A couple of weeks ago in this newsletter, (Jonathan Arnott e-Newsletter.) I
featured an article by Neil Hamilton which gave reasons for opposing Britain
getting involved in the situation in Syria. UKIP’s Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall
MEP has championed this cause for months, being the first UKIP representative to
mention it on Question Time as far back as February. Now Paul has used his
weekly newspaper column (in the Sunday Sport, hence the refreshingly direct
writing style) to reiterate UKIP’s view on the subject:We once
had an empire that covered nearly a quarter of the globe. Although it had its
faults, it still exported democracy, the English language and the rule of law.
Foreign policy was the key to building and maintaining this empire. We had to
negotiate hard, make the right alliances and, in extreme cases, go to war. We
also had to be supremely clever and careful to maximise our advantage and
protect the empire and our people at home.
Back then these decisions,
which meant life or death for our country, were made by political giants like
Gladstone, Lloyd George and Churchill. Now we have William Hague. Under his
guidance foreign policy has gone stark raving bonkers. Last week, our William
went to Brussels to meet foreign ministers from other EU countries to talk about
the civil war in Syria. Britain and France wanted the Syrian arms embargo
lifted.
The embargo stops us giving weapons to the Syrian Free Army –
or 'rebels' as the BBC calls them – and Hague really wants to arm them to the
teeth. Unbelievably, he won the argument and our continental cousins caved in.
I'm astonished because Hague usually gets shafted when we send him to negotiate
with the EU. Why on Earth would we want to give arms to the Syrian 'rebels'?
(I'll call them 'rebels' – some call them terrorists). I am no fan of the
existing Syrian regime. It is led by the Assad dynasty. It is undemocratic and
has a list of human rights abuses as long as your arm. They are people you
wouldn't want to cross. The problem is that there is growing proof the 'rebels'
are actually no better.
There are reports that they have used
chemical weapons. There is also awful footage of rebels executing government
soldiers. Rebel Commander Abu Sakkar can be seen on YouTube eating the raw
heart of one the the government's soldiers. There are also suggestions that the
rebels have raped, pillaged and run townships into the ground through violence
and corruption. Even more worrying, there is evidence they are linked to Al
Qaeda. The CIA say one of the groups that forms the Syrian Free Army, the Liwa
al Tawhid, has the backing of Al Qaeda. Another group, Al Nusra Front, has just
given its support to the head of Al Qaeda, Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri. Let us not
forget this is the same Al Qaeda that we fought against in Mali and the same one
that inspired the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.
The British people
aren't as stupid as Mr Hague. A poll last weekend showed only 24 per cent of
Brits want to see us arm the 'rebels'. The rest of us know it will lead to more
deaths of innocent Syrians or with British soldiers on the ground. And what if
we topple the Syrian government? We could end up with an Islamic fundamentalist
state that will give its support to the Al Qaeda network. And they will be armed
– with the weapons we have given them.
Back then these decisions, which meant life or death for our country, were made by political giants like Gladstone, Lloyd George and Churchill. Now we have William Hague. Under his guidance foreign policy has gone stark raving bonkers. Last week, our William went to Brussels to meet foreign ministers from other EU countries to talk about the civil war in Syria. Britain and France wanted the Syrian arms embargo lifted.
The embargo stops us giving weapons to the Syrian Free Army – or 'rebels' as the BBC calls them – and Hague really wants to arm them to the teeth. Unbelievably, he won the argument and our continental cousins caved in. I'm astonished because Hague usually gets shafted when we send him to negotiate with the EU. Why on Earth would we want to give arms to the Syrian 'rebels'? (I'll call them 'rebels' – some call them terrorists). I am no fan of the existing Syrian regime. It is led by the Assad dynasty. It is undemocratic and has a list of human rights abuses as long as your arm. They are people you wouldn't want to cross. The problem is that there is growing proof the 'rebels' are actually no better.
There are reports that they have used chemical weapons. There is also awful footage of rebels executing government soldiers. Rebel Commander Abu Sakkar can be seen on YouTube eating the raw heart of one the the government's soldiers. There are also suggestions that the rebels have raped, pillaged and run townships into the ground through violence and corruption. Even more worrying, there is evidence they are linked to Al Qaeda. The CIA say one of the groups that forms the Syrian Free Army, the Liwa al Tawhid, has the backing of Al Qaeda. Another group, Al Nusra Front, has just given its support to the head of Al Qaeda, Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri. Let us not forget this is the same Al Qaeda that we fought against in Mali and the same one that inspired the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.
The British people aren't as stupid as Mr Hague. A poll last weekend showed only 24 per cent of Brits want to see us arm the 'rebels'. The rest of us know it will lead to more deaths of innocent Syrians or with British soldiers on the ground. And what if we topple the Syrian government? We could end up with an Islamic fundamentalist state that will give its support to the Al Qaeda network. And they will be armed – with the weapons we have given them.
.jpeg)