Zeynab Alshelh is an Australian Muslim. She’s twenty-three years old and a medical student, who recently travelled over 9,000 miles to “show solidarity with local Muslim women” in the South of France. Clad in a ‘burkini’, she sauntered onto a beach near Nice and was apparently upset by the reaction of French people there.
According to a report by the BBC:
Ms Alshelh said she and her family travelled to France to learn more about the situation and see if there was “anything that we can do to help these girls just live a normal life”.
The video footage aired on the Channel 7 show Sunday Night [in Australia] showed a man threatening to call the police if they did not leave the beach in Villeneuve-Loubet.
Other beachgoers gesture at her or make disapproving comments.
“They weren’t happy with us being there, even though it was on the beach that the burkini ban was overturned,” Ms Alshelh said.
“It starts off at the beach and God knows where it ends.”
Ms Alshelh said the view that Muslim women who choose to cover their hair or face are oppressed was false.
“I just find it ridiculous,” she told Channel 7.
“It is a symbol of my faith, it is a symbol of my religion, it is a symbol of Islam and to go out there and wear the hijab, it helps people focus on what’s inside rather than what’s on the outside.” [1]
It seems that Ms Alshelh is perplexed by the reaction of the French beachgoers. Surely she might have expected it? Or, maybe the truth is that she fully knew what the reaction would be and deliberately provoked it?
France is a secular country and does not countenance blatant ‘symbols of religion’. Perhaps if she had been at the promenade in Nice on July 14th 2016 and witnessed the carnage of over eighty innocent people being slaughtered by a professed member of her ‘religion’, or in Paris on November 13th last year when one hundred and thirty were butchered in cold blood, she might not find the reaction she received so perplexing.
There are very few Muslims in the world who’ve publicly condemned the bloodthirsty antics of those who find the twisted ideology of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi appealing, and her religion has been mostly silent when non-Muslim lives have been lost at the hands of these maniacal butchers.
When we who are not of your faith, Ms Alshelh, see you and your fellow Muslims marching united in the condemnation of ISIS; when we hear your voices echoing from the rooftops of your mosques defying the evil that has spawned from your Koran, and standing in solidarity with the victims of that evil; when you are prepared to throw aside your hijabs in comprehension of the dark atrocities they have come to represent to the non-Muslim world, then you will find yourself welcome on the beaches of France, and elsewhere.
Ms Alshelh says the hijab “helps people focus on what’s inside rather than what’s on the outside”. She’s wrong. The hijab has become a symbol of hate, terror, and evil injustice. Don’t blame the French people for that, Ms Alshelh, turn your anger instead on the perpetrators – those who’ve turned your holy garment into a vile, blood-stained, symbol.
Perhaps you should have given France a miss and travelled instead to the home of ISIS, to throw your burkini in the face of al-Baghdadi. But no, to do that would mean a tortuous death, or sexual enslavement.
At least in France you were only asked to leave the beach.
On Tuesday September 13th 2016, the British ex-Prime Minister, David Cameron, resigned his position as a member of the British Parliament and left politics completely. He cited his reason as not wishing to be “a distraction” to the government’s forthcoming agenda.
On Wednesday September 14th 2016, another much more far-reaching reason became apparent when a parliamentary foreign affairs committee report was published on the intervention in Libya by Britain and France in 2011. It’s conclusions were damning:
In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi.
This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element.
By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.
Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy. [1]
That was merely the opening summary of the report, which goes to on to lay much of the blame for the present situation in Libya on Cameron, and the French president of the time, Nicolas Sarkozy:
On 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State:
According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following
issues:
a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
b. Increase French influence in North Africa,
c. Improve his internal political situation in France,
d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.
The sum of four of the five factors identified by Sidney Blumenthal equated to the French national interest. The fifth factor was President Sarkozy’s political self-interest.
The story of intervention in Libya is a repeat of the intervention in Iraq in 2002-2003.
Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate. Former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Richards of Herstmonceux confirmed that intelligence on the composition of the rebel militias was not “as good as one would wish.” He observed that “We found it quite difficult to get the sort of information you would expect us to get.” We asked Lord Richards whether he knew that Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011. He replied that that “was a grey area”. He added that “a quorum of respectable Libyans were assuring the Foreign Office” that militant Islamist militias would not benefit from the rebellion. He acknowledged that “with the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best.”
The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion should not have been the preserve of hindsight. Libyan connections with transnational militant extremist groups were known before 2011, because many Libyans had participated in the Iraq insurgency and in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda.
Bad intelligence, lies perpetrated by “a quorum of respectable Libyans” for their own ends (remember Chalabi & Co of Iraq?), no taking account of religious extremism, are all too reminiscent of the Iraq debacle. Only this time Britain and France were the instigators, although the U.S. fully supported the actions and, indeed, were instrumental in expanding the terms of U.N. Resolution 1973 from just a ‘no-fly zone’ to “all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians.
In fact, the supposed attacks on civilians were never going to materialize. Although Gaddafi made terrible threats against those civilians in rebel-held areas, all the evidence suggests it was no more than Gaddafi-bluster:
Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence…Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.
On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.” Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians. Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.
As in Syria, the so-called ‘rebels’ in Libya were composed of many factions, including large numbers of Islamic extremists with their own agenda. Rebel factions fed western media lies and fabrications that governments appeared only too happy to believe. This is almost certainly true of the civil war in Syria, also.
An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that “…much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.”
Regime change was definitely not part of U.N. Resolution 1973, but “one thing morphed almost ineluctably into the other” as the campaign developed its own momentum, said one of the committee’s expert witnesses, Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Richards:
He expressed his concern about the strategic direction of the campaign in March 2011:
During Benghazi, an increasingly influential set of people started saying, “If we’re really going to protect civilians, you’ve got to get rid of Gaddafi.” That is when I said, “Well, is that really sensible? What are we going to do if he goes?” and all the things that I had learned through bitter experience. That was rather ignored in the majority view, which was, “We need to get rid of him, simply to make sure we meet the political aim of preventing large-scale civilian loss of life.
When the then Prime Minister David Cameron sought and received parliamentary approval for military intervention in Libya on 21 March 2011, he assured the House of Commons that the object of the intervention was not regime change. In April 2011, however, he signed a joint letter with United States President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy setting out their collective pursuit of “a future without Gaddafi”.
All told, this report is a damning indictment of former Prime Minister David Cameron. In many ways he was as much at fault in his decision making over Libya as was ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair over Iraq.
Interventionism in the Middle East and Africa has been western (U.S.) policy for the last five decades. It has produced nothing but suffering and death for innocent people, numerous failed states, and the rise of Islamic extremism determined to hit back at Western nations it sees as invading infidels.
If Western leaders feel it necessary to intervene in civil wars within other countries they should, as a matter of necessity, formulate strict guidelines for rebuilding and restructuring as per the culture of the country and not, in their own cultural image. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and now Libya, neither of these factors was even considered.
Colin Powell once quoted a saying known as the Pottery Rule: “If you break it – you own it.” It was a reference to the Iraq War. Powell was wrong. You can’t own a country that wasn’t yours to start with, you can only subjugate it. The rule should be: “If you break it – you MEND it.”
David Cameron and other Western leaders have proved themselves expert at nation breaking, then walking away and leaving a mess behind in the vain hope that someone else might come along and fix it.
Invariably, those who do come along afterwards are only intent on rape, pillage, enslavement, and slaughter.
NOTE: All quotes in this article are from the recent U.K. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report: “Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options.” The report runs to forty-nine pages and should be read in full for a complete understanding of the factors (including deceptions) that led up to the intervention in Libya in 2011 and its resulting failures. A link to the report is provided below.
According to Liam Fox, Britain’s Minister for International Trade, “Britain is too lazy and too fat with businessmen preferring golf on a Friday afternoon to trying to boost the country’s prosperity…”
Judging from the belly hanging over that trouser belt, I guess it takes one to know one – as they say. Except, according to Innocent Drinks co-founder Richard Reed, Fox has never done a day’s business in his life:
“”He is a representative of us, of this country, and he turns round and slags us off, calling us fat and lazy,” he said on BBC Radio 4’s Today. “He’s never done a day’s business in his life.”
“He’s talking about business people here who were absolutely clear in saying that we want, and do export, and that’s why we do want to remain in the EU… I just think: ‘how dare he talk down the country that he damaged, how dare he’.
“He’s a terrible, terrible voice for British business.”
Mr Reed added that he’d “never played golf in [his] life”. [1]
It would seem that Theresa May’s government is in some disarray following her appointments of Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, and David Davies (all ardent supporters of the Brexit campaign) to government departments: the Foreign Office (Johnson), and two that never existed before – ‘International Trade’ (Fox) and ‘Exiting the European Union’ (Davies).
Fox and Johnson are already at each other’s throats over a letter sent by Fox to Johnson demanding the Foreign Office hand over some of its responsibilities (economic diplomacy) to Fox’s International Trade Department. Prime Minister May’s had to step in and separate them.
Liam Fox has been hand-in-glove with corporate interests in the United States for many years. His involvement with the now (ostensibly) defunct ‘Atlantic Bridge’ “charity” caused his forced resignation from David Cameron’s government in 2011:
In a speech to Atlantic Bridge members in New York in November 2002, Fox warned “the natural desire to avoid conflict has been reinforced by an innate pacificism in many sections of western society, especially in continental Europe”. He told his audience: “For too many, peace has come to mean simply the absence of war. We cannot allow that corrosive view to go unchallenged.”
Fox also used the speech to criticise the NHS, which he said had “responded to a funding increase of almost 11% with only a 2% increase in activity”.
He was preaching to the converted. The Atlantic Bridge’s addresses and conferences were all about promoting market liberalisation. A typical theme of one conference, held in both Los Angeles and Pittsburgh in July 2006, was entitled “Killing the Golden Goose – How Regulation and Legislation are Damaging Wealth Creation”. An earlier address in 2003 asked: “How Much Health Care Can We Afford?”
Members of the Galen Institute, a thinktank which promotes “freemarket ideas in health”, attended its conferences while the failed bank Lehman Brothers, sponsored at least one event, as did the powerful neocon thinktank the Heritage Foundation.
But in 2007 the Atlantic Bridge’s relationship with big business entered a new realm, one that threatens to pose uncomfortable questions for Cameron and his party. The organisation signed a special partnership with the American Legislative Council (Alec), whose motto is “Limited government, free markets, federalism”. [2]
Liam Fox addressing members of Atlantic Bridge – 2011
Many other Tory powermongers were embroiled with ‘Atlantic Bridge’ (Margaret Thatcher was once its patron). As the Guardian article from 2011 continues:
Admittedly, senior Tory cabinet ministers had been scrambling to distance themselves from the Atlantic Bridge long before the scandal brought Fox down. The organisation’s website – and that of its sister charity across the Atlantic – has been dismantled. But old caches of the site reveal that, while [they were] shadow ministers, George Osborne [Brexit], Michael Gove [Brexit], Chris Grayling [Brexit] and William Hague [Eurosceptic, but U-turned in the home straight] were all on its advisory council alongside Fox, its UK chairman. All four stood down as awkward questions over its political activities, which contravened charity laws, resulted in the organisation being wound up. [my bold] [2]
One can only wonder why, given his past record, Theresa May allowed Liam Fox back into government. Unless, of course, she agrees with his views and is following a Thatcherite agenda.
It isn’t difficult to understand why Fox was so supportive of Brexit. He no doubt stands to be rewarded handsomely if he opens the door to American corporate interests in the U.K.. The National Health Service is a prime example. Its government man-in-charge, Jeremy Hunt, is just as keen on American privatization of the service as the U.S. insurance and medical services wolves slavering at the gate in anticipation of future financial killings within the U.K..
The British people might care to remember that in 1948 the Tory Party, then in opposition to a Labour government led by Clement Atlee, voted en masse against the establishment of the National Health Service. It’s taken nearly seventy years, but now they finally seem to be getting their way.
While ‘Atlantic Bridge’ is officially dead, ex-members are still busily working to fulfill its aims, both in Britain and the United States. U.K. and U.S. politics are tumbling headlong into the chasm of corporate power.
At this stage one can only wonder just how much worse it can all get.
