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...

Speaking truth to power

Do not use your judgement, do not protest if your education is going down the toilet because your school is swamped with foreign children and most of all don't challenge PC pieties. Do it, and you WILL go to jail.

Breach of protocol in the Army high command

Main point is, Generals do not make national policy. Politicians do. Whether Sir Richard Dannat is right or wrong, he has no role in making national policy, except a quiet word over scotch in the club perhaps.

Sir Richard needs to be publicly humbled by Tony Blair or perhaps Des Browne. God knows the unwritten constitution of Britain is a tattered and bedraggled ghost of its former self, but this is still a straightforward abuse of it.

A lesser point is, the crucial part of his comments are essentially an Al Qaeda talking-point which has been bought wholesale by the 'great and good' of the British middle classes. "We should not be in Iraq because we act as a recruiting sargeant for the Islamofascists". Excuse me, but when did we ever STOP fighting our enemies because they might mobilise their own forces? Two seconds thought reveals this to be utterly specious. Once you have declared war on someone, or someone has declared war on you, necessity dictates that you keep fighting until you have won (and/or broken the enemies will to continue fighting). Pretending that if you leave the battlefield you won't be at war any more is patently daft. And it worries me deeply that such intellectual doo doo appears staunch good sense to our top soldier. The equivalent of the childs game "if I cover my eyes, you can't see me any more" will not wash as the openly stated maxim of the 8th largest industrial power, and 3rd largest military one.

As Mark Steyn points out, the IRA made the judgement that although Britain had vastly enough military power to defeat them, they did not have the political guts and determination to do so. If we continue down the road that Sir Richard proffers, all our future enemies will make the same judgement.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

The debating society paradigm

I actually hate to use the word 'paradigm' in a blog post title, because it makes me sound like a social studies student, but its the correct one.

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.
The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from 47 randomly chosen areas in Iraq.

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

It is vigorously disputed by supporters of the war in Iraq, including US President George W Bush.

It was the last sentance which caught my eye. If a debating society choose 'How many Iraqis have died since the US invasion?', and one side posits a figure of 60,000 and the other side posits one of 655,000, they could dispassionately present evidence for their particular number, and a neutral observer could probably at the end of the debate make a reasonable judgement about which one was actually true. Would the participants then be forced to accede that if the figure of 60,000 were true, the Iraq war was 'good', and if it were 655,000 it was 'bad'?

The sad truth is, whether 60,000 or 655,000 died, support for our presence in Iraq is not optional. Once the invasion took place, the US and Britain took responsibility for the dispensation which will pertain now and in the immediate future. If we don't take our responsibility to the Iraqi people seriously, and leave Iraq in a murderous state of tribal and religious warfare, history will damn us. And it won't discriminate between those of us who were emotionally fixated on one particular approximate death toll or other.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

First known joke about a mosque

NAIVASHA, Kenya (Reuters) - A couple caught having sex in a Kenyan mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan have been sentenced to 18 months jail for what the judge called an "abominable" affront to religion.

Peter Kimani and Jennifer Wairimu pleaded guilty to the charge of having sex in a place of worship after being caught on October 3 at the Abubakar mosque in Gilgil, about 60 miles north of Nairobi. Neither is a Muslim.

A worshipper heading for evening prayers found the couple having sex after investigating what the prosecution described as strange noises emanating from a dark corner of the mosque.

Kimani and Wairimu both pleaded for clemency at Monday's hearing, saying they were too drunk to know where they were. Kimani told the court he thought he was in a lodging house.

John King'ori, senior magistrate in nearby Naivasha, dismissed their plea.

"Having sex in a mosque is a most abominable thing to religion and only a custodial sentence can add justice to this," he said.

Priceless! Its ok to bonk in a mosque as long as you're completely smashed...

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Its time for new men

Prominent on many newspapers today was the headline "Foreign criminals bribed £2500 to go home". Can you imagine Britain in 1906 paying criminals to leave the country? Just this year, our courts decided Britain did not have the power to deport nine Afghan men who hijacked a plane and flew it here, then claimed asylum. They still live here, on benefits, in council housing. We can't deport many of the jihadis who have been caught in the midst of conspiracies here, because they might be tortured in their home countries. When the vote on 90-day detention for terror suspects was voted on in the House of Commons, the Conservative party voted against it.

What is my point? Britain is ungovernable. It is hamstrung by international accords, agreements, supra-national laws, conventions and treaties. But what is worse, is that the men who supposedly rule here COOPERATE in making Britain needlessly vulnerable and open to attack. Thats why I noted the Conservatives dismal failure to support at least some common-sense legal reactions to our current state of affairs.

We need leaders, and a political party, who are rational and steely in their defense of the English people. Men who will not allow all that external international (especially EU) law we signed up for in decades past under very different circumstances to stop them from governing the country. They would need to revoke treaties that do not help our interests, unmake laws that stop us from living safely, and nullify international agreements that don't allow us to rule ourselves well. They would solve our real problems, and not worry about which international lawyers were peeved with them.

Do we currently have a party like that? No. I've checked, and there is no current serious candidate. So who will step forward?

Monday, October 09, 2006

So THATS what the medias job is...

The court heard the news team was travelling independently of coalition forces to "interview civilians about their feelings in the first few days of the conflict" on 22 March 2003.

These men were not risking life and limb to give us factual reports about troop movements, levels of resistance, major engagements, new developments in combat techniques or equipment, enemy strengths and weaknesses or those kind of boring, mundane, 20th Century things. No no. They were there to interview civilians about their feelings. And a good job too. I'm sure they would have been rewarded with many useful quotes. I mean, nobody has ever asked people caught in the middle of a war if they are happy or sad before. What if people were actually ecstatic about being bombed, strafed, sniped and mortared? How would we ever find out, if it weren't for staunch newsmen like the guys from ITN?

I can't work up ANY sympathy for the bunny media, I'm sorry.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Beyond Dhimmitude

The headline for this article should read "British Policemen can now choose which assignments they will go on depending on whether it coincides with their politics". Absolutely disgusting. We have muslim servicemen who refuse to go to war in muslim countries because they would be fighting against Brothers, and now muslim policemen who won't guard the Israeli embassy because of the Lebanon self-defence action. In the same week that two muslim immigration judges were found to be employing and having sex with an illegal immigrant, is it possible that there is nothing we can trust these people to do?

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

The story the MSM won't tell

Ever wondered whether life in Iraq is improving?

Its time to close with the enemy

Drawing the Line?

It has been a parlor game of sorts to guess when—but even more so if—the Europeans (Britain included) will sigh, “Enough is enough,” and so get tough with both their own unassimilated angry Muslim minorities and the radical Islamic world at large. There will never be liberal values in the Middle East, no change, no future—as there would not have been in Hitler’s Germany, as there is not today in Cuba or North Korea—without the defeat of Islamic fascism, in its latest Islamic incarnation, as an ideological force.

The latter always proves more frightening than any caricature, the proverbial wild teenager who starts throwing things when told that his room is a bit messy. The riots in France, murders in Holland, cartoon fiasco in Denmark, bombings in London and Madrid, foiled plots in Germany and Spain, and now the Pope threats—will Europe insidiously bleed from a thousand nicks or take action and call fascists fascists?

And yet what would such spine-strengthening look like?

Closer, albeit still stealthy, ties with the U.S effort? More defense spending? Demands for assimilation or else? More moderate and right-center governments? An end to the EU politically-correct maternalism? An honest foreign policy with the Middle East? A new appreciation for Israel’s woes? Who knows?

But one thing is rather frightening: the political pendulum in Europe always swings much more widely and quickly than here. Unless these legitimate worries about radical Islam are addressed by EU politicians, a frustrated public—note the recent elections in Germany—will address them on their own in ways that are historically scary in their own right. When I go to Europe, I am always struck how at odds the average European’s talk is from what one reads in the newspaper or hears on the television. That degree of frustration and cynicism will only get worse unless there is some honest talk about the dangers Europe faces.

Victor Davis Hanson

I agree- but honest talk about the real dangers we face in Britain looks a distant prospect. The major political parties in this country are all bound up in a woolly Anglican-vicar rose-tinted dream where the vast majority of moderate, right-thinking muslims will at some future unspecified moment, turn on their fanatical co-religionists and scourge them from their communities on our behalf, and take their place alongside us as well-intentioned, patriotic and full-on members of British society. Highly unlikely and statistically the reverse of what is currently happening but perhaps... but since when do you make plans and run a country based on something highly improbable and statistically contradicted by each survey of the muslim population?

Before the population of Britain take matters into their own hands, in a way unlikely to meet the strictures of the Geneva convention, the British government must do something to change the dynamic of the current situation. Remove the islamists and their families from Britain, close the mosques that preach hatred and treason, execute the men caught trying to kill us, spy on as many muslims as it takes to eliminate the threat, take away the funds and facilities from any organisation (school, charity, association, campaigning body) that breeds islamists, and pursue the islamist ideology wherever it is found and destroy it.

We had to do that with Nazism and we should not shy away from doing it with islamism.