You’re doing that “do you realise the absurd question you are asking” thing again.
Do you realise how that sounds?
Unfortunately you’re doing it to someone English. Asking people if they realise that they are absurd little fools is a national pastime.
Anyway, do you realise that an extraordinary claim is a claim about remote viewing, visions of the Virgin and such, the existence of angels and such, not officially denied skullduggery by MI6 which is as everyday as catching a bus, and usually lasts about two years before the official admission is made. When cameron is out of power the leaks will come, maybe sooner given how his own party are knifing him.
I think the idea that the official policy of the British government is to support Al Qaeda is as far-fetched as saying that it is the official policy of the British government to use prayer as the main method to end delays on the Northern Line.
Actually, wait a second… the latter sounds pretty plausible. I really need to use better analogies.
OK let’s try this for example - SAS training the Khmer Rouge. Years of denials, claiming they were only training forces “allied” to the Khmer Rouge (familiar argument?), in the end they admit they did. I think some journalists were jailed for sticking to their accusations. I’d have to look that up.
If I remember right SAS were sent to set up field hospitals for the Syrian rebels a few years ago. Maybe that’s all the help they gave, maybe not. Maybe we’ll hear what really happened sometime in the future. Probably novelised, they all seem to go into writing when they leave.
The US was responsible for ISIS in pretty similar way it was responsible for ObL/al Queeda. ISIS networked out of US detention camps.
The US did create an opposition earlier. Then it stopped, then it started again. At fighting level, the US has zero credibility in the entire region because of inconsistent policy. The US will desert you just as quick as it backs you. So my Peshmerga friends say.
Aren’t the Kurds the ones with the only thing resembling a secular or even anarchist outlook ? Seems like they’re closer to the modern world than any group between Turkey and Pakistan - in a post enlightenment way ?
If the question is whether Western governments sometimes support horrible people, there’s ample historical precedent for that. Reagan supporting the Contras is another example.
But the question here is whether there is truth to the assertion that the UK is supporting a sworn enemy - Al Qaeda. The article (or the defendant, if you wish) is asserting that the UK had a policy to give weapons to Zawarahi’s lieutenants. On the surface, this makes about as much sense as AQAP giving weapons training to the SAS – it short, it doesn’t make sense.
I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that the Khmer Rouge was literally trying to kill Britons, in the way that AQ has a mission to kill Westerners. Nor were Contras on a similar mission to kill Americans (though I’m sure it did happen). I’m not saying the Khmer Rouge nor the Contras are good people – they’re maniacs. But the purpose of their organization wasn’t to carry out a war on the West – which is the whole reason AQ exists.
So for the UK to send weapons to the chief AQ organization in Syria, I maintain that it is a truly extraordinary claim that simply makes no sense. In contrast, I can understand the logic of why Reagan supported the Contras because of anti-communism – that doesn’t mean the policy was good.
So, no, I don’t think the assertions by a criminal defendant, or the denials by the UK, amount to any proof of an audacious claim that Britain is intentionally arming Al Qaeda.
I don’t really want to comment so much on that but there is diversity even within the 2 Kurd divisions. Yazidis have bolstered Kurd fighting numbers since Sinjar, esp. women in front line killing roles - at least 1/3 and maybe 40% of active Kurdish fighters are now female. Many are in it for revenge.
Well, the purpose of AQ in Western eyes anyway wasn’t originally to carry out war on the west, it was to carry out war on behalf of the West against the USSR. Bin Laden’s chief complaint after that was that the USA based it’s troops/air base on Saudi soil. I’ve got Fisk’s book here about his meetings with Bin Laden.
“We were never at any time friends of the Americans, we knew that the Americans support the Jews in Palestine and that they were our enemies. Most of the weapons that came to Afghanistan were paid for by the Saudis on the orders of the Americans”
There were repeated warnings, that turned out to be well founded, that disturbing Libya would place both territory and weapons in the hands of Islamic warrior groups, and that’s just what happened. They took the risk anyway, though I don’t see any rationalization for putting us at risk in that way, except that the safety of the UK population is deemed worth risking.
The Khmer Rouge was a communist organisation, sworn enemies of the capitalist West, but was still manipulated against another communist country, given training. Somehow a communist organisation came to an agreement with the capitalist world.
But regarding this court case - why did the government fold ?
“Henry Blaxland QC, the defence counsel, said: “If it is the case that HM government was actively involved in supporting armed resistance to the Assad regime at a time when the defendant was present in Syria and himself participating in such resistance it would be unconscionable to allow the prosecution to continue.””
What was the problem ? The government should simply contest the issue, unless it had no case, or wanted it’s activities to remain under wraps. Why would that be ?
So I can’t give you the evidence because the UK gov didn’t want anyone to have it.:dubious:
Well, the purpose of AQ in Western eyes anyway wasn’t originally to carry out war on the west, it was to carry out war on behalf of the West against the USSR. Bin Laden’s chief complaint after that was that the USA based it’s troops/air base on Saudi soil. I’ve got Fisk’s book here about his meetings with Bin Laden.
There were repeated warnings, that turned out to be well founded, that disturbing Libya would place both territory and weapons in the hands of Islamic warrior groups, and that’s just what happened. They took the risk anyway, though I don’t see any rationalization for putting us at risk in that way, except that the safety of the UK population is deemed worth risking.
The Khmer Rouge was a communist organisation, sworn enemies of the capitalist West, but was still manipulated against another communist country, given training. Somehow a communist organisation came to an agreement with the capitalist world.
But regarding this court case - why did the government fold ?
What was the problem ? The government should simply contest the issue, unless it had no case, or wanted it’s activities to remain under wraps. Why would that be ?
So I can’t give you the evidence because the UK gov didn’t want anyone to have it.:dubious:
So I don’t agree that this is an extraordinary claim at all.
The UK government didn’t go round asking for extraordinary evidence of it’s guilt, it just shut up and backed off.
But if you want to think something bordering on the supernatural is being proposed, you’re welcome to.
Once again, I am not surprised that the West supports Syrian opposition. “Al-Nusra” and “Syrian opposition” are not synonymous, no more than “Scot” is synonymous with “British,” or “Toyota” is synonymous with “car.”
When the defendant’s solicitor says that the UK has supported the opposition, I think that is utterly unsurprising. But you, and others, have contended that the UK supported Nusra. Just because you’re British doesn’t mean you’re a Scotsman, just becuase I have a car doesn’t mean it’s a Toyota, just because the UK supported the opposition doesn’t mean they supported Al Qaeda.
But let me ask you about this distinction between the opposition and extremists like ISIL and Nusra. When Assad says that everyone fighting him is a terrorist, do you agree?
there’s propaganda value in claiming to support only the nice secular democratic rebels. That’s why they use the catch all term “rebels” when they really mean a mixture of native rebels and non-Syrian Islamic revolutionaries. You can’t rebel against someone who’s never been oppressing you, which discounts the thousands that have been flocking from all over the world to fight.
No I don’t agree that everyone fighting him is a terrorist. I don’t even think a lot of the terrorists are terrorists because they fight like conventional forces. Obviously they play the same word games everyone else does.
You missed the bit were you’re supposed to put “rebel” together with the part of the story where the guy joins al-Nusra. The contention is that he and MI6 were supporting the same people. That means *in this case *rebels = al Nusra. It’s clear in all the news reports.
Ok, so you think that the West has the opportunity to support non-terrorist opposition, but we’re making a conscious policy decision to support the terrorist opposition?
What I’m saying is that I need more than the word of an admitted Al Qaeda sympathizer/fighter before I’m convinced of his claim. People on trial say a lot of stuff. But to back up to your earlier question, why would the government drop the case against him if it were not true?
The honest answer is that I’m not sure how such defenses are treated under UK law. If it would go down the path of the government having to make some sort of declarations in court about which specific groups it supports and which groups it has not, I could see that the government would have no interest in providing such detailed information simply to prosecute someone who, frankly, doesn’t seem like a terrorist mastermind. Dropping the case doesn’t necessarily mean the allegations are true.
That’s the gist of the thousands of words I have written.
Yeah why not declare who it does or doesn’t support ? Is there something wrong with supporting the rebels ? The government has been open about it’s support for democratic rebels as a matter of policy. So why not be open in this case ?
No need for extraordinary anything, just an ordinary piece of printer paper, with the list of groups the government supports, handed to a lawyer or judge, listing the democratic rebel group that got the support.
And if we’re talking AQ sympathisers - the government sympathised with them in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they sympathised with them in Libya when they cracked open Gaddafi’s arsenals and gave them air cover, they sympathise with them in the DIA document that so many people reference but which you can look up for yourself, they sympathise by blurring or obfuscating the distinction between “moderate” rebels and jihadis seeking a caliphate. We keep making choices between helping a national government or helping al Qaeda, and AQ keeps getting the benefit of that choice. It’s a funny sort of hostility that helps them achieve their aims so often.
So the other reason they want to keep it quiet could be to do with the nature of the support they gave. It’s already open that the UK gov has given “non-lethal” aid and training to what they claim are moderate groups (but so many of whom have turned out not be so moderate).
If it turns out they have been sending boxes of ammo as well as boxes of aspirin, that would be naughty even if it went to the real moderates.
