From the Times:
"Large parts of London were cordoned off after the bombs, including University College Hospital, near Warren Street, where armed police reportedly chased a man - thought to be a bomber - into the building."
"Soon afterwards, an internal memo was circulated among hospital staff asking them to be on the alert for a black or Asian man, 6ft 2ins in height, wearing a blue top with a hole in the back with wires protruding from it. "
"A press spokesman for the hospital confirmed that armed officers were inside. The incident is continuing."
In the news I don’t like the sound of the reference to “casualty numbers” (note plural) being low. So far only 1 injured has been confirmed.
Experts believed that the minor nature of the blasts could be a copycat attempt (3 trains and a bus?), in sympathy with the earlier group, or purely to cause panic. Obviously they have succeeded in the latter objective.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
2nd London Tube Bombings
Why are armed police rushing to University College Hospital, London?
UPDATE @ 1016 pm WMT:
Apparently there was an incident, but police has not clarified what it was, yet.
UPDATE @ 1016 pm WMT:
Apparently there was an incident, but police has not clarified what it was, yet.
London Tube Saga - One Injured
From BBC:
At Oval station there was a minor explosion. Then a man ran off when the Tube reached the station.
Meanwhile the driver of Stagecoach Bus No 26 bus heard a bang on the upper deck while travelling through Shoreditch. He went upstairs and found the windows were blown out. You can imagine he was badly shaken but he’s OK.
At Shepherd's Bush station, police said a man had threatened to blow himself up and then ran off.
One person was injured at Warren Street, although the person's condition is unknown.
But BBC said the explosions were of a minor nature and believed to have used detonators only.
At Oval station there was a minor explosion. Then a man ran off when the Tube reached the station.
Meanwhile the driver of Stagecoach Bus No 26 bus heard a bang on the upper deck while travelling through Shoreditch. He went upstairs and found the windows were blown out. You can imagine he was badly shaken but he’s OK.
At Shepherd's Bush station, police said a man had threatened to blow himself up and then ran off.
One person was injured at Warren Street, although the person's condition is unknown.
But BBC said the explosions were of a minor nature and believed to have used detonators only.
London Tube Evacuation - Rucksack Again; Bus also had Explosion
From Times:
A British Transport Police spokeswoman said the incidents were "ongoing".
The reported nail bomb explosion occurred at Warren Street Tube. Passengers at Warren Street, on the Victoria line, reported seeing smoke. One passenger said that another passenger's rucksack had exploded on the train but no-one was injured, including the passenger in question.
An explosion was also reported on a bus at Hackney in East London.
Police said that there were no reports of any casualties at this stage.
A passenger said where the explosion happened, there was a young man who was holding or wearing a rucksack, which was blown open by the force of the explosion. The man looked extremely dismayed, alarmed and made some exclamation, “I don't know what it was.”
Fortunately the train was only 15 seconds from pulling into Warren Street when the explosion happened and the evacuation was orderly.
A British Transport Police spokeswoman said the incidents were "ongoing".
The reported nail bomb explosion occurred at Warren Street Tube. Passengers at Warren Street, on the Victoria line, reported seeing smoke. One passenger said that another passenger's rucksack had exploded on the train but no-one was injured, including the passenger in question.
An explosion was also reported on a bus at Hackney in East London.
Police said that there were no reports of any casualties at this stage.
A passenger said where the explosion happened, there was a young man who was holding or wearing a rucksack, which was blown open by the force of the explosion. The man looked extremely dismayed, alarmed and made some exclamation, “I don't know what it was.”
Fortunately the train was only 15 seconds from pulling into Warren Street when the explosion happened and the evacuation was orderly.
London Stations Evacuated - Smoke, Nail Bomb & Gunfire!
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
The incidents at the 3 London Underground stations evacuated at midday today are:
(1) A nail bomb exploding at London's Warren Street underground station
(2) A report of one shooting but location has not been specified
(3) A report of smoke at one station.
The incidents at the 3 London Underground stations evacuated at midday today are:
(1) A nail bomb exploding at London's Warren Street underground station
(2) A report of one shooting but location has not been specified
(3) A report of smoke at one station.
3 London Tube Stations Evacuated - Smoke Seen
British police and emergency services have been called to Warren Street, Oval and Shepherd's Bush stations. Smoke has been seen coming from two of the stations but all three have been evacuated. The entire Northern Line has been suspended, along with the Victoria Line and the Hammersmith and City. There are no reports of any casualties.
Police also confirmed reports of an incident on a route 26 bus in Hackney Road.
Nothing is known yet of any of the incidents.
Police also confirmed reports of an incident on a route 26 bus in Hackney Road.
Nothing is known yet of any of the incidents.
"Bomb Mecca" says US Congressman
The Republican Party Congressman for Colorado 6th District, Tom Tancredo has proposed a retributory action against those he termed as Islamo-facist, meaning Islamist terrorists. He wants to bomb their holy shrines as revenge for any terrorist actions they conduct against the USA or western civilisation (hmmm, what about Asian or African ones?)
When asked whether his proposal includes the bombing of Mecca, he replied "Yeah".
He said his warning would put the onus on moderate Muslims to ensure the extremists don't conduct their terrorist activities, or they will suffer the consequences – in other words, he doesn't want to hear them cry mama when the Americans start to pulverise Islam's holy shrines.
Well, you know what they say about simple plans and simple-minded people?
I would like to see how the USA will cope with an enraged Islamic world should Tancredo gets his wish. And as for Tancredo's threat to moderate Muslims, if the USA were to bomb Mecca, I would say "What moderate Muslims?" because there won't be one on the planet Earth!
And what western targets then would the Islamist Islamo-facists target in the inevitable cycle of violence?
Well, Tancredo is of Italian stock, so presumably as a Catholic he would have some reverence if not affection for the Vatican and St Peter's Cathedral? And what Protestant sacred monuments and churches are there? What about the Wailing Wall (sorry, that's not Christian, but Judaic)?
It's a frightening thought, when blokes like Tancredo come up with such imbecilic proposal without anticipating the outrage the Muslims throughout the world would experience.
No doubt it makes him look like a hero in the eyes of those rightwing Americans who had wanted to nuke Afghanistan after 9/11, and have frequently propose sending all USN aircraft carriers off the coast of China to terrorise Beijing away from Taiwan so that the latter could proclaim its independence.
Hell (no pun intended), why stop at that? Why not nuke everyone else that the USA doesn't like?
Tom Tancredo proudly proclaims on his website that he:
- was born in Colorado
- went to school in Colorado
- worked in Colorado
- works for Colorado
He should really open his mouth to speak only about Colorado.
When asked whether his proposal includes the bombing of Mecca, he replied "Yeah".
He said his warning would put the onus on moderate Muslims to ensure the extremists don't conduct their terrorist activities, or they will suffer the consequences – in other words, he doesn't want to hear them cry mama when the Americans start to pulverise Islam's holy shrines.
Well, you know what they say about simple plans and simple-minded people?
I would like to see how the USA will cope with an enraged Islamic world should Tancredo gets his wish. And as for Tancredo's threat to moderate Muslims, if the USA were to bomb Mecca, I would say "What moderate Muslims?" because there won't be one on the planet Earth!
And what western targets then would the Islamist Islamo-facists target in the inevitable cycle of violence?
Well, Tancredo is of Italian stock, so presumably as a Catholic he would have some reverence if not affection for the Vatican and St Peter's Cathedral? And what Protestant sacred monuments and churches are there? What about the Wailing Wall (sorry, that's not Christian, but Judaic)?
It's a frightening thought, when blokes like Tancredo come up with such imbecilic proposal without anticipating the outrage the Muslims throughout the world would experience.
No doubt it makes him look like a hero in the eyes of those rightwing Americans who had wanted to nuke Afghanistan after 9/11, and have frequently propose sending all USN aircraft carriers off the coast of China to terrorise Beijing away from Taiwan so that the latter could proclaim its independence.
Hell (no pun intended), why stop at that? Why not nuke everyone else that the USA doesn't like?
Tom Tancredo proudly proclaims on his website that he:
- was born in Colorado
- went to school in Colorado
- worked in Colorado
- works for Colorado
He should really open his mouth to speak only about Colorado.
Appeasement? Absolutely Not!
From the Macquarie dictionary:
Appease, v.t., 1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, or content; 2. to satisfy; 3. to accede to a belligerent demands of a country, government, etc by a sacrifice of justice – appeasement, appeaser, noun
This word, either its verb or noun form, has been tossed around by some in relation to the Iraqi insurgency. Keeping it simple, let's consider the verb form. You bet your bottom dollar they don't mean the 1st or 2nd meaning, which leaves us the 3rd, namely "to accede to a belligerent demands of a country, government, etc by a sacrifice of justice."
Some considered Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler as the worst example of sacrificing justice to accede to a tyrant. Others disagreed, arguing that Chamberlain bought much needed time for an unprepared Britain to organise herself for war.
Be that as it may, do I agree to appeasement? My answer is a resounding 'Absolutely Not!' because that would be cowardly, and succumbing to bullies.
Take Vietnam for example. After the Vietnamese had shrugged off the French colonial yoke, the USA stepped in with the brazen nerve to dictate to the Vietnamese what sort of government they might have. In fact, the Americans were financing the French to continue their colonial war against the Viet Minh, but the French wisely recognised that staying in Vietnam was a no-win situation, and left that area for good.
The Geneva Accords 1954 called for an independent Vietnam following a general election in 1956. Democratic practice or not, the Americans refused to permit the elections to take place in the south because its preferred government lacked the popularity to win (hmmm, the USA seems to be always backing unpopular dictators). The Americans would only promote democracy and freedom when these were to its favour or interest.
They thought they could intimidate the Vietnamese. Exactly like Bush’s fabrications for invading Iraq, the American Administration then, under Lyndon B Johnson, fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, to justify war against North Vietnam.
The American lies of 1964 have been repeated in 2003, by Bush’s lies.
Did the Vietnamese appease the powerful USA? Did they capitulate? Absolutely not!
The rest is history. A poor third-world nation of 70 million taught the most powerful nation on earth, with a population 4 times larger, a severe lesson in national resilience, non-negotiability on sovereignty, and an uncompromising stand against appeasement. The Vietnamese lost more than 1.1 million of its combat troops and another 3 million civilians against the American loss of around 55,000.
But the Vietnamese sent the intruder home and reunited their country.
Their example has inspired many people around the world, particular the smaller third world nations. Many of you may not be aware but countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and many others have actually trained their troops on the Viet Congs’ fighting style and modus operandi - just in case 'someone' - you know who - decides to come pounding down our doors.
Then in Afghanistan the Mujahedin did the same thing to the USSR. There was to be no appeasement.
Today, we see the Palestinians and the Iraqis as two examples of people refusing to appease the bullies and intruders of their lands.
I hope those Malaysians who cried no appeasement would now be pleased to see that there isn't any, nor will there be.
Appease, v.t., 1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, or content; 2. to satisfy; 3. to accede to a belligerent demands of a country, government, etc by a sacrifice of justice – appeasement, appeaser, noun
This word, either its verb or noun form, has been tossed around by some in relation to the Iraqi insurgency. Keeping it simple, let's consider the verb form. You bet your bottom dollar they don't mean the 1st or 2nd meaning, which leaves us the 3rd, namely "to accede to a belligerent demands of a country, government, etc by a sacrifice of justice."
Some considered Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler as the worst example of sacrificing justice to accede to a tyrant. Others disagreed, arguing that Chamberlain bought much needed time for an unprepared Britain to organise herself for war.
Be that as it may, do I agree to appeasement? My answer is a resounding 'Absolutely Not!' because that would be cowardly, and succumbing to bullies.
Take Vietnam for example. After the Vietnamese had shrugged off the French colonial yoke, the USA stepped in with the brazen nerve to dictate to the Vietnamese what sort of government they might have. In fact, the Americans were financing the French to continue their colonial war against the Viet Minh, but the French wisely recognised that staying in Vietnam was a no-win situation, and left that area for good.
The Geneva Accords 1954 called for an independent Vietnam following a general election in 1956. Democratic practice or not, the Americans refused to permit the elections to take place in the south because its preferred government lacked the popularity to win (hmmm, the USA seems to be always backing unpopular dictators). The Americans would only promote democracy and freedom when these were to its favour or interest.
They thought they could intimidate the Vietnamese. Exactly like Bush’s fabrications for invading Iraq, the American Administration then, under Lyndon B Johnson, fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, to justify war against North Vietnam.
The American lies of 1964 have been repeated in 2003, by Bush’s lies.
Did the Vietnamese appease the powerful USA? Did they capitulate? Absolutely not!
The rest is history. A poor third-world nation of 70 million taught the most powerful nation on earth, with a population 4 times larger, a severe lesson in national resilience, non-negotiability on sovereignty, and an uncompromising stand against appeasement. The Vietnamese lost more than 1.1 million of its combat troops and another 3 million civilians against the American loss of around 55,000.
But the Vietnamese sent the intruder home and reunited their country.
Their example has inspired many people around the world, particular the smaller third world nations. Many of you may not be aware but countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and many others have actually trained their troops on the Viet Congs’ fighting style and modus operandi - just in case 'someone' - you know who - decides to come pounding down our doors.
Then in Afghanistan the Mujahedin did the same thing to the USSR. There was to be no appeasement.
Today, we see the Palestinians and the Iraqis as two examples of people refusing to appease the bullies and intruders of their lands.
I hope those Malaysians who cried no appeasement would now be pleased to see that there isn't any, nor will there be.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Garden of Eden - What If?
The world has been in a continuous turmoil since men started to record history - Troy, Jerusalem, Rome, 30 years war, 100 years war, Wounded Knee, WW I, WW II, Nanjing, Auschwitz, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11, Rwanda, Vietnam, Korea, Sri Lnaka, Palestine.
If Adam and Eve were Chinese, we would still be in paradise because they would have ignored the apple and eaten the snake!
If Adam and Eve were Chinese, we would still be in paradise because they would have ignored the apple and eaten the snake!
China's 700 missiles vs USA 7,000 missiles
The Pentagon has raised the alarm on China’s military expansion. It claims that China has some 700 short range missiles aimed at Taiwan, which are increased by 100 a year. The Pentagon's report also asserted that China will deploy long range ballistic versions, which are capable of carrying N-warheads that could hit anyone on the globe
The Pentagon is not happy with China's military build-up as it puts regional balances at risk. It avers that China does not face a threat from any other nation therefore there is no reason for China to invest heavily in its military.
No threat? Isn't there a country called the USA who claims it has the right to conduct preemptive strikes on anyone it doesn't like?
Ever since the Bush Administration showed its arrogant hand in the way it invaded and occupied sovereign nations, bombed a couple, and threatened others with wars of preemption, the world fears the USA.
The USA is in fact a threat to many countries including China. Nelson Manadala called the USA the most dangerous nation in the world. Look around and see who have suffered from its military?
The USA wants to contain China, purely for its own interests as it intends to retain its current sole superpower status and preeminent military position. China considers the USA its biggest threat and has no intention of being contained as the Americans had tried to do during the Cold War.
That explains the wooing of India and Vietnam by both to pre-empt each others strategic manoeuvrings. India and Vietnam will benefit from both sides by walking the narrow path in between – and why not! Even Russia which had originally been prepared to walk a less militarily prominent path has now re-embarked on a military program to regain its military capability a la its old USSR days, to counter the American menace.
That also explains why China in concert with Russia have promoted the Shanghai Cooperative Organisation (SCO) as a bloc to neutralize American aspirations and presence in the Central Asian region.
The Pentagon claims China’s military modernisation is aimed at winning a war with Taiwan. Let me correct the Pentagon’s disingenuous assessment. Though China has no plans to invade or seize Taiwan by force (and why should it when it is enjoying an economic boom, and the world recognises that Taiwan is an intrinsic part of China), it intends not to lose in any confrontation over Taiwan, even and especially if the USA intervenes.
Its military development and expansion are planned to intimidate the USA with the message that it will punish the Americans severely if the latter intervenes for any Taiwanese self proclaimed breakaway. For example, if Taiwan declares its independence, and the US Seventh Fleet moves in, regardless of what carrier force the Americans dispatches, China with a thousand over short range missiles will strike. It doesn’t have to physically invade Taiwan. All it needs to do is to interdict the Island.
Recently a Chinese general has sounded the war cry of a possible nuclear war if the USA dares to interfere over Taiwan. The reality is Chinese generals don't make independent talk without approval by political leaders. The Chinese has virtually conveyed the message directly to Washington that, as far as the Taiwan issue is concerned, China will go to any extent to win, or drag everyone down together with her.
The Taiwan issue is just as important to China as Tibet, because if it doesn’t do anything, (1) its inaction may give ideas to its “difficult” north-west regions, and (2) it may encourage hostile forces to surround her.
It is significant that the report is by the Pentagon and not the State Department. The Pentagon may want to use this report as justification for its own military expansion, or just test the Chinese "waters".
The Pentagon is not happy with China's military build-up as it puts regional balances at risk. It avers that China does not face a threat from any other nation therefore there is no reason for China to invest heavily in its military.
No threat? Isn't there a country called the USA who claims it has the right to conduct preemptive strikes on anyone it doesn't like?
Ever since the Bush Administration showed its arrogant hand in the way it invaded and occupied sovereign nations, bombed a couple, and threatened others with wars of preemption, the world fears the USA.
The USA is in fact a threat to many countries including China. Nelson Manadala called the USA the most dangerous nation in the world. Look around and see who have suffered from its military?
The USA wants to contain China, purely for its own interests as it intends to retain its current sole superpower status and preeminent military position. China considers the USA its biggest threat and has no intention of being contained as the Americans had tried to do during the Cold War.
That explains the wooing of India and Vietnam by both to pre-empt each others strategic manoeuvrings. India and Vietnam will benefit from both sides by walking the narrow path in between – and why not! Even Russia which had originally been prepared to walk a less militarily prominent path has now re-embarked on a military program to regain its military capability a la its old USSR days, to counter the American menace.
That also explains why China in concert with Russia have promoted the Shanghai Cooperative Organisation (SCO) as a bloc to neutralize American aspirations and presence in the Central Asian region.
The Pentagon claims China’s military modernisation is aimed at winning a war with Taiwan. Let me correct the Pentagon’s disingenuous assessment. Though China has no plans to invade or seize Taiwan by force (and why should it when it is enjoying an economic boom, and the world recognises that Taiwan is an intrinsic part of China), it intends not to lose in any confrontation over Taiwan, even and especially if the USA intervenes.
Its military development and expansion are planned to intimidate the USA with the message that it will punish the Americans severely if the latter intervenes for any Taiwanese self proclaimed breakaway. For example, if Taiwan declares its independence, and the US Seventh Fleet moves in, regardless of what carrier force the Americans dispatches, China with a thousand over short range missiles will strike. It doesn’t have to physically invade Taiwan. All it needs to do is to interdict the Island.
Recently a Chinese general has sounded the war cry of a possible nuclear war if the USA dares to interfere over Taiwan. The reality is Chinese generals don't make independent talk without approval by political leaders. The Chinese has virtually conveyed the message directly to Washington that, as far as the Taiwan issue is concerned, China will go to any extent to win, or drag everyone down together with her.
The Taiwan issue is just as important to China as Tibet, because if it doesn’t do anything, (1) its inaction may give ideas to its “difficult” north-west regions, and (2) it may encourage hostile forces to surround her.
It is significant that the report is by the Pentagon and not the State Department. The Pentagon may want to use this report as justification for its own military expansion, or just test the Chinese "waters".
America Maintaining Tradition in Sponsoring Allies
The American stooge in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai dares not venture outside Kabul, and are constantly surrounded by his American guards. Not only does he surround himself with foreign mercenaries, he also does so with former militia leaders responsible for the worst wartime atrocities.
His adviser Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf has been identified among many others who were responsible for commanding troops that committed mass rape, torture, and indiscriminate shelling and killing.
As commander of the Hezb-e Wahadat militia, Sayyaf conducted a scorched earth offensive in 1993 in the Afshar neighbourhood of the capital, Kabul. An uncounted number of civilians were raped and summarily executed. Then there is Sayyaf’s buddy of the same ilk, Shir Alam, whom Karzai appointed Governor of Ghazni province.
All have been blessed by the Americans, as Allawi, former prime ministerof Iraq was similarly blessed. Allawi was reported by Paul McGeogh, a leading and very reputable journalist, as having cold bloodedly executed several Iraqi suspects in one go, all by himself. This has been a hands-on sort of bloke.
McGeough’s report was confirmed by an US official.
But it’s ok for all these henchmen of the USA. They are safe as long as they genuflect to Washington and don’t attempt to get uppity like Saddam Hussein.
His adviser Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf has been identified among many others who were responsible for commanding troops that committed mass rape, torture, and indiscriminate shelling and killing.
As commander of the Hezb-e Wahadat militia, Sayyaf conducted a scorched earth offensive in 1993 in the Afshar neighbourhood of the capital, Kabul. An uncounted number of civilians were raped and summarily executed. Then there is Sayyaf’s buddy of the same ilk, Shir Alam, whom Karzai appointed Governor of Ghazni province.
All have been blessed by the Americans, as Allawi, former prime ministerof Iraq was similarly blessed. Allawi was reported by Paul McGeogh, a leading and very reputable journalist, as having cold bloodedly executed several Iraqi suspects in one go, all by himself. This has been a hands-on sort of bloke.
McGeough’s report was confirmed by an US official.
But it’s ok for all these henchmen of the USA. They are safe as long as they genuflect to Washington and don’t attempt to get uppity like Saddam Hussein.
Porn Punishment - Indian Style
In Orissa state, India, 200 people were caught watching a porn movie in a cinema hall. Instead of charging them, the police made them do 10 sit-ups in public as punishment, before releasing them.
This is relatively light. Hmmm, if I were the police chief, I wonder what punishment I would dish out?
Aha, I’ve got it. I know it’s draconian but then I am a bloody cruel bastard. I’ll make all the males masturbate in public ;-) at least once by those audience and 10 times for the organisers, before allowing them to go home. Maybe I may be pushing the organisers' performance envelope a wee bit. But it would be an opportunity to kill 2 birds with one stone, if you know what I mean.
Why so cruel? Have you heard about the case of the Indian man who raped his daughther in law? Well, porn movies aroused these animals so much that they forget they are human beings!
Female viewers, though I doubt there were any considering it was India, would be made to hand out paper towels.
This is relatively light. Hmmm, if I were the police chief, I wonder what punishment I would dish out?
Aha, I’ve got it. I know it’s draconian but then I am a bloody cruel bastard. I’ll make all the males masturbate in public ;-) at least once by those audience and 10 times for the organisers, before allowing them to go home. Maybe I may be pushing the organisers' performance envelope a wee bit. But it would be an opportunity to kill 2 birds with one stone, if you know what I mean.
Why so cruel? Have you heard about the case of the Indian man who raped his daughther in law? Well, porn movies aroused these animals so much that they forget they are human beings!
Female viewers, though I doubt there were any considering it was India, would be made to hand out paper towels.
USA - Consistently Inconsistent! (5)
Once again the USA has displayed its propensity for and policy of exceptionalism for strategic allies against a consistent stand, in this case, that of the dangers of nuclear weapon. But then the USA under President Bush has been a bad example itself when it comes to proliferation of N-weapons.
Bush has reversed long standing US policy of not sharing nuclear technology with countries that have refused to sign the Treaty on Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, by now agreeing to provide India with sensitive US nuclear technology that can be used in either a civilian or a military programme. As to be expected , the agreement does not require India to cease production of weapons-grade uranium.
Additionally India will be provided with conventional weapons systems and be permitted to buy the long sought-after Arrow Missile System developed by Israel with US technology.
Why this change of heart?
The US sees it as part of its strategy to contain China by encircling the emeging Asian super economic power. The Americans view China as it greatest threat for the coming decades. It must have decided that playing footsies with India to surround and neutralise China, in other words using India for its strategic ends, may be worth the risk of nuclear proliferation and the undermining of its own long standing policy.
Some nonproliferation specialists were bloody pissed as they see the special treatment of India will undermine the current talks on the North Korean programme and the Europeans' attempts to persuade Iran not to go nuclear. There there is India’s arch nemesis who also has a nuclear programme of her own. The Pakis may decide to go wild with her own programme.
But it’s normal, the USA has once again demonstrate that it is consistently inconsistent.
This is most noticeable in its consistency of strategic manoeuvres to encircle or compete with China – and the concurrent inconsistencies by the abandonment of its long standing policies, which are still applicable to countries it doesn't consider as strategic allies. The latter makes the USA a hypocrite.
Related posts:
(1) USA – Consistently Inconsistent!
(2) USA – Consistently Inconsistent! (2)
(3) USA – Consistently Inconsistent! (3)
(4) USA – Consistently Inconsistent! (4)
Bush has reversed long standing US policy of not sharing nuclear technology with countries that have refused to sign the Treaty on Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, by now agreeing to provide India with sensitive US nuclear technology that can be used in either a civilian or a military programme. As to be expected , the agreement does not require India to cease production of weapons-grade uranium.
Additionally India will be provided with conventional weapons systems and be permitted to buy the long sought-after Arrow Missile System developed by Israel with US technology.
Why this change of heart?
The US sees it as part of its strategy to contain China by encircling the emeging Asian super economic power. The Americans view China as it greatest threat for the coming decades. It must have decided that playing footsies with India to surround and neutralise China, in other words using India for its strategic ends, may be worth the risk of nuclear proliferation and the undermining of its own long standing policy.
Some nonproliferation specialists were bloody pissed as they see the special treatment of India will undermine the current talks on the North Korean programme and the Europeans' attempts to persuade Iran not to go nuclear. There there is India’s arch nemesis who also has a nuclear programme of her own. The Pakis may decide to go wild with her own programme.
But it’s normal, the USA has once again demonstrate that it is consistently inconsistent.
This is most noticeable in its consistency of strategic manoeuvres to encircle or compete with China – and the concurrent inconsistencies by the abandonment of its long standing policies, which are still applicable to countries it doesn't consider as strategic allies. The latter makes the USA a hypocrite.
Related posts:
(1) USA – Consistently Inconsistent!
(2) USA – Consistently Inconsistent! (2)
(3) USA – Consistently Inconsistent! (3)
(4) USA – Consistently Inconsistent! (4)
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
The Atheist & The Christian
An atheist ;-) was walking through the woods, admiring all the 'accidents' that evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!", he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to look, he saw a 9-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up a path.
He looked over his shoulder and saw the grizzly still after him, and closing rapidly. Somehow, he ran even faster, so terrified that he was crying. He looked again but no joy, the bear was even closer.
At this stage he tripped and fell to the ground. He tried to pick himself up but the bear was by then right over him, reaching for him with its left paw and raising its right paw to strike. At that instant the atheist cried, "Oh my God! ..... "
Time suddenly stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.
A bright light appeared and shone upon the man; a voice was heard, coming from above, "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others that I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear a Christian?"
"Very well" said the voice. The light went out. The river ran. The sounds of the forest resumed ….. and then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”
Gulp ........
From an email currently circulating - I thought I'd post this one for my Christian friends to laugh at me ;-)
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to look, he saw a 9-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up a path.
He looked over his shoulder and saw the grizzly still after him, and closing rapidly. Somehow, he ran even faster, so terrified that he was crying. He looked again but no joy, the bear was even closer.
At this stage he tripped and fell to the ground. He tried to pick himself up but the bear was by then right over him, reaching for him with its left paw and raising its right paw to strike. At that instant the atheist cried, "Oh my God! ..... "
Time suddenly stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.
A bright light appeared and shone upon the man; a voice was heard, coming from above, "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others that I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear a Christian?"
"Very well" said the voice. The light went out. The river ran. The sounds of the forest resumed ….. and then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”
Gulp ........
From an email currently circulating - I thought I'd post this one for my Christian friends to laugh at me ;-)
Marginalised!
The recent few days have seen horrific suicide bombings in Iraq where innocent bystanders such as children have been murdered. These attacks have gone beyond resistance to American occupation. What could be the underlying cause?
Pause for a minute before we trot out the Bush-Blair mantra about these people loving violence and wanting to hurt people. Even serial killers have a driving need, with some actually wanting to be caught while some had some traumatic childhood problems, like paedophilic uncles or stepfathers buggering them, etc and thus, in their troubled minds, wanting to strike out in revenge.
Marginalisation!
One must consider this reality. Leaving aside the genuine insurgent resistance and the criminal kidnapping for money, the terrorist events have been committed by all sides, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds (and don’t forget the American military, except they termed their misbehaviour as military operations or anti-insurgency strikes).
The Kurds now enjoy the protection of the Americans so we would be unlikely to hear very much about their atrocities – a recent one was the confinement of 12 bricklayers in a metallic police van for 14 hours until 9 died from suffocation and the other 3 in serious conditions. Have they been punished?
The Shiites don’t want the Americans so they aren’t that accommodating to the US, although Ahmad Chalabi, an American not-so-stupid stooge has been placed among them to preserve American interests. But they frighten the Sunnis because of the possibility of Shiites in Iraq and Iran getting too chummy and banding up against the group identified with old Saddam. Even the Americans are worried about a Shiite “crescent” menacing Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf oil-producing countries..
The Sunnis have been the most marginalised. Identified with Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether they had been in cahoots, they are detested by the Shiites and Kurds, and prosecuted by the American military. Needless to say, they intend to make things untenable for everyone. It’s the old story of (1) wake up and take notice of me or else, and (2) if we go down, everyone goes down too.
Unless they are brought into the fold, we may expect more of such turbulent violence.
Looking around the world, we see in Sri Lanka the Tamils as a marginalised society, left politically, economically and socially aside by the Sinhalese majority. So what do they do - a bit of terrorising!
The Palestinians are the classic example of a marginalised people, not only robbed and bullied by successive Israeli governments but ignored by the US Administration until only recently. And many Americans and even some Malaysians think they are a violent people for no reason.
In southern Thailand we have the same story of marginalisation, affecting the Muslims. There are the Kurds in Turkey and the Montagnards in Vietnam.
The last, the Montagnards, were the allies of the American military during the Vietnam War so there isn’t exactly any love between the Vietnamese government and them. I saw a TV documentary showing how the American government cruelly abandoned them after the US decided to pull out of Vietnam. In fact, after the war , they actually kept fighting believing the Americans would return soon. How cruel it must be to eventually learn they have been on their own for many years. Only some former US Special Forces people, who were so loyal to their former allies, made enormous efforts to save and protect the hill people. Have they been terrorising the Vietnamese? If they did, it had largely been unreported except for the part when they continued fighting after the US left the shores of Vietnam.
I am not sure what the solution may be, but obviously a powerful nation like the USA in cooperation with Russia and Europe can guarantee some inclusiveness in areas like the Middle-East to ameliorate the acrimony. But that’s easier said than done because these powerful players have been the cause of the problems in the first place.
Post-script: I forgot to add the Indians of Malaysia. They are virtually the poorest community in the country - and I mean desperately poor. While they haven't become terrorists in the political sense. they have in the last twenty years become a more aggessive group, with many violent crimes attributed to them, most unlike their peaceful nature of earlier times. This may be a sign of their hopelessness and loss of faith in their very poor mainstream leadership. I hope something may be done to alleviate their problems, not compound it like the disgraceful de-recognition of the Crimea State Medical School.
Pause for a minute before we trot out the Bush-Blair mantra about these people loving violence and wanting to hurt people. Even serial killers have a driving need, with some actually wanting to be caught while some had some traumatic childhood problems, like paedophilic uncles or stepfathers buggering them, etc and thus, in their troubled minds, wanting to strike out in revenge.
Marginalisation!
One must consider this reality. Leaving aside the genuine insurgent resistance and the criminal kidnapping for money, the terrorist events have been committed by all sides, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds (and don’t forget the American military, except they termed their misbehaviour as military operations or anti-insurgency strikes).
The Kurds now enjoy the protection of the Americans so we would be unlikely to hear very much about their atrocities – a recent one was the confinement of 12 bricklayers in a metallic police van for 14 hours until 9 died from suffocation and the other 3 in serious conditions. Have they been punished?
The Shiites don’t want the Americans so they aren’t that accommodating to the US, although Ahmad Chalabi, an American not-so-stupid stooge has been placed among them to preserve American interests. But they frighten the Sunnis because of the possibility of Shiites in Iraq and Iran getting too chummy and banding up against the group identified with old Saddam. Even the Americans are worried about a Shiite “crescent” menacing Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf oil-producing countries..
The Sunnis have been the most marginalised. Identified with Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether they had been in cahoots, they are detested by the Shiites and Kurds, and prosecuted by the American military. Needless to say, they intend to make things untenable for everyone. It’s the old story of (1) wake up and take notice of me or else, and (2) if we go down, everyone goes down too.
Unless they are brought into the fold, we may expect more of such turbulent violence.
Looking around the world, we see in Sri Lanka the Tamils as a marginalised society, left politically, economically and socially aside by the Sinhalese majority. So what do they do - a bit of terrorising!
The Palestinians are the classic example of a marginalised people, not only robbed and bullied by successive Israeli governments but ignored by the US Administration until only recently. And many Americans and even some Malaysians think they are a violent people for no reason.
In southern Thailand we have the same story of marginalisation, affecting the Muslims. There are the Kurds in Turkey and the Montagnards in Vietnam.
The last, the Montagnards, were the allies of the American military during the Vietnam War so there isn’t exactly any love between the Vietnamese government and them. I saw a TV documentary showing how the American government cruelly abandoned them after the US decided to pull out of Vietnam. In fact, after the war , they actually kept fighting believing the Americans would return soon. How cruel it must be to eventually learn they have been on their own for many years. Only some former US Special Forces people, who were so loyal to their former allies, made enormous efforts to save and protect the hill people. Have they been terrorising the Vietnamese? If they did, it had largely been unreported except for the part when they continued fighting after the US left the shores of Vietnam.
I am not sure what the solution may be, but obviously a powerful nation like the USA in cooperation with Russia and Europe can guarantee some inclusiveness in areas like the Middle-East to ameliorate the acrimony. But that’s easier said than done because these powerful players have been the cause of the problems in the first place.
Post-script: I forgot to add the Indians of Malaysia. They are virtually the poorest community in the country - and I mean desperately poor. While they haven't become terrorists in the political sense. they have in the last twenty years become a more aggessive group, with many violent crimes attributed to them, most unlike their peaceful nature of earlier times. This may be a sign of their hopelessness and loss of faith in their very poor mainstream leadership. I hope something may be done to alleviate their problems, not compound it like the disgraceful de-recognition of the Crimea State Medical School.
A Whale of an Idea
I just love this story. Grey whales that used to inhabit the seas around Britain became extinct some 400 years ago. Now, scientists plan to import excess American west coast grey whales to the seas of the British Isles. The British plan to put this proposal to a conservation conference in Brazil this week.
Wouldn’t that be just great? Now, there will also be a new role for the Royal Navy too. They should patrol its home seas and sink any Japanese whalers sighted in British waters. ;-) Just a thought!
Wouldn’t that be just great? Now, there will also be a new role for the Royal Navy too. They should patrol its home seas and sink any Japanese whalers sighted in British waters. ;-) Just a thought!
Blair: Subservient Pillion Rider to USA
Contrary to the obstinate rejection by Tony Blair that there is no link with the July 7 bombings, a highly respected British think-tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, concluded in a report that the war in Iraq popularised al-Qaeda, helping its recruitment, fundraising and propaganda. Worst of all for the Brits, it puts Britain in the unenviable position of being a target for suicide bombing activities.
The report is appropriately entitled "Riding Pillion for Tackling Terrorism is a High-risk Policy." Guess who is the stupid pillion rider?
The report criticised severely the British government's anti-terrorism strategy. The findings condemned Britain for being just an obedient back seat passenger to the USA in the latter's aggressions around the world, instead of insisting on being an equal decision maker.
Because of this subservience, Britain was at particular risk from the perception that it is a collaborator of the USA. Where the USA has troops occupying foreign sovereign nations like Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain would be there as well, like a good pillion rider.
Ever since Tony Blair became prime minister, Great Britain has not been so great anymore, seemingly having lost its independent voice on foreign policy. It just toes the American line faithfully.
By contrast, in the terrible Vietnam War, Britain has consistently and wisely refused to participate in that conflict, the most traumatic and far reaching lesson for America. Losing that war continues today to influence American foreign-military policies, doctrine and strategic deployment.
Needless to say, the Blair cabinet is in damage control, and has dug in deep, to chant the old mantra about the eternal fight against terrorism. But it neglected to ask who has been the terrorist.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw echoed Blair by rejecting the claim that there is a link between the London bombing and the British presence in Iraq. Maybe he believes that those terrorists hated roast beef and Yorkshire pudding? But we need to be aware that the British government can't afford now to admit it made the most stupid foreign policy decision by hitching its wagon to the American plummeting star, and for what British interest?
British Defence Secretary John Reid declared "The idea that somehow by running away from the school bully then the bully will not come after you is a thesis known to be completely untrue by every kid in the playground. And it’s refuted by every piece of historical evidence that we have.”
Yawnnn, the same old story, though of course he’s right if he only pauses for a moment to reflect who has been the global bully?
The report is appropriately entitled "Riding Pillion for Tackling Terrorism is a High-risk Policy." Guess who is the stupid pillion rider?
The report criticised severely the British government's anti-terrorism strategy. The findings condemned Britain for being just an obedient back seat passenger to the USA in the latter's aggressions around the world, instead of insisting on being an equal decision maker.
Because of this subservience, Britain was at particular risk from the perception that it is a collaborator of the USA. Where the USA has troops occupying foreign sovereign nations like Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain would be there as well, like a good pillion rider.
Ever since Tony Blair became prime minister, Great Britain has not been so great anymore, seemingly having lost its independent voice on foreign policy. It just toes the American line faithfully.
By contrast, in the terrible Vietnam War, Britain has consistently and wisely refused to participate in that conflict, the most traumatic and far reaching lesson for America. Losing that war continues today to influence American foreign-military policies, doctrine and strategic deployment.
Needless to say, the Blair cabinet is in damage control, and has dug in deep, to chant the old mantra about the eternal fight against terrorism. But it neglected to ask who has been the terrorist.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw echoed Blair by rejecting the claim that there is a link between the London bombing and the British presence in Iraq. Maybe he believes that those terrorists hated roast beef and Yorkshire pudding? But we need to be aware that the British government can't afford now to admit it made the most stupid foreign policy decision by hitching its wagon to the American plummeting star, and for what British interest?
British Defence Secretary John Reid declared "The idea that somehow by running away from the school bully then the bully will not come after you is a thesis known to be completely untrue by every kid in the playground. And it’s refuted by every piece of historical evidence that we have.”
Yawnnn, the same old story, though of course he’s right if he only pauses for a moment to reflect who has been the global bully?
Monday, July 18, 2005
Iraq - Bush Lied Again
In probably the most damning reports on President Bush’s claim that all would have been well in Iraq if only the al Qaeda and foreign insurgents didn’t pour into Iraq to take advantage of the situation in a deliberate confrontation against the US, two separate sources have shown the contrary.
And these sources are the Israeli think-tank, Global Research in International Affairs Centre and the Saudi government.
The report showed that Bush had lied to the American people by suggesting that "The US military is fighting the terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home."
The findings indicated the majority of the insurgents have been radicalised by the American presence in Iraq. The Saudi report stated that most insurgents were heeding the calls from clerics to drive infidels out of Arab land. The Israeli report showed that the vast majority of non-Iraqi Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.
Well, the American people should now realise that what had been said over and over again is very true about the US military presence and conduct in Iraq represent the best recruiting campaign for insurgents.
Also, contrary to the US Adminsitration propaganda, al Qaeda and foreign operatives constitute only a very small percentage, around 10% of insurgency activites.
Now, what was it that Bush said about the insurgents hating ‘freedom’? Well, there may be a tinge of truth in this, because obviously the insurgents want Iraq free from American brand of ‘freedom’, where the Iraqis are subordinated to the occupying American military, while avaricious carpetbaggers ripped off the country's wealth in the most feral manner.
I can only relate the Iraqi feelings to the experience of my family who told me about their fears, loss of dignity, sufferings, and hatred under the occupying Japanese army during WWII.
And these sources are the Israeli think-tank, Global Research in International Affairs Centre and the Saudi government.
The report showed that Bush had lied to the American people by suggesting that "The US military is fighting the terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home."
The findings indicated the majority of the insurgents have been radicalised by the American presence in Iraq. The Saudi report stated that most insurgents were heeding the calls from clerics to drive infidels out of Arab land. The Israeli report showed that the vast majority of non-Iraqi Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.
Well, the American people should now realise that what had been said over and over again is very true about the US military presence and conduct in Iraq represent the best recruiting campaign for insurgents.
Also, contrary to the US Adminsitration propaganda, al Qaeda and foreign operatives constitute only a very small percentage, around 10% of insurgency activites.
Now, what was it that Bush said about the insurgents hating ‘freedom’? Well, there may be a tinge of truth in this, because obviously the insurgents want Iraq free from American brand of ‘freedom’, where the Iraqis are subordinated to the occupying American military, while avaricious carpetbaggers ripped off the country's wealth in the most feral manner.
I can only relate the Iraqi feelings to the experience of my family who told me about their fears, loss of dignity, sufferings, and hatred under the occupying Japanese army during WWII.
Australian Home Grown Suicide-Terrorists?
The Australian Muslim community is angry with PM John Howard’s statement that there could be a terrorist attack in Australia a la the London 7/7 bombing.
They claimed, rightly so, that such unsubstantiated warnings would unnecessarily alarm the public and only serve to marginalise the local Muslim communities. They ask John Howard to put up or shut up, meaning if Howard knows of any threat he should bring charges to bear on those terrorists, rather than leave things open ended.
The Australian Opposition has challenged Howard to show evidence that Australia is facing threats from suicide bombers, but Howard has refused to back off from his claims despite the lack of proof.
Sheik Abdul Salam Zoud, a leading cleric, known for his rather radical views, blamed the Australian governments, both federal and state, for allowing overseas screwball clerics to enter Australia to preach their extremist views to Muslim youths here. By permitting such crazies into Australia, who could possibly influence the youths into conducting terrorist acts, he said the Australian government has only itself to blame, should such a terrorist act occur.
The Sheik may have forgotten that some of Howard’s advisers including a former minister have been notoriously known to use such alarming statements to marshal public support for his party. In an election some 4 years ago Howard claimed refugees on a boat threw their children overboard to force entry into Australia. That was subsequently found to be a lie.
But before the inquiry, that scam worked to disgust (what terrible human beings would do such things to their children) and alarm the Australian voters into re-electing Howard to a new term, because he projected himself as the strong forceful leader that would turn away the tide of such terrible Middle-East refugees.
They claimed, rightly so, that such unsubstantiated warnings would unnecessarily alarm the public and only serve to marginalise the local Muslim communities. They ask John Howard to put up or shut up, meaning if Howard knows of any threat he should bring charges to bear on those terrorists, rather than leave things open ended.
The Australian Opposition has challenged Howard to show evidence that Australia is facing threats from suicide bombers, but Howard has refused to back off from his claims despite the lack of proof.
Sheik Abdul Salam Zoud, a leading cleric, known for his rather radical views, blamed the Australian governments, both federal and state, for allowing overseas screwball clerics to enter Australia to preach their extremist views to Muslim youths here. By permitting such crazies into Australia, who could possibly influence the youths into conducting terrorist acts, he said the Australian government has only itself to blame, should such a terrorist act occur.
The Sheik may have forgotten that some of Howard’s advisers including a former minister have been notoriously known to use such alarming statements to marshal public support for his party. In an election some 4 years ago Howard claimed refugees on a boat threw their children overboard to force entry into Australia. That was subsequently found to be a lie.
But before the inquiry, that scam worked to disgust (what terrible human beings would do such things to their children) and alarm the Australian voters into re-electing Howard to a new term, because he projected himself as the strong forceful leader that would turn away the tide of such terrible Middle-East refugees.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
London Bombers Duped - British Police Agrees with KTemoc
Kid you not. British police has finally agreed with me, KTemoc, that the bombers could have been duped. Please read extracts of the article from news.com:
BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a newspaper has reported.
"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph. "It is possible that they did not intend to die."
According to the paper, one police hypothesis is that the bombers were tricked by a "master" who told them they would have time to escape - when in fact the devices were set to go off immediately.
"The bombers' masters might have thought that they couldn't risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators," an unnamed security official told the Telegraph.
Lending weight to the theory is the fact that all four men had paid up their parking tickets before boarding a train at Luton for King's Cross, and that they all bought return tickets to the capital. (KTemoc note: I wasn't even aware of this)
Moreover, the paper said, the men were carrying their explosives inside rucksacks, as opposed to strapped to their bodies as is common practice among suicide bombers.
None were reported to have cried "Allah Akbar" (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge - something which most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do.
It is possible they were duped into believing there would be a delay, but what we know is that they carried bombs onto Tubes and a bus and set them off, killing themselves and innocent people," one senior officer told the paper.
Related postings:
(1) London Bombing – The Plot Thickens
(2) London Bombing – More Details
(3) Bomb-Maker Caught? Bombers Duped?
(4) London Suicide Bombers or Murdered Bombers
(5) London Bombings – Speculations & Counter Speculations
BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a newspaper has reported.
"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph. "It is possible that they did not intend to die."
According to the paper, one police hypothesis is that the bombers were tricked by a "master" who told them they would have time to escape - when in fact the devices were set to go off immediately.
"The bombers' masters might have thought that they couldn't risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators," an unnamed security official told the Telegraph.
Lending weight to the theory is the fact that all four men had paid up their parking tickets before boarding a train at Luton for King's Cross, and that they all bought return tickets to the capital. (KTemoc note: I wasn't even aware of this)
Moreover, the paper said, the men were carrying their explosives inside rucksacks, as opposed to strapped to their bodies as is common practice among suicide bombers.
None were reported to have cried "Allah Akbar" (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge - something which most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do.
It is possible they were duped into believing there would be a delay, but what we know is that they carried bombs onto Tubes and a bus and set them off, killing themselves and innocent people," one senior officer told the paper.
Related postings:
(1) London Bombing – The Plot Thickens
(2) London Bombing – More Details
(3) Bomb-Maker Caught? Bombers Duped?
(4) London Suicide Bombers or Murdered Bombers
(5) London Bombings – Speculations & Counter Speculations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)