Just in from cyberspace!
(actually shamelessly plagiarised from another blog by Tiger, my Equality and Diversity Director, shortly before his narrow escape at the hands of a rabid Muslim suicide tomcat armed only with a copy of "The Pussies Guide to the Koran" and a collar packed with high-density remote-control exploding fishcakes.)
-----
Increased Security Levels: Britain
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Slightly Miffed" to "Mildly Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may have to be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the English issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "See You Jimmy, Who The Fuck Dae Ye Think You're Looking At" through "Fuck Off Reet Noo" to "Reet, Let's Banjo The Fuckers." They don't have any other levels. This is the main reason they have been used on the front line in the British army for the last 300 years.
The Irish have raised their alert level from "To be sure, you don't want to be worrying about dem little guys in turbans, dey're harmless enough, sure dey are" to "Begorrah, Paddy, would you look at dat! Dem little brown fookers have only hijacked Murphy's tractor and driven it into the duckpond outside Dublin Airport."
The Welsh have also raised their security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!" In addition, extra supplies of duct tape have been stockpiled to deal with the potential risk of the hind legs of sheep becoming detached from farmers' Wellington boots during an apocalyptic nuclear explosion and the resultant fallout.
Increased Security Levels - Europe
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.
However, it's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
Sicily, on the other hand, has raised it's alert level to "Nice-a little Muslim community you got-a there, Mohammed. Be-a shame if anything was-a to happen to it. Know what-a I mean?"
The Germans have also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose" (with the associated caveat of "Ve vere only obeying orders, honest!")
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels. A leaked security document shows the one and only alert level to be "Grease arse copiously with Vaseline, bend over and grasp ankles securely."
The Spanish, while content for the moment to leave their alert level at "manana, manana" are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Increased Security Levels - Rest of World
Americans have raised their alert level from "Don't you mess with my country if you know what's good for you, you dumb-ass raghead" to "Jeezus, where did that goddam tower block go? Now I'm really gonna kick your motherfuckin' ass!"
The Americans are also carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their Middle Eastern allies, just in case. (Although the Obama administration is at pains to point out that just because a daisy-cutter has obliterated your herd of mountain goats, that doesn't mean that outreach to the Muslim world is any less important than it was before.)
Like Wales, New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!" but without the stockpiling of duct tape for Wellington boots. (except in Wellington, naturally.)
Due to continuing defence cutbacks (the air force being a squadron of spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes, and the navy some toy plastic boats in the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "Fuck, I hope Australia will come and rescue us."
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright mate, let's crack open another couple of Fosters."
Three more escalation levels remain, "Crikey!", "I think we might need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
The Chinese have raised their security level from "You want soy sauce with that?" to "|You no be so fucking cocky if you knew my brother was in Triad!"
-----
The increased security levels around the world have prompted predictable rumblings from the Muslim community, especially here in Birmingham where I live, however seasoned observers have put this down to a particularly nasty contamination in the local vindaloo curry paste factory.
On a separate note, Tiger, my Equality and Diversity Director, has petitioned the one-eyed malodorous Scottish git, also known as the PM Gordon Brown, for a nationwide ban on the sale of any materials that might conceivably be used in the construction of high-density remote-control exploding fishcakes to all Muslim tomcats.
He already has the 50,000 signatures (carefully culled from the 2010 Birmingham Fraudulent Postal Vote Database) and the £10,000 bribe required for our local MP to raise the issue at PM's Question Time.
Although I have pointed out to him that it's not easy to tell a potentially rabid Muslim suicide tomcat from a more moderate Muslim tomcat, and that such profiling might inflame the Muslim tomcat community as a whole, he is still of the opinion that in the interests of national security, a clampdown on all Muslim tomcats will be necessary sooner or later. He has even suggested that the compulsory insertion of a small microchip, perhaps under the skin in the nape of their neck, might assist the authorities in tracking their whereabouts.
While it is certainly a radical suggestion, I have to say that I do have some sympathy with his point of view. We will have to see how this pans out.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
I'm really pleased to see......
.....that Geert Wilders has had such a great welcome in the United States.
Here
Here
and here.
It's too bad that our own government here in the UK didn't have the cojones to let this brave, principled and much-maligned man speak truth to power.
At least his political party is currently #1 in the opinion polls in the Netherlands - Woo Hoo!!!
If only we could swap him for the malodorous one-eyed Scottish git currently occupying 10 Downing Street (as Jeremy Clarkson might have said.)
Here
Here
and here.
It's too bad that our own government here in the UK didn't have the cojones to let this brave, principled and much-maligned man speak truth to power.
At least his political party is currently #1 in the opinion polls in the Netherlands - Woo Hoo!!!
If only we could swap him for the malodorous one-eyed Scottish git currently occupying 10 Downing Street (as Jeremy Clarkson might have said.)
Just in case you were wondering.....
.....why it's so important to take out Iran's nuclear facilities NOW.....
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/beginning-of-end.html
I have a small side bet going on with my recently-promoted Equality and Diversity Director to the effect that if Iran is allowed to continue development of nuclear weapons, then within five years, Israel will be hit with nuclear bombs. That's March 2014, if anyone wants to take me up on it.
And if Israel goes down, all Freedom Loving Infidels will be next.
My Equality and Diversity Director thinks otherwise. He thinks that an international initiative of peace and love, followed up with generous shipments of processed chicken and tuna steaks to the people of Iran to show our goodwill, will avert such an apocalyptic scenario.
But then, he is a cat after all. I'm not so sure that I should trust his political instincts. Particularly as he's taken to reading the Guardian (a left-leaning newspaper here in the UK, subscribed to mostly by loony liberals.) Although he assures me he only does it for the crossword.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/beginning-of-end.html
I have a small side bet going on with my recently-promoted Equality and Diversity Director to the effect that if Iran is allowed to continue development of nuclear weapons, then within five years, Israel will be hit with nuclear bombs. That's March 2014, if anyone wants to take me up on it.
And if Israel goes down, all Freedom Loving Infidels will be next.
My Equality and Diversity Director thinks otherwise. He thinks that an international initiative of peace and love, followed up with generous shipments of processed chicken and tuna steaks to the people of Iran to show our goodwill, will avert such an apocalyptic scenario.
But then, he is a cat after all. I'm not so sure that I should trust his political instincts. Particularly as he's taken to reading the Guardian (a left-leaning newspaper here in the UK, subscribed to mostly by loony liberals.) Although he assures me he only does it for the crossword.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
The value of a human life.....
.....not so very much, when put into context with maintaining a Muslim peer's reputation.
Is anybody else as outraged as I am over this light sentence?
Is anybody else as outraged as I am over this light sentence?
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Banning Wilders
A must-read article by Theodore Dalrymple.
When I was a prison doctor, not a few prisoners would demand tranquillizers from me, claiming to be so agitated that they would soon kill someone if they were not calmed down.
This was the kind of blackmail to which some of the doctors, especially the younger ones, did give in; but I quickly learned that it was both morally wrong and inexpedient in practice to do so.
The conversations would go something like this:
‘I need my valium, doctor.’
‘Why?’
‘I’m all wound up.’
‘What about?’
‘If I don’t get my valium, I’ll kill someone.’
‘I advise you very strongly not to.’
‘If I don’t get valium and I kill someone, it’ll be on your conscience.’
‘No it won’t. It is you who will be guilty. I am not responsible for your actions.’
If the man persisted in his threat, I assured him that I should still eat my dinner and sleep soundly even if he carried out his threat.
I appeared firmer than I felt. I had little doubt that if he did commit a murder, not my conscience but the official enquiry afterwards would blame me, because officialdom and professionals are now deemed to be in loco parentis to all those who come under their purview, and therefore responsible for their actions.
No man did carry out his threat, however; and I knew from experience that if I gave in to their blackmail I would never hear the end of it.
In writing a prescription, I would have created a rod with which to beat my own back: before long, the man would return, claiming that the amount I had prescribed was insufficient to ‘hold’ him, that he needed more, and for longer, indeed for ever; and the ensuing scenes in my office would grow ever more desperate and threatening. I discovered that the best policy was to let your nay be nay, as the Good Book puts it; indeed, I became known as ‘Dr No,’ and in time the threats died out. I sought not popularity, which in those circumstances, as in so many others, is akin to contempt, but respect; a reputation for doing all in my medical power to assist the genuinely ill and suffering, allied to an absolute refusal to be led down any garden path.
Let us now turn from the sublime (prison) to the ridiculous (the British government). In its wisdom, that august institution declared that the Dutch member of parliament, Geert Wilders, who is invariably designated as being of the far-right, a prohibited immigrant, and refused him entry into our green and pleasant land. The Mother of Parliaments is fast turning into the Step-mother of Parliaments.
As everyone knows by now, Mr. Wilders made a short film called Fitna (Struggle), arguing in a powerful rhetorical way a causative connection between certain verses in the Koran and brutal acts of modern terrorism. The film is uncompromising, to put it mildly; and whether or not Mr. Wilders’ interpretation of the verses is correct, few could deny that at least some Moslems have taken it to be correct. They have differed from Mr. Wilders only in their moral evaluation of the injunctions that they have both found in them. He thinks cutting off the heads of unbelievers is a bad thing, they think it a good thing.
Those who argued for the exclusion of Mr. Wilders from our haven of peace and prosperity claimed that his presence would stir up trouble, perhaps even violence, and that (therefore) he and his film constituted an incitement to hatred.
This, of course, is ludicrous. I have no doubt that Mr. Wilders despises Islam; he probably thinks that its prophet, far from being a model for mankind, is presented as a man with many and serious faults; its holy book a derivative mish-mash with bad passages thrown in, practically unreadable to all but believers; its influence in the world wholly deleterious, imprisoning hundreds of millions of people in a world view that is incompatible with modernity.
But it is his right to think and to say all this; and at no point has he ever suggested that anyone should harm a Moslem, nor would anyone believe that it were an extenuation of such an attack that the perpetrator had seen his film or listened to his pronouncements. His view of Islam, while crude and provocative, is no more crude or provocative than that of the views expressed by many Moslems of what they call Hindu polytheism.
Of course, Mr. Wilders is not a man who believes that free speech should have no limits. He has himself argued for the banning of the Koran on precisely the grounds that it is an incitement to hatred, violence and murder; I need hardly rehearse the arguments against this preposterous proposal.
It is obvious that if anyone were moved to violence by the presence of Mr. Wilders in the country, the responsibility would be the perpetrator’s and the perpetrator’s alone. In a free society, you are at liberty to be as indignant and offended as you choose, by whomever and whatever you choose; but you have to conform your conduct to the law. You have no right to consider your own indignation as evidence in itself of incitement. That way totalitarianism lies.
The contemptible moral cowardice of the British political class was perfectly illustrated by an article that appeared on the website of The Guardian newspaper by the prominent Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, Christopher Huhne. His utter pusillanimity is evident in the following: Fitna’s shocking images of violence and its emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.
As so often with sentences written by the pusillanimous, it would take an entire essay to reveal all the evasions, equivocations and underlying false assumptions. Let me merely point out that an appeal to anti-Islamic emotions (based, incidentally, upon undeniable, if slanted, evidence) is not incitement to harm Moslems, any more than an appeal to anti-socialist or anti-conservative emotions is an appeal to harm socialists or conservatives. So it is not incitement.
Nor does Mr. Huhne specify which people will be harmed by the images and the feeling. One suspects very strongly that what Mr. Huhne really means is this: that a group of Moslems of undefined size would commit acts of violence if Mr Wilders were allowed in the country. If he had been a prison doctor, Mr. Huhne would have prescribed valium for all he was worth, for whoever demanded it.
The contemptible Mr. Huhne makes his cowardice even more clear when he writes: I have in the past defended [the right of] people with some particularly odious views [to come to this country], such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr. Gerald Toben.
So what are the differences between the cases of Dr. Toben and Mr. Wilders? It seems to me that there are two: the first is that while holocaust denial is completely irrational, Mr Wilders has at least some evidence for what he says. There are verses enjoining violence in the Koran, and there are Moslems who are violent in the way enjoined, even if the connection between the two is very much more complex than Mr. Wilders suggests.
The second, and much more important, difference is that while the Jews in Britain were unlikely to cause any violence as a result of Dr. Toben’s presence in the country, a few Moslems might possibly (by no means certainly) have caused violence if Mr. Wilders had been let in. In other words, the implicit threat of violence is what for Mr. Huhne made
the difference. A fine principle to set before the country, a real basis for lasting peace and security.
The most heartening thing about this article was the response, particularly by Moslems (or those with Moslem names, whom I assume to have been Moslems).
One said that Mr. Wilders was right and that the offending passages of the Koran should henceforth be removed (voluntarily, not by decree). Of course such tampering with a book that is supposed by the faithful to be the direct word of God presents some logical difficulties; but it so happens that I was speaking not long ago with an enlightened Moslem woman, who claimed to be religious, who told me (not in connection with Mr Wilders) that the Koran had to be interpreted in the light of the fact that it was written many centuries ago in a society very different from any existing now.
Two other Moslems wrote in to say that, while they disliked Mr. Wilders intensely, they felt that Moslems could deal with his argument by argumentation. In other words, they acknowledged that he had an argument, but thought it was mistaken and could be shown to be false.
By banning Mr. Wilders from entry into the country, then, the British government revealed that, at heart, it agrees with, or even went beyond, him: that Moslems are predominantly violent irrational bigots, incapable of holding their own in argument, and of whom it, the government, is physically afraid.
Americans should not be complacent. A few days before last Christmas, I went to one of the Indian restaurants in my small town in England, which is owned and run by Moslems. It was hung with Christmas decorations, and when I left the staff wished me a Merry Christmas and handed me a Christmas card. And then I thought of the Christmas cards I had received from America, with their snivelling, pusillanimous greeting of Happy Holidays, not one of them daring to mention Christmas.
---------
Theodore Dalrymple rarely wastes a word when writing his essays - so I have reproduced this article in full. The time will come when we will realise the truth of his words. Sooner than you may think.
When I was a prison doctor, not a few prisoners would demand tranquillizers from me, claiming to be so agitated that they would soon kill someone if they were not calmed down.
This was the kind of blackmail to which some of the doctors, especially the younger ones, did give in; but I quickly learned that it was both morally wrong and inexpedient in practice to do so.
The conversations would go something like this:
‘I need my valium, doctor.’
‘Why?’
‘I’m all wound up.’
‘What about?’
‘If I don’t get my valium, I’ll kill someone.’
‘I advise you very strongly not to.’
‘If I don’t get valium and I kill someone, it’ll be on your conscience.’
‘No it won’t. It is you who will be guilty. I am not responsible for your actions.’
If the man persisted in his threat, I assured him that I should still eat my dinner and sleep soundly even if he carried out his threat.
I appeared firmer than I felt. I had little doubt that if he did commit a murder, not my conscience but the official enquiry afterwards would blame me, because officialdom and professionals are now deemed to be in loco parentis to all those who come under their purview, and therefore responsible for their actions.
No man did carry out his threat, however; and I knew from experience that if I gave in to their blackmail I would never hear the end of it.
In writing a prescription, I would have created a rod with which to beat my own back: before long, the man would return, claiming that the amount I had prescribed was insufficient to ‘hold’ him, that he needed more, and for longer, indeed for ever; and the ensuing scenes in my office would grow ever more desperate and threatening. I discovered that the best policy was to let your nay be nay, as the Good Book puts it; indeed, I became known as ‘Dr No,’ and in time the threats died out. I sought not popularity, which in those circumstances, as in so many others, is akin to contempt, but respect; a reputation for doing all in my medical power to assist the genuinely ill and suffering, allied to an absolute refusal to be led down any garden path.
Let us now turn from the sublime (prison) to the ridiculous (the British government). In its wisdom, that august institution declared that the Dutch member of parliament, Geert Wilders, who is invariably designated as being of the far-right, a prohibited immigrant, and refused him entry into our green and pleasant land. The Mother of Parliaments is fast turning into the Step-mother of Parliaments.
As everyone knows by now, Mr. Wilders made a short film called Fitna (Struggle), arguing in a powerful rhetorical way a causative connection between certain verses in the Koran and brutal acts of modern terrorism. The film is uncompromising, to put it mildly; and whether or not Mr. Wilders’ interpretation of the verses is correct, few could deny that at least some Moslems have taken it to be correct. They have differed from Mr. Wilders only in their moral evaluation of the injunctions that they have both found in them. He thinks cutting off the heads of unbelievers is a bad thing, they think it a good thing.
Those who argued for the exclusion of Mr. Wilders from our haven of peace and prosperity claimed that his presence would stir up trouble, perhaps even violence, and that (therefore) he and his film constituted an incitement to hatred.
This, of course, is ludicrous. I have no doubt that Mr. Wilders despises Islam; he probably thinks that its prophet, far from being a model for mankind, is presented as a man with many and serious faults; its holy book a derivative mish-mash with bad passages thrown in, practically unreadable to all but believers; its influence in the world wholly deleterious, imprisoning hundreds of millions of people in a world view that is incompatible with modernity.
But it is his right to think and to say all this; and at no point has he ever suggested that anyone should harm a Moslem, nor would anyone believe that it were an extenuation of such an attack that the perpetrator had seen his film or listened to his pronouncements. His view of Islam, while crude and provocative, is no more crude or provocative than that of the views expressed by many Moslems of what they call Hindu polytheism.
Of course, Mr. Wilders is not a man who believes that free speech should have no limits. He has himself argued for the banning of the Koran on precisely the grounds that it is an incitement to hatred, violence and murder; I need hardly rehearse the arguments against this preposterous proposal.
It is obvious that if anyone were moved to violence by the presence of Mr. Wilders in the country, the responsibility would be the perpetrator’s and the perpetrator’s alone. In a free society, you are at liberty to be as indignant and offended as you choose, by whomever and whatever you choose; but you have to conform your conduct to the law. You have no right to consider your own indignation as evidence in itself of incitement. That way totalitarianism lies.
The contemptible moral cowardice of the British political class was perfectly illustrated by an article that appeared on the website of The Guardian newspaper by the prominent Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, Christopher Huhne. His utter pusillanimity is evident in the following: Fitna’s shocking images of violence and its emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.
As so often with sentences written by the pusillanimous, it would take an entire essay to reveal all the evasions, equivocations and underlying false assumptions. Let me merely point out that an appeal to anti-Islamic emotions (based, incidentally, upon undeniable, if slanted, evidence) is not incitement to harm Moslems, any more than an appeal to anti-socialist or anti-conservative emotions is an appeal to harm socialists or conservatives. So it is not incitement.
Nor does Mr. Huhne specify which people will be harmed by the images and the feeling. One suspects very strongly that what Mr. Huhne really means is this: that a group of Moslems of undefined size would commit acts of violence if Mr Wilders were allowed in the country. If he had been a prison doctor, Mr. Huhne would have prescribed valium for all he was worth, for whoever demanded it.
The contemptible Mr. Huhne makes his cowardice even more clear when he writes: I have in the past defended [the right of] people with some particularly odious views [to come to this country], such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr. Gerald Toben.
So what are the differences between the cases of Dr. Toben and Mr. Wilders? It seems to me that there are two: the first is that while holocaust denial is completely irrational, Mr Wilders has at least some evidence for what he says. There are verses enjoining violence in the Koran, and there are Moslems who are violent in the way enjoined, even if the connection between the two is very much more complex than Mr. Wilders suggests.
The second, and much more important, difference is that while the Jews in Britain were unlikely to cause any violence as a result of Dr. Toben’s presence in the country, a few Moslems might possibly (by no means certainly) have caused violence if Mr. Wilders had been let in. In other words, the implicit threat of violence is what for Mr. Huhne made
the difference. A fine principle to set before the country, a real basis for lasting peace and security.
The most heartening thing about this article was the response, particularly by Moslems (or those with Moslem names, whom I assume to have been Moslems).
One said that Mr. Wilders was right and that the offending passages of the Koran should henceforth be removed (voluntarily, not by decree). Of course such tampering with a book that is supposed by the faithful to be the direct word of God presents some logical difficulties; but it so happens that I was speaking not long ago with an enlightened Moslem woman, who claimed to be religious, who told me (not in connection with Mr Wilders) that the Koran had to be interpreted in the light of the fact that it was written many centuries ago in a society very different from any existing now.
Two other Moslems wrote in to say that, while they disliked Mr. Wilders intensely, they felt that Moslems could deal with his argument by argumentation. In other words, they acknowledged that he had an argument, but thought it was mistaken and could be shown to be false.
By banning Mr. Wilders from entry into the country, then, the British government revealed that, at heart, it agrees with, or even went beyond, him: that Moslems are predominantly violent irrational bigots, incapable of holding their own in argument, and of whom it, the government, is physically afraid.
Americans should not be complacent. A few days before last Christmas, I went to one of the Indian restaurants in my small town in England, which is owned and run by Moslems. It was hung with Christmas decorations, and when I left the staff wished me a Merry Christmas and handed me a Christmas card. And then I thought of the Christmas cards I had received from America, with their snivelling, pusillanimous greeting of Happy Holidays, not one of them daring to mention Christmas.
---------
Theodore Dalrymple rarely wastes a word when writing his essays - so I have reproduced this article in full. The time will come when we will realise the truth of his words. Sooner than you may think.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Who Exactly Is Lord Ahmed?
In the wake of the hugely anti-democratic barring of Geert Wilders from the UK last week by the ex-primary school teacher "Jackboot" Jacqui Smith, the British author Paul Weston makes some trenchant observations:
Who is Lord Ahmed?
Britain has shed a great deal of blood and made a great deal of sacrifice in order to stand defiant, proud and undefeated (at home at least; away matches are always more difficult) since its defences were last breached in 1688 when a Dutchman, William of Orange, deposed King James II.
In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons and Hitlers of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling its great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.
Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle-aged rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.
Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?
Step forward, Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.
But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s résumé.
Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the taxpaying British public, and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.
In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.
In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and mulitfaithed country that Britain is now privileged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.
In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at — wait for it — the House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.
When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew-hating monologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!
According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: “No Jews. Just Right.”) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.
But such affiliations hold no fear, it would seem, for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less-than-moderate Islam, affiliated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-Semitic variety.
In July 2005, after four self-detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. After exploding, no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?
In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue its then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.
In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regents Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh — a British prison — for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.
Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.
Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive”, however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.
In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdie’s crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.
In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:
“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”
In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of its Holy Book’s Unholy Words and its Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.
A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer Great Britain.
Or so we thought.
Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.
I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary-school-teacher-turned-Home-Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans — one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.
Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it is even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.
Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words “sedition” and “treason”.
Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of what she has allowed to happen. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.
Who is Lord Ahmed?
Britain has shed a great deal of blood and made a great deal of sacrifice in order to stand defiant, proud and undefeated (at home at least; away matches are always more difficult) since its defences were last breached in 1688 when a Dutchman, William of Orange, deposed King James II.
In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons and Hitlers of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling its great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.
Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle-aged rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.
Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?
Step forward, Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.
But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s résumé.
Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the taxpaying British public, and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.
In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.
In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and mulitfaithed country that Britain is now privileged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.
In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at — wait for it — the House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.
When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew-hating monologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!
According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: “No Jews. Just Right.”) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.
But such affiliations hold no fear, it would seem, for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less-than-moderate Islam, affiliated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-Semitic variety.
In July 2005, after four self-detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. After exploding, no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?
In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue its then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.
In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regents Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh — a British prison — for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.
Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.
Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive”, however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.
In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdie’s crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.
In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:
“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”
In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of its Holy Book’s Unholy Words and its Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.
A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer Great Britain.
Or so we thought.
Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.
I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary-school-teacher-turned-Home-Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans — one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.
Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it is even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.
Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words “sedition” and “treason”.
Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of what she has allowed to happen. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.
Several Views on Dealing With Piracy in Somalia
Roger Middleton - The Independent, 18 February 2009:
International navies are patrolling Somali waters looking for pirates. This action, while welcome, is only addressing the symptoms of Somalia’s collapse. It is not a solution to piracy and nor will it resolve Somalia’s instability. If we want to secure the sea and contribute to peace in Somalia we need imaginative approaches. What Somalia needs more than a naval force is an international coastguard. Sending navies to fight piracy in Somalia is a way of being seen to take the “right” kind of action but with minimal risk to life or equipment.
However, it does not alter the fundamental factors driving people into piracy; the ability to make thousands of dollars per operation, in a country with a GDP per head of $600 is far greater than the disincentive of arrest.
Piracy cannot be defeated by navies. That can only happen when law is established and alternatives are presented to the pirates. Navies can certainly help to contain piracy and do perform an indispensable role protecting the delivery of food aid, but they cannot end this problem from the sea. A coastguard, however, is better designed for what is a law and order issue, and as part of a comprehensive approach to Somalia’s instability offers a real prospect for progress.
Why are so many nations then sending their ships and sailors to the eastern Indian Ocean? Some say they are attempting to protect fishing fleets trawling for tuna – pirates have often used illegal fishing as an excuse – but they are drawn by the money and not a desire to protect coastal fishermen.
Somalia’s problems are greater than piracy. It is chronically unstable and dangerous and millions of its citizens need humanitarian aid. The naval presence off Somalia’s coast is a good thing for sailors and shipping companies; it makes them less likely to be attacked and means that someone will be on hand during any period in captivity. The fundamental causes of piracy are not being addressed however: there must be a political settlement on land. A coastguard that combats piracy and protects Somali fishing could be the waterborne element of a wider diplomatic strategy to bring peace and stability to Somalia.
Jeffery Gettleman, New York Times, 05 February 2009:
NAIROBI, Kenya — The saga over the Ukrainian arms freighter hijacked off Somalia’s coast more than four months ago drew to a close on Thursday almost exactly the way the pirates had predicted: with the booty.
According to the pirates and maritime officials in Kenya, the ship’s owners paid $3.2 million — in cash, dropped by parachute — and on Thursday evening the last of the heavily armed pirates made their way off the ship.
“The fact that this took so long, that’s not good,” said one of the pirates, Isse Mohammed, in a telephone interview. “But we got the cash in hand, and that’s good. That’s what we’re interested in.”
Mr. Isse added that his gang would continue “hunting ships” because “that’s our business.”
But first, Mr. Isse said, he had to escape. Ever since the Ukrainian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in dinghies, it had been ringed by American warships determined to keep the pirates from unloading the weapons.
Mr. Isse said that the pirate leaders were divvying up the money in Xarardheere, a notorious pirate den near the ship’s anchorage, and that he and his colleagues had deputized young gunmen to stay aboard until all the pirate leaders had gotten away. Only then, he said, would the ship be released.
Late Thursday, Viktor Nikolsky, the acting captain of the ship, called the Faina, said it was finally under the protection of the United States Navy and would head to Mombasa, Kenya, the Associated Press reported.
More than 100 ships have been attacked in Somalia’s pirate-infested seas in the past year, but no hijacking has attracted as much attention as this one. It stirred fears of a new epoch of piracy and precipitated an unprecedented naval response. Warships from China, India, Italy, Russia, France, the United States, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Greece, Turkey, Britain and Germany have all joined the antipiracy campaign.
The Ukrainians’ doomed voyage began in late August, when the Faina departed the Ukrainian port of Oktyabrsk, near the Black Sea, bound for Mombasa. It was a tall, lumbering freighter. Its captain was Russian and its 21 crew members were mostly Ukrainian. Its cargo was secret.
On Sept. 25, the Faina broadcast an S O S. Three small speedboats were heading straight at it fast — the typical pirate swarm.
On Sept. 26, the news broke: The Faina had been hijacked 200 miles off Somalia’s coast, and its cargo, revealed reluctantly by the Kenyan government, included 33 T-72 Soviet-era tanks, 150 grenade launchers, 6 antiaircraft guns and heaps of ammunition.
American officials worried that Islamist insurgents ashore could get the weapons and drastically change the dynamic in Somalia, where a weak transitional government has been trying to resist militant Islamist groups.
By early Thursday night, United States Navy officials said no weapons had been unloaded. But witnesses ashore reported pirates removing grenade launchers. Mr. Isse said the pirates had tossed some antiaircraft guns overboard “so we can get them later.” He seemed unaware of saltwater’s corrosive effects.
The pirates always said they were in it for the money — initially they had demanded $35 million. There were mixed reports about their treatment of hostages. The captain died mysteriously after a few days, which the pirates attributed to illness. They kept his body in a refrigerator.
The destination of the weapons remains unclear. The Kenyan government says that it owns them, but the pirates and Western officials have said that the arms are destined for former rebels in southern Sudan and that Kenya was the transit point.
Piracy is a huge business in Somalia, which has limped along since 1991 without a functioning central government. Many maritime officials have criticized ship owners who pay ransoms, saying that only leads to more attacks.
Hugh Fitzergerald - New English Review, 05 February 2009:
You have armed men on every ship. You blast every small boat out of the water if it comes within several hundred yards. You do not pick up survivors. You locate, and then bomb from the air, the villas of all known pirates (agents on the ground can locate them), and all of their relatives,their friends, their relations. You do this, again and again. You seize their assets in banks. You prevent them from leaving Somalia. You prevent their relatives from leaving Somalia. You make their lives hell, and the piracy comes to an end the way other cases of piracy have been brought to an end. The only other way is to seize the whole country, the way the French felt compelled, after decades that followed centuries, of enduring the Barbary Pirates, to do in 1830 with Algeria. But that, today, is not desirable nor practical. From afar, from the air, but making sure that no pirate is left to enjoy his loot, either because his loot (and what it paid for) has been destroyed, or because he has.
Tiger - Feline Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator for Infidel Enterprises: Yeah, what Hugh said. Now, where's my tuna?
International navies are patrolling Somali waters looking for pirates. This action, while welcome, is only addressing the symptoms of Somalia’s collapse. It is not a solution to piracy and nor will it resolve Somalia’s instability. If we want to secure the sea and contribute to peace in Somalia we need imaginative approaches. What Somalia needs more than a naval force is an international coastguard. Sending navies to fight piracy in Somalia is a way of being seen to take the “right” kind of action but with minimal risk to life or equipment.
However, it does not alter the fundamental factors driving people into piracy; the ability to make thousands of dollars per operation, in a country with a GDP per head of $600 is far greater than the disincentive of arrest.
Piracy cannot be defeated by navies. That can only happen when law is established and alternatives are presented to the pirates. Navies can certainly help to contain piracy and do perform an indispensable role protecting the delivery of food aid, but they cannot end this problem from the sea. A coastguard, however, is better designed for what is a law and order issue, and as part of a comprehensive approach to Somalia’s instability offers a real prospect for progress.
Why are so many nations then sending their ships and sailors to the eastern Indian Ocean? Some say they are attempting to protect fishing fleets trawling for tuna – pirates have often used illegal fishing as an excuse – but they are drawn by the money and not a desire to protect coastal fishermen.
Somalia’s problems are greater than piracy. It is chronically unstable and dangerous and millions of its citizens need humanitarian aid. The naval presence off Somalia’s coast is a good thing for sailors and shipping companies; it makes them less likely to be attacked and means that someone will be on hand during any period in captivity. The fundamental causes of piracy are not being addressed however: there must be a political settlement on land. A coastguard that combats piracy and protects Somali fishing could be the waterborne element of a wider diplomatic strategy to bring peace and stability to Somalia.
Jeffery Gettleman, New York Times, 05 February 2009:
NAIROBI, Kenya — The saga over the Ukrainian arms freighter hijacked off Somalia’s coast more than four months ago drew to a close on Thursday almost exactly the way the pirates had predicted: with the booty.
According to the pirates and maritime officials in Kenya, the ship’s owners paid $3.2 million — in cash, dropped by parachute — and on Thursday evening the last of the heavily armed pirates made their way off the ship.
“The fact that this took so long, that’s not good,” said one of the pirates, Isse Mohammed, in a telephone interview. “But we got the cash in hand, and that’s good. That’s what we’re interested in.”
Mr. Isse added that his gang would continue “hunting ships” because “that’s our business.”
But first, Mr. Isse said, he had to escape. Ever since the Ukrainian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in dinghies, it had been ringed by American warships determined to keep the pirates from unloading the weapons.
Mr. Isse said that the pirate leaders were divvying up the money in Xarardheere, a notorious pirate den near the ship’s anchorage, and that he and his colleagues had deputized young gunmen to stay aboard until all the pirate leaders had gotten away. Only then, he said, would the ship be released.
Late Thursday, Viktor Nikolsky, the acting captain of the ship, called the Faina, said it was finally under the protection of the United States Navy and would head to Mombasa, Kenya, the Associated Press reported.
More than 100 ships have been attacked in Somalia’s pirate-infested seas in the past year, but no hijacking has attracted as much attention as this one. It stirred fears of a new epoch of piracy and precipitated an unprecedented naval response. Warships from China, India, Italy, Russia, France, the United States, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Greece, Turkey, Britain and Germany have all joined the antipiracy campaign.
The Ukrainians’ doomed voyage began in late August, when the Faina departed the Ukrainian port of Oktyabrsk, near the Black Sea, bound for Mombasa. It was a tall, lumbering freighter. Its captain was Russian and its 21 crew members were mostly Ukrainian. Its cargo was secret.
On Sept. 25, the Faina broadcast an S O S. Three small speedboats were heading straight at it fast — the typical pirate swarm.
On Sept. 26, the news broke: The Faina had been hijacked 200 miles off Somalia’s coast, and its cargo, revealed reluctantly by the Kenyan government, included 33 T-72 Soviet-era tanks, 150 grenade launchers, 6 antiaircraft guns and heaps of ammunition.
American officials worried that Islamist insurgents ashore could get the weapons and drastically change the dynamic in Somalia, where a weak transitional government has been trying to resist militant Islamist groups.
By early Thursday night, United States Navy officials said no weapons had been unloaded. But witnesses ashore reported pirates removing grenade launchers. Mr. Isse said the pirates had tossed some antiaircraft guns overboard “so we can get them later.” He seemed unaware of saltwater’s corrosive effects.
The pirates always said they were in it for the money — initially they had demanded $35 million. There were mixed reports about their treatment of hostages. The captain died mysteriously after a few days, which the pirates attributed to illness. They kept his body in a refrigerator.
The destination of the weapons remains unclear. The Kenyan government says that it owns them, but the pirates and Western officials have said that the arms are destined for former rebels in southern Sudan and that Kenya was the transit point.
Piracy is a huge business in Somalia, which has limped along since 1991 without a functioning central government. Many maritime officials have criticized ship owners who pay ransoms, saying that only leads to more attacks.
Hugh Fitzergerald - New English Review, 05 February 2009:
You have armed men on every ship. You blast every small boat out of the water if it comes within several hundred yards. You do not pick up survivors. You locate, and then bomb from the air, the villas of all known pirates (agents on the ground can locate them), and all of their relatives,their friends, their relations. You do this, again and again. You seize their assets in banks. You prevent them from leaving Somalia. You prevent their relatives from leaving Somalia. You make their lives hell, and the piracy comes to an end the way other cases of piracy have been brought to an end. The only other way is to seize the whole country, the way the French felt compelled, after decades that followed centuries, of enduring the Barbary Pirates, to do in 1830 with Algeria. But that, today, is not desirable nor practical. From afar, from the air, but making sure that no pirate is left to enjoy his loot, either because his loot (and what it paid for) has been destroyed, or because he has.
Tiger - Feline Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator for Infidel Enterprises: Yeah, what Hugh said. Now, where's my tuna?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
