In the UK there are an astonishing number of young ethnic groups who are male, who see the UK as an enemy of their faith. In fact over 200 young members are already on the potential terrorist lists as of last year; most are in the Leeds area and Northern UK, where the 7/7 bombers originated from except for one who resided in outer London. These members are at present under great pressure in being radicalised and in constant social groups that inwardly incite extremism, due to family breakdowns and the de-humanistic ideologies that is catering young minds with computer games that de-value human life, with the heavy reality of radicalism it is no wonder the enemy within the UK is sitting beside us on buses, trains, and coffee shops. Frightening, but the reality has hit home since the invasion of Iraq under a cloud of corruption.
I'm not writing this article to stimulate a response amongst this social network site, claiming that the content is all rhetoric tripe. It is simply a warning that credible evidence since 2007 has been documented and published online for the online community to view as they wish; under the heading of 'Freedom of Information'. The name to look out for is called the "Channel Project"; it is an association of the CPO (Chief Police Officers) check on these social groups who are potential threats to society and grade them accordingly on how high their extremism threats are. It isn't based on how well they are doing at school or whether they play sports because more than likely the major extremists is very well camouflaged within society and live a normal lifestyle. The major trends come from whether they are on holiday a lot, eat infrequently and had lost weight and drink a huge amount of fizzy drinks, such as Red Bull, the case for these assumptions feed extremely well when looking out for a potential extremists. The CPO also look at the possibilities of members who have a unhealthy views of the West, that had manifests itself as early as the 2005 London bombings, to the recent Christmas Day airline foiled plot.
UK terror cells are harbored in mainland; these apparently are the biggest anti West networks in the Western world. The reason why the groups are here is due to the fact the UK is an island, multi cultural and populates over 61 million within a very small area, making it very difficult for authorities to locate particular terror cells. What would be unusual activity in Lyon and maybe picked up quickly; wouldn't be picked up in highly populated places such as Leeds, whereby a high number of young male Islamic members reside.
MI5 knew about the Detroit bomber before he stepped onto the Detroit bound plane, yet did not do anything of note to stop the turmoil that followed. May I correct myself here; yes no-one was hurt and the plane reached its destination with the same number of people alive as when it lifted off into the air. Agents were on the case, even though broadsheets stance gave the impression that big security breaches were made; this was all fragmented to unearth terror cells guardedness. Like all worms, you've got to dig them out or simulate rain for them to come to the surface. The Detroit bomber was an extremist, he had been radicalized. He was a grade 'A' student, he was a young black male, so why didn't his intentions succeed? Just like the shoe bomber all that the would-be bomber succeeded in is to set himself alight, allowing for under cover agent to move in on the extremist.
Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab deemed to be calm and coherent when questioned during the foiled attempt on the plane and afterwards; the counterterrorism officials didn't have a narrow escape as reported but played a waiting game which was carefully masterminded so that it didn't cause mass hysteria. All had to appear normal on that flight leading off to take-off, the terror cells would have been viewing the flight commencing from Amsterdam. Because of the way the fiasco was handled the counter-terrorist team would have got maximum information and overall vital, and that being credible information on many "live" networks that live amongst us. Umar's own Father had expressed his son had been radicalized to the authorities after the MI5 agents had him on their files while studying in he UK. I feel that the plane interior had an air condition treated to dampen the atmosphere to allow the agent to get to the would-be bomber in time. Now the case has been undertaken with the US Intelligence Officials to draw links with Omar and other terror cells.
There appears to be a paradox in the UK surrounding terrorism and I mean that whereby the MI5 has to get their actions 100% correct all the time, the rest of the authoritarian machine can swan through matters such as incitement and radicalism like as if it is a questionnaire styled 'tick box' scenario, without any comeback to their deluded actions. Yes, we are at war with terrorism. Any matters of incitement against the West are a subject of bemusement and not taken seriously in regards to the pathetic courts. They missed the plot, probably lost in translation thanks to their big white dusty wigs over crusty grasses of wiry hairs embedded in their inner ear lobes. The terrorist group I'm referring to will be nameless. I've no intention of highlighting any matters that has already been given a platform, to show how crass and deluded Islam groups are in the UK. Who pour scorn at our fearless army who have no choice but to face evil on the front-line flirting with death; put there by an array of misfortunes and obscene decisions by Whitehall, that should be sent to The Hague. Now Blair has left the fore unscathed he has become a 'money man' and recently got a windfall of cash from you guessed it an Oil company in Iraq, initially paid by Gordon Brown, who will also benefit after he leaves office. Golden handshakes all round, who needs a lucrative dodgy pension when 'blood money' pays you handsomely.
When Blair said that he is stopping the war of terror from appearing on the UK streets by going in with military action to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for the cause; it is probably the worse piece of foreign policy that any British Prime Minster had administrated. For that alone the amount of blatant ill informed rhetoric has mounted to astonishing levels. The Chilcott fiasco as mentioned before in an earlier article of mine; is not even legally binding in a court of law; it echoes the "Hutton Inquiry". These are the same types of bureaucrats who let off Islamic incitement groups into society without due care; fully loaded with all their benefits intact that totals in access of 22,000 GBP per annum per member; it is no wonder the hard working UK public seeks huge rats in the kitchen, gulping down the credit crunch cereal 'UK's finances', which has to be paid, that's right by the UK taxpayer as per usual. When Peter Hain was asked last week whether the Islamic group members who hate the West so much should have their benefits stopped, he replied "Only if they've been proven to be fraudulent"; ironic statement from a MP who had his nose in the UK expense trough for many years and still keeps his position as a MP.
To make the Islamic group case even more infuriating, it would have been paid for by 'legal aid' due to the fact these extremists live on benefits. The analogy is like punching your granny after just been given pocket money, there is no other way of describing the facts. I see that the UK has become 'punch drunk' when it comes to abusive slogans and incitement against Western values, we've become a beaten up donkey, afraid to bite back. It doesn't surprise me that our so called UK protectors didn't object to the Islamic slogans and hatred against the West banners beforehand during the soldiers home-coming last year. They screamed out sickening words baby killers, murderers and rapists at the war tired soldiers, this was all consented by our own politically correct derailed law enforcers. On this cause alone, the court made a grotesque decision that prosecution wasn't right retrospectively, siding with the potential terrorist. UK law brought to its knees by several would-be terrorists. Mickey Mouse courts that do nothing for justice, UK law is a joke, time for Sharia law.
The war against Terror is on our UK streets today, courtesy of Blair, and his henchmen.
Now, i know i am handling a delicate issue here, and if i offend anyone, i do apologies, but then we do live in a coutry with freedom of the press (well, that's a lie, but assuming we do) 
I am not for one second saying that terrorism is not an important issue, i am simply sick of people making it out to be the biggest threat to our lives. Once again today i was on the bus, only to be stuck behind two old woman talking about how they were afraid to go on the local trains because of terrorism.
This simply left me astonished...i mean...REALLY! What is the chance of terrorists blowing up the Alloa to Stirling train on a Monday morning? But this is common nowadays, the news is full of cautions and threats, and plans to restrict our civil liberties to stop the terrorists. We are constantly told just how likely we are to be killed by terrorists and how much they want us to die.
I would like to give a brief list off the top of my head of things that are more likely to kill you in Britain than terrorists.
Falling from a height
DIY accidents in your own home
Allergic reaction to a bee
Allergic reaction to a peanut
Choking to death
The list would be a lot longer if i was a doctor. Point is, yes, you could be killed by terrorists, but that really would be a rare occasion. Isn't media coverage what they want anyway? So if we are giving them consistent media coverage and telling everyone to be terrified then that's only an encouragement to terrorism.
We are told that terrorists just want to kill us for no reason really other than their own sick enjoyment, but lets face it, they want revenge. Revenge for years of British and American attacks and power holding and manipulation in the Middle East. Close to 100,000 Iraqi civilians were murdered when the British and American troops attacked Iraq for no good reason. Compare this to under 100 deaths in Britain due to terrorism in the last decade and you can maybe see something isn't quite right. How can it be the most horrific crime of the century when Brits get killed, but when It's us killing foreign innocents it's just a casualty of war, an accident.
The reason for the media's obsession with reporting how dangerous terrorism apparently is has nothing to do with our safety. It instead justifies the siphoning of oil out of the middle East, and an ever increasing list of bills that allow the government to see everything that we are doing. In America it has got so bad, that in a time of crisis, the government is legally allowed to take control of pretty much anyone and anything, and with a media that is largely controlled by the government and happy to call a crisis at any time whatsoever, you can see why this could be a little worrying.
To me, though, it takes the attention away from the real problems in society, such as the fact that many of us are feeling increasingly alienated, suicidal, and depressed in a country that really has lost touch with what matters. Walk down any street and you can see masses of people who are clearly miserable, and discontent with an unnatural lifestyle which is driving them slowly insane.....
Hehe, hope you enjoyed reading! I personally enjoy my life, and hope you do too! :)
I think the most disgusting thing about the so-called "War on Terror" is while Britain and America claimed to have invaded Iraq to bring democracy they will be actively working with the likes of the Egyptian and Tunisian governments behind the potplants to put down that current democratic call for change in those Muslim countries, reinforcing the majority feeling that we the west are only interested in regimes that support our oil needs. Theres no way America will support a tsunami of democray over 70% of the worlds oil fields. If third world countries are oil or mineral rich then you can guarantee a superpower will be in their destabalising thinngs. And once the bad guys are in place the Americans can fallten them and the country and then rebuild the place with American contractors and get the country in hock to the US Led World Bank to pay for it all. Haiti, although not blown apart by America this time, is a classic example of that, holding back the $6 billion dollars of aid until they get the government they want in power to get all that money in contracts, exactly whats happening one year on.
The "War on Terror" doesn't exist, for me in any way, a name given by George W Bush to an operation to launch global war for profit, ironical creating the terrorism when he launched it that this was meant to get rid of. You can't justify disgusting oil grabs in Iraq without a good excuse, 911 that perfect trigger, which leaves open the possibility an American planned it. Just as the original acronym for Bush's campaign was going to be called T.W.A.T ('against' changed to 'on' when British generals started sniggering at the name for the war plans back in 2002), the invasion of Iraq was going to be named 'Operation Iraqi Liberation', or 'O.I.L', a discreet 'ahem' from the same US generals suggesting another name change maybe more appropriate, 'Freedom' replacing 'Liberation'. For Iraqis it just meant 100,000 innocent deaths a year.
But what about Britain's "War on Terror" the politicians keep scaring us rotten with? Lat week we had the case of undercover Pc Mark Kennedy who infiltrated a green activist group for six long years and ended up pretty much running it, using police funds to 'make sure' the activist were up for some direct action, resulting in the over-the-top raid on Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station where lots of middle-class types were roughed up and arrested on suspicion of attempted disruptions to Britain's power supply, prosecuted under new terror laws Blair bought in post 911. It turns out it was Kennedy's idea to launch the assault on the power station and he recruited most of the 127 people arrested on the demo. Many of the campaigners were not up for that, entrapment at its worse, the police, who clearly told him to do this not telling the defense lawyers that an undercover officer was part of the prosecution. The trial collapsed when Kennedy saw what was going on and turned hostile witness, these kids' just students and gentle radicals making a legitimate democratic point and having no intention of shutting down anything. My point here is what if this is what is going on with all these terror plots we hear about in the U.K and Muslim radicals are being infiltrated by MI5 to 'stoak up' plots to create the terror threat to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What if the only intelligence involved in the plots are the MI6 agents that pull this distortion off? In the US they have had 93 of these sting operations since 911 yet no attacks on the US mainland from this supposed threat. Have America and the US been lucky and stopped 100% of the active ploys since 911 and 7/7 respectively or is something more sinister going on here. The Kennedy case proved we are not beneath this. Bet you didn't know that in the 1970s the SAS trained Pol Pots revolutionary army, the most sadistic killer of the decade, all because Great Britain wanted political influence in the region. Always think the worst of your governments guys as we cant have what we have in the west without suppressing someone in the third world, capitalism only working as we don't have to feel guilty about that state of affairs. Look at Haiti. A year on from the earthquake 95% of the rubble is still on the ground and 95% of the aid money has gone unspent. The people live in tents and 10,000 aid agencies are the government there. The world we live in is not nice.
As most British people know there's no such thing as a 'British Pakistani', their loyalty usually to Pakistan and Islam, rather than the Union Jack, the so called 'cricket test'. With 50% of British Pakistanis living in the U.K of working age now not in employment I think its time we start severing our ties with Pakistan and start welcoming more hard working and loyal Indians and Polish migrants to replace their quota. We know who our real friends are in the Sub Continent and this disrespect has gone on long enough. In one BBC World survey, 76% of the native Pakistanis surveyed expressed empathy with the 911 attacks. Iraq, fair enough, we were wrong to invade and 7/7 was a punch on the chin we had to take, and probably deserved, as was Glasgow Airport, but we don thave to tolerate treason. I would have no problem with a US style invasion of Pakistan if they don't get their act together and move with the times. Let's hope Barak Obamas refreshingly cosmopolitan hand will be the only diplomacy needed this time to get them to sort their own house out. New enemies come thick and fast guys. Did you know that Adolph Hitler, rather ironically, was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize in 1938, nine months before he invaded Poland.
If the rcent India attack was back in 2002-03 as momentum built for the illegal invasion of Iraq then you can bet your bottom dollar the USA would have blamed that attack on Al-Quieda, whatever Al-Quieda is, and that would have been the end of it, getting both sides off the hook and so fuelling the Iraq invasion. But it wasn't, and what we saw there is another stirring of the seething unrest of that Muslim ambiguous majority in the Indian sub-continent, attacking both Indian and Pakistan authority in an almost anarchic and moronic way, especially now that the military junta has lost a grip on power in Pakistan. The Americans are very nervous that the new man in a suit there has his finger on the nuke button, the only Muslim countries to have nukes, and so Bush stirring things up before he goes to allow Obama the option.
I don't think its coincidence that tension is raising in the sub-continent now that Bush has gone, the Republicans determined to leave Obama a thriving 'War on Terror' opportunity down there, keeping those huge arms sales high in the U.S for Republican party supporters. I have always said the C.I.A. turned a blind eye to the guys organizing 911, so they had some sort of remit to invade Iraq to secure their oil and I think this is more of the same from the same Machiavellian playbook. If Iraq is the springboard to invade Iran, now Iraq's puppet leaders have signed a three year extension to America's occupation, then why not increased US bases in India to undermine Pakistan?
The great American stand up comic, Bill Hicks, once growled in a crowd of smoke ...
"I have a feeling that whoever's elected president goes into a smokey room where the 12 capitalist 'scum*ucks' who got him there in the first place are sitting around a table and a video screen comes down, and one of the guys says show the film, show the film, and it's coverage of the Kennedy assignation from an angle that we've never seen before that looks as though it's suspiciously off the grassy knoll. "Any questions Mr. President?" "Only what my agenda is?" , "Bomb Baghdad "! , "You got it"................."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
America have military bases or outpost in nearly every country of the world and still have thousands of troops in Germany, 63 years after the war ended, a whole generation of Germany reminded of a war they never thought. Hell, they even have base on Cuba somehow! How are they still there? On average America has waged war with one new country every year since WW2 ended. War is in their blood and they can't help starting them as their economy depends on it, the so called 'Military Industrial Complex', the thing the departing President Eisenhower warned the world about in the 1950s. The basic premise of the 'I.M.C.' is to involve all 50 of the U.S states on being dependent on military contracts and so the senators beholden to the arms companies for government contracts. It's so big now that one in ten of America's workforce is dependent on the military and when their soldiers fight abroad the countries economy increases. The B2 Stealth bomber deliberately has a part made in each of those 50 states so they all support mindless wars to keep those jobs.
The war in Iraq was a simple one, bully the U.N to give the invasion some sort of legal sheen and then pile in and nick the oil and privatize the country. In the first six months of the occupation Governor Bremner privatized Iraq's top 100 companies and sold most of them to American ones, who sub contracted the work back to the Iraqis for peanuts, picking up 80% profit for doing nothing. An example of this would be the bridge rebuild deals, blown up by American planes (some say to order) and so put out to tender. Big US engineering companies like Halliburton and Bechtel would be handed all the deals via the Bush Pentagon, bypassing Iraqi firms bids, but would immediately sub-contract those deals to the same Iraq companies, but the scam being Halliburton would get $20 million-for example-to build the bridge but take the cheapest Iraqi tender, keeping the difference, which would be around $18 million dollars. It was that sidestepping of local Iraqi firms and labour that fuelled the insurgency, so sucking in all the local militias to stake their piece of Iraq.
Over to Bill Hicks again:
"I'm so sick of arming the f***ing world man, then sending troops over to destroy the arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, and then we go and blow the sh*t out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.
"Pick it up."
"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."
"Pick up the gun."
"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hardrock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."
"Pick up the gun."
(He picks it up. Three shots ring out)
"You all saw him - he had a gun."
Why we are where we are on Iraq and Afghanistan...
In the mid-nineties the C.I.A were getting anxious over falling budgets and promotions hopes, now that the Cold War was over. In another smoky office in the Pentagon the Bush neo-cons were creating a solution for all, "Al Quieda", putting all Islamic extremist groups under the one umbrella as the new enemy to replace the now defeated communist threat to America. All they needed now was the Muslims radicals to embrace the idea of Al-Qieda, the ubiquitous unseen enemy that would kick-start the US war machine, that 'Industrial Military Complex' again, and so give the C.I.A something to do again.
Once 911 happened (again, gee, I wonder who's idea that was!) the US had their war on Islam and the invasion of Iraq would perpetuate it like a stick in a hornets nest, let alone hand America the worlds biggest untapped and underused oil supply. The so called 'War on Terror' also spawned a unilateral U.S policy that would also allow for other American conflicts in Muslim lands that conveniently had oil and gas reserves, let alone lots of local companies to be privatized. It was a brilliant strategy and deployed when Bush and the 'Neocons' stole the election and the Whitehouse in the less than presidential race of 2000. Tony Blair called the oil grab something else: 'protecting British interests abroad'... the 'tough choices' he kept going on about in the commons as he lied his way into history, the scorching deserts where oil literally leaks out onto the surface now being sucked dry by UNOCAL and BP. Anyone who disagreed with his policy ended up dead in the woods or fired from the BBC. In London on 7/7 the angry seething Muslims underbelly responded to the invasion with those devastating attacks in London we talked of earlier. The truth we couldn't deal with was these kids that blew up the tube were just as messed up as the American and British soldier's returning from those wars in Muslim lands and so no different. Those kids on both sides weren't allowed to have an opinion, muzzled by their leders, and so lashed out.
The aftermath of the 'War on Terror'...
The United Kingdom has 25% of the worlds CCTV cameras but only 5% of the film. They are great for handing our speeding and parking tickets but rubbish for catching terrorists. Since 911 we have seen huge sweeping powers given to police and government agencies here as part of the terror crack down, but the powers used mostly for generating petty fines from the middle-class people who will pay them because they want to stay decent citizens. The bad citizen's aren't going to pay those fines or obey the laws so we have to make up the difference in those lost fines this way. 80 year old white grannies are stripped searched at airports for liquid bombs whilst the only Asian man in the queue isn't searched so to avoid the airport being sued by human rights lawyers. The madness goes on and on, good people fearful of the state, bad people running wild in it. A man who frog-marched his employee to the police station for stealing from his firm-and to which the guy owned up to stealing that money through cheque fraud-was the one who was eventually arrested and charged under those anti-terror laws, the thief getting off with a caution, the boss facing a trial for unlawful imprisonment!
Last week Britain edged towards a police state when the shadow immigration spokesman was arrested and interrogated for 9 hours for allegedly leaking information from the civil service on immigration issues. The question shouldn't be about this guy releasing confidential information but why this information has been kept confidential from us? If the government has enough powers to gag the party that wants to win power then we are on a slippery slope guys. Now you know why western governments would turn a blind eye and let planes fly into the twin towers...
There have always been people who have been prepared to try and achieve their aims by terrorising others into submitting to their demands. History is full of such people, many of them achieved their aims because of the fear they created, or because governments or countries tried to appease them by compromise, or giving in totally to their demands. This has sent out a message to the fanatics that terrorism works, keep at it and we will bit by bit get what we want, even if it is not the wish of the majority.
At the moment the threat to the western world is coming from fanatical Muslim fundamentalists. I have listened to all the arguments by the appeasers as to why we are experiencing this threat. It is our foreign policy, our support for Israel, our greed for Middle Eastern oil, our war on Iraq and in Afghanistan, our treatment of Muslims, it goes on and on. They tell us we must pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan we must alter our foreign policy to suit the terrorists and it will all be fine. What a load of codswallop.
When you point out to these people that the attack on the world trade centre in America happened before we sent troops to Afghanistan and before the war in Iraq they then say we invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war or that we support Israel against the Palestinians.
Well lets start with Palestine which seems to be (if you listen to the appeasers) the cause of the whole problem. Historically the area that is now Israel was Palestine. After the Second World War thousands of Jewish refugees who had suffered horrendous treatment during the war decided that they wanted to go to, what to them was, their historical homeland where they joined many Jewish people who still lived there. They decided rightly or wrongly that they wanted a Jewish state. This was violently opposed by the local Arab or Muslim population and I might add by the British who were in control of the area at the time. A full scale war broke out and this ended with the United Nations giving Israel a mandate to exist as a Jewish state. It can be argued that the Israel took the land from the Palestinians but then if you must go back into history didnt the Muslims take it from the Jews in the first place.
Although the majority of the world accepted Israel as a state the Muslim world never did and vowed to destroy it. During the second failed attempt by the surrounding Muslim nations to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, Israel occupied large areas of land belonging to Egypt, Syria and Jordan, mainly at the time, as a buffer zone to protect their own citizens from attack. Rightly or wrongly they held on to some of this land and started to build settlements on it. After two failed attempts at all out war the fanatical percentage of the Muslim population decided to adopt terrorist tactics to achieve their aims and each time Israel retaliates they scream that they are being attacked and it is Israel that is at fault.
I dont know what the answer to this problem is. I dont think there is one. Israel now exists. Whether it should or shouldnt have been formed is history and cant be changed, but this will never be accepted by the fundamentalist Muslims, who will never cease to believe that the Land occupied by Israel should be a Muslim state.
So what do we do? I believe that Israel as a state now has the right to exist in peace and we therefore must oppose all attempts by terrorists or Muslim nations to attack it and prolong the problems of the Middle East.
I also believe we have a right to, or not to, hold these views without the fear of being blown up by people with different views.
The war in Iraq was not a war against Muslims nor was the war in Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan to rid the world of a terrible fundamentalist and oppressive regime that was spawning, training and protecting terrorists and who were hell bent on destroying our way of life and making life for the majority of the people in Afghanistan nothing more than a miserable existence.
Iraq maybe is a bit more contentious for some people, as many believe we only went to war there because of oil. Whatever the real reason George Bush and Tony Blair had for this war, it has at least achieved the removal of one of the worlds worst Dictators since Hitler. If we had not gone to war in Iraq Sadam would still be there, killing and torturing thousands as he had done in the past. At least the people of Iraq now have the chance of a democratic society if we do not allow the terrorists to create civil war which will only let the fundamentalists take control.
So we must fight these terrorists where ever we find them and however we can. We must not surrender our democratic ideals and way of life in any way, shape or form to appease these people who if given an inch would want a mile. Compromise does not work if it is wrong it is wrong and if it is right it is right there are no half measures. The democratic way (Our way) is to vote out a government if we dont agree with them not blow people up. If our views are not the majority views then protest peacefully, try to convince people by logical argument and if we cant do that then hard luck the majority have had their say.
Although the problems from terrorism are coming only from fanatics and fundamentalists, there is a problem that the Muslim faith as a whole must overcome. That is the assumption that anything that this country does that affects another country is an attack upon the religion of that country. For example because we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq It was not an attack on the Muslim faith, it was rightly or wrongly an attack on the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and that is all.
When the I.R.A. was bombing the U.K we didn't say we were under attack by catholics we said we were under attack by the IRA most of whom were catholics. We didn't rant to the pope and say it was his fault. If you are British then you are British whatever your religion. When we went to war with Argentina we weren't at war with Catholics we were at war with Argentina and the many Catholics in the British Armed forces did not see it as a war against their religion and were happy to serve their country.
As a British Citizen you have a right to agree or disagree with the policy of the government but just because the policy of the government is affecting people who happen to be of the same religion as you should not in itself shape your view. Your view should only be formed by whether you think that the policy is right or wrong regardless of the religion of the people it is affecting
I have read reviews on here about the recent terrorism threats and feel very strongly that Blair should be here. After all he is supposed to be the one leading the country. Can you imagine the head of a corporate company being on holiday and a major catastrophe occurs while he is away? Would he entrust things to his deputies? I doubt it. So why isn't Blair here?
Not that we need him of course, the sooner we get rid of him the better. Britain should not have to face these terrorist threats which are connected with his insistence on supporting his old mate President Bush.
As for airport security being stepped up, I think it is time this was done. When I travelled to the Far East last year and had to go between different airports there, every time I went through security the bottle of water I carried was screened. When I queried this procedure I was told it was "in case some nutter decided to carry liquid explosives onto the plane." If they knew about this threat in the Far East ten months ago, how come the UK airports didn't carry out the same checks then?
Britain is a soft touch and everyone knows it, that is why we have masses of immigrants moving here. Not all of these people have good intentions for coming here, but unfortunately this reflects on those who are genuine. Personally I can't see why anyone would want to come and live in Britain! And I know I am not alone, that is why we are emigrating in our thousands! If this carries on then Tony Blair will be in charge of a country of foreigners! The True Brits will have abandoned him and his policies.
**Update - 28 December 2009**
Following yet another failed 'terrorist plot', security has yet again been increased on flights entering the US. These include:
* Customers to remain seated during final hour of flight
* No access to hand luggage and a ban on leaving possessions or blankets on laps during this hour.
It seems my 'ideas' weren't quite so wacky after all....
"A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said. It is thought the plan was to detonate up to three explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage. " From www.bbc.co.uk/news 10 August 2006.
As a result of the foiled terrorist plot, all hand luggage has been banned on flights to, from or within the UK. Any allowed items (sanitary towels, tampons, nappies, contact lenses) must be carried in a clear plastic bag. Nothing may be carried in pockets.
Well done. But surely these precautions don't go far enough. Plastics explosives have evolved to such an extent that they could be carried on the person, and cannot be detected by conventional means. Terrorists are wiling to sacrifice their lives in the name of martyrdom, in the name of a cause (the cause itself is irrelevant). Safety demands a high price, and the loss of personal freedom, responsibility, accountability and dignity is surely but a small price to pay for the comfort of the appearance of safety. However, one cannot put the genie of cheap air travel back in the bottle - we will not ban air travel.
Therefore I propose the following measures, effective immediately:
1. Blood, hair and saliva tests for DNA profiling and cross checking against known criminals. Technology should be developed to determine a propensity for fanaticism, obsession and depression. Identified individuals should be prohibited from flying.
2. No luggage of any sort to be allowed on aircraft. Passengers must purchase any items they are likely to need at their destination upon arrival. Not only will this ensure that no explosive or sharp materials can be brought on the aircraft, it has the bonus of enhancing the economies of the destination nations.
3. All passengers to be handcuffed or otherwise restrained in their seats. This will ensure that staff and passengers cannot be threatened with physical violence. Any 'comfort' breaks to be taken whilst accompanied by a member of airline staff (and/or an air marshal) and the doors to the lavatories to be removed.
These measures will certainly ensure that the population feel that 'something is being done'. However, do they go far enough? Should the threat level still be considered unacceptable, further restrictions could be applied.
Clothing is not permitted. All passengers must travel naked, and may be subject to full internal and external searches. There will be no exemptions, as bad guys may use unwitting vectors for their evilness, including the very young and very old.
OK, enough. Perhaps you see what I'm getting at. In the name of safety and security, we allow freedoms to be eroded, liberties to be curtailed, and all of us to be treated as terrorists and criminals. Naturally, you could argue that the (real) restrictions are right and proper - that it's certainly better to be inconvenienced than blown up. But here's the rub - how safe do these restrictions make us. Can they really save our lives, especially when applied retrospectively (closing the barn door after the horse has bolted)? Are we really that much safer? How much safety is worth paying for? When does the price become too high?
Now, let's examine the whole concept of safety. People have a very skewed view of the world, and of danger. Do you feel that tasting your baby's food before boarding a plane to satisfy authorities that the jar of pureed peas is not in fact liquid explosive a reasonable precaution? Tell me then: do you smoke? You are surely more likely to die from a smoking related illness than from a terrorist attack.
Would you wear a helmet to guard against meteor strikes? Why not? Because they are unlikely? Because it wouldn't help against a rock hurtling at your head at hundreds of miles an hour? Because you cannot control the actions of rocks? Fear things you can change.
"The only real prison is fear, and the only real freedom is freedom from fear."
Aung San Suu Kyi (1945 - )
I am a fearful person. Heights scare me rigid - I am convinced I am going to fall. I am afraid of getting lost, to the point of tears sometime. My heart pounds in my chest when I think I'm going to be 'in trouble' - be told off by my family or my employers. I hate making a fool of myself, and can barely move for shaking when I've done so.
There is a difference between fear and worry. I fear things I feel that will affect me directly, that I think are likely, that will be my fault, that are within my control. The threat of terrorism worries me - but it doesn't scare me. I worry that my (now defunct) smoking habit has adversely affected my health. It doesn't terrify me. I cannot now control it or change it.
We are like the rabbits of Efrafa in Watership down - prepared to sacrifice liberty in return for a feeling of safety.
As a wise woman (OK, me) said: "Today, I am worried. Tomorrow - who knows? Maybe I'll buy into the police state by the back door. Maybe I'll turn a blind eye. Maybe I'll change who and what I am, so that I can remain an 'I am'. Maybe I'll sacrifice ME so that I can feel safe as part of an US or a WE or a MANY. Maybe. Many other people have."
The terrorists have, today, succeeded. We are terrified. , we are willing to sacrifice everything to feel safe. For it's not real security - only an illusion. A determined killer will kill us. A determined terrorist will terrify us. They've won, we've lost. And what has been taken can never be returned.
This is a companion piece to "as freedom is a breakfast food". The concerns then are the fears now.
Before you read any further, I'd just like to point out that some of my views may upset some people. It is not that they are deliberatley offensive, only that it goes against the grain of current opinion. If you continue to read this, please don't blame me for being offended.
Terrorism is the latest excuse for governments to scare their populations into giving them the powers that they want but cannot get any other way. The problem is that people, on being told that they are under attack, will request that something is done. We all want our liberties and freedoms to be intact, yet at the same time it is those same liberties that are so freely given away in the name of prevention of terrorism. But is there a need for all of this? Are we in so much danger that we need all this protection?
Lets take a trip down memory lane to prove a point.
Remember the IRA? Sinn Fein? Gerry Adams? Remember the weekly bombs in the 80s? Remember that Gerry Adams was considered so evil that his voice was not allowed to be broadcast on the TV? Yes?
Remember any terrorist warnings then? Was Parliament blocked off (Downing Street was, but then a bomb did go off on the doorstep)? Was there an axis of evil declared? Where there any adverts telling you to rat on you neighbour if you saw something suspicious? No. We just got on with things. We didnt have alert status broadcast all the time. We didnt have to be subject to bag searches every time your employer felt the need for increasing security. Yet back then, we had a real terrorist problem. We saw bombs going off each week in the UK mainland and in Ireland. Killings were rife. So whats going on now? Weve had a couple of bombs being set off in the UK in the past decade, yet the government is telling us that we are under serious danger. Just where is this danger, exactly?
Could it be from an Iraqi supergun? Remember that big gun back in the 90s that we were told could launch a rocket at virtually anywhere and would spell an end to the wrold? That seems to have vanished into thin air.
Are we, then subject to threat from WMDs? Hmmm. No sign of them either. But then, the evidence was found to be fake the government just does not want to admit it.
It must be, then, people with dodgy beards making chemical bomb vests, as on the news just a couple of weeks ago. But hang on about 5 police forces over 3 days couldnt find anything. See the pattern?
So again, where exactly is this terrorist threat? The answer is simple there isnt one. True, there are people out there who would do harm to others, as evidenced by the London bombs and the bombing of the World Trade Centre. But that isnt good a enough reason to declare that everyone is out to get us and that we need all this protection. America has become totally paranoid. It has dictated draconian laws, demanded extradition of people from foreign states without any equal reciprocation, and is hell bent on controlling people in and out of the country. And the UK is going the same way. The Terrorism Acts are the most abused Acts ever to have been passed. The rule of law, a code of practice protecting us for over a millennium, has been bypassed and disregarded. And paranoia seeps in more and more. Plane crashes, derailed trains and fires are all firstly suspected as being acts of terrorism.. But then we have the truth which is not nearly as exciting it was just an accident. No bombs and no terrorists.
But still the terrorist threat continues. More people with dodgy beards are arrested. OAPs are kicked out of party conferences and detained under anti-terrorism legislation. Kids playing with water pistols are likely to be on the wrong end of an armed response unit. You cant bring nail scissors onto plains anymore (but you can still buy them at the duty free shop at the airport). Illegal detention of people continues as does insane and irrational fear of terrorism increase. Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre, a former employer of mine decided to have threat alerts green, yellow and red (quite obvious what each one is for), with big placards placed in key places around the building to advise at what level we were at. New security procedures were introduced and upgrades were made to the building (toughened glass etc). But why all of this? Is this organisation part of the military, hence red alerts? No. Is it then involved in a high risk location? No. Its a car insurance company located in the back streets of Wigan - obviously a prime target for all those terrorists.
The real threat comes from the American governments interference in world affairs. Invading Iraq for example, to control oil will just really piss people off in those countries (if thats not a reason, then why not invade North Korea? Oh no oil. And they can fight back) And Mr T Blair should remember that Her Britannic Majesty is Head of State and not Dubya Bush. The BBCs motto used to be Nation shall speak peace unto nation. We should bring back a revised version Nation shall blow nation into pieces.
Once we start to recognise and respect sovereign nations as being entitled to run their own affairs, whether we like it or not, the better. Only then will we start to see real trust and peace in the world.
OK, I take your points on board - I shouldn't have just copied and pasted what I wrote in 2002. But it was to make a point - it is amazing how it takes atrocities to happen in our own backyard, before we all wake up and realise the threat to our security lies within....while Islamic terrorism has been ravaging the world over the last decade, no-one in the West has raised an eyebrow. The opposite in fact; Britain has been a safe haven for fundamentalists since the 70s. The concentration of rich wealthy Arab Islamists in London is startling - these guys are key in the funding of the 'jihad', which has been waged around the world for more than a decade. Instead Britain followed the usual 'appeasement' policy; a hangover from the days of the British Raj. We have become so politically correct, that the British have now relegated their own identity to a less important status.
It has infuriated me, the way that Islamic fundamentalists have slowly taken root in British society. This certainly hasnt happened overnight and it is the British people and government that are to blame for allowing this to happen, in the name of 'democracy' and 'freedom of speech'. Yes, we need to tolerate other ways of life; yes, we need to respect other religions, but somewhere a line needs to be drawn. At what expense have we allowed Muslims to form their own religious schools? At what expense have we allowed the formation of a Muslim Parliament in Britain? Well, I can tell you, it has been at the expense of a cohesive, integrated society. We have allowed Muslims to create a 'them' 'us' situation. We have allowed the segregation of Muslims into 'ghettos' around Britain - go to Birmingham, Bradford, Luton. I would be surprised if white people don't feel like the ethnic minority.
How can it be justified that groups were able to use our freedom of speech, and democratic priniciples, turn them on their head, and proclaim Britain should be an Islamic state, kill Tony Blair, and then get away with all this? Because we have been swamped by politically correct nonsense, to the extent that British people are afraid to say anything, even if the injustice is so blatantly obvious, to a sensible human being.
I believe that if you emigrate to a foreign country, you should try and integrate into society, not segregate yourself from it. Try and not make yourself look or act different- why should you? If you want to be British, you should at least follow a British way of life, on a day to day, superficial level. Religion / beliefs should be private and kept private -why do Muslims want to convert everyone to their way of life? More importantly, why should they be given the mechanism to do this in Britain ? Why have we given Muslims the rights to form religious schools, within which anti-West feelings and the 'Muslims are being persecuted syndrome' can be fostered?
What is more infuriating is that, when I started Uni, in 1995, I used to rant on about these issues to my friends, after watching the Hizbul-u-Tahir (a radical Islamic student group)wave anti-semitic, anti-British slogans outside our 'Freshers Fair' at Cambridge. My friends weren't the least bit interested and thought that I was over-reacting. The same issues were raised when Kashmiri Muslims started being brainwashed in the mosques of Kashmir, to 'raise themselves against the non-muslim infidels' and start a 'jihad'. Who did we, in America and Britain, provide tacit and moral support to? - obviously the Muslim freedom fighters, who were fighting against the cruel oppressive regime of the largest and secular democracy of India!
We didn't learn lessons from Kashmir, Chechnya etc - instead we called them 'freedom fighters', in the true British appeasing way. These 'freedom fighters', originating from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Kashmir have now become the Tutors for British Muslim 'suicide bombers'. How things have changed!
Since July 7, the media reports are flooded with questions like 'Why?' - how could a British born Muslim be driven to carry out such an atrocity. The answer is simple and all contained in the above; we have allowed the brainwashing of Muslim youths. We have allowed them to believe their delusion of Muslims being persecuted around the world. Yes, there are injustices around the world, to many ethnic groups, but the answer has never been to blow innocent people up. The only problem with Islam is that any perceived persecution, in their eyes, justifies the waging of war against infidels.
It's a little late, although welcome, British muslims coming out now, denouncing suicide bombers, and that 'islam isn't about killing' and 'these guys are not true muslims'; they have to take responsibility for the fact that they allowed their kids to be brainwashed in religious schools and mosques; the money they were donating to Islamic charities was filling the coffers of terrorists waging a Jihad around the world. At Uni, every Muslim friend I had, would sit quite easily and comfortably and justify the actions of 'freedom fighters' in Kashmir, Chechnya and Israel - now that it is in our backyard, they are quick to dissociate Islam from it.
Unfortunately, Islam is going through now, what Christianity went through in the Medieval ages (Crusades etc.). Modern Islam is still stuck in the Medieval ages, and for most British Muslims, they are still stuck with the teachings from a long bygone era, and are stuck with it in a very literal and black and white way. They need to learn how to adapt their religion/way of life, to fit the society they now live in; it is no good, trying to isolate yourself from British society, by sticking with literal translations from the Koran, from hundreds of years ago. The lack of evolution and adaptation has allowed and given birth to people within their community, that take the phrase 'convert by any means necessary / by the sword', in a very literal way, in a 21st Century world, where public displays of religion are on the wane.
That comes to my final point. In a recent Home Office survey, ethnic groups were stratified according to 'wealth', and Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups were close to the bottom, with Indian, Chinese near the top. The main difference is that the latter groups, generally (although there are of course exceptions), have made their children focus on academic excellence rather than religious excellence. The priority of British muslims seems to be understanding the Koran, not achieving high levels of education and success, and this reflected in the GENERALLY lower level of wealth in these groups. Again, since July 7th, there is much focus on British Asians lacking identity, feeling segregated etc as a cause for disillusionment. Two points: 1. dont put all Asians in the same damn bracket; 2. part of the problem is a self-segregation, rather than a forced segregation. They have made little effort to integrate into British society.
I know these are very politically incorrect views, but I strongly do believe that a lot of these issues have been key in creating the Islamic fundamentalism, that we are now seeing in Britain. And no, I am not a White BNP extermist; I am of Hindu origin, brown in colour, and particularly annoyed that British Asians are grouped as a homogeneous bunch; I do believe in my religion, but I believe that, as someone who came to this country, integration should be the priority and religion should be practiced at home, not rammed down everyone else's throat outside the home. If people want to believe something, they should be allowed to believe, but the key is respecting other people's rights to not believe as well.
In recent and past wars, much controversy has been present and is still present today. These conflicts, exercised either by military firepower or a politicians tongue cause great uncertainty as to the fate of the afflicted nations. A prime example of these instances of this today, and also most the publicised, must be the war on Iraq. Britain has pretty much turned a blind eye to the battles raging on there due to the heavy censorship of actual occurrences in Iraq caused by the stifling and exaggeration of main stream media and the recent and horrific tsunamis in South-East Asia that killed in excess of 175 000 people without neither prejudice of race, cultural heritage nor the amount of numerals in their bank account.
This natural disaster, though dwarfed by the accumulative deaths of Iraqi citizens and closely followed by American troops, has received the most media attention than most stories in the last 50 years. This is shocking, that a natural disaster can overshadow the biggest human disaster of recent times, even though the preventable deaths of continuously tallying, thousands of people is present in the same continent as the ones afflicted by the tsunami. Even the saturated ruins of these sites look mildly habitable compared to the decimated rubble of Fellujah in Iraq. So why then do American forces continue to occupy Iraq, and mount attacks on innocent Iraqis, only to be met by a never ending assault by the Iraqi insurgents.
The USA pledged $150 million to the tsunami relief fund. A modest amount, but seeing as combined with even the aid given by the UK ($96 million) it would not even accumulate to a weeks accommodation in Iraq. Better still, it is only worth the amount you could get by auctioning off a stealth bomber. That alone is worth a few raised eyebrows. Even better still, Bushs up-and-coming inauguration ceremony is to cost $45 million, much of which could be used to repair just about all of Pakistans coastline. The public seem to be the sole aid presenters here, with even corner shops being able to raise up to 4 digits worth of cash, and I even heard about a homeless man in a bank somewhere in Britain, who emptied his pockets in front of a crowd of people pledging money saying, I just want to do my bit. A stroke of extreme selflessness, making the selfishness of global politicians very apparent, pretty unacceptable in my view. It just shows how at a time of great misfortune, true colours show, and so does the combined efforts heartfelt Samaritans.
It seems the governments have other priorities to attend to, especially the US of A and their so called war on terror which appears to be the most bogus thing since being able to marry a horse in Texas, just spanned over such a long period of time that the public eyes grow weary and turn blindly to their own priorities. The war has been running for 666 days (can't be a good sign) as of the 15/01/05 and the UK has spent $11.5 billion on it while the US has spent a staggering $148 billion, that alone is phenomenal compared the little tributaries of aid that run off their vast river of income.
America uses over double the funding to create chaos and suffering among the world than it does in relieving it, and still George Bush regards this as progress? What kind of world is this if this is the mentality of our world leaders while the reality at hand is so dreadful? The opportunity to use this money on 2.8 billion absolutely destitute people of the world easily classes the Iraq war as humanitarian disaster alone. A war on terror and a war for humanitarianism are both total contradictions, it is the equivalent of burning a bible to justify that you are a valid Christian.
So what started this war in the first place? It was allegedly that fateful and infamous day on 11 of September 2001, when the twin towers was struck by two airliners and a third narrowly missing the pentagon, and which was allegedly said to be the work of Al Qaeda, allegedly an underground network of global terrorists and extremists that are allegedly funded by Osama Bin Laden. I say alleged because these claims by the US government have yet to be proved, and much of their evidence that supports their case has either been proven to be bogus, or at best, deceptive. For instance, On December 13th 2001 a videotape released by the government was made public and which contained Osama Bin Laden and was said to have him confessing to the 9/11 attacks.
First of all, the coalition forces just happened to stumble accross this tape of Osama "confessing" to the murder of thousands of people, in one of the biggest cities in Afghanistan? Not likely, and this is what G W Bush had to say about it: "For those who see this tape, they'll realise that not only is he guilty of incredible murder, he has no conscience and no soul, that he represents the worst of civilisation." A bold statement for such profound lies, but it was successful in detouring media attention away from other inside issues. It was almost as if Osama chose his moments to appear (wink wink nudge nudge.) The icing on the cake however was Osamas appearance, which was blurred beyond much distinction, but without a doubt, compared with all his other pictures, It is blatant that it is NOT Osama Bin Laden. See if you can spot the difference:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html (go to web page and scroll down for picture)
Even pre-schoolers could tell you that Osama E is the sore thumb here, and what do you know, thats the Osama present in the tape. He writes with his right hand yet even the FBI indicate that he is right handed and translators in Germany claimed that the translation of his speech was manipulative of words. As if to certify this further, him and his Islam cohorts appear to be wearing gold rings. Islam forbids the wearing of gold rings, so he just forgot then did he? This was just a ludicrous vindication of his terrorism so that the US would be justified in occupying Afghanistan and later, Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was then accused of having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) yet once he had been overthrown still none were found. Which brings us to think that there were ulterior motives for the occupation of Iraq. They are about to hold elections in Iraq to determine their future leader however US troops are being heavily blistered by insurgents in the last month due to these very elections. Current status is as such that the CIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency and the State Department have warned President Bush that the United States and its Iraqi allies aren't winning the battle against Iraqi insurgents who are trying to derail the country's Jan. 30 elections according to administration officials.
Being told hes losing the war he started and he still has the audacity to invade Irans airspace with war jets, which is also considered an act of war, could he trying to start something? Is he sussing out his next potential war victims? Only time will tell. At the moment Donald Rumsfeld is so desperate to find a solution to their losing streak that they have devised The Salvador Option after a senior military officer quoted, "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defence. And we are losing." The option is currently being debated at the Pentagon but the only information known about it is that it dates back to the 80s and is a still covert strategy Reagan applied in battle against the guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador.
The US now has:
· A terrible image
· Angry citizens due to questionable voting on his second term
· Troops committing mutiny and even shooting themselves to avoid being (re) assigned to Iraq (U.S. Troops Have One In 11 Chance of Being Wounded Or Killed In Iraq)
· A depreciating economy
· Debts approaching the trillion mark
· 100 000 troops dead in Iraq
· A dysfunctional economy
While our governments continue to squander the money we give them for relief of the suffering, our inputs go in vain on efforts to further themselves in warfare instead of on those that need it most, and then they turn to the homeless man when disaster is afoot and people less fortunate than even him are in dire need of aid. Dont you think its funny how politicians of the world who support and induce the cruel suffering of innocent lives are praised while others are sacked for fast-tracking VISAs?
If such injustice can take place in this world by what is supposed to be a "model" country then what are we supposed to believe? Heck who knows, Osama probably isn't real, and probably neither is Al Qaeda or the Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only evident terrorists here are not our enemies, but appear to be those of us who are turning a blind eye to the suffering of the lesws fortunate. Another would be the heartless politicians who condemn foreign nations and citizens without any consideration of what they are doing to their fellow man.
EVEN the UN has classes the ongoing slaughter in Iraq as an illegal war, as it is a humanitarian disaster, disregarding everything the Geneva Convention ould think of.
Sadly we won't be seeing Bush and Blair beside Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic in front of a grand jury any time soon, as i doubt they would ever go down without a coup. It appears the UN doesn't have enough power to subdue their own members, and if they can't even do that then how are they supposed to enforce an organised and effective legislation to comply to?
That leads me to my last assumption, if our own leaders are guilty of such crimes that would overshadow the existence of most terrorists in history, do they have the right govern us? Through the years we have been deceived, lied to and made fools of. There has to be some form of action we can take before America starts to neo-colonise the globe, any suggestions would be great. Afghanistan was overrun, Iraq is currently being overrun and Iran is being scouted by jet fighters, so I'd say watch your back Syria too.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" - GW Bush (CNN 12/18/00.) Sounds like terrorist talk to me. You can make your mind up as to whether this "war on terrorism" is legitimate or even necessary, but I am definitely against it. Im not saying I'm right, i just believe that there is substantial evidence to support my view and the millions of others protesting agree and take a stand against the horrific war. Just think before you judge and keep an open mind. On the 20th of January there will be a large protest in which people against it will not spend a single US dollar in protest. If you disagree and it is possible, then join in.
Thank you for reading, and I leave you with this comment-
We had 'bad intelligence' (honest)"
January 30, 2004. RealMedia BBC News item.
Look in my eyes and you'll see that the echo of Beslan is still there. I haven't quite recovered from the shock yet.
In my previous op I tried to convey what Russian establishment did to wipe out the memories of the recent tragic events in Moscow, of the victims and the perpetrators alike. Now I have to admit the machinery has been working as effectively ever since.
Two captions have been at the top of the Russian e-media hit list over two past days, at least:
"Echo of the Lisbon tragedy. The Duma calls Koloskov(1) to account"
"Scoop! They will build a Disneyland in Chechnya!"
That made me recall what Friedrich Reck-Malleczewen(2) said: "At the end of the world (the average man) will want to know how the government proposes to hold next Sunday's Germany-Sweden match on schedule".
So, are we already there? How can a shameful soccer defeat possibly compare to the loss of hundreds of lives in Beslan? Are we in our right minds? Are our reps in the Duma in their right minds? If they were, would it not be more practical for them to call Mr. President and the government to account for the Beslan tragedy?
Sadly, all things considered, you can hardly expect the same response to events of similar nature from the average man in the street in Madrid and in Moscow. (Take into account tremendous losses of life in Russia in the 2nd World War - 57 million: is it enough to make your hairs stand on end?...) The fact demonstrates that Russian society is totally immature, perhaps, even unborn. Our establishment rules and enjoys itself as fears, alienation, poverty and ignorance hold sway. I will take the liberty of quoting Mr. Boris Dubinin, a sociologist, who wonderfully managed to put the overpowering (and oversimplistic) philosophy of individual survival in present-day Russia in a nutshell: "I gonna make believe that I am a fool, make believe that I am not fit to eat, make believe I am dead -- and then I'll outsmart you all!"
Analysts in my favourite local daily, The Moscow Times (www.themoscowtimes.com), debate which way Russia is going to take: Chile or Indonesia? I, for one, am sure that the somber Indonesian castle in the air looms ahead. Or a Gilliamesque Brazil.
...Yuzhakov, a film producer, who shoots melodramas in Odessa at the time of civil war in Russia in 1919 (played by Oleg Basilashvili in the best movie of my life, Raba Lyubvi(3)) says: "In Moscow you have the Bolsheviks, here we have Denikin(4) , in between -- Petlyura(5). And we, ourselves, - as if we were in a nursery, you know, a rosy-rosy nursery. Our life is like a house in flames and they've forgotten the kids in it!" And I believe the prophetic words should have a resounding effect in your ears as well as is in mine, in the West - as well as in the East.
Thanks for reading. Visit www.beslan.ru: the News section is available in Russian, English and German.
(1) - the life head of Russian professional football.
(2) - A German aristocrat whom the Nazis executed in 1945. See a powerful review ?Face to face with evil? by Frederic Rafael in: ?The Sunday Times?, 20.02.2000
(3) - Raba Lyubvi (The Slave of Love), 1976, dir. by Nikita Mikhalkov, USSR.
(4) - Russian lieutenant general who fought against the Bolsheviks (communists). Self-proclaimed Supreme Governor of Russia (1920).
(5) - Ukrainian politician. Odessa is in Ukraine.
The world had it's eyes opened on September 11th to the full potential of international terrorism. It became apparent just how easy it was to co-ordinate the hijacking of four commercial airliners and use them as weapons to crash into buildings that many regarded as symbols of democracy.
So, in 2004 have we come any closer to stamping out terrorism? In a way security has been improved in airports but there is still no compulsary visual checks of hand luggage, whilst metal objects such as knives are able to be detected at the gates, a sharpened piece of plastic that can do just as much damage as a knife can easily be smuggled through into the aircraft cabin.
But it isn't just airports in the UK that are in the spotlight for security checks, Buckingham Palace was breached by a bloke dressed as Batman who was allowed to get within a few feet of the Queen's balcony. Flour bombs were thrown at Prime Minister Tony Blair during PM's questions, the flour bombs were dyed pink and could just have easily contained a chemical agent, only this morning (17/09/04) it was revealed on the news that a tabloid journalist had infiltrated parliament with what could have been a bomb. He used fake references to get a job in the building and they didn't even check them out. With the recent security scares this strikes me as not only embarrasing but so lax that whoever is in charge of security at Westminster should be investigated and removed from his position for gross negligence!
On a global scale, the UK is more prepared to be able to deal with terrorism than other countries such as the USA, this is because of the experience gained in counter-terrorism operations when the IRA were actively targetting the UK, but there is still room for improvement, it is still too easy to get through immigration at the docks or airports without being checked at all, I have personally been waved through security at a British international airport without so much as being asked to show what I had in my laptop case and it frightens me that in todays day and age a laptop case sized bag is all you need to conceal a small thermonuclear device that could wipe out central London.
The USA and UK armed forces have conducted military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq with several other countries on the list for action as the "Axis of Evil", but when you have determined terrorists who believe that what they are doing is their god's will then how can you combat an individual's determination?
Air strikes and invasions will only go so far until you get the hardcore element of fanatics who will only be more determined to bring justice upon the "invaders".
National security is paramount and this may only mean more checks at airports and docks but for the sake of delaying a flight or a sailing, government officials seem to be blase about their role in the war on terrorism.
Embarrasing lapses in security such as the one in the Houses of Parliament can only further encourage terrorists and unless things are changed and tightened now then and embarrasing lapse can all too easily turn into a national tragedy.
In a middle school No.1 in Beslan, North Ossetia the human soul finally died. There have been some barbarous acts committed in the name of many a just cause down the centuries but the carnage in Russia beggars belief. When incidents like this happen you start to question your own conscience. With the anniversary of 9/11 nearly upon again, we can say with certainty that the world is a very different place. Of course, terrorism is hardly a new concept but that single act of flying planes into two towers in New York, both symbols of established capitalism, changed things forever. The ensuing consequences have swept the Globe, what with the destruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq and the ongoing struggle to root out the myriad of terrorist cells that lie in wait in so many countries. The political justification for what has happened in the last three years is complex but the influence of groups like Al Qaeda is undeniable and sinister. The horrific bombings in Madrid affected a change in government leading to the public withdrawal of Spanish forces in Iraq ? a result for terrorism. Its seems that wholesale pest control of the like in Afghanistan and Iraq simply won?t quash the insurgent whose demands are generally not understood or sympathised with. I guess at this point I?d ask you to stop and think about what exactly it is that groups like that above want, it?s not that clear is it? And so to the latest nightmare - An operation seemingly funded by Al Qaeda and organised by Shamil Basayev, a Chechen warlord who will stop at nothing to secure the independence of Chechnya from it?s Russian masters. Having claimed responsibility for the Moscow theatre siege in which 129 people died, Basayev is a man with a long list of political outrages, hostage taking being his favourite tactic to mak
e his point. Stories continue to pour out from the school in Russia. The original projections of the death toll started at 60 but now the figure is heading for 700. Not only were the mainly children treated with abhorrent contempt by their captures but now it appears that some were even raped whilst young babies were stabbed for crying. The image of children trying to escape and being shot at by other adults boggles the mind. It?s even been said that senior clergy in this country have questioned their own faith, such are the depths of depravity that have been plumbed over the last week. The future appears to be bleak if people are willing to target just about anybody to further their own cause. President Putin has come under the spotlight as the inevitable questioning of the Chechen situation has challenged why this conflict has gone on for over 10 years with no end in sight. Rumours of outrages perpetrated by the Russian forces serve to foster a hatred that manifests itself in the form of vigilante terrorists who gain funding from sympathisers elsewhere. However, when operations undertaken by terrorists are as brutal and uncompromising as this one, you would have to wonder whether any future situation will involve any attempt at negotiation or whether it would be better to simply tackle the problem immediately accepting some loss of life to at least save the majority. After all, the hostage takers used the time allowed to booby trap the school and commit acts of shameful degradation on those inside. Incidents like this can and maybe should question our conscience. For me personally, I?ve always been against the death penalty. Now I wonder whether I am right. The terrorists involved with this incident were either shot and killed or captured. For those that were shot then was this something that was played out in a situation of war or not? After al
l, we are loath to vindicate terrorist causes by giving them the formal label of being at war even if that was exactly what happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The majority of people will exclaim good riddance to the scum involved but then what happens to those that have been captured? Again, most people will see the justification in eventually executing those responsible so where does that leave us in the argument over capital punishment? If a child gets murdered in our own country we won?t execute the murderer because we feel that state sponsored execution is wrong. Then again, the majority actually do support the death penalty and it?s simply the Government applying a Nanny State that preserves the Status Quo and won?t relent on this particular issue. Some situations appear insoluble. The Middle East is a seething cauldron of opposing views and hatred. Slap bang in the middle of a fervently Arab bloc of countries lies Israel. I can?t help feeling that those in the Jewish State will feel a ?told you so? moment having to live with the prospect of having schools attacked and it?s planes bombed every single day. The links between Israel and the US continue to fuel hatred of the West, as does the ongoing presence of US forces in this region. There appears to be no shortage of people willing to come forward and be the next suicide bomber. Some of the perpetrators in Russia were women known as the Black Widows, apparently angered by the deaths of their husbands in earlier conflicts. So where do we go from here? The only genuine ray of light that I?ve read about revolves around education. It was a piece in one of the Sundays a few months ago about a charitable foundation in Pakistan that took the kids off the street and gave them a basic education. Funded by middle class workers in the country,
it sought to help those kids caught in the poverty trap of having to work from as young as five to feed the family. The best thing about this was that it put a stop to the cycle of children having no option but to be given a grounding in an alternative education based on a simmering hatred of the West and being brought up to have an ambition of dying for their religion. Whilst it would be a massive oversimplification to cite a lack of education as being the main reasons for the problems of this region and, hence, the world, the indoctrination of so many thousands can?t help but provide the essential ingredients for perpetual conflict. After all, so many of our own thoughts and opinions and based wholly on what we see and read in the media. Imagine what it?s like if you can?t read or write and simply get told over and over again that the foreigner in your land is evil and should be removed at all costs. Oh and if you do this you?ll gain entry to Paradise and live happily ever after in Heaven. Ultimately, it?s not for me to say what?s right or wrong. It seems to me that by valuing differences rather than exploiting them that we can move forward. Whilst so many people live in ignorance this will prove extremely difficult. It really does seem that education is our only hope. My thoughts are with the parents in Russia. Thanks for reading. Marandina Capital letters courtesy of: http://www.chuckleweb.co.uk/fixit.php
I have searched for a long time for the correct place to post this opinion on the introduction of ID Cards in the UK - so whilst their introduction won't be much help against terrorism lets take this opportunity to just get on with it. Our so called right to anonymity is a time wasting smoke screen, Big Brother knows damn well who you are if he wants to know, so lets stop namby pambying around and introduce a state of the art solution that will help ourselves, assist the rightful authorities and make this country a safer place. What is all the fuss? Once you have registered a child’s birth in this country a record is created giving you a birth certificate and an NHS No, with a record set up at your local GP and local health authority. Shortly before you r sixteenth birthday every child, receives a letter from the DHSS giving them their NI Number, which also forms the basis of future tax affairs at the Inland Revenue. A year later at 17 you can apply for a driving licence from the DVLC. So by the age of 16 turning 17 you have at least seven numbers and records at almost as many government departments. Let’s welcome the opportunity to combine our records into one and just issue us with an internationally recognised state of the art ID I am of the opinion that if you ain’t nothing to hide, what’s the fuss all about. Personally I would welcome a credit sized ID that I can carry around with me. If I collapse whilst out on a walk, get carted off to hospital after an accident, lose my memory in Spain, get mugged in Miami or fall over a precipice in Tibet my ID will identify me, my family can be informed and my medical records can be retrieved. If I want to travel though Europe I have to take my passport, so much for free movement for law abiding citizens, an ID card would do. To drive in most countries abroad they require a photo driving licence or an old style one plus an internati
onal driving licence with the associated expense; what a faff, you could just use your ID. All kids now have to have their own passport, they can’t be added to their parent’s, what an unnecessary expense. To give a treat of a round trip through the channel tunnel for a day, an 80 year old has to apply for a ten year passport! Just give us an ID Kids trying to buy alcohol, tobacco or a Stanley knife in B&Q, visiting bookies, nightclubs and pubs are rarely challenged as proprietors are confronted with abuse if they do, an ID could resolve the difficulties for both kids and owners of such establishments. Trying to buy rightful child’s fares for transport and child entry fees to visit sites and events would be addressed with a simple flash of a card. Similarly those reaching the grand old age of 60 or 65 could gain OAP rates without embarrassment. If I want to open a new bank or building society I have to provide proof of identity and proof of address eg letter from taxman, a utility bill, passport or photo driving licence; what a farce, one national ID card would suffice. Just to make a special transaction at another branch of your bank is a hassle, no ID and they have to ring through to your branch at your expense; solved with an ID. Some credit cards are now available with your photo, so a whole string of computer systems hold info on your financial status already. What is the objection? Surely us Brits would appreciate an easier life. So who are all these civil liberty extremists who so object to anyone knowing who they are. The amount of time wasted and hassle and expense involved by both ourselves and any authorities or organisations out there offering us goods, services, entitlements and protection is absurd. Unless you are up to no good and mistakenly believe you can remain anonymous, just what is the problem? Reduction in fraud from withdrawing cash, claiming benefits to verifying a transaction with a cre
dit card or cheque in a shop would be countless. Our country is cursed with fraud, scroungers, yobs and no gooders and all us honest taxpayers are picking up the tab, why not welcome an ID card. The issue of a would-suit-all card would tidy up the mass of data that is held on us already. In addition to all those endless reference numbers accumulated over the years you also have a unique genetic code, fingerprints and iris. Think of all the time wasted trying to identify people from scraps of data, and pieces of deliberately misleading info before you can be identified, or, when you want to identify yourself. How many times have you needed to identify yourself and how many times have you been challenged and been unable to identify yourself. Weigh them up. I must have wanted to ID myself many dozen times in my life. I have been challenged once in my life as a teenager, (many years ago) driving an old banger round Hyde Park Corner at two in the morning with a failed number plate light, a fair cop. The police are not going to be interested in stopping any tom, dick and harry out for a stroll, they might in some near dictatorships in the world, but not in the UK. I am proud to be a UK citizen, we aren’t all white caucasians and wouldn’t all those decent folk of mixed race and second, and third generation immigrants like to have a card be able to prove their rightful place in society. The only losers would be the criminal fraternity, those who have no legitimate right to be here, and objections from those with chips on their shoulders about being hard done by society. The format of the card and what data it should it contain is food for thought, the extreme but simplest option would be your photograph and genetic code. A central databank could then hold any information on you that you can freely check and monitor yourself. I would be very happy to have an ID number that is tagged onto my tax record, medica
l records and any other record. So long as the individual can access and challenge the content of this databank, as a law-abiding citizen I see no problem The half cock measure that will no doubt be introduced by this pathetic government will be just another number on a glorified photo driving licence. No doubt the data will be held at some privatised and contracted out company overseen by a new government quango linking that data to all the existing organisations that hold scraps of info about you already. It will be less secure, impossible to manage, and there will be half a dozen government departments involved and a new, ineffectual and overpaid ombudsmen. The rights of the individual to check it will probably be denied leading to well founded mistrust. One thing I would object to is paying for my ID card as I have to pay a small fortune for a passport already, and what would really wind me up is if immigrants, whether legal. illegal or those just granted the right to stay were to get them free. Even more radical would be to microchip all babies at birth with their genetic code and in-built satellite tracking. How about that?
Next week, I'm taking Mrs P down to London for a few days as a belated birthday treat. The reason it's belated is because she suffered a broken arm when we were on holiday in September and she really didn't want to go anywhere bedecked in plaster. So we've waited until now for the plaster to be removed and her arm to recover a little.
She was looking forward to the trip and was excited as a pyromaniac on Bonfire night.
You see, by some cruel twist of fate, our trip to London coincides with the state visit of a certain George W. Bush.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a man to bear a grudge. I don't hold G. Dubya personally responsible for dragging all the 'allies' into a long drawn-out confrontation where British and American troops are killed on a daily basis in ever-increasing numbers....I don't blame him for the fact that my risk of being a target of terrorism has increased ten-fold....I don't even blame him for the fact the the people of Iraq would be inclined to celebrate their freedom more if only there was some semblance of normal infrastructure in their country rather than the spectre of a catastrophic civil war on the near horizon.
You see, I think he's a not-too-bright, naive little man who has been led astray by more sinister figures, and I count Tony Blair high up on the list of those malevolent characters.
Anyone who knows me, knows I was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq - not for any bleeding-heart liberalism - but because it was illegal and immoral. Not only was it the wrong thing to do, it was just about the stupidest thing to do.
I'm no expert on world politics, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the Middle-East region is a festering hot-bed of religious extremism and anti-Western fanaticism. Probably the last place in the world where you want to go marching in waving Union Jacks and Star Spa
ngled Banners - or as the fundamentalists like to call them, 'combustables'.
But nobody listened to me....or the majority of the people in this country....or almost all of Europe, and a sizable chunk of the citizens of the US.
But as the cheery St. Anthony once said, "I don't make predictions. I never have and I never will."
So they invaded Iraq, they got rid of Saddam, they liberated the people, they got the oil wells pumping, and they neutralized the terrorist threat. When you come to think about it.....wait a minute, lets just back-up there. Neutralized the terrorist threat? - Well, four out of five ain't bad. They did get rid of Saddam though, sort of.
But at least we can salve our consciences that nobody will be leaving the job unfinished. Nobody will walk away until Iraq has a proper constitution (one that's friendly to the west), a democratic government (whatever the heck that is), and is safe and stable for the ordinary people.
At least not until the withdrawal of the alliance is announced sometime in the next few weeks, anyway.
But I'm rambling.
The upshot is that our trip to London is going to be severely curtailed considering the security will be the highest ever seen in the city. No doubt our movements will be restricted, and there will be places we want to go but will be forbidden to do so.
The police say there will be around 70,000 protesters on the streets....I would say that's a ridiculously low "misunderestimation".
Thanks a bunch, Tony and George.
Tony & George - sounds like pretentious hair-dressing salon.....if only.
Oh well, c'est la vie. We'll just try to keep our heads down and arrange our activities to keep ourselves as far away as possible from those two 'ba'heids' and their entourage.
I fully support British and American troops. They do
n't decide where to go but follow orders given by their superiors.
I didn't vote for Tony Blair and apart from the obvious fact that lack of US citizenship bars me, would never have voted for George Bush (though he didn't need a simple thing like a majority of votes anyway).
I'll leave you with one of G. Dubya's pearls of wisdom:
When Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal.
- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 22, 2003
Thanks for reading
I don't usually write about politics but my Euroland opinion got a good response so I must hold some kind of valid and coherent opinion that people respond to. 'The war on terrorism' (sponsored by Lockheed-Martin and Coca-Cola) has always troubled me very deeply. Ever since America got a wake-up call on 9/11 when the World Trade Center was demolished without permission by a bunch of angry Arab extremists, the War on Terror has been unrelenting towards those perceived as evil and a terrorist threat. America and her bitches (sorry allies) namely the U.K. and uh…Spain have insisted that we must get rid of those dastardly Arabs, chinks and any other ethnic group not white (sorry terrorists). America armed with a bible, a warhead and incredibly impatient timing have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq and are now setting their bombs on timers for Iran or Syria. War is big business and thank god (or Allah, Buddha, whoever) for terrorists because if America did not have enemies then their economy would fall a bit like the twin towers. Now America is a country I love and hate (I maybe a hypocrite but at least I can go to bed and sleep soundly at night and not have the deaths of thousands of innocents on my conscience…can you George or Tony?). A country that gave the world 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', The Beach Boys, Hershey Bars, Martin Scorsese also gave George W. Bush, George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, the fucking Backstreet Boys and John Wayne. This country seems to breed rightwing militant dickheads has much as Iraq or any other 'terrorist nation'. Now before people stop reading I want to tell the world that I thought the War in Afghanistan was not a bad thing, they never destroyed the country because let's face it the Afghans have been scrapping with each other for years. The Taliban were a bunch of misogynistic horrible little cavemen who thanks to us no longer run that country. Geor
ge W. his favorite black people (Colin and Condelezza), Rummy Rumsfeld and triple heart bypass vice-president Dick Cheney got together and said 'Where to next?' at this point Rumsfeld was jumping up and down and screaming 'Let's get Iraq…you're daddy, Mr. President sir, he let them get away. We can tell everybody that they have WMD the one's we sold to them in the 1980's and we can get that bastard Saddam'. George consulted with his dad and said 'Let's rock n' roll'. The French and the rest of the world said 'Non' apart from Tony Blair (a man I used to respect) and the PM from Spain with the woman's name Jose Maria Aznar. Now in the late Bill Hicks' stand up show made in 1994 he says and I quote “I'm sick of America arming the rest of the world and then invading them because they have weapons of mass destruction. How do we know that they have these weapons? We looked at the receipt. Soon has the cheque clears we are going in“. That pretty much sums up the War on Terrorism for me. It's gonna get to a point where America invades every country in the world. 'Coming soon to a country near you'. It's like some grotesque military Road Show. The world cannot function like that and America sure as shit can't. I don't understand the way their government thinks. They arm themselves to the teeth and tell their citizens ' We received an intelligence report this morning saying that there could be an attack this afternoon around teatime. We don't know where and we don't know when but it's gonna happen“. Now Americans (at least half of them) are not stupid and they know that Bush is a bad man and ruining America's international image. I saw Moby in concert last year and the first thing he said after doing a blinding song called 'Natural Blues' was 'I'm sorry we have an
insane cowboy for a president'. The War on Terror is all about fear and consumption (just like Marilyn Manson said in Michael Moore's phenomenal documentary Bowling for Columbine). It is the 21st Century and we are all behaving like fucking first year high school kids. We look at Arab nations to provide our Western nightmares; we live in a beautiful and enlightened world whilst they live in caves plotting the best way to bring down our society. I wish it were that simple, it's all about oil and best America (the biggest consumers of the planet's resources) can get hold of it. I believe that if we get rid of religion and capitalism (and no I ain't a communist just a humanist) the world may function better. An ideal that will never be met, people have to stop worshipping things that we have no actual proof of as Nietzsche so eloquently put it 'God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist'. The War on Terror brought to you 24 hours a day 7 days a week by CNN, FOX, SKY we live in a world that is scary and with a lot of hatred. I just hope that when Armageddon comes I am sat on a hillside with a bottle of Jack Daniels and my acoustic guitar sing loudly and badly 'Who Loves the Sun'. We as a people have no understanding of the pain and suffering of those America and her Allies bomb and invade they are people who have nothing literally. Like wise the people who are victims of terrorists cannot forget or forgive the pain they go through. Like Bill Hicks said 'It's just a ride'. Hunting Bears Final Thought: It is not a tragedy when people in the armed forces are killed. They chose to go to war, they were not conscripted like those poor folks from WW1, it's sequel, Vietnam etc. Don't buy that 'Get behind the boys'. My father and most of my relatives were in the Armed Forces and they fucking hated it. Tragedy is when a person
working in an office, getting on a bus, sitting in a park is murdered in the name of Allah or American imperialism. Let's drop some acid, smoke a joint and listen to the Beach Boys and let's feel those Good Vibrations, we do have them deep down inside. Au revoir les enfants