The latest suicideÂ bombing might purport to have beenÂ carried out by a secular-Hindu, but that\’s just just a fiendishÂ Islamist plot. We all know that onlyÂ MuslimsÂ carry out suicide bombings, because only Islam is that barbaric.Â
\”What individuals want to see is a legal system which correctly finds guilty those who are guilty and acquits those who are innocent, with respect to what they did or did not do rather than whether the legal process was or was not correctly followed.\’\’
The only way I can place an assertion this stupid is in the \”we must fight the BNP and Tories without annoying the blacks and the Muslims. What can we say? Oh, wait, let\’s just slate \’criminals\’ – everyone disapproves of them, at least until they get wrongfully accused of something, which doesn\’t happen *that* often, so the idiots who were thinking of deserting us will be impressed by our Tough On Crime-osity\” bracket.
The alternative is that Charlie and therefore Tony believe this shit. And since we\’ve got one demonstrable maniac in charge of nuclear weapons, and another possibly about to acquire them (largely to defend himself from the first, but selah), I\’d rather our own red-button-holder wasn\’t quite that mentalist.
Today at the Biased BBC commentsÂ – the BBC is slated for referring to the Palestinean president as \”Mr Abbas\” while referring to Israel\’s vegetative ex-leader as \”Sharon\”. Lots of concurring, while nobody points out that \”Mr Abbas\” is mentioned in the article while \”Sharon\” is mentioned in a direct quote. Learn to read and get yourself a style guide, you ignorant fuckwits.
What else? Someone who\’s angry that the phrase \”Muslim terrorism\” isn\’t used when referring to an explosion in Algeria… because obviously without that qualification we\’d assume it was the Scottish Presbyterians. Although if you\’re applying the fashionable right-wing terminology that all terrorist attacks should be prefixed by the religion of their protagonists, Algeria has suffered significantly in the past from Catholic terrorism. Continue reading
You know which group really annoys me?
People who think that the September 11 attacks were a uniquely horrible moment, with a mystical importance beyond the reactions they provoked. People who\’re willing to ignore thousands of years of human savagery and brutality, not to mention all the horrible abuses inflicted in ours and others\’ names in the last 50 years. People who think that somehow the fact that this time the innocent victims were American stockbrokers in a skyscraper makes the attack morally different from all the other abuses that have been perpetrated against civilians of all nationalities and classes.
People who talk crap like this, in short:
The images cant be swept under the carpet but equally they musnt be abused. They are a breakaway moment in history. The world pre 9/11 and the world after it.
Oh, fuck off. I can just about forgive this reaction in Americans – they have spent rather a long time cocooned from the suffering of people elsewhere, and the knowledge that they\’re just as vulnerable as El Salvadorians or Grenadans or Vietnamese must have come as a nasty shock. Among non-Americans, it\’s hysterical bullshit.
A chap named Nila Sagadevan believes that flying a real-life plane is so complicated, there\’s no way the buffoons of September 11 could possibly have managed it on the evidence presented.
This conjecture is a more plausible than it first sounds: although I\’ve been on BA\’s 767 simulator and flown a virtual plane through a ravine at low altitude, I didn\’t fly to the ravine. This would have involved flying blind (you can\’t make out landmarks other than sea vs not-sea when you\’re 12,000 metres up) and therefore understanding complex aircraft-specific navigational equipment, which the hijackers aren\’t reported to have studied and which takes years to understand properly.
One thing that New York and Washington DC have in common, however, is that they\’re both situated on the sea-vs-not-sea transition that you can see. To get from somewhere north of NYC to NYC, you just need to go east, turn south when you run out of landsouth, and descend in a spiral once you reach Manhattan. Flying to Washington DC is more of a challenge, but the Potomac is still big enough to be seen from the sky – so you can fly south along the east coast until you\’ve gone over Delaware, then turn round and follow the river northwest.
But at the very least, the report is good news for people who live in tall buildings in Chicago.
(side note – the writer also says \”[Flight 77 pilot] Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor\”. I thought that domestic airliners tended to fall apart if you pulled that kind of stunt on them?)
There have been 13 more executions in Iraq. Unusually, these have been imposed by a court of law rather than by an angry bloke with a gun. I\’m proud that we\’ve freed the Iraqis to judicially murder other Iraqis.
One minor quibble: according to Iraq\’s cabinet, \”the competent authorities have today carried out the death sentences of 13 terrorists\”. I\’m struggling to think of a way in which the Iraqi government could be described as \’competent\’…
In an interview Monday with CNN, Moussaoui\’s mother, Aicha El Waifi, said she doubted her son could receive a fair hearing. \”The only thing that I do hope is that my son will not be used as a scapegoat,\” she said. – USA Today
Didn\’t you get the memo, Mrs El Waifi? US justice is perfect when it comes to people accused of terrorism. We\’re so confident in US justice that we\’re willing to extradite British citizens who\’ve done nothing illegal [*] there, safe in the knowledge that they\’ll get a fair trial.
No, Mrs El Waifi, the suggestion that a bunch of paranoid Virginians who\’ve got a scary-looking Arab Muslim French lunatic in front of them, who\’ve seen five years of propaganda falsely implying that he was involved in the September 11 plot, and who\’ve just had a load of angry September 11 relations paraded in front of them for full emotional impact, would make anything other than a fair decision is simply outrageous. Indeed, it\’s practically terrorism itself…
[*] although urging Muslims to join the jihad might well become illegal soon, it currently isn\’t.