Lost Shepheards?

It has been and is said that the Church of England is the Tory Party at Prayer. That may even have been true... once: but that was then and this is now.

It is certainly true that the C of E might reasonably said to represent the “Establishment”, or rather the left wing 'hard of thinking' elite at prayer.

Well it might… except that generally, the left wing elite don’t have much time, or use for prayer. It is ok for the proles you understand - sotto voce. But the thing about the left wing elite is they always imagine themselves on top.. in charge.. the Vicar rather than the flock. In positions of power handing down “wisdom” from the mount to the admiringly grateful, but sadly unable to quite see what is best for them, populace.

In the interminable run up to this fixed term election the C of E seems to be becoming more and more overtly partisanly political. It was interesting to note they were urging business to apparently maximise their UK tax liability? Well that was what it practically amounted to - whilst (of course) being effectively exempt from paying tax themselves. 'whit′ed sep′ulcher' springs to mind...

...or it would, if they hadn't changed it to 'whitewashed tomb', less poetic language - but "modern".
Apparently easily enough understood by generations who never had the benefit of Comprehensive state education.

Do they imagine unleashing their vast hoards of fanatical believers (they wish) to vote the churche’s political line will have much impact?

One suspects that whilst their pronouncements may seem significant in the Westminster village they have less impact than vapour trails on the populace in general. At least a small proportion of the voting public do seriously believe that vapour trails are a CIA conspiracy, perhaps a few might take their lead from Welby & Co. ?

Perhaps it is time to disestablish the Church of England as Nick Clegg has called for? It is questionable that they, or indeed any religion, should be allowed to retain such a position.

Better to concern themselves with diminishing flocks, abandoned Churches in the UK and rampant Christianophobia throughout the bible lands and middle east, driving the religious cleansing of Christians fourth from their homelands. So much for respect of 'people of the book'. More whit′ed sep′ulchers anybody?

Yo Momma...

Pope Francis is “pontificating” over the Paris Massacres in Sri Lanka on a trip that focused on “inclusion” and “Harmony” between religions.

Pontificating - That’s what Popes do you’ll be thinking, practically part of the job description.

No one is saying he is not a nice, well meaning man. That is what he ought to be and history might have been less bloody if some of his predecessors were more like him in that. On the other hand maybe not, who knows.

Specifically he has been commenting on the Charlie Hebdo aspect of the apparently religiously motivated Paris murders/killings.

Presumably the massacre of Jews, simply because they are Jews does not quite fit within his homily. Those murdered French people – blameless Parisians who also happened to be of the Jewish faith - "move along, no insults to see here folks".

He seems to simply sign up without question to the Islamicist argument that any depiction of Mohammed at all is an insult to Islam. If it is actually in bad taste or an insult seems to be irrelevant.

Pope Francis suggests that some sort of physical and violent action (a bloody nose) is actually somehow appropriate to a perceived insult as long as it falls short of an actually fatal response

He goes on to say that; “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”

One question that immediately arises is  - why? Why one can’t point out the inherent illogicality and ridiculousness of some aspects of a faith or belief, or mutual contradictions, or two faced practitioners, or moral contradictions – Exactly? 

What, dare I ask, makes belief based on some aspect of religion - no matter how sincerely held so…  for want of a better word.. sacred? 

 No one would reasonably expect similar preference and deference to politically based beliefs - except perhaps the apparent British devotion to it’s National Health Service :-)

Many Nazies apparently sincerely believed in racial superiority, a master race. Would anyone now suggest that belief should not be questioned, possibly made fun of?

It seems to me that Pope Francis is skating dangerously close to saying that a physically violent response to a perceived insult - intended or not - to a person’s religion is acceptable. He just feels that actually killing people is too extreme. Conceding that, “To kill in the name of God is an aberration.”.

It seems to me that an all powerful and omnipotent being who created the cosmos would be able to take note of…  and casually mention at some later accounting if he/she felt any behaviour - was “inappropriate”, that they would not be even a tiny bit insecure or thin skinned. Further that a person truly convinced of their own faith ought to view any so-called insult as pathetically risible and beneath their notice.

Maybe the Holy Father should Google “Yo Momma” before he punches anyone out. An art form all on its own - Just sayin man…

Notice: this is in no way intended to the Pope's Mother, any parent of any senior religious figure, any person living or dead. Any resemblance is coincidental and it is intended simply as an example of the art form.

~

Yo mama so poor I saw her holding a penny and I asked "Whatcha doing with that?" and she said "What’s it look like dummy?  Taking my life savings to the bank!"

Je pense donc je suis... Charlie

 

Not much else to say - or maybe an entire essay?

What is it paints a thousand word? Oh Yes...

Walk like an Egyptian, but talk Turkey

I must admit to having a certain sympathy for the demands of the Egyptian demonstrators.

They say they want more democratic freedom, more open government, less corruption. They want president Mubarak to go as a symbol of corruption, stalled progress and all they see is wrong with their country. Hard to argue against those ideals.

Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak has been in charge for 30 years or so. He can’t argue anyone else is responsible for how Egypt is.

It is true there is a lot wrong with Egypt, high unemployment amongst the under 25s for one. But there is also a lot that has changed for the good in the lives of ordinary Egyptians in the last 30 years or so.

Some of the problems they are experiencing must be related to the current world downturn.

If they are hoping for some sort of velvet revolution though, I fear they need to ease back on their impatience.

It was not all that long ago that a not dissimilar ruler and regime was toppled in Iran. A lot of educated middle class young people were in the vanguard of that with hopes of a democracy and freedom. They foolishly imagined they could trust the hard eyed clerics, so-called “men of god” to be honest, upright and fair.

What they ended up with was a theocratic state and ill educated “black shirt thug” type religious police beating people forcing women to wear the veil and men to grow beards.

Those people who thought they were toppling a dictator in favour of freedom.. and their grown children are still crying out for real freedom and real democracy.

The Egyptian protestors should think very carefully lest they end up far worse off than they are now. They should be very wary of bringing down the system. They should be looking for changes and schooling themselves to some further patience. Firm robust patience, but patience and restraint never-the-less...

They should be looking at the example of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk the father of modern Turkey and "Kemalism"

It is perhaps Mubarak’s failure that he did not take Atatürk as his model and use his years in power to deliver a more modern democratic state.

They need to insist on change but allow the organs of the sate to maintain stability and prosperity yet deliver the change they need.

A difficult path requiring compromise and benefit for everyone

What the Egyptians need is far more akin to evolution, than revolution.

Welcom to A new US president

Today is the inauguration of President Elect Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. Arguably one of the most powerful offices on the planet.

There is an incredible optimism associated with this particular inauguration. It is seen as a sea change in US politics and society. It is doubly poignant as it comes after Martin Luther King Jnr’s day and is in many respects the realisation of his dream.

Everyone speaks of a black president. As someone pointed out to me it is largely in people’s minds. Barak Obama is in fact 50% black and that somehow makes him just “black”. You could use the same logic to say he was “White”.

Whatever, many people have invested a huge amount of hope in him. Maybe they should dial back on that just a little? He is human, not a superman. He does not have a magic wand.

If people build him up unrealistically in their minds they are likely to be correspondingly unrealistically disappointed if he can’t deliver on their every wish.

So here is a hope that people don’t expect too much and too fast and then get annoyed if he can’t do miracles. Especially with all the troubles the world is beset with right now.

Between Memorial Bridge and Arlington Cemetery, there is an inscription on the memorial to the Seabees, the U.S. Navy Construction Battalions. It says:

“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.”

Solidarity

This blog would like to express its solidarity with the people of India - and particularly the citizens of Bombay at this time.

We all know they have suffered a murderous citywide attack by calculating, but rabidly savage murderous religious maniacs, who care not what atrocities they do. Apparently driven by a twisted and wickedly distorted ideology.

Innocent honest hardworking citizens making their way home, indiscriminately mowed down in hails of bullets. Men, women and quite possibly children indiscriminately slaughtered by evil wicked people.

In stark contrast to the murdering scum who perpetrated this atrocity, tales have emerged of acts of selfless bravery, heroism and dedication to duty by ordinary citizens of Bombay such as hotel staff.

To paraphrase…

One can’t help but think that we are all citizens of Bombay now - and that may be something to take some pride in being.

Suspect attempted mass murderer’s self justification full of holes

I happened to catch the confused pathetic inept and juvenile attempt at self justification of the would be mass murderer Ahmed Abdulla Ali’s so-called ‘martyrdom’ video on TV yesterday.

I noted he was careful to try to address certain points. He was for instance anxious to point out that he had not been ‘brainwashed’ and was "educated to a high standard" and "old enough" to make his own decisions. Though age and education are no bars to ideological blindness and confused, illogical thinking.

Brainwashed? Certainly there is something peculiar, or out of the ordinary in the way strong belief can, in certain individuals, often combined with prejudice, hatred or racism, allow them to justify terrible crimes against others to themselves, that normal decent people would baulk at.

I thought it telling when he said that: ”"This the opportunity to punish and humiliate the kuffar (all non Moslems), to teach them a lesson they will never forget.” this would appear to indicate a deep religiously based hatred of all who do not share his particular beliefs, or surely he would not have used those particular terms. It is reasonable to conclude he felt that Kuffars needed to be taught a damned good lesson, simply for the crime of being Kuffars.

The thing that really struck me as undermining his whole house mental of cards was that he justified the evil he planned on the basis that the public had collectively voted for the government who were apparently oppressing his people’s lands.

His peoples lands? He lived and had made a home in the UK. He had benefited from this. He no doubt expected to enjoy and in fact did and still does benefit from the rights and protections that come with that. Among other things it allows him to plead not guilty in the face of what amounts to his own self made recorded confession.

He complained that the public hadn’t protested sufficiently against, presumably the removal of Saddam Hussein, or possibly the situation in Israel.

That they were willing to pressure the government over fox hunting, but not over his perceived persecution of Moslems. "You don't care about the Muslims that are being killed."

This sounds rather like a set piece of anti Western Democracy rhetoric circulated by hate mongers that he was not bright enough to see through. It is paranoia to suppose that bad things that happen to people who also happen to be Muslims take place because they are Muslims.

It does not follow at all that simply because there were protests and because a fox hunting ban was imposed the British public does not care that Muslims, or anyone else, are being killed. It is a Non-Sequitur and is easily shown to be the lie it is by the outcry over the killing of Muslims in the Balkans when British troops, together with other western troops including American troops, were sent in specifically to prevent this. He conveniently chooses to ignore this, or perhaps never picked it up in the course of his vaunted ‘education’.

Any deaths in Iraq are squarely at the door of the insurgents many coming in from outside the country who seem to be doing to prevent it ever getting on it’s feet. Western troops would have been long gone by now if it were not for this. It is the insurgents who are deliberately slaughtering presumably fellow Muslims wholesale.

If he felt that further demonstrations (because there were demonstrations) might have helped he could have organised a pressure group, peaceful protests, lobbying. He chose not to do this.

He also fails to follow his own distorted logic to it’s conclusion. It is probable he would have had the opportunity to vote. By his own logic he is as ‘responsible’ as any other member of the electorate for the wrongs he apparently perceives. By his own logic he is just as deserving of ‘punishment’.

More threats, allegedly from bin Laden.

A video has been released purportedly from bin Laden. Purportedly, because graphics and computers have come a long way.

For the moment lets go with the idea it really was him though. He is apparently comparing Danish cartoons of Mohamed to the crusades - one is tempted to intemperate language here...

From this one might be forgiven for assuming he is so disconnected from reality that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference between marks on paper and an actual physical conflict, where real people get really injured and killed.

It seems he even blames the Pope - given that only 3% of the population of Denmark is Roman Catholic this is a bit disingenuous, even for bin Laden. Either that, or he is simply displaying contemptuous ignorance; “All you Dhimmies look the same to me”. Given that he visited Europe to sample the’ high life’ as a teen though, probably the former.

Two percent of the Danish population is Moslem, almost as big as the Roman Catholic influence; maybe he ought to commit suicide to get revenge (fingers crossed).

By extension he blames all of Europe, clearly he has problems with rational categorisation.

He nebulously ‘threatens’ a “reckoning”. This of course allows him to claim credit for almost anything at all, as the likes of his organisation have to take what targets they can get.

The weakest targets that no decent human being would consider, even then they need to launch many plots for one to succeed. Still as the IRA once famously observed of the British Government: “You have to be ‘lucky’ all the time, we only need to be ‘lucky’ once”.

Going down this route means they have to be able to justify killing innocent people. They seem to do this by claiming they are not innocent on religious grounds. So that makes it all right then. They don’t seem to consider that they may equally well be bound for eternal damnation, viewed by other religious grounds.

The thing to remember is that you are more likely to be killed, or injured, every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Yes it does happen and if it is you personally, or someone you know or love involved it will have a massive, in the former case possibly terminal, impact.

This risk and many other risks of daily life do not stop the majority of us carrying on with our lives as per normal and does not significantly alter our behaviour. Hopefully nor should the likes of these threats.

RIP Benazir Bhutto.

It seems that Benazir Bhutto is nfortunately the latest member of her unlucky dynasty to pay the ultimate price for being a part of it.

Reports are that she was fatally injured in a suicide attack today along with followers and members of her police security detail.

It is a blow to democracy, as it was no doubt intended to be.

UK Government to pull troops out of Basra, having failed to make it safe.

The UK are handing over control of Basra to the Iraqui ‘forces’

This sounds OK, on the face of it, but a report to MPs paints a different picture.

It points out that Basra is in fact run by militias and it’s police force contains "murderous" and "corrupt" elements, it also notes that the whole purpose of the UK forces' presence may be in question due to cuts.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq, having been part of it, it is surely our moral duty to leave the people of Iraq, at least no worse off as a result of our being there, and preferably in a better situation.

Have we done so? No - Why?

Well the main reason is the insurgency. There are vast amounts of money, arms and often foreign fighters pouring into the country, whose sole purpose is ensure things there never get any better. This is funded and cannon foddered by Islamicists. Some, no doubt, see their financial contribution as charitable. It is promoted and sustained by Iran, Syria and certain elements within Pakistan, not necessarily all for the same reasons.

All this has made the job of the armed forces insanely difficult, but what has made it impossible is much closer to home and lurks in the palace of Westminster. It is the Government.

They have, as they say, overstretched and over committed the limited available forces to the point where, as good as they are, as willing and brave as they might be, there are just not enough of them to get the job done in any one place and they can’t keep up indefinitely with no rest.

There are not enough forces there to do the job and the Government has reduced them on the ground in Iraq because of political expediency. They weren’t too worried about it wen they got into it, now they want to drop the ball and run off the pitch.

There is certainly not enough funding to sustain our forces out there, again because a greedy short sighted government wanted to – and still does – want to, take advantage of the so called and largely illusory ‘peace dividend’. By cutting military funding to the bone. To the extent that vital personal equipment is not available where it needs to be and heavy equipment, even if it is there, is not quite suitable for the job in the environment and not necessarily actually functional.

They should have realised that without the pressure of the cold war superpowers that the potential for medium scale conflicts that demand more, not less, troops would rise. Having the bomb is ok as a deterrent, but is not much use in situations where you can’t use it and it is not a credible threat. Then there is no substitute for plenty of well equipped, highly trained forces.

Although it is said that war is an extension of politics, you can’t play around in a field of conflict like you can in a debate and the consequences of getting it wrong can be much more ‘permanent’ for those who actually have to try to back up the hot air. Being able to talk the talk is worse than useless if you can’t walk the walk too.

Lectures on Terrorism from Saudi Ruler

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's is planning a state visit to the UK, that formally begins on Tuesday. When interviewed by the BBC ahead of the visit he claimed could have prevented 7/11 "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy."

The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) diplomatically state they have found no evidence that any intelligence passed by the Saudis could have prevented the bombings.

The king also suggested most countries were not taking the issue seriously, "including, unfortunately, Great Britain".

This is interesting coming from the man in charge of the country that has spread Wahabism (followers of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi) on the world. A country that promotes and spreads it with its vast oil revenues. A country that gifted the world with Osama bin Laden and consequently al-Qaeda.

A man who’s regime pathetically tried to blame terrorist attacks on ‘Western alcohol smuggling rings’ and tortured confessions out of random westerners, rather than face reality.

It would be good if his own regime took the matter more seriously and stemmed the vast flow of ‘charitable’ support, that somehow ends up in the terrorists’ coffers. That promotes intolerant religious schools, teachings and teachers. That spreads the disease of terrorism.

Still his Majesty would probably rather see some of his problems exported abroad rather than surface too often in his own kingdom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Serendipity, or tongue in cheek comment? When king Abdullah turned up at the palace they played him a march in his honour. See this report from Channel 4.

“You don’t need to see his identification … These aren’t the droids you’re looking for … He can go about his business … Move along.”

Al-Qa'eda threats over Rushdie Honour

Ayman al-Zawahiri, reputed to be Osama Bin Laden's, second in command, is threatening that al-Qa'eda intends to ‘punish’ the UK for Salman Rushdie's Knighthood.

For all practical intents and purposes Al-Zawahiri, is the leader of al-Qa'eda, given that Osama bin Laden is probably out of the picture now, having not been heard of for several years.

He issued the threat of "a very precise response" directly to Gordon Brown via a video, with the fruit loop title of "Malicious Britain and it's Indian Slaves" (obviously an aficionado of 50’s ‘B’ movie titles), posted on jihadi websites, claiming it insulted Islam to reward the author of The Satanic Verses.

He went on to helpfully explain "I say to Blair's successor that the policy of your predecessor drew catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq and even in the centre of London,". He ranted on. "And if you did not understand, listen, we are ready to repeat it for you, God willing, until we are sure you have fully understood."

Hopefully like the rest of humanity ‘im up there’ is a little fed up with al-Zawahiri and his ilk and not willing at all.

Given the performance of al-Qa'eda's recent mass murder attempts in London and Glasgow, supposedly also inspired by the Knighthood according to jihadi websites, one might even interpret the results as a negative vote from on high. The Petrol bomber was almost literally hoist by his own petard when the Molotov cocktail he threw bounced back and immolated - only him. Now that's what you'd call precisely targeted. Consumed by his own evil so to speak.

Security experts indicate the Glasgow and London attempted atrocities could not actually have been inspired by the Knighthood, as it takes months to put something like that together - possibly involving a year in Pakistan training for the perpetrators. That of course doesn’t stop al-Qa'eda attempting to use the Honour to thinly justify attacks they may have had in the pipeline though.

The Government should not let the ‘reasonableness challenged’, no matter where they are found, how long their beards, or how interesting their head gear, influence decisions on who gets what award.

Maybe factors like merit and talent ought to come into it - but not the International Association of Ranters and Carpet Chewers.

Having made the decision the Government must stick with it. If they don’t they might as well check with Al-Qa'eda on everything down to if it’s even ok to use soft toilet paper in the Palace of Westminster’s WCs - and we all know that’s probably already mandated by some EC regulation that never saw democratic light of day ;-)

Gordon Brown should have this video cut to a large format VHS cassette and returned to Mr al-Zawahiri, together with detailed instructions as to exactly what to do with it...

Why were bombers free to practice murder?

Yesterday four of the failed London Tube Islamist suicide bombers were found guilty. The jury is still out on two other ‘alleged’ plotters Manfo Asiedu, the 5th bomber, and Adel Yahya.

We have only their incompetence, by the Grace of God, to thank for the fact that they did not actually slaughter hundreds. But they meant it and we were apparently saved by the fact that Muktar Ibrahim could not even manage to attain the debased levels of competence required to pass the modern Maths GCSE. Still he will now have the necessary time in prison to rectify that.

What is of concern is the fact that these men came to the UK begging asylum, claiming their own countries were ‘too dangerous’ for them. The UK of course welcomed them, ensuring they had the opportunity to make the UK too dangerous for everyone else

After claiming asylum the mathematically challenged and terrorist trained Muktar Ibrahim had apparently been arrested for breach of the peace while handing out extremist literature in Oxford Street, London and subsequently skipped bail. Why was he bailed? Why on earth was he not in jail (Oh yes - no room) awaiting trial and deportation (No, not deportation - judges always assume everywhere is too dangerous to send asylum seekers back to, even the Isle of Wight) ?

It seems literally insane that, despite this, he was actually granted British Citizenship. One must conclude the authorities in charge of granting citizenship, or the rules they slavishly follow, are even more useless than Ibrahim.

Do they ever bother to check with the Police to see if they may be wanted for instance?.

Why should anyone with any criminal offences ever be granted citizenship, except under rare and extreme circumstances?

Why such a lackadaisical attitude to asylum seekers? Why, for instance, ever grant asylum for someone who has been waiting in a camp in France to get over here? Is France too dangerous for them too?

Why such pathetically useless tracking?