Grombles

In a recent interview, loudmouth Trump made headlines again by calling for the USA to "kill their families" in reference to Islamic terrorists. Whilst we're all naturally incensed by senseless horrors on our streets, this is clearly evil thinking. Such vile threats would have been worthy of the likes of Pol Pot and Hitler, not a candidate to become the 'leader of the land of the free'. But it's not just evil, it also demonstrates appallingly bad judgement if he believes that killing jihadist loved ones will stop them committing acts of revenge or prevent more enraged people from joining their ranks. But whether we agree with Trump or not, the dreadful reality is that killing their families is precisely what we are doing by bombing their towns and homes. And the problem is that it makes terror attacks more likely, not less. By destroying whatever stability used to exist in the middle east, we've created dozens of desperate crazed jihadist groups all eager...

We all know that Islamic revolutionaries are dangerous people. Clearly there's plenty of evidence to support this. [As an aside, I rather enjoyed "What do you call an Islamic revolution in Texas? A Yihad!"]. But now we're completely confused in the West as to which particular sect of Islam we're meant to fear most. Well we all hate Isis. We can all agree on that. But they're Sunnis. And Sunnis are funded by Saudis, with whom we are chums (but only while they sell us oil and buy our weapons or London property). And we mistrust the Shia who are funded by Iran and who attacked Iraq before we 'rescued it from Saddam' and where we're now relying on the Iraqi army, ironically now unofficially supported by Iran, to prevent Baghdad from falling into the hands of Isis. Meanwhile Syria, governed(ish) by an Alawite president, is fighting both Sunnis and Shias but probably favouring Iran for help rather than the West's chum, Saudi - who are helping Syrian ...

Had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend today about the ethics of killing. Could it ever be morally justifiable? Abrahamic scriptures, especially the old testament, are awash with murders and killings, some sanctioned by the prophets and assorted mouthpieces for god. Some killing is even mandatory. For example all Jews are instructed in the old Testament to kill everyone belonging to the 7 Canaanite tribes for example - Deut 20:17 , or to slaughter Amaleks, especially their children - Deut 25:19 . So accepting for a moment that these draconian instructions were written in times when tribal leaders had fewer options available to them with respect to managing miscreants and maintaining some sort of law and order, I suspect that most people today would agree that killing people is a bad thing and should not be condoned except under extraordinary circumstances. My friend and I then proceeded to try to list those circumstances. We started with self-defence or perhaps protecti...

Did you hear Malala Yousafzai on the Today programme this morning ? Utterly inspirational. Not only incredibly brave, but such a clear mind, gently and eloquently expressed by someone with vision. Malala believes the Taliban and presumably therefore all crazed fundamentalists who believe their god requires stoneage knowledge (Boko Haram means 'Western Education is a Sin' in Hausa) can only be stopped by properly educating the next generation... YES! I've blogged many times that confronting ideologies with force only leads to deeper seated beliefs (on both sides), and ultimately more violence. Malala says the reason the Taliban and their political supporters do what they do to stop 'western' education, especially for girls but also boys, is because that is the one thing they fear - young minds believing an alternative 'truth' to the one they were brainwashed into believing by similarly brainwashed mullahs when they were growing up. Call it the Stockholm...

Kenyan terror. Pakistan funeral bombings. Iraq, Syria and all the old favourites seem to be witnessing increased intensities of religious fundamental madness. Massacres all over the place. The people who are being slain and injured are presumably perceived as 'evil' in the eyes of the murderers - and therefore no doubt 'deserved to die' (or so their god tells them, one might imagine. Nice god). The world condemns these madmen (and women in Kenya we hear) as evil. Everyone hates everyone else and we all want to kill each other, whether inspired by voices, beardies, media and politicians, or just personal outrage. Marvelous. Blood begets blood. Kill a person and you anger their friends and family. They now hate you too. Sons, brothers and cousins sign up to avenge their death. Commit an atrocity, and watch the ranks of neo-nazis swell. Watch retaliations by Norwegian mass murderers, Muscovite thugs, Kashmiri tribesmen and Syrian 'rebels'. Feel your own blood b...

We (the UK and US) are about to start killing Syrians just like we killed Libyans, Iraqis and Afghans in the name of freedom and democracy... Only to end up with a bigger mess of warring tribes than we started with. We need to confront the reason they are killing each other, not perpetuate the hatred. Why do our press and politicians instantly jump to the conclusion that the only people who were likely to have used chemical weapons were the Syrian army? I believe it's because we still harbour the idea that if 'the people' rise up against their leaders, then we're witnessing democracy in action - and democracy equals freedom of choice... which we support. BUT when 'the people' are religious fundamentalists determined to enforce their brand of delusional beliefs and customs on their neighbourhood, should we really be supporting them? What's the difference between uprisings of these people in our own countries (London 7/7, 9/11, Boston Marathon etc), and u...

Here we go again. Killing Mali tribesmen to prevent them creating safe-havens for Al Qaeda - all dressed up as defending villagers from the imposition of Sharia law - as if we cared. Easy to get involved, difficult to withdraw - and leaving what? Countless fathers and brothers grateful to you for killing their sons and relatives? Genius chum-making tactics. Let's get rid of a hornets' nest by kicking it. They'll be ever-so grateful - especially the bit where we say "Right, we've got rid of all the baddies, so we're off. Now here's a piece of paper for something called voting which means you'll get them back shortly when you can't find a bunch of blokes prepared to abandon their tribal demands and work out how to build a country not driven by corruption, greed and ignorance. Cheerio then, and thanks for the oil." So assuming it is a good idea to stop fanatics becoming jihadists, but that shooting them is not such a good idea, what should we be...

Bad Guy Terrorist Insurgent Fundamentalist Guerrilla Bandit Assassin Saboteur Fanatic Zealot Sectarian  Radical Anarchist Militant or Good Guy ? Rebel Freedom Fighter Resistance Partisan Revolutionary Same chap, different country, different label. Someone's hero is someone else's evil-doer. And how easily we allow our fellow countrymen (media and politicians) tell us which one's we support and which ones we need to kill. But how immensely complicated the truth really is, and how dreadful to think that we are all so easily duped to believe what we're told. Remember WMDs? Are we all too lazy in this day and age of global connectivity to really find out WHY these chaps feel compelled to put their own lives at risk? And is killing them breeding more friends or more foes? Is there a better way of defusing murderous sectarian tension without escalating it and driving it deeper under ground? Can you really kill ideas and hate? ...

I have just received this 'viral' email: The Real Miss America There's a Proud Papa out there somewhere. This 19 year old ex-cheerleader now an Air Force Security Forces Sniper, was watching a road in Pakistan that led to a NATO military base when she observed a man digging by the road. She engaged the target (she shot him). It turned out he was a bomb maker for the Taliban, and he was burying an IED that was to be detonated when a U.S. patrol walked by 30 minutes later. It would have certainly killed and wounded several soldiers. The interesting fact of this story is the shot was measured at 725 yards. She shot him as he was bent over burying the bomb. The shot went through his rectum and into the bomb which detonated and he was blown to pieces. The Air Force made a motivational poster of her. (Folks, that's a shot 25 yards longer than seven football fields) and the last thing that came out of his mouth ..... was his ass! If You Can Not Stand Behind Our Tr...

I've just watched the second part of a BBC documentary about last year's so called Summer Riots in British cities where tens of thousands of youths attacked police, destroyed cars and buildings, and stole anything they could lay their hands on. This part of the documentary looked at the riots from the police point of view. It was very scary. The police had to stand there and simply take it. Wave after wave of hooded kids threw bricks, bottles, scaffolding poles - anything they could find that might cause injury - and the police could do nothing. Absolutely nothing, except, outnumbered, try and charge at the crowds in an attempt at dispersing them - but usually failing, and time after time having to fall back so they weren't exposed and picked off individually. I felt my fists clench tighter and tighter as I watched the breakdown of law and order escalate. I wanted those young coppers to use more force. Eventually I started to feel that I wanted them to use maximum force t...

This morning on Radio 4's Today programme, I heard an American officer exhort his men in Afghanistan by saying "If you see someone who deserves to die, kill him". This was greeted by a noise I can only describe as baas of agreement from his marines, not that I am comparing them to sheep in any way of course. Sheep don't kill their enemies. So who do we, the 'allies' in foreign theatres of operation, regard as 'the enemy'? 'The Taliban' I hear you cry. So who are the Taliban? 'Insurgents' you insist. This suggests that in some way we have come to justify these enemies as somehow different not only from us, but also from the ordinary people of Afghanistan. Troublemakers who have left their homelands to train as terrorists in order to kill infidels. We must kill them before they kill us! And if children or other innocents get in the way, it's the fault of insurgents 'using them as shields'. It's their fault for fighting b...