I agree. Undercover taping, or video recording by mobile, peeping into other people's emails and bugging their mobile phones by individuals is spying. It is horrible and becoming common. Spying by governments is universal, but I for one don't know how they filter out the useful snippets from trivia mountain. There is safety in numbers from them. Having said that, Gordon Brown spends much too much time listening to his Bilderberg masters and it is very good for him to have to listen to a furious bereaved mum.

Or you could see it as yet another triumph for that bounteous font of malice, the Sun, the nation's arsehole-in-reverse. If that rag disappeared overnight, I would be out dancing in the street - Murdoch's vomit-flecked comic is the direct source of more ignorance and twisted bile that almost any other news outlet. Captain Crunch, where are you?

Well said. Castigating the man for trying to offer a kindness is scraping the bottom of the barrel. For the avoidance of doubt, I think he's a lousy Prime Minister, but quite frankly any leader embarking upon "foreign adventures" should be forced to write longhand to every bereaved family whose loss he or she incurs. That Brown apparently chose to do so is to his credit.

I agree 100%

I have absolutely no time whatsoever for Brown, NuLab or any of our wars but frankly this whole thing is risible. I could not help clearly showing my disgust at in front of family whilst watching the BBC News (a rare event for me) last night.

The press are far worse than a pack of hyenas once they sense fading powers in holders of high office positions. There are plenty of issues to have a real go at Brown on. This is emphatically NOT one of them

I quite agree with your observations about Jacqui Janes, but wonder what it is you believe you've said about her that is unpleasant. Co-operating with a "news" organisation that could reasonably share some of the blame for the death of her son seems a very odd move indeed. But then some people unquestioningly view all newspaper corporations as underdogs challenging the powerful, which is a peculiar view, given the counter-evidence.

Well said.

However, I am really not inclined to criticise Jacqui Janes, I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a son, but she is being exploited by The Sun. Whatever she feels right now, she is a mother in mourning, and it is not for us to lecture her on how to express her grief

But the fact The Sun is using her to launch a personal assault on Brown is beyond despicable. They are encouraging her, exploiting her emotional state, to demonise a man they want out of political office. It's hideous. I think many people were quite moved to learn that Brown writes personally to families, and the spelling/handwriting issues are totally beside the point. The fact he makes a point of writing - and THEN following up in person when he learns that someone wasn't pleased with the content of a letter - exhibits particular compassion on his part.

The Sun, in contrast, is exploiting personal tragedy for nakedly populist and commercial aims, it's pure filth. Someone needs to warn Jacqui Janes that she will be thrown on the dung-heap when The Sun has squeezed what they can out of her tragedy.

What prevents me from seeing the letter-writing as a genuine kindness is: how on earth could anyone with a fully-functioning conscience reconcile offering such personalised condolences with the knowledge that themselves they are fully complicit in these young mens' needless deaths?

I instinctively share some of your distaste concerning this incident however: specifically the Sun's collaboration. That is misguided in the extreme. But on balance to me at least, the bereaved mothers' actions are still far, far more understandable and forgivable than Brown's.

If you offer condolences to the mother of a man who died because you personally sent him to war under-equipped, you are guilty of gross hypocrisy.

Further, if you cannot write properly, let alone spell, you have no business expressing your condolences in the form of a handwritten letter.

I agree that Brown has all sorts of personal problems. He seems to have one for every letter in the alphabet. That is why he he no right to be our unelected PM and deserves everything he gets.

I feel sorry for both Brown and Jacqui Janes. I've noticed that people who are bereaved often do focus on inessentials (like spelling errors) - perhaps because the big grief is too painful to address.

I gather from some of the radio accounts that the phone conversation addressed other issues, including Jacqui Janes' anger about supplies and her anxiety about another son in Afghanistan. I don't know if the taping was premeditated or whether she had the sort of phone where, by hitting a button, you can record a conversation. If all she had to do was hit a button, I can see why she might have done that - I think I would have done so if I were talking to some-one I held responsible for my son's death, particularly if my aim was to prevent further deaths.

I think this is a case where it's possible to feel sympathy and respect for both people.

Agreed. Well said CM.

This is going to be a very dirty election campaign and honest democracy will be the loser, at first. I hope the tories have got a long spoon because I don't think any of them have the skills for a stand-up, knock-down fight with the likes of the Sun. They will be helpless pawns, with the Sun crowing in the background that it was they wot won it - again.

The one thing that won't go on record is how much the Sun has paid Jacqui Janes for being their patsy in this sordid affair.

"I really am sorry I was forced to say that".

No need to be sorry Craig. Everything you say is spot-on.

You are certainly not the only person to say it, but there is no harm in saying it again.

Gordon Brown is as bad as The Sun. In fact all politics today is one big media scam. The party conference stated that New Labour's strategy was to play the underdog. I knew about Brown's inability to understand figures, but does he want sympathy for his inability to spell too?
This underdog bit reminds me of your reference to Matthew Hoh's resignation in Afghanistan. What a media coup. Really nice guy holds out for truth against nasty Pentagon. Then in his interview he spells out the same old Ziospin the US used in Iraq. Really this is just a civil war to which the US is an innocent bystander.
Lesson 1. There are no nice guys in power.
Lesson 2. There are no nice policies either.

Gord will have learned his lesson now, I'm sure: just get an intern to dash off a few mailmerges to bereaved families, like Blair used to.

The Sun=the dirtiest of the lowest of the vilest SCUM.

I dont know how that reptile Murdoch sleeps.One day i truly hope he gets a taste of his own medicine.

The total cunt.

The whole thing is utterly tawdry. Not just the war in Afghanistan and the government's lies for getting involved in it; not just the Sun for its use of human grief in its campaign against Brown -- although, ironically, they are united in support for this pointless war -- but Brown himself for his campaign to whip up support for the war.

My grandfather's brother was killed by German action during the First World War. Did the Prime Minister of the day write to the family, in the neat handwriting of the time or even in a quickly dashed-out scrawl à la Brown? Was his body brought back to Britain with a media chorus in tow?

Of course not. As I pointed out in another post, on average in the First World War some 600 British servicemen were killed each day; just think how long it would have taken Asquith or Lloyd George to read their names out. Still, my grand-dad's brother did get his name on the local war memorial.

My father was lucky not to have received a fatal wound when shot whilst confronting the Waffen SS in Holland in 1944. Had the head wound been fatal, would Churchill have read out his name in Parliament? I don't think so, in the Second World War, British military deaths on average were around 150 each day.

It is only because the casualties are relatively light that Brown & Co can use each of these deaths as propaganda tools. There will, however, come a time when the general public will become accustomed to these casualties -- 'compassion fatigue', it is called -- and only those immediately affected by military casualties will take notice of them.

All the parading of the sadness of the families of the dead servicemen, all the heavy media coverage of military funerals, all of Brown's scrawled messages to the bereaved... none of this exploitation of human grief will save Brown & Co's sagging reputation or will win public support for their pointless war.

I've come to the conclusion that democracy is in fact an illusion, and that the vast majority of politicians and prime ministers do what they are told, by the real Powers That Be.

Despite Gordon Brown's poor PR skills - compared say to the brilliance of Blair's, and despite despising almost everything about Nu-Labour, I have always maintained a respect for Gordon Brown's intellect since he pulled off £22.5Bn from The Telcos for the hot air of 3G, which 8 years later still doesn't work as well as GSM.

I now think its entirely possible, that Brown has stopped doing what he is being told to do by the PTB.

12 Months ago the entire Economic System was supposed to Crash completely, such that Banks would completely stop issuing money. This would cause the most horrendous chaos, and likely cause society to stop functioning completely. If no one can get paid - how will even essential services work?

Brown threw a spanner in the works of this planned catastrophe, by coming up with a financial fix that even the US had to copy, after first refusing even to meet him. He embarrassed the PTB, by actually doing his job and at least temporarily averting complete disaster.

Of course he is limited in what he can actually do, because the PTB remain in control of virtually everything - including all the MSM.

Someone I think here actually suggested a possible solution to save the Labour Party from complete electoral annhilation - which was to switch to become an anti-war party - and immediately withdraw all military forces from Afghanistan.

That of course would take tremendous courage, but maybe Gordon Brown actually has that courage.

This would of course completely infuriate the PTB and leave the Tories dumbfounded. It might actually produce a position where there was a recognisable difference between the two main political parties such there was some reason to vote. It could even possibly open a complete and utter can of worms, with all the real truth since 9/11 leaking out and going mainstream.

Someone's got to do it, and Brown hasn't got anything much to lose.

If they can do that to Gary Glitter, then there are many more in the pipeline who have done far far worse (Channel 4 last night).

Tony

All the political parties have got the same software for calculating best voter/policy, electoral performance.
Unfortunately the VPEP reading for war in the UK is high. Pompo pompompom Pom ... Sorry to disappoint you Tony.
They need another thrashing at home to come to their senses but after three generations people think war is a computer game.

Craig,

My recollection of a BBC news report on this matter is that Brown is following a standing tradition for Prime Ministers to write personally to family members of fallen soldiers. They didn't say how far back it went, but gave the impression at least a couple of PMs before Brown have also done this.

ICBW, TCBW, etc.. It would be interesting to hear proof either way.

I agree completely re the mediocrity of this manufactured controversy btw. It's quite ridiculous that other news organisations have given it any time.

--paulj

anno,

The software, like the drugs, doesn't work. Pharmaceutical drugs used to be designed to resolve medical problems and cure disease. There were some completely wonderful breakthroughs, which in parallel with improvements in sanitation and environment dramatically reduced disease. Then the pharmaceutical companies realised that there was far more money to be made by drugs that introduced other problems requiring other drugs to resolve these new conditions.

The same is true of software. 15 years ago commercial software systems were built to be extremely efficient and reliable. Then the major software companies realised, that by producing very reliable systems, that there was no incentive for their customers to replace them. Not only that, but if the system worked incredibly reliably, then the customer would have no need to pay the software suppliers maintenance fees. If something never breaks, then it doesn't need fixing. The hardware suppliers also realised, that if software was written very efficiently, then there would be no need to provide more and more powerful hardware.

The same applies to products that could be engineered to last for decades, but are now designed to fail once the guarantee has expired. After a couple of years, the customer throws the product away - and buys a new one.

All this is a complete waste of resources and is inherently corrupt and destructive to the planet and the human race.

Such a system would however be entirely appropriate for politicians and those in control of them...

They have completely failed, and they all need to be replaced with people of integrity who are not only honest, but have the intelligence and determination to work for a just and fair society.

Currently we are being fast tracked to hell by lunatics who's only interest is their own selfish ego and power trip. Some of them actually believe their own propaganda and are deliberately trying to crash Western Civilisation resulting in the Genocide of Billions.

Tony

Oddly enough, I was saying much the same to my wife upon hearing - for the second day running - Radio-4's World at One announce this Brown letter in the world's top news.

The BBC are jumping on this just as much as the Sun, and played a good portion of the tape, with that harridan ranting out prepared invective doubtless provided by the Sun.

She kept referring to "my child" - what was he, a drummer-boy? I thought only adults were allowed in the army. He didn't die at school, he died fighting a battle. That's what sometime happens when you are in someone else's country and they don't want you there. Did she think he was there on a picnic?

If becoming a bereaved parent was not something she could possibly bear, why allow him to join the army in the first place? I'm sorry to say it too, but she is obviously getting as much mileage as possible from her own son's death. I'm sure the other parents all got letters too, they clearly had the grace to accept it in the spirit intended.

Donald Rumsfeld used an autopen to sign his letters to the bereaved. When challenged, he lied about it. I'm no fan of Brown, but do not need to be one to see this is disgraceful behaviour by the mother, the BBC and needless to say, the Sun.

well said Craig....but Glen, you overstate the point!

I agree with every word you say and congratulate you on your willingness to put it into print. Some behaviour's go beyond imagination. If this horrible war continues I do hope that the Prime Minister is not put off from allowing his own humunity to shine through in his personal letters.

Brendan

Well said. Regardless of one's feelings about Brown (mine are very strongly negative) and the war (ditto), this unpleasantness is completely despicable.

It does occur to me however that if Brown wasn't so notoriously nasty to junior staff, and he was more humble, he could get someone to check his letters.

Hmm, Craig, that's a very interesting take on what's essentially a non-story.

The real story is about why this gvt has led us unlawfully into one war after another, isn't it? This present furore seems to be a large distraction. Why? What else is happening at the moment that we really should be keeping an eye on...?

I can't find it in myself to consider Mr Brown's actions as charitably as you though. This man is part of, arguably, the UK's most successful ever political spin machine.

His correspondence, however technically inept, just looks to me like a another page from the 'caring-man-of-the-people' chapter of the Nulab spinmeister handbook. Wasn't Susan Boyle used in the same way?

If I'm wrong, then I'd be the first to apologise to Mr Brown for misattribution. But we've been judging these folks too kindly for 12yrs. Now look where we are. Nulab have taught us how and why we need not to take their words at face value.

Tony opmoc's constructions are intriguing: other perspectives which appear more and more feasible as we lurch through the dying days of this debacle gvt. I certainly agree that democracy is an illusion now - just as Mr Brown's compassion...?

Glenn, I don't agree that the woman in question is a "harridan", nor that she is getting "mileage" from her son's death.

The dilemma we have is that not everyone can see when they are being used for cynical purposes, and meanwhile part of her grieving process, perhaps, is to blame Gordon Brown (quite rightly) and then join up with his enemies, whoever they are. Needless to say the logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a naive one, but to what degree can we hold someone responsible for their lack of awareness of class and power?

The blame should lie with the Sun owners, who are well aware that they are manipulating her, and with the PM, for knowing full well he is sitting on an unpopular and illegal disaster, and lurching on regardless.

My main complaint about Jacqui Janes is that she's made me sympathize with Brown.

The behavior of 'The Sun' is despicable.

Just shows why the shrewder politicians keep their distance from the raw human impact of their policies.

It only takes one grieving parent to floor you.

Brown did what other PMs have hidden from, and his sense of decency has been thrown back in his face by a grieving parent and the scumfilth that is Murdoch media.

On a side issue, it's clear that she had the phone on speakerphone and I'm afraid it sounded as if she was reading items from a prepared script. I suspect The Sun's drools were sitting at her side. Make no mistake about this. The Sun would be well aware that Brown would phone her personally, after the poor press coverage. He's done it before. And they were waiting for him!

I agree Craig - except that i'm not sure it's fair to say the bereaved mother may not a nice person - she may just be in a lot of pain and have been manipulated by those a**eh*les working for Murdoch.

I expect this kind of bollocks from The Sun - but the BBC giving it 24 hour coverage for 2 days is ludicrous. There are plenty of serious life-and-death issues around the war in Afghanistan - the PM accidentally mis-spelling a soldier's name in a letter of condolence is not one of them.

Craig

fuck off.

Old Holborn,

For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you have a very aggressive attitude towards someone for merely holding a different opinion to yours.

Is Old Holborn a person? I thought he was maybe a viral ad for after-shave cigars - 'Old Holborn - the smooth, choking, bilious smoke'

I'm afraid that many of these self-styled libertarians are but very old-fashioned Tories in disguise.

Indeed many of them seem to be out and out fascists. You only have to read their comments sections to see that that's where their major support comes from.

Old Holborn is just another of Guido's dreary muppets.

"a great kindness from an incredibly busy man",

Not too busy to send young Jamie off to war though - frankly writing a hand written letter to his family after his death is the very least he, or any other leader could do, and I find it patronising in the extreme that you should insinuate that Mrs Janes should be in some way grateful that the Prime Minister 'bothered' to write to her. He can bother to enquire after the winner of x-factor, he can bother to speak to a group of Mums on Mumsnet, then he can certainly find time to bother with the interruption to his busy day represented by the minimum courtesy to a woman whose son has just died for his country.
If Mrs Janes decided to contact the Sun with her neighbours recording, c/f Radio5 live this morning, to publicise her heartfelt anger at the manner of her son's death, that scarcely represents a recording 'in cahoots' with the Sun. I am sure that had she genuinely been 'in cahoots' with the Sun at that stage - and incidentally, strangly prescient that the Prime Minister would chose to telephone her - then the recording would have been of a much higher quality.
The Sun has, wisely or unwisely, chosen to run with a story that landed on its doorstep. To suggest even obliquely that Mrs Janes by design or unwittingly, was 'in cahoots' with them to make a political point is to do the lady a great disservice.
She is a lady who is not frightened of standing up to people a lot better equipped than she is to play with words in order to publicise the need for better equipment for young men like her late son.
Good for her.

Best part of this article...?

The Daily Telegraph Doctor article misspelt the word, er, mis-spelt...

"Rupert Murdoch and the Corruption of the British Media"...

http://tinyurl.com/y8nhxu5

To my mind the "British Media" has always been corrupt. Murdoch just made it a LOT worse. The Murdoch empire should have been broken up a long time ago.

Libertarians can't be aggresive?

Watch us. Then thank us. When we take Tories, Labour, the Libdems and the rest of YOUR enemies to the fucking cleaners.

Do we want power of any kind? Nope.

All we ask is that the "State" leaves us alone.

Now fuck off.

I find that effort by Anna Raccoon disturbingly ill-informed.

PMs have not hand written letters to the bereaved families of fallen soldiers. The reason they haven't done this is because of precisely the dilemma Brown now finds himself in.

It was his big idea, and is now rebounding upon him.

As to the recording quality being better because The Sun were involved. Grow up!!

Even though The Sun is part of the sleaziest news empire on the planet, doesn't mean they're totally stupid.

Anyway, looks like this one has backfired on them big time. Not that they'll be overly concerned about that, but I suspect it hasn't helped the Tories as much as they'd hoped.

We'll see more of this as the election looms.

It's becoming clearer that the Tory leadership are almost as naive as Brown.

I don't think Anna's comment is "ill informed" at all - she's just pointing out that if Brown can find time for photo-ops and public relations calls to x-factor winners then he's clearly not so busy that he shouldnt be required to write to the parents of every soldier killed in a war he sent them to and it's not "a great kindness" for him to do it.

OldHolborn wrote

"Libertarians can't be aggresive?

Watch us. Then thank us. When we take Tories, Labour, the Libdems and the rest of YOUR enemies to the fucking cleaners.

Do we want power of any kind? Nope.

All we ask is that the "State" leaves us alone.

Now fuck off.""

Unless you specify what you think Craig's said wrong - and why - you're "now fuck off" is completely and utterly redundant.

Challenging state power is also worthless if you just exchange it for control by billionaires (like Murdoch who owns The Sun) and big multinational companies (like News International which owns The Sun), or criminal mafias.

Without any state that's what you're going to be left with - rule by companies and mafias, even more oppressive than that by the state because it will have NO democratic input to put any constraints on it whatsoever.

So, as any anarchist with a half-decent brain in his head (e.g Noam Chomsky) knows we require some form or balance between anarchy and order and some form of government. I completely agree that there have to be limits on how government power and that it's undemocratic in a lot of ways at the moment, but having no government whatsoever would not be an improvement.

plus without any public services we'd be back to the Victorian era where the poor die in droves in the street or hovels of treatable diseases, hunger, cold, etc - you can see what a modern capitalist society without enough government would be like it you take a look at Brazil - heaven for 1% of the population, hell for the other 99%, the richest get richer and the majority die like flies

Maybe it would be a good idea if Brown could write to all the Iraqi and Afghan families whose relatives the British troops have slaugtered, maimed, buggered and tortured. Perhaps they wouldn't be so particular about his spelling or their lack of equipment in defending themselves against the conquering barbarians.

Brown deserves everything he gets in my book. If you're going to write a letter of that significance then you have to think about it and you have to do it right. Why didn't he re-read what he'd written or have someone proof read it? It's just careless and I don't think he had Mrs. Janes grief or Mr Janes loss in mind. He scribbled it out as fast as possible and dropped in the out tray without a second thought. His telephone call was another missed opportunity where he failed to sincerely apologise and seemed to mount a defence of his letter instead admitting he was at fault. I don't see why people are getting high and mighty about The Sun considering they have supported Labour for over a decade during some appalling events and that we all know that Labour's lapdog, The Mirror would do exactly the same if Cameron were PM.

I certainly would not say it's an act of kindness for Gordon Brown to write to bereaved families. Call me cynical, but I think it's a PR effort.

If he was really upset about the dead, then he would stop his posturing with the US, gain some courage and bring our troops home from Afghanistan. The longer they are there the more damage will be done to this country in future years. The Afghanis will have long memories and with Britain begin the second biggest invaders, younger generations will pay the price.

Gordon Brown has had his chances to withdraw our troops but instead he prefers to play second fiddle to Obama, showing how spineless he is in making major security decisions for this country.

As for him continually mentioning he understands Ms Janes' grief at losing a child let me say, losing a child who is days old and losing one whom you have nurtured to adulthood are incomparable.

I sympathise with anyone who loses a child, whether stillborn or in early infancy, but to lose an adult son or daughter in a war which is unwarranted and makes our country far less safe, is too hellish to comprehend.

He should leave the letter writing to those who have done it for generations - the regiment. They have the knowledge of the family and each letter written is specific to the individual. I have known many officer who poured over numerous letters of sympathy until they felt they got it right.

The mother is distraught. I will not comment of the taping of the phone call as I believe a friend of Ms Janes was involved.

If only we could see what people are thinking...

http://tinyurl.com/y8ep5vw

I wonder what Blair is thinking...

tinyurl.com/yc2x4an

@ Duncan 10.07pm

Of course her comments are ill-informed.

Brown has broken with tradition to send these personal handwritten condolences.

The reason they weren't sent before and PMs kept their distance from the raw human impact of things like this, is because of precisely a potential for the problem Brown has now found himself with.

They were watching their arses. He wasn't! Clearly he's not quite as calculating as some would have us believe.

She also claimed that the telephone recording would have been of higher quality had The Sun been there when the call arrived. How naive and ridiculous is that? They're not that stupid!

A man I dislike intensly for all manner of reasons said:

"Brown is a good man, but wrong. Blair was a bad man".

That was Norman bleedin Tebbit!

Yet, there's something very simple and human and everyday and banal, in that statement that I think we can all relate to.

FWIW I dislike intensely the direction this govt has taken over the past 12 years but I blame Blair and his inner circle for that, and the opportunity provided by our very undemocratic system of government.

Fair points Ruth, Doug and Subrosa - though Ruth i don't think all our troops have been involved in all these things by any means - some of them are the witnesses who came forward to give evidence against those who did (and those who did mostly did so on the orders of superiors going right the way up to cabinet level)

I completely agree with you though that it's as much fanatical bigotry to think all British people are right and anyone British troops were sent to attack was in the wrong as it is for Al Qaeda to think that all Muslims are right and all non-Muslims in the wrong.

Nationalism can be just as dangerous as religion if either is taken too far.

Whatever I think of Gordon Brown as a politician and I don't rate him highly at all.. I admire him for taking the time to write the letter of condolence. So what if he has a problem with his spelling plus his poor eyesight. Is that really important. This letter should be accepted as it was meant.. a genuine move from a very busy man. All this criticism from so many sources.. could any of these people cope with the work schedule and criticism a prime minister has to deal with?.. I very much doubt it. Why are we in this country so ready to pull people to pieces.. While I feel very strongly for this poor lady who has lost her son she has also lost her dignity at a very painful time, but there again pain and bereavement make us act out of character, so who are we to throw stones... what would we have done and how would we have behaved.. none of us know until we are in that situation. I pray that this situation will settle down and everything will be put in proportion.

Whatever I think of Gordon Brown as a politician and I don't rate him highly at all.. I admire him for taking the time to write the letter of condolence. So what if he has a problem with his spelling plus his poor eyesight. Is that really important. This letter should be accepted as it was meant.. a genuine move from a very busy man. All this criticism from so many sources.. could any of these people cope with the work schedule and criticism a prime minister has to deal with?.. I very much doubt it. Why are we in this country so ready to pull people to pieces.. While I feel very strongly for this poor lady who has lost her son she has also lost her dignity at a very painful time, but there again pain and bereavement make us act out of character, so who are we to throw stones... what would we have done and how would we have behaved.. none of us know until we are in that situation. I pray that this situation will settle down and everything will be put in proportion.

Whatever I think of Gordon Brown as a politician and I don't rate him highly at all.. I admire him for taking the time to write the letter of condolence. So what if he has a problem with his spelling plus his poor eyesight. Is that really important. This letter should be accepted as it was meant.. a genuine move from a very busy man. All this criticism from so many sources.. could any of these people cope with the work schedule and criticism a prime minister has to deal with?.. I very much doubt it. Why are we in this country so ready to pull people to pieces.. While I feel very strongly for this poor lady who has lost her son she has also lost her dignity at a very painful time, but there again pain and bereavement make us act out of character, so who are we to throw stones... what would we have done and how would we have behaved.. none of us know until we are in that situation. I pray that this situation will settle down and everything will be put in proportion.

Whatever I think of Gordon Brown as a politician and I don't rate him highly at all.. I admire him for taking the time to write the letter of condolence. So what if he has a problem with his spelling plus his poor eyesight. Is that really important. This letter should be accepted as it was meant.. a genuine move from a very busy man. All this criticism from so many sources.. could any of these people cope with the work schedule and criticism a prime minister has to deal with?.. I very much doubt it. Why are we in this country so ready to pull people to pieces.. While I feel very strongly for this poor lady who has lost her son she has also lost her dignity at a very painful time, but there again pain and bereavement make us act out of character, so who are we to throw stones... what would we have done and how would we have behaved.. none of us know until we are in that situation. I pray that this situation will settle down and everything will be put in proportion.

Whatever I think of Gordon Brown as a politician and I don't rate him highly at all.. I admire him for taking the time to write the letter of condolence. So what if he has a problem with his spelling plus his poor eyesight. Is that really important. This letter should be accepted as it was meant.. a genuine move from a very busy man. All this criticism from so many sources.. could any of these people cope with the work schedule and criticism a prime minister has to deal with?.. I very much doubt it. Why are we in this country so ready to pull people to pieces.. While I feel very strongly for this poor lady who has lost her son she has also lost her dignity at a very painful time, but there again pain and bereavement make us act out of character, so who are we to throw stones... what would we have done and how would we have behaved.. none of us know until we are in that situation. I pray that this situation will settle down and everything will be put in proportion.

Whatever I think of Gordon Brown as a politician and I don't rate him highly at all.. I admire him for taking the time to write the letter of condolence. So what if he has a problem with his spelling plus his poor eyesight. Is that really important. This letter should be accepted as it was meant.. a genuine move from a very busy man. All this criticism from so many sources.. could any of these people cope with the work schedule and criticism a prime minister has to deal with?.. I very much doubt it. Why are we in this country so ready to pull people to pieces.. While I feel very strongly for this poor lady who has lost her son she has also lost her dignity at a very painful time, but there again pain and bereavement make us act out of character, so who are we to throw stones... what would we have done and how would we have behaved.. none of us know until we are in that situation. I pray that this situation will settle down and everything will be put in proportion.

Do you have a tendency to repeat yourself, Rosemary? If so - please allow me to assure you, we get your point. :)

I do agree with you on the whole, fwiw. I disagree in one respect - coping with grief does not usually involve running to a filthy rag like the Sun, and then allowing their goons to organise a sting/ ambush on someone very likely to telephone you to apologise for sending condolences inappropriately.

She played a role as if Brown had personally murdered her son with his own hands. Anyone joining the army knows being killed, whether in glorious battle or dying like a dog for no reason, might well be part of the job. It's not just about making your mother proud while you wear a smart uniform.

Now if she was the mother of someone blown up in a wedding party in Afghanistan by our heros over there, I could understand her total outrage - but even then, calling in a filthy, degenerate newspaper to cover the story would be hard to understand.

"The one thing that won't go on record is how much the Sun has paid Jacqui Janes for being their patsy in this sordid affair."

According to a Radio5 report, nothing.

Alan Douglas

Glenn, she may well think Brown murdered her son. That is her privilege. You obviously known nothing about military life. You obviously have never witnessed the grief involved. Until you do I suggest you limit your uninformed civilian opinions to facts.

Suffice to say most of our military are very highly qualified individuals who offer to serve Queen and country, not for money or glory, but as a worthwhile career in the protection of our people and our islands. Many could gain far more financially working in private business.

Without them Glenn, you possibly would not be happily typing away on your keyboard.

'Without them Glenn, you possibly would not be happily typing away on your keyboard.'
Is that because Saddam might have got Glenn with his weapons of mass destruction?

Subrosa: Instead of awing us with reference to superior knowledge and understanding, why don't you make a point, instead of blowing smoke about how little I can possibly know compared with your Great Insights?

I was talking about facts - and I mean facts, rather than the refuting of straw man arguments and making assumptions, of which your 23:52 post entirely consisted. Maybe in your world, we should only have military, ex-military and military family commenting on anything at all concerning war and death waged in all our names? Even when this specific item has been the primary news for two days?

Sorry mate, this isn't America. You can't run that crap past us here, although it works in America very well. Don't allude to your Great Military Understanding - articulate it, if you can. I'm not going to be scared off with this "you've never worn a uniform" crap, and few others will either. Until this becomes a military state, that dog just ain't gonna hunt.

And to further your erudition, a lot of the military sign up precisely because they want security and can't get a job anywhere else, particularly in America (and Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter). Heard about all these South Wales boys from the valleys are signing up in record numbers? Guess they must have suddenly been overcome by a mass "Queen and Country" urge.

Please don't tell me that our boys out there are saving my miserable ability to type, because that's just risible. The last war which genuinely needed waging occurred before I was born, and that is a war in which I would have been fighting myself, on an entirely voluntary basis.

Subrosa, I too, would like to know why Glenn wouldn't be typing happily away at his computer. Is there something that's being hidden away from the general public but is known by the Few? Is it in reality related to the economy? That the economy is so, so fragile that the military 'rape' of other people's lands and resources including opium are shoring up the economy. Surely we should know these facts?

Bubba wrote "They were watching their arses. He wasn't! Clearly he's not quite as calculating as some would have us believe"

Or else he's just as calculating as the rest, but much worse at judging what will and won't be popular, as e.g the Gurkhas pensions scenario and his scrapping of his a 10p tax rate he introduced show.

This is still the same man who voted for the Iraq war and said as Chancellor that he would spend "whatever it takes" on it, mostly so he could become the next Prime Minister when Blair retired, while simultaneously having his supporters brief people that Iraq was all Blair's fault and nothing to do with him.

Of course it was to do with him. He could have resigned like Cook or Short did - and he'd probably have brought Blair down and been the next Labour leader anyway, but he either didnt have the guts for that or else his "moral compass" is wildly wrong as Blair's.

If he had real principles he'd have resigned over PFIs or Iraq and rid us of Blair years ago.

Do i think he's less bad than Blair? Yes, but that's relative and despite his intelligence and a few positive moves his flaw is that he put his ambition to be Prime Minister above other peoples' interests and lives - and became like the Blairites and Thatcherites by playing their game instead of ending it.

Short comment. Totally right, it's a tawdry affair whipped up against a man who may not be the best PM we've ever had, but who is gentle, understanding, has suffered, and who takes trouble. The mother should look to her motives which come across as VERY suspect.

And i have to agree with Ruth and Glenn - there hasn't been one necessary war fought in self-defence or that prevented genocide or massacres ordered by any British government since 1945.

There have been a hell of a lot of war crimes ordered and carried out though and a hell of a lot of civilian "collateral damage", torture and soldiers and civilians alike dying for the interests of a small minority who already have far more than they could ever need.

Mark Steel has a good column on this too
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-you-almost-have-to-feel-sorry-for-gordon-brown-1818175.html

Glenn wrote "She played a role as if Brown had personally murdered her son with his own hands. Anyone joining the army knows being killed, whether in glorious battle or dying like a dog for no reason, might well be part of the job."

He is responsible for her son's death. Keeping troops in Afghanistan isnt keeping us safer any more than having them in Iraq was - and Brown is responsible for keeping them there.

Also soldiers sign up to defend their country - they (and their parents) have the right to expect that they won't be sent into a war that doesnt need fought, a war that's neither defending Britain nor preventing genocide or massacres that would kill more people than the war would.

So really this mother has every right to blame Gordon Brown for her son's death, even if The Sun is exploiting her, even if it is a gutter rag.

The attacks on Brown's spelling are ridiculous and typical Murdoch opportunism now he's backing the Conservatives again - but he can't escape responsibility for keeping troops killing and dying in wars that dont need to be fought.

Glenn, I never mentioned anything about uniform.

It is no assumption that some military families have been quietly living in fear of a knock on the door anytime of day or night for years now. This mother, it seems, was distressed because she had been told there was no helicopter available to evacuate her son quickly. Unfortunately, we behave differently in highly emotional situations and therefore shouldn't criticise others.

I have no intention of articulating my military understanding to you. It would be a wasted effort I can see.

How many military sign up because they can't get a job anywhere. Give me a link for that.

While you're at it check out how many military have good/excellent university degrees, Masters degrees, PhDs.

I was talking generally about the military protecting these islands for many generations. If you'd bothered to visit my blog you would know full well that I consider the Iraq and now the Afghanistan very ill-planned conflicts. We invaded these two countries with no strategy or planning and we sadly will not succeed.

The invaded will remember though and we shall pay in years to come.

These two particular wars have done nothing to protect our streets - exactly the opposite.

I have to agree, WW2 was a war worth fighting. I was too young to take part.

"Given his intelligence, background and rigorous education..."

Please explain this to me. What intelligence? I see absolutely no evidence of any intelligence whatsoever. Brown has no political nous at all, and no other obvious intelligence. And what of his background and education? He is the son of an undistinguished church minister who went to a mediocre university a year earlier than his peers. So what? Please show me one clever thing that Gordon Brown has ever done. Sure, he has shown massive amounts of guile and low cunning, but so does a fox.

I will tell you the only clever thing that Gordon Brown has ever done is to persuade stupid people that he is clever.

Duncan - you are right. Brown is hugely responsible for this death, but had he not, a Cameron, a Miliband etc. etc. would have eagerly taken his place. Brown is not the problem, and placing this 2-day news cycle on his head when semi-blindness, tiredness or dyslexia actually causes his handwriting lackings is entirely beside the point. That is exactly why we are having a personality bash about Brown, instead of wondering why we are fighting people - in their own country - who have been beating off invaders for hundreds of years.

Brown's failure is to actually have had a conscience about that over which he has no real choice, instead of breezing past it "in- the most sincerely way - a Prime Minister - could -possibly understand the grieving of a newly bereaved mother - while - humbly appreciating what he has done for us - and making all our lives more secure" ... as Blair would have waffled on, with 100% less sincerity.

But about the "soldiers sign up to defend their country" ... come on. We've been waging a war of choice, occupying a relatively harmless country ever since a highly dubious attack by still uncaptured "terrorists" since late 2001. Any fool could see we invaded Iraq for no moral reason, and any hapless enlisters in the army have had more that 6 years to get out since even then. Nobody, or their mother, could think there was any reason to sign up as if our nation needed / might need defending. The destination of any army volunteer was to go to the middle east, has has been obvious for any "child" born since 1978.

We are not allowed to seriously question whether these brave people have actually been killed in a pointless war. We should be condemning the media for not educating us, and a general stupidity and ignorance in the general population.

I really should write this as my own story, but I hate dealing with newspaper editors and I have a couple of other projects on hand right now anyway so I won't get round to it. In short:

The Sun didn't record the story. Help for Heroes did. The Sun is a key supporter of Help for Heroes, and Help for Heroes was the party that hooked Jacqui Janes up with The Sun.

Please also note that Jacqui Janes and the PM mention helicopters, and that one of the trustees of Help for Heroes is a senior vice president of Agusta Westland, which makes the Merlins mentioned in the phone call. While Help for Heroes has been tremendously successful at charity fund-raising, it has now received some serious support from Agusta Westland, Dell Defence and Security, and Hesco Bastion, to name just a few partners in the military industrial sphere.

Despite what I'm sure are good intentions, politics, PR and corporate profit appear to have crept in to H4H (which has been so successful it now has more money than it knows what to do with - although doubtless every last penny be put to good use soon enough).

This would always have been a danger, even if the majority of trustees and former trustees weren't officer class Conservatives (including Sir Richard Dannatt). The founder, Bryn Parry, is actually good friends with the current Tory whip.

Agree with everything you say Craig, though I've refused to criticise either Mr Brown or Mrs Janes. In my view this is just beyond politics, and I admire Mr Brown for taking the time.

Notes:

Mr Brown and Mr Cameron have both lost children in the last few years.

Mrs Thatcher started the tradition of personal letters during the Falklands conflict, I believe, and it has continued. There was a feature in one paper this week.

Thoughtful.

I think Mrs Janes real rage lies in her conviction that her son's death was avoidable. And that his death is a direct consequence of Brown's itense dislike of the armed services and Blair which led to underfunding going back to his time at Treasury.

The letter lit the fuse but Brown's complicity in lack of helicopters was the gunpowder.

Craig, I understand your reasoning but I think it IS wrong for you to criticise Janes's motives. In fact, I think it is a regrettable degradation in our political debate that we criticise anybody's motives. This seems to be a paricular problem on the left, although not restricted to it. Instead I think we should strive to return to the English Englightenment idea that two men can honourably disagree. That is, your opinion on this matter reflects merely on your intellect, not your morals. That is why I am taking the trouble to respond.

If we also assume that Brown's intensions were pure, as I think they were, then we have to ask what should he have done to have better communicated this? In this it is worth remembering that he is not, as you assert, the first PM to write such letters. That was Mrs Thatcher's innovation. Alas too many of the great lady's ideas have been copied by Labour, including bad ones and ones that were good at the time but inappropriate now. (It was also her idea to fly the coffins back home. In the Falklans, which only lasted 100 days, this worked well. In a more drawn out war it is a weekly PR gift to the enemy.)

Brown should have the courage to break with Thatcher's methods and choose a way of showing compassion that suits him and the current conflict, not her. If he cannot spell or write (and presumably knows this) he should have the letters typed and top and tail them. Alternatively, he could make use of modern technology and record an oral or even visual message. He could ask the MoD to put together a personal montage of information remembering the mother's son. And I'm sure that Brown could think of other ideas too. What he should not be doing is thinking that his genuine disabilities or real pressures of office excuse him from the human rules of politeness.

I look forward to "I'm nearly blind you know" Brown reading out a typed list of the dead at the despatch box today.

'nuff said

I was surprised to read the PM was writing personally to all bereaved families (an admirable action), and even more surprised to hear that he was being criticised for this. However, I was NOT surprised to hear that the Sun was behind it all. Seems nothing has changed since 1982, when they fabricated an interview with the widow of Sergeant McKay, killed in the Falklands. The misery of war is just a throwaway readership booster for The Sun. They really are beneath contempt.

I have some sympathy for Brown in this matter, but your attack on Mrs Janes is, essentially, pants. Her rebuke to the Prime Minister over equipment was obviously sincere, unscripted and understandably passionate. It deserved to be in the public domain.

For myself, I would happily settle for a Prime Minister who never wrote letters to the families of casualties and never diverted the tone of PMQ's with tributes to them, but who maintained our armed forces in adequate numbers, properly trained and equiped for the tasks laid apon them by Parliament.

Oh - and it does not much bother me that the PM can't spell. What really concerns me is that he does not seem to be able to manage arithmetic either.

Duncan McFarlane

For the record(and off-topic,sorry Craig):your percentage count on the Brazilian society is far off,I'm afraid.I get your point,but as a Brazilian born and raised middle class in S.Paulo,there are many more shades of gray to be mentioned.The problem is that only films like City of God make it to Europe...
Myself,I would have picked a country like Somalia as an example.

Subrosa

Would this war be better if it had been well-conceived and well-planned? The military of every nation are subject to its leadership's political will, which is itself subject to international pressure. The military, however clever they may be, are obedient to their political masters.
The mother of a victim of a stupid war has a right to challenge Brown, but the military don't. If you want to criticise our political leaders, please first unsign your unquestioning loyalty to their incredible stupidity.
You want to have your cake and eat it like Brown. He wants to lead this country into a monstrous act of aggression AND simultaneously counsel the bereaved.
Faced with the West's hunger for colonial theft of oil and power in far away lands, Al-Qaida made certain demands about the West's refusal to engage with Islam and its determination to blacken Islam's name at every opportunity. The establishment refuses to drop its anti-Islam position. Ergo war. The military has the privelege of being absolved from bothering its head about why?

In my view, Craig and the army of savvy bloggers who admire him are on my side of this ideological divide because they are people of conscience. Unlike the military, they are qualified by their freedom of allegiance, to criticise the politicians and enter politics themselves. For myself, I would like this country to embrace the truth of Islam and paste it into the British way of life. The UK became a special place because we threw out the mumbo-jumbo of the accepted religious tradition and in every house people read the Bible and implemented it in their daily lives. The sense of justice we feel, derives from the teachings of the prophet 'Jesus' peace be upon him. But when another book comes along, confirming the truth of what we knew before, our politicians are determined to smear it and attack it at vast and unnecessary expense. They are idiots, and I have the right to say it and you don't.

Very nicely put, Craig.
You would make a good diplomat.
;)

I suspect thje taping was the sun's idea not hers (though she clearly went along with it). The Sun's enthusiasm for going OTT in its newfound opposition to Labour is distateful.

BREAKING NEWS!
the US army "accidentally" left ammunition for taliban!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-Oqmm9Vcw&feature=related

BREAKING NEWS!
the US army "accidentally" left ammunition for taliban!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-Oqmm9Vcw&feature=related

@Subrosa,

> I have no intention of articulating my military
> understanding to you. It would be a wasted
> effort I can see.

I really think you *should* 'articulate your military understanding', as the alternative would serve as a device to avoid the contradiction between your support for the military and the harmful effects of the wars they help prosecute.

As glenn points out, insisting that civians stay out of the debate is akin to asking people to keep their irritating democratic opinions to themselves. It is much in the same vein as the Republican cry of "once the troops are in battle, you should give them unequivocal support" in the US, regardless of the nature of the war crimes being carried out.

> How many military sign up because they can't
> get a job anywhere.

Are you genuinely unaware that people join the military because of limited work opportunities at home? This is not new news. Admittedly it's an American example but this was examined in Michael Moore's `Bowling for Columbine`, and I'd be surprised if the decline of the mining and car manufacturing industries in the UK didn't have the same effect.

> We invaded these two countries with no strategy or planning

Perhaps, but that's looking at the speck in the eye rather than the log, isn't it? What about the stream of substantial lies that got us into Iraq in the first place? What about international law, and putting Blair and his ilk on trial for crimes against humanity? How about the war crimes carried out in these invasions - the white phosphorus, and the torture, and the shooting of civilians?

I wonder of Guardsman Janes killed any Afghans whilst on duty. I wonder if anyone has written to their parents. I wonder if anyone has asked Ms. Janes the simple question - 'He was 16 when he signed up meaning that parental consent was required. We you aware of the risks when you let him join the army?'

anno, I would prefer Muslims to embrace the British way of life and to paste its tolerance into Islam.

Well said. If there's a lesson in all of this, it's directed at the Conservative Party - don't jump to the Sun's tune, especially as the next General Election will be won by a unique coalition of Web2.0 and shoe-leather.

Anticant,
if you had tolerance you wouldn't have invaded muslim countries. If you had tolerance, your media wouldn't have branded the christian young lady who converted to Islam as "brain washed" (Last week media). You pretend you have tolerance, in fact you don't have it. When i say you i mean likes of you, not those like Craig Murray.

@anno, your point about oil and colonialism is well made. But you should know that it is distinctly irritating to hear that we should embrace the "truth" of Islam.

It is fine for you to accept Islam, and I reluctantly support religious freedom despite the damage that all creeds do the people of the world. But it is not fine for you to insist to everyone that your preferred faith-based belief system is the "truth". You might well feel as I do if I suggested that you should "embrace the truth of Scientology, and paste it into your life".

@Afrique - you're new here, aren't you? As far as I know anticant hasn't invaded any Muslim countries, and I also am under the impression that he doesn't own any media outlets at all, so "his" media have not been branding anyone at all.

Perhaps he can correct me on these points! :o)

Jon,

Whilst I agree with you, and think all religions are highly destructive, I think it is reasonable to point out, that anything associated with the Word MUSLIM has been demonised across the Western World. This is mass propaganda of a similar kind to that meted out to Jews in Nazi Germany and beyond. The target is now Muslims - and it is so entrenched that even intelligent people enter a kind of brain trance when the word is used, such that rational objective thought and analysis is suspended.

I give as an example - the following. Virtually no one that I am aware of has questioned the sequence of events as reported in the US Mainstream Media

According to Reports- a Major in the US army - gets out of bed at 6:00 am - and goes to his local convienience store for coffee and hash browns - dressed like Osama Bin Laden after having his beard and head shaved...

He then goes back to the army base, takes off his Arab gear, puts on his US Army uniform, and takes two of his own hand guns to work as a Psychiatrist. Apparently - he has never been deployed - he's never seen Active Service?...

He then fires his two handguns (from wiki) "an FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistol and a .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver at soldiers processing through cubicles in the center and on a crowd gathered 30 minutes before a scheduled college graduation ceremony in a nearby theater"

And Kills 13 Soldiers and Injures Another 30....

The Army Base does nothing except order a "lockdown"

An off duty female cop hears the news on her radio while she is taking her car to the garage to get fixed.

She drives to the army base instead.

The army let her in - despite the lockdown - and she heroic like takes out the lone gunman.

Can anyone rational actually believe this to be true???

Don't American Soldiers find this story so Deeply Offensive??? They do NOTHING??? - and leave it For a GIRL COP - not even a Soldier????

Comments appreciated with regards to the technical aspects of killing and wounding a total of 43 Soldiers and One Female Cop at a US Army base with the two handguns specified.

A machine gun, I could believe - but even in a school playground the surviving kids would likely have rushed him, before he had a chance to reload his revolver - which I assume takes around 6 bullets.

How come no one seems to be questioning this - and believes all this nonsense just because the word MUSLIM has been used?

Has everyone gone NUTS?

Tony

Afrique, "I" have not invaded any Muslim countries, and anyone who reads what I write here and elsewhere knows very well that I think both Iraq and Afghanistan are disastrous and wicked follies on the part of the West.

But I AM intolerant of nonsense, and include all irrational religious beliefs in that. However - unlike inhabitants of Muslim-ruled countries - I am thankfully free to say so, and also glad to live in a country where you, the young lady you mention, and anybody else can believe whatever they like as long as they don't try to impose it on me and others who disagree with them.

Craig

On a point of fact, it seems that indeed other Prime Ministers including Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair did write such personal letters, although I do not know if they were done long-hand. See Simon Jenkins in the Guardian today:

"Margaret Thatcher wrote personally to the families of all the British soldiers killed in the Falklands war, as did Tony Blair in the Iraq war. Both suffered negative reaction from parents and others, unconvinced that loved ones had died in a just cause. Some were particularly resentful at Blair including in his letters assurances of the worth of his campaign in Iraq. Both leaders took a risk in writing, but were probably helped by what seemed, at least to most service families, wars efficiently conducted."

I disagree with you on your core point. If you are to send a letter from on high, make sure it is flawless lest it come across as casual or even inadvertently insulting.

My take:

http://www.charlescrawford.biz/blog/that-gordon-brown-letter

As to the Sun, Labour had the benefit of Sun support for many years, so need scarcely be too vexed when at last they lose it?

Charles

Craig

On a point of fact, it seems that indeed other Prime Ministers including Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair did write such personal letters, although I do not know if they were done long-hand. See Simon Jenkins in the Guardian today:

"Margaret Thatcher wrote personally to the families of all the British soldiers killed in the Falklands war, as did Tony Blair in the Iraq war. Both suffered negative reaction from parents and others, unconvinced that loved ones had died in a just cause. Some were particularly resentful at Blair including in his letters assurances of the worth of his campaign in Iraq. Both leaders took a risk in writing, but were probably helped by what seemed, at least to most service families, wars efficiently conducted."

I disagree with you on your core point. If you are to send a letter from on high, make sure it is flawless lest it come across as casual or even inadvertently insulting.

My take:

http://www.charlescrawford.biz/blog/that-gordon-brown-letter

As to the Sun, Labour had the benefit of Sun support for many years, so need scarcely be too vexed when at last they lose it?

Charles

I am the first person in the world to object to being forced to believe or do anything against my will. If the Muslims who live in this country were to come to power here I would be on the first flight to Australia with you. They pasted the love of Mammon from this society into their lives and they didn't lift a finger to present our religion in a proper way, which it is their religious duty to do.

Islam should be given a fair chance and false flag operations, instigated by USUKIS intelligence agencies and their media pawns should stop. Maybe you want the agenda of your life to be set by the bigotted, self-interested powers that be. But I would rather have choice and that my country was a leader in promoting freedom.
I object to a soldier who has suspended his conscience in order to kill innocent human beings out of obedience to his military superiors, to switch it back on again at will, without totally relinquishing loyalty to the madmen who commanded him to break God's command not to kill. Like Craig, I object to military men entering politics without declaring their hidden agenda and loyalties.

In many Muslim countries too much attendance at the mosque is likely to put you in jail.
Far from frogmarching you in your pyjamas to say your morning prayers, I would like this country to set an example of freedom instead of cranking up people's fears.

Simon Jenkins: efficiently conducted wars. With a ratio about deaths of 1:10,000 and of displacements at 1:150,000, nobody could accuse our armed services of inefficiency at the criminal endeavours Blair's government forced them to do.

Anno, any action is more successful of it is well planned surely? Of course the military are obedient to their political masters. Each and every one of them, when they sign on the dotted line, knows that.

'If you want to criticise our political leaders, please first unsign your unquestioning loyalty to their incredible stupidity.'

Perhaps you ought to read my post more carefully. My unquestioning loyalty to politicians? I don't think so.

Are you suggesting that we dissolve the military?

It would be my preference that Islam embraces the British way of life.

Jon

In what way would you like me to articulate my military understanding? Ah I see you're another person who would perhaps like the military dissolved.

I have no problem with civilians debating military matters whatsoever, many people I know do so. My problems lies with people who make sweeping statements such as 'a lot of the military sign up precisely because they want security and can't get a job anywhere else'.

It's my right to point out that the British military is not full of those who are unemployable. If that fact annoys you then so be it.

The word strategy also means reason. If you read by blog it will be very evident that I do not support the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. On the contrary, I've perhaps done more than most bloggers to continually air my views.

Jon

I would prefer the 'truth' of scientology to be a life choice for some, than have this government's vile Zio-lies imposed on me by force.
The government's latest excuse for torturing is that due to lack of experience in the field of Islamic terrorism, they had to import Zio-lies from the US. The vile Hazel Blears threatened us that anyone disagreeing with these vile Zio-lies, should have their benefits and civil liberties removed.

Blair didn't listen to anybody about Iraq, because he was already poisoned by Zio-lies. Why should we tolerate our country being advised from abroad, when all our British protests about the war were ignored?

Brown is like the Guardian cartoon of him as a great , fat toad, whose only activity to serve the interests of the British people is to extend his tongue out to catch a cheap media-managed human moments opportunities.

The previous crimes of this country, such as the slave-trade have had little impact on the population here. Today is the same for the people who have just lived through the displacement of one billion Muslims by war, without batting an eyelid.

Is the freedom not to believe in the truth of Islam worth the disgrace of these facts and the shame of our continuing down this repellant road, hand in hand with Obama to destroy Pakistan?

Subrosa

Is the person who fluorishes under Hitler, sane? Are efficient operations, under the Zionist flag of obliterating the Muslim world, successful? You have switched off your brain.

anno,

But what you have got to appreciate is that the rest of the World's population - that's over 5 Billion People who don't claim to be Muslims, are so frightened of Muslim's because they can (according to the World's media) achieve things that normal human beings find impossible.

For example in the case of 9/11, these Muslim's managed to suspend the laws of physics - us mere mortals can't actually do that..

With regards to the recent shootings at a US Army base, I enquired from a US Soldier and Law enforcement individual with regards to how this lone gunman managed to do it...

He replied thus - obviously Muslims have powers that are superhuman - far far better than Lara Croft can achieve in a computer game - and do it all for real - and everyone believes it. I submit to your superior religion...

"Tony, you are exactly right. The official story, as of this date is absolutely full of shit. No single shooter could have pulled this off. First there's the issue of two handguns and 43 hits. Somewhere in there he had to reload... break in the action in a room full of trained and some experienced military warriors. Think someone would not have taken him down at that point? Even during the shooting, No one reacted? They all just stood there and waited to be shot? This isn't a high school we're talking about. I am an experienced shooter, combat experienced. Add on law enforcement experience. To get 43 hits in a live shooting incident there were many more shots fired. It takes two hands to reload any handgun. Actually, I said 43 hits, it was 43 people hit. Munley, herself, was hit three times. The efficiency of shots to hits goes way way down if anyone is actually stupid enough to try to shoot two handguns at the same time. Combat pistol shooting is a two hand grip exercise.
Bottom line: US Government once again covering something up. What? Why? Cover story is total bull shit. "

Tony

Glenn wrote " Brown is hugely responsible for this death, but had he not, a Cameron, a Miliband etc. etc. would have eagerly taken his place. Brown is not the problem, and placing this 2-day news cycle on his head when semi-blindness, tiredness or dyslexia actually causes his handwriting lackings is entirely beside the point."

I agree with you on that.

"But about the "soldiers sign up to defend their country" ... come on. We've been waging a war of choice, occupying a relatively harmless country ever since a highly dubious attack by still uncaptured "terrorists" since late 2001. Any fool could see we invaded Iraq for no moral reason, and any hapless enlisters in the army have had more that 6 years to get out since even then. Nobody, or their mother, could think there was any reason to sign up as if our nation needed / might need defending. The destination of any army volunteer was to go to the middle east, has has been obvious for any "child" born since 1978."

A lot of soldiers are recruited as teenagers or in their early 20s, a lot come families who don't take an interest in politics and have been brought up to believe their government wouldn't lie to them.

At 18 I didn't have a clue. I was a student when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and i shook my head at the anti-war protesters and believed the crap about Saddam being "another Hitler" and was ready to fight to defend Europe if he invaded it next - and i came from a fairly political family. I didnt find out how wrong i was till i read a couple of Noam Chomsky books after the war and checked the sources.

So i doubt many army recruits know that their government will routinely lie to them and send them to their deaths in wars that don't need fought. They trust the politicians not to put their lives at risk or make them kill anyone unless there's no other choice.

"We are not allowed to seriously question whether these brave people have actually been killed in a pointless war. We should be condemning the media for not educating us, and a general stupidity and ignorance in the general population."

The media, certainly, a lot of it. I don't think condemning everyone as stupid and ignorant will help much - persuading and informing them will help far more - most of them aren't stupid at all, just mis-informed.

actually, I was told that sixteen year olds can find themselves signed up for 12 years (it depends on whether you sign up for courses, apparently, but people don't realise this).

My advice to every parent would not be 'don't let him do it!' but 'check the contract'.

Penalties for going AWOL are serious. Many soldiers have gone on the run. One has just been publicly arrested. What are people in the army supposed to do?

exactly technicolour - soldiers who've signed up can't just opt out of a war they disagree with even if they want to - they either get jailed or have to go into exile - and even then risk being sent back for trial.

Pakistan is fighting a war against Zio-fascism, for which the closest historical parallel is the Allies who fought against Nazi-fascism in WW2.
I am as certain of Muslim success in this outrageous war as I am grateful to my countrymen and others who defended my country and its values in two world wars. On this day of remembrance I absolutely respect them. But today's British people and today's young volunteers haven't got a clue what they're fighting for. Apparently it's a thought crime under New Labour's Zio-spinsters to disagree with their cause. Their leader, Blair, is lapping cream in the Holy Land where he has imposed a blockade of the world's promises to help Gaza. Obama has given permission for the Zionists to build anywhere and is arming himself and his Zio-fascist allies to extinguish the light of Islam by fair means or foul. He will not succeed, even with bungling Brown sitting in his pocket, sending postcards of regret and weeping great crocodile tears. Brown should immediately withdraw from this war.

"Pakistan is fighting a war against Zio-fascism"

Pakistan is an artificially created country.

Otherwise, Zio-fascism doesn't really seem an accurate term for whatever it is you're describing there. I think you mean, at minimum, Zio-Catholic-undecided-ScotsPresbyterian-fascism, no? Or is it just "the Jews"?

Seriously, please realise this is not about Muslims.

Posted by: Duncan McFarlane at November 11, 2009 8:14 PM

What about the Nuremberg Principles?

"Obeying orders" is not considered to be a plausible cause for defense in the face of probable future prosecutions and trials of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.

technicolour wrote "actually, I was told that sixteen year olds can find themselves signed up for 12 years (it depends on whether you sign up for courses, apparently, but people don't realise this)."

You're right there
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6863641.ece

As far as i'm concerned signing 16 year olds up to the military on a 12 year contract is the moral equivalent of selling drugs to schoolchildren. Neither have any idea what they're getting into, both are about the same age - and both may die as a result of adults who profit from the act.

I really dont think the Pakistan and Afghanistan wars have anything to do with Zionism either. Imperialism, certainly - and a misunderstanding of the causes of terrorism by some of the supporters of the war, but not Zionism. There's a pipleine export route and a lot of heroin in the country, plus wars mean big profits for arms firms - and the US wants military bases in Central Asia.

@VamanosBandidos: well, that's helpful. Do you think they get told that when they sign up?

Duncan: I take your points about young men being largely ignorant about why they are going into battle (which is entirely at odds with Subrosa's assertion that the military actually consists chiefly of "highly qualified individuals" who would do extremely well in the private sector).

But one has to be - as a parent - astonishingly wide-eyed to believe that the government never lies, and there are no risks taken. The idea that a tin-pot dictator from a tiny country might invade Europe and America is surely ridiculous on its face. The least research (for instance, comparing the military capabilities of each side) might be in order before signing up to the adventure - of attacking another country which had never done a thing to us.

The knowledge that soldiers do in fact die with alarming regularity should give any parent pause for thought. To fail to know anything about what the military does and why before signing a life away to it has to be willful ignorance.

We have long known that Saddam Hussein being "another Hitler" having these amazing WMD etc. etc. was a lie, but enlistments continued. It strikes me that a bereaved mother should be looking a lot closer to home to find blame, instead of teaming up with scum from the Sun to get at Brown. How can any rational person think for a moment that being in the army is a safe occupation, and that - but for this or that not being in place (helicopters, body armour etc.) - the job will involve neatly killing the evil foreigners, then returning home to a hero's welcome without so much as a grazed knee.

If someone wants to regard himself or herself as a hero, or be proud of someone else apparently acting that role, then they cannot be acting without risk. Heroism comes at a price, and occasionally it has to be paid in full, and at that time one can hardly start screaming foul.

Full advantage is being taken of the economic crises to boost recruitment. Jefferson said that "volunteer" armies require a "pauper class", and lamented that men would be so poor that they might "hire themselves to be shot at for a shilling a day", and wanted a society where that would not occur. We're a long way from that now, where we depend upon thorough ignorance to get people signing up. And increasing poverty, of course.

Technicolour

Seems you are in denial. Somalia Sudan Chechnya Uzbekistan Iran Iraq Lebanon Syria Palestine Afghanistan Pakistan Bosnia.

The world needs resources. We are not dogs or monkeys who can go out and get minerals from eachothers' poo.
At the same time there is no need to slaughter 1.5 million people to take over the Iraqi oilfields.

It is about the Zio-fascists getting off on the suffering of the Muslims.
It is exactly the same as Nazi Fascism, but you can't see it because it doesn't affect you.

Vanomos Bandidos "What about the Nuremberg Principles?

"Obeying orders" is not considered to be a plausible cause for defense in the face of probable future prosecutions and trials of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace."

Fair enough, but how many 16 year old recruits do you think have this explained to them? and what are the chances of them being jailed under the Nuremberg principles compared to the virtual certainty that their government will jail them (wrongly in my opinion) if they refuse to serve?

Plus many members of regiments will feel theyve abandoned their friends by not serving along side them - even opponents of World War One like Sassoon and Wilfred Owen returned because of that.

I back any soldier who refuses to serve in or return to a war they believe to be wrong, but i don't think its fair to condemn every soldier who did serve - many are too young and badly informed to know what the big picture is - and what we know of torture in iraq mostly comes from soldiers who stepped forward to tell the truth knowing they'd probably be jailed or victimised by their own government for it

Glenn wrote "Duncan: I take your points about young men being largely ignorant about why they are going into battle (which is entirely at odds with Subrosa's assertion that the military actually consists chiefly of "highly qualified individuals" who would do extremely well in the private sector)."

I think both you and Subrosa have a point - many soldiers are young and poorly educated, but there are also many who are well educated, intelligent and believe they're doing the right thing (even if we disagree with them)

Glenn wrote "But one has to be - as a parent - astonishingly wide-eyed to believe that the government never lies, and there are no risks taken."

Many people take no interest in politics whatsoever for most of their lives and genuinely don't know what's going on - and many teenagers do what they want even if their parents advise them against it, with the parents left to basically tell them their proud of whatever decision they've made. So blaming their parents is a bit harsh.

The people really to blame are the politicians who exploit the trust of those who join the military - and the trust of their families; though many of the senior ranks of the military like General Dannatt are in practice politicians too and selling the same snake-oil.

if anyone can correct it, please do, but a fuller list (of countries the US has invaded since world war 2) seems to be:

Guatemala, twice
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Korea
Lebanon
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Iran, twice
Libya, thrice
Panama
Iraq, twice
Somalia
Yugoslavia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Afghanistan
Philippines
Honduras
Nicaragua

":" above missed out a few countries bombed by the US. Here is a slightly more complete list:

Afghanistan
Bosnia
Cambodia
China (1945 - 1946)
Congo (1964)
Cuba
Dominican Republic
El Salvador (1980s)
Grenada
Guatemala (1960, 1967-1969)
Honduras
Iran, twice
Iraq, twice
Indonesia (1958)
Korea and China (1950 - 1953)
Kosovo
Kuwait (1991)
Laos
Lebanon
Libya, thrice
Nicaragua
Panama
Peru (1965)
Philippines
Somalia
Sudan (1998)
Vietnam (1961 - 1973)
Yugoslavia

(Taken from Rogue State, by William Blum, ex CIA)

Just to tie up a couple of loose ends on this thread.

Tony: You might be interested in this - http://www.alternet.org/world/143837/10_suicides_a_month_at_ft._hood_--_war_stress_is_taking_soldiers_to_the_brink

I read in the Independent on Sunday that his gun had an extended clip which held 20 rounds. He fired at least 100 shots, requiring 5 reloads since he mainly only used the one gun. If you carry loaded clips, it takes just a few seconds to reload. It's not inconceivable that people there didn't realise where the shooting was coming from, and started opening fire on each other. You know how trigger-happy they are in that part of the world.

~~~
Duncan: I forgot to make the point. I'm not blaming the parents for the fact our soldiers are being blown up in our overseas adventures. I'm saying they can hardly be shocked, shocked! when the soldiers do not come back in the same condition that they went out, and righteously embark on a media ambush on those grounds. Of course the government is entirely to blame, together with the likes of Dannatt and the bloodthirsty madman, former "wet-works" operative Stanley McChrystal, who are driving government instead of doing their job and following orders, and definitely pushing a curious combination of a Christianist and Zionist agenda, besides satisfying the requirements of the usual suspects.

~~~
Subrosa: Sure, I know you never mentioned about uniform, but that was the direction you were taking. Possibly it would be a wasted effort, as you said, if you tried to articulate your military understandings. But instead of being personally insulting, why don't you give it a go? Despite my inability to understand such concepts, others on this board might well appreciate being enlightened. Could you explain why you said I "possibly would not be happily typing away on your keyboard" without this current adventurism?

~~~
Jon: I stand by the statement she is - or at least was - getting mileage out of it. You would not wait in ambush with the Sun's goons, a prepared statement and a recording device to hand to surreptitiously record an anticipated apology, unless you were preying on the decency of a troubled man. She took full advantage of her "no defence allowed" position in this situation, knowing full well Brown would not have disputed anything she said. Not one word was asked about the morality of waging war, just that her innocent "child" should have been spared from any harm whatsoever while meting out the West's benevolent introduction to a Smithsonian democracy upon the ingrates of Afghanistan.

Has anybody here read The Protocols of Zionist Elders?

@glenn: my position was mainly to articulate that whilst her acts are easily worthy of criticism, there are some terms I would hesitate using because of her recent bereavement.

But I think there is not much space between our views. Our only difference, I would imagine, is that whilst we are agreed that it is a huge hypocrisy for her to cooperate with pro-war propagandists in this way, we are nevertheless viewing this from our frame of reference. Her (specious and naive) frame of reference is that (a) the chaps from the Sun are courageously defending "ordinary hard-working people", (b) corporate journalism is healthy for truth, fairness, justice etc., (c) the war in Afghanistan is for human rights, democracy, women's rights etc., and (d) if only we spent more money on equipment, our boys would be able to do more good in foreign lands.

But, as per Duncan's position on the limitations of blaming the troops, surely the same might apply in this case? No-one in their right mind who knows about recent US-UK imperialism, and the lies, audacity and cruelty of the same, should be cheering their sons off to a war fitting that same mould. If this does not occur to her, then to what degree is it *entirely* her fault?

Various spheres of people's life take a lot of time, so why should you waste valuable time for research essay composing? It will be easier to utilize some good essay writing service to buy the argumentative term paper from, I opine.