Showing posts with label The War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The War on Terror. Show all posts

4.3.09

Or....

Imran Khan: This is the result of a weak government and the 'war on terror'

This is the result of the existence nihilistic anarchists who do not value life, brook no argument to their... rather limited and generally unpopular... world view, who like to kill and have minority willing audiences for their sad, selfish, brain-dead, cowardly actions (ambushing civilians is not that skillful or 'audacious'*), mostly in some media and those they turn to for 'analysis' or 'comment' as it's good for ratings.

Take your pick.

Addendum-

*BBC - Who carried out the Lahore attack? - '...a similar number of men staged an equally audacious attack.'

Googled:

1. Fearlessly, often recklessly daring; bold. See Synonyms at adventurous, brave.
2. Unrestrained by convention or propriety; insolent.
3. Spirited and original

Not sure it's quite the collection I'd first go for.

12.9.08

Power to the people... at a price

If anything sums up the abilities of this current apology for a government it is this:

Fuel help 'may end up on bills'
Gordon Brown announces energy-saving measures The government has admitted that it is powerless to stop energy firms passing on the cost on its fuel assistance package onto customers.

Newsnight -

I'm guessing the whole 10.30am cut-off* is over now, or are we only discussing 'The Waronterr' for ever more?

In case anyone gets out of that oh-so productive, sparkling bunker*, how's about this

The government is forcing extra costs on commercial entities (mostly non-UK ones, non? Nicht war?) with shareholders, that... 'it is powerless to prevent being passed on.'

Got to love that 'may'.

Bless.

*For a while the new ed team would suggest discussion points for the day with viewers invited to pitch in by a deadline. Seems they have given up. And if you wish to move things on from their little obsessions - the temp ed seemed to think things on 9/11 needed to be kept 'sparkling', maybe in homage to the sun glinting off the panels as they feel from the towers follwing the 'daring' attack - you are kind of stuck with their last feature to post on.

Indy - A package that puts the environment first

Telegraph - Gordon Brown's energy package will not help households: prices will rise

Times - Cost of £1bn energy relief plan 'will end up on household bills'

11.9.08

They asked...

Can the 'War on Terror' ever be won?

Hard to better some already highly thoughtful, insightful replies.

It all boils down to definitions, and an appreciation of the human condition, especially in these more modern times, with instant comms and hence immediate and pervasive global access, certainly in thought, and followed not too soon thereafter with hardware.

As with 'politics', and I just mean the interpersonal kind, it exists the minute you have three persons. Conflict can exist with just two. As we have become, or at least think we have become more 'civilised', if you disagree with another, you both rope in the 3rd party and hope that the support of the majority will settle the matter. Of course that didn't work out too well if one lot didn't like the way things were going and thought they could steal a march by causing, and winning, a wee war. Still all very nasty, but usually out in the open with leaders, followers, wins, losses, and end points. With nice neat signings around tables... until the next one.

WW2 and nukes kind of changed it a bit, with a few local flare-ups, but still there were some rules, and those that didn't abide usually ended up on the wrong side of justice, more latterly of an international variety.

Thing is, you knew who they were and, usually, where they were. Call it ego or whatever, the guys starting stuff had a goal in mind and them, free and clear, at the top of the heap in charge. Almost without exception, they were fighting 'the war'... FOR SOMETHING. And staying alive to enjoy the fruits of the conflict.

When it comes to some, not all, terror now, I rather fear there are too many, too often, fighting their wars simply AGAINST EVERYTHING, even at cost of all life, friend or foe. And that is sadly something you cannot negotiate with and hence defeat in totality, save by the impractical (in this day and age) and unacceptable (in any age) attempt to eradicate any different way of thinking. Certainly by force, though the power of persuasion still might have a chance over time. It rather goes to who is using persuasion whilst others might be opting for force.

So no, by this measure I do not think you can ever claim a victory with most of the wars of terror being conducted now.

But that's not to say there is not great value in them still being fought. The alternative seems even less attractive, though perhaps not to some black or white, soundbite-addicted, instant-solution obsessed media outlets.
----
Written whilst sparing a thought for all those innocents who have needlessly had their lives snuffed out through the violent actions of those who would impose their will on others in what can only be described as the most cowardly, dishonourable ways imaginable.

But especially, today, all those involved in the 9/11 attacks.

And as it is the BBC, my national broadcaster, who is deeply involved in the media aspects of these conflicts and inspired this reply, I have to say that, no matter what cerebral, newspeak, PC-rationales might be attempted, I can never see merit in referring to such such premeditated attacks on defenceless civilians as 'daring'.

BBBC - NEW

BBC headline;
"No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus"

So when you play the video this is what happened;
BBC: Will you ever use the word victory.
Petraeus: I don't know that I will. etc.
The rest of the scene Petraeus says that you should let the facts spek for themself and stick to the truth.