Here’s a nice picture. It features the comfortable, air-conditioned Haj tents in Saudi Arabia:
They look a lot better than the Calais ‘Jungle’:
The air-conditioned Saudi Haj tents could take up to 3 million ‘refugees’ from Syria and Libya and Yemen and other *sl*mic hell-holes. And the Saudis have lots of (our) money to look after their M*sl*m brethren. That would help solve the ‘refugee crisis’.
But the Saudis are smarter than us and have refused to take a single M*sl*m refugee. The Saudis would much rather the M*sl*m hordes accepted Mad Angela Merkel’s invitation by pouring over Europe’s non-existent borders hastening the *sl*mification of Europe, the destruction of Western democracy and the transformation of once civilised Europe into yet another violent, intolerant, backward, excremental, misogynist *sl*mic cesspit.
Oh, and here’s Pat Condell’s latest video. Peace be with you until the whole of Europe erupts into civil war.
While writing my recent book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL, I became convinced that many of Britain’s larger charities have sadly become job creation schemes for their bosses and bureaucrats. And many smaller ones are just frauds where the founders use their charity to fund their multi-millionaire lifestyles while doing little to nothing to help those they’re supposed to be helping.
But, here are a few supposed ‘charities’ you really should not waste your money on:
Cancer Research UK
This bunch of buffoons employs 2,553 people in administration and fundraising, but just 1,411 in ‘charitable activities’. Seems like a paradise for useless over-paid, over-pensioned bureaucrats.
Age UK
Looks like another heaven on earth for desk-jockeys and paper-pushers. Age UK raised around £174m, but had just £71m available for ‘charitable activities. I wonder where the other £103m went? Executives, managers and bureaucrats? Fancy offices? Generous expense accounts?
Sue Ryder
These self-serving clowns spent £47m on themselves, but just £37m on ‘charitable activities’. So, around £5.60 of every £10 raised went on the comfort and well-being of bosses, managers and bureaucrats.
British Heart Foundation
OK, you’ve probably guessed by now. Yup, a gloriously generous £172m on themselves, but just £114m on ‘charitable activities’.
Conclusion
I could go on with some of Britain’s best-known names. But it would just be more of the same. Most of the money disappearing into the bulging bank accounts of executives, managers and bureaucrats. While less than half the money we give goes anywhere near ‘good causes’.
If you want to give to charity, choose small local charities that only use volunteers. But avoid the self-serving, wasteful, over-bureaucratic ‘big beasts’ of Britain’s bloated charity industry.
And please, ask your contacts to go on to YouTube and view my latest short (3 mins) video – CHARITIES: CAN WE TRUST THEM?
(Weekend blog) Let’s agree, M*sl*ms can be placed on a scale from moderate to *sl*mists. Moderates are generally law-abiding and some even have jobs (though not many). *sl*mists are dedicated to the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate, the destruction of Western Democracy and the imposition of Sharia Law on all people. The *sl*mists believe that anyone who opposes their dream of world domination deserves to be crucified, beheaded, shot or blown up. Moreover, they also believe that all non-M*sl*ms, who are allowed to live under the coming Caliphate, are second-rate almost subhuman citizens and must pay a tax – Jihyza – to their M*sl*m superiors.
I don’t think many people can disagree with the above.
The important question for us therefore is how many of the world’s 1.6 billion M*sl*ms can be considered ‘moderate’, how many are not *sl*mists but sympathise and support the *sl*mists’ views and how many are fully committed *sl*mists.
Our great rulers – Obama, Cameron, May, and Merkel and other such Koranic scholars – assure us that the ‘vast majority’ of M*sl*ms are peace-loving. (Stop laughing you there at the back!) But let’s for the moment accept our rulers’ blatant lies. So, what’s a ‘vast majority’? Shall we say 90%? That’s a pretty big majority. But if only 10% of M*sl*ms are *sl*mists, then that’s 160 million M*sl*ms who would willingly die to slaughter us and impose their Caliphate on us worthless, subhuman Kaffirs.
Or shall we say that 99% of M*sl*ms are peaceful? That’s a really ‘vast majority‘. That still leaves 16 million Jihadists who loathe us and are desperate to murder us.
And what about those in the middle – those who are peaceful, but secretly sympathise with the *sl*mist Jihadis? Most research suggests that about 25% of M*sl*ms living in Western democracies support the *sl*mists and want a Caliphate and Sharia Law. With about 52 million M*sl*ms in the West, that’s 13 million who support a M*sl*m takeover of the West and the imposition of Sharia Law.
If I remember correctly, over 70% of M*sl*ms in M*sl*m countries support an *sl*mic takeover of the world. That’s about 1.1 billion give or take a couple of hundred million.
So, a little simple arithmetic gives us at least 16 million *sl*mists who would happily die trying to subdue us and slaughter us in the name of their death cult and another 1.1 billion who passively support them and would take their side against any attempt to defeat them.
I’d say we have a problem. Our rulers say we don’t. I guess I must be really stupid.
And here’s the wonderful Brigitte Gabriel, author of Because They Hate. As a Lebanese Christian she has experienced *sl*mist hatred first-hand. So she probably understands the Jihadist mindset better than Obama or Cameron or any of the other lying, treacherous fools and buffoons who have somehow become our rulers. Gabriel explains that it doesn’t matter if most M*sl*ms are peaceful as the “peaceful majority are irrelevant” provided there are sufficient non-peaceful people intent on slaughter:
The most ludicrous story of the week must be the one about some prince or other from the primitive *sl*mic hell-hole Saudi Arabia – where public beheadings are the second most popular form of entertainment (raping Filipina servants being the most popular) – has criticised Donald Trump’s perfectly reasonable comments about keeping backward, intolerant, violent maniacs out of America.
And our mainstream media take the side of the blood-soaked murderous Saudi idiot!
Who is most in danger since the *sl*mic uprising and establishment of the Caliphate? Christians or M*sl*ms or Jews? Tough question?
So, here are three sets of statistics which suggest that the politically-correct elites are willing to sacrifice pretty much anyone in order to appease Arab ‘anger’:
Statistic 1 Since the Paris terror attacks on November 13, the US State Department has admitted 237 Syrian refugees into the United States – 236 Sunni M*sl*ms and one Christian (0.4%), according to data from the State Department Refugee Processing Center.
The Christian, a Greek Orthodox individual, is the sole non-Sunni Mu*sl*m admitted to the U.S. since the attack, which fueled concerns that ISIS/ISIL may move terrorists into Western nations under the cover of refugee resettlement programs.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Christians accounted for an estimated 10% of the Syrian population and Sunni M*sl*ms for an estimated 74% when the conflict began in early 2011.
Statistic 2 President Obama plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. during fiscal year 2016. Since FY2016 began on October 1, a total of 528 Syrian refugees have been admitted into the U.S. They comprise 522 (98.8%) Sunni M*sl*ms and six Christians – three Catholic, one Orthodox, one Greek Orthodox and one simply described as “Christian.”
Statistic 3 Since the Syrian civil war began in mid-March 2011, a total of 2,401 Syrian refugees have been admitted into the U.S. Of those, 2,241 (93.3%) were Sunni M*sl*ms, an additional 60 were described simply as “M*sl*m” and 13 were Shia.
Only 54 (2.2%) were Christian (including five Orthodox, one Greek Orthodox and four Catholics). The remaining religious breakdown was eight Jehovah’s Witness, six Zoroastrians, three atheists, two Baha’i, one Yazidi, seven “no religion” and six “other religion”.
So, what is happening? I think the Obama liberal ‘progressive’ appeasement mindset goes something like this:
Step 1 M*sl*ms are just like us. So there must be a good reason why they hate us so much. It must be the fault of Western (Christian) colonialism and interference in the Middle East and the Jews for ‘stealing’ Arab land
Step 2 If we let the M*sl*ms drive out or (preferably for a liberal progressive) kill all the Middle-East Christians and destroy Israel, then they’ll have nothing more to be angry about and will leave us alone
Of course, there’s only one small problem with the liberal ‘progressive’ mindset – M*sl*ms aren’t like us and the millions of *sl*mists among the world’s 1.5 billion M*sl*ms fully intend to impose a Caliphate and Sharia Law on the whole world even if that means slaughtering hundreds of millions of non-M*sl*ms and the ‘wrong kind’ of M*sl*ms in the process.
In a nutshell – liberal ‘progressive’ appeasement isn’t going to work and the sooner we understand that, the sooner we can protect what’s left of our civilisation. Ooops, Trump may be right – we need to stop all M*sl*m immigration “until we can find out what the hell is going on”.
What did you learn in school today, honey?
Oh, and while we try to teach our children English and Maths and Physics and Chemistry and Economics and, of course, how to live in a society that is being more multiculturally-enriched by the day, here’s a young M*sl*m lady showing what she learnt:
Here’s an unusually perceptive assessment of the Syrian quagmire from Congressman Dana Rohrabacher – Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. He wrote last week:
“Not radical *sl*m, but the Russians have been portrayed to us as the villains in this chapter of history. Yet our government demonstrates a lack of will, incompetence, or both, in confronting the most monstrous of the radical *sl*mic marauders now spilling vast quantities of innocent blood in the Middle East – as well as in Africa and France.
When Russia courageously stepped into the breach we should have been applauding its willingness to confront ISIS. Instead, we continue to denigrate Russians as if they were still the Soviet Union and Putin, not *sl*mic terrorists, our most vicious enemy.
So now we see the travesty of a harsh condemnation of the Russians for introducing air strikes against terrorists who will murder Americans if they get the chance.
Yes, Russia does this to protect Syria’s authoritarian Assad regime, which has close ties to Moscow. So what?
Assad, like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, is no threat to the United States or the Western world. If Assad is forced out of power he will eventually be replaced by an *sl*mic terrorist committed to raining down mayhem on Western countries.
Today we witness the spectacle of American decision- makers, in and out of the Obama administration, joining forces with a Turkish regime that grows more supportive of the radical *sl*mist movement. There is ample evidence of President Erdogan’s complicity in ISIS’s murderous rampage through Syria and Iraq.
Yet, we hold our public rebukes for the Russians, who are battling those terrorists. A Russian plane on an anti-terrorist mission did violate Turkish airspace, just as Turkish planes have strayed into Greek airspace hundreds of times over the last year. This overflight was no threat to Turkey. Still, it was shot down, as was a Russian helicopter on the way to rescue the downedRussian pilot.
Why do Americans feel compelled to kick Russia in the teeth? Russia’s military is attacking an enemy that would do us harm. Why ignore the hostile pro-terrorist maneuvering of Turkish strongman Erdogan?
President Obama is wrong. American politicians who try to sound tough at Russia’s expense in this case are not watching out for the long-term interests of the United States by undermining those fighting our primary enemy, *sl*mic terrorists.
Russia should be applauded. Instead, it is being castigated for doing what our government is unwilling to do to confront the terrorist offensive now butchering innocent human beings from Africa, to the Middle East, to the streets of Paris.
If being in NATO means protecting Erdogan in this situation, either he shouldn’t be in NATO or we shouldn’t.”
Hold your head in despair at the utter stupidity of Obama and Cameron.
And don’t be fooled by the *sl*mophiliac treachery of the mainstream media who continue to spew forth Obama’s and Cameron’s lies.
Oh dear, British boxer, Tyson Fury, has got the botty-botherers and kiddy-fiddlers at the BBC in a state of panic. Apparently there’s some dreary BBC awards programme called “Sports Personality of the Year” (SPOTY) – no, I’ve never watched it either. And Mr Fury is on the 10-person shortlist.
Unfortunately for the limp-wristed and professionally-offended, Mr Fury has some rather politically-incorrect views on issues BBC pipsqueaks consider sacred truths.
Sexual equality: Critics say Fury is ‘sexist’ because he said that Olympic champion Jessica Ennis-Hill “slaps up good” and “looks good in a dress”, and added that “a woman’s best place is in the kitchen and on her back”.
Gays: He has been accused of being ‘homophobic” because he said “There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one’s paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?” His critics seem to forget that several key Labour politicians did, in fact support the Paedophile Information Exchange.
However, sadly for his accusers, they can’t claim he’s ‘waaccciiissssttt’ because he’s from an Irish gypsy family, which would make his accusers ‘waaaccciissssttt”.
Anyway some pimply LGBT creep has started a petition demanding that the BBC drops Mr Fury from the SPOTY awards shortlist and more than 50,000 politically-correct, self-righteous, holier-than-thou would-be speech-police have signed.
But, rather than issuing blubbering apologies, as most people do nowadays, Mr Fury has remained gloriously defiant: “I can honestly say I’m not really interested in winning BBC Sports Personality of the Year. I know for a million per cent I’ve got more personality in the end of my little finger than the whole of the nomination group put together. And everybody knows that. Everybody in the country knows that”. He added “if I’m going to get in trouble for giving a woman a compliment what has the world come to?”
He also had a few well-chosen words for his critics “I’m not really interested to be honest,” he said. “They can say what they want about me but they can’t knock my achievement. I beat the man who nobody can beat. So until someone can go in and beat him again, then they can suck my balls. I am Tyson Fury, Gypsy King, nuff said.”
As for the 50,000 (now 100,000 apparently) who signed the petition“50,000 wankers. That’s what I say about them. If anybody else wants to add to them they can add to their numbers can’t they“.
What a glorious example of a real man telling the politically-correct to go take a flying f**k at themselves.
Fury is probably the first person in public life who has dared stand up to the oppressive censorship and banning of free speech. As a reward, he has already been stripped of one of his titles. Though the sporting authorities claim this action has nothing to do with Mr Fury’s opinions. Let’s hope he wins SPOTY as that will mean one of Britain’s leading muff-to-muff vagitarians, Clare Balding, having to announce his victory.
Apparently Churchill once said “the new fascists will be the anti-fascists”. Perhaps Mr Fury’s defiance will encourage others to defy the thought-fascists who rule our media? Or perhaps not.
Meanwhile, over in the US, Donald Trump has put the cat amongst the politically-correct pigeons by putting the security of Americans above grovellingly liberal mainstream *sl*mophilia.
Just a couple of days into the floods ministers announced a full review of Britain’s storm defences yesterday as they blamed global warming for the recent heavy rainfall.
Liz Truss, the environment secretary, told MPs that Storm Desmond and the floods in Cumbria were consistent with climate change and the government’s predictions for future flooding would now have to be updated. Moreover, some crappy ‘Oxford academic’ jumped on the Warmie bandwagon claiming “the government had been warned five years ago of the risk of higher rainfall in the area possibly created by climate change“.
Of course, this is all total bollox designed to give the Government and the ‘experts’ more control over us and more excuses to tax us to supposedly ‘save the planet’.
But how do I know? After all, I’m no climate scientist. Two reasons:
1. The Earth hasn’t warmed
Over the last 19 years, CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions have been higher than ever before in human history, yet the Earth hasn’t warmed at all. If there was a direct causal effect between CO2 emissions and temperature, this would be impossible:
(The dotted line is CO2 emissions and the purple arrow is temperature)
2. The Greenies have completely changed their story (as usual)
The picture below features Dame Julia Slingo. She’s quite an important lady in all our lives. She’s the chief scientist at the Met Office. So she has huge influence over government policies regarding Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever it is called this week. Everything from ever-increasing green taxes, windfarms, solar farms, prematurely closing down perfectly good coal-fired power stations, subsidies for “green energy” which are forcing up our power bills and leading to energy-intensive industries closing down in Britain losing thousands of jobs – all this can be traced back to people like the lovely and obviously highly-qualified Dame Julia.
I imagine Professor Slingo must hope we have rather short memories.
On 13th March 2012, Julia Slingo told MPs that the low winter rainfall this country was experiencing was caused by climate change. A newspaper reported: “Slingo told the MPs that there is “increasing evidence in the last few months of that depletion of ice, in particular in the Bering and Kara seas, can plausibly impact on our winter weather and lead to colder winters over northern Europe”.
She added that more cold winters mean less water, and could exacerbate future droughts. “The replenishment of aquifers generally happens in winter and spring … a wet summer does not replenish aquifers. So we are concerned if we have a sequence of cold winters that could be much more damaging,” she told the committee.
Right. You all understand what Dame Julia is saying? Climate change is leading to drier winters.
Now spool forward two years. Here’s a newspaper report from 2014:
“Speaking ahead of the release of a government report on Britain’s unusually stormy winter weather, the Met Office’s chief scientist, Dame Julia Slingo said on Sunday that the U.K. had seen the “most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years”and called the extreme weather “consistent with climate change”.
“All the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she said. “There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”
Right. Got that? Two years later Dame Julia is saying that Global Warming will lead to wetter winters. Yet in 2012 Dame Julia said the exact opposite. Hummph.
Changing the language
But the Greenies are very clever, When the weather does the opposite of what they have predicted, they just change their language. For years we were warned about ‘Global Warming’. When that didn’t happen, the Greenies changed the threat to ‘Climate Change’. And now, when the Greenies predicted drier winters, they’ve changed the language again from ‘drier winters’ to ‘extreme weather events’. So, whether it’s hot or cold, wet or dry, windy or calm, the Greenies can jump up and down screaming ‘Climate Change’ and ‘extreme weather events‘. And the mainstream media will probably take them seriously.
But as one newspaper reader wrote “It is increasingly clear that climate change scientist is an oxymoron. No more scientific work gets done in the climate change department of a university than in the school of Druidic studies.”
Most readers probably know that we have a huge bureaucracy, Ofwat, that supposedly regulates the water companies so they provide us with water and sewage services at a reasonable cost.
So, how well have the bureaucrats at Ofwat been doing their job? Well, when it comes to spending ever more of our money on themselves, Ofwat have done splendidly. In 2006/7 (the year before the financial crisis) Ofwat spent £11.5m of our money on itself. By 2010/11, Ofwat’s appetite for our money had risen to £17.4m. By 2013/14, it leapt again to £27.9m. And in the last financial year, 2014/15, Ofwat gorged on an amazing £33.8m of our money:
In just ten years, at a time of supposed austerity, the amount of our money Ofwat spent on itself tripled.
And what have we got for our many millions? Some of the highest water prices in Europe:
It’s more than astonishing that in wet, dreary, rain-soaked, island Britain, we pay around twice as much for our water and sewage as much drier Club Med countries – Spain, Italy, Greece – and four times as much as our neighbour – the Republic of Ireland.
It gets worse
Not only has Ofwat allowed the water companies to fleece us on prices, but Ofwat has also turned a blind eye to another massive multi-billion pound scam. About 15 years ago, the average debt level of our water companies was around 20%. Now it’s over 80%. Why is this important? Let me explain.
Most of our water companies are owned by foreigners – investment firms from Australia, China, Malaysia and so on. What these investment firms have done is to set up holding companies in offshore tax havens like Jersey and the Cayman Islands. They have then loaned billions to the water companies they own at interest rates that are much higher than they could have got on the open market. This allows them to do four things:
1. Make massive tax-free profits on their loans to themselves
2. Pay virtually no corporation tax in Britain as their interest payments to themselves wipe out most of their operating profits in the UK
3. Many millions of these loans are not spent on improving the infrastructure in Britain. Instead they go to paying the investment companies massive special dividends
4. Our water companies are so deeply in debt (to their offshore holding companies) that this debt serves as a ‘poison pill’ meaning no government could ever afford to nationalise them
It seems rather amazing to me that an ordinary person like myself, who earns less than £3,000 for each book I write, can know all this while the overpaid, over-pensioned bureaucrats at Ofwat seem to be totally unaware of how the water companies are taking us all to the cleaners.
My latest video – Please help
Please help ensure that as many people as possible view my latest short (3 minutes) video about Britain’s bloated charity industry.
All you need to do is email the people you know and work with and ask them to go to YouTube and search for – Charities: Can we trust them?
It won’t cost you anything and it will only take a couple of minutes
(Weekend blog) I must admit I’m lost for words. I didn’t expect UKIP to win in Oldham. But I thought they would come a close second. With Europe being over-run by Third-World hordes, I imagined that the Oldham voters had sufficient brains to realise that Britain would soon cease to exist if Labour ever came to power again.
I was wrong. Even if you discount massive voting fraud from our M*sl*m friends, sadly, the Oldham result suggests that Brits are too lazy or stupid to vote for the preservation of their own country.
Oldham is our future
In the 2001 census, there were around 40 parliamentary constituencies where more than 10% of the population classed themselves as ‘M*sl*m’. In the table below, I’ve listed 23 of these 40 constituencies (as many as I could fit on the table) to show how their M*sl*m populations have grown between the 2001 census and the 2011 census:
The key column to look at is the one on the right – the speed of increase of the M*sl*m population. Most have gone up by 30% to 40% or more in just 10 years.
You’ll see that Oldham West occupies a proud seventh position on this table. In the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, the M*sl*m population of Oldham West shot up by 57.6% from 15.6% in 2001 to 24.6% by 2011. If this rate of increase has continued, by the time of last Thursday’s by-election the M*sl*m population of Oldham West would have been around 30%.
Given that 60% of voters can’t be bothered to vote and that UKIP and the Tories will usually get about a third of the 40% who do vote, the M*sl*m block vote will ensure Labour victories in almost all our cities and towns. After all, if 40% of the population vote and M*sl*m leaders can get two thirds of their community (20% of voters) to vote, then M*sl*ms will make up about half of all those who voted in Oldham West. We already know that many Oldham M*sl*ms took their postal votes along to the local mosque so the ‘elders’ could be sure that all their co-religionists were voting the ‘right way’.
If, by the 2020 General Election say 100 constituencies are 30% or more M*sl*m, then whoever leads Labour, the M*sl*m block vote looks likely to propel Labour to power. And even if Labour don’t win in 2020, with the continuing rapid increase in the M*sl*m population and the decline in the indigenous population, by 2025 Labour will be a shoe-in.
However people vote in the 2017 EU referendum – either for independence or for humiliating subjugation to a German-controlled EU – demographics will ensure that by 2025 we’ll still have surrendered control of our once great country and the M*sl*m takeover will have succeeded.
Turkeys can’t be bothered to vote against Christmas
As for the 60% of Oldham West’s voters who couldn’t even be bothered to vote. This truly is a case of the turkeys being offered the chance to vote against Christmas and being too lazy or too stupid to vote. So, when Christmas comes to Oldham, the turkeys brought it on themselves.
My latest video – Please help
Please help ensure that as many people as possible view my latest short (3 minutes) video about Britain’s bloated charity industry.
All you need to do is email the people you know and work with and ask them to go to YouTube and search for – Charities: Can we trust them?
It won’t cost you anything and it will only take a couple of minutes
As that great international statesman, Dave “Tony Blair” Cameron celebrates his victory over a sad, lonely John-Lewis man-on-the-moon OAP, Jeremy Corbyn, I’ve tried to identify the ten biggest lies Cameron has told us in order to get his new Syria war:
Lie 1There are 70,000 ‘moderate rebels’ who will fight ISIL
Truth 1 Total fantasy. The US spent over $500m trying to train just a few hundred ‘moderates’. Most US-trained ‘moderates’ then either joined the *sl*mists or else were killed by them. Huge quantities of weapons fell into ISIL’s hands
Lie 2Turkey is a key ally
Truth 2 Turkey has been double-dealing all the time. It has used the Syrian war as a cover for bombing the only effective moderate ground troops – the Kurds. Moreover, Turkey has been buying ISIL oil effectively funding ISIL, has been selling weapons to ISIL and has been treating wounded ISIL commanders in its hospitals. Turkey is our enemy and should be thrown out of NATO with immediate effect
Lie 3The US has been trying to destroy ISIL
Truth 3 The US originally helped ISIL with weapons and money as it saw ISIL as useful in overthrowing Russia’s ally Assad. Even when the US realised that ISIL’s brutality meant it was becoming a threat to the West, the US has been pulling its punches. For example, for over a year the US has avoided bombing ISIL oilfields and ISIL oil convoys. This has allowed ISIL to get more funds and allowed corrupt Turkish politicians and their families to get rich from smuggling ISIL oil
Lie 4 ISIL is a new threat
Truth 4 ISIL is mainly a Sunni insurrection against oppression by the Shiite Iraqi government installed by the US and the UK and the secular government of Assad in Syria under which Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites and Christians all lived in peace. ISIL is merely the latest development in a Sunni/Shiite civil war that has been going on for over a thousand years. The only reason the Sunni/Shiite war has recently flared up is that the West removed several Middle East strongmen – Saddam, Gaddaffi, Mubarak and now Assad who – with a bit of brutality – managed to keep their populations under control
Lie 5 Assad is a butcher and has to go if there is to be peace
Truth 5 In Truth 4, I propose that Assad was the only person capable of keeping his people from each others’ throats. Moreover, Assad is actually the only person with ground troops who could crush ISIL with our air support. Putin is right, we need Assad. Oh dear, Dave, I think you’re on the wrong side as usual
Lie 6We can use negotiations in Vienna to establish a stable, democratic government in Syria
Truth 6 M*sl*ms don’t do democracy. They only do corrupt, oppressive, intolerant, violent hell-holes. We saw that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran and under the M*sl*m Brotherhood in Egypt. Moreover, the once secular Turkey is turning into yet another *sl*mic cesspit under an increasingly dictatorial multi-billionaire President Erdogan. When will we ever learn?
Lie 7We are joining an international coalition
Truth 7 Actually Canada and the Arab countries have recently pulled out of the supposed ‘international coalition’ leaving just the US, the French and now the UK
Lie 8British bombs will make a difference
Truth 8 As of Nov. 14, U.S. and partner nation aircraft have flown an estimated 57,301 sorties in support of operations in Iraq and Syria costing over $5bn. These 57,301 sorties have succeeded in halting ISIL’s advance, pinning them down and even allowing the Kurds to recapture some territory. But until there are some effective ground troops, we’ve reached a bit of a stalemate. Meanwhile ISIL have shipped around 3,000 fighters into Libya to extend their Caliphate there. It is possible that ISIL could collapse if we can cut off its sources of income. But a few ageing British Tornados and a couple of Typhoons will only reinforce ISIL’s message that the war against them is actually another “crusade” against *sl*m and thus win them new recruits
Lie 9There will be no British boots on the ground
Truth 9 Cameron is already talking of sending in military advisers – in a non-combat role, of course. Then when a British plane gets shot down and a pilot beheaded or crucified or a special forces soldier gets captured by the bearded maniacs, Cameron will have his excuse to send in the troops. It’s looking like another Vietnam to me
Lie 10We need to call ISIL “Daesh”, not “The *sl*mic State” as what they are doing has nothing to do with *sl*m which is a religion of peace
Truth 10 Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
Surely, not since the Charge of the Light Brigade, have we rushed headlong into such a disaster as we are rushing into now?
David Craig, on December 16th, 2015
