Peter C Glover's Wires From The Bunker
Thursday, August 3, 2006
11:22AM - New home for this site!
Do come and say hello!
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
It is clear from their president's latest public statements that Iran is set to to reject the UN's latest resolution requiring it to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. The deadline is August 31. What next for the world's biggest talking shop?
Well it has to be sanctions. In a climate that is increasingly suggesting (once more with feeling) that we placate and appease the unplacatable and unappeasable Islamofascist world that has to mae life even togher for the UN 'peaceniks'. Tony B. is already making noises about "re-thinking the war on terror". He's right. We should decalre outright war on Islamofascism and recognise that we are in a 'slow-burn' World War III situation.
When will we get it? There is no solution to the Middle East Crisis. There is no peace with Islamic militancy. They have been fighting for 1600 years. They are close to getting a nuclear device that will give them a seat at the global power table. Do we really think Islam cares about the Palestinians? If it did why don't the Islamic nations provide them with aid instead of the West? If we were not fighting them in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere they would simply re-double their efforts to bring the war to us. It is tragic when our soldiers are killed overseas.
What Western liberals just cannot cope with is that this has NOTHING to do with poverty (many leading terrorists are shown to come from wealthy backgrounds), Nothing to do with our avoiding offending them (its simply not possible, everything about Western lifestyles offends these people) and it is NOTHING do with culture alone. This is everything to do with religion. Our values are underpinned by the Judeo-Christian worldview. Theirs is underpinned by Islam. We can live side-by-side with Muslim culture (though some of it - such as the repression of women etc. will always, rightly, appal us). Though we attempt to separate church and state, they don't. Religion,culture and politics are all of a piece for Islamists. This is what the West is in denial over.
This war is never going to be resolved. They will not let it be resolved. The question is simply this: does the West intend to remain strong-willed in protecting its moral values and consequent way of life? If it is that only leaves one solution: stopping them getting a nuclear device and continue fighting a low-level, on-going, war. (We can use the Sunni v Shia split to keep them from becomign stronger.) Or capitulating and accepting what they call 'dhimmittude'. Here's a shock for the UN. There is no third way or peaceful resolution with militant religio-fascist bullies who only understand one thing: strength and resolve.
Q Magazine ran a poll to find out which songs most people secretly admit to loving. No 1 came out as ELO's 'Livin' Thing'. I can live with that. I always loved Jeff Lynne's songcraft and voice. Granted the band came out of Birmingham...but they had the good sense to leave it. (There speaks a typical Manchunian.)
Here is the top ten list from the poll. Which would be your no 1?
The Howard League for Penal reform, in common with most social reform groups that have gone off the rails and way beyond their purview in the last fifty years, wants a programme of closing womens prisons. "if we had a planned programme of closures over the next five years, we could," explains the incredibly aptly named Frances Crook, "get women to make amends for the wrongs they've done." That's funny. I thought that's what prisons were for. My mistake. She went on, "It would be safer for the public and there would be fewer victims in the long run."
But isn't the fact theyt are incarcerated the only expeident likely to make the public safe from them? As regards 'in the long run' we must also ask why the 'recall' rate for prisons is at an all-time high. These are individuals released into the community (without any 'rehabilitating service to fulfil) who chose to use their 'early freedom' re-offend. It doesn't quite hand together does it Ms Crook?
The Prison Reform Trust, another group living on Planet Unreal, believes the answer when 'early release' prisoners re-offend is simply not to recall them. "We must stop hauling people back to prison for no good reason", says the Trust. "No good reason" being the breaking of their terms of early release. That will indeed reduce the numbers of offenders who re-offend and are then recalled. You can't argue with that logic.
8:59AM - Currys in hot water?
In a spectacular display of bad marketing luck High Street retailers Currys have put their natty new line in cut-price solar panels on sale - just as the heatwave ends (and the sun disappears with it). Could Currys be in hot water? Only if they don't use their solar panels.
No doubt the MCC - members of the Myth of Climate Change club - will blame global warming for the latest below average temperatures being experienced in many parts of the UK.
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Great news! Thanks to Tony Blair and Arnold Schwarzennegger Britain has been twinned with California. This can have all kinds of ramifications as the two said for "shared experiences" and "finding solutions".
We are likely to see far more Brits swanning around in white shoes and large check trousers, glaringly bold Hawaiin shirts and carrying surf boards. While Arnie will be taking tea and crumpets (no change there then) at the San Diego Carlton Club.
But the real deal was about global warming which both leaders were under the impression was scientifically proven - presumably because of the July heatwave. Easily done. I find it is always useful to take climate science lessons from ex-body builders whose only real knowledge of the weather is looking out of the window in the morning to see if he can top up his tan.
It seems that both California and Britain will share lots of bold new climate projects including bolstering sales of solar panels. Mr Blair did not explain however how the solar panels will be useful in Britain given that Californian has sun and Britain doesn't (except this July).
There's really nothing else to be said. The above title says it all really.
Except perhaps, having heard one or two of his records, this could prove to be his real calling. As he admits himself, "I have always been a scrubber".
As Israel announced its intention not to play the ceasefire game and take the battle to its enemy yesterday (and our enemy - aren't we all at war with terror?) the BBC continues to spend its time drumming up sympathy for those various Hezbollah 'strongholds' that are being destroyed.
This morning a BBC radio reporter trekked around the ruins of Baalbeck in the Bekaa Valley in east Lebanon. He was even given a tour by a local Hezbollah fighter. Aren't these guys supposed to be murderous terroists bent on 'throwing the Jews into the sea' (the first commitment of the Hezbollah Charter)?
It may be a goal to which Aussie filmstar Mel Gibson is committed but surely the rest of us can have no sympathy with it - or those who live attempt to achieve it. And, looking ahead, perhaps what's left of Hezbollah might consider getting Gibson's fellow Aussies from Multiplex in to do the reconstruction work?
Monday, July 31, 2006
This should be good. While Iran has successfully diverted the world's eyes from its fast-developing nuclear programme the UN has now given the Iranians until 31 August to suspend uranium enrichment.
What, I wonder, will the UN do when, come 1 September, Iran has failed to comply? Perhaps issue a resolution demanded it complies with its earlier resoluion? Given that it the UN did this 17 times (!) in the case of Saddam and Iraq (all to no avail) why doesn't the UN issue all 17 now? That way, come September 1, they may just have to think beyond resolutions - and actually do something it is reluctant to countenance: acting.
A round of applause for the Polish premier Lech Kaczynski this morning for calling upon European nations to re-think and re-introduce the death penalty. A Catholic with 'traditional values' Kaczynski says the absence of capital punishment has "given an unimaginable advantage to the perpetrator over the victim".
He continues, "We need to discuss this in Europe. I think that over time Europe will change its view in this regard," he said.
"European civilisation has roads that lead us into the future, but it also has blind alleys - and this is one of them."
I imagine quite a few Western liberals will now require smelling salts?
Afghan PM Karzai is quite right, it is time to turn the screw on Pakistan (as much as I think President Musharaff has done a good job domestically in terribly difficult circumstances). Afghanistran's Taleban problem is receiving succour from over the eastern border.
To stop the Taleban insurgency in Afghanistan without addressing where its chief support is coming from is not getting to the root of the problem.
Nobody wants to see children killed in any conflict and it would be churlish to deny that Qana was something of an own goal for Israel. But there is also a wider context here that means we should, more broadly, be wary of using the term 'innocent civlians' in situations like Southern Lebanon.
There will undoubteldy be 'innocent civilians' caught up in this conflict. It is inevitable. But by no means all of these Southern Lebanese can be considered 'innocent'. The Hezbollah fighters live here. Do we suggest that the wife of a Hezbollah fighter is 'innocent when she cooks her man a meal after a hard day at the rocket launcher?
Then again the people who choose to live here know full well that the area is dominated by Hezbollah - most of whom support Hezbollah. And Hezbollah has been firing rockets from among these 'innocent' villagers for decades. This evil doesn't seem to have worried them too much.
In this particular conflict one might have to conclude that the term 'innocent civilians' needs to be used with some strong qualifications. Even the UN has accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending among refugees".
Friday, July 28, 2006
The BBC again! This is the technique the BBC thinks is fair and balanced interviewing. Take one Middle East conflict and assume moral equivalence for all the parties involved. Avoid focusing on who 'guilt' - who actually started the trouble. Always side with the apparent (military) underdog. Ignore the fact the 'underdogs' lob bombs, sends in suicide bombers and takes innocent (key word alert!) hostages including men serving in their country's national forces.
Next reveal to the world your utter bias by conducting an interview with some poor woman (from among the peoples who started the trouble) who lost her son in the subsequent conflict. Said poor woman (not surprisingly) sobs and poor out her heart demanding to know why the whole thing cannot be resolved around a peace table and by the simple expedient of a prisoner exchange. Utilise her grief to inflame public feeling against those who killed him: Israel.
The report has now established the utter simplicity of the current conflict: both sides are equally to blame and swapping 1 or perhaps 3 innocent Israeli solider(s) for thousands of guilty Palestinians criminals will reinstate peace. And this today is increasingly thought of as justice? And so is pursing such action to prevent the guilty' party repeating what has now been shown to be a highly successful, if immoral, strategy a few weeks down the line with yet more innocents being taken to the same end? It might fly in Unreal World, but not in this one. Yet this was the anatomy of a BBC Today programme report this very morning.
It is evident that is a growing reluctance in society generally, certainly in the mainstream media, to speak in terms of 'guilt' and 'innocence'. Not only when it comes to international conflict but when it comes to other social issues including, for instance, abortion (killing the innocent) v capital punishment (killing the guilty).
Moral equivalence, it seems, is increasingly assumed. This suggests that socially we are moving to a situation where moraliity, in the post-Christian West, is becoming more and more subjective and therefore to be left out of public debate entirely. And nowhere is this exemplified, it seems, than at the media home of PC-liberalism personified: the BBC.
The BBC Radio 4's Today radio programme and their Breakfast TV News (I don't usually catch both) flagged up the corporations latest scaremongering 'non' story asking: Is the Great White Shark coming to Britain? The answer is: only on holiday. But that won't do for the BBC. No scare story you see.
This morning's bunkem surrounded alleged sightings of the said beast off the British south-west coast. There was no actual evidence of course. No pictures. No floating corpses (human or sharkish). The one 'credible' witness was a fisherman who saw "something big, like a shark" jump in the water. If you were not listening carefully you could easily miss that this sighting was in fact some years ago - a one-off situation (if it was a shark at all of course). They then wheeled in the usual 'experts'. One made out the case that they "very well could come to out shores" (he didn't actually speak in italics, they are mine). Of course England could beat Australia in The Ashes in November. But its not likely, let's face it.
The other expert at least had the temerity to be more circumspect pointing out that in 40 years of (oversize) netting in the Bay of Biscay fishermen had only ever caught one Great White. The upshot was that every once in a Great White Moon one may show up on our shores. In other words a total 'non-story' which has not stopped the BBC making a thoroughly mischievious scaremongering special (broadcast this Sunday at 7pm) - and drumming up an audience to watch it.
Still trust the BBC to tell you the truth?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
I saw Newt Gingrich's reference to the 'war on global terror', the Lebanese conflagration, along with other significant developments, all reflecting the onset of World War III. I did not take it too seriously at the time. But he could well be right - and for a number of reason. Many of those key reasons are succinctly expressed in this piece by Jay Bryant over at Real Clear Politics.
Here is how Bryant sums up Gingrich's case:
"Gingrich backs up his fighting words by citing the long list of places, on various continents, where the terrorists have struck. It's an impressive list, but by itself not enough to justify the World War III label. The drug lords and the Mafia operate worldwide, too.
But three factors elevate the radical Islamist threat from nuisance, to serious, to perilous.
First, the Iranian nuclear program. It is the possession of nuclear technology that confers true sovereignty in the world today. Lacking it, tyrants such as Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein saw their countries invaded and crushed. With it, those led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il would be immune from invasion.
Allowing the Iranian government to develop a nuclear bomb is to put that bomb in the hands of Hezbollah. The link between the terrorists and North Korea is more tenuous -- but it may actually be more dangerous, given the mental instability of the Dear Leader.
The second factor is the willingness of the leftist establishment worldwide to take a pass on the whole conflict. When they concern themselves more with the civil rights of the terrorists than with the lives of the victims of terrorism, when they sneer at the brave Iraqis who are struggling to make democracy work there, when they tolerate the view that George W. Bush is a greater threat to world peace than al Qaeda, when they shrug at televised beheadings of innocent hostages, when they throw monkey wrench after monkey wrench into the machinery of the American war effort, they cripple the ability of the West to win the war.
The third factor that makes the radical Islamist threat genuinely perilous to Western civilization (its leftist elements included, if only they were rational enough to understand it) is that the tactics of the radicals challenge traditional military solutions -- as the Israelis are in the process of confirming in their attempt to crush Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. It wouldn't be World War III if the opposition were a group of rag-tag losers without a chance of winning. Both conservatives and liberals are prone to discount the effectiveness of terrorist tactics -- short of the use of nuclear weapons -- and that's a serious mistake."
The recent meeting between Arab nations concerned over the situation in Lebanon produced surprising and (for the West) good results. And now the dissent of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Egypt who condemned Hezbollah's tactics in Southern Lebanon have gone on to act accordingly. Now Turkey and Saudi Arabia have put a stop to Iran using their airspace to send humanitarian relief. They have also been supplying arms and even Revolutionary Guard soldiers (as I reported two days ago).
All of this needs to be seen in a much braoder context of broad concern by many Arab leaders over the next moves of the revolutionary Iranian regime, which they don't trust.
Even Saddam Hussein has had some insightful thoughts on this and the efect the US-led invasion of Iraq (effectively knocking out the military heart of the Arab coalition) has had. Here is what I think is an excellent summary of the braoder Middle East situation, originally published at TCS Daily (for whom I write) and which, yesterday re-appeared as a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
If you want a truly different and broader perspective from that given by the one-dimensional mainstream media try this article: Shaken and Stirred: By liberating Iraq, the US set the stage for the destruction of Hezbollah.
An ancient manuscript copy of the Book of Psalms has been found in an Irish bog. This is good news for the West and the Judeo-Christian world. If we can bring in a CSI-type team to check for DNA we may be able to pin the crime on ancient Islamofascists.
It would certainly help to take the heat out of the 'pages of the Koran down the toilet' claims against US soliders at the Guanatanamo Holdiay Home for the Braindead.
NB. 'Bog' is an English euphemism for 'lavatory'. And a euphemism is...oh forget it.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
When I suggested the other day that Hezbollah might consider aiming a missile or two at their allies at UN HQ in East Manhattan, I didn't think the Israelis might actually consider doing it for them.
But the reality is that the destruction and killings of UN observers is another tragedy of war. What on earth would the Israelis have to gain by doing it? Except bringiing the approbation of the world - including their allies - on their shoulders? That is what makes UN General Secretary's claim that it was "intentional" so bizarre -revealing something of the judgment of the man, not to say his real diplomatic skills.
However, if the Israelis might re-consider my earlier 'plan' and taking out UN HQ instead (NB. A UN HQ pre-warned and cleared of ALL its staffI hasten to add - including even Kofi...he'll be in the Corruption Planning Room) they would be doing the world a great service.
Having said all of that, the prayers of my wife and myself are really with the families and friends of the UN observers killed yesterday.
Just what we needed. Confirmation from weather satellite scientists that the UK is sweltering in the current heatwave. We would never have known it unless the science 'experts' had not told us.
And just once I wish these guys could talk about hot or cold spells of weather without feeling they have to resort to their (usually wrong) crystal balls and predicting the 'possibility' of permament climate change. It is as if we have never had 'unseasonable' weather before, hot or cold. It was only December and March where the UK's coldest months for a while were recorded.
Here is just the kind of congenital idiocy that peppers these reports: "Current climate change predictions for the UK suggest that the frequency of these extreme periods of high temperature and pollution wil increase. " For this, the MCC (Myth of Climate Change) award for the week goes to Dr Gary Corlett, University of Leicester. Note the careful use of the followng phrases: "Current climate change prediction".
Wow, where do I start with that one. He says "current" because climate changers change their computer modeling predictions like the rest of us change shirts in this heat. Then there is the assumption that "climate change" is a reality at all (when real science says we cannot possibly know while examinng such a short period of time as our own lifespan offers). Then he admits they even then it is only a prediction based on the vaguest understanding we have of climatology.
In short, they don't have the merest clue what the climate will do next month, never mind in one hundred years. And these guys are 'scientists'?
Navigate: (Previous 20 entries)