Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Oh God, not again!

 Following on from the spectacular successes of our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, it is now reported we have troops in Syria* (sic).  What the fuckety-fuck?  Who the hell in their right mind thinks this is a good idea or anything at all to do with us?

 

If true, just about everything is wrong with this.  First off, there is no actual vote in parliament, just a few tossers sitting in Downing Street** sending people to their deaths and of course to kill others.  Then there is the small matter of yet more meddling to no good purpose.  Can we possibly afford to become embroiled here? Can we honestly object when some third party starts unilaterally meddling and let’s be honest, killing in our country if we do so in theirs?    

 

And last but not least there are reports of Syrian tanks massing on the Turkish border to repel any Turkish attack; meanwhile the Saudis are apparently on high alert to occupy Jordan and parts of Southern Syria as some kind of safe zone.  This is almost certain to piss the Russians off in the extreme (this is how the Syrians got the Turkish jet, with modern AA missiles supplied by Moscow).  And the Iranians are more or less certain to wind up the militias in Southern Iraq to have a crack at the Saudis destabilising them.

 

So with this utter nightmare possibly about to kick off what are the UK media reporting?  The news that Tom and Katie are to divorce. 

 

No, really.    

 

* http://www.debka.com/article/22133/British-forces-in-Syria-Assad-presidential-compound-said-under-attack   Hat tip to the redoubtable Trooper Thomson for the website link. 

 

** I find it almost impossible to believe that of troops have been deployed, the PM did not authorise it.

11 Comments

  1. zack says:

    SAoT, Debka is a dubious source of info at best – I remember reading there (in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom) that the Iraqi military was invading Saudi Arabia – which it wasn’t. I wouldn’t put too much stock in what it says.

  2. Mr Ed says:

    A Turkish attack on Syria would be a wonderful pretext for the Russians to retake Constantinopolis.

    Foul as the Syrian Ba’athists are, those who seek their removal are fouler still, and they, not the Ba’athists, are a menace to us all!

  3. HSLD says:

    I don’t doubt for a moment that there are at least a couple of Arabic speaking swarthy complexioned blokes from Hereford keeping an eye on things out there, but that report has no provable facts in it at all.

  4. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Zack, true it’s speculative, but you would hope a major journalism hub like say CNN or RT or Fox or god help us the Beeb could either hack some of the satellites to have a look at troop concentrations or have some sources to confirm or deny this stuff. I also recall the Beeb reporting with a straight-face Colin Powell’s aluminiun tube nonsense and the whole WMD fiasco*

    Mr Ed, yep, secular fascists tend to be happy enough to slaughter in their own borders and don’t as a rule fly planes into buildings or put bombs on UK trains, whereas those who would supplant them, er, do.

    HSLD, I fear it maybe a bit more than that. You start with ‘advisors’ then supply weapons and hey-ho if you are lucky you end up with Libya and if you are unlucky Afghanistan but I accept it is an unsourced report.

    I was unfair to the BBC, they are also reporting that someone called Adele is pregnant? You might think they had given up on journalism and were just putting out publicity seeking press releases for wannabe celebs?

    (* I say fiasco simply because it never made sense to me. I am ashamed to say I believed it but I thought that if the WMD’s were such a threat, surely Saddam had to fire as the tanks rolled into Baghdad and defeat (and the scaffold) approached? This cannot have escaped military planners you would have thought, so I can only conclude that they knew it was bollocks all along).

  5. Mr Ed says:

    There was a first go at an Iraqi supergun scare in 1990, with some tubing seized in Hartlepool or Teeside, allegedly part of a supergun, cf the V3 of WW2. It all seemed to fizzle out, as it were.

    I seriously doubt that any SAS soldiers could ever muster enough Arabic to pass for a local, come on, this is British education. I suspect that they put on a turban and spray tan, and grunt.

    To be fair, Assad senior nearly got one of his thugs to get a pregnant Irish woman to take a bomb on an El Al flight at Heathrow in the 80s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

  6. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    The supergun stuff was comic book. Was there really this military school of thought that said “I know, let’s build this big, fixed, easily visible gun, point it at Israel and hey-ho, it’s not like the could destroy the target in about ten minutes with air strikes or anything”

    Fair point about Hindawi, albeit Israel’s problem more or less.

  7. zack says:

    * I say fiasco simply because it never made sense to me. I am ashamed to say I believed it but I thought that if the WMD’s were such a threat, surely Saddam had to fire as the tanks rolled into Baghdad and defeat (and the scaffold) approached? This cannot have escaped military planners you would have thought, so I can only conclude that they knew it was bollocks all along
    —————————–
    Well, we knew that he had them at one point – he gassed the Kurds after all. And don’t feel bad about believing it – every intel agency in the world thought he had them (the final report were that the programs were put on hold, but that his regime retained the ability to rapidly create/deploy them).

    Also, just because some dictator is nominally secular doesn’t mean that he’s not willing to work with religious terrorists – Saddam was a known supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and there was evidence that he was in contact with Al-Qaeda (he was a major backer of Ansar Al-Islam, an AQ affiliate).

    In all honesty, I consider the aftermath of Lybia to be a bigger fiasco then Afghanistan. At least in Afghanistan we have a presence and the ability to influence events on the ground. In Lybia we took out the Great Loon, but what did it get us? Islamists have taken over, the violence has spilled over into Mali, destabilizing one of the few bright(ish) spots in Africa, and lord knows what else. Don’t do these things half way – if a regime is a threat, take it out, but at least try to put something that’s more friendly in it’s place. If you don’t, you leave the door open for something as bad or worse to take its place.

  8. Mr B says:

    Who the Fk are Tom and Katie ?

  9. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    “Saddam was a known supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and there was evidence that he was in contact with Al-Qaeda”

    I fancy the H & H support was simply to queer the Iranians pitch somewhat rather than anything significant given he was a Sunni and all.

    The AQ stuff is more tenuous, they tried to assasinate him on a few occasions.

  10. zack says:

    SAoT: The AQ stuff is more tenuous, they tried to assasinate him on a few occasions.
    —————————-

    I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve heard of AQ attempting to assassinate Saddam. But the fact remains that Saddam is known to have supported AQ affiliated groups like Ansar Al-Islam and Egyptian Islamic Jihad (whose #2, Al-Zawahiri, is now leading AQ).

    I think Iraq is better off with Saddam out, but if you disagree, whatever. I think the one thing we can agree on is that there is no point in helping to overthrow Assad if we don’t have a plan for replacing it with something nominally better.

  11. Mr Ed says:

    Did old Saddam cause the deaths of more Muslims than anyone else in history by launching his war on Iran? Perhaps the Mongols killed many, but I think Saddam has to be on the podium. Perhaps Stalin with all the Kazhaks et alia killed more too.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: