TTS VIEW ON HILARY BENN AND THAT SPEECH : A FUCKING DISGRACE

It is being widely accepted that Hilary Benn's speech last night led to a larger than expected majority in favour of military action against Islamic State. I have to admit that it was delivered with more passion and conviction than Jeremy Corbyn's. And that is what is so dangerous about Benn now. He will use his family name for war. He voted for war in Iraq in 2003 and for war in Libya in 2011, but against war in Syria in 2013.

But let us take a good look at the reasons for why Benn was so strongly in favour of war in Syria now and not in 2013.

First, the target is different. In 2013 the target was Assad. Today it is Islamic State (allegedly).

But what other reasons?

Here is a paragraph from Benn's speech:

The question which confronts us in a very, very complex conflict is at its heart very simple. What should we do with others to confront this threat to our citizens, our nation, other nations and the people who suffer under the yoke, the cruel yoke, of Daesh? The carnage in Paris brought home to us the clear and present danger we face from them. It could have just as easily been London, or Glasgow, or Leeds or Birmingham and it could still be. And I believe that we have a moral and a practical duty to extend the action we are already taking in Iraq to Syria. And I am also clear, and I say this to my colleagues, that the conditions set out in the emergency resolution passed at the Labour party conference in September have been met.

He cites the "carnage in Paris". But as we know this was due to a cell of terrorists based in Brussels, just a few miles from the HQ of NATO and in area well known for terrorism. The leader of the attacks had allegedly been travelling openly between Europe and Syria, where he received terrorist training from Islamic State. He was very well known to the intelligence services, had bragged about this travel in the official Islamic State magazine, and as reported in February this year on Fox News, in a book allegedly published by Islamic State they state openly that they were inserting their terrorists into Europe disguising them as refugees. Yet somehow the ringleader/mastermind got through and right under the noses of NATO in Brussels was able to plan and execute a massive terrorist attack on Paris which has persuaded the initially sceptical French and British political class to go all out against Islamic State. NATO had previously run Operation Gladio, an operation in which right-wing terrorists bombed civilians and their right-wing counterparts in law enforcement blamed left-wing terrorists. This was done to scare the European civilians away from the left and to call for more protection from the state in the form of surveillance, etc.

Another reason Benn cites is our action in Iraq, and that it is daft that we can only fly to the Iraq border and then turn back. But why are we allegedly attacking Islamic State in Iraq in the first place? Well, during 2014 a series of videos of brutal beheadings of British and American hostages were released by Islamic State. But French hostages, and hostages from other nations, were all released after ransoms had been paid for their freedom. So why didn't Obama and Cameron pay ransoms for the release of British and American hostages? Well, the outrage from the beheadings provoked calls for military action against Islamic State. The parents of the American hostages all complained that the FBI had pressured them into not pursuing paying the ransom for their children! The outcome was war on Islamic State. In terms of cost it would have been much cheaper to have paid the ransom. But after over a year of allegedly bombing Islamic State in Iraq they had actually grown in strength and power.

Another paragraph is this:

We now have a clear and unambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 2249, paragraph 5 of which specifically calls on member states to take all necessary measures to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Isil, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

What does Benn propose we do about Turkey? And about Israel's defiance of UN resolutions?

And then after ranting about fascism, he then mentions evil:

And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil.

First, the fascism. The Tories who cheered Benn are fascists!! They want to bail out the City of London with a trillion quid and then dump the debts onto the poor!!

And then there is the evil. I ask, who is the more evil: Islamic State, or an organistion that allowed Islamic State to grow so that it could be used to bomb Syria?

That organisation I refer to is NATO and its partners in Israel and the Gulf States, like Saudi Arabia.

In 2012 the US DIA proposed that a Salafist entity should be created in Syria in order to isolate Assad. In 2014 such an entity arose: Islamic State. It began to behead British and American hostages. Without paying ransoms for the freedom of those hostages, as other nations like France had done, the British and American governments used those beheadings as a casus belli and declared war on Islamic State, the UK only on IS in Iraq.

And now, after a highly suspicious and fortuitous massive terrorist attack in Paris, British planes are overtly bombing Syria.

All this is because it was agreed in 2007 between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that the latter would unleash the worst Jihadis onto Syria, Lebanon and Iran, as reported by Seymour Hersh in March 2007 in The New Yorker magazine.

And this was done because a plan revealed to General Weseley Clark shortly after 9/11 for war and regime change in seven countries in five years was by 2007 moribund.

And that plan was an extension of A Clean Break, which was written by Israeli nutters for Netanyahu, who murdered 520 children in Gaza last year, and who Trump says is "a great guy".

And the reason for the war on Syria is a pipeline: Assad, the Shia and Russia want one pipeline across Syria; NATO, Israel, Turkey, Jordan and some Gulf states want a different pipeline across Syria.

For a timeline of war in Syria see WAR IN SYRIA : A TIMELINE


And for that pipeline the NATO/Zionist/Gulf states along with Jordan and Turkey have unleashed an army of the worst international cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria.

So, Mr Bean, you have disgraced your father's memory.

You know fuck all, swanning around relying on your father's name, and last night, with passion, advanced a plan that has been ongoing since 1991 whch has led to wars in Iraq (which you voted for), in Libya (which you voted for) and now Syria (which you voted for) in which a million innocent civilians have died.

A FUCKING DISGRACE!!

And what says it all that The Daily Telegraph printed Mr Bean's speech on their front page!!

Pfffft...

A FUCKING DISGRACE!!

Here is that plan: