Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

“Clock-bomb boy” case is becoming a $15 million scam

November 24, 2015

The “clock-bomb boy” case is increasingly looking like a scam, probably engineered by his father and his family, and perpetrated on a gullible, scared, politically-correct establishment (all the way up to a bemused Barack Obama). It looked suspicious even then in September:

When I first came across the story I also thought that the authorities had been rather heavy handed. But now I am not so sure.

It looks more and more as if either the boy was pretty stupid or that the whole episode was engineered with the help of his father and some others. A 14 year old must be pretty stupid to not realise that his clock – which looked nothing like a clock – would not be taken at face value for what it looked like. Moreover to bring it to school on 9/11 is either malicious or just idiotic. And the police never took it for a “bomb”. They took it for the “fake bomb” it looked like. The picture of the boy in handcuffs was apparently staged by his father and taken by his sister after the cuffs had been removed.

Now the real purpose of the apparently stupid act is becoming clear. It looks like an extortion scam. First it succeeded in provoking an apparently heavy-handed response. Now comes the extortion – not for any physical harm suffered – but for mental suffering and trauma.

Oh dear.

CBSAttorneys representing Ahmed Mohamed and his family want an apology and $15 million in damages after his arrest in September. ……

The attorneys have sent letters to both the City of Irving and Irving ISD (read below), demanding $10 million and $5 million respectively, for the way the incident was handled earlier this year. They claim 14-year-old Ahmed has suffered severe damages as a result of his interrogation and arrest at the school. They also point the finger at Irving’s Police Chief and Mayor for the way they portrayed Ahmed to the media once the story gained international interest.

The fake-bomb looked like a fake-bomb (which is why it got the attention it did). Technically it was no great act of invention or creativity.

The purpose of the device was obviously not to tell time but just to get attention and to be mistaken for a bomb. As a tool for an extortion scam, however, it was extremely creative, and apparently, successful .

 

Phantom Russian submarines show up (UK, Sweden) when defence budgets are being discussed

November 23, 2015

I get more cynical with each day, but it is remarkably coincidental that mysterious Russian submarines show up off the Swedish coast and now, even off the UK coast, just when defence budgets are being discussed.

BBCAn RAF plane is “conducting activity” off the Scottish coast, the Ministry of Defence says, amid reports of a Russian submarine being spotted in the area.

A Royal Navy Frigate and submarine are also thought to be involved in the search, along with Canadian and French maritime patrol aircraft.

But the same incident is also reported by Sputnik News:

British and French forces are looking for what the UK media has termed a “Russian submarine” as the country’s navy calls for budget increases.

Britain’s navy and air force have spent at least ten days searching for what the country’s media have called a “Russian submarine”, the BBC reported. The country’s defense ministry did not confirm that it was looking for a foreign submarine in its statement. This is the third time the UK has conducted search operations, according to the Telegraph, with the previous instance(s) tied to demands for higher defense spending.

Just a year ago it was the Swedish defence forces who claimed to be playing hide-and-seek with a mysterious Russian mini-submarine in the Stockholm archipelago. No submarine was found of course and I wrote then.

Perhaps there is a submarine out there. Perhaps it was in distress. Perhaps it was testing Swedish defences.

I have my doubts. Maybe I am just being cynical but I see two “drivers” here. A push for NATO membership and a larger defence budget. There is a new Red/Green government in place and they are due to present their first budget proposal today. Normally the Red/Greens could be expected to cut back on defence spending and they are ideologically not at all comfortable in joining NATO. They have an idealised and somewhat glorified vision of a “Swedish neutrality” even if it is completely contradicted by the reality of cooperation with the US and NATO for at least the last 30 years. Public opinion is against NATO membership – but only just. The Swedish military would just love to be part of NATO and take part not only in exercises but also in some real live fire-fights. The Swedish military – for all its restricted defence budget – is quite technologically advanced but lack playgrounds for their toys. Being part of NATO would provide more playgrounds and even more toys and many more players to play with.

In the case of the UK it seems to be a play written by the Ministry of Defence bureaucrats to protect their turf, when general budget cuts are in the air.  It seems to be a defensive ploy against the expected actions from George Osborne. The French defence ministry is also afraid of cuts by the socialist government. In the Swedish case it is more likely to have been a play written by the military rather than the bureaucracy. The military would very much like to be a part of NATO and the Red/Green Government is perceived as a greater threat than phantom Russian submarines.

There is little doubt that the weapons industry is not averse to promoting and developing their markets, even to the extent of instigating conflicts (Africa, Middle East). Compared to their machinations, a few phantom Russian submarines, invented by bureaucrats and occasionally getting lost in the Baltic or the North Sea, is only very minor disinformation. It is only mildly unethical, hurts no-one, and is surely allowable for the worthy cause of protecting defence budgets.

Triton NN submersible

 

India objects to, and chastises Kerry for, his climate bullying

November 23, 2015

It is -12ºC outside my window right now on a bright winter’s day, but it is -29ºC in the North of Sweden and I am not complaining. There has been no “global” warming for 19 years while fossil fuel utilisation has almost doubled. If “climate change” is about global warming, then why the panic? And if “climate change” is not about global warming, then why the panic?

We have had a couple of months of concentrated, strident, alarmist propaganda in the media and from the global warming mafia as preparation for the Paris climate conference beginning at the end of this week. It is reaching a crescendo this week. That the mainstream media led by The Guardian, and followed slavishly by Swedish media, have been particularly alarmist is not so surprising. Today the Guardian runs an article claiming that the “Paris climate change conference can save the planet”. It happens to be by Ed Miliband which is less than convincing since his judgements are more than a little suspect. The rich and the famous have been “harnessed”, like so many talking puppets, to parrot “the cause”. (Childhood memories of “Francis, the talking mule” come to mind). Yesterday it was first the Swedish King calling on people to stop bathing and then Prince Charles stated that global warming (euphemistically “climate change”) was one of the causes of the Syrian conflict. He could just as well claim that the terrorist attacks in Paris were due to “climate change”. (In fact someone has already done that). John Kerry wanders around the globe intimating that his foreign policy problems would disappear if only governments would do as he says.

(I have to admit that for almost any proposed action in any field, having Prince Charles’ support, is proof positive for me that that the action is going to be counterproductive. John Kerry with his blunders in Syria and in the Ukraine is approaching the same class).

I don’t pay too much attention to the hype. Ultimately, after 2 or 3 decades of global cooling, the pointlessness and futility of the fight against “carbon emissions” will become obvious. Of course vast sums of money would have been wasted. Global growth and the elimination of poverty would have been hampered for a time – but so what? Coal, oil and gas production and utilisation by the developing world will only continue, and continue to spread.

I don’t much care about Paris either. It has almost become irrelevant. Especially since “success” at the Paris conference will actually mean that the doubling of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 15 years will have been assured and sanctioned. China and India have already won. The “success” of Paris would provide them with official sanction to increase their use of fossil fuel under the cloak of reducing emissions per unit of gdp growth. The developed world will effectively commit itself to increased costs and reduced growth to no purpose. While this will depress global growth (mainly Europe) it should make the developing world even more competitive and that will be some mitigation. The US is somewhat immune since it can just ramp up the use of gas.

But the constant nagging by the global warming brigade is getting irritating and coercive. The sanctimonious preaching by John Kerry has finally crossed the line. So much so that India has had to resort to formally chastising him,

The Hindu:

India has reacted strongly to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that the country will be a “challenge” in the coming climate change talks in Paris.

“It is in a way unfair to say that India will be a challenge. It is actually not doing justice to India,” Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar told PTI. “The U.S. is our great friend and strategic partner. His [Kerry’s] comment is unwarranted and unfair. The attitude of some of the developed countries is the challenge for the Paris conclusion,” the Minister said.

Mr. Javadekar said there was no question of compromising on India’s stand on climate change. He blamed the “attitude” of the developed countries for the problem. India was trying to “proactively” forge a consensus on the issue. ……..

…… While the developed world has been looking at increased emission cuts from developing countries, the latter — including India — have sought common but differentiated responsibility. Shorn of jargon, it means that the developed world has been the prime polluter since its early lead in industrialisation and stays way ahead in emissions per capita to this day, meaning that it cannot expect nations now industrialising to forget this skew.

I really do dislike those who know best what others should do.

UN Resolution 2249 (2015) has implicitly invoked Chapter 7 and sanctions military action against ISIL in Iraq and Syria

November 21, 2015

UN SC Res 2249

UN Resolution 2249 which was passed yesterday at the initiative of France actually does invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and goes very much further than some are arguing. The resolution does not just sanction action against ISIL (ISIS) but calls on member states which can act, to do so:

”  Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, …….  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….”

Any member nation is therefore fully authorised  – in international law – by this resolution to attack ISIL (ISIS) (or any other of the named terrorist groups) in Syria or in Iraq. 

I have heard arguments from the left in the UK that this is not the explicit UN sanction for military action under Chapter 7 that they are looking for before agreeing to any attacks on ISIS in Syria, but this is just wishful and incorrect thinking. The UN itself explains in its Research Report No. 1 that the Security Council can exercise its Chapter 7 powers without explicitly invoking Chapter 7 in the text of a Security Council resolution.

UN Research Report No 1 Chapter VII 23 June 08

There can be no doubt that Chapter 7 is being implicitly invoked.

UN Charter

The beginning of Chapter 7 (Article 39) is specifically addressed to “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and yesterday’s resolution “determines …….  the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security”.

The United States Deputy Ambassador to the UN provides this explanation to the US President of yesterday’s resolution:

Mr. President, in recent weeks barbaric terrorist attacks have startled the world’s conscience. From Europe to Africa to the Middle East, innocent men and women have been slaughtered. Families destroyed in Beirut. Concertgoers slain in Paris. Air passengers bombed in the sky. Tourists killed on the beach in Tunisia. ……

For this reason, we welcome and applaud this resolution’s resolute call on states to take all necessary measures in compliance with international law to counter ISIL and the al-Nusrah Front. We must also choke off funding, arms, recruitment, and other kinds of support to ISIL and the al-Nusrah Front.

As the resolution recognizes, Iraq has made it clear that it is facing a serious threat of continuing attacks from ISIL, in particular coming out of safe havens in Syria; and the Assad regime in Syria has shown that it cannot and will not suppress this threat, even as it undertakes actions that benefit the extremists’ recruiting. In this regard, working with Iraq, the United States has been leading international efforts to provide assistance to combat the threat that ISIL poses to the security of its people and territory, and we are taking, in accordance with the UN Charter and its recognition of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, necessary and proportionate military action to deny ISIL safe haven. …….

Any government of a member state in general, and the UK government in particular, needs no further UN sanction if they wish to act against ISIS in Iraq or in Syria. In fact with this resolution in place it is quite unlikely that the UN Security Council will produce another resolution to cover ground already covered.

David Cameron now has all the UN sanction that he could ever desire to extend military strikes on ISIS in Syria. He can even, with justification, go to his parliament at any time and explain that all member states with the capacity to attack ISIL (ISIS) in Syria have a duty to do so under Resolution 2249 (2015). St Jeremy really has no leg to stand on – Chapter 7 has already been invoked.

“ISIS first, Assad later” gains traction but St. Jeremy makes UK the weakest European actor against ISIS

November 18, 2015

Most of Europe is now falling behind the Russian strategy of “ISIS first, Assad later” as being the only viable way forward in Syria. The UK is also acquiescing with this line, but only verbally, since it is prevented from making any strikes in Syria without parliamentary authority to do so. With the self-canonised St. Jeremy Corbyn now in charge of the Labour party, such a vote may be a long time coming. After Paris, Hollande – though a St. Jeremy soul-mate in normal times – is forced to go all out against ISIS and is now coordinating attacks with Russia. Even Germany is considering supporting military action against ISIS. France has invoked a treaty provision for the first time ever and called for support from the other EU countries. All EU countries have promised that – as yet undefined – support. But the UK is now perceived as the weakest European actor against ISIS terrorism. The instant and automatic opposition of the SNP to any government motion and the naivete of St. Jeremy (which is not so innocent) has seen to that.

The Barack Obama – US led coalition’s “strategy”, if it can be called a strategy, has been to get rid of Assad at all costs. What was to happen afterwards or the question of whether Syria, as a nation , could even exist was left to the future to determine. It has been Russia’s reluctance to abandon Assad and his regime which has prevented any UN resolutions of any significance. Before the Russians recently started their attacks on ISIS they tried to rally support for the strategy of attacking ISIS and other rebels/terrorists first (which would help Assad) and then arranging for Assad to leave the scene after ensuring a transition to something sustainable. Obama and Kerry virtually dismissed that idea but did not go so far as to set themselves up against any Russian strikes on ISIS. The US and their coalition partners did, however, try and project the view that Russian intervention was more harmful than helpful.

After the Russian passenger plane was destroyed by – it is claimed – ISIS, the Western objections to the targets of the Russian strikes were a little more muted. Now after Paris, France has signed up to the line of “ISIS first, Assad later”. The rest of Europe is falling-in line with the notable exception of the UK. The Kurds love this, the Turks don’t. Saudi Arabia is very apprehensive that even if Assad eventually goes, a Shia government could still remain in place. Besides, they are reluctant to be seen to be accepting the demise of a Sunni organisation, even if it is as murderous as ISIS. From Kerry’s recent statements it seems as if the US is preparing the ground to also accept this strategy though the US, of course, can never be seen to falling-in behind Russia.

One way for the UK to save face and even get involved in Syria, would be if a UN resolution establishing “ISIS first, Assad later” could be accepted in the Security Council. Possibly the UK could propose it and recover some of the face they have already lost. Neither the Russians or the US would then veto such a resolution, though one or both might abstain depending upon the text. But it should not be impossible in the present climate. That would give the hapless St, Jeremy something to hide behind when a vote is called for in parliament. But he has already cost the UK a great deal of political clout in the fight against ISIS.

To get rid of the terrorist hives you have to go after the “queen-bees”

November 17, 2015

It was, I think, Lee Kwan Yew who first described Islamic terrorists and terrorism with his analogy of bee hives. He advised that terrorism could only be addressed if you went after the preachers (“the queen-bees”).

“In killing terrorists, you will only kill the worker bees. The queen bees are the preachers, who teach a deviant form of Islam in schools and Islamic centers, who capture and twist the minds of the young.” – Lee Kwan Yew, 2003 interview with Fareed Zakaria

I think the hive analogy is sound but I would put it a little differently. In an Islamic terrorist organisation, I equate the preachers with the queen-bee, the central command and the suicide bombers and kamikaze attackers with drones, and all the remaining support staff as the worker bees. The Paris attackers were drones and expected to suicide. Their support (safe-houses, chauffeurs, comfort women and the like) are the worker bees and expendable. The sick, infected queen-bee is somewhere in Syria.

Most Muslims are not terrorists. But far too many are. And they are all inspired by their own queen-bees each with its own infected version of Islam. Of course there are non-Muslim terrorists as well. In today’s world however, the majority of groups using indiscriminate terror tactics are Muslim.

Why deny the reality? Why then the leap to judgement – and it surely is based on something other than reason – to reach the conclusion that the religion of Islam should not be held responsible for the “perverted terrorists” that the religion inspires? I hear some arguing that what drives ISIS is not “true” Islam. Or that Islam is actually a “religion of peace”. There is a rush to absolve the religion and to decouple the behaviour of terrorists from their religion. This may be politically correct but it is quite irrational. The religion does generate and allow the queen-bees who provide the driving Cause. Without Islam (no matter how perverted a view or practice of Islam), there is no ISIS. And there wouldn’t be so many other such groups (al Qaida, Boko Haram, al Shabab, LeT …). I conclude that there is something fundamental and inherent in the practice of Islam which inspires, allows and glorifies terrorist behaviour by some of its practitioners . “Terrorist Islam” is as much a part of Islam today as “Militant Christianity” was of Christendom almost a thousand years ago.

All terrorists have a Cause which tips them over the edge. Breivik had his and it was a “white supremacist cause”. The IRA had their own Cause also rooted in religion. For those Muslims (mainly Sunni) who are terrorists, it is their “perverted” view of Islam which provides the Cause which is the key motivator. That “perverted” view of Islam is actually part of the reality of the Islam of today. It is that which is promoted by an army of imams and preachers in mosques and teachers in madrassas who cherry-pick sections of the Koran to underpin their adoption of jihad and their virulent world-view. These are the queen-bees. It would seem that Islam contains within itself a convenient framework, and the Koran provides suitable, appropriate and authoritative “scriptures”, which can then readily be exploited by the “queen-bees” to inspire the terrorist groups. A very great many of these “queen-bees” are Sunnis and a large number of their mosques and madrassas are funded from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. On the ground, Islam is proving to be particularly effective in generating queen-bees and providing the terrorists with a Cause.

The writings of  the Koran (or the Bible for that matter) are all just fairy stories, made up a long time ago. Their literal content is anachronistic and almost irrelevant. They can all be – and are – interpreted in a variety of ways by the queen-bees of the day. It is the interpretation of those stories today and the behaviour engendered now which is relevant. Most Muslims interpret the Koran and their religion to shun gratuitous violence. But a not insignificant number of Muslims, interpret the Koran in a “perverted” way and practice their own jihadist brand of Islam. And they do so because they can, and – more importantly – because Islam allows them to. A religion does not live in some Divine Vacuum. It is not some abstract thing which can be divorced from its current interpretations, practices and practitioners. The Christian religion which inspired the Crusades and the barbarisms of the Church Militant is now out-of-date. But is obsolete only because it is no longer practiced. The ahimsa (non-violence) principles of a romanticised Hinduism of the past (which never really existed) is not relevant when faced with the reality of the current violent practices of some Hindu fanatics. The VHP and the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha provide the Hindu queen-bees. The much vaunted non-violence of Buddhism is of no comfort when faced with rabid, rampaging Buddhist monks in Burma or Sri Lanka. These mad monks are an integral part of what Buddhism is today. The religion of Islam cannot just – by assertion – claim to be a religion of peace and ignore the reality that so many of its preachers and teachers promote terrorism. It is the religion itself which allows space for their interpretations which, in turn, give rise to the perversions (just as the Bible was, and is, perverted by some). The religion of Islam as manifested in its current practice and by its practitioners must bear its share of responsibility for the behaviour of the perverted few.

The suicide bombers and gunmen and beheaders are essentially drones – but deadly drones. Killing a drone does not get rid of the queen-bee or the hive and a further supply of idiot drones. A terrorist is not born a terrorist. No doubt genes have a say. Upbringing plays a large part but the availability of a queen-bee and a Cause is the final – and necessary – straw. Some would argue that a terrorist will always find a Cause to serve, but behaviour does not work that way. There may be some cases of psychopaths looking for any Cause to serve Generally, however, Causes look for or create their drones, not the other way around. A member of ISIS born of Muslim parents, but who was brought up instead, say as a Buddhist, or who was not polluted by some rabid imam or his proxy, would not today be beheading infidels. The potential terrorist will never finally become a terrorist without being attached to a queen-bee and indoctrinated by a Cause. That Cause has to be sufficiently strong to generate, and be manifested as, a vicious hate of something or somebody, if it is to finally tip behaviour into terrorist actions. Which is why I don’t buy the argument that just poverty or unemployment provide a Cause. They may contribute, but by themselves, don’t usually generate the level of hate required. Of course, it is not only a religion and its infected queen-bees which provide a Cause for terrorists. Politics and race can also provide the level of hate required. Every religion has had its share of queen-bees who inspire, or have inspired, its fanatic drones by providing them with a Cause directed against non-believers. In today’s world, Sunni Islam and its queen-bees inspire more terrorist groups and terrorists than any other religion. “Militant Christianity” encouraged and promoted by Christian queen-bees, was an integral part of the Christianity in the time of the Crusades. In our time, it serves no purpose to try and divorce “moderate Islam” from the queen-bees who promote the practices of “terrorist Islam”. The religion of Islam – at any time – consists of its practitioners of that time. One cannot separate Islam, as if it lived in some elevated place above the fray, from the terrorist behaviour it has inspired in so many of its adherents (Sunni and Shia).

All through history one or other of the organised religions has inspired terrorism. But it has always required rabid preachers – the queen-bees – to inspire the simple-minded drones. In today’s world that religion is Islam and the majority of the terrorist groups active are Sunni.

The simple reality is that Islam today – in some fundamental way – generates more queen-bees and inspires more terrorists with a Cause, than any other current religion or political movement. And to get rid of the terrorist hives you have to go after the queen-bees. Without the queen-bees the idiot, murderous drones and the unthinking, slave-like workers would be directionless. 

Paris climate conference to be subdued after G20 summit skips over contentious issues

November 17, 2015

The G20 summit in Turkey was completely dominated by the issue of combating ISIS terrorism and never got around to discussing the contentious climate conference issues separating the developing from the developed countries. In fact they got stuck on whether the goal of keeping to less than 2ºC warming by the end of the century should be referred to or not. India and Saudi Arabia opposed the motion but eventually gave way. There was little time to discuss much more and the critical issues of financing the “good fight” and whether even developing countries should make larger emissions cuts were hardly addressed.

ClimateChangeNews reports:

Campaigners looking to this weekend’s G20 leaders meeting in Antalya, Turkey, for progress on the climate agenda have been left disappointed.

In a statement on Monday, the group of major economies reiterated their commitment to a 2C limit on global warming and to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.

There was little sign of convergence on contentious issues ahead of December’s UN climate summit in Paris: how to ramp up ambition, share responsibility between rich and poor, and get finance flowing. 

India and Saudi Arabia reportedly objected to a review mechanism that would require countries to regularly update their climate plans. The EU is pushing for five-yearly reviews, a proposal recently endorsed by China.

“The only thing G20 leaders had to say on climate was ‘see you at the climate summit’,” said Oxfam’s Steve Price-Thomas.

The Climate conference starts on November 30th in Paris and after the terrorist killings is likely to dispense with much of the circus and side-meetings that normally accompany these jamborees. The French Prime Minister confirmed that things would be subdued

A series of events linked to a UN climate summit in Paris in two weeks will be cancelled over security fears, Manuel Valls told local radio on Monday morning.

The conference will be “reduced to the negotiation” with “concerts and festive events” likely to be called off in the wake of the country’s worst ever terrorist attack, the country’s prime minister told RTL. 

Valls did not specify whether that included a mass demonstration planned by activists on the eve of the summit on 29 November.

Despite the attack, no country or head of state had asked France to postpone the summit, he added.

More than 100 world leaders are due to open the COP21 negotiations on Monday 30 November, at Le Bourget airport on the outskirts of the city.

Organisers are expecting over 40,000 delegates a a day at the critical conference, where a global warming pact is to be finalised.

In parallel, several civil society and business groups had planned side events around Paris.

In my opinion the COP21 Climate conference is rather pointless and misguided. China and India have already got what they want in terms of freedom to use fossil fuels virtually without restriction. The world would be better off with the whole event being cancelled, not that there was – or is – any chance of that happening.

Rapprochement

November 15, 2015

They were not talking about Ukraine.

Rapprochement

Putin-Obama Rapprochement 15th Nov 2015 (photo AP)

There is something primal and hopeful in seeing these two actually getting their heads together. Whether it will be to any purpose remains to be demonstrated.

The UK’s new fifth-column: Labour party would not strike ISIS in Syria – even if it had been London rather than Paris

November 15, 2015

With the new, Jeremy Corbyn led, Labour Party, the UK needs no external enemies. An indigenous fifth-column. A few days ago Jeremy Corbyn felt that Jihadi John should not have been killed but arrested to face a court of law. He also declared that he would never use nuclear weapons in any circumstances. Now his Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, has also demonstrated his own fifth-column credentials in an interview with The Independent.

(It should be borne in mind that The Independent is far from independent and is essentially a socialist propaganda sheet, and its reports must be appropriately discounted. Hilary Benn has no particular claims to fame except that Tony Benn was his father and he is a friend of Jeremy Corbyn. He tries to be further to the left than his father to get out from under his shadow. So his pronouncements are even more extreme than Tony Benn’s but he is not half as likeable. He is not much liked by the farming community either since, by not permitting badger culls, he bears some responsibility for the spread of bovine TB in the UK).

The Independent:

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital, which left at least 127 dead, were an “act of war” – but all but ruled out backing UK air strikes in response. 

He said that the idea of British action against Isis in Syria should be put to one side until the country’s civil war had been brought to an end.

Mr Benn, speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, said that the Government should drop plans for a new House of Commons vote authorising military attacks in Syria to concentrate on peace talks and providing humanitarian support for refugees.

His intervention dramatically undermines David Cameron’s hopes of joining the United States-led action against Isis in its Syrian heartland. The Prime Minister, who insisted the French fight against IS was also Britain’s, has maintained he will not ask MPs to authorise RAF bombing raids in Syria until a “political consensus” has been reached. 

It can only be concluded that even if it had been London that had been attacked by ISIS rather than Paris, Benn, Corbyn and the Labour party would be advocating a softly-softly approach and entertaining negotiations with ISIS. There is, no doubt, a little bit of a reaction to Blair’s war-mongering in Iraq in all this, but the naivety of Corbyn and Benn is astounding.

ISIS must feel that it must be the will of Allah that they have the unwitting support of the dupes in the new Labour Party and especially in its child-like, simple-minded leadership.

I like this cartoon from Schrank which I think captures my image of Corbyn.

  • Left – no matter what.
  • No nuclear – no matter what.
  • No bombing ISIS – no matter what.
  • No spending cuts – no matter what.
  • No austerity – no matter what.
  • No Queen – no matter what.

Left – no matter what  — from schrankartoons.com

 

High jinks for Modi in London

November 13, 2015

At least it allows him to forget (temporarily) the debacle in Bihar.

Best buds: David Cameron,narendra Modi and Boris Johnson – photo AP via Daily Mail

I don’t suppose he would have given his RSS salute while in London (which in terms of comic value always reminds me of Peter Ustinov in Romanoff and Juliet).

Modi RSS salute

Modi RSS salute

Even though the RSS salute is ludicrous enough it must be said, in his defence, that I do not recall that he has ever been photographed in khaki shorts and bearing his danda.