David Cameron is building 'Al Qaeda 2.0'

[poncho]

As reported by the BBC News, British Premier David Cameron has pledged to begin talks with armed Syrian rebels in a bid to unite the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad. "I wanted to hear for myself the stories of people who have been bombed and shot and blasted out of their homes in Syria by a deeply-illegitimate and unpleasant regime that is raining down death and destruction on its own people," the BBC quotes Mr. Cameron as saying while visiting a refugee camp in Jordan.

Mr Cameron added: "There is an opportunity for Britain, for America, for Saudi Arabia, Jordan and like-minded allies to come together and try to help shape the opposition, outside Syria and inside Syria, and try to help them achieve their goal, which is our goal of a Syria without Assad."

Foreign Secretary William Hague is said to have given his special envoy to the Syrian opposition, John Wilkes, the go-ahead to arrange the meetings with rebel groups opposed to the Assad government.

Indeed, thou hast said it.

So, it is not democracy or the notorious "human rights" that constitute the UK's and the "like-minded allies"' primary goal. If that were the case, the list of the allies would hardly include Saudi Arabia which is by no measures an ideal of democracy and human rights.

It is "Syria without Assad", and "after that let there be the flood".

CONTINUE . . .

 

[Matt Black]

Yes and no. I am heartily sick of the sight of our PM criticising one lot of Arab despots (Gaddafi, Assad) whilst at the same time kow-towing to others (the Ibn Saud family and the Qataris) with the very dubious aim of selling them arms with which they can kill their own people. It is of course the most stinking form of rank hypocrisy.

There is also the issue of 'be careful what you wish for': only time will tell whether the replacements for the likes of Gaddafi and Mubarak will be any more pleasant (early signs from Egypt are mixed - Muslim Brotherhood in power = bad; not doing much that's nasty with that power (yet) = not so bad); similar potential fears apply with regard to Syria's opposition.

All that said, there is no denying the fact that Assad is extremely nasty and removing him from a purely deontological moral POV has to be A Good Thing. Whether it will prove so more teleologically is another matter....

 

[poncho]

Yes and no. I am heartily sick of the sight of our PM criticising one lot of Arab despots (Gaddafi, Assad) whilst at the same time kow-towing to others (the Ibn Saud family and the Qataris) with the very dubious aim of selling them arms with which they can kill their own people. It is of course the most stinking form of rank hypocrisy.

There is also the issue of 'be careful what you wish for': only time will tell whether the replacements for the likes of Gaddafi and Mubarak will be any more pleasant (early signs from Egypt are mixed - Muslim Brotherhood in power = bad; not doing much that's nasty with that power (yet) = not so bad); similar potential fears apply with regard to Syria's opposition.

All that said, there is no denying the fact that Assad is extremely nasty and removing him from a purely deontological moral POV has to be A Good Thing. Whether it will prove so more teleologically is another matter....

I understand that the threat of terrorism is being used to put you all under the watchful eye of a total surveillance/police state also. These terrorists sure have proven themselves to be a useful tool in the hands of tyrants that hate freedom.

Rank hypocrisy is exactly right!