The Rise of North Yemeni Islamism in Birmingham, UK.

One of the reasons generally given for the rise of extreme Islamism is the Arab defeat at the hands of Israel in 1967 in the six day war.

It is theorised that, from this defeat (or Naksa as the Arabs refer to it), loomed the beginning of the end of Arab Nationalism and other, largely secular ideologies, which had hitherto led the struggle to liberate the Middle East from western domination and zionist colonialism. This defeat created the vacuum political Islamism has supposedly filled since.

This theory tends to be strongly insinuated at and espoused by British writers such as Seamus Milne, Jason Burke and the late Chris Harman.[1]

The theory overlooks one very important British initiated strategy[2] played out in the Middle East and South East Asia during the Cold War. Continue reading

The Perfidious Comparison: Why Barack Obama is not another Tony Blair.

Barack Obama’s election victory was greeted with a sigh of relief by most of the world, glad to see the back of George W. Bush.  In theUnited Kingdom,America’s first African-American president was also heralded in with a good royal dose of cynicism by political commentators.

Whether it be that the honourable political commentator was of right-wing or left-wing persuasion, all agreed, the euphoria which greeted Barack Obama’s victory in November 2008 was comparable to that which greeted United Kingdom’s Tony Blair upon his first election victory in 1997. As such, and imperially armed with this superficial wisdom, they grandly implied that only disillusionment will materialise from the euphoria of Barack Obama’s victory. British commentators as politically diverse as John Pilger, Richard Littlejohn, A.C.Grayling, Marina Hyde, John Rentoul, Charles Moore and others drew this turgid comparison. Yet a close inspection of certain statistical facts and campaigning strategies which brought both candidates to power, could not be further apart. Continue reading

Denying Democracy

There is methodical logic in Iran’s supreme Mullah singling out Britain and the British government’s funded BBC Persia as the main foreign culprits in encouraging and fomenting sections of Iranian society to further actively question the outcome of the recent election.Britain’s alleged attitude toIran in the recent crises is no surprise to anyone who has merely glided into the history of theUK’s relationship with the Iranian people and indeed the people of theMiddle East.

A people’s right to question the outcome of strongly perceived electoral irregularities is beyond dispute. Yet what moral right does the British government possess in carrying the beacon of pro-democracy agitation? The answer is a resolute and definite none.

Britain, with all its historical involvement in that part of the world, simply has no record in implementing democracy in theMiddle East.  Indeed, out of the major powers, only Britain had had the political power to impose democracy in the early histories of the modern Middle Eastern states. Continue reading

George W. Bush vs. British Anti-War Movement.

“We insist on the right to bomb n*gg**s.”

                                                British Prime Minister David Lloyd George.

With the George W. Bush era now finally drawing to a close and as the Barack Obama presidential era begins to gravitate upon us we need to remind ourselves of a moment when George W. Bush spoke a truth about the Iraq War, which is rarely, if ever, acknowledged.

George W. Bush will be rightly remembered for launching the invasion of Iraq 2003 which led to that nations’s almost complete destruction.  He was joined by the British state in this criminal and illegal endeavour.  Both the American and British governments launched a propaganda campaign to justify war on Iraq.   The most imaginative British contribution to this campaign was to authorise the intelligence about Iraq purchasing Uranium from Niger.  When the CIA refused to endorse this intelligence, Continue reading

The Myth of Partner, the Lie of Poodle

The prevailing paradigm for debate in the British press and beyond vis-à-vis the British invasion and occupation of Iraq with the United States five years ago, continues to singles out two main reasons on why the British joined the invasion.  The first reason, upheld by those who advocated the invasion, is that Britain is the United States’s most loyal and principled partner and as such should stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the Americans; the second reason claims that Britain tagged along with the United States because it is a subservient and pliant ‘poodle’.  I’d argue that the two contending positions are two sides of the same coin and that to explain away Britain’s contribution to the invasion solely in reference to its relationship with the United States is very misleading.

To begin, Continue reading