There are always consequences to interfering in the affairs of others, whether you’re originally asked too or not as was the case with the Roman Catholic community welcoming UK troops at the beginning of the conflict there (and the subsequent loss of that support) To the supported invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (twice). You’d think that by now politicians might just have learned their lessons, particularly in respect to the Islamic world. But no, apparently not…


The UK is to increase the assistance it is giving to Syrian opposition forces in the coming weeks, Foreign Secretary William Hague has said.
The UK would be offering a “great deal” of “practical” help to forces opposed to the regime of Bashar-al-Assad but not weapons, he told the BBC.
UN envoy Kofi Annan resigned on Thursday blaming divisions in the UN Security Council for lack of progress.
Mr Hague said the crisis had not been “handled well” by the UN.
China and Russia have vetoed a number of UN resolutions calling for sanctions and other action against the Assad regime, arguing foreign intervention in the conflict is undesirable.
At talks in Downing Street on Thursday, David Cameron and Vladimir Putin acknowledged differences over how to respond to the violence in Syria, which has claimed an estimated 20,000 lives.

Now the regime in Syria is not a pleasant one to be sure, however, those who are purporting to be fighting the regime are not exactly angels either…


When peaceful protests demanding regime change in Syria erupted 16 months ago, there were no signs of the presence of jihadist groups on the ground other than the claims of the regime.
In reaction to the violent measures the regime has implemented against peaceful protesters, some Syrians have resorted to arms.
In this context, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was formed from defecting army soldiers in order “to protect protesters and to fight against the Bashar al-Assad regime”, according to their statements.
Simultaneously, however, jihadists – those committed to establishing an Islamic state by violent means – have started to be seen on the battlefield in Syria, which became a highly streamed topic on the jihadist online forums.

These jihadists are of the salafist school of Islam, the same one that produced the murderous Twin Towers incident, was behind the Bali bombing and currently is causing a great deal of concern within our security services vis the tube bombers and other hard line groups infesting mosques around the country. To my mind for all we would like to see regimes in the Middle East replaced with more human rights oriented groups, so far the evidence is a bit sparse on the ground. We might not have liked the dictators, but at least they kept a lid on things. As it is, the Foreign Office are proposing to arm potential enemies of Western civilisation to topple a regime. Assuming they’re successful, what do you suppose will happen next.

Whilst you’re doing that, take a good hard glance at Iran…

1 comment for “Consequences

  1. August 4, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Iran is a good comparion to make. Apparently the UK giving aid to groups committed overthrowing the establishment in their part of the world by violent means is good, but when Iran do it, it’s bad?

    And in truth, isn’t this really all about Iran anyway? Knock off local allies to isolate the regime and then try it in Tehran? I fancy they don’t give a hoot about Damascus; Tehran is the long game. This makes some sense because for all the talk of air strikes, they know that’s pie-in-the-sky stuff whereas causing trouble internally is cheap. Don’t be surprised if foreign countries start backing whatever local loons they can find here however. Today amateur self-detonated backpack bombs made from hair colour, tomorrow semtex, timers and remote detonation. Arguably not the best strategy in the ‘War on terror’

    Unless they are so dumb as to be just reacting to headlines of course.

Comments are closed.