Saturday, December 30, 2006

Tony Blair in 'Staying with Friends' scandal,,2-2522457,00.html

Unbelievable. If the media in this country could get any more forensically trivial, it would pop out of existence. The scandal brewing in the teeny tiny minds of our newspaper editors right now boils down to: Tony Blair is staying with some friends for the holidays.

Oh My God! Is there no disgusting foulness that this man will not commit? Staying over with friends at the holidays? Will he be drinking at the pub as well? Maybe have a bit of a sing-song? The PUBLIC MUST BE TOLD!

I am feeling rather faint. I may have to go lie down in a darkened room for a while till my head clears.

Knowing what you want

"Even so, the US does have the bad habit of being fickle with its friends in the Middle East. Many people in the March 14 bloc likewise are worried the US will abandon them to Hezbollah, the Iranians, and the Baath. Anti-American elements in March 14 will tell you that the reason they don’t trust America is not because they hate the US, but because Americans are unreliable allies who care only about themselves and not about Lebanon."

I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt on many issues, because the historical record is replete with their consistent championing of the right people in the right places at the right time. However, my own (vastly less knowledgeable) take on the middle east is very much consistent with Michael Tottens. I'm not too sure how many US diplomats or politicians have ever bothered to find out what the historical dynamics are in the ME, and how normal in many respects the politics are there if you take the time to find out who really wants what. Unfortunately, you have many many people like ex-US President Carter, who went straight from deep ignorance to championing one party (out of many thousands of parties) in the complex tableaux of ME politics. This naivety and arbitrariness tends to make the many rational players in the ME despair of getting the US to make long-term commitments to the right people and the right ideas in the ME.

Saying that, even the British Empire, with many individuals with vastly more knowledge of the actual makeup and history of the ME, had a difficult time finding responsible and far-sighted organisations and leaders to ally to. They were also sold some serious lines, like the pan-Arab imperialist dreams of Hussein-Ibn-Ali, sharif of Mecca and his three sons Ali, Abdullah and Faisal in the early 2oth century. Vast territories were pretty much awarded to them on the basis of Arabist claims which turned out to be wholly bogus. But at least the British knew the major players, and quite often what their agendas were. I get the strong impression that many US officials, when confronted by the complexity and depth of ME affairs just can't be bothered to try to get a handle on why todays players are doing what they are doing. And the fact that many groups in the ME have amazingly bold and ambitious plans for themselves which are often woefully unrealistic adds yet another layer of instability to what is already a stressfully eclectic mix.

At various times, the US has championed nationalists against communists, Shahs against reformers, reformers against tribal leaders, pan-Arabists against nationalists and vice versa. Without having some view of what they eventually want (perhaps stable nations which evenly represent the patchwork makeup of the population?), the US is left with worthy but hollow invocations of things like democracy and freedom. The ME has always been a place of empires, where strong men with armies carved for themselves a new order over the bodies of whoever was silly enough to get in the way. The transition from that state of mind to one where men are content to live within their nations borders, and form a happy coalition of mutual aid and practical progress is under way, but is still some way off. In that respect (Japan, Germany, S Korea) the US has a very good track record of sticking with the transitional program. But the commitment to that process in Iraq (and Lebanon and Israel etc) must be steely and cognisant of the difficulty of breaking habits thousands of years in the making. An understanding of historical shifts and trends would be handy, and the teaching of the basics of ME history should become a part of US education.

Simply pursuing US interests in the most economic of senses is simply not enough. The imperialist habits of thought that permeate ME politics must be replaced by more humble and practical ones.

The even-handed New York Times

Many of the right of centre blogs from the US have brought to their readers attention the highly pro-Palestinian anti-Israel bias of the New York Times. In this article, on a website called Occupation a man called Chris Hedges, who was the bureau chief of the NY Times in Jerusalem, runs down through all the alleged atrocities perpetrated against the Palis.

Two things caught my eye:

'Palestinians in Gaza live encased in a squalid, overcrowded ghetto, surrounded by the Israeli military and a massive electric fence, unable to leave or enter the strip and under daily assault.'

'Faced with a demographic timebomb, knowing that by 2020 Jews will make up only 40 to 46 percent of the overall population of Israel, the architects of transfer, who once held the equivalent status in Israeli society of the Ku Klux Klan, have wormed their way into positions of power in the Israeli government.'

Why are the Palestinians having so many children? Oh right, I remember; islame is the fastest growing religion on the planet, and we have to keep it that way. And the smartest response to living all bunched up in little squatter camps is to keep those babies coming.

I'm not sure what makes me angriest about this whole setup- that a week after the partition of Israel was declared the Palestinians tried to annihilate the Jewish population of Palestine, but having failed to do so then spent the next 58 years presenting themselves as widdly weakly victims of the great oppressor Zionists; or that idiots like Chris Hedges can't identify cause and effect. Over and over and over again the Palestinians have shown their intense collective desire to murder all the Jews and throw their bodies into the Med, and over and over and over again their stooges such as Hedges insist that its the Jews who are intent on ethnic cleansing, murder and societal dismemberment. I often wonder what Hedges views would be if the Palestinians had won the war of 1948, and dispatched the Jews with vigor and stolen all their legal property? '...Its ok because they were NATIVE peoples, and NATIVE peoples can murder and steal and ethnically cleanse to their hearts content, because they are not, nor ever will be, imperialist intruders.'

Anyway, I think at least one issue is cleared up- and thats why the New York Times could never quite see things through Israeli eyes.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Press freedoms new definition

According to Reporters without Frontiers, as long as you have a press pass, you can do pretty much whatever you like. You can spy for the enemy, you can consort with the enemy to provide his propaganda, you can provide exactly the kind of work that will boost the enemies propaganda message: and if anybody interferes with you, they are an evil dictatorship trying to suppress press freedom!

"Deterioration in the United States and Japan, with France also slipping

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.
Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year."

First of all, lets take the three star turns given as evidence of foul US malpractice. Two seconds
googling found me this on a website touting for his release-

"Josh Wolf is an independent journalist and blogger who was jailed on August 1 when he refused to testify or turn over unpublished video out-takes to a federal grand jury investigating a July, 2005 anti-G8 demonstration. Josh has never been convicted of a crime. He is being held on civil contempt in an effort to coerce him to testify and turn over his unpublished material to a federal grand jury. Josh was released on bail September 1st but was ordered to return to prison on September 22nd pending a hearing before the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

So, reasonable folk of the world, here is a man who has in his possession video of crimes being committed which he will not give to the authorities because presumably he supports the causes in whose name the crimes were committed. His choice. But lets face it, being held in jail on contempt of court is universes away from the gun-toting free-for-all that many journos in many countries face. A martyr he is not. Whether or not there were violent crimes on the tapes, his civic duty is to allow the relevant prosecutors the chance to judge whether there are cases to be answered. The normal reason for protecting a source is that to reveal their identity would compromise their personal life to a very great extent, despite their having acted for the greater public good. Rabid anti-capitalist protestors assaulting and in one case in Italy murdering policemen are not acting in the public good by any reasonable judgement.

Sami Al-Hajj

According to a fulsome Wikipedia entry, the following charges have been levelled againt Al-Hajj.

1. The detainee worked as an executive secretary for Abdul Al-Latif Al-Imran, general manager for the Union Beverage Company (UBC). The Union Beverage Company has been associated with Bosnian/Chechen mujahid.
2. The detainee traveled to Azerbaijan at least eight times to courier money to the Al-Haramayn non-governmental organization (NGO) on behalf of his boss, Abd Al-Latif Omran.
Al-Haramayn has been designated under Executive Order 13224 as an organization that has provided support to terrorist organizations.
3. During the winter of 1997, the detainee delivered $7,000 USD to Al-Haramayn.
4. During the winter of 1998, the detainee visited Al-Haramayn’s summer camp, and delivered $13,000 USD to Al-Haramayn.
4. During November 1999, the detainee delivered $12,000 USD to Munir Al-Barguoni for a new factory in Azerbaijan; he also delivered $100,000 USD to Jamal, the Director of Al-Haramayn.
5. The detainee was detained in Azerbaijan for the transport of $220,000 USD. The money was destined for Chechen rebels and not for humanitarian support as the detainee was told....

Theres quite a bit more if you really care!

When did the guy have time to take photos, for goodness sake? To portray this guy like he's joe schmo beat reporter hoiked off to Guantanamo because he's a darky is about as meretricious as you can get.

Bilal Hussein

Quoting from a very biased Wikipedia entry (biased towards Hussein):

"The military said that Hussein was found with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida forces in Iraq.[1] According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces."[1] Gardner continued, "The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."[1]"

I know from my own long-tracking of this story that months before Bilal Hussein was captured with a known Al Qaeda in Iraq operative, a number of blogs in the US, particularly Little Green Footballs, had brought to the attention of the US military the extraordinary nature of the pictures provided to AP by Mr Hussein. Given the extraordinary barbarity of AQII, the fact that Mr Hussein was able to photograph them with faces uncovered at the precise moment they were attacking US positions meant he had a level of access granted to none but full associate members of the organisation. A number of the attacks shown in his pictures were demonstrably staged (ie they didn't involve any coalition forces). Given the access Mr Hussein had to REAL attacks, photographing faked ones would immediately call into question his role. The fact is, a number of real journalists tried to get pictures like the ones Mr Hussein seemed to get hold of so easily, and died in terrible gruesome circumstances as a result.

US Ranking on the Press Freedom Index 2006: 54 (along with Tonga and Croatia)

'Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.”' And the concrete, day-to-day impact on working US journalists of this deterioration was? Er, nothing. George W. Bush grumped away to himself, we presume. You'll notice that this very serious accusation, that a sitting US president has threatened working journos who disagree with his policies is not backed up by even a single piece of evidence. Convinced me!

'The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.' To the unobservant eye, this statement closely following on from the previous statement would indicate some Bush administration control over these federal courts. As those with even the merest smidgin of knowledge about the US government could tell you, the three branches are entirely separate: judicial from legislative, legislative from executive and executive from judicial. Two seconds of rumination would reveal why there is no absolute right for journalists to refuse to reveal their sources- when there is an overriding public interest that criminals or terrorists be apprehended for instance. But don't let those silly little reality-based things intrude...

America-hatred (and its little brother Bush-hatred) is turning organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU and Reporters without Frontiers from genuine monitors and tellers of painful truths into cynical purveryors of lefty ritual positions. Instead of simply reporting what the facts tell them, the urgent need to turn America into the barbaric fascist dominator it patently isn't over-rides and distorts. Who this helps, I can't say. Who it hurts is everybody who used to pay attention to the often afwul truths these organisations presented us with.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

And heres why...

Minutes after my last post, I casually browsed this up from Little Green Footballs. Watch the video. Afghanistan has gone from being a relatively progressive, if extremely poor little country forty years ago, to something socially resembling Saudi Arabia in the seventh century. To the vast detriment of 50% of the population. Can you guess which half?

If somebody out there can convincingly argue that that is progress, please feel free to explain that to us 6.5 billion people who aren't muslims...

Why can't I dislike islam?

A few months back, a neo-fascist BNP leader called Nick Griffin was acqitted of Incitement to Racial Hatred. The court case originated from secret filming '...on 19 January 2004, in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith". ( The first time I read about this case, I was highly confused. Is hating islam the same as hating muslims? Could a Briton go to jail for saying islam is wicked and vicious?

In my opinion, there is very little creditable in islam, for the following reason. I believe religions encapsulate the character and core motivations of their founders. That character and those motivations are then institutionalised and propagated. Sadly, mohammed was not a nice guy. He emerges from the koran as spiteful, grudge-holding, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, extremely parochial and domineering. He did not have a big soul.

islam is like mohammed. Its based on his life, his teachings, on him. Although there are lots of flowery poetic bits in the koran that sound like the mercy and big-heartedness of Judaism and Christianity, they are completely undermined in my view by the actual character of mohammed. Where his character is on display, its not pretty. Getting revenge on those he deemed to have humiliated him was a big part of his motivation. In my view, thats not someone to base a major religion on. But hey, that just me and my opinion.

Could I potentially go to jail for that? In Britain? It would be an overstatement to say I hate islam. I deeply dislike it and the religious supremicism it seems to inevitably spawn, but I don't hate it. But if I did, would that be a crime? Not in a free country.

Separation of Church and State,20867,20977254-2702,00.html

"Lina Joy was once a Muslim but has converted to Christianity. She didn't do so to make any broad point or to lead any social movement. It was entirely a private decision. But in Malaysia the state takes official notice of your race and religion.
Lina Joy tried to get herself deregistered as a Muslim and reregistered as a Christian. As a Muslim she is not allowed to marry a Christian man and any children she has must be brought up as Muslims.
When the state authorities refused to accept her conversion she appealed to the courts on the basis of Article 11 of the Malaysian constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.
The case, in which judgment could be given at any time, has polarised Malaysia. Many Muslims believe apostasy - changing your religion - is not only a sin but should be punishable by death."

Malaysia is supposed to be one of the laid-back tolerant muslim countries. 'Deregistered as a Muslim and reregistered as a Christian'? Huh? Ok, let me get this right... if an English County Council want to put up a Nativity scene in the lobby of their headquarters, that is a disastrous imposition on the poor ickle muslim population, and must be destroyed and never repeated. But if a Malaysian woman wants to worship Christ in her home, and bring up her children to worship Christ, the entire weight of the Malaysian state will get in her way?

Why do I pick up the newspaper every day to read a new denunciation of this country and its oppressions, when the worlds conditions self-evidently proclaim the opposite case?

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Making logical arguments

Spotted this link on Little Green Footballs.

These are the comments and learned arguments of Fawaz Gerges. Fawaz A. Gerges earned an M.Sci., London School of Economics and a D.Phil., Oxford University. He holds the Christian A. Johnson Chair in International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies.

“Look, you have tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed. You have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed. Look at the history of colonialism. ‘How can the oppressed people,’ they say, ‘Jews, turn around and do injustice to the Palestinians?’ Why the Palestinians have to pay for the crimes committed by Europeans, after all?”

I have heard the above 'arguments' hundreds, if not thousands of times. Hearing this garbage from a professor though is astounding.

"... tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed." Possibly true, although the circumstances of those deaths would need to be examined to work out whether they could be classified reasonably as 'victims' (after all, we are comparing the Palestinians to Jewish holocaust victims here). Thousands died during wars with Israel, which is not 'oppressive', its war. And remember who the aggressors were in ALL of those wars. A Palestinian bloke with a Lee Enfield running at an Israeli machine gun nest is NOT the same as a Jew being transshipped by cattle car to an industrial scale killing factory.

"You have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed." By Israelis? Does this guy have an IQ in single digits? Not to mention the fact that 80-90% of all the Iraqis who have died have died at the hands of other Iraqis.

"Look at the history of colonialism." Eh? Where the **** are you off to? Israeli colonialism? When was that?? Or are you talking about the French empire or the Roman empire or the Aztec empire? Or most pertinently, the Ottoman empire? That one which killed the 1.5 million Christian Armenians? Yes, empires ARE terrible.

"‘How can the oppressed people,' they say, ‘Jews, turn around and do injustice to the Palestinians?'" Or, how can the Arab Palestinians ever lose a war? We are Arabs, and muslims, and you crappy Christians and Jews aren't allowed to win wars against us!!! We insist you return the fruits of your victory to us immediately!

"Why the Palestinians have to pay for the crimes committed by Europeans, after all?" So let me get this right: Israel was created by Germany to pay back the Jews for murdering six million of them? Or is that, created by 'Europe'? Does this guy know ANY history of the middle east AT ALL? Or has he just been sitting around the Student Union talking to all the other dimwit lefty 'can't be bothered to read history books cause they're all written by DWEMs anyway' layabouts?

OH MY GOD!!!! If thats the level of learning and erudition we can expect from a D.Phil from Oxford Uni, what are the Polytechnic/New Uni products going to be like?

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Compare and contrast,0,2351518.story?coll=la-home-commentary

'On the day that my half-sister visited me, my head was reeling from what happened to 6 million Jews in Germany, Holland, France and Eastern Europe. I learned that innocent men, women and children were separated from each other. Stars pinned to their shoulders, transported by train to camps, they were gassed for no other reason than for being Jewish. I saw pictures of masses of skeletons, even of kids. I heard horrifying accounts of some of the people who had survived the terror of Auschwitz and Sobibor. I told my half-sister all this and showed her the pictures in my history book. What she said was as awful as the information in my book. With great conviction, my half-sister cried: "It's a lie! Jews have a way of blinding people. They were not killed, gassed or massacred. But I pray to Allah that one day all the Jews in the world will be destroyed."'

'Mr Bari, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, criticised the Government for "unfairly targeting" Muslims, and said that it was undermining their status as "equal citizens".
He warned that blaming extremism on "a small, largely deprived community" leads to a "deterioration of community cohesion and fuels xenophobia".
In a presentation to MPs, Mr Bari went so far as to ask: "What is the degree of xenophobia that tipped Germany in the 1930s towards a murderous ethnic and cultural racism?"'

...which didn't result in the holocaust because it didn't happen. My head is starting to hurt.

Darfur, Iranian nukes, massive subversion of western democracies

Forget about those things in the title of this post. They are mere trivia. The worlds media have much larger fish to fry.

'The White House was at the centre of another late-disclosure controversy yesterday after complaints that it had failed to announce that the First Lady, Laura Bush, had a skin cancer tumour removed from her right shin more than five weeks ago.
The affair only came to light when Mrs Bush was noticed with a bandage below her right knee, and a spokesman confirmed on Monday evening that she had the excision. The cancer in question was a squamous cell carcinoma, the second most common form of skin cancer, the First Lady's press secretary said yesterday. The tumour was the size of a small coin.
Tony Snow, the President's spokesman, played down the incident , telling reporters that Mrs Bush was not an elected official, but "perhaps if there's something more major, this would be discussed".'

This is on a par with Watergate, obviously. Any fool with a press pass and Pulitzer could tell you that...

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Todays un-PC joke

Whats worse than a Palestinian civil war?

A Palestinian truce.

Priorities, priorities,,2089-2508262,00.html

What do you do when your country has been devastated by a huge wave, and people from the other side of the planet give you lots of money to rebuild?

That would depend on whether you live in a country with a decent, useful religion, or whether you are saddled with a misogynistic war-mongering one.

After all, if you've just had your house and 95% of your family washed out to sea, your home town looks like a car park and you only have one neighbor left in your neighborhood, what you really need is some 18 year old twat hectoring you about not wearing a headscarf.

I wake up each morning and thank God this is not a muslim country. And will never be one.

Libertys light is dwindling

For a few years back in the early 21st century, it looked like Russia might join up with the civilised world, leave behind some of its old pathologies and strike out in the direction of good governance, western-style institutions and a respect for law.

All of those whisps of hope have now disappeared. Political dissent in Russia is being suppressed. Putin is putting a stranglehold on the gas and oil assets that were privatised and is gradually re-nationalising them. Russia has coerced more than half of all the countries it supplies with gas into signing new unfavourable contracts, or risk being cut off. The FSB is pretty much a criminal enterprise whose nationalistic urges are often combined with their aquisitive ones, to the great detriment of many people in the old soviet republics. The bombings in European Russia that led to the second Chechen war were very likely the work of the FSB. Many hundreds of ordinary Russians died in those explosions so the Putin could launch his dirty little war. Via Belarus, Russia is supplying Iran with very late model anti-aircraft missiles which will almost certainly come into play when the US or Israel destroy Irans nuclear capability.

Putin seems to think he can re-create the Soviet Union, but with no sustaining ideology and an economy that relies on arms and raw materials and virtually nothing else. As I have pointed out to numerous people on lots of occasions, becoming a super-power requires more than 2,500 nuclear weapons and a dedicated coterie of criminals. Lets not forget why the Soviet Union died- people stopped believing in the sustaining communist claptrap, and the Russian economy virtually stopped producing things other than tanks, aircraft and missiles. What has Putin done to resolve either of those two issues?

Russia seems from here to be a large mafia-type operation looking for opportunities to cause trouble and get rich quick. Is there any sign that ordinary Russians would or could do anything about the desparate state of their polity? None that I can detect.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Police and politicians determinedly looking the wrong way

"Jews attacked 4 times more than Muslims, police say"

This makes me so angry the next time I get accused of being islamaphobic I'm gonna punch some bastards lights out. Thats called irony, by the way.... regular readers of this blog will be aware that I consider islamaphobia a straw man. Last year, the EU compiled a report on anti-semitic attacks in Europe, which they then suppressed and lied to everybody about. The reason for their anxiety about their own research was that young muslim men accounted for most of the anti-semitic attacks- not the presumed neo-nazi white boys they were hoping for at all.

The trouble is, the Jews of England, and probably many other parts of Europe, do not use the megaphone to trumpet these events like the muslims do. So although islamaphobia is 98% bullshit, there are just enough anti-muslim crimes to keep the whole sorry show on the road. And my how they whinge!

But for those of us in the fact-based portion of society need to concentrate very hard on what this tells us about the future. Huge birth rate in the muslim community= generations of jew-hating, west-hating, christian-hating muslim boys who absolutely do not subscribe to any multi-culti happy-clappy version of Britain, and will kick the shit out of a heeb on any given day.
"Rabbi Alex Chapper, 33, was the victim of a faith-related hate crime in July 2005. He was returning from a synagogue in Ilford, East London, with three Jewish friends after conducting a service. Seven Asian teenagers followed them down the road shouting "Yehudi," which means Jew in Arabic and Urdu. One of them shouted, "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you," before punching Mr. Chapper in the face and hitting one of his friends over the head with a bottle. "

The trailing edge party

The Conservatives policy wonks have generated yet another superb 'trailing edge' policy. You can imagine them jumping up and down with glee in their space-age offices, surrounded by marketing idiots. All human life in this fetid little world is seen through the prism of party politics.

"The invasion of Iraq is a failed policy that has made the UK more likely to be a terrorist target, says a think-tank's report for the Conservative Party. The National and International Security Policy Group will warn against the UK being the "mute partner" of the US."

So basically, a very tired reiteration of the same canards launched against the Blair government since mid-2003. It has that air of 'trendy vicar' about it, which believes that saying 'groovy' and 'nifty' and 'neato' things will make them popular with the young folk. How unutterably crap. Even from the point of view of party politics in Britain, I can't see this working. How many people believe that the Conservative PARTY as opposed to the tiny cabal surrounding Dave C. are opposed to the war? I imagine it hovers around the 0% mark.

But out in the big wide world where events are transforming the middle east, this policy seems like a frail whispy cloud, which will evaporate at the first sign of sun. Is the Dave C. crew really suggesting that we move from our current principled position of support for the only benign superpower ever in its quest to free up the people of the middle east from despots, murderers and ideological zealots so they can enjoy the fruits of prosperity which good governance brings? A move taken so the Conservative Party can put in its little campaign leaflets for the next election '...and we opposed tony blairs evil foreign war.' That is cynicism and stupidity of the highest order.

For some time I have understood that beneath the carapace of bouncy optimism and breezy hail-fellow-well-metness, Dave C. is an empty husk. He does not believe in Britain, he does not believe in England, and he represents nothing but a desire to occupy Tony Blairs chair. If it came to a straight fight between his nullity and Tony Blairs principled stances, the latter would get my vote every time.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Abused to death

"UN body to probe abuses in Darfur"

Abuses? I guess you could describe mass-murder, rape-as-policy, and very large scale ethnic cleansing as 'abuses'. You might be tempted to if it was your responsibility to stop said murder, rape etc. and you had done absolutely bugger all. In a hilarious piece of misdirection, Kofi Annan spent his last few hours in post haranguing the US for being such a go-it-alone rogue state. He sadly ran out of time, so his words of condemnation for Sudan in their racist and incoherent war on their own population (Arab vs Black African) never got an airing.

Answer me this: how many Darfurian lives will this probe save? If the probe finds out anything we don't know (EXTREMELY UNLIKELY), what will the UN do? Ask the African Union to send another 35 badly armed blokes in a rickety bedford 2-ton? Fantastic. Lets face it. The UN is not fit for purpose. In Lebanon it facilitates the re-arming of Hezbollah. In Iraq it supports the insurgents sponsors. In Sudan it does absolutely nothing that might stop the massacring.

Its time to disband the UN. The League of Nations was dissolved when it did zilch to stop the rise of fascism in Europe. What will be the final blow for the hectoring tyrants club that is the UN?

And the BBC shall judge them from on high...

Forget about the judgement of God, or even the judgement of history, the BBC have got there first.

"General Augusto Pinochet led Chile's armed forces in a dramatic coup against Salvador Allende's democratically elected Marxist government. The violence of the uprising and the oppression that followed shook the world."

Hmmm. Shook the world? Slightly emotive language perhaps?

"In September 1973, thousands of so-called subversives were rounded up in Santiago's national football stadium. Some of them were executed."

So-called subversives? The BBC knows better? Only some of them were executed? How many?10? 15? I can understand why the whole world shook... in a century where millions were murdered and tens of millions died in wars across the globe, this certainly is the most grievous crime of all...

"General Pinochet emerged from behind his dark glasses to lead the country. Before long, parliament was suspended and elections were banned."

He sounds like a Bond villain. Who suspended parliament. What a horrific man.

"As political opposition was crushed, riots, arrests and torture became commonplace. Thousands of people disappeared. Throughout, General Pinochet claimed he was saving Chile from communism."

Less than 3,000, but who's counting? Not the BBC, thats for sure. "...Pinochet claimed he was saving Chile from communism." What does the BBC think he was doing then? Murdering thousands of his own people for fun? A voice in his head told him to do it? Implicit in this tone of disbelief is the utter conviction that nobody on this planet needs 'saving from communism'. To the BBC, that is an oxymoron.

"Two months later, Allende appointed Pinochet commander-in-chief, believing he could rely on him. But in September, Pinochet told Allende to resign or face military action."

Its a heart-wrending tale of betrayal of the beautiful martyr by the stumpy, fascistic military cretin. We know.

"Two days later Pinochet was named president of a ruling junta. Civil rights were suspended, Marxist political parties outlawed, the power of unions reduced, and heavy censorship introduced. Many intellectuals went abroad."

And here is the heart of our morality tale. All the evils of the world revealed before our stupified gaze: no civil rights, no marxism, no trade unions, no freedom to write long marxist paeans, and the best and greatest people IN THE WORLD left the country.

"It became known later that the CIA had spent millions to destabilise the Allende government."

What did they spend the money on? Chile was taken over by the Chilean army, which had existed in pretty much its 1973 form since 1817. Did they buy the Chilean army new boots? The boring mundane truth was that the Chilean army was full of nationalist patriots. But the mundane truth interferes with the BBC's heroic narrative.

"Over the years, President Pinochet acquired a degree of international acceptance, and he did make some concessions to democracy but, in October 1988, the electorate, given the straight choice of voting for him or against him, rejected him by 54.7% to 43%. He reluctantly accepted the result and, though he refused opposition demands to hand over power immediately, he stepped down as president two years later."

Yes folks. Its true. Although the BBC can't bring itself to actually lie, and say that he clung on illigitimately to power, they can qualify the facts with all sorts of 'reluctantlies' and 'refused opposition demandses'. Just to let us know that although he did the right thing, he didn't WANT to do the right thing. Because he is EVIL.

"If Augusto Pinochet thought he would enjoy a quiet retirement, he was mistaken. A regular visitor to Britain, where he had many friends, he was arrested in October 1998, while undergoing medical treatment in London."

So lets see, Pol Pot= died quietly in bed, Joseph Dzhugashvili aka Stalin= died quietly in bed, 'Baby Doc' Duvalier= living quietly in France. But Augusto Pinochet must be hounded to his grave. Got it. Seems fair. The only bad dictator is the right-wing dictator. Must remember.

"But the frailty of his health, after several strokes, meant that he never stood trial and, to the end, judgements on Augusto Pinochet remained passionately divided."

Apart from at the BBC, where we all hate the bastard.

Monday, December 11, 2006

If only Cambodia had had a Pinochet

It struck me with great force today, as the harpies and fops of the left in this country screech and caterwaul about Augusto Pinochet- vastly greater evil was perpetrated in many places and by many people in the 20th Century, but nobody so successfully broke the back of a Communist takeover. And thats what they hate. At the cost of 3,000 lives, Chile was saved from the fate of Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Russia, Ethiopia and on and on and on.

For the 3,000 and their families, this was a tragedy and a disaster. For everyone else in Chile, it was the best result possible. I don't want to suggest that the murder and torture of people is easily justified- it isn't. But if the Bolshevik revolution in Russia had been suppressed at the cost of 3,000 lives, would that have been a better outcome than what happened? 8 million kulaks murdered, 25 million Russians of every class, occupation and political view murdered, millions of Ukrainian peasants starved to death, untold damage done to other nations as a direct result of copying the Russian 'revolution'? If 3,000 people in Cambodia had died and Pol Pot never made it to power, would that be terrible? Less terrible than what actually happened, certainly. I could go on.

For the polytechnic lecturers and the local authority Stalinists, Salvador Allende was the apotheosis of lefty pizazz and style. He was sauve, handsome and communist. How could you top that? Pinochet was an uptight, organised Army man with very little personal charisma and a profound Burkean understanding of why communism was evil and dangerous. Here, in microcosm, was the worlds dilemma in the 20th century. Do you follow the siren song of the commies to societal disintegration, murder, poverty and oppression? Or the boring, farty conservatives to the nirvana of freedom, wealth and democratic ordeliness?

Well, for the lefties in Britain it was never in doubt! Lead us on to death and oblivion please.

To the victor go the spoils

Every person who cares about the political state of the western world, and whether it has decayed past the state of resurrection, needs to read this article. Victor Davis Hanson describes the towering confidence of the islamic world in its own rightness thereby casting our own mouse-like trembling and hesitancy in the face of any threat or challenge into stark relief. Sitting as we do on a mountain of wealth and military power, instead of behaving as men have done in all times heretofore that "might makes right", we instead fall over ourselves to demean ourselves before those we could crush without even getting up a decent sweat.

I think that a campaign to demand the return of the Hagia Sophia, and the replacement of the Al Aqsa mosque by a Jewish Synagogue/Temple would be a good place to start bringing some reality to the current situation. Perhaps we should think about a campaign to convert the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq to Christianity too, just to make things interesting. We have the whip hand. By itself, the US could crush any nation on earth like a grape. Add to it the UK, with its excellent (especially the Army) if smaller forces, and thats a combo nobody will screw with.

A study of the period at the end of the Ottoman empire will show you how far the Arabs have got with virtually no power, no industry, no creativity and no civilisation- just the power of the lie. Its time to tame the lie, and put it in its place.

Muslim comedy

AP Television has a clip where Manouchehr Mottaki, Iranian Foreign Minister says in Farsi:
"I bluntly announce that anti-Semitism is a Western phenomenon and belongs exclusively to the Western countries. In the Islamic lands, there has never been such a phenomenon as anti-Semitism."

'... and thats why we want to nuke Israel. To demonstrate our extreme pro-Semitism.' He didn't add.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Hamas: democratically elected murder party

Hamas were elected in a proper election. The US says that democracy is the best and must be spread around the world. And yet!!! the US and Britain will not!!!! accept Hamas as the legitimate rulers of the Palestinians and are illegally witholding funds from the Palestinians.

So goes a very familiar story, constantly touted in Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and every islamist mouthpiece; and also by the Dhimmi press- A.P., AFP, Reuters, New York Times and all points left.

So, lets just give that story some consideration. The National Socialist party of Germany was also a completely legitimate political party voted into government. Both before the Nazis and since their demise, political parties have existed in many countries who you WOULD NEVER WANT TO WIN AN ELECTION. Britain had at one point in the 1980's over a hundred communist parties. Any one of them, if elected to Parliament in sufficient numbers would have indubitably destroyed Britain as it was then, and brought untold suffering and death to it (just look at the record of communists round the world if you don't believe me). The idea that any group of people, with whatever collective psychosis and degree of criminality, should they form a political party, are then entitled to get themselves voted into office is so stupid it should not have to be elucidated. And Hamas are a murderous islamo-imperialist collective hiding under the guise of political party and 'social movement'.

And lets just tease out for a moment, what exactly the incensed palestinians and their world-wide cheerleader squad are arguing for: Britain and America should be sending hundreds of millions of dollars of British and American taxpayers money to the palestinians, even though they very recently voted into office a group of people dedicated to the murder of every Israeli, and the destruction of the Israeli state, a long-standing ally of Britain and America- and the fact that they refuse to do this makes them EVIL.

Good argument guys. Just how thick would we have to be?

Friday, December 08, 2006

Floppy slacker Americans and a strategy for winning

"The American people are soured on this war. They don't want any more American casualties," [Lee] Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat and former congressman, said on CBS's "The Early Show." He said that "pressure is building on these politicians to find an answer, to bring to the completion our adventure in Iraq."

First off, lets take that word 'adventure'. An 'adventure' in the sense meant here, is a swashbucking foreign sortie, meant to benefit the pocket and prestige of the adventurer. It might be considered the opposite of a strategic intervention, which is self-evidently serious and considered. How many intelligent people in Britain and America consider George Bush's intervention in Iraq an 'adventure', as opposed to a strategic intervention? As President Bush has pointed out from the very beginning, there are very specific strategic purposes for intervening in Iraq. Saddam Hussein provoked three major wars in his 26 years in charge of Iraq, and because of his terrible political judgement, would almost certainly have attempted more. Getting rid of him and replacing his gangster regime with a working non-islamist democracy in the heart of the middle east would have very long-lasting effects on the region, especially on the other gangster and autocratic regimes around Iraq. That we can safely label a stratagy. It appears that the Democrats, not having a strategy, refuse to countenance the idea that someone else might.

As I've pointed out at least once before in my blog, it took Rome 216 years to defeat Carthage. The US has been in Iraq for 3 years. 14 of the 16 provinces of Iraq are at peace. Virtually every school and hospital in Iraq is open and functioning. Many infrastructure projects have been completed, including the restoration of about 2/3 of the marshes (home of the Marsh Arabs) drained by Saddam Hussein. But America is losing...

Shia vs Sunni violence in Baghdad is getting worse, of that there is no doubt. But then when you have a bipolar society, thats always a risk. Look at Fiji over the last few days (half native Fijian, half Indian immigrant). Saddam did mask that bipolar nature of central Iraq in a way. He totally dominated the Shia through his Sunni police, army and secret police. 'We create a desert, and call it peace' said Tacitus the historian of Rome. Thats what Saddam did: his was the rule of a determined criminal clique supported by those of the same religion and tribe. I hear more and more often from those who will never have to suffer either fate, that things in Iraq were better under Saddam. If you were a Sunni, that is quite possibly true, although certainly not universally so. For Shia, Marsh Arab, Kurd and everybody else who wasn't a Sunni Arab, utter garbage.

But the whole reportage of Iraq is Baghdad-centric, and the particulars of Baghdads psychoses are lazily projected by journalists on to the rest of the country. This despite the fact that Kurdistan is as peaceful as rural England. Most of the south is peaceful, apart from a few pockets where Iranian-sponsored terror groups are trying to muscle in on the oil money now pouring into Iraqi society. Even in the heartlands of what used to be the insurgency, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is being cauterized by a collapse in support for it among Sunni arabs more interested in their future place in Iraqi society than in some stupid worldwide jihad. As with the recent case of the ex-Yugoslav countrylets, once religio-tribal warfare kicks off, where it stops is unknown. Parts of Bosnia have been completely cleared of either muslims or Christians, and more 'ethnic cleansing' would occur if Nato's presence were to be removed. But Baghdad, where 95% of Iraq's Sunni/Shia warfare is occuring would be torn asunder in a completely hideous way were real ethnic cleansing to start.

My suggestion: do a 'Fallujah' on the Mahdi army and the Sunni militias in Baghdad. Only once the backs of the militias are broken can Baghdad look forward to relative tranquillity. At the moment, all the militias have everything to play for, as they are not being pressured militarily in any way. Recently the US Army closed off Sadr City to stop the Mahdi army and the Sadr Brigade from doing their usual disgusting business, only for Maliki to order them off. If I were the US military consul in Iraq, I know what I'd do. Get rid of the militias, especially the Shia ones, and deal with Mr Maliki's squealing and whining later.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Do you want this woman to shape the future of British Society?

The execrable Channel 4 have decided to give a freelance lecturer in islam the 'honour' of giving the alternative Queens Speech on Christmas day. We have been assured that she will be wearing the second-most enveloping muslim dress available, just as an added 'fuck you'. This transgressive, in-your-face decision puts the proposition squarely before us: do you want the Britain that the Queen represents, or do you want the kind of Britain this Khadija has to offer?

I'm pretty sure what kind of future Britain Khadija has in mind. In every part of the world where her ilk have the whip hand, a suffocating intolerance and ignorance prevails. There is no variety, no freedom, no learning and no fun. Just the suffocating rule of sharia.

The Queen's Britain on the other hand has a long and glorious history of freedom, endeavor, creativity, learning, problem-solving, adventure and development.

I know which message I'll be watching (probably the same choice as most Britons I'm guessing).

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Real Grit

Every now and then a juxtaposition hits you. And this one on the front page of the BBC News website made me wince with painful irony. David Cameron promises 'real grit' to his supporters in the coming year. And then theres the little photo of Geoffrey Boycott.

David Cameron thinks that to say something is to make it real. Like all his ilk, to him the words are all. Its not necessary to have real grit, or do things that demonstrate real grit, or live a life that embodies real grit. That would require strength of will and character and spine. But Dave can talk about real grit till the cows come home.

Geoffrey Boycott IS real grit. He would never say it. Gritty men don't. He would never get all weepy about how gritty he is. Thats not a gritty thing. But in everything he does, and especially in all the difficult things he has done, Geoffrey Boycott demonstates that he has real grit. And that is worthy of my respect.

David Cameron talks. Geoff Boycott walks (not in the Cricket sense, obviously).

Monday, December 04, 2006

Democratic foreign policy

Demos, a 'think-tank' of unknown political orientation, says that British ministers (there are about 20 frontline departemental ministers) have not spent enough time chit-chatting with our muslim brethren. According to this august coven, the dilatoriness of our top politicians has the effect of driving the muslims into islamo-imperialist views.

Consider for a moment how stupid that is. First of all, 'muslims' do not constitute a separate nation within Britain. Policies in 'the national interest' are engaged in for the benefit of all of us; that includes those people in Britain who happen to be muslim. So a pretence on the part of politicians to engage in a separate discourse with muslims about THEIR 'national interests' would be wrong. Whether muslims like it or not, Britain is governed for all British people.

Also utterly stupid is the acceptance that somehow the war in Iraq is about islam. The Iraq war may have many policy fathers, but a plan to 'attack muslims' is not one of them. The blame for the widespread acceptance of that superlatively stupid proposition is one that can be squarely laid at the door of the left-wing press and broadcasters of Britain. For some reason, as soon as the islamists in Britain and round the world started saying that the war in Iraq was part of a worldwide attack on islam, the lefty press took up the refrain. Good plan. The worst thing to do with a paranoic is agree with him. A whole castle in the air has been built on this lie- convenient for the left who don't like Mr Blairs wars, but disastrous for those in Britain trying to keep good intra-communal relations.

Why would Demos come out with this now? During the recent Hizbollah-Israeli conflict, a group of so-called muslim community representatives wrote a letter interpreting the bombing of tubes as a necessary result of ignoring muslim views about foreign policy. For the first time, the political classes in Britain rose up almost as one to condemn them for this obvious attempt at blackmail. Will they do the same now in regard to Round 2?

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Army of 155,000 trapped in Iraq

Shalom from Israel.

I just had to share this most droll observation of Kofi Annans. According to him, the US is 'trapped' in Iraq. Really? By any dictionary definition of that word I'm aware of the US is not trapped. The people of Iraq ARE trapped. They are trapped in a country where there is no law but the law of the gun, the law of the sectarian murderer and the law of the politically amoral. The US Army can just leave. Get in their C-5's and zoom back home. The people of Iraq are there for the duration. They need a functioning country, with peace and the institutions to run a decent country and protect themselves from thier belligerent neighbors. Without a US army there, the likelihood that they will find their way to that point is very small.

Idiots like Annan, with their opinions from Jupiter or Saturn or anywhere but earth would be funny if they weren't actually in charge of large (if ineffectual) organisations. He, like millions of Americans, Europeans and Arabs, are still bleating about whether there should have been another UN resolution, about faked evidence of WMD and a zillion other historical details. Apart from the fact that many of these people can't get any single fact straight distracts from the larger point- that in the three years and counting since the US/UK invasion, the world has been changing relentlessly, and there's lots to consider and weigh up. Constantly revisiting 2003 is a microcosm of the liberal view writ large- don't have a decent plan, don't try to help, just sit on the sidelines, safely away from real decisionmaking and power, and carp. Yeah, good.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Incompetent terrorists should be allowed

Whether we like it or not, large parts of the Islamic world have declared war on the West. Because Muslim countries, to date, have lacked the military and economic capability to wage conventional warfare against us, they have engaged in vicious acts of terrorism designed to intimidate and undermine Western society. They may soon be in position, through developments in Iran and, perhaps, Pakistan, to commit acts of nuclear blackmail or actual nuclear warfare.

Reading this article, and the above paragraph about muslim armies, and their incompetence, reminded me of a comment I read recently on the BBC News Forums. The commentator had a foriegn name although he lived in London, and his gist was:
"The response to terrorism in Britain has been completely over the top- after all, most of the terrorists are incompetent. Because of their incompetence, they pose no real threat. So therefore, we should just let them be". He then listed the following "A ricin plot with no ricin, a shoe bomber with a match" etc etc. Great argument. He sadly failed to mention the 7/7 bombers, and the second stick who attacked two weeks later who only failed to murder hundreds of people because the explosives in their backpacks, of identical material to the 7/7 sticks bombs, was beyond its best-before date.

It worries me deeply that there are so many idiots like that correspondent in Britain. It makes me wonder whether there is still a quorum of sober, intelligent, rational people to appeal to to make the difficult choices we are going to have to make in the near future. I believe that without the rapid reduction of muslims in this country, the closure of all muslim schools and mosques that teach wahhabist islam, and the cessation of muslim immigration into Britain, we are going to spend an awful lot of time, money and blood stopping the approaching wave of terrorist atrocities. All of it completely our fault for allowing mass immigration into a settled and harmonious nation in the first place, but lets not go there.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Diminishing the potency of a word

My dad taught me many good and true things. One of his concerns was the weakening the potency of words by deliberate misuse. Jon Snow, the anchor on Channel 4 news, calls people who request the wearing of Remembrance Day red poppies 'poppy fascists'. It may seem obtuse to move from the substantive point about whether or not the ultimate sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of young men and women on our behalf should be memorialised each year, to the much more trivial one of using the label 'fascist' for every group of people we think are a little too keen on something, but humour me.

The fascist movements (for my purposes Communism is also fascism, but with different terminology) that came to the fore in Europe during the early 30's harboured many psychoses. When they took power their psychoses were then projected on to the rest of the world. Between fifty and sixty million people died, many of them murdered, before fascism was finally exterminated as a political creed in Europe. So to use the word fascist for those who are particularly keen on good nutrition for children (food fascists) or for those who are very over the top in their desire to protect children from accidents (health and safety fascists) drains that word of its power. I wish those who unreflectingly rob the word fascist of its potency would muster the mental strength to find some other description for the single-issue bores and the jolly-hockey-sticks home counties marms who insist they know whats best for us all. For one thing, I'd much rather have a country dominated by those well-intentioned if slightly blinkered folk than one dominated by the real fascists of our day, the islamists. And so would you if you have any wit whatsoever.

Possibly the worst abuse of the word fascist at the moment is the use of it to describe the Republicans in the US and those people in positions of power in the UK who are most engaged in the war on islamism. Interestingly, now that the Republicans have just lost control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, will the fascist label still be ubiquitously attached to them? Probably. As I always say, by their fruits ye shall know them. The intentions and good will of both Britain and America are evidenced in many places over many decades all over the world. Only the most ludicrous interpretation of the evidence would allow ourselves and the Americans to be deemed fascistic. There are real dangers in the misuse of words. When you can no longer describe something effectively, you lose the power to deal with that thing precisely and elegantly. Lets not do that to ourselves.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Where have all the conservatives gone?

On page eight of todays Times of London Bronwen Maddox starts her editorial concerning the decision to hang the barbarian Hussein with these words:

"This is victor's justice."

No shit sherlock. She means that as a criticism and an insult rather than a simple description of the facts. Although it is true that this is victors justice, it is not interesting. Were the Nuremburg trials wrong and a travesty because the Allies won WWII? No. Did they not produce fair and just outcomes? Yes, they did.

What is of much greater pertinence to her readers is, are the victors in the 21st century just and good? Are their intentions beneficial or harmful? These are not of interest to Ms Maddox however.

She immediately goes for a utilitarian argument. Will the trial result calm Iraq or promote further turmoil? A hundred years ago, perhaps fifty years ago, the Times of London would not have permitted such amoral arguments to appear on its pages. Someone serious would have written that whatever else happens, calling a murderous dictator to account for his barbarities is just and right. Iraq is plagued by rivalries old and new- and is currently unable to settle those without resort to tit-for-tat murders. Will that be the case forever? Of course not. But to suggest that a trial should or should not be held simply because it might inflame a rivalry that is already burning brightly is beneath contempt.

The invasion of Iraq was conducted primarily for moral reasons- Saddam Hussein was a murderer of his own people and a clear and present danger to his neighbors. In removing him, Britain and America sent an unequivocal message: commit mass murder and invade your neighbors and we won't wait for the United Tyrants Club of Nations to send in a couple of Bangladeshi battalions to stand around while you continue your bloody work- we're coming for you. As long as Britain and America continue to do that I will be happy.

What does worry me is Bronwen Maddox and her legions. The pompous regurgitators of left-wing talking points, increasingly prone to national self-loathing and just-for-sake-of-it America bashing, have comprehensively taken over former conservative bastions like the Times of London and the Daily Telegraph. Since Mark Steyn and the latter parted company, there is not one serious right-wing voice remaining. Not only are the pompous middle-class lefties ubiquitous, they are also dull and worthy and boring. Much as the Soviet Union was, actually. There is not a single newspaper left in Britain, in fact, which hosts a vibrant energised right-wing perspective. Do I hear any offers?

Friday, November 03, 2006

Any old law will do when it comes to fighting fascists

British National Party leader Nick Griffin told a crowd that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" a court heard. Mr Griffin, 47, from mid-Wales, is charged with using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred in Keighley, West Yorkshire, in 2004.

Hmmmm. Last time I checked, islam was a religion, not a race. And what if Mr Griffins description was factually correct? Presumably the court would not care...
I think this "using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred" thought crime should be subsumed within a new super-law banning all descriptions of other people and their activities. We can all just sit here and smile. Shoot me somebody please.

How useful idiots explain the world to themselves (and us)

While perusing the entry for this book (The Dream Palace of the Arabs, by Fouad Ajami) I came across this screed-

Ajami's book is a perfect example of the disasters inflicted on the Arabs by a group of self-loathing and deracinated intellectuals, who could not come to terms with their own history. Rather than construct a modernism that is not at odds with the rich past of the Arabs, they foisted on us the "glories" of Arab nationalism and socialism. Long before Ajami and his ilk took off for their academic posts in the West, they abandoned their homelands to the barbarians whom they nurtured by their incessant and vicious demolition of the Arabs' unique world view. What they left behind was a half-baked pseudo-modernism, that was rooted in no authentic tradition- in fact in nothing.

Ajami rails against the theocracies of Iran and elsewhere. His true heirs are the officer gangsters and crass cliques that have gobbled the area's resources and turned it into a cultural desert; all the while mouthing the slogans of secularism and democracy. This book is an outrage against all those who were marginalised, exiled, ridiculed, and ultimately betrayed by the intellectual elites of the Arab World of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Give me an ayatollah anyday in preference to the neo-fascists of the Baath and the heirs of Nasser. Ajami does not admit that the intellectual elites of West Beirut whom he glorifies paved the way for the racketeers and criminals who inherited the Arab World. His solution for this cul-de-sac that his crowd led us into is to throw the Arabs into yet another horrid experiment; this time into the arms of the New World Order with all its injustices and inequalities. Ajami and a few like him may have found their bolt hole in the West, and became more royalist than the king, but this is no recipe for the millions trapped in a civilisational limbo. No reader should be seduced into believing that Ajami's work is anything but a piece of well-written fiction that camouflages an ugly reality. Stick to Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Jonathan Randall and Patrick Cockburn if you are seeking the truth.

You can almost see the beads of bloody sweat coating this guys face, and the flecks of froth at the corners of his mouth as he smashes at the keys...

Because I'm slightly masochistic, I tried to follow the narrative as he led us the merry dance around the 20th century middle east. But I became unnerved by the catalogue of terrible crimes committed by Fouad Ajami. Here is my distillation of them:

1. caused a disaster of unspecified nature to Arabs
2. cannot come to terms with own history
3. constructed a modernism that is at odds with 'rich' history of Arabs
4. caused nationalism
5. caused socialism
6. abandoned homeland to the barbarians
7. nurtured said barbarians by incessant and vicious demolition of the Arabs' unique world view
8. left behind half-baked pseudo-modernism
9. this half-baked pseudo-modernism was rooted in no authentic tradition- in fact in nothing (unlike the well-baked pseudo-modernism)
10. railed against theocracies
11. spawned officer gangsters and crass cliques of resource gobblers
12. turned the middle east into a cultural desert
13. mouthed the slogans of secularism and democracy
14. committed an outrage against all those who were marginalised, exiled, ridiculed, and ultimately betrayed by the intellectual elites of the Arab World of the 50's, 60's and 70's by writing this book
15. threw the Arabs into the arms of the New World Order with all its injustices and inequalities
16. ran off to a bolt hole in the West
17. provided no recipe for millions trapped in civilisational limbo
18. wrote fiction disguised as truth to camouflage an ugly reality

Whew! Thats a Herculean burden of horrors this guy is responsible for! Forget Hitler and Stalin. Mr Ajami must qualify as the worst person EVER.

What does perplex me is, what agenda would our correspondent support? He hates modernism, nationalism, socialism, militarism, gangsterism, monarchy, non-specific barbarians, secularism and democracy. What does that leave us?

Oh hang on. I know. Traditional Wahhabist Islam and its 'rich' culture; and the dreary apologists for it (Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Jonathan Randall and Patrick Cockburn).

"But hacking off peoples heads with rusty scimitars is part of our rich cultural tapestry..." We know.

Lucid delineation of the current war

James Dunnigan does a sterling job outlining exactly what the larger situation is in the Middle East, and why Arab lying is such a problem. It is Arabs who lose out mainly from Arab lying, but it is so deeply ingrained in their culture that even when the terrible results of it become apparent (which they have to many intelligent people in the Middle East) they just can't wean themselves off it.

Also, the passivity and fatalism which prevent muslim societies developing even basic infrastructure and productive capability are well-described. Lets not forget- many Arabs were still living in tents and riding camels one hundred years ago (or less). And they have no civil institutions to act as permanent bearers of cultural learning. Just the mosque, with all its lies and unchallenged bullshit.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

A Pet Peeve

There is something which comes up constantly in discussions of Britains islamofascists I hate. It goes like this:

"Well I just don't understand how these guys can dress in t-shirts and jeans, wear baseball caps and latest stylee sneakers, and still want to blow up our tube trains!"

Really? Clothing as a signifier of cultural bias or political allegiance tells us NOTHING. Look at the Pakistani cricket team. They dress like nouveau riche pop starlets, but they cheat like Pakistani cricketers. Just because Osama Bin and Gone dressed like a 7th Century camel herder does not mean he wasn't a 21st century politician. The half of Bradford council which is Pakistani dress in suits and ties, but they rig elections like local politicians in Karachi.

As I walk the streets of London, I am constantly reminded that although most of the people walking by me are dressed approximately like me, their culture and world view differ in most important respects. And if the British don't re-colonise their cities and wake themselves up from their narcissistic and degenerate torpor soon, there will be no-one to save them from the barbarian avalanche.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Google Ads employ lefty morons

I apologise to my reader for the George Soros Foundation ad which currently appears on my Blog. The Google Ads folk deem themselves humorists, I guess.

You can find this little gem at

The War in Iraq
What The Bush Administration Won't Tell You
About The War in Iraq

The United States has thoroughly destabilized the Middle East by invading Iraq. The task of the occupying forces is no longer confined to fighting a Sunni insurrection; they have to contain an incipient civil war. The country has divided along sectarian lines and each faction has established a fighting capacity.

Now the situation in the Middle East is dire. Iran threatens to become a nuclear power. The low-grade civil war in Iraq threatens to broaden into a regional conflict. We are facing a clash of civilizations and/or armed sectarian conflict. And all this in a region that is responsible for the bulk of the world’s oil supply.

Something is fundamentally wrong with President Bush’s contention that he has made us safer at home by taking the war on terror abroad. There are many more people willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans than there were on 9/11.

The Bush administration shows no awareness of the contradictions in its policies or of the negative consequences. Here is President Bush’s introduction to the 2006 National Security Strategy so that you can judge for yourself.

So let me get this straight- because the US invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussain, Iran has developed Nuclear weapons? What school of logic does that argument come out of?

'The low-grade civil war in Iraq threatens to broaden into a regional conflict' in a region that has for many many years not had one of those. Yeah, good one.

Hang on, we're onto the next huge claim- 'We are facing a clash of civilizations and/or armed sectarian conflict'. George W Bush INVENTED clashes of civilizations! They just didn't ever occur in world history before 2003. Especially when Clinton was President- everybody in the world just LOVED each other.

'And all this in a region that is responsible for the bulk of the world’s oil supply.' Its almost like President Bush didn't factor in the oil industry when he invaded Iraq...

'There are many more people willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans than there were on 9/11'. That we know about. Before 9/11, we just didn't care that they wanted to kill us. We thought they were being rhetorical.

'The Bush administration shows no awareness of the contradictions in its policies'. They have not submitted even one rebuttal document to us over here at Georgesoros.completelydumb. Its almost like they think our illogical, ignorant, pseudo-intellectual twaddle isn't worth responding to.

Damn, thats true actually. Must be time for bed.

US General confirms my theory

Not before time, a US Army General has confirmed a long-espoused theory of mine:

"General Pace told me last week that, if anything, the evidence is that Iraq has tied up a big chunk of senior jihadists who'd otherwise be blowing up Afghanistan and elsewhere" (Quoted from a Mark Steyn column on the Chicago Sun-Times website).

Many moons ago, I wrote to Bill Roggio of AntiTerrorism blog fame with the theory that at least one solid reason to go into Iraq in the first place was the honey-pot theory. A US Army in Iraq would attract all the little gobshites hot for jihad and given that they want to die for allah anyhow, we would have ample scope to give them a quick dispatch to meet him (or go to the very hot place, more likely). I got back a dismissive email saying there was little evidence that this was the case. Well, Mr Roggio, General Pace would like to disagree with you!

And if the Taliban keep up with the wave-type frontal assaults on NATO positions in Southern Afghanistan (have they been swotting up from 1930's Soviet military textbooks or what?) there is going to be a worldwide scarcity of jihadi boys soon. Which I think we can all agree is sad.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

The real face of islam

Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali said women who did not wear a hijab (head dress) were like "uncovered meat".

I am sick to my gut that men like this exist in our societies. I am sure many muslim men in Britain have voiced similar views to Shiekh Tojjer, and thought much worse.

Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress...
The cleric says his comments were taken out of context.

What IS the context for saying its womens fault they are raped if they don't wear a great big tent-like covering? Could that context be the 7th century A.D.? I think so. I, and many like me, will not sit around while barbarous cretins like Sheikh Taj Mahal take us back to the dark ages.

It is time for us to chuck these idiots back on the scrapheap from whence they came.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Hilarious options

There has really been too much to blog about in the last four days- so much I haven't been able to latch on to any one thing and get to it. But I keep on hearing this word 'options', mainly in regard to Iraq and its current situation. And the more the media and various politicians moot 'options' for Iraq, the more I fear for my sanity, my country and my sides- as in the splitting of. Lets invite Syria and Iran to get involved in the running of Iraq. Really? REALLY? You call that an option? Iran is ALREADY involved in the running of Iraq; they are committed to using the Shia militias as tools to disrupt Iraqi life, and eventually to create a Shia state in Southern Iraq, which would in effect be a province of Iran. Syria is ALSO already involved in the running of Iraq. Syria is the safe haven and launching pad for the ragtag dregs of humanity that is the foreign jihadi contingent currently becoming dreadfully unpopular in Iraq; mainly because if they can't find infidel Americans to kill, they are happy to kill Shia or local tribal elders who won't provide them with facilities or pretty much anyone who gets in their way.

My suggestions for Syria and Iraq would involve bunker-busters and F-117's over Damascus and Tehran, not an invite to a round-table chinwag.

Another mooted option is to remove US troops to some location just outside Iraq, but where they could hurry back from quick-time should the need arise. What? WHAT? Please be joking. Please. Where exactly will the US troops be? Kuwait? Jordan? Iran perhaps (if only). Boots on the ground. That is what matters. To define the enemy, to find him and to kill him. That is what war is. Anything else is just a pussified way of masking defeat.

I also hear lots of non-specific allusions in the press to 'changes of strategy' and 'changes of tactics' (I'm pretty sure most journalists are hazy about the difference between those two things). Not ONCE have I read in the mainstream media outlets about the ACTUAL real changes of tactics that the US has been persuing in Iraq, to what I hear is initially good effect. The US has moved away from large FOB's (Forward Operating Bases), which are like medieval fortresses, to COP's (Combat Operation Posts) which are small outposts but in much greater numbers. Most of the COP's have line-of-sight to the next COP, which means that the IT's (islamoterrorists) have very little wriggle room. There are also many many more road-blocks now than there were a few weeks ago. That also means the IT's are much less able to do long-range ops away from where they live. Its also interfering with the emplacement of IED's. I have seen nothing about this in the press. They just don't care how the war is being conducted tactically, nor strategically. The devil is in the detail, and journalists never seem to get around to the details.

I have my own option for Iraq: its the Roman allies option. If you read Pliny's history of Rome, you will find that the Romans had a very persuasive way of encouraging cooperation in its allies. Its what I think of as the extreme carrot and the extreme stick. If a particular city/state in the Italian peninsular was visited by the Roman legions, it was offered a choice: join Rome as an ally, and your prime persons will be given honorary Roman citizenship, Rome will trade with you in a preferred way, you will be protected by the Roman legions, and additonally receive the many prestige benefits of being an ally of Rome. Or the Roman legions will invade your city and kill everyone, before razing the walls to the ground. Most cities obligingly joined the Roman alliance.

If America is going to be an imperial power (which I wish for the benefit of huge portions of the world it would), it needs to keep its wars short and as painless as possible. I see the only problem with the Iraq war is that its still going on. With the stupendous fighting power available to America, it should have won long ago. But to win quickly, you have to use similar methods to the Romans. The choice between cooperating with America and not cooperating must be stark- and the consequences of not cooperating must be utterly intolerable. Anything else, and the US can look forward to many more of these desultory un-won wars. Ask any historian- more people die in long-protracted conflicts than in short sharp ones like the Six Day War.

Friday, October 20, 2006

More on the Lancet Iraqi casualty figures

... there is a problem with the pre-invasion Iraqi death rate that the Lancet study assumes. Its estimate of the total number of deaths depends on comparing
the supposed pre-war Iraqi death rate with the supposed post-war Iraqi death rate; get the pre-war rate too low, and you are overestimating the war’s victims. Yet this is just what the study does. It puts the prewar death rate at 5.5 out of every 1,000
Iraqis. That number is almost certainly wrong. Incredibly, it is considerably
lower than the death rate in the United States....

If Iraq’s GDP is used to provide a more realistic estimate of the pre-war death
rate, 600,000 of the study’s estimated deaths are erased. The number of deaths
left over is close to the number given by the IBCP [Iraqi Body Count Project], whose estimate is looking more reliable all the time. And if we apply to pre-war Iraq the death rates of Pakistan and Syria—two countries in the same region, with socioeconomic conditions comparable to those of Iraq—we find that more than 100,000 additional predicted Iraqi deaths disappear.

November 6th issue of The National Review

If you believe the figure of 5.5 deaths per 1000 is correct, Saddam Hussein bum-buddy George Galloway can put you straight. Nary a week went by in 2001 and 2002 when Georgeous George didn't assail us with the horrors that the sanctions regime imposed by Bushitler and Bliar were wreaking on the poor citizens of Iraq. He even set up a charity to help the poor sick children of Iraq who didn't have any medicine because of the neo-colonialist aggressors. He made a very big deal about how many Iraqis were dying as a direct result of the sanctions.

So you can't have it both ways. Either you posit a pre-war death rate equivalent to Switzerlands and get your 655,000, or you take George Galloway at his word (not very clever in most instances I know) and the figure deflates like a badly tied party balloon. But as the National Review article points out, "If anything in this world is certain, it is that from now until the end of time every critic of American policy in Iraq will repeat [the 655,000] number."

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Freedom to fragment

Sweden has been operating a choice–based school funding system since the early 1990s. Families are allowed complete freedom to choose a school, whereupon public funding goes to the institution of their choice, whether it be a government–run or an independent school.

To promote the right to choose within UK schooling, three proposals are recommended. The first is that parents should be entitled to remove their children from schools that are failing, and choose any other school (state or independent) instead.

The second proposal is a Swedish–style universal user choice system. Public finance, representing about 70% of the per–student cost of state education, would be available to all schools on the basis of the number of students they could attract.

The third proposal is for a non-refundable tax credit to provide parents with a pound–for–pound reduction in their income–tax liability (up to an agreed limit) for each child they have in non-state education.

As soon as ideas are as clearly defined as the above, its easier to see where the problems are. I see a number of problems with allowing a 'free market' in schooling. First, school is the place we learn about the adult world. In a 'free market', some schools will fulfil the wish of parents to have their children indoctrinated in some hippy fantasy like the Steiner schools, or perhaps some bizarre cult. Would it be ok for the state to support them in this? If not, where would you draw the line between say a Seventh Day Adventist school (very strict protestant sect) and a Branch Davidian school (almost exactly the same as the Seventh Day Adventists but basically a child-abusing millinarian cult)?

Also, school is the place where children learn history and get a grounding in thier nations identity, achievements, cock-ups and particular nature. History is very often the first part of learning where those promoting an identity other than the orthodox national identity feel the need to change the narrative. Would that be policed? How could you successfully police it?

Mass education by the state has its own problems and inherent weaknesses. But it does mitigate towards a 'standard' education that then goes on to form part of a 'standard' national identity. Its not an exact science, but I believe it tends towards that end. I would see the fragmentation of that as problematic because what would replace it would almost certainly speed up the disintegration of Britain in hundreds and thousands of micro-cultures, many of which are openly antipathetical to the historic character of English men and women. If you could send your child across town to the Pagan Satanist school, where they could learn how to make blood sacrifices and hate Christians, would that make Britain a better place to live? In discussions about Choice, I am often struck how vague the proponents of Choice are about the genuine advantages which Choice will bring.

If by Choice, these learned folk mean "every child will have a choice between going to a crap local comprehensive or to an Eton-standard public school", then thats great. But Choice in this case may mean muslims taking all their children out of mainstream schools, and using taxpayers money to fund their indoctrination in Jew-hating, Britain-hating, male supremacy and wife-beating. And not just the muslims- there are many groups who I'm happy to see spend their own money on promoting their own particular brand of idiocy- but not my money.

I have no beef with independant schools of any type (with the exception of those that teach treason as part of the curriculum), but they should not get government funds. To a certain extent (and I believe this is the tacit assumption of many millions of Britons) I am happy to have a state school system which provides a standard, orthodox, good-enough education to every child, as long as there are other outlets for that minority of parents who are fanatical about their childs education. The extent of my dissatisfaction is that the state school system is not necessarily apolitical, and is somewhat open to being ideologically penetrated by anti-nationalist people who then do not perform the necessary function of turning out Britons, but rather Britain-denigraters, Britain-despisers and Britain-loathers. Being a subject of the Queen trumps party-political and post-nationalist ideology, or at least in any reasonable polity it should. And if schools don't encourage good citizenship, aware citizenship, positive citizenship of Britain (not some meaningless supra-national identity) they aren't doing one of their main jobs.

The last idea, the tax credit is not really a very good one. It would mean that only those people who are not particularly anxious about education would fund public education- which to my mind would be inequitable because the state would not be able to fund much of an education if half the population weren't contributing. Perhaps a rebate of half the cost of a years state education would be reasonable. Needs further consideration.

Sew the wind...

Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, speaking on behalf of the 57 Islamic countries, declared the the phenomenon of Islamophobia was on the rise in Europe and urged Western countries to promote tolerance and respect for all religions. He warned about the dangers of Islamophobia: “If we read the trends closely and connect the dots, it is obvious Muslims are being dehumanized. This is painfully reminiscent of the pre-World War II era. That dark chapter of history and pogroms must never be repeated, this time involving Muslims.”

What makes this quote painfully ironic is the fact that the Muslim Council of Britain and many less well-known islamic bodies in Britain refuse to dignify Holocaust Day with any acknowledgement. Every year when it comes around, mainly Labour politicians plaintively plead with the MCB et al to join up and remember with the rest of us what fascist psychopaths reaped in Germany, and what Turkish psychopaths perpetrated in Armenia, and what Tutsi psychopaths did in Rwanda. And every year they get the same vague fob-offs, masking the very real anti-Jewish sentiment that lies behind their non-marking of Holocaust day.

I don't believe a holocaust of the muslims is about to take place. That is just florid exaggeration. But the selfishness and ethnocentricity and lack of fellow-feeling of muslims in Britain is winning them no friends. Well, that and the mass-murder.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Encouraging news,,2-2006480104,00.html
I don't usually link to stories on The Sun website, as I try to keep to ostensibly serious news providers, but I couldn't find this story elseswhere. But this is a genuinely good idea, one of very few I've heard from the Government. A map of islamist hotspots in Britain, and presumably the links between them. Of course, concomitant with that must be the political will to smoke out the islamists once their enclaves have been discovered, but this must be considered a decent first step.

One Cheer for the Government.

What is with these people?

Civil liberties

UCU joint general-secretary Paul Mackney said: "Members may be sucked into an anti-Muslim McCarthyism which has serious consequences for civil liberties by blurring the boundaries of what is illegal and what is possibly undesirable." Fellow joint general-secretary Sally Hunt said discussion of ideas was the key to understanding.
"The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue because they fear some quasi secret service will 'turn them in'," she said.

The islamists have been 'discussing ideas' for about eighty years, and in the late 20th Century, they started acting on them. The idea that they might be 'too frightened to discuss an issue' is surreal in a Britain where no major newspaper would print the Mohammed cartoons. Who is afraid here? Us or them?

And what is it with fiftyish Britons and 'McCarthyism'? Every time one of their pet ideologies comes under genuine scrutiny, as predictably as the sun coming up in the morning, accusations of 'witch-hunts' and 'McCarthyism' are bandied about. What is shocking is that islam is now one of the pet ideologies of the Guardian reading classes. Do they know how islam plays out in most islamic countries? Do they give a flying fudge about how kuffars are treated in countries like Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? How about freedom of religion, freedom of expression and academic freedom in the aforementioned? Sadly, I think that the halls of academia are now peopled by droids utterly divorced from how the world is actually constituted. They are like children who have a strong but pervasive desire to contradict everything their parents and teachers say is true, without knowing why. I recall my post from 9th of April this year, and the following commments-

"I am lucky I went there, and now I miss it. Cuba was great."

"Americans are good people, they were always friendly, I don't have anything against them,"

"If my father didn't need me, I would want to live in America."

"Americans are polite and friendly when you speak to them. They are not rude like Afghans. If I could be anywhere, I would be in America. I would like to be a doctor, an engineer _ or an American soldier."

These are comments from young gitmo inmates. They are the product of real experience in a real US holding facility at first hand. Not the bogus, endlessly recycled anti-American prejudice and bile of the Guardian morons. How long can Britain as a polity sustain real-world significance and rational policy-making when there are millions of dopey lefties intent on believing patent falsehoods and our enemies propaganda?

If you believe that an 'exchange of ideas' is what the islamists want, you have not been listening to them, or watching what they do.

Monday, October 16, 2006

The inevitability of moral equivalence

It was with mounting excitement that I read this story on the BBC website. A member of the British government urging 'moderate' muslims to finally take responsibility for the treason and hatred being fomented in their name. But then, with the inevitability of death and taxes, came the moral equivalence. The far right, according to Ruth Kelly, are as dangerous and worrisome as the islamists. Really? When was the last time the far right blew anything up? Are the BNP and the NF plotting to do away with British law and replace it with their own version? How many of them are there? If you added up all the people who vote for the BNP and NF in the whole country, I bet it wouldn't top 50,000.

In that famous recent poll of the muslim population of Britain, 17% of those polled agreed with the agenda of the 7/7 bombers (and were willing to tell a pollster). We are told there are verging on 2 million muslims in Britain (although that is a highly politicised count), that means 323,000 muslims in Britain have the brutal and dangerous views of the world that caused the violent deaths of 60 people in London very recently.

But we are supposed to make an equivalence between the threat from those 323,000 and the 50,000 neo-fascists who haven't done anything worse than have public meetings and campaign for local government seats. What an utter load of bollocks.

A few weeks ago the papers reported that at the time of the Forest Gate anti-islamist raid, there were 21 ongoing investigations of active terror cells in Britain. Here is a plea to the media: stop minimising what is going on with the traitors in our midst. You are storing up a maelstrom for the future.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Cultural exports

But the fact is they have waited now five years for the government and the international community to do what they promised to do back in 2001, which was to provide jobs and health care and education, and roads and infrastructure, and electricity and water, and all the rest of it. And, really, they haven’t seen it. For many, many people in Afghanistan, their lives have not changed very much.

Ahmed Rashid may not know how the internal combustion engine works, how an AK-74 functions, or how to build a dam, but he has got one thing one hundred percent pegged- how the socialist state works. You sit home until the government build a factory next to your shack, plumbs you into the sewage and water systems, hooks you up to the mains, builds a school and carts your children off to it. Your input= 0%. Their input= 100%. Because as we all know, thats how America and Britain and Germany became rich countries, and shitholes like Liberia and Haiti avoided becoming rich. Nothing to do with the constant and persistent activity of their people!

Do you want a country like Afghanistan? Its easy! Sit around the house praying, while everybody else in your street, village, region, nation does the same thing. If you don't have a culture which promotes meaningful, worthwhile activity, you won't see any. The first thing that has happened in Afghanistan to hundreds and hundreds of brand new EU and US funded schools is they have been burned down by Taliban or Taliban-sympathisers or people who just have exactly the same attitude to schools as the Taliban. A large part of me thinks that you will be able to go back to Afghanistan in five hundred years time, and it will be the same shitty dismal backwater it is now.

And not because the government failed to shower a cornucopeia on their poor ickle people- but because each individual Afghan sat home and didn't bother to build a new Afghanistan, one with running water and educated women and roads.

Friday, October 13, 2006

US commits horrific war crime!!!!

A coroner has recorded a verdict of unlawful killing on ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, who was shot dead by US forces in southern Iraq in March 2003....

...'War crime'
Mr Lloyd's Lebanese interpreter, Hussein Osman, was also killed and French cameraman Fred Nerac is still officially classed as missing, presumed dead. Belgian cameraman Daniel Demoustier was the ITN crew's only survivor.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) said Mr Lloyd's killing was a "war crime" and this was echoed by Mr Lloyd's widow, Lyn.

In a statement she said: "This was a very serious war crime, how else can firing on a vehicle in these circumstances be interpreted?

"This was not a friendly fire incident or a crossfire incident, it was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act, particularly as it came many minutes after the initial exchange.

"US forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger happy cowboys in an area where civilians were moving around."

His daughter Chelsey said: "The killing of my father would seem to amount to murder, which is deeply shocking."

I hope the Iraqi people take note. Kill 655,000 Iraqi's, very unfortunate. Kill one ITN journalist, its a war crime. But, dear reader, read on.

He and his three colleagues were caught up in a firefight between US and Iraqi forces near the Shatt Al Basra Bridge on 22 March 2003.

Oops! Seems that there was a war on at the time...