go, paul dean.



i think i'll hold my own poll soon. watch this space.

when will the american people call a halt to bush's naziism?



the little cunt now wants to prosecute american citizens for war crimes if they go to iraq to form part of the human shield.



where's the crime, bush, you little wanker?



since when was it wrong to want to stop innocent people getting burned to death by your bombs, you fucking illiterate little tosser?



since when was it wrong to support the people of iraq? you say your argument is with saddam, not the people of iraq, so how does trying to prevent them being hurt make someone a criminal?



the only criminals i see in all this are bush, rumsfeld, ashcroft, powell, fleischer etc etc etc - all the little fascists who form or work for the american government executive.



cunts.

now, you can call me naive if you want to, but i always thought that when someone started a company they were supposed to be prepared to take the risk that if someone else didn't pay them for their goods, they may go out of business and a competitor could pick up their good business and, maybe, re-employ some of the employees who'd lost their jobs.



this is not exactly my idea of a workers' utopia, you understand, just the way i thought that capitalism was supposed to work.



blow me, if i'm not completely wrong.



that nice mrs thatcher seems to have thought that it was ok to insure arms companies against their losses and paid over a billion pounds to british arms companies so that they could arm iraq during the 1980s despite saddam not paying them.



now, isn't this the same iraq that she supports a war with? isn't this the iraq that's still being run by the same man who was in charge all those years ago? wasn't he someone nice to do business with then? isn't he now supposed to be one of the most evil men on the planet?



the fucking gall the bitch had (still has) is staggering.



to take tax-payers' money - my money - to pay some fucking greedy bastard capitalists so that they wouldn't have to take a pay cut when their war-mongering didn't provide them with the profits they desired, really takes some fucking cheek.



to then pretend that the man these cunts were selling arms to is any worse now than he was then is beyond belief.



the fucking bitch should be forced to apologise to the british public for wasting our money on supporting a bunch of greedy capitalist bastards and insulating them from the real world that the rest of us have to live in.



the cunt should have all her money sequestrated and used to pay us back.



she should also be sent to baghdad to act as part of saddam's human shield. she was and is quite prepared to support the use of british soldiers, sailors and airmen in wars against iraq, so she should be made to experience what they have to - fear of injury, fear of death, the trauma of having bombs explode close to them, the trauma of having their friends blown to pieces in front of their eyes, the fear of what may be happening to their families back home, the fear that, when it's all over and they're not needed any more, no fucker will give them a job and they'll end up homeless.



thing is, there's no such thing as honour among politicians, so she'll never even acknowledge that we, the tax-payers she ripped-off, could possibly have a problem with her behaviour, let alone that she should at least say sorry.



one last point: her fucking greedy capitalist bastard of a husband didn't own any shares in the arms companies involved did he, by any chance, perhaps?



corrupt cunts.

the bush-blair war machine is now in top gear and will soon be bombing the shit out of innocent iraqi children.



how i hate this pair of cunts and all their either spineless or actively war-mongering supporters.



they've made it more than clear that they will ignore the un's decision on their latest resolution, bush saying it'll test the us's relevance in the modern world. he also said that if the un rejects the resolution, the us will attack iraq anyway, so why the shit about relevence? if he's going to ignore it if it doesn't do as he wants, why ask the fucking question in the first place?



the british and american people have made it more than clear that they do not want war. they now need to rise up and sweep these bastards from power before they start a third world war - a world war wherein both the us and uk have said they're happy to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively.



with cunts like geoff hoon in charge of the military, there'll be no fucking planet for us to live in, so we need to get him, his american-arse-licking boss and all his war-mongering supporters out of power NOW.

our schools are going to hell in a hard cart.



am i worried about falling educational standards: no - they're as high or higher than ever;



am i worried about truancy: no - it's about the level it's been for years;



am i worried about child-molesting teachers: no - there are as few now as there have ever been.



no. what worries me is that school governors appear to be prepared to remove all human rights to privacy from our children.



a few weeks ago, there was a report of some perverts running a school where they're going to use sniffer dogs to check the kids for drugs.



i can just picture the weird thrills the perverts with the dogs will get as they encourage their animals to sniff some girls' crotches - they should be in prison rather than being allowed to terrorise children.



now, there are schools in manchester who want to install webcams all over the place so they can report kids' bad behaviour to their parents.



ignorant bastards that they are, the governors fail to see the denial of the kids' (and their teachers') rights that is inherent in this behaviour and, apparently, are all too keen to implement the system as soon as possible.



i wonder which of the governors or local shool authority leaders runs a shop selling webcams and computers and whose sales will reach a rather nice new high as all this is installed. money-grubbing cunt.



the kids' parents need to remove them from all these schools until some semblance of human rights is reinstated.

it appears that both the military and the spooks are against a war in iraq, so what the fuck is going on? why the headlong rush into a war that can only hurt innocent people?



blair's a well-known murderous cunt, manic self-publicist, war-monger and capitalist lackey - seller (along with john major and margaret thatcher) of the uk economy to global corporations - and he's listening to somebody or other and it's certainly no-one with britain's best interests at heart, so it must be some people who stand to make loads of money out of a war. so let's see if we can think of a list...

• george w bush - well-known nazi, serial killer, money-grubber, criminal, cunt, election stealer and destroyer of the us economy, has attention-span of a particularly stupid gnat and intelligence of a wilted daffodil - his penis is probably similar in stiffness to the daffodil, unless he's got a stiffy from thinking about the mass murder of iraqi children; murderous cunt;


• margaret thatcher - junkie, capitalist lackey, seller-out of the uk economy to corporate pirates; cunt;


• john major - well-known adulterer, capitalist lackey and money-grubber; cunt;


• geoff hoon - almost completely unknown war-monger and proponent of use of nuclear weapons; cunt;


• jack straw - crap foreign secretary, blair's lap-dog, formerly had balls (apparently), now spine-free; cunt;


• colin powell - used to be known as the only truth-speaker in the us government, now totally discredited and lies just as much as, or more than all the other war-mongering cunts in the white house; cunt;


• dick cheney and donald rumsfeld - well-known liars, religious fundamentalists, war-mongers, fascists, cunts, nazis, the real controllers of the us - bush is their moronic puppet; cunts;


• john ashcroft - well-known serial-killer, nazi, destroyer of justice and democracy in the us, sexual pervert, liar and cunt; freedom-hating, pro-police state fascist; get ready for room 101 everyone; cunt.

when i see a list of supporters of war that contains that lot, i fear for the very existence of our planet. i know damn certainly that we'll be living in a police state within a couple of years and that i'll have to join whatever resistance movement kicks off against it, so i'll probably end up being tortured to death for calling blair a murderous cunt. so, if it's going to happen anyway, i may as well enjoy writing it, so....



tony blair's a murderous cunt and i hope he burns in hell for eternity, along with everyone on the planet who either supports or encourages his war-mongering.

the worst war-mongers in recent history, bush and blair, are now moving to the conclusion of their plans by forcing a new un vote on iraq in the hope that they can now start their genocide with a pretty little fig-leaf provided by the other un security council members.



they are bringing their resolution to the un sc without even waiting for hans blix' report due on feb 28th.



so, it doesn't matter how much or little iraq is complying with res 1441, they want war and they're going to start it soon. i also believe that even if blix says that iraq is totally compliant with res 1441, they will start their war, for the war has nothing to do with the disarmement of iraq. it has everything to do with stopping oil being traded in euros.

---

i'll reiterate something i wrote some weeks ago - if this war results in someone i care about getting hurt, especially my kids, i will not be angry with saddam, murderous bastard though he is. i'll be angry with bush, blair and all the evil, scheming, money-grubbing, war-mongering, murderous little cunts they're working with for starting this war and encouraging terrorism.



i will make it my life's work to mete out extremely violent and painful retribution on as many of them as possible before their equally evil spooks or police kill me.

quite an interesting q&a with richard dawkins answering readers' queries in the independent today.

transport for london's data protection registration make pretty unpleasant reading.



why, in every purpose listed, do they want or need to collect data on anyone's racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or other beliefs of a similar nature, trade union membership, physical or mental health or condition, sexual life?



now you can call me naive or paranoid if you want but i completely fail to see what business it is for anyone to know those things. i especially can't see why a body with responsibility for transport could possibly need to know them.



unless, of course, it's being run by a runty little twat who's recently stopped being socialist and has transferred his allegiance to the war-mongering, freedom-hating capitalist scum and he's going to do their spook work for them.



cunt.

john chuckman deserves an award. his article answers to two great mysteries at yellowtimes.org is masterly.



it's a real pity that most americans don't read him, perhaps then they'd get rid of the cunt bush and his minions. it's time for a new american revolution, i think.

excellent article by richard williams in the guardian today about alan lomax.



what a man.



read it

john lettice at the register has a most interesting article about the ken-formerly-known-as-red's new security-based use for tfl cameras.



sounds like the formerly-socialist one has taken rather a bigger step than is legal with his "ring of steel" and may well be breaking all sorts of data protection laws.



since i believe most politicians are detestable cunts who are only in it for the money and will do anything to hang on to power and influence, the fact that the no-longer-red one has turned into a fascist does not surprise me a jot. but that he's apparently doing it outside the law does raise a wry smile; 'cos i hope the little cunt will at least get fined heavily for it and, better, removed from office for his abuse of public funds.

my birthday yesterday so no postings because i was helping to decorate my gf's new house.

tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair denies rushing to war, in the guardian today.



obviously he's using a meaning of "rush" of which english speakers throughout the world were not aware previously.



the new meaning is:



    rush: v. to take less than three milliseconds to perform an action;



so, he's not rushing at all. he's taken ages and ages, relatively speaking, to decide to massacre iraqi children.



cunt.

here's my old caterham 7, n503yab.

chirac's going to veto an early second un resolution on starting a war with iraq.



good man.



i hope dubya's spitting feathers.



oh, no. wait a second. that'll give the evil little wanker the excuse he so desperately wants to start a war with europe.



shit.

tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair and his handlers are clearly not communicating.



on saturday, blair told some stalinist labour party meeting that evil saddam has to be removed 'cos he's an evil dictator at the evil heart of the evil axis of evil.



suddenly, some jerk at no10 says it's ok for him to stay if he's disarmed.



well, what the fuck is it guys? is he an evil bastard who has to be removed or is he not? will he be allowed to stay if he stops threatening to do his oil deals in euros instead of dollars? has he already offered you that deal, you money-grubbing bastards, and that's why you're backing off?

---

a few days ago blair admitted, at last, that the trade sanctions on iraq are killing people. he's denied this for years.



so he's admitted that he's killing iraqis with his own evil regime, yet he's being allowed to stay in power.



surely, the wonderful moron man who's in charge of the usa should add evil blair to his list of evil dictators who are evilly killing innocents and remove him from office; replacing him with a pro-american puppet, obviously.



oops, silly me, that's what he already is and that's why he won't be removed never mind how evil a war-mongering bastard he is.

the register has been listening to ken livingstone on the day of the introduction of congestion charging in central london.



it would appear that "the ken formerly known as red" has developed a degree of old labour stalinism and says that the security cameras which back up the number-plate recognition system will stay, whether congestion charging succeeds or not, to provide a security infrastructure wherein "if a terrorist group is trying to drive in we can identify the car, it can be flagged up instantly and we can even possibly be in a position where we can recognise the driver. so there's now an added benefit that we didn't anticipate when we thought about this but since sept 11th central london will be dramatically safer, not impossible for anybody to get in, but a lot more difficult for a villain to get in and do their damage".



so, since sept 11th london's become dramatically safer, these cameras are good enough to recognise vehicle drivers and villains will have a hard time getting in and out of the city?



give me a break ken, you cunt.



how the fuck would you know that a particular vehicle was being used by terrorists until after they'd done something evil?



these cameras are not good enough to be used for facial recognition. even if they were, facial recognition systems are far too primitive to be of any use.



london's not a safer place now than it was before sept 11th. the number of people and vehicles moving around in there makes it an inherently insecure place. no number of cameras will change that: when david copeland planted three bombs in london, he killed. the security cameras were of some use in identifying him afterwards, but they didn't stop the murderous little bastard planting his bombs, killing people and getting away.



but ken will persist with his snooping cameras and retain the number-plate records he needs to run his congestion charging system in order to keep tabs on people's movements. he'll encourage the use of transponders in vehicles so that he can snoop on people.



the ken formerly known as red has become a tool of the anti-freedom, pro-militarism, jackboot-in -the-face establishment he's always said he abhors.

simon tisdall's article blair's 'moral' case for war in iraq is shot full of holes is one of the most honest i've seen in the papers over the last few days.



since all murdoch's pieces of shit are full of war-mongering, murderous disinformation and the remainder of the press seem to be hard pressed to say no to "i'm fighting for my political life" blair, it's very refreshing to see someone stand back and dispassionately dissect blair's arguments, showing them for the pack of lies that they really are.



there are of course, exceptions to my "the remainder of the press", notably the excellent sunday herald.

since yellowtimes.org had been taken off the web for publishing articles by imad khadduri, i thought i'd publish his latest article here in order to make it a harder target to hit. the next time yellowtimes.org is hit by bush's apologists and supporters, some people will be able to read some of the important stuff here.



i will continue to 'reprint' imad khadduri's articles here as i become aware of them.



whatever copyright subsists in this article is fully accepted by me, of course.



''the demise of the nuclear bomb hoax''

printed on sunday, february 16, 2003 @ 17:36:33 est ( )



by imad khadduri

former iraqi nuclear scientist

yellowtimes.org guest columnist (canada)




(yellowtimes.org) – on february 14, 2003, mohamed elbaradei, director general of the international atomic energy agency (iaea), submitted, in accordance with u.n. resolution 1441, his second report to the security council on iraq's nuclear non-capability.



much to the chagrin of president bush and colin powell, the nuclear inspection chief's findings not only cleared the smoke from the imagined "smoking gun," but also dissipated the smog of misinformation with which the american government, hungry for war, has surrounded this issue.



the matters raised by elbaradei merit further comment.



the inspectors, the iaea head reported, collected hundreds of soil, air and water samples, and installed and reinstalled dozens of radioactivity detectors -- including gamma-ray surveillance instruments both airborne and ground based -- during 177 inspections and visits to 120 nuclear related locations in the past nine weeks.



what is not generally known is that when hans blix, a month ago, challenged bush and blair to put up or shut up, in effect challenging them to produce their "sensitive" intelligence on suspected sites in order to allow the inspectors to verify the vociferous claims of the likes of white house spokesman ari fleischer's "we know they have it," a list of 25 sites was quietly provided.
the inspectors visited each one of these sites and found nothing. the total sum of all these samples, detectors and visits, as far as the nuclear weapon program is concerned, was nil.
powell's insinuations about iraq's imagined nuclear capabilities (fissile ore importation, secret laser enrichment techniques, nefarious aluminum tubes, etc.) now echo with a hollow ring. one wonders of what sort of scientific information he availed himself, if any, before presenting such flimsy allegations as evidence. perhaps he confined himself to advice from "consultants" in ivory think tanks such as the nuclear control institute.



one might humbly ask what is stopping his "scientists" and consultants now from "advising" their government regarding the extreme unlikelihood that ongoing work related to research and development of a nuclear weapon program would not leave a trace, even in minute amounts, of certain half-life isotopes that would surely be susceptible to detection by the latest highly-touted, ultra sensitive instruments employed by the iaea inspectors?



in succinct terms, should not the "no finding" be a finding in itself, especially in a place where something was specifically alleged to be a major finding?
having raised the false specter of an iraqi mushroom cloud for a decade, powell's scientists should consider it a matter of conscience to enlighten their government with their expertise in these matters.



the aluminum tubes fanfare so brazenly trumpeted by powell is reduced to whether the reverse-engineering attempt by iraqi military engineers amounted to anything more than extra precaution on the part of the engineers. they were most probably demanding definite tolerances in order to ensure the success of their attempt to manufacture locally the combustion chamber for a solid propellant rocket. powell's only claim to annoyance is that they were more expensive than american aluminum tubes used for this purpose.
the fact is that aluminum tubes have been used to build tens of thousands of rockets. the hypothesis is that the tubes might be diverted for centrifuges. the "coating" applied to the tubes found in iraq confirms the reason for why they were purchased.



it was also amusing to realize, while i watched the generous outpouring by american "scientists" of detailed technical information in support of powell's fallacious claim, that they were, in fact, explaining to iraqi ears actually how to convert these aluminum tubes to centrifugal isotope enrichment cylinders! i can only hope that the "scientists" will not want to be paid for their generous technical advice from the oil for food program revenue.



elbaradei confirmed in his report that it was "intelligence" information that led unmovic to the invasion of the private home of faleh hamza -- the supposedly "secret" keeper of the laser enrichment technique -- and the consequent confiscation of 2000 pages of personal documents. powell had pursued this case in a pathetic attempt to provide "evidence" for the third enrichment process. one wonders what kind of arm-twisting was applied to unmovic (reminding me of their cia infiltrated unscom predecessors) to carry out this james bond style fiasco, since the iaea itself was already fully aware of the insignificance to the iraqi nuclear program of faleh hamza's work on laser enrichment.



we, the iraqi nuclear team, declared as much in our final report to the iaea in 1997, pointing clearly to the demise in 1988 of faleh hamza's line of research. elbaradei confirmed that fact the day after blix brought it up in his first report to the security council two weeks ago. he pointed to the personal nature of the seized papers and even chided blix for referring to it.
one would wonder whether this rejuvenated "intelligence" might not have been the stale information provided by cia mouthpiece khidhir hamza, perhaps in an attempt to stay on their payroll.
in an interview with hamza published in the washington post on february 6, 2003, powell, in his report to the security council two weeks ago, referred to information gleaned from "another defector in 1995." "he was referring to me," hamza boasts.



if khidhir hamza has indeed managed, through his connections with richard perle, paul wolfowitz, and donald rumsfeld, to bypass the entire intelligence community, which disposed of him years ago, if his information is false or silly, if he was not there when iraq began its serious weaponization program, if he has no new sources, if his testaments are filled with personal diatribes against iraq, why would the secretary of defense turn to him for information?



the u.s. could save billions in the intelligence budget if they would just use what they do find and discard what they know is false!



at the end of his report, elbaradei unequivocally stated that the iraqi nuclear weapon program was "neutralized" and that there is "no evidence" of its rejuvenation. being part of the u.n. system, he felt the need to add a few politically correct question marks concerning "speed," "assurance" and "patterns" of intentions and actions.



certain european countries are rightly asking how long bush and powell can blow into a balloon full of holes. one might also reasonably ask about bush and powell's "speed," "assurances" and "patterns" in the misinformation game.



powell is certainly not new to it.



from the scourging of iraq, by geoff simons: "washington lied persistently and comprehensively to gain the required international support [for the gulf war]. for example, the u.s. claimed to have satellite pictures showing a massive iraqi military build-up on the saudi/ iraqi border. when sample photographs were later obtained from soyuz karta by an enterprising journalist, no such evidence was discernible."



simons makes reference to an article by maggie o'kane, published in the guardian weekend, 16 december 1995, which revealed that the enterprising journalist was jean heller of the st. petersburg times in florida.



eventually, the u.s. commander -- none other than colin powell himself -- admitted that there had been no massing of iraqi troops. but by then, the so-called evidence had served its purpose.
yet with a tongue in his own cheek, powell claimed on february 14, 2003 in the toronto star, while still blistering under blix's and elbaradei's reports, that "force should always be a last resort -- i have preached this for most of my professional life as a soldier and as a diplomat."



perhaps this time history should not be allowed to repeat itself.

normally i'm not one to advocate civil disobedience, but the american and british people need to start getting physical about stopping this war - sooner rather than later - 'cos later will be when millions of iraqis have been killed and we have no human rights left.

yellowtimes.org is back on the web.



firas al-atraqchi has another terrifying article there: "we're gonna smoke 'em out": the butchering of iraq.



when will someone stop the murderous, war-mongering, serial-killing thug, bush?

old two-jags has waded in on blair's side in the pm's fight against democracy.



given prescott's fucking appalling record of being truly, madly, deeply undemocratic, we should all be very afraid for our human rights.

tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair obviously believes that democracy starts and ends with our pathetic first past the post electoral system, since he patently does not think that a popular outpouring of anger, disgust at his continued war-mongering is not a proper part of the democratic process: blair to defy anti-war protests.



the guardian has, as always been far to polite to the little shit; the headline should have read "blair to ignore anti-war protest and go ahead and butcher tens of thousands of innocent iraqi children".



cunt.

---

the anally-retentive rupert murdoch has told all his editors that they must back a war with iraq by giving an interview supporting a war.



that all his editors are crawling up his, bush's, powell's, rumsfeld's and blair's arses and supporting war shows just how spine-free they all are.



cunts.

---

these bastards call anti-war sentiment anti-americanism, accusing opponents of war of racism, yet they play the race card themselves, very heavy-handidily, to try to make people want a war by appealing to good old-fashined anti-french sentiment in every article. they accuse people who express anti-war sentiments of defending or being apologists for saddam.



get the message, racist bastards:



we're not anti-american, we're anti-war;



we're not saddam's apologists, we just don't want thousands of innocent iraqis toasted;



OK? simple enough for you, morons?

the scottish sunday herald's a bloody good newspaper. obviously not owned by the anally-retentive, control freak, war-monger murdoch, otherwise it would never carry the articles it does. must read it more often.



here's its take on why the cia thinks bush is wrong.

hilarious post at the guardian today : when tony met gordon.

thanks to way down here, i discovered this little anti-french gem at the new york post.



apart from it being factually incorrect - the marvellous us of a turned up so late for ww2 that they helped no-one until all that was left was the mopping-up - it hardly helps to achieve the agreement necessary to deal with the terrible political situation that the witless bastard who runs the us has got the world into.



is this paper owned by the anally-retentive rupert murdoch? it's the only possible explanation for the intolerance inherent in the article, for the man is one of the most mean-spirited little shits on the planet. he runs a close second or third to bush - rumsfeld's in there somewhere, too.



oh, and steve dunleavy's obviously a cunt.

when we have real terrorists blowing up parts of the uk and people getting arrested in connection with those explosions, why do blair and read still need to pretend that the real threat is from "foreign" terrorists with sam-7 missiles?



some members of the republican movement in northern ireland have sam-7s and have had them for years - the army keeps crowing every time it finds one in an "arms cache" somewhere in border country.



is it 'cos the real terrorists won't justify their petro-dollars (or petro-euros, more accurately) war against iraq? or is it convenient for them to appeal to the hard-of-thinking in the british population by playing the race card against the "evil muslim horde"? either is equally heinous.

---

these people are truly pathetic and need to be removed from office, by force if necessary, to prevent them committing genocide.



we brits have had a few revolts in our time - i feel very strongly that we're due another to get these war-mongers out of positions of power immediately.



history would approve, i'm sure.

---

while we're at it, let's withdraw all the us's credit lines, stop selling it oil and watch it fall over like the house of cards that it truly is. for without its petro-dollars, it's fucked.

i'm really impressed by this kurt nimmo bloke. much of what he writes expresses exactly how i feel, but his use of english is far better then mine.



his smirkingchimp.com article, let's call bush on his bogus terror threats, contains the same sentiments i've tried to get over with my rants about tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair's and john read's lies about terrorists (see my postings from yesterday).



what surprises me most about all these unreal terrorist threat things is that otherwise-sensible senior policemen and soldiers will go along with it when they, too, must know that what they're being asked to take part in is such obvious nonsense. why won't they just say no? are they scared of the little shit (blair, i mean) - surely not - they only need to look at the self-satisfied smirk on his face to know that he hasn't the moral strength to fight them. or are they just pulling a nuremberg trial defence? - "i was just following orders, guv" - pathetically spine-free.

---

talking about self-satisfied smirks (from which smirkingchimp.com was named, of course):



it's been said many times about bush, but blair's getting that look - of a juvenile chimpanzee who's just had a very satisfying shit and feels in complete control of his world because he can contain his bowel movements sufficiently to avoid crapping on his feet.



if you don't find bush's and blair's smirking chimp expressions more scary than anything else on earth, you ain't thinking, kid.

are you worried by terrorists?



is the axis of evil getting you down?



well, grow up and get a fucking grip, you moron.

---

apparently we've turned into a nation of cry-babies who are scared of our own shadows.



here's a few words of comfort, idiot.



you're more likely to die falling down the stairs at home tonight then you are to get shot in the arse by a terorist.



you're more likely to die in a car crash then you are to get bombed to bits.



you're more likely to die because of the stupid cancer sticks you put in your gob then you are to get gassed with sarin.



you're more likely to die because you take no exercise then you are to get poisoned with ricin.



you're more likely to die from food poisoning then you are to get killed by the contamination from a dirty bomb.



you're more likely to be shot to death by the police then you are to be shot by the cartoon character arabs that tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair is trying to scare you with.



so stop feeling sorry for yourself and go out and shop for britain, 'cos it's the only thing you have the intelligence to handle.



ok?

everything i fear about the us of a in a most erudite article by geov parrish at smirkingchimp.com : it can happen here.



but, a wonderful article by ernest partridge, again at smirkingchimp.com : the vulnerable giant explains how we can stop the imperialist, racist, warmongers who run the usa.



if there are any gods out there, i pray to them that it's the latter which happens first.

blair showed just how grown-up he is today: during commons question time, he was asked for some comments on the anti-war demonstrations on saturday next.



questioned by backbench mps, the very adult leader of great britain and northern ireland "... contrasted democracy in britain with saddam hussein's iraq where he said people are not free to stage political demonstrations".



glad to see political debate is so full of adult consideration of the facts, not just name-calling and heckling.

---

while i'm on the subject of informed comment, doesn't tony-boy know that demonstrations on saturday have been banned from new york?



surely he should have "... contrasted democracy in britain with george w bush's united states of america where he said people are not free to stage political demonstrations".



but that's just me being childish; i'm glad our esteemed pm would never stoop so low.

blair, get your tongue out of bush's arse and read this : vulnerable but ignored: how catastrophe threatens the 12 million children of iraq by leonard doyle, foreign editor for the independent.



you and your wife keep carping on about how children matter.



if they matter, you won't bomb them.

up to 30 afghan civilians have been killed by fucking incompetent allied bomber crews who shouldn't even be in that country.



apparently the bomber commanders had listened to disinformation about the whereabouts of mullah omar, again, and bombed an area which one of the warlords wanted to take revenge on.



when will the stupid fuckers who are running the afghan occupation learn that they cannot believe a single word uttered by any of the warlords or their lackeys?



for fuck's sake, people, these men make a living out of manufacturing and trafficking illegal drugs - do you really think they're your friends and are going to give you helpful, accurate information?



if you do, you're even stupider than i had at first thought.

---

how much will this get reported on the tv news?



might get 30 seconds.



compare that with the hours and hours and tedious fucking hours given to the crew of the columbia space shuttle.



obviously, 30 innocent afghan civilians whose only concern is to keep body and soul together are worth far, far, far less than a bunch of publicity-hungry, overpaid, gung-ho morons on a stupid multi-billion dollar firework.

a bit more about the obl tape from al-jazeera.



antiwar.com has a piece about obl denouncing saddam and demanding his overthrow.



this has been edited out of reports at e.g. msnbc because it's inconvenient for the war party, who are trying to use the tape to link obl and saddam as allies.



a more honest version is available at reuters, wherein obl urges muslims to defend iraq from infidels - not to defend saddam:



'the statement did not express support for iraqi president saddam hussein -- it said muslims should support the iraqi people rather than the country's government. "the fighting should be in the name of god only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all arab states, including iraq," the statement said. earlier this month, saddam said he had no links with al qaeda. bin laden has often criticized saddam in the past'.



so, maybe the tape wasn't fabricated, after all - but it's certainly being very selectively posted and powell did mention it before al-jazeera broadcast it - how did he know about it?

two very good articles in the guardian today.



one by rob liddle about what the americans think about the british and the other by polly toynbee about britain's relationship with europe.



i'd love to think tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair will read them, take their content seriously and do something to sort out these fucked-up relationships - ones he's greatly fucked-up by himself - stupid little tosser that he is.



i don't suppose that will happen for he seems only to listen to the very small group of sychophants with whom he's surrounded himself.

the guardian's report on police and troop deployment to protect heathrow will, i'm sure, be used as a means to justify nonsensical human rights abuses when it's all over and no attack has occurred.



the line will be: we told you there would be an attack; our vigilance thwarted it; we need to be more vigilant all the time to thwart future attacks; give us all the details of your private life so we can be sure that you're not a terrorist; get in line for your tagging, while you're at it; oh, and hand your kids over to these operators so they can check them for hidden weapons.



we have to stop these people before britian becomes the fascist state that the us now is. they have no real freedom of movement or association over there. nearly everything is fucking illegal or viewed as suspicious or, worse, un-american.



get rid of blair and his nazis now, before it's too late.

"general" colin powell seemed to know about the latest bin laden tape shown by al-jazeera before al-jazeera knew about it?



how come?



i would never accuse secretary of state powell of lying about where the tape originated but.....



powell, you're a fucking liar.



the tape was fabricated by the us. we're not so stupid that we can't see what you're trying to do, you low-life. get back under your stone with bush, rumsfeld, ashcroft and all the other blood-sucking fascist bastards that you so obviously love.

what the fuck?



tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair sends 1000 police and 450 troops to protect heathrow airport from an "imminent" terrorist attack.



bush and his chums frighten the shit out of the american people with their childish warnings to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to protect them from "imminent" biological or chemical weapons terrorist attacks.



all based on supposition. to quote the guardian:

a white house spokesman, gordon johndroe, insisted that it was acting out of caution rather than as a result of "specific, credible intelligence". however, in his "worldwide threat briefing" to congress, mr tenet warned of an imminent attack from al-qaida. "it points to plots timed to occur as early as end of the hajj, which occurs later this week, and it points to plots that could include the use of a radiological dispersal device as well as poisons and chemicals."

"imminent" attacks with no specific intelligence warnings? give me a break.



blair is wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds while "acting out of caution" and scaring tens of thousands of travellers and londoners, bush has the american people in a blue funk while "acting out of caution", they'll start attacking iraq while "acting out of caution", they'll enact loads more human rights abusing legislation while "acting out of caution" and they'll put us all in concentration camps whilke "acting out of caution".



get a grip, folks. these people and their cronies are fascists. they want money. they want oil. they, specifically, want oil to continue to be traded in dollars not euros, they don't care about human lives. they don't care if your child dies in agony while being raped and tortured by some child-molester in a camp, they don't care how many of you get fried in their wars, they don't care how many of you starve to death because of the corporate-controlled food chain they have in mind.



they want to kill you.



get them out of office before they have a chance.

really fucking scary article about how the iraqi war-mongering is not over oil itself but about the currency in which oil is traded. see here for a slightly different version.



main thrust? us is scared that the dollar will lose its world-wide power if the euro becomes the currency of choice for oil trading.



no wonder tony "fighting for my political life" blair is the only influential european leader who supports bush (britain not in euro); no wonder that rumsfeld is showing open, blood-thirsty hatred of europe.



what's the odds this becomes open war between the us and europe?



think i'll go and live somewhere safe like iraq when that one kicks off.

blair, you psychpathic, spineless, image-obsessed, war-monger, get your head out of your arse and do something about the fucking israelis.



have you read this, palestinians say they are being subjected to punishment 'lottery' by israeli soldiers, you willfully ill-informed twat?



quit threatening to kill innocents in iraq and instead do something to stop this fucking inhuman behaviour by your bum-chum sharon and his murdering bastard soldiers.

excellent article in the guardian today, by martin kettle: blair should beware of regime change in britain.



i don't suppose tony "fighting for political survival" blair is man enough to take the advice that kettle gives.



pity for britain. more of a pity for the children of iraq who'll be burned alive by the spineless bastard.

i keep reading that arse-hole bush thinks jesus helped him kick alcohol. now he wants to waste u.s. federal money on alcoholism and drugs treatments provided by churches. the 'treatments' consist of concerted attempts at conversion to christianity!



glad i learned to deal with my own alcohol problem on my own. if i'd had some choirboy-fondling vicar or preacher helping me, i'd be dead by now.



two things:

• jesus wasn't the son of any god, mate. he was just a man. he didn't help you, george. you did it yourself. well done;


• why are you trying to divert funds to churches when the constitution clearly says that the state and chuch should be separate?

wouldn't have anything to do with election campaign donations, would it, you lying, scheming, war-mongering cunt?

i mentioned a few days ago that i thought scott ritter had been framed for a paedophile offence. it turns out the he was found not to have a case to answer and the case went to court back in 2001, so the smear has come from some bushite little sneak who's trying to discredit him because he has said that bush, rumsfeld, powell, blair etc are a pack of war-mongering liars.



while tony "i'm fighting for my political life" blair is rubbishing the french for daring to say he's talking bull-shit about iraq, he's presiding over a disaster for the british economy, a disaster for british democracy, scare tactics about terrorism and some of the worst human rights in the western world:

• trade gap worst since records began;


• mps plan communications bill rebellion;


• army deployed to guard London and heathrow security to be increased;


• treatment of asylum seekers 'is inhumane'.

please, parliamentary labour party members, sack this little shit. he's cold, cruel, heartless, spineless, image-obsessed and a war-monger.



replace him with someone with a heart.

changed the name of the blog from catatonic in caerphilly to malancholic in mid glamorgan.



moved house.

yellowtimes.org has been shut down by its spine-free hosting company.



so much for freedom of speech in the wonderful u.s. of a.



the spineless cunts at the hosting company (don't know who they are, so i can't mail them to express my contempt) have caved in to political pressure to close down one of the many anti-war sites which have appeared recently. no matter. it'll reappear at another hosting company soon, i'm sure. if it doesn't, so what? stifling one site will not kill the protest.



as firas al-atraqchi says in the article "stifling the voice of reason" reporting the shutdown:

those who charge that intellectual debate is unpatriotic forget the words of john adams, one of the forefathers of the u.s. constitution: the jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have … a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, i mean the characters and conduct of their rulers. or perhaps they forget thomas jefferson: the only security of all is in a free press. the force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. the agitation it produces must be submitted to. it is necessary, to keep the waters pure.

memo to bush: for every anti-war site you manage to close down, two will appear in its place. you can't win this war, you cunt. all you do is cause inconvenience, nothing more.



we're used to inconvenience on the internet. it was, after all, originally a military project and, therefore, badly designed and implemented and a waste of money. it could have been done so much more simply, cheaply and robustly if senior military personnel hadn't been involved. remember that next time you want something done properly.

blair has plagiarised the work of a californian post-grad student in his pathetic little report on iraq which the increasingly sad colin powell referred to as a "fine paper".



turns out that the stuff was copied virtually verbatim from this guy's web site, including his typographical and factual errors without, apparently, being checked for veracity in any way.



that the uk government authors didn't even credit ibrahim al-marashi for his work is appalling. that they didn't realise that the data al-marishi used was 10 years out of data was more appalling and makes a mockery of the idea of "intelligence" in government.



blair and his little shits need to back down on their threats to bomb iraq - they're given "credibility" by reports which are based racism, prejudice, nonsense, lies and plagiarised, inaccurate work.

colin powell made a complete, unadulterated cunt of himself with his latest pleading to the un for approval to bomb innocent iraqis into oblivion; to burn them in their homes; to roast them in their bomb shelters; to dismember them; to blind them; to deafen them; to annihilate their entire country.



everything he said can be so easily denied by imad khadduri and firas al-atraqchi to name just two, so why lie?



why's he doing this? he knows that what he said was unsubstantiated nonsense, yet he continues with the lies? why? i thought he had a brain.



obviously oil-wealth overrides brain-power in the us. i wonder what reward he was offered to prostitute his principles in such a way.



pity, really. he was the only member of bush's otherwise sorry collection of morons, murderers and scammers who had any respect in the international community. 80 minutes of newspeak and double-think has blown that away.

apparently, people who live in langstone are scared about a crown asylum appeals court being placed near their village.



one has to feel some sympathy for them. after all, as the guardian reports, "sarah ross, a mother of four, said: ... 'people are concerned about house prices'."



bless.

i've sent letters to several british newspapers about blair covering up for a paedophile in his cabinet.



brave, relentless searchers after the truth that they are, they've all failed to print it.



what are they so scared of?

fucking murderous israeli bastard soldiers have killed a 65-year-old woman in her home by blowing it up when she was inside.



it's time these murderous scum were brought to justice.



instead of a war against iraq for no reason whatsoever, why doesn't bush start a war against israel for invasion of a soveraign state, terrorism and genocide? oh, and for definitely having lots of weapons of mass destruction, known to you and me as nuclear bombs.



oops, i forgot, he'd lose the jewish vote - silly me, to think a politician may have some moral standards.

two wonderful web sites:

• masturbateforpeace.com


• webdesignlab.co.uk

bush, straw, blair, powell, rumsfeld are all fucking liars. bbc news has seen a uk intelligence briefing which says there's no proven connection between iraq and al-qaeda.



the bastards will still keep trying to start their war, though, 'cos they have no morals whatsoever and want their arms-industry owners to make loads of money. in fact, twat straw has already said that there is a connection. funny how the only intelligence reports the public sees contradict what the government says, eh?



these men are all murderous, war-mongering arse-holes. i wouldn't piss in their ears if their brains were on fire.



updated


fucking bliar's at it now. little cunt.

interesting little article by at counterpunch.com about which deaths count?



it shows extremely well that governments and the media are highly selectoive about what deaths get reported and what they want to pull funding for in the event of some catastrophe or other - funding for war always stays in place, regardless of the number of deaths.

the bastard blair is now apparently covering up for a paedophile in his cabinet.



according to mike james at counterpunch.com, the reference: 'There are still unconfirmed rumours that another senior Labour politician is among the suspects' is to a current cabinet member.



if this story's true, blair and his entire cabinet should resign forthwith or be sacked by the queen (can she do that?).



if the story's true, how are we to have any respect for any cabinet member at all? one, at least, of them has paid for access to a child-porn site.



i, for one, do not wish to be governed by a bunch of child-molesters.



blair, resign, you dishonest twat.

a bit late with this one about ethnic cleansing by israel.



read it and weep for the condition in which we're allowing the palestinian people to live.

as ever, john chuckman cuts to the chase with another incisive article about bush's desire to help sharon to remove an opponent, at yellowtimes.org.



it would be so nice if some politicians were reading him, instead of folks like me who have to stand by, powerless, as mother-fuckers like bush and blair walk all over our democratic right to not have to be involved in their latest imperialist adventure.

so another space shuttle bites the dust.



why am i supposed to care?



seven people snuff it when a few billion quids' worth of scrap metal burns up.



how many people will the bastards blair and bush kill when they bomb baghdad? how many iraqi soldiers will they fry in their tanks? how many schools will be bombed? how many innocent children will be killed as the disgustingly named 'collateral damage'? how many pregnent women will be burnt to a cinder by their vile incendiary bombs? how many babies in incubators will be burned to death in their hospitals? how many iraqi soldiers will be tortured to death by american and british 'special services' in order to confirm information they already knew? how many innocent iraqis in the us will be beaten, maybe to death, by rampaging mobs of american hill-billies when the first us soldier cops it?



and i'm supposed to give a fuck about a few americans (whose country has lots of weapons of mass destruction), one indian (whose country has lots of weapons of mass destruction) and one israeli (whose country has lots of weapons of mass destruction) when their political leaders want a war against iraq which has no proven weapons of mass destruction?



give me a break.



george lewandowski had something similar to say over at yellow times. he's a little less impolite than me :)



ps: nasa - need another seven astronauts.


     eat electric death, imperialist scum.