Neo-Con Bloodlust Let Rip 115

If a country breaches an International Convention, that in no sense makes it legal in international law for other countries to bomb it.  Otherwise Britain should certainly be bombed for continual and flagrant breaches of the UN Convention against Torture in the context of extraordinary rendition, and for breaches of several international arms control treaties with regard to the planned acquisition of a new, enhanced, and ruinously expensive, Trident missile system.

Even if we accept that the Assad regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks, that does not give a right to bomb Syria.  Why the lunatic bloodlusters all over our screens – including recycled Blairites who should be in jail –  think that blowing children to pieces ourselves is the correct response to horrible pictures of dead children, is something no TV journalist has had the guts to ask them.

Even the lunatic warmonger Blair felt the  need to bolster the almost non-existent legal arguments for the attack on Iraq with a claim, however ridiculous, that there was imminent danger of an attack by Iraq on British sovereign territory with WMD – in that case the British military bases on Cyprus.  Yet another reason, incidentally, that those colonial remnants must urgently be returned to the Cypriots.  If Britain had been in genuine imminent danger of attack, that would indeed have been a justification of some validity.  On Syria we have merely the claim that some civilians have been destroyed by chemicals; a terrible thing, but when hundreds of thousands have already been eviscerated by white hot metal, and horribly murdered by all side in this gruesome civil war, not the most logical of spurs to action against only one side in particular.

That the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks is perfectly possible but very,  very far from certain.  Particularly as those who claim to have the most certainty about it are precisely those who lied repeatedly about WMD.  That the Assad regime should risk this action now it is winning the war seems peculiar, to say the least.  But the truth is that even if it was Assad himself, nobody else has any legal right to intervene in this civil war without the express authority of the UN Security Council, and there is no possibility of that.

Many on the right are arguing that the Security Council is irrelevant, but we should not bomb anyway as we have no idea of the long term result.  That is true but still short sighted.  The same prudence should apply to the consequences of destroying international law and the authority of the UN.  To do that might seem smart to the neo-cons when the USA is the most powerful military force on earth and we in the UK are its sidekick.  But within my lifetime China will be the most powerful military force on earth.

The neo-cons may feel that destroying the idea of international restraint, in favour of might is right, is  to their advantage, but that is simply further proof of their quite extraordinary short sightedness and stupidity.





115 thoughts on “Neo-Con Bloodlust Let Rip

1 2 3 4
  • Donald

    Apostoli: Indeed, what is not being reported in any detail is the mobilisation of the Russian military to counter this. Additionally China and Russia are practicing securing the sea lanes of Asia.

    The peices are being put in place, quietly, deliberatey and methodically. Syria is a smokescreen to drag the world into NATO v East.

  • Krishnamurky

    Crypto millipede squirmed through the Labour Party position in the Commons, ably assisted by an incredible unspoken sync from the SS -Rifkind and Straw. So Labour may agree to war even if there is veto in Security Council, so much for legitimacy in International Law. For the time being we may skirt around the law says another AG Goldsmith, but we will need to reset the law right after the job is done! Interesting to see Fox,Rifkind & Co trying to water-down the standard of compelling evidence required or the issue of any Russian/Chinese vetos that may arise, in advance of the “second” vote.

  • John Goss

    Craig, thanks for posting on this important issue of contravention of international law and illegal wars committed by the powerful on the weak. In your absence personal and unprovoked attacks have interrupted some astute thought on the developing threat of war. My colleague, Gilbert Mercier, Editor-in-Chief of News Junkie Post, gives a similar assessment to your own, mentioning also that there are voices in Congress not happy with breaking international law.

  • Goodwin

    Whilst I am glad to see that HMG is not being allowed to “do a Blair” this time, at least for the time being, it would be interesting to have an idea of what, precisely, you think the international community should be doing. Personally I’m in the New Zealand camp – heads down as it’s fuck all to do with us.

  • Donald

    “Even if we accept that the Assad regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks”

    I don’t think there is any choice. One MP today said that if the UN report uncovers chmical weapons that are known to be in Assads arsenal than that is the proof they need, however if the chemicals are found to from some other source then that meant it could then be either Assad or the ‘rebels’. So we’ll still be in this ‘most likely it’s Assad’ nonsense even if they only find industrial chemicals, which a number of experts reckons is what has been used.

  • Nextus

    David Cameron opened today’s Commons debate with: “We are not searching for chemical or biological weapons. The case for ultimately – and I say ultimately because there would have to be another vote in this house – the case for ultimately supporting action is not based on […] intelligence.”

    Nor indeed is it based on crass stupidity. It’s based on geopolitical engineering.

    OK, the bit missing was “a specific piece or pieces of …”, but if the decision to cause untold destruction is not based on pieces of intelligence, what fills in the gaps? A strong hunch? Divine revelation? (Oh, God, not again!) Economic interests of key allies? Political pressure from across the water?? I think we’re getting closer …

  • Jeremy

    A face-saving bombing for Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama. With the Israelis pulling the strings. All the same phrases we heard in 2003…

  • Rob

    Not sure about your argument on this Craig. I’m sure I’ve read on your blog about the unpardonable use of white phosphorous on civilians. So lets say a certain ME power looks over the present crisis and sees the US/UK buckle at this egregious and hideous incident. Lets say that said ME power decides to let loose a bit of sarin or whatever against the “terrorists” who disturb its peace and tranquility. What then? Will liberal opinion demand that no action is taken? Somehow I don’t think so.

    Seems to me that if there is serious condemnation of chemical weapons then there must be consequences for those that use them and if possible the weapons and/or the delivery and control systems should be destroyed. If nothing happens except a lot of noise, then who knows, perhaps the Chechens, Georgians Tibetans or even the Taiwanese might be in for a bit of a neurological kicking. When is it right to take a stand against the use of such weapons?

  • wikispooks

    I have a question for several posters above – Just what exactly are we supposed to understand by “The International Community”?

    For a solid considered analysis, putting the alleged attacks in their strategic context and current as at 24 hours ago, see this from Franklyn Lamb in Tehran: Bandar and the Zionist Lobby:Forcing Obama into a Prolonged Syrian War

    There are clearly major divisions being played out in Washington right now – sadly, on past for its clear what the outcome is likely to be.

  • craig Post author


    Don’t think I can see the comparison. a) the Israelis aren’t attacking their own citizens and b) I have never advocated bombing Israel anyway.

  • Fred

    “Hi Craig. I’m not sure you’re right on the law. There is a good argument for humanitarian intervention to prevent further atrocities. This is not new law ; I was examined on it in 1978 when I was at the finest University in Dundee”

    I can see how there could be an argument for bombing Dundee on humanitarian grounds.

    Need more evidence before we bomb Syria though.

  • Proudhon

    The last thing the Israeli’s and Saudi’s want is for the Shia’s to win. So, isn’t this about knobbling the Shia’s. Assad comes from a Shia sect, so gets the support of Shia Iran.

    I believe there is a rather oppressed Shia minority in Saudi.The Sunni Saudis have been agitating for Assad’s downfall.

    Since the Israeli bombing of Syria, Assad has been winning, thanks to Hamas support.

    So, if Assad wins, presumably Hamas and Iraq gain a grateful ally. Hence the yanks doing what Saudi and Israel want.

  • Juteman

    Although I long for Scottish independence, the independence campaign has opened my eyes.
    I used to think the BBC was a decent news organisation. Obviously they would put a pro UK slant on world affairs, but I mostly trusted them. Now I just feel sad.
    Witnessing the daily lies, smears and selective reporting of BBC Scotland on the independence debate, acting as the propaganda arm of the Westminster cabal, I now find that I don’t believe ANYTHING they say.
    Sometimes I wish I could go back to being a sheep.

  • Juteman

    “I can see how there could be an argument for bombing Dundee on humanitarian grounds”

    That has already been suggested by Unionists in Project Fear.

  • deepgreenpuddock

    yes indeed Donald, re John Reid. I almost fell out of bed with laughing at him this morning as I listened to him talking about military objectives and needing to define ,etc etc, while all the time I remembered his hopelessly futile deployment of troops to Helmand, an operation so devoid of joined up thinking it beggared belief, and a simple response to a demand from the US to take it on. The result was disastrous.

    A curiosity here- I am not sure that China has the capacity to overhaul the US in military terms. All sorts of reasons for that, but the technological lead enjoyed by the US at the moment , and their unrivalled capacity to generate new technology, both seem overwhelming, compared to China.

  • craig Post author


    And I remember when “made in Japan” meant low quality low technology shoddy plastic and nothing else, and Korean cars and ships were laughable. The world changes, you know.

  • Juteman

    I think I was in your company many years ago Craig, having a pint in the Phoenix Bar. 🙂

  • nevermind

    Has the world gone mad. All this outrage over pictures that show civilians being attacked, as yet not known with what.

    They claim its chemical weapons, but when reality shows them white phosphorus bombs, a chemical weapon not to be used against civilians, and some 419 children and 108 women died in the cast lead massacre not a peep was to be heard.

    Warmongering hypocrits. Even if it is shown that Assad responded in kind, I do not think we should go to war, all this hypocrisy proclaiming its OK for us to slaughter and create chaos, but everyone else doing it is a monster to humanity.

    Cleggs comments today are full on TORY, the Lib Dems have morphed for good so it seems, what a load of twaddle the BBC had to transmit today with Amroliwala being the biggest waller of all.
    And Israel should be told now, via our ambassadors that they are on their own should they decide to attack Syria/Iran, no more collegial land grabs, not in Syria, which already has its Golan Heights occupied for decades, not from Jordan or Lebanon.

  • Jon

    Rob, I agree to a point about there needing to be consequences for people who use chemical weapons (or whatever other prohibited weapon) – it reflects my feeling of powerlessness over the way the world institutions and economic mechanisms are configured.

    Let us say we can prove that Assad has authorised the use of such weapons (which is not at all proven currently). What do we do? Bombing campaigns kill people. That is their purpose usually, and usually it is civilians who bear the brunt of it. Bad intelligence and inaccurate targetting and unpredictable blast radii all come into it. If that wasn’t bad enough, the only forces we have at our disposal are led by people who lied to us in order to pillage Iraq, and who did much the same with Libya in order to keep the oil flowing. Do we choose to trust them this time around?

    I’m not dismissing your concerns at all, I have them too. What Western electorates need is some moral test to determine that in a particular set of circumstances, with a limited objective, it is clear that our usually corrupt warmongering governments are not setting out on a campaign of regime change, energy supplies liberation, or some other undeclared geopolitical objective. That their stated humanitarian purpose is their only purpose.

    That brings me to your example of a certain ME power. If they were to use chemical weapons (e.g. white phosphorus) upon a neighbouring region that said power is also occupying militarily, then liberal/leftists would object, yes. Now, if the US/UK were to take some action against that power*, the moral test would be passed, since there would be no obvious geopolitical advantage to that action – in fact, it would require action against an ally, and thus is disadvantageous.

    * Not sure they actually did, though.


    I would agree that China is way behind the US and will remain so for 50+ years. China’s rising military power is exaggerated to justify more US spending and deployments to Asia.

    In the key ability to project power beyond their borders they are very limited. Yes they have an aircraft carrier but few/no operational aircraft for it – and one aircraft carrier is nearly useless anyway.

    China’s conventional forces would be destroyed within days if not hours in any conflict with the US.

    China is however a major nuclear power and that means the US cannot bully them or smack them around with impunity. This makes them a force to be reckoned with even now.

  • Chris Jones

    Surely the time for (well written or otherwise) articles,blogs and political mental masturbation on this subject has passed and Cameron and Hague now simply need to face legal prosecution for their attempts at international crimes? The Westminster debate has completely missed the point and is focusing on the wrong regime. All attention and focus should be turned on the two main protagonist clowns of Hague and Cameron sitting on the front bench

  • Jon

    A snippet from the Guardian letters page yesterday, since we’re probably in need of some relief:

    “It is a truth almost universally acknowledged that a prime minister possessed of a popularity deficit must acquire a war.”

  • Chris Jones

    Just seen MP Edward Leigh speak at the Westminster debate – his and Galloway’s are astounding contributions and rebuttals to the twisted Cameron/Hague regime plans

  • BrianFujisan

    Welcome back Craig

    Nevermind. well said, it’s all just sickening, as i said in the Previous thread Against it’s excitement comment, i am horrified, and Helpless, at what is going on here,

    Whilst they use the chemical excuse, ( same old Lies ) there is more evidence to sugest that it was the rebels who used chemicals, and the experts say it was not chemicals, but something else. The U.N have already said it was the rebels who used Chem / industrial toxins or Whatever.

    And whilst there is not a single shrad of evidence to support the claim that Assad used chems ?

    rebels have been caught with chem in may….

    RT reported that “Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.

    There is already a strong case being made that the “rebels” have deployed a form of sarin in a home-made shell fired on government forces in Khan al-Assal. Russia has provided the UN with evidence to this effect and Khan al-Assal was one of the sites on the list to be visited by the UN inspection team. Moreover, in May this year UN investigator Carla Del Ponte pointed the finger at the “rebels” for the use of chemical weapons, a fact that has been thoroughly whitewashed in both western media and from the duplicitous mouths of western diplomats – who still claim that “rebels” don’t have the capability to launch chemical weapons. Contrary to western diplomats hollow claims; in late May militant cells with links to Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham were found in both Iraq and Turkey with sarin and other chemical weapons materiel in their possession – another fact that received only light attention in western media, and has been virtually ignored in any western diplomats talking points.

    And also with regards the Disgusting Blood thirsty MSM
    A great piece from Medialens

    As this alert was being written, one week after the massacre in Egypt, claims emerged of a major gas attack killing hundreds of civilians in Damascus, Syria. Channel 4’s Sarah Smith asked the question that arises so readily, so naturally, for UK journalists:

    ‘Syria chemical weapons horror – is it time for intervention?’ (Smith, Snowmail, August 22, 2013)

    No need for UN inspectors to gather factual evidence of chemical weapons use; Smith, Channel 4’s business correspondent, already knew what had happened and who was to blame:

    ‘There seems little doubt that red lines have now been crossed, broken and smashed to pieces. But what will anyone do about it?’

    The ‘red lines’ of course referred to Obama’s warning to the Syrian government that its use of chemical weapons would trigger US ‘intervention’. No-one is pretending the US would bomb the ‘rebels’.

    In similar vein, a Guardian leader commented, again with no serious evidence:

    ‘There is next to no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Ghouta in eastern Damascus… Nor is there much doubt about who committed the atrocity.’

    A second leader continued to mislead readers, insisting on the need for ‘clear and persuasive information’ indicating that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons:

    ‘That information may well exist – much of the evidence points in that direction.’

    In reality, the truth is simply unknown. Even US intelligence officials argue that the responsibility of the Syrian government, let alone Assad, is no ‘slam dunk’. Chemical weapons experts are also clear that much doubt remains.

    It is of course possible that government forces launched the attacks, although it would have been an inexplicably foolish, indeed suicidal, act for Assad to order the mass gassing of civilians three days after UN inspectors had arrived in the country. In the Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens offered a rare rational comment on this theme:

    ‘In those circumstances, what could possibly have possessed him to do something so completely crazy? He was, until this event, actually doing quite well in his war against the Sunni rebels. Any conceivable gains from using chemical weapons would be cancelled out a million times by the diplomatic risk. It does not make sense. Mr Assad is not Saddam Hussein, or some mad carpet-biting dictator, but a reasonably intelligent, medically-trained person who has no detectable reason to act in such an illogical and self-damaging fashion.

  • fedup

    At the outset the notions of “we are bombing these …… (fill as applicable) ever since the turn of the century for their own good, democracy, free beer, and a pair of Prada shades”. Is designed for the consumption of morons, dimwits, and imbeciles.

    The fact that we in the UK tag along and as the nice man on the telly said; Americans fire hundred cruise missiles, the British Submarine fires four, then Americans fire another hundred missiles the British fire another four, and are rotated out for the next British vessel to go and fire another eight missiles, while Americans have fired two hundred more missiles.

    Given that each missile is worth a cool one million pounds, the delivery of four hundred and sixteen million pounds to bounce rubble in Syria, as well as killing many, many more women, children, men, old and young, all in the aid of “up holding the international law” is a story that is far from the truth and actualities.

    The criminals who are busy plotting the murder of many innocent people in Syria, are not war criminals, this is not a war, for a war there needs to be an opponent, and an enemy. Syria is not any kind of a threat to either US, UK, or for that matter anyone else. Syria has not transgressed or attacked or impugned on any interests of US, UK, France. The smash and grab raid that is being touted as the mission to “up hold international law” is making a mockery of any conventions and only is a cover for the bad, mad, criminally insane intent and conduct of the Western belligerents, who are behaving as a tribe of cannibals would. Alas a tribe of cannibals who own sophisticated public relations company to make their aggression, and mass murder more acceptable and tolerable.

    There is no bases in law, or in any moral point of view to spend all these millions to go kill more Syrians, and make the remainder even more miserable, as well as keeping our own people hungry, ill, homeless, and make these spend their lives in a hopeless misery. Let us not fall into the trap of crap that is being spewed from upon high about the “up holding of anything” this is all a fucking lie, an untruth, a fraud, a trick, and a sick con.

    The bastards bent on going to kill more Syrians have been busy setting up their stall, and as we can see and hear the same mouth pieces on the telly spewing the homilies about WMD, Intentional law, we must …… Bullshit!

    Why the rush to attack Syrians now?
    What is being covered up?

  • Suhayl Saadi

    What they need is another ‘Curveball’.

    [quote from the Wikipedia piece]:

    ‘ Furthermore, on June 26, 2006, The Washington Post reported that “the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels.” ‘

    Wait! Anyone know a Syrian taxi-driver who drives taxis in Damascus! Or perhaps this time it should be… a Lollipop Lady!

    Meanwhile, what exactly is Prince Bandar up to? Follow the trail.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.