Here Come the Thought Police

The thought crime bill has been passed in the House of Commons- citizens of the UK can now only hope that the bill is rejected by the House of Lords. Oddly enough, the British media seems to have completely ignored the story.

Islamic organizations have lobbied hardest for the legislation, saying their community needed protection, given an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11.

This is a common meme in the UK now- every news broadcast since 7/7 has carried a story about Muslims condemning the attacks and, in the same, breath, calling out that they must be defended against reprisals. Somehow, Islamic terrorists have made Britain less safe for Muslims. This is a major talking point of all the main politicians- Blair, Howard and Kennedy.

The prime minister condemned any attacks on British Muslims, saying the vast majority were decent and law abiding.

Conservative leader Michael Howard said anyone who nurtured resentment against Muslims would be behaving in the way terrorists wanted.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said everybody should keep stressing that the vast majority of Muslims totally condemned the bombings.

In fact, I think I've heard more comments the past few days about keeping Muslims safe and what a wonderful religion it is, than I've heard about measure to protect us from Islamic terrorism. You'd almost think that Britain was filled with people biting at the bit to attack Muslims, so much emphasis is being put into this.

Of course, Islam expert Tony Blair said of the terrorists - "It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam."

It's interesting he should say that because the head of London's Al-Maqreze Centre For Historical Studies said that there are no civilians under Islamic law and, of the London terrorist attack- "If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud."

Strange how Western dhimmi politicians always seem to be contradicted by actual Muslims?

The thought-crime legislation actually goes like this-

If passed, the legislation will create a new offense, applying to written material and public verbal comments "that are threatening, abusive or insulting [and] likely to stir up racial or religious hatred." Anyone convicted under the law could be jailed for up to seven years.

In other words, if someone makes a statement which Muslims find insulting, they could find themselves in court. Given that any criticism of Islam will no doubt be found insulting it seems as if Muslims have been given carte blanche in the UK. First, the G8 gives the PA billions of dollars and now this. Who said that we were resolute in the face of terrorism?

Hat tip to Raging Capitalist.

Don't Use the T Word

As was widely reported on the blogosphere, the BBC had edited the word terrorist out of its reports on 7/7. Well, CNN seems to be playing silly buggers too because-

Israeli troops have arrested five members of Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad in the West Bank city of Tulkarem after Tuesday's suicide attack in Netanya that killed four Israelis

Militants? It seems that for the MSM 9/11 and 3/11 and 7/7 have not been lesson enough. It's my belief that this sort of equivocation only serves to encourage our enemies. Can you imagine how different the world would be now if the media were giving the War on Terrorism the same sort of support that WW2 received? Where are the news reports highlighting the successes of the troops? Where is the support for the policies of the West to liberate those under the heel of tyranny? Where are the movies that enocurage patriotism and determination in the face of our foes? Where is the understanding that our values of freedom and tolerance are under threat?

At least some people seem to get it right-

Ra'anan Gissin, a spokesman for Sharon, said the blast underscored "one simple lesson" about how to deal with terrorism.

"With terrorists, you don't talk; you don't sign deals," Gissin said. "With terrorists, you fight."

The Blame Game

It took, probably, minutes for the Left to being screaming that 7/7 was the fault of Bush. It's a sentiment that I wasn't exactly expecting to find over at Democracy Arsenal, which has been recommended in one of the conservative blogs that I read- sorry but I can't recall which one right now.

Here it is-

I hate as much as anyone the cheapness, partisanship, and thoughtlessness of the Iraq war and much of the GWOT in general, and do think the President and his staff are to blame.

Of course the statement is made in the context of "we have bigger fish to fry"- which is entirely correct- we're at war and now is certainly not the time for this sort of thing. However, the statement was made anyway and it annoys the hell out of me that this sort of dumb-assed dogma is so ingrained in the Left that it's become purely reflexive. So I wrote this response, which I'm going to post rather than re-jigging into a new post here.

"You believe that George Bush is responsible for British Muslim terrorists planting bombs in London to kill their countrymen? The only people responsible for this are the terrorists involved. It was their decision to plan and carry out this attack and they bear full responsibility.

The war on terror or Iraq did not "make" anyone do anything- if British citizens are upset about the removal of a secular tyrant and the liberation of the majority Muslim Iraqi people (and at the end of the day, that's what it was, regardless of the arguments about WMD or anything else) they live in a free and democratic society and they can make their case at the ballot box. Instead of protesting against the actions of the government peacefully they choose to carry out the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. That's not George Bush's fault. It's not the fault of Iraq or the fault of Afghanistan or Israel or any other of the long list of grievances that the jihadis seem to have- it's the fault of the individuals themselves. They chose this path. No one forced them onto it."

The only thing I want to add is this- and it seems an obvious point- the war on Iraq might piss you off but in a civilised society if you're that annoyed about it you campaign to have something done about it- whether that's emailing/telephoning your MP continually or voting for a different party come next election or organising protests against the war. You do not bomb and murder innocent people in the heart of the capital. Becoming a terrorist is not a small step and the only people to blame for it are the terrorists themselves. George Bush is most assuredly not to blame and to think otherwise displays such a complete lack of rational thought that I'm staggered by it.

7/7 Terrorists

Looks like the police are working hard-

at least one of four suspected London bombers died in last week's Tube and bus blasts.

it was likely three men whose belongings were found at the scenes are dead - there is a question mark about the fourth bomber.

Explosives were found in Leeds and Luton after a series of raids.

They [police] also said they had arrested a relative of one of the four suspects in Yorkshire.

The breakthrough in the anti-terror investigation came after a day of raids in West Yorkshire and the seizure of a car at Luton rail station. They were carried out after the discovery on Monday night of CCTV images showing the four men at King's Cross station just before 0830BST on the day of the attacks.

Head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch Peter Clark said documents identifying three of the men were found near three blast sites.

All four suspects are British nationals. Three of the four are from West Yorkshire.

Just Desserts

This guy deserves to serve his 99 year sentence. Up in court for stealing a cell phone, super-genius criminal Glenn Reed "who testified during his trial against the wishes of his court-appointed attorneys, frequently went into profanity-laced tirades and told jurors he didn't care if they gave him life in prison."

Be careful what you wish for.

Science News Round Up

A little bit of science news now, just to lighten the tone. I didn't mention the zombie dogs MadOgre posted on last week- but I couldn't resist this- "Human-brained monkeys". In a series of experiments scientists have injected human brain cells into monkey fetuses. Quite apart from questioning the usefulness of such research, there are major questions raised about the monkey subjects developing self-awareness or super-animal intelligence. Planet of the Apes here we come.

Bored and want time to pass more quickly? Move your eyes around a lot. Having a good time and want to make it last longer? Keep your eyes still. So indicates new research conducted by scientists "that subjective time is compressed around the onset of a saccadic eye movement. Saccades are the rapid, jerky eye movements that we perform thousands of times every day to align targets of interest with the high-acuity fovea at the centre of our eyes." It's worth a try anyway.

Research shows that walking on cobblestones can significantly lower blood pressure and improve balance. The latter seems like a report from the Institute of the Bleeding Obvious but the blood pressure effect doesn't seem to be clearly understood. Expect to see your pavements cobbled some time in the last century.

Super Size Me is a movie which I have absolutely no desire to see- particularly since more than one person has since lost weight by eating nothing but McDonalds. Morgan Spurlock can rant all he wants about "evil corporation" McDonalds but the simple fact of the matter is that they don't make people fat- people eating too many calories and not exercising enough makes people fat. Anyway, here's another pro-McDonalds story: A 35-year old woman has created her own low-cost McDonalds diet, limiting herself to 1400 calories a day.

Since April 22, when Morgan launched her diet with a Sausage Burrito and a medium Diet Coke, she's lost 33 pounds, putting her at about 195 pounds. At 5 feet, 9 inches tall, she's dropped from a size 22 or 24 to a size 15. The size 2X and 3X T-shirts she used to wear look like dresses on her. And despite her friends' fears about skyrocketing cholesterol, she feels great.

Good for her I say.

Finally, here's some startling news that I meant to post on days ago-

Human footprints discovered beside an ancient Mexican lake have been dated to 40,000 years ago. If the finding survives the controversy it is bound to stir up, it means that humans must have moved into the New World at least 30,000 years earlier than previously thought.

The conventional view is that humans arrived in the Americas via Beringia around 11,000 years ago, when a land bridge became available between Siberia and Alaska. There have been claims about earlier waves of settlers, who must have made the crossing over water, based mainly on sites with signs of habitation dated up to 40,000 years ago, but these claims have drawn intense criticism.

Some scientists need to pin stories like this to their notice boards to counter the notion that they know everything- I wonder how those who criticised the signs of habitation from 40,000 years ago feel now? Hopefully this will open some eyes- you just never know what the next discovery might be.

EX Labour Advisor Speaks

David Clark, a former Labour Party advisor, has written a piece for the Guardian in which he claims that the war on terrorism is failing. He argues that

"their ability to bring violence and destruction to our streets is as strong as ever and shows no sign of diminishing."

That's funny, I don't recall the terrorists being able to conduct operations on the same scale as 9/11- however horrific the London attack was, it is simply not on the scale of 3,000 innocent people murdered. He then goes on to state that

"al-Qaida has never depended on state sponsorship, except in the wholly unintended sense that the US-funded campaign against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan brought its members together and gave them their first taste of jihad."

That's even more strange- does he not remember the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? And does he really believe that Afghanistan was the first taste of jihad? Really? Or is he simply denying hundreds of years of history? Wouldn't it also make more sense to lay "blame" for these groups coming together not with America but with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which is what originally focused the attention of the Mujahideen, along with funding from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, along with the USA? Or perhaps, with the jihadis themselves? Can't he blame the murderers for their own actions rather than trying to blame America? Let's just think about what he's saying for a moment- America is to blame for a group of Islamofascists bombing London. The so-called "occupation" of Iraq by America has liberated some 25 million people from tyranny, given them control of their own oil and allowed them free and democratic elections for the first time in 30 years. So perhaps these people should be thanking America for freeing Muslims from a secular disctatorship rather than attacking her and her allies. He also wants us to turn-

"our attention away from the terrorists and on to the conditions that allow them to recruit and operate" because "it must be said that everything that has followed the fall of Kabul has been ruinous to the task of winning over moderate Muslim opinion and isolating the terrorists within their own communities. In Iraq we allowed America to rip up the rule book of counter-insurgency with a military adventure that was dishonestly conceived and incompetently executed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed by US troops uninterested in distinguishing between combatant and noncombatant, or even counting the dead."

I'm not going to even bother responding to that grotesque lie, other than to point out that the US went to great lengths to have Fallujah evacuated of civilians before entering to engage in house to house fighting. If they didn't care about distinguishing between combatant and non-combatants they would simply have bombed the city. I'm disgusted by this man.

And how, pray tell, does Clark envision us combating the conditions behind this terrorism? Why, obviously it's to-

"take legitimate Arab grievances seriously. We must start by acknowledging that their long history of engagement with the west is one that has left many Arabs feeling humiliated and used. There is more to this than finding a way of bringing the occupation of Iraq to an end. We cannot seriously claim to care for the rights of Arabs living in Iraq when it is obvious that we care so little for Arabs living in Palestine. The Palestinians need a viable state, but all the indications suggest that the Bush administration is preparing to bounce the Palestinians into accepting a truncated entity that will lack the basic characteristics of either viability or statehood. That must not be allowed to succeed."

So, Arabs feel "humiliated and used" by the West. That's really odd considering that the United States alone gives them billions of dollars- Egypt has received $26 billion, Jordan has been given $4.1 billion, the West Bank and Gaza have been given $1.5 billion, and work is ongoing in Iraq to name but a few. If that's being used and humiliated then I'll have a double helping.

Finally, we can see that in Clark's mind this all boils down to one simple issue- Israel (despite his own mention of the desires to see the creation of a "medieval pan-Islamic caliphate"). Again, £1.5 billion dollars doesn't seem to much like not caring. Nor does the extra $3 billion in aid for the infrastructure of Gaza. Of course, Clark doesn't like the idea of a "truncated state" for Palestinians calling for it to "not be allowed to succeed". In other words, then, he seems to want the destruction of Israel as a whole. Of course, in Clark's mind this is a "legitimate grievance"- that Israel even exists at all.

Pro or Anti Terror?

Over at Biased BBC is an interesting piece about the vigil organised by anti-war protestors and Muslims. As the BBC article notes, a Dr Assami Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB, the UK's CAIR) received the "biggest response from the crowd". He declared the attacks to be not on "a certain creed or race" but on "everybody in Lonodn." He then went on the outline a 3-point program to combat terror attacks- vigilance and co-operation with security services, pressure to change British government policy (becuase, he argued, this attack was caused by the war in Iraq) and, finally, "Muslims also need to kill the ideology behind this".

However, as Rottweiler Puppy explains, the MAB website has Tamimi's name listed as "Dr Azzam Tamimi". This would be the same Tamimi who has professed that he would like to become a suicide bomber in Israel (on the BBC no less) and who proclaimed that the Arab world cheered on 9/11.

A great choice to denounce a terrorist attack on London. It's interesting too, that he drew the biggest response from the crowd. It's things like this which really make me question the conviction of Muslims in Britain who comdemn the attacks- is it the truth or are they only saying that because it's what we kuffar want to hear?

Fatwa To Outlaw Bombers

Thanks to commenter Rahid I discovered plans by the leaders of some British Muslim groups to issue a fatwa to-

effectively outlaw the bombers among Muslims by stating the attacks were a breach of the most basic tenets of Islam.

That Muslim groups in Britain are making a public effort to condemn the terrorists is, of course, a good thing. However, I do have reservations. The first is that although Muslim leaders are saying that attacks of this nature are "a breach of the most basic tenets of Islam", there seems to be no evidence to back this up.

Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

This, it would seem, is ample support for the terrorist attack just carried out. How, exactly, does a terrorist attack breach this? To combat what the media regards as "radical Islam", moderates need to be able to use the actual teachings of the Koran. Islamic terrorists do not seem to have a problem is couching the terms of their battle in religious terms and to combat this apparent "misunderstanding" of the Religion of Peace Islamic leaders in Britain will have to use similar arguments.

My second reservation is highlighted by Jihad Watch and the comments made, by Muslims, on IslamOnline.

"Those behind this atrocity aren't just enemies of humanity but enemies of Islam and Muslims," said Sacranie. Look at how the Queen's favorite pet "Muslim" rushes to the defense of his masters. Just like a little yelper dog..."We're not talking about Muslims here. We're talking about a bunch of nutters," said Qureshi. Another tawagheet-butt kissing "Muslim" who is little more then another barking dog. The[y] figure if they bark enough their masters will feed them."

If, as LGF joked the other day, hundreds of thousands of Muslims marched against terrorism- in exactly the way that the Free Muslims Against Terror tried (and, sadly, failed) to do- then that might make me begin to think that British Muslims were, on the whole, totally against these attacks. Until then, I'm not entirely convinced.

Iraq and Terrorism

The Left continues to argue that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the war and that there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a sentiment repeated by Ron Reagan and rebutted by Christopher Hitchens very effectively recently. Want to know more? Check these out-

The Mother of All Connections - In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.

Body of Evidence - Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests.

The Big Lie - "Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family."

If you know of any more like these, please do let me know.

New Reeder Guns

What a day! A chance to do another gun post.

Checked in at Gary Reeder's website and was pleased to see a few new items since my last visit.

The first of these is the Vampyre Slayer- got a vampire problem? Then try and grab yourself one of these limited edition (only 5 made) 10mm 1911s, complete with tiny stakes on the guide rod and butt. For that "gothic" look, it even comes with a coffin shaped gun case. Bizarre? Absolutely. A replacement for Buffy? You decide.


Next up is the Big Horn Hunter, a lever action based on a Marlin 1894 and chambered in 41 GNR or 410 GNR. The modifications include- a beefier barrel in the length of your choosing, Ashley Express Ghost Ring sights, larger loop for easier handling with gloves on, a decelerator pad, full action job. Very nice indeed.

Finally, Kase Reeder has this- the Ultimate 10, a long slide 1911 in 10mm complete with an accessory rail. Good to see a few more 10mm handguns around.

Islamic Republic of Britain

The Mirror newspaper publishes an article describing what life in the Islamic Republic of Britain would be like. Its seems bizarre to me that the people who would most be affected by Sharia law- artists and musicians- seem to be those who are most opposed to a war on the Islamofascists.

All contact between the sexes would be banned. Discos, bars, public swimming pools, youth clubs - anywhere women and men could meet - would be closed down. Sunbathing, beach holidays and all forms of female sport would be outlawed. Fashion magazines such as Vogue could only be published if all images of female flesh were blacked out.

The only weak point in the article is the assertion that solving the Arab-Israeli problem would "weaken support for the fanatics' cause and help stabilise an inflamed region"- the only solution that the Islamists want is for Israel to be wiped off the map. And what exactly has Israel to do with Islamic terrorism in the Far East or even the Taliban in Afghanistan? Despite this, it's a good read. Perhaps one that will give some pause for thought.

Tim Blair also posts on "why they hate us", answering with Christopher Hitchens'

We know very well what the “grievances” of the jihadists are.

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won’t abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor’s liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

African Aid

I'm not a fan of Bob Geldof's campaign to write off African debt and to double aid to that troubled continent. Frankly, I can't see why the African people shouldn't be able to help themselves. They live, after all, on a resource rich continent that should be able to rival America. It seems bizarre that democracy and capitalism have not sprung up all over the place. Here is a very good argument on why aid is bad for Africa- from an African.

I watched one or two episodes of Geldof's BBC series on Africa but his litany of problems on the continent didn't convince me that aid was the answer. For example, in his episode on Uganda he pointed out that though the country possesses a good deal of arable farmland, much of it wasn't farmed because the people were too afraid of the absolutely barbaric and despicable Lord's Resistance Army. This group raids villages to supply itself. According to Geldof, aid would be delivered in the form of food and the LRA would promptly raid the village to seize what they need. His only possible solution was for someone (the US probably) to swoop in and assassinate the LRA leader Joseph Kony. I can just imagine now, the utter outrage from Left wingers around the world about that. Aid and debt relief will not alleviate any of the problems that the people of Uganda suffer from. Having said that, I can completely understand Geldof's frustration- he told an absolutely horrific story of a group of seven or eight young girls kidnapped by the LRA and tied together. The group allowed one of them to try and escape. When they caught her again they put her back with her friends and then told the girls to bite her to death- if they did not they would suffer the same fate. The girls were told that unless they came away with flesh in their mouths they too would be killed. Remember, these were children, friends who had been playing with one another when abducted. You can see why Geldof wanted to see Kony dead.

It's probably incredibly un-PC to say it, but a lot of these countries would have been much better off if the colonial rule of the British (Uganda became independent in the early '60s) had continued. At the very least, British troops would be hunting the LRA right now rather than letting them prey on innocent children. They would also probably have more representative governments than they do now, along with stable economies and a better standard of living.

HK M416/M418

At last! A bit of gun news to blog about.

According to Defense Review the battle for a US Army Special Forces weapon continues- though the FN Scar has apparently been selected the rumour is that the HK M416 (previously known as the HK M4) is already in the hands of US Army Special Forces operators and they like it. As you may know the M416 is a product-improved M4 and it fixes the major bug-bear of the M4 system of weapons by utilising a gas piston. HK have also developed a high reliability magazine for the M4/M16 series of weapons- which can also be used by the British SA80 family.

The major advantage the HK weapon has is that it could be bought by the Army as an upper only- saving on some costs. They are also rumours that HK are developing a sister M418 is 7.62x51mm. Personally I'd also like to see a 7.62 Russian variant able to take AK magazines.

It's interesting to note that there seems to be some diversity in weapons procurement right now. The US Army continues to toy with the idea of going to the XM8, the Marines have just bought a bunch of M16A4s and the different Special Forces units now seem to have either the FN SCAR or the HK M416 to choose from. The one thing missing from all this of course is any mention of the "intermediate cartridge"- either the 6.8mm SPC or the 6.5mm Grendel. There's seems to be ample testimony from those on the sharp end that 5.56mm just doesn't cut it- time to move on. Given that a 6.8mm/6.5mm weapon could also be chambered in 5.56mm it seems like all that surplus 5.56mm lying around could be used in training or in non-war zones until it's all used up.

Update- As a commenter noted, the 7.62mm version of the HK M4 is now known as the HK417.

More Bad Movie News

No doubt you've heard that Spielberg is to make a film about the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre. I did not have much hope that this would be a film with a strong anti-terrorism message but it appears to be much worse than I suspected. According to this piece at Captain's Quarters the Spielberg film will not focus on the actual murder of Israeli athletes by terrorist thugs, but will instead concentrate on the Mossad team sent to eliminate them. According to actor Daniel Craig the film will send a message that "vengeance doesn't work- blood breeds blood."

Spielberg is apparently concerned that he "get's it right". Odd then that,

"the office of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, which manages Mossad and its archives, has reportedly received no request for assistance. In addition, five retired Mossad agents, all of whom served in key intelligence posts at the time, have not been contacted."

Makes you wonder if he's going to get it right from the point of view of the terrorists or the agents sent to track them down and punish them? Captain's Quarters comes to the conclusion that this film is not only about Israel but about America today and its response to 9/11-

If these reports are accurate, he intends on passing judgment on America for going after the terrorists that targeted our civilians on 9/11. Spielberg has long opposed the Iraq War and the Bush administration for its efforts to eliminate the threat of Islamofascist terror and tyranny.

Well, according to Spielberg himself, that analysis seems to be correct-

"By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic stand-off we find ourselves in today."

According to this post at Ain't It Cool-

"In Mr. Kushner's script, people who have read it say, the Israeli assassins find themselves struggling to understand how their targets were chosen, whether they belonged on the hit list and, eventually, what, if anything, their killing would accomplish."

The article posted there goes on to point out-

"I don't know how many of them actually had 'troubling doubts' about what they were doing," said Michael B. Oren, the historian and author of "Six Days of War." "It's become a stereotype, the guilt-ridden Mossad hit man. You never see guilt-ridden hit men in any other ethnicity. Somehow it's only the Jews. I don't see Dirty Harry feeling guilt-ridden. It's the flip side of the rationally motivated Palestinian terrorist: you can't have a Jew going to exact vengeance and not feel guilt-ridden about it, and you can't have a Palestinian who's operating out of pure evil - it's got to be the result of some trauma."

Spielberg is trying to keep information on the film under wraps but it seems pretty odd that he's chosen to consult one of Bill Clinton's Middle East diplomats and Clinton himself, rather than the Israelis involved. I don't hold out much hope for this one, given the director's agenda.

Stone to make 9/11 movie

Recently the movie industry has been complaining about falling ticket sales. As an example of a movie that did really badly, I give you Alexander, directed by Oliver "I love Castro" Stone and starring the talentless bum Colin Farrell. Big movie with big stars made by a director who seems to be out of touch with what the world cinema-going public want. Surely the sort of guy you want to keep as far away as possible from a big budget movie about 9/11? Can you even begin to imagine the scrutiny this film is going to be subject to?

Starring Nicolas Cage the film tells the story of two men trapped in the rubble of the collapsed towers who were rescued by "a crazy-brave patriotic super-Christian ex-Marine who drove down from Connecticut in his Porsche and walked out onto the burning rubble when the official rescue workers had been ordered off the pile for safety reasons." Somehow I can't see Stone doing Dave Karnes justice-

When the second plane hit, Karnes told his colleagues, "We're at war." He had spent 23 years in the Marine Corps infantry and felt it was his duty to help. Karnes told his boss he might not see him for a while.

Then he went to get a haircut.

The small barbershop in Stamford, Conn., near his home, was deserted. "Give me a good Marine Corps squared-off haircut," he told the barber. When it was done, he drove home to put on his uniform. Karnes always kept two sets of Marine fatigues hanging in his closet, pressed and starched. "It's kind of weird to do, but it comes in handy," he says. Next Karnes stopped by the storage facility where he kept his equipment—he'd need rappelling gear, ropes, canteens of water, his Marine Corps K-Bar knife, and a flashlight, at least. Then he drove to church. He asked the pastor and parishioners to say a prayer that God would lead him to survivors. A devout Christian, Karnes often turned to God when faced with decisions.

Finally, Karnes lowered the convertible top on his Porsche. This would make it easier for the authorities to look in and see a Marine, he reasoned. If they could see who he was, he'd be able to zip past checkpoints and more easily gain access to the site. For Karnes, it was a "God thing" that he was in the Porsche—a Porsche 911—that day. He'd only purchased it a month earlier—... But he decided to buy it after his pastor suggested that he "pray on it." ... Driving the Porsche at speeds of up to 120 miles per hour, he reached Manhattan—after stopping at McDonald's for a hamburger—in the late afternoon. (Go read it all)

Somehow I can't see Stone telling the story that way. In fact, given that he seems obsessed with conspiracy theories and doesn't exactly strike me as the type of man who would make a film that celebrates American patriotism and bravery, I find it hard to conceive how he was picked for this project. What qualities does he bring to the first big budget effort to tell the story of 9/11? Is he going to make a film that will make Americans feel good? Because that's the only why that American audiences are going to go see this film- they do not want a film about such an outrage that will portray the heroes of that day in anything other than an exemplary light. Stone does not seem to be the man who will do that.

If it were up to me, I'd make this a Jerry Bruckheimer production. No, he's not subtle but he's a genius when it comes to big budget summer smashes. He's also the sort of man that doesn't seem to have a problem with creating heroes on screen. This material seems tailor made for him and I for one would love to see what he could do with it. Stone's movie? Somehow I just cannot imagine how it will- in any way, shape or form- be true to the facts of the day.

X3 News

I need a bit of a break from all the bad news- so here's some trivial news in its place.

The X-Men 3 implosion continues with this news- the made-up mutant from Brett Ratner is apparently being fought over by the Williams sisters. That's right, the tennis players. Apparently, Serena has the advantage in this match as she once dated the director. The sexed up character is described as a "bisexual hooker". Just the right sort of thing you want in a movie rated "PG-13" (if it's like the previous two).

G8 Gives More To PA

In the shadow of the London bomb attacks the G8 summit has been all but forgotten. However, an agreement was reached on a $50 billion deal. Geldof has praised it- others continue to criticise. Few seem to plant the blame for Africa's poverty on Africa, although Blair did say, "only people who can change Africa ultimately are the Africans". It's a good point and one many of the G8 protestors don't seem to have considered.

Amongst the details of the deal was this little snippet of information- $3bn agreed for Palestinian Authority for investment in infrastructure.

More money for the PA? Shouldn't the money going there be contingent on a ceasefire from the terrorists who continue to target Israeli civilians? No ceasefire, no money- at all. I wonder how long it would take for the shooting and bombing to stop if Western governments stopped propping up the PA? As Blair condemns the terror attacks on London, it seems incredible that he can give more money to the PA.

Islam and Terrorism

I'm wondering if the attacks on London will open people's eyes to the threat that we're facing. In the light of London police officer Paddick's statement that "Islam and terrorism don't go together" I'm not entirely sure if it will. There seems to be no will to openly discuss that what we're dealing with here is a religious war. The jihadis are not extremists or a tiny minority of a Religion of Peace- you don't hear of Christian terrorist groups scattered around the globe, issuing communiques citing passages from the New Testament. To simply bundle these murderers- a term I have not yet heard anyone apply to 7/7 in any way, shape or form- into a little box marked "extremist" does nothing to face the issue. And the issue is that Muslim terrorists are inspired to do what they do by the Koran. I doubt that you'll ever hear such a statement made on UK TV because the speaker would instantly be branded a racist and an Islamophobe, a bigot. Those knee-jerk claims might make Leftists feel a little better but they do nothing to advance the discussion.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Koran is filled with exortations to commit violence against infidels. It even tells the believers not to make friends with Jews or Christians, it tells them to lie when making deals because it's okay to lie to infidels. There is no passage in the Bible which tells Christians to lie in wait for their enemies and then to cut off their heads. On the contrary the Bible teaches that "thou shalt not kill". Is there a comparable passage in the Koran?

The root cause of terrorism is not poverty or social inequality- it's religion. Everyone knows this but some seem to want to remain blinkered about the implications. Unlike that utter fool Paddick we cannot simply deny a fact- the terrorists we fight are Muslims and they are devout Muslims. Why else would a man or a girl strap an explosive vest to themselves and then press the button? These appalling acts are committed in the name of Allah. When Nick Berg's head was sawn off it wasn't "America Out" that his captors were shouting, it was "Allah akbar". Zarqawi has issued directives explaining why it is just for him to kill Muslims while carrying out terrorist attacks- it's in the name of religion.

It's a plain and simple fact and yet many people seem to have problems recognising it. Why not listen to what they tell us-

"A spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

Remember that- particularly when someone says, as a commenter did here yesterday, that all religions are bad. As I posted a couple of days ago, the Koran teaches that non-Muslims must be converted, or forced to submission and forced to pay a "non-Muslim tax", or killed- their limbs and heads hacked off. I don't see that message in the New Testament, in the teachings of Buddha or in any other religion. Not all religions are equal. A Christian might tell you that you're going to end up in Hell for whatever sin he thinks you're committing but he won't take out a knife and cut your head from your shoulders- as directed by his holy book. That's the point to remember.

Follow Up on 7/7

An awful lot of news today as the world reacts to the bomb attacks on London yesterday. Most important item is that the death toll seems to have climbed overnight- The Times is reporting 52 dead, The Sun 55. BBC still posting the 37 figure from yesterday.

The general concensus is that Londoners, Britons, will not be swayed by these attacks. The terrorists have not dented the resolve of the British people. The question now is, what are we going to do about it? As Michelle Malkin notes, Britain is a haven to foreign extremists and terrorists. London police are asking for information on a Morrocan man named Guerbouzi-

"he's been living comfortably in a flat just blocks from Downing Street with his wife and six kids despite being accused of playing a key role in the Madrid atrocity, as well as a dozen suicide bombings in Casablanca last May which left 33 dead."

Blair has talked a tough talk on terrorism but as the people of Northern Ireland know all too well he caved to terrorism here- Sinn Fein/IRA have been permitted a seat at the talks table, comfortable offices at Stormont (our local parliament building) and even offices at Westminster (the latter despite refusing to take the require oath of loyalty). The IRA are still fully armed and despite carrying out continuing intelligence operations and being the local organised crime outfit, Blair is happy to invite their political leaders to Number 10 for tea and biscuits. They are a prime example to terrorists around the world that Britain is not resolute in the face of their threat- they can carry out their assassinations and bomb attacks for thirty years- even mortar bomb
Number 10 during the 1st Gulf War- and still be invited to sit down for a chat. The same talks might also be happening with Hamas right now too.

If we're to win this fight against terrorism what we need is to do is actually be tough on terrorists, their supporters, their financial backers and their recruiters. There's no point in Blair sending the troops to Iraq and Afghanistan if he's going to allow terrorists to walk freely around Britain or to allow "radical" clerics to preach jihad against the West. Immigration was a big issue in the election and Britain seems to attract an awful lot of asylum seekers- people apparently fleeing countries where they are at risk who just happen to cross a free and safe Europe without once thinking of stopping there. Seems to me like it's time to get tough on our unsecured borders and begin to actually boot out anyone who shouldn't be here.

Number of Dead?

DAC Brian Paddick- who doesn't believe that Islam and terrorism go together- is being interviewed on the BBC right now. His claim is that 37 are dead- and that this is the total number of dead, barring any more fatalities from those injured already.

I hope that this is true but it doesn't seem to tie in with the reports from emergency services. He's claiming two dead in the bus attack. It seems incredible that a bomb could rip a crowded bus apart and yet only kill two people.

I suppose we can only wait and see, and hope.

Tony Blair's Comments

Prime Minister Blair has just given a short speech. His basic message was one of resolve- the terrorists will not destroy our way of life, they will not win. It was a short message indicating that Britain will not be cowed by terrorists.

He also took the time to thank the Muslim Council of Britain and to point out that though this was an act of Islamic terrorism, most Muslims are appalled by this violence. I was pretty shocked to hear this to be honest. Last time the IRA attacked mainland Britain I don't think the PM came on to say that they didn't represent all Nationalists in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he's afraid of massive reprisal attacks being carried out on the Muslim community but as these didn't happen even after 9/11 I don't know where that fear is coming from. Immediately after his comments the BBC presenter (Huw Edwards), in summing up his comments, said Blair had said though who committed the attacks were not genuine Muslims. Well, no he didn't actually. Those words came right out of Edwards mouth. I guess this is in line with dhimmi-BBC guidelines?

Update- Huw Edwards just repeated this "not genuine Muslims" comment and I began to wonder if my ears were deceiving me. This is what Blair actually said,

"We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do."

Not quite the same thing.

Some thoughts

No casualty figures are in yet but from the in initial reports in so far it seems like these London attack could have been much, much worse. For starters, it was not a biological or chemical attack. There were also no follow-up attacks. Seems to me that it would have been easy for a suicide bomber to detonate himself in one of the crowds which gathered around the sites of the attacks- there were numerous scenes of crowds clustered around fire engines and ambulances. Even one of these types of attacks would have caused massive casualties and also hampered further emergency services activities.

There were also reports of Swindon and Brighton train stations being shut down- one or two actual attacks outside of London could have brought the entire country's transport system to a halt. Also, a bomb planted on the tracks could have caused massive casualties- one of the high speed communter trains coming into London would have had hundreds of passengers on board.

Europhobia is reporting that the areas in which the attacks took place all contained Muslim communities-

Liverpool St/Aldgate East/Moorgate was all the same incident.
- this is near Brick Lane, with a sizable Bangladeshi/Muslim community.

Edgeware Road
- the heart of a major Arab/Muslim community

King's Cross/Russell Square and Woburn Place
- by the King's Cross Estate, with a sizable Bangladeshi/Muslim community, plus the School of Oriental and African Studies, one of the world's leading universities for the study of Islam (amongst others)

It could be that the security measures put in place explain the locations- perhaps the terrorists were, in actual fact, members of these communities. Perhaps they took place there because they did not want to travel any further than was strictly necessary? Perhaps it was easier for them to launch attacks in areas where they would blend in better? Of course, this is purely speculation- and it assumes that they were of Middle Eastern origin. London's a pretty cosmopolitan place though, so I'm not entirely sure how this theory stands up to scrutiny. It also assumes that this was AQ or similar.

In any event, I'm sure that many of you out there could conceive of a plan which would inflict more casualties than are currently being reported. One security expert on the BBC (I believe) said that it was likely that the bombs were concealed in day-packs which are ubiquitous. I've been on the Tube a good few times and there have always been people lugging big, heavy suitcases around. Thankfully, that does not seem to be the case today.

My thoughts are with the families of those who have lost someone today.

Updates as and when I get more news.

Update

Welcome Jihad Watch readers.

Not much news being reported here. Buckingham Palace is flying the flag at half mast and the Queen has said that she is "deeply shocked". The rumours of Terminal 3 at Heathrow being evacuated seem to have vanished. Most of the media are pointing out that the Al Qaeda in Europe statement can't be verified but they are going ahead anyway discussing the attack as if it were launched by AQ. Hard to tell what sort of effect this attack will have on Britain. The Conservative Party have already said that it's important that they stand completely with the government- "allowing the enemy to see no chink in our armour. " Good to see that they are showing a united front. At least here, both Tory and Labour are in favour of the war on terrorism.

Casualty reports are still not coming in. One journalist asked at the press conference what the age range for the dead was- were there any children involved- but they were told that this information wasn't to hand. Reports of double digit dead at some of the tube stations by emergency services personnel- the bodies are being kept below ground. The number of dead seems low so far but we can only hope that the figure won't rise much. They said that they had no idea how many were killed in the bus attack.

Tony Blair is currently in a "Cobra" meeting- the committee set up to oversee this sort of attack.

According to the Guardian, Traitor Galloway says, "We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings." Yeah, George, it was the government's fault, not the jihadis.

Finally, for now, the report that a suicide bomber was shot by Marines/police seems to be nothing more than a rumour. Not so long ago a convoy of police cars raced by a TV journalist- could it be that something else is afoot? No one seems quite sure.

Muslim leaders "condemn" attacks

It's begun already. The headline on the BBC reports that Muslim leaders condemn the terrorist attacks on London which have murdered 33 people so far. However, the article begins not with a condemnation but with-

Muslim Association of Britain president Ahmed Sheikh said the attacks would make the Muslim community less safe. He said women in headscarves might be in particular danger and warned all Muslims to be especially vigilant.

He said the police should consider extra protection for mosques and Islamic schools and said Muslims, particularly women in headscarves, should be vigilant and avoid unnecessary journeys.

Later in the article we get this (which is to be praised)-

Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain said he utterly condemned the attacks. "We are simply appalled and want to express our deepest condolences to the families. These terrorists, these evil people want to demoralise us as a nation and divide us. All of must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down."

However, he did qualify his statement with, "there may well be elements who want to exploit this tragedy and incite hatred". His comments are also immediately followed by claims from claims from the editor of Muslim news,

"There might be some increase in attacks on the Muslim community especially visible aspects of Islam like mosques, community centres and women with headscarves," and, "Muslims have to be vigilant now, especially the mosques, and I hope the police will increase security on mosques and Islamic centres."

London Dhimmi Police

This is just unbelievable- there's press conference going on right now at which the service heads for London Transport are involved (underground, buses, fire service, ambulance service and police). During the Q&A session DAC Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police was asked about Islamic terrorists being responsible for the coordinated bomb attack which has left at least 33 dead. His reply-

"As far as I am concerned, 'Islamic' and 'terrorism' do not go together."

This dhimmi behaviour is completely ridiculous at a time like this. Especially since every time some sort of communique is released from an Islamic terrorist group they inevitably cite Allah and the Koran. Religion is, of course, what it's all about.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised by this though- this police officer has probably gone through months of "sensitivity training" regarding good relations with the Muslim community.

Note- will try to update with a full quote when a transcript becomes available. The conference is currently still ongoing.

Update on the attacks

Swindon and Brighton train stations evacuated becuase of security fears- neither town is close to London. No reports of explosions though.

Six explosions in London.

Rumours of the BBC blaming Al Qaeda. Up until a little while ago they were saying that the bombs couldn't be attributed to terrorists.

The BBC website is reporting that the Olympic bid team has suspended celebrations. As if anyone fucking cares about them.

Update- Tony Blair has just delivered his speech- key point- we're more determined to defeat terrorism than they are to defeat us. He looked pretty shaken, but it's good to have him say that his resolve has not been.

News has been reporting on six blasts. They're now saying that there might have been a seventh blast.

Europhobia reports that he might be moved away from the windows of his office- he's in London near a bus route. Is this over yet?

Update- After about a half hour or so of stability in the news there are now reports of possibly another bomb in London, perhaps on a bus. No one seems quite sure on the different TV channels I'm checking. Apart from the fantastic updates from Europhobia the news websites are lagging behind the TV reports. Rumours now that Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility too. One horrifying fact- the BBC news ticker reports that the double decker bus which was blown up was packed- it was so full they were turning people away. Possibly a suicide bomber attack too, though this has not been confirmed.

Update- Channel Five news is reporting six blasts on the underground and three bus attacks. That's nine in total. Roughly an hour since the last attack (?) and the news services don't seem to even be sure exactly what has happened. Pundits already saying that attacks were for 'effect' rather than to inflict casualities. Odd thing to say considering that no one has any idea how many have been killed yet.

Update- An anonymous commenter over at Europhobia is reporting that Marines have shot a man suspected of being a suicide bomber in the Canary Wharf area of the city. Could it be true? Check out the comments over there for updates. Been browsing the live bloggers and Europhobia is getting some good stuff out. Moonbats over at the Guardian are already blaming this on Blair. Damn them.

Update- Nothing new. TV news are reporting only four confirmed attacks- that seems to be based on the four incidents mentioned by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Still no word on casualties. Very little reporting from the scenes of the attacks. Could be that means that when we do hear about the dead and wounded it will be a bit of a shock. I'm expecting the worst. Wikipedia monitoring the event. BBC reporter's blog also makes for handy reading.

London Attack

Info still coming in right now but it looks like a co-ordinated Al Qaeda style attack. The Madrid train bomb comes to mind.

It's unclear how extensive it is- the BBC seems to be playing it pretty coy, saying that there aren't even any confirmed dead. Other websites are reporting up to 30 dead. There's been at least one attack on an underground train and two bus attacks.

The latest right now is that the Army are on the streets in the Covent Garden area.

Sky is reporting five attacks on the underground as opposed to the BBC's one.

Metropolitan police chief reports six blasts across London.

This is not good.

Best site for constant updates right now is Europhobia. I'll update as more comes in.

Bad Idea

Here's a pretty bad idea- Brett Ratner has decided that the X-Men universe is not quite up to his standards- and so he's creating his own mutant character to include in X-Men 3.

"An unbelievably hot and sexy hooker. Her super power is that she secretes a pheromone that helps her to seduce men. She can seduce anyone."

Yeah, that's just what the franchise needs. Can anyone say, "flop"?

Interesting Lawsuit?

This post over at Dhimmi Watch got me thinking. Here's the background- a newspaper published a letter which said- "Whenever there is an assassination or another atrocity, we should proceed to the closest mosque and execute five of the first Muslims we encounter. After all, this is a 'Holy War" and although such a procedure is not fair or just, it might end the horror." Everybody is entitled to their view and while we might not agree with what this man said, he has a right to say it. Doesn't the 1st Amendment say something about that? Absolutely, and the case was thrown out by the Arizona Supreme Court, all save for one charge- intentional infliction of emotional distress.

No, really. Two Muslim men in the United States are suing because of the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" caused by this letter. Hopefully, the court will toss this ridiculous case out on its ear and uphold 1st Amendment rights. But it did get me thinking- could a counter suit be filed against the Koran? Let's take just one example-

Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Isn't that emotionally distressing, to know that the Koran is deliberately calling for Muslims to kidnap, torture and kill non-Muslims? Isn't this hate speech? Isn't it an incitement to violence? Aren't you, as a non-Muslim, terrified to know that the Religion of Peace actively calls for your torture and death? Even dismemberment-

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes."

Or how about incitement to commit terrorism?

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

Or this-

Qur’an 8:73 “The infidels aid one another. Unless you do the same there will be anarchy in the land. Those who accepted Islam and left their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause are good Muslims.”

Or incitement to violence and extortion?

Qur’an 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Seems to me that if a statement made about a war thousands of miles from Arizona can cause emotional distress then so too can a book which is available around the world. There might even be some copies in your town- and their might be some people who believe it is the word of god. Why doesn't someone just ask a prominent member of CAIR or the MCB if they believe in the Koran, if they obey it? If so, doesn't that mean that they want to kill and subdue unbelievers? Or can they pick and choose which "words of god" they think are true?

Are you scared yet?

(Note- there are some differences between the linked Koran and the quotes I've used- which I have saved on my PC: the translations vary slightly but as you can see the meaning remains the same)

The Law is an Ass

A man is driving his car when a fourteen year old girl runs out into the road in front of him. He manages to swerve and avoid hitting her. He then calls her over to the car and grabs her by the arm while he gives her a telling off. Sounds like a fairly ordinary scene doesn't it? Not in Chicago. The man in question was taken to court and as a result has been placed on the sex offenders register.

Ridiculous? Of course it is and even the court recognised the fact, stating that it was, "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated." However, they went on to state that although this wasn't a sex offence, his actions- that is, grabbing the girl by the arm- are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested. Got that? His actions might indicate the type of behaviour that a potential criminal might engage in so he's to be charged anyway. He was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction but the offence he was found guilty of- unlawful restraint of a minor- is a sex offence, hence his inclusion on the sex offenders register which means that he will have to inform police where he lives, and he will not be able to live near a school or park. Who knows what effect this might have on his private life either- seems to me that a man's entire life has been ruined because he didn't run a girl down. In fact, given the charges filed against him an the conviction, it looks like he'd have been better off not swerving to avoid her.

Barnaby's lawyer stated- "This is the most stupid ruling the appellate court has rendered in years. If you see a 15-year-old beating up your 8-year-old and you grab that kid's hand and are found guilty of unlawful restraint, do you now have to register as a sex offender?"

The court's response was- again- "because of the proclivity of offenders who restrain children to also commit sex acts or other crimes against them." Think about that for a moment- engage in a behaviour which is an indicator of possible future criminal activity and be charged- just to be on the safe side. The Judge in the case even stated that he didn't "really see the purpose of registration (on the sex offenders list)". He also said, "it's more likely than not" Barnaby planned only "to chastise the girl" when he grabbed her, but "I can't read his mind." So, just to be on the safe side, charge the guy and ruin his life. Didn't it used to be that someone had to be guilty to be charged with a crime?

I have two young daughters and I am very concerned about their welfare- in my opinion a sex offender should be thrown in prison for the rest of their life on the first offence with no chance of parole or early release. There is no place in society for those who prey on children. None at all. And yet I can't even remotely see the logic of this conviction- perhaps if Barnaby had just stopped his car and called the girl over, grabbing her arm, I could understand why he'd be put on a sex offender's list- but to do that to him because he told her off after nearly running her down? Those circumstances don't seem to warrant the charge, especially when the court itself said that it was unfair to stigmatize him, right before it did so anyway.

I wonder what other "indicators of possible future criminal activity" exist? Want to bet that you're engaged in some of them? Take this for example- many paedophiles are also Trekkies. I'm sure that the "pre-crime division" would like to speak with you about...something.

Where did the freedom go?

I'm in a bit of a somber mood today- and a good deal of it is down to the posts by Mad Ogre and Kim du Toit on the 4th of July. There was a lot of idle talk about civil war during the pre-election days in America but now with the Kelo decision, I'm thinking that America is at a turning point- either the Constitution is going to be restored to its proper place as the template for governing the country or- it's gone, forgotten about, destroyed. Right now, it doesn't seem like there's any way to get it back- not with a Supreme Court that's acting the way it does.

It's pretty ironic that it's the liberals who are always comparing Bush to Hitler, conservatives to Nazis, daming them as being unscrupulous criminals in thrall to Big Business- and yet it was liberal judges who okayed Kelo- who said that it was okay for the government to seize private property and turn it over to...Big Business. Liberals okayed that- conservatives voted against it. Perhaps this should be a wake up call to American liberals- you and conservatives might disagree on a lot of things but both champion the basic rights enshrined in the Constitution. Don't you? It seems to be that the constant erosion of rights by legislating judges is exactly what liberals fear most. But the thing to realise is that it's not the conservatives doing it, it's liberals. Isn't that odd, the thing that liberals need to worry about most- the ones removing their cherished individual freedoms- are liberals?

I can just imagine the national outcry against the Kelo decision if it had been arrived at by conservative judges, with liberals dissenting. The MSM would be all over it- and liberals would be foaming at the mouth at the injustice of it all. Perhaps this should be the point where liberals and conservatives should come together as Americans and demand that judges cease to legislate from the bench. If ever there were a need for bipartisan action, it would be over this- because the freedoms enjoyed by America, the beacon of hope to the world, are in danger of being wiped out.

Flight of Fancy

It would be nice to be able to relax with a little bit of magic. Another mini-masterpiece from the superlative Adam Hughes.

Dhimmitude in Nashville

Some of you might not have heard the story- a Koran was "desecrated" in Nashville and police called. Due to more pressing problems than a book being a little messed up- burglaries and the like- it took the local PD some time to respond, and when they did they apologised for the lateness of their arrival. Unsurprisingly, the book was not in need of urgent medical care. However, local Muslims were not impressed. An Emergency Communications Centre employee has been disciplined. That's right, an employee has been disciplined because they prioritised burglaries ahead of a book. Shocked and appalled? I hope so because if we look at the original story, the "incident" was reported to police at noon- a local man said that the book had been lying there since 5 p.m. So, it lay there for 19 hours before being reported to police and the local Muslims are upset because the police took three hours to arrive. The police chief had this to say-

"I don't have any reason to believe that someone decided not to go there for any reasons of bigotry or discrimination. I think that some days you get really busy and you can do a better job of managing the calls, and I think in this case between us and the (Emergency Communication Center) we should have probably done a better job of managing the calls."

This is pretty odd because at the time the police said-

"We can't pick when the calls come in. We have to take the high priorities as they come."

So the Nashville police are now saying that a messed up book will get a higher priority than a burglary? Perhaps they would be better sticking to being police and stopped being perfect little dhimmis. It's sickening that not only are they going to give this sort of incident- I refuse to call it a crime- higher priority but a dispatcher is also being punished for doing nothing other than his/her job- sending the police where they are needed most.

Bounty Hunter Success

I've got to admit that this story made me smile- ex-hostage Ulf Hjertstrom who hired "bounty hunters" to track down his captors has said-

“They’re not twiddling their thumbs,” declares Hjertström, revealing that he has “received confirmation that two of [the kidnappers] have already been taken care of.” When asked to elaborate on the fate of the purportedly captured men, the Swede says he “hasn’t inquired” but has his “suspicions.”

I'm sure he does, and I'm sure it gives him a warm, fuzzy feeling. Justice? You decide.

Hat tip to LGF.

Woody Allen

Woody Allen has stated that, "As a filmmaker, I'm not interested in 9/11 - it's too small, history overwhelms it. The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis. And in my childhood, some Nazis killed Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral - not important. History is the same thing over and over again."

I don't know what to say about this- "it's too small"? And essentially saying that the Holocaust is not important? I'd expected better of this film-maker, particularly as he's famed for his love of New York- for him to dismiss the murder of 3,000 Americans like this is simply unbelievable. And the very concept that political questions are not important? I guess then that it doesn't matter to him that people fought and died for the freedoms he enjoys in America today, for the way of life that has allowed him to live in wealthy comfort in Manhattan? Frankly, I'm disgusted.

Here's a snippet from his IMDB bio page-

Made what was apparently his first and probably his last appearance at the Oscars in Hollywood in 2002 to make a plea for producers to continue filming their movies in New York, after the 9-11 tragedy.

I guess film-making is much more important than mere politics?

Blogger Layout Fix

As you can see the problems my site has been having are finally fixed. If you're having problems and the previous "code fixes" haven't helped then try this from Blogger Buzz:

How To Use The Setting

1. Sign in to your Blogger Dashboard
2. Click the "Change Settings" icon next to your blog
3. Click "Formatting" under the Settings tab
4. Choose "No" on "Enable float alignment"

I like this one

A Swedish man, Ulf Hjertstrom, who was held hostage in Iraq alongside great Australian Doug "A******s" Wood, has apparently hired bounty hunters to track down his former captors. He says,

"I have put some people to work to find these b*****ds. I invested about $50,000 so far and we will get them one by one."

Bravo.

Hat tip to Fjordman for the story.

Standards in Journalism

I know that standards in journalism are not what they once where but this is just ridiculous. In an article on guns seized by police in London (in an area where gun crime had gone up 44% despite a complete ban on handguns) "journalist" Ben Ashford reports on a Beretta .9 millimetre. That's right- point nine millimetre. Now, I understand that some people have no idea about guns whatsoever but surely even the most hoplophobic person in the world must have some comprehension of scale. Point nine millimetre.

Ben Ashford, our firearms expert, goes on to tell us about the "deadly" Beretta, standard issue to the US Marines (not just the US Army, you understand, but Marines)-

"the Beretta cal-9 Parabellium is the standard issue weapon of the US Marines. They are rarely found this side of the Atlantic, but cops fear more are entering the country."

How hard would it have been for Ashford to walk into his local Waterstones and go pick up a gun book and find the entry for the Beretta 92? Don't journalists do research anymore? Reminds me of an article I saw in lad's mag Loaded not so long ago where they referred to a "Glock .17". Aren't editors and the like supposed to check for simple factual errors? I think this says a lot about the current state of the press and it makes me wonder, just what other errors are they making?

Hat tip to War on Guns for the link.

The Michael Moore School of Documentary Making

From Michelle Malkin comes this news of a new series called "30 Days" from the film-maker Morgan Spurlock of "Supersize Me" fame. The aim of the show is to basically repeat his film format with other subjects- to see what they can accomplish in thirty days.

One of the shows will introduce an American to Islam- however, we won't get a real insight into the Religion of Peace- because the end result of the "experiment" has been pre-decided:

"Morgan wants the show to demonstrate to America that we are Islamophobic and that 9/11's biggest victims are Muslims."

Sounds like a real ratings winner to me. This is sure to win over American audiences.

This guy makes me want to puke almost as much as Michael Moore.

"When I met David Stacy, about halfway through his 30-day experience, I was amazed at how uninformed he was. This new "expert" on Islam never heard of Wahhabism--the extremist Sunni strain of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia and informs the terrorist-breeding madrassa schools throughout Arab and other Muslim lands. He was unfamiliar with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. He did not believe me when I told him that Hezbollah had murdered hundreds of U.S. Marines and civilians in Beirut and elsewhere. He seemed mystified to learn that President Bush shut down American Islamic charities, like the Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, for funding Hamas and al Qaeda."

Today's Round Up

Just a few quick items to note today-

First up is a brand new conspiracy theory regarding Katie Holmes' relationship with Tom Cruise- just what happened to her during the 16 days in April of this year when she was "missing"? Was she brainwashed by Scientologists? Oddly, the one explanation that's missing from this story is that she and Cruise might have been spending those 16 days together. If you know what I mean.

Who needs a gun to take down big game? Not this 73 year old Kenyan grandfather who was attacked by a leopard- he dropped his machete and instead chose to reach down the beast's throat and rip its tongue out. Don't mess with that man.

Remember the attempted chemical attack on Jordan? The trial is under way and this is revealed- after the fall of Afghanistan at the end of 2001, Zarqawi and other al Qaeda veterans made their way to Iraq, where, secure under the wing of Saddam Hussein, they plotted chemical weapons attacks on countries friendly to the U.S., as well as the murder (successfully carried out) of an American diplomat.
In other words, Saddam Hussein did have links with international terrorism. Odd that this isn't getting major press coverage, isn't it?

Finally Fjordman reports on the barbaric practice of honour killing- murdering members of ones family to protect "honour"- if only these people had any idea of what that word truly meant. Despicable. "My daughter fell over and broke her knee. I took her to hospital and there the doctor told me she was pregnant. So I killed her. It's as simple as that." It's utterly chilling that these words could come from a mother's mouth.

A little local news now- the IRA has finally admitted that they murdered a fourteen year old girl in 1973- a death that they had previously blamed on British troops. They also murdered a British soldier in "retaliation" for the girl's death shortly after. No apologies for that I see.

Some Short Movie Reviews

Managed to get to the cinema a few times recently.

The most recent flick I saw was Mr and Mrs Smith and I've got to say that I enjoyed it immensely. Of the two stars, Pitt is the more charismatic and convincing in the role of a covert assassin and bored husband. Right from the start when he gets wrong how long the couple have been together, he seems at home in the part. The film contains a fair bit of action and a well done car chase sequence- this is directed by Doug Liman of course- and a nice amount of humour. It all gels well together and its well paced. Much more fun than I was expecting it to be. Just one thing- if you can, see this in a cinema with a good sound system. There's one point where Jolie begins firing a pump action shotgun and the seats in my local cinema vibratred with the noise. This is a good film that I think has been badly affect by all the hype about the stars' relationship. Go see it and enjoy yourself.

Next up is Frank Miller's Sin City. Wow. If you're a fan of the graphic novels you'll be stunned by how close this is to the source material- scene for scene- and that's the reason why it works. It captures Miller's bleak, amoral world perfectly. Sin City is aptly named, filled with corrupt politcians, crooked cops and every type of low-life scum-bag imaginable. It's in this morass that three very different heroes emerge in the three separate stories that make up the movie. First we have Marv, a none-too-bright heavy dosed up on medication because he gets "confused". Marv sets out on a mission of vengence, of justice his way, that is staggering to watch. No one and nothing gets in his way and he thinks nothing of murder and torture to succeed. The thing is though that Marv is eminently likeable. He, like the other two leads (Bruce Willis and Clive Owen), is an honourable man. He has his own code and everyone we see him hurt in the film- and he does a considerable amount of hurting- is a bad guy. He's played to perfection by Mickey Rourke in surely the best performance of his career. For many fans Marv is Sin City and the fact that he's been done so well is testament to how well the source material has been handled.

The other tales are The Big Fat Kill with Clive Owen and That Yellow Bastard with Bruce Willis. The latter is excellent as Hartigan, the honest, honourable cop that gives everything to save a young girl. Personally, I also liked his story better than Owen's, but there's really not much between them. All three tales work together and give a pretty good look at Miller's very dark noir world. There's more to come- Rodriguez has stated that he intends to film all of the Sin City graphic novels- so go and see this one now. Preferably on a big screen to get the full effect.

Finally, there was Star Wars Revenge of the Sith. I'm a big geek but even my faith in the Star Wars franchise was shaken by The Phantom Menace- it's not that it was a bad movie, its just that too much of it was juvenile. The pod-race aliens were, by and large, merely cartoon characters and I don't need to say anything more than Jar-Jar Binks. You know what I mean. But Darth Maul saved the movie for me- Ray Park was astounding as the Sith apprentice and I was only sorry that they killed him off so soon. Attack of the Clones restored my belief that Lucas actually knew what he was doing- Hayden Christensen was wooden and the dialogue was stiff and unatural but, hey, it's a George Lucas movie- that's what he does.

ROTS proved that all along Lucas had a vision- though it sometimes felt like he was making it up as he went along. Episode Three validates his skill as a storyteller and, for me anyway, it lifts up the first two films. Christensen shines as the burgeoning Vader- his descent into the Dark Side is fantastically done- and the effects are a cut above. I watched TPM after seeing this and the scenes on Coruscant just don't compare- just take a look at the sky in ROTS- it's perfectly done. Coruscant looks like a real place and Blade Runner is no longer the ultimate futuristic city. McGregor is also better in this film as Obi-Wan, he finally seems comfortable in the role. Natalie Portman is relegated to supporting actor, but in her big emotional scene towards the end of the film with Vader she's completely convincing.

I had intended to review this film when I first saw it but I was stunned by it. It's a superb piece of film-making. Cinema exists for films like this- there's just something magical about Star Wars. That this might signal the end of Star Wars gives it more impact as it's the end of a mythos that mattered so much to me and my friends when we were kids playing with action figures and toy space-ships. When Order 66 is issued and Anakin returns to the Jedi Temple it's heartbreaking. Finally, when Obi-Wan and Anakin do battle, well, it works. The last scene is a superb touch- and it'll make you want to go and watch the original trilogy once more. Revenge of the Sith is the film that Star Wars fans have always wanted to see and it ties together the old and the new better than I could have hoped. Just awesome.

Scarlett Johansson

Scarlett Johansson has appeared in not much that I've seen- does Eight Legged Freaks count?- so I can't really comment on her ability as an actress, but she certainly seems to hark back to a time when celebrities actually looked glamorous and seemed to take care of their appearance. She's also due to appear in The Black Dahlia based on the novel by the utterly superb James Ellroy and also in 24 in 2006. Let's hope that they keep making that show. Jack Bauer needs to have quite a few more "bad days".

Land of the Dead

I've got to say that I'm a huge fan of zombie films- and that many of them are pretty dire. Something that doesn't often stop me watching them. In the genre there are few truly good films- among them are the Dawn of the Dead remake, Versus, Shaun of the Dead and the original Romero films Night and Dawn of the Dead. While Day of the Dead is ranked with the other two parts of the trilogy by fans, I'd have to argue that as a movie, it's not quite in the same class. Sure, it's got some really gross effects but the acting and dialogue aren't on the same level.

As such, my hopes for Romero's new Land of the Dead were not high. It's been many years since Romero ventured into the world of zombies and I guess I thought that he was past it. Well, according to the review on Retrocrush, I'm wrong- Land of the Dead gets a good write up and Romero's idea of the zombies evolving sounds like it has been handled well. Could be the genre is going to get another classic to add to the (short) list.

BTW, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost of Spaced and Shaun of the Dead fame get to appear as zombies in LOTD. It's pretty cool that they've gone from being fans of the Romero films to actually being in one.