On Thursday Sept 30 2010 I wrote a blog article saying Iran was far more likely to Nuke Saudi Arabia then Israel. And Guess What People- According to Wikileaks, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia thinks so too! BOOYAA! Not only that- He (and the UAE too) have been begging America to attack Iran! BEGGING. AMERICA. TO. ATTACK. IRAN. Muddafudda.
Of course if we did physically attack Iran all those Saudi funded radical mosques and terrorist cells will be baying for the blood of all us evil crusaders. - So fuckum.
Another scrumptious tidbit from Wikileaks shows that WE KNOW the Saudis are STILL funnelling majillions of petrodollars into terror cells, anti American propaganda and radicalization programs all over the world - So fukum sum-more.
Sunni and Shia have had 1300 years to make peace. And they didn't. Saudi Arabia has had 30 years to develop better relations with Iran. And they didn't.
They made their bed. Let them burn in it.
Anyone wanna go halvsies on a wind farm?
Update: Saudi Arabia and The UAE have been begging America to make Isreal attack Iran. So SAUDI ARABIA AND THE UAE GOT ON THEIR KNEES AND BEGGED ISREAL TO SAVE THEM!!! Is that why Stuxnet was unleashed? If that's so then you're a better Gunga Din then I am, Isreal.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Pretty Good Doc on Police Perspective of EDL UAF Confrontation.
Vlad Tepes posted a pretty good TV news show about an EDL demo at which the UAF and other groups tried to force a violent confrontation. What is useful about it is that it's from the police point of view. It is vitally important to examine events from several points of view in order to understand them. The police were disinterested in the subject matter of the protests and were only interested in preventing a riot. Furthermore the police get a worms eye view of who is doing what at a protest that is often just as illuminating as the statements made by participants in a protest. Participants, it needs to be said, have considerable motive in delivering a, shall we say, not entirely disinterested spin on the events at a demonstration.
Even if the story was slanted to paint the police in a favorable light some interesting facts came through
1 The police were objective in how they prevented escalation. They did this by verbally warning people on both sides, either curtly or by way of lengthily explanation, and by promptly arresting people (on both sides)who were aggressive to them. - The left wingers said they weren't doing anything but they are trained to say that when arrested at demonstrations. I know that because that was what I was taught to do.
2 They noticed that a second, more threatening group arrived at the end of the demonstration. This second was an entirely Muslim group. The police noticed a) they intentionally came late in the protest b) they weren't saying the same things as the UAF/Left wing groups. The police noticed that this new group was only interested in trying to start violence against the Anti Shariah protesters.
3 The Police say on camera at the demo to each other that the EDL aren't a problem and they knew they would leave when asked. They weren't concerned with violence from the EDL at all. They were concerned with uninvited people that came to the protest who were members of The National Front (an actual fascist racist group) and the BNP (who knows what the hell they are now - aside from opportunistic and racist - don't spend any time wondering about that). Executives in the police have recently said they no longer believe the EDL to be a dangerous or extremist group and now realize that it's fundamentally different from nefarious groups such as the National Front. This is partly because of what the police have actually seen at EDL demonstrations and learned themselves through investigation rather then what has been reported in the media.
4 From a "keeping the peace" point of view the UAF/Left wing groups caused far more trouble, both individually and organized, then the Anti Shariah group. The police had to arrest 58 UAF/Left wing people and only 18 Anti Shariah protesters (I can't be sure of the precise number but it's mentioned at the end of the video). There is a specific reason for this. the UAF/Left wing groups see manipulating the police into arresting or using violence on demonstrators as part of a normal protest strategy. This paints them as victims and makes it look like the police have made a specific political decision to help whichever is the protesters oppressor du jour.
4.1 The Anti Shariah protesters on the other hand are not experienced protesters and don't want an antagonistic relationship with the police and really, really don't want to be seen by the public as anti social (they do want the government to see that they are angry though). They are English working class, which is somewhat analogous to American middle class and don't have an anti establishment point of view. They are in fact far less radical or right wing then Tea Party people. I would bet all of the bippies currently in my possession that they and their families have voted Labor (i.e. socialist (before Tony Blair at least)) for generations. I won't bet a single bippy they will be voting Labor again in the foreseeable future. This is important- they are an establishment respecting group. The goal of their political actions is to make the establishment aware of and respectful of their concerns and change it's policies. That is how free democracies work. It is fascist dictatorships like Nazi Germany and Iran that send thugs to physically attack people who won't shut up.
I argue that their concerns are in fact very liberal concerns and are based upon a respect for the true liberalism of political equality and human rights which started in the enlightenment of the 18th century and that they now see is under attack. A liberalism that is under attack by people who have said countless times in the press and court documents that they are actually attacking it and that it is their absolute duty to do so.
The Left wing mush heads I saw at that demonstration seem to think these people are fascists when in fact they are merely loud moderates. They are still thinking in terms of the 20th century's right/left polarizations which just do not apply in this issue in the way that the left thinks it does. Tactically they are playing the old stupid game of position. That is they see a group on one side of an issue and just decide reflexively to take the opposite side for a whole swath of cynical self serving reasons that have everything to do with political gain and nothing to do with a concern for equality. When protesting the first gulf war I found the whole anti war movement was engineered by socialist groups who I knew from reading their material would also have protested if the US had done nothing. But protesting a big news event was useful in drumming up membership from the ranks of college students who wanted to be like the romantic figures of the anti Vietnam protests.
Anyhoozle, here is the link to the actual video. I hope it is as illuminating to you as it was to me.
UK Documentary on police, the ‘Anti Fascists’ and the EDL
Even if the story was slanted to paint the police in a favorable light some interesting facts came through
1 The police were objective in how they prevented escalation. They did this by verbally warning people on both sides, either curtly or by way of lengthily explanation, and by promptly arresting people (on both sides)who were aggressive to them. - The left wingers said they weren't doing anything but they are trained to say that when arrested at demonstrations. I know that because that was what I was taught to do.
2 They noticed that a second, more threatening group arrived at the end of the demonstration. This second was an entirely Muslim group. The police noticed a) they intentionally came late in the protest b) they weren't saying the same things as the UAF/Left wing groups. The police noticed that this new group was only interested in trying to start violence against the Anti Shariah protesters.
3 The Police say on camera at the demo to each other that the EDL aren't a problem and they knew they would leave when asked. They weren't concerned with violence from the EDL at all. They were concerned with uninvited people that came to the protest who were members of The National Front (an actual fascist racist group) and the BNP (who knows what the hell they are now - aside from opportunistic and racist - don't spend any time wondering about that). Executives in the police have recently said they no longer believe the EDL to be a dangerous or extremist group and now realize that it's fundamentally different from nefarious groups such as the National Front. This is partly because of what the police have actually seen at EDL demonstrations and learned themselves through investigation rather then what has been reported in the media.
4 From a "keeping the peace" point of view the UAF/Left wing groups caused far more trouble, both individually and organized, then the Anti Shariah group. The police had to arrest 58 UAF/Left wing people and only 18 Anti Shariah protesters (I can't be sure of the precise number but it's mentioned at the end of the video). There is a specific reason for this. the UAF/Left wing groups see manipulating the police into arresting or using violence on demonstrators as part of a normal protest strategy. This paints them as victims and makes it look like the police have made a specific political decision to help whichever is the protesters oppressor du jour.
4.1 The Anti Shariah protesters on the other hand are not experienced protesters and don't want an antagonistic relationship with the police and really, really don't want to be seen by the public as anti social (they do want the government to see that they are angry though). They are English working class, which is somewhat analogous to American middle class and don't have an anti establishment point of view. They are in fact far less radical or right wing then Tea Party people. I would bet all of the bippies currently in my possession that they and their families have voted Labor (i.e. socialist (before Tony Blair at least)) for generations. I won't bet a single bippy they will be voting Labor again in the foreseeable future. This is important- they are an establishment respecting group. The goal of their political actions is to make the establishment aware of and respectful of their concerns and change it's policies. That is how free democracies work. It is fascist dictatorships like Nazi Germany and Iran that send thugs to physically attack people who won't shut up.
I argue that their concerns are in fact very liberal concerns and are based upon a respect for the true liberalism of political equality and human rights which started in the enlightenment of the 18th century and that they now see is under attack. A liberalism that is under attack by people who have said countless times in the press and court documents that they are actually attacking it and that it is their absolute duty to do so.
The Left wing mush heads I saw at that demonstration seem to think these people are fascists when in fact they are merely loud moderates. They are still thinking in terms of the 20th century's right/left polarizations which just do not apply in this issue in the way that the left thinks it does. Tactically they are playing the old stupid game of position. That is they see a group on one side of an issue and just decide reflexively to take the opposite side for a whole swath of cynical self serving reasons that have everything to do with political gain and nothing to do with a concern for equality. When protesting the first gulf war I found the whole anti war movement was engineered by socialist groups who I knew from reading their material would also have protested if the US had done nothing. But protesting a big news event was useful in drumming up membership from the ranks of college students who wanted to be like the romantic figures of the anti Vietnam protests.
Anyhoozle, here is the link to the actual video. I hope it is as illuminating to you as it was to me.
UK Documentary on police, the ‘Anti Fascists’ and the EDL
Sunday, November 21, 2010
UK Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit Counter Common Sense Too
Echo Chamber Alert. I saw this story on Jihad watch but wanted to give my 2 cents. I will post a link to the original Jihadwatch story and the Radio Interview it sources.
A UK counter terrorism official said to BBC Radio 5 Live recently that The EDL encourages Islamic extremism. This UK anti terrorism official has far too little understanding of the Islamic radicalization process to help defend his country. That is if the UK actually has any intention to defend it's citizens from radical Islam.
"Many EDL demonstrations and counter-demonstrations have ended in violence, and Det Supt John Larkin says they have witnessed signs of radicalisation afterwards."
Examine the wording of that sentence. British officials are always very careful in their choice of words. The sentence is vague as to the source of the violence. It does not put the blame for the violence on the EDL because the police KNOW the violence is caused ONLY when Muslim gangs attack the peaceful demonstrators.
The statement says that after the EDL has a demonstration. Radical activists show up and agitate the local Muslim population.
So because some nere-do-wells are committing subversion the dumbass British police blame the people who are protesting AGAINST that subversion and not the people who THEY KNOW are the one's committing subversion.
This statement says the country needs to get along to get along. Don't make the aggressors angry by standing up to them or calling attention to what they are doing. I might be wrong but didn't the British learn the hard way right before WWII that that just doesn't work?
Let me put this another way. A bully has been bullying you for weeks. You finally complain to teacher. The bully then says (even though the teacher has been watching for weeks) it is really you who is picking on him. The teacher knows this is a lie but is afraid the bully will get a larger gang if he is sent to the principals office. So the teacher sends you to the principles office instead for the crime of making the bully angry. As a result the bully now knows he can do what he likes. Do you think he will stop bullying? That is what the British police seem to think. Maybe they should ask an American fifth grader what is wrong with their current stance.
So far Britain has let radicals have their way. The result is that the radicals think Britain is weak and intensify their radicalization efforts. But if people stand up to them they then use that as fuel for their radicalization efforts.
If radicals=trouble and radicals+anti radicals=trouble it ain't the anti radicals that's the problem. I seem to have a better understanding of basic math then the British police do.
The police would actually be doing their jobs if they found out who those agitators were and deported or incarcerated them.
Furthermore the cops are complaining about a few EDL demonstrations but radical Muslims have had countless demonstrations many of which have been intentionally violent and offensive. Did those turn non Muslim Britons into mad bombers? NO. So, the police should be wondering, why is Muslim radicalization so common a response to a non Muslim demonstration. Could it be that they have already been radicalized by years of agitation and subversion?
It could also be that such signs of Muslim radicalization the British police are whinging about are only temporary effects immediately following demonstrations that would normally peter out in a few weeks. If that is the case then the British cops are making a dangerous display of cowardess. Agitators will see this statement as a sign that the British establishment is afraid of them and, guess what, redouble their efforts at radicalization of Muslim youth.
Here is the Jihadwatch story.
UK police blame EDL for Islamic jihad
Here is the radio interview that was posted on YouTube. If you can stomach the snotty interviewer you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Tommy Robinson on BBC live 5
A UK counter terrorism official said to BBC Radio 5 Live recently that The EDL encourages Islamic extremism. This UK anti terrorism official has far too little understanding of the Islamic radicalization process to help defend his country. That is if the UK actually has any intention to defend it's citizens from radical Islam.
"Many EDL demonstrations and counter-demonstrations have ended in violence, and Det Supt John Larkin says they have witnessed signs of radicalisation afterwards."
Examine the wording of that sentence. British officials are always very careful in their choice of words. The sentence is vague as to the source of the violence. It does not put the blame for the violence on the EDL because the police KNOW the violence is caused ONLY when Muslim gangs attack the peaceful demonstrators.
The statement says that after the EDL has a demonstration. Radical activists show up and agitate the local Muslim population.
So because some nere-do-wells are committing subversion the dumbass British police blame the people who are protesting AGAINST that subversion and not the people who THEY KNOW are the one's committing subversion.
This statement says the country needs to get along to get along. Don't make the aggressors angry by standing up to them or calling attention to what they are doing. I might be wrong but didn't the British learn the hard way right before WWII that that just doesn't work?
Let me put this another way. A bully has been bullying you for weeks. You finally complain to teacher. The bully then says (even though the teacher has been watching for weeks) it is really you who is picking on him. The teacher knows this is a lie but is afraid the bully will get a larger gang if he is sent to the principals office. So the teacher sends you to the principles office instead for the crime of making the bully angry. As a result the bully now knows he can do what he likes. Do you think he will stop bullying? That is what the British police seem to think. Maybe they should ask an American fifth grader what is wrong with their current stance.
So far Britain has let radicals have their way. The result is that the radicals think Britain is weak and intensify their radicalization efforts. But if people stand up to them they then use that as fuel for their radicalization efforts.
If radicals=trouble and radicals+anti radicals=trouble it ain't the anti radicals that's the problem. I seem to have a better understanding of basic math then the British police do.
The police would actually be doing their jobs if they found out who those agitators were and deported or incarcerated them.
Furthermore the cops are complaining about a few EDL demonstrations but radical Muslims have had countless demonstrations many of which have been intentionally violent and offensive. Did those turn non Muslim Britons into mad bombers? NO. So, the police should be wondering, why is Muslim radicalization so common a response to a non Muslim demonstration. Could it be that they have already been radicalized by years of agitation and subversion?
It could also be that such signs of Muslim radicalization the British police are whinging about are only temporary effects immediately following demonstrations that would normally peter out in a few weeks. If that is the case then the British cops are making a dangerous display of cowardess. Agitators will see this statement as a sign that the British establishment is afraid of them and, guess what, redouble their efforts at radicalization of Muslim youth.
Here is the Jihadwatch story.
UK police blame EDL for Islamic jihad
Here is the radio interview that was posted on YouTube. If you can stomach the snotty interviewer you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Tommy Robinson on BBC live 5
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Of all the Nerve: Reza Aslan calls the silverware black.
On last nights Colbert Report the guest was Reza Aslan. On the show he refered to a veague nebulous group of people as bigots. I wonder who he meant? No. No I don't.
I am sure Mr. Aslan's book is very good and I am sure he is not a nefarious character and does not himself have any spooky kooky intentions to take over the world or even to floridate our drinking water. But I do think he should learn more about people before calling them bigots on national television. Am I crazy or is applying an epithet to an entire group of people the sort of thing a bigot does?
I just saw Mr. Aslan refer to the whole group of anti jihad activists as anti muslim bigots on last nights show. I have never heard or read a bigoted statement against muslim people in general from any public anti jihad activist. The group of people Mr Aslan refers to as bigots get their information thru the study of Islamic texts, from statements made by islamic supremicists themselves and from documents that are in the public record. The few I know about have never been successfully sued for spreading falsehoods.
These "islamophobic bigots" aren't fat ignorant southern sherifs who dance around in sheets burning crosses on the weekend. Nor are they proffesional tin hat conspiracy theorists. They are highly educated people who have spent their lives in study and public service. They have studied religious texts, history and foreign media, have lived in islamic states, worked in anti terror, been district attorneys in high profile anti terror cases etc. They are experts in their fields and not merely talking heads or PR flaks.
These "bigots" are concerned about the political activities of a small but influential group of people affiliated with a group that has stated outright that they want to damage our country. That group advocates non lethal methods such as currying influence in high places, manipulating public opinion and the manipulation of our own systems of laws and governance. Sounds tin hatty I know but it was in documents siezed and presented during in a trial involving a group called the Holy Land Foundation in 2008.
We have one side of the debate using verifiable facts and statements and the other side using the veague emotionally charged epithets of "bigot" and "islamophobe" to manipulate public opinion in an attempt to ostracize and intimidate. Who would you believe?
Notice that Mr. Aslan caught himself and did not name anyone specifially. Perhaps that was because he knew his description of these academics, lawyers and public servants as bigots was pure 100% certified grade A bullshit.
I am sure Mr. Aslan's book is very good and I am sure he is not a nefarious character and does not himself have any spooky kooky intentions to take over the world or even to floridate our drinking water. But I do think he should learn more about people before calling them bigots on national television. Am I crazy or is applying an epithet to an entire group of people the sort of thing a bigot does?
I just saw Mr. Aslan refer to the whole group of anti jihad activists as anti muslim bigots on last nights show. I have never heard or read a bigoted statement against muslim people in general from any public anti jihad activist. The group of people Mr Aslan refers to as bigots get their information thru the study of Islamic texts, from statements made by islamic supremicists themselves and from documents that are in the public record. The few I know about have never been successfully sued for spreading falsehoods.
These "islamophobic bigots" aren't fat ignorant southern sherifs who dance around in sheets burning crosses on the weekend. Nor are they proffesional tin hat conspiracy theorists. They are highly educated people who have spent their lives in study and public service. They have studied religious texts, history and foreign media, have lived in islamic states, worked in anti terror, been district attorneys in high profile anti terror cases etc. They are experts in their fields and not merely talking heads or PR flaks.
These "bigots" are concerned about the political activities of a small but influential group of people affiliated with a group that has stated outright that they want to damage our country. That group advocates non lethal methods such as currying influence in high places, manipulating public opinion and the manipulation of our own systems of laws and governance. Sounds tin hatty I know but it was in documents siezed and presented during in a trial involving a group called the Holy Land Foundation in 2008.
We have one side of the debate using verifiable facts and statements and the other side using the veague emotionally charged epithets of "bigot" and "islamophobe" to manipulate public opinion in an attempt to ostracize and intimidate. Who would you believe?
Notice that Mr. Aslan caught himself and did not name anyone specifially. Perhaps that was because he knew his description of these academics, lawyers and public servants as bigots was pure 100% certified grade A bullshit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)