"If we say those things about Russia and Aleppo we must be prepared for what they say about Saudi Arabia and Yemen."

"We cannot condemn one and continue selling arms to the other, we cannot call for investigations into one and say to the other that we are happy for them to investigate themselves. We cannot pour scorn on the assurances of one that they have not hit civilian targets while blithely accepting the assurances of the other. Most of all, Mr Speaker, We cannot cry for the people of Aleppo and the suffering they face while turning a blind eye to the million children in Yemen facing starvation."

Emily Thornberry also challenged the government on their eagerness to intervene in in Syria, she is against a no-fly zone and was arguing for “more statesmanship and less brinkmanship.”

She insisted that she was “not a pacifist” but added, "Personally I believe that in a multi-playered, multi-faceted civil war such as Syria, the last thing we need is more parties bombing. What we need is a ceasefire and in fact for people to draw back."

Published in Scottish Politics

So, there will be a vote his week on whether the UK will join their allies and bomb Syria.

The USA have been doing this for over a year, and even though they have the best in weapon technologies they have somehow not managed to make any difference - well, apart from allowing their weapons to be air dropped, into the hands of the alleged enemy.

I understand why France are taking action, but surely the UK has a choice?

Why on earth would the UK Government decide to join 65 countries and bomb a country that is already on fire, when it is seems to be quite clear that bombing is making no difference what-so-ever?

Then we have Turkey, and which side are they on? It is alleged that Turkey are allowing the illegal sale of oil through their country, from the Daesh captured oil fields. It is alleged that they are allowing these people to come back and forward to Syria. It is also alleged that they shot down the Russian place for their own political reasons.

I wish the media, the government ministers etc. etc.. would stop calling them IS, ISIL etc.. The lady on Question Time the other week got it right, "If I call myself a zebra", does that mean I am a zebra"? Perhaps this name calling is mass media manipulation on the people so we are manipulated to believe that we should be against all people of similar origin, we will consent to closing our borders, and we will consent to being spied on etc etc.. But who will be spying on those, who spy on us? 

Anyway, back to the point I am trying to make, it seems to me, that this is all about oil and gas, otherwise, the 65 existing countries bombing Syria would have succeeded by now.

Taken from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/competing-gas-pipelines-are-fueling-syrian-war-migrant-crisis:

Perhaps the most accurate description of the current crisis over gas, oil and pipelines that is raging in Syria has been described by Dmitry Minin, writing for the Strategic Cultural Foundation in May 2013:

“A battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realized that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favor of Iran and Russia; thus it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.

The Guardian reported in August 2013:

“Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar and Turkey that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.’”


What we should be asking is, what will our UK Government be getting for going into another illegal war in Syria? When will we, the people get to decide?


Published in Scottish Politics

David Cameron knew UK pilots were involved in US-led bombing missions of Isis targets in Syria, even though parliament had expressly rejected British military involvement in the country in 2013.

The prime minister’s spokeswoman said on Friday that up to a dozen pilots had been involved since September, but they were not operating under a British chain of command. “The PM was aware that UK personnel were involved in US operations and what they were doing.”

She said it was a long-standing practice for the UK to embed forces with other countries and this was no different. But she was not able to point immediately to any written or oral statement setting out that British air crew were involved in bombing missions in Syria.

Details of British personnel’s involvement in strikes by allied nations’ forces were revealed by a freedom of information request by the pressure group Reprieve.

The House of Commons voted against military action in Syria in 2013, although at that time the targets envisaged were President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces. Parliamentary authorisation has only been given for UK air strikes against Isis in neighbouring Iraq.

Cameron and the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, made clear they were considering extending the military air campaign to Syria after the Tunisian beach massacre on 26 June, in which 30 Britons were among the 38 people killed. The pair have indicated that they would seek MPs’ approval for an extension of air strikes into Syria, but no vote is expected before autumn. 

Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, says the use of British pilots in US-led bombing missions in Syria is part of ‘standard operating practice’

On Thursday the defence minister Lord Howe issued a lengthy written statement setting out the scale of British military operations in Syria and Iraq, making reference to UK air-to-air refuelling and reconnaissance over Syria, and the number of bombing raids in Iraq. It made no reference to British pilots dropping bombs in Syria.

The Speaker, John Bercow, is certain to grant an urgent statement to MPs requiring ministers to explain whether they have misled the house, or acted in breach of a parliamentary resolution.

The prime minister’s spokeswoman said the British aircrew were acting within international law and were merely carrying duties as part of an exchange with allies. She said it was well-known that the UK was in the lead as one of the anti-Isis coalition forces.

British forces had been embedded with their French counterparts on military operations since the 1950s, she said, and it was a way of retaining close military alliances, as well as provide valuable experience.

She declined to reveal whether Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, had been told of the Syrian involvement when she was briefed by Cameron and defence chiefs on Tuesday at a specially convened meeting of the national security council.

The government is waiting for Labour to elect a new leader before appealing to the party to support open British involvement in bombing raids in Syria. The new leader is likely to accede to the request, but there is bound to be anger within Labour about whether Cameron should have been more open about the existing involvement.

One of Labour’s leadership hopefuls, Andy Burnham, said he would not rule out giving his backing to British airstrikes in Syria in future, but that it was important that “the will of parliament must override and be upheld at all times”.

Speaking on Sky News, Burnham said the government needed to “proceed cautiously and responsibly”. He said it should learn the lessons of the past where Britain staged military intervention “without perhaps the right evidence and the right justification”.

Tim Farron, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, said the UK air strikes in Syria would “play into the hands” of Islamist militants waging jihad in the wartorn country and neighbouring Iraq.

He told Sky News on Friday morning: “My sense is that here, in the Isis-occupied territories of Syria and Iraq, for the UK and the US to be seen to be directly involved – particularly in Syria – just plays into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists who abuse Islam and indeed murder so many Muslims and so many other people in and around their territories. Let’s not play into their hands.”

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/17/david-cameron-knew-uk-pilots-were-bombing-isis-in-syria

Published in Scottish Politics
Wednesday, 01 July 2015 18:13

Rigged Oil Prices?

I think Scotland and other countries have been victims of mass manipulation.

For some reason OPEC have never managed to agree to cease oil production, which would stabilise the price.

In the USA they are importing cheap oil, as much as they like, while, as a bonus, are getting to close down some of their fracking companies.

The low cost per barrel is detrimental to Russia, which is a plus for the USA and UK Governments, as Russia have stopped using the dollar when buying and selling oil.

The low cost per barrel also means the UK Government get to say, "Ha ha, I told you so!", to the Scottish Government - the SNP, regarding Scottish Independence . They also allege that it ruins the argument regarding Full Fiscal Autonomy. Sigh! Scotland is the only country where having oil is a burden. 

Then while reading about a particular company over in the Middle East , I believe the Director's are a Rothschild, a satellite TV company owner and an ex US Vice President - it crossed my mind that they were buying the oil off of them folks in Syria and Iraq,  selling it on for cheap while still making a hefty profit, thus contributing to the low cost of a barrel.

Everyone's a winner - well, the 1% are, and that seems to be all that matters.





Published in Scottish Politics

The Times today carries an article on ISIS’ oil interests, Syria and Turkey. Nowhere does it inform its readers that the owner of the newspaper, Rupert Murdoch, has a vested interest in this subject through his role and shares in Genie Energy, an Israeli company granted oil rights in Syria by the Israeli government. Dick Cheney and Lord Rothschild are also shareholders.

No, they really are. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy.

That Israel should grant oil rights within Syria is of course a striking example of contempt for international law, but then that is the basis on which Israel normally operates. Of course Genie’s share value will be substantially boosted by the installation of a neo-con puppet regime in Damascus which can be bought to underwrite the oil concession granted by Israel. Contempt for international law has been the single most important defining characteristic of neo-conservatism, and the need to uphold international law the recurring theme of this blog. I never thought the UK government would make the withdrawal of its support for the concept of international law explicit, as Cameron has done by removing the obligation to comply with international law from the Ministerial Code. That is truly, truly disgraceful.


Published in International
Back to Top