Thursday, May 17, 2018

Robert Stevens — British Army against Corbyn! Imperialism needs to Destroy Democracy in the West

Forget the Deep State. There's talk of a military coup in the case of  a leftist leader being elected. No, we are not talking about Venezuela. Rather Britain.

This is not a joke either. It's actually being floated seriously. This is the way that the unthinkable gets normalized. It's a tactic.
Written by Paul Carter for the de facto house organ of the Conservative Party, the article makes clear that discussions on such a course of action in the event of a Labour victory under Corbyn are ongoing.
The article begins by noting, “Only one week after Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader, a serving general of the Army warned of a direct and public challenge if a future Prime Minister Corbyn jeopardised the country’s security: ‘The army wouldn’t stand for it … people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that.’”…
Carter refers to an article published by the Sunday Times in September 2015, after Corbyn had routed his Blairite leadership opponent with the backing of hundreds of thousands of Labour members and supporters. The newspaper cited an anonymous “senior serving general” that in the event of Corbyn becoming prime minister, there would be “the very real prospect” of “a mutiny.” Elements within the military would be prepared to use “whatever means possible, fair or foul,” the officer declared. He warned,  You would see a major break in convention with senior generals directly and publicly challenging Corbyn over vital important policy decisions such as Trident , pulling out of NATO and any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.”...
At the time, a Ministry of Defence source said that it was unacceptable for a serving officer to make political comments about a potential “future government,” but rejected mounting any investigation, claiming there were too many generals to investigate....
Makes the US look good. There may be a soft coup in the works, but at least no one has floated the ideal of a hard coup — yet anyway.

Robert Stevens shows that this is not a aberration in British history and cites evidence from the 1960-170's labor unrest and rise of Harold Wilson to power.


Matt Franko said...

They may be concerned that a takeover by the other party may reveal some pretty shady shit that the Tory govts were doing in concert with US Democrats...

Kaivey said...

Apparently, more British troops are to be deployed in Afghanistan. 17 years ago the US went in there to get Bin Laden and his mercenaries who his on the mountains and they eventually got him, but now 17 years later they are still fighting the Afghans because the more of them they kill the more of them fight back.

When the US first went into Afghanistan most Afghans had bio idea why why were being bombed.

Why don't Western people question what's going on more? Came they see that something is is here: Bin Laden was eliminated a long time ago, but we are still at war with the Afghans.

My two best friends were really into politics and read the Guardian every day. But one tells me he had lost interest in politics because it's too depressing (and he has just found new romance), and the other doesn't reply, and I when I meet him, he says, "what's all this heavy politics?".

I told my girlfriend this morning telling her it's just a money making racket. I put the links out here once of how members of the British ruling elite, the Royal Family, the Conservative Party, MI5 and MI6, are all in on this money making racket. My GF just shrugged, and I said to her, ' aren't you interested", and she said, "not everyone is as passionate about this as you are". And I said, "But British troops are dying, and it's a money making racket". She said' oh, not now", looking bored. Then she said, " I love this Oasis song on the radio".

Konrad said...

Men are mainly interested in what happens outside the cave.

Women are mainly interested in what happens inside the cave.

Men are the family's foreign secretary.

Women are the family's home secretary.

Each side regards the other side's concerns as trivial.

Tom Hickey said...

Ask why the US and UK are in Afghanistan.

The guiding principle as always is follow the money. The money here is control of territory and resources. Afghanistan plays an important role in the Great Game that is played by nations on the Grand Chessboard.

All the other "reasons" are BS to dupe the rubes and create a cover, usually under "noble" intentions such as R2P (right to protect).

Then there is also the national security card. Controlling Afghanistan is "vital" to the national security of the US, UK and NATO, you see.

Konrad said...

@Tom Hickey: Don’t forget the crucial role of opium and heroin production in Afghanistan.

When Southeast Asian governments shut down the “Golden Triangle" (which was the world's main source of opium and heroin) the U.S. Empire moved to the "Golden Crescent," which is now the world's main source of opium and heroin. This zone includes Afghanistan.

When U.S. troops ask why they are guarding the production of Afghan heroin (which causes massive death, crime, and imprisonment in the West) they are told that if Afghans aren’t allowed to grow opium for the CIA, then the Afghans will join the Taliban. And we can’t have THAT, can we?

“Sir, no we can’t, sir.”

The world’s ultimate drug lord is the U.S. government. If an Afghan opium farmer displeases the U.S. drug lord, then the drug lord makes an example of him by sending a drone to annihilate him and his entire village.

It’s all about spreading “freedom and democracy.” Right?

“Sir, yes sir.”

Support the troops, bitches!

Calgacus said...

A comment here has the full article, from behind the paywall.