|
Theresa May Says “Enough Is Enough” – We Agree – Remove Her From Office
Some links on Britain – the terror attacks and the upcoming election:
BBC: British rebels attack Theresa May's strongholds in London
That is what the headline of BBC should have been yesterday and today. That is the way it reported when the "rebels" were "Syrians" and the attacks occurred in Damascus. Was that not objective? Why change it now?
Related to the Manchester attack John Pilger asks: What did the Prime Minister Know? (vid)
He points out, as we did, that Theresa May was Home Secretary when control orders were lifted to allow Libyan Takfiris move from Britain to Libya to destroy that country. Half of those came back, well trained, and one killed 22 people in Manchester. A blowback from May's personal decision to sent well known terrorists into British proxy wars. Now she says there is "too much tolerance of extremism"? Who tolerated these?
The current Home Secretary is no better: Amber Rudd Prevents Independent Candidate Questioning Arms Sales to Saudi Sponsors of Terrorism
That is the typical response of authoritarian rulers when their shady deals are openly discussed and their competence is questioned: more censorship: Theresa May calls on internet companies to eradicate 'safe spaces' for extremism in wake of London Bridge terror attack
Is the London Bridge a web server? Were the "safe spaces" on the internet used to attacked it? Or are the "safe spaces" the ones used to question Britain's and May's lucrative love affair with terrorist financing Wahhabi nuts in Saudi Arabia and Qatar? For an even deeper dive read You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
May's collusion with the terror sponsors is not allowed to be officially known or discussed: Home Office may not publish terrorist funding report amid claims it focuses on Saudi Arabia – Inquiry is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which the UK recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to.
It would be bad for business to publicly acknowledge the real sources of Takfiri terrorism. A few dozens Brits here and there, in Manchester and London, will have to die every now and then to keep the shareholders of BAE Systems and other British arm producers happy. Jermey Corbyn would likely change that. He called for an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia.
London attack: Theresa May says 'things need to change' Prime Minister Theresa May: 'enough is enough' (vid)
We hope that the British voters will agree with her. Thinks need to change. Enough is enough. Vote May out of office. End the cushy relations with the medieval dictatorships of the Arab peninsula.
A change of leadership in Britain is well possible if the young Labour voters turn out in large numbers. Those British who want to end the terror against others and against themselves must now help to achieve that.
@92 petra… we will have to wait and see how this qatar thing unfolds.. might indicate wheels coming off ksa.. i sure hope so… i read a quote yesterday at craig murrays site.. i am going to see if i can find it right now and share it.. first though i see he has an article up – The Qatar Conundrum saying much as i did – pot calling kettle black..
the book author listed below is actually christopher davidson.. looks like a good read…
“Mike
June 4, 2017 at 23:15
According to Christopher Stephens writing in Shadow Wars – The Secret Struggle for the Middle East, Britain has been colluding with radical Islam for at least 120 years:
Excerpt from Chapter 3 – sub-heading: Searching for an Islamic State – Britain’s Caliphate
Forged through conquest, the Saudi-Wahhabi entity was also brutally sectarian, repeatedly attacking Shia communities along the coastline of the Persian Gulf in the 1790s, and pillaging Shia shrines in Iraq in 1801 and 1802. In Karbala, scene of an ancient battle between the Sunni caliph and the Shia, represented by the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson Hussein, the Saudis slaughtered most of the town’s population, destroyed the dome over the grave of one of Shiism’s founders, and ‘looted property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver and precious copies of the Qur’an’. The smashing of the Karbala dome along with others in Mecca has been described as the ‘signature activity’ of Wahhabism at the time.
Despite such barbarity, by 1899 the Saudis were being encouraged by Britain to use its protectorate of Kuwait as a launch pad to further their campaign against rival tribes and the Ottomans. Capturing Riyadh in 1902, Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi militia, the Ikhwan, quickly went on to conquer most of the other central and eastern parts of Arabia. Signing a treaty with Ibn Saud in 1915, Britain ‘formally recognized [him] as the independent ruler… under British protection. In return he undertook to follow British advice.’ Remarkably, in 1917, a year after the Sykes–Picot agreement had already promised Arabia to the Hashemites, and at exactly the same time that both Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot visited Mecca to discuss their plans with Hussein, Britain had also decided to put Ibn Saud on a handsome monthly retainer of £5,000. Described as a ‘Bedouin chief for hire’, his son Faisal was even invited to take a tour around London.
With the First World War drawing to a close it still seemed Hussein was in pole position, as his monthly retainer was £12,000, and an estimated £11 million – an enormous sum for that time – had been transferred to the Hashemite coffers. Having coordinated much of the Arab Revolt via their man on the ground, Colonel Thomas Lawrence, or ‘Lawrence of Arabia’, Britain’s Cairo-based Arab Bureau continued to back the Mecca plan on the basis they would be best placed to oversee the process of switching the caliphate from Turkish to Arab control. The bureau chief, David Hogarth, was unequivocal in his views, having described the Saudi pretenders as having a ‘fanatical creed unsuited to most of the Islamic world’. With the Ottoman Empire all but finished by 1919, Hussein duly pleaded with Hogarth and others to ensure that Ibn Saud’s power was held in check and that the Ikhwan was destroyed, because it was a ‘political society in the cloak of religion’. By the end of the year it seemed London was heeding such calls and was prepared to fulfil the Sykes–Picot promises, as at one point even the Royal Air Force was used to support Hussein’s attempts to roll back the Saudis.
In many ways, however, Britain’s actions against the Ikhwan were just part of a ‘friendly rivalry’, as London secretly continued to back both sides at the same time. The India Office in particular seemed to favour Ibn Saud over Hussein on the basis that the Ikhwan’s ferocity would help ward off other rival powers from entering the Persian Gulf. Although posthumously transformed into the blond-haired, blue-eyed Hollywood hero of the Arab people, even Lawrence was wholly at ease with the duplicitous double game. Commenting in a secret intelligence report on the British plan, he described Hussein as ‘beneficial to us, because [he] marches with our immediate aims, the break-up of the Islamic “bloc” and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states he would set up would be as harmless to ourselves as Turkey was’. The ideal scenario for Lawrence, it seemed, was ‘if properly handled [the Arab states] would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities incapable of cohesion, and yet always ready to combine against an outside force’. He also later explained that ‘Hussein was ultimately chosen because of the rift he would create in Islam. In other words, divide and rule.’ The India Office similarly noted the advantages of such a strategy, with one report stating: ‘What we want… is not a united Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split up into little principalities so far as possible under our suzerainty.’ On the subject of manipulating dangerous elements such as the Ikhwan , Lawrence was also quite comfortable, pointing out that when a ‘Wahhabi-like Muslim form of Bolshevism’ had welled up in southern Iraq, it was easily put down by British aircraft and on-the-ground spotters.
The Saudi-Wahhabi killing spree that ensued as Lawrence’s ‘tissue of jealous principalities’ continued to pull each other apart led to an estimated 400,000 dead with 40,000 public executions, 350,000 amputations, ‘scorched-earth’ battlefields, and the displacement of an estimated one million persons, most of whom fled to neighbouring countries. With the Ikhwan responsible for much of the carnage, Ibn Saud claimed to his British employers that they were operating independently of his control. Perceptive British officials however stated that ‘[Ibn Saud] does not want it to be known that he himself is at the bottom of the whole thing, and is fostering and guiding the movement for his own ends.’ As colonial secretary, Winston Churchill was similarly well aware of the reality, having informed parliament at the time that the Ikhwan was ‘austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty… they hold it as an article of duty as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children… men have been killed for smoking a cigarette.’ Moreover, Churchill had earlier warned of the dangers of using such extremist Islamist militias in Britain’s wars in Sudan, having written that ‘no stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Muhammadism is a militant and proselytizing faith.’ He also claimed it led to a ‘fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog’.
——————
There’s no way we can believe politicians when they act shocked by terrorism either at home or abroad – ‘we’ have been stoking or waging a war of terror for centuries.”
Posted by: james | Jun 5 2017 16:10 utc | 99
|
