15/01/13
Dear Mr Cameron,
I am confused. What is going on in our current foreign
policy in Syria?
Please answer this
question for me:
Is Britain fighting Al Qaida terrorists or,
are Al Qaida terrorists our allies?
It is quite simple - are we with them, or
are we against them?
I ask this because of
recent cuts to our armed forces, and the much closer alliance we now have with
France, militarily and in defence, etc.
The Franco British Defence Treaty:
Here are some articles from the news which describe how
Britain and our close ally, France, support Al Qaida directly and/or
indirectly in Syria against President Assad:
“..France has emerged as the most
prominent backer of Syria's armed opposition and is now directly funding
rebel groups around Aleppo as part of a new push to oust the embattled Assad
regime.
Large sums of cash have been delivered by French
government proxies across the Turkish border to rebel commanders in the past
month, diplomatic sources have confirmed. The money has been used to buy
weapons inside Syria and to fund armed operations against loyalist forces.
The French moves have stopped short of direct
supply of weapons – a bridge that no western state has yet been willing to
cross in Syria. But, according to western and Turkish officials as well as
rebel leaders, the influx of money has made a difference in recent weeks as
momentum on the battlefields of the north steadily shifts towards the
opposition.
Some of the French cash has reached Islamist groups
who were desperately short of ammunition and who had increasingly turned for
help towards al-Qaida aligned jihadist groups in and around Aleppo…”
Al-Qaeda Joins the Syrian Rebellion:
‘..Now,
the entrance of al-Qaeda onto the scene threatens to push Syria toward outright
civil war. Moreover, the presence of al-Qaeda inter-mixed with Syrian rebels
bring to mind the scenario recently played out in Libya in which the armed
opposition, trained and equipped by NATO, consisted of a motley and nefarious
hodgepodge of Islamists, former regime supporters and al-Qaeda insurgents.
In fact, other similarities to the Libyan campaign come to mind with the increasing role that NATO is playing behind the scenes of the conflict. According to Israeli intelligence sources, NATO, in conjunction with Turkey’s Military High Command, is already drawing up plans to arm rebels with “large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns…”’
In fact, other similarities to the Libyan campaign come to mind with the increasing role that NATO is playing behind the scenes of the conflict. According to Israeli intelligence sources, NATO, in conjunction with Turkey’s Military High Command, is already drawing up plans to arm rebels with “large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns…”’
Syrian rebel group that is an
affiliate of al-Qaeda in Iraq appears on the verge of over-running a Syrian
airbase: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1230819/rebels-linked-to-al-qaeda-set-to-take-syrian-airbase/?cs=5
“…According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights, the offensive at Taftanaz, an airbase near the road that links
the Syrian cities of Idlib and Aleppo, is being led by the Nusra Front, which
the US State Department designated a terrorist organisation last month.
Ahrar al-Sham, another rebel group that, like the
Nusra Front, wants to establish an Islamic state in Syria, is participating in
the offensive, according to its internet postings.
A US State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland,
offered an upbeat assessment of the rebel advance on Thursday, saying the
likely takeover of the base was a sign the abilities of the ''armed
opposition'' were growing.
She did not acknowledge in her remarks the assault on
the base was spearheaded by the Nusra Front. State Department spokesmen did not
respond to later requests for comment…”
However, I understand that France and another of our
allies, the USA, are now supporting Mali in West Africa, in their fight against
Al Qaida!!!
Please explain this contradictory situation.
French bombing
campaign because “the existence of Mali was at stake,”
“…For months U.S. officials have been involved in
discussions with leaders from France, Mali, and neighboring West African
countries about the best way to proceed militarily against the Islamist
extremist groups who seized the northern half of the country last April…”
This article states that America’s reason for entering this fight is because ‘the jihadists are accused of human
rights abuses such as enlisting child soldiers and stoning to death women
accused of adultery as they enforce a strict interpretation of Sharia law,’
appalling barbarity which must be stopped but surely this will happen in Syria too,
if Al Qaida win against President Assad, yet the British Government and its
allies support this? Why?
Whose side is Britain really on?
Why are we, in close allegiance with France, fighting extremists in one
country while supporting the same extremists in another? The regime in Syria has not been the worse in
the world, it has been relatively reasonable, if somewhat stagnant, and has respected
its Christians and Jews? The base of the
Christian Orthodox Church has always been in Damascus. Why do you, and Presidents Obama and Sarkozy,
behave in this peculiar, contradictory manner in relation to Mali and Syria? Is it wise for Britain to support violent, Islamic
psychopaths who hate Christians and murder them wherever and whenever they can,
and who are determined to turn Syria into Hell for our Christian brothers and
sisters? Something stinks in our foreign
policy with Syria!
Yours sincerely,
The Angry Cheese.
No comments:
Post a Comment