The British government has participated or launched three wars in the last decade, all of which have been started based on a bunch of lies.
The UK government under Tony Blair lied to its people, when it joined the so-called “coalition of willing” more than 10 years ago to launch an invasion against Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on US soil.
The Blair government unleashed a huge media campaign to persuade Britons that the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists were definitely behind the 9/11 attacks.
The then government of Britain also used, as a pretext, the ideology of the extremist Wahabis to fool the British into believing that if those radicals behind 9/11 attacks were not stopped they would definitely launch a similar attack on British soil.
Wahhabism itself is a product of a British conspiracy, perpetrated to be applied for their own sinister purposes to destroy Islam during the 18th century.
Now, more than a decade after the invasion, doubts are emerging one after another about the motives behind the campaign, and the UK politicians are leading so-called peace negotiations with the Taliban to pull themselves out of the quagmire their predecessors have created for them.
Again in March 2003, the Blair government lied about the executed dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, when he claimed that “We had to launch an attack on Iraq because its regime possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that could be activated within 45 minutes,” and that wasn't true either.
In fact, the West wanted to topple a regime it had fully supported in the 1980s, when Saddam's regime imposed an eight-year war against Iran.
The then Western leaders including the British were not happy with the Iraqi dictator anymore and they used WMDs as a pretext to justify a military intervention to topple his regime.
The real motives behind the war had nothing to do with WMDs but was all about US control of Iraq's oil resources and to strengthen their presence in the Middle East.
However, US president George W. Bush and British Prime minister Tony Blair needed a more compelling reason to win public support for going to war.
Blair and his government lied to the British public in order to wage a war against Iraq. In his statement to the British parliament, Tony Blair told four lies as follow:
First, he lied when he said: “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons” and that, “Saddam has continued to produce them”.
Secondly, he lied when he asserted that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes.
“He [Saddam] has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”, Blair said.
Thirdly, the former Prime Minister lied when he said “Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger in Africa in order to produce a nuclear warhead”.
“In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa”, Blair said.
And the forth lie was that Tony Blair did not say the intelligence assessment was that Iraq would only use chemical or biological weapons if attacked.
The current UK government and its allies unleashed a bombing campaign against crisis-hit Libya to enforce a UN Security Council resolution, which called for a no-fly zone over the North African country to protest its civilian population from being killed at the hands of its long-time dictator Muammar Qaddafi.
But, the UN mandate turned out to be a pre-planned plot to overthrow the regime of Gaddafi on the back of a popular uprising fuelled by discontent inside the country.
Now that the Gaddafi regime has been toppled, Britain and other western powers have unveiled bids to secure a slice of the oil prize in Libya with France saying it was "fair and logical" for preference to be given to those who first helped the revolutionaries.
Actually, British Prime Minister David Cameron lied to the British people, when he told the parliament that his government was attacking Libya out of humanitarian concerns.
The Libya invasion was a pre-written scenario to enforce regime change and to control the impoverished country's vast oil resources on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to steer the domestic political agenda in order to decieve the British public into believing that their government was acting as an international player.
But, the world's public opinion in general would never ever again accept the so-called Western humanitarian concerns as a good excuse for supporting evil objectives behind military interventions elsewhere around the globe.