Transcript of John Cantlie's critique of Western foreign policy

Released on 23 September 2014

IGNORED AND CENSORED BY THE WESTERN MEDIA

@MagpieLee "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 24, 2014

Hello there.  I am the British citizen abandoned by my government and a long-term prisoner of the Islamic State.

In this program, we’ll see how the Western governments are hastily marching towards all-out war in Iraq and Syria without paying any heed to the lessons of the recent past, and how they are using the persuasive approach to lure the public back into the conflict.  

So, let’s get straight to the point with a quote from former- C.I.A.-chief-turned-vigorous anti- intervention-campaigner Michael Scheuer: ‘President Obama does not have the slightest intention of defeating the Islamic State, which would require the aerial slaughter and boots in on the ground and the demolishing of the mujahedin' - Michael Scheur whose knowledge of the Muslim Nation and the complexity of their society is considerable adds "18 years into our war with the Islamists our government has given no public sign that it has the slightest awareness of what its enemies are fighting for.  

Now, there are two solid points here. 

The Obama Administration is so perplexed as they marched back into Iraq that they tap-dancing on the issue in a "we're getting involved but we're not really getting involved" kind of way.  You know, air strikes but no troops on the ground, limited operation time, no mission creep, all those pre-combat agreements that tend to get forgotten after the first six months of nasty tough stuff.

The pre-9/11 Afghans are already back in control of large areas of Afghanistan while the full might of the American war machine couldn't destroy the Islamic State in Iraq before.

So, now the State is far stronger now than ever it was.

What is this latest ill-advised foray really supposed to achieve? And Scheur's point is aptly made. As ever, the entire reason why we are at war with the Islamists and what they are fighting for is brilliantly avoided by all.

Senior US politicians seem content to call the Islamic State nasty names: "awful", "vile", "a cancer", "an insult to our values", but such petty insults don't really do much harm to the most powerful jihadist movement seen in recent history. That the Western governments were caught napping by the sheer speed of the Islamic State growth is now a given.  "Intelligence officers failed to anticipate the emergence of the Islamic State", says Tom Kean, the former New Jersey Governor.  "We certainly didn't anticipate them going across the border into Iraq and declaring themselves a Caliphate."

Obama and his allies were well and truly caught by surprise.  [Photos of Obama and his allies being caught by surprise.]

The President once called George Bush's Iraq conflict "a dumb war" and couldn't want to distance America from it when he came into power.  Now he is being inexorably drawn back in. But he is at pains to point out that this not the equivalent of the Iraq War.  In fact, it is far more complicated and prone to failure.  There is a newly-elected pro-American Iranian regime in Iran. They wait eagerly for further American intervention to strengthen the Iranian Crescent in the Middle East.

But the appointment of a new puppet is an important piece of the puzzle in America's Gulf War Free[?] as it allows them to get involved quickly via a proxy.  Iraq's leaders should know that "America will stand shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis as they implement their National Plan", gushed John Kerry on the 9th of September - meaning our National Plan to tackle the Islamic State.  Everyone now is getting involved.  Denmark and France have sent air power. Britain is arming the Kurds. Iran is sending troops. Contracts are being sought in Iraq and even Bashar Al Assad until earlier this year - the most hated and villainised tyrant in the Arab world - is being approached for permission to enter Syria.

"Can the Islamic State be defeated without addressing that part of their organisation that resides in Syria?" asked General Martin Dempsey.

The answer is NO.

It's all quite a circus - air strikes, the creation of last-minute puppet governments, advisory teams of the ground, wooing previous enemies to join in and trans-border incursions into a country that has been in a state of civil war for three years - all the while completely underestimating the strength and fighting zeal of the opponent. Not since Vietnam have we witnessed such a potential mess in the making. 

Current estimates of 15,000 troops needed to fight the Islamic State are laughably low. The State has more mujahideen than this. This is not some undisciplined outfit with a few Kalashnikovs.

We started with Michael Scheuer, so let us give him the final word for now: "Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making," he says, "but they have been in the field fighting since 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular or as well-armed as it is today.

Join me again for the next program.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15b_1411463830

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_perpetual_war_in_Orwell_1984

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Gore%20Vidal%20-%202002%20-%20Perpetual%20War%20For%20Perpetual%20Peace%20-%20How%20we%20got%20to%20be%20so%20hated.pdf

http://www.enotes.com/topics/perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace

Remembrance Day claptrap

There is no need for Remembrance Day.  Before Remembrance Day there were plenty of stupid fuckers prepared to do and die and not question why.  Plenty more where they came from.  Soldiering is a vocation, just like politics, because some people just like fighting and others arguing.  You do it because you want to.  So shut it with the sentimental claptrap.  They dead and still living soldiers don't need you to shut up for one minute.  Stopping the stupid war by stabbing a pro-war MP would be more constructive, if you want to stop more people dying for Bush, Blair, Brown and Israel. But you don't care, do you, not until everything starts hurting a whole lot more. 

Taliban contemptuously refuse to negotiate with Loser Nations. You have to admire their spirit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10471517.stm

Taliban show of strength rather impressive to a country of wusses. They know that to keep saying they want to send us all back in body bags is enough to frighten the British because they are all basically stupid, scared and skint anyway. The wise and brave in this country think the war was a stupid idea. Only the stupid and truth-denying even attempt to defend the invasion.

In the meantime, can you imagine the funding the Taliban must be getting from the ummah, enthusiastically sponsoring the giving of a good kick to the remaining teeth in the gap-toothed mouths of the allies of Israel?

Now Hague says there is no military solution!

Too right. We are all getting tired of Wootton Bassett coffin drive-bys, aren't we? How much more can we take?

Seven a day yesterday. Time for a rethink, if we had any sense, not that we do.

Besides, we are skint.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290658/Wootton-Bassett-stops-remembrance-British-soldiers-killed-Afghanistan.html

Scenes of Britons crying in public suggest that our spirit is fundamentally broken anyway.

No, worse, the British *don't even know not to cry* when they have been hurt.

In the old days, when the British ruled the world, they did so because they embodied masculine and aristocratic virtue.

Now, after decades of matriarchal degeneracy, it is quite clear that the British have embraced all the feminine and proletarian vices.

What is to become of the spineless, witless, effeminate, infantilised Britons?

Why does anyone think these people can hope to win a war when they cry in public like a bunch of babies in a stupid war they can't even explain to themselves?

I am sure these images are transmitted in their entirety to Afghanistan, so that the Taliban can observe the effect they have had.

Talk about giving succour to the enemy.

That is why they won't negotiate and treat the British with such contempt.

The British cannot explain the war to themselves because "American Poodle-ism" is not something any decent, honourable citizen with an ounce of self-respect would wish to acknowledge or associate themselves with.

It would utterly destroy their self-esteem.

Blair went to war because Bush wanted to go to war.

Bush went to war because he was one dumb Texan who didn't think too much or too well.

That was why he went along with the Neo-Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism is all about behaving like a bull in china shop.

Bush was one dumb shit but Blair who has just been paid $100,000 ostensibly for his peace efforts in Northern Ireland by the Americans, saw the cleverness of helping a dumb shit President of a dumb shit US government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jun/30/tony-blair-liberty-medal-award-2010

British soldiers are therefore dying for Bush who was dumb, Blair who thought it was clever to do dumb things with dumb people, Brown who went along with it, and Cameron who voted for both invasions because he is a cunt of convictionless Conservatism. 

If British soldiers were being properly advised they would mutiny.

If I were in a position to, I would advise them to do precisely that.

Why shouldn't the agents of the Afghanistan invasion not be insulted if you disapprove of it?

Isn't a bit hypocritical and incoherent to condemn the invasion of Afghanistan and then forbid Muslims from mounting insulting protests, eg

'Butchers return' and 'What are you dying for? £18k'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286784/Muslim-protesters-brand-war-heroes-murderers-homecoming-parade-turns-violent.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0r1DK9VOO

against the agents of the invasion, ie British troops? I think British soldiers who die in Afghanistan should know that their sacrifices are not being appreciated.

In fact, they should go AWOL if they had any sense.  Why anyone would die for Bush, Blair, Brown and now Cameron and Clegg is absolutely beyond me.

500 extra UK troops are heading to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5guteTYhjoaHJd6cgXC55iKnNTVCA

and all this before Obama has even announced how many troops he is prepared to commit.

Why did Brown announce that Afghanistan is going to get 500 troops before Obama shows his hand? What if Obama suddenly said, "Nah, f*ck this for a laugh, we're pulling out tomorrow." Wouldn't that make the British look, not to put too fine a point on it, rather foolish?

If Obama decided not to commit any more troops, then Brown would have committed 500 British soldiers' lives to be sacrificed for nothing.

Is British diplomacy missing a trick or two in showing such unquestioning eagerness?

Personally, I find it embarrassing that the British have a prime minister that shows such dog like devotion, such unthinking support. Did Obama say "walkies" to the Brown Dog? Or did he just say "Let us get more of our soldiers killed in the name of the stupid people who thought invading Afghanistan was a good idea?

For Blair and for Bush! Into the valley of death! For the land which values the career and hurt feelings of a single possibly lesbian Yeowoman to be worth more than the careers of two Yeomen with dependents. That is what British soldiers are dying for.

When are they going to say "F*ck that for a laugh"?

Information for British soldiers who don't want to die for Bush, Blair, warmongering MPs and the whole Neo-Conning shebang

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5024104.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7491060.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7951403.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7444116.stm


0734
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton is being charged with desertion. He went absent without leave in 2007 after a particularly unhappy period in the army and having been told he would have to go back to Afghanistan. He discusses whether he had questioned why he was out there at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8168000/8168525.stm