Monday, 30 November 2015

Over the past few days Ive read a lot about Syria

The more I've read, the more Ive realised, that I actually know even less than I thought I did about the area.

However I believe the plan should be:

Political agreement on getting rid of Assad
Syrian troops can then take on ISIS in syria
Iraqi troops can take on ISIS in Iraq
Air support could be made available if Syrian and Iraq troops request it.

Nato general Sir Richard Shirreff warns air strikes on Syria are useless

Ive read a lot about people who dont want to bomb ISIS in Syria. Ive read a lot about people who want to bomb ISIS in Syria, this is understandable after the lives lost in France. But many, many more lives have been lost by Christian and Muslims in Syria and Iraq. Beheadings, Burnings, Shootings, Drownings, Crucifictions, rape etc. You would have to be part way mad to not want to get rid of this scourge and wipe it of the face of the earth.

HOWEVER ....

The one thing you do not want to do to an opponent, is give them what they want. The terrorist attacks, the Beheadings, Burnings, Shootings, Drownings, Crucifictions are all designed to get a reaction. ISIS needs support to survive, if we fight them, if we bomb them, they get their support and we will achieve very little as the USA has already found out.

Lets face it the USA is the biggest military machine in the world, yet after 17 months of precision bombing there has been no impact on ISIS.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — After billions of dollars spent and more than 10,000 extremist fighters killed, the Islamic State group is fundamentally no weaker than it was when the U.S.-led bombing campaign began a year ago, American intelligence agencies have concluded." [More Here]

There are too many players involved, all with their own game plans. We have Russia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, France, UK, Israel, President Assad, Syrian rebels, Syrian Kurdish Popular Protection Units, Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party, Hezbollah, ISIS and the list goes on as there are believed to be around 100 different factions operating in Syria.

How do we think we can come out of that mixing pot with a workable plan?

One thing that is agreed by most sensible people, is that only a political solution can end the conflict, a sentiment that is also held by none other than President Vladimir Putin, a key player in the area.

But back to ISIS.

The only way to defeat the ISIS ideology, is for Middle east countries to kill them off. To pave the way for that, the Assad problem has to be dealt with. Which is a difficult one, as he's backed by Russia, non the less its an issue that needs a solution.

Once Assad is gone the Syrians will be free to take on ISIS in Syria themselves and with Iraq army combatting them in the south they wouldnt last long. Air support could be offered then if needed.

The point is, without our involvement, there will be no flow of replacement fighters rushing to join the battle with the infidel. Syria and Iraq will be able to deal with the problem on their own.

Which is the way it should be.

Sunday, 29 November 2015

The Truth is Labour's shadow cabinet is isolated not Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn isolated as 'majority of shadow cabinet backs air strikes'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12017887/david-cameron-syria-air-strikes-plan-live.html?

There are 380,000 labour party members, 59% of which support Jeremy Corbyn. That's 224,200

There are 30 shadow cabinet members, some of which also support Corbyn.

Isn't the true picture that the Shadow Cabinet is isolated?

Whilst there should always be differing views in a healthy democracy any thoughts of any undemocratic coup attempts should be consigned to the bin and the Shadow cabinet should get on with doing its job.

Len McCluskey warns entire union movement would defend Jeremy Corbyn from Labour coup attempt

George, those Tornado's you were decomissioning ......

Cameron the Proven Threat to UK security

The chickens are now coming home to roost and its now proven, beyond all doubt, that Cameron and the Tory policies are the real threat to the UK's security.

Jeremy Corbyn is once again proved right by not being a sheep like others and having the guts to question Camerons plans. The mark of a real leader.

Very simply here is the proof

Decomissioned all of our carriers and carrier based aircraft the Harrier. This means that we havnt got the forces needed to retake the Falklands, if we needed to.
The F35 wont be combat ready till at least 2020, meaning we will have carriers in service with no aircraft which is an absolute farcical situation.Thats assuming the F35 is ready by 2020.
The spiraling costs and delayed delivery of the US-made F-35, coupled with the retirement of the Tornado fighters, will leave the UK’s airspace with no protection and its air force capacity a “joke,” according to a raft of senior officials.
The Navy has been cut back so much they wont have enough personel to crew the Carriers.
Cuts to the RAF means that we really are now just an also ran on the world stage. We dont have the capability to mount a campaign on our own. How can we defend ourselves?
The Tornado is being decomissioned therfore there are not enough aircraft available for our forces to use in Syria to effectivly bomb ISIS.

Julian Lewis, the Tory chairman of the influential Commons Defence Select Committee, said last night that "Britain's fleet of mission-ready Tornados was so small that it could only make a 'marginal' contribution to the war against Islamic State, should Parliament vote to approve air strikes on targets in Syria." [More Here]

Britain does not have enough aircraft to carry out effective bombing missions against Islamic State in Syria, a senior Conservative MP has told The Mail on Sunday. Experts say that 24 Tornado ground-attack aircraft would be needed for Britain to mount an effective campaign, while maintaining current missions in Iraq.

But RAF sources say that only 'two to four' jets are poised to join the eight-strong force already operating over IS territory from Britain's airbase at Akrotiri in Cyprus.

According to a well-placed source, David Cameron was informed of the lack of available aircraft by Defence officials and was said to have been 'disappointed'. Downing Street did not respond to requests for comment last night.

Sir John explained that the UK actually has about 72 Tornado ground-attack jets. But because the aircraft is due to be retired from service in 2019 only a limited number are available for operations.

He said: 'Inevitably towards the end of the Tornado's lifespan everything which keeps it in the skies is wound down – that's simply a fact of retiring the aircraft. 'We simply couldn't sustain a deployment of 24 with the numbers of Tornado we have now. For every one you send out on a mission, you need two more in readiness, just to maintain the operational tempo.' [More Here]

What would be worse, no not worse, it would be criminal, to put our front line forces in danger, should bombing go ahead, with out the right backup assets. David Cameron needs to explain how he will keep our forces as safe as they can be, in a theatre of war, with the depleted resources they have, depleted due to his cuts.

The UKs forces have been depleted so much by David Cameron and the Tories that we no longer can make anything more than minimal effect with the aircraft available.

Therefore the ambition to join in the Syrian bombing campaign is nothing more than Cameron trying to look like a big leader when he is in fact an also ran.

One has to question how Cameron didnt know he had enough operational aircraft available before the speech in the commons. This is incompetance at the highest level.

Jeremy Corbyn proved right yet again to question Cameron's rickety plans.

Is the real reason that Cameron wants to join France and US in bombing because hes made so many cuts he hasnt got a credible force to go it alone. If anything crops up we would struggle without France or US backing us. He needs them due to his incompetance therfore he has to back them. Both France and US have carrier forces and I'm sure they wouldnt be stupid enough to get rid of them before a replacement was ready, unlike Cameron and Osbourne.

Delays in costly ‘white elephant’ F-35 leave British skies ‘vulnerable’

Navy has no sailors for new aircraft carriers

Fiasco of Britain's missing Tornados: No10 wants to send more jets to Syria...but we have '2 to 4' spare as defence expert MP reveals cuts and mothballing makes us a 'marginal' force

Cameron's white lie about security threat

To bomb ISIS in Syria or not?

That is the question and its a situation we shouldn't walk into lightly.

What stomach will British people have for watching our own troops or Airforce burned alive or beheaded?

Is there another way?

How long would ISIS last with out its rich backers and oil?

This is a situation that transcends political views and whilst there are the normal comments saying that Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to security again. It could be that David Cameron is the threat to security, if he doesnt get this right. Actually its more if we dont get this right because of the countries involved this could be more than just taking on a Terrorist group. There is nothing wrong with Corbyn saying, "I do not believe that the Prime Minister made a convincing case that British air strikes on Syria would strengthen our national security or reduce the threat from ISIS". What would be more worrying is someone who would blindly follow a call for military action without considering the consequences.

Corbyn has sent out emails to the whole of the Labour membership to ask their opinions. I know this because I'm a Labour party member. He's not done this because he is weak, democracy is not weak, it brings great strength. Leaders are there to guide and inform, one person or small group of people should not make the decision on military intervention or war. We know what Corbyn's stance is on Syria at present, but he's a good enough leader to ask and take note of others opinions. Gradually we will get all the information needed to ensure that we don't get into a monumental abyss.

According to David Cameron there is 'Clear Legal Basis' To Bomb I.S.

But is there?

It was very noticeable that David Cameron had dropped his normal belittling, mudslinging persona for something much more reasonable. Is this just to gain support or a genuine change?

Obviously we are not party to the same information that politicians have but having examined the arguments available and looked at lots of information from various sources, my personal opinion is....

I Agree that ISIS needs to be eradicated.
Don't agree that bombing will achieve that, therefore I'm against Bombing at present, unless 3, 4 are in place.
A viable local ground force is available. Not coalition. ISIS cant be beaten by air alone.
A Plan to deal with ISIS very rich funders is in place (to stop ISIS re-spawning) and working at the same time as military action.
Bombing will increase the threat level in the UK which isnt at its highest as the PM incorrectly claimed. Current threat level is severe and not critical. Critical is the highest level. MPs and the public need to be aware of this.

I will be sending the above back in reply to Jeremy Corbyn.

The Arguments FOR

We need to stop ISIS as they are a threat to our security.
We shouldn't let our friends ie France and US act alone. (Both France and the US supported the UK during the Falklands War)
Action will only be against ISIS and not against other forces.
We are already at the highest security risk. (Actually thats incorrect)
UN Resolution 2249 backs Military action.
UN Resolution 2249 "The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq."
UN Resolution 2249 "Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria"

The Arguments AGAINST

History shows its easy to get into these conflicts and very difficult to get out.
Fear makes people do stupid things.
No coherent strategy for what happens if ISIS is defeated.
No strategy for dealing with ISIS backers, so ISIS will just re-spawn.
Very risky area with Russia involved.
The PM claimed our threat level was at its highest. Its actually not, its currently at Severe, one less than the maximum of Critical. [Current Threat Level]
Even if our security level was at its highest, doesn't mean that the risk of attack wont increase, or get worse.
ISIS actually want us dropping bombs on them as it gains them support.
ISIS want troops on ground as it fulfils their prophecy of Armageddon battle in Syria.
Will increase the risk of more Muslims getting radicalised.
ISIS will use civilians to hide meaning more civilians killed.
More refugees will head towards Europe which is what ISIS want as it destabilises the countries that take them.
There are around 100 different factions involved on the ground in Syria getting any agreement or organising these will be impossible.
The biggest military force in the world the US has been bombing ISIS for 17 months now and we are expected to believe our 7 tornado jets are going to make all the difference?
Syria is extremely complex area we should not be meddling in area's that we pretend to understand but dont.
So far, we have pretty strong proof that the air war has been a failure—after more than 10,000 allied sorties, ISIS still controls much the same territory.
In conflict never give someone what they want. ISIS want us to attack them.
Russia strongly supports Assad

QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERING

This cannot be won by air assault alone so will require ground troops?
How do we know that the 70,000 Syrian fighters will take back and hold area's that ISIS leave?
If the Syrian fighters are not effective. Will UK ground troops be deployed?
How many ground troops will be deployed?
Will all UN countries deploy troops?
What will happen if any of our troops/air force are captured and beheaded/burned alive etc?
Will attacks be co-ordinated with Russia to avoid any possible mishaps?
Is Turkey trading with ISIS?
UN Resolution 2249 "Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law. "In compliance with international law." is a handy little get out clause there and begs the question. Is it in compliance with international law to bomb another country if that country hasn't actually attacked you?.
Have any lawyers confirmed that this would be in compliance with international law.
Does Assad use ISIS for his own agenda?
Russia backs Assad so is Russia really attacking ISIS?

Links to information sources

For those of you not in the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyns email is below

Gary,

On Thursday David Cameron set out his case in the House of Commons for a UK bombing campaign in Syria.

We have all been horrified by the despicable attacks in Paris and are determined to see ISIS defeated.

The issue now is whether what the Prime Minister is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.

I put a series of questions in response to the Prime Minister's statement, raising concerns about his case that are on the minds of many in the country. You can read my response here.

There could not be a more important matter than whether British forces are sent to war.

As early as next week, MPs could be asked to vote on extending UK bombing to Syria.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister made a convincing case that British air strikes on Syria would strengthen our national security or reduce the threat from ISIS.

When I was elected I said I wanted Labour to become a more inclusive and democratic party.

So I am writing to consult you on what you think Britain should do. Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?

Let me know your views, if you are able to, by the start of next week:

Yours,

Jeremy Corbyn MP
Leader of the Labour Party

Sunday, 22 November 2015

Labour are the workers party.

Tories are the workers party

Yeah right!

There is only one leader that will stand up for Workers rights and he's on the left.

against a bunch of upperclass freemasons who will do anything to protect each other.

Corbyn knows the right respect

Real people care about others, Cameron and Co just preach it because they know its what people want to hear. Its not what you say, its what you do, that makes a difference.

Whilst being slated for not bowing enough Jeremy Corbyn quietly stayed behind to support and talk to veterans. Whilst others, Cameron, Osborne, Blair etc went to a VIP lunch. He then went onto a rememberance in his own constituancy. No fuss, No loads of photographers, No film crew.

Respect!

Corbyn's Talks with the IRA

Corbyn controversially invited Sinn Féin Party President Gerry Adams to London in 1984, a move from which then-Party Leader Neil (now Lord) Kinnock "did everything in his power" to disassociate himself.A second meeting in 1996 was cancelled following pressure from the Labour Party.Corbyn responded by saying "dialogue with all parties remains essential if the peace process is to continue". He has been strongly criticised by Labour and Conservative MPs for holding meetings with former members of the PIRA in the Palace of Westminster, to discuss topics such as conditions in Northern Irish prisons and the PIRA ceasefire. In an interview on BBC Radio Ulster in August 2015, Corbyn stressed his opposition to "all bombing" and welcomed the ceasefire and peace process, although he did not express a direct opinion about the actions of the IRA specifically.

As the British were not Bombing the Irish I think we can safely say that Corbyn stressed his opposition to bombing many times.

Everyone criticised Corbyn for talking to the IRA but Thatcher was already talking to them in 1981 about conditions in NI Prisons, whilst telling the general public "We don't talk to terrorists"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413

These talks continued after and led to the peace process. Prior to that we had 36 years of Bombing, killing, kneecappings, british troops being killed. So whilst im not suggesting that Corbyn started the peace talks he was clever enough to realise that nothing would be solved unless people did talk. Thatcher had to drop the "We dont talk to terrorists" line to get the problem resolved. If she had carried on we would still have bombs going off in London now. It didnt matter how many troops they put in NI it didnt put the IRA out of action.

It was the same regarding the ANC and Nelson Mandela, Corbyn also advocated talking to the ANC, the Tories wouldn't talk to them at one stage, there is no need to cover that here as the rest is history.

Was Corbyn wrong to talk to the IRA? If he was then it goes without saying that the Conservative Government and Thatcher were wrong also.

Is he a terrorist sympathiser? He has said may times that, he is against injustice, killing, bombing and believes that sometimes you have to talk to people to get issues resolved. That's not a unique view, most of the UN and EU and NATO prefer to talk rather than just blowing people up. We'll they do when the country can fight back, like russia, if its just a small country .... like Iraq, we just blow them up, or invade, especially if they have oil.

Some claim that because pictured with Gerry Adams that makes Corbyn a Terrorist Sympathiser ...many others were talking to Gerry Adams as well so this is a fallacy as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher 'negotiated with IRA'

Corbyn condemns IRA & British Army violence in Troubles, lauds peace process

15 times when Jeremy Corbyn was on the right side of history

If Jeremy Corbyn was wrong on Northern Ireland, so was Nelson Mandela

Thatcher and the ANC as ‘terrorists’

Nelson Mandela death: Tories 'right on South Africa'

https://www.thepileus.com/uk/corbyn-terrorist-sympathiser-no-grow-up/

Saturday, 21 November 2015

SERCO and conflicts of interest

So there you have it Rupert Soames is CEO of SERCO but why is this important?

Its important because, yet again, there is a major conflict of interest here. Basically because his brother is Nicholas Soames former Conservative defence minister. Nicholas Soames is Chairman of Aegis Defence Services Ltd a provider of private security services in Iraq. As an MP Nicholas Soames consistently voted for the Iraq war and is currently still MP for Mid Sussex along with being chairman of Aegis Defence. Anyone think thats a conflict of interest?

SERCO provides the government with all manner of services covering, State security, Transport, Science, Prisons and justice, Defence, Aviation, Health, Education, Leisure, Information technology & Waste.

Quite why SERCO is still allowed to quote for goverment contracts is mystifying. Both SERCO and G4S were being investigated by the serious fraud squad for overcharging on an electronic tagging contract. SERCO agreed to pay pack 68 million although the charges were actually dropped?

SERCO agreed to pay back 68 million. They agreed to pay back 68 million .....Basically they admitted they had defrauded the government out of at least 68 million. You can bet if they agreed to pay back 68 million, they owed more. Also the charges were dropped as police found no evidence of wrong doing? So even though they admitted charging the Government for tagging thousands of criminals who were actually dead, imprisoned or non-existent. The charges were dropped and they are still providing services and quoting on contracts. WHY?

There are a couple of other things that came up while looking into this. One was a Nicholas Soames connection to Princess Dianna where he alledgedly phoned her and said "Drop the anti-landmines campaign, you never know when an accident is going to happen!" he has always denied making the call.

Prior to becoming CEO of SERCO Rupert Soames was CEO of Aggreko a position he stepped into after the previous CEO Philip Harrower died when his car collided with a train in the United States.

https://www.serco.com/investors/governance/directorprofiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Soames
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10555/nicholas_soames/mid_sussex/divisions?policy=1049
http://www.nicholassoames.org.uk/contact
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/19/offender-electronic-tagging-serco-repay-68m-overcharging
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ray-of-light-for-serco-as-investigation-is-dropped-9937321.html
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/nov/04/serious-fraud-office-inquiry-g4s-serco-overcharging

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Dealing with ISIS, talking to terrorists, trident, Saudi and Wahhabism

Mehdi Hasan gives 'War on Terror' a reality check
In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 9/11. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.After 14 years, $4.4tn, and hundreds of thousands of deaths - has the so-called war on terror made the world a safer place?In the Reality Check, Mehdi Hasan exposes the failures of the global military campaign to fight "terrorism".For more, keep up with his new show on Al Jazeera, UpFront:http://aljazeera.com/upfront
Posted by Al Jazeera English on Sunday, 13 September 2015

The he's friendly with terrorists chant continues with regard to Jeremy Corbyn and as I've had to point out to many people, he doesn't align himself with terrorists but advocated in the past talking to them. In this he was proved to be correct both with the IRA and the ANC. For years Corbyn promoted that, talking to the IRA was the only way to resolve things. Not long after Corbyn talked with them, the Government, even though they had said they would never talk to terrorists, started talking to them. "The Troubles" were eventually resolved when the Government got into secret talks, something that 36 years of armed struggle with the IRA did not. I wont go any further into that as its all there on the internet but just to quickly clarify im not suggesting that Corbyn had anything to do with bringing peace just that talking was proved the correct route.

Onto socialism, (again sorry, still killing many birds with one stone) we may never have had true socialism in this country, however, everyone benefits from it. You wouldn't have the society we enjoy today if it wasn't for socialism, nor the NHS or trade unions that did so much to raise standards for working people, nuff said about that.

Onto ISIS..... ISIS is a difficult group to deal with, its a radical ideology that stems from Saudi and has backers there, the Wahhabi religious movement is about as radical as it comes. Note that it is also described as ultraconservative. Hmmm.

I've said it before, so I'll say it again, in my humble opinion you cant kill a religious ideology, it doesn't matter how many troops you send or how many missiles, you will just convert more and more moderates over to the radical side to take their place. They will actually be queing up to die because they want to die in battle against the infidel ie us. Everything they are doing is attempting to make the prophecy of Armageddon that is in the Quoran, true.

I guarantee that this problem will not be solved by troops and war. I'm still killing several birds with one post here so bear with me ......Back to Corbyn, he is not advocating talking to ISIS, he's not stupid. He is saying that its better to avoid conflict with them, which will slow down the conversion of moderate Muslims to the radical Wahhabi side and we should do that by choking them. Cut off their funding, their arms etc, the reason governments don't like that idea is, we sell arms to Saudi. Now we come to a problem, the arms sellers are going to make billions on the arms used in conflict with ISIS and it could go on for years. So the powers that be are not going to promote that particular idea.

Trade with Saudi should be stopped until they stop funding ISIS...... Oooops catch 22 ....That wont happen either because Saudi has the Oil. But it does need to happen, we need our Governments to find another way apart from a military one, because that will never work. But then I fear they don't really want it to work. Keep the money pouring into the arms manufacturers eh!

It really is a tricky one which is why it requires a lot of intelligent thought rather than the knee jerk bomb the feckers attitude. It might make everyone feel better but it will lead to blood on the streets of the UK similar to Paris.

Whilst on this subject lets drop onto Trident as well, France is a nuclear power and it never stopped them being attacked, it wont stop us being attacked either. What we also need to be careful of is, party leaders have a habit of using conflict to gain popularity. Thatcher would have never been re-elected, if it wasn't for the Falklands war and dont forget Thatcher was deemed unelectable by her own party.
Trident was useful during the cold war and may even be useful stopping the likes of North Korea thinking they can take over the world, albeit a radio active one.
I would point out though, that we are signed up to a treaty "The treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons" that treaty says, we will start talks with a view to reducing or getting rid of completely, nuclear weapons. At some stage we have to start talking and that is exactly Corbyns point, no one is showing any signs of starting any form of debate on the subject apart from banging on and calling anyone who mentions anything about getting rid of Trident as being madmen and a risk to security, really?
Lets look at the plans for Armageddon, our own little armaggedon, not the ISIS one. Apologies for going of track again, but very simply theres one of our subs on patrol 24/7. If it cant complete a series of communication checks with dear old Blighty, lets hope radio 4 doesn't go down, the commander goes to the safe and opens up a letter sealed by the Prime Minister. This then gives him instructions in what to do next. Nuke the feckers!!! no doubt. What this will mean is we are no longer here, we've been nuked in a preemptive strike, so your deterrent is no longer a deterrent its a retaliatory weapon, which is what it really was all along. Even if ISIS got hold of a nuke and nuked us we couldnt retaliate, who would you fire it at Syria?

The bottom line is ISIS = Wahhabism

Wahhabism comes from Saudi
Saudi backs ISIS or rather very rich individuals do
Qatar and Kuwait back ISIS as well

It doesnt take a nuclear physisist to work out which countries need to be pulled into line, but it wont happen. Instead they will try and blast ISIS off the face of the earth, the real brains and money behind it all will be unscathed and ready to launch another wave of fighters, all climbing over each other to get to the Virgins. Meanwhile people will die in this country because of the sledgehammer aproach.

The truth about Isis!USA war against them is bullshit Explains why nothing has happened after 2 years!
Posted by Politically Incorrect Europe on Monday, 16 November 2015

Tony Blair urges British airstrikes in Syria after 'killing' of Jihadi John
In what world is Corbyn 'radical' for standing against more killing, while revenge bombing is 'moderate'?
Jeremy Corbyn WILL Authorise Lethal Force Against Terrorists If 'Strictly Necessary'

Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'

Saturday, 14 November 2015

Should Jihadi John have been brought to trial?

My opinion is yes, even though thats difficult to do.

Personally Im certainly not concerned at the news of his death, if indeed he is dead. However the relatives of those that were killed in such gruesome ways, appear to have wanted him in court and so thats what should have been done.

Also we live in a society where courts and laws built up over many years, are there to decide wether a person is quilty or not. During this process relatives have a chance to hear evidence, that they might not have known, about their loved ones last days and this may help them with closure. This evidence wont be disclosed unless in court. Unfortunately getting in to get him is pretty much impossible.

If they did hit the wrong person there is no way of telling and they just gave him the best witness protection program, for he will just disappear. The families will now always be left wondering, was it was him or not. If they did hit the wrong person how do we know that person was ISIS or just someone unrelated going about their business. We dont actually have any way of knowing whether they were actually ISIS or not.

Can anyone say without question that Bin Ladin is dead? We saw pictures of someone that looked like Bin Ladin but thats not really proof. DNA would have been better, but we never saw evidence of that, even though they had the body.

So my opinion is, for the peace of mind of the relatives, he should have been brought to trial even though thats pretty much impossible at present, but with time, who knows. They tracked down Nazi's many years after the deeds were done.

Thursday, 12 November 2015

Muslim Rape of Sweden?

So are Muslim gangs taking over Sweden and raping infidel women as the report above suggests?

Jamie Glazov
Ingrid Carlqvist

I did actually watch it and imediately got the impression that the interviewer Jamie Glazov is right wing Conservative, not too sure about him he has a certain slant.

Ingrid Carlqvist cant find too much about her either outside her own country, she didnt come across as being very believable, almost a David Icke type.

I like to check facts but Its difficult to qualify their statement that sweden has the most rapes out of any country due to the way that Sweden reports rape. For instance a husband may rape his wife every day for a year. In Sweden that would be counted as 365 rapes anywhere where else would be counted as one rape. Now whether it should be counted as 1 or 365 is another discussion. The fact is rightly or wrongly that skews Swedish figures against any others, so whether they have the most rape or not is difficult to ascertain.

Personally im no lover of religion, so whilst I believe that people should be able to believe what they want, my caveat is "as long as it doesnt detrimentally affect others". Again, back to checking facts, In the video they claim that islam allows the rape of infidel women, I have been unable to find this in the Quran. There are some references to women captured in war, it only mentions sex in the verse, but I think we can safely say that a women captured in war and about to be sold as a slave is not going to be totally happy about having sex with their captive. That said I still cant find reference to raping infidel women, if anyone can find it please post the reference.

The video also mentions 55 no go area's due to Muslim gangs. Again searching for facts has proved difficult so far. I found a lot of what could be described as radical pages all claiming the same thing, with a lot seeming to have copied the same speel from others. Bloomberg was the only mainstream source found but that was saying it was Debunking the myth.

I think I will ask a friend ....

to be continued

http://swedenreport.org/2014/10/29/swedish-police-55-official-no-go-zones/
http://10news.dk/?p=1615
http://shoebat.com/2015/08/11/did-you-know-there-are-at-least-55-no-go-zones-in-sweden-where-christians-dare-not-go-and-where-swedish-law-no-longer-exists/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/02/swedish-police-release-extensive-report-detailing-control-of-55-no-go-zones-by-muslim-criminal-gangs/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_November_30
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2119/journalist-went-to-swedish-no-go-zone-to-interview-stone-throwers-was-stoned.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth

Monday, 9 November 2015

The Man Didnt Bow

I actually find it morally wrong and reprehensible that people try to use rememberance day for points scoring.

With that in mind I had a flash of insiration and wrote a poem.

Did Jeremy Corbyn bow at the cenotaph

"While it sickened me, what the Sun actually announced today is that there is a rather good chance that Jeremy will one day be prime minister."

The fact is he did. Im not going to get into what is deemed a respectful bow and what isn't. I actually find it deplorable that anyone would use remembearance day for points scoring. Those that have, and continue to do so should be ashamed, for you are the dis-respectful ones.

Some may have noticed that the other night there was a demonstration in London where a Police car was set on fire. There were so many photographers around the car that the perpetrator (unknown) could only approach the car from one side to do the deed, bit strange? that many Photographers could all be at the right place at the right time? amazing intuition?

Fast forward to rememberance at the cenotaph. There was possibly one photographer that showed the same intuition and managed to get pictures of Jeremy Corbyn staying behind to applaud the veterans as they walked past. Set up? This video was obviously captured on a phone, so there were no TV cameras around, if your going to do a setup you get press and TV there.

Jeremy misses VIP reception. Stays to applaud veterans instead.
Yesterday Jeremy Corbyn came under the most intense scrutiny.In fact, as you can see in this video just sent to me, Jeremy skipped a 'VIP' reception and opted to applaud veterans on the parade.I hear that he then got the tube to Islington North to go to a service in his own constituency, a service which he goes to every year. Now that is showing real respect.
Posted by Clive Lewis MP on Monday, 9 November 2015

Where was our illustrious Prime Minister and his cronies?

Dave, George, Boris, Blair etc had all scurried of to a VIP dinner. Where no doubt you could find all the press.

Tories manipulating the voters, dont be manipulated.