democrats are distracting from the real issue.
Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, as you may well know, came at an oddly suspicious time, when many felt the Trump-Russia links were being exposed. Indeed, just the day before, Sally Yates testified that Trump's former Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, had been 'compromised' by the Russians. While not proven, it seems that for once, the media and judicial system are holding a President to account. If true, doesn't it prove the Russians were the reason Trump is now residing in the White House?
Unfortunately, there's just a few things that feel entirely uncomfortable. Ever since November the 8th, Democrats, after crucifying Comey for his investigation into Hillary's emails, have been screaming 'Russia' as the source and cause of all their political issues.
There's a number of reasons for this. Firstly, as centrists tend to do, the Democrats have failed to be introspective. Upon reflecting on their failed 2016 campaign where they lost the Senate, Congress and the White House, Blue Strategists decided that Russian interference was the cause of their demise. Not the rigging of the Democratic Primaries to remove a popular candidate, not the strategic failure in the swing states, not the neoliberal policies which have hurt so many working people over the past eight years. But Russia.
Apart from a rationalisation strategy, the Democrats can continue their demonisation of the left and continue the never-ending 'Red Scare'. Former President Barack Obama, when asked about possible hacking, claimed that these attacks were not extraordinary, and “dates back to the Soviet Union.” Conflating Putin's capitalist nation with the USSR is dangerous, and simply inaccurate (one could claim 'Fake News' here). For those who don't mind a little history lesson, read on. As most know, election meddling is nothing new for the US - they've been doing it for decades. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the election of Boris Yeltsin, an advocate of the free market, in 1992, the economy faltered, inequality rose and the progress that was made under the Soviet Union was undone. Surely, Big Boris couldn't be elected for a second term? Lying at fifth place in the opinion polls, huge 'emergency loans' from the IMF and funding from foreign and domestic oligarchs helped Yeltsin bankroll a campaign full of smear and deceit. This wasn't enough - polling day saw voter fraud, bribery and intimidation. Yeltsin was elected in 1996. This laid the foundation for Vladmir Putin, who Yeltsin saw as his successor.
If you want more detail on this topic, have a look at this video:
In all, the US' adversary is one they created - and we've heard that one before.
Finally, the war drums continually being beaten is a welcome sight for what I call the 'unholy alliance of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals'; both will gladly welcome a Cold War resurgence. It was widely anticipated that should Hillary Clinton have won the election, we would be seeing the start of WW3 - it was a brief respite to many anti-imperialists that this was prevented (for the time being). Blaming Russia for election meddling provides some form of moral basis for any sanctions or further actions against the nation.
In all, while we must take the Russian allegations seriously (if proven to be true), evidence and analysis suggests that it's being used by Democrat officials to deflect from their own failings, and continue the anti-Russian propaganda that is needed to justify action against the nation.
There were three kinds of reactions seen after Trump's missiles targeted a Syrian Air Base.
Firstly, we had the average Joe who hasn't really been following the war closely, save a few snippets on various Syrian cities going either way. These individuals were a mix of confused and uneasy, though perhaps comforted when the unsubstantiated claim that Assad used Chemical Weapons was repeated on every news channel.
We then had the anti-imperialists; often those, like myself, who had been following the war for a number of years. We were the losers in all this; we simply saw a war crime committed by a fascist dictator - and I'm not referring to Mr Assad.
Lastly, we had the joyous liberals - finally, their arch-nemesis had seen the light! He had come on board SS Humanitarian, when America bombs democracy and human rights into other countries. The neocons had allied with the liberals - the #ImWithHer crowd with the imperialists.
True to form, Ms Clinton and the worldwide Establishment were quick to support Trump's actions - 'the first time we see him as a president!' - as Theresa May, Malcolm Turnbull and other world leaders rushed to support illegal military action. These include Erdogan, Netanyahu, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda linked rebels, of course.
Let's get onto the main issue here - the strikes. Killing seven and damaging vital aircraft that was being used to destroy ISIS in Homs, the FIFTY NINE Tomahawk missiles certainly hit their intended target. This was a unilateral action launched by the bipartisan imperialists dominating the US Government, and Trump's decision to bow to such powers has caused ripples amongst his reactionary support - indeed, they thought he would be different.
These strikes were based on evidence clearly presented at the United Nations, ratified by independent committees and passed by the Security Council - sorry, that's just how rational nations act. It's different for the World Police.
Let me clarify (as Liberals insist that being against military action means you are an 'Assadist') that I am no fan of the Syrian Government - actions taken against protestors in 2011 were reprehensible. However, for one, they deserve their sovereignty in a war exploded by foreign funding of rebel fighters. Secondly, if action is to be taken for war crimes, I expect similar action for crimes committed by the strikes' supporters in Iraq, Yemen and Palestine. Lastly, before any action is taken, it is imperative that any accusations are ratified by the United Nations.
In any sense, there has been thus far no proof of the Government using Chemical Weapons - and after the Rebels used Sarin Gas on civilians in 2013, would you really count them out? In addition to this, let's analyse the decision making of the Government; having slowly taken back vital cities and areas in Syria, having slowly turned worldwide and internal public opinion in their favour, having secured the support of Russia, Iran and China - decide to launch a gas attack on their own civilians, on the summit of an international meeting regarding Syrian policy, no less. We have to wonder what prompted the Syrian Government to commit political suicide.
I must stress, until any evidence is ratified, no action can legally be taken against the Syrian Government.
As the Establishment celebrates Trump's graduation to a true President, ordinary Syrians are somehow left fearing even further for their nation. One can only hope that this doesn't escalate.
The #resistance is a farce
March 2017 - Some fourteen years after the illegal invasion of Iraq began, liberal darling Ellen welcomed a very special guest onto her show. None other than Mr George W Bush, the perpetrator of the war that killed over a million civilians and destabilised a region for years to come. The smile on the faces of the two must strike some disgust into the coldest heart.
"Come back, George! You're a hero compared to Donald Trump! Your presidential tenure wasn't all that bad!"
I feel this says less about the state of politics - lest we forget, neoliberal imperialists and far right populists are NOT the only options - and more about the mindset of a subset of stubborn centrists.
#Resistance has been the hashtag of liberals, daringly taking on a demagogue - you know, that same one they helped install by endorsing Hillary 'Corporate Jingioist' Clinton ahead of the popular Bernie Sanders. Alas, we have observed this revolution in many places, from many people, usually of comfortable socio-economic backgrounds. While the brave amongst them banded together to 'moon' Trump Tower , fearless media personalities such as Trevor Noah and John Oliver barely go a day without some form of 'owning', 'destroying' or 'wrecking' Mr Trump. And of course, who could forget about the return of Ms Neoliberal herself, Hillary Clinton, back into the fore. What a way to draw the disenfranchised back to the Democrats.
What should concern you is the complete lack of self-awareness from the strategists, who feel the chase for the centre ground is still on. These same intellectuals also perceive their Queen to have lost for the following reasons:
1) Hillary was a woman, and the voter base was sexist. [53% of white women voted for Trump]
2) The voters were racist. They didn't like the Dems' history of racial equality. [Many Obama voters abandoned Hillary for Trump]
3) The media were anti-Hillary! [The same media which the corporate Dems have vested interests in? Makes sense.]
Thus, the #Resistance has focused not on the voters, but the merits of centrism and personal attacks on Trump.
A fantastic example is the "phenomenal takedown" of Mr Trump by one Rachel Maddow - a fearless, scathing exposure of evil. Wait - that was Samurai Jack I had open in another tab. In trying to expose Trump's misdemeanours, Maddow succeeded only in giving him more credibility. Even if she HAD succeeded - who, outside of college and career liberals, would really care? The millions of disenfranchised, hurt working class care more about which politician will help put food on their family's table. The voters will not care about an email scandal, but why their social programmes were cut to fund wars abroad. Not about locker room talk, but about jobs. This is what the Establishment refuse to understand.
Naturally, when the centre fails, when the Establishment is shaking, people polarise. While the media have been focusing on the reactionary shift, it's a myth that the Overton window has shifted to the right. Hillary promised more of the same, and the people scattered, drawn in only by the threat of a fascist. The #Resistance is nothing more than a distraction against the real problem - a broken system.
23rd June represents a rare chance for the British people to exercise actual democracy with regards to the EU. While the 'official' Leave campaign has been one filled with xenophobia and divisiveness, but both sides have also spread exaggerations and falsities throughout. There is one side that has received little media coverage but is one that Labour supporters must consider; Lexit.
Led by Dave Nellist of TUSC (Trade Union and Socialist Coalition), 'Lexit' provides an alternative to the right wing Leave campaign and instead prides itself of removing Britain from a neoliberal bureaucracy. LabourLeave, meanwhile, are capitalising on the 44% of Labour voters who would back a Brexit.
I think exposing the EU for what it is - that is, a capitalist sea of privatisation and appeasement of big businesses - is best done through analysing the Remain myths.
'The EU champions workers rights'
The Posted Workers Directive, which allows domestic companies to hire EU migrants at a lower wage than what is offered to domestic workers does little but increase domestic unemployment and create a race to the bottom, increasing economic disparity.
If we look at the rulings of the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in many instances, such as the Viking and Laval cases, we can see that the EU allowed companies to relocate to take advantage of lower wage rates in different countries.
There is a reason many trade unions have come out against the EU - an organisation which prides itself on being 'a friend of the workers', but in reality, limits them. The majority, if not all, of positive workers' reforms, have come from the bottom up, from trade unions lobbying the British government - and not from the EU - for example, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 stemmed from unions pressuring the British government, and if we look at EU employment laws, they are often weaker imitations of British legislation; such as the Equal Pay Act and the minimum annual holiday period, laws that will remain following a Brexit.
'Our economy would collapse without the EU'
The only certain thing is that the economy will be uncertain in the coming years following a Brexit. However, as market forces act, Britain's economy will stabilise after a while. OpenEurope's study showed that worst case scenario, Britain's GDP will shrink 2.2% (for context, it shrunk 6% after the 2008 financial crash), but our economy could also grow by 1.6%.</a>
However, if we look at current times instead of speculating, as Cameron admitted on Question Time, we do 'put more in than we get back'. The HM Treasury figures show that while we put in £18 billion a year into the EU, we only get a £5 billion rebate and a £4.5 billion investment back into the UK, meaning Britain net invests £8.5 billion a year into the EU. That's a good price to pay for access to the single market? Switzerland have unfettered access to the EU market for £600 million, a fraction of what they would net invest in the EU had they been a member (£3.4 billion).
Britain will not stop all trading with EU nations should we leave - apart from being economically idiotic for countries such as France and Germany, the Lisbon Treaty also states that the EU must form a trade deal with any nation leaving the EU.
The Common Fisheries Policy is estimated to have cost Britain 115,000 jobs, while the Common Agricultural Policy, while producing just 1.6% of the EU's GDP, receives 40% of the EU budget. This is in addition to unncessary regulation, while overall, has cost Britain £124 billion since 1998.
'The EU is the only thing stopping the TTIP'
Any country is unlikely to veto the corporatist trade agreement in the European Pariliament - however, outside of the EU, as a supposed democracy, we should be able to protest, lobby and hold the Tories to account - and if the people are unable to, maybe left-wing Remain voters should look at changing the whole system rather than relying on the EU to save them.
'Immigration is vital to our country'
Yes. It's extremely important in the day and age of globalisation. However, the EU's migrant policy, as explained before, just enables low wage workers to maximise corporate profits. If we adopt the Swiss model of immigration, where, according to the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 23.8% of permament residents are immigrants (compared to 11.3% in Britain) - leaving the EU does not mean the UK will cut immigration. A Brexit means that we wwill no longer discriminate against non-EU citizens.
'Our human rights are protected by the EU'
This is false in itself - European legislation on human rights come from the European Court of Human Rights, which is a subsection of the Council of Europe, which has nothing to do with the EU and which contains 47 member states - almost half are non-EU members. Again, leaving the EU does not mean the decisions made from this body are revoked.
We must remember that the EU vote is not a general election - UKIP or the Tory right will not come into power following a Leave vote. Following a Brexit, and the couple of years transition leaving the EU, we will only have two years left with the Tories before electing a new (hopefully Labour) government. Without EU imposition of austerity and neoliberalism, aptly demonstrated by its shameful treatment of Greece, any new elected Labour government will have the necessary powers to, as Corbyn pledges, renationalise formerly public assets which the EU currently blocks, amongst other commitments.. This creates a more democratic environment as we are no longer dictated economic policy - the British people's mandate will decide Britain's direction. In addition, a Brexit would nullify UKIP's chances in 2020 as they have little else to offer but an anti-EU stance, as well as causing further havoc in the fragile Conservative Party.
Supporters of each side shouldn't sway you either. Yes, Katie Hopkins, Donald Trump and other unsavoury characters back a Leave vote - however, I'd rather us socialists look at Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner and, perhaps, in secret,Jeremy Corbyn, who have all at one time dismissed the EU as neoliberal exploitation. We can also look at leftist writers such as Owen Jones, Paul Mason and Yanis Varoufakis, who have all expressed that they would back a 'Lexit' at another time - however, this is a once in a lifetime referendum and Labour voters, who will decide the referendum, should not waste their chance. I firmly believe it's time to leave an organisation which puts profit over people, privatises public assets and dictates neoliberal ideology to its member states.
From Denzel Dowell to Rodney King and now to Mike Brown, US police departments, especially Southern ones, are no stranger to the merciless killings of innocent African Americans. However, the perpetrators of these killings are not who you might expect; they are not down to white supremacists like the KKK, but the intolerant viewpoint of the officers themselves.
The killing of Mike Brown was unacceptable, and a prime example of police brutality. Brown was unarmed, and however much FOX or CNN attempt to convict his image, Darren Wilson did not shoot Brown because of his alleged crime committed earlier - it was simply an abuse of police privilege. How one can act in self defence by shooting at an unarmed teenager 30 feet away makes little sense.
Now, the protestors aren't using Mike Brown's death as the one reason for their activism, but it was the trigger of the protests. The long term factors point to the racial profiling that has been prominent ever since the time of MLK.
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
70% of Ferguson's population is African American.
Only 3 out of the 53 Ferguson police officers are African American.
However.... African Americans are the victims of 92% of all searches, 94% of all arrests, and 86% of all 'stops' by police. In Missouri as a whole, with an 80% Caucasian population, African Americans are targeted 3x more.
These stats reflect the disproportionate amount of African Americans, perhaps an ill effect of the Reasonable Suspicion Law.
The Protests themselves
These marches should not be compared to the destructive nature of the London riots, which, although sparked by a similar murder, were infiltrated by looters and anarchists. The 'looters' that have turned up in Ferguson are described simply as 'drunk kids', taking advantage of the situation. In no way do they represent a significant proportion of the protestors; in fact, protestors have been lining up to protect stores.
The activists are united under two common goals:
1) Justice for Mike Brown through the criticism and removal of Darren Wilson.
2) An end to police racism and brutality.
Another issue that has arisen is the increased militarisation of US police. This has not only been forseen by those crazy 'conspiracy theorists', but by respected journalists such as Abby Martin too:
The pictures in the slideshow (see top of page) show the military-grade equipment the US police not only possess, but use on regular civillians too.
Yes, the same weapons are being used on unarmed Missouri taxpayers and terrorists in the Middle East. The only difference being, al-Qaeda and the Taliban were given more support by the US government.
There are a few things that must be done to bring some form of stability to the region:
1) President Obama, whom many African Maericans thought would bring equality to all states, needs to speak out and condemn the actions of the police.
2) Journalists need to be allowed into the area. The police have threatened anyone documenting events with arrest.
3) St Louis P.D needs to announce a change in their policy, which they seem fixed on continuing (another African American was shot about a week ago).
4) The National Guard need to withdraw. They have no place opposing peaceful protestors.
5) The MSM US media, especially FOX and CNN, need to be unbiased and rational in their repo- HAHA, I know.
Till then, good luck to the protestors. Stay safe, and persevere.
Unless you've been scouring the planet in an attempt to find a place with no signal, you would certainly know about the recent Ukraine crisis. Unfortunately, this picture on the left describes much of the scene during the violent clashes in the February protests. Why, I hear you ask (somehow)? Why are the US now getting involved? How do we solve this? Well, I'll address the former two, but I'd be working for the White House or the Kremlin if I could answer the last one.
Well, let's start with a bit of background, shall we...
On 21st November 2013, the ex-President Yanukovych abruptly cancelled a deal with the EU, in the hope of getting closer to Putin. This led to mass protests which climaxed in February with mass violence from both the protesters and police, and eventually led to Yanukovych's ousting. There was also sniper fire which killed people on both sides - this was recently revealed,in a leaked phone call between the Estonian FM and an EU chief, to have been done by gunmen hired by the current coalition.
Now, obviously Russia’s actions can be considered illegal by the international community – some actions they have chosen to undertake are ones which interfere with national sovereignty and in some cases, have threatened the people. But you know what?
I don’t think Russia should be punished.
Settle down – I've given you a few lines to suppress your flabbergasted reaction. So, why exactly is Russia ‘innocent’ in my eyes?
The simple answer points to the 54+ nations invaded by the US since World War II alone. The hypocrisy that accompanies the recently imposed sanctions is shocking – John Kerry, Secretary of State for the US, the self-appointed world police, has said “”You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,”
Well, if we’re talking about false pretences, let’s ignore the invasion of Iraq just a decade ago....
The geopolitical aspect of the situation is also vital in this situation – as we should really know, Ukraine borders Russia. If the US were to, perhaps, intervene and, as they have done previously, instil a puppet government to keep tabs on Putin, would this not be an invasion of Russian sovereignty? It certainly draws parallels to the Cuba in the 1960s – as Loren Thompson writes, “If you don’t see why putting U.S. forces in Ukraine might lead to war, think of how Washington responded to the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba.” Those of you who remember GCSE History will know that Russia and the US will not tolerate one another in their 'sphere of influence'/
In addition to this, people are forgetting that Russia is allowed to station 25,000 troops in Crimea - after all, it contains vital gas fields which need protection. Ukraine aren't missing out on the gas either - Russia pays them an annual fee of 98 million Euros for the service.
What is also being ignored, is why the deal was cancelled in the first place - well firstly, the slow decline of the EU must have been a factor. Perhaps Yanukovych felt he would have more economic success with Russia?
So what of the current situation? Recently the Crimean people voted to join with Russia, 60 years after it was gifted to Ukraine.
Was the election fair, however? Well, we cannot rule out that Russia rigged the election, but it’s unlikely due to the staunch consequences should they be found out. One must remember that 58% of Crimeans are ethnic Russian speakers, so any referendum would naturally result in a decent majority voting for Russia. However, the figure of 97% intrigued me – surely Russia must have played some part in the referendum, just to make sure? There were reports that Putin blocked off all opposition media to the Crimeans, leaving only (pro) Russian media. Of course the use of media is vital in turning public opinion, but something about the magnitude of Crimeans in favour of Putin doesn't seem quite right.
Nonetheless, it seems that if a fair and proper referendum were carried out, the ethnic Russian speakers would outweigh the other groups, so it is rational to render the referendum valid.
Looking towards the future:
This could be a drag, much like the current Syrian situation.
Both parties are sending mixed signals of peace and war - a recent example being ex-PM Tymoshenko calling for all Russians to be "killed with Atomic weapons" until "there is not a scorched field in Russia" - this nice lady is now running for Ukraine's leadership! Of course, military intervention, as aforementioned, will most likely lead to the next world war...
My fear is that the Cold War never ended.
My overall view on this, as you can guess, is 'alternative'. It seems that while the issues of gas and geopolitics are important in the situation, this may just be 'mind games' from the two parties. I'm loving Putin's defiant stance to the US, as it's time somebody stood up to the self-appointed world "peace" enforcers, and outlined the hypocrisy in Obama's actions which is now clear for all to see. It's strange what the US views as legal and illegal - a violent ousting of a President is fine, yet a referendum where everyone can vote is immoral and wrong.
My hope is that the US stand down, let the Crimean people have their wish, and stop building up tensions in the region, while some American citizens on their OWN soil continue to live in unenviable conditions. In the words of Tupac, "They got money for wars but they can't feed the poor".
Naturally, these three controversial organisations, although seemingly possessing similar ideologies, differ on the political spectrum. One often sees baklava-clad EDL members throwing bottles and incoherently shouting racist remarks toward foreign pedestrians, or perhaps the BNP leader being intellectually dominated on Question Time. Or perhaps Nigel Farage having to defend a UKIP MEP after he slapped a BBC journalist over the head with his own leaflet. (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2013/sep/20/godfrey-bloom-hits-michael-crick-video)
So naturally, the media appears to be full of disdain for these political ‘parties’ – let’s take a closer look and see what they *really* stand for:
UKIP – an instant look at their site shows them clarifying their “libertarian, non-racist” ideology – call me cynical, but when you have to explicitly illustrate that your party is not bigoted, there may be something wrong....
UKIP’s manifesto, as you probably know, is based around the threat of immigration. Ignoring the fact that immigrants contribute £15 billion to our economy, the general consensus of Britons, including myself, a second generation immigrant (!), is that there is an issue. The policy outlines the problems of the rise in school places required, which is again, an important, long term problem. Interestingly, the site still has the looming peril of incoming Romanians and Bulgarians, even after the New Years Day immigration fiasco fell flat. On the face of it, although some views seem to be slightly too right wing for our socialist values, they seem to be endeavouring to identify with the public – indeed, it seems they have gained the votes of some Tory supporters for the next election.
So what’s the issue? They’re dealing with issues us Britons worry about, while Cameron only cares about corporations. Alex Andreou writes in the New Statesmen that “Ukip’s manifesto is a collection of promises selected, seemingly, on the basis of “twenty things that really annoy people”, with no inkling of implementation method or any costings” – in summary, a reactionary party that will fail to deliver. Links with the controversial EFD, the £2 million expenses claimed and several party members going on inexcusably xenophobic rants reflect how UKIP is not only full of empty promises, but the organisation itself is a mess, with narrow-minded ideas forcing their way into the manifesto.
BNP – in my opinion, a shocking organisation with little redeeming features. This is epitomised by their warped view that "diversity" is, or at least will lead to, "White Genocide" Apparently, because “Africa is for Africans” and “Asia is for Asians” (I haven’t seen any travel bans recently?) the assumption is that ‘White’ countries (Yes, they actually said that) are for....you guessed it, the Caucasians. I could go on about the various racist and intolerant attitudes possessed by many a BNP member, but let’s go straight to the heart of the operation – Nick Griffin. His disgusting lack of knowledge about key areas of society he opposes, most notably Islam, is shocking. The first question in the video below reflects how his knowledge appears to come from Wiki Islam, a notorious site known for its horrible portrayal of the religion, and not the Quran itself. His social knowledge leads him to believe that the influx of Pakistani immigrants is the reason for Britain’s drug problem, and apparently because some ‘grooming gangs’ are of Asian descent, immigration is supplemented by crime. His views also spread to Jews - Griffin notoriously called the tragic event the "Holohoax", reflecting his anti-semitism. He then added to this by saying "There's no such thing as a black Welshman".
Now, I do agree (come at me bro) with some of their views. Their non-interventionist policy, in terms of human rights, puts them above the current ‘Big 3’, on the count that they would not have killed 500,000 civilians in Iraq in an unjust war. The feeling that the Elitists are leading this country to be part of a New World Order is also in line with my views (let’s focus on the observable issues though).
However, the idiotic members, and of course the easily unlikeable Nick Griffin, whose general demeanour I like to compare to his counterpart Peter from Family Guy, make this another undesirable, bigoted party. God help us if they even get a seat in Parliament.
EDL – have I saved the worst until last? Let’s take a look, again, at their site: “non racist, non violent and no longer silent” – again, sounding extremely terse and defensive. They have been in the media recently, with their leader Tommy Robinson joining an Islamic organisation called Qulliam, which aims to de-radicalise the radical and spread “Islam, not Islamism”. A victory for the lefties? Or just a PR move so Tommy can move up in the world?
The EDL, in their mission statement, describe themselves as a “human rights organisation” – a regional leader of Amnesty, I am appalled by this, especially when I see EDL demos (exceedingly poorly attended by the way) filled with drunken hooligans hurling bricks and bottles to make a statement against violence.
Their lack of Islamic knowledge is also disappointing – Islam “encases women in the burqa”? An irrational generalisation; Muslim women, for the most part, choose to wear it themselves, while those who don’t are often fearful of society’s backlash and abuse in the street.
However, it appears to be that the EDL’s main ideology is to keep Britain British – they don’t want, as is the general consensus, Sharia Law or radical Muslim clerics. This I understand, and agree with. However, their ignorance, xenophobia, radical manifesto and thuggish members means they are certainly a washed up organisation who take advantage of young, uneducated white members of society and influence them into their ways. It’s no surprise Tommy Robinson jumped that sinking ship.
Overall, it seems that the few redeeming features these organisations have are washed up in a sea of intolerance. It would certainly be a farce if any of them made any further step up in the world of politics.
Contrary to popular belief, the Syria situation isn't simply Assad terrorizing his own people, nor is it sectarian violence.Images shown daily in papers all over the world reflect the true suffering imposed by both sides.
Well, before analysing anything, one must first look at the known facts. We're not talking about chemical weapons etc. due to the complex confusion on those matters, but rather what started the war. I probably cannot even talk about the numbers killed, due to the distinct lack of unbiased journalism in the country.
Assad responded violently to protests in 2011, imposing censorship and mass arrests of opposition leaders. Perhaps a touch too overzealous from the man fearing he would be usurped. Some of his own army left him to form the FSA, a prominent group in the scale of things, such was his tyranny. So surely a simple conclusion? Well, perhaps the media outlets are feeding you nonsense again.....
There's no doubt that Assad has done wrong. His constant bombings, and attacks on Syrian people have escalated the civil war. It is the lack of acknowledgement of the wrong doing of the rebel opposition that frustrates those who want to look objectively at the situation.Groups within the rebels include the Muslim Brotherhood (see: the state of Egypt), Al Nusra (in other words, Al Qaeda), and both the Syrian Islamic Front and the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, both Islamist, radical groups. My aim is to bring into perspective the people Obama and much of the West are currently supporting. Aid, in terms of food and medical supplies, should naturally be delivered to civilians in the country, who are evidently the real victims of the violence.However, the supply of weapons, mainly stemming from Saudi Arabia, to the rebels only accentuate the violence.
The notorious chemical weapons attacks have had much the same effect - yet the mainstream media have specifically mentioned Assad's alleged use . The "definitive proof" the US seems to possess has not been released - national security purposes, or maybe it's just very weak/doesn't exist....the latest chemical attack, on August 21st, showed the rebel forces using Sarin gas to kill 635 civilians. Oh and don't forget about the "Assad, eat your heart out fiasco".
As you can probably tell, my main point outlines the importance to not consume mainstream media for vital matters such as this civil war; do your own research, learn about both parties - media will always have a government bias. I switch on CNN, Assad bombing kills 200. I change to Russia Today, Rebels massacre 200 with machetes. It's unsure what will happen - but we don't want to turn this into another Iraq.