Superbug pandemic confirmed

Back in April last year, I revealed that the world was in danger of being overrun by the latest superbug Americanus 4nPolyC.

Well, I am sad to have to announce that in recent weeks the disease has reached pandemic status.

The bug has already been responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are unconfirmed rumours of an outbreak in Iran.

The recent events in Tunisia indicate that there may be the start of an outbreak there, and over the past week there have been many cases reported in Cairo. The authorities in Egypt have confirmed that there have been a number of deaths reported.

A spokesman for the international health organisation 'Mediciens sans Scrupulo' says that nothing much can be done under the prevailing circumstances and believes that regimes must change in order to bring this bug under control.

So far, the only country that seems to be uneffected is the United States. A White House representative told us : "4nPolyC has so far not worried us in the US. We believe that we have the finest system in the world for dealing with things and if everyone else did it our way, then the world would be a better and safer place."

Doctors warn that there may be a danger of the disease mutating into something far more worrying. Already another strain 4nCIA may already be in situ in other countries...

Superbug pandemic confirmed

Back in April last year, I revealed that the world was in danger of being overrun by the latest superbug Americanus 4nPolyC.

Well, I am sad to have to announce that in recent weeks the disease has reached pandemic status.

The bug has already been responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are unconfirmed rumours of an outbreak in Iran.

The recent events in Tunisia indicate that there may be the start of an outbreak there, and over the past week there have been many cases reported in Cairo. The authorities in Egypt have confirmed that there have been a number of deaths reported.

A spokesman for the international health organisation 'Mediciens sans Scrupulo' says that nothing much can be done under the prevailing circumstances and believes that regimes must change in order to bring this bug under control.

So far, the only country that seems to be uneffected is the United States. A White House representative told us : "4nPolyC has so far not worried us in the US. We believe that we have the finest system in the world for dealing with things and if everyone else did it our way, then the world would be a better and safer place."

Doctors warn that there may be a danger of the disease mutating into something far more worrying. Already another strain 4nCIA may already be in situ in other countries...

Paki bashing

Seems that Call-me-Dave has pissed off the Pakis!

Those of us that grew up in the sixties will remember that Paki bashing was a national pastime in those days. Then we got used to seeing them everywhere and them having a shop on every corner, so we accepted them as part of the national landscape.

Nothing wrong with that. The vast majority are law abiding, hard working citizens - so it's a good thing that the bigotry has gone.

Also, the Pakistanis in this country are a damn sight safer than they would be in their country of origin. It should be remembered that until recently, Pakistan was a military dictatorship which is about as far from a democracy as it is possibe to get! And old habits die hard...

Pakistan nominally allys itself with the United States in the global war on terror. However, terrorism is rife in the country mainly due to reactions to General Zia ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies and his involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs in the tribal areas and the explosion of kalashnikov and drugs culture. The state and the CIA encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight the proxy war against the Soviet Union, most of these groups were never disarmed after the war and were later encouraged by the Taliban to achieve the state's agenda in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The same groups are now taking on the state itself.

Between 2007 and 2009, more than 5,500 people were killed in terrorist attacks on civilians. These are attributed to a number of sources: sectarian violence - mainly between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the easy availability of guns and explosives of a "kalishnikov culture" and influx of ideologically driven "Afghan Arabs" based in or near Pakistan, Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and secessionists movements blamed on regionalism problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages, traditions and customs.

So Pakistan has a double problem. It needs to be seen to support the US in its war in Afghanistan, and at the same time is being terrorised at home by sectarian and separatist terrorists. But on the other hand, it has been manouevred by the Taliban to support actions in disputed areas such as Kashmir. So at the same time it is trying to both fight and support the Taliban.

This would seem to make David Cameron's remarks about them trying to look both ways highly pertinent...

Paki bashing

Seems that Call-me-Dave has pissed off the Pakis!

Those of us that grew up in the sixties will remember that Paki bashing was a national pastime in those days. Then we got used to seeing them everywhere and them having a shop on every corner, so we accepted them as part of the national landscape.

Nothing wrong with that. The vast majority are law abiding, hard working citizens - so it's a good thing that the bigotry has gone.

Also, the Pakistanis in this country are a damn sight safer than they would be in their country of origin. It should be remembered that until recently, Pakistan was a military dictatorship which is about as far from a democracy as it is possibe to get! And old habits die hard...

Pakistan nominally allys itself with the United States in the global war on terror. However, terrorism is rife in the country mainly due to reactions to General Zia ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies and his involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs in the tribal areas and the explosion of kalashnikov and drugs culture. The state and the CIA encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight the proxy war against the Soviet Union, most of these groups were never disarmed after the war and were later encouraged by the Taliban to achieve the state's agenda in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The same groups are now taking on the state itself.

Between 2007 and 2009, more than 5,500 people were killed in terrorist attacks on civilians. These are attributed to a number of sources: sectarian violence - mainly between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the easy availability of guns and explosives of a "kalishnikov culture" and influx of ideologically driven "Afghan Arabs" based in or near Pakistan, Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and secessionists movements blamed on regionalism problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages, traditions and customs.

So Pakistan has a double problem. It needs to be seen to support the US in its war in Afghanistan, and at the same time is being terrorised at home by sectarian and separatist terrorists. But on the other hand, it has been manouevred by the Taliban to support actions in disputed areas such as Kashmir. So at the same time it is trying to both fight and support the Taliban.

This would seem to make David Cameron's remarks about them trying to look both ways highly pertinent...

War - a fresh perspective

Seems there have been one or two fuck ups lately on the warfare front.

First, Nick Clegg stands up in his first Prime Minister's Questions and describes the Iraq War as 'illegal'. Oh dear. Sharp intakes of breath from the Tories behind him who voted for the war.

It should, however, be remembered that the Lib Dems have always regarded the war as illegal. It should also be remembered that just because someone voted for the war, that didn't make it legal. Show me the dodgy dossier and persuade me that Blair has integrity (difficult in my case), and I might have voted for it. But that still doesn't make it legal - so I reckon fair enough, Cleggy.

Then Call-me-Dave pops across the water to liaise with the great black hope. Unfortunately, he then pisses off the yanks by describing Britain's presence in Iraq as a 'supporting role'. True, but not very palatable. It's America's war, they're fucking it up and we seem to be covering all the difficult stuff. Truth hurts!

But just to show that he's not biased, Dave then pisses off his own veterans by saying that Britain played a junior role in World War II. Well, Dave, that's bollocks because if the Japs hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour we'd still be waiting for the yanks to arrive - just like in the first war.

So, all in all, I reckon that's 2-1 on the war front. Not a great result, but a result nevertheless...

War - a fresh perspective

Seems there have been one or two fuck ups lately on the warfare front.

First, Nick Clegg stands up in his first Prime Minister's Questions and describes the Iraq War as 'illegal'. Oh dear. Sharp intakes of breath from the Tories behind him who voted for the war.

It should, however, be remembered that the Lib Dems have always regarded the war as illegal. It should also be remembered that just because someone voted for the war, that didn't make it legal. Show me the dodgy dossier and persuade me that Blair has integrity (difficult in my case), and I might have voted for it. But that still doesn't make it legal - so I reckon fair enough, Cleggy.

Then Call-me-Dave pops across the water to liaise with the great black hope. Unfortunately, he then pisses off the yanks by describing Britain's presence in Iraq as a 'supporting role'. True, but not very palatable. It's America's war, they're fucking it up and we seem to be covering all the difficult stuff. Truth hurts!

But just to show that he's not biased, Dave then pisses off his own veterans by saying that Britain played a junior role in World War II. Well, Dave, that's bollocks because if the Japs hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour we'd still be waiting for the yanks to arrive - just like in the first war.

So, all in all, I reckon that's 2-1 on the war front. Not a great result, but a result nevertheless...

Common sense and justice

I have nothing but admiration for the Gurkhas who fight in our armed forces, which is why I am so outraged at the latest bout of bureaucratic stupidity.

In Afghanistan, a Gurkha soldier, under heavy machine gun fire, beheaded a DEAD taliban so that he could take the head back to base for identification against the most wanted list.

For this act of selflessness under fire, he has been suspended from duty, sent back to the UK and awaits court martial. Apparently, if found guilty, he could be imprisoned.

Here's the question I want answered : Since when has it been illegal in this country for a foreign national to behead a dead person overseas?

Apparently, the problem is that the Afghans consider it bad form to dismember a dead body. They like all the bits to be buried together. Perhaps we should remind the Taliban of this custom after their IED bombs have scattered bits of our soldiers all over the landscape or when they decide to behead our soldiers.

There's a simple answer to this problem. Stick the head back on the rotting body, slap the man's wrist and say don't do it again...

...and then give him a medal for bravery under fire!

Common sense and justice

I have nothing but admiration for the Gurkhas who fight in our armed forces, which is why I am so outraged at the latest bout of bureaucratic stupidity.

In Afghanistan, a Gurkha soldier, under heavy machine gun fire, beheaded a DEAD taliban so that he could take the head back to base for identification against the most wanted list.

For this act of selflessness under fire, he has been suspended from duty, sent back to the UK and awaits court martial. Apparently, if found guilty, he could be imprisoned.

Here's the question I want answered : Since when has it been illegal in this country for a foreign national to behead a dead person overseas?

Apparently, the problem is that the Afghans consider it bad form to dismember a dead body. They like all the bits to be buried together. Perhaps we should remind the Taliban of this custom after their IED bombs have scattered bits of our soldiers all over the landscape or when they decide to behead our soldiers.

There's a simple answer to this problem. Stick the head back on the rotting body, slap the man's wrist and say don't do it again...

...and then give him a medal for bravery under fire!

Overseas Aid - again!

Yesterday, I gave you my views on how we could expand the aid budget to include our own people. But now I hear from the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, that aid for Afghanistan is to be increased by 40%

"What!", I hear you say. "The aid budget is ring fenced."

Well, apparently in true political style we can get around that by redefining things.

It seems the total is ring fenced, but we can 'reprioritise' the order in which we give out the aid, presumably drawing a line when the money runs out?

Now don't get me wrong. If the increase in aid to Afghanistan means that we get the country in order more quickly and our troops come home sooner, then that's fair enough.

What I don't go along with is the principal that we can now apparently cut stuff off the bottom of the list to make room for this, but if we weren't doing this, then they would have stayed on the list. This makes no sense.

Why don't we just look at what we can afford - which, let's face it is sod all - and then take the things off the list that can be taken off and use the money to provide essential services for our own people and to pay off our debts?

I suggest,  Messrs. Cleggeron, that you read this and yesterday's posts....

Overseas Aid - again!

Yesterday, I gave you my views on how we could expand the aid budget to include our own people. But now I hear from the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, that aid for Afghanistan is to be increased by 40%

"What!", I hear you say. "The aid budget is ring fenced."

Well, apparently in true political style we can get around that by redefining things.

It seems the total is ring fenced, but we can 'reprioritise' the order in which we give out the aid, presumably drawing a line when the money runs out?

Now don't get me wrong. If the increase in aid to Afghanistan means that we get the country in order more quickly and our troops come home sooner, then that's fair enough.

What I don't go along with is the principal that we can now apparently cut stuff off the bottom of the list to make room for this, but if we weren't doing this, then they would have stayed on the list. This makes no sense.

Why don't we just look at what we can afford - which, let's face it is sod all - and then take the things off the list that can be taken off and use the money to provide essential services for our own people and to pay off our debts?

I suggest,  Messrs. Cleggeron, that you read this and yesterday's posts....