HOW NAIVE ARE THE STOP THE WAR COALITION?

I accuse Stop The War Coalition of protecting the real culprits of World War One: The British Monarchy.

This latest tweet from rabid pro-abortionist Lindsey German shows just how naive STW really are.

Why bombing Syria by Russia or UK, with or without UN agreement, should be opposed | @LindseyAGerman | http://t.co/MiUDxrtA1x

— Stop the War (@STWuk) October 1, 2015

Some within STW know about the plan revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after 9/11 for war and regime change in seven countries in five years: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. Since 9/11 we have had wars in Iraq (2003), Lebanon (2006), Libya (2011) and Syria (2011 - to present).

By 2007 this plan was kaput. So another plan was hatched between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that the latter would unleash the worst cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria, Lebanon and Iran. This was reported by Seymour Hersh in March 2007.

But to provide these Jihadis with cover as 'freedom fighters' the US State Dept engineered The Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring was unleashed in late 2010. In 2011 these Jihadis known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb started to start trouble in Libya. They received air support from NATO and ground support from British Special Forces. UN SCR 1973 was abused and turned into a Get Gaddafi campaign, as per the plan revealed to Clark.

After Libya the Jihadis were smuggled into Syria where they have been stuck for 4 years.

For 4 years Syria has suffered having their children's throats cut, chemical attacks, their soldier's hearts ripped out and eaten, their soldier's heads sawn off, and the rise of Islamic State. NATO intelligence services have been encouraging and allowing their citizens to go to Syria to fight Jihad against Assad. Michael Adebalajo was allowed to preach Jihad in Greenwich just weeks before he tried to saw the head off Lee Rigby. And there are multiple reports of air drops of aid for IS by British and American planes, and aid convoys travelling through Turkey bound for IS.

The coalition led by the USA, which claims to have been trying to destroy Islamic State, has failed. IS has grown in strength and expanded. The above paragraphs explain why.

Finally, Assad has requested help from Russia. Russia has agreed. Russia is therefore bombing Islamic State legally.

Now, STW are suggesting that only the UN can decide who can bomb which country and why. This would be a surrender of national sovereignty to the UN. And would the USA and the UK actually vote to allow Russia to bomb their proxy troops Islamic State, Jabhat al Nusra, al Qaeda, etc?

And look what happened when the UN SC voted to allow a coalition to bomb Libya: Gaddafi murdered, and Libya reduced to rubble and now a breeding ground for IS.

But it appears pro-abortionist German would support bombing Syria if the UN gave permission?

WTF?!

Naive doesn't come anywhere near close.

Islamic State needs to be destroyed. Immediately. The US-led coalition have had their chance and failed miserably.

Assad has requested assistance from Russia. Russia has agreed. Russia can be more trusted in their intentions, i.e. they actually do want to destroy IS and the other terrorists (remember, al Qaeda are actually terrorists too), while the USA and its allies have so far only been pretending to do.

The question is whether Russia has the ability to destroy Islamic State and the other terrorists in Syria on its own. The intention is there.

The USA and its allies cannot be trusted. They unleashed the terrorists in Syria in the first place, and have encouraged and nurtured the growth of Islamic State.

The NATO media and their wannabes are reporting and retweeting anything and everything anti-Russia in a quest to stop Russia destroying NATO's proxy troops, the international cutthroat Jihadis, who NATO, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been aiding for at least 4 years in a bid to illegally oust Assad, either by political pressure or by murder.

But why would Stop the War support a war only if the UN OK'd it? Even though in the case of Syria the USA and UK would never vote for Russia to destroy their bastard children, the terrorists of Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Jabhat al Nusra?

And the gamble is that Russia could get bogged down into another Afghanistan in which the CIA, MI6, DGSE etc supply the Jihadis with SAMs to take out Russian jets, and anti-tank missiles to destroy Russian tanks. Islamic State and the other terrorists could then be provoked into attacking Russia, and Russia failing and Putin ousted. This is the hope of NATO.

So what should a true anti war man or woman support?

We know the true background to this conflict. The USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia unleashed this hell onto Syria. It is an engineered conflict.

We can't write an open letter to Islamic State asking them nicely to go home.

This is the conundrum: can we support Russia bombing Islamic State and other terrorists if we know for a fact that the terrorists and their ideologies were illegally unleashed onto Syria by the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and this bombing by Russia is legal because Assad requested it?

STW would support the bombing, but only if the UN gave authorisation.

But if the USA and UK are running the JIhadis then they would not vote for Russia to bomb Syria.

What would a 9 year old girl sex slave of Islamic State monsters want?