Cameron’s ‘incoherent’ response to IS hides a plan for another war

Laughing at the law-abiding: IS militants at a captured checkpoint in northern Iraq [Image: AFP/Getty].

Laughing at the law-abiding: IS militants at a captured checkpoint in northern Iraq [Image: AFP/Getty].

David Cameron has no strategy to protect Christians who are threatened by violent religious groups like IS, and his policy is determined by the “loudest media voice”, according to the Church of England.

There’s no arguing with it. A letter from the Bishop of Leeds, Nicholas Baines, endorsed by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, points out that Cameron’s UK has turned its back on the suffering of tens of thousands of Christians fleeing IS jihadists in Mosul, Iraq’s second city, while the government responded promptly to reports of Yazidis trapped on Mt Sinjar.

The letter also condemns Cameron’s failure to offer sanctuary to Iraqi Christians who have been driven from their homes, when the French and Germans have already done so. Parliamentary questions tabled last month to find out whether the UK intends to offer asylum to Iraqi Christians have lain unanswered. Perhaps this is a political decision as Cameron thinks more foreigners coming here will push up support for UKIP; if so, that would support the Church’s view that he is reacting to the media, rather than following his own policy.

In fact, Cameron’s approach is becoming clearer. He wants to involve us in another war.

But, burned by his defeat in Parliament last year over Syria, he is taking a ‘softly, softly’ approach.

Having sent humanitarian aid to Iraq, he wrote in today’s Sunday Telegraph that this was not enough.

“He warns that Britain will have to use its ‘military prowess’ to help defeat ‘this exceptionally dangerous’ movement, or else terrorists with ‘murderous intent’ will target people in Britain,” the Telegraph report states.

Didn’t Tony Blair also use the possibility of a threat to the UK to cajole Britain into supporting the last round of wars in the Middle East? The antagonist may change but it seems the script does not.

In fact it is true that something must be done about IS. A lawless gang of murderers is setting up a lawless state in parts of Iraq and Syria that have been weakened by wars we either fought or did nothing to prevent – and fears that they could radicalise gullible Brits and send them home to carry out terrorist acts on our soil are real.

What is needed is a co-ordinated response from all law-abiding powers – not just in the west but Middle-Eastern countries and others. IS is the political equivalent of a rabid animal; its members don’t care who they attack, as long as they cause maximum harm, and every country in the world should be aware of this.

Cameron potters around the edges instead, following the same plan the UK always uses.

We could have sorted out these problems before withdrawing from Iraq a few years ago. We could have done it in the 1990s, after the first Gulf War. We could have sorted them out at any time before then – and with greater ease, but that does not suit a western industrial complex that is geared towards perpetuating warfare.

Cameron’s attitude is media-driven. His defeat over Syria has led him to revise his strategy, waiting for public opinion to be swayed by media reports of the bloodshed taking place abroad, stoked by fears that it could happen here in Blighty. When the public is supportive again, he can announce action – but only just enough action to keep the Middle Eastern countries at odds with each other, making further military conflicts inevitable.

Today, it seems he has decided he can act, if comments like “we need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go after the terrorists, international co-operation on intelligence and counter-terrorism or uncompromising action against terrorists at home” are to be believed.

Cameron also wrote that this is a “struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology, which I believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime.”

His political lifetime will end in May 2015, so he’s right about that.

It seems his evil strategy for the Middle East will continue to affect the region long after the end of his physical lifetime, too.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Buy Vox Political books and help us
expose the REAL policies that affect the world!

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
ou can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards


  1. amnesiaclinic August 17, 2014 at 10:36 am - Reply

    Quite right, Mike Orwellian eternal war suits the weapons industry very well. We can change the whole paradigm very easily by holding them accountable for all the death, damage and destruction they cause. Things are changing very fast and once people wake up to the msm misinformation then things really will change.

    And it is happening!


  2. jaypot2012 August 17, 2014 at 10:49 am - Reply

    Cameron and his killing party will be ousted in May, however, I wouldn’t put it past him to “allow” a few bombs here and there to show how we are threatened by terrorists.
    Does he not realise that the majority of us know that we are under threat on a daily basis from attacks? We have so many terrorists living and training here that we wouldn’t be surprised if it did happen.
    Enough of the UK and the USA teaming up and creating wars, or stepping in and making things worse – we should keep our noses out of others business. But of course, our lot and the USA only want to earn yet even more money. Oh and there’s the oil as well…

  3. Rupert Mitchell August 17, 2014 at 11:07 am - Reply

    It is all very well to criticize what we DID and DIDN’T do in the past but what do you suggest we do NOW to prevent IS from contaminating this country and murdering our innocent people?

    • Mike Sivier August 17, 2014 at 11:12 am - Reply

      I would pull together an international coalition including Middle Eastern countries to isolate IS and eradicate it – basically surround the occupied area and then advance until all IS forces have been captured or neutralised.
      That will not happen. The western military-industrial complex always needs to leave the possibility open for further bloodshed so somebody will be allowed to escape.
      I question your comment about criticising what happened in the past, which forms only a tiny part of the article. I was writing about what is happening now. I wonder how you could have missed that.

      • Rupert Mitchell August 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm - Reply

        Don’t get your knickers in a twist just because someone makes a comment that you dont like; even though you are probably correct in your statement.

        • Mike Sivier August 17, 2014 at 1:03 pm - Reply

          Twisted knickers? Not around here – I’d check your own if I were you!

          • Rupert Mitchell August 17, 2014 at 3:04 pm

            I can’t really see much point in continuing such a stupid banter so I will leave you to enjoy your egoism as confrontational comments are never positive.

          • Mike Sivier August 17, 2014 at 3:29 pm

            Then I am left confused as to why you started off with a confrontational comment. Perhaps you’re just a little confused.

  4. thoughtfullyprepping August 17, 2014 at 2:09 pm - Reply

    You can’t defeat an Eastern religious based group with smart bombs.
    You’ll never get a solid international coalition either.
    Especially with the US leading them.

    The West will never understand their religions or their fanaticism.
    They don’t even understand their customs and tribal or cast mentalities.

    The West think they can make these people do whatever they want by force.
    They’ve tried repeatedly and they have failed repeatedly.
    I cite Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan as three examples.

    Besides defeat them? Why? Because they are killing Christians?
    Like it matters in the UK when we’re looking at Sharia Law for all..
    Have they also attacked the UK? No.
    Why haven’t they? Because it’s one of their most fertile recruiting grounds.

    The UK has already sold its soul and it’s base religions following multicultural and multi-ethnic agendas. After all top BRITISH born name in the UK? MOHAMMAD.
    Sort of sums up our present cultural base.

    That also for me sums up the braying of this Etonian arse wipe.
    No flipping idea about the real world even in his own backyard.

    • Mike Sivier August 17, 2014 at 3:32 pm - Reply

      We’re not going to have Sharia Law for everyone in the UK; the tone of your comment worries me a little.
      Still, you provide good talking points.
      Is the UK a fertile recruiting ground for Islamic militants?
      Is it slowing turning Muslim as a result of multiculturalism?
      Is that desirable?

      • thoughtfullyprepping August 17, 2014 at 7:09 pm - Reply

        Tone eh. OK I’ll play nicely.

        Is the UK a fertile recruiting ground for Islamic militants?

        Yes, see media coverage. I especially like the bit about them slaying Christians, shooting captives, and beheading babies. VERY British behavior.

        Is it slowing turning Muslim as a result of multiculturalism?

        Yes, but it’s also being enforced on others against their wishes (especially in schools) through minority pressure groups working on a weak politically correct government.

        Is that desirable?

        I’m a Christian, are you? If you are, would you like to convert from your faith to Muslim?
        How about if I simply said you could no longer follow your faith or display your Christian cross as it offends me. Desirable?

        And finally has multiculturalism and enforced religious integration in schools and daily life causing or ever caused a problem within communities.

        Seriously you have to ask?

        Tone ok?

        • Mike Sivier August 21, 2014 at 11:49 am - Reply

          I just found this in the spam folder. Very odd.
          As for the tone, I’ll let other readers answer that.

      • Michele Witchy Eve August 18, 2014 at 4:57 am - Reply

        Just a clarification and not a critique aimed at anyone, but Shaira Law is being added to our UK Legal system. As I understand it any Muslim may now apply Shaira Law if they wish to under the UK legal system. Private Eye has been covering this issue recently, as have some of the legal publications.

        • Mike Sivier August 18, 2014 at 7:41 am - Reply

          Are you sure? That could only apply where UK law had nothing to say and UK law must take precedent, I would have thought.

      • Michele Witchy Eve August 18, 2014 at 5:22 pm - Reply

        Mike, as I understand it the UK Shaira Law is a kind of add-on to our main legal system and is available for those who wish to have judgements based on traditional muslim law. There’s been considerable arguments amongst the legal profession and a few others who have become aware of it. What I don’t know for sure is whether it’s already in force or is yet to be. As I said in my last post, Private Eye has been following the issue, which is where I read it.

        • Mike Sivier August 18, 2014 at 7:07 pm - Reply

          Okay, I’ll dig out my back issues and see what I can find.

          • Michele Witchy Eve August 21, 2014 at 3:16 pm

            Mike, I’ve chased up the article in Private Eye #1368 it covers the aspect of Sharia-compliant wills as a specific. This, as you may imagine, seems to completely go against our UK and Human Rights legislation on equality rights as it adversely affects women in terms of what can/should/should not be left to women by their male relatives. Having re-read my own last post I may have erred in extrapolating unconsciously to the thicker end of the wedge.

      • joshrussell831 August 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm - Reply

        An article from Private Eye, a satire tabloid with a reputation for being sued because of a tendency to make unfounded or at least poorly researched allegations, is not exactly going to be representative of the entire British legal system. As Mike says, it’s possible to ask that Sharia law is followed in your legal requests as long as they don’t contravene established UK precedents and law. But I could do the same with the laws of Wicca, scientology or the Jedi: the law isn’t absolute and as long as it doesn’t contravene our legal code then it can be considered as a reasonable legal request. The fact that this one lawyer offered wills that were legal and also adhered to Sharia law is not a sign that our legal system is being over-run. It is merely and indication that it is working as it should.

    • hstorm August 18, 2014 at 9:02 am - Reply

      The top British-born baby name is in fact Oliver. Second is Jack.

      It is only by assuming that ‘Muhammad’, ‘Mohammad’, and ‘Mohammed’ are the same name that you are able to assert that it is more popular. But the problem with that approach is that you would have to apply the same rule to *all* names; not just to the ones that confirm your paranoia, but also names that disagree with your ‘point’.

      Hence, ‘Jack’ is the Irish version of ‘John’, which in turn brings in ‘Jon’, so they would all be the same name – there is even a case, believe it or not, for saying that ‘Joshua’ is the same name as the ancient Greek the names are derived from translate as roughly the same thing – therefore Jack becomes more popular.

      ‘Marcus’, ‘Mark’ and ‘Marco’ all become the same name.

      ‘Mike’ and ‘Mick’ become the same name… and on and on.

      It is true that Islamic names are becoming a lot more popular, but I see no problem with that anyway. Only “those-people-they’re-all-the-same” stupidity would lead a person to think that a birth-name plays a role in how likely someone is to become a Sharia-fanatic.

    • Michele Witchy Eve August 28, 2014 at 9:37 am - Reply

      joshrussell831, but it does “contravene established UK precedents and law” in that, here specifically, it would/does contravene our Equal Rights and sexism laws.

      As to Private Eye, your critique is not unfair, but they are also right and well researched about many other issues reported on. It’s always up to us as individuals to test any assertions from any source as to their credibility. One of the best ways to do that is discuss with and ask as wide an audience as possible.

  5. Stephen Paul Tamblin August 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm - Reply

    Camoron is a war manger same as Obama come on Scotland get away from camoron and his lame brains please help Scotland separate from England bullies

  6. casalealex August 18, 2014 at 9:10 am - Reply

    Islamic law to be enshrined in British law as solicitors get … › News › UK › Home News

    Ban all sharia law in the u.k – e-petitions

    Ban all sharia law in the u.k. Responsible department: Ministry of Justice. This is to stop all 85 sharia courts that are open and to stop anymore from opening.

    Sam Leith: Don’t fall for the latest sharia law scare story ……/sam-leith-dont-fall-for-the-latest-sharia-law-scare...

    24 Mar 2014 – Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first … on drawing up ‘sharia-compliant’ wills,” it was reported yesterday.

    FactCheck Q&A: sharia law in the UK – Blogs – Channel 4

    • joshrussell831 August 26, 2014 at 12:19 pm - Reply

      The most reputable links you provided are dead. Neither the Independent link, nor the Evening Standard link work. After a quick google, I got the Channel 4 blog which clearly featured the line: ‘No Islamic body has any jurisdiction in the criminal law’, beyond the fact that any arbitration body or organisation really can draw up a settlement contract that is legally binding.

      Sharia law does not have any special privilege in our society because it categorically cannot subsume criminal law. Equally any contractual agreement will still be subject to the same standards as any other, meaning that either there is no problem with our current relationship with Sharia law or we need to strip away any ability of organisations to draw up binding agreements, which is, of course, insane and would cause such a constipation of the courts to effectively break the legal system entirely.

      There is nothing untoward going on with Sharia law, unless your position is that muslims should not be entitled to the same rights as other people and organisations. And I’m afraid that position is indefensible.

Leave A Comment