Home grown terrorists

There is growing concern in Britain and the rest of Europe and Australia and the USA about the problem of so called home grown terrorists.  In Britain we have just had one of these young men becoming a suicide bomber, in Iraq.

These are most often the children of immigrants to the host country.  The problem of what to do about this is, as I understand it, that the host country cannot remove the passports or revoke the nationality of these young, mostly, men since they were born in the host country.  However,  certainly in the UK, that largely doesn't apply to the parents of these people.

I was absolutely shocked to see and hear, earlier this year, when three young girls left London and traveled to Daesh-held Syria, via Turkey, the family blaming London's Metropolitan Police for not doing more to stop their own children from leaving!  So much for their idea of parental responsibility!

So my solution is to revoke the right to stay for these parents and then deport them to their home country.  Yes, that's right - visit the sins of the children upon the father.  These families need to take responsibility for their children.  We are constantly being told that these Muslim families are close-knit families so let's see some family responsibility.  Indeed, I would not just restrict this to those that travel to join-up with Daesh.  If their children children participate in marches or protests where they carry the black flags of Daesh or protest against British troops, then the same punishment to be visited upon the parents.  Yes we live in a democracy but we will not provide Daesh with the means with which to destroy us!

It is high time that the peaceful majority in the Muslim community, stood up and showed how peaceful they really are and that they exercise control over those elements within their community, who would see our country become like the caliphate that Daesh is imposing in Iraq and Syria.  Women sold into sexual slavery, homosexuals thrown from the tops of buildings, people beheaded almost randomly.  Muslims in Britain, and other host countries, need to decide if they want to pay the price for such residency - that price is to stand-up for the things that make the host country what it is.  In Britain that means tolerance of followers other religions and of no religions.  It means acceptance of lifestyle choices made by people.  It means ceasing the barbaric practise of female genital mutilation (FGM) and above all it means treating all fellow citizens as equals and the laws of the land, as passed by Parliament as paramount and not supplantable by alien concepts such as Sharia

A recent poll, showed that more than 80% of Muslims support, to some degree or another the aims of Daesh.  Personally, I am always suspicious of such polls and how representative they truly are but the silence from the mosques of Britain might be considered telling.

Of course, the immediate effect of putting the above proposal into practice would be to get the Human Rights lawyers up in arms but the response to this has to be two fold.  Firstly, rush emergency legislation through Parliament, abrogating the relevant portions of existing Human Rights legislation and immigration laws.  Secondly, deport immediately with no right of appeal.

Of course it's harsh but take a surf on the Internet and see what playing 'nice' has done to Christians or even Muslims in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria.  Take a look at those people having their throat cut by 'peace loving' members of the religion of peace or watch people being burned alive, then tell me putting people on a plane is cruel and unusual punishment or that water-boarding is somehow evil and equal!   

Mediterranean migrants

The leaders of the European Union are meeting, just now, to try and come up with a solution to the problem of migrants who risk their lives fleeing Libya and heading to mainland Europe.

Surely the best solution, indeed, the only sensible solution is simply to turn-around the boats that leave Libya and send them back to Libya and to keep on doing this.  In effect, establish a naval blockade of Libya.  If the boats become un-seaworthy or are deliberately scuttled by the migrants or their traffickers, then rescue the people and put them back onto Libya's beaches.

Allowing these migrants to get into Europe, as has already been done, just tells others that this is a gateway.  This gateway must be closed.

Some other observations.

Why don't those Nigerians that are fleeing Boko Haram, move to the South of Nigeria?  There is no Boko Haram there!

Why don't those fleeing Eritrea and Somalia and so on, travel to Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Algeria?  All are co-religionists and in the case of Saudi Arabia, the migrants would have a found a rich country, in which to find work and happiness.

Have any of those that say that the EU must launch rescue missions, considered how many of these people might be Al Qaeda or Daesh supporters?

Why do so many of these migrants have a single destination - the UK -  in mind?  In addition to providing Royal Navy resources to close the Libya gateway, the UK government must impress upon France the need for them to better manage migrant camps in that country and the UK government must impose full- check border controls at the UK border ports and immediately deport, before these people enter into England, all of these migrants.  Yes it will cause some chaos at southern ports but the benefits far outweighs the inconvenience.  These people simply cannot be allowed to come under the auspices of the Human Rights legislation.  If they do, Immigration Tribunals and leftist Justices, who live far from the consequences of unfettered immigration, will continue to ride rough-shod over the wishes of the British people and our elected officials.

Oh, and a question for the biased BBC.  When you push the story of the plight of these 'poor migrants' maybe ask them how they can afford iPhones?  Your 'right-on' reporter in the Calais 'Somalia' camp seemed so en-amoured with them that she missed the obvious!

Be afraid !

Reports from Tripoli, Libya state that eleven commercial airplanes have been stolen.  At any time, knowing of such a theft in what is effectively a failed state,  would be worrying, however, coming so close to the 9/11 anniversary, this must be considered very concerning.

Of course the principal targets would likely be Western - so mainly US, UK or French interests but Egypt and Israel can't sleep easy, knowing of this theft, either.  Neither can Baghdad, Tehran or Jeddah be off their guard.  It is not known which of the multiple terror organisations or militias have taken these planes so the targets are unknown.  Given the random nature of the mindless violence that terrorists visit upon people, maybe knowing which group stole what plane might not even make any difference! 

There remains the possibility that these planes were stolen for the reasons usually given for thievery - I saw it there and thought I could steal it and sell it to feed my drug habit, or something like that - but I just don't see this as a crime of opportunity!  11 trained pilots and probably co-pilots and navigators just happen to be passing Tripoli airport during a battle between two factions and decide ' Hey, while all this is going on, why don't we steal those planes and then fence them, later on?  Yes, of course they are fueled and ready, let's go!

This issue is very worrying on two counts. 

The act itself leaves many of us and our loved ones, vulnerable to the actions of madmen who seem to think human life of little or no value.  People who would fly a plane into a building and not be worried about the ensuing death.

Equally concerning though, is the lack of any noise or activity from the media.  I know that the American MSM try to avoid all Libya stories because, whisper it very quietly, that is kind of, like, Benghazi territory and no one can speak of that, lest it tarnish the reputation of the sainted Obama and blessed Hillary!  But hey!  There are eleven commercial passenger planes missing and there is every likelihood that these are now in the hands of terrorists.  That should really concern us all and all of the posturing that is coming and to come from the NATO summit, will mean nothing if these planes are flown against civilian targets.

We face a more than usual uncertain future until this risk is eliminated.

Syria again

Following on from my recent post.

The British media seems dumbfounded that the House of Commons voted against British participation in any military intervention in Syria.

Let me help them understand.

Firstly, there are all those memories of Iraq and the sexed-up dossier.  Sadly, the UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, wasn't the only person to lose his life over this.  100,000's of Iraqis lost their lives too.  As did UK, US and troops from other nations.  And still the heartache continues for the Iraqi people.

Linked to the above, the most oft-cited criticism of the 2003 invasion was the lack of any coherent plan for the next stage.  Everyone wanted rid of Saddam Hussein but no one gave thought to what or who would replace him.  The Iraqi people are still suffering the effects.

Ordinary people in the UK and US (overwhelmingly opposed to intervention, polls suggest) know, that without some kind of plan for the post-Assad era, then the current regional instability will only increase.  The business author/guru has one of his Seven Habits of Successful People as 'start with the end in mind'.  I can't believe that the aim here is just to remove Assad.

I suspect that the people of the UK also have two over-riding thoughts on Syria.

Yes the pictures and events are truly horrible but what is it to do with us?  Why should the UK get involved?  The US sets itself as the 'world's policeman' so let them stick their nose in, keep ours out!

Secondly, why should the UK spend money it doesn't have, interfering in another country? Such interference will only lead to negative consequences for the UK economy.  The UK simply cannot afford to intervene - financially so.  How can we spend millions on bombs and jet fuel while preaching the need for austerity at home?  If there are millions of £ to spare, how about putting that by and giving it back to taxpayers?  Or, since government simply chokes on the idea of reducing taxes, how about paying out to people suffering from fuel poverty as a result of idiotic green policies?

I think that it comes down to that.  I don't think that most people look to the regional instability that is now in play and the tremendous uncertainty that we all face, as a consequence.  Perhaps they do see Syria as the proxy war battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran but the questions remain - what is this to do with the UK? 

There are of course humanitarian reasons to intervene but these reasons have prevailed in many other places and the West has closed its eyes.  I think though, that this time the scales have fallen from the eyes of the UK people and, fortunately from the eyes of UK parliamentarians.  

Oh and I won't be misled (and I suspect neither will the British public) by so called American intelligence reports.  These presumably come from the CIA?  The same CIA that couldn't protect the US Ambassador and three fellow Americans at Benghazi, Libya, last September 11? 

Ask yourself this.  Suppose that there is military intervention - we know this will only involve bombing or missiles - how will the interventionists ensure only the 'guilty' are targeted?  Then ask yourself, what's next?  I don't have the answer and I suspect that neither do our so called leaders.

What does the USA get out of Syria intervention

What does the USA get out of the escalation of its involvement in the Syrian conflict?

Okay, so the immediate effect is to distract Americans from the scandals that are swirling around the Obama administration - the IRS targeting of non-Left wing organizations, the Benghazi US consulate attack and the NSA domestic spying furore. - but what else?

Syria's Assad comes from a long line of unsavory, undemocratic and murderous dictators but does America really believe that providing arms to the 'rebels' will actually help?  These 'rebels' are not exactly stalwarts of the democratic school of government nor are they exactly upholders of other 'western' values.  Many of them are jihadists who want to promote a sharia based orthodoxy on Syria.  There are also Al Qaeda affiliated groups within their ranks.  These groups are already massacring Christians in the areas that they occupy.  The secular Syrian state is in danger of becoming a Middle Eastern Afghanistan, with these new groups being the Arab equivalent of the Taliban.  Is this really what America wants?

Think forward a little, because the 'wise heads' of the Obama administration seem to have failed to do so.  How will the toppling of Assad and his replacement by a fundamentalist government affect the regional geo-political balance?  Do we really think that Israel would be happy to have a terrorist government on its doorstep, because it worked out really well, with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, didn't it?  Could another Arab-Israeli war be far away?  How would Iran view this, given its prior support for the Assad's rule (as a tit for tat for allowing Iran to supply Hezbollah, via Syria)?

What is the end game here?  Other than the immediate media diversion tactic, that is.

The US withdrew support for Mubarak in Egypt and in the ensuing elections, Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood was elected.  The MB is another radical and fundamentalist organization and they too are promoting a policy of 'relgious cleansing' with the repeated attacks on Coptic Christians.

In Libya, the US stood by and let it's UK and French proxies provide the support for the rebels.  The upshot?  The US consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 (the date must have been a coincidence, surely??) and the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed.  Libya is now in real danger of fragmenting or falling into civil war as the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb groups foment dissent and promote attacks on the Libyan government and armed groups refuse to hand over arms and effectively control parts of the country. 

The Iranian nuclear threat grows every day and yet Obama's 'positive engagement' has produced nothing.  The Iranians (how long before they re-style themselves as Persians and seek to re-create the Persian Empire?) have used Obama's naivety to continue development of a nuclear military capability.  Does Obama hate Israel that much?

And then there is Turkey.  Strangely the protests against the police (and military?) suppression of the recent unrest, from both the EU and the US have been very muted.  Erdogan's regime remember is pushing a very fundamentalist doctrine in Turkey.

Oh, and those people who still blindly follow Obama ad believe he can do no wrong.  You will no doubt (rightly) say that the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population was a red line the crossing of which, could not be accepted.  Maybe that's so but , the line was crossed long before this week.  The French were saying these weeks ago.  OK, so Obama didn't have these other things (IRS and NSA) bubbling away at that time but ...   Or is that just me being cynical?
 

Lunacy - EU or Local Government - Take your pick

Fiddling while Rome burns, comes to mind!  And if Italy follows the Greek path, that may be prophetic!

Westminster and the media are very exercised (some might say obsessed) about what did or didn't happen about the BSkyB bid and the contacts that occurred between the government and News International.

Yes, this is the same takeover bid from which NI eventually withdrew!

There are rumours that the Government will also bow to 'New' Labour demands and set-up a public inquiry into the causes and lessons to be learned from the South Sea Bubble Company collapse and that Her Majesty's government will shortly apologize to the original Saxons (or maybe it will be to the Celts) for the activities carried out by the Norman ascendancy, since 1066! 

In the real world, life goes on.

The UK is back in recession, unemployment in Spain is more than 24% and, among under 25s, is more than 52% the Dutch government has fallen (over austerity cuts required to protect the Euro), France looks increasingly likely to elect a Socialist President, who comes with all the usual 'wealth destroying and grabbing' baggage  and British and American troops continue to needlessly die in Afghanistan

In the UK it has been reported that 3,097 local council employees received pay and perks packages in excess of £100,000 last year. Pay and perks includes salary, redundancy and pension payments and top-ups!

Of this number, 880 earned more than the Prime Minister's salary of £142,500.  The numbers breakdown as

• 170  Earning between £142,500 and £150,000   
• 658  Earning between £150,000 and £250,000      
• 170  Earning more than £250,000        

Think about those numbers when you get your local Council Tax bill, this year.

Think about those numbers when you vote in the local elections,  for the incompetent fools that approve such outrageous pay deals.    

See my previous blogs about so called 'Green Energy' and the rip-off and madness that wind power represents and consider that during the recent periods of high wind, in the UK, most (likely to be all)  of this generating capacity was switched off!  That's right, not producing!  Seems that it was the 'wrong kind of wind'!

Spain continues to try and implement austerity cuts but the effect of the cuts is reducing the impact as they are in a downward spiral - more cuts = more unemployed = more welfare claimants = more cuts are required!

The one cut that isn't considered is the link between the Spanish economy and the Euro.  Absent this link, Spain would be able to default on its debt (yes that would undoubtedly lead to pain and anguish, globally, for poorly led banks) and it would then be able to manage its economy, itself, including by enjoying the benefits of a currency that is not tied to the German economy.

The benefits of the Euro accrue to Germany, as the exchange rate for the Euro is depressed because of the weaker economies but the German economy isn't weak, so its exports surge.  Conversely, the weaker economies are punished as borrowing rates diverge and soar.

The EU commission has proposed an increase of 7% in its budget, for next year.  This is apparently so that it can meet the obligations that it has entered into, on behalf of the EU citizens who never elected it, in the first place!  Put another way, I want to take more money from your pocket to spend on things that I consider important and since you can't do anything about it, I expect you to be quiet.

This is the same EU Commission and bureacracy for which the financial accounts have not been approved for the last 16 or more years.  Even for the bank bail-outs our political masters required that they followed some kind of due diligence but, these rules don't apply to our technocratic masters in the EU!

When I said you should be quiet, I mean don't ask your local politicians why you have local cuts in services.  Ask them to cut more so that they can send more money to Brussels!

Meantime, in Afghanistan, Service personnel continue to be exposed to danger and some pay the ultimate price to support the policy of the US and UK governments, which was met (Taliban fell, Bin Laden removed) years ago.  In the process, supporting a corrupt regime that takes (and privately banks) aid dollars from the West and then continues to pump drugs to the West to get more money.

So where is the Foreign Affairs focus, from the UK and US, at the moment?

• Afghanistan, where their military personnel are in harms way?  Don't be silly!  We have a timetable for withdrawal.  Nothing more is required.  Negotiations (sorry, I mean discussions) are underway with the Taliban.  Of course, since the Taliban know the dates of withdrawal, what do you think is their impetus to reach a negotiated political settlement?
• Iran - which may get nuclear military capability soon - some little focus.
• Syria - masses of attention on a country where the anti-government forces are not naturally pro-Western interests
• Libya and Egypt  - next to no focus in countries where, again, anti-Western forces are in the ascendancy.  

  So what's the answer?  I would welcome input.  I will put forward some ideas on a later post.

We used to say, when something crazy was proposed, that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.  I can't think of an appropriate metaphor but it seems to me that we on the outside are the 'lunatics' and those in the asylum are living the dream!