You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December, 2006.
As to people’s plans to celebrate the New Year, the BBC is surprised:
People around the UK are preparing to usher in the New Year with private parties and public celebrations, despite warnings of rain and gales…
For all those people are clearly courting party-planning disaster, as those “rains and gales” are bound to put a terrible “damper” on the celebrations. After all, in the temperate Northern Hemisphere, New Year’s is seen by millions primarily as an outdoor holiday. And, as we all know, here in Britain it is celebrated mostly with, errr, barbecues, picnics and trips to the beach.
Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
In a similar vein — indeed, in what can be described only as one of the most utterly uncompromising expressions of a determination to resist immorality as I think I’ve ever seen – the other day, just before Saddam Hussein’s execution for crimes against humanity, AOL UK told us:
The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has launched a new attack on the Government over the Iraq war…
Particularly upsetting to him is, he tells us, how he thinks he feels he possibly should have maybe perhaps taken a slightly firmer stand on the war before March 2003:
…”I can’t easily balance for myself the pros and cons of thinking about putting yourself at the head of a popular movement and resisting.”…
…”Whether that might be effective or that just becomes words, that just becomes noise.”…
…”I said what I believed I needed to say. I shall need to think quite a long time about whether I ought to have said more or less on that matter.”…
Yes, comments like those just reinforce yet again how this Archbishop is quite an inspiring figure and someone to rally behind. In War: Irresolution. In Defeat: Relief. In Victory: Guilt. In Peace: Confusion.
We just watched FNC’s coverage of the ceremony preceding the departure of President Ford’s remains from Palm Springs to Washington. That’s mostly because no one else was covering it. CNN International (supposedly based in the U.S.) was showing “Inside Africa”.
That the British channels didn’t show it is not surprising of course. Interesting, though, what they were:
1) The BBC was (of course) Saddam-obsessed. We caught John Simpson’s filed report referring to Saddam’s life as having been ”melodramatic”. One can only guess at HOW on earth Mr Simpson defines that word.
2) Sky was showing . . . well, I don’t now remember exactly, which probably in itself speaks volumes about how riveting it was.
But FNC’s coverage was hardly special. In fact, it was highly irritating. In the run up to the arrival of Mr Ford’s body, anchor Brian Wilson time-filled in a manner that was first-class grating. Chatting with Brent Scowcroft about Mr Ford’s life is one thing, but Mr Wilson’s lack of fluidity in describing what was simultaneously going on (apparently, Fox believed its viewers couldn’t grasp what they were seeing, and told him to make sure viewers were repeatedly reminded, ”There is a Marine band” . . . while we viewers were LOOKING at a Marine band) bordered on the disturbingly amateurish. (David Brinkley where have you gone?)
Yet even after we were led to believe there would at last be in-studio “quiet” there wasn’t. We were treated to still more pointless blather, including Mr Wilson displaying an pathetic inability (in covering a death) to recall the word “hearse”. In addition, the correspondent at the airport insisted not in speaking in personal, thoughtful tones such as “I’ll be quiet now”, but droned on instead in ”pseudo-military-objective-speak”, as in the likes of “We will be going dark shortly”.
Perhaps worst of all, Mr Wilson couldn’t evidently stifle the urge to bring up — or some producer shouted into his ear demanding he mention — the execution of that bastard amidst their coverage of the respect being shown for a deceased U.S. president. That such interfered with and therefore badly damaged the coverage of the solemnity of the latter moment obviously entered no one’s head.
Heaven help our 24 hour TV news. The all-powerful scroll dominates all. They try to “cover all” . . . so in the end cover nothing well.
Now that the end has been reached (at the end of a rope, literally), let us remind ourselves that when Saddam Hussein’s regime was wielding supreme power. . .
“We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth.”
_____________________________
“[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world.”
_____________________________
“Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?”
_____________________________
“One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.”
_____________________________
“[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything…”
_____________________________
“What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds.”
_____________________________
“If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?”
. . . he wasn’t what he was earlier today — some “very, very, very, broken” man, facing his end, Koran in hand. No, no. He was one murderous, vicious, hateful, scary bastard. The whinging is of course to be expected, but rarely has anyone as justly hanged.
The BBC reports:
British officials predicted in 1976 that Argentina would invade the Falkland Islands, according to official documents…
And you’ll never guess where, according to the BBC, the blame apparently lies for ARGENTINA’S having invaded the islands in 1982? One might think with the then Argentinian junta, for choosing to invade? Come now, don’t be silly. The real fault was, of course, Britain’s . . . for not appeasing Argentina:
…In the Cabinet papers, seen for the first time, officials warn Harold Wilson that negotiations had to be restarted with Argentina - not least because the UK had few international friends over the historic dispute…
…In one briefing document, the then Cabinet Secretary Sir John Hunt told the prime minister [Harold Wilson] that time was ebbing away.
“The foreign secretary’s [Jim Callaghan] conclusion is that we must yield some ground and that our best source is to be prepared to discuss a lease-back arrangement with the Argentines,” wrote Sir John.
“He argues that Argentina is now on a ‘collision course’ with us and cannot afford to back down; that there are many ways in which Argentina could act against us, including invasion of the islands… and that we are not in a position to reinforce and defend the islands as a long-term commitment…
Sir John doesn’t there define “long term”. But it is now almost 2007, and the islands are, post-1982 war, still under British sovereignty . . . that latter being a governing situation entirely also supported by the islands’ residents.
Some various commentaries by presidents, former presidents, or then presidential aspirations, on American religious freedom:
…It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged.
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;
That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.
“The lessons of religious toleration — a toleration which recognizes complete liberty of human thought, liberty of conscience — is one which, by precept and example, must be inculcated in the hearts and minds of all Americans if the institutions of our democracy are to be maintained and perpetuated.
“We have gone a long way toward civilization and religious tolerance, and we have a good example in this country. Here the many Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church do not seek to destroy one another in physical violence just because they do not interpret every verse of the Bible in exactly the same way. Here we now have the freedom of all religions, and I hope that never again will we have a repetition of religious bigotry, as we have had in certain periods of our own history. There is no room for that kind of foolishness here.”
“We are particularly thankful to you [the Knights of Columbus] for your part in the movement to have the words ‘under God’ added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful.”
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
Now we are privileged to witness the rise of another — and this time still a mere newly elected member of the House – who possesses keen and fresh insights on the matter . . . Keith — From a Scottish surname which was originally derived from a place name possibly meaning “wood” in British. This was the surname of a long line of Scottish earls. – Ellison — A patronymic form of the English name Ellis, from the medieval given name Elis, a vernacular form of Elijah. — (who, post-conversion, evidently chose to keep his decidedly non-Islamic names), D-elect, Minnesota:
“You can’t back down, you can’t chicken out, you can’t be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim,”…
…”We’re going to continue to face them,” … “They’re not going to stop right away. But if you, and me too, stick together, if we believe in Allah … if we turn to the Quran for guidance, we’ll find an answer to the questions we have. And we will find that we are an asset and a plus not only to our own community, but to this country, and to this whole world.”…
…”Muslims, you’re up to bat right now,” … “How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah … did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?
“How do you know that you’re not here to teach this country?”
Yes, impressive, isn’t he?
CNN:
Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he has invited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify during three weeks of hearings in January about the Iraq war…
Aside from the fact that it often seems as if Secretary Rice has already spent half of her life “testifying”, clearly the Senator is convinced he’s on to a winner here. And of course the Secretary’s input is always useful. However, one question: Will the Senator assure us at least that it is really his idea . . . and not Lord Kinnock’s?
Letter to The Times, December 27:
Sir, The Archbishop of Canterbury is right to draw attention to the suffering of Christians in the Middle East but wrong to lay the blame for this at the feet of Western foreign policy.
The genocide, displacment and repression of Christians across the Muslim world is one of the great untold stories of the past 150 years. Were it more widely known it would explode the myth of Islamic tolerance of other faiths.
The Archbishop falls into precisely the intellectual trap which has long obscured the reality of Christian persecution under Islam: an unwillingness to risk offending Muslim leaderships reinforced by orientalist guilt for the West’s troubled past with the Islamic world.
PROFESSOR SHAUN GREGORY
Department of Peace Studies
University of Bradford
I made reference to those views from the Archbishop in an earlier post. What I am impressed by here is not just that Professor Gregory is an academic in a Department of Peace Studies and is willing to offer such an appraisal. Far more noteworthy, and in fact, perhaps, courageous — actually, likely far more courageous than anything said by the Archbishop of Canterbury in offering his powerful critiques — may well be the Professor’s willingness also to admit . . . he works at the University of Bradford:
Facts and Figures - Profile 2005…
…The University of Bradford…
…About our students…
…Ethnicity
White - 43.2%
Pakistani - 30.7%
Not known - 8.5%
Indian - 7.3%
Asian other - 1.8%
Black African - 3.3%
Bangladeshi - 1.4%
Mixed - 1.6%
Other - 0.9%
Black Caribbean - 0.8%
Chinese - 0.5%
Black other - 0.3%
Indeed, assuming the Professor is a British citizen, let us not forget also that if he were instead American and offered such a view in the States . . . he might well also run the risk of having to cope with nuanced thinkers terming him ”un-American”.
The Government reports it will create 40 so-called “respect zones” across Britain in an effort to tackle anti-social behaviour in society…
By the way, is one of them in Worcester?
I ask that for a reason. For imagine, women behaving that way in public? Good God, it’s simply appalling.
Shannon hasn’t vanished. She’s merely left Typepad after a spell and now seems sort of suspended between WordPress and Blogger:
…I recently decided to leave my Typepad blog, since I was no longer willing to pay. Unfortunately, I did a stupid thing, and cancelled my Typepad account before pretty much anyone could have had a chance to see my post alerting to the change.
Anyway, I’ve got the Typepad blog up for free at WordPress, for now. I may end up staying there, or I may end up coming back here. I’m just posting this here now in case anyone stumbles across it wondering what happened to the old blog.
I know, I know. Fat chance. But you never know…
_____________________________
UPDATE: At least Shannon had for a time meant to be invisible. In contrast, Laban didn’t:
…Judging by the fact that my last 20 referrers match my last 20 visitors, it seems that I’ve had an invisible blog for the last 6 hours.
Now, thankfully, he’s back.
A joint force of Ethiopian and Somali government troops advanced Wednesday to just 18 miles (30 kilometers) from Islamist-held Mogadishu, but a representative said they would besiege the Somali capital rather than attack it.
“We are not going to fight for Mogadishu, to avoid civilian casualties. Our troops will surround Mogadishu until they [the Islamists] surrender,” Ambassador Abdikarin Farah told reporters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia…
…The rapid offensive came hours after Ethiopia, defending the Somali interim government, said it was halfway to crushing the Islamists, heightening fears its next step would be to use airstrikes and ground troops to seize the capital…
After a string of victories much praised by certain media for bringing order to chaos, the Islamists are now losing. . .
. . . Quick! Somebody . . . “stop the war!”
Let’s eliminate the superfluous — for Agence France-Presse is infamous for asides — and stick to the point:
Though nearly 3,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq, medical advances mean the number is a lot lower than would have been expected…
…Though US forces are stretched, many more US combat troops are surviving battlefield wounds than in past wars, due in part to rapid and vastly improved medical attention…
…”In World War II, about 30 percent of American servicemembers wounded in combat died,” the Government Accountability Office said in a report in June…
That AFP writer evidently got that figure from this GAO report, June 30, 2006:
…DOD has reported that as of June 26, 2006, over 19,000 servicemembers have been wounded in action since the onset of OEF and OIF. Some of these servicemembers are surviving injuries that would have been fatal in past conflicts. In World War II, about 30 percent of American servicemembers wounded in combat died…
That paragraph’s “footnote 10″ provides no inkling as to the source of that “30 percent” number. (The construction of the sentence is such that it does NOT appear to come from the DOD.) So it is something of a mystery from where the GAO got it. Given what a multitude of other sources on that subject have told us over the last 60 years, that GAO number sounds ridiculously high, so some allowance may have to be made for the possibility that someone might be trying to exaggerate WWII death rates in order to make it seem as if death figures are decidedly lower for OIF and OEF.
For example, on the percentage of wounded who died in WWII, according to “That Men Might Live! The Story of the Medical Service, ETO“:
…In World War I, 8 percent of the wounded died. In World War II, the figure in the ETO was 3.9 percent. Contributing factors were vast amounts of medicine, blood plasma, whole blood, sulfa drugs, penicillin and new anesthetics like sodium pentathol which could be transported easily and administered without elaborate equipment…
Perhaps that GAO figure does not draw a distinction between those hit at the front line and those who were safely evacuated? In Patton’s Third Army, for example, wounded had a survival rate of over 95% for those who were gotten back to a field hospital. And that makes sense; after all, if you are shot and don’t get medical attention it’s hardly surprising that you will die. In fact, it’s a surprise if you die only a quarter of the time. And getting wounded quick treatment today is usually far easier than it was in Lorraine or in the Ardennes in late 1944.
In any event, that AFP piece has now gotten us thinking on the matter of scientific advancement. Incidentally, if AFP would also have checked, they would have discovered that two-thirds of the 620,000 soldiers (on both sides) who died in the American Civil War succumbed not to combat wounds, but to disease:
…Healthy recruits became victims of illnesses that were easily spread due to the large number of people in the camps, the often unsanitary conditions, and the poor diet of the soldiers. Childhood diseases such as measles could devastate regiments and many men succumbed to diarrhea and dysentery. Of the nearly 620,000 soldiers who died during the Civil War, two-thirds died not of bullets and bayonets, but of disease…
Hmmm. So, what’s the U.S. military’s disease death rate in — as AFP describes it — “its global war on terror”? Does AFP happen to know? If they don’t yet, when they find out one suspects that advances in that quarter will astound them even more so.
Reuters concocts “news” (again):
Apparently, in Reuter-world there were nearly 3,000 U.S. military casualties in the 9/11 attacks. Okay, yes, we know what they really mean . . . although, considering they are a “news” service (clear English and precise text is their job), one would think we should not have to read between the lines. But given what they are evidently implying (and they had better be, because the story is utterly vacuous if they aren’t), I guess we are supposed to interpret that comparison as meaning the jihadists have won?
Oddly, though, although a hard figure is difficult to come by, the consensus is that the U.S. military has also killed many thousands more jihadists than non-combatants who died September 11. Yet that is not evidently supposed to be factored into Reuters’s narrow calculation. But if it were, of course Reuters would then assert such as demonstrating how the U.S. has engaged in “a disproportionate response“.
Anyway, the former stance is perfectly consistent of Reuters. We have in the past seen other similarly solid grasps of an overall situation imparted to a public hungry for Reuters’s insightful analytical reportage. Why I even remember it like it was yesterday how . . . back in, umm, December 1917, wouldn’t ya know, there was also this, urr, Reuters web report supplied to Yahoo! News:
Obituaries of important figures are tough for media. Of course what is always headlined is the famous (and/or infamous) action. But let’s leave out such (and we know what in this case those are: “unelected” and “pardon” — see, based on those two words you probably even know already who I’m talking about) for a moment, and just stick to the human being himself. The BBC tells us:
…Gerald Ford was known for his openness, sunny disposition and most important, his honesty…
A man, whose wife made a passing comment about a Muslim woman’s full face veil, suffered a broken nose and lost his front teeth after being attacked and headbutted by the woman’s partner, police said on Sunday.
The victim, a 46-year-old white man, was walking through Regent’s Park with his wife, son and daughter when they passed another family, a Muslim man and his wife who was pushing a baby in a pushchair.
“The victim’s wife made a comment directed to her husband that she thought it must be difficult for the woman wearing the veil to see out of it as it covered her face,” a police spokesman said.
“The suspect began shouting and returned approximately 10 minutes later on his own and repeatedly punched and headbutted the victim.”…
…The police spokesman said the suspect was about 35-years-old and of Middle Eastern appearance and that they were treating the incident as a racially-motivated assault…
Considering the liberating power of the veil, one might have thought the veil-wearing woman accompanying (that apparently Muslim) gentleman could have spoken up for herself regarding her own “clear-sightedness”. But assuming she had been momentarily struck speechless at the embarrassment of hearing another woman critique her own choice of outfit, what his motivation must have been was simply to return to have a polite (and of course peaceful) “man to man” discussion on “security, prosperity and cohesion between London’s diverse ethnic and religious communities.” However, the veil-is-liberating-ignorant woman’s husband clearly did not get into the spirit of that discussion, but insisted instead on bashing his own face repeatedly against the (apparently Muslim) gentleman’s fist and forehead.
Given that likely chain of events, it is fascinating to whom Reuters gives the last word. . .
…”It is like open season against Muslims in this country,” Ahmed Versi, editor of the Muslim News newspaper told Reuters this week.
. . . when, in fact, it seems rather more . . . like open season on a wife’s being able to walk through a major London park and safely offer an observation to her husband on the dress sense of someone she happens to see strolling right next to her.
A 15-year-old Sikh boy had his hair cut during an unprovoked and racist assault in an Edinburgh park, police said.
The incident happened at about 1930 GMT in Pilrig Park on Tuesday.
Lothian and Borders Police said the victim was subjected to verbal racial abuse by four young white males and then punched and kicked to the ground…
Anyway, just in case you missed this owing to a small holiday having gotten in the way which served perhaps to distract you from the news, the BBC reports, December 24:
A 15-year-old Sikh boy who claimed he had his hair cut off by racist thugs has admitted he made the attack up.
The boy from Edinburgh reported the alleged racist attack in November and the case was widely publicised…
…A police spokeswoman said: “The boy has expressed deep regret for what he has done.”…
Ho, hum.
Guess where Santa was on December 17?:
Oh, it’s just “a person dressed as Santa Claus“? Clearly, Agence France-Presse is falling behind Reuters. For at least on one level, the latter seems at last to be figuring things out.
Meanwhile, during the heavy fog that had disrupted and/or cancelled many continental bound or intra-UK flights over the last couple of days, Reuters had their enterprising photographers out prowling around UK airports looking for just the right “despairing passenger” photos:
But if those passengers worried that “Christmas might be cancelled”, their fears proved unfounded. As Reuters tells us, “the fog” did not succeed in “stealing” Christmas. That’s right, it hasn’t been cancelled after all!:
[More photojournalistic brilliance here.]
As for myself, this morning some last wrapping will be done to Andy Williams. (No pun intended — because Andy doesn’t “rap”, of course.) By the way, the wife noticed recently that he will be in Bournemouth in June, so we may try to catch him again. We’d seen him perform in London a few years’ back. Oh yes, I’m willing to admit that. Open your mind a little; geez, it’s Christmas. Seriously, Mr Williams is very good. You can’t dislike him. . .
. . . Wait, on second thought, the A.P. could probably turn up some people who would undoubtedly find a reason to dislike Mr Williams:
A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district’s decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.
The man, who was not immediately identified, on Friday also set fire to a Christmas tree, an American flag and a revolutionary flag replica, said Fire Captain Garth Milam…
If that gentleman got so “heated” at the state’s mere mention of those two Christian observances, I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea for anyone to let him in on how our civilizational measurement of the passage of time (including just when the American Revolution took place) . . . is on a calendar created by a pope. That said, that gentleman’s opposition to an establishment is certainly shared by most of us . . . albeit perhaps in a more practical and decidedly less combustible sense. For as we know even in his opposing a religious assessment tax, revolutionary era anti-establishmentarian James Madison evidently drew a line at setting himself alight over a government body perhaps nodding to most constituents’ observing Christmas’s calendarial existence:
…The conclusion of the war with Britain in 1783 allowed the [Virginia] Assembly to give its undivided attention to domestic issues, one of which was the general assessment. In the fall of 1784 its supporters came within a whisker of passing their favorite measure in the form of Patrick Henry’s “Bill establishing a provision for the teachers of the Christian Religion.” Henry’s bill was more generous in spirit than the 1779 assessment bill, for it required no creedal affirmations and simply allowed each citizen to pay a modest tax to the church of his choice and permitted non-church members to designate their tax for education, a provision intended, apparently, as bait for Jefferson’s supporters who had been vainly trying to establish a state system of public education. Henry’s bill progressed to the point of being enrolled in anticipation of passage when Madison, fresh from a tour in the Confederation Congress, and his allies persuaded the House of Delegates on Christmas Eve 1784 to defer it until the fall 1785 meeting of the Assembly so that the public opinion could be canvassed…
Also interestingly, suggesting in a letter from France to Mr Madison on how they might neutralize Mr Henry’s influence, Thomas Jefferson thought that the Almighty’s help might need to be invoked:
…“While Mr. Henry lives, another bad constitution would be formed, and saddled forever on us. What we have to do I think is devoutly pray for his death.”…
The BBC reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has accused the UK government of placing Christians in the Middle East at risk through its actions in Iraq.
Dr Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican church, said there had been a growing number of attacks on Christians…
…His comments come after he told the Times newspaper ministers had ignored warnings Christians in the region “would be seen as supporters of the crusading West“…
Most — including many Muslims — actually do share the Archbishop’s concerns about the persecution of Christians in Islamic lands. Yet his willingness to be so morally outspoken on this issue is curious, given that the Archbishop doesn’t seem nearly so willing to show moral leadership . . . where the British government actually governs. Foreign policy is much more interesting, obviously.
And mucking it up is also “interesting”. For rather than squarely blaming the persecution on the persecutors (as he surely would if even a single Muslim were being similarly maltreated in Britain), comments like the above ever so helpfully (meaning stupidly) actually provide a level of legitimacy to the jihadist “argument” on the existence of an early 21st century “crusading West”. After all, if the Archbishop of Canterbury notes it’s there . . . well, it must be there, right?
Yet today’s “crusading West” is hardly expanding Christianity into Muslim lands; as he himself is telling us, Christians are fleeing. Quite a “crusade” that. Indeed, the reverse is actually far more the case, but the Archbishop never seems to have much to say over the constant influx of people* into Britain who, to borrow the Archbishop’s own phraseology, might “be seen as supporters of the jihadist East“.
[NOTE *: That link is one of the most devastating criticisms of the Archbishop's views I think I have ever read . . . and it was in THE TELEGRAPH!]
[UPDATE: That* article was apparently one which several months later got its author into serious hot water. But not over his interpretation of the Archbishop's views, of course. So much for the freedom vigorously to discuss religion.]
Well, that’s a first-class eye opener if there ever was one; but by that I don’t mean that it is startling Hezbollah has support despite lacking an economic plan. Rather, I mean that’s a truly surprising assertion from Reuters about Hezbollah’s not even having an economic plan. For until that “Alert” hadn’t we heard that a theoretical commitment to regulating the money supply had turned out so well when put into practice?
If someone needs to get a grip, it’s Reuters. I’m not saying they’re alone in callousness; I just happened to have noticed theirs. The “news” service’s coverage of the murders of these unfortunate women has been just astonishing.
The Sugar Plum Fairy in English National Ballet’s production of The Nutcracker had to confront angry colleagues before yesterday’s matinee performance after she was revealed to be a member of the British National Party…
…Other people said to be members or lapsed members of the party are said to include a servant of the Queen who lives at Buckingham Palace, a former Miss England and several former Conservative Party activists. The Palace said that its servants had the right to their personal preferences “as long as they are not actively campaigning”…
…The list of names suggests that the party is actively pursuing middle-class voters in Central London to augment its traditional recruiting grounds in East London, West Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire and some Midlands cities. Nick Griffin, the party leader, told supporters last month that broad-based support was vital to electoral success.
Apparently, Britain is now a country in which being publicly identified as a member of a legal political party risks one being condemned as “a bad person”?
But the funny thing is in revealing such names media is dimwittingly helping Mr Griffin’s plan along quite nicely. After all, how many people reading this will now think, “Gosh, if a Sugar Plum Fairy and a former Miss England both are, and also a servant of the Queen is, maybe voting BNP is not such a bad idea after all?”
The Times’ Chief Political Correspondent Anthony Browne (via my wife):
John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, has spent £645 updating the sign on the front of his office. To ensure that visitors don’t get confused, the old sign, “Office of the Deputy Prime Mininster”, has been replaced by one saying “Deputy Prime Minister’s Office”…
Unfortunately, Mr Browne doesn’t clarify for us if Mr Prescott perhaps did so because “minister” was spelled on the sign in the same novel manner as Mr Browne himself sometimes spells it.
The presiding officer of the Welsh assembly has said that devolution in England would help deliver a “United Kingdom in a united Europe.”
In an interview with the Parliamentary Monitor magazine Lord Elis-Thomas said giving people in England a similar say in their domestic affairs would help achieve a more secure constitutional settlement.
Despite being a member of Plaid Cymru - which advocates the break-up of the United Kingdom to gain independence for Wales - the former MP said devolution could ensure the future of a politically unified Britain…
However, rather than treating London as the capital of the unified United Kingdom and instead locating a separately elected English parliament elsewhere (in or near to the geographical center of England, perhaps) his idea on how an English parliament could work is it . . .
“…could be arranged very easily if the Commons sat on a Tuesday or Wednesday as an English parliament.”…
Interesting suggestion. Presumably, that doesn’t mean that Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh Westminster MPs get a shorter work week, while English MPs don’t? However, considering Lord Elis-Thomas’s enthusiasm for Wales within the EU, it wouldn’t be surprising if that might well be the case.
December 6, 2006. This morning, I read an article that made me despair. That gave me the blues. Written by one of the best American specialists in strategic issues, it illustrated perfectly the high level of confusion that besets intelligent minds. This is what Edward N. Luttwak, former advisor to the National Security Council, writes (our translation): “A better government is certainly wished for in France, in Norway or the USA, but not in Afghanistan or Iraq where many prefer an indigenous clerical oppression to the freedoms offered by foreign invaders.”… Even worse, Luttwak seems to regret that the US army doesn’t use the hard way to get rid of the Iraqi insurgents. He mentions the methods used by the Nazis during the occupation, “every time you think insurgents are present in a small area, a village, a small town or a district in a city – a common situation in Iraq today…- prominent citizens could be forced to bring the insurgents to the authorities via increasing punishments, up to mass executions”!!! Luttwak seems to regret that the Americans are not using methods inspired by the Nazis…
It’s the occasional piece like that which causes one to think, “Good God, there is hope after all.” By that, of course, I don’t mean Mr Luttwak. I’m talking about a Mr Laïdi existing at France 24.
That bears great relevance to this. Where is that archived CNN story about Wehrmacht soldiers being charged by their own for murdering civilians?. . .
Four Marines have been charged with murder in the 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians, and four officers are accused of failing to investigate and report the deaths properly, the Marine Corps announced Thursday.
A Marine investigation into the killings found initial reports — including a press release that blamed the civilian deaths on a roadside bomb — were “inaccurate and untimely,” Marine Col. Stewart Navarre told reporters.
“We now know with certainty the press release was incorrect, and that none of the civilians were killed by the IED,” Navarre said…
. . . It’s hard to find, that’s for sure. Because killing civilians was hardly rare. And most especially because it was Nazi policy.
Soldiers are as complex as any human beings — likely more so, given what they experience. And while we hear a great deal about the horrors of the above, we hear decidedly less in our media about the likes of the Marine Captain Charlie Benbow.
Let us not forget also that, of course, even in a “good war”, good soldiers do bad things:
The Canicattì slaughter was a war crime committed by Allied forces during the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, in which at least a dozen unarmed Italian civilians, including six children, were killed by U.S. troops under the command of General George Patton. The town of Canicattì had already surrendered when U.S. troops entered, following heavy German bombardment during their withdrawal. Civilians had been rounded up and herded into a bombed soap factory where they were shot by U.S. military policemen…
Sounds like remarkably similar circumstances to Haditha: a town where enemy were active, soldiers come under fire, then the soldiers overrreact in taking their anger out on local non-combatants.
And here’s another example of little known killings also carried out by U.S. soldiers:
…U.S. soldiers, shocked at what they discovered in the [Dachau] concentration camp, randomly shot and killed an estimated 50 to 120 German SS-Totenkopfverbände guards as they attempted to surrender…
The Haditha killings were clearly wrong. So were those at Canicatti.
But those at Dachau? [Warning: graphic photos]* Talk about one looking back and having mixed feelings. Yes, of course the Dachau killings were “wrong”, too. (And those killed weren’t civilians, remember.) But in the spring of 1945 no one deserved that sort of treatment more than concentration camp SS guards. On the other hand, we believed ourselves better than that, and especially considered ourselves MUCH better that they were. And then again, looked at another way. . .
[*NOTE: I have had a look through, but I am not sure of the trustworthiness of this web site overall. This particular page seems based on the documentary, and the book on the killings has been a subject thread on a web site I am familiar with. So at the very least this one page seems reasonable and factual regarding events insofar as they are known. If anyone feels otherwise let me know.]
Via Whitehallpages.net:
Highways Agency warns drivers to take care in fog
The European Union’s executive arm approved plans on Wednesday to include aviation in its emissions trading system, giving international flights in and out of the EU a one-year reprieve before they have to join.
Intra-EU flights will join the scheme, aimed at cutting global air pollution, in 2011…
Reuters also reports:
British Airways said it had been forced to cancel 160 of its 400 shorthaul flights to and from Heathrow Airport on Wednesday due to heavy fog that was expected to linger for another two days…
So BA doesn’t get any credit at all for yesterday’s and today’s groundings having helped save the earth?
_____________________________
The BBC reports:
…An American tourist caught up in the delays at Heathrow said there was a general feeling of “despair” amongst passengers.
“Everyone is really angry. Everyone is lying around trying to get comfortable. Nobody knows what they’re going to do.”…
A remarkable coincidence that. For out of all the thousands of people from nearly every country whom one can stumble across at Heathrow, the BBC located an “angry American”.
Reuters, on a dangerous fugitive who made good his escape, slipping past law enforcement:
Detectives said on Wednesday that a man wanted for questioning over the murder of a female police officer could have fled the country disguised as a Muslim woman wearing a full veil.
Mustaf Jama, 26, is thought by police to have escaped to his native Somalia at the end of last year after passing through security checks at Heathrow Airport wearing a niqab and using his sister’s passport, according to newspaper reports…
…Jama is a chief suspect in the murder of police constable Sharon Beshenivsky, 38, who was shot dead during a botched armed robbery on a travel agency in northern England in November last year…
However, remember, that veil suggestion is only a guess . . . among others:
…Asked whether Mustaf Jama had used a full Muslim veil to evade checks, a spokesman for West Yorkshire police said: “It’s a possibility. He could have been wearing a pantomime horse outfit as well. But until we get him, we won’t know for sure.”…
Actually, law enforcement in general had better hope Mr Jama were indeed wearing a veil and using his sister’s passport. At least then his escape would be eminently explainable. And no one would be too shocked.
On the other hand, however, if it turns out that Mr Jama did indeed evade checks at Heathrow thanks to his having donned a pantomime horse outfit, law enforcement will likely be REALLY embarrassed. Also, if he had dressed as a panto horse, another question arises: Did he use a two-person costume, and if so which end did he use? But if you think about it, that really hardly matters given that if he also used his sister’s passport one can only feel sorry for her either way.
To assist in the search, in an appeal to the public West Yorkshire police demonstrate Mr Jama’s possible disguises
Ireland’s Mark Humphrys provides us with an excellent almanac-like review of the Long Global War on Terror thus far. He opens:
After a good start, the West is faltering, notably in the face of Iran. There is a lack of resolve in seeing through to victory in Iraq. There is a danger of withdrawal and isolationism. But Islamism will not go away if we stop fighting it. On the contrary, it will get stronger and more ambitious.
Islamism has regrouped, notably in Iran, which talks openly of the next genocidal attack on the West. It openly threatens Israel with a future nuclear attack.
The West failed to topple the regimes of Iran and Syria after Iraq in 2003. It is trying to defend the patch of territory it liberated in Iraq, instead of pushing on to defeat the surrounding enemy in Iran and Syria. Only when these regimes fall will Iraq be free. By hot war or cold war, the Iranian revolution must end. There’s a long way to go…
Mark’s always superb, but in this case he’s outdone himself. Go pour a coffee, click over and read it all from start to finish. And then pass the link to a friend, or two, or twenty. They will all learn A LOT more from him than they have the slightest chance of learning from a daily dose of the BBC, Reuters and http://edition.cnn.com/iraq.main/index.html.
The BBC reports:
An Austrian court has ruled that UK historian David Irving - jailed for denying the Holocaust - should be released on probation…
…He said he would urge an academic boycott of historians from Germany and Austria until the nations stopped jailing historians…
Speaking of “academia”, the BBC gives readers a very unfortunate impression in granting Mr Irving a title to which he is not entitled. Holding not so much as an undergraduate history degree, he is not an “historian”. However, if media does feel compelled to give him some title, call him a “writer”. (He does write, after all.)
The Press Association:
Prime Minister Tony Blair was in favour of announcing a timetable to pull troops out of Iraq but changed his mind after speaking to US President George Bush, Iraq’s Vice President has said.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Tareq al-Hashemi reportedly said Mr Blair was “brainwashed” by Mr Bush into changing his mind on the subject…
Hey, whaddya know: An Oxford law graduate and barrister was “brainwashed” by a moron.
Three points:
1) Reuters now considers Osama bin Laden to fall under the “Entertainment News” section.
2) They tell us that aggressive, ready at the trigger French forces had him “in their sights” more than once, but it was THE AMERICANS who didn’t give the order to fire? Sorry, but that explanation just doesn’t quite ring true. After all, as we well know it is Americans who are aggressive and trigger-happy, and not being vassals French forces would never agree to serve even for an instant under bumbling American command.
3) In their related article, Reuters then tells us:
…The French military, however, said that the incidents never happened and the report was “erroneous information”…
Even though that clearly inconsequential “however” aside might have been considered rather important when it comes to allowing us as Reuters consumers to make a decision “based on the facts“, Reuters obviously correctly felt it would be inappropriate to put that sort of tiny detail in an “Entertainment” photo caption. Wouldn’t want too many facts out there muddying the waters, of course. Then, from bin Laden, we are moved effortlessly on to other “Entertainment”:
Who says Reuters can’t improve? For while just above they did use quotes around penguin (which is subtle and is indeed appropriate), they didn’t feel the need to treat readers as complete idiots in telling us it is someone dressed as a penguin, or that Ms Murphy is on the right.
[Other award-quality photojournalism here.]
…The Iraqi Army and Coalition force responded to reports of an explosion in a building east of Ramadi. According to local citizens, the building was a former school that was being used as a medical facility.The building was clearly marked with a Red Crescent flag which is a symbol for medical facilities.
According to residents, armed insurgents wearing black masks had deposited an explosive charge and left the area. An explosion occurred shortly after their departure. A portion of the building was destroyed.
Upon further investigation, a propane tank and several projectiles were found strategically placed throughout the building in order to destroy it. The explosives were removed from the building and detonated in place. There were no reports of civilian casualties and no Iraqi Army or Coalition casualties…
Thus does the heroic resistance nobly struggle on.