Thanks for posting this.

Good work.

Hardly a good advertisement, is it? Listing three well-known nut-jobs says all we need to know about your mindset. And you wonder why you got the sack!

Signed!

Off topic but just finished reading “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo” and just wanted to say it is a great, great book and as a fan and scholar of Southern Africa, it has opened my eyes and provided much stimulus for research to the Western part of that continent.

Keep up the good work Craig and ignore the tits!

kardinal,

They are men of conscience; such men get sacked by those who lack it.

I trust you’re gainfully employed?

Luv and kisses JG.

Kardinal Thingy

Craig ‘Got the sack’ because he refused to suck up to corrupt power, or to be intimidated by it. Behaviour that takes REAL guts since it renders you toxic to the ‘The Establishment’ which, to the extent that it is seen as a real threat, can be dangerous to more than just your job prospects. Bliar is an almost archetypal example of just what obsessive sucking up to REAL power does to the soul. The man is a ghastly, transparent hypocrite – but a rich one now eh?

@kardinal birkutzki:

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the web site that Craig refers to. It is perhaps unfortunate that the address contains the phrase “blairfoundation” as if it is something that Blair supports, or has set up himself. It is no such thing – it is an attempt to bring him to justice for his war crimes in Iraq.

Also: you may be mistaking this for the “Blair Faith Foundation”, which Blair did set up. The two things are not the same.

“…Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Ken Loach…”

All the usual suspects. Yawn. Haven’t these people got better things to do with their time? They know full well that this is a futile exercise. You may despise Blair but I happen to think he was a great prime minister (but then you lot probably think Lenin was a decent sort of bloke and not eally a mass murderer). But see this link for details of Blair’s charitable works. At least he has the power and money to do this sort of thing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/15/tony-cherie-blair-charities

@kardinal – I spoke to soon. I release you were referring to Chomsky et al – my apologies for misreading your post!

Well, that they are “nutjobs” is not at all well-known – that is merely your opinion. Perhaps you could tell us either why you think they are nutjobs, or indeed (by implication) why Blair should not find himself in the dock at the Hague?

@eddie – comments about Lenin are totally off-topic. However, if you wish, you could put forward arguments as to why you think Blair should not find himself indicted for war crimes. Surely since there is doubt in the matter, and you presumably are sure he would not be found guilty, why not agree to the trial on the basis he would be freed with an apology from the court?

Or perhaps you are worried that international law might (a) apply to Blair and convict him, and (b) run contrary to your views about UK/US invasions of other countries whenever we feel like it?

Eddie,

You still haven’t answered my question from a previous comment. That question is

Do you work for the intelligence services?

This question now also applies to Kardinal Birkutzk.

Ruth

No I don’t and the question says more about your mindset than about me.

Jon, perhaps it would be more sensible if you set out your legal case for a trial. This has been raised for at least the last six years and the response from the ICC has been? Zero. Perhaps you would point to a single objective, internationally known jurist who would give credibility to such a case?

There is no case to answer. Iraq was freed from tyranny under a UN mandate and the left should applaud it, just as all the millions of Iraqi trade unionists and leftists who suffered under Saddam applaud it. The recent elections, which saw a resounding defeat for Islamists and a victory for secularists, proves that Iraq is on track to be a successful democracy.

Bliar and his self publicist wife are given a puff in this Observer article.

Laughable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/15/tony-cherie-blair-charities

What was that awful book called? Oh yes – ‘Speaking for Myself’ – a snip at Amazon reduced from $30 to $19.80

He is a psychopath and she has what is called chutzpah?

I’ve just posted a fairly detailed reply to eddie. Since it contained links, it has been queued for moderation/approval so, if past experience is any guide, you may be spared my cogitations.

We have no accurate idea of what’s going on in Iraq. We can’t be sure of what is published is correct.

The most worrying thing is the number of mercenaries, I think there are about 30,000, under the overall control of Tim Spicer. Their activities are not scrutinised so how do we not know they subject the Iraqi people to a regime of terror. We have not been given a clear idea of their role. Also how do we not know that the Iraqi election was fixed.

Eddie needs to know that the letter is addressed to ”To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.” and not to the ICC in the Hague.

The foundation has had the opinion of a leading international lawyer in this move.

Eddie will know that the first person to be indicted before the ICC is before it now. Lubunga is charged with various abuses of children including their involvement in fighting.

Eddie might recall that several or more soldiers were sent ill-trained and UNDER SEVENTEEN to Iraq under HM. He might wish to forget the latter peccadillo given the enormity of Blair’s other crimes.

Look again Eddie at Ali Abbas, and with those others who scoff, say whether you are content for more children to suffer. Shame on you and on all those people who, like the people observed by the mother of Amira Hass, who ‘looked from the side’ as the women prisoners were loaded on to railway trucks.

For truth, reason and justice

David Halpin FRCS

We thank Craig for writing of this

The legal case has been set out many times, and I am guessing you are aware of this but reject the various arguments. You are free to do so, but they still exist and stand up to legal scrutiny. They are detailed in the site that Craig supplied, and not for the first time either. It is of note that Cherie Booth’s legal firm released an opinion statement (whilst Blair was still in office) that:

* the power of impeachment does exist in British law, and the courts would probably recognise it

* there were good grounds for starting impeachment proceedings against the Prime Minister

It was comforting to see that at least Cherie was deliberately removed from the process, lest a massive conflict of interest occur. She in any case is on record as believing her husband “did the right thing” (and that he is earnest in his beliefs, which I imagine is true in itself, though no defence).

Anyway, surely if there are grounds for impeachment on “high crimes and misdemeanours” then this would give a solid moral ground for considering “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” at the ICC? One cannot have one without the other, in my view. It was a shame at the time the corporate media generally left the story well alone, but it was to be expected since it would have effectively indicted them too (in a decent democracy the “free press” would not have allowed the govt to get away with such repeated instances of “big lie” propaganda).

You do make a good point about the response from the ICC – in all honesty I don’t know. I am not an international lawyer, so would not be certain if the call for a trial would need to be officially raised by a member state in order for the ICC to respond to it. If so, it is a question of the first country to dare to pop its head above the parapet (in all likelihood to be immediately shot down by US/UK bullies, as the historical record illustrates well).

Alternatively, they may be silent for the same reason that the UN are silent on most things that would make sane people cry: protocol. Kofi Annan in his outgoing speech criticised Bush, somewhat obliquely, and even this was outspoken by usual standards. Whilst in office his criticism of breaches of international law (say of Israel, or the US) were even more muted, or more usually, were completely silent.

Whether the left should applaud invasive humanitarian intervention is debatable, but we should remember this is also a canard put up by hawks to support any invasion they like. If the war was about humanitarianism, then we would not have rushed to install international energy and construction firms whilst denying reconstruction work to local workers and factories. I can hardly do the topic justice here but the aftermath of the invasion brought with it the most remarkable and deliberate corruption, as detailed in Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine. I genuinely hope that Iraq becomes a successful democracy, but that same book details how the US has no intention of allowing it – and that an ex-CIA operative can become Iraqi Prime Minister without arousing substantial worldwide media condemnation is a remarkable feat in itself.

The leftists and trade unionists are incidentally divided on whether the assassination of Hussein was a good thing – whilst he had some support he was nevertheless an atrocious dictator. But the move was nevertheless seen as the heavy fist of imperialism and I have no doubt that this remains the case. But how can we put ourselves forward as saviours if it was the West who put such a nasty man into power in the first place? This sums up the failure of the right: it is in favour of war that accidentally nets huge profits for corporations and the military-industrial complex, taking away tax monies from countries whose citizenry could desparately do with the social programs that the war fund would have purchased, and all the while failing to explain, as is the case with Iraq, that it was the preference for militarism and profit that caused the problems in the first place.

That all aside, you haven’t answered my central question. If you believe there is no case to answer, and you believe the lies pushed out by Blair, and are willing to tolerate the fabrication of (UK and US) intelligence, then surely you would *support* a trial? It would certainly keep us leftists quiet for a bit, and meanwhile the 1 million + dead in Iraq in your “humanitarian” war deserve an answer too.

[Note - my response above was to @eddie, in case that's not clear]

What Bliar started with his crooked crony Bush along with his cabal, Obama is continuing. I have just read that 31 people have been killed today by a US airstrike close to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, only days after 25 were killed similarly.

US Airstrike Kills 31 in Pakistan

PIR ZUBAIR SHAH, NYTimes

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m51833&hd=&size=1&l=e

Here’s that post of mine without the links – since that seems to be the only way to ensure it appears. (Craig – it really is a big turn off from bothering to comment in these circumstances)

“…perhaps it would be more sensible if you set out your legal case for a trial”

Set out in the letter accompanying the petition.

“This has been raised for at least the last six years and the response from the ICC has been? Zero.”

Illustrative of a syndrome commonly referred to as ‘Victor’s Justice’. In spite of it being largely boycotted by the US, it is nonetheless a ‘Washington Consensus’ creation. To seriously advocate that it concern itself with anyone other than designated ‘enemies of The West’ (as currently interpreted by those in control of such designations) would be a career-ending move for any Legal-Eagle with Establishment aspirations (A bit like Craig really).

“Perhaps you would point to a single objective, internationally known jurist who would give credibility to such a case?”

The Authoritative UN view is reported in The Guardian here: (Link deleted)

It refers to a EuroLegal document summarised thus:

“Among the world’s foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression”. A ‘War of Aggression being the most heinous of the Internationally defined and accepted ‘War Crimes’

As for Iraq being ‘Feed from a tyranny under UN Mandate” – absolute balderdash. There was no UN mandate and the UN itself says so. And Saddam Hussain? – You (we) are very selective in our choices of Tyrants to be deposed aren’t you (we)? How would you characterise Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan and a host of other gross and offensive tyrannies that we find it expedient to cultivate as ‘allies’ rather than ‘liberate’ for example?

Your ignorance of the real implications of the recent Iraqi election results is touching in it’s child-like naivety

“International Criminal Court can, if the key countries ratify the Rome Statute in the foreseeable future, effectively end the era of double standards in international criminal justice and thus contribute to a global order of peace. The deterrent effect of an end to impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide should not be underestimated.”…

http://tinyurl.com/dja9n2

Whatever you say, if the legal case is strong then due process will take its course. However, I am willing to give each of you one thousand pounds if Blair ever appears before the ICC. It will not happen. To suggest that he should volunteer to appear is just absurd. Would any person volunteer to appear before a court when they have not been charged? Would you?

David Halpin I respect your views but distrust anyone who puts letters after their name. Why? What’s more I am afraid that I despise pacifism and everything that you stand for. I am glad that my grandfather’s generation stood up to fascism. I wish more of the left would do so now, instead of appeasing it.

Sabretache – perhaps you haven’t studied the results of the recent elections in Iraq? I suggest you do so before passing cynical comments. Iraq will be judged as a success in the long run. We may well have supported Saddam in the early days, but that is realpolitik for you – we supported him against a greater evil – i.e. the theocratic fascists of Iran, the regime that regularly hangs Gay people. As for deposing lesser tyrants before bigger ones, you pose a question that I have regularly asked from the other side. Why are you and yours so obsessed with Gaza when thousands more are dying in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan and other tyrannies? As it happens I would support action to make any functioning member country of the UN uphold basic principles of free speech, habeas corpus, human rights etc, whether it is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Russia, Iran or a host of other countries. Perhaps I could pose a question to you – are there, or have there ever been, circumstances where the invasion of a sovereign country would be justified? Rwanda? Sudan? Zimbabwe? Do you not think that the suffering of their peoples would ever justify intervention?

‘Tis a nice though to think that maybe Blair has been supported in all these very nicely paid speaking engagements that he’s been doing lately because those who live in the tops of the trees know full well that he’s going to need it all to fund his equally expensive defence team in the not-to-distant future?

And by the way, Iraq is not a member party of the ICC and therefore cannot bring a case in respect of any alleged crime committed on its territory. Only the UN can do that.

In general there is an overwhelming, massive, concensus, amongst lawyers and experts in international law, that the seige of Iraq, the unilateral imposition of the two no-fly zones, the blokade, the invasion, the occupation, the ‘genocide’ were blatantly, monsterously, illegal.

If we lived in funtioning democracy; Blair and most of his cabinet, who were complicit in war crimes, would certainly all be in jail, especially if we tried them using the same kind of victor’s court we used to ‘try’ Saddam, which Blair regarded as fair and impartial.

Only our Western leaders can get away with murder on massive scale and still walk around without fear, even though they are clearly war criminals of the first water.

It’s almost as if we have used a perverted logic that states that the leaders of democratic, Western countries, cannot be guilty of war crimes, therefore, they have carte blanche to do whatever they like and commit any crime with impunity, provided we define the enemy as ‘outlaws.’ Outlaws in the old-fashioned sense of being individuals who are outside the law and can be hunted down like animals and brought in dead or alive.

War in Iraq, nukes which didn’t exist there, 9/11… People, can anyone tell me about the just cause for war in Afghanistan? We are receiving some credible information Afghani invasion had been planned well before 9/11. Particularly, the Uzbekistani regime had secret talks in 2000-2001 with the US and NATO on the subject of military base and transit of convoys thru it’s territory. Craig, did you know about that when you were ambassador in Tashkent?

Eddie, you ask: “are there, or have there ever been, circumstances where the invasion of a sovereign country would be justified?”

My own view is that, yes, there are. In cases where humanitarian abuses are so extreme that it would amount to complicity with murder not to intervene. Unfortunately I can think of no instance where an invasion has taken place for this reason. Where possible I believe the best solution is usually for the mass of the population to rise up and overthrow the offending regimes from within, as happened in Nicaragua, Iran, Chile, Cuba, Grenada, Romania, Philippines etc etc. Note however how many of those were immediately demonised by the West, which obviously preferred its client despots who ruled before and in many instances actively worked (or works) to reverse the populist overthrow.

I find your simplistic acceptance of all the propaganda you are fed astonishing. You mention Zimbabwe, but who is a better example of a western client despot than Mugabe? Reacquaint yourself with the Carrington-led shenanigans at the Lancaster House conference that led to Mugabe’s installation as president if you need convincing.

Regarding Iran, may I ask on what you base your view that it “regularly hangs Gay people”? Although homosexuality is technically a crime in Iran, the evidential requirements to bring a charge (four eye-witnesses who have actually seen the details of the act) are so demanding as to make punishment almost impossible. You’ll be telling me next that you believe Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, or that he denies the holocaust!

Gentlemen,

“Eddie” is winding people up for the “fun” of it, as a kind of exercise. His comments shouldn’t be taken seriously, though this is difficult, as they are so irritating and time consuming. So often with Eddie one has to start with the invention of the wheel and move forward from there. There are so many assumptions, distortions, and so much bias built into his comments, that one doesn’t know where to start, and that’s before one gets to the substance of the individual comment.

Eddie seems accutely aware of the failings of others and the holes in their arguments and logic, yet when it comes to his own blindness, his own faith, and truth, he appears totally oblivious and seems willing to accept authority without question.

“If we lived in funtioning democracy” – er, we do actually. Can you suggest improvements to our parliamentary system? Or perhaps there is a country that is better in your view? If you don’t like our system you are quite at liberty to change it, providing you can get a majority on your side. It’s called the democratic process. I think you are just frustrated because you know that your talk of war crimes is just bluff and bluster. Writerman I would like to see evidence of your “overwhelming consensus” – where is your proof? Have you actually read the Rome statute? Iraq is not a member, as I have pointed out.

MJ – Mugabe won a huge majority in 1980 and was clearly the people’s choice, having led the armed resistance. But I agree, he was a murderous thug even then. I don’t think you could describe him as a friend of the West. Do you have any evidence that “the mass of the population” supported Castro or Khomeini, for example? Interesting point, but I don’t think the people of Zimbabwe will have the strength to get rid of Mugabe now, and in my view it is a clear cut case that justifies intervention, on precisely the conditions you set out. Not to intervene would prolong a greater evil. Regarding Iran, I prefer to rely on the evidence provided by Peter Tatchell on the execution of Gay people. He has documented many, many cases. Your comment about four eyewitnesses (in a police state!!!) is laughable.

“Do you have any evidence that “the mass of the population” supported Castro or Khomeini, for example?”

Just read the history of those revolutions.

“I don’t think you could describe him [Mugabe] as a friend of the West”

Why do you think he was given a kmighthood?

“Your comment about four eyewitnesses (in a police state!!!) is laughable”

That is as may be, but it is the law.

17 February 2009

“Two US missile strikes in Pakistan in three days kill more than 60″…

http://tinyurl.com/bo5ykf

February 17, 2009

“West Bank settlement gets green light for major expansion”…

http://tinyurl.com/dyqy7s

Well I know the history – Castro took power with a small group of rebels and has never been elected. He and Che killed thousands of opponents. Cuba has a great health service, but then Hitler built the autobahns and made the trains run on time, so that proves nothing. Khomeini killed thousands of leftists and trade unionists. If either country had a true democracy they would not be ruled by communists or theocrats.

I agree about Mugabe, he should never have been given a kinighthood, but that was a long time ago.

There is plenty of evidence to show that political dissidents in Iran are being stitched up on anti-Gay charges. The “law” in such a country means very little. It is just power in action.

Did you spot that Bliar has landed himself another large cheque, this time from the Dan David Foundation? Never heard of him by the way – another one of Tony’s cronies no doubt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7893500.stm

You can use this BBC report as an emetic.

“There is plenty of evidence to show that political dissidents in Iran are being stitched up on anti-Gay charges”

These are just claims, not backed by evidence. The group Iran hunts down and prosecutes most vigorously are Mossad spies, something it does with some success.

“If either country had a true democracy they would not be ruled by communists or theocrats”

Perhaps the reason the revolutions in those countries were so successful is because that is precisely what the majority of the population did want. In the case of Iran, you simply do not comprehend how overwhelming was its revolution and how strong the people’s desire for Islamic law. It’s just that you don’t approve of it. Shame they didn’t ask your opinion Eddie. I’m sure you’d have put them right.

Mossad spies eh? Some success eh? Oh dear. What proof do you have that said persons are actually Mossad spies? Don’t you have an inkling of how such regimes work? Anyone can be labelled as a Mossad spy if the regime wills it.

I suggest that you have a look at Tatchell’s site – I trust him moer than you. Mind you, their President says that there are no Gays in Iran, or perhaps just a few, so you may be right. If no one is Gay how can they kill them? Obviously they find some other charge. Credulity MJ.

http://www.petertatchell.net/

“What proof do you have that said persons are actually Mossad spies?”

The Israeli condemnation that follows.

“Anyone can be labelled as a Mossad spy if the regime wills it”

You’re beginning to sound dangerously like a conspiracy theorist Eddie.

“Mind you, their President says that there are no Gays in Iran”

He said that homosexuality in Iran is not the issue that it is in the US. See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm for a calm and informed appraisal of the matter.

Eddie is clearly a good, earnest man of the New Left. aka Bliar’s sanctimonious pleadings: he means well – but remains blind to the ancient truism (variously attributed to Dr Johnson, John Ray and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux) that ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’. His ‘belief’ in the de-rigeur Establishment narrative of the benign intent of the West, busily engaged in making the world a better place is akin to that of a child’s belief and wonder at Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The difference being that the purveyors of those myths have the child’s welfare genuinely at heart; whereas the ‘deep-state’ agenda of the former, with it’s clever adjunct of ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ designed to keep earnest young Men-of-the-Left on board, is far and away removed from the real interests of the domestic populations it enthrals and the foreign ones it seeks to ‘liberate’.

Here are a few (tongue-in-cheek, rhetorical type) questions for Eddie:

Does he think the West would have any interest in the Middle East or Central Asia were it not for Oil/Gas and its transportation? – or are we to believe that precipitating over 1 million premature deaths, 2+ million orphans, 4.5 million refugees plus destroying the country’s utilities infrastructure and cultural heritage is a price worth paying for his precious concept of ‘democracy’

If the Middle East were populated by a predominantly Buddhist population (for example), would the ‘terrorist threat’ remain predominantly a Muslim one?

If an Arab army were to invade his country with the stated aim of making it safe for Islam – or whatever, would Eddie become: a – a willing collaborator, b – a cowed and frightened individual keeping his head down to protect his family and hopefully avoid the attentions of the invaders, or c – an ‘Insurgent’, or ‘Militant’ – pick your own demonising euphemism?

Assuming he was numbered among the 7-8 million souls referred to above, would he be inclined to thank the invaders for their selfless help in ‘liberating’ him?

How many countries has Iran launched unprovoked attacks against in the past 100 years?

Ditto the USA, Israel and the UK?

Who engineered the overthrow of the first democratically elected government in the Middle East and what was this connected with (Clue – 2 possibilities – Humanitarian intervention or Oil)?

Why is it OK for Israel to abrogate the NNPT and posses nuclear weapons at all; let alone whilst senior Israeli political and military figures like Professor Martin van Creveld make statements such as this this – and with nary a whisper of protest from anyone in the West?

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force… . We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”

Fine post Sabretache. For anyone who’s interested the full transcript of van Creveld’s interview can be found at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1154.htm

In the UK we have the appearance of democracy in that there are elections. However, the Glenthroes result raises the suspicion that the process was flawed. Also having elections doesn’t mean the country is democratic if people don’t know what goes on behind the curtains. I believe there’s a power behind the scenes that determines important policy particularly foreign and that Tony Blair was an instrument of this power to deceive the population who were against the war. This power acts with the intelligence services in all kinds of illegal activities which can result in the death and imprisonment of totally innocent UK citizens.

Ruth

You are spot on.

Labour support in meltdown…

http://tinyurl.com/c3uhqk

Looks like independence for Scotland?.

MJ OK you give me a verifiable link to proof that Israel has condemned such incidents and I will believe you. I don’t think any country would ever confirm or deny that one of their agents has been captured.

This is the transcript of his speech at Columbia University on 24 September 2007. A false translation perhaps? I don’t think so. You can find the whole thing for yourself. The man is a fool.

“PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. (Laughter.) We don’t have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it. (Laughter.)

sabretache – answering questions with more questions is not a great rhetorical device and you really should get your apostrophes sorted out. However, I will have the decency to answer at least some of yours. Of course we are interested in the oil of the middle east just as you are interested in driving a car. Where do you think your petrol comes from? It’s called trade and it makes the world go round. Your numbers of dead are plain wrong – you have swallowed the Lancet propaganda. It is predominantly Muslim fundamentalists who are blowing people up with suicide bombs and flying planes into buildings so the terrorist threat is primarly coming from a perverse reading of Islam, yes. Buddhists are not doing these things. An arab army has neither the power nor the ability to invade, so the question is meaningless. I take it from your line of questioning that you are as Israel obsessed as most of the others on this board. Israel is a democracy in a region surrounded by hostile, non-democratic countries. It has the right to exist and the right to defend itself. History shows that it has been repeatedly attacked by its neighbours, many of whom wish to destroy it. In such circumstances, I think I would prefer to retain a strong defence system. You might also ask why Pakistan or India has the bomb, or any other country for that matter. They just do. I am sure that I could find a quote from a random professor that is just as mad – Chomsky for example – it doesn’t mean it represents the view of the government.

“I believe there’s a power behind the scenes that determines important policy”

So do I Ruth. They are the elite banking families – Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc – who want a single world government with themselves in charge.

I’d also like to say that your advice (in an earlier topic thread) that we should make arrangements to grow our own food was in my opinion very wise.

“OK you give me a verifiable link to proof that Israel has condemned such incidents and I will believe you”

Keep a regular eye on two sites: the Israeli haartz.com and the Iranian presstv.ir. Both are reasonably objective and carry more detailed and accurate reporting on the various Israel/Iran spats than you’ll find elsewhere.

I think you’ll be surprised by the latter; it even reports on Premiership football!

Eddie, for your information, Martin van Creveld is a senior military adviser to the IDF. Hardly a mad random professor.

Also I think you really ought to wait for a full and independent investigation into 9/11 before jumping to conclusions as to who was responsible. Also, since when was invasion the same thing as ‘trade’? And doesn’t Palestine (also democratic) have a right to exist and fight for its land, currently illegally occupied by Israel?

25 January 2009

“Enjoying the recession”…

http://tinyurl.com/cgewoa

I may be wrong, but aren’t many middle eastern oil states among the richest in the world? I am assuming that they are not selling sand to the West. Have we invaded any of them lately? Is there any reason why Iraq, a sovereign democratic country (which was invaded to make it so, lest we forget) cannot be as rich?

Oh Gawd, not 9/11 again. I think I’ve had my fill of conspiracy theories – what with this old chestnut and Ruth’s notion of some evil (presumably Jewish) cabal that is running the world.

Palestine is not a country and never has been. They rejected the opportunity in 1948. But yes it does have a right to exist and it does have a right to its own territory. If they stopped lobbing missiles into Israel it would be a good start.

In two minds whether to sign this petition.Would be more keen if there were more about Blair’s nasty carryings-on in the former Jugoslavia.

Blair was involved in more than one unprovoked act of aggression.

“Have we invaded any of them lately?”

Iraq? US military bases in many of the others. Iran very soon…

“Iraq, a sovereign democratic country which was invaded to make it so”

Come again? Invaded so that Israel could secure a reliable source of oil I’m sure you meant to say.

“If they stopped lobbing missiles into Israel it would be a good start”

Just how do you propose they try to get their land back after 40 years of illegal occupation and no help from the rest of the world? Sending polite letters to the Knesset?

“Ruth’s notion of some evil (presumably Jewish) cabal that is running the world”

Here’s a thought-provoking link: film producer Aaron Russo speaking a few months before he died of cancer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

A You Tube video here of Chris Coverdale of Make Wars History talking about Blair’s war crimes. John MvDonnell, sadly the PM we didn’t have, introduces him.

http://www.youtube.com/makewarshistory?gl=GB&hl=en-GB

“In the UK we have the appearance of democracy in that there are elections.”

Quite so. And said elections allow us merely to choose between frontmen who stand between us and the real power. Government itself formulatates almost no policy of real long-term significance. That’s done by what Thatcher and others called the ‘parallel government”.

Now let’s go a little further and name names.

Having plundered Africa for its riches, Cecil Rhodes decided to use his vast fortune to set up the imperialist Rhodes-Milner Group in 1891. The ‘Round Table’ society was subsequently set up in 1910 to provide a ‘charitable’ face to the public. Like most of these groups, its structure was freemasonic in design, using a pleasant facade comprised of the lower orders. Think of it like a mafia deli – with the shopfront selling great coffee and exquisite sandwiches while the bodies are chopped up in the back room, far from public view.

In 1919 perhaps the most important progeny of the R-MG was launched: the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a policy-developing think tank whose members would never have to be troubled by the awkwardness of actually being elected.

With Britain’s parallel government now established it was a mere two years before a sister organisation came along to help guide the future of her great partner. The Council on Foreign Relations would play a huge role in formulating the long-term policies of the US. Together, these two groups would steer the ship of what Prof Carroll Quigley termed the ‘Anglo-American Establishment’ (see his book of the same title for much more on this). Most importantly, they could do so without the bothersome interference of the electorate.

So yes, Ruth – you are quite correct. I do think all of us here should be honest, though. Who among us didn’t at one time think as Eddie does? That it is somehow ‘our’ system – that we live in a ‘free’ society – or that voting can ever do more than change the covers on the furniture? I know I once did.

But a willingness to face the truth – however ugly or uncomfortable it proves to be – is corrosive to the childish trust our elite class wish to perpetuate in us. The surface changes, but the Patrician/Plebian struggle has always remained.

Eddie

All your stuff is so NuLab PC. Almost as though it was lifted from a parliamentary candidates crib sheet. You don’t perchance have aspirations in that direction do you? – ‘Cos all this stuff would look sooo good on your CV – but I guess you know that don’t you?.

Here are few more rhetoricals for you – about Israel mainly. That model Apartheid Democracy; born of terrorist violence and sustained by it on stolen land and borrowed time ever since.

Which country is in breach of more UN Security Council resolutions than any other?

How many Israelis were killed by Hamas rockets in the 6 months leading to the breaking of the cease-fire? (Clue: it was less than 1)

Who broke the ceasefire on US presidential election day 4th November – how many people did they kill doing so?

Which is closest to the Israeli/Palestinian deaths ratio since the inception of the Israeli State – 2/1, 10/1, 100/1,

Who won the Internationally supervised Palestinian election in 2006 with close to 70% of the vote against their man rival with about 30% – IOW who are the legitimate DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of the Palestinian territories?

Which Presidential term expired on 5th January but is still treated by both Israel and the West as the legitimate spokesman for Palestinians?

Which territory has been rigidly blockaded by land, sea and air ever since those elections and in spite of ceasefire undertakings?

How many miles of 1. Apartheid walls and 2. ‘Jews-only’ roads +Jewish settlements have been built in the Palestinian West Bank territory in the past 5 years – in further gross violation of UN resolutions?

I could go on an on but …. water off a duck’s back an’ all that.

Anyway, here’s a bit of light relief – though Kadima don’t think it’s funny. Yesterday, the Kadima Web Site was hacked. It was spotted and blocked within the hour but not before the Google cache did it’s stuff. That now appears to have been purged but for anyone interested in seeing what would have greeted a visitor to the Israeli ruling party web site for a while yesterday, have a look at this: http://tinyurl.com/clcpoe

Catchy little tune isn’t it – a bit of an airing on Radio 1/2, it might just make the charts ))

“Blair Team starts work on investment and governance with Sierra Leone”…

http://tinyurl.com/adc4do

Some VERY lucrative opportunities there me thinks.

You seem to despise any version of democracy except when it suits your agenda viz. Hamas. Blair was democratically elected too – three times in fact, yet it doesn’t stop you stating that he had no mandate to govern, so don’t give me all your guff about elections. Hamas were elected and then seized power in a coup where they killed many of their opponents. They are still doing it – the Guardian had a report only last saturday that Hamas is killing political enemies and “collaborators” in Gaza.

As for “born of terrorist violence” I assume you would therefore condemn Cuba, China, Nicaragua, Grenada, France, USA …(I could go on) – all born in violence. It’s a truism of many countries and proves nothing. One man’s terrorist etc.

As for your ratios, it is HAMAS themselves who set these ratios – this is the value they put on their people. In return for Gilad Shalit they want Israel to release over a thousand Palestinian prisoners. It is they who see one Israeli as being worth a thousand Palestinians. Don’t you think this shows the value they place on human life?

Reuters “Hamas has demanded the release of 1,400 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit” 16 Feb 09

Frank V’s points along with a complex web that radiates from and around them are pretty much the nub of the matter. And well said about which of us has not spent an embarrassing proportion of our lives thinking believing and hoping against hope (and the evidence of bitter experience) just like Eddie? – Like Frank, I most certainly have.

‘Taking the Red Pill’ was no easy option. But I’m now retired and so don’t give a toss for the State and its mendacious apologists and enforcers. Neither do I have a career to nurture any more so I make sure the blinkers stay well and truly removed and have no hesitation about calling a spade a spade (Or Israel a vicious apartheid Mafia-like state) etc etc.

It’s the honest people who can clearly see things as they are but yet have a living to earn (which on anywhere but the very bottom of the pecking order means, at the very least, being careful to keep one’s head down lest the Establishment take note and mark your card accordingly. What price an honest man eh?

For anyone interested, my own journey out of fantasy-land is described briefly on the side-bar of the Sabretache site and continued in an extended linked post.

“I assume you would therefore condemn Cuba, China, Nicaragua, Grenada, France, USA …(I could go on) – all born in violence”

With the exception of the USA, I’m sure you’ll appreciate there’s an important difference between your list and the case of Israel. In those countries the struggle was between the indigenous population and its brutal, tyrannical government.

In the case of Israel it was complete outsiders going to a country to which they had no historical connection and cold-bloodedly displacing and ethnically cleansing the indigenous population. Menachem Begin – terrorist, gangster, Nobel peace prize winner – was a Pole.

I checked out George Dutton’s link on Bliar’s connection to Sierra Leone. Thanks for that. I read recently about another new link to Rwanda – http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/18/rwanda.tonyblair – he will soon have all continents covered.

I continued on to his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast meeting with Obamarama. It is mostly incredible tosh about revelations and shining lights. Cleverly, he includes quotes from and about the main religions. I think he is as crazed as he is wicked.

http://tonyblairoffice.org/2009/02/full-text-of-tony-blairs-speec.html

Don’t forget Tony Blair the $1m scratch card winner.

Noam Chomsky charges $12,000 to speak, has set up a trust fund to avoid paying tax, invests in oil companies, and said if he wasn’t paid, he couldn’t do what he does. His articles on his site are COPYRIGHT – does this sound like a man acting out of conviction – or someone who’s part of the establishment?

Google “nationalpost” and “chomsky” for an article about this.

Some of his supporters asked me if I wanted Chomsky to starve. This is an MIT tenured professor – tenured means his job is secure.

Chomsky makes no mention on his site of dissidents around the world who have risked their lives fighting for democracy and freedom – and who need our support! His fans see him as the world’s bravest dissenter. Chomsky has become a BRAND! He is one of the few individuals in the world who have turned dissent – or, rather, giving his opinion – into a lucrative career.

As for Dawkins, all he goes on about is his damn ATHEISM and how RELIGION is the root of all evil. For some people – those living in desperate circumstances – a belief in a god helps them cope, stops them from committing suicide.

Collecting signatures? What use is that? Until there’s some REAL OUTRAGE in this country, nothing will change – the ruling “elite” will continue to treat us with increasing contempt. Chomsky and Dawkins have nothing to worry about, though, as we are handing them our money.

The time for talk is over. But Chomsky and Dawkins want to keep us talking – and buying their books! NO, THANK YOU. Creating celebrities is not the answer.

@Eddie, don’t think this post is in support of Blair – Blair betrayed those that voted for him, lied through his back teeth, murdered children in cold blood, and impoverished hundreds of thousands. If I must choose between Blair and the likes of Chomsky, then I’ll choose Chomsky any day.

“Some of his supporters asked me if I wanted Chomsky to starve. This is an MIT tenured professor – tenured means his job is secure.”

An absurd defense indeed. But it’s not so much the fees the likes of Chomsky command that irks – it’s the fact that he perpetuates the utterly exhausted, bankrupt theatre of left vs right.

Both he and Dawkins positively reek of controlled opposition, tightening the screws on people’s ability to break out of the pre-fabricated paradigm we’re born into.

I’ve read quite a lot of both authors and there is indeed some useful information there (though Dawkins less so). Excercising maximum discretion, it’s quite possible to buy a good vehicle from an unscrupulous used car salesman. Buying the whole showroom is an act of idiocy.

“We shall lead every revolution against us”

and

“Let he who would be deceived, be deceived”

are the two quotes which are my constant companions when considering fellows such as this.

FRANK VERISMO, just glimpsed at your comment and saw you weren’t attacking me. A lot of people got very personal on another site, so I’m now not looking at any responses – even though it was quite a long time ago! My apologies to anyone else who responded – probably no one!

Craig hasn’t deleted my post, so I commend him for that, and he also allowed someone to use his articles freely without imposing copyright restrictions.

Chomsky is worth reading. But you need to move beyond him, and not turn him into a hero.

I have no problem with what Dawkins wants to believe. I’m agnostic, NOT religious. But we had Thatcher experiment on British society – promoting selfishness – and now Dawkins is trying to carry out his own “little” experiment – converting everyone to atheism.

Someone told me that a group of atheists – a group that Dawkins belongs to – has paid for advertisements to be put up in public places that read, “There probably is no God.” Notice the “probably” – that’s because science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

Britain doesn’t need anymore strong-willed individuals carrying out potentially destructive experiments on society. However, that doesn’t mean I pander to religious groups, either.

An interesting dissident was Fela Kuti, a Nigerian (died 1997). He was a renowned musician, invented his own style of music called Afrobeat, but he was also outspoken about the corruption in Nigeria, and his songs were both great to listen to as just songs, but also brilliant at arousing the emotions. Fela was scathing of the Nigerian regime, but he also criticised Western interference in his country, particularly over oil (Nigeria is a major supplier of oil to the U.S).

After hearing “Zombie”, a song that mocked the Nigerian army, a group of soldiers marched upon Fela’s house, beat up all the occupants, threw Fela’s mother out of a second-floor window, and arrested Fela. His mother later died in hospital from the injuries she sustained. The Nigerian government claimed an “unknown soldier” was responsible, and no one was charged.

For speaking out to fellow Nigerians, Fela was imprisoned, beaten (in one interview he shows his back to the camera, and you can clearly see the scars), and harassed.

I found out about Fela because I liked African music. I knew nothing about Nigeria, but Fela ensures everyone who hears his songs can’t fail to be enlightened (wiki have a page all about him).

There’s not a great selection of his songs on youtube, but the “Zombie” song is on there (the zombies are Nigerian soldiers: “Zombies don’t stop till you tell them to stop; zombies don’t think unless you tell them to think – go quench! Go kill! Go die!” Fela sings) – search for it on youtube, using “fela kuti” and “zombie” as the search terms, and see how great it is. His songs have long – sometimes ridiculously long – introductions. Go 5:15 minutes into the audio file to hear the song itself. If you’re having a bad day, Fela re-energizes you.

I should add that Fela was no saint, and his son had some harsh words to say about him. He also had an interesting life, marrying – I think! – 27 women in a single ceremony.

@Other John

‘Someone told me that a group of atheists – a group that Dawkins belongs to – has paid for advertisements to be put up in public places that read, “There probably is no God.” Notice the “probably” – that’s because science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a creator.’

A Christian group is countering with advertisements reading: “There definitely is a God.”

The power of faith over science!

More hypocrisy and chutzpah from the Blairs – this time the wife.

Channel 4 next Sunday March 1st

Leading British lawyer and committed Catholic Cherie Blair investigates Christianity over the last 100 years and explores its future prospects.

She examines the challenges to Christianity posed by the trauma of war** and political oppression in the 20th century, which culminated in the genocide of the Jews in the Holocaust.

Into the huge God-shaped hole fell the modern ‘faiths’ of materialism and secularism. Christianity was becoming and more isolated by so-called ‘progress’, and this marginalisation was exacerbated by the new hedonistic anything-goes society of the 1960s.

But there is one part of the Western World where Christianity has bucked the downward trend and has never been stronger – the USA.

Cherie uncovers the reasons for its continued success there and looks at what the future holds for Christianity. Are we living in a post-Christian age? Or is the 21st Century really going to be the Christian century?

________________________________________

**Will she be including Tone’s contributions in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, the Balkans and Iraq?

A poster above said Richard Dawkins is a man of conscience. No, he isn’t. He is an atheist – he doesn’t believe he has a conscience. I’ve read his books. He doesn’t even believe in altruism.

Altruism, according to Dawkins, is a manifestation of selfishness. Your genes are forcing you to help others in order to assist your own survival. In the past, when we lived in close-knit communities, such kindness increased our status amongst other members of our group, and hence increased our survival chances.

Well, this is what Dawkins believes, anyway. And he believes that, today, humans continue to help others, even when they don’t have to – even when it does NOT assist their survival – because those old genes are still residing in us, still forcing us to behave this way.

So, according to Dawkins, we are nothing more than ZOMBIES controlled by our genes, and consciousness doesn’t exist ?” at least, not as something that affects the functioning of the mind.

How can Dawkins, therefore, be a man of conscience when the only thing he believes in is SELFISHNESS. His book, “The Selfish Gene”, was distored by the Conservatives to promote a selfish society, and, now, having made that wonderful contribution to British life, Dawkins is on a crusade to convert everyone to atheism.

So, let’s see. There is NO creator (science can’t prove this, but Dawkins doesn’t care about science anymore, not since he became all political), we are controlled COMPLETELY by our genes (Dawkins doesn’t know the mechanism by which the genes control our behaviour, but let’s forget that’s a problem – Dawkins is playing politics, remember!), and EVERYTHING we do is for selfish reasons, even if we say otherwise.

Looks like Dawkins is taking us down a path of complete cultural annihilation.

You have to ask yourself, is a man who believes all this, capable of making any personal sacrifices that will benefit society, generally – which is what men of conscience try to do?

The strange thing is, though, Dawkins says we should fight our tendency to be selfish. But, given all that I quoted above, how does Dawkins think we can do this? Perhaps, Dawkins doesn’t believe everything he says, after all.

The next step is universal euthanasia: anyone who wants to end their life should be allowed to. Atheists can’t have it both ways! Either we’re not much different to rocks, or we are TRULY ALIVE, and conscious experience is not merely dead matter moving about inside us.

However, if we ARE, effectively, equivalent to stones – which is what Dawkins believes – then why let someone live who doesn’t want to? When we are dead, we are dead! According to Dawkins, however, we aren’t really alive to begin with.

Of course, we know why politicians recoil from euthanasia – it’s NOT because they have any concern for human life – it’s because they want to keep up the pretence that they are individuals with a conscience.

We now have Alan Sugar – a man who got rich from selling things designed and built by others (hardly a great achievement!) – telling politicians they are CEOs.

So, in the 21st Century, we are EMPLOYEES not citizens, the people in government are OUR BOSSES, and the country is a CORPORATION, and just as in any corporation, we do EXACTLY AS WE ARE TOLD.

Isn’t it time for us to rebel, and stop listening to Chomsky and Dawkins who are just keeping us passive.

If we aren’t going to rebel, we might as well euthanize ourselves.

I wrote: “Your genes are forcing you to help others in order to assist your own survival.”

That’s actually wrong. It’s in order to assist the genes’ survival. According to evolution, our body is just a shell, a vessel for genes to inhabit temporarily. Our shell becomes redundant as soon as our genes have jumped ship into other bodies – into our children! Although, not all of us decide to have children. The original shell then shrivels up and dies.

Without realising it, I gave an example of how we do override our genes: someone can choose not to have children! They might do so because of how the world is, or because of how they suffered. And suffering is a conscious experience. Of course, someone can also choose not to have kids for selfish reasons. But whatever the reason, it looks like clear evidence that consciousness does play a role in controlling our behaviour – which means we CAN overrule our genes, CAN be genuinely altruistic, and CAN truthfully give a damn about others.

I’ll conclude my posts above by quoting from a review of a book, “The Private Life of the Brain”, written by Susan A Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln college, Oxford. She’s a neuroscientist, and rejects the “it’s all in the genes” idea:

“The idea that the brain works like a computer is rapidly passing into intellectual history…nobody has produced a machine with anything remotely resembling even rudimentary intelligence, never mind consciousness. The reason is that the computer model – proselytised by writers such as Daniel Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter – is plainly wrong…

“…Susan Greenfield [has] decisively rejected the computer model…the collapse of the computer model has sent us back to square one, and now every book on brain science seems like a new, tentative beginning…

“…We can study the firing of neurons and the cascades of neurotransmitters and hormones…What these seem to show is an ever-changing ballet of interactions which seems to bear little relation to that most bizarre phenomenon of all – the sense of the continuity of the self over time.

“…The attraction of Greenfield’s approach is that she avoids the more obviously implausible simplifications that have so often discredited research into the mind. It is not ‘all in the genes’; indeed, other than creating the basic chemical constituents, it is hard to see the genes as being anything more than bit players in this drama.

-

If you read research papers by Semir Zeki, another neuroscientist, consciousness gets even more bizarre.

There is no easy answer. We aren’t even close to understanding consciousness, or the human mind.

Dawkins has simplified things to such an extent, it doesn’t resemble reality any longer. Being cynical, I would say he doesn’t care, as it suits his political agenda – to convert everyone to atheism!