Filed under War On Terra Firma

Ooh, teh shockz

Unsurprisingly, given the generally accepted lameness of the UK’s would-be terrorists, nobody even bothered to argue with my assessment that if the police’s evidence against Andrew Ibrahim is accurate, he’s a schoolboy dilettante with fuck all in the “explosives worth bothering with” stakes.

Indeed:

The teenager has been accused of possessing Hexamethylene Triperoxide Diamine, also known as HMTD, which is an explosive organic chemical compound. He has also been accused of possessing, among other items, two home-made vests, a quantity of ball bearings, a quantity of air gun pellets, a quantity of nails and screws, wired circuitry, batteries and electric bulb filaments.

Now, homemade HMTD is almost completely fucking useless, since it either doesn’t work at all or explodes while you’re still carrying it (properly made HMTD hasn’t been commercially available for years for related reasons), and creating it requires the chemistry skills of a half-trained ape. And as far as the other items go, anyone could get hold of them given half an hour’s shopping time.

Given all that, then if he is guilty, I’m actually vaguely impressed the rozzers managed to nick Mr Ibrahim (and once again, it’s very good evidence that if anyone was planning anything serious against the UK that required non-trivial explosives and an actual conspiracy of people, they’d already be in jail…). Perhaps the years of utterly pointless raids on home MDMA and LSD labs have actually provided “watch out if person X buys chemical Y” skills that are vaguely transferrable – if so, this may well be the only positive consequence of the War On Drugs…

[for the avoidance of doubt, I do think it's a good thing that Mr Ibrahim is on trial, just as I'd prefer it if anyone accused of saying that they were going to kill me, and then firing an airgun at me from 100 yards away while blindfolded in the fervent belief that it would do me serious harm, were to go on trial...]

Misinterpreting headlines for cheap laughs #131

Berlusconi says tackling Naples’ rubbish crisis will be among his top priorities – “fucking southerners, even their crises are rubbish”.

Aborigines ‘were used in experiments’ – “how much kerosene can one man drink in six hours?”

7/7 friend had 9/11 photographs – “where were the other 2?”

The last one is a bit of a daft story, though. If having photographs of September 11 in one’s browser cache is an indicator that one is a terrorist, then you’re fucked:

WTC WTC

Yes, it’s More Crap Terrorists (TM)

Another glorious day in the annals of the Thousands And Thousands Of Deranged Jihadist Fifth Columnists Trying To Kill Us All: a daft white middle class boy arrested with a house full of the crap Anarchist Cookbook bombs you make when you’re 14. I imagine we’ll find that he got caught after buying a sack of bicarbonate of soda over the internet.

And people are scared of these clowns? People actually give them more thought than ten seconds of laughter? For fuck’s sake…

Holy fuck, this is quite moving, and it shouldn’t be

Which dead fighter left this message for his daughter?

“Sweetheart… I’m going to really, really miss you a lot. I’m thinking about it already. Look, I absolutely love you to bits and you have been the happiest thing in my life. You and your mum, absolutely brilliant.

“I don’t know what else to say. I just wish I could have been part of your life, especially these growing up – these next months, they’re really special with you learning to walk and things. I just so much wanted to be with you but I have to do this thing for our future and it will be for the best, in the long run.

“That’s the most important thing…. you’ve got loads of people to look after you and keep and eye on you. And I’m doing what I’m doing for the sake of our country.”

Answer? With a couple of Islam references changed to patriotism references, it was Mohammed Siddique Khan, the total bastard who blew himself on the Underground in July 2005, and persuaded a small bunch of other idiots to do likewise.

But it sounds like any other speech by an articulate man gone to war to kill whomever his leaders told him to kill. I guess the point which needs reinforcing is that there’s nothing weird, wrong or unusual about wanting to die for a cause – fuck, I’m cynical and there are even causes I’d die for. And if you think there’s something weird about wanting to kill others while you do that – then doublefuck, there are courses in human nature that you need.

The bit which is weird about suicide terrorism in the UK is purely and simple that we think of the people who do it as being like us, but they think of us in the same way that British soldiers thought of Germans in WWI, Argie conscripts in the Falklands, Iraqi militiamen today, and so on.

Draw your own conclusions as to why this might be the case. Guardian readers should start from the perspective of George Bush and the Zionist lobby’s desire to slaughter any innocent brown chap that moves; while Daily Mail readers should start from the perspective of the inherent murderousness of the paedophile prophet.

[yes, I know this is based on the same article as the last piece. However, it's two very different points that really, really, really, really don't need conflating; this one is rightly incredibly contentious, whereas the other one shouldn't even need making but does...]

Americans can’t take a joke

The headline is hardly news; it’s a well-known fact that joking with Yanks about subjects such as Vietnam, the KKK, 9/11 and Iraq is something that generally doesn’t go down well. As highlighted by the previous post.

[special PDF competition: £100 plus medical bills for the remainder of their life will be paid to the first person to go up to a New York fireman and go with "what's the odd one out of Vietnam, the KKK, 9/11 and Iraq? 9/11, cos none of the other victims deserved it"]

So my sympathy for pissed-up Northern Irish idiot Aidan Mackle is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, holding a drunken Irishman on terrorist charges for slurring “I’m Bin Laden’s mate and he’ll hijack your plane if you don’t give me more booze” is obviously crazy: if anyone, even for one second, thought the chap was a serious threat then they’re the one who should be locked up forever in a non-reality-based institution…

Update: I forgot to add that American airlines (small final A) are the worst in the world, that all of their crew thoroughly deserve murdered, and that for anyone who flies with them, being murdered by terrorists – or, indeed, being abused by an Irish drunk – would be a merciful release. Genuinely, I would rather fly fucking Aeroflot or Turkish Airlines than subject myself to another transatlantic flight on Delta, NWA, Continental or United. I haven’t yet flown AA, and would sooner grind broken glass into my eyes than do so, so there’s a small possibility I’m being unfair to them and them alone…

Best advert ever

This antismoking advert is absolutely awesome.

Not, I hasten to add, because I disapprove of smoking and think it ought to be banned or anything. I love smoking; I just don’t like the way it makes me cough, snore like a bastard, and not be able to run for buses. Rather, I approve of the advert because:

1) people who think it’s awful and inappropriate to make jokes about September 11 are despicable cunts who should be made to stand in pairs and then have petrol-soaked model aeroplanes flown into their heads, and anything which offends them [*] is a good idea;

2) it makes the point that compared with preventable, dull and silly causes of death, terrorism is deeply irrelevant, and so anyone who thinks it’s in any way important, or that Teh War On Terra is one of the major problems facing Civilisation, or anything other than “a few nutjobs are a bit annoying, and stand a chance of killing you that’s so small you’re more likely to die of a stroke from worrying about it too much”, is a fucking idiot.

(via. And yes, I know it’s old. What, you mean you come here for the latest news, not crazy rants and occasional links to bestiality advice?)

[*] within reason. 9/11, although it doubtless offended such people quite a lot, still wasn’t a particularly good idea.

Yay for judges

Thoughtcrime has been decriminalised again, even for brown chaps with beards.

If you disapprove of this Out Of Touch Liberal Setting Evil Bastards Who Hate Us Free-ness, and wish that these chaps (along with anyone else who’s ever read anything you disapprove of) could be clapped right back in chokey, they you thoroughly deserve to be exploded, decapitated, gang-raped, halal-ed, and generally everything else that you’re paranoid the darkies will do to you unless we keep them under lock and key…

Fucking justice yeah

So the poor sods who got locked up in Guantanamo for four-and-a-half years for once vaguely having looked at a chap whose brother knew an Evil Terrorist Wot Is Going To Kill Us All return, only to be arrested under the little-known No Smoke Without Fire Act 2005.

Can we not just fucking leave it out? [and yes, to you anti-Europeans: I entirely accept that the Spanish are being even worse than us on this one, and that if we didn't have European Arrest Warrants and extradition treaties then these guys would be in a better position...]

If you’re scared of terrorists, I hope they fucking kill you

Everyone dies. Most people die while old of chronically painful diseases. Some die in accidents; some die while young of chronically painful diseases.

Then, a number of people that – even if every fucking would-be-terrorist out there was left entirely unchecked – would still equate to less than 1% of total deaths are killed by terrorist actions.

With those odds, to spend any time whatsoever worrying about that miniscule risk is Just Fucking Stupid, and anyone who is worried that they or someone they love will be killed or injured in a terrorist attack should Just Fucking Stop It.

Which brings me to the paranoid nutjobs on this comment thread who think it’s entirely reasonable to send a girl to jail for wearing flashing LEDs at an airport. “Oooh, but she could have been a terrorist; she was lucky they didn’t shoot her”. Possibly she was lucky the evil cunts who manage security at airports didn’t shoot her (in the unlikely event that there is a major successful terrorist act on an airport, the deaths of some airport security cunts will be one of the few upsides), but I’m not sure that’s really the point…

No, they just flipped an ‘evil’ coin

At daft cunt Ian Dale‘s site, and at various other fucktard-infested parts of the right-wing blogosphere, the BBC is being slated for its “Why did September 11 happen?” page on its news-for-kids Newsround portal.

The offending text [now amended to something more anodyne, but which is probably still sane enough to piss off the nutters] read:

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.

In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

As those of you who aren’t gibbering right-wing nutjobs might notice, while a bit simplistic, it’s all entirely true, entirely unbiased, and exactly in line with the findings of the 9/11 Commission’s own report [pdf, large].

Unfortunately, crazy bigoted hatred of one’s opponents in defiance of rational fact and sanity are almost as prevalent among Anglo-American right-wing fundamentalists as they are among Islamist fundamentalists…

A final point: the utter, utter cunts at the Biased BBC blog have been instrumental in making this non-story into a story. But in the process of doing so, they reveal something quite nasty and disturbing about their own motivations…

In a very long and boring piece about how the BBC is incredibly evil for changing the picture on one of the pages and saying it didn’t, or not changing a picture and saying it did, or something, they say “[the BBC's 'who is Al Qaeda' page is] fairly uncontroversial, though could be better written, for instance, AQ doesn’t just believe it is fighting a holy war – it is fighting a holy war, unless all those attacks are just ‘beliefs’ too“.

Traditionally, in order to ‘fight a holy war’, you need to have two sides, both of whom are trying to fight a holy war. Now, as I understand it, we’re not currently trying to fight a holy war to eradicate Islam and Christianise its people. But clearly, the Biased BBC-ites think differently…

[9/11 Commission comparison via Gavin Whendale]