To Fly or not to Fly? That is the Question

This is topic on Libya is a controversial one which has elicited passionate responses. But I think that the question asked in the title is a potent question which is on everyone’s lips. The reason why I have decided to post on this topic is because I am finding that this has become a very decisive issue between people who are ardently for or pro the imposition of a no fly zone. So I’m going to try my best to address some of the points on both sides of the debate as best I can. Though I know many people might disagree with my opinion I hope that this post might make you question or think harder about this subject. Because regardless what people say, this decision is not a clear cut one and is a hard one to address.

I know this post is long and I apologies. But please if you can read it all before you judge my position on the intervention.

First thing I want to point out on the get go is that this situation we find ourselves in is nothing like the situation we found ourselves in with Iraq. The reason why I say this is because of a lot of different aspects.

Firstly, this No fly Zone has the international approval of the UN and the Arab league *though…it is debatable how worthy their opinions are on the matter, since most of the people on the panel are themselves oppressive dictators/leaders*. The Iraq war on the other hand did not have the same kind of legitimating backing.

Secondly, unlike with Iraq, the west was not gunning for Gaddafi’s removal a-prior to this revolution. With Saddam there was a clear sign from the get go that George Bush and Even Tony Blair to an extent, where looking to find an excuse to get rid of him. This issue of Saddam being removed George Bush believed should have been resolved during the gulf crises. So hence why when the devastating events of 9/11 occurred the administration thought that it was a good enough time as any to settle old scores and tie up this loose end once and for all. Obviously there were other factors as well which came to influence their decision to go to war, but that is whole separate issue in itself.

But with Libya the situation was markedly different. Ever since the Iraq war Gaddafi had played nice and renounced all links to ‘terrorism’. This is because he feared if he didn’t he would be the next one they would decide to topple Saddam style. So with Saddam, the situation started off with him being BFFs with the west and then he went rogue. While with Gaddafi, the tables are more or less turned, he started off a rogue bandit and was then ‘rehabilated’ as a friend an ally. But let me get one thing clear here, though Britain was quick to slide into a chummy type relationship with Gaddafi, the USA on the other hand still viewed him warily and was generally more cautious. So hence the lack of similar loved-up pictures of American leaders with Gaddafi as we have seen currently being aired with regards to Tony Blair.

Thirdly, the situation of the importance of oil isn’t really as pivotal as it was with Iraq. If you look at the people who are Libya’s main dealers the USA falls way down the list. The picture below best describes who gains what from relations with Libya:

So the issue of whether or not the west is going in for SIMPLY oil isn’t really as pivotal as the people most benifiting are not the ones intervening as was with case with Iraq. Another point to note is that some people have argued that one of the desires of the west isn’t controlling their access to the oil per say, but just making sure the price of oil does not rise on the world market due to the conflict in Libya. This issue has actually been resolved by Saudi Arabia who have during this conflict stepped in and ‘gracefuly’ upped the oil it pumps out to balance and quell the rise of oil prices. So on that aspect of things, there isn’t a real urgency for the USA to go in guns blazing. Though of course we cannot deny that the sooner this conflict is resolved, the better it is for everyone as it is debatable how long Saudi Arabia can keep up this charade of stabilizing prices. So while oil is an important aspect to this intervention, it is not actually really vital to countries like the USA. It’s more important to countries like the UK & France…who funnily enough have seemed to take a keen interest in this conflict..

But overall, these factors have combined to reflect the USA’s posture on the conflict. Contrary to what people like to believe, the USA was actually not the country that was mainly thrusting for this intervention. It was instead Britain and France that where the main backers of intervention. Obama himself was actually heavily reluctant to get involved in this conflict in the first place. It was why even a day before the UN resolution was to be debated, government official’s in Britain and France where jittery and hesitant over whether or not the USA would actually support their stance. It was actually the people around Obama who greatly influenced or pushed him to back this No fly zone. One of these people was Hillary Clinton who was actually frustrated with Obama personally over his lack of leadership over this issue.

The way Obama saw it was that he didn’t need another war against a Muslim country on his hands. Add that with the current budgetary problems caused by the recession and you find yourselves in a very tricky and therefore reluctant position. The USA has of course currently been the main enforcer of the No fly zone, but it has also been quick to try and absolve its responsibility of this conflict. It want’s Nato to take full charge instead and ideally would like to pull out of the conflict at soon as possible, citing that it hoped this conflict would be resolved in a matter of days.

Another point to address is the confusion surrounding the detail of what the No Fly Zone entails. The No Fly Zone resolution explicitly forbids ANY foreign troops on the ground. It is basically a resolution which only allows artillery attacks to ground Gaddafi’s planes whilst enforcing a humanitarian protection zone over parts of rebel held Libya against attacks from Gaddafi forces.  So no military ground personal will be used in the conflict as was used in Iraq. The no Fly zone is simply making sure that Gaddafi’s forces are no longer air bombing towns whilst hampering his force from attacking rebel held areas. This means bombing their military bases and grounding their flying capabilities. So it is largely a defense situation where it is used as a tactic to try and level the ground for the rebel forces.

But there is of course an inherent interest for the west to bomb military defense targets and weaponry. As in the end, when Gaddafi is hopefully toppled, a new leadership will come into power which will have to rebuild their military and therefore buy new defense systems and weaponry. And guess who’s going to be the main supplier? Yep the west, so it’s win-win.

This is true of course that whatever is bombed will one day be rebuilt and as the main weapon suppliers are the West, they are kind of securing some future revenue for their arms trade. But at the same time, let’s not forget that war itself is very expensive. For example, for each Tomahawk missle fired it costs the USA 1.4 million dollars. Not only that, but it costs the government 13,000 dollars an hour to fly a fighter plane. Now that is a lot of money considering how many missiles have been fired and how many fighter planes have been active in enforcing the no fly zone. So for those arguing that this conflict is simply about monetary gains, the evidence shows that the monetary gains aren’t really extensively that much.

Another point to bring up would be the point brought up by Ken Livingstone during the question time debate. It was the idea that this conflict should be instead left to countries like Turkey and Egypt who are much more legitimate players. I completely agree with that notion. I feel this ‘western supremacy’ argument where the west is only ever perceived as the people to enforce military actions is laughable. But, I do think only the west in this case could have enforced the no fly zone, why? Because firstly Egypt was and still is against intervening military in the conflict. This is because it is currently embroiled in its own problems as Mubarak has only just recently been ousted. This means domestically Egypt has enough on its plate and cannot spare enough time or effort to embark on a war. While with Turkey, I do think it could play a more vital role in the intervention on a whole. But we are all kidding ourselves if we think that Turkey could unilaterally carry this No Fly Zone off on its own. Whether we like it or not, the USA has built up a much superior military force in and around the region and has the much needed technology to enforce this currently.  It is one of the reason why Britain and France needed to drag the USA into backing this and leading the No fly Zone as even Britain and France aren’t nearly as well equipped as the USA when it comes to military and GPS on Libya.

So overall, should this No fly zone be enforced? I personally think yes. I think that this is a hard question for people like us who are sat in the safety of our houses to ponder. But for those people who are sat in Libya, the answer is starkly easier to answer. They want this enforcement of a No Fly Zone because whether we like it or not, they did very much need it at the time of its enforcement. The rebel forces had been pushed to Benghazi and people on the ground were loosing real hope and starting to think that maybe it would be business as usual with Gaddafi in permanent power. I have Libyan friends who have been vocal about wanting this no fly zone enacted because they have family and friends back home who they are very worried about. Libyan people who a week or so ago, where contemplating what form Gaddafi’s revenge would take shape in…and how harsh and devastating it would be. There were also many brave rebels who had fought honorably on the battle lines who were contemplating the very real fact that they would soon be fighting, risking and possibly losing their lives in a lost battle.

But of course nothing in life is simple. The concerns voiced on the anti-intervention side are of course valid. I do not deny that the West is hypocritical in its enforcement of these interventionist policies. I understand the very real problem we have in the world were if it wasn’t for some sort of interest, the west generally wouldn’t give much of a toss about a conflict. This is highlighted in the fact that there are a plethora of conflicts in for example Africa, which have been raging on for years prior to these revolutions in the Middle East where nothing has been done. These conflicts have also become so common in some parts of the world that they at times are barely even deemed newsworthy.

But what then is the answer? Are we not saying if the USA or west wants to be truly fair they should intervene in places like Africa where none of its interests lie? But then are we still not asking the USA to intervene? Is the question we should be asking, not whether or not you should or should not intervene, but when.

When you have seen the devastating events of the Rwandan genocide and read up the facts, you are left thinking, where was the west? You are not left thankful of the west’s lack of intervention, but critical. This highlights how intervention whether we like it or not is an important aspect of foreign policy. The question that burns us most is the hypocrisy of it all. But let’s not let this blatant hypocrisy and criticism blind us to whether or not the west should act in all situations.

I do believe that this conflict is to be won by Libyans and Libyans alone. But I do see no issue with the No Fly Zone helping to level the playing field of the conflict to a more equitable level as it will save a lot of people’s lives. Let us not kids ourselves, If Gaddafi had entered Benghazi and regained control of it, there would have been a massacre and I bet you we would be sat here saying instead, why the hell did no one intervene or care?

I also realize that the reason behind the intervention is not simply one devoid of any interest for the west. This is because the sooner the conflict is resolved the better. After all oil prices would no longer be privy to fluctuation and also Libya is at the doorstep of Europe, so an influx of war immigrants would be stemmed. But just because the Libyans are sat on a reservoir of oil and are situated in the geopolitical place they are in, doesn’t make their lives any less worthy to save. If they did not sit on oil, would the questions asked be similar to those asked during the Rwandan conflict?

I think our role of course should be to criticize the people who hold power, and work slowly towards making sure this integrated nexus of interest and intervention is broken. The hypocrisy of the west denouncing Gaddafi yet courting the Saudi & Bahrani Monarchy enrages me. These are wrongs that need to be righted. And we should vocally make sure that out governments are aware of their wholly unacceptable double standards. We cannot simply agree with their dated concept of ‘look at us we are doing this cause we care’ propaganda that they like to spew.  We should not buy into their lies and their efforts to package this conflict in their favor. But at the same time, we cannot denounce all of the actions they do.

We just need to make the west more accountable to their hypocritical actions and make sure that this privileging of oppressive regimes over others is one day shattered.

So overall, we should work towards a point where the Middle East should be able to police itself and deal with intervention in its region by its own forces. Rather than having the USA intervene because of its military prowess and superiority. But till then, we have to deal with the shabby cards that we are dealt, while making sure we do not loose sight of the motives of the people dealing the cards. They should be held accountable for getting us into this situation and should be monitored closely to make sure they do not once again overstep their mandate as they have done in the past.

Till Next Time,

 

Food for Thought: Ignorance & Hate

‘People tend to be frightened of what they don’t understand’

It’s a simple quote, but a quote which I think resonates perfectly with the times we find ourselves living in at the moment. It’s also a quote I picked up watching the ‘Big fat Gypsy Wedding’…for all those who don’t know what that is…. it’s a show on channel 4 that highlights some aspects of the customs and traditions of gypsies.

But the reason why I speak about it is because I feel partially ashamed. But before I get into that I need to back-track a bit. Just before I watched the final programme of ‘Big fat Gypsy wedding’ I watched a programme about Geert Wilder on BBC’s this world programme …there is of course no nice way of explaining who this detestable guy is, and it’s also unfortunate that anyone has to hear of his name. He is a prominent Dutch MP in Holland who spews hate-filled, factually inaccurate and ignorant comments directed strictly against  the faith of Islam and it’s followers  …he is also a card- carrying hard-line ardent Christian-Zionist…It’s something I believe which partially explains a lot of about where his views come from. The reason why he has become so prominent is because his party unfortunately currently holds 12% of the parliamentary seats in Holland.

But that fact that he exists and has some public backing shouldn’t be a complete surprise. It is, if anything, an expected occurrence especially if you consulate with the history books. This is because whenever there seems to be economic turmoil or hardships  the minorities/outsiders/immigrants are always targeted and blamed for the faults of an inherently unequal system….I wonder if the dear old bankers contemplate this when they moan about banker bashing…It’s always an indirect consequence of economic hardship that people use and find scapegoats to blame all the countries woes and troubles on…and with the rise of Extremist far-right  groups across Europe, unfortunately  the scapegoat this time around is Muslims and Islam.

It’s saddening to see inside these far right groups, so called people of faith lamenting another faith-group vehemently with hate…it’s especially saddening to see that a select few happen to be Jewish.  This is because it wasn’t so long ago that they were themselves on the unfortunate receiving end of this kind of incoherent hate… albeit of a much worse kind. But it seems that history is intent on repeating itself one way or another, be it under a different guise or form. And how does this occur? Simply put because of ignorance. As it is only ignorance unfortunately that seems to best survive and breed on simple fear and misinformation… As Mark Twain once put it, A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

So to bring this article full circle, why do I feel bad after watching the final episode of the big fat gypsy wedding?

It’s because I realised, watching the last episode which dealt with the discrimination that gypsies faced, that I had fallen privy to the same mistake scores of people fall into everyday…that is to base my judgement of  people whom I’ve never met and whom I know nothing about on this one barely truly encompassing programme. I had done what many people had unfortunately done, treated this show and its participants as a joke and the people in it as uncultured or backward….but whom am I to judge and discriminate? How can  anyone claim to be a target of hate when they also harbour ill will to others? It’s not to say that you have to agree with everything they do or say, but to simply deal with some disagreements by slapping a label on the people you disagree with and turning your nose up at  them is in itself inherently reductionist and wrong.

Overall, I think none of the problems that we face in this world can simply be blamed willy-nilly on a marginalised group of people, the debate and problems we face are complex for a reason… So extremists should not insult our intelligence by suggesting otherwise. So for all those people who ask why they should bother with simply keeping in touch with what’s going on in the wider world…remembers this simple fact…by being ignorant, you are inadvertently building yourself up to be a perpetrator of prejudice and discrimination.

Till Next Time,

‘The Greatest Ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about’ - Anonymous

 

Love the way You Lie

Just gonna stand there
And watch me burn
But that’s alright
Because I like
The way it hurts
Just gonna stand there
And hear me cry
But that’s alright
Because I love
The way you lie
I love the way you lie
I love the way you lie

It looks like me stumbling across a song that fits a political situation is going to be a regular occurrence…Don’t blame me…blame the music…. It’s like the song was tailor-made as a soundtrack to this event ….Is it coincidence that the song came out around the time of the event? Conspiracy? I think not as I doubt Rihanna and Eminem had any inkling of the political message they mirror in their song, but regardless they have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

So what am I exactly on about? Is it the love-in of Nick Clegg and David Cameron? Are you crazy? of course not, I didn’t say the song was ‘We belong together’ by Mariah Carey, or ‘My Boo’ by Alicia keys and Usher, or a ‘Moment Like this’ by Kelly Clarkson, or ‘Everything I do (I Do It For You)’ by Brian Adams, or ‘crazy in love’ by Beyonce…..I could go on and on listing the whole back-catalogue of love songs ever created but that would just keep me typing away till death arrives at my doorstep…..and plus…im taking you have already gotten the point of the kind of relationship Nicky and Davey share *you don’t know it but that’s one of the ways they love to refer to each other, others are Romeo and Juliet, Jack and Rose etc.*

Wow….i think that was THEEE longest sidetrack ever..but what can i say….they inspire a lot.  So back to the main point, what am i referring to with regards to these lyrics? *drumroll….acrobats….juggling clowns…..fireworks….neon lights*

Bankers and their relationship with the government <3

It just screams domestic abuseeeee and i don’t need to tell you who’s the wife beater in this situation, the bankerssss. Why? Because they use and abuse as they please, get themselves into tricky situations which drag us all down, run back to the government asking for help and promising to change, then as soon as they are saved they are back to their dirty tricks again…no shame or regret…even Chris Brown is tutting at how they treat their woman.

So this all comes about mainly because the issue of Banker’s Bonus is yet to be resolved. With David Cameron exclaiming recently that ‘banker-bashing’ is not the way to go …. really? these people rolling in money can’t take a bit *or a lot* of criticism? obviously they weren’t taught that sticks and stones will break their bones but words will not hurt them….trust the abused to stick up for their man  *he loves me he really does…he just gets all caught up in the moment and doesn’t realise what he is doing…it’s my fault it really is*….in this case it really is David, yours and the governments fault. You act as facilitators for the bankers absurd actions and the fact you wont call their bluff on their claim that if you restrict their bonuses that the financial sector will take flight is just pitiful.

So what about the claim that the financial sector will move abroad if  their bonuses are restricted or taken away….really? A whole sector will decide to pack their bags and move on out abroad? Uproot their whole social network? Doubt it especially when they realise that a restriction on bonuses doesn’t mean you’ll be working on minimum wage…you’ll still be able to afford that nice Ferrari or mansion to add to your already burgeoning collection….if anything, probably a few at the top would maybe move abroad….but even if they did…lets be honest…there is always going to be someone to replace them….this isn’t  star wars…bankers aren’t Jedi’s who need to be rigorously trained in the  ’force’  that only a select few  are privy to, by skilled mentors…..Plus if the top echelon can f*** up so badly what is the big deal about someone on a lower salary f*****g up aswell… only difference is their is a saving made with the latter *kerching*.

So in general…bankers bashing is something that should carry on till these damn bankers decide to get ‘real’ and face up to ‘reality’. People are loosing jobs here and there and are generally suffering in a recession that was brought on by people who probably wouldn’t realise their was a recession on if it wasn’t for the news outlets. I’m not saying that the government are innocent in all this, like i said they are facilitating all this by playing along with this whole ‘its-not-all-my-fault-please-pity-poor-old-me’ act put on by bankers…and it doesn’t exactly bypass me that some of the funding received by the Tories and other parties generally come from people who benefit from the financial sector. I’m just sick of people giving the bankers the time of day to whine about their over-inflated wages not being inflated enough….look…if anything…..when bankers are doing well you could argue they deserve to get bonuses…fine..sure…just make sure those bonuses are tied up to their banks shares…then they have an added incentive to not risk our savings on quick-term money fixes. Everyone is a happy trooper then…and if we get f****d …then at least we will have a bit of solace in the fact that they are getting f****d to …even if it’s just a bit

Till next time,

 

Wikileaks….leaking and dumping

Firstly….who came up with the word  ’dump’ to describe Wikileaks  massive release of secret government memos? Shouldn’t it be more of a flood? Since the website is called Wiki-leaks….not man-rushing-to-get-to-toilet-after-a-few-to-many-vindaloos. Not only that but the layout that greets when you open the site…..well…..check it out for yourself:

http://213.251.145.96/

For a minute there I had to double-take before realising that no I had not stumbled upon a James bond-esque fan page but was actually on the Wikileaks page with the added grace of Julian’s Assange’s most thought-provoking pose….It’s like he is staring straight at me no matter where I position myself….Mona Lisa, you seem to have a contender vying for your throne of creepyness.

That of course is beside the point of this post. I’m going to avoid discussing Julian Assange himself and focus instead on the website. The topic has of course died off recently but has solicited polarised reactions in the public upon its release, dividing people generally between the camps of oh-no-he-didn’t and the oh-yes-he-did. Personally I think the issue resides somewhere in between though leaning more towards beneficial then a downright affront ….but first…lets touch upon the argument’s.

So one of the issues critics have with the Wikileaks ‘dump’ of information is that it basically hinders the working of diplomacy. They argue some things need to be kept secret because if they aren’t then diplomats will avoid voicing their true concerns through memos in fear of them being released and therefore them being exposed. It’s a simple case of if diplomats in foreign countries can’t rely the true facts of what’s going on in the grounds to their own governments it will obviously hamper state relations. And as we all know, what  governments say to other governments publicly isn’t necessarily what they say about them privately. And its not something alien, it’s something we do as people on a day-to-day basis, e.g. Iv heard Paul is a right old prick who dabbles in drugs on the side but because I happen to work with Paul whenever I greet him it’s all sugar and spice and everything nice. The aspect of states being two-faced to each other isn’t necessarily an issue when it revolves around petty matters i.e. how Sensitive and temperamental Nicolas Sarkozy is.

But it does of course matter  with big issues, but that isn’t really a point worth discussing as  much of the info revealed was generally low down in the secrecy stakes. Which then brings me on to my next point, the whole drama about how shocking and revealing the leaks where and how they need to be stopped as a matter of US state security. Calls where made that Julian Assange *public figurehead of Wikileaks* should be hunted down like Osama bin laden, jailed, assasinated etc. point is Boy should be stopped one way or another. This argument is in itself absurd, because lets face it, the only person genuinely shocked by the Wikileaks revelations was probably Sarah Palin…..and to be honest, the same shock and awe could have been attained if you’d handed her a map:

Mama Grizzly herself aka Sarah Palin: Africa ain’t a country? it’s a continent? Well ill be damned

Please do be damned if it gets you to stop wasting our time with your constant drivel….  I digress, point is, Anyone who knows anything about politics will know that most of the revelations where already known. But what the leaks did do was solidify the fact that this info was also known by the governments and by their diplomats….if anything…it strengthened slightly the faith in diplomats as it actually meant that the lack of public commentary by the government officially wasn’t due to lack of info from the ground.  So in a sense the leaks where helpful to that affect as well as to alerting the general public of info known by a select few groups.

But another strong argument levied against the Wikileaks revelations was that the diplomats or people mentioned in the memo would be in danger off repercussions for simply voicing their opinion….this is of course a valid point …and it’s one of the issues I do feel that actually bare weight, names should be omitted because if its simply the information we seek who imparts it should be of no concern. I of course do acknowledge that Wikileaks did attempt to contact the US state department to attain their take on which names should be omitted but where rebutted….but nevertheless, some names are shown to be omitted though not all…which I think if addressed would help stem that aspect of the criticism.

Generally….the existence of Wikileaks or something similar to that effect is here to stay, this is something that cannot be stopped once it has started. And that should be viewed generally as more of a good thing then a bad as transparency is of course a vital aspect of democracy and if not applied leads the governments actions to go unchecked by the public and media…..well….I say media… but truly…the media in this day generally, not in all cases, is becoming more and more complacent and less and less intrusive…this is an affect we see more starkly in the US where Fox news is seen by the public to be the most ‘trustworthy’  source of news even though recent findings emerged to show that fox viewers, compared to any other US network, where more likely to be misinformed. Anyone outside the US *and even informed groups within the US* can clearly see that Fox is as trustworthy as a banker-with-anyone-else’s-money…..I don’t even need to expand on that analogy….you get the point….so with the advent of  internet sites like Wikileaks it’s an interesting twist on how news and checks on government activity will occur in the future….the internet will no doubt wrangle as many chains in the Journalistic world as it has in the music and film world.

Till Next time

 

Anyone up for a battle royale?

I’v got an idea that I think will blow people away… literally… whilst also solving a few social problems. Here’s the basic idea, we get the extremist ‘Muslim’ jihadi’s and the extremist islamaphobes *im taking hardcore fundamentalist ‘Christians’, ‘Jews’, EDL members etc.* and we place them on an island somewhere, *one as far away as possible from the general civilized community* and we just let them fight it out, old skool style, dog eat dog etc. Let ignorance fight it out for the sake of our sanity.

I have had just abount enough of both sides utter nonesense. You get these well hard don’t-fuck-with-us brits showing their hardness by….protesting in areas like Luton with a bunch of  flags….well hard…you know they must mean buisness because the big bois have brought out the st. Johns flags. Rocky balboua ain’t got shit on these guys ….FACT. If these guys really wanted to combat ‘jihad’ then what the hell are they doing in quaint old Luton and NOT Afghanistan? Did they just get lost on the way and decide to set up shop in the nearest district with a substantial enough Islamic community? Targeting the moderates, that’s the way to do it.

And where to start with the ‘Islamic’ extremists…….well, firstly, when you speak off attacking the ‘heart of the west’ do u really just mean a bunch of innocent civillians goin abt their daily chores? heart of the west? As far as I know the bus’s and trains you attacked in London only follow 1 route and their destinations are not the lair of satan himself….Bummer. And in the process of your so called mission you happen to end up targeting the most defenceless people, where is the honour in that?  Not to mention you finish yourself conveniently off so as not to deal with the consequences of your ignorant and misguided act. You do kill 2 birds with 1 stone though, you manage to not only break the Islamic rule that FORBIDS one taking their own life aka suicide but ALSO you manage to disobey the clear saying of your own prophet which says you should in times of war leave non-combatants i.e. civilians, woman, children, elderly etc.   unharmed….. so that’s an Islamic combat FAIL. It’s like these people have decided to treat the religion like a pick and mix…picking NOTHING of relevance and MIXING in their own crap. And funnily enough, the heads of this extremist faction always seem to stay put where they are… in this life… unfortunately. I imagine the conversation goes a bit like this:

Mullah: So you see, your mission in life is to carry out this deed *hands bomb strapped vest over*. It is the rightful path for true believers.

Unsuspecting Dude; I understand, *straps on vest* So when do we depart?

Mullah: We? you mean just you right *nervous laugh*.

Unsuspecting Dude: haha, your a right old joker come on man, when are we heading out?

Mullah: Well your heading out  next week, I’v got a few errands to run here and there, you know, big man stuff, accounting, goat herding < them bastards are a rowdy bunch, chicken counting etc. etc. etc.,  someone’s gotta do the hard grafting, and unfortunately it lands on me….I’d LOVE to come, but I can’t, maybe next ti…..*cough cough* …*deadly silence*… brother  Ali? Did you call me?

UD: That was a goat

Mullah: You sure? Cause I swear I heard Ali call me saying something or other about an emergency…better check it out…*hauls ass out of the cave*

So how about both of you lot MAN up and go fight each other head on an island far far awayyyyy.

Till next time

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allah does not love those who trangress”. (Qur’an 2:190)

 

Blair’s ‘personal memoirs’

I just don’t get people like Blair who choose to take up the mantle of political leader and adopt this quasi-humanitarian-warrior-ghandi-esq rhetoric and who fail to grasp the complexities of what it exactly entails to be a great leader. To be a great leader one doesn’t just have to lead and make the right choices but also BARE responsibility for those actions and decisions whether they turn out to be right or wrong.  We are all human and because of this fact we are all privy to making mistakes and being flawed. A great leader is someone who accepts this fact and embraces it and works to minimise the mistakes he makes whilst also admitting and apologising when he is wrong. It’s true what they say that it takes a great man to admit that he is wrong and this should be even truer in the case of politics where it seems hardly any leader is EVER wrong.

This whole episode of rambling comes about after I read some extracts from Tony Blair’s forthcoming memoirs. The issue that interests most people surrounding his leadership is the case for the war on Iraq. It’s what many people believe to be the biggest failing in his term in office and that which helped signal his slow demise. In his memoirs Blair does take about some regrets in his time in office, like for example, the fox-hunting ban *how one can suddenly be enlightened to the fact that savage dogs bloodily hunting a lone fox to its death for the mere sport and enjoyment of the upper class echelons is actually something that shouldn’t be banned goes beyond me, he might as well legalize dog baiting, cockfighting etc. to boot and call it a full house*.

On the war on Iraq however, with all the hindsight we have Blair still professes he has no regrets and if given the chance, would make the same exact decision. The evidence that Saddam clearly did not have weapons of mass destruction, *let alone ones he could detonate in 45 minutes*, the fact that Saddam did NOT have any ties to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and that BECAUSE of the invasion Iraq has become MORE dangerous rather than less, the fact that Iraq to say the least is in the throes of a civil conflict, the fact that Iran now is able to influence some of the political powers in Iraq which before it could not due to the animosity between Saddam and the Iranian regime, the fact that they prematurely waged war on Iraq before securing the threat and stability of Afghanistan therefore derailing and draining vital resources from Afghanistan, oh and the mere fact that Osama bin Laden himself has yet not been captured *yes we can fly to the moon, send satellites into outer space, build man-made islands etc, but finding one notorious man….we are still working on it* seems to not bother or hinder his conviction in that he was right in the least.

Lets not kid ourselves, if another war/offensive needed to be waged the place to wage it would be in the uncontrollable and ungovernable no mans land between Afghanistan and Pakistan where Osama bin Laden and his main operatives are rumoured to be seeking refuge.

But no, all these facts and details mean nothing to Blair because he BELIEVED it was his moral and god given right to invade Iraq to get rid of an evil dictator who as Blair has on countless times exclaimed, murdered his own people. Now Saddam’s brutality and blighted human rights records are by no means contested. He was an evil dictator to say the least, but what frustrates me is when Blair exclaims that now as a reason why he was toppled but back then the reason given was Saddam = Al Qaeda links + weapons of mass destruction….+ evil man. Two vital pieces where missing in the case for why we should go to war, yes one still stands but Blair has to admit that what took us to war was an inadvertent lie. So he SHOULD regret his decision because his case was and still is flawed. Military powerhouses don’t just go to war because of human rights breaches, as disheartening and as unfair as that fact is. Yes in cases of severe human rights breaches countries may go to war to ratify that, case in point being Bosnia, but that isn’t the case always, case in point the Rwandan genocide. The crimes Blair speaks of are crimes that occurred in the past i.e. gassing of his own people and the Iranians, and at a time where the west knew FULL well what was going on and STILL supplied Iraq with some of the chemicals used in creating these chemical weapons. And to just skim over the dictator part of his argument maybe Blair should look at neighbouring countries like Egypt, Syria, Saudi etc. where dictatorship seems to be an over glanced fact when it comes to their ties to the west.

My point is, if Blair is going to act like a Knight in shinning armour upholding the bastions of Human rights then he should just claim to be doing that and not pepper and season his argument to the people of the country with lies and untruths. If you believe strongly in something then that should be your argument. The least the people of Iraq who will bear the brunt of this war deserve is the truth to why they should burden this. The same goes for the soldiers who fight in this war and risks their lives for queen and country. And the same applies to the people you claim to serve who’s money through taxes goes to fund this war.

Not to mention the rising death toll of people killed in this war.

“It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character.”

Dale E. Turner

That is all for now,

Till next time

 

Reclusive Genius

This story just fascinated me today:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/shy-maths-genius-leaves-million-dollar-prize-money-on-the-table-1928032.html

Though his motives are hard to ascertain I can’t help but feel a great sense of respect and awe towards him.

It goes to show that sometimes some people just do what they do through simple love of what they do and not just to attain fame and money.

You have to respect that, it’s not an easy task to do what he did, and once he did it, he spurned all the rewards that came with out. Its simply his perrogative.