Translate

Tuesday, 30 September 2014

John Cantlie's third critique of Western foreign policy

"Hello, I am John Cantlie, the British citizen abandoned by my government and a long-term prisoner of the Islamic State.

President Obama's address on the 13th anniversay of the 9/11 finally stopped all the ninnying around as he laid down his four-stage strategy for confronting the Islamic State. There were no big surprises: US aircraft would provide the airpower, while a mix of Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Guard (not yet formed), Peshmurga fighters and Iranians (not mentioned) will do the ground operations. The border between Iraq and Syria will be open and Syrian Rebels will be armed. and all of this with only 475 extra US advisory personnel doing the job, and not a single US soldier with his boots on the ground.

"We will lead a broad coalition to roll back the Islamic State," said Obama. We are hitting ground targets while Iraqi forces go on the offence.  "I will not hesitate to take action against the Islamic State in Syria", he said.

Now, exactly when Gulf War 3 will start and how long it will take isn't covered. The US advisers working with the Iraqi Army have described their performance as "consistently grim", for arming and training an effective National Guard of Sunni fighters in Western Iraq will take months to achieve.  The Free Syrian Army are proven to be an undisciplined, corrupt and largely ineffective fighting force.

As recently as 7 September a senior US intelligence official  said, "Our intelligence assessment has no serious consideration to work with the FSA. Giving the FSA 500 million now is a completely pointless exercise, never mind that the FSA sells the weapons to the arms dealers and gives them to smugglers and much of them ends up with Islamic State.

Air power is good at taking out specific targets but it is not much good at taking and holding ground.  For that you need effective and disciplined troops, and it is hard to see how this hotch-potch army with its history of under-performing is going to be any form of credible infantry.

After the speech, Peter Baker of the New York Times observed that "Obama is plunging the United States into one of the bloodiest, most vicious conflicts now in existence.  He will pass his successor a volatile and incomplete war, much as his predecessor left one for him. Mr Baker goes on to comment that while previous Presidents enjoyed a surge of public support when they took the nation to war, the public is not rallying behind Obama this time round. Now, polls indicate that while the American public support action against the Islamic State, they do not think Obama is the man for the job, which goes a long way in explaining the simplistic language used in his last speech.  Obama was at pains to point out that groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11 and remains today. If this reality wasn't changed by two arrogant wars before, why would a third change it now?

Obama described the Islamic State as "not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents and a vast number of their victims have been Muslim.  The Islamic State has no vision other than a slaughter of all who stand in its way."

Now, if by innocents he means women and children, the Islamic State did not kill the Christian Yazidi women of Mosul and Sinja. This is an undeniable fact, and they do not regard the Shia as Muslims at all. In fact, according to them the Shia are considered worse than Americans, as they are apostates claiming to be Muslims while worshiping the dead. And the Islamic State does have a vision: they have created an autonomous and functioning Caliphate.  But expanding on the complex social and political issues of the region isn't going to work when it is war you want.  And so the speech was full of hyperbole about how America would save the innocent men, woman and children. "This is American leadership at its best," said Obama. "We stand with people who fight for their own freedom," he said, before the speech descended into prideful chest-beating about how the USA always saves the world, singlehandedly.  It was all disappointingly predictable: America is good, the Islamic State is bad, and they will be defeated using aircraft and a motley collection of fighters on the ground.

For their part, the Islamic State say they welcome meeting Obama's under construction army.

Join me again for the next programme.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=daf_1412022071


I am disgusted by the comments from my Facebook friends who variously said:

"Probably one episode maybe two. Hasnt he said all there is to say by now?"

"He bored me to tears with his droning on. I tuned him out after about the third quote from some U.S. official."

Claire Khaw: Wow. People just don't care about foreign policy no matter how many times or how hard it bites them in the bum!

"No they don't care at all unless it starts to affect their everyday lives."

"If you asked, most people would say that they do support British foreign policy as they give every year to Red Nose Day and Children in Need."

"Lol what can I say? People nowadays have short attention spans! They need to make it interesting as they did some of their other videos. No one wants to just hear this guy talking, just going on and on. It's BORING."

Claire Khaw: I thought you would be different.

"They need to chop a couple of fingers off or an ear in the middle of his broadcast, just to make us 'sit up & listen'.........I didn't get to the end of part three either. Whatever the intention was it's now lost."

Claire it's not a case of being different, there's just no point to it now.

"Maybe it's his voice, Claire. Even *he* sounded (and looked) bored with it all! So how do you expect anyone else to be engaged?"

Claire Khaw: YouTube thought it was interesting enough to have removed links to the video.



Hint to ISIS:

If you have dancing girls behind him, people might watch to the end.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2774174/BREAKING-NEWS-New-video-released-British-hostage-John-Cantlie-talks-Obama-s-disappointingly-predictable-strategy-Isis.html
The Mail was the only British newspaper to give a full transcript of the talk, with the best analysis.  

Saturday, 27 September 2014

Ken O'Keefe on bombing Syria


The one-sided and short version

The full version with Lawrence Korb also speaking

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Was Anjem Choudary arrested for tweeting in a terroristic way?





Was it because of these tweets?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29358758

There is some weird conspiracy theory amongst Muslims that Anjem Choudary is a state agent though.

"Anjem serves his white masters well."

"Another puppet on parade."

"His exposure is generated by his paymasters."

However, I think this is only terrified Muslims trying as hard as they can to dissociate themselves from him. I think he means exactly what he says for the reasons he says.

I also join him in not condemning terrorism.

Why condemn the effect when you should be condemning the cause?

Why condemn the bullet when you provoked the gunman?

Why condemn the hornets who stung the stirrer of their nest?

Should a doctor condemn the symptoms while stubbornly refusing to diagnose the illness?

As Mao said, "To investigate a problem is to solve it." Our politicians do not want to solve the problem of war and terrorism because they want to promote British arm sales, which thrive in times of war and revolution.

Below are the three possible positions you can have on terrorism:

1. Supporting Terrorism

Being guilty of acts that would assist terrorism or being a terrorist yourself, eg donating money to terrorist organisations, becoming a member of one, recruiting new members etc.

2. Refusing to Condemn Terrorism 

Why would anyone refuse to condemn terrorism? In order to make a point. I believe that all terrorism is the result of bad government policy, and merely condemning terrorism distracts us from condemning what we really need to condemn ie government policy. This can be done peacefully, and without resorting to violence, and I urge all of you who object to the government policy of perpetual war to join me in not condemning terrorism.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_perpetual_war_in_Orwell_1984

3. Condemning Terrorism

What would be the point of condemning terrorism? It would be like condemning war, or murder, or rape, robbery or theft or complaining about getting wet when it rains.

So now you know why I don't condemn terrorism.

I don't condemn it because I dislike the making of empty gestures and the saying of empty words.

I would rather discuss the government policy that caused the terrorism complained of.

Why did YouTube remove the second installment of John Cantlie's critique of Western foreign policy?

BBC Radio 4 Today news values: why talk about Western foreign policy as the UK prepares to bomb Iraq again when you can talk about hip hop?

Peter Hitchens tries to make sense of UK foreign policy. Its raison d'etre explained by Claire Khaw


BBC Radio 4 Today news values: why talk about Western foreign policy as the UK prepares to bomb Iraq again when you can talk about hip hop?






http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/transcript-of-john-cantiles-critique-of.html

"Hello there.  I am the British citizen abandoned by my government and a long-term prisoner of the Islamic State.

In this program, we’ll see how the Western governments are hastily marching towards all-out war in Iraq and Syria without paying any heed to the lessons of the recent past, and how they are using the persuasive approach to lure the public back into the conflict.

So, let’s get straight to the point with a quote from former- C.I.A.-chief-turned-vigorous anti- intervention-campaigner Michael Scheuer: ‘President Obama does not have the slightest intention of defeating the Islamic State, which would require the aerial slaughter and boots in on the ground and the demolishing of the mujahedin' - Michael Scheur whose knowledge of the Muslim Nation and the complexity of their society is considerable adds "18 years into our war with the Islamists our government has given no public sign that it has the slightest awareness of what its enemies are fighting for.

Now, there are two solid points here.

The Obama Administration is so perplexed as they marched back into Iraq that they tap-dancing on the issue in a "we're getting involved but we're not really getting involved" kind of way.  You know, air strikes but no troops on the ground, limited operation time, no mission creep, all those pre-combat agreements that tend to get forgotten after the first six months of nasty tough stuff.
The pre-9/11 Afghans are already back in control of large areas of Afghanistan while the full might of the American war machine couldn't destroy the Islamic State in Iraq before.

So, now the State is far stronger now than ever it was.

What is this latest ill-advised foray really supposed to achieve? And Scheur's point is aptly made. As ever, the entire reason why we are at war with the Islamists and what they are fighting for is brilliantly avoided by all.

Senior US politicians seem content to call the Islamic State nasty names: "awful", "vile", "a cancer", "an insult to our values", but such petty insults don't really do much harm to the most powerful jihadist movement seen in recent history. That the Western governments were caught napping by the sheer speed of the Islamic State growth is now a given.  "Intelligence officers failed to anticipate the emergence of the Islamic State", says Tom Kean, the former New Jersey Governor.  "We certainly didn't anticipate them going across the border into Iraq and declaring themselves a Caliphate."

Obama and his allies were well and truly caught by surprise.  [Photos of Obama and his allies being caught by surprise.]

The President once called George Bush's Iraq conflict "a dumb war" and couldn't want to distance America from it when he came into power.  Now he is being inexorably drawn back in. But he is at pains to point out that this not the equivalent of the Iraq War.  In fact, it is far more complicated and prone to failure.  There is a newly-elected pro-American Iranian regime in Iran. They wait eagerly for further American intervention to strengthen the Iranian Crescent in the Middle East.
But the appointment of a new puppet is an important piece of the puzzle in America's Gulf War Free[?] as it allows them to get involved quickly via a proxy.  Iraq's leaders should know that "America will stand shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis as they implement their National Plan", gushed John Kerry on the 9th of September - meaning our National Plan to tackle the Islamic State.  Everyone now is getting involved.  Denmark and France have sent air power. Britain is arming the Kurds. Iran is sending troops. Contracts are being sought in Iraq and even Bashar Al Assad until earlier this year - the most hated and villainised tyrant in the Arab world - is being approached for permission to enter Syria.

"Can the Islamic State be defeated without addressing that part of their organisation that resides in Syria?" asked General Martin Dempsey.

The answer is NO.

It's all quite a circus - air strikes, the creation of last-minute puppet governments, advisory teams of the ground, wooing previous enemies to join in and trans-border incursions into a country that has been in a state of civil war for three years - all the while completely underestimating the strength and fighting zeal of the opponent. Not since Vietnam have we witnessed such a potential mess in the making.

Current estimates of 15,000 troops needed to fight the Islamic State are laughably low. The State has more mujahideen than this. This is not some undisciplined outfit with a few Kalashnikovs.

We started with Michael Scheuer, so let us give him the final word for now: "Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making," he says, "but they have been in the field fighting since 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular or as well-armed as it is today.

Join me again for the next programme."

Do you find much to disagree with here?

No?

Is this why the Western media are making a point of NOT discussing or analysing it at all? And also why YouTube removed this video for allegedly violating its terms of service?

Does http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-wests-sad-semi-war-against-isis-is-worse-than-useless/15793#.VCPewvldVqU essentially affirm what John Cantlie says?




POINTS TO NOTE AND QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY
(These are really hints and tips to journalists interviewing politicians on this question, particularly John Humphrys, James Naughtie of the Crushing Handshake and Justin Webb unless they are FORBIDDEN from asking these questions or else be sacked.)

TERRORISM

War in the last 100 years or so...

1912 - 1913: Balkan wars (150 000)
1915 - 1923: Ottoman Empire Genocides (2 300 000)
1914 - 1918: World War I (20 000 000)
1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120 000)
1917 - 1921: Russian Revolution (5 000 000)
1917 - 1919: Greco Turkish War (45 000)
1919 - 1921: Russo-Polish War (27 000)
1928 - 1937: Chinese Civil War (2 000 000)
1931: Manchurian War (1 100 000)
1932 - 1933: Russo-Ukrainian War (10 000 000)
1932 - 1935: "Guerra del Chaco" (Bolivia / Paraguay) (117 500)
1934: Mao's "Long March" (170 000)
1936: Ethiopian War (200 000)
1936 - 1937: Stalin's purges (13 000 000)
1936 - 1939: Spanish Civil War (600 000)
1937 - 1945: Sino-Japanese War (500 000)
1939 - 1945: World War II (Including The Holocaust) (52 000 000)
1946 - 1949: Chinese Civil War (1 200 000)
1946 - 1949: Greek Civil War (50 000)
1946 - 1954: Indochina war (600 000)
1947: Indian Partition (1 000 000)
1947: Taiwan's War of Independence (30 000)
1948 - 1958: Colombian Civil War (250 000)
1948 - 1973: Arab - Israeli wars (70 000)
1949: Indian Civil War (Muslims / Hindus) (20 000)
1949 - 1950: Chinese Invasion of Tibet (1 200 000)
1950 - 1953: Korean war (3 000 000)
1952 - 1959: Mau Mau Insurrection in Kenya (20 000)
1954 - 1962: Algerian War of Independence (368 000)
1958 - 1961: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (38 000 000)
1960 - 1990: South African Social Violence (21 000)
1960 - 1996: Guatemalan Civil War (200 000)
1961 - 2003: Iraqi Suppression of Kurdish Separatists and related Terrorism (180 000)
1962 - 1975: Mozambique War of Independence (10 000)
1962 - 1975: Angolan War of Independence (50 000)
1964 - 1973: Vietnam War (3 000 000)
1965: Kashmir War (6 800)
1965 - 1966: Indonesian Civil War (250 000)
1966 - 1969: Chinese Cultural Revolution (11 000 000)
1966: Colombian Civil War (31 000)
1967 - 1970: Biafran War (800 000)
1969: Philippine Civil War - Communists (40 000)
1969 - 1979: Idi Amin's Supppression of Uganda (300 000)
1969 - 2002: Northern Ireland Civil War and related Terrorism (2 000)
1969 - 1979: Equatorial Guinea Civil War (50 000)
1971: Bangladesh War of Independence (500 000)
1972: Philippine Civil War - Moslems (150 000)
1972: Burundi Civil War (300,000)
1972 - 1979: Zimbabwe-Rhodesia War (30 000)
1974 - 1991: Ethiopian Civil War (1 500 000)
1975 - 1979: Khmer Rouge Repression in Cambodia (1 700 000)
1975 - 1990: Lebanese Civil War (40 000)
1975 - 1987: Laos Civil War (184 000)
1975 - 2002: Angolan Civil War (500 000)
1976 - 1993: Mozambique Civil War (900 000)
1976 - 1998: Indonesian Suppression of Timorese Separatists (600 000)
1976 - 2005: Indonesian Suppression of Aceh Separatists (12 000)
1977 - 1992: El Salvador Civil War (75 000)
1979: Sino-Vietnam War (30 000)
1979 - 1988: Soviet invasion / occupation of Afghanistan (1 300 000)
1980 - 1988: Iraq-Iran War (1 000 000)
1980 - 1992: Peruvian Civil War (69 000)
1984 - Present: Turkish Suppression of Kurdish Separatists and related Terrorism (35 000+)
1981 - 1990: Nicaraguan War with the Contras (60 000)
1982 - 1990: Chad Civil War (40 000)
1983 - Present: Sri Lankan Civil War (70 000)
1983 - 2002: Sudanese Civil War (2 000 000)
1986: Indian Kashmir War (60 000)
1987 - Present: Palestinian Intifada (8,500+)
1988 - 2001: Afghanistan Civil War (400 000)
1988 - 2004: Somalian Civil War (550 000)
1989: Liberian Civil War (220 000)
1989: Ugandan Civil War (30 000)
1991: Gulf War I (85 000)
1991 - 97: Congolese Civil War (800 000)
1991 - 2000: Sierra Leonian Civil War (200 000)
1991 - Present: Russian Suppression of Chechnyan Separatists and related Terrorism (200 000+)
1991 - 1994: Armenia / Azerbaijan war (35 000)
1992 - 1996: Tajikistan Civil War (50 000)
1992 - 1996: Yugoslavian Civil Wars (260 000)
1992 - 1999: Algerian Civil War (150 000)
1993 - 2005: Burundi Civil War (200,000)
1994: Rwandan Civil War (900 000)
1995: Maoist Uprising in Nepal (12 000)
1998 - Present: Wars between Congo / Zaire / Rwanda / Uganda / Zimbabwe / Angola / Namibia (3 800 000+)
1998 - 2000: Eritrean War of Independence (75 000)
1996 - 2008: Kosovar War of Independence (2 000)
2001: USA / UN invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (40 000)
2002: Ivory Coast Civil War (1 000)
2003 - Present: Iraq War and Ongoing Iraqi Civil War (160 000+)
2004 - Present: Thai Civil War with Muslim separatists and related Terrorism (3 700+)

NB: This list is not exhaustive, and many of these figures are contested, and/or estimates which are most likely too low.

If somebody would like to do a similar count of victims of ''terrorism'' we could compare?

Questions for Muslims who have condemned terrorism


Which is better?

(a) To be a terrorist in a just cause
(b) To be a soldier in an unjust war

In answering this question, bear in mind the following points:


  • History is written by the victors. 
  • Might is right.
  • Terrorism is a poor man's war.
  • A terrorist fights for a cause he believes in.
  • A soldier fights whatever the state tells him to do without ever being expected to consider the rights and wrongs of it.
  • Most people don't care about foreign policy, not even when it bites them in the bum in the form of terrorism. Even now THEY STILL DON'T.
  • More people get killed in wars than are killed by terrorism.  
  • Terrorism can easily be fixed by altering your foreign policy.




"Being a terrorist is worse than being a soldier." Agree/Disagree

"Being a soldier is worse than being a terrorist." Agree/Disagree

"If there are just wars, then there must be just acts of terrorism." Agree/Disagree




Muslims living in the West who are condemning terrorism are only condemning terrorism in the hope of escaping the wrath and hatred of Islamophobes. ISIS will ignore their condemnations because they already know that these moderate and peaceful Muslims only do so for self-serving reasons. As for the Islamophobes, they will neither believe them or nor be reassured.

If I were a Muslim leader, I would tell all Muslims and non-Muslims with an interest in foreign policy and who think Western foreign policy is immoral and criminal to join me in REFUSING TO CONDEMN TERRORISM as a PEACEFUL PROTEST against the government bombing people and committing atrocities in the name of the voters. Then the Islamophobes - who also hate the war - might like Muslims a little more for rendering them this useful service.




If you were a Muslim terrorist, what would your view be about the effectiveness of the acts of terrorism committed thus far in changing Western foreign policy?

(a) Too few acts of terrorism have been committed.

(b) Too many acts of terrorism have been committed.

(c) Just the right amount of terrorism has been committed.




Below are the three possible positions you can have on terrorism:

1. Supporting Terrorism

Being guilty of acts that would assist terrorism or being a terrorist yourself, eg donating money to terrorist organisations, becoming a member of one, recruiting new members etc.

2. Refusing to Condemn Terrorism 

Why would anyone refuse to condemn terrorism? In order to make a point. I believe that all terrorism is the result of bad government policy, and merely condemning terrorism distracts us from condemning what we really need to condemn ie government policy

3. Condemning Terrorism

What would be the point of condemning terrorism? It would be like condemning war, or murder, or rape, robbery or theft or complaining about getting wet when it rains.

So now you know why I don't condemn terrorism.

I don't condemn it because I dislike the making of empty gestures and the saying of empty words.

I would rather discuss the government policy that caused the terrorism complained of.

Condemning terrorism is a distraction from condemning UK foreign policy



"Terrorism is pursuing your political objectives through violence, just as war is pursuing your political ends through violence. If you want to condemn all acts of terrorism, then you have to condemn all the wars in which your nation declared war on another."

"An act of terrorism is justifiable if there is no other way of making your point that would make the government address your genuine grievance." Agree/Disagree

"Terrorism is invariably the result of bad government policy." Agree/Disagree




WHO IS BETTER: THE SOLDIER OR THE TERRORIST?

A soldier is not expected to think about the rights and wrongs of the wars he fights while a terrorist has arrived at his position through moral reasoning, and it is not hard to guess who is more morally and politically motivated.

Do people become terrorists for fun?

Or do they become terrorists after being convinced of the futility of effecting change by non-violent methods, when they realise that the political process is there only to act as a distraction for those foolish enough to believe that it might work?

Is our political process just occupational therapy, like basket weaving for basket cases?

If we cannot trust our government to get domestic policy right, what makes us think they will get foreign policy right when there is even less interest and oversight?

What are the consequences of getting foreign policy wrong? War and terrorism eg WW1, WW2, 9/11, 7/7

What are the consequences of getting both foreign and domestic policy wrong? Revolution and terrorism eg Weimar Republic

As for who is better, I suppose only God will know, so we better hope He exists. If not, history will be written by the victor, yet again.

There is no point being weakly good, because in real life and in realpolitik, might is always right, and because the weakly good, the morally compromised, the effeminate and emasculated will always stand aside and say nothing in the triumphant face of evil.


FOREIGN POLICY

The West has been able to get away with its militarily aggressive foreign policy because voters don't care who their government attacks and all the mainstream political parties have the same foreign policy of military aggression, and even UKIP has a Friends of Israel.  http://www.ukipfoi.moonfruit.com/  http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/beware-ukip-zionists

Do Haliburton have shares in ISIS? Do ISIS have shares in Haliburton?

"The world would be a more peaceful place if NATO countries were required to conduct a referendum before going to war." Agree/Disagree

Is NATO an aggressive alliance or a defensive one?

Does the West have a rational foreign policy?

Can Western foreign policy be predicted by Western arms sales?

Do you know a single voter who votes for or against a political party on the basis of its FOREIGN POLICY? No, these voters would be too busy trying to work out which bribe to accept. The reason why the West has an insane and aggressive foreign policy is because the voters don't care who their governments bomb and kill as long as its not them.



DEMOCRACY


Should MPs have a free vote when voting for or against military strikes in Iraq? If not, why not?


"Democracy is the tyranny of people who don't know and don't care about foreign policy." Agree/Disagree

The reason why the West has been able to get away with its dishonourable and criminal foreign policy of military aggression badly disguised as humanitarian liberal intervention is because most voters would not dream of voting for a political party on the basis of its foreign policy because they are too busy working out which bribes to accept from the political party of their choice in a general election, and general elections are really no more than politicians pandering to the vices of the electorate. If people cared at all the BNP would be in power, for they are the only party who have unambiguously protested against UK foreign policy.

But don't care was made to care.

Don't care didn't care,
Don't care was wild:
Don't care stole plum and pear
Like any beggar's child.
Don't care was made to care,
Don't care was hung:
Don't care was put in a pot
And boiled till he was done.

Should Anjem Choudary join the BNP because it is the only party that is against UK foreign policy?

Are Muslim terrorists more rational than liberals and BNP supporters?

How the end the problem of terrorism without violence and turn it into a politics show for TV



Do you know a single voter who votes for or against a political party on the basis of its FOREIGN POLICY? No, these voters would be too busy trying to work out which bribe to accept. The reason why the West has an insane and aggressive foreign policy is because the voters don't care who their governments bomb and kill as long as it is not them.


The Koran only allows defensive wars. Therefore the world would be a more peaceful place if it were governed by Koranic principles. A referendum should be conducted before any country is allowed to go to war. At the very least MPs should have a free vote on this.


THE NATIONAL INTEREST

Is the foreign policy of NATO members in the national interest of its participating nations?


The West has been able to get away with its militarily aggressive foreign policy because voters don't care who their government attacks and all the mainstream political parties have the same foreign policy of military aggression, and even UKIP is a Friend of Israel. http://www.ukipfoi.moonfruit.com/
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/beware-ukip-zionists


THE IDEOLOGY OF DEMOCRACY

Is Neoconservatism Liberal Interventionism? Is Liberal Interventionism the same as Liberal Internationalism? Are these euphemisms for naked military aggression? Is this what all representative democracies in fact practise?

Is Western foreign policy operated by the apathy of those who don't know and don't care about foreign policy?

If Western foreign policy - which is criminal and dishonourable - suffered to remain unchanged because of the apathy of voters and because their political process does not in fact allow them to express their real preference except through voting for a party that is vilified and its members considered the lowest of the low, then is not its entire premise immoral and evil?

Are general elections nothing more than corrupt and incompetent politicians pandering to the vices of their uncomprehending and indifferent electorate?

No surprise then that the victims of Western foreign policy don't want any more of it.



They don't want to have to endure what poor John Humphrys had to endure to either.


Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Transcript of John Cantlie's critique of Western foreign policy

Released on 23 September 2014

IGNORED AND CENSORED BY THE WESTERN MEDIA




Hello there.  I am the British citizen abandoned by my government and a long-term prisoner of the Islamic State.

In this program, we’ll see how the Western governments are hastily marching towards all-out war in Iraq and Syria without paying any heed to the lessons of the recent past, and how they are using the persuasive approach to lure the public back into the conflict.  

So, let’s get straight to the point with a quote from former- C.I.A.-chief-turned-vigorous anti- intervention-campaigner Michael Scheuer: ‘President Obama does not have the slightest intention of defeating the Islamic State, which would require the aerial slaughter and boots in on the ground and the demolishing of the mujahedin' - Michael Scheur whose knowledge of the Muslim Nation and the complexity of their society is considerable adds "18 years into our war with the Islamists our government has given no public sign that it has the slightest awareness of what its enemies are fighting for.  

Now, there are two solid points here. 

The Obama Administration is so perplexed as they marched back into Iraq that they tap-dancing on the issue in a "we're getting involved but we're not really getting involved" kind of way.  You know, air strikes but no troops on the ground, limited operation time, no mission creep, all those pre-combat agreements that tend to get forgotten after the first six months of nasty tough stuff.
The pre-9/11 Afghans are already back in control of large areas of Afghanistan while the full might of the American war machine couldn't destroy the Islamic State in Iraq before.

So, now the State is far stronger now than ever it was.

What is this latest ill-advised foray really supposed to achieve? And Scheur's point is aptly made. As ever, the entire reason why we are at war with the Islamists and what they are fighting for is brilliantly avoided by all.

Senior US politicians seem content to call the Islamic State nasty names: "awful", "vile", "a cancer", "an insult to our values", but such petty insults don't really do much harm to the most powerful jihadist movement seen in recent history. That the Western governments were caught napping by the sheer speed of the Islamic State growth is now a given.  "Intelligence officers failed to anticipate the emergence of the Islamic State", says Tom Kean, the former New Jersey Governor.  "We certainly didn't anticipate them going across the border into Iraq and declaring themselves a Caliphate."

Obama and his allies were well and truly caught by surprise.  [Photos of Obama and his allies being caught by surprise.]

The President once called George Bush's Iraq conflict "a dumb war" and couldn't want to distance America from it when he came into power.  Now he is being inexorably drawn back in. But he is at pains to point out that this not the equivalent of the Iraq War.  In fact, it is far more complicated and prone to failure.  There is a newly-elected pro-American Iranian regime in Iran. They wait eagerly for further American intervention to strengthen the Iranian Crescent in the Middle East.

But the appointment of a new puppet is an important piece of the puzzle in America's Gulf War Free[?] as it allows them to get involved quickly via a proxy.  Iraq's leaders should know that "America will stand shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis as they implement their National Plan", gushed John Kerry on the 9th of September - meaning our National Plan to tackle the Islamic State.  Everyone now is getting involved.  Denmark and France have sent air power. Britain is arming the Kurds. Iran is sending troops. Contracts are being sought in Iraq and even Bashar Al Assad until earlier this year - the most hated and villainised tyrant in the Arab world - is being approached for permission to enter Syria.

"Can the Islamic State be defeated without addressing that part of their organisation that resides in Syria?" asked General Martin Dempsey.

The answer is NO.

It's all quite a circus - air strikes, the creation of last-minute puppet governments, advisory teams of the ground, wooing previous enemies to join in and trans-border incursions into a country that has been in a state of civil war for three years - all the while completely underestimating the strength and fighting zeal of the opponent. Not since Vietnam have we witnessed such a potential mess in the making. 

Current estimates of 15,000 troops needed to fight the Islamic State are laughably low. The State has more mujahideen than this. This is not some undisciplined outfit with a few Kalashnikovs.

We started with Michael Scheuer, so let us give him the final word for now: "Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making," he says, "but they have been in the field fighting since 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular or as well-armed as it is today.

Join me again for the next program.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15b_1411463830

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_perpetual_war_in_Orwell_1984

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Gore%20Vidal%20-%202002%20-%20Perpetual%20War%20For%20Perpetual%20Peace%20-%20How%20we%20got%20to%20be%20so%20hated.pdf

http://www.enotes.com/topics/perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace

Tuesday, 23 September 2014

Why did YouTube remove the second installment of John Cantlie's critique of Western foreign policy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15b_1411463830

The second part of John Cantlie's series of Lend Me Your Ears was removed from YouTube for apparently violating its terms and conditions. Really?

The reason given was "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content."

British media reported that he was "reading from a script", but it doesn't look like it, does it?

What are the media trying to hide from you?

The conviction in his voice? The way he relished his words? How he seemed to be enjoying himself?

Yep.

World at One today could only talk about the legalities of airstrikes as you can hear at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hvxbh

You may think Kenneth O'Keele's point of view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqD4f4tPXOg of interest to this debate.

They had ample time to analyse the video, but they chose only to mention it in passing, with no thought of their journalistic obligation to report or analyse the most interesting story of the day.

ISIS propaganda is now so effective that you cannot actually report it honestly without drawing attention to its effectiveness.

It is for this reason that I would unhesitatingly call it a tour de force, speaking as a propagandist myself.

Even as our media and government suppress it, people will wonder why it is being suppressed, don't they have a right to know etc etc and people will look into it even harder.

As I said, absolutely relentlessly chillingly effective, each installment even more visually and intellectually engaging than the next. They seem to have their very own Steven Spielberg or Josef Goebbels. (The side shots of Cantlie's face while he was speaking was a very nice touch indeed.)

So even if you hate them you have to admire them.

When you run out of lies, then all you are left with is the truth.

When you have run out of dark places to hide from the truth, the truth will shine on you so relentlessly that the lies you clothe yourself with will melt away, leaving you completely naked.

Democracy is now naked and all of our political establishment.

What is democracy but government by Western voters who don't know and don't care about foreign policy and who don't care what is being done in their name? What is democracy but lots of dumb Western voters happy to accept that Muslims want to destroy the West just because they are Muslims ? What is democracy but Western voters not getting why Muslims don't just have another drink and forget about their government's foreign policy like they do? 

And what is the truth?

The fact is that it was the fault of those who invaded Iraq for the current state of Iraq now.

They are the ones ultimately responsible for the mess, and they have run out of ideas, except more of the same.

"If all you do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got."

In the meantime, it looks like ISIS are gaining more than Muslim supporters.

The Russians and Chinese must be secretly or not so secretly, cheering them on.

And yet the solution is so simple.

But  did it work when anyone told the Aztecs to stop their practice of human sacrifice assuring them that the sun will still rise again tomorrow?

Why didn't they listen?

Why wouldn't they listen?

Well, we all know what happened to the Aztecs.


http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-wests-sad-semi-war-against-isis-is-worse-than-useless/15793
Why the West's sad semi war against ISIS is worse than useless by Brendan O'Neill

The transcript is at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/transcript-of-john-cantiles-critique-of.html

Chuka Umunna *must* demand that female members of the Labour Party abstain in leadership contest

Chuka when I walked past him in College Green and noticed his aura ...



More trouble at the mill for the BNP

Dear oh dear. What does this all mean for Adam Walker and the National Executive?


I wonder how likely this is.

https://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/constitutionbnp14-2.pdf

SECTION 8 OUR PARTY’S NATIONAL EXECUTIVE
8.1 The National Executive shall be comprised of:

i) the duly elected National Chairman

ii) the Administration Committee, comprising of the National Treasurer, Head
of Administration, National Nominating Officer, National Organiser and up to
two other individuals as required from time to time. These posts will be
appointed by the National Chairman. The Presiding Officer of the National
Executive shall have the right to attend and vote at any meetings of the
Administration Committee;

iii) one Regional Organiser, elected by the Regional Council, from each of the
eleven European Parliamentary regions;

iv) one Regional Chairman, elected by the Regional Council, from each of the
eleven European Parliamentary regions;

v) one Councillors' Representative, elected at an annual meeting of councillors
and elected public representatives, to be held at the Annual Conference each
year;

vi) one Deputy Treasurer, responsible for the handling and overseeing of
Regional Funds, whether centrally controlled or devolved accounting units,
appointed by simple majority vote of the National Executive.

Monday, 22 September 2014

What the LibLabCon and UKIP should be discussing

THE WAY FORWARD

Bargains to be made:

1. In return for most women wanting to be mothers and housewives getting what they want, women must agree to repeal the Equality Act 2010 and agree to abolish no-fault divorce

2. In return for most women no longer competing with men in the workplace and being sluts and SSMs http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/3-degrees-of-culpability-in-single.html, men will agree to respect marriage. (Respecting marriage means agreeing to forbid extramarital sex.)

3. In return for the cessation of the importation of immigrant labour, the working classes agree to repeal employment protection legislation to facilitate easier hiring and firing.

4.  The political establishment agreeing between themselves that the voters would be happy with a 20% flat rate tax as long as it allows the working man to support his wife and family one one wage. Those who dislike this idea would be NEETs, SSMs, the welfare-dependent as well women in non-jobs in the public sector ie the unproductive. It is anticipated that the most productive and enterprising sections of society would love this idea.

5.  Foreign policy

US foreign policy is UK foreign policy


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/government-debt-gilt-sales
Frank Field proposes a one-party state.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense/353471931432677?ref=ts&fref=ts

How MPs can abolish the party whip and get a pay rise
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/claire-khaw-agrees-with-andrew-bridgen.html

Sunday, 21 September 2014

What is the point of having an Archbishop of Canterbury who is not even Christian?

Archbishop of Canterbury amits doubts about existence of God
Justin Welby tells BBC radio interviewer there are moments when he doubts – but he is certain about the existence of Jesus

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/18/archbishop-canterbury-doubt-god-existence-welby

SHOCK HORROR: the Archbishop of Canterbury admits to being a Cultural Christian. He is certain Jesus existed, unlike some of the more fanatical and militant atheists who, not content with denying the existence of God, also deny the existence of His prophets.




What are we to make of Welby's doubts? If he cannot quite convince himself of this minor molehill of God's existence, how can he attempt the mountain that is the divinity of Christ?

From the way he is wittering on one can be forgiven for thinking that his thoughts about Christ are no more than thinking that Jesus is just one of history's good guys rather than God's Anointed Son Made Flesh born of the Virgin Mary.

Does this matter?

Yes, because it means even the Archbishop of Canterbury is so theologically ignorant and does know that he is supposed to believe that Christ is God - an absurd belief, I agree - or to lie about it if he doesn't.

Therein lies the ultimate deception and lie of Christianity: the requirement to believe this absurd idea or to pretend to believe in this absurd idea.

It matters if you believe that the problems of the West has its origins in the failure of its official religion - Christianity. It was of course the trinitarian nature of Christianity that made it antisemitic.

Let us examine for a moment the word "antisemite". Both Jews and Arabs are a Semitic people. Christians did not just hate Jews, they also hated Muslims, and this goes all the way back to the Inquisition.  Why did Christians hate Semitic peoples? Because both denied the divinity of Christ. When Christians took their religion seriously they would deal very firmly indeed with the adherents of the other two Abrahamic faiths and conduct Inquisitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813

According to a lecture reported on his website to have been given by Abdal Hakim Murad (Timothy Winter) "it was against the law to be a Muslim in Britain until 1812, with the passage through parliament of the Trinitarian Act (Islam does not have a Trinitarian doctrine); however as the Blasphemy Act applied only to those educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, the amending Act would in theory have applied to converts only to Islam and even then would not have allowed them to refuse to accept the Christian religion.

In the Middle Ages, Christians burnt heretics at the stake and in Salem they even had witch-hunts, not to mention Crusades and Inquisitions. Now, however, because the Archbishop of Canterbury no longer even knows he has to uphold the lie that he believes in the Trinity even when he does not, Christians have completely forgotten what they were like when they took their religion seriously.

Poor old Copernicus and Galileo who dared suggest that the earth went round the sun rather than the other way round!

Poor William Tyndale - executed for translating the Bible into English! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

As for Christians who wanted to think God was a unitary whole rather than consisting of three elements, well, God help them. http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p268.html

The only advantage Christians naturally had was the frequent wars they would have against each other. They fought each other so much and so often Europeans became the most militaristic race on earth and the cause of the First and Second World Wars.  If and when there is a Third World War it will again be caused by Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

Eventually, after WW2, they got tired of fighting each other and settled themselves down to a lifestyle choice of wine, women and song as well as sex and drugs and rock and roll. Having utterly thrown out the baby of social conservatism with the bathwater of Trinitarianism, they are now a degenerate lot quaking in their boots fearing an imminent Muslim takeover.

And what would be the harm of Islam taking over? It would at least be a source of social conservatism, which respects marriage through forbidding extramarital sex.

What are the benefits of forbidding extramarital sex?

It would make men want to marry (in order to have sex and legitimate offspring) and also make women have legitimate children again.

It would end this dysgenic culture of tolerating sluts and bastardy leading to paedophilia, degeneracy and the decline in educational and moral standards, making the West poorer, stupider, weaker and more prone to the collective dementia that might precipitate yet another World War.

Social conservatism requires moral and intellectual respectability, and we cannot expect this to be forthcoming from the anti-immigration parties of the West who are racist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, xenophobic whose members are made up largely of uneducated and illegitimate plebeians.

Neither the Catholic nor the Anglican Church are fit for the purposes of maintaining the morals of the nation because the moral values propagated by the Bible are currently being subverted by its Commie Pinko Homo Lesbo Feminazi clergy who look upon the Church as a source of status and income even as they busily subvert its moral teachings.

Islam at least has the very practical idea of enacting Koranic principles as legislation which all must follow because it is the law of the land.

Which of the following do you think has the lowest entry threshold?

a) Becoming a Jew and living as one
b) Claiming to believe in Christ's divinity even when you do not because this is what is required to be a Christian and therefore one of the gang
c) Acknowledging that there is no God but God and Muhammad is His Messenger

The problems of the West are the problems of Christianity.

If neither Christianity nor Liberalism is fit for purpose - or if they have both become one because Christian clergy are no more and no less than creatures of the PC Liberal state - then another better ideology must be found to impose and maintain social conservatism. A theocracy comes to mind.

A theocracy is a society that abides by the laws of its God, but not all theocracies are the same because different deities require different practices and different laws.

If you had to choose between an Aztec theocracy and an Islamic theocracy the choice, if you wish to avoid becoming either a victim or practitioner of human sacrifice, is obvious.

Which would you rather do?

a) Live your life as a Jew
b) Pretend to believe in the absurdity that Christ is divine

For all sorts of pragmatic reasons one might not wish to be a Jew, eg antisemitism, the demands of being an observant Jew, and prefer the corrupting bargain that a Christian makes, ie eternal life, the forgiveness of sins in return just for pretending to believe that Christ is God. In other words, this would suit the hypocrite.

What about Islam? It has lower entry requirements with less rigorous dietary requirements and laws and does not require you to believe in an absurdity.

If Islam is "Judaism Lite" then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".

Secular Koranism will also have the effect of making Jews better Jews and Christians better Christians through creating a legal environment which supports marriage and denounces rather than condones sluts.

Which gives you a better sense of being close to God?

a) The spirituality that is your reward when you know you have obeyed His laws
b) Believing falsely that you are in His presence

If we want to obey God's laws either for our own good or for the good of society, then we would have to enact them as legislation.

Those who find this idea objectionable are cordially invited to choose the verse in the Koran they find most objectionable.

But back to the subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Will he have have a role in a Khavian Britain governed under the rules of Secular Koranism?  The position will not be abolished, fear not, but will be purely ceremonial, like Black Rod. Someone will need to crown the next British monarch, after all. Other than that I cannot see any role at all for an Archbishop of Canterbury who accepted the abomination of gay marriage without demur. If Charles wants someone else  -perhaps Muslim - to preside over his coronation, I would certainly see to it that he has his wish, if a Muslim can be found to don the robes of an Archbishop of Canterbury and perform the ceremony with dignity and decorum as the world watches. I must say I find the idea of Tim Winter AKA Abdal Hakim Murad performing this ceremony a rather delicious one.

Adam Lee the puppy attempts to supplant Richard Dawkins as Top Atheist Dog




Below are the results of my dissection of
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name


"The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it." 

Is it a rule for people who do not believe in God to be gender balanced?

"Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that’s before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off, that’s designed to intimidate women into silence."

Is atheism a "movement"? Surely it is just an absence of belief in God.

If "sexism" is endemic in society in general, why is there an expectation that atheists should not also be sexist?  Feminists are always accusing men of being "sexist", but this only means men saying things that offend feminists. What conferences is Lee referring to and who speaks at these conferences? What is the nature of this "vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment"? Is Lee suggesting that Dawkins is responsible for it?

"Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies. http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

But over the last few months, Dawkins showed signs of détente with his feminist critics – even progress. He signed a joint letter with the writer Ophelia Benson, denouncing and rejecting harassment; he even apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter. https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ On stage at a conference in Oxford in August, Dawkins claimed to be a feminist and said that everyone else should be, too.

Then another prominent male atheist, Sam Harris, crammed his foot in his mouth and said that atheist activism lacks an “estrogen vibe” and was “to some degree intrinsically male”. And, just like that, the brief Dawkins Spring was over.

On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs. Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit”, that they “fake outrage”, and that he wished there were some way to penalize them. 

For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.

Benson, with whom Dawkins had signed the anti-harassment letter just weeks earlier, was not impressed. “I’m surprised and, frankly, shocked by Richard’s belligerent remarks about feminist bloggers over the past couple of days,” she told me. “Part of what made The God Delusion so popular was, surely, its indignant bluntness about religion. It was a best-seller; does that mean he ‘faked’ his outrage?”

There’s no denying that Dawkins played a formative role in the atheist movement, but it’s grown beyond just him. Remarks like these make him a liability at best, a punchline at worst. He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive option, Richard Dawkins is doing a terrible job. Blogger and author Greta Christina told me, “I can’t tell you how many women, people of color, other marginalized people I’ve talked with who’ve told me, ‘I’m an atheist, but I don’t want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys are the leaders.’ "

Organised atheism? That is a bit like talking about disorganised crime, isn't it?

'It’s not just women who are outraged by Dawkins these days: author and blogger PZ Myers told me, “At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.” '

Is atheism a movement that is "expanding its reach"? If you don't believe in God, then just don't, but why proselytise about it in such a weird evangelical way?

"What’s so frustrating, from the standpoint of the large and growing non-religious demographic, is that Dawkins is failing badly to live up to his own standards. As both an atheist and a scientist, he should be the first to defend the principle that no one is above criticism, and that any idea can be challenged, especially an idea in accord with popular prejudices. Instead, with no discernible sense of irony, Dawkins is publicly recycling the bad arguments so often used against him as an atheist: accusing his critics of being “outrage junkies” who are only picking fights for the sake of notoriety; roaring about “thought police” as though it were a bad thing to argue that someone is mistaken and attempt to change their mind; scoffing that they’re “looking for excuses to be angry” as though the tone of the argument, rather than its factual merits, were the most important thing; encouraging those who are targets of criticism to ignore it rather than respond."

Dawkins is saying stop making a mountain out of a molehill, which he is entitled to do if these silly women really are.

"The artist Amy Roth, who recently debuted an exhibit in which she literally wallpapered a room with the misogynist messages that she and other feminists have received, finds the systemic sexism incredibly frustrating. As she told me this week:

The men and women in this community have a right to speak up about it, and if the best argument you have against us is that we are the ‘thought police’ or we are writing for ‘clickbait’ or that the weight of our words is equivalent to an actual ‘witch hunt’, then perhaps it’s time to retire to your study and calmly reevaluate the actual topics at hand."

Are the feminists telling Richard Dawkins to shut up?

On other occasions, Dawkins himself has emphasized the importance of awakening people to injustice and mistreatment they may have overlooked. But when it comes to feminism, he’s steadfastly refused to let his own consciousness be raised. Instead, he clings to his insular and privileged viewpoint – and, worse, he’s creating the impression that “true” atheists all share his retrograde attitudes.

Where does it say that people who don't believe in God must be feminists??

"Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery."

What is so "cranky" about this tweet? Does Lee mean "bad tempered" or "weird"? Cranky can mean both as you can see at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cranky





"Whatever he may say, it’s up to the wider atheist community to make it clear that this one public intellectual doesn’t speak for all of us. If the atheist movement is going to thrive and make a difference in our society, it needs to grow beyond its largely older, largely male, largely white roots."

Not this guy, obviously.

"Dawkins’s very public hostility toward the people who emphasize the importance of diversity, who want to make the community broader and more welcoming, and who oppose sexual harassment and sexist language, is harming the cause he himself claims to care about."

Like this guy, maybe?

Adam Lee

"In the long run, however, the reputation Dawkins will damage the most is his own."

Feminists would naturally prefer a younger man who knows how to pander to their vanity and give them a good seeing to rather than an elderly man of 73 who tells them off for being very silly girls, I imagine. Perhaps they are even now signing up to be members of Lee's harem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8291000/8291710.stm
Stags locked in 'mortal combat'


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Is-feminism-dangerous-to-free-speech/221315967999943?fref=ts

Saturday, 20 September 2014

A message to British Imams and Muslim Leaders appealing for release of British aid worker #notinmyname




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/letter-by-british-imams-and-muslim-leaders-appealing-for-release-of-alan-henning-9739900.html

We, the undersigned British Muslim Imams, organisations and individuals, wish to express our horror and revulsion at the senseless murder of David Haines and the threat to the life of our fellow British citizen, Alan Henning.

You would, wouldn't you? Maybe you are just saying all this to get Islamophobes off your case. Will it work? We shall see. These Islamophobes truly enjoy the certainty it gives them when they truly hate and, boy, do they hate Muslims. Even if they don't think all Muslims are terrorists they just wouldn't mind Muslims disappearing off the face of this earth, or perhaps just out of their country.

Mr Henning was a volunteer who travelled to Syria to help innocent civilians.

Did Mr Henning vote the LibLabCon who maintain Zionist policies? Bet he did. It seems unlikely that he would be a UKIP or BNP supporter. Out of the last two, only the BNP have consistently stated their opposition to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is unlikely a BNP supporter would become an aid worker.

Acts of humanitarianism are an essential element of religious practice for all Muslims, and of course they are just as significant to other people too. Islamic teachings call for charity and selflessness. Most importantly, acts of beneficence do not, and cannot, exclude non-Muslims.

It has been said that aid workers are sometimes spies. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-hayat/shakil-afridi_b_1750005.html

In Islam, concern for fellow humans and the duty to help everyone is a religious obligation. Anyone undertaking a humanitarian act is paving his or her way to receive help from heaven, should be commended and held in the highest esteem.

Fair enough, but ISIS are probably aware that Western aid workers are often spies.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100137827/how-the-cias-fake-aid-projects-put-real-humanitarian-workers-at-risk-in-pakistan/

In contrast, the senseless kidnapping, murder and now the despicable threats to Mr Henning at the hands of so-called ‘Muslims’ cannot be justified anywhere in the Quran and the Sunnah (Prophetic traditions).

Though the threats are undeniably despicable to those who have been threatened, the kidnappings are not exactly senseless, are they? The kidnappings and beheadings served to send a message to the West. What is this message? That they shouldn't have invaded Iraq and destroyed the lives of so many Iraqis. Not only did they destroy the lives of countless Iraqis, they have neither apologised nor expressed remorse. Indeed, they are going to do more of the same. Has Western foreign policy changed in any regard as a result of terrorism? If you were a Muslim terrorist, do you think that you have committed too many acts of terrorism or too few, or perhaps just enough, judging by the change in Western foreign policy that you have observed over the years?

The un-Islamic fanatics are not acting as Muslims, but as the Prime Minister has said, they are acting as monsters. They are perpetrating the worst crimes against humanity.

Has any Muslim the right to declare another not a Muslim or unIslamic? On whose authority would such a Muslim excommunicate another? Muslims have no Pope and no equivalent doctrine of Papal Infallibility. At http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hmj80 Sayed Razawi claims to have "excommunicated" the jihadists at 23:45. Imagine how dismayed these jihadists must be!

This is not Jihad - it is a war against all humanity.

War necessarily involves acts of homicide, and jihad can take the form of war.  It is not clear how this war is "a war against all humanity", since only Western hostages have been killed.  How many people have ISIS killed in Iraq and Syria compared to how many NATO have killed there?

The Holy Quran says that:

"Whosoever kills a human being... it is as if killing the entire human race; and whosoever saves a life, saves the entire human race."

This is disingenuously selective.

Below are some verses that may be considered relevant in this context:

002.190 
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. 
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. 
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

002.191 
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. 
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

002.192 
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
002.193 
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. 
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. 
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

006.151 
YUSUFALI: Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom. 
PICKTHAL: Say: Come, I will recite unto you that which your Lord hath made a sacred duty for you: That ye ascribe no thing as partner unto Him and that ye do good to parents, and that ye slay not your children because of penury - We provide for you and for them - and that ye draw not nigh to lewd things whether open or concealed. And that ye slay not the life which Allah hath made sacred, save in the course of justice. This He hath command you, in order that ye may discern. 
SHAKIR: Say: Come I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you-- (remember) that you do not associate anything with Him and show kindness to your parents, and do not slay your children for (fear of) poverty-- We provide for you and for them-- and do not draw nigh to indecencies, those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.

We plead with those holding Alan Henning to see the errors of their ways. To embrace the word of the Quran and accept that what they are now doing constitutes the worst condemnable sin.

Are you asking those holding Alan Henning to agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was right and just?  Really?

What about the verses of the Koran that you did not cite but which you may reasonably expect the jihadists to be relying on? Should those words of the Koran be ignored because Muslims living in Britain want Islamophobes to get off their case and it suits them to pretend that Islam cannot also be used for war? But we know that all religions were created to protect their adherents against internal and external enemies, don't we? Whether they do or not history will tell. and will depend on how well they follow the laws of their God.


We appeal to them to release Mr Henning immediately. The Quran states that “repentance is not accepted from those who continue to do evil deeds”.

It is pretty clear that the jihadists are very far from expressing repentance, so quoting this verse does not seem to fit the situation.

004.017 
YUSUFALI: Allah accept the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: For Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. 
PICKTHAL: Forgiveness is only incumbent on Allah toward those who do evil in ignorance (and) then turn quickly (in repentance) to Allah. These are they toward whom Allah relenteth. Allah is ever Knower, Wise. 
SHAKIR: Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise.

004.018 
YUSUFALI: Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous. 
PICKTHAL: The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom. 
SHAKIR: And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement.

In the name of the Almighty All Merciful God, we beseech Mr Henning's kidnappers with the words of our Prophet Muhammad - "Show mercy to those on earth, the One in the Heavens will have mercy on you.

And doubtless they will cite 2:190-3 and 6:151 as justification for their actions.

British Muslim communities have done a great deal to speak out over the evils of terrorism over many years. We will continue to do everything within our power to prevent any other young man or woman getting caught up in this poisonous ideology.

British Muslim communities who are victims of Islamophobia may deem it politic to say such things in the hope of decreasing the hostility expressed towards them, but they convince no one, least of all the Islamophobes and those determined to go on jihad.  These Muslims could do something useful for non-Muslims by collectively refusing to condemn terrorism and condemn UK foreign policy instead, but in a peaceful way of course. That would be the best way of expressing civil disobedience in this matter. Muslims should collectively refuse to condemn terrorism until the UK government explains and justifies its foreign policy to the satisfaction of  UK citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim. Only then would Muslims be better liked.

To be loved, one must not fear to be hated.





The video of John Cantlie's series of Lend Me Your Ears was removed from YouTube for apparently violating its terms and conditions. Really?

British media reported that he was reading from a script, but it doesn't look like it, does it?

It was reported that he was "reading from a script". What are the media trying to hide from you?

The conviction in his voice? The way he relished his words? How he seemed to be enjoying himself?

Yep.