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’.

Foreign Office Minister advocates UK gives up Permanent Seat on UN Security Council

Former UN Deputy Secretary General and now newly minted UK Foreign Office Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown (what is it with Nu-Lab PMs littering the ranks of the not necessarily derserving high and mighty with namesakes?) is advocating the UK gives up it’s seat on the UN Security Council to the EU.

Nice to know the Foreign Office Minister has Parliament and the UK’s very best interests at heart then ;-)

After all, we can be 100% sure the EU would vote just the way we would want, in every set of circumstances, knowing how similarly the French and Germans see things to us, in all circumstances. Surely the French should be falling over themselves to give up their seat.

Day, Cold, Hell, In?

This was obviously in his master plan last October, while he was still the UN's Deputy Secretary General, when he advised EU diplomats in Brussels that the EU would eventually have single seat within the UN. "I think it will go in stages. We are going to see a growing spread of it institution by institution," He went on that he hoped it would happen "as quickly as possible. I'm a huge fan of it."

When confronted with this evidence the Foreign office argued that had made those comments before he was made a Government minister.

Oh well that’s all right then - So are they suggesting he lying then, to suit his words to what his audience wanted to hear - and does not still hold those views? Possibly quite a plausible argument when considering a politician’s words, but would you want to bet on it?

Or did his words reflect his true intentions and loyalties? If so where exactly are his primary loyalties?

With the UN or the EU?

Why would a PM who was loyal to parliament appoint someone like that?