Saturday, 28 November 2015 13:11

To Bomb Syria, or Not to Bomb Syria? When do the people get to decide?

Written by

So, there will be a vote his week on whether the UK will join their allies and bomb Syria.

The USA have been doing this for over a year, and even though they have the best in weapon technologies they have somehow not managed to make any difference - well, apart from allowing their weapons to be air dropped, into the hands of the alleged enemy.

I understand why France are taking action, but surely the UK has a choice?

Why on earth would the UK Government decide to join 65 countries and bomb a country that is already on fire, when it is seems to be quite clear that bombing is making no difference what-so-ever?

Then we have Turkey, and which side are they on? It is alleged that Turkey are allowing the illegal sale of oil through their country, from the Daesh captured oil fields. It is alleged that they are allowing these people to come back and forward to Syria. It is also alleged that they shot down the Russian place for their own political reasons.

I wish the media, the government ministers etc. etc.. would stop calling them IS, ISIL etc.. The lady on Question Time the other week got it right, "If I call myself a zebra", does that mean I am a zebra"? Perhaps this name calling is mass media manipulation on the people so we are manipulated to believe that we should be against all people of similar origin, we will consent to closing our borders, and we will consent to being spied on etc etc.. But who will be spying on those, who spy on us? 

Anyway, back to the point I am trying to make, it seems to me, that this is all about oil and gas, otherwise, the 65 existing countries bombing Syria would have succeeded by now.

Taken from

Perhaps the most accurate description of the current crisis over gas, oil and pipelines that is raging in Syria has been described by Dmitry Minin, writing for the Strategic Cultural Foundation in May 2013:

“A battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realized that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favor of Iran and Russia; thus it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.

The Guardian reported in August 2013:

“Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar and Turkey that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.’”

What we should be asking is, what will our UK Government be getting for going into another illegal war in Syria? When will we, the people get to decide?


Leave a comment

Back to Top