Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Sunday, 29 November 2015


Many thanks for all your comments on the previous piece, in which I recommended we send our three or four aircraft to war over Syria despite there being absolutely no military advantage in so doing. I accept I'm in a small minority here, as they say, and probably in the wrong. All the voices I respect here and in the wider media are saying the same. Peter Hitchins in the Mail for instance;
It is all such rubbish. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that the Paris murders were organised by or in Islamic State. France has plenty of home-grown hatred and (despite strict gun laws) is awash with illegal Kalashnikovs and ammunition. Nor can I see why bombing Raqqa will defend us or anyone against such murders. France’s President Hollande, a failed politician in bad domestic trouble, mired his own country in Syria months ago. I can’t see what good reason we have to follow him there. It will not help to bind up the wounds of the people of France.
Outvoted! (2)

In an example of not knowing how the interweb works, those primitive savages from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia take the biscuit. Blinded by their own zealotry and oil wealth, a 'justice' ministry official threatened yesterday to sue anyone who suggested on Twitter that there was any equivalence between the benign and loving 'justice' of the barbarian kingdom and the wise and tolerant disposals of the ISIS Islamist courts. Not only did Peter Brooks produce the superb cartoon below for the Times, but thousands of Twitterers from around the globe soon swamped #saudiarabia space with exactly the suggestion that Brooks has made. 

I'd hesitate to suggest the savages' 'justice' ministry official fall on his own sword, as it's probably an Islamist crime. Perhaps he may wish to pay £20m in advance fees to Carter-Fuck instead, to start tracking us all down? It's certainly a more moral way of getting KSA gold into the UK than flogging them executioner's handcuffs and cattle prods.


Anonymous said...

That's more like it, backing a fool who is consistently wrong is never a good idea. If we need to go to war it will be obvious to just about everyone.

DeeDee99 said...

Fabulous cartoon - and it needed saying.

The barbarians in Saudi Arabia are far worse than Assad and let's not forget that the vast majority of the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers were Saudi citizens.

It's about time the Saudis were subjected to a bit of free speech.

john cheshire said...

In addition to the above, I believe that Mr Hollande has introduced legislation akin to the USA Patriot Act, which drastically curtails individual's freedoms. Uncanny how this legislation is always sitting there, fully developed, just waiting to be enacted. And hadn't Mrs Merkel banned all public demonstrations?
As for fulfilling his duty to protect and defend the indigenous peoples of our nation, rather than wasting time, men, money and effort illegally entering a sovereign state to carry out worthless bombing raids, Mr Cameron could spend a fraction of those resources searching every mosque and muslim community centre for stockpiles of weapons. He could target all the imams, mullahs and ayatollahs and make life difficult for them, encouraging them go and promote their satanic hatred elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

The problem is over here, not over in Syria.

The problem is, our whole administration, kowtowing and licking the ground the house of Saud walks upon.

The problem is, the Tory party, in the pockets of the Arabs.

The problem is, our executive have their heads up their arses.

Britain has been sold off and sold out.

The problem is massive immigration - we don't know who is here and who is coming and going.

The problem is Dave, he is a fuckwit of some specialized lower order.

The problem is, a government who stepped out of governance a very long ago ~ 1972 and delegated responsibility into the hands of an extraordinary off shore administration, which is totally unaccountable but immensely powerful. Government by subversion, it directs its power through the unelected quangos and through the social engineering of council administrators who are untouchable as they go about their demographic 'ethnic cleansing'.
An UK administration in TOTO, who answer to nobody but who hate their fellow countrymen with a passion I cannot fathom but it is real enough - these Common Purpose Socialist inspired hand wringing sanctimonious liberal cunts: who hate the very essence of Britain - ie you and me.

We need to hold on to what is left of our nation, wrest our country back and the only problem with that is, UKIP - are the only alternative.

Anonymous said...

"The barbarians in Saudi Arabia are far worse than Assad and let's not forget that the vast majority of the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers were Saudi citizens."

Assad has killed ten times as many people. Don't be deceived by his western suit and clean-shaven face. The man is a brutal Fascist who will kill and torture without limit to retain his hold on power. The Saud regime is much the same in principle, but Assad has been far worse in practice.

Think how many people have been maimed or crippled for life by Assad's bombs.

Don't confuse Saudi citizens with the Saud royal family. Al-Qaeda is the sworn enemy of the Sauds. If either Al-Qaeda or ISIS gained power in Arabia, the Royals would all be shot or beheaded immediately. Sharia Law and executions would continue.

There is no good side, except perhaps Kafranbel.

Don Cox

Raedwald said...

Don - Egypt, Libya and Iraq must surely teach us something - (1) that we in the West are actually better off with brutal, SECULAR authoritarian dictators in power (2) that the numbers of citizens killed under such regimes when we leave them alone are far, far, lower than the number killed when and after we intervene.

In other words, our 'liberal' intervention against secular dictatorships - including against Syria - both make us at home more vulnerable to terrorism and get far more of those countries' citizens kiled.

KSA is an exception - it's not a secular dictatorship but a theocracy, and it's an exporter of extremist Islamist terrorism.

lilith said...

What I really don't understand is why NATO is not sealing off the Turkish border with Syria. If we bomb Isis in Raqqa without doing this, Isis will just flow over and into Europe with civilians.

Anonymous said...

It's no coincidence that extreme wealth in relatively few hands can result in extreme violence from the hands of the many. One example of directed history produced by money and war. If there are money interests in danger of being cut off, war will follow. Happens all the time.


Raedwald said...

Lilith - correct, except that NATO forces can't legally enter Syria without a UN resolution or Assad's invite, or enter or deploy in Turkey without Erdogan's consent. None of which will happen.

So the only way to seal the border and prevent ISIS killers from travelling into Europe via Greece is by either using the Kurds - who already control 60% - or Assad's Syrian army. The Russians are helping Assad reclaim the border to seal it *before* launching an attack on Raqqa, both to seal reinforcements and resupply coming in from Turkey and wounded and fleeing Islamists fleeing outwards.

G. Tingey said...

There is no good answer to any of this.
Which is the least-worst answer has yet to appear