Libya: More Hypocrisy from Cameron (and Rifkind)

On last night's news Cameron our non-chosen PM was said to be calling for military intervention in Libya, no-fly zone as a starter. Others including the Tory Zionist Malcolm Rifkind have called for the Libyan rebels to be armed - in short, that we should be seen to enter a civil war, uprising, call it what you will on one side.

Right: Malcolm Rifkind wants us to arm the rebels. No, not Irish rebels. No, not Palestinian rebels. No, not Bahraini or Saudi rebels. Just the Libyan ones.

Isn't that what the British media point the finger at re. Gaddafy arming the IRA? Whilst we were giving explosives, arms etc. to Muslim groups in Libya (and Afghanistan and probably quite a few others) to murder politicians, soldiers and civilians alike, Gaddafy was sending arms to Ireland.

When is backing terrorism not backing terrorism? When the British State does it?

So now we have high-ranking Tories acting like Neo Con war hawks (just as they would have aped Blair's actions had they been in power when George Dubya Bush was - no matter how much they tried to feign otherwise after the fact).

Funnily enough they are not calling for the Bahraini rebels to be armed, even as the Saudi dictators send in armed forces.

If Gadaffy had called in the organised, armed forces of a neighbour (a corrupt dictatorship at that) can you imagine Cameron's response? He'd pop a fuse.

Yet because the corrupt Saudis and the corrupt Bahraini's are "on our side" a blind eye is turned.

When circa 1 million Rwandans were wiped out (not to mention the rapes and mutilations) just a few years ago, Britain did nothing. And they accuse us of being racists? Bahrain sends in Saudi armed forces to attack civilians. Britain does nothing. Let's not even mention Robert Mugabe.

Not only are the British State hypocrites for arming terrorists when it suits their aims (and crying when others do it against them), but they are hypocrites now for clamouring for action against Libya; because when Israel drops white phosphorous on civilians or when the Saudis sent the military into a neighbour to crush civilian protests, the British State does not seek no fly zones or to arm the insurrectionists there.

Once upon a time people talked of joined-up-government and didn't Robin Cook try to implement an ethical foreign policy (probably for a couple of hours until Blair steam-rollered it)?

If the British State gets involved in Libya, no matter the degree, the Palestinians and the Bahrainis will ask "why not us?" with good reason. Not to mention the haunted souls of the dead Rwandans calling "is it cos we is black?"

Blair killed joined-up-government and executed the idea of an ethical foreign policy. Is Mr. Cameron now about to lay them in a lead-lined coffin at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?