Thursday, 6 June 2013

The ideology is profound and dangerous

On 2 June 2913, Tony Blair said this in The Mail Online:
“The murder of Lee Rigby… was indeed horrible… The ideology which inspired it is profound and dangerous…. 
We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can protect this country simply by what we do here. The ideology is out there. It isn’t diminishing.”
And yet, in 1999, he said this:
"The two million Muslims in Britain are an inspiration to us all and we can learn much from you."
And, in 2001:
"Globalisation is a fact... we celebrate the diversity in our country, get strength from the cultures and races that go to make up Britain today... Jews, MUSLIMS and Christians are all children of Abraham.”
And, in 2004:
"Those who warned of disaster back in the 1960s and 1970s if migration was not stopped, who said Britain would never accept a multi-racial society, have been proved comprehensively wrong... Britain as a whole is immeasurably richer... for the contribution that migrants have made to our society."
On 23 October 2009, Andrew Neather, an advisor to Cabinet Ministers David Blunkett and Jack Straw and to Blair himself, said this in The Evening Standard:
“The deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year… was to open up the UK to mass migration… Mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural... The policy was intended… to rub the right's nose in diversity.”
One wonders how many who espouse the ‘profound and dangerous’ ideology of Lee Rigby’s killers found their way into our country during the time of ‘the deliberate policy’. You know, when Tony Blair was in the business, against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people, of making the UK ‘truly multicultural.’

One wonders also how many of the Islamic ‘children of Abraham’, whose 'diversity' he was so keen to 'celebrate' back in 2001, he considers 'dangerous' now.

In the Daily Mail article, Blair continues to ‘warn of disaster’ thus:
“Consider the Middle East. As of now, Syria is in a state of accelerating disintegration. President Assad is brutally pulverising communities hostile to his regime. At least 80,000 have died. The refugees now total more than one million. The internally displaced are more than four million… 
The Syrian opposition is made up of many groups. The fighters are increasingly the Al Qaeda- affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra… 
Assad is using chemical weapons on a limited but deadly scale. Some of the stockpiles are in fiercely contested areas. The overwhelming desire of the West is to stay out of it.”
This ‘overwhelming desire’ is what we, the people, feel and want. Blair doesn’t feel or want it. Nor do those who pay his wages. He continues:
“We are at the beginning of this tragedy. Its capacity to destabilise the region is clear. Lebanon is now fragile as Iran pushes Hezbollah into the battle. Al Qaeda is back trying to cause carnage in Iraq and Iran continues its gruesome meddling there.”
And yet, Blair and co. wish to provide aid to Al-Qaeda in Syria, as it tries to destroy the Assad regime.

You know, the Syrian bit of the ‘Arab Spring’ didn't arise from a revolutionary spirit abroad in the hearts and minds of the Syrian people. Only about 20 percent of those trying to remove Assad are indigenous Syrians. The rest are Al-Qaeda terrorists, Saudi mercenaries and the like. For the most part, that which Blair, Cameron, and those who think like them, wish to support is, in effect, an invasion.

Blair continues:
“Then there is the Iranian regime, still intent on getting a nuclear weapon, still exporting terror and instability to the West and the east of it...
There is a problem within Islam, from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it… I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies. 
At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it... 
All over the Middle East and beyond there is a struggle being played out. On the one side, there are Islamists who have this exclusivist and reactionary world view. They are a significant minority, loud and well organised. 
On the other are the modern-minded, those who hated the old oppression by corrupt dictators and who hate the new oppression by religious fanatics… 
The seeds of future fanaticism and terror, possibly even major conflict, are being sown. We have to help sow seeds of reconciliation and peace. But clearing the ground for peace is not always peaceful. The long and hard conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have made us wary of any interventions abroad. 
But we should never forget why they were long and hard. We allowed failed states to come into being. Saddam was responsible for two major wars, in which hundreds of thousands died, many by chemical weapons. He killed similar numbers of his own people. 
The Taliban grew out of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and made the country into a training ground for terror. Once these regimes were removed, both countries have struggled against the same forces promoting violence and terror in the name of religion everywhere…
Disengaging from this struggle won’t bring us peace. Neither will security alone. We resisted revolutionary communism by being resolute on security; but we defeated it by a better idea: Freedom. We can do the same with this...
We have to start with how to educate children about faith, here and abroad. That is why I started a foundation whose specific purpose is to educate children of different faiths across the world to learn about each other and live with each other... 
Now, more than ever, we have to be strong and we have to be strategic.”
Not content with deaths of a million Muslims, around 800 of our own young men and women and 6,000 or so more coalition soldiers, in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like the western world’s number one psychopath is after even more death and destruction on behalf of his Zionist masters, doesn’t it?

Is there anyone out there still inaware that the US Neoncoservatives, who were pushing for a second war with Iraq ever since Gulf War 1 ended, were, for the most part, Jewish? Is there anyone out there still unaware that Tony Blair (closely followed by Brown and Cameron) was the most Judaea-friendly Prime Minister in all British history?

You don’t need to take my word for it. There are good Jews in the world, honest Jews, who’ll tell you exactly the same same thing.

Here’s what Ari Shavit said in the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, a fortnight after Gulf War 2 broke out:
"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, MOST OF THEM JEWISH, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."
Ten years later, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, was saying this on MSNBC’s 'Morning Joe' show:
“This was an insane war that brought us low economically, morally. We went to war against a guy who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It was a total pretext!
It’s inexplicable and there you go to Cheney, there you go to Bush, there you go to the Jewish neo-cons who wanted to remake the world.”

It appears that remaking the world is, all of a sudden, a popular sentiment. On 29 May 2013, a messianically pompous Blair was seen saying the following during BBC 2’s, The Iraq War:
"I had taken the view we needed really to remake the Middle East and therefore, in the end, you're going to have to go through this long and drawn-out and sometimes bloody process of transition."
As regards Blair being ‘Judaea-friendly’, here’s what John Kampfner (his father was Jewish) said in the 15 April 2002 edition of The New Statesman:
"The roots of the British government's current policy towards the Middle East can be traced back to a single event… At Blair's first party conference as leader, Labour Friends of Israel assembled in a huge turnout for its main meeting of the week. Every aspiring young apparachik felt the need to attend. They did then. They still do… 
To define yourself as new Labour, you had to prove your credentials as pro-business, anti-tax and pro-Israel', says one party official. 'Palestinian sympathies were the preserve of the old left and we quite simply had to get rid of ours if we wanted to get on’.”
In other words, if you wanted to 'get on' in Blairworld, you had to sign up to the coming Neocon holocaust. 

And many, to their eternal discredit, did so.

As for this:
“Syria is in a state of accelerating disintegration. President Assad is brutally pulverising communities hostile to his regime… Assad is using chemical weapons on a limited but deadly scale… We are at the beginning of this tragedy. Its capacity to destabilise the region is clear.” (Cameron, Hague and co. have consistently pushed for intervention in Syria, on behalf, according to Blair, of ‘the Al Qaeda- affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra’)
And this:
“Then there is the Iranian regime, still intent on getting a nuclear weapon, still exporting terror and instability to the West and the east of it.”
Check out what General Wesley Clark, (Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1997 to 2000) had to say on the 2 March 2007 edition of Democracy Now:

So, according to one of the USA’s top Generals, as early as ‘20 September’ 2001, the Neocons had decided to topple ‘seven countries in five years.’ As Clark (whose father was also Jewish) himself said;
“Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan and back to Iran.”
Anyway, Zionism’s ownership of the Blairs, Browns, Camerons and Hagues facilitated the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the civil war in Syria, the destabilisation of the Arab countries of the Middle East and Africa and the non-stop rhetoric calling for intervention in Syria and Iran.

One more thing. From the time of the build up to the war in Iraq, Blair has made much of Saddam’s responsibility ‘for two major wars, in which hundreds of thousands died.’

Obviously Gulf War II wasn’t Saddam’s ‘responsibility,’ he did what he could to avoid war. But the Neocon-driven Bush/Blair combination would have none of it. The responsibility for that war is theirs.

Eight days before Kuwait was invaded, which brought on the first Gulf War, Saddam was given the following assurance by the US Ambassador, April Glaspie:
“We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”
So, the horror of the first Gulf War might be said, at least in part, to have occurred as a result of the cynical political manoeuvrings of the elder Bush’s administration.

The Iran-Iraq War came about as a direct result of the encouragement Saddam was given by the Western powers. Our then leaders wanted the war. Its prosecution saw both Iran and Iraq weakened considerably. Which suited the Zion-friendly West admirably.

As for this:
“The Taliban grew out of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and made the country into a training ground for terror.”
The above statement is one hundred percent correct.

Question: Who ‘made the country into a training ground for terror’ by funding and arming the Taliban?

Answer: The USA.

Blair is, of course, telling the truth (for once) when he warns us of the 'problem within Islam' and its 'exclusivist and reactionary world view.' Thing is, this 'problem' hasn't just sprung up overnight, it's always been there. And yet, when it suited him, he was importing such problems by the planeload.

Thus, there would not be a problem if the bad guys hadn't created it. And, as soon as it is removed, the problem will cease to be. In Muslim lands, though Blair has always denied this, it would begin to recede the moment the hated invader left.

As Michael Adebolajo, bloodied knife in hand, so straightforwardly put it, just after killing Lee:
"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers... By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone... Tell them to bring our troops back so we can all live in peace... Leave our lands and we can all live in peace."
Oh yes, ladies and gents, Islam is dangerous all right. But it's nowhere near as dangerous as those who forced it upon us in the first place.

No comments:

Post a Comment