I Decide To Join the Establishment 36

Somebody posted two parcel bombs. Grave threat to western civilisation. Our basic principles are at stake. They hate our freedoms. Biggest threat since World War 2. Islam incompatible with democracy. Yemen is the new Afghanistan. Eternal vigilance needed. More tanks required at airports. Fighter plane escort for passenger planes is a rational answer to parcel bombs. NATO may need to invade Somalia. Torture in Saudi Arabia vindicated by this tip off. Israel is our stoutest ally.

Will that do? Where do I get the money?

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

36 thoughts on “I Decide To Join the Establishment

1 2
  • Sabretache

    I have an idea too.

    It appears that al Qaeda is Arabic for ‘the Base’ – or database as, for its Western incarnation, it morphed to refer to the database of foreign (mainly Wahhabi and Sunni Arab) fighters prepared to harass the Russians in Afghanistan. Arabic, like English and most languages, has its collections of homonyms and it appears that “Toilet” (loo, khazi, WC, gents, john etc etc.) is a particularly populous one – especially since they have to cater for our disgusting Western habit of sitting on a seat rather than squatting.

    And guess what? “al-Qaeda” is one of them – and the disgusting Western one at that.

    So question: can you imagine a group of terrorists styling themselves “The Red Toilet Faction”, “The Toilet Brigades”, “The Irish Republican Toilet” – Hmmm. IOW yet another inept Western invention to replace the now defunct “communist” and keep the masses scared docile and demanding of protection.

    I watched Frank Gardner on BBC News last night and it was hilarious – really entertaining. The toilet was invoked with solemn-faced gravity no less than 9 times in a 3 minute slot with such gems as: “The toilet in Yemen consists mainly of toilet operatives from Saudi Arabia” – and there was I thinking that it was Saudi that imported lowly immigrants to clean their khazis – you live and learn eh?

    So next time you are forced to endure Frank Gardner or any other other MI5/6 stooge waxing on about al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi, Yemen, Blackburn, Sadlers Wells, etc etc. remember, everywhere has them; and every time you hear that dreaded scary “AL-QAEDA!!!” word, just substitute the translation. You’ll begin to look forward to the news as a reliable source of hilarity.

    PS native Arabic speakers are cordially invited to correct me – or elaborate.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    ‘Replica watches’, indeed!

    If you look on the most recent Assange thread, you will see that the generator of fake spam directed at this site has revealed their existence.

    So, SISsubcontractspammyboy – go get a life – or we’ll set the lawnmower man on you!

  • nobody


    May I roll my eyes at the obviousness of that? How about the ‘irony’ of you telling me I missed the point precisely whilst missing my point?

    Shall I lay it out for you? The point I was trying to make was that it took Craig three posts to decide that this was bullshit. And in amongst this irony he employed to do so, he idiotically declares that the shoe bomber and underpant bomber were real. They weren’t.

    Craig’s perpetual position is that Muslim terrorism is real and occasionally the security services fake the odd thing or two. He’s got it arse about. Muslim terror is 99.99% fake. I will admit that once in a blue moon the odd unprompted Muslim buys the fiction as reality and acts out the part. But such ‘real’ terrorists are as rare as hen’s teeth.

    There is no al qaeda. Not beyond the CIA’s database and their long-dead employee figurehead Tim Osman, or as we all know him Osama Bin Laden. Their number three, Azzam al Riki, is actually a Jewish boy from Orange County by the name of Adam Pearlman. Otherwise go google “Oded Yinon A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” and see the battle plan all laid out and merely waiting for the al qaeda bogeyman to be waved over the battlements to get the action rolling.

    Craig’s been told all of this many, many times, and long before you arrived here. And yet, here he is still perpetually wide-eyed.

    Do you get it now? Craig’s odd ‘ironic’ piece pointing out this errant tree and that errant tree is impressive until you realise that it’s not this tree/that tree, it’s the whole fucking forest and Craig just refuses to call it.

    Ha! Here’s an analogy – let’s re-imagine MacBeth albeit with the approach of Birnam Wood as our doom rather than MacBeth’s. Indeed it’s MacBeth who’s screaming loudest at how we’re all fucked. And Craig? He’s on the battlements pointing out individually dodgy trees but perpetually insisting that Birnam Wood really is marching up to Dunsinane.

    And so! Between our king of the fascist roll-out, MacBeth, and his doubter-in-chief, Craig, how great is the distance between them? A metre or a mile? Do you get it Somebody?

  • technicolour

    Yes, Nobody, I thought I saw a resemblance to Apostate, in one of your more scatalogical posts, but that last one would be quite a stretch. What does the wood stand for, exactly?

  • nobody


    If Macbeth is king of the fascist rollout and the wood is our doom and we’re in a discussion of fake Muslim terror then what would Birnam Wood be? Muslims of course. But then again, it depends on which Birnam Wood we’re talking about.

    If you recall, in Macbeth, the actual Birnam Wood didn’t actually advance upon Dunsinane at all. Okay, there you have the truth of real Muslims. The ‘Birnam Wood’ that did advance upon Dunsinane was no such thing. It was mere fakery – Malcolm’s army holding branches to camouflage themselves. Here Malcolm’s Army = Intelligence services. There you have the truth of the intelligence services – the fakers of Muslim terror.

    Craig’s position is that, yes, this is the case, the West does fake Muslim terror but, (back to the analogy now) says he, Birnam Wood really is advancing upon Dunsinane.

    I understand that people here are happy that Craig calls bullshit on the odd thing or two but then we’re back in the original ‘forest for the trees’ analogy. Yeah well, three cheers for the single-tree-theory aficionados. Long may your focus remain very very narrow.

1 2

Comments are closed.