Multiculturalism based civil wars, multiculturalist terrorists and dictatorships in the Middle East: the Chilcot report on the Iraq War
|Above: Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch's Top Secret report of 30 January 1950 comparing Hiroshima to WWII air raids, Number of Atomic Bombs Equivalent to the Last War Air Attacks on Great Britain and Germany (U. K. National Archives, document HO225/16).|
The nearest this came to being published, and therefore to offering a third option (civil defence) to cause a breakdown in 2002-3 of Prime Minister Tony Blair's "binary choice" between annihilation or war, was when Bill Massey of the Sunday Express told me he wrote an article which was spiked by the editor due to a dismissive "response" quote he included from ill-informed Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, who falsely claimed (according to Bill Massey) that everything I had found out was debunked by hydrogen bombs, thus ignoring my fact that MIRV warhead yields are low and that the scaling of the blast arrival time as a function of overpressure, the heat energy delivery and fallout arrival from the higher cloud, gives more time for civil defence countermeasures; for example windows breaking at 1 psi occurs just 0.4 seconds after a 1 ton conventional explosion, 4 seconds after a 1 kt nuclear weapon, and 40 seconds after a 1 megaton explosion. Hatred of this truth and anyone who tells it still dominates "debates". Therefore, far from having an intelligent "debate" or advocating honest discussion, the "top" so-called "Nuclear Expert" Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman had dishonestly/incompetently censored the facts. (Echoes of today's Nuclear Secrecy!)
The BBC consequently still continues to claim that Tony Blair was correct about having a "binary choice" between either (1) doing nothing or (2) going to war in 2003. There is no discussion or debate about the third option, the Clement Attlee June 1950 option, civil defence, which was based on the Top Secret 30 January 1950 report, HO225/16, a report that remained Top Secret for eight years until 1958, and was only eventually declassified in 1980. I've explained this before (here and here) but let's go over the error in the mainstream "debate" yet again, since Sir John Chilcot makes no mention of the third option, civil defence to deter/disable terrorist slaughter. Even as recently as 1980, the UK government responded to Russia's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan not by invading Russia, but instead by civil defence such as issuing Protect and Survive 1980 and Domestic Nuclear Shelters 1982:
|British Government handbook on Domestic Nuclear Shelters, 1982, an alternative to having an immediate war against nuclear armed Russia in Afghanistan!|
|Air raids: what you must know, what you must do, by the British Government for conventional air raids (instead of running away from Britain), with Foreword by Sir John Anderson, 1940 (prior to Nazi Blitz on London from September 1940).|
|UK National Archives WORK 95/9 data on cheap deep shelters in London for conventional and nuclear war, a very low cost alternative to spending Sir John Chilcot's criticism of the expenditure £9.2 billion invading Iraq for ending an alleged threat from weapons of mass destruction threat which in the end turns out fake, and which leads to terrorist attacks instead.|
Above: map showing the distribution of Sunni and Shia sects of Islam which have wrecked terrorist insurgency havoc upon Iraq and Syria after efforts began to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad. Note that multiculturalism causes civil wars: a hundred years ago, Greece and Turkey were like Syria and Iraq today, with terrorism between their two religious sects, which was only resolved in the 1920's by an agreement between the countries to transfer all Christians into Greece and all Moslems into Turkey, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1924 (as a result of its defeat in WWI).
This was not racist segregation, and it was not apartheid. It is simply common sense: keeping people with different unprovable belief systems apart, to end violence and terrorism. (If you put foxes in the same pen as the chickens, or lions in the same enclosure as sheep, you don't get multicultural utopia: you will get a massacre of the weaker by the stronger. That's no peace plan; it's simply a fact to be pointed out to dishonest utopians.) In 2011, 85% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims were Sunni and 15% were Shia.
Traditionally, the minority Shia sect has contained extremists. In 634 AD, Syria (including districts of Damascus, Homs, Palestine and Jordan) was conquered by Islam. Then, after the Christian Crusades to retake the area, Shia extremists called Hassassins often shortened to "Assassins" (political murderers in the modern use of this originally slang term), behaved as terrorist insurgents against the Christians. Finally, Egyptian Mamluks destroyed the remaining Crusaders and in 1516 Syria was conquered by the Ottoman Empire of Turkey, which lasted for four hundred years, until World War I.
Relatively stable countries in the Middle East are those with minimal multiculturalism, for example Jordan (94% Sunni) and Saudi Arabia (90% Sunni, only 10% Shia), and Iran (90% Shia, although beset with some terrorism and tough police law enforcement in response to keep control). Multiculturalism reasons for civil wars:
- a feeling of being under oppression, as with the Protestant versus Catholic divisions in Northern Ireland 1916-1992,
- a minority dictator using force against a majority of a different culture, as in Syria where dictator Assad is a Shia member, representing only the 13% of Syrians who are Shia (against 74% of Syrians who are Sunni),
- a more mix of cultures as in Iraq (70% Shia, 30% Sunni), with - as the map above shows - a geographical separation and a supply of foreign armed freedom fighters on each side crossing the borders into the country without hindrance (the idea behind the Schengen Agreement of the multiculturalist European Union, a "political price" condition of membership for new members of the European single market),
- Turkey is 73% Sunni, so it is also similar to an inverted version of Iraq, thus the recent terrorism which is made worse by its soft border into Syria. Notice from the map above that the Northern part of Iraq is predominantly Sunni, and is surrounded by borders with predominantly Sunni countries: Turkey, Syria (despite minority Shia dictator Assad!), Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which feed the Sunni extremism. Notice also that the south of Iraq is predominantly Shia, which is supported by border with Shia controlled Iran.
- Key wars in the twentieth century were also invoked by similar problem of geographical separation of two different cultures in a single country, and we have the same thing with the Ukraine where pro-Russians live in the East and pro-Europeans in the West of the country. It becomes very easy for a neighbouring country to "lend a hand" to its ex pats living abroad if there is any reason for hostility towards them from the rest of the country! For example, the Nazi invasion to "protect" the nearly 4 million Germans who populated Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia in September 1938 after appeasement by Prime Minister Chamberlain, was a classic. If you live next door to a country that turns into a dictatorship and passes laws against Jews, then hostility against that country and its extremist citizens living in your country (near the border) rises. That country then uses any acts of terror against any of its own citizens in your country, as an excuse or pretext to invade your country and take over, to protect its own foreign nationals living in your country. This is also very similar in principle to the Cold War communist insurgency problems in Korea (which ended in a partition of the country into halves in 1953) and Vietnam, 1965-75 (which ended in the defeat of democracy by communist dictators, despite the waste of 8 megatons of conventional weapons and countless casualties). The January 2014 invasion of Crimea by Russia is a textbook example of the problem.
In other words, what we need and want to stop the wars are: WALLS TO STOP INSURGENTS COMING IN, credible deterrents (W79 neutron weapons) to deter/stop tanks from coming in, with civil defence to deter or stop coercion from threats of weapons of mass destruction, and if everything else fails, a relocation of terrorist extremists to separate people with different belief systems from fighting, or finally, as a last resort, a change in borders to create states with less multicultural hatred.
None of these key findings are present in today's populist media mindset or the reasoning of Sir John Chilcot's report on the cause of the Iraq War. Whether Saddam had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in 2003 is irrelevant (he could well have hidden them from weapons inspectors in the vast deserts of Iraq, because by definition they are relatively small compared to conventional weapons of similar capability, and we know he had then when he gassed the Iranians in 1984 and the Kurds in 1988). The "binary" two-option question of "whether we should gone to war or not" in 2003 is also irrelevant, because it omits the third option of civil defence plus credible deterrence, the option that worked in the Cold War against the USSR!
Leo McKinstry, commenting on the new July 2016 Chilcot report on Iraq War, states:
"Tony Blair was ... a radical ideologue who caused destruction abroad and upheaval at home through his attachment to the doctrine of globalisation. His reckless, blood-soaked military interventions overseas were mirrored by the revolution he ruthlessly imposed on British society through the twin dogmas of mass immigration [cause of the civil wars already noted above] and multiculturalism. ... But that is typical of Blair's 'one world' doctrine, which was irredeemably hostile to the concepts of nationhood, sovereignty, patriotism and borders. His eagerness to invade Iraq was matched by his disdain for our British identity, reflected in his devotion to the EU [European Union; often called the EUSSR in England] ... His was the government that established a Commission on The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, which in 2000 came to the very Blairite conclusions that Britishness was a 'racist' term and that the United Kingdom should no longer be viewed as a nation, but merely as 'a community within communities'. ... The Home Office admits that it is clueless about the number of illegal migrants here ... official statistics ... are as unconvincing as the alarmist warnings in the notorious 'dodgy dossier' about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Self-deluded and cynical Blair misled the British people about the war, just as he grossly misled us about the impact and benefits of mass immigration. His promises of prosperity for Britain have proved to be as empty as his pledges of democracy for Iraq. The Blairite era of open borders has meant, for too many people, falling living standards and unaffordable housing as well as the loss of mutual trust, which is essential to social cohesion. ... Last month's Brexit Vote [52% of Britain voted on 23 June 2016 to leave the EUSSR] was an inspirational rejection of his ruinous philosophy - this week's Chilcot report has been a forensic exposure of his biggest failure."
- Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, 7 July 2016, page 12.
Sir John Chilcot found that the price of removing one man from power in Iraq and turning the entire region into terrorist chaos was at least £9.2 billion, that Tony Blair's pro-war propaganda report was "written in more direct less nuanced language than the JIC assessments", and that Blair had already on 28 June 2002 written a "Secret-Personal" classified commitment (kept secret from the British public) to invade Iraq, which naturally hastened their invasion plans and decreased the time available to plan for post-war security. The fact is, the £9.2 billion and many thousands of casualties Iraq war price tag, though small compared to the present £1.7 trillion national debt, was nevertheless massive compared to effective peace measures to prevent dictatorial invasions/threats like W79 neutron bombs, civil defence and border controls that actually have been PROVED in the Cold War to prevent and deter invasions and terrorism. We agree therefore with the rational response of Sarah O'Connor, sister of British soldier Robert killed in that war, who on 6 July 2016 stated on TV after publication of the Chilcot report: "There is one terrorist in this world that the world needs to be aware of, and his name is Tony Blair."