That's fucking stupid

Posts Tagged ‘terrorists’

The use of the soldier for propaganda purposes we view as against international law

Thank you very much Capt Jon Stock, US military spokesperson in Kabul. Do you really honestly for one tiny second think that the freedom fighters of Afghanistan give a monkey’s brown shit about ‘international law’? They aren’t fighting a nice media friendly police action to spur on their economy or show the rest of the world how tough they are, they are fighting for their lives as invaders have been occupying their country and shooting their place up for nearly a decade.

These plucky little bastards fought off the USSR so they’re not going to play nicely and make it all look like war is a pleasant and friendly place to be. They won’t stop themselves from waterboarding, castrating and then gutting this poor guy who should never have been there in the first place.

The UK recently lost a few guys in Afghanistan; guys who signed up to protect their country but ended up being shipped half way around the world to invade some else’s country. Try telling their folks about your precious international law.

War is nasty. Really fucking nasty. Making up some rules about how war should be fought stops it being a war and makes it a sport. We’re playing games with our soldiers’ lives while the other side are fighting for their lives, fighting for their families and fighting for their homeland.

Naive activist and Amnesty International vocal chord Tom Parker told the BBC:

“These are criminal acts. Torture is illegal under American law, it’s illegal under international law. America has an international obligation to prosecute the individuals who carry out these kind of acts.”

International law is a fantasy; it’s whatever the biggest boys in the playground say it is.

Here’s a little message for the dumbass americans that are now choosing to whine about the use of torture:

President Obollocks has issued an order to prohibit the use of torture techniques; any use from that point on is not authorised and the people concerned can be bitchslapped to high heaven. Any previous use of torture was authorised right up to the office of Presidential Warlord El Busho, the bloke you guys voted for; if anyone should have their back against the wall it’s him and not his mindless brainwashed drones who were just following orders. Also, on a side note, if you want to fight a war on a trumped up idea of a terror threat then you have to accept that some of the darker agencies of you country are going to do some nasty things to fight that war; waterboarding a few innocent suspects is childsplay compared to this.

Retrospectively prosecuting people for doing their jobs is just retarded, I am not defending what they did but at the time it was authorised by the crazy warmongering bandito that was elected to the White House.

It’s almost as retarded as blaming bankers for the current economic fucktardery even though they were just acting in the best interests of their employers and customers and within the laws set out by the government we all elected.

What does it mean to be British? Not a lot really. I’m not British, I’m English and I don’t know many people who would describe themselves as British. In the United Kingdom we have got Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, Cornish, Indian, Pakistani, Jamaicans, Jews, Ethiopians, Bangladeshi, Polish and a whole heap of other cultures.

In the US you will find African Americans, Irish Americans, Jewish Americans and many others but they are all Americans. Their relative racial harmony may stem from the fact that they all pledge allegiance to their country; meanwhile in the UK the different groups fight each other to retain their identity. The BNP is gaining ground in the UK at the moment because they are appealing to the whites who are fed a stream of fear inducing ‘news’ about immigration, young black men stabbing each other and benefit frauds. They wish to promote ‘British’ to mean white nationals and this will further cement the divides. If we want to live in a country that accepts different cultures then we must start to identify British as a diverse and ethnically varied single culture.

A fortune cookie once said:

Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind allegiance of fools.

The message behind the proverb is that rules are there to show people what generally is and is not acceptable but they are fallable so should not be seen as inflexible boundries. Unfortunately, where rules and laws fall down is when dealing with people who follow rules too closely and use them for their own means.

Most civilised societies have laws which prohibit murder but most countries also have a pretty narrow definition of murder and an often less serious crime of manslaughter. Murder is defined as the taking of life with malice aforethought, or with the intention of doing it. If I cause an accident which kills someone then that would be manslaughter but if I set out to kill someone then that would be murder. Proving the intent is the hard part and often means that prosecutors settle for manslaughter charges rather than murder because they are easier to prove. Unfortunately this puts us in a situation where occasionally accidental deaths are convicted as murder because the guilty party cannot prove it was accidental and also means that a clever murderer will be able to make the death seem either accidental or claim that it was accidental in order to get a reduced sentence.

Pedophiles can get their kicks just by being in the audience at a school swimming gala while parents are unable to take photos of their own kids, terrorists find new and interesting ways of causing mayhem while regular travellers get their duty free booze confiscated because it breaks the 100ml rule and copyright or patent laws are used by big corporations to attack the small creative groups that the laws were designed to protect.

The legal system has always had loop holes but the judiciary were selected for their strong moral judgement and ability to make decisions based on the evidence provided. Some of these decisions were subjective and occasionally errors of judgement happened. In an effort to prevent this from happening we, as a society, have built greater and greater layers of complexity to the legal system and filled the statute books with more and more laws which are designed to stipulate exactly what can and can’t be done in any given situation. The problem with closing loop holes is that for every one you close, many more open up. The idea of ‘rights’ is great however they must be evenly applied and are most often used by the malicious in order to escape or evade punishment.

A few years ago there was a story going around that a homeowner was sued by a burglar who had slipped while breaking in. It caused much outrage and was seen as a poster boy example for the ‘political correctness gone mad’ that the Daily Mail is keen to womble on about. In an ideal world this case (if it indeed existed) would have been thrown out by the courts for contravening the basic ideals of common sense and personal responsibility…

But what if it had? If a homeowner is allowed not liable for injury if the other party is trespassing then it might be wise to make sure that you have written invitations from the unscrupulous householders you may visit; they may exploit the loophole if you injure yourself at theirs by claiming you were trespassing. If a burglar injured himself while stealing from you he might think it wise to claim that you deliberately injured him, thus putting you in a riskier position.

Legislating for every eventuality is a process which leads inevitably towards totalitarianism and cannot be achieved without it, we are already happily skipping down that path and it would take a significant reverse in public policy to take us back to the point where judges were trusted to make decisions and policemen could use their discretion, the golden era that the “BBC Have your say” gang wistfully recall.

Media responsibility is pretty important if we want to steer away from a totalitiarian Britain. Newspapers and TV channels competing for attention are prone to blowing unusual events out of proportion. News coverage brings the unusual to the public attention. A few million people going to work is unremarkable yet a few million people trapped at home because of snow is unusual and worthy of news. All too often the remarkable events that capture the public imagination fuel massive changes in policy and legislation which are disproportionate to the original and improbably events.

In short, don’t worry about the little things that the papers report. It’s the stuff they don’t report that is happening every day in every city all around the country. Legislating for the little stuff just takes our eyes off the big stuff or gives the perpetrators new loopholes to use to their advantage.