Osama Bin Liner

It's strange how momentous news always seems to break when I am not in a position to comment on it - in fact the original 911 attacks took place while I was sat on my arse in Santorini, and now the supposed death of Bin Laden takes place while I am back in Greece doing likewise.

It occurs to me that I should circulate my holiday dates to the world's press so they can be on special alert whenever I am away.

Anyway, the yanks claim to have finally dealt with Bin Laden who was hiding in plain sight next door to the Pakistani equivalent of Sandhurst. You have to hand it to the guy for sheer, unadulterated, barefaced cheek!

Rather appallingly, I have heard that there has been an outcry about his disposal - not least from a certain gormless out-of-touch archdruid called Rowan. This twit apparently questions whether his shooting was legal and, even more amazingly, whether he should have been given a proper religious send off.

Firstly, let me say straight out that I remain to be convinced they really got him, but that aside I would like to give a medal to the man who pulled the trigger. Even better, let's give him the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, hang on though! That would make the poor bugger and his family the subjects of the biggest fatwa in history, so let's just send him a great big heart felt "Well done" instead.

Secondly, was Bin Laden trying to surrender? Well my reply to that is "Who cares?" - apart from the archdruid of course. Gun the bastard down like the mad dog he was. Give him the same chance he gave the people in those planes and in the World Trade Centre that day.

As for the disposal of the body, they should just stick it in a bin liner and dump it.

Oh! They did. Well, nice to see the yanks get something right...

Osama Bin Liner

It's strange how momentous news always seems to break when I am not in a position to comment on it - in fact the original 911 attacks took place while I was sat on my arse in Santorini, and now the supposed death of Bin Laden takes place while I am back in Greece doing likewise.

It occurs to me that I should circulate my holiday dates to the world's press so they can be on special alert whenever I am away.

Anyway, the yanks claim to have finally dealt with Bin Laden who was hiding in plain sight next door to the Pakistani equivalent of Sandhurst. You have to hand it to the guy for sheer, unadulterated, barefaced cheek!

Rather appallingly, I have heard that there has been an outcry about his disposal - not least from a certain gormless out-of-touch archdruid called Rowan. This twit apparently questions whether his shooting was legal and, even more amazingly, whether he should have been given a proper religious send off.

Firstly, let me say straight out that I remain to be convinced they really got him, but that aside I would like to give a medal to the man who pulled the trigger. Even better, let's give him the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, hang on though! That would make the poor bugger and his family the subjects of the biggest fatwa in history, so let's just send him a great big heart felt "Well done" instead.

Secondly, was Bin Laden trying to surrender? Well my reply to that is "Who cares?" - apart from the archdruid of course. Gun the bastard down like the mad dog he was. Give him the same chance he gave the people in those planes and in the World Trade Centre that day.

As for the disposal of the body, they should just stick it in a bin liner and dump it.

Oh! They did. Well, nice to see the yanks get something right...

Spot the bomb

As my regular reader will know by now, I am not a great football fan.

I don't actually dislike football. In a former life I used to go to the local club and enjoy a game from the side lines, or in the all-seater stand (50 seats and a corregated tin roof).

I have a friend who is a consultant psychlogist. When I suggested to him that football was basically tribal warfare by surrogate - a view for which I have been mocked over the year - he amazed me by saying : "Exactly!"

Now I have no problem with supporters cheering on their sides at matches. To each his own. However, the last big game I went to was Leeds United against Wimbledon in the semi final of the FA cup at Selhurst Park after they drew at their first meeting.

I was in the back of the stand from where I could get perfect view of a patch of green with some coloured dots moving around on it. I totally could not see the point. You get a much better view on TV, and if you blink you don't miss the goal - not that I could actually see as far the goal from where I was sitting! Anyone prepared to pay £50 for this is, in my humble opinion, nuts.

But not as nuts as the bastard who sent three parcel bombs to Glasgow Rangers Celtic.

Surrogate warfare is fine in it's place, but this drags football down to an all time low. The bastard should be strung up.

...or we could just introduce a real game of Rollerball or Death Race?

Spot the bomb

As my regular reader will know by now, I am not a great football fan.

I don't actually dislike football. In a former life I used to go to the local club and enjoy a game from the side lines, or in the all-seater stand (50 seats and a corregated tin roof).

I have a friend who is a consultant psychlogist. When I suggested to him that football was basically tribal warfare by surrogate - a view for which I have been mocked over the year - he amazed me by saying : "Exactly!"

Now I have no problem with supporters cheering on their sides at matches. To each his own. However, the last big game I went to was Leeds United against Wimbledon in the semi final of the FA cup at Selhurst Park after they drew at their first meeting.

I was in the back of the stand from where I could get perfect view of a patch of green with some coloured dots moving around on it. I totally could not see the point. You get a much better view on TV, and if you blink you don't miss the goal - not that I could actually see as far the goal from where I was sitting! Anyone prepared to pay £50 for this is, in my humble opinion, nuts.

But not as nuts as the bastard who sent three parcel bombs to Glasgow Rangers Celtic.

Surrogate warfare is fine in it's place, but this drags football down to an all time low. The bastard should be strung up.

...or we could just introduce a real game of Rollerball or Death Race?

Powell was (almost) right!

Enoch Powell was a great man. Possibly the greatest politician this country ever had not to become Prime Minister.

Like Winston Churchill before him, he was cast into the political wilderness. He was a vehoment campaigner against immigration and against the erosion of our sovereignty by the Fourth Reich. He was right - almost!

In 1968, he blew his political carreer with his infamous 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Now 43 years later, the general timbre has come to pass. Only this week Britain was branded as a 'safe haven for terrorism'. Let's look at what Powell actually said :

There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

Powell is right to be concerned. Here, of course, he is talking about Commonwealth immigrants - black in particular, which is where he went wrong.  No-one could have seen the threat from Islamic extremists all those years ago, but he should certainly have seen the insurge from the then Common Market countries as it took in more and more countries. Colour is not the issue; it is culture which is the problem.

He is right that the vast majority of immigrants want to be part of this country and are law abiding. They should be embaced and welcomed - space permitting. But more worryingly he seems to hint at the threat from within that gave rise to the 7/7 attacks in London. Here his foresight is almost miraculous.

He goes on :

...we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

Well, not so much racial, Enoch, but certainly religious differences have become one of the greatest menaces we have ever had to deal with. Enoch was right about the threat but wrong about the source, but then it is easy to say this from our perspective in his future. Let's close with his most famous words...

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

You can read the full text of Powell's speech by clicking here.
(Please note that I do not support violent demonstration, racism, the EDL or the BNP)

Powell was (almost) right!

Enoch Powell was a great man. Possibly the greatest politician this country ever had not to become Prime Minister.

Like Winston Churchill before him, he was cast into the political wilderness. He was a vehoment campaigner against immigration and against the erosion of our sovereignty by the Fourth Reich. He was right - almost!

In 1968, he blew his political carreer with his infamous 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Now 43 years later, the general timbre has come to pass. Only this week Britain was branded as a 'safe haven for terrorism'. Let's look at what Powell actually said :

There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

Powell is right to be concerned. Here, of course, he is talking about Commonwealth immigrants - black in particular, which is where he went wrong.  No-one could have seen the threat from Islamic extremists all those years ago, but he should certainly have seen the insurge from the then Common Market countries as it took in more and more countries. Colour is not the issue; it is culture which is the problem.

He is right that the vast majority of immigrants want to be part of this country and are law abiding. They should be embaced and welcomed - space permitting. But more worryingly he seems to hint at the threat from within that gave rise to the 7/7 attacks in London. Here his foresight is almost miraculous.

He goes on :

...we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

Well, not so much racial, Enoch, but certainly religious differences have become one of the greatest menaces we have ever had to deal with. Enoch was right about the threat but wrong about the source, but then it is easy to say this from our perspective in his future. Let's close with his most famous words...

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

You can read the full text of Powell's speech by clicking here.
(Please note that I do not support violent demonstration, racism, the EDL or the BNP)

Westminster complicit over Megrahi

If ever you wanted proof that you can't trust a word a politician says, you need look no further than the revelations about the Westminster government's collusion with Libya to obtain the release from a Scottish prison of the Lockerbie bomber.

Most disturbing of these revelations to my mind is the document published on the WikiLeaks site which states in a cable that "The Libyans have told HMG flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly"

Now that's fair enough. We expect the Libyans to be pissed off if Scotland didn't let him go. But the document then goes on to say that "HMG is also adamant that, despite devolution, London controls foreign policy for the UK, not Edinburgh" whilst at the same time saying that any decision on the release must be made by the Scottish government.

This seems to me to be a case of dumping the blame on the Scots so that Westminster gets off the hook. To a foreigner, it must be hard to understand exactly how a national government absolves itself from responsibility and accepts it at the same time! A prime example of doublespeak...

It is clear that Megrahi's symptoms made a long term prognosis difficult. These things are not always exact and precise. However, the document goes on to say that Scotland "has never before granted compassionate release to a foreign national" so one is forced to ask what influences were brought to bear on this occasion.

To make things worse, a secret US diplomatic cable, obtained by the Wikileaks website and shown to the Daily Telegraph, cites details of a letter sent by then Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell to his Tripoli counterpart. Sent within weeks of Megrahi being diagnosed with cancer in 2008, it outlines "the procedure for obtaining compassionate release", the newspaper said.

Of course, the Foreign Office's stance on this is that it does not comment on leaked documents.

I can understand why...

You can read the full documents on the Daily Telegraph website by clicking here.

Westminster complicit over Megrahi

If ever you wanted proof that you can't trust a word a politician says, you need look no further than the revelations about the Westminster government's collusion with Libya to obtain the release from a Scottish prison of the Lockerbie bomber.

Most disturbing of these revelations to my mind is the document published on the WikiLeaks site which states in a cable that "The Libyans have told HMG flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly"

Now that's fair enough. We expect the Libyans to be pissed off if Scotland didn't let him go. But the document then goes on to say that "HMG is also adamant that, despite devolution, London controls foreign policy for the UK, not Edinburgh" whilst at the same time saying that any decision on the release must be made by the Scottish government.

This seems to me to be a case of dumping the blame on the Scots so that Westminster gets off the hook. To a foreigner, it must be hard to understand exactly how a national government absolves itself from responsibility and accepts it at the same time! A prime example of doublespeak...

It is clear that Megrahi's symptoms made a long term prognosis difficult. These things are not always exact and precise. However, the document goes on to say that Scotland "has never before granted compassionate release to a foreign national" so one is forced to ask what influences were brought to bear on this occasion.

To make things worse, a secret US diplomatic cable, obtained by the Wikileaks website and shown to the Daily Telegraph, cites details of a letter sent by then Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell to his Tripoli counterpart. Sent within weeks of Megrahi being diagnosed with cancer in 2008, it outlines "the procedure for obtaining compassionate release", the newspaper said.

Of course, the Foreign Office's stance on this is that it does not comment on leaked documents.

I can understand why...

You can read the full documents on the Daily Telegraph website by clicking here.

A song for global warming day

Today is 10:10:10 and is being marked by a day of action to force people to make a commitment to reduce their emissions by 10%.

I use the word 'force' advisedly due to a recent appalling bad taste 'mini-movie' - that's a propaganda video to you and me - which shows people being blown up if they don't agree with the eco-loonies at 10:10UK.

Anyway, here is an original song by me which I am submitting as my contribution to 10:10:10 day :

Video hosting by

Incidentally, the biggest contribution to greenhouse gasses is the carbon dioxide produced by people when they breathe out, so if we could get some of these prats to stop breathing...

A song for global warming day

Today is 10:10:10 and is being marked by a day of action to force people to make a commitment to reduce their emissions by 10%.

I use the word 'force' advisedly due to a recent appalling bad taste 'mini-movie' - that's a propaganda video to you and me - which shows people being blown up if they don't agree with the eco-loonies at 10:10UK.

Anyway, here is an original song by me which I am submitting as my contribution to 10:10:10 day :

Video hosting by

Incidentally, the biggest contribution to greenhouse gasses is the carbon dioxide produced by people when they breathe out, so if we could get some of these prats to stop breathing...

Christian fundamentalism

My blogging friend Old Nick has been running a two for one offer this week on dragging Christian Fundamentalists down to the pit for a good burn.

So in the spirit of 'bloggers together', I am prompted to ask "What is a Christian Fundamentalist?"

Here's a guide I nicked from here that might help. See how many you can answer :

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and dehumanized when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the atrocities attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in Exodus and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in Joshua including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most tolerant and loving.

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity

2 - You define 0.01% as a high success rate when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian

The first person that came to mind was George W. Bush, but if you can think of any others why not suggest them to Old Nick?

Christian fundamentalism

My blogging friend Old Nick has been running a two for one offer this week on dragging Christian Fundamentalists down to the pit for a good burn.

So in the spirit of 'bloggers together', I am prompted to ask "What is a Christian Fundamentalist?"

Here's a guide I nicked from here that might help. See how many you can answer :

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and dehumanized when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the atrocities attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in Exodus and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in Joshua including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most tolerant and loving.

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity

2 - You define 0.01% as a high success rate when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian

The first person that came to mind was George W. Bush, but if you can think of any others why not suggest them to Old Nick?

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...