Links
Archives
Stating the bleeding obvious. Random jottings and a way to keep track of stuff which interests me. If it interests anyone else too, that's good.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The always caustic Catherine Bennett has her own typically witty take on the recent recognition of Satanism as an officially approved religion by the Royal Navy here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1337620,00.html
On another note, does the Royal Navy, currently engaged along with the rest of the UK's armed forces in a war against Islamic worshippers (and a small number of fundamentalists), really believe it's wise to admit that we really ARE worshippers of Shaitan?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1337620,00.html
On another note, does the Royal Navy, currently engaged along with the rest of the UK's armed forces in a war against Islamic worshippers (and a small number of fundamentalists), really believe it's wise to admit that we really ARE worshippers of Shaitan?
Iblis (Shaitan/Satan) swore that he would mislead and misguide all the people except those sincere and devoted worshipers of Allah. Allah told him that only the misguided ones would follow him and that He would fill Hell with him and his followers.
America and Britain are routinely denounced as the Great Satan and Little Satan respectively by the mullahs of Iran as it is, without the Royal Navy's idiotic shoot-yourself-in-the-foot policy.
Although, in fairness, the Satanist doctrine of "hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!" certainly seems to be more fitting in the armed forces than the Christian command to 'love thy neighbour', and the sixth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
Perhaps the Navy should discourage Christians from enlisting, in favour of Satanists?
Unfair, or what?
So let me get this straight.
Iraq, the country which we invaded to save its people from the evil tyrant Saddam Hussain (we'll forget about the fictitious WMD, as our politicians seem to have forgotten about them anyway) is an economic basket case, so much so that the UN need to make humanitarian assistance appeals on behalf of Iraq.
And yet, last Thursday, 21 October 2004, Iraq was forced to pay just under 195 million dollars as war reparations to a clutch of assorted foreign countries and corporations, this quarter's installment. http://www.unog.ch/uncc/pressrel/prp41021.pdf
At this rate, the Iraqi people will still be paying reparations for the actions of Saddam Hussains regime in 2070. How is this fair? The West acknowledges that the Iraqi people were as much victim of Saddam as Kuwait or Iran, if not more, and had no chance of removing him themselves. And yet they are expected to compensate the rest of the world for his actions for most of the rest of the century.
http://www.jubileeiraq.org/background.htm
Iraq, the country which we invaded to save its people from the evil tyrant Saddam Hussain (we'll forget about the fictitious WMD, as our politicians seem to have forgotten about them anyway) is an economic basket case, so much so that the UN need to make humanitarian assistance appeals on behalf of Iraq.
And yet, last Thursday, 21 October 2004, Iraq was forced to pay just under 195 million dollars as war reparations to a clutch of assorted foreign countries and corporations, this quarter's installment. http://www.unog.ch/uncc/pressrel/prp41021.pdf
At this rate, the Iraqi people will still be paying reparations for the actions of Saddam Hussains regime in 2070. How is this fair? The West acknowledges that the Iraqi people were as much victim of Saddam as Kuwait or Iran, if not more, and had no chance of removing him themselves. And yet they are expected to compensate the rest of the world for his actions for most of the rest of the century.
http://www.jubileeiraq.org/background.htm
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
British army already being deployed north
'No decision has yet been made' about the American request (instruction?) to move British forces in Iraq north into American held territory, according to the UK government.
However, Reuters are showing pictures of British army troops and armoured vehicles moving north to 'an unknown destination' yesterday, October 19th
http://www.reuters.com/newsSearchResultsHome.jhtml?query=warriors&type=p
Is there any point in MPs demanding a debate on this issue when it appears to have already been decided? We know a reconnaissance mission has already been sent north, but these photos seem to show a lot more than that.
However, Reuters are showing pictures of British army troops and armoured vehicles moving north to 'an unknown destination' yesterday, October 19th
http://www.reuters.com/newsSearchResultsHome.jhtml?query=warriors&type=p
Is there any point in MPs demanding a debate on this issue when it appears to have already been decided? We know a reconnaissance mission has already been sent north, but these photos seem to show a lot more than that.
Has Bush lost his mind? No, seriously...
There's a comment piece in the Observer newspaper (London) which speculates on Bush's mental state - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1329254,00.html - pointing out that TV footage of him debating with the Texas governor in 1994 showed a fluent and disciplined speaker. Compare and contrast with now.
Neurological disorder? Nixonian paranoia? Alcoholism? Did anyone really believe the pretzel story? Did he fall over for other reasons?
Neurological disorder? Nixonian paranoia? Alcoholism? Did anyone really believe the pretzel story? Did he fall over for other reasons?
Monday, October 18, 2004
Not the smartest thing in the world to do
I've got that awful sinking feeling in my stomach.
The Guardian appears to have done the most stupid, ill-thought out, provocative stunt, which will certainly backfire.
Do they really want George W. Bush to win the election? Just exactly what does the Guardian think that Bush's supporters, undecided voters and the rightwing American press will make of a letter writing campaign by liberal British Guardian readers attempting to influence their voting choice? Remember, former British colony? Very touchy people, Americans...
Yes, it's a standard, bitter joke in most of the world that we should be entitled to vote in American elections, but really, even if you thought it was justifiable to attempt to interfere with a foreign nations sovereign democratic process, flawed though it may be (hey, irony or what?) this is the most ham-fisted of all possible ways to do it.
For God's sake, please do sign up to this insane scheme, and then shred the return email from the Guardian, so some idiot doesn't get to use that address (the Guardian are only handing out each address to one Guardian reader)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1326033,00.html
And see this site for an example of how well it's going down over there ...
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007752.php
Oh, the humanity!
The Guardian appears to have done the most stupid, ill-thought out, provocative stunt, which will certainly backfire.
Do they really want George W. Bush to win the election? Just exactly what does the Guardian think that Bush's supporters, undecided voters and the rightwing American press will make of a letter writing campaign by liberal British Guardian readers attempting to influence their voting choice? Remember, former British colony? Very touchy people, Americans...
Yes, it's a standard, bitter joke in most of the world that we should be entitled to vote in American elections, but really, even if you thought it was justifiable to attempt to interfere with a foreign nations sovereign democratic process, flawed though it may be (hey, irony or what?) this is the most ham-fisted of all possible ways to do it.
For God's sake, please do sign up to this insane scheme, and then shred the return email from the Guardian, so some idiot doesn't get to use that address (the Guardian are only handing out each address to one Guardian reader)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1326033,00.html
And see this site for an example of how well it's going down over there ...
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007752.php
Oh, the humanity!
Saturday, October 09, 2004
His masters voice
Was Bush wired?
For those people who were impressed that Bush was at least coherent during the first 'debate' with John Kerry, the reports that he was actually fitted with radio communications back to his team do rather make sense. Screengrabs from the C-SPAN coverage show a strange square lump on his back, under his jacket (obviously)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html
This adds further credence to odd footage apparently picked up by CBS during the D-Day commemorations earlier this year, in which another voice appears to speak the Presidents words half a sentence before he does.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
For those people who were impressed that Bush was at least coherent during the first 'debate' with John Kerry, the reports that he was actually fitted with radio communications back to his team do rather make sense. Screengrabs from the C-SPAN coverage show a strange square lump on his back, under his jacket (obviously)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html
This adds further credence to odd footage apparently picked up by CBS during the D-Day commemorations earlier this year, in which another voice appears to speak the Presidents words half a sentence before he does.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
