Friday, February 24, 2012


The violence in Syria, which can be attributable to both sides, could be very quickly stopped if Great Britain, France and the USA stopped their assistance of the Syrian rebels and called on the Syrian rebels to ceasefire. No such attempt has been made. Hence Russia and China have consistently opposed any (overt) intervention in Syria because all attempts that have originated from Great Britain, France and the USA are one sided, calling for Assad to step down and demanding that Assad's military stop their actions while the Syrian rebels can continue their actions (such as the terrorist bombing in Aleppo). Just last week the alleged leader of al Qaeda called on all Muslims to overthrow Assad. There is open talk of openly arming the Syrian rebels (as if it wasn't going on already).

Yesterday a conference was held in London on Somalia. Before the conference the leader of Somalia told Reuters that he would welcome targeted air strikes on al Shabab, now al Qaeda in Somalia. The point of the conference was allegedly to find a peaceful resolution to the civil war. However, al Shabab was not invited.
Al Shabaab was not invited to yesterday's conference, but Mr Cameron insisted its fighters could be brought into the tentative political process if they laid down their weapons and genuinely renounced violence.

[source : Somali terrorists warn of reprisals on British streets, The Independent, 24/02/2012]

So it is OK for the Syrian rebels, now in an open alliance with al Qaeda, to continue their killing, with many people like Senator McCain suggesting that they now be armed, yet al Shabab can only be invited for peace talks if they lay down their weapons?

Why is Cameron not demanding the same of the Syrian rebels?

The government of Somalia has now called for military intervention.
As a conference on Somalia's future closed in London, the country's President appealed for bombing raids on the positions of al-Shabaab, which recently merged with al-Qa'ida. Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed said he would welcome air strikes against the "menace" of the insurgents, warning: "This isn't a Somali problem, it has to be addressed globally."

[source : Somali terrorists warn of reprisals on British streets, The Independent, 24/02/2012]

Al Shabab, now al Qaeda in Somalia, has subsequently warned of reprisals on the streets of Great Britain if they are attacked.
Islamist fighters in Somalia last night warned of deadly reprisals on Britain's streets if the West mounted military action in the war-torn east African state.

...Last night the spokesman for the Islamist group, Sheikh Ali Dhere, warned it could launch terror attacks in the West if countries such as Britain and the US intervened in Somalia. "Your peace depends upon us being left alone," he told Channel 4 News. "If you do not let us live in peace, you will not enjoy peace either."

[source : Somali terrorists warn of reprisals on British streets, The Independent, 24/02/2012]

So because of Cameron's double standards there is now the grave possibility that we will attack Somalia, innocent Somali children could die, and in response a possible terrorist attack on Britain's street by Islamic extremists (may be false flag like 7/7) could kill innocent children over here.

If this happens, can we prosecute Cameron for manslaughter? Or to be more accurate, childslaughter?

And we are fully aware of Cameron's double standards. Not one banker has been prosecuted for wrecking the economy and they can still gamble in the hundreds of trillions in fraudulent derivatives, while a man who stole a bottle of water gets a year in prison.

No comments: