UK PM David Cameron attended an 'ask the leaders' session Monday and went on record to defend Saudi Arabia. He was asked to justify why Union flags were flown at half-mast in January when King Abdullah died. As the Daily Mirror says "Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights record in the world, with use of amputations, lashes and public beheadings as punishments. Taking a leaf out of almost any modern U.S. President he said his first priority was to protect the people of the U.K. and that is what he is doing by cozying up to Saudi, a country with a terrible Human and women's rights record. Cameron said "A piece of counter-terrorism intelligence supplied by Saudi Arabia "saved potentially hundreds of lives" in the UK." Whether or not you believe him is up to you. We must of course remember it is election year in Britain and Cameron's campaign has been underway for some time. Cameron went on to say "his first duty was to protect the public even if it meant doing business with regimes he "didn't always agree with"." Does that mean he would have ignored Hitler trying to wipe out Jewish nationals in Poland and Germany as long as that country was working with us? His ill-thought out words will hardly reassure. What his words seem to say is you can do what you like back home as long you work with us or do not harm us directly. But with so many wars fought supposedly to remove despots who were harming their own citizens or refusing basic rights back home what does he really mean? Does this confirm our suspicions that western interference in Arab Spring countries was only ever self-serving and never about helping the citizens of countries involved? If it does then the west got that one wrong big-time. The west went in to countries such as Libya covertly, with claims of no-boots-on-the-ground, supplied weapons and trained men to rise up; the same people who are now armed to the teeth with hate in their hearts for the west. We say that as there can be no denying now that many so-called militants in Iraq and Syria benefited from western, and in some cases Saudi, help. Mr Cameron said: "I can tell you one time since I've been prime minister, a piece of information that we have been given by that country [Saudi] has saved potentially hundreds of lives here in Britain. Perhaps now we should ask Mr Cameron then why people in Britain have never felt so unsafe before?
3 Comments
Dava Castillo
2/2/2015 10:20:20 am
If it's any solace, many in the US believe Obama should have taken a stance against Saudi treatment of women on his visit there last week. I, however, have taken a different point of view. While I am a staunch supporter of rights for women and children in countries where they are oppressed, Obama's visit was to pay respects to the death of the king and welcome relations with his successor.
Reply
eileen
2/2/2015 11:06:09 pm
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Dava.
Reply
Hannah
2/3/2015 01:22:33 am
That picture shows how shifty Cameron is.When you shake hands you look at them not into the camera, most probably, Look at the man at the back , his eyes tell the same opinion of Cameron. If Cameron was so concerned about the afety of his people why did he supply chemicals to produce chemical weapons in Syria? Why did he not stop the war in Iraq? Why did he support the o-called Freedom fighters in Syria? He knew they were Al-Qaedas. He even would have invaded Syria if it was not for the MPs to vote against it. After that he started to bombard the IS and never put to a vote because he knew he would have been outvote again. Obama now plans to send the army in to defeat the IS. Would it be long for Dave the knight in not-so-shining armour to jump on his white horse and join? You bet it will the next day. I am surprised at Obama.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |