Cameron launched his address, referring to the situation in Ukraine as attack against one of the UN member states, but omitted the questionable legality of the coup d’Ètat on February 22, 2014, and the fact that experts on international law are far from unanimous in their interpretation of the legality or illegality of Crimea’s secession and accession into the Russian Federation. Cameron also omitted the fact that the coup, or at the very least important aspects of it, were micro-managed by U.S. Officials like U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and the British Foreign Policy Chief of the European Union, Barones Catherine Ashton. A leaked phone call between Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Umeas Paet was but one indication for the micro-management, including the mass murder of Ukrainian police officers and protesters alike, which served as pretext for the coup d’ État.
Cameron also omitted that analysts, as early as December 2013, after U.S’. and British officials did their’s to engineer a failure of negotiations between Russia and the EU about the Third EU Energy Package stressed that a war in Ukraine had become unavoidable, and that it was closely related to the failure to oust the Syrian government as swiftly as the government of Libya in 2011.
Cameron would rather focus on the Middle East, ISIL, Terrorism, and omit EU involvement.
While Cameron only briefly touched upon the involvement of the UK in the terrorism that led to the civil war in Ukraine, he nonchalantly diverted attention from Ukraine by stressing that he would rather focus on the situation in the Middle East, the rise of ISIL and terrorism. He explained that Deir Ez Zour is a province of eastern Syria that was seized by ISIL in August 2014. Cameron is, in fact, off by a factor of one year.
ISIL seized the oil and gas rich region of Deir Ez Zour and the city of Deir Ez Zor in August 2013, displacing tens of thousands of predominantly ethnic Kurdish Syrians. Two crucial developments proceeded ISIL’s conquest. In April 2013, the European Union lifted its ban on the import of Syrian oil from what it described as rebel-held territories”. The campaign, in August 2013 was also timed to coincide with the US-led plans to bomb Syria; a plan that failed when the UK parliament voted against British participation in the crime against peace.
It is noteworthy that warnings that a large-scale chemical weapons attack under false flag were published more than two months before it was launched. A subsequent, detailed analysis reveled that the direct order was given by the supreme commander of Liwa-al-Islam, Zahran Aloush, an asset for Saudi intelligence since the 1980s and an expert in chemical weapons. Moreover, the analysis revealed direct political and command responsibility of top Saudi and US officials.
Cameron played on the empathy and humanitarian spirit of the General Assembly and the worldwide TV audience, stressing that ISIL killed 700 tribesmen from the region of Deir Ez Zour, and massacred Yazidis, Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims, Christians, Atheists, and anyone who denied to swear allegiance to ”ISIL’s perverted world view”. He omitted, however who exactly was behind the spread of this regional regime of terror.
A trusted member from within the inner circle around the former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri confided in the author, stressing that he decided to speak out because he was seriously concerned about the eruption of a wider, regional war. During an almost two hour-long conversation the ”whistleblower”, confirmed that the invasion of Iraq by ISIL was originally planned for 2013, but that it was called off when the bombing of Syria didn’t manifest as expected.
He added that the final decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and Syria by ISIL was made on the sidelines of the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit in Istanbul, November 22 – 23, 2013. He added that it was not President Obama, but rather a rogue network that forced the hand of the Obama administration, and mentioned John Kerry, Kissinger, Scowcroft, Nuland, the Keagan clan, Stavridis, Petraeus, Hariri and Riccardione as members of the lobby or rogue network behind the plan.
Cameron peddles global war on terrorism and the threat of domestic terrorism.
Cameron peddled the continuation of the Bush and Blair administrations global war on terror, saying:
”ISIL is not a problem that is restricted to just one region. It has murderous plans to expand its borders well beyond Iraq and Syria; and to carry out terrorist atrocities right across the world. It is recruiting new fighters from all over the world. Five-hundred have gone there from my country, Britain.”
The Pakistani security consultant, lecturer at military academies and terrorism expert, Major Agha H. Amin is among those who stressed that ISIL and other offshoots of Al-Qaeda have little to do with the recruitment of a few hundred persons from the UK or other western nations. Amin states, that organizations like ISIL are the product of the 2001 visit of then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the US/NATO’s restructuring of its terrorist or mercenary networks via sub-contractors. The development that was initiated by the Bush administration was a move away from the traditional Al-Qaeda organizations to the establishment of a network of contractors who could sub-let fully trained, armed, motorized, and logistically supported mercenary armies, ranging in size between 20,000 and 500,000, to be ready for deployment under any name within 14 to 90 days. The financing would primarily be organized via Saudi Arabia and the remnants of the BCC in the United Arab Emirates. ISIL, ISIS, IS, Daesh, or what ever one prefers to call it, is the product of this 4th generation warfare strategy.
It is noteworthy that police and intelligence services of the UK and other NATO member states are relatively well-informed about how many of their citizens have joined these brigades and about their identity. This insight is hardly surprising for those who are aware of the close cooperation between social services who care about particularly vulnerable first, second and third generation immigrant youth and police as well as intelligence services. Speaking about the threat of domestic terrorism, carried out by returning jihadists is grossly exaggerated and suggests that the greatest risk of domestic terrorism is terrorism that will be allowed to happen, or terrorism in which agent provocateurs will be playing key roles.
Cameron is a shrewd statesman, who uses a nonchalant strategy to avoid core issues. One of them is the statement by the former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, who said that top-British officials, in 2009, confided in him, told him that they had a plan to invade Syria with the help of ”rebels” and asked him whether he would like to participate. The bearing of Dumas’ statement becomes evident when one compares it with the analysis of security experts like Agha H. Amin about the sub-letting of mercenary brigades at sizes ranging from 20,000 to 500,000 within a matter of 14 – 90 days.
Cameron peddles an anti-Russian and anti-Syrian policy.
Cameron noted that the international community should act intelligently by supporting representatives of accountable governments and by working with them at their request instead of going over their heads. Ironically, neither Russia nor Syria were invited to Paris conference and to joining the coalition against ISIL. Syria has been combating the wave of terrorism that has been unleashed against it since 2011. It has done so with astounding success, but also at a human, economic and other cost that is difficult to fathom. Syria has repeatedly addressed the offices of the UN Secretary-General and the office of the President of the UN Security Council. The letters detailed crimes committed by the terrorist brigades. The letters also, explicitly, requested that the UN takes action against the state-sponsorship of terrorism and used the United Nations anti-terrorism task force to combat terrorism against Syria.
Russia, for its part, sponsored a resolution at the UN Security Council in 2013. The resolution called for the unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all of its forms, regardless when, by whom, or under what circumstances these acts of terrorism were carried out. The United States used its veto right against the resolution. Cameron’s statements about inclusiveness in combating terrorism stand in stark contrast to the actual policies of UK and western anti-terrorism policies. Cameron did mention that the alliance against ISIL may, under certain circumstances include Iran. He failed however, to mention that it were Iranian ground forces who made the greatest contribution to preventing the the Kurdish administrated region of northern Iraq was overrun by ISIL.
Cameron launched frontal attack against free intellectual inquiry – scholars included.
Cameron made a clear distinction between Islam as a benign religion and radical Islamism which he described as medieval ideology that must be defeated in all of its forms. He added that an analysis of those who had been convicted of terrorism, in many cases, had been influenced by preachers who claimed not to encourage violence but whose world view could be used as justification for terrorism.
The scope of Cameron’s tendency to limit the freedom of speech and free intellectual and academic inquiry, however, became obvious when Cameron directly compared this ”dangerous world view” with those who raise justified questions about the involvement of deep state elements or rogue networks in false flag terrorism. Indeed, Cameron’s conclusion is setting the stage for a rapid decline into totalitarianism where raising justified questions about state crimes equals terrorism. Cameron said:
”We know this world view; The peddling of lies that 9/11 as somehow a Jewish plot, or that the 7/7 attacks in London were staged. … We must be clear, to defeat the ideology of extremism, not just violent extremism”.
Cameron followed-up on this statement by calling for stricter action against terrorists on-line material, and included universities as possible targets for this crack-down. He noted that some would argue that this is not compatible with free speech and free intellectual inquiry, adding:
”But I would ask you, would we allow right-wing extremism or the Ku Klux Clan to recruit on our campuses? No! So why shouldn’t we stand by and allow any form of non-violent extremism.”
Cameron’s address to the 69th Session of the UN general Assembly must ring alarm bells among theologians such as Dr. David Ray Griffin who questions the official narrative about 9/11 and 19 Arabs with box cutters. It must ring alarm bells among physicists like Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Niels Harrit who documented the presence of nano termite in the dust of the World Trade Center after their were demolished on September 11, 2001 and thousands of other scholars worldwide who raise questions and document deep state terrorism against citizens of their own nations. The step from an address as that delivered by Cameron to arrests of dissidents in the early morning hours by terrorist regimes is, indeed, a dangerously small one.
Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
