Thursday 21 January 2010

...China's economy grew by 8.7% ..

so would anyone's economy if they were allowed to keep their currency at stupid cheap levels and so leach jobs and wealth from those countries too stupid to take measures to prevent it.

we need to to put taxes on all chinese goods to put them up to the correct currency level. or see china increase in wealth while we increase in poverty and debt.

Yawn!...another Iraq whitewash...er..I mean inquiry.

Just how much is it all costing the poor old taxpayer?

I wonder what footy's on tele tonight?

HHhmmm Britains economy, hhhmmm 7,000 fall in unemployment, but a 10,000 rise in the South East.

Lloyds cutting another 585 workers.

Government cutting back on the foreign office and terrorist spending in Pakistan.

NHS ring fenced until 2012, but after that what then, at the moment they are talking of a 20 billion quid cut, hhhmm how much will it by then.

When will we wake up to a failing economy, with massive spending cuts ahead?

Or just print more money?

2...another Iraq whitewash...er..I mean inquiry...

have you watched all the evidence? i have. it has revealed a huge amount. I notice the telegraph yesterday had a cartoon suggesting the inquiry was boring. Who benefits from dissing an inquiry that is revealing the errors of the iraq war? The only people who come out badly are the FO related ones who come across as fractious hostile and unreliable witnesses with a line to sell.

BLOWING IN THE WIND

The Straw Man has endured by sensing which way the wind blows. Not so much a 'safe pair of hands' as an adjustable pair (minimum) of allegiances.

However, I have been paying close attention to Chilcott - they are very able (way beyond anything the meeja will find edgyfying). At the end of the exercise, Chilcott WILL KNOW WHERE THE BODIES ARE, but one can only assume his report will - somehow - you know - as it were - NOT QUITE TELL. 'Twas ever, Britishly, thus.

'UK counter-terror 'ambitions' cut
The government says spending on counter-terror projects in Pakistan is rising - but not by as much as it wanted'

Is this related to this:

'Pakistan's army has said it will launch no new offensives on militants in 2010, as the US defence secretary arrived for talks on combating Taliban fighters.

Army spokesman Athar Abbas told the BBC the "overstretched" military had no plans for any fresh anti-militant operations over the next 12 months. '

On the one hand Pakistan makes more sacrifices against the Taliban than us and much analysis (like the location of bin Laden) in the West could be wrong.

On the other hand past attempts by Pakistan to negotiate with the Talibs were wrong headed and counter productive like the Swat agreements.

But Pakistan can't fail to comprehend that whilst it does not want to become a proxy colony for the US the world is well aware of both Pakistans nuclear arsenal and its problems with internal stability.

I can see how providing aid to the North West Frontier police is very useful but given the suspicions about elements of the ISI I would query the British strategy in any event.

Are the Pakistanis declining to also use their airforce against identified terrorist targets?

#3 ecolizzy

"When will we wake up to a failing economy, with massive spending cuts ahead?"

I think you will find they have and also that's what Cameron and Brown have been talking about of late and what the whole election will probably revolve around.

No marks for observation.

The economic solution of the BNP's Griffin was to get rid of the banks and to build "things" in London - but then it was alleged that he lost an eye to a shotgun cartridge in a fire so who will listen to him.

Even the Lib Dems need to beef up exactly what they would do to regulation so we never got another "unique global phenomenon" as Brown described the carbon copy of the Wall St Crash.

But should they do so I think that will sway a lot of floating voters their way.

Sanity is the way forward.

On the Iraq Inquiry the toothless Chilcott continues to "gum" away and we have seen the "sub spin" as the politicians don't let any buck stop with them. Hoon was not really responsible for the lack of helicopters hitting the front line and Straw had private doubts.

They were just cabinet members and who could expect a collegiate system to tease the moral and practical issues from such intellects as Blair ("why would anybody want to closely regulate perfectly respectable banks?") and Brown - whose sub spin message has always seemed to be "it was Blair's war".

So that's it then when we examine MPs' pay and probably cabinet pay and examine the roles do we count the right to declare war as a perk or a responsibility?

Do we pay the PM less because he gets to use the Army like toys or more because of sober war responsibilities?

We went to war because one individual had examined his own profound consciousness and decided it would be a good thing - and he was profoundly wrong.

Why won't this happen again and who is putting forward policies to prevent Blairs "chum" the Attorney General Goldsmith from purporting legality?

This is interesting research...https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7044550/Too-much-choice-leaving-us-bewildered-and-depressed.html

I'd love to hear what Oliver James had to say about it, I wonder if he took part, he says our wealth is leading to us in the rich societies being depressed.

#4 jaunty...

I was not trying to belittle the subject of the enquiry just the point of it all...no one in the establishment is going to go to jail over it and not one single soldier's life will have been worth it...its just the whole damn charade that makes me sick!

#9

It is undoubtedly true Lizzy

But it is also surely a pointless and expensive exercise of stating the b*****ng obvious as Mr Fawlty might say.

Perhaps, to borrow from BarrieSingleton, there is a lack of wisdom and discernment at play here en masse.

It affects all aspects of lives. People have problems with food/weight, alcohol addiction and more sometimes because of choice. They are unable to choose between a starter and a pudding so have both.

More choice also leads to more waste. It also perversley leads to more conformity. Like Sheeples we look and see what is decreed as fashionable this week, be it clothes, cars, eateries, holidays, weddings - then ALL flock to copy. So individuality is lost.

Do you think if the Poorer westerners, and NON westerners, HAD the same choices available to THEM, they would be any more able to resist falling at the same hurdles?

China's output overtaking that of Japan - and eventually that of the US - is an inevitable outcome of its population size; there is no way of turning the clock back. However, it should not significantly change what already existed in the globalised economy, but it is adding massively to that, to the total wealth of the world; something which will benefit all of us not just the Chines.

“UK foreign counter-terror spending 'ambitions' cut”

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8471608.stm

The government has admitted it will be spending "less than we had ambition to spend" on counter-terrorism projects in Pakistan due to the falling pound.

---------------------------

Why the outcry?

The 7/7 terrorists came from Leeds and the would be 'exploding pants' Detroit plane bomber was from City University, London.

Related to my #9 here is the perfect example of us in the West must have the latest must have, because some soppy celebrity has one!

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8467681.stm

I suppose the RSPCA in a couple of years time will have loads of them, once the carpet, furniture and garden have been rooted to pieces!

MIGHT IT BE THAT HARMONY WITH NATURE IS A CONTENTED STATE? (#9)

That might mean some UNFAIRNESS in our diet is like psychological 'roughage'. Oh dear - the infantile politicians, handiing out lollypops to all, are not going to find that at-all agreeable.

10

yes no one is going to jail but for them something worse is happening. Through their own words the hand of history is rubbishing their reputations in public ie their life's work. no small matter for those who prize that sort of thing.

given there was no threat to the uk a vexacious and unnecessary war like this with no respect to the duty of care of the uk or iraqi citizens does look 'a crime' against humanity. The UN resolutions against Saddam's Iraq still stand because the current iraqi Govt [like Saddam] will not recognise the borders with Kuwait. So things haven't moved despite iraq getting a third national river [of blood].

Brightyangthing

i've jjust read all yyour posts which I have.found interesting and I particularly took note of yyour views on tolerrce.

mim

#9 ecolizzy your link
Too much choice leaving us bewildered and depressed?

"Modern life is making us miserable because we have too much choice, claims new research"

In my case it's too much of nearly everything that upsets me.
I know this is old age moaning again, but I remember 1950s, as a typical family without a car, having to walk almost 2 miles for a bus that ran 2 per hour. Going out visiting was thus a struggle and an adventure.

In 1996, when we moved to our rather run-down community, it had single-decker buses running about 4/hour; now it has huge double-decked (77 seats + 22 standing or 3 pushchairs) that run every 6 minutes!

Benefits for the unemployed and free travel for over 65s has resulted in SELF-INDULGENCE rather than misery, and has done nothing for our self-reliance. Having taken my car off the road, I observe lots of people travelling for the sake of filling the day; some probably pursuing unnecessary consumerism, and getting obese through lack of walking.

I'm looking forward to some cuts in local government spending, we need to get back to the WW2 spirit again.

THIS LITTLE PIGGY WENT TO ...................

#14

Are they self basting?????????? That could solve the RSPCA problem. I know a good butcher.

#11 Do you think if the Poorer westerners, and NON westerners, HAD the same choices available to THEM, they would be any more able to resist falling at the same hurdles?

Probably not Brighty! The trouble is we have in the west lost our direction I feel. We don't need another thing, except perhaps peaceful lives. I think the examples you make are correct, we are under as much peer pressure as children. But why do some of us take notice and some not. I suppose without some type of drive in life people give up. But what a pity that drive isn't to help others, or the surroundings we live in. I can't stand the pace of life now, everybody must work, and work and work, and when at play it must be full on, either drunk out of your head, or spending money on clothes, makeup and trifles that we really don't need. Although I suppose it's made big economic growth for China!

#18 Although younger than you Indi, I have the same experience as you did when young. Age 10 I moved to the countryside, and buses where one every 2 - 3 hours, so I often walked 3 - 4 miles to town. As you say a trip anywhere was really exciting. I remember car number plate spotting with my brother, we'd wait ages at the front of my grandmothers garden, on Sundays (on the A2!) to see a car go by and write the number down! Now it's continuous traffic all day and night long.

But I'm afraid my kids do indulge themselves, one of my sons and my daughter think nothing of driving 30 miles for some minor errand. I say to them wait, do several things at once, but no everything has to be NOW!

Hee,hee, I haven't applied for my bus pass yet! ; )

But I think it all points to one thing, the breakdown of families. Partly because everybody has moved for work, and also they think the grass is greener somewhere else. So people don't have family on hand to visit locally, or help in times of need, they call on the state.

Jack Straw, like other witnesses before him, described Saddam Hussein as "a huge threat" but I haven 't heard any of them being asked to specify the nature of the threat. I don't believe he was a threat us or anyone else in Europe. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I can only suppose that the "threat" was as much of a fiction as WMDs.

At Last!

Undoubtedly it should be banned in public.

Why?

It is devisive, it segregates, it signals oppression, it signifies suppression, it promotes inequality, it implies - illogical - difference, it covertly promotes intolerance (both ways) and it is a security issue.

For all sorts of similar reasons so must the headscarf, the crucifix and almost any other overt or discreet religious symbol be excluded from the entire education system if not entirely in public.


Religion has proven, and is proving still, to have destructive and dangerous aspects which are promoted by symbolism.

If one believes that religion is of the soul ....

then it is solely a matter for the individual.

#14 lizzy

My teenage daughter keeps trying to persuade me to buy another rabbit as her pet one is lonely. I does run round and round me in circles, maybe a courtship routine mistaking me for a partner? Another male might fight, and a female breed like......some homosap groups? Perhaps a couple of minipigs might be the answer for companionship? We don't have any of those homosap groups as neighbours who might stage a protest march.

GUINEA PIGS BEAT THEM ALL. #24

Make sure you get a female. I'll tell you why when you are 21.

Burka .... Again.

The Nn team deserves to be congratulated for giving airtime to this issue and it will be interesting to hear how the studio guests ‘divide’ ... religious, ethnic or secular motives?

Perhaps now Nn will do an item on as to why the three main parties point blank refuse - almost - to discuss immigration solely relating to numbers? (Not, as on the the rare occasions they still dare to discuss the issue, with the usual implication that it relates to race!)

Come on Nn, stop the dumbing down of the BBC and start treating us like adults!

And apologies for the spelling stroke typing errors in 23 above.

Hasty!

it's the Jack show, protecting his mate Tony but leaving just a little wriggle room 'cos if it all goes pear shaped he can cut and run and leave him to make his own arrangements cos Jack is never shown with the smoking gun...far too smart for that is our Jack....another thing, why does he answer any question with a rambling overlong response, slow, tedious and I am gradually losing....the....will to.......live.....

#24
I DO NOT apologise for not apologising.

Immediately after posting my #24 I was tempted to post a withdrawal, or pretend 'I didn't mean that' or 'I was not feeling well at the time' as it contains an inference that might give offence to a certain group - not a racist remark, but a CULTURAL-IST one (a alternative to Barrie's 'anti-' v '-phobic' suggestion).

I have caught up on yesterday's NN blog and have to observe
what an outpouring of mature thought (and wisdom) it contains, compared to some days when dear diary prevails. On the basis of that discussion(and given the continued level of tolerance of the monitor) I am now able to state, without let of hindrance, that there have been certain changes in the composition of our society that I do not like, that I will continue to rail against, and will not allow pc, EU regulations, Equality legislation, or an army of 'Community Development' officials or their community funds to sway.

I hereby reserve the right to DISCRIMINATE against certain beliefs, customs and changes in society norms that my English upbringing and heritage instilled in me, so there.

I'm continuing to score mentions of all the evidence that Iraq did not have WMD, this time Reich Marshal Straw at the Iraq Enquiry-

1. The uranium from Niger forged documents - no mention.

2. Defector Hussein Kamel - no mention.

3. Impossibility of Sarin stockpiles- no mention.

4. Aluminum tubing used for rockets not centrifuges- no mention.

and I'll add another for FCO people-

5. The resignation of Elizabeth Wilmshurst who was a legal adviser at the Foreign Office, who concluded the war was illegal-

https://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0324-02.htm

- no mention

Straw mentioned Blix rather a lot, going on about there being unanswered questions about Iraqs former weapons program, yet even today what the weapons inspectors wanted as proof hasn't been found, ego Saddam could never have complied with the requests made. Was this a deliberate charade to box Saddam in a corner?

The Inquiry is all subterfuge, grey propaganda, it's all he said, she said stuff, where are the letters between Bush and Blair? Where is the letter that was handed to and retrieved from the Dutch PM? Where are all the documents pertaining to my points above? It's an attempt to muddy the waters, to make it impossible for anyone to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the war was a series of crimes, not only international, but domestic.

The one thing which gets me about Muslim women wearing the full " penguin " outfit in public is that they are often accompanied by their husband wearing all the latest designer jeans, tea shirt, jacket and trainers. This must represent some form of hypocrisy ?

Iraq Inquiry

Jack 'Dr Blix said' Straw comes across as some mumbling bumbling character from a Dickens novel who kept trying to stick the knife into Blix as some kind of get out jail free card? The inquiry had to keep dragging him back to the topic.

for me the session only picked up towards the end when questions were asked about the need to be careful using the military and the clarifications of Chirac.

How can a man put a knife to somebodys throat and not be taken to threating life? didn't this man get what what was due to him?

Legality is a red herring?

Okay, lets start with the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried the Nazis which said-

"essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Of course the people on NN might be siding with the Nazis in their comments, or perhaps they are just dangerous and ignorant fools.

Of course there are also crimes in English Law, for example the Geneva Conventions are part of English Law, for example the attack on civilians in Fallujah and elsewhere, the use of indiscriminate weapons and the abject and deliberate flaunting of the duties on occupying powers.

Then we come to the consequences of the war, like angry Muslims blowing us up on the Tube and leaving behind testimony that they did it because of the illegal invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. That means they were incited by the actions of the government, something the intelligence agencies had warned would happen, that is incitement to commit murder and incitement to commit acts of war against the Crown, an act of Treason under English Law.

Were crimes commited. Yes.

Can they be proven in courts in England, the Hague and any jurisdiction that recognises Universal Jurisdiction? Absolutely.

Will they ever? No, the police and CPS protect the criminals because it pays well.

NN is getting pretty good at finding the militant muslim these days. Tonight it was the turn of a pretty young woman in white, she shouted down the duffy old Lord Pearson, what a gentleman he looked compared to the Harpeson clone.

Why are muslims so militant, why do they shout everyone down, why can't they have a normal conversation, is it because they know they're not right?

How some of you have followed and watched, and listened to all that Iraq inquiry I just don't know. Hats off to you! I listened to mumbling Jack for a while today, he looked a broken old man, who didn't believe what he was saying.

I say again I think this is another waste of taxpayers money, and we shall never get any answers. Blair wanted to look like Maggie, she rushed into the Falklands, and he'd got to have his moment of glory as well. Don't you feel sorry for the ordinary people in the streets of Iraq.

Thed government jumped into bed with the city and these people don't care about do not care about the people of this country just money. so the government of this country have sold Cadburys down the road to ruin.

"Army spokesman Athar Abbas told the BBC the "overstretched" military had no plans for any fresh anti-militant operations over the next 12 months. '

On the one hand Pakistan makes more sacrifices against the Taliban than us and much analysis (like the location of bin Laden) in the West could be wrong."

estimated 300 al qaeda and 3000 pak taliban , in pak terms the threat is small compared to the threat from usa-uk destabilising pak and seeking to de nuke it.

pak has uncovered numerous usa covert operations in pak at sensitive sites across country.

actual threat to paks nukes is minimal, though over hyped for political reasons in the usa/uk by war hawks.

"On the other hand past attempts by Pakistan to negotiate with the Talibs were wrong headed and counter productive like the Swat agreements."

there are different factions , there are the local talibs and then there are the ones being funded by india-raw and uk-usa. local talibs can be negotiated with, those used for destabilising pak cannot.

"the world is well aware of both Pakistans nuclear arsenal and its problems with internal stability."

threat to nukes is minimal. internal stability is being helped byn cia/uk/india proxies.

"The 7/7 terrorists came from Leeds "

precisely what the pak government states.

"It is devisive, it segregates, it signals oppression, it signifies suppression, it promotes inequality, it implies - illogical - difference, it covertly promotes intolerance (both ways) and it is a security issue."

thats what the propaganda tells you. but then propaganda uses all kinds of prejudices to promote its wares.

"The one thing which gets me about Muslim women wearing the full " penguin " outfit in public is that they are often accompanied by their husband wearing all the latest designer jeans, tea shirt, jacket and trainers. This must represent some form of hypocrisy ?"

no because they are wearing it underneath. the burka etc is merely an overcoat worn out of the home / family environment.

men like women must dress modestly.

"NN is getting pretty good at finding the militant muslim these days."

certainly not militant but very articulate and intelligently put her views across by having a very good debating skill that was well presented.

she just didnt allow all of that conflating of issues that is more emotional and tends to be irrational as used by non muslims to make their point which in general is about not liking islam .

it wrong footed all of those in the studio - i can see why you would object to her.

RE: The Iraq Enquiry and mr John Rentoul's contribution from the sidelines:

I have found the recent contributions from Mr John Rentoul in several TV appearances culminating in tonights appearance on Newsnight. Mr Rentoul (who does he think he is anyway) is being extremely patronising to the general public of this country. Its quite clear he is a big supporter of Tony Blair and its in his interests to be so. His throwaway comments about the current enquiry and the apparent expert advice he is giving on subjects on which he has no qualifications or experience are quite staggering. The sooner he is removed from our TV screens the better. In his opinion there was no circumstances where the invasion of Iraq could have been illegal. I am glad he was never Attorney General. This enquiry according to him is a waste of time as all of the information its generating was heard before or is in the Public Domain. Well I dont think I am a fool and there are millions like me in this counrty who believe the previous enquiries were a white wash partially due to the fact that Tony Blair saw to it that their terms of reference were restricted. I would rather listen to the members of Blair's Cabinet like Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair himself being grilled, and hear how they answer the questions. Mr knowitall Rentoul cannot answer the questions I have on the circumstances leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the previous enquiries have not addressed those questions either.

'The industry lobby group for banks suggested Mr Obama was trying to return the US to the past.

"The better answer is to modernise the regulatory framework and not take the industry and the economy back to the 1930s," said the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group that represents large Wall Street institutions'

So what are the banks suggesting specifically and why haven't they proactively put forward voluntary changes instead to make sure that this crash cannot be repeated? Implicitly they have relied on their economic might and the fact that they donate money, I believe, to both parties in the US.

I gather Labour are thinking of going down the same road here - should they get the chance.

Well given they probably won't have much choice due to probable legal changes in the US where many of our banks are based that's not surprising as I assume there would be restrictions on foreign large/complex banks.

What is surprising is that this crash was not a crash in the eyes of Brown and that "all of the regulation around the world" was not up to the job of policing the financial sector.

So why the sudden need to cut the too large and complex banks down to size?

How does that also square with having encouraged the Lloyds and HBOS link up as I assume that they would be separated? Shore up a dodgey bank and make it too large and then break it up. A lawyers delight I would think.

Hardly the act of the great financial wizard who not only did not see the crash coming but also didn't see the proposed solution of the US by the sounds.

THE PERCEPTIVENESS OF THE NEWSNIGHT BLOGGER (#31 35)

"Straw comes across as some mumbling bumbling character from a Dickens novel" Close! Have a cigar!!

Jack may well be descended from Uriah Heap. Heap constantly declared himself 'very umble' while the Straw Man drops in 'Sir This' and 'Sir That' also using 'allow me to' and 'if I might say' and 'with respect'. Further, he has that unique behaviour, regularly in evidence on the front bench, and visible once at the enquiry, of forcing his tongue slowly through his lips. Apparently Uriah Heap had a number of twitches and such.

I felt Jack's best card was to refer to 'people of high integrity' followed by a few examples - including John Scarlett.
He also came out with: 'intelligence is patchy and sporadic, BY ITS NATURE'. Where does that put 'BEYOND DOUBT' Jack? I am glad you gave up the Law. Shame about Britain.

You have to watch these insects to spot the common pattern of their behaviour.
What emerges is they are all obfuscating in defence of something. They have lost all sense of representing US.

#34 ecolizzy

"Why are muslims so militant, why do they shout everyone down, why can't they have a normal conversation, is it because they know they're not right"

I seem to recall that you previously have said that you agree with some of the things that the BNP say.

You also seemed to find common ground with an old National Socialist type that used to post on here.

Now when it has become almost a monthly occurrence to learn that the police have arrested some would be far right psycho with grenades and home made bombs and suchlike I think that it is trite to describe Muslims as militant.

In fact the far right usually are militant and most Muslims are moderates and clearly don't endorse terrorism.

The far right are too psychologically imbalanced to notice that they are not right - but fortunately most people do notice.

"Ban Female Islamic Coverings?"

It should be remembered - or, astonishingly, noticed for the first time, for some of you - that Islam isn't like other religions. It's a religion-apart. The fact we constantly talk about it proves that and speaks of a 'separate' part of society. This isn't something to be proud of.

If wearing a head or face covering truly is and has always been, in Britain at least, a personal choice, what lies behind the sporadic appearances, in the last few years, of head coverings of materials not part of the norm; alongside new colours and patterns? Although, not entirely unsurprisingly, limited to the women who have the courage to be different, it does suggest a reaction against something and a desire to 'break free'. From what, I wonder? Islamic female oppression? Stultifying Islamic fashion?

#37 wendyman

'there are different factions , there are the local talibs and then there are the ones being funded by india-raw and uk-usa. local talibs can be negotiated with, those used for destabilising pak cannot.'

I think in Swat the problem was that the agreement was not adhered to and when the Talibs are shooting up the place not many tens of kilometers from the capital that makes people nervous.

As for the nuclear weapons security how do you know how secure they are and whether or not there are elements of the ISI who are sympathetic to al Qaeda who have knowledge of the security around the weapons?

Was the ISI involved in the Benazir Bhutto assassination as some have claimed?

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

On the one hand I hope that a solution where the least number of innocent people die in Pakistan is found but on the other I think there is huge peril for Pakistan and the region if they don't find a permanent solution to the problem.

I can see a lot of the history of the problems in the region was due to the US/Russian dynamics and nobody expects Pakistan to act like a colony.

Probably we both agree that better understanding and communication and coordination is needed.

But the clock is running and if the US gives up in Afghanistan and goes home I don't see things magically getting better in Pakistan.

#28 indignantindegene

"I hereby reserve the right to DISCRIMINATE against certain beliefs, customs and changes in society norms that my English upbringing and heritage instilled in me, so there."

Given in the past you seem to be one of those that sees strength in some of the BNP propaganda and the benefits of the English Defence League is that really a shock?

But remember that when the war was fought against those horrid Nazis it was a war against the evils of tyranny and dictatorship and that tolerance is a virtue of democracy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

HHhmmm and they say it will take 20 years to get to 70 million?

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8473869.stm

Must be half way there already!

35

the straw evidence is one of the poorest sessions. the others in many cases have been giving excellent insights into the political class heart of darkness.

like Apocaplyse Now the Chilcot Inquiry is making its way up the river into the jungle. The scenes and characters they encounter get increasingly more bizarre, confused and detached from reality as they get closer to the 'Kurtz' character ['are my methods unsound?' 'I don't see any method sir'].

i think we are at the point in the film where the soldier firing in a panic into the night is asked 'who's the officer in command here?' and he screams back 'ain't you?'.

the bbc blog must be using some kind of new script as i can now no longer use the page up and down buttons to move through the blog. all the other sites i use work fine. so it this blog specific.

BLOG SPECIFIC (#49)

Have you tried the EDGY key Jaunty?

WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, JOHNNY?

I am a little behind in the coverage of Chilcot and the many and various claims and counter claims and consider myself fair and apolitical.

But, if you will forgive the middle of the night musings of an aging housewife, loving mother and humanatarian, this has been clouding my thoughts recently.......


WHAT IF, after Chilcot,
• The Government of the Day are found to have waged ‘unlawful’ war on Iraq
• The Government (and all those who voted in favour) individually and collectively are found guilty of war crimes
• What if much of the rest of the world (Muslim) applies
o One guilty – ALL guilty
o One damned - all damned
against all INFIDELS

WHAT THEN?

Is that the desired outcome?

Can we find precedent in history as to how a nation will suffer for the beliefs and acts of a few madmen?

Is that almost unthinkable outcome the reason for twitching, blinking, lack of eye contact, wishy washy language, squirming............ of those called to account?

a sign of subservience

women and their clothes. schools always have this problem.
do people have problems with how nuns dress? which is also middle eastern in origin.

would the bbc have a newsreader or NN presenter in a burkha? The bbc would insist muslim newsreaders wear a tie which originally is a symbol of christian victory over muslims. so clothes even the suit and tie are sectarian symbols.

are people going to ban the jewish hassidic clothes uniform? the buddhist robes? the hell's angel denim?

this is a problem caused by nihilist multiculturalism which says there is no such thing as the good and so all things are 'equal'. so they cannot choose or decide what is good. confusion reigns.

Class

all class come from the role gaming monarchy. Monarchy depends upon discriminating against people. It's very language is that of discrimination. Yet this is the mindset we have privatised into the very heart of the british psyche ie the head of state.

if labour really wanted to deal with class they only need to make the house of lords and head of state electable, create a new national oath and national anthem [that institutionalises class and the privilege]. but they prefer to whinge on about the symptoms rather than deal with swamp from where all this class comes from.

# 53


"....they only need to make the house of lords and head of state electable, "

Oh God forbid.

You must have much more faith in the discernment and interest (and dare I say intelligence and wisdom (acknowledgement to BS) of the great mass of public at large ANYWHERE in the world to see that as the answer to any world problems. Or even Strictly not an X Factor Ice Dancer!

#45 Go1

We need to apply DISCRIMINATION in what we TOLERATE

"But remember that when the war was fought against those horrid Nazis it was a war against the evils of tyranny and dictatorship and that tolerance is a virtue of democracy."

Your memory is at fault there (you for got to mention Hitler) - and in particular that it was Chamberlain's TOLERANCE of Hitlers re-armament and obvious land-grabbing intentions that allowed appeasement, leading to World WarII.

I would rephrase your conclusion: "blind tolerance is destroying democracy - as we the English once knew it." Tolerance lacking discrimination = lethargy,apathy and complacency (LAC)

Brightyangthing, I.e. The humanitarian housewiffe

Yes, what if almost the whole nation is found guilty apart from a few humanitarian housewives and well, in fact a few more as witnessed by my myself encountering fellow streetwalkers?

Being thoroughly investigated for my recent physical symptoms which alas are preventing me from ice skating but hopefully not dittying which I'm hoping to resume, I'm having a break on the terrace of the Anglesea Arms which I sometimes call The Blue Moon since approximately a couple of years ago for this or that reason.

All the world problems concentrated on the head and arms of a non strictly X factor dancer?
An interesting thought this one, BYT.

mim

All Praise and Thanks be to Allah, I am a Muslimah (Muslim woman) and frankly to be honest, (please excuse my english) I'm sick and tired of people thinking they can talk on behalf of me and my fellow muslim sisters. Let me start by giving you a key fundamental lesson in understanding Islam.
We (Muslims) should not speak out of our own desires in matters relating to our religion - it should always be based upon 2 things - the Quran and the Authentic Sunnah. The sunnah refers to the ahadeeth (the sayings, actions, and tacet approvals of the Prophet Muhammad May peace and blessings be upon him) – by authentic it means that which is authentically established to be from the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him – and due to the hadeeth system – the only system ever of its kind - in determining the authenticity it is never possible for any fabricated, weak hadeeth to be established as a Sunnah of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him. This should be accompanied with the understanding of the first 3 generations (the salafus salih – pious predecessors), who came after the prophet peace and blessings be upon him (i.e. His companions, their students, and the students of these students) – Because the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him said in a hadeeth – "The best of my nation is my generation then those who follow them and then those who follow them." (from the collection of hadeeth: Sahih Bukhari). They were the best in their following of Islam – they understood it well and implemented it. So we look to the best. They are referred to as the salaf us-salih – the pious predecessors or salaf (predecessors) for short.
The difference of opinion lies in the obligation of the face veil, many scholars say that the stronger opinion (in terms of textural evidence) is that it is an obligation, and those who do not say it is an obligation say it is recommended. These opinions are based upon evidences - the Quran and the Sunnah. In our religion the proof is upon the claimants – something that is not found in other religions. So when one makes a claim about the religion it is upon him to produce the proof from the Quran and the Sunnah to support his opinion, coupled with proof that this is the way the salafusalih understood it. This is the orthodox teachings of Islaam, which all muslims should aspire to follow.
The Quran is a set guideline and the Sunnah is its explanation. Books solely on the Explanation of the Quran alone are called tafseer in which there is an explanation on the verse from ahaadeeth (plural of hadeeth) and sayings of the salaf (the 3 generations). So when people quote from the Quran it is incumbant upon them to know the correct understanding and in what context it was revealed to understand how we should conduct these verses in our situations. Allah (The arabic word for The One deserved to be worshipped) has ordered us (in the Quran which is His Words Alone) to observe 5 daily prayers. The Quran does not explain how it is to be performed, rather Allah informed us through the Sunnah of the prophet peace and blessings be upon him, when he said 'Pray as you see me Praying' (from the hadith book: Sahih al-Bukhari) , and so we pray in this manner which was highly observed and preserved. We Muslim women have an extra example in the wives of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, and May Allah be pleased them, in our conduct. Allah orders the woman in the Quran, the translation of which is ‘And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful...’ (24:31). We do not cover based upon our own understanding of the texts rather we look into the Sunnah of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, and then the sayings of the salaf to gain a better understanding. The brackets contain that which is from the tafaseer (plural of tafseer). You have probably noticed that which every narration I have given the reference – this is the way speak about our religion, through establishing the evidence. So when you interview a muslim and their statements does not meet the criterias, then this is rejected. We do not base Islam upon the actions of the Muslims and their statements, rather Islam is based upon Quran and Sunnah. Just like we would not say Catholism preaches the killing of other Christians just because of the IRA.
You claim that Muslim woman are oppressed observing the hijaab - ironically the only ones who say this are non-Muslim men and women, some of which are the same ones who mock her as she walks down the street – tells her she does not exist just because they cannot have a glimpse at her, the ones who refuse to give her a job because of the way she is dressed, the ones who love promiscuity to spread amongst the society, and are concerned with possibly finding a mate. And if it be from a muslim – then usually he does not even know his fundementals (conditions and pillars of faith, or praying) so how can we go to him for knowledge? Has anyone thought to ask a PRACTICING Muslimah about it?
By PRACTICING I mean one apparent in abiding by the commands of her Lord fully and not partially, and she understands her religion and has evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah to support her actions that she claims are from Islam.
I would like to make a clarification on the word hijaab. Hijaab means screening - it usually refers to the screening of a muslim woman. It is not the cloth on her head - rather this is called a khimaar, nor is it the baggy, undecorated dress ALONE- the jilbaab, or the face veil ALONE - niqaab. Rather hijaab is observing the whole screening. As for the claims made in your programme that ‘the majority of the scholars say it is not from Islam’ and ‘it is a culture’ - then this is a sheer fabrication.
I request you to all please speak with knowledge, as lack of knowledge (ignorance) causes problems to prevail in the society. I find it a double standard that this ban on hijaab is to ‘free’ the woman from being oppressed yet it is the same ban that is taking away from me my right to choose how I dress and this is the true oppression. I do not dress to impress, rather I dress in obedience to the One who created me. Banning the Hijaab will only prevent me and many of my Muslim sisters to confine ourselves completely in our homes even out of necessities which we will need to fulfil by depending on others, because the ban refuses us to wear it in public – the only place where we wear our hijaab, something that we will not compromise. Banning the hijaab will prevent us from a job – something that makes me wonder are the government going to introduce a new benefit to accompany this ban – to give us muslim women an income for preventing us to work as they are taking away what some of us deem an obligation upon us, are they going to give her a free computer with internet access so she can fulfil her necessities without her leaving her home without hijaab, are they going to build parks at the back of her garden so that she can take her children out, or spend time with her husband, or a museum, an aquarium, or perhaps a swimming pool?
I do not hesitate to comply for security purposes to a woman who requests me to lift my veil away from the public, at the airport to see if I match my passport identity. Its a shame you don’t think we have a choice to dress this ‘dress of oppression’ which protects us from being molested by immoral men who treat women as a piece of meat bending their necks as she walks past, and whistling as she approaches, or trying to talk to her in an immoral way, and love the plastering of undressed women on billboards, and use chat lines to fulfil their desires or X-rated videos. And yet when a woman tries to protect herself from being subjugated by all these forms of promiscuity – she is the one who is condemned. How shameful!!!
Who knows they might want to completely ban clothes somewhere in the future – and we seek refuge with Allah.
And by the way yes I observe complete hijaab, head to toe!!!
And Finally, all praise and thanks belong to Allah.
(MAY I PLEASE REQUEST THAT IF YOU DESIRE TO UPLOAD THIS THAT IT BE LEFT INTACT WITH NO ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS, AS EACH PART REQUIRES THE EXPLAINATION OF THE OTHER)

#53/54

How about an Upper Chamber elected only by citizens who pass a test meeting agreed standards of education, enlightenment, and contribution to society (eg. x years as a taxpeyer)?

There is a need for a scrutinising/revising body, but it should not be a duplication of the Commons, elected by the masses - thus allowing Equality to the illiterate, the undiscerning (gullible), those with a record of serious criminal offence, and those from alien cultures.

Neither should our laws and culture be decided by the likes of our present bunch of 'Noble Lords' many of whom have bought their titles for cash or political patronage, or becoming famous (and rich) for entertainment, or such 'feats' as running a distance in a split second faster than others.

Feel free to heap abuse, or think the unthinkable Discrimination and IN-Equality.

Class

~54 Addendum

Anyway, what's wrong with having a PLACE in a multi layered society, knowing that place, fulfilling it adequately as long as there is RESPECT for the bearers of various different roles and statuses.

The term CLASS is perhaps outmoded and unsuited but there never will and never should in my view, be an attempt at a single level society. Because all are not equal in every way. Just look at the financial and social mess that the recent 50% in university education has left us with.

A few years back Tony Blair was on a public platform in a televised debate and a question from a trainee doctor for ALL Uni fees being paid by government (taxes – you and me) was that “In a few years time, the dustman will be very grateful that I HAVE BEEN trained at his expense and can save his life when he has a heart attack”

Apart from wanting to slap the young lady for her OWN appalling stereotypical judgement, I LONGED for the interviewer to counter with........
“And just how long before you are grateful for that same bin man trucking away your stinking rubbish every week. It will smell just as bad for all your expensive education and he will have cost the country a lot less for just as essential a service????????”

Didn’t happen!

A few years ago, I was asked to host school prize giving – after turning down requests previously due to an uncertain view of the process (Apologies – I have posted this before) . In my text, I included a self penned analogy to a tree. To paraphrase

“Top of tree is a fine place to be, but would not even exist were it not for the continuing presence of
• The soil (anchor)
• The trunk
• branches
• water
• bark
• fruit/seed
• rotting vegetation (humus)

KNOW your place, and give RESPECT to those in other places.

What did it say in Desiderata back in the 70's.

"for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself."
Trite it might be, but if enough applied it, it could just work.

So, in case you've forgotten - or NEVER EVER Got - it's slightly syrupy wisdom, here's a link.

https://www.businessballs.com/desideratapoem.htm

#58
"....
How about an Upper Chamber elected only by citizens who pass a test meeting agreed standards of education, enlightenment, and contribution to society (eg. x years as a taxpeyer)?"

Looks like a reasonable starting point to me. Hell to administer mind you.

Got my tin hat on already

MASSIVELY INDEBTED TO THE LADY WHO POSTED (#57)

Your combination of erudition and dogmatism illuminate the prevailing human condition far better than any posting of mine. I shall, indeed, file your ENTIRE piece, and use it for discussion among my most gifted friends. You have rendered more service than you know, Muslimah.

If you are (at all) open to debate, you can find an email link, to me, via my website.

Regards and thanks.

#57 There's only one thing I object to Muslimah, and that is not being able to see the face of the person I'm talking to, or is approacing me. You can wear exactly what you like and believe in what you like, but I do want to see you.

COOKING WITH GAS (#58)

Hells Bells IDG2! You are cooking with so much gas that they have issued a crisis warning.

I shall be out among the shoppers at election time under the banner SPOIL PARTY GAMES, awakening the sleepwalking masses to their folly and plight. I hope you wil be dong the same.

FACING UP (#62)

ON THE NAIL LIZZY (#62)

Newborns put great store by faces. Not for nothing, do we have umpteen muscles in the face that talk to the eye of the beholder.

My credo (as any fule kno) is 'stay in tune with nature and hone nurture'.
A covered face breaks my diktat (and as a Daoist, I AM the centre of my universe).

I NEVER keep sun-glasses on, when engaging with another.

CAN WE FIX THEM?

Referring back to some comments earlier (last night) about penal system, internees and staffing and the sentencing of ‘ the Edlington Two’.

I wonder what the chances of effective healing and rehabilitation may be open to the other victims?

What chance of meeting with the love and support so lacking every day of their young lives?

What punishment to those who MADE THEM thus - to their parents???

What to the services who for whatever reason LET this happen? Who were powerless, leaderless, gutless and lacking in support themselves?

What to our society who look away UNTIL such savagery surfaces, then scream FOUL whilst returning to our own safer, sounder, softer worlds, anesthetised by our choices or poison?

How many will Bay for blood?

How many will scoff at any thought of the perpetrators as victims, deserving of our compassion, whilst acknowledging the need for punishment and protection?

How many would be prepared to people ‘family repair units’ – Inviting damaged families (YES WHOLE FAMILIES) to live in supported community where generations of cyclical damage can BEGIN to be mended? Where better practices can be learned and shared.

Didn’t Dr Tanya Brier do that with parents unable to control their children? Mostly about eating and sleeping problems. Could it work on bigger more entrenched issues? Do we have the WILL to actually get our hands dirty, rather than just exercise our mouths on the subject?

#64 I NEVER keep sun-glasses on, when engaging with another.

Ah, nor do I Barrie.

I notice I've been blogdogged. Now would that be because I'm writing about the religion we must never criticise?

I wonder what would have happened to the cast and crew of Monty Python, if it had been a certain religion as opposed to the Christian religion that they had lampooned.

A few things i happen to believe in: Borders launguage and culture, Liberilism is a mental illness - and is medically diagnosed as such - and gang of one needs to get himself a girlfriend. I have no problem with religious types and their quaint beliefs as long as they keep it to themselves. Sadly Muslims choose the opposite path, they shove their religion and culture down our throats and cities and most of us are getting sick of it now. There is a general realisation that it was a mistake in allowing Islam to flourish on these shores and action needs to be taken before it is to late. As the enlightened ones already know, most religions such as christianity are retellings of ancient pagen worship, the worship of the Sun ect. Islam incorporates most of these fables but incorporates the retellings of a warrior warlord who claimed an angel spoke to him. Today he would be in a mental institiution but for some strange reason a billion+ believe this nonsense. Like i've always said, believers of any religion should be treated as mental patients and treated as such.

FAMILY REPAIR UNITS - COUNTRY REPAIR UNITS - GLOBAL REPAIR UNITS? (#65)

At first I was with you BYT. But then I remembered that our Prime Ministers exhibit behaviours that amount to 'sophisticated beatings' of the citizens of this country, analogous to the physical violence of the have-nots; both attempting to assuage their deep seated angst. (I have written all the detail before.)

Britain is sick, it is a 'Western' sickness (Oliver James). We imposed our sickness on much of the world, over centuries, and now watch as it mutates to a global sickness.

This is what led me to the view that ONLY ONE ROUTE IS OPEN: the young. Worldwide TV + humour, is a conduit that can carry philosophical analysis of circumstance and self, to the young DIRECTLY. If those who want us dumb, don't read this, we might just achieve A New Heaven and a New Earth if we

WISE UP THE YOUNG.

WHAT IF CHRIST AND MOHAMMED ARE CHUMS UP THERE? (#67)

We Christians stomped on every word of 'Christ's teaching', as we fouled our own nest and sent missionaries to foul other's.

Might it be that the influx of Muslims to these shores is a onsequence of those two naught boys doling out a bit of come-uppance?

Anyway, Kev. When the Great White Handerchief turns up - I am going to tell.

A MATTER OF STANDARDS (#57)

Lets assume there is a bar in the National Physical Laboratory that is called 'ONE FOOT' (there certainly used to be). It is the absolute standard. If I sell a foot of string, and the buyer doubts its 'footness', we refer to the NPL. The NPL foot is absolute truth where length is concerned - analogous to the Quran in matters of human conduct.

Fast forward a thousand years. The bar is still in the NPL and is still the absolute foot. No one remembers how it got there, it is rumoured to be of mystical origin. Its length is, NOW, a fundamental unit of reality.

HOWEVER, IT WAS ACTUALLY MAN MADE, AND ITS LENGTH IS ARBITRARY.

ONE QUOTE TO STUFF THEM ALL, AND IN THE DARKNESS BIND THEM.

Out of the mouths of babes and Chilcotts! Today's gem from Himself:

"WE WISH TO STAY OUTSIDE PARTY POLITICS - OURS IS A SERIOUS TASK."

Golum golum.

#57Muslimah
Understanding Islam.
"We (Muslims) should not speak out of our own desires in matters relating to our religion - it should always be based upon 2 things - the Quran and the Authentic Sunnah. The sunnah refers to the ahadeeth (the sayings, actions, and tacet approvals of the Prophet Muhammad May peace and blessings be upon him) – by authentic it means that which is authentically established to be from the Prophet"

I welcome a sincere view from a practicing Muslima and respect the views and opinions that you have expressed.

However, as with all religions, your 'authentically established' faith is based on acceptance of claims by one of many prophets, which my dictionary defines thus:

"Prophet: a person who teaches religion and claims that his teaching comes directly from God"

To many in this world, the word 'God' (I credit with a capital out of respect for the opinion of many)stands for many different dieties and symbolic supreme creators. To many others, science, independent study and contemplation discount any such existence.

I have requested and read many tracts from Islamic organisations, and read works by advocates of other faiths and atheism, and can only come to the same conclusion - that there is no proof one way or the other and faith and belief is mainly embedded from early instruction and upbringing, rather than from impartial study, research and contemplation.

Although a non-believer myself (as I was not influenced one way or the other at an early age or by upbringing) I have married a Catholic and have allowed our daughter to arrive at her own conclusions about life.

I have also studied the culture and beliefs of Australian Aboriginals and of several 'tribes' in Papua New Guinea, where I had to produce policies for an Australian company mining in PNG. Many of these beliefsto were typical of primitive, uneducated people who had their culture handed down through centuries. In other societies there is also the 'taint' of a powerful priest class or others seeking power over the masses.

I shall continue to speak up and blog in favour of my own English culture and heritage and against changes in our society that I regard as alien and unwelcome. I wish not to Offend, but to Defend the preservation of my own culture and heritage, against the pressure of attempts to create a false utopia of muliculturalism and equality that threatens to engulf, and in some cases, to overthrow.

REPAIR, RESTORE, REBUILD, REDESIGN?????????

#68

Granted BS, it's a far from perfect solution (I DO solutions - NOT problems) and finding the starting point in many an unbroken silken circle presents more problems than it solves.

So, what, where, how do we start to WISE UP THE YOUNG? I understand the basic premise. Invert the triangle. Help the innocent, pure, untainted, unpolluted minds learn then teach their elders.

School hasn't worked in centuries. Families - MOST don't know where to start. Nanny State. Laughable – but sometimes RIGHT?

And what about those, like the Edlington Two? At what point does one identify the risk and completely remove them from their environment.

And where does one put them? WHERE do they start to hear/see Wisdom.

Who are the deliverers of this WISDOM? Who the curriculum designers?

What do we do with 'elder states people' (parents, teachers, politicians....) who are beyond redemption yet still in places of power who will NOT allow any WISING UP programme to get a grip. After all, they have SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much to lose.

THRE ARE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS..................

OOH - YOU ARE NAUGHTY - BUT I LIKE YOU (#68)

I was trying not to be trying BYT. I have repeated my 'thesis' so many times I just bunged a bit in my final para. at #68.

I see our problem like a black toenail. If we attend to the growth point, to make sure what grows next is healthy and viable, the broken, black part will ultimately drop off. Also, if there is fungus in the old nail, the new might be able to resist acquiring it.

In reality, of course, I am doing pie in the sky and you pragmatism. (:o)

"It's a religion-apart. The fact we constantly talk about it proves that and speaks of a 'separate' part of society. This isn't something to be proud of."

nonsense, you talk about it because the media and govt want you to talk about it. it proves just how willing some are to run with the propaganda tinged with bigotry.

"From what, I wonder? Islamic female oppression? Stultifying Islamic fashion?"

but there has always been a variety , it means nothing other than that you are being made to take notice and to take offence.

"I think in Swat the problem was that the agreement was not adhered to and when the Talibs are shooting up the place not many tens of kilometers from the capital that makes people nervous."

you will find that the agreement was not adhered to because the usa continued to target those which the pak govt had sought agreement.

why should it make people nervous , its only a city that like london that can be disrupted, but islamabad is not an economic hub its merely the place where politicians hang out. its not a big deal.

"As for the nuclear weapons security how do you know how secure they are and whether or not there are elements of the ISI who are sympathetic to al Qaeda who have knowledge of the security around the weapons?"

thats true for any nation that has nukes, from israeli hawks to neo con fundamentalists in the whitehouse. however pak has secure codes, the weapons components are kept at separate locations and various other security methods are employed that mean that it is not easy to mobilise or walk away with a warhead . its just lalaland politics of scaremongering.

"Was the ISI involved in the Benazir Bhutto assassination as some have claimed?"

was it the cia as some have claimed? who knows.

"A chain is only as strong as the weakest link."

who needs chains .. other than we at abu ghraib ..

"On the one hand I hope that a solution where the least number of innocent people die in Pakistan is found but on the other I think there is huge peril for Pakistan and the region if they don't find a permanent solution to the problem."

the problem is the usa-uk seeking to appease israel and steal resources. pakistan is more than capable of handling its own affairs.

"But the clock is running and if the US gives up in Afghanistan and goes home I don't see things magically getting better in Pakistan."

i think it would improve immeasurably. but the usa-uk have long term ambitions .. along with obamas new axis of evil - sudan, nigeria, somalia, yemen and pakistan.

"There's only one thing I object to Muslimah, and that is not being able to see the face of the person I'm talking to, or is approacing me. You can wear exactly what you like and believe in what you like, but I do want to see you."

clearly you dont listen to the radio then and abhor actors for their lying ways.

the blind dont need to see the face of the person they are talking to, just a pair of good ears.

i suppose you dont use a telephone either .. and how you manage on this mb i just dont know.

i dont see what the difference is if a person is wearing heavy make up and is approaching you .. its not as if youre looking at them just a caricature .

looking at people doesnt necessarily give you any advantage nor does it tell you anything about them, but like children maybe some just need to be reassured and they can feel bubble wrap comfort.

"I wonder what would have happened to the cast and crew of Monty Python, if it had been a certain religion as opposed to the Christian religion that they had lampooned."

you do know of the hostile reception python got in the usa .. just as the beatles did .. death threats, book/t-shirt/record bonfires and protests.

maybe you dont.

"WHAT IF CHRIST AND MOHAMMED ARE CHUMS UP THERE?"

islam is wholly accepting of christ.

#76
Wendyman

".....clearly you dont listen to the radio then and abhor actors for their lying ways.

the blind dont need to see the face of the person they are talking to, just a pair of good ears.

i suppose you dont use a telephone either .. and how you manage on this mb i just dont know.

i dont see what the difference is if a person is wearing heavy make up and is approaching you .. its not as if youre looking at them just a caricature ."

I think you are totally missing the point here.

In our culture, a lot of store is set by what facial expressions (as well as vocal tone and body langauge) tell us about a persons motives, feelings and honesty.

This is illustrated by the number of misunderstandings that occur in Message boards/blogs/text messages where these nuances are missing.

Such expressions are also used in certain psychoanalysis programmes.

That, I think is one reason why westerners LIKE to see the full face and as another poster said, ALSO are disquieted by people wearing sunglasses or helmets when in direct contact. And that regardless of the wearer's religion or culture.

At 12:33pm on 22 Jan 2010, Muslimah wrote:

A lengthy post but I have to ask ....

Your point is .....?

You make your own choice, as within the law so do we all, your personal choice has no relevance to society as a whole unless your preferred option curtails the freedom of any other. And most decidedly your individual choice to accept the writings of another time applies only to you.

The book with which you choose to dictate your life also states that it is a muslim’s duty to abide by the laws within which he or she lives.

If statutes are introduced in this country to counter any of the abhorrence, as in my posts above (no’s 23 & 26.) , I would be obliged to abide or use the legal system to effect change. They are the options unless, of course, I choose to move to another country that applies laws that accept my personal beliefs.

Women have fought long and hard, and fully deserve, the freedoms that this country gives through it’s legal system.

And those laws apply to all ..... period.

If religious belief discriminates, isolates, cajoles, oppresses or threatens any individual - however much another individual accepts that those religious doctrines for their self - then the majority that is society needs to decide if the benefit to the majority is more important than the religious beliefs of an individual.

Because ....

Any religion is - solely - the choice of the individual .... alone.

And if any individual does not approve of the will of the majority ..... ?

I hear North Africa has all round sunshine .... pretty much.

Shimples ......

#77 islam is wholly accepting of christ.

How do you know? Have you asked allah or christ?

UNQUALIFIED STATEMENTS SHALL NOT FIND TOLERANCE (#80)

Havat thee Lizzy! I should (perhaps) have said: "Followers of Islaam (those pronouncing within my hearing) seem to agree that Christ was a prophet in the Islamic tradition."

But as I was actually bent on mild blasphemy, it's a bit academic. (:o)

OH HELP - NOW I'M DEFENDING STUFF I DIDN'T WRITE (#81)

Going to lie down for a long time now . . .

comment in reference to:
30. At 10:31pm on 21 Jan 2010, brossen99 wrote:
The one thing which gets me about Muslim women wearing the full " penguin " outfit in public is that they are often accompanied by their husband wearing all the latest designer jeans, tea shirt, jacket and trainers. This must represent some form of hypocrisy ?
The correct word is hijaab.
If you mean when they are alone with them, nope, there is no need for other than their husbands to appreciate their beauty, and beautifications.

In regards to:
80. At 00:29am on 23 Jan 2010, ecolizzy wrote:
#77 islam is wholly accepting of christ.

How do you know? Have you asked allah or christ?

As Muslims we believe Jesus (peace be upon him) is a a noble prophet and messenger. The Message was one and the same - submitting to the one Creator, free from any imperfections, and the Controller of the affairs of the heaven and earth. To worship him alone and none else, He was one who submitted (arabic: Muslim). Just as can be illustrated in:
"The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" (Deuteronomy 6:4).
We believe the Gospels were revealed to him.
But what remains of the gospel in our present day is not the original(which has been attributed to what christian scholars say to be in the aramaeic - a language which has died out), rather there has been many alterations done to it so as to fit the comfort of the people that was revealed to him. Hence you find many versions of the bible each with visible differings in the texts. If you type in understand islam jesus in a search engine this should give you more information about what Islam says about Jesus (peace be upon him), in the Quran and the Sunnah (narrations of the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him).
We do not say that he is one of three (trinity) an innovation introduced in 325,by the Council of Nicea, as an attempt to make sense what the christians were in confusion to.
We affirm his miraculous birth. That he is not dead, and will return coming to the end of time. He is respected and revered,
Some of the texts from the Quran and Sunnah include:
His (jesus peace and blessings be upon him)saying:
Verily! I am a slave of God. He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet; and He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me prayer, and alms, as long as I live, and dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest. And peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!} [Quran 19:30-34]
The statement of the prophet muhammad peace and blessings be upon him:
«I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus)» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari (a collection of ahadeeth)]
«Whoever bears witness that there is no god but God Alone, with no partner or associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and that Jesus is His slave and Messenger, a word which God bestowed upon Mary and a spirit created by Him, and that Heaven is real, and Hell is real, God will admit him through whichever of the eight gates of Heaven he wishes.» [Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim - collections of ahaadeeth]

This comment is a response to:
• 62. At 1:10pm on 22 Jan 2010, ecolizzy wrote:
#57 There's only one thing I object to Muslimah, and that is not being able to see the face of the person I'm talking to, or is approacing me. You can wear exactly what you like and believe in what you like, but I do want to see you.
Wendymann has already answered in the same manner as i would have intended. Had seeing a persons face been a barrier, one would not continue to post comments to those who he can't see.
Also in regard to the comment: barriesingleton wrote:
Newborns put great store by faces. Not for nothing, do we have umpteen muscles in the face that talk to the eye of the beholder.
I bring you back to the importance of returning to the texts: '...and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex...' (24:31)
Hijaab does not need to be observed with those under the age of adolescence. I'm sure we all agree that children do not develop desires of the opposite gender until they reach adoloscence. Hope this clears it for you.
I had removed my account, but on seeing your comment, felt obliged to respond. Once again please excuse me from this 'forum'. Also I am not up for debating (comment 61).
If you have any other comment or queries do not hesitate to type islamqa (question and answer) in a search engine, it should give you an opportunity to ask your questions to a Muslim scholar who will give you proof from the texts, instead us laymen. Our religion is accompanied with proofs, so if no proof (from the Quran and the Sunnah) is provided, then there is reason to doubt the answer.

Just in case you should read this muslimah, and so you know my position as I know yours. I don't believe in any gods, to me it is all tosh, so far I've managed my life very well in this country. And I am a moral and upstanding citizen of England, I don't need a book to tell me how to live.

Muslimah2
I have two questions regarding the law of Allah. I ask the same of many I know who profess the Christian faith.

1) Is there evidence that any laws of Islam were physically WRITTEN in the hand of the prophet?

2) If so, where are they to be found and studied?

Additionally, relevant to Islam and in reference to the following comments :-

"....and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex...' (24:31)

Hijaab does not need to be observed with those under the age of adolescence. I'm sure we all agree that children do not develop desires of the opposite gender until they reach adoloscence."

Q) Why, if our creator MADE us with different sexes, with a purpose (procreation) and with desires??? MUST control of those desires be entirely the burden of the female of the species? Why is she forced to hide her creator endowed charms? Is this a design fault? Given one also assumes by her creator. Why is the woman in Islam punished thus? I know why the woman in Christian faith is punished with the pain of childbirth for her ‘sins’.

As for the age of adolescence, this seems to me to be a false and fearsome barrier. Is there not, in Islam as it seems in all humanity, people who indeed gain some sort of physical/sexual satisfaction from young children, even babies. Should they too, more so perhaps as societies most vulnerable citizens, be protected from the uncontrollable indecent thoughts of man. Is Islam totally void of men (father’s) who abuse (through incontrolled desires) their own children?

AS for the comment:
( 85). At 8:26pm on 26 Jan 2010, ecolizzy wrote:
Just in case you should read this muslimah, and so you know my position as I know yours. I don't believe in any gods, to me it is all tosh, so far I've managed my life very well in this country. And I am a moral and upstanding citizen of England, I don't need a book to tell me how to live.
This is a strange notion that you put. It is clear that every new gadget that comes to the market has a manual, that guide the person to how to use it. This is usually prepared the manufacture. There are only three option, bearing in mind surely you did not create yourself:
1) You do not exist
2) You created yourself (which entails that at one point you did not exist, and nothing cannot create something, had this been the case we could each make whatsoever we desired out of thin air
3) You were created by something
You have logic, so i leave you to decide.
In regards to what brightyangthing wrote:
1) Is there evidence that any laws of Islam were physically WRITTEN in the hand of the prophet?
The revelation came in different forms, i.e. the angel Gabriel [the same angel that appeared before Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them both)] appeared before the prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as well as in many other forms. It is from the miracles of the Quran (which acts as a refutation to against those who claim that he authored it) that the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him was illiterate, he could not read nor write. If you look at the History you will see that the Arabs had remarkable, and accurate memories as many of them were illiterate, everything had to be preserved to memory. Those who were able to write wrote down the revelation as it was revealed to him (peace and blessings be upon him) and memorised, and those who could not, would memorise it – and they would repeat it back for checking. This is why we still have the unchanged book today, which you will not find that it has one full stop out of place. In addition to this the language is still alive, and continues to be studied and spoken. It is the only holy book, that had all of the copies of the whole world been gathered and burnt, if you were to get all the memorisers of Quran together, they would be able to restore a copy back without any dispute whatsoever within a matter of a few hours. It still continues to be memorised by every single muslim and recited every day, by those who have been a muslim all their life or those who have newly embraced it. It is preserved and widely available – The Quran and the Sunnah (collection of ahadeeth (plural of hadeeth – sayings, actions and tacit approvals of the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him). This is where you can find the laws of Islam.
That should cover both question 1&2
As for your question:
Q) Why, if our creator MADE us with different sexes, with a purpose (procreation) and with desires??? MUST control of those desires be entirely the burden of the female of the species? Why is she forced to hide her creator endowed charms? Is this a design fault? Given one also assumes by her creator. Why is the woman in Islam punished thus? I know why the woman in Christian faith is punished with the pain of childbirth for her ‘sins’.

As for the age of adolescence, this seems to me to be a false and fearsome barrier. Is there not, in Islam as it seems in all humanity, people who indeed gain some sort of physical/sexual satisfaction from young children, even babies. Should they too, more so perhaps as societies most vulnerable citizens, be protected from the uncontrollable indecent thoughts of man. Is Islam totally void of men (father’s) who abuse (through incontrolled desires) their own children?
Our sole purpose is not for procreation, the purpose of creation is so that they may worship the One who created them. All desires should be controlled. Marriage facilitates a family and stability, fornication and adultery brings about breakdowns of marriage, depression, illegitimate children who have no idea who their parents are, spread of STD’s etc.
You said: ‘MUST control of those desires be entirely the burden of the female of the species?’
No, in Islam the man must also dress modestly, it is not upon the shoulders of the females only, rather it is a duty upon both. Men must cover more strictly what is between the navels and the knees, concealing the shape, and size, making sure it is not transparent or showing the complexion of the skin. It was once said: A thousand men can be tempted by one woman, but one man cannot tempt a thousand women. This is something that is in the nature of mankind.
Beauty is not a fault, rather it is something that is honoured, that it may only be shared with a few. A woman preserves herself for her husband. I’m sure you are aware about the MP Robinson affair.
In Islam, the Muslim woman preserves herself for her husband; she covers her beauty so that none else should share it except her husband. Hijaab is only ONE preventative method from amongst many, others include not being alone with the opposite gender who is not immediately related to you (for both the man and the woman). He has the reassurance that his wife is not with someone else and she likewise. It is not a punishment as it seems you perceive, rather it is a religious obligation done solely seeking the pleasure of Allah (in carrying out a religious duty), she does this with willing acceptance, and is happy to do that which is pleasing to her Lord, because he knows what is best for her. She does it because she believes in Allah and she read His Book (Quran) and she hopes for the reward of the good in the Hereafter (Paradise).
No upright woman likes to be harassed on account of her femininity. Just like a pearl is protected with its shell, so is the woman with her hijaab. Just like access is not granted to all to see the king/queen, likewise is it for the Muslimah, only certain people are privileged to share her company, as for the rest, they need only to focus on her intellect and not on her looks.
As for what you mention from Christianity about the women ‘suffering the labour of childbirth’ – In Islam it is not from justice that someone else be held to account for the sin of another person. Sin is not inherited as perceived in Christianity.
You asked about people fulfilling desires upon children and babies, this is an abhorrent act. Allah has forbidden adultery, fornication and homosexuality, and He has forbidden all means that may lead to that. Allaah has enjoined the believers to lower their gaze and refrain from looking at prohibited things, and from that which it is feared will cause one to fall into the prohibited. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts). That is purer for them. Verily, Allaah is All Aware of what they do” [al-Noor 24:30]
(SIDENOTE: If you analyse, you’ll notice this verse precedes the verse about women lowering their gaze. The command was to the man first.)
Hope this clarifies your queries.
Please may I request that if you have questions like this, ‘islamqa’ it on a search engine. This will save your time inshallah (god willing), and mine.
I’m not a scholar nor do I claim to be one, please take it from those who are more knowledgeable in the matter and ‘islamqa it
Thank you

Thank you for your very long replies muslimah, but how do you believe in something that has no proof? Do you accept there are many religions, such as Shinto, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jews, Hinduism even Wicca? You have explained that Christianity is recognised. Or do you think they are all infidels which is how muslims describe non believers of Islam? Why can't Muslims change their faith as many people chose to? Why can't a Muslim become a Christian, when a Christian can become a Muslim?

Why haven't you answered BYTs question on the abuse reported here in the papers in the madrasses https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5315021.ece
https://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/abuseconsult.htm

You may talk in your flowery language but it is all obfuscation, you are quoting from a book, it is not what you see in the real world about you.

In referance to comment (72):
[However, as with all religions, your 'authentically established' faith is based on acceptance of claims by one of many prophets, which my dictionary defines thus:
"Prophet: a person who teaches religion and claims that his teaching comes directly from God" ]
We as Muslims believe in the entire prophet’s and Messengers of God (peace be upon them all), from the first: Noah to the last and final: Muhammad (peace be upon them all). Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him came to confirm the Messengers and what was in the previous scriptures. His coming was foretold in the bible:
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18)
Every time the message became lost or altered, the people were reimbursed with another prophet to guide them, until the last and final Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) – who’s message remains unadulterated and intact to this day. Thus you had Jesus (peace be upon him) after Moses (peace be upon him) and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the revelation which remains preserved and unchanged, thus there is no need for any other prophet to come after him. Prophet in Arabic is a nabi – derived from the root word – to inform, to give news – the prophets came to inform the people of the previous message. So there is no contradiction between us accepting Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a Messenger and the believing in the sending of the many other messengers. Their fundamentals were one and the same – submitting to the One Creator, who sustains and maintains and controls the affairs of the heavens and the earth, and worshipping him alone and none else – avoiding that which is worshipped other than him – hence you will understand that these 3 major religions are known as the monotheistic faiths. They submitted (in Arabic = one who submits = Muslim). But through time the messages were lost. So they had to be reimbursed with the final prophet. As for the legislations this differed with people, but the foundation remained the same. Analyse the texts for your own benefit.
As for your statement:
[To many in this world, the word 'God' (I credit with a capital out of respect for the opinion of many)stands for many different dieties and symbolic supreme creators. To many others, science, independent study and contemplation discount any such existence. ]
The Arabic word is ilaah (referring to anything that is worshipped). Muslims acknowledge that other things are worshipped besides god, idols, money, satan, jesus (peace be upon in), Ezra (peace be upon him), Ali (May allah be pleased with him). But in truth none of these things deserve worship – except the one who has created them, who sustains and controls the matters of the heavens and the earth, who brings forth the living (plant) from the dead (seed), and brings forth the dead (corpse) from the living (people). That is why the statement of faith entails the meaning: There is no ilaah (deity worthy of worship) except Allah (Arabic. the one who deserves worship) and Muhammad is his last and final Messenger
In regards to your statement
[I shall continue to speak up and blog in favour of my own English culture and heritage and against changes in our society that I regard as alien and unwelcome. I wish not to Offend, but to Defend the preservation of my own culture and heritage, against the pressure of attempts to create a false utopia of multiculturalism and equality that threatens to engulf, and in some cases, to overthrow.]
Please do not assume that one who embraces Islam gives up his culture and heritage. If you go to South Africa you will see Muslim men in their colourful African garments and clothing and eating their African dishes, likewise the Muslims in China continue to eat their traditional foods with their chopsticks, and dress in their cultural garments, and those in Bangladesh – dressed likewise eating whilst sitting on the floor as a family, with their hands, here in Europe the many newly embraced Muslims eat with knives, forks and spoons. So long as it does not go against what is legislated for us – than we all practice our heritage and culture, and doing so is closer to following the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) so long as it does not conflict with prohibitions and that which is impermissible. A change in religion does not mean a change in culture and heritage. Islam is a way of life that culture can still be incorporated with.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

We need China? The trade deficit? To help finance our budget deficit? To help a faltering economy? As you'll see, these are misapprehensions that reflection blights so very quickly. For insight, I turn to Derek Scissors, PhD:
“Politicians are falling in love with ‘the China excuse’ -- one so poor it could be mouthed only by [politicians].
China is said to be both chiefly at fault for our huge trade deficit and indispensable to financing our huge budget deficit. Some go further, arguing that we are declining, China is rising, and we better keep it on board -- or else.
These are the excuses of a government that can't exert even the minimal self-discipline needed to guide the American economy -- by far the world's largest -- which has the best endowment of human, natural and technological resources and the most flexible, adaptive markets.
Our top political figures cover for their failures by wildly overstating the importance of China to our trade and budget deficits. In trade, sustained deficits like ours stem ultimately from too little saving. The most direct way for the United States to cut deeply into its trade deficit, with China and everyone else, would be to save more.
American households have started doing so. Their saving rate has moved from less than 1 percent to near 5 percent in the past 18 months. But a potentially dramatic improvement in the trade deficit has been undermined by the federal government, which has gone on an unprecedented spending binge.
China's role in causing our trade deficit is marginal.
The budget-deficit argument is more tortured. It starts by attributing the gigantic deficit in part to Chinese financing. How dare they make it easier for us to spend money we don't have! This is little more than a childish abdication of responsibility by at least two presidents and many more sessions of Congress.
The other claim is that the U.S. desperately needs Chinese financing so we can maintain the terrible fiscal policy we shouldn't have adopted in the first place. This claim has no foundation.
China's investment in U.S. Treasury bonds became much smaller and less important in 2009 than it was in 2008. Yet U.S. commercial interest rates have actually declined. China has little to do with our budget deficit. We are funding it ourselves.
There is still strong domestic and foreign demand for Treasuries precisely because the fundamentals of our economy are still so strong. But it won't last in the face of all this spending.
If China could ever have been blamed for our problems, 2009 put an end to that. More than anything, it's our budget deficit that's driving our trade deficit. And it's our government's irresponsibility that is solely responsible for our budget deficit. The China excuse will no longer work…”
Perhaps we should be focused on real, long-term progress with China? China needs to define their vision for what will happen over the next 20 years, but we also need to define ours.
Robert Reynolds
Denver, Colorado