|
on gun crime in the uk - how civil order breaks down
The general population being allowed to have arms is
an equaliser against criminals, but the great Clown has determined
that only crims may carry guns.
The current situation is much more than merely
owning a gun to show off, or to hurt someone at a distance. Having a gun
is very serious initiation.
Having a gun ties the individual to the gangs, who can always
threaten exposure. It proves the scroat is prepared to kill ‘them’
- the society upon which the scroats intend to prey.
This is the route to a socialist society where the
black market rules.
This is the breaking of the real market, soon the Yakuza instead of a politician,
soon going to the Mafia for protection instead of the police.
These people are set to be the rulers of Britain, if
the Clown is not stopped.
Removing guns from the public in the UK just made
the country safe for the crims prepared to carry them. It also insured
the police would steadily be armed.
Next, the police state, which in my view is the
real socialist
objective, as ever.
!---->
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#uk_gun_crime_250807
|
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
|
|
on fossil media reporting
Much that is ‘reported’ as fact is fiction,
and the falsehoods go much beyond spin.
I have seen ‘quotes’ invented, attributed
to individuals, and then claimed as ‘denied’ by those same
individuals during ‘interviews’ which I have witnessed.
I have seen TV ‘interviews’ cobbled together with answers
fitted to different questions, to which the ‘answers’ were
unconnected.
I have seen film deliberately cut mid-expression to suggest an entirely
different facial expression than if you saw a few seconds more of the
uncut film.
The main ‘scandal’ rags sculpt their pieces
to say totally, false things, and then work with lawyers to change them
in such a way that a reader will get the lying impression, without actually
saying what a unaware reader comes to believe it says.
On asking a TV team leader why they were behaving in
an obviously dishonest manner during a ‘story’, I was told,
‘The first thing we are told is to identify the baddy’. The
media, as a whole, sells emotion not reason, let alone facts. Never ever
let the facts get in the way of a ‘good story’.
On almost every piece on individuals or court cases;
you should be highly suspicious that ‘the facts’ are as they
are presented. While pieces presented as ‘science’ are often
no such thing, just pieces designed to sell you Brooklyn Bridge.
More specifically, Rupert Murdoch is now in the pocket
of the Clown, or vice versa. Regarding reporting by Murdoch’s empire
on David Cameron, each action of Cameron is being deliberately and systematically
misrepresented; for instance by changing the subject half way through
a piece and by exaggerating alleged ‘errors’, thus making
each piece, in fact, a hatchet job.
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#fossil_media_reporting_240807
|
|
george
bush’s speech on iraq [link to full transcript]
Some exerpts from President Bush’s excellent
speech:
“I stand before you as a wartime President. I wish I didn't have
to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001,
declared war on the United States of America. And war is what we're
engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In
truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of
life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed
thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater
scale.”
—
“Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty,
or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that
America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would
just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians
would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments.
I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle
East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path
to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide
some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard
and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the
fact we'll be successful.”
—
“I want to open today's speech with a story that begins on a sunny
morning, when thousands of Americans were murdered in a surprise attack
-- and our nation was propelled into a conflict that would take us to
every corner of the globe.
“The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment
at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted
on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region.
And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to
create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence
and give up the fight.
“If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing.
The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not
9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama
bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial
Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt
to impose its empire throughout East Asia.
“Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and
we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were
veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you
probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves
into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the
South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the
world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out
of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.
“The lesson from Asia's development is that the heart's desire
for liberty will not be denied. Once people even get a small taste of
liberty, they're not going to rest until they're free. Today's dynamic
and hopeful Asia -- a region that brings us countless benefits -- would
not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance.”
—
“Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we
got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind
that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United
States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate,
one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal
was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to
our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education
camps," and "killing fields." ”
—
“Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are
as certain of their cause as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or
the Soviet communists were of theirs. They are destined for the same
fate. (Applause.)
“The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire
for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as
we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq
and Afghanistan. We will help those countries' peoples stand up functioning
democracies in the heart of the broader Middle East. And when that hard
work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause
of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the
American people will be safer.”
And, as usual, much else.
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#bush_speech_220807
|
|
trust us, we’re the fossil media - the auroran sunset
The fossil media’s dishonesty,
bias and incompetence is long established. The difference today is that
- with the internet, blogs, podcasts and videocasts - the fossil media
increasingly no longer controls what is seen by the people, and so their
‘reporting’ is starting to be seen more realistically. These
are the results with only a quarter of the population using uncensored
sources:
| |
overall |
people whose main new source is the
internet |
| politically biased: |
55% |
64% |
| stories often inaccurate: |
53% |
59% |
| do not care about the people they report on: |
53% |
68% |
| too critical of America: |
43% |
53% |
“The internet news audience - roughly a quarter of all Americans
- tends to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole.”
Unsurprisingly Democrats tend to have less of a problem
with the fossil media than Republicans. Democrats are twice as likely
to have a favourable opinion of national newspapers (e.g. New York Times,
Washington Post, etc.):
Democrats 79% / Republicans 41%.
“Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets
we examine, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington
Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress.
Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News
and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center.”
—
“[...] the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W.
Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares to 51 percent of all
American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George
W. Bush’s campaign, another 93 contributed to Kerry’s campaign.”
[Quoted from
A
Measure of Media Bias]
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#fossil_media_160807
|
|
giuliani’s foreign policy - the auroran sunset
Seven-page foreign policy review from
the only serious presidential candidate out there. The article contains
concrete actions as well as the general principles quoted below. Worth
reading in full.
On the ‘Democrat’ policy of “surrender
quick before the public see that we are winning”:
“America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War.
Then, as now, we fought a war with the wrong strategy for several years.
And then, as now, we corrected course and began to show real progress.
Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese
partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting
South Vietnam on a path to political self-sufficiency. But America then
withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South.
The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths
in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a newly energized
and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America. The consequences
of abandoning Iraq would be worse.”
On military strength:
“For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and Democrats
has been to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly more with increasingly
less. The idea of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" was a serious
mistake - -- the product of wishful thinking and the opposite of true
realism. As a result of taking this dividend, our military is too small
to meet its current commitments or shoulder the burden of any additional
challenges that might arise. We must rebuild a military force that can
deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges.
When America appears bogged down and unready to face aggressors, it
invites conflict.”
On diplomacy:
“Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been determined
to attack the international system throughout its entire existence:
it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in
2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder.
But Tehran invokes the protections of the international system when
doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave
off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with
Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the
table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted.
“The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald
Reagan's actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev
in Reykjavík in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations
but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never
talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake
of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate -- whether ally or adversary
-- must know that America has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran
need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot,
by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian
economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying
its nuclear infrastructure.”
On international order:
“U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for
the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions
of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without
turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like
America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international
system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining
their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term
gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security
issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful
behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that
only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and
an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities
available in the world today.”
On own duty:
“In this decade, for the first time in human history, half of
the world's population will live in cities. I know from personal experience
that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city,
normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back
in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent
and law-abiding community returns to life. The same is true in world
affairs. Disorder in the world's bad neighborhoods tends to spread.
Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior. But concerted action
to uphold international standards will help peoples, economies, and
states to thrive. Civil society can triumph over chaos if it is backed
by determined action.”
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#giulani_foreign_policy_150807
|
|
carving up the oceans
“A Russian flag on the seabed beneath the ice of the North Pole is
among the few signs that states are waking up to a 2009 deadline for
what may be the last big carve-up of maritime territory in history.
“By some estimates, about 7 million sq km (2.7 million sq miles) -- the
size of Australia -- could be divided up around the world with so far
unknown riches ranging from oil and gas to seabed marine organisms at
stake.
“Only eight claims have been made although about 50 coastal states are
bound by a May 13, 2009, deadline for submissions under a UN drive to
set the now vague outer limits of each country's sea floor rights
under a 1982 convention.”
—
“Russia, Australia, France and Brazil are among the few to have made
claims. Most spectacularly, Moscow announced this month that explorers
had planted a rust-free Russian tricolour beneath the North Pole in
waters 4,261 metres (13,980) deep.
“Under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, coastal states own the
seabed beyond existing 200 nautical mile zones if it is part of a
continental shelf of shallower waters.
“Some shelves stretch hundreds of miles before reaching the deep ocean
floor, which is owned by no state. The rules aim to fix clear
geological limits for shelves' outer limits but are likely to lead to
a tangle of overlapping claims.
“ "This will probably be the last big shift in ownership of territory in
the history of the earth," said Lars Kullerud, who advises developing
states on submissions at the GRID-Arendal foundation, run by the UN
Environment Programme and Norway.”
related material
The tragedy of the commons
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#sharing_the_ocean_150807
|
|
libya
- yes we torture, yes we blackmail,but it‘s your fault
“Less than a month after the Libyans freed the five Bulgarian
nurses and one Palestinian doctor accused of infecting children with
HIV/AIDS, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam announced
on Al Jazeera Wednesday that the medics had been tortured and acknowledged
their innocence. Though Saif Qaddafi promises democratic elections after
the elder Gadhafi steps down, many observers believe that he will likely
succeed his father. His latest move has been seen by many as an attempt
to show the West a new, more open Libya.”
—
“ [Q:] What do you say to people who say this was blackmail and
it worked?
“ [A:] Blackmail? Maybe. It is blackmail, but the Europeans
also blackmailed us. Yeah, it's an immoral game, but they set the rules
of the game, the Europeans, and now they are paying the price[...] Everyone
tries to play with this card to advance his own interest back home.”
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#libyas_ethics_120807
|
|
‘new’ labour putting
uk troops and iraq at increasing risk for political considerations
While the United States is increasing control in Baghdad,
the UK socialist government is running in Basra.
The socialist UK government is showing a lack of judgement
by steadily lowering force presence in their own areas. This is leading
to a breakdown of control and increasing casualties in UK forces. In turn, this is increasing
terror gangs’ confidence to attack.
Of course, the south of Iraq was under considerable
control, before the socialist Labour government started withdrawing in
order to serve political pandering at home.
As I have said from the start, there is only one thing
that concerns me in Iraq - a lack of will.
It is sad to see the difference in will between the
UK and the USA. No wonder the UK has become a poor relation, increasingly
distrusted by America.
“Britain is hoping to reduce the number of its troops in southern
Iraq to 5,000 within weeks before assessing the withdrawal of its remaining
forces, according to Defence Secretary Des Browne.”
—
“Over the last six months, Britain's deployment has gradually
been reduced from 8,000 to 5,500 troops while handing over three of
the four provinces it is responsible for in southern Iraq. This compares
with some 45,000 deployed during the initial invasion in 2003.”
[Quoted from irna.ir]
“British troops are in the process of withdrawing from the centre
of Basra city and are planning to consolidate their forces at their
large airport base.
“The number of troops has already been reduced from 44,000 to
5,500. They are now almost exclusively based at Basra airport amid preparations
for control to be handed to Iraqi authorities.
“Despite the casualties, the UK military have rejected suggestions
from America that the UK had effectively lost control of the southern city.”[Quoted from 24dash.com]
graph of increasing UK death and injury rates in
Iraq
Remember that these casualty increases are occuring
on a steadily reducing number of troops. Further, around 30 deaths are
attributed to accidents, illness and other non-battle causes. Naturally,
that rate is relative to the numbers in Iraq.
For more see craigmurrayfriends.
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#chickenhawk_uk_090807
|
‘democrat’s’ and other socialists’ increasing desperation to lose in iraq
“If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs
that defeat is likewise being oversold today.
“One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David
Petraeus’s September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an
immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out.
“Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the
report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day?
Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the
troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?
“The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge
would turn out not to be a failure - and the Democrats had bet
everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an
American defeat in Iraq.”
Neat little summary here:
“[...] Meanwhile, Democrats, who have been pandering to their antiwar
base, will increasingly see that they have--as the third-ranking
Democrat in the House, James Clyburn, acknowledged last week--"a
problem." If Petraeus reports progress, Clyburn acknowledged, then "I
think there would be enough support" among moderate Democrats "to want
to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as they
have been, then it would be a problem for us." ”
[Quoted from weeklystandard.com, page 2]
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0708.php#democrats_iraq_060807
|
|
|
