90 More Days
Last thing on the 90 days, I promise.
"Traitors" say the Sun this morning, and they're right. "Traitors" is exactly what they are (as I've mentioned before).
On tuesday the despicable bastards ran a headline "Tell Tony He's Right", over a picture of one of the bloodied bomb-victims of 7th July. Given that the man they pictured, John Tulloch, doesn't believe that Tony was right at all, the question is: how fucking dare they?
How fucking dare they exploit for money the suffering of the people they purport to be standing up for?
How fucking dare they insult the victims of 7th July with their bare-faced lies?
And how fucking dare they accuse MPs of being "traitors" when it is they who wished to surrender to the terrorists rights and freedoms which the British people have enjoyed for almost 800 years?
Cowards, traitors, and cunts.
Talking of such things, our humiliated Prime-Minister said that he hopes MPs "do not rue the day" they rejected his call to turn Britain into a police state.
Well if they're anything like him, he needn't worry. I hoped on 7th July that he might have rued the day that he got this country embroiled in his insane Arab-slaughtering war, thereby significantly increasing the threat to our national security. But the thought didn't seem to cross his mind for a second.
Still nice of him to be so magnanimous in defeat: "if there's another terrorist attack, it'll be all your fault" he might as well have said, the horrendous wank-hole.
And absolutely finally: that bloody dentist thing. "If you had a tooth-problem you'd take the advice of a dentist, wouldn't you? So now that we have a security-problem, shouldn't we take the advice of the police?" So (approximately) said Tony Blair, Charles Clarke, and a legion of unimaginative Labour parrots and worthless tabloid hacks.
Well if the dentist in question said "I might be able to do something about your tooth-problem, but in my professional opinion the operation will be 1% more likely to succeed if I cut out your tongue first (which I don't give a fuck about because I'm a tooth-doctor and not a tongue-doctor)" then I'd pretty quickly tell him to fuck off.
Ok that's it.
9 Comments:
Yes. But he got defeated. Fuck The Sun, they've printed shite for as long as they've been in print.
This is the beginning of The End for Blair, and Bush is going the same way
I would be saying rejoice, but unfortunately the alternative is the Tories who are a bunch of clueless cunts. Bugger.
And besides, this whole thing is just a smoke screen. All politicians know the key to defeating the terrorist threat is by sorting out our fucking Luther Van foreign policy in the middle east.
A Palestinian state and peace in Israel would do more for the National Security of this country than any ID card scheme or any 90 day detention law.
But the government won't have that discussion because of the complete cock-up that is Iraq.
Surely the dentist analogy would be more correct if you said: "I would ask a dentist, but you can't fucking find one on the NHS anymore, so I had to go to some dodgy back-street dentist instead". Which is oddly comparable to the coppers, as last week (when it was nicely buried) a report was released saying that the police take on average TWO DAYS to deal with non-emergency cases. Still, that's better than taking 90 days to torture a confession out of (sorry, that's "investigate") some random Muslim (sorry, that's "terror suspect").
What is worrying if that public opinion sadly seems to be rather closer to the Sunt than to the official Teabag line...
Not necessarily true. There was a poll on the BBC website today in which over 130,000 people had cast their votes. OK, 40% did think there should be 90 day detention periods, but about 25% thought there should be no change and 30% thought it should be no more than 28 days later.
"A Palestinian state and peace in Israel would do more for the National Security of this country than any ID card scheme or any 90 day detention law."
Possibly true, but only because the last two proposals are so useless. Were the first criterian you suggest to come about, I would not bet the deeds of the house on Muslim aggression fading away in the warm, sweet glow of a sunset. You still do not seem to have grasped the fact that militant Muslims hate us for *what we are* not what we do, or rather, what they accuse us of doing. For example, do you ever hear them congratulating and thanking us for going to the rescue of Muslims in Kosovo? Not a word!
True David. Proponents of the ideology of extremist Islam hate us for *what we are*.
But you still do not seem to have grasped the fact that the appeal that extreme Islamic ideology has in the Muslim world is heavily correlated to *how many of them we kill*.
Really? And how many of them were we killing prior to 9/11, say? And don't we gain any credits for saving them in Kosovo? And if you are admitting that their hatred is indeed based on "what we are", and as we have no intention of changing (voluntarily), then shouldn't we set about killing as many of them as possible before they get us?
With respect David, what you don't seem to grasp is the fact that while we behave appalingly towards the arab world, the extremists enjoy sympathy and some support from 'moderate conservative' arabs, and they do things like elect hardline presidents in Iran.
You're right in saying that true extremists don't care what we do, they just want to kill us. However, if we had better, more constructive policies and relationships with Middle Eastern countries, support for the terrorists would vastly diminish amongst the arab public, and therefore their resources would diminish, as would their ability to attack us.
Extremist organisations don't recruit people by saying 'We don't like Westerners, come and help us blow them up', they recruit people by saying 'Look at the attrocities committed against our people in Palestine/Iraq/Chechnya'. If they didn't have these reasons, recruitment would become quite difficult, and then attacking us would become difficult too.
if you are admitting that their hatred is indeed based on "what we are", and as we have no intention of changing (voluntarily), then shouldn't we set about killing as many of them as possible before they get us?
David I don't know if you're under the impression that this fatuous comment is somehow thought-provoking, but I've heard Abu Hamza say more sensible things on this issue.
The answer is: no we'd be far better off (and we'd occupy the moral high-ground, though I know you don't give a stuff about such things) cutting off their support-base as Mattie says, rather than presenting the entire Arab-world with just-cause to hate out guts.
Post a Comment