web analytics

Pull your weight

By ATWadmin On November 29th, 2006 at 2:49 pm

Interesting to read that progress has been made in Riga, ‘if only because the political leaders have conceded that while all have soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, some are engaged in wholesale combat, while others are having a pretty quiet time’.

‘The Canadians, in particular, have been laying down the law about other Nato members sharing more of the risks. Canada has suffered a large number of casualties, even more than the British in Helmand, and resent it when alliance members have failed to come to their aid when facing relentless attacks by the Taleban’

Id agree with that sentiment – why is it most consistently left to the British American Canadian and Australian (and Dutch in this case) forces to undertake the heavylifting in what all have agreed is a battle we must win. At one point i seem to recall it being noted that British forces witheld positions in Helmand and fought off the Taleban in one of the longest battles in British military history.

In extremis? The whole of Afghanistan is already ‘in extremis’.

‘apart from the moves over national caveats, only a handful of member states offered more troops and equipment for Afghanistan, enough to reduce the present 15 per cent shortfall in capability to ten per cent.

General Jones said that a shortfall in capability in a peacekeeping mission was one thing, but a capability gap in an operation where soldiers were being killed in combat was potentially more dangerous’

Quite. Get in there.

SAYING WHAT YOU MEAN….

By ATWadmin On November 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pm

It appears that some of my recent comments on the DUP’s “despicable” embrace of Sinn Fein (not IRA?) have struck a raw nerve or two amongst DUP ranks. Good. The purpose of ATW is to provide a forum in which to confront and challenge the political class.


Let me be very clear here; I come not to praise them but to bury them, so to speak. And I won’t say soft things just because some become offended.


For years, the DUP has (rightly) criticised the UUP’s spineless efforts in defending the Union. Some of that criticism was extremely harsh, though I agreed with it since it mirrored my own view. Now, the DUP brazenly cavorts with Sinn Fein/IRA in a Hain-choreographed waltz, but demands that critics stay mute. It’s “Strictly Come Dancing” with the volume muted. Well, forget it. If you enter politics, you must expect to be criticised.


It strikes me that the UUP and DUP have BOTH now failed the unionist people. That failure may indeed prove fatal for the Union. I doubt the present generation at the top of the political food chain care that much, since they can enjoy their tax-payed funded retirement in whatever constitutional location Northern Ireland ends up. These political undertakers for the Union are driven by a bizarre mixture of avarice, stupidity and duplicity. But sssssshhhhh…we must not speak of such things. It may be that ATW receives fire from both quarters, and that a chill descends from certain quarters. That’s cool! I’d sooner speak the truth than participate in the twisting of truth.

BANNING THE MASK OF ISLAM….

By ATWadmin On November 29th, 2006 at 9:20 am

795151-569390-thumbnail.jpgDid you read that one in three people would support a ban on Muslim women wearing the veils which cover their faces in public places, according to a new survey? Asked if they would support prohibition in specific circumstances, 61 per cent said they would approve a ban in airports and at passport control, 53 per cent in courtrooms and 53 per cent in schools. Forty-one per cent said they would support a workplace ban, but 56 per cent said they would oppose a ban on Muslim women wearing veils while travelling on public transport.

What fascinates me is the mindset of those who would NOT seek to ban this outward and visible expression of militant Islam. It seems from this poll that a disconcertingly large number of British people are prepared to accept the Burqa babes. In doing so, they de facto shuffle towards a gradual acceptance of Sharia. Then again, I wonder how many MUSLIMS were interviewed as part of this poll? All the BBC says is that "a nationally representative sample of people were questioned in the survey." So, what precise % of Muslims were interviewed?

If we lack the true grit to force the Islamists to integrate into OUR society, maybe they will be more successful at getting us to integrate into theirs?

STEP INTO THE PARLOUR……

By ATWadmin On November 29th, 2006 at 9:16 am

I continually harbour grave doubts about Pakistan’s ACTUAL status in the war on terror. Is it friend or foe, or both?

I read today that Pakistan’s foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops. Other Pakistani officials are suggesting that NATO accepts an Afghanistani Government that includes the Taliban, and that excludes Hamid Karzai!

It’s also instructive to read that Lt Gen Ali Mohammed Jan Orakzai, governor of the volatile North West Frontier Province has stated publicly that the US, Britain and Nato have already failed in Afghanistan. "Either it is a lack of understanding or it is a lack of courage to admit their failures," he said recently. Gen Orakzai insists that the Taliban represent the Pashtun population, Afghanistan’s largest and Pakistan’s second largest ethnic group, and they now lead a "national resistance" movement to throw out Western occupation forces, just as there is in Iraq.

These are ALL siren voices. The Taliban should be crushed, not accommodated. Those like Orakzai should be given the chance to experience a few well-aimed daisycutters. Those Pakistani officials now briefing in favour of the Taliban need to be sacked or imprisoned.

Of course there may well be some "realists" about (Cue Fabulous Baker Boys?) who have some empathy for these surrender suggestions? Perhaps we can enlist the help of the Taliban to quell violence, in the same way as we’re going to enlist the help of the Mad Mullahs to quell violence?

If we lose our will to crush the Taliban, rather like we are losing our will to crush the Jihadi in Iraq, then beware. Envigorated, the Islamofascists will come for us in their swarms, sensing our institutionalised weakness dressed up in the empty rhetoric of "realism." 

JUST FOR KICKS….

By ATWadmin On November 29th, 2006 at 9:12 am

Shock Horror news headline! Street robbers often carry out their crimes for the thrill as much as for the financial gain, a report has said. Well WHO would have thought that then, eh? I mean, it had certainly never crossed my mind that the thugs who prey on the vulnerable do so because they can! I always assumed it was to do with societal deprivations like not having two holidays a year, or perhaps a wounded ego caused by our capitalist values, or maybe even global warming.

Thank goodness for these academic studies, that add SO much to our understanding of human nature.

TEN THINGS i WOULD NEVER DO……

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

Ranting Stan has tagged me with "Ten Things I would never do". Normally, I would never do these things (LOL!) BUT being a natural born contrarian (!) , other than Stan’s excellent top 10 which I too share,  I do have 10 suggestions for things I’m not planning on doing anytime soon….GRRRR

1. I would never ever submit to the Islamofascists.

2. I would never bow the knee to Republican and Loyalist terrorists. They’re scum.

3. I would never accept power-sharing with terrorists. Ever.

4. I would never forget the victims of terror in Northern Ireland.

5. I would never forget the events of 9/11.

6. I would never forget 7/7.

7. I would never back off from fully supporting the global war on terror.

8. I would never back off from my own Christian principles.

9. I would never embrace dhimmitude.

10. I would never wear a brown tie and a purple shirt. It’s not right.

WANTED….

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 10:00 pm

I commend you to visit this LINK and read the story Tom has written up concerning a revolting attack on a fellow blogger, if anyone can help follow the advice given..

FACE TRANSPLANT SUCCESSFUL…..

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pm

ATW is proud to provide you with the BEFORE and AFTER photographs of Northern Ireland’s first ever FACE TRANSPLANT.…don’t795151-558301-thumbnail.jpg you agree that the transformation has been truly….ahem…remarkable?trimble1.jpg

Auntie’s in Bed with Bri

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Did anyone listen to the Radio Five Live debate this morning on what should be done with the BBC?  The debate took place within the context of Michael Grade’s departure as Chairman of the corporation.  I was tempted to call, but resisted on the grounds that my opinions of the BBC would not be suitable listening material for young children who happened to be tuning in.  Look at this coverage on the IRA’s ruminations on whether or not to back the PSNI as an example of the BBC institutional Leftist bias.

Under the terms of the St Andrews Agreement, the IRA has to call its cod with muscles (hard fish) to formally approve a change of policy.  Who does the BBC choose as the ‘historian’ to give an impartial account of the RUC?  None other than Bigoted Bri, of course.  If a blue whale converted to Catholicism it wouldn’t supplant Feeney as the ne plus ultra of Fenian bigmouths.

Feeney gives the traditional slant you’d expect from a poisonous republican by peddling the myths that:

  1. The RUC stood by and did nothing whilst Bombay Street was attacked (in truth they were so overwhelmed by the numbers rioting there was little they could do to hold the line), and;
  2. The Battle of the Bogside was all about the RUC wading in to attack ‘da poor little Ketholics’ (when they were actually defending the right of Apprentice Boys to parade on a public road without fear of being attacked and severely injured by intolerant republican yobs).

We then move on to that hoary old chestnut about the RUC discouraging Catholics from joining.  Piffle!!  Opinion survey after opinion survey concluded that by far the biggest single deterrent to Catholics becoming officers was the fear of ostracisation (or worse) from within their own community.  Catholics who did join the RUC (and I salute and support them 100%) were bigger targets for IRA assassins (the alter-egos of those who now salivate at the prospect of deputising a morally-bereft DUP) than Protestant officers.

Returning to Bigoted Bri, we almost feel like we’re being urged to tug at the violin strings as the IRA grapples with internal dissent (incidentally, violin string would have looked a treat around the necks of these murderers) before signing up to the rule of law.  Feeney opines that:

‘Sharing power is nothing compared to saying that they recognise the state and urge people to join the police force and support law and order within the state. And for a lot of republicans that will be a step too far.’

Diddums.  My heart bleeds.  Aside from the fact that everyone who wishes to have power in a state should recognise the legitimacy of that state, wasn’t the Belfast Agreement supposed to settle this issue for republican dross?  Unlike the BBC and its pretensions of impartiality, I am no way impartial when it comes to the police in Northern Ireland.  The RUC was a proud and professional constabulary who helped to prevent a province with mass violence turning into a civil war zone.  They were awarded the George Cross in recognition of that role and, as far as I and hundreds of thousands of people throughout the UK are concerned, whether the IRA choose to endorse their successor or not is irrelevant.  The IRA, as murdering criminals and terrorists, are not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the most dedicated police force in the United Kingdom.  So pick the bones out of that Feeney, and ask your lickspittles at the BBC to do the same.

Leave Well Alone

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 8:22 pm

Honestly I really think that there are some battles worth fighting but that this isn’t one of them.  The existing legislation doesn’t need tinkering with – access is already adequate, one or two doctors signatures on a form makes little bureacratic difference in surgeries staffed by several and the involvement of a doctor should surely remain paramount as a duty of care (it is ridiculous to suggest a nurse be in charge).  Additionally rattling cages gives rise to this sort of nonsense.

The call, at a time of concern about teenage pregnancy, will increase concerns that women will turn to abortion instead of contraception.


Will we? Thanks for telling me. What an absolutely appauling and ludicrous generalisation. To suggest that most women would seek abortions rather than contraception is a sensational press tactic aimed at ramping up the abortion debate for all the wrong reasons.  The regulations on abortion ‘bureaucracy’ don’t need messing with, and even less so when they are seized upon to present all women as heartless thoughtless morons or conflate the issue with failing attempts to reduce teen pregnancy, another scaremongering tactic – and all in one fully loaded alarmist sentence!

If an objective is to lower the numbers of teen pregnancies then start by looking at the ‘incentives’ to leave it to chance in the first place.  A pregnancy represents a shoe-in to a council property, the socialist legacy of rewarding you for being ‘poor’.  

An abortion remains a last resort for most women and more worryingly now in the UK is becoming an increasingly contentious ‘right’ (if you can call it that).  The arguments in favour of attacking legislation use statistics to present their case. This one from Canada where completely relaxed legislation is argued as the factor for 90% of abortions being undertaken early on in a pregnancy. But compare that with the UK where the stats are the same under existing tighter legislation. (89% of abortions were carried out at 13 weeks; 67% were at under 10 weeks).

If anything amending the law will send out an unnecessary and confused message on such a sensitive issue. I think The British Pregnancy and Advisory Service should leave the more than adequate UK legislation as it is and refocus their efforts on the teen pregnancy debate, eg prevention.

At the same time today the same issue is viewed from the other end of the spectrum by The Washington Post reporting on the effects of Nicaragua’s absolutist abortion laws.  An estimated 32,500 women get illegal and potentially unsafe (‘backstreet’) abortions in Nicaragua every year and account for 16 percent of the more than 100 maternal deaths there annually.  Worldwide – 70,000 women die each year from the same.

For the UK pre-the 1967 Abortion Act it was estimated by a parliamentary committee that the treatment of abortion accounted for as many as 20% of gynaelogical admissions. An estimated 100,000 to 150,000 abortions were carried out illegally in 1966 ~ this compares with 185,000 legal abortions carried out in 2005.