(London, England)
On the same day that it was announced that a list of BNP members has appeared on the internet a group of former British generals published an open letter in the press demanding that the party stop using British military symbols such as Churchill’s face and the Spitfire and declared that the party held values that “are fundamentally at odds with the values of the modern British military, such as tolerance and fairness”.
The British army is known the world over as a fascist organisation which draws its members from the thuggish underbelly of a jingoistic society and uses them to enforce the imperialist policies of the British government, the British crown and the xenophobic, hooligan majority of English people. It is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians this decade alone, as well as the deaths of some of its own members through intolerance and injustice.
It has yet to be demonstrated whether the list of BNP party members is real or a hoax, but it is probably not necessary to have a list to see who is a member or a sympathiser. The English are more than vocal in their support of the British army and the exploits of “our boys” against whichever group of foreigners happens to be this year’s target.
They turn out for military parades for returning soldiers, they tune in to television programmes that exalt and reward modern veterans, they read newspapers that support the army and incite hatred for foreigners and they use the national support as a convenient platform to demonstrate their primitive values.
The rise of the BNP simply underlines and confirms what those on the outside looking in have known for a long time – England is “against Continental totalitarianism” and the BNP is “the party of the British squaddie”.
Anybody in the British army that feels the BNP is distorting the world’s view of the British military is deluded. Anybody in the BNP who would rather we believed they do not support the British army’s slaughter of foreign civilians is deluded too. They are made for each other.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Ripping up the West's credibility
(New York, USA)
It is difficult to find a transcript of Libyan president Gaddafi’s speech to the UN, let alone a coherent translation of his words. Perhaps we are simply supposed to accept the snippets that have been interpreted for us and hate the man without ever questioning why.
Two things have been repeated almost non-stop since his mammoth speech finished – he “ripped up” the UN charter and he suggested the Security Council be renamed the “Terror Council”.
First of all, he did not “rip up” the Charter. He had a copy of the joke that is the Charter in his hands as he was speaking and made a small tear in one corner of the booklet before appearing to realise what he was holding and putting it down quickly. Sinéad O’Connor “ripped up” that photo of the Pope (may she forgive me for dragging that up after so long but I cannot find a better example) – Gaddafi did not “rip up” the Charter.
Secondly – without wishing to succumb to the “reflexive anti-Americanism” that Obama accused the world of perpetrating – various Western governments including the US, Britain and Spain have indeed committed acts of terrorism in recent times. In fact most of the suits and ties who were sat listening to Gaddafi were there in representation of regimes that have used “violence and threats to intimidate or coerce”, that have caused a “state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorisation” or that have shown a “terroristic method of governing” at one time or another in recent years.
These regimes include Israel (countless examples of violence against Palestine and Lebanon), Sudan (Darfur), Uganda and France (their involvement in the Rwandan genocide), Ireland (the use of the armed forces and the police against the people of Mayo and in protection of the economic interests of Shell), Zimbabwe (violent oppression of dissenters) and many others.
Western commentators are happy to follow the party line and condemn Gaddafi as a “nutcase” (Irish Times) but the people who read the newspapers and watch the news are not stupid. In response to one journalist’s blog on the BBC the first reader to reply summed up the attitude perfectly:
“Can we have the full transcript Nick so we can make our own minds up?”
It is difficult to find a transcript of Libyan president Gaddafi’s speech to the UN, let alone a coherent translation of his words. Perhaps we are simply supposed to accept the snippets that have been interpreted for us and hate the man without ever questioning why.
Two things have been repeated almost non-stop since his mammoth speech finished – he “ripped up” the UN charter and he suggested the Security Council be renamed the “Terror Council”.
First of all, he did not “rip up” the Charter. He had a copy of the joke that is the Charter in his hands as he was speaking and made a small tear in one corner of the booklet before appearing to realise what he was holding and putting it down quickly. Sinéad O’Connor “ripped up” that photo of the Pope (may she forgive me for dragging that up after so long but I cannot find a better example) – Gaddafi did not “rip up” the Charter.
Secondly – without wishing to succumb to the “reflexive anti-Americanism” that Obama accused the world of perpetrating – various Western governments including the US, Britain and Spain have indeed committed acts of terrorism in recent times. In fact most of the suits and ties who were sat listening to Gaddafi were there in representation of regimes that have used “violence and threats to intimidate or coerce”, that have caused a “state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorisation” or that have shown a “terroristic method of governing” at one time or another in recent years.
These regimes include Israel (countless examples of violence against Palestine and Lebanon), Sudan (Darfur), Uganda and France (their involvement in the Rwandan genocide), Ireland (the use of the armed forces and the police against the people of Mayo and in protection of the economic interests of Shell), Zimbabwe (violent oppression of dissenters) and many others.
Western commentators are happy to follow the party line and condemn Gaddafi as a “nutcase” (Irish Times) but the people who read the newspapers and watch the news are not stupid. In response to one journalist’s blog on the BBC the first reader to reply summed up the attitude perfectly:
“Can we have the full transcript Nick so we can make our own minds up?”
Obama's speech-writer stands alone
(New York, USA)
The United Nations has long staggered between the pillar of laughing-stock and the post of pariah within the international community. Speeches from US presidents do little to help that image.
On Wednesday US president Obama addressed the “grubby elected members” for the first time since he came to power. For those of us who look to Obama to correct the mistakes of former US presidents the ambiguity created between the tired rhetoric and the stated facts was worrying to say the least.
One of the most fundamental changes that is required – and one that the UN has never facilitated – is America’s self-appraisal as the world leader. Obama appears to want to perpetuate this self-appointed role:
“These expectations ... are rooted ... in the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.”
He also seems surprised that America is so unpopular in the world, and unrealistic as to the causes of this lack of popularity:
“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”
While I completely agree that there exists an unfortunate “reflexive anti-Americanism”, I must insist that America’s position in the world opinion has nothing to do with “misperceptions and misinformation” – it is a direct result of foreign invasions, terrorist activities, a refusal to mend their ecological ways, a tendency to change the moral code depending on resources and money and the constant lack of respect that American citizens show people of other cultures. By “American citizens” of course I am not simply referring to a dozen people that I may have encountered over the last year, but to individual representatives of the American community such as may be found in the armed forces.
Obama as an individual may not be guilty of any of the atrocities – verbal or physical – committed by his fellow Americans, but he could be accused of offering words with no substance:
“But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared.
“The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child anywhere - can enrich our world, or impoverish it.”
This is the stuff of rookie speech-writers, B-movie script-writers and satirical cartoons. It is the words of a man who would have us believe that we reached a critical moment like no other critical moment before, that everything hinges on this moment in time. It is a common mistake made by men who are given too much power and therefore believe themselves to be more important in a historical sense than they really are – it is the mistake of the man who believes that this moment is critical because it is the moment of his own speech.
In fairness to Obama, that is probably a redundant criticism – we are, after all, talking about an American president talking to a bunch of self-important but largely irrelevant suits and ties.
During the speech Obama lists the changes he has made and what his government has achieved; no problems there. There is no denying that he has made some key changes to the way his country is behaving in public, and the changes are to be welcomed. Unfortunately he returns far too often to words that are empty of anything but threat:
“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone.”
Here Obama shows himself to be seriously misguided when it comes to accepting what the speech-writers give him. The first part of that statement is wrong – nobody is angry that America apparently acted alone, they are angry that Western governments gang up on the rest of the world. And the second part of the statement is offensive in the extreme – it is a return to Reagan and both Bushes, to the belief that America is the sheriff of the world. It is a return to the delusion that America is the solution, when in fact it is the problem. It is a return to the time when America provided the problem in order to be the solution (Nicaragua, Colombia and so on). And it is a perfect example of the madman becoming the psychiatrist in order to avoid being accused.
The proof that the emptiest of his words carries the most threat comes in the following statements:
“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.
“Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations -- it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation's demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.”
It is obvious that he is referring to the two enemies à la mode, North Korea and Iran, and sure enough his next paragraph contains threats against those two countries. I use the word “threats” because he is continuing the sabre-rattling of his predecessor, and if America were to invade the only people to suffer would again be the innocent masses. A bit like Iraq and Afghanistan, but also similar to the way in which ordinary Americans suffer the “reflexive anti-Americanism” caused by actions of successive leaders. The irony of all three paragraphs (the two quoted and the one I have simply referred to) appears to be lost on him, especially as he managed keep a straight face when he said the following (a statement which comes between the two previous quoted segments):
“We must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist.”
Is that so?
The need for a heavy sense of irony continues throughout the speech:
“That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, no one can be -- there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves.”
Yes, Bush, Blair and Aznar, you have indeed.
Perhaps I am being harsh on the man – although perhaps it is our duty to be harsh on people who set themselves up to “lead the world”. Obama himself warns against the perceived importance of words and the true relevance of actions:
“We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.”
Fair enough. And as I have already conceded, Obama’s decisions as president have been good, not least on the question of Israel:
“we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
Perhaps Obama is still the good man I believed him to be. His script-writer, however, should go and find a job somewhere where men of few talents are appreciated beyond their worth. He could try the UN.
The United Nations has long staggered between the pillar of laughing-stock and the post of pariah within the international community. Speeches from US presidents do little to help that image.
On Wednesday US president Obama addressed the “grubby elected members” for the first time since he came to power. For those of us who look to Obama to correct the mistakes of former US presidents the ambiguity created between the tired rhetoric and the stated facts was worrying to say the least.
One of the most fundamental changes that is required – and one that the UN has never facilitated – is America’s self-appraisal as the world leader. Obama appears to want to perpetuate this self-appointed role:
“These expectations ... are rooted ... in the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.”
He also seems surprised that America is so unpopular in the world, and unrealistic as to the causes of this lack of popularity:
“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”
While I completely agree that there exists an unfortunate “reflexive anti-Americanism”, I must insist that America’s position in the world opinion has nothing to do with “misperceptions and misinformation” – it is a direct result of foreign invasions, terrorist activities, a refusal to mend their ecological ways, a tendency to change the moral code depending on resources and money and the constant lack of respect that American citizens show people of other cultures. By “American citizens” of course I am not simply referring to a dozen people that I may have encountered over the last year, but to individual representatives of the American community such as may be found in the armed forces.
Obama as an individual may not be guilty of any of the atrocities – verbal or physical – committed by his fellow Americans, but he could be accused of offering words with no substance:
“But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared.
“The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child anywhere - can enrich our world, or impoverish it.”
This is the stuff of rookie speech-writers, B-movie script-writers and satirical cartoons. It is the words of a man who would have us believe that we reached a critical moment like no other critical moment before, that everything hinges on this moment in time. It is a common mistake made by men who are given too much power and therefore believe themselves to be more important in a historical sense than they really are – it is the mistake of the man who believes that this moment is critical because it is the moment of his own speech.
In fairness to Obama, that is probably a redundant criticism – we are, after all, talking about an American president talking to a bunch of self-important but largely irrelevant suits and ties.
During the speech Obama lists the changes he has made and what his government has achieved; no problems there. There is no denying that he has made some key changes to the way his country is behaving in public, and the changes are to be welcomed. Unfortunately he returns far too often to words that are empty of anything but threat:
“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone.”
Here Obama shows himself to be seriously misguided when it comes to accepting what the speech-writers give him. The first part of that statement is wrong – nobody is angry that America apparently acted alone, they are angry that Western governments gang up on the rest of the world. And the second part of the statement is offensive in the extreme – it is a return to Reagan and both Bushes, to the belief that America is the sheriff of the world. It is a return to the delusion that America is the solution, when in fact it is the problem. It is a return to the time when America provided the problem in order to be the solution (Nicaragua, Colombia and so on). And it is a perfect example of the madman becoming the psychiatrist in order to avoid being accused.
The proof that the emptiest of his words carries the most threat comes in the following statements:
“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.
“Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations -- it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation's demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.”
It is obvious that he is referring to the two enemies à la mode, North Korea and Iran, and sure enough his next paragraph contains threats against those two countries. I use the word “threats” because he is continuing the sabre-rattling of his predecessor, and if America were to invade the only people to suffer would again be the innocent masses. A bit like Iraq and Afghanistan, but also similar to the way in which ordinary Americans suffer the “reflexive anti-Americanism” caused by actions of successive leaders. The irony of all three paragraphs (the two quoted and the one I have simply referred to) appears to be lost on him, especially as he managed keep a straight face when he said the following (a statement which comes between the two previous quoted segments):
“We must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist.”
Is that so?
The need for a heavy sense of irony continues throughout the speech:
“That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, no one can be -- there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves.”
Yes, Bush, Blair and Aznar, you have indeed.
Perhaps I am being harsh on the man – although perhaps it is our duty to be harsh on people who set themselves up to “lead the world”. Obama himself warns against the perceived importance of words and the true relevance of actions:
“We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.”
Fair enough. And as I have already conceded, Obama’s decisions as president have been good, not least on the question of Israel:
“we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
Perhaps Obama is still the good man I believed him to be. His script-writer, however, should go and find a job somewhere where men of few talents are appreciated beyond their worth. He could try the UN.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Mind your own business
(Edinburgh, Scotland)
On 21st December 1988 a bomb exploded on a Pan-Am flight over Scotland. Two hundred and seventy people were killed, including eleven people in the Scottish town of Lockerbie. In May 2000 the trial of the only two accused started in a specially convened Scottish court in Holland, in front of Scottish judges and under Scottish law.
One of the accused was found not guilty of murder and sent home. The other was found guilty and sent to Barlinnie. This month, terminally ill with prostate cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds and sent home according to Scottish laws which allow any terminally ill prisoner to be released.
Devolution might be a convenient excuse to pass on controversial decisions that London hasn’t the guts to make, but it’s no excuse to start bullying yet another small country. Time for London to mind its own business.
On 21st December 1988 a bomb exploded on a Pan-Am flight over Scotland. Two hundred and seventy people were killed, including eleven people in the Scottish town of Lockerbie. In May 2000 the trial of the only two accused started in a specially convened Scottish court in Holland, in front of Scottish judges and under Scottish law.
One of the accused was found not guilty of murder and sent home. The other was found guilty and sent to Barlinnie. This month, terminally ill with prostate cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds and sent home according to Scottish laws which allow any terminally ill prisoner to be released.
Devolution might be a convenient excuse to pass on controversial decisions that London hasn’t the guts to make, but it’s no excuse to start bullying yet another small country. Time for London to mind its own business.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
To die in vain
(Kabul, Afghanistan)
The polling stations have just closed across Afghanistan, on an election day inevitably marked by violence in a country once beautiful, but now a victim of Western rape.
The other night I was flicking and stopped on a Panorama report about women’s rights and the Taleban, surprised that an English television programme should suddenly be sympathetic to Afghans, let alone Afghan women. The journalist talked about today’s elections and Karzai’s militant social politics. Women who had attempted to burn themselves to death were interviewed, their hairless heads still wrapped in cloth. They had tried to reach freedom, but now bandages replaced the hijab.
Then the journalist muttered something like “British soldiers died in vain”.
Aha.
The programme wasn’t about Afghanistan or the atrocious situation that has arisen as a result of Western meddling and murdering, it was the usual nationalistic cry of “me, me, me”. It wasn’t about middle-aged Afghan women and their rights, it was about young lads from a rich country and how they had been “murdered”. It wasn’t about young girls and the possibility of a better life through education, rather it was about how badly the English have educated their own kids so that they think it is fine to go off round the world killing innocent people.
There was a photo on a sideboard of a young lad in military fatigues, striking a playground pose and brandishing a gun with the bayonet fixed. The bayonet, rather than the young lad’s face, was the focus of the photograph as if to say “Let’s go and disembowel some towelheads”.
Is it a shame that this boy died? Of course it is. Is it a shame that many other British soldiers have died? Indeed. But if one life is equal to any other life it is a far greater shame that between 11,000 and 31,000 Afghan civilians have died at the hands of fixed bayonets that should not have been there in the first place.
Yes, that lad died in vain, because in a rich Western country full of opportunities that places like Afghanistan do not have he went looking for trouble. And all soldiers die in vain because war is unnecessary. Panorama should be making programmes that could show the English that they have no right to put a gun to young Afghan girls’ heads. Then maybe their own little boys will stop dying.
The polling stations have just closed across Afghanistan, on an election day inevitably marked by violence in a country once beautiful, but now a victim of Western rape.
The other night I was flicking and stopped on a Panorama report about women’s rights and the Taleban, surprised that an English television programme should suddenly be sympathetic to Afghans, let alone Afghan women. The journalist talked about today’s elections and Karzai’s militant social politics. Women who had attempted to burn themselves to death were interviewed, their hairless heads still wrapped in cloth. They had tried to reach freedom, but now bandages replaced the hijab.
Then the journalist muttered something like “British soldiers died in vain”.
Aha.
The programme wasn’t about Afghanistan or the atrocious situation that has arisen as a result of Western meddling and murdering, it was the usual nationalistic cry of “me, me, me”. It wasn’t about middle-aged Afghan women and their rights, it was about young lads from a rich country and how they had been “murdered”. It wasn’t about young girls and the possibility of a better life through education, rather it was about how badly the English have educated their own kids so that they think it is fine to go off round the world killing innocent people.
There was a photo on a sideboard of a young lad in military fatigues, striking a playground pose and brandishing a gun with the bayonet fixed. The bayonet, rather than the young lad’s face, was the focus of the photograph as if to say “Let’s go and disembowel some towelheads”.
Is it a shame that this boy died? Of course it is. Is it a shame that many other British soldiers have died? Indeed. But if one life is equal to any other life it is a far greater shame that between 11,000 and 31,000 Afghan civilians have died at the hands of fixed bayonets that should not have been there in the first place.
Yes, that lad died in vain, because in a rich Western country full of opportunities that places like Afghanistan do not have he went looking for trouble. And all soldiers die in vain because war is unnecessary. Panorama should be making programmes that could show the English that they have no right to put a gun to young Afghan girls’ heads. Then maybe their own little boys will stop dying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)