So here I am again talking about the current state of our world yet again instead of Video Games and horror movies, but the truth is unfortunatly the world is so bloody dark at the moment that no horror movie could possibly compete with it, and also I am pissed off and need to get some of it out of my system.
So it has been mentioned that David Cameron criticised the Russian bombing of Syria not to long ago because of the fact that it would lead to increased radicalisation, then what did he do, well if you read this blog or even the news in general then you will know that he Voted to bomb Syria a few days ago, that he said that anyone who didn't vote Yes or didn't believe that we should bomb them was a terrorist sympathiser. Then basically we started bombing them as soon as it was possible, right away without a pause. So what incredible vital place did we bomb well we bombed the Omar oil field in Syria and apparently it went tremendously well according to the press here is one particular quote to show how it has been reported “Four Tornados took off from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus just an hour after MPs voted in favour of launching airstrikes in the war-torn country. The jets struck targets in the Omar oil field in Eastern Syria, dealing a “real blow” to the death cult, also known as Daesh.”
Sounds great doesn't it? We hit a strategic target an oil field which would be providing fuel for the enemy and would be very unlikely to have innocent women and children hanging around it. However there is a bit of a fly in the ointment here and that is that on the 23rd of October it was reported that Russian and American planes had completely destroyed the Omar oil field in Syria. Well if it was totally destroyed back then how was there anything to bomb now? When I picture an Oil field bombed to the point it can be considerd tottally destroyed I remember the fact that oil is flammable and picture nothing left but a chared black stain on the ground, so either it wasn't destroyed as much as people claimed the first time, its remarkably easy to clean up and rebuild destroyed oil fields or the media has bullshited us either back then or now
Here is a quote from the reporting of its distruction back in October“The terrorists’ oil field in eastern Syria was obliterated in a day of bombing conducted by both Russia and the US-led coalition. US operations officer Major Michael Filanowski told reporters in Baghdad the Omar oil field was blitzed, heavily damaging the lucrative funding source for ISIS.”
Now if bombs were free and jet fuel didnt cost anything and you could be certain that not one innocent person was harmed then many people might shrug there shoulders and say so what the same site was bombed twice, even if the first lot of bombs had already destroyed it the second lot wouldn't do any harm, surly it would just make doubly sure that the area is smashed. The problem is Jet Fuel, man power and bombs do cost in fact they cost an awful lot.
OK here I have to admit that I do not know the economic cost of war, yes I can look up how much assets cost and make crude guesses but if someone knows better than me then I am not about to argue with them. According to a little research I did America has used both bombs and missiles to hit Syria, now just One Tomahawk cruise missile (something they have used a number of) costs the equivalent of £850,000. Stop and think about that, £850,000 on one missile. The missile didn't just get itself there either a missile needs to be fired by something, something which needs to be controlled by a professional(s) and got in to position all of which costs even more money. This is happening while our Government is going on about cutting Tax benefits making hard worker families poorer, plunging more of our own children in to poverty. Yet if you look at Syria and a company called Genie Energy and a certain region called the Golan Heights which Israel illegally took from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War you can put two and two together and see the advantages for the rich who are invested in Genie Energy in bombing the region into submission in order to get to the black gold. One of those who holds stock in Genie is Rupert Murdock the founder, chairman and CEO of global media holding company News Corporation, the world's second-largest media conglomerate. So when a man with such a vested interest in this controls the media you can see we are likely to get a heavily biased story if we turn to this same media for our information. Tony Blair turned out to have money invested in oil so it would hardly surprise me to learn the same was true in terms of Cameron or other politicians who have voted for bombing Syria.
Sounds great doesn't it? We hit a strategic target an oil field which would be providing fuel for the enemy and would be very unlikely to have innocent women and children hanging around it. However there is a bit of a fly in the ointment here and that is that on the 23rd of October it was reported that Russian and American planes had completely destroyed the Omar oil field in Syria. Well if it was totally destroyed back then how was there anything to bomb now? When I picture an Oil field bombed to the point it can be considerd tottally destroyed I remember the fact that oil is flammable and picture nothing left but a chared black stain on the ground, so either it wasn't destroyed as much as people claimed the first time, its remarkably easy to clean up and rebuild destroyed oil fields or the media has bullshited us either back then or now
Here is a quote from the reporting of its distruction back in October“The terrorists’ oil field in eastern Syria was obliterated in a day of bombing conducted by both Russia and the US-led coalition. US operations officer Major Michael Filanowski told reporters in Baghdad the Omar oil field was blitzed, heavily damaging the lucrative funding source for ISIS.”
Now if bombs were free and jet fuel didnt cost anything and you could be certain that not one innocent person was harmed then many people might shrug there shoulders and say so what the same site was bombed twice, even if the first lot of bombs had already destroyed it the second lot wouldn't do any harm, surly it would just make doubly sure that the area is smashed. The problem is Jet Fuel, man power and bombs do cost in fact they cost an awful lot.
OK here I have to admit that I do not know the economic cost of war, yes I can look up how much assets cost and make crude guesses but if someone knows better than me then I am not about to argue with them. According to a little research I did America has used both bombs and missiles to hit Syria, now just One Tomahawk cruise missile (something they have used a number of) costs the equivalent of £850,000. Stop and think about that, £850,000 on one missile. The missile didn't just get itself there either a missile needs to be fired by something, something which needs to be controlled by a professional(s) and got in to position all of which costs even more money. This is happening while our Government is going on about cutting Tax benefits making hard worker families poorer, plunging more of our own children in to poverty. Yet if you look at Syria and a company called Genie Energy and a certain region called the Golan Heights which Israel illegally took from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War you can put two and two together and see the advantages for the rich who are invested in Genie Energy in bombing the region into submission in order to get to the black gold. One of those who holds stock in Genie is Rupert Murdock the founder, chairman and CEO of global media holding company News Corporation, the world's second-largest media conglomerate. So when a man with such a vested interest in this controls the media you can see we are likely to get a heavily biased story if we turn to this same media for our information. Tony Blair turned out to have money invested in oil so it would hardly surprise me to learn the same was true in terms of Cameron or other politicians who have voted for bombing Syria.
Also lets look at it logically who is likely to suffer from retaliation. Are the politicians who have voted for this likely to be the ones to die in retaliation? I dont think so, its more likely to be normal every day people. In fact its more likely to be normal average people who suffer all around. The terrorists want to die in glorious flames, they want to be martyrs and have a holly war and this from the looks of things is being handed directly to them, where as the civilians over there most likely just want a quiet life, enough food to eat to be left alone. Both Syrian civilians and the average man(woman) on the street here are looking at the possibility of being blown up because of selfish toss-pots who want what they want regardless of its effect on other people. So Cameron and ISIS both have something in Common there selfish tosspots who think they know what is best for a whole bunch of people and feel they have the right to act in other peoples names.
So Cameron when your blowing the shit out of places and people please dont think your doing it in my name you posh elitist money hungry wank shaft, I dont respect you in the slightest, I dont feel protected by you and your actions and I dont believe a word you say and I am pretty darn sure that I am not the only one.
No comments:
Post a Comment