Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Tagged under: , ,

The Myanmar Deception

Sean Bresnahan, Chairman of the Thomas Ashe Society in Omagh and a regular contributor to The Pensive Quill, places the emerging narrative on Myanmar in its wider strategic context. He writes here in a personal capacity.
Aung San Suu Kyi.

With the mainstream media ramping up its coverage of the goings on in Myanmar, using craven slaves as Bob Geldof to serve its deceptive agenda, as anti-imperialists and socialists we must not be misled and must wonder on the real objective. As always in this regard, we must view what is happening in its concrete ideological setting.

Mineral-rich Myanmar is a key strategic prize for whoever can assert dominance there. That is the backdrop as to why the Rohingya issue is gaining prominence in the Western media. Like Kosovo in the '90s and Syria today, 'the Rohingya' are a means to an end for the powers-that-be – an end without relation to genuine humanitarian concerns and born instead of imperialism.

The Suu Kyi Government's embrace of the 'New Silk Road' is the true reason Geldof and his ilk have been spurred into action. It is for this reason our news feeds are awash with all things Myanmar. Their feigned concern has zero to do with the Rohingya Muslims and everything to do with China. Jihadi terrorism, as in both Libya and Syria, is being fomented for this same purpose. Myanmar will not be let 'fall' to Beijing without resistance or consequence. 'Balkanisation' is on the cards should it prove necessary.

Missing from the picture presented us here is what is really happening in Rakhine State – what the mainstream media prefers we never see. Missing here is that, as carried through elsewhere in recent times – from Iraq through Libya and then on through Syria – Al Qaeda-type terrorists are being employed as 'freedom fighters' to bend the regime to the demands of the West.

As in the Middle East before it, the propaganda arm of imperialism – Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others of their ilk (supposedly independent non-governmental agencies but in reality components of the imperialist matrix) – in turn promote a one-sided narrative without regard for objectivity. This serves to set in place a pretext for whatever has been planned for the Bay of Bengal and its environs.

The genius of this strategy is twofold. On the one hand it fosters instability, 'bleeding' and draining the resources of the subject and serving thus as a shot across the bows – 'turn back before its too late' – while on the other it paves the way for direct 'humanitarian' intervention when the subject by necessity responds to the promptings, this to proceed in the event that 'warnings' issued go unheeded.

Like Syria's Assad, who also was thought primed and in their pocket, Suu Kyi's government is being targeted in this manner because it refuses to hand Myanmar to the West on a plate, as had been planned and understood. Instead it has moved closer to China and its 'One Belt One Road' initiative, this in defiance of the 'Pivot to Asia' and at the expense of Western imperialism. That is the lens through which Geldof's intervention, with the wider media focus, should be seen.

The media action in which Geldof partakes is a ratchet that serves to heighten the narrative around Myanmar. Suu Kyi and Myanmar are cast as genocidal maniacs – transgressors of human rights in the mold of Milosevic and Assad. The likely intent here is that 'R2P' be employed should they fail to 'correct their actions' (doublespeak for failing to advance the interests of the West). This narrative serves as the pretext should more direct intervention be required, as we have seen before elsewhere.

In Myanmar – a former British colony it's worth noting – there are Saudi connections to armed jihadi factions like the Rohingya Liberation Organisation. The role of Saudi Arabia in the application of terror as a tool of imperialism has by now, of course, been well established. Saudi Arabia is likewise to be noted as a former British possession and remains a vassal of the British Empire, which rules now from behind through finance imperialism.

It is no coincidence that Geldof – who incidentally has no issue with the British-backed Saudi war on Yemen – is a member of that same empire, of which he is a supposed 'Knight'. The funding of the terrorist factions in Myanmar by arch-Zionist George Soros points also to an Israeli hand, with Israel of course being yet another creature of the British Crown.

In regard to all of this, Bob Geldof and his bogus concern is a willing tool of the agenda in motion. Like those he serves, he is no humanitarian. Nor though, as some might mistakenly interpret from his ego, is this merely a case of his being full of his own attention-seeking importance. In the entirety of the picture, he is an active cog in the process of deception. Not for nothing has it been said that 'by way of deception thou shalt do war'.

The true purpose of media today is to 'train' our minds to know and care only about issues that suit the requirements of vested power and its interests. Yesterday it was Assad killing his own; now it’s Aung San Suu Kyi. The common denominator in the narrative around both is the interests of Western imperialism, of which Geldof is an agent.

Suu Kyi, like Assad before her, is in the crosshairs because she refuses to hand Myanmar over. In Syria, the issue in large part related to a need to open its economy – an economy consisting of 22 million prospective consumers – to Western business interests. With the Middle East already on fire the same is going on now in Myanmar, with the same methods being used to discredit the regime and to thus advance a wider strategic ambition relating to the 'Asia Pivot'.

Strip it all back and Suu Kyi's real crime is of no relation to her treatment of the Rohingya, regardless of the particulars of their experience under her government or the complex history of the situation in Rakhine. Her crime is simply to have not handed her country to the West as planned – to have sought out instead a rapprochement with China and the emerging 'New Silk Road'.

As others have found out to their personal misfortune, among them Libya's Qaddafi, the consequences for her well-being could be grave beyond imagine. Furthermore, Suu Kyi's fall from grace with former sponsors might well prove a harbinger for the ultimate destruction of her country, by the very same forces who not long ago were championing her as a paragon of virtue – until, that is, she began to read from the wrong script.

37 comments :

James Quigley said...

Well written and on the button. Not knowing much about the situation there but questioning the Channel 4 and mainstream narrative, it makes sense now.

grouch said...

great article bres, uve hit the nail on the head with this one. geldof is like a creep from a horrible cartoon, and like all cartoon characters, he has to have someone put words in his gob. he does what his elite handlers tell him and has made 100 million for himself since Vile Aid - another globalist scam of colossal proportions. michael hutchence rip. (i read that his lip and knuckles were busted - looks like he put up a fight before they scandalized him in death, rip michael)

I DONT LIKE GELDOF

the silicon chip inside bob's head
gets switched to overload
and now he's back in the news again
coz hes an issue with the old silk road
and Ang San dusnt understand it
she always said he was good as gold
and she can see no reason
for givin back dublins freedom
what reason do you need to be sure-ure-ure-ure-ure

tell me why
I don't like Geldof
tell me why
I don't like Geldo-o-of
Tell me why
I don't like Geldof
I want to shoo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oot
the asshole down

the media machine is kept so clean
as it lies to a waiting world
an aging rocker feels so shocked
his ego has been rocked
as his thoughts turn to his own little world
bitter sixty six - aint that a twisted bitch
a one hit wonder and a corporate snitch
he can see no reason
as he's famine profiteerin
he shud be up for treason to be sure-ure-ure-ure-ure


tell me why
I don't like Geldof
tell me why
I don't like Geldo-o-of
Tell me why
I don't like Geldof
I want to shoo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oot
the asshole down

(when i say shoot i mean take photos, as in a photo shoot)

DaithiD said...

In terms of Soros funding, he was also funding NGO's that transfered people with the same aims as the Ronhingya from Libyan waters to Europe, its impolite to ask whether this assures the host nations Myanmars recent troubles too.On top of what you say, it does make me yearn for an Irish elite, beyond political whims or profit motives, that just jealously advocates for our people.

Steve R said...

It's Buddhists knocking the shite out of Muslims due to centuries of sectarian squabbles in Myanmar. My immediate neighbours on both sides of my house are Myanmar Christians who fled due to this nonsense as well.

The People's China will raise a new 'Silk Road', but strategically Myanmar is of little importance as it will traverse mainly overland via Kazakhstan and Iran before going into Europe (or via Russia). It may be used as a maritime port but there are plenty of ports to choose from. China's raising of new Islands in the Spratley's is part of its wider reach, and anyone who has read the Art of War will understand why they are bothering with this!

But George Soros is an 'Arch-Zionist'? I don't like him but even I will say that he's been very critical of Israel and even funded NGO's that boycott Israel, not something that quite marries up with that assertion.

Barry Gilheany said...

Even by the twisted standards of the 1916 Societies this ap;logia for the genocidal persecution of the Royingha people by Buddhist nationalist extremists marks a new low. You advance not one single piece of empirical in support of your risible conspiracy theories, Sean. Just idle sloganising from today's "anti-imperialists". Are the accounts of the rapes, burnings, massacre of women and infants which Gabriel Gatehouse reported on BBC2 Newsnight on Monday lies or a modern day "Holohoax". Are the scars on the bodies of the survivors just optical illusions. i suggest you offer your scribal talents to Infowars.

Simon said...

Sean, you are correct that war crimes are judged on the whole if the transgressor is or is not a friend of the West.

However you are incorrect when you say "Suu Kyi's real crime is of no relation to her treatment of the Rohingya, regardless of the particulars of their experience under her government or the complex history of the situation in Rakhine. Her crime is simply to have not handed her country to the West as planned – to have sought out instead a rapprochement with China and the emerging 'New Silk Road'."

Her crime is being in charge of a government whose military is carrying out genocide. Genocide can never be excused.

Her crime is genocide. She may or may not suffer a different punishment than Israeli leaders who escape scot-free but it is impossible to have absolute justice. You cannot have justice without injustice.

The reason and manner of her treatment because of her actions is a different thing. Genocide cannot go unchallenged. You cannot allow leaders' involved in genocide to go unchallenged to suit your narrative any more than others can let Israel's or the USA's genocide to go unchallenged to suit their narratives. Otherwise you're as bad as each other. It is inherently wrong.

You make a valid point about injustice based on allied states but the method and substance of your argument leaves a lot to be desired.

If modern Republicanism had strayed from rights-based ideology into taking a simple truism that there is injustice in international law and exaggerating it into a conspiracy involving such diverse actors as Bob Geldof, Amnesty International, Israel, the Brits etc. no wonder it is finding it hard to recover from the GFA.

When you describe human rights organisations as "supposedly independent non-governmental agencies but in reality components of the imperialist matrix" you descend into nonsense.

Amnesty International's remit may have widened with regards to the scope of the subjects it campaigns on but it's ethos is still that of Sean McBride. It never advocates violence but hey that's all part of the conspiracy to provoke an invasion of Myanmar!

Peter said...

It is staggering that you paper over the genocide in Myanmar in such a way. A whole race is being cleansed for the crimes of a few and you offer no support?
You mention "western imperialism", what about Chinese imperialism? Are you not equally against that?

Niall said...

Sean,
People should take Geldof's stunts with a pinch of salt....the man is a narcissistic megalomaniac and perhaps you are right, he may be very well taking sides in a very complicated game or as I say he is perhaps using this to gain brownie points with his public persona as maybe there is a potential something else that hasn’t come to the fore yet but could prove embarrassing or damaging to someone who usually demands we hand over our money to him...Paradise papers perhaps!.
It's odd as you say that Aung San Suu Kyi, once heralded by the West is now demonised. Gaddafi and Assad I can understand as they had a dubious history but Suu Kyi doesn’t...being under house arrest for years is not on a par with the other two!
She currently is merely a nominal head in her country and the military are clearly in charge and have been for years. She and her party could never have promised the West anything. She actually looked very anxious in any public appearances to do with the Rohingya and I thought that may be that was to more to do with her pre-written statements....a puppet of sorts. She never ever really spoke out about their plight beforehand either. The Buddhist monks have been spreading racism against the Muslim Rohingya from as far back as the 1970's. More investigation in to her much publicised release from house arrest should shed light on this.
I remember Cameron tripping over himself in a rush to be seen with her....I often wondered why the ruling Regime released her in the first place and what was agreed between herself, them and those in the West who demanded her release.
Their association with China has long been established and with the rise of China as a world power, both economically and militarily, although more cyber warfare orientated, this could be an attempt by the West to destabilise and weaken this relationship as a pre-warning to China and especially its role in the current Korean peninsula spat, that it needs to do more with Korea and less elsewhere. Whether it is a Western plot, of which I have no doubt that the West will have some hand in this, there is a lot of proxy activity going on in that area of the world and with Israel’s and Saudi Arabia's current attempts at destabilising Lebanon, Aung San Suu Kyi position looks very similar to Lebanon's Saad Hariri. What is certain is that the military in charge decided that they were not going to abide by any international rules on conflicts and how they are to be fought and they simply forcibly removed the Rohingya to eradicate the problem. How that was done was brutal. But once again, proxy's in play and no concern for the innocent.

grouch said...

barry gilheaney -'twisted standards of 1916 societies' - wtf u on about. heres a female genocidal maniac id love to know ur opinion on (she even luks like aung san!). sadly, her kind get senior posts in academia, media and the likes here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85BKDj_1vVU

infowars is a zionist outfit so i dont think theyd hire bres. most 'alternative' sites arent what they seem. as for holohoax - i laughed my ass off over the whole elie wiesel thing lately. turns out he was never in auschwitz. keep watching bbc2 barry.

grouch said...

'Are the scars on the bodies of the survivors just optical illusions. '

my answer is i dont know, as i didnt see what u are talking about. but i do know a fake unicorn horn when i see one - funny how some victims prefer to take the bus as opposed to ambulance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1MKZYy-onE

flem said...

@Simon
in regards to Amnesty International, I'd recommend reading a series of recent artices by Tim Hayward, Professor of Environmental Political Theory at Edinburgh University and founding Director of the Just World Institute and the Ethics Forum.
He makes a strong case for how Amnesty is repeatedly failing to live up to the standards it sets out for itself with the reports it releases and is in fact fueling military conflicts which have been instigated by the West.
Here's a few:
https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/amnesty-internationals-war-crimes-in-syria/
https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/amnesty-internationals-mission-impossible/
https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/amnesty-international-on-syria-at-it-again/

sean bres said...

Rape, torture and murder are in no way acceptable and there is no suggestion otherwise. That said it's noteworthy that, rather than present proof that Suu Kyi is responsible for what she stands accused of or to admit in any way that the Buddhists – or even the Burmese state itself – might have a different story worth considering, the do-gooder know-all liberal class resort instead to a familiar type: smear and shout down anyone who steps outside their narrative.

That differing versions of events should be considered does not mean we support or deny a particular narrative either way – except of course in the minds of fanatical internet warriors who treat discussion as though a contest of intellect. We consider these things not to ‘win’ against each other but to try and establish a more complete picture for the benefit of all.

As anti-imperialists and socialists we must examine events as we meet and find them in their core ideological setting. In the instance of Myanmar, the US ‘Asia Pivot’ and its immediate rival – the Chinese ‘One Belt One Road’ – is the context to which we must look. The Zionist ‘War On Terror’ and the tactics it utilises is also important to our understanding.

(For those, by the way, who think intelligence agencies do not manipulate events to the point of their generation, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with them. The historical record, however, clearly shows us otherwise – not least in regard to the most recent history of the Middle East. The directing of jihadi terrorist groups to serve ulterior strategies is well-established and, like the collusion war in Ireland, it is not 'conspiracy theory' as some would seek to tar it.)

The campaign to isolate Aung San Suu Kyi is for travelling in the wrong direction and has no relationship, beyond that, with the crisis in Rakhine State – a crisis which, of course, is very real for its many victims. None of that is to say that there aren’t issues with the Burmese military but that the situation is much more complex than what we are being presented.

We are presented a packaged version of the Myanmar story that ignores objectivity and with it the narrative of Rakhine’s Buddhist community. Here, only the Rohingya are victims as the ‘Rogingya genocide’ is the narrative which suits the requirements of the imperialist grand design.

In this regard, similar to the Libyan and Syrian instances (also no doubt 'conspiracy theories' in the minds of the liberal left), the Rohingya genocide story is intended to manipulate the vast majority here in the West, who have next-to-no understanding of both the history and the geopolitical context of Myanmar, the Bay of Bengal or the Silk Road old and new. In and through our state of ignorance, the Zionist ‘War Of Terror’ marches on.

Perhaps we’ll be content when our naivety helps deliver a Balkanisation of Myanmar, with an Al Qaeda-run Kosovo-style ‘independent’ Rakhine – subject of course to Washington – in turn to be used as a base to push the Zionist false flag ‘Salvador Option’ deeper and deeper into Asia. Sin é and thanks to those who have taken the time to read and comment on the article, particularly 'Grouch' who's poem I thoroughly enjoyed.

James Quigley said...

I take exception to anyone using 'conspiracy theorist' as an argument. It is just another form of abuse and means nothing.
As for the conflict being one religion versus another, it is certainly not as simple as that e.g NI.

If Sir Geldof was sincere about anything he would criticise who is behind the atrocities politically, funding and arming. He would not have to go far from his home in London in that respect. Perhaps he would have done a service if he returned his 'Order of the British Empire' in condemnation for Britain being 2nd largest manufacturer of weapons in the world. Britain is a major supplier of weapons etc to Saudi Arabia who along with Israel funnel weapons into Myanmar. Here is another fine article on the subject

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ie/2017/10/shifting-blame-as-us-agenda-unfolds-in.html

Simon said...

Flem, perhaps I read those articles with a predetermined outlook. There was at least a critical eye which couldn't see any smoking gun regarding Amnesty International. For someone who criticises conditional statements the author uses many caveats and provisos himself.

A lot of maybes and if's and perhaps. No direct accusations worth their ink.

No organisation is perfect. No research is perfect. There are valid criticisms but the totality of those criticisms build a weak case against Amnesty International.

He really is grasping at straws when he says "action" can be interpreted by hawks as military action. Well, "Action" has always meant peaceful action by Amnesty International. I could interpret action as meaning flying to a war zone and doing a little dance but my interpretation would be wrong. Just like any erroneous interpretations by hawks. Amnesty are clear in language and intent what they mean by "action".

They spell out how change happens:

1. Reseach
2. Advocacy and Lobbying
3. Campaigns and actions.

The last is explained as "Through petitions, letters and protests, campaigners worldwide press for action from the people and institutions who can make change happen."

Normally these actions are directed at those who are responsible for the human rights abuses. Never are they petitions, letters and protests calling for armed intervention.

It does what it says on the tin. It says it clearly and unequivocally.

Simon said...

Sean, "The directing of jihadi terrorist groups to serve ulterior strategies is well-established and, like the collusion war in Ireland, it is not 'conspiracy theory' as some would seek to tar it."

I am not saying that intelligence agencies aren't manipulating war but to blame them, Amnesty International, Bob Geldof, channel 4 news etc as part of a large group of conspirators, in fact anyone who doesn't excuse the genocide it seems, is not well established.

That is where you wander into the realms of fantasy. There is a foundation for your argument but you build such a preposterous house of conspiracy on the foundations that your central argument is weakened. Weakened irreparably.

Collective punishment is wrong. It is just as wrong in Myanmar as it is in Ireland.






Niall said...

Sean,
You're quite right, never accept face value....perhaps that's the cynic or skeptic in me! Isn't it peculiar that the Rohingya is a genocide and yet Palestine, Gazza or the West Bank isn't!

grouch said...

that yoke Soros is funding some of the pro abortion crowd here. his tribe have been funding genocide here since menasem ben israel.

sean bres said...

Though it can sometimes expose us to ridicule – worse still to the charge of being ‘reactionary’ or ‘racist’ – it’s important no less that we try and speed a greater awareness regards geopolitics and the reality of how imperialism operates. We will not always get it right. Thanks to the Quill for affording a platform were such can be attempted no matter.

‘Human rights’ have now become an instrument of imperialist warfare, as crazy as that might sound. The agenda is manipulated on two fronts through the employ of Islamist jihadis — these having been integrated by the Western intelligence apparatus to divide target nations and in turn to usurp their resources.

On the one hand and in the first guise – that of which ‘Jihadi John’ was a notable caricature – they provide a pretext for military intervention to quash their supposed threat. On the other and in a different guise they provide a different pretext, one useful to target ‘human rights abusers’ who respond or are seen to respond to their provocations; a la Milosevic, Qaddafi and Assad. This is the grisly genius of humanitarian war.

With the routing of the ISIS and Peshmerga mercenaries in Iraq and Syria, the imperialist is getting nervous. He has no intention, however, of quitting his heinous game — knowing no other way than death and destruction as his empire threatens to unravel. Far Asia is now once more in his sights.

To speak candidly on all of this is to put yourself on a ledge to be stoned by the ultra-liberal PC Left, who have been wholly absorbed by identity politics and the cultivation of image requirement introduced us by modern propaganda methods. The ultimate purpose here is to deflect us away from the concrete setting in which events take shape.

That is the sad reality of where we are at. All their browbeating achieves is to subdue thinking that is ‘outside the box’, leaving people too afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being cast in the wrong light. Perhaps this is the real aim, even if those concerned don’t partake in this action consciously and of themselves. In this respect, petty bourgeois leftists are as much an obstacle as the bankers — perhaps, indeed, they are even more so.

They inhibit the pressing requirement that we advance a greater understanding among ordinary people as to how the world really works, this that we might from there set out toward improving the lives of working people – and with them the poor – at a structural level.

Fail to countenance the structure at core and we can change very little in regard to where it counts. My aim was towards this intent and not to determine the ins-and-outs of the crisis in Rakhine — who done what to whom; who is right or wrong; who is more worthy of our condemnation. My interest is not to dismiss those issues but to look beyond in search of solutions that the ills of our imperilled world might be found. As socialists and anti-imperialists, it is this in the end that we seek.

In the ultimate analysis, if we don’t deal with imperialism – regardless its hue – then in truth we cannot effect the changes we require as a global society and community. This is as much a necessity for the Rohingya as it is for all others. If we don’t understand imperialism and the tactics it uses in pursuit of its objects then how could we ever hope to deal with it, as we must?

Unlike they who smear and undermine for egregious personal motive, thanks to those who took the time to countenance what was actually written; not how they’d prefer it to be read. Articles as these are extremely tricky, to say the least, made all the more so in the knowledge there are those just waiting their opportunity to strike. The issues we face, though, are much too important that they and their methods be allowed to intimidate.

sean bres said...

On one other matter by way of conclusion. The views I express, both here as elsewhere, are entirely my own and in no way represent those of any political organisation I might be attached to. I would have thought this readily understood from the introductory caption but it seems it might not be so. Thanks once again to those it concerns.

wolfe tone said...

I see mr Gilheaney has turned his ire towards Myanmar now. For so long he was banging on about Assad and how we in the west should save the Syrian people from this monster. Alas he was wrong then and is probably wrong about Myanmar. That tends to happen when one reads from a CIA/mi6 fed script.
Just out of interest Barry gilheaney, have you any idea why the media has went quiet on Syria and their predictions, for example, that Assad was gonna kill the people Alleppo 'if we don't intervene'? Could it be that they were lying and that Assad and his allies are wiping out ISIS in Syria? And perhaps the west has retreated and given up for the time being their plan for Syria and are now focusing elsewhere? I'll be waiting for the inevitable 'Hezbollah are committing geniocide' cries very soon from you no doubt. Pathetic.

kevin o'neill said...

A Shéain,
interesting and most useful article, touching on a global horror that the average person little understands. We have the TV news and we still have the What Is Happening but not the Why and Who Benefits from this horror.
Comments will vary and few will agree with you, but you got it on the air and that's what matters. Reading any article requires us to seek out the strong positive points, of which you produced enough to make people question the Why.
The Who Benefits will become clearer because of this article, the quality of comment so far will ensure that. Very much a breath of fresh air.

flem said...

@Simon
I'd be interested to hear what your take is on the testimony of whistleblower Prof. Francis Boyle who served as a member of Amnesty USA's board of directors during the 80s/90s. His time there left him to conclude that:
"Amnesty International and AIUSA function as tools for the imperialist, colonial and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel..There are many people of good will and good faith working at the grassroots level of Amnesty International and AIUSA who genuinely believe that they are doing meaningful and effective work to protect human rights around the world. But at the top of these two organizations you will find a self-perpetuating clique of co-opted Elites who deliberately shape and direct the work of AI and AIUSA".
Surely when a once top-level Amnesty insider has made such grave claims, it's pause for thought that maybe Amnesty may not be the organisation you assumed it was?
Full statement here: http://www.countercurrents.org/boyle231012.htm

Simon said...

Flem, Do you have links to any rebuttals by his former colleagues? You said "Surely when a once top-level Amnesty insider has made such grave claims, it's pause for thought that maybe Amnesty may not be the organisation you assumed it was?" That argument applies equally to those top-level insiders past or present who would disagree.

It is always vital to hear both sides of an argument. I agree with much he has to say about Israel since Amnesty tend to stick to the line that there has been wrong done on both sides. This was baffling to me before due to the scale, intent, power, effect, and legal disparities. It now makes more sense. In 2014 it was reported in Haaretz that Israel was refusing to allow employees of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to enter the Gaza Strip to conduct investigations into Israel-Hamas fighting. However this latter story demonstrates very little.

He is wrong about Northern Ireland. Amnesty worked hard on issues such as collusion, policing, the Right to Silence, Northern Ireland Human Rights Council, collusion in the sectarian killing of Robert Hamill, police impunity, political killings, discriminatory policing, collusion between security forces and armed groups, intimidation of lawyers and ill-treatment during interrogation including particular cases like David Adams, Emergency Legislation, torture in 1970s, dealing with the past, Castlereagh ill-treatment, Pat Finucane, Birmingham Six, and extra-judicial killings such as those in Gibraltar.

Amnesty cannot campaign to free Political Prisoners (those who support or employ violence) but can campaign on Prisoners of Conscience (those who espouse purely peaceful means). They can campaign if a political prisoner's human rights are violated, e.g. such as unfair trial or torture but not purely based on the fact that they are imprisoned. For example Amnesty International wrote a letter to David Ford highlighting their concerns about Marion Price's continued detention, her prolonged solitary confinement while in Maghaberry Prison and that she had been unable to access the necessary healthcare provision.

Until the early 2000s Amnesty International members couldn't campaign on issues in their own country. The reason why they didn’t campaign on issues in their own country was due to risks of impartiality and risks of attack. This was the rule across the globe. I honestly never thought of the Pro-Israel lobby of Amnesty International having an impact globally as I thought that concept was oxy-moronic due to their taste for War Crimes, Genocide etc.

I am no dullard when it comes to understanding covert support for armed Islamist groups. I said on this site one month after they proclaimed a World-wide caliphate and referred to themselves as ISIS or the Islamic State for the first time: "ISIS are a relatively unknown force but there is little doubt as to whose progeny they are. Financial and military assistance tends not to be the best idea to say the least. As the recipients whether in Afghanistan, Syria or perhaps even in Israel will get strong enough eventually to turn against their masters."

However, to state categorically Assad wasn't involved in war crimes beggars belief. Can we name a war in which there was an armed force which didn't commit serious violations of international humanitarian law/commit war crimes? I cannot think of any. A caveat to that would be Assad was one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East before the so-called "Arab Spring" and his country didn't deserve to be pushed into Hell by the West and their puppets. We all remember the Toyota Trucks driving into Syria. I heard Robert Fisk personally tell the story of stumbling across a Scottish NHS ambulance in the middle of a war zone in Syria. It certainly wasn't smuggled up someone's jumper.

Barry Gilheany said...

Wolfe Tone

I cannot help noticing that the White Supremacist Neo-Nazi who drove his truck into the anti-fascist demonstrators in Charlottesville had pro-Assad material amongst other far right memorabilia in his possession. Sounds like a kindred spirit of your good self. And btw i still believe to Assad to be a mass murderer and can cite the evidence of the torture Gulag that 13,000 opponents have disappeared into. I also believe that the Royingha people have been the victims of Bosnia style ethnic cleansing. Because of the religious and cultural identity of the victims of Assad and the Burmese military and monks I is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are Islamaphobic, my friend.

Grouch

Another racist who skulks behind the cloak of an anonymous moniker to make anti-semitic slander about George Soros' tribe funding genocide and the "pro-abortion crowd here" (nice line in misoygny) and denying Elie Wiessel's experience of the Holocaust.

Barry Gilheany said...

Wolfe Tone

This is the evidence of the Syrian Gulag that I referred to earlier though I guess you will back on some conspiracist or circumstantial explanation that the David Irvings of this world rely on.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/they-were-torturing-to-kill-inside-syrias-death-machine-caesar

grouch said...

barry, uve been brainwashed since birth. "david irving" - sorry, wrong david, check out david cole's ( a jew ) documentary on auschwitz. the best writers, commentators on jews are jews.(brother nathaniel, professor dommergue) i listen to them first. but u probably wont, because uve been conditioned to react in certain ways to the word - jew, holocaust, nazi and conspiracy theorist amongst many others. the best writers on the jews are jews themselves ( or former jews). i'm not a racist, but i do have an issue with genocidal maniacs.

elie wiessel - thers a big clue in the name there! some day u will believe historians and not jewish controlled hollywood and media.

anyone interseted in what the german people endured in the 1940s shud watch the documentary hellstorm on utube. this is what happens to you when you take on the jewish bankers.

grouch said...

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/the-evidence/photographic-evidence/gigantic-fraud-carried-out-for-wiesel-nobel-prize/

elie , he lie and lie and lie. but guess what, hes only obeying his religion. the talmud encourages this behaviour. are you familiar with the talmud barry?

wolfe tone said...

Barry gilheaney(always makes me chuckle that), you didn't address my question but rather provided the bog standard riposte I.e conspiracism and reinforced it with a Guardian(cough cough me thinks they were involved in lying too during previous 'interventions'?) article. Pathetic stuff altogether. Btw, that so called gulag you mentioned was backed up by pure hearsay and CGI's and fronted by a western funded NGO. Hardly impartial dontcha think? Btw, to label me as islamaphobic is laughable and not worth addressing. Instead of pathetically being pathetic why don't you ring the BBC or ch4 and complain to them why they've taken Syria of their front page? Perhaps they'll laugh at you too and tell you they were wrong and that Syria has broke the back of ISIS despite "all our efforts"?

Here's a bit of logic for you to read although I bet your teeth will be grinding reading it:

https://off-guardian.org/2017/11/16/monbiot-syria-and-universalism/

grouch said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7oGx2dImE8
this takes away the pain every time.

Barry Gilheany said...

Grouch

I am surprised that some one with such open racial prejudices is allowed to post on this forum. i am always up for evidence based arguments on Israel/Palestine and any other issue but i do not engage on equal terms with bigots such as your self who spew racist and anti-semitic hate speech and base their political outlook entirely on your disgusting prejudices. i really hope that Anthony has noted your explicit derogatory references to JEWS and the JEWISH TRIBE and takes the appropriate action to deal with what be a blatant violation of the codes of conduct of any civilised discussion forum.

Wolfe Tone

Funnily enough Syria was back on the front news and prime news networks in February by Assad's latest sarin gas attack on defenceless civilians which as George Monbiot shows was definitely established as a regime war crime by good investigative journalism. Regarding Assad's torture networks the photographic evidence taken by the journalist who risked his life to smuggle it out to the outside world is good enough for me. You may have seen the Channel 4 (good MSM outlet don't you think, my friend) documentary on his work and have herd of the book out in February 2018 on it.

It was the bravery of the female fighters of the Kurdish YPG and the Peshmerga which helped to defeat ISIS. Assad and Putin played bit part roles. But if Sunni Muslims keep getting persecuted by Shia dominated regimes in Iraq and Syria then I fear an ISIS 2.0.

Finally i actually feel sorry for you, Wolfe Tone (and Grouch for that matter, that your cognitive and perceptual functioning appears so damaged that you are vulnerable to the chancers, demogogues and conspiratorial nutjobs of this world. But if you really believe the crap you espouse then its sociopathy that you appear to be suffering from.

AM said...

Barry,

Racist views are permissible. We are loathe to suppress any opinion that is not personally abusive. We carry opinion that we find toxic. We have allowed people who both back the state of Israel and advocate nuking Iran to have their say. In my view the expression of racist or anti-Semitic opinion is invariably more damaging to the person enunciating the view than those against whom it is directed.

Barry Gilheany said...

Grouch

If David Cole is such an authority on Nazi death camps why did he change his identity thus:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist

grouch said...

barry, i presume because his life is in danger from the anti-humans. anti-human bankers tend to be from the tribe. thats just a fact - sorry if it upsets some of u. cromwell was financed by them. so too was strongbow. my bad for bringing that up i suppose. i know my history. u guys watch hollywood and label anyone who critically thinks as an anti-semite or conspiracy theorist. Ernst Zundel rip.

grouch said...

if moses mordechai levy was such an authority on the proletariat, how come we know him as karl marx. same with lev bronstein (trotsky). maybe its a jewish thing barry.

wolfe tone said...

Barry, eh February? That's a good while ago ffs. Anyway I have better things to do than debate with an obvious Buck eejit and/or a rabid Brit. Btw, I knew you wouldn't read the link I posted but simply decided to bless me with your empathy. Thanks but no thanks. Spreading Eurocentric propaganda isn't cool because you'll often become distracted from other conflicts the eurocentrics don't want highlighted for eg Yemen. Shush nothing to see here isn't that right Barry?.......unless the eurocentrics give the useful idiots the nod to raise it of course? Pathetic.

Barry Gilheany said...

Wolfe Tone

I condemn Saudi actions in Yemen as much as I do Assad's mass slaughter in Syria because iu am not into the business of moral equivalence or relativism. Your "buck eejit" and "rabid Brit" jibes say more about yourself than they do about me. Perhaps you are suffering from some sort of secret identity crisis; or something you are secretly ashamed off. Why else would you take solace in crackpot conspiracy theories and downright lies about Syria and Burma.

Grouch

I am not sure that even Hitler described Jews as "anti-human". I hope your words remain just those. Otherwise you will become a danger to others.

flem said...

@Simon,
I've tried scouring the net for the rebuttal which Prof. Boyle refers to but to no avail. Not to say it's not out there in some form - perhaps you can find it? - but I do tend to wonder, if the rebuttal was that substantive, wouldn't reposts of it be more readily available in order for his distactors to discredit his claims? I'm just speculating of course.
You may well be right that Prof. Boyle was unfairly dismissive of Amnesty's efforts with regards to N. Ireland but nevertheless that doesn't negate his general point that while at a grassroots level there are honest people working to combat human rights injustices as they see it, that there is also a clique of elites who are aligned to US/Britain/Israel's imperial interests which ultimately decide on the form and timing of Amnesty's work.
You stated in your original comment that Amnesty "never advocates violence" but how do you square that with its now notorious poster campaign entitled “NATO: Keep The Progress Going!” which appeared shortly after Obama had announced his intention to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by 2014? The campaign both urged NATO to continue its disastrous military invasion and tried to put forth the spurious notion that women's rights there had improved and would continue to improve if NATO continued their military campaign. Of course after a public outcry Amnesty retracted their poster campaign but if that wasn't a clear advocation of violence, I don't know what is! https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/08/is-there-a-human-right-to-kill/
With regards to Assad's war crimes, again it's all about the timing. I think we can all agree that the Assad government, which still maintains popular support among the majority of Syrians, remains the Syrian people's best hope of remaining under a secular system. If Assad goes, they will be at the mercy of the Islamic extremist groups. So just as all sides were due to sit down for peace talks for the first time, Amnesty decides to release its highly emotive "Human Slaughterhouse" report based on a very sketchy methodology. (Detailed here: https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/10/amnesty-international-admits-syrian-saydnaya-report-fabricated-entirely-in-uk/ )
Was that really in the Syrian people's best interests at that point to effectively try to weaken Assad's hand prior to negotiations? I don't think so.
Have war crimes been committed by Assad's forces since the beginning of the armed invasion there? I wouldn't doubt it. But can we rely on the selective outrage of Western governments or on compromised NGOs to paint an honest picture of the truth? I don't think so either.
You have to laugh when you consider only a few years back Assad was being wined and dined by the British establishment; taken to meet the Queen - Tony Blair even nominated him for an honorary knighthood - but once it became clear that he wasn't going to play ball, only then then he becomes portrayed to us as the brutal dictator and war criminal who must be toppled.
I suppose we could debate endlessly on our differing world views, neither of us likely to change them all that much. I would hope though that at this point you wouldn't be so emphatically dismissive of the notion that human rights organisations could be "supposedly independent non-governmental agencies but in reality components of the imperialist matrix" as you were in your original comment. ;)