David Craig, on December 4th, 2015As that great international statesman, Dave “Tony Blair” Cameron celebrates his victory over a sad, lonely John-Lewis man-on-the-moon OAP, Jeremy Corbyn, I’ve tried to identify the ten biggest lies Cameron has told us in order to get his new Syria war:
Lie 1 There are 70,000 ‘moderate rebels’ who will fight ISIL
Truth 1 Total fantasy. The US spent over $500m trying to train just a few hundred ‘moderates’. Most US-trained ‘moderates’ then either joined the *sl*mists or else were killed by them. Huge quantities of weapons fell into ISIL’s hands
Lie 2 Turkey is a key ally
Truth 2 Turkey has been double-dealing all the time. It has used the Syrian war as a cover for bombing the only effective moderate ground troops – the Kurds. Moreover, Turkey has been buying ISIL oil effectively funding ISIL, has been selling weapons to ISIL and has been treating wounded ISIL commanders in its hospitals. Turkey is our enemy and should be thrown out of NATO with immediate effect
Lie 3�The US has been trying to destroy ISIL
Truth 3�The US originally helped ISIL with weapons and money as it saw ISIL as useful in overthrowing Russia’s ally Assad. Even when the US realised that ISIL’s brutality meant it was becoming a threat to the West, the US �has been pulling its punches. For example, for over a year the US has avoided bombing ISIL oilfields and ISIL oil convoys. This has allowed ISIL to get more funds and allowed corrupt Turkish politicians and their families to get rich from smuggling ISIL oil
Lie 4 ISIL is a new threat
Truth 4 ISIL is mainly a Sunni insurrection against oppression by the Shiite Iraqi government installed by the US and the UK and the secular government of Assad in Syria under which Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites and Christians all lived in peace. ISIL is merely the latest development in a Sunni/Shiite civil war that has been going on for over a thousand years. The only reason the Sunni/Shiite war has recently flared up is that the West removed several Middle East strongmen – Saddam, Gaddaffi, �Mubarak and now Assad who – with a bit of brutality – managed to keep their populations under control
Lie 5 Assad is a butcher and has to go if there is to be peace
Truth 5 In Truth 4, I propose that Assad was the only person capable of keeping his people from each others’ throats. Moreover, Assad is actually the only person with ground troops who could crush ISIL with our air support. Putin is right, we need Assad. Oh dear, Dave, I think you’re on the wrong side as usual
Lie 6 We can use negotiations in Vienna to establish a stable, democratic government in Syria
Truth 6 M*sl*ms don’t do democracy. They only do corrupt, oppressive, intolerant, violent hell-holes. We saw that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran and under the M*sl*m Brotherhood in Egypt. Moreover, the once secular Turkey is turning into yet another *sl*mic cesspit under an increasingly dictatorial multi-billionaire President Erdogan. When will we ever learn?
Lie 7 We are joining an international coalition
Truth 7 Actually Canada and the Arab countries have recently pulled out of the supposed ‘international coalition’ leaving just the US, the French and now the UK
Lie 8 British bombs will make a difference
Truth 8�As of Nov. 14, U.S. and partner nation aircraft have flown an estimated 57,301 sorties in support of operations in Iraq and Syria costing over $5bn. These 57,301 sorties have succeeded in halting ISIL’s advance, pinning them down and even allowing the Kurds to recapture some territory. But until there are some effective ground troops, we’ve reached a bit of a stalemate. Meanwhile ISIL have shipped around 3,000 fighters into Libya to extend their Caliphate there. It is possible that ISIL could collapse if we can cut off its sources of income. But a few ageing British Tornados and a couple of Typhoons will only reinforce ISIL’s message that the war against them is actually another “crusade” against *sl*m and thus win them new recruits
Lie 9�There will be no British boots on the ground
Truth 9�Cameron is already talking of sending in military advisers – in a non-combat role, of course. Then when a British plane gets shot down and a pilot beheaded or crucified or a special forces soldier gets captured by the bearded maniacs, Cameron will have his excuse to send in the troops. It’s looking like another Vietnam to me
Lie 10�We need to call ISIL “Daesh”, not “The *sl*mic State” as what they are doing has nothing to do with *sl*m which is a religion of peace
Truth 10�Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
Surely, not since the Charge of the Light Brigade, have we rushed headlong into such a disaster as we are rushing into now?
Category: 
Do you think Cameron really believes the rubbish he spouts or is there a secret agenda?
Seeking War and Enemies is the last refuge of the Scoundrel Banksters and their puppet Politicians of the last 25 years that have destroyed the Financial , Social cohesion and Morals of the West. They have brought upon us the conditions that plague Sweden today they are in the van guard raped by migrants and broken politically, socially and financially, that is our destiny too.
The population at large are oblivious to all this but will pay the price just the same.They think we are rich and can afford to be generous and invite into our countries and homes the dross of the World as Peter Sutherland encourages us to do.He is one of the leaders of that corrupt organisation the UN ,together with others that seek our demise such as George Soros and all their politician puppets.
We are not rich it is an illusion , the bill for our �8.6 Trill (see the Taxpayers Alliance for this true figure not the lying Government figures) party is on its way now, ready to thud onto the door mat. The London ‘City’ and Wall Street bankster’s and Central Banksters know this and are panicking, War is good to deflect attention from what they have done ,but a National debt of �330,000 per household in the UK is difficult to hide and the ramifications will be huge.(The rest of the West is little better)
We have no way of paying this debt, our industries that generated wealth are mainly gone, the huge services Industries we have will have no one to offer services to that have anything to spend maxed out on debt already. The huge public sector (Including the NHS and pensions) will vanish, no funds.
—————————————-
The Fed�s in a bind
One can understand the Fed�s frustration over the failure of its interest rate policy, and its desire to escape the zero bound.
However, since the FOMC has all but said it will increase rates at its December meeting, events have turned against this course of action. The other major central banks are in easing mode, and the slowdown in China has further undermined both world trade flows and commodity prices. The result has been a strong dollar, which has effectively eliminated any perceived need for higher dollar interest rates. Meanwhile, the US�s non-financial economy remains subdued.
Last August, a similar situation existed, when the FOMC signalled that a rise in the Fed Funds Rate might be announced at its September meeting. Ahead of it, China revalued the dollar by announcing a small devaluation of its own currency, taking the wind out of the Fed�s sails. While the talking heads saw this as a failure of Chinese financial policy, it was nothing of the sort. Given the US was dragging its feet over the yuan�s inclusion in the SDR, it was a salvo in the financial war between the two states, and the Fed found itself in the firing line.
Since then the pressure has been mounting from the IMF for the US to back down over the SDR issue. The result was announced only this week, with the dollar content hardly changing and the yuan being accommodated mostly at the expense of the euro from September next year. However, despite the SDR issue having been dealt with for now, the Fed appears to have very little room for manoeuver before higher interest rates will give rise to a new financial crisis.
The chart below illustrates the problem. It is of the Fed Funds Rate since 1980 and the Fiat Money Quantity, which simply put is the sum of the commercial banks� reserves at the Fed, plus cash and sight deposits held at the banks.
From the mid-eighties, successive interest rate peaks (the pecked line) have declined to the point, which if the trend continues, would indicate a Fed Funds Rate peak today of roughly 3%. It is clear that the reason for this declining trend is the increase in bank-related debt, the principal counterpart to FMQ, and the interest burden it places on borrowers.
This trend of declining interest rate peaks was established before the Lehman crisis, when the Fed�s response was to rapidly expand its balance sheet. The result is FMQ growth accelerated from a compounding annual rate of 5.8% to 14%, taking FMQ to 70% above the previous long-term trend today. It would therefore require a far smaller increase in interest rates than indicated by the pecked line to tip the monetary system into a crisis, perhaps a Fed Funds Rate of as little as 1%.
The idea that we can be so precise about interest rate levels is obviously nonsense. If the Fed increases the Fed Funds Rate even slightly, non-financial borrowers often end up paying a significantly higher rate that includes a larger interest rate spread. The spread between interbank and corporate borrowing rates becomes an important indicator of financial stress, and junk bonds are already signalling deteriorating borrowing conditions. Just the threat of higher interest rates could turn out to be destabilising for the financial sector.
A problem of the financial sector�s own making
The key metric which has permitted debt to increase at such a pace is the declining rate of price inflation. This rate has not responded to monetary inflation as one would expect, having continually fallen from the high rates of the late �seventies, while the quantity of money and credit has increased significantly. The reason the rate of price inflation has declined is that by taking over the securities industry in the 1980s, the banks have been able to combine their licence to create credit out of thin air with the direct application of this credit into financial instruments. The result has not only been extremely profitable for the banks, but it has diverted excess credit from less profitable non-financial activities.
This partly explains why banks have increasingly neglected commercial and retail customers, concentrating capital allocation into investment banking. The effect has been to generally confine price inflation to assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. At the same time consumers have been packaged through securitised bulk lending for mortgages, student loans, credit cards and motor loans. Any pretence that banks exist to provide a service for customers has flown out of the window.
At the same time, this credit and securities duopoly has given the banks the ability to magically create paper substitutes for physical commodities through the futures markets, suppressing prices to levels below where they would otherwise be. In turn, this has reduced the pressure on price inflation for consumer goods. The decline in price inflation over the last thirty-five years is therefore the combined result of suppressed commodity prices, the reduced expansion of credit available to non-financial sectors, as well as favourable changes in statistical methods.
vA declining trend of interest rates has been crucial for the profitable expansion of financial activities for their own sake. Since assets are valued with reference to interest rates, the falling trend in interest rates since the mid-eighties has delivered large profits to the banks and their financial customers.
The ground-level which inhibits further credit expansion is zero interest rates, a condition that has existed for seven years. Despite talk of negative rates, the impetus lower interest rates give to expansion of the financial side of the economy has already come to an end. Attempts by the Fed to raise interest rates, even slightly, should be considered in this light.
The next financial crisis could manifest itself in the coming months. The time-line of monetary expansion reflected in the chart above is at risk of being terminated by events. It so, it will mark the end of current central bank monetary policies and state control of markets, as free markets reassert realistic pricing. Government bond yields will normalise, stock markets will fall, and banks will almost certainly fail. Supressed commodity prices will rise as banks, short through paper contracts, will be forced to close their positions. Credit default swaps, where the banks are collectively exposed to losses when interest rates rise, will be a further source of grief.
When something as epochal as this happens, we can expect the macroeconomic establishment to be clueless with respect to the problem itself and its scale. Central banks will naturally revert to the Lehman remedy of further monetary expansion to cover the losses, whose enormous scale will not be apparent at the outset. This time, not only will the fiat money quantity accelerate into hyper-drive, it will be impossible to maintain the purchasing-power of the world�s reserve currency, therefore threatening that of all the others.
This month�s FOMC rate decision will not change this outlook, but it could bring forward the timing.
https://www.goldmoney.com/our-research/goldmoney-insights/the-fed-s-in-a-bind?gmrefcode=gata
I see our media is monstrously, seriously, exaggerating the RAF’s two planes’ effect on Erdogan’s oil thefts from Iraq. Now Mrs Merkel is going to obliterate the enemy with one battleship! Ha!
Meanwhile, Russia Iran and Hizbollah secure the moral and actual high ground. There will be nowhere left to land a ship or troops and nothing left to obliterate for these ‘johnny come latelys.
So we go in as part of NATO, but NATO shot down a Russian Plane, THAT’S US the UK. and we are guilty of blasting a Russian plane out of the sky. Make no bones about it.. In his quest for War ,Cameron and his cabal will stop at nothing.
Chairman of U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee: �Either [Turkey] Shouldn�t Be in NATO or We Shouldn�t�
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher – Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats – wrote last week:
Not radical Islam, but the Russians have been portrayed to us as the villains in this chapter of history. Yet our government demonstrates a lack of will, incompetence, or both, in confronting the most monstrous of the radical Islamic marauders now spilling vast quantities of innocent blood in the Middle East � as well as in Africa and France.
When Russia courageously stepped into the breach we should have been applauding its willingness to confront ISIS. Instead, we continue to denigrate Russians as if they were still the Soviet Union and Putin, not Islamic terrorists, our most vicious enemy.
So now we see the travesty of a harsh condemnation of the Russians for introducing air strikes against terrorists who will murder Americans if they get the chance.
Yes, Russia does this to protect Syria�s authoritarian Assad regime, which has close ties to Moscow. So what?
Assad, like Iraq�s Saddam Hussein, is no threat to the United States or the Western world. If Assad is forced out of power he will eventually be replaced by an Islamic terrorist committed to raining down mayhem on Western countries.
Today we witness the spectacle of American decision- makers, in and out of the Obama administration, joining forces with a Turkish regime that grows more supportive of the radical Islamist movement. There is ample evidence of President Erdogan�s complicity in ISIS�s murderous rampage through Syria and Iraq.
Yet, we hold our public rebukes for the Russians, who are battling those terrorists. A Russian plane on an anti-terrorist mission did violate Turkish airspace, just as Turkish planes have strayed into Greek airspace hundreds of times over the last year. This overflight was no threat to Turkey. Still, it was shot down, as was a Russian helicopter on the way to rescue the downed Russian pilot.
Why do Americans feel compelled to kick Russia in the teeth? Russia�s military is attacking an enemy that would do us harm. Why ignore the hostile pro-terrorist maneuvering of Turkish strongman Erdogan?
President Obama is wrong. American politicians who try to sound tough at Russia�s expense in this case are not watching out for the long-term interests of the United States by undermining those fighting our primary enemy, Islamic terrorists.
Russia should be applauded. Instead, it is being castigated for doing what our government is unwilling to do to confront the terrorist offensive now butchering innocent human beings from Africa, to the Middle East, to the streets of Paris.
If being in NATO means protecting Erdogan in this situation, either he shouldn�t be in NATO or we shouldn�t.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-03/chairman-us-house-foreign-affairs-subcommittee-%E2%80%9Ceither-turkey-shouldn%E2%80%99t-be-nato-or-w
I caught the end of yesterday’s Keiser report on RT. They were contrasting the frantic rush to bomb goodness-knows-who in Syria (supposedly ISIL at present) with the absolute refusal to address the role of London as the world’s most corrupt money laundering centre and the services it provides to those who seek to kill us.
I’m not sure how Keiser gets away with it sometimes but if you are fed up with the lazy, unquestioning lickspittles at the BBC then it is a breath of fresh air to hear someone speak the truth and to hell with the consequences.
During WW2 Lord Haw Haw used to broadcast German propaganda. He was executed after the war. Now our own (licence fee paid for) BBC etc does the same job for equally malign but secret foreign forces and global corporates.
We now have to look to Russia Today and the likes of Max Keiser to get the truth. How sad
World collapses around Cameron and he’s worried about how to rename the enemy!