Nov 142015

Let us not dignify the mad psycho-killers who went on a rampage in Paris last night with the title of "terrorists"; there is very little dignity to the title of "terrorist" – they are after all scum of the earth, but these mad psycho-killers are too contemptible for even that status.

If as is likely that the mad psycho-killers were aligned with ISIS, let us not call them muslims; let us instead call them islamic apostates. There is nothing that will insult them and those who would follow in their footsteps more than to call them apostates.

And to those who would blame Syrian refugees (like the fascist I unfriended last night) :-

To people blaming refugees for attacks in Paris tonight. Do you not realise these are the people the refugees are trying to run away from..?

Sep 082015

The big story of the day is the news that a UK drone strike took out an ISIS terrorist in Syria; one who used to be a UK citizen. After all, ISIS claims to be a nation state and so their "fighters" (actually terrorists) could be said to have given up their previous citizenship.

Arguing about whether it was justified is completely pointless without access to all of the relevant information which we won't get. It would be a very good idea for someone sensible (i.e. not a sleezy politician) outside of the intelligence community to review that secret information and to be the one authorising such activities.

But is a drone strike self-defence? It may well be under military terminology or even under international law.

In terms of ordinary understanding of self-defence, it is not – in terms of someone assaulting you, it is self-defence to break someone's arm as they are striking you; it is not self-defence to break their arm because they have promised to assault you tomorrow.As ordinary people understand the term, a drone strike is not self-defence.

It might be somewhat less contraversial to call a spade a spade and term this attack a "pre-emptive defence againt an imminent mass terrorist act" (or whatever phrase would fit the facts). On the face of it, using a drone strike to kill two terrorists only who are about to launch a terrorist attack, is the least-worst action. 

That does not justify so-called "collateral damage" (in honest spade terms, that would be the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians), and anyone who authorises drone strikes that results in murder should be prosecuted.

Aug 202014

The average Islamic extremist when he has time to think about anything other that licking his favourite pig, is under the mistaken belief that the western world is fundamentally weak. Weakened by our dissipated and irreligious lives; weakened by our usual sympathy for the underdog.

This is perfectly understandable for the moronic medieval minds that most Islamic extremists carry around with them. Because in some ways the west does look weak.

But the west is not weak as it has shown again and again since the start of WWII. However it is reluctant to start anything without taking care that it is doing the right thing. Time and again, whenever the west has gotten involved with something without thinking enough in advance (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) it has gotten bogged down in something it realises that it shouldn’t have started.

But the west will get involved if it is provoked enough and it believes that it is on the right side.

The beheading of James Foley by the pig-licking thugs sometimes known as ISIS, ISIL, IS or just Daesh would appear on the surface to be an attempt to discourage the US and the west from getting involved. It would seem that the US air strikes and the push by the Kurdish and Iraqi military have started making things difficult for IS, and they would like to stop the US air strikes.

What they have accomplished is to encourage the US and the rest of the west to stay involved and take more measures.

They may regard themselves as some sort of ultra-religious freedom fighters, but anybody who uses extortion, flogging, amputations, rape, and indiscriminate killings are nothing more mindless pig-licking thugs.




Jun 162014

There is a fair bit of news around at present with respect to the current sectarian conflict in Iraq, including the news of mass killings by ISIS. And of course we have a number of talking heads appearing on TV talking about the causes of the sectarian conflict. And often blaming the US intervention in Iraq.

Which is of course a complete red herring.

The previous regime in Iraq kept the lid on sectarian conflicts between Shias and Sunnis with extreme repression. Even a very superficial look at the history of the conflict shows that sectarian conflict was almost inevitable after the removal of Saddam Hussain.

And the blame for that conflict lies with the extremists within both Shia and Sunni communities – not with the Americans or British who fought to remove Saddam Hussain. Whilst the western forces may well be guilty of many things – including human rights abuses – this sectarian conflict is not something they brought about.

Ultimately sectarian conflicts in Iraq can only be solved by the Iraqis themselves.


WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.