Several foreign civilians were among dozens killed when Algerian forces stormed the site, taken by militants in revenge for the French intervention in neighboring Mali. Britain has stepped forward to help the French intervention, by providing cargo planes to transfer supplies to the war zone. But journalist and broadcaster Neil Clark says the European stance against Islamists is inconsistent - READ FULL SCRIPT BELOW....

NATO War On Africa
=================

With more western countries getting indirectly involved in the conflict in Mali, there’s increasing speculation about their motives. Journalist and broadcaster Neil Clark told RT, that the intervention has ‘only economic reasons’.

Several western countries have already offered France, which is to boost its force to 2,500 soldiers next week, aid in Mali.

The UK is providing logistical air assistance, while the United States is providing surveillance and other intelligence help.

Washington also announced it will supply transport planes for French forces and consider sending refueling tankers for French warplanes.

Canada has joined with the allies to support the on-going military intervention by dispatching a heavy-lift military transport. The country is also making an indirect contribution by training counter-terrorism operatives in neighboring Niger.

Italy is ready to offer logistical support for air operations, but it will not be joining French troops on the ground. The country’s defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola told the Senate on Wednesday that Italy’s offer was confined to air operations only.

RT: The UK is helping this French campaign in Mali with supplies and several British hostages have now been killed in Algeria. How concerned do you think the British public and politicians are about getting involved?

Neil Clark: I think the public is very concerned, because what’s happened here is David Cameron, who spent most of last year cheering on Islamist rebels in Syria, has now taken the line that Islamist rebels in Mali are the biggest danger to the world and we must intervene, Britain must help France regardless of the consequences for Britain. And I think it’s a very misguided policy. Unfortunately the political elite in Britain seem to be all behind his policy, which is very disturbing, but I think the public is very concerned about what’s going on.

==============
RT: What's in this for the UK – what's London looking to gain from supporting France?

NC: It’s very interesting, because if we think back to 2011, it was David Cameron and William Hague people like this, who were the loudest and most aggressive cheerleaders for the deposing of Colonel Gaddafi. And now the very same people – Cameron and Hague are the ones saying we’ve got to get involved in Mali operation to put down Al-Qaeda groups there. And so there’s a real inconsistency here, real hypocrisy. Why is fighting Al-Qaeda in Africa the biggest task? Why do we play such an active role in toppling leaders? And what’s in it for Britain? I think that what’s happening is that this Al-Qaeda threat is being used as a smoke screen for the re-colonization of Northern Africa by NATO forces, by France, Britain and the US.

==============
RT: Do you think that’s why we they are ignoring of the rise of Al-Qaeda in Syria?

NC: Absolutely! Because, of course, one of the biggest myths in international relations is that western powers are implacably opposed Al-Qaeda for the last 20-30 years. They are not. They will use the Al-Qaeda threat in some circumstances to invade certain countries like Afghanistan. But elsewhere they would actually back Al-Qaeda militants to topple secular regimes, like in Syria and Libya. It’s going to a Frankenstein’s monster, and of course it all dates back to Afghanistan in the 1980s. And Al-Qaeda and radical Islamic groups were used by the West to help topple the Red Army. And that’s all part of the policy.