. Under closer examination, with this development the British police have announced that that which constitutes an act of terrorism largely depends upon their own interpretation of legislation. Presumably, police would also get to decide what defined extremism. It is exactly this sort of response that those who would challenge the misrule of Britain fear will develop from government reaction to ‘terror’: a contrivance to shut down means to investigate and oppose that misrule. For it has not taken long for even the most objective patriots to call the Foley video out as being highly dubious – all the elements in a beheading that would be hard to fake are not shown in the footage.
Of course, the impression of imminent danger stoking the absolute necessity of British government reaction is generated by the fact that the executioner in the questionable Foley-death video supposedly spoke with a British accent (although it is not an accent that the author hears spoken regularly). This will undoubtedly add fuel to the creeping narrative regarding British jihadists coming back from Syria to commit atrocities on the streets of the UK. Despite the country being surrounded by a body of water, the authorities regularly remind the public that there is little to be done to prevent this from happening. At the same time, incredibly, security services have a very good idea regarding the number of Britons fighting with IS. This implies the tracking of individuals – and yet these individuals very rarely seem to be recognised and dealt with. Furthermore, events developing from the Foley incident reveal that the authorities can identify suspects when there is a need to whip up a demonised hate figure for the child-like, arrested development members of the corporate-media audience (admittedly most of them) to fixate upon (note they will be fed an Establishment victory when Jihadi-John is caught).
A conclusion that one can make is that these individuals are at liberty to go and fight in Syria and Iraq, and then to return to the UK to be used as a terror threat, or to stay in theatre and be used as a cardboard cutout hate figure; in other words, they are working for the British intelligence agencies to provide the problem to which the assailing of British civil liberties will be a solution. Indeed, as in this story, corporate-media has reported on training in Syria run by al-Qaeda to turn Britons into eventual domestic terrorists, but what is never investigated in any meaningful way is how Britain is involved in the general feeding of recruits into the area – and in the actual training itself. The BBC recently exposed what was characterised as a unrealised plan for Britain to train thousands of mercenaries. In fact the production of the story looks like an effort to create plausible deniability for the reality of British, and US trained jihadists. It brings us full circle back to Abdel Hakim Belhadj , who represents the movement of a standing terrorist army into Syria, and who was known to MI5 as a trainer of militia.
With all this firmly in mind, the only real way that Britons can deal with any Islamist threat to their security is to target the real source – the British Establishment and its globalist corporate symbiotic master that creates war to redouble its tentacle hold on power and wealth. IS must be pulled up by the roots. It must be removed – by votes to remove the LibLabCon from Westminster, by the power of the purse to limit the capability of culpable corporations, and where possible by withdrawing consent to be subject to the British Establishment’s jurisdiction.