web analytics

CLOWN PARADE….

By ATWadmin On June 15th, 2008

I read that Northern Ireland’s leaders have been urged to raise the issue of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay with President George Bush during his visit to Belfast tomorrow.

bob-bell-bozo-clown-color.jpgToday, Amnesty International will stage a street protest over rendition flights and conditions in Guantanamo. Up to 50 "activists" dressed in orange jumpsuits are to march through Belfast city centre. Amnesty has also written to the first and deputy first ministers asking them to raise the issues with the president. Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty’s Northern Ireland programme director, said people were concerned about human rights. "Many, many people in Northern Ireland share our concern about the human rights abuses that have been committed in the name of the so-called war on terror," he said.

Note the "so-called" caveat that Amnesty throw in. You see this cuts to the chase of the entire issue, Amnesty does not believe that we face a global Jihad despite all the evidence. There is no war on terror – 9/11 is put in the memory hole, the issue is not murderous Islamics, it is George Bush. Frankly, I couldn’t give a toss what this troupe of clowns thinks. I despise what Amnesty has become and hope that it is an Amnesty spokesman that faces me tomorrow on the BBC. We’ll see about the "so-called" war on terror and this "so-called" human rights group then.

41 Responses to “CLOWN PARADE….”

  1. David,

    With you all the way on this. George Bush’s war of terror has achieved so much. We should all be grateful, the dead included.

  2. Far better to roll over and submit, eh? Allahu akhbar.

  3. PS How many attacks on US homeland since Bush declared his war on terror? Yeah, it has achieved a lot but liberals are blinded by BDS.

  4. despite all the evidence.

    please present it.

    Frankly, I couldn’t give a toss what this troupe of clowns thinks.

    Obviously you do. you have just devoted some time to them in particular with this article.

  5. Tripper,

    How many attacks on US homeland soil since 9/11?

    How many dead Jihadi?

    Where is Saddam and his two sons?

    Do the maths.

  6. David,

    "PS How many attacks on US homeland since Bush declared his war on terror?"

    If that’s the measure, how many attacks on YOUR homeland since Bush dragged you along by the nose?

    And of course once more the bogus caveat of ‘on the US homeland’. All those dead soldiers don’t count. London doesn’t count. Madrid doesn’t count. Bali doesn’t count. Never mind the dead Iraqis either. We don’t do body counts.

    Hopefully none of these people wanted to die as then we would have committed the sin of euthanasia. Let us also hope there were no embryos among the dead. Because remember folks, human life is sacred(*).

    (*)Offer void outside American soil.

  7. thats the height of your evidence?

    good luck with your debate tomorrow david. ill put the headphones on while designing my tests.

  8. Frank,

    Well put as always. No place like homeland.

    Shame no one appreciated my subtle reference to The Grateful Dead but David’s too young to remember them :0)

    BTW I hear Bush is looking for another yurpian poodle now that Blair is off the scene. I wonder if he’s recruiting in NI tomorrow.

  9. Frank

    Is it your view that Al Q. would have stopped after 9/11 had Bush not provoked them? That’s not how terrorism works. If your first atrocity does not bring the reaction you need then you create a bigger atrocity.

    It is the reaction that you need in order to provoke a conflict in which you can claim to represent the community.

    Al Q got their reaction but they are losing the war. Instead of supporting them the community in Iraq are backing the elected government and the US forces.

    The human cost has been horrendous but the conflict was inevitable. Once that is the situation the only moral objective is complete victory.

    Crushing Al Q should the main military and moral objective of the western world. Maybe President Obama will help people see that in a way President Bush failed. But he certainly won’t be able to avoid it himself.

  10. Henry,

    "Is it your view that Al Q. would have stopped after 9/11 had Bush not provoked them?"

    No, the only reason I mentioned the attacks is as a rebuttal to David’s "no attacks" point. I do not for example advocate withdrawal from Afghanistan, or even Iraq, in the hope that terrorists would leave us alone.

    The point is only that what ever else the ‘war on terror’ has produced, it is not no attacks. It is not even no dead Americans. Therefore to hail it as a great success on the grounds that we are safer is pretty ridiculous.

    And of course Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda.

  11. The primary role of the US President is to protect the US homeland and since the launch of the war on militant Islam, Bush has enjoyed 100% success in that regard. It is the statistic that sits uneasy in some parts.

    As Bush is responsible for the US, Blair was responsible for the UK when 7/7 and so Blair, not Bush, carries the can for allowing the Islamic killers to get through. Thats said, it is impossible to stop every terrorist attack and we should all accept that. In a war there are casualties.

    Iraq had PLENTY to do with Islamic terror – ask the Palistinian families that Saddam rewarded with 20k each time they detonated themselves in Israel. Al Queda had a base in Iraq, though clearly that means there was no connetion, right?

    Let’s hope President McCain intensifies the war on militant Islam and wipes them off the face of the Earth. Naturally wiping Iranian nukes off the face of the earth will be his first priority.

  12. David,

    "The primary role of the US President is to protect the US homeland and since the launch of the war on militant Islam, Bush has enjoyed 100% success in that regard."

    That sort of reasoning reminds me of the old story that goes like this:

    A mountaineer reaches the summit of Ben Nevis to be confronting by a strange spectacle. A bearded chap in a long robe is standing on one leg, whistling and clapping his hands.

    "What are doing?" asks the climber.

    "Keeping the mosquitoes away."

    "Huh? There are no mosquitoes way up here!"

    "Works well, doesn’t it?" replies the bearded chap.

  13. First allow me to say this will not be the first or last time a bunch of clowns dressed in Orange march in Northern Ireland.

    If one is to make the argument that Bush is to be given credit for no attacks on US soil since 9/11, one would have to accept that he is to blame for the attacks of 9/11 itself. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Each assertion is frivilous.

  14. Mahons said: "If one is to make the argument that Bush is to be given credit for no attacks on US soil since 9/11, one would have to accept that he is to blame for the attacks of 9/11 itself."

    That’s clearly not right, as we’re talking about a set of attacks which were under planning long before Bush ever got to the Whitehouse. They came from the Clinton context. Bush’s policy over the last seven years, however, has set a context in which the US has not been attacked in a major way. Time will of course tell us more, but it’s surely got something to say to us already.

  15. If the Bush whitehouse is so concerned about the threat of terrorism then explain why he has created a bloated and inefficient security apparatus that has been acknowledged as providing virtually no genuine defense against attacks. why has he attack nations unconnected to that threat and why has he undermined the intelligence communities abilities to gain local information by not providing support to translation teams etc (by expanding those groups).
    ofcourse this could lead you to believe that he is just an idiot, or maybe its because he knows the threat is, well, horseshit.

  16. Mahons,

    Neither will it be the first time that Amnesty International put the rights of terrorists before those of the terrorised. No surrender! 😉

  17. Neither will it be the first time that Amnesty International put the rights of terrorists before those of the terrorised.

    any chance of some evidence of this too?

    still waiting on the rest mind.

  18. You could also argue that the terrorists have achieved much of what they set out to do.

    They have caused us all much inconvenience and unnecessary expense in the attempt to protect the citizenry, sufficient to substantially alter many of our procedures and freedoms.

    It matters little whether they actually do what they were intended to do, they are now in place, and no matter how inefficient they may be, they have to be paid for, and the rules have to be obeyed.

    Apart from the inconvenience, they have caused much distrust of people for each other, of people for their governments and of nation for nation. All,in all not a bad piece of work for relatively small expense.

    Having caused so much division and mayhem I cannot help but wonder what their next step might be. All that they have done so far cannot be just for the release of a few prisoners, or even an effort to convert everyone to Islam, it has to be for something much grander, but what?

    Are all the different factions going to ‘come together’ to achieve some higher, but yet undisclosed goal?

    I may be missing something, but apart from being just a bunch of psychotic killers, – just what is it they hope to achieve? It cannot be the hope of starting a global war, which they are certain of losing, nor can it be in preparation for the ‘coming of the twelfth mullah’, whatever that may mean. Is it just plain old fashioned frustration caused by jealousy, where they see the only answer as a total annihilation of all – them and us.

    Does anyone know what they might have in mind?

  19. Ernest,

    My view is that they seek to achieve the submission of our western values to their dark ages ideology. They can achieve this by a/Violence b/the threat of violence c/Numbers. As our own societies twist in the wind without any form of absolute anchor – now that Christianity is passe – then Islam moves in. You’re right in what you say though – their main achievement has been to divide us. And you know that truism about a house divided….

  20. Ernest,

    "Does anyone know what they might have in mind?"

    Yes, I do. That’s why I’m leaving for South America this coming Friday.

  21. Dawkins,

    So – are you going to enlighten us with some details?

    You do realise we are talking ROP here, not IRS!…

  22. Ernest,

    "So – are you going to enlighten us with some details?"

    No.

  23. David,

    I agree with your brief summation, but I would think even that mass submission and conversion, was really rather a fanciful aim.

    If ex-Christians, could not live by the relatively relaxed protocols of that religion, how could they possibly be made to follow the more stringent ones of Islam?

    All of these ‘intelligent’ people who have found the so-called true path to personal happiness and morality, by rejecting Christianity, surely could not be persuaded to become believers of something so primitive and barbaric as the RoP?

    p.s. How can I email you when the ‘mail the editor’ facility seems to be broken. Some ten emails with no response, would indicate some sort of malfunction. Apologies for the distraction….

  24. Dawkins,

    How kind! – a gentleman to the last…and a humanist no less!

  25. ernest, its a strategy of tension. and its not the terrorists. its our own states. you can ignore terrorist propaganda very easily. on the other hand its all but impossible to avoid our own states propaganda. and it is they who are telling everyone to be afraid, and for many it has worked. the illusion of external threats has been every tyrants wet dream for millenia, why does anyone think we are so immune?

    My view is that they seek to achieve the submission of our western values to their dark ages ideology.

    my postman must be hording all the islamist junkmail.

    As our own societies twist in the wind without any form of absolute anchor

    right so the best way to fight extreme, backward conservative piety is with extreme, backward conservative piety. Such choices. why do you object to the 42 days again?

    i take i can assume there is no evidence on its way either david?

  26. Daytripper,

    "the illusion of external threats has been every tyrants wet dream for millenia"

    True! For years Young Mr. Mugabe has gone to bed trying to solve his country’s problems and woken up with the solution in his hand.

  27. DT,

    "right so the best way to fight extreme, backward conservative piety is with extreme, backward conservative piety. — Why do you object to the 42 days again?"

    So valuing freedom is now ‘backward conservative piety’. Aren’t you the one who is always banging on about state interference and control. Isn’t extending to 42 days, just another scaremongering excercise?

    At the begining of your comment you say: "impossible to avoid our own states propaganda. and it is they who are telling everyone to be afraid," – Which is a very good reason for not allowing them any further powers to detain us, or anyone for 42 days, and is a direct contradiction of your snide remark re ‘backward conservative piety’.

    Have you now taken to arguing against yourself, – and all in the same comment?

    If you were for ‘less state interference’, surely you would not wish to grant them further powers over your miserable little life..

  28. David, Thank you – will do.

    Now erase your msg…

  29. Getting back to the original theme – the damage done to the UK by terrorism.

    In hindsight it could also be argued that the adoption of the philosophies of multiculturism and political correctness have been equally as destructive to the the cohesiveness of society, and in it’s way, a form of cultural terrorism.

    Perhaps we should have the same rules for ‘liberal activists’, as we have for those of the other kind..

    What chance is there when we are being attacked simultaneously, on two fronts?

  30. Daytripper’s reasoning is that if the US hadn’t invaded Iraq, then 9/11 wouldn’t have happened because the attackers would have had no reason to do so.

  31. Have you now taken to arguing against yourself

    Ernest, i was directing the question at David, not advocating for 42 day detention.

    At the begining of your comment you say: "impossible to avoid our own states propaganda. and it is they who are telling everyone to be afraid," – Which is a very good reason for not allowing them any further powers to detain us, or anyone for 42 days, and is a direct contradiction of your snide remark re ‘backward conservative piety’.

    if you care to re-read i was commenting on davids notions that we should all become more christian as a way to combat islamism. only what he really means is intolerant pious conservatives. somehow, based on your comment above i dont think you entirely disagree.

    Perhaps we should have the same rules for ‘liberal activists’, as we have for those of the other kind.

    Wow Ernest, first you misinterpret me, then you yourself manage to go from a position of "valuing freedom" to locking up "liberal activists". that actually is genuinely impressive.

    Daytripper’s reasoning is that if the US hadn’t invaded Iraq, then 9/11 wouldn’t have happened because the attackers would have had no reason to do so.

    i dont even know how to respond to such a retarded comment. can anyone help?

  32. DT – The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

  33. DFaytripper, are you saying that the 9/11 attackers had reasons other than the invasion of Iraq?

  34. –Daytripper’s reasoning is that if the US hadn’t invaded Iraq, then 9/11 wouldn’t have happened because the attackers would have had no reason to do so.–

    I burst out laughing reading this one!

    And it’s not the silliest theory I’ve heard, not even close!

  35. Phantom, you’re right – that is far from the silliest theory that Allan has come up with.

  36. Allan,

    What on earth are you smoking?

  37. Well Reg, daytripper et al are always harping on about how Iraq and Afghanistan are the causes of anti-western terrorism and, as we know, the biggest single terrorist event was 9/11. Now, if Iraq is the biggest driver of allah’s martyrs, then it must be the cause of 9/11. After all, we know that prior to the invasion of Iraq the middle-east was a region of peace because islam is a religion of peace.
    So, 9/11 couldn’t have happened before the invasion of Iraq. It’s a plot by Bush and his regime. Any power which can divert their own tsu-nami around Diego Garcia has the ability to make daytripper and his pals believe that 9/11 preceded the invasion of Iraq whereas the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers knew that Iraq had been invaded hence the justification for the attack. Either that or muslims are a bunch of hot-headed nutters who need little or no excuse to inflict violence on non-muslims because their moon-god says that it’s their duty to do so, with or without the invasion of Iraq.

  38. Allan

    You’re really on something, excuse me, you’re really on to something!

  39. Allan providing some good clean entertainment again. And it’s all free!

  40. Excellent! It’s good to tie down lefties to an agreed reason behind muslim violence, this being:

    "……. muslims are a bunch of hot-headed nutters who need little or no excuse to inflict violence on non-muslims because their moon-god says that it’s their duty to do so, with or without the invasion of Iraq."

  41. Noel,

    "And it’s all free!"

    Are you sure? It can’t be that cheap for Allan to get that monged just before each time that he posts.