wonders how British Prime Minister David Cameron would try to justify
his patently criminal statements in front of a war crimes tribunal...
Independent, 5 September 2014
The Independent, 6 September 2014
[Editorial note: An accurate list
"10-nation coalition" is
excerpt from: Shoulder to shoulder: as Nato
sets up a rapid reaction
force to defy Russia, a 10-nation coalition to wage war against Isis
by Nigel Morris, The Independent, 6 September 2014
struggle to “destroy” jihadist fighters sweeping across the Middle East
could last three years, the United States warned as it sought to
assemble a “core coalition” to confront Isis forces. [...]
“core coalition” –which has echoes of the “coalition of the willing”
assembled by George W Bush to invade Iraq in 2003 – is composed of the
United States, Britain,
Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Canada, Poland and Denmark.
Telegraph, 6 September 2014
The Times, 2 September 2014
excerpts from: Cameron: 'I
won't rule anything out' on action against IS
[excerpts transcribed by the author from the audio clip of British
Prime Minister David Cameron's interview with BBC Radio 4]
BBC Radio 4 website, 4
former defence spokesman [sic] Liam
Fox says that basically we should be joining the Americans in air
because it does help those on the ground. You damage supply lines with
power, you destroy bases; and whether that's in Iraq
or in Syria.
Well, these are all things that should be considered. And we've supported the American air
to now, which have been helping to make sure that the
you actively considering sending British planes out to join these air
MINISTER CAMERON: As I've said, we are not ruling
anything out. I think we
shouldn't underplay what Britain has done already. Our
Tornado planes and Rivet Joint planes have been flying over this area
to help gather
information. We're working with the Americans in what they've have done.
It needs to be an entirely joined-up strategy, working with the
partners, working with those on the ground. What I would call 'the
tough, long-term,intelligent approach' rather than thinking there is
simple, single intervention that would make the difference.
does that approach also mean having some sort of arrangement with
Assad in Syria so that
whatever the ultimate plan is with him, that you are allowed the
strike ISIS in Syria?
My view is that President
Assad is part of
the problem rather than part of the solution. If you ask
yourself how come
Islamic State has managed to establish itself so quickly, part of the
Assad's brutality in Syria
gave credence to this group, while the other opposition
groups, more democratic and pluralistic, didn't
perhaps get the support they needed. [...]
you've got a difficulty here: [...] in Syria you've got an air force
can react to you.
MINISTER CAMERON: The point of view I would take is that
you've got to have a
long-term view about what you think the right long-term answer is. And
same in Iraq as it is in Syria,
which is a democratic, pluralistic government that can look after all
people in the country and not brutalize a section of them. And I think
sometimes in the past just saying 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' has
led us into all sorts of moral quagmires and difficulties.
you've got practical hurdles then, serious practical hurdles to
[...] At the moment you've got this ISIS,
which many people would suggest is a greater threat to the whole region
us than Assad is.
MINISTER CAMERON: [...] What I am saying is that you've
got to understand that Assad
been part of the creation of Islamic State rather than
being part of its
but don't we find ourselves in a strange situation where if Iraq asks
strikes, they become legal, if
asks for air strikes then they become legal in Syria and if he doesn't, it is
MINISTER CAMERON: I
think if you want to talk pure
legalities, I don't think it's that complicated because, obviously, the
government is a legitimate government, we believe it is
about to become more
legitimate with a new Prime Minister with the backing of all of his
President Assad has committed
war crimes on his own people and therefore is illegitimate.
So, I think
if you want to get into the legalities, I do think there are two
is not the legality that is stopping any military action here. You
the way people are behaving in the region, there would be moral and
justification for doing something, for acting.
MINISTER CAMERON: Well, obviously we would never do anything
unless there was moral and
legal justification for doing something, that needs to be said.
what I wondered, does it exist now?
MINISTER CAMERON: I think there is something else, as well as
moral and legal
justification, which is that I think in the past sometimes people have
Western intervention as something that goes right over the heads of the
people fighting these horrors and over the heads of the regional powers
neighbours. And I think what needs to be done here is to start from the
proposition: 'What more can we do to help those, the Kurds and the
who are fighting this battle on the ground?' [...]
to 2013: Obama: "I am ready to bomb Syria"
by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 29 August 2014