Keep left

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4245584.stm

From the Telegraph, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/16/nterr116.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/16/ixnewstop.html

But the difficulty will be deciding what constitutes glorification and there will be freedom of speech issues that Parliament will have to grapple with when the legislation is debated. According to Liberty, the human rights group, the Bill is so widely drawn that someone could be found guilty of encouraging terrorism - and jailed for up to seven years - even when he had no such intention of doing so.

There is also a curious cut-off period proposed in the Bill. Anyone glorifying an act of terrorism that took place longer than 20 years ago will only commit an offence if the Home Secretary deems that the event is covered by the law.

In other words, he may stipulate that glorifying the actions of Nelson Mandela in the 1950s is lawful but not of the Black September movement in the 1970s. Liberty said that this provision ''is so broad that the Home Secretary will take powers to determine which historical figures were terrorists and which freedom fighters".

From Ken Mcleod's excellent, erudite, blog - A quote from 'British sci-fi fan, Alison'

Lots of things about the US become easier to understand if you consider it as a very rich third world country... Not just now, but generally. Like enormously high and rising inequity (including reducing real-terms median income over the last 30 years!), lack of adequate healthcare, housing, education for the poor, and a belief that richer states have no responsibility to improve the living conditions of poorer ones, diversion of national wealth into warfare rather than welfare. That sort of thing.

Lots of examples at the moment; eg general notion that Texas helping out refugees from Louisiana is a 'stunningly generous offer' rather than you know, standard operating practice, or the proportion of US military strength being used to sort out Katrina cleanup (and you know, they could have been shipping in troops to safe nearby areas over the weekend), or just a general 'oh well, of course it's individuals' responsibility to look after themselves and their property', or the Red Cross explaining that it's their largest aid effort ever (because, you know, American Red Cross is the world).

Not to mention police and other rescue personnel actively looting (apparently this happened after 9/11 as well), something which I think we can safely say Would Not Happen Here.

Actually, you know, that's quite profound. I'm impressed.

The Independent points out that the innocent man executed by police in Stockwell had already travelled on a bus before going into the Tube.
A bus? They let someone they thought was a suicide bomber get onto a bus!! Why did they overreact so much in the Tube station then? If they thought he was a genuine threat they should have picked him up as he waited at the bus stop.
Oh yes, and I'll think twice before using my iPod on the Tube again - 'wires sticking out of his coat' anybody?

Shortly before 10am, a man left the premises in Stockwell and was followed by surveillance officers. He got on a bus and headed towards the nearby Tube station. Fearing he was going to enter the Tube, officers called in an elite unit of specialist firearms officers to make an armed arrest before he entered the station. At this point, witnesses said, the man vaulted a barrier in the Tube station and ran down the escalators and on to a northbound Northern line train, pursued by police.
...

"He tripped and was also pushed to the floor and one of the officers shot him five times, "
...
Although other witnesses said the man was wearing a bulky coat "with wires sticking out of it", there was no indication last night that he had been carrying a bomb.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article300990.ece

The Times reports that the Metropolitan Police have been reinforced with 'special forces' ie, British Army, probably SAS. They don't cite references for this, but it appears plausible. Does this account for the gung-ho, 'take no prisoners' tragedy yesterday, where they chased, held down and shot dead an innocent man?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1706021,00.html

Well, actually I had moved away from this blog to a home hosted one, but my server isn't taking inbound connections at the moment, and I'm too busy to investigate why. I THINK it's my router that's gone up the spout, but I'll have to tinker to make sure. In the meantime, lot's of things happening, and I've lost my notebook/blog when I need it....
I can't ssh into the box, or use http to add posts to the Wordpress blogging package. Maybe I should try a different router. Only problem is, I don't have one spare...

...to http://comsomol.redirectme.net/wordpress/

So the highly trained, well-motivated troops of the US Army can't recognise the (highly distinctive) flag of their main ally?
"US commanders were so worried that their men were shooting at the British because they failed to recognise the Union Jack or other distinguishing military markings that, in an unprecedented move, they asked the British Army to supply vehicles, men and flags to teach their soldiers what their allies looked like....
This was in addition to a detailed presentation already provided by the British for all incoming US troops, which outlines what a British soldier looks like, what type of vehicle he drives and what other coalition troops in southern Iraq drive around in....
A British officer in Basra said: “The Americans can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1517327,00.html

I haven't posted for a while, but thought I'd take a moment to commemorate the birth of Isaac Newton today, especially since so many other people are celebrating it as well (well, at least I think that's what they're doing... Is it anyone else's birthday today?)
Anyway, in keeping with the season, there's a fantastically funny transcript of Christopher Hitchen's on a Yankee chatshow, debating Christmas and the separation of Church and State. Read and smile at MSNBC

Have a nice day, whatever your religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

So Bush won the election.
It's a shame. It's more than a shame.

The race was incredibly close, too close to call for most of the last few weeks, neck and neck. On the night, exit polling indicated a slight Kerry lead, which (in)famously led Bob Worcester from MORI to predict a Kerry win at 2am on ITV. 'I'm Bob Worcester, it's 2am, and I am calling it - it's PRESIDENT KERRY!'
This didn't happen - Ohio, which was predicted to be a narrow Kerry win became a narrow Bush win instead. And the rest is history.

The exit polls were embarrassingly wrong. Or were they? There's an interesting analysis of the percentage of ballots which simply weren't counted in Ohio (and the other states) by Greg Palast here http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php

Also see this report for electronic voting shenanigans in Ohio
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html

Interesting piece on the BBC's project to open its archives:

http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/index.html

and again here http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?section=cm&search=1&id=1723

Anybody catch Osama's latest appearance on the telly? Did you listen to his speech? Thought not. No-one ran it.

Ever wondered what he's on about? Ever wondered why you never actually hear a full speech/statement? Does a free society have a duty to report the news, or just selectively edited 'highlights' of the news? How come we have to leave it to Al-Jazeera to see what this (very dangerous) man has to say? Know your enemy, and all that?
Or is there a desire on the part of the Western media organisations to obfuscate the issue?
Why would they want to do that?
Anyway, I found this on al-Jazeera. Read it. It's long, but it's interesting.

Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind.
To proceed: Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them. No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider. I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced. I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy. The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond. In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr. did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary? Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us. This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th. And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998. You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk. The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at the White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you? If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th.

This concerned the causes of the war. As for its results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief among them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents. Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the region. At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting. So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. All Praise is due to Allah. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains. Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results. And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ. And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion. Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs. As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission. It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.

And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.

It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah. And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him: "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction - assuming they exist - is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome." But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America. So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying "like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth".

So I say to you, over 15,000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10,000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business. Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money. And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorise the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.

Finally, it behoves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched. Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say: "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision." It is as if they were telling you, the people of America: "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes." And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry. "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny." As has been said: "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." And know that: "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.

In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security. And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.

Translation courtesy of Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

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?

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?

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

'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.

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?

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!

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?

Is this the new imperialism, same as the old? The war on Iraq has made me reconsider what exactly happened with Blair's previous war against Serbia in Kosovo, which, at the time, was presented as a moral exercise to aid the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Subsequent events have made me reconsider Tony Blair's integrity. This story from the Guardian points out some interesting facts about the bombing of Serbian state owned industry, and the miraculous avoidance of damage to private businesses. Was the whole war aimed at forcible privatisation of state industry?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1309037,00.html

The first results for the Spanish election are coming in, and the rightwing People's Party looks to have fallen, the Socialists being the clear winners.
Spain took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq, against the wishes of 90% of her population. The so-called 'coalition of the willing' claimed this would save the world from terrorism. The population of Madrid now know differently, as does the rest of Spain, notwithstanding the apparent efforts of the People's Party to confuse the issue by blaming ETA for what appears very much to be the work of Islamic militants exacting 'revenge' for Iraq on an innocent population.
The sound of chickens coming home to roost fills the air - I guess democracy does work occasionally.

Spanish lessons
As I write this, the Spanish election results are coming in. The rightwing governing party have lost power, in a surprise turnaround.

First tentative toe into the water...