> Home > News > News > Farage: Are we about to launch our own version of Jihad?
>  News

Farage: Are we about to launch our own version of Jihad?
Date 30/03/2011 11:09  Author webmaster  Hits 3809  Language Global
VIDEO: Part 1  Part 2                                
Speaking to Alex Jones on PrisonPlanet.tv, yesterday, UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said the war on Libya "is a classic case of what we call the 'beneficial crisis'.

"Whenever there's a crisis it's used by big government and by supernational global government as an excuse to say, 'Look, we're doing the right thing,' [in order] to take more powers and to further rob us of our democracy. We've got to resist. We've got to take to the streets. We've got to withdraw our democratic consent from politicians who are not ready to stand up and fight this," Mr Farage stressed.


Referring to "the idea that we've got to support rebellions wherever they may be," Mr Farage asked:  "Is anybody seriously suggesting that if there's a major uprising in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis shoot a couple of hundred, that we're going to start bombing Saudi Arabia? Are we about to launch our own version of Jihad against every regime, every Arab state? It's absolutely insane.

"We've been in Afghanistan for over 10 years. There is no end in sight whatsoever. I cannot believe that public opinion will put up in Britain, America or France with us getting involved in a whole series of military conflicts across the Middle East."

"We've started something here, we've no idea where it's going to end," Mr Farage said.

Part 1 of 2



Part 2 of 2




"This idea that Gaddafi is a bad man - look, Gaddafi has been a bad man for 42 years... We welcomed this guy into the fold, we treated him as a friend and an ally... And now we're being told...:  'This is all about regime change. We've got to get rid of Gaddafi'. And we are actively, militarily supporting the rebels without having had a clue from the start who the rebels are, or what their motivations are.

"If this is for humanitarian reasons, who is to say that if the rebels get to Tripoli they won't massacre Gaddafi's people?"

Asked what he thinks is the reason for this war, Mr Farage said: "We're literally running out of money in the European Union to keep this crazy single currency project going, and I think it's been all through the years a marvelous thing for leaders when they're in real trouble and when public support is waning to head off and have foreign military adventures.

"So I do see this as much as anything else as a diversionary tactic, as an attempt to whip up jingoistic support for our boys, going into Libya and doing the right thing.

"Initially, they appeared to have got away with it, I suspect... because they were telling us a pack of lies. So much so when... the House of Commons had a vote on this only 13 MPs out of 650 voted against military action, such was that lemming-like support amongst our politicians for this enterprise.

"But I suspect that now, today's report that there is a presence of Al Qaeda amongst the rebels; the reports that actually both sides have committed attrocities and they will probably get worse as time goes on... If we're going to send in ground troops as well who's to say we're not getting ourselves into yet another Afghanistan? I think politically this decision will backfire very badly on [politicians]."

"Whatever the mainstream media are saying, whatever our politicians in Westminster are voting for... there was an opinion poll out in Britain this morning that showed seven out of ten Britons are very worried about the Libyan adventure and deeply concerned that we shouldn't get ourselves further embroiled. So I just don't believe there's public support for this, and you know, there comes a break point with this.

"Governments can get away with a hell of a lot. They can lie to us, they can rob us, they can do all sorts of things, but in the end they have to have consent of some kind, otherwise what we're going to see are rebellions of our own in our own countries and people will take to the streets and say: 'we do not wish to get embroiled in regional or possibly even global conflicts.

"We have some very large Muslim populations in European countries. Mercifully, the vast majority of them are absolutely peaceful and democratic, but we have got some very dangerous minorities. My feeling is that by going to war in the Middle East, all we are likely to do is to give the extremists an excuse.

Asked whether the legitimisation of a major ground offensive is taking place, Mr Farage said:

"Well, they do seem to be very keen to put in ground troops, don't they? We already have the SAS there for some time, that we know for a fact. We've got the British Royal Marines getting ready to go. You've got a call getting ready to go. It's almost as if our governments are looking for an excuse to put in ground troops, and I really feel that we have got to put real pressure on our politicians.

"I think if there are any prospects of some major excalation of us getting involved in a huge conflict across the Middle East we've got to take to the streets. We've got to take to the streets, millions of us, and we've got to march and we've got to say: 'Not in my name. We do not give consent for endless war and endless conflict,' especially because whether it's Al Qaeda and the rebels or Gaddafi, they may both be as bad as eachother and really it's not in our national interest to get involved in these conflicts."

Full Transcript:

AJ: [Intro]... we see Obama inititiating the rebels and giving them the green light, British SAS on the ground we now learn for over a month; it is confirmed 2200 Marines are preparing to ground invade, but it's not 'a war', it's 'kinetic military action', and if it's a ground invasion it's part of a humanitarian assistance, so this is not a war, Nigel Farage, is it? (Alex Jones asks sarcastically).

NF: I'm afraid it could well be a war. We've started something here, we've no idea where it's going to end. This idea that Gaddafi is a bad man - look, Gaddafi has been a bad man for 42 years, but as you quite rightly say, 6 years ago Mr Balir went and hugged him, and Mr Berlusconi has been to meet him as well, our British Commissioner in Europe Peter Mandelson went pheasant shooting with his son... We welcomed this guy into the fold, we treated him as a friend and an ally, and as recently as December the President of the European Union [van Rompuy] was there, holding hands and being all matey with him. And now we're being told, and Herman van Rompuy, and the British government and the French governmanet are saying:  'This is all about regime change. We've got to get rid of Gaddafi'. And we are actively, militarily supporting the rebels without having had a clue from the start who the rebels are, or what their motivations are.

Now, if this is for humanitarian reasons, who is to say that if the rebels get to Tripoli they won't massacre Gaddafi's people?"

I just think we got into something here; we haven't thought it through; it's not part of a bigger North African/Middle East strategy, and I would seriously regret our actions so far.

AJ: It's confirmed that they lied and said, through the British foreign ministry, that he'd run to Venezuela, to destabilise. It's confirmed that he didn't run to Zimbabwe. It's confirmed that he was not strafing crowds and there are actually armed groups, but we're not saying that Gaddafi is a good guy, the point here is, we've been told a lot of lies and as you pointed out even the BBC has admitted that the rebels in the East are just grabbing people and lining them up and shooting their political enemies. And so this whole line about 'Oh we've got to do this for humanitarian reasons' - What's the real reason? Is this about a political distraction from what's happening?

NF: You've got to remember that as far as the European Union is concerned, we are in a very, very deep crisis over here. Already in the space of the last year we had to bail out Greece, whose presence in the euro wasn't working; we had to bail out the Irish, and we are within days I would suspect of having to bail out Portugal, with the bigger worry that the Spanish economy which is about seven times the size of the Irish one, may need bailing out too.

We're literally running out of money in the European Union to keep this crazy single currency project going and I think it's been all through the years a marvelous thing for leaders when they're in real trouble and when public support is waning to head off and have foreign military adventures.

So I do see this as much as anything else as a diversionary tactic, as an attempt to whip up jingoistic support for our boys, going into Libya and doing the right thing.

Initially, they appeared to have got away with it. I suspect, as you say, because they were telling us a pack of lies - so much so when the British Parliament - when the House of Commons had a vote on this only 13 MPs out of 650 voted against military action, such was that lemming-like support amongst our politicians for this enterprise.

But I suspect that now, today's report that there is a presence of Al Qaeda amongst the rebels; the reports that actually both sides have committed attrocities and they will probably get worse as time goes on; I think that politicians who have launched us into this think it will increase their popularity.

If we're going to send in ground troops as well who's to say we're not getting ourselves into yet another Afghanistan? I think politically this decision will backfire very badly on them.

AJ: I agree with you, but now we have Senator Liebermann and others saying - this sets a precedent that any time people rebel in a country, whether it's a good country, bad, whatever, that now the UN will pass a resolution and in less than 48 hours the US military was firing cruise missiles, NATO members were dropping bombs - England and France and others - this is incredible that our Congress - at least in England you guys had a vote on it - our Congress - I know the UK Independence Party is always talking about how over 70% of the laws that govern England you don't even get to vote on it in the British Parliament - well here Obama didn't even consult Congress, when the law says they've got to give a declaration of war, or at least an authorisation of force, and our own Congress barely even batted an eye, becoming vestigial or ceremonial.

NF: Well, you are being very badly let down by your congressmen, aren't you? They should be standing up and screaming and shouting. Their job is to represent people. Their job is to represent the democratic will. Their job is to have a check and a balance on the executive and they're clearly, in America at the moment, totally failing in their duty.

This idea that we've got to support rebellions wherever they may be - is anybody seriously suggesting that if there's a major uprising in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis shoot a couple of hundred, that we're going to start bombing Saudi Arabia? Are we about to launch our own version of Jihad against every regime, every Arab state? It's absolutely insane.

We've been in Afghanistan for over 10 years. There is no end in sight whatsoever. I cannot believe that public opinion will put up in Britain, America or France with us getting involved in a whole series of military conflicts across the Middle East. I think the whole thing is absolutely crazy.

AJ: Well you're pointing out just how wild and out of control this is - this new military interventionism - but it's been hailed all over the European papers, the US papers, British papers as the New World Order; that this is the new cover for globalist imperialism. They quietly finance rebellions, they use Al Qaeda, they tell us that Al Qaeda is now good, right out of 1984, and now they're saying, Yes, rise up against your government and we'll do a no-fly zone. They're openly debating on our news, all over the news channels, how we need to go ahead and attack Syria. This is starting to look like the makings of [something that's] bigger than a regional war. This looks like how World war I or World War II started.

NF:  Well yes, it's odd, isn't it, you never quite know what will catalyse a bigger conflict. What I do know is that when WWI started and WWII started, the massive populations in the countries supported the basic aims of the war, right? Now the point about this is, whatever the mainstream media are saying, whatever our politicians in Westminster are voting for, however much your congressmen bury their own heads in the sand, there was an opinion poll out in Britain this morning that showed 7 out of ten Britons are very worried about the Libyan adventure and deeply concerned that we shouldn't get ourselves further embroiled. So I just don't believe there's public support for this, and you know, there comes a break point with this.

Governments can get away with a hell of a lot, they can lie to us, they can rob us, they can do all sorts of things, but in the end they have to have consent of some kind, otherwise what we're going to see are rebellions of our own in our own countries and people will take to the streets and say: 'we do not wish to get embroiled in regional or possibly even global conflicts.

AJ: Well that's my next point. We have 30 million illegal aliens in this country. The Marxist Ford Foundation universities do teach the South West, bought from Mexico, that from Texas to Cailfornia is owned by Mexico, there are open calls for rebellion. I know there are giant immigrant populations in Europe that routinely burn large areas to the ground. What would happen under this new UN precedent if they rose up and began burning cities, would we then see the Russians or the Chinese under the UN come here and do a no-fly zone and attack us? Now obviously that's absurd, but that's the precedent that's being set here.

NF: Yes, I think that's right. We have some very large Muslim populations in European countries. Mercifully, the vast majority of them are absolutely peaceful and democratic, but we have got some very dangerous minorities. My feeling is that by going to war in the Middle East, all we are likely to do is to give the extremists an excuse and so you could see two types of demonstration going on in these countries. Firstly, you could see, as you say, Muslim extremists getting back - and we shouldn't forget that the last time we bombed the Colonel back in the mid-80s it wasn't very long before a 747 landed on the village of Lockerbie.

AJ: Stay there. Final segment, Nigel Farage, back in just a few minutes. That's the next point I want to cover - the media saying, 'Oh, Gaddafi may attack us, then they use that as.... Okay we only have 5 minutes left with UKIP MEP Nigel Farage. By the way, the liberty movement, I was just talking with him during the break, is exploding all over Europe and not just in England, their party is expanding... Nigel, finishing up with the terror card, they've said: 'Yes, we're bombarding Gaddafi and blowing up infrastructure and if he fights back in any way it's terrorism, and they're talking about that, legitimising a ground invasion if there's any type of terror attack. I wonder if some groups might allow crazies to do something, or might open the door, who knows?

NF: Well, they do seem to be very keen to put in ground troops, don't they? We already have the SAS there for some time, that we know for a fact. We've got the British Royal Marines getting ready to go. You've got a call getting ready to go. It's almost as if our governments are looking for an excuse to put in ground troops, and I really feel that we have got to put real pressure on our politicians. And I think if there are any prospects of some major excalation of us getting involved in a huge, huge conflict across the Middle East we've got to take to the streets. We've got to take to the streets, millions of us, and we got to march and we've got to say: 'Not in my name. We do not give consent for endless war and endless conflict,' especially because whether it's Al Qaeda and the rebels or Gaddafi, they may both be as bad as eachother and really it's not in our national interest to get involved in these conflicts.

AJ: We're now hearing from obama and others that this is a great moment for globalism, for the New World Order, where the UN gives the orders and our militaries go in. Is this not more of this expansion of undemocratic power, similar to how the EU runs England?

NF: Yes, it is a classic case of what we call the 'beneficial crisis'. Whenever there's a crisis, it's used by Big Government, it's used by supernational global government as an excuse to say, Look, we're doing the right thing, and to take more powers and to further rob us of our democracy. This perhaps, what is happening now, looks like the most extreme example of it that we've had to date and we've got to resist. As I said earlier, we've got to take to the streets, we've got to withdraw our democratic consent from politicians who are not ready to stand up and fight this.

AJ: We noticed, just a few weeks ago, Obama didn't even want to give a speech or comment on Libya and they reported that he had to give the speech last night and that it was a "hard sell" because people aren't for it. Now I saw a Reuters poll claiming that 60-plus % supported it, but then I read the poll - it just asked what option you thought they should use in war, it didn't even let people have a decision to say no.

NF: Well, as I say, overnight in Britain, there's a poll out being conducted by one of our TV channels showing that 7 out of then people in Britain are deeply worried and want no further excalation. And I would reckon that's a pretty accurate opinion poll amongst ordinary people. Sadly, amongst our so-called mainstream media and politicians that message hasn't yet got through. It's got to.

AJ: Now Nigel I'm going to put on screen for PrisonPlanet.TV viewers - and for radio listeners they can just search the terms 'Herman van Rompuy Muammar Gaddafi' and they'll see the photos of the hugging and the shaking of hands and the rest of it, but politicians in England and other countries that were cosy to Hitler early on, they were excoriated and removed, or just resigned, but we are not seeing resignations by the Labour Party that's been lavishing Gaddafi in England; we're not seeing any of these EU pimps, like Sarkozy or Rompuy stepping down. In fact they're granstanding and quite proud of the fact that just months ago they were lip-locked with him. Are you calling for them to resign.

NF: I am, of course I am. I think theior hypocrisy beggars belief. But you know sometimes these things take a bit longer. Your comment about Hitler is of course right. Virtually, the entire upper class of Britain were taken in by Herr Hitler, thought he was absolutely wonderful, the BBC thought he was terrific, our King even went to visit him, our Parliament thought he was wonderful, and Winston Churchill and about 20 back-bench Members of Parliament were derided as being insane, eccentric, warmongers - in the end they were right and in the end the bad guys lost their jobs and I think the same is going to happen again. It just may take a little bit longer than we'd like.

AJ: Well the comparison is certainly there. If they're going to say Gaddafi is this devil, but then by prancing around with him just months ago, they need to resign. This is outrageous.

NF: It is sickening hypocrisy in every way. At the moment they are being allowed to get away with it. I look at our mainstream news channels across here and nobody, nobody is asking the right questions, and it's all being presented on our TV screens as if we're doing some wonderful social good - the rebels are the good guys, Gaddafi is the bad guy, but as we've learned today, it isn't as simple as that. Again, to get  change we've got to be prepared to stand up and shout.

AJ: Absolutely, Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP, thank you sir.
www.ukip.org
...................................................
Main Page Archive