Republicans refuse to Help the Needy because they're Racist

US President Barack Obama's decision  that the United States will take in some 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year has been met with scorn by the Republican party.

Some 31 states, including Alabama, Michigan and Texas have refused to accept refugees from the Syrian conflict citing security concerns. They fear that jihadi extremists will sneak in to the country under the cover of refugees and inact terrorist attacks on American soil. Interestingly all but one of these 31 states have republican governors. Perhaps if we were talking about refugee foetus' the Republicans would show a little more compassion.

Turning away refugees is disgusting. These are people who are fleeing persecution and war in their own lands. A war that we have to accept a level of responsibility for instigating. Just saying “Sorry, go back to Assad” frankly isn't good enough. It's the literally the same as sending Jews straight to Hitler (which America also did to Anne Frank.)

Helping people = good.

Not helping people = bad

Not helping because of prejudice = double bad.

Not helping someone because of their skin colour or religion is exactly the type of thing America is supposed to stand against. The whole “all men are created equal” is part of the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't say all men are created equal except Muslims, or Syrians, or slightly brown people. That's not very Christian.

Jesus would be spinning on the cross.

This phenomenon is not exclusive to the United States. Governments around the world on the “right” side of Politics are using the recent terrorist atrocities in Paris as an excuse to deny refuge to those displaced by the Syrian conflict. In Europe far-right parties such as the Front National and the UK Independence Party have called for the closing of borders and restriction of movement.

If you live in America you're more likely to be murdered by a child with a machine gun than an Islamic fundamentalist. Forget about ISIS killing people on the streets: the American police have killed more civilians on US soil than terrorists.

Is David Cameron risking ALL of our lives?

The UK Prime Minister David Cameron claims that security services have prevented seven terror attacks on UK soil in the last six months yet continues to push for increased surveillance powers. It suits governments to have us in a state of fear - we allow them ever greater intrusions into our lives without questioning it. 

Cameron urged vigilance in the UK and said a Mumbai-style multiple-target terror attack, such as had now also been seen on the streets of Paris, could happen in London. But what about say... Manchester?

In October this year the government was criticized for the use of snipers posted on rooftops during the Tory Party conference as Anti-Austerity protesters marched below. The official line from the government at the time was "oh, they were purely for observation". Is it possible that David Cameron was aware of a potential terrorist attack on the conference and did nothing to warn the 60,000 people protesting in the streets below?

Maybe. 

Cameron continues to bang this drum about "National Security" and how only the Conservative Party can be trusted to defend the UK from terrorist threats. The chancellor, George Osborne, has promised to double spending on cyber security and  the government will do more to protect firms and individuals from the threats posed by the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and other terrorist groups.

That sounds good. Until you consider the proposed 5% cut to police budgets which would lead to the loss of around 5,000 police officers and as Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan police commissioner said "put public safety at risk.”

Between Iraq and a Hard Place - Who to back in the Syrian Civil War

Who exactly are we supposed to be supporting in the Syrian Civil war? There are at least four different groups at the moment battling for control over the country but knowing who we should be helping is a tough question. 

The Assad regime? A man who uses chemical weapons on his own people? Vladimir Putin and Iran are backing this option. The West are appalled by this notion and are determined to see Assad replaced and are backing what they are calling "moderate rebel forces". But what does that mean?

Remember the Sylvester Stallone movie Rambo III? The film was set during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hero of the piece, John Rambo, fought alongside the the Mujahideen. It seems when Muslims are waging a Jihad against our enemies then they are brave and noble rebels. When they shift their sights to our troops the labels change.

One man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

The CIA armed and financed the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. It was this group of well armed Islamic warriors that evolved into the group we now know as the Taliban. The US trained Osama Bin Laden and a number of other Al-Qaeda members.

It wasn't too long ago that we were offering weapons and military aid to Libyan rebels and we all know how that turned out. Libya is still in disarray nearly five years after removing Muammar Gaddafi. Its a country in chaos. Much like Iraq the west rushed into military action without an actual end game plan. When will we learn this lesson?

It worries me when I hear the government and the media refer to assisting “moderate rebels”. These are the people who are fighting in the Syrian civil war against Bashar Al-Assad. You can almost guarantee that once Assad and ISIS are removed that these “moderates” will fill the void and evolve into the next generation of terrorists.

The sad truth is that the people who should form a government to replace the Assad regime are not among the so called moderates. The people who deserve to run Syria democratically have already left. They are the peaceful 3,000,000 refugees who have been forced from their homes.

French Foreign Policy - Cartoon

The Irony of the French National Anthem. "Cut the Throats of Your Sons, Your Women"

They say that history is written by the winners. Whoever wins the war writes the stories for the following generation. No history text book in the world says “and then we conquered the forces of good and spread our evil empire across the land.” The victor always represents the hero and the losers play the villains of the piece. You only have to look at the genocide of Native Americans for evidence of this.

The English Football Association has urged fans attending the international friendly between France and England to join in the singing of the French national anthem 'Les Marsiellaise' in a demonstration of solidarity with our French cousins.

Whilst we undoubtedly condemn the barbarous terrorist attacks they recently suffered at the hands of Jihadi extremists one must pause to reflect on the irony of signing the French national anthem at a time like this.

The lyrics of 'Les Marsiellaise' celebrates in very graphic terms a a period of French history that was as ideologically driven, intolerant and bloody as the terrorists they have declared war upon.

This is a song containing the lines: “The roar of those ferocious soldiers? They're coming right into your arms, to cut the throats of your sons, your women!” A peaceful ditty if I've ever heard one.

You could argue that the French revolution was hundreds of years ago and that a song celebrating and glorifying violence has no place as a progressive nations national anthem. That Les Marsiellaise should also be consigned to the history books and replaced by something a little "nicer".

You could argue that the song is symbolic of France's battle to liberate itself from tyranny, that the revolutionary forces were fighting against an oppressive regime and that in this case the beheading of 40,000 political dissents between September 1793 and July 1794 was not only necessary but the right thing to do.

Or you could remember that history is written by the winner.

Bombing Doesn't Stop Terrorists, it Creates Them.

After the attacks in Paris on Friday the French launched a series of airstrikes in Syria dropping twenty bombs on key ISIS strongholds.

They are reporting that this attack had zero civilian casualties. Good going that. Especially when you consider that the US drone strikes kill on average 28 unknown people, including women and children, for every one "bad guy" they go after.

When it's Bashar Al-Assad barrel bombing his own people its a terrible crime but when it's France or the US raining bombs its a different story. Killing is wrong. No matter which flag its hiding behind.

Fighting fire with fire rarely works. In this case it'll play right into the hands of ISIS. It will play directly into the West vs Islam narrative and drive more people into an extremist ideology.

Imagine you come home from work to find your home destroyed, smoke still rising from the flaming corpses of your wife and children, your whole family killed by a US air strike. Who do you blame?

Bombing doesn't stop terrorists, it creates them.

It's a never ending cycle. An eye for an eye and all that. You killed my family so I'll kill yours. That will never lead to a peaceful resolution.

If we want to see an end to civilian deaths then the solution has to be a political one. It would appear that policy is moving towards this end with talks at the G20 summit of negotiations with Assad and rebel forces in Syria about some sort of hand over of power.

The removal of Assad won't bring about an end to ISIS directly but ending the civil war and establishing a united Syria is a good first step to riding the country of these terrorist fuck bags.

The Flags we Hide Behind - The Truth about ISIS and the West

Inevitably, after the terrorist atrocities which took place in Paris, Muslims from around the world came out and condemned the actions of these extremists. And rightly so. They say that the views and ideals of ISIS and their affiliates do not reflect those of their religion: that these people are hiding behind the flag of Islam.

Its been a master-stroke of propaganda that extremist groups in the Middle East have convinced the local people that what we have is a war between the West and Islam. We've made it easy for them. They can point to the fact that the US has bombed at least 14 Muslim nations since the 80's.

A decade ago, when a million people marched in the streets to protest the illegal invasion of Iraq, we all knew that despite dodgy dossiers and claims of weapons of mass destruction the real reason for the invasion was oil. Everybody knew that.

Somehow people seem to have forgotten.

The truth is that its not the West vs. Islam. This has nothing to do with religion. Its all about oil. It's always been about oil. Lets rewind a little...

In 2011 when the Arab spring spread across North Africa and into the Middle East a number of oppressive regimes fell to the people. Two dictators fought back against their own people: Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. Both of these events happened at the same time. Yet the West only rushed to help one of these nations, only one of those leaders' bloodied corpse was dragged through the streets. Why?

Why rush to help one nation who's dictator was murdering his own people and ignore another? Oil of course. Libya had the largest oil reserves in the whole of Africa and pumped out over 300,000 barrels of oil a day. Syria has no oil. Only in Nov '14 when ISIS crossed the Syrian border and started capturing Iraqi oil fields did Western governments sit up and take attention.

ISIS do hide behind the flag of Islam. And the West hide behind the flag of Democracy. In reality we are only interested in oil money. Its not about liberating people from oppressive regimes or spreading “freedom”, it was never about Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban or ISIS. Its all about oil.

If, like Saudi Arabia, you willingly sell us your oil then there's no problem. You can be as oppressive as you like: you can ban women from driving, jail political dissidents, flaunt human rights laws and you can behead as many people as you want. No questions asked. We'll even sell you weapons. The good ones fighter jets, tanks and the like. And if you don't? We'll still sell you weapons! But less good ones, the old ones, the Kalashnikovs and RPGs that we have lying around from the last time we invaded one of your neighbours.

If ISIS want us to stop dropping bombs on them and let them steal land from local people and set up their own country or Caliphate then they just have to sell us their oil.