Thursday, March 10, 2011

David Cameron: Warmonger

The Mole reports:

Tory MPs are alarmed at the behaviour of the Brotherly Leader and Guide, David Cameron. He is still making warlike noises over Colonel Gaddafi - despite Nato and the UN making it clear they don't want to go to war over Libya.

At the start of a summit in Brussels today, Nato general secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen said there was no intention to intervene and certainly not without a UN Security Council resolution. And Russia and China are very clear that they will veto any attempt at the UN by America or Britain to try to bring about regime change by military action in Libya.

And yet Cameron continues to bang the war drum.....,

Despite deep misgivings in Washington, Cameron and President Obama discussed intervention in a transatlantic conference call on Monday afternoon.
You can read the whole of the Mole's report here.
The fact that Dave is more gung-ho on Libya than President Obama, the UN and the NATO general secretary should come as no surprise. As I wrote here, soon after he became Tory leader, Dave is no moderate.


jack said...

The obvious comparison which has been pointed out by other commentators is western assistance to Bosnia and Kosovo (I myself was thinking of Bosnia when they proposed a no fly zone) where we initiated a no fly zone while secretly arming and transporting jihadists and Iran arms to Bosnian fighters coupled with false flag terrorist attacks to elicit US/NATO intervention against the Serbs.

Given the way the press has covered the situation in Libya exclusively from the "rebel" side who we know nothing about except their ties in the past to Islamic extremists and one group professing allegiance to Bin Ladin not mentioned in the mainstream press.

In 96 British intelligence recruited an Al Qaeda terrorist Anas Al Liby who was involved in organising a failed motorcade attack on Egyptian president Mubarak in Ethiopia a year prior to kill Gadaffi who the FBI lists on its most Wanted terrorist website for involvement in the US African Embassy bombings so we know British intelligence and military have connections to rebel groups.

jock mctrousers said...

This could be the saving of us. If he keeps this up, the SIS might decide it's time he had a wee accident.

olching said...


That's a load of bollocks. There are no jihadists in action among the democratic resistance, as we can now see. You've got to be a special kind of arsehole to think there's an equivalence between Gaddafi's side and the democratic resistance.

Neil, I agree that intervention would be a disaster for so many reasons. The UK with its unethical and deeply immoral foreign policy has screwed up often enough and cannot undo this with bombs.

Bombs always escalate a situation, as we saw in Serbia-Kosovo. In Libya's case, which is already very bloody, western bombs might turn it into a truly genocidal war with the strong possibility of it spilling over the borders.

The only good thing about David Cameron is that (unlike dangerous Tony Blair at the time) no one takes chubby Eton boy seriously.

Anonymous said...

Good grief. As disappointing as Obama has been on many different issues, he has been pretty good on foreign policy, at least when compared to George W. Bush, although that is setting the bar very low indeed. I could imagine David Cameron and John McCain salivating together over the prospect of another war.

Of course, the worst thing about all of this talk of intervention in Libya is how little the lives of the soldiers and their families seem to matter to the neocons. They are like pieces on a chessboard, just there to be moved around like chunks of wood.

jack said...


How democratic exactly are the resistance?

No jihadists?

Of course, Western media have largely dismissed Qaddafi’s current claim that he is fighting against bin Laden as the ravings of a madman. However, the combat between Qaddafi and bin Laden is very real and predates the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Indeed, Qaddafi was the first to try to alert Interpol to bin Laden, but got no cooperation from the United States. In November 2007, the French news agency AFP reported that the leaders of the “Fighting Islamic Group” in Libya announced they were joining Al Qaeda. Like the Mujahidin who fought in Bosnia, that Libyan Islamist Group was formed in 1995 by veterans of the U.S.-sponsored fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Their declared aim was to overthrow Qaddafi in order to establish a radical Islamist state. The base of radical Islam has always been in the Eastern part of Libya where the current revolt broke out. Since that revolt does not at all resemble the peaceful mass demonstrations that overthrew dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, but has a visible component of armed militants, it can reasonably be assumed that the Islamists are taking part in the rebellion."

Like other British and US lead "rebel" groups they are supported by the very same outfits NED, Freedom House, British Foreign Office, etc that the controlled mass media acts as there propaganda media outlet where it is 100% from their perspective.

I would image they would be as bad if not worse than Qaddafi.

jack said...


Obama has re-establish the Afghan opium trade and Pakistan and Afghanistan as a base againfor training jihaist from China, Russia and Central Asia just like under the Taliban to destabilise the Eurasian sphere with a massive upsurge in violence in the North Caucasus and Central Asia to support western/NATO backed jihadists, a feat George Bush could not even accomplish.

olching said...

Jack, what utter arsewipe.

You know, people like you really piss me off, because you give us on the left a bad name.

It is truly remarkable that you believe Gaddafi's 'Al-Qaeda are giving young'uns drugs!' mantra. I didn't think there would be anybody who would give this any credence.

And British and supported? What the fuck are you talking about? Until recently Gaddafi's was the UK's business partner! What good is a civil war to 'business abroad' mentality?

One article from counterpunch does not a jihadist movement make.

If anything, the control orders in place against Libyans in the UK on the suggestion of Gaddafi is more evidence on the nonsensical claim of it all.

And on the subject of Jiahdists in Bosnia, the movement was largely irrelevant and was often overstated. I say this as someone highly critical of the way Serbia was treated and represented throughout this period. But that does not mean we engage in the same kind of bullshit by making equally mad claims.

What the Libyans are fighting for is a form of rough justice, social justice, and equality. If the equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood are amongst them, then it only goes to serve as further evidence (if it were needed!) of the repressive system of Gaddafi. After all, even conservative Muslims are allowed to demand liberty!

Douglas said...

As long as we're on the subject of war, are you a pacifist or a just war theorist?

I'd also like to conduct a thought experiment. If it were to be discovered that an Iraqi agent was part of Timothy McVeigh's successful plot to blow up the government building in Oklahoma City in 1995, would you consider that an act of war?

Anonymous said...

Here we go again Puppets Cameron and Obama are up to their Illuminati tricks again. Off to sanction more killing and destruction. Facism strikes again.We have the big build up before the strike. Psychopaths in suits.

Anonymous said...

Why are tory leaders psychopathic killers