Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





Britain’s Monarchy set on dominating Islamic Middle East for at least another 30 years?
Monday, 18 August 2008 09:14
by Bryan Rayner

That is the shocking and unwelcome news for Muslims and the Islamic world as we are informed of the Queen’s agreement with her government, to lead her Navy in the Middle East. This appalling resolution relates to the construction of two of the largest WAR ships ever built for the ROYAL Navy; and the ill-mannered names given to these two colossal exponents of WAR? I hope that readers will enjoy puzzling over the official names for a short while, but all will be revealed quite soon!

Appallingly, none of the following names put forward by Peace campaigners, will be painted on the prow of these colossal Aircraft Carriers when they surge towards Middle East waters: HMS Peace – HMS Peace Seeker – HMS Reconciliation – HMS End all War – HMS End Hostilities – HMS Freedom from Strife – HMS Amity – HMS End to all Conflict – HMS End of British Empire – HMS End of Colonialism – HMS End to Islamic Subjugation – HMS End to Islamic Oppression – HMS End to Imperial Dominance – HMS End to Monarchical Intervention – HMS Fair-minded – HMS Racially Unprejudiced – HMS Peace be with You.

It was at high level meetings at Government secure offices in London and purportedly Buckingham Palace also, where it was unanimously agreed by the autocratic Establishment hierarchy, that these floating fortress islands of British Monarchical antagonism and subjugation be given the names of…….. Wait for it!!

HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales!!!!

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

And the Monarchy is deemed by blinkered, head-in-sand pro Monarchists NOT to be involved in Britain’s political shennanigans and foreign policy war mongering? Ho hum! This brazen naming is yet another example indisputably proving that this most obnoxious of dynasties continues its rabid involvement in Imperial Empire, Christian and Crusading subjugation of Arab nations in the Middle East. Regrettably under the “Freedom” of Information Act, a naive British public will have to wait a lifetime to learn the full details regarding meetings that involved the building and deployment of these gigantic ships of WAR.

Meetings which allegedly included the Establishment’s Military Commander, her relations and her toadying government. An acquiescent government that seeks undemocratically, to uphold an absolutist dynasty that wields enormous unchallenged influence and power over the lives of ordinary individuals in Britain and the rest of the world! Moreover, each of these floating islands, terrifying examples of British Empire and its intrusive insolence, will displace a massive 65,000 tons, and cost the British tax payer an “estimated” £8 billions pounds sterling. That is the estimate, but previous sums have invariably been way above the original computation. Furthermore, each WAR ship will be bristling with death wielding armaments: Fifty WAR planes, huge arsenals of bombs, missiles, and shells all operated and serviced by a vast complement of nearly two thousand men and women.

A Different and Alternative Scenario for Monarchical Britain to mull over?

“A well equipped Naval Force from a Middle Eastern country is sending two fully loaded Aircraft Carriers to reconnoitre the waters off the British Isles. Ports at Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Dover will be subjected to intensive scrutiny, and the Admiralty along with the M.O.D has decided that the WAR ships will patrol the English Channel, areas of the North Sea and the Irish Sea indefinitely.” End of statement.

Quoting from Wikipedia, the following comments are of interest:

The report concluded that aircraft carriers offered the ability to “Operate OFFENSIVE aircraft abroad,” and “…interoperability with the UNITED STATES Navy was a factor in deciding the size of the carriers’ firepower of the carrier’s air wing…” while a US Naval Commander wants us to have “the same sort of clout as one of their (USA) carriers.” A British Military Spokesperson.

Nevertheless, the comments here offer contradictions, and I quote:

“Russia and China have invested big in much faster and more formidable anti-ship missiles than Exocet…the Moskit 3M80 … and the even more advanced SS-N-27 Sizzler. These missiles fly two and a half times faster than the American ones. The Russian Moskit technology sold to China has been renamed the Hai Ying or Sea Eagle HY2, and the threat of the Hai Ying is so great that it has effectively barred operational access to the Taiwan Strait to US. Aircraft carriers. In other words, these missiles have given the USA a ‘bloody’ nose, without blood shedding. Bravo to that! China has also supplied the Hai Ying to Iran. Carriers today are far more vulnerable to missile attack than 65 years ago…”

Deterrent Missiles Stopping Conflict & Saving Lives.

On the other hand if the warring bully boys of Monarchical Britain conclude that their Aircraft Carriers can be seen off or sunk easily, then it is likely that it might be decided NOT to enter into a bloody conflict and the inevitable tragic loss of life that would follow. Perhaps, and it is a slender one, if this information is accepted as correct, then these terrible ships of war will never be built and reach the stage of being launched in the first place? Now that would be a decision endorsed by all peace seekers everywhere.

However, be that as it may, both British ships of WAR, purveyors of death and destruction will be ready for their intrusive belligerent warring in the Middle East shortly after 2016, and are anticipated to be constantly ‘active’ in their Imperial role for at least another twenty years. This may be bad news for Muslims and Islamic States who have no desire to see these floating extensions of troublesome Monarchical British Imperialism, patrolling dangerously close in the Arabian Sea, the Gulf or the Indian Ocean and within air striking distance. A pressing response to all this terrifying, dangerous and provocative western aggression will inevitably mean an unsought increase in defensive armaments for Sovereign States in the Middle East.

They will be faced with an urgent necessity to prevent or minimise the coming menace to their people and infrastructures, and required to spend money that would be better spent on hospitals, schools and other major national benefits. But while the west goes down the repressive road of war, nations that justifiably resist its unwarranted aggression and professed dominance, have no option but to arm and defend against it.

This will mean a mushrooming in the age old race for armaments, and more death and annihilation. Therefore, sovereign States in the East will have no choice but to stockpile enormous numbers of expensive “specialist” weapons capable of immobilising or thwarting the vast warring forces waged against them; the aircraft carriers, war planes and other lethal war machines intent on death and devastation. Islamic countries deterrence might include high-speed ‘attack’ boats, sophisticated torpedoes, and the stockpiling of Exocet type missiles in the hope of dissuading the west from ruthless military attacks instead of peaceful negotiation.

On the other hand, why should any Middle Eastern country placate an aggressor? Clearly, Monarchical Britain is hell bent on venturing down the rocky road of war in the decades ahead, and yet the billions spent on these appalling war machines, could provide much needed hospitals and other worthwhile benefits, both at home and abroad. Nevertheless, it looks as if for decades to come the world will witness another sorrowful period of mayhem, death and devastation, with Monarchical Britain at the forefront.

Until glorious change comes, and our Monarchical Establishment resolves to adopt peace instead of war, then those of us opposed to all this perilous warring gibberish are duty and morally bound to offer apologies to those that are suffering and will suffer from Britain’s malicious, unjustifiable, inexcusable wrath in the years ahead. On behalf of the Queen therefore, her obnoxious Princes and her toadying Government Ministers, Peace Seekers everywhere tender a belated but sincere apology. What is more, we condemn without hesitation this Imperial belligerence, and regard those who seek to enforce it as utterly repellent and beneath contempt. Peace – Peace – Peace. William Gladys. August 9th.2008.
More from this author:
Royal Porton Down (4078 Hits)
by Brian Raynor Before royalty opens or gives its name to anything, exhaustive checks are made to eliminate any adverse and potentially...
In Praise of Killing Muslims - The British ‘Royal Public Relations’ Disaster (3752 Hits)
by Bryan Raynor The over bloated coverage relative to Prince Harry in the British media has been unyielding in the last few days, and even out...
Britain’s Monarchy set on dominating Islamic Middle East for at least another 30 years? (4375 Hits)
by Bryan Rayner That is the shocking and unwelcome news for Muslims and the Islamic world as we are informed of the Queen’s agreement with...
Governing Monarchy: It’s manifest role in the Radicalisation of British Politics, Culture & Society. (8255 Hits)
by William Gladys If there were Lunatic Asylums for Institutions, I have no doubt that ‘Megalomanic’ British Monarchy would have been...
Iran's Elections 2009 and Western Hypocricy and Interference (2501 Hits)
by Brian Rayner It is evident from the frenzied hourly reporting emanating from the mainstream media in Monarchical Britain, that the rationale of...
Related Articles:
Texas Versus Tel Aviv: US Policy in the Middle East (11087 Hits)
 By James Petras The struggle within the US power structure between the economic empire builders (EEB) and the civilian ...
Baghdad is Surrounded: “The American Era in the Middle East has ended” (10639 Hits)
by Mike Whitney   Don Rumsfeld is not a good leader. In fact, he is a very bad leader. Leadership is predicated on three basic factors:...
Is Another Recession Looming? Growth Slows, Housing Fizzles (7563 Hits)
By Seth Sandronsky   U.S. economic growth rose at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in July–September, the slowest in more than three...
A Beacon of Hope and Unity in the Middle East (8143 Hits)
by Chris Floyd Jews and Muslims unite against homosexuals (Daily Telegraph; plus an update below.) Who says there is no hope for peace in...
“America’s moment in the Middle East is about to end” (9095 Hits)
by Mike Whitney There are no “accidents” in Middle East politics. This week’s assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister, Pierre...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (4)add comment

David Stewart said:

Remind me again, which navy was it that put an end to slavery in so many parts of the world, that's right it was the Royal Navy in the early 1800's.

These aircraft carriers will provide jobs in places with great unemployment like Barrow and Glasgow and will project power which as was seen in Sierra Leone in 1999 can bring peace and save lives.

God Save the Queen and Her Britanic Majesty's Royal Navy.
August 19, 2008
Votes: -2

J. Ford said:

Stupid, useless waste
Building aircraft carriers in this day and age is a stupid, useless waste. Missiles that move at three or four times the speed of sound cannot be countered with any notable degree of success. Nuclear submarines, by themselves, made surface warships obsolete years ago. When, as a young Marine, I was involved in war games off the Pacific Coast of the United States, I remember the ship I was on got "theoretically sunk" some 24 or 25 times in about three hours. One doesn't see either China or Russia investing much in a surface navy. That's because they know better.

Those big carriers will provide work for a few hundreds of people while they're under construction. If they're ever used in combat, they will provide work for one submarine skipper and/or one missile man for five or ten minutes. The best Her Majesty can hope for from that investment is that the vessels will get blown up in shallow water. That way they'll provide jobs for generations of salvage divers yet unborn.

God won't save the Queen (Haven't you noticed that Britain's queens are all dead but one?) and God won't save the Royal Navy, either. Taxpayers of the UK might save themselves some money if they'd choose to oust their present government, which is arguably among the most stupid and reactionary in a long line of stupid and reactionary governments. Aircraft carriers? Better they should spend the money for psychiatric examinations.
August 22, 2008
Votes: +2

William Gladys said:

Britain's Imperial Past
Clearly Mr Stewart is delighted that slavery was abolished. Nevertheless, his admonishment of this dreadful crime is by association condemnation of the Monarchy and the Royal Navy also, which was heavily involved in this merciless 'trade'for years. For it was the British Establishment, aided by ships and men of the Royal Navy who were responsible for the implementation of this abominable treachery, and I quote: "Here was a British trading network on an international scale lubricated by slavery, all approved, regulated by parliament, and by the end of the 17th. century, supported with Royal financial backing".Indeed the Royal Africa Company, was so successful that its dominance in the trade was questioned and objected too, and was later joined or superseded by other merchants. Furthermore, "The outbound (Royal Navy) slave ships were packed with British goods destined in exchange for human cargo".And, "...by 1720...the most important trade was to despatch enslaved Africans across the atlantic". In ships provided by Her Brittanic Majesty! The world should never forget the British Monarchy and the Royal Navy's role in this dreadful period of bloody Empire. And let us not forget that these wretched people were not placed on to a Royal Yacht with all it's absurd ostentation and luxury, but forced and herded below decks and shackled in irons.So much for the 'glorious' Brittanic Royal Navy!Brian Rayner.
September 03, 2008
Votes: +4

Charlie Fitz said:

I hae to say - I'm astonished! I thought that this was a joke article. And before I go any futher, I'd like ot point out that I'm a Historian, Russianist and Sovietologist and not a Monarchist. However ... Just because a Government has named a few ships after the 'traditional' head of its government, doesnt mean that the Queen has any say in the matter. In addition, the monarch has de facto, no power in government in the UK - a bit like elected presidents as figureheads with no real powers. If they did then, they would be able to refuse Royal Assent to legislation, which hasnt been done since Queen Anne over 300 years ago in 1706, they would have been able to stop the government from forcing them to pay taxes and stop them from cutting their budget, opening up the palaces for tourism. And on the talk of luxury and extravagance, The Russian President and the American Presidents have their own private jets. You might argue that they are elected (even that's debateable, depending on your point ov view), but the British monarchy are only there for as long as the people see fit - have you heard of the Declaration of Arbroath or the Civil War and the re-establishment of the Monarchy? So what they are historic, but so is religion and thousands of years later, people are still harping on about things that happened and were written then.

The real issue is - not in the name of kings and queens or morarchies, they are just names, titles and have no real baearing - the fact that people around the world, not only western countries tolerate war.

You said Peace Peace Peace at the end of your story, but in an earlier sentence, hoped that the ships would be blown up in shallow water. The thing about peace is - and you've just proved it - is that everyone wants it, but no one wants to be the one to give up what they have, or what they believe in and be the first to back down (i.e. be the loser). You would be the winner if the ships were blown up and the British Government surrendered - and that would cost lives. Is that peace? - or just peace on your terms. Peace it a bit like sex - it takes two and they have to be in agreement. If it is forced, then it is not peace - and that goes for the British Government too. As I say, many in the world, East and West have a lot to learn about peace. And by the looks of it, so do you.
November 02, 2009
Votes: -2

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123