Church of England attacks Cameron's "incoherent" Mid East policy


Blackleaf
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
The Church of England has delivered a withering critique of David Cameron's Middle East policy, describing the government's approach as incoherent, ill-thought-out and determined by "the loudest media voice at any particular time".

The criticisms are made in an extraordinary letter to the prime minister signed by the Bishop of Leeds, Nicholas Baines, and written with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. Seen by the Observer, it describes the UK's foreign policy as so muddled and reactive that it is "difficult to discern the strategic intentions" of the government's approach to the region.

The letter follows widespread claims that Britain and the west have been slow to respond to unfolding events in Iraq as Islamic State, formerly known as Isis, has imposed its bloody rule across northern Iraq and swaths of Syria.

Cameron is taken to task for failing to develop an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamist extremism from Iraq to Nigeria, where the militant group Boko Haram has terrorised the north of the country. "We do not seem to have a coherent or comprehensive approach to Islamic extremism as it is developing across the globe," the bishop writes.

Cameron is accused of turning his back on the suffering of Christians. The letter asks why the plight of other religious minorities in Iraq, such as the Yazidis, seems to have taken precedence. It notes that, though the government responded promptly to reports of at least 30,000 Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar, the fate of tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians fleeing Jihadists from Mosul, Iraq's second city, and elsewhere appears to have "fallen from consciousness".


Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy

Bishop of Leeds slams failure over Islamist extremism in scathing letter backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury

Full text of the letter to David Cameron (external - login to view)
Mark Townsend (external - login to view), home affairs editor
The Observer (external - login to view),
Saturday 16 August 2014


The letter to Cameron describes the government’s approach as incoherent and determined by 'the loudest media voice'. Photograph: Neil Hall/Reuters


The Church of England has delivered a withering critique of David Cameron (external - login to view)'s Middle East policy, describing the government's approach as incoherent, ill-thought-out and determined by "the loudest media voice at any particular time".

The criticisms are made in an extraordinary letter to the prime minister signed by the Bishop of Leeds, Nicholas Baines, and written with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby (external - login to view). Seen by the Observer, it describes the UK's foreign policy as so muddled and reactive that it is "difficult to discern the strategic intentions" of the government's approach to the region.

The letter follows widespread claims that Britain and the west have been slow to respond to unfolding events in Iraq (external - login to view) as Islamic State, formerly known as Isis (external - login to view), has imposed its bloody rule across northern Iraq and swaths of Syria (external - login to view).

Cameron is taken to task for failing to develop an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamist extremism from Iraq to Nigeria (external - login to view), where the militant group Boko Haram (external - login to view) has terrorised the north of the country. "We do not seem to have a coherent or comprehensive approach to Islamic extremism as it is developing across the globe," the bishop writes.


Bishop of Leeds Nicholas Baines (left) and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

Cameron is accused of turning his back on the suffering of Christians. The letter asks why the plight of other religious minorities in Iraq, such as the Yazidis, seems to have taken precedence. It notes that, though the government responded promptly to reports of at least 30,000 Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar (external - login to view), the fate of tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians fleeing jihadists (external - login to view)from Mosul, Iraq's second city, and elsewhere appears to have "fallen from consciousness".

Bishop Baines asks: "Does your government have a coherent response to the plight of these huge numbers of Christians whose plight appears to be less regarded than that of others? Or are we simply reacting to the loudest media voice at any particular time?" He condemns the failure to offer sanctuary to Iraqi Christians driven from their homes: "The French and German governments have already made provision, but there has so far been only silence from the UK government."

The letter asks why parliamentary questions tabled last month to find out whether the UK intends to offer asylum to Iraqi Christians have still not been answered. Baines says the failure to confront the issue is "something that causes me and colleagues some concern".

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Cameron suggests he is inching towards supporting Britain's involvement in a military response to the threat from the Islamic State. He says it is important not to let the controversy and tragedy of the 2003 war in Iraq colour Britain's response to today's crisis.

He writes: "The creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria is not a problem miles away from home. Nor is it a problem that should be defined by a war 10 years ago. It is our concern here and now. Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain. We also need a broader political, diplomatic and security response … This threat cannot simply be removed by air strikes alone. We need a tough, intelligent and patient long-term approach that can defeat the terrorist threat at source."

As Britain prepares to give military assistance to the Kurdish peshmerga forces in northern Iraq, a leading security expert has warned that recent military intervention in northern Iraq (external - login to view) could play into the hands of Isis. Richard Barrett, former head of counterterrorism at MI6, said air strikes and the decision by Cameron to arm Kurdish forces (external - login to view) could escalate the threat against the west, hardening the resolve of jihadists to such an extent that fighters from Isis and al-Qaida might join forces.

Barrett, who spent more than a decade tracking the Taliban for the UN, said the attacks on Isis "feed the narrative that America, the west, is part of the problem". He added: "If the west is part of the problem, then the question is: 'Why don't you attack the west right now?' There's a definite possible downside that action by the US, particularly if it's prolonged, could lead the al-Qaida guys and the Islamic State guys to say: 'OK, let's get back together and do this'."

US intelligence assessments suggest that some jihadists are abandoning al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen and Africa to join Isis. Spy agencies are watching to see if senior al-Qaida leaders are prepared to switch allegiance.


The Church of England has accused Cameron of turning his back on the suffering of Christians. The letter asks why the plight of other religious minorities in Iraq, such as the Yazidis, seems to have taken precedence

Barrett said the west also needed to confront the dilemma that, even if Isis were defeated on the battlefield, significant problems would lie in store. "They have their own territory to defend now. Even so, they are not going to all die on the battlefield; the many thousands of foreigners ... will go back home if they are defeated with a strong sense of injustice and a strong motivation to carry on the fight. Of course, if they are not defeated, then they will want to spread their rule into their homelands anyway. You sort of lose either way."

The Metropolitan police's senior national coordinator for counter-terrorism, Helen Ball, said the situation in Iraq had evolved to the extent that police were appealing for the girlfriends, wives and mothers of potential jihadists to dissuade the men from travelling abroad.

Dear prime minister: what is the UK government's strategy in Iraq and Syria?

Full text of the letter to David Cameron from the Bishop of Leeds

Saturday 16 August 2014


The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has given his support to the letter from the Bishop of Leeds to David Cameron Photograph: Philip Toscano/PA


Dear Prime Minister

Iraq and Islamic State

I am conscious of the speed at which events are moving in Iraq and Syria, and write recognising the complexity and interconnectedness of the challenges faced by the international community in responding to the crises in Syria and Iraq.

However, in common with many bishops and other correspondents here in the UK, I remain very concerned about the government's response to several issues. I write with the support of the archbishop of Canterbury to put these questions to you.

1. It appears that, in common with the United States and other partners, the UK is responding to events in a reactive way, and it is difficult to discern the strategic intentions behind this approach.

Please can you tell me what is the overall strategy that holds together the UK government's response to both the humanitarian situation and what Islamic State is actually doing in Syria and Iraq? Behind this question is the serious concern that we do not seem to have a coherent or comprehensive approach to Islamist extremism as it is developing across the globe. Islamic State, Boko Haram and other groups represent particular manifestations of a global phenomenon, and it is not clear what our broader global strategy is – particularly insofar as the military, political, economic and humanitarian demands interconnect.

The Church internationally must be a primary partner in addressing this complexity.

2. The focus by both politicians and media on the plight of the Yazidis has been notable and admirable. However, there has been increasing silence about the plight of tens of thousands of Christians who have been displaced, driven from cities and homelands, and who face a bleak future. Despite appalling persecution, they seem to have fallen from consciousness, and I wonder why. Does your government have a coherent response to the plight of these huge numbers of Christians whose plight appears to be less regarded than that of others? Or are we simply reacting to the loudest media voice at any particular time?

3. As yet, there appears to have been no response to pleas for asylum provision to be made for those Christians (and other minorities) needing sanctuary from Iraq in the UK. I recognise that we do not wish to encourage Christians or other displaced and suffering people to leave their homeland – the consequences for those cultures and nations would be extremely detrimental at every level – but for some of them this will be the only recourse. The French and German governments have already made provision, but there has so far been only silence from the UK government. Therefore, I ask for a response to the question of whether there is any intention to offer asylum to Iraqi migrants (as part of a holistic strategy to addressing the challenges of Iraq)?

4. Following on from this, I note that the bishop of Coventry tabled a series of questions to HM government in the House of Lords on Monday 28 July. All but two were answered on Monday 11 August. The outstanding questions included the following: "The lord bishop of Coventry to ask Her Majesty's government what consideration they have given to resettling here in the UK a fair proportion of those displaced from Isis controlled areas of northern Iraq." I would be grateful to know why this question has not so far been answered – something that causes me and colleagues some concern.

5. Underlying these concerns is the need for reassurance that a commitment to religious freedom will remain a priority for the government, given the departure of ministers who championed this. Will the foreign secretary's human rights advisory panel continue under the new foreign secretary? Is this not the time to appoint an ambassador at large for international religious freedom – which would demonstrate the government's serious commitment to developing an overarching strategy (backed by expertise) against Islamist extremism and violence?

I look forward to your considered response to these pressing questions.

Yours sincerely,

The Rt Rev Nicholas Baines

The Bishop of Leeds



Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy | Politics | The Observer (external - login to view)

Dear prime minister: what is the UK government's strategy in Iraq and Syria? | World news | theguardian.com

***********************************
David Cameron: Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain

The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all - and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge, says the Prime Minister


Clear and present danger: Isis militants pose at a captured checkpoint in northern Iraq Photo: AFP/Getty

By Prime Minister David Cameron (external - login to view)
16 Aug 2014
The Telegraph

Stability. Security. The peace of mind that comes from being able to get a decent job and provide for your family, in a country that you feel has a good future ahead of it and that treats people fairly. In a nutshell, that is what people in Britain want – and what the Government I lead is dedicated to building.

Britain – our economy, our security, our future – must come first. After a deep and damaging recession, and our involvement in long and difficult conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is hardly surprising that so many people say to me when seeing the tragedies unfolding on their television screens: “Yes, let’s help with aid, but let’s not get any more involved.”

I agree that we should avoid sending armies to fight or occupy. But we need to recognise that the brighter future we long for requires a long-term plan for our security as well as for our economy. True security will only be achieved if we use all our resources – aid, diplomacy, our military prowess – to help bring about a more stable world. Today, when every nation is so immediately interconnected, we cannot turn a blind eye and assume that there will not be a cost for us if we do.

The creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria is not a problem miles away from home. Nor is it a problem that should be defined by a war 10 years ago. It is our concern here and now. Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain. We already know that it has the murderous intent. Indeed, the first Isil-inspired terrorist acts on the continent of Europe have already taken place.

Our first priority has of course been to deal with the acute humanitarian crisis in Iraq. We should be proud of the role that our brave armed services and aid workers have played in the international effort. British citizens have risked their lives to get 80 tons of vital supplies to the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar. It is right that we use our aid programme to respond rapidly to a situation like this: Britain has given £13 million to support the aid effort. We also helped to plan a detailed international rescue operation and we remain ready and flexible to respond to the ongoing challenges in or around Dahuk, where more than 450,000 people have increased the population by 50 per cent.

But a humanitarian response alone is not enough. We also need a broader political, diplomatic and security response. For that, we must understand the true nature of the threat we face. We should be clear: this is not the “War on Terror”, nor is it a war of religions. It is a struggle for decency, tolerance and moderation in our modern world. It is a battle against a poisonous ideology that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

Of course there is conflict between Shias and Sunnis, but that is the wrong way to see what is really happening. What we are witnessing is actually a battle between Islam on the one hand and extremists who want to abuse Islam on the other. These extremists, often funded by fanatics living far away from the battlefields, pervert the Islamic faith as a way of justifying their warped and barbaric ideology – and they do so not just in Iraq and Syria but right across the world, from Boko Haram and al-Shabaab to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

So this threat cannot simply be removed by airstrikes alone. We need a tough, intelligent and patient long-term approach that can defeat the terrorist threat at source.

First, we need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go after the terrorists, international co-operation on intelligence and counter-terrorism or uncompromising action against terrorists at home. On Friday we agreed with our European partners that we will provide equipment directly to the Kurdish forces; we are now identifying what we might supply, from body armour to specialist counter-explosive equipment. We have also secured a United Nations Security Council resolution to disrupt the flows of finance to Isil, sanction those who are seeking to recruit for it and encourage countries to do all they can to prevent foreign fighters joining the extremist cause.

Here in Britain we have recently introduced stronger powers through our Immigration Act to deprive naturalised Britons of their citizenship if they are suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. We have taken down 28,000 pieces of terrorist-related material from the web, including 46 Isil-related videos. And I have also discussed the police response to this growing threat of extremism with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. The position is clear. If people are walking around with Isil flags or trying to recruit people to their terrorist cause, they will be arrested and their materials will be seized. We are a tolerant people, but no tolerance should allow the room for this sort of poisonous extremism in our country.

Alongside a tough security response, there must also be an intelligent political response. We know that terrorist organisations thrive where there is political instability and weak or dysfunctional political institutions. So we must support the building blocks of democracy – the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the rights of minorities, free media and association and a proper place in society for the army. None of these things can be imposed by the West. Every country must make its own way. But we can and must play a valuable role in supporting them to do that.

Isil militants have exploited the absence of a unified and representative government in Baghdad. So we strongly welcome the opportunity of a new start with Iraqi Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi. I spoke to him earlier this week and assured him that we will support any attempts to forge a genuinely inclusive government that can unite all Iraqi communities – Sunnis, Shias and Kurds – against the common enemy of Isil, which threatens the way of life of them all.

The international community will rally around this new government. But Iraq’s neighbours in the region are equally vital. So we must work with countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the UAE, Egypt and Turkey against these extremist forces, and perhaps even with Iran, which could choose this moment to engage with the international community against this shared threat. I want Britain to play a leading role in this diplomatic effort. So we will be appointing a Special Representative to the Kurdistan Regional Government and using the Nato summit in Wales and the United Nations General Assembly in New York to help rally support across the international community.

Finally, while being tough and intelligent, we must also be patient and resolute. We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology, which I believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime. We face in Isil a new threat that is single-minded, determined and unflinching in pursuit of its objectives. Already it controls not just thousands of minds, but thousands of square miles of territory, sweeping aside much of the boundary between Iraq and Syria to carve out its so-called caliphate. It makes no secret of its expansionist aims. Even today it has the ancient city of Aleppo firmly within its sights. And it boasts of its designs on Jordan and Lebanon, and right up to the Turkish border. If it succeeds, we would be facing a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a Nato member.

This is a clear danger to Europe and to our security. It is a daunting challenge. But it is not an invincible one, as long as we are now ready and able to summon up the political will to defend our own values and way of life with the same determination, courage and tenacity as we have faced danger before in our history. That is how much is at stake here: we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.


David Cameron: Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain - Telegraph (external - login to view)
Last edited by Blackleaf; Aug 17th, 2014 at 07:00 AM..
 
Nuggler
#2
Nice hat, Justin.
 
Walter
-1
#3
The CofE has got this one right.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#4
Last year the majority in Parliament voted NO to further military intervention and this is what the majority of the British populace want. Cameron is adhering to the will of his people and elected officials. If his efforts are ''incoherent'' then it is only a reflection of the people who put him into office.
 
Durry
#5
Let them keep fighting it out, it's their problem!!

After all, it's the will of allah!! I'm sure it's in the quran somewhere!!
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#6
And where is the government of Iraq in all this? Where are the trillion dollars and military equipment it has gotten??

Why all the criticism towards Cameron and Obama but none at Baghdad or anyone else in that region??
 
55Mercury
#7
incoherent middle-east policy?

jeez, did he get JLM to write it?
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#8
It seems that much of the Middle East doesn't differentiate between
Church & State (Sharia Law, etc...), but I assume that England was
progressive enough to do so. I hope that David Cameron tell the
Church of England to blow it out their ****.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#9
We watch and wait and fail to realize we are already at war with the extremists
We allow some to come to the west as well and it has gone on since 2001.
Like it or not we will face the challenge overseas and perhaps right here at home
before its over.
In the midst of this the Ukraine situation bubbles as well
 
Blackleaf
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Last year the majority in Parliament voted NO to further military intervention

Parliament voted NO to further military action in SYRIA. Thatw as nothign to do with the current situation in northern Iraq.

Quote:


and this is what the majority of the British populace want.

A recent poll in The Sun shows that 37% of British people are in favour of British military action to help the Christians and Yazidis in northern Iraq and 36% are opposed.

A poll in the Times on Wednesday shows support for British bombing of ISIS in Iraq is at 40% - that's up 3% compared to the same poll taken on Monday. 36% of those asked were opposed to action.

Polls are showing that more Britons want British military action in northern Iraq than are against it.

Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

And where is the government of Iraq in all this? Where are the trillion dollars and military equipment it has gotten??

A lot of it is now in the hands of ISIS.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

It seems that much of the Middle East doesn't differentiate between
Church & State (Sharia Law, etc...), but I assume that England was
progressive enough to do so. I hope that David Cameron tell the
Church of England to blow it out their ****.


The Church of England is England's established church, and is by far the largest religion in the UK, some of whose representatives sit in the House of Lords. To say that it cannot air its opinions on any matter, and that it's not allowed to show concern at the plight of Christians in northern Iraq and to show concern at the fact that the British Government and media only seemed to be concerned about the plight of the Yazidis whilst they ignore the plight of the Christians is, quite frankly, ludicrous and disgusting.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
Where is the proof that the majority in Parliament or in the UK want further military intervention in Iraq, Liberia, or anywhere else?
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12
All this talk about how the US & UK should intervene in Syria, Iraq, or the ME reminds me of the 1960s during the Vietnam war - international and domestic critics of the war asked, why is the US so involved in foreign wars that are of no concern to them, but cannot solve its own domestic problems such as the riots in Detroit, LA, or NYC?

It's a good bet those problems could have been dealt with more effectively if the government kept its nose out of those foreign affairs and worked to solve our own problems. Same thing today with Ferguson and the multi billion dollars taxpayers must pay for police crimes against innocents.
 
Blackleaf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Where is the proof that the majority in Parliament or in the UK want further military intervention in Iraq, Liberia, or anywhere else?


There isn't any. The PM decided it was better to stay on the beach in Portugal sunning himself rather than recall parliament over such an important issue as Muslims slaughering Christians and Yazidis, yet he was desperate to recall parliament last year to try and get parliament to vote for military action in Syria to stop Muslims being slaughtered even though the British people were against military action there.

However, polls show that more British people are in favour of military action in Iraq to stop the slaughter of Christians and Yazidis than are against it so, of course, the government decide to do nothing. As usual the people's views are ignored.

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Crisis over, everybody back on the beach!


By Richard Littlejohn
22 August 2014


Less than two months ago, the Prime Minister was complaining about the difficulties of keeping in touch when he is on holiday in Cornwall.

Poor reception on his mobile phone prevented him from communicating instantly with Number 10 and speaking to world leaders such as President Obama.

Last year, he said he had to drive to the top of a hill to make contact during the crisis in Syria. ‘I know exactly which bit of the road I lose my signal. It can be very frustrating.’

Back on holiday: Despite the dodgy phone signal, the Prime Minister turned tail and was back on holiday in Cornwall just 24 hours after rushing back for crisis talks in London

Not so much Call Me Dave as ‘Don’t Call Me, I’ll Call You’.

So either the mobile phone companies have put up a few more masts in Polzeath recently, or he’s been issued with an all-singing, all-dancing satellite phone.

Why else would he feel confident about legging it back to Cornwall just 24 hours after returning to London for emergency talks over the beheading of an American journalist by a British terrorist in what is allegedly a ‘civil war’ in Syria and Iraq?

He only arrived in London late on Wednesday morning and is still resisting mounting pressure to recall Parliament to discuss the carnage in the Middle East.

Yet after chairing a meeting of Cobra, the Government’s crisis committee, and slipping into a suit and tie to give some television interviews, by yesterday lunchtime he was in holiday mode again.

Everybody back on the beach!

Polzeath sunshine: Cameron is entitled to a holiday - but should realise that perception is everything


David Cameron interrupted holiday to discuss IS video

Never mind his mobile phone signal, what kind of ‘signal’ does it send to the rest of the world? More pertinently, what message does it convey to the barbarians of the ‘Islamic State’, watching events in England unfold on Al-Jazeera?

As Osama Bin Laden said famously: ‘When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will prefer the strong horse.’ In Cameron’s case, not so much a strong horse as a seaside donkey in a straw sombrero.

Of course, he’s entitled to a holiday. But he’s only just got back from nine days in Portugal.

OK, so there may not be a great deal he can do in London, but as a former PR man - the only job he’s had outside politics - he must appreciate that perception is everything.

And the impression his decision to return to Cornwall creates is that the current slaughter in a region of the world going to Hell in a handcart isn’t worth interrupting his holiday for more than 24 hours.

Nor does the participation of hundreds of young British Muslims in the blood-soaked genocide of Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East warrant recalling Parliament.

This column doesn’t go in for knee-jerk demands for ‘something to be done’. In the normal course of events, I’m happy for the whole of August to be a politics-free zone.

But these ‘events, dear boy’, are extraordinary. And if what is going on in Iraq and Syria, involving a significant number of nominally ‘British’ citizens, doesn’t amount to a genuine crisis, I don’t know what does.

All the more so when it was reported yesterday that as many as one in four of the foreign fighters who have rallied to the ISIS flag are British - and a quarter of them may already have returned home and are planning to bring their ‘jihad’ to our streets.

After the murder of Lee Rigby in Greenwich and the carnage on the London Transport system in July 2005, shouldn’t we be taking that threat rather more seriously?

Yet our Prime Minister would apparently rather bury his head in the sand at Polzeath.

Nine years after 7/7, and almost 13 years since 9/11, the authorities still seem reluctant to confront the scale of the Islamist enemy within.

They continue to indulge the rabble-rousers and terrorist recruiting sergeants poisoning the minds of young British Muslims in mosques and madrassas.

For years we rolled out the red carpet for preachers of hate from overseas and granted asylum to known foreign terrorists.

At one stage, Scotland Yard closed off roads in Finsbury Park so that Captain Hook could peddle his vile propaganda to gangs of masked disciples.

Even today, members of Ram Jam Choudary’s Al Jolson - or whatever it calls itself this week - are at liberty to hand out leaflets on London’s busy Oxford Street, calling on British Muslims to migrate to Syria to join the jihadists.

Travelling abroad to commit terrorism is supposed to be a criminal offence. So is incitement. Why have so few been arrested?

With the rise of social media, keeping track of the hate preachers and preventing them recruiting impressionable young Muslims has become nigh on impossible.

The authorities appear to have no definitive idea how many British passport-holders have gone to Syria, who they are, nor how many have come home. Our much-heralded, computerised ‘e-borders’ system, which was supposed to log everyone in and out of Britain, has collapsed and doesn’t look like being revived.

Enemy within: Leaflets, like this one handed out on Oxford Street in London, are freely distributed in the UK

A former speechwriter to Home Secretary Theresa May suggested yesterday that ministers and officials didn’t actually want it to work - because it would have exposed the true scale of illegal immigration, estimated to be at least 200,000 a year more than they have dared admit.

If that’s true, it is nothing short of scandalous.

These are the kind of questions that should be put urgently to the Prime Minister, in Parliament. But he’s back in Cornwall, with an unreliable mobile phone signal.

Until the murder of James Foley, most comment on the Prime Minister’s holiday revolved around his choice of polo shirts and footwear. What’s he supposed to wear: a mankini?

Now he’s back in Polzeath, I have visions of Dave frantically paddling a surf board out to sea, waving his mobile in the air trying to get a signal, while Sam Cam suns herself on a lounger.

Meanwhile, the Cornish airwaves are swamped by Sloane Rangers in Boden swimming costumes, tweeting away merrily, updating their ‘status’ and phoning home to mummy in Chelsea for more money.

This time last year, Call Me Dave was photographed on the beach with a Mickey Mouse towel wrapped round his waist, a perfect metaphor for his response to the present crisis.

Maybe he’s decided that five years is enough as Prime Minister. But he shouldn’t be surprised if, come the next election, voters look back at the past few days and decide: Don’t call us, Dave. We’ll call you.


Read more: RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Crisis over, everybody back on the beach!* | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (external - login to view) | DailyMail on Facebook (external - login to view)
 
Tecumsehsbones
#14
It's OK, Blackleaf. As always, the Yanks did the heavy lifting whilst the Brits ran their mouths.
 
Blackleaf
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

the Yanks did the heavy lifting whilst the Brits ran their mouths.

After arriving late, as usual.

Of course, we did the heavy lifting throughout the whole of WWI, and did it in WWII until 1944.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

After arriving late, as usual.

Of course, we did the heavy lifting throughout the whole of WWI, and did it in WWII until 1944.

Yeah, your forefathers had brains and backbones. Problem is they apparently used up the entire supply.

Only you, Blackleaf, would criticise the U.S. for arriving late to a war Britain didn't attend at all. Brits used to be known for irony. But I guess hypocrisy is easier.

How's things going in the Brain Numb Party?
 
Blackleaf
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Yeah, your forefathers had brains and backbones. Problem is they apparently used up the entire supply.

That's because we've been ruled by your mob on the Left, educated in sociology and political correctness at third rate polytechnics, since the 1960s.

Quote:

Only you, Blackleaf, would criticise the U.S. for arriving late to a war Britain didn't attend at all. Brits used to be known for irony. But I guess hypocrisy is easier.

How's things going in the Brain Numb Party?

This is how it usually works:

1) A war starts;
2) America sits on the sidelines twiddling its thumbs for the first few years whilst millions are killed and a nation seeks to impose its brutal, barbaric hegemony on its neighbours;
3) Britain and many other countries call up millions of men at arms and take part in brutal and bloody battles, which see countless thousands dead, military and civilian, either on the battlefield or through bombing of urban areas;
4) Seeing the dollar signs, American companies make lucrative business deals with the nation that is barbarically slaughtering thousands of innocents, but the Yanks don't care, cos they are making money;
5) Halfway through the war, or even in its final full year, that country, or an ally of it, attacks America and declares war on it;
6) America then finds itself in the war, with all its troops fresh as daisies whilst its allies have already suffered thousands or millions dead;
7) America does a little bit of fighting towards the end of the war;
8 ) Americans then spend the succeeding decades claiming that they won the war singlehandedly.


I think that's about the gist of we. I'm sure there are few who disagree with my observations.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

That's because we've been ruled by your mob on the Left, educated in sociology and political correctness at third rate polytechnics, since the 1960s.



This is how it usually works:

1) A war starts;
2) America sits on the sidelines twiddling its thumbs for the first few years whilst millions are killed and a nation seeks to impose its brutal, barbaric hegemony on its neighbours;
3) Britain and many other countries call up millions of men at arms and take part in brutal and bloody battles, which see countless thousands dead, military and civilian, either on the battlefield or through bombing of urban areas;
4) Seeing the dollar signs, American companies make lucrative business deals with the nation that is barbarically slaughtering thousands of innocents, but the Yanks don't care, cos they are making money;
5) Halfway through the war, or even in its final full year, that country, or an ally of it, attacks America and declares war on it;
6) America then finds itself in the war, with all its troops fresh as daisies whilst its allies have already suffered thousands or millions dead;
7) America does a little bit of fighting towards the end of the war;
8 ) Americans then spend the succeeding decades claiming that they won the war singlehandedly.


I think that's about the gist of we. I'm sure there are few who disagree with my observations.

This is how it works now:

1. Assad uses chemical weapons on civilians in Syria. The UK guts any possible response by voting to sit it out.

2. ISIS threatens the entire Middle East. The Yanks blow the sh*t out of ISIS. Britain goes to the beach.

Don't get me wrong, Blackleaf, I agree with you completely. And I agree with Churchill that World War II was indeed Britain's finest hour. Your grandparents held hard against overwhelming attacks. The Navy and the RAF put Leonidas and the Spartans to shame with their skill and raw courage.

That was your grandparents. You and your generation are whingy cowards.
 
Blackleaf
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

This is how it works now:

1. Assad uses chemical weapons on civilians in Syria. The UK guts any possible response by voting to sit it out.

It was actually your mob on the Left - the Liberals and some on the Labour benches - who voted against it. As usual, it's the Left - you and your pals - at fault.


Quote:

The Yanks blow the sh*t out of ISIS.

If that's the case, why has one just beheaded a Yank?

Yank "airstrikes" against ISIS are proving ineffectual and will likely backfire.

And, of course, with the Yanks it's all just "go in there and just blow the **** out of it" with little thought on tactics and outcomes and consequences.


Quote:

Don't get me wrong, Blackleaf, I agree with you completely. And I agree with Churchill that World War II was indeed Britain's finest hour. Your grandparents held hard against overwhelming attacks. The Navy and the RAF put Leonidas and the Spartans to shame with their skill and raw courage.

That was your grandparents. You and your generation are whingy cowards.


No. The Left Wing Establishment (your mob), fresh from their sociology classes at third rate polytechnics, are the whiny, PC cowards. The British people, however, are still a warrior race.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Aug 22nd, 2014 at 07:18 AM..
 
MHz
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


Of course, we did the heavy lifting throughout the whole of WWI, and did it in WWII until 1944.

Actually in WWII the Rothschild let you get down to having no bullets and a weeks worth of food. You aint **** without them, they own you, they own you bank and they own your Monarchy, you know the 'leaders'. Get a grip on the reality of what a sorry, pathetic, little country the UK really is. He's Jewish, you should listen to it all.

Benjamin Freedman A Warning To America From 1961 - YouTube

 
Blackleaf
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Actually in WWII the Rothschild let you get down to having no bullets and a weeks worth of food. You aint **** without them, they own you, they own you bank and they own your Monarchy, you know the 'leaders'. Get a grip on the reality of what a sorry, pathetic, little country the UK really is. He's Jewish, you should listen to it all.


Yeah, alright then. I don't mind eccentric people believing fairytales, as long as they don't become dangerous, so just mind how you go.
 
MHz
#22
What part of his speech is fiction? Nothing, not one line but it sure exposed the lies that surround the creation of Israel. The lie is so large that may people would be puckering their *******s in the hopes their names aren't connected to the fraud of the century.

BTW the 'letter' is about 20 years too late but got to have a complaint in so they aren't convicted in the Hague as an accomplice.
 
Blackleaf
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

What part of his speech is fiction? Nothing, not one line but it sure exposed the lies that surround the creation of Israel. The lie is so large that may people would be puckering their *******s in the hopes their names aren't connected to the fraud of the century.


 
MHz
#24
More fairy tales exposed, sure NP.

An honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel - YouTube

 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

More fairy tales exposed, sure NP.

Good work. You keep exposing the fairytales and the lies.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

No. The Left Wing Establishment (your mob), fresh from their sociology classes at third rate polytechnics, are the whiny, PC cowards. The British people, however, are still a warrior race.

Britain is a democracy. If the establishment is whinging cowards, it's because the British people elected whinging cowards.

It's inescapable, Blackleaf. You're either whinging cowards, terminally stupid, or both.

Even the Tories are candy-a$$ rentboys.
 
no new posts