Tag Archives: Human Rights Act

How to see ‘facts’

Brexit is one of the shiniest examples on how information is twisted and turned into many ways, especially ways to either scare people or just knowingly and willingly misrepresent the facts (as I see it). In the first degree there is the press. I think that they are on a large scale doing the deeds that those who support them are requesting them to do.

This sounds ‘misleading’, so let me explain. When the press goes on quoting sources and not investigating sources, we need to start questioning the ‘facts’ that they represent and quote. I think that the press is not doing their utmost to inform their readers and the public at large. I am not talking about the Daily Mail, the Mirror or some Murdoch media outlet. No, I am referring to places like the Guardian, the Independent and even the Times, although in the last case, I have never read it (because only subscribers get access to their website articles (the ones that matter at least). We can wonder how far the press needs to go, yet the answer as I see it should be ‘A lot further than they are currently going‘.

It is up to you to decide whether my subjective version is accurate or not (never take anyone’s word for granted!)

1. The Guardian, ‘French minister: Brexit would threaten Calais border arrangement‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/david-cameron-calais-refugee-crisis-francois-holland).

Background: Regional president Xavier Bertrand, member of the Republicans, headed by Nicolas Sarkozy. This is important because Nicolas Sarkozy is against segregation from the EU and also very much against Brexit. When was the last time anyone going against party ruling would have been allowed to continue? Now that Sarkozy is not in power, they are all about getting elected!

The quote: “Xavier Bertrand, the recently re-elected president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, has repeatedly said the Le Touquet agreement would be torn up if Britain left the EU. He said: “If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will leave Calais and go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it’s no longer in the European Union”“. The part that is so ludicrous is the issue that if this falls away, everyone will get checked before leaving the train, meaning that the train could stop halfway and until every person is checked, there will not be any continuation, in the second, if illegals are boarding the train, it would mean that France already has a problem, which means that this rash statement will make matters worse for France when Frexit becomes a fact because It would need to deal with a non-existing Le Touquet agreement, meaning that Belgium in equal measure will not be performing checks. This means that the flow from the Netherlands and Belgium towards France could possibly triple, especially in Lille. Consider that Lille has well over 20,000 industry/services. Do you have any idea what level of pressure would fall upon Lille? And that is just the registered part.

The Quote: “France’s economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, told the Financial Times that the Le Touquet agreement – a bilateral relationship between the UK and France – would be threatened by a British withdrawal from the EU“, which is partially a repetition from the first quote, but by Emmanuel Macron, the current Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry in France. He states ‘threatened‘ not ‘withdrawn‘. So when in office you need to be ‘diplomatic’. Yet in all this, there is actually no reason to get there. You see, this is an agreement between nations, in all this it can remain an agreement within nations. Let’s not forget that the checks remain the same and the United Kingdom was never a part of Schengen. There is off course an impact for EU citizens, yet in all this, the United Kingdom would soon be forced to create an almost identical situation that Australia currently has. There would be every reason for the UK to adopt the Australian 457 visa situation. As its own infrastructure would soon after Brexit be massively damaged by the lack of skilled persons. This would include most of the western European nations (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Italy).

Yet, the issue of the Le Touquet agreement will be an issue, just not the one that Xavier Bertrand states for the mere reason that France would lose a lot more soon thereafter.

2. The Independent, ‘Brexit would only bring ‘low’ cost to British national security, says former head of MI6‘ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-would-only-bring-low-cost-to-british-national-security-says-former-head-of-mi6-a6948841.html)

Background: Sir Richard Dearlove, former El Jefe of MI6 (from August 1999 until May 2004), he was replaced by John Scarlett, who endorsed the government’s dossier on Iraqi weapons, including the controversial claim that some weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes (Source: CNN). Any rumour about Iraq ending his career seems far-fetched as Sir Richard Dearlove completed a 5 year tour, like several before him and all those who followed him. We can only argue (well, actually I can) that the Directors seat at £169,999 seems rather underpaid when you consider that you have to clean up the mess Labour made in its ignorance. The Chilcot Inquiry being the evidence here. So it was a little bit about Iraq! More important, the inquiry that ran from 24th November 2009 until 2nd February 2011, is currently being completed as parts were not to be published for several reasons. Its publication is expected to happen on April 16th 2016.

The quote: “Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights—remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque—and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the EU

The Quote: “Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return… If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, Germany’s domestic intelligence service is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not an EU member“.

There are a few items here that matter. Even though the HRA could fall over, there are additional facts that would hinder extradition of a person like Abu Hamza. For one there was the case of cleric Abu Qatada, which took forever. I mentioned him in an earlier blog. I discussed this in March 2013 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/03/10/humanitarian-law-v-national-security/) ‘Humanitarian Law v National security‘, you see on 16th December 2004 the Law Lords ruled that Section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was an issue, which is now replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which is currently repealed. So, my issue here is that, as far as I can tell, the issue will remain to some extent. Yes, I agree with Sir Richard that immigration will gain control, yet at present there are a few loopholes that might not result in solving new issues from becoming a political hot potato (also known as ‘an issue not resolved’) that will give rise to new cases. In the second quote, I feel a few levels of doubt regarding the statement ‘Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters‘. Yes the UK might give more than it receives, yet overall certain intelligence matters will dwindle as the data hub that matter is not the UK (they are in third position), it is number 2 (Netherlands) and the current leader (Germany) that are the data titans in Europe, with additional growth due to a Google data centre currently in development somewhere north or northwest of Amsterdam (latest info is that its completion is in 2017). Which would grow the Dutch data stream even further, which could grow to a speculated estimation of 6.5Tb/sec. Sir Richard knows that it is not about the amount of data, but it is about the quality of data. Yet in all this, there might be a consequence of Brexit. It is possible that access to certain data streams might not be forthcoming. Meaning that GCHQ would need to develop other algorithms to counter the lack of data (read: incomplete data). Sir Richard is correct that information would not be withheld, but the exchange of data would be less smooth and time would be lost, all parties seem to agree on that. Yet in all this, Dutch paper NRC gave us in 2013 “Achter de schermen werkt Bertholee hard aan de invulling van de bezuiniging uit het regeerakkoord: 70 miljoen tot en met 2016. Daar is kort daarna nog eens 11 miljoen bijgekomen” {paraphrased: behind the screens director Bertholee (AIVD, the Dutch version of MI5), is working hard to work out on how to implement the agreed cutbacks of 70 million through to 2016, which was shortly thereafter raised by 11 million}. So as the Dutch intelligence needs to cut back on 81 million, Dutch internet nodes will soon thereafter give passage to 40% more data. Even if the bulk of it is ‘Softly Pasting Additional Marketing‘, the intelligence ramification will be larger than expected, there is no way of telling the impact of Brexit, yet the response of Sir Richard, which was “Leaving the EU would bring only a “low” cost to Britain in terms of national security“, is not exactly a given, there is, in his defence, too many unknown factors at present.

So how did we look at facts? How about the speculations we read (in the second case). Well, they are not speculations. I added sources (all except one) and I extrapolated information for half a dozen sources. I have the advantage of languages, something plenty of journalists are lacking. My issue is less with the Independent and only slightly more with the Guardian. I believe that they should have dug deeper. They did mention the facts but the fact that Regional president Xavier Bertrand is not an elected official, he was Mayor of Saint-Quentin (was being the operative word), yet as the recently re-elected president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, which was in 2010 and he is about to be replaced by Marine Le Pen (extremely likely), whilst as Mayor he was replaced by Frédérique Macarez in January 2016. So he can claim whatever he wants. Free bowls at the wicket and no official fact to be questioned. Clean given facts that were known before the article came to print. So why were these influential facts not given?

There are more articles in pretty much most papers (excluding the Times at present), which gives us the issue, because the papers should have informed us slightly better. I personally see it as cause and effect. Why a person makes that statement is one, but the position he/she is in is equally important. I have stated before again and again, never go from one source; not even me as a source. Use the information you get and form an opinion, because when the vote is due, whatever you select is on yourself, not on others. Being the non-winner is one thing, ‘I should have voted for the others’ when ‘your choice’ makes it would qualify you the voter as an idiot. Make sure you know what you select and why you make the selection.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Within the Entitlement of Relevance

Very early this morning an article made it into the Guardian. The title ‘David Cameron boasts of ‘brilliant’ UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia‘, (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/david-cameron-brilliant-uk-arms-exports-saudi-arabia-bae), which is fair enough. The UK is one of those nations that actually has an arms export option. It is nowhere near the size of the US, but that is not the point here.

When we read: “on the day the European parliament voted for an arms embargo on the country over its bombardment of Yemen“, we should be asking: ‘and why do we care about that?‘, yet this is not the case. We see both “At almost the same time, the European parliament voted in favour of an EU-wide ban on arms being sold to Saudi Arabia in protest at its heavy aerial bombing of Yemen, which has been condemned by the UN” as well as “The vote does not force EU member states to comply but it increases pressure on national governments to re-examine their relationships with Riyadh“. Which is a joke of sizeable proportions (reasoning will follow). Finally we see: “The Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been extremely critical of Cameron’s relationship with Saudi Arabia because of its human rights record, prompting an angry response from Riyadh“, which could be seen as a humorous climax in labour less form.

We need to deal with the quotes so that it all makes sense to you, but there is one more element in that story. That we see from: “Oliver Sprague, Amnesty International UK’s arms controls director, said: “The ‘brilliant things’ that David Cameron says BAE sells include massive amounts of weaponry for the Saudi Arabia military, despite Saudi Arabia’s dreadful record in Yemen“. I needed to add this to all this, because there is the start.

You see, I am on the fence here. I will happily support Amnesty International, because for the most it is a force of good. When I see the title ‘UK’s arms controls director‘ I wonder if AI lost the plot a little. Let’s be clear here. It makes sense that AI has people on the payroll who understand weapons, understands mines, chemical ordnance. That makes perfect sense. AI is in need of knowledge on many levels and plenty of their work is in places where people tend to passionately not like each other (as in: with clubs, machetes and automatic weapons). Yet, when AI is wasting time on a valid business deal, we should ask a few additional questions. Now, we should quickly mention another side. At https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/amnesty-expert-barred-london-arms-fair, we see ‘Amnesty expert barred from London arms fair‘ as well as his quote “They’ve kept me out, but the question is: what has DSEi got to hide?” Let me answer that instead of the DSEi. You see, I could with my own expertise attend that event, and like him, I will equally hear “alas sir, you didn’t meet the criteria for registration“, even though there should be a few around in that field who know my skill levels in that regard. It is not skill or expertise, you see, it is about CLEARANCE LEVELS. These events are frequented by a massive who’s who of unregistered events, with a decent amount of government employees who need to talk shop, having non-cleared people on that fair tends to be a little unsettling for several reasons. In part because this world has its own rules, you obey those rules or you stop functioning in that world. There is every chance that I could accidently make the mistake whilst Oliver Sprague would intentionally do these things. Most of these people shy away from cameras (apart from those special social functions), they are there to talk shop!

You see, I have every respect for Amnesty International, they have done many good things in the past and will continue this in the future. For example stop torture makes perfect sense. There is also a questionable part from AI, it is nice to talk about the Human Rights Act, yet in the decades they have never succeeded in championing the need to add Spousal Abuse to article 3 of that HRA. Is spousal abuse not torture in its own rights? In that regard AI likes to be very visible, but in some way the big fights are never really fought (or better stated have not been fought for a long time). They have shown success stories every year, but landmark achievements have been absent for some time. Let’s get back to the initial story, but do not forget this part as it has bearing.

You see, the next part is slightly more entertaining. That tends to be the case whenever the honourable Jeremy Corbyn gets involved. Apart from the fashion comments we have seen in the last two days. The actual issue is his choice to get to the CND-rally, which is not a bad thing, but in light of timing, he decides to walk away from the national Labour campaign day, where he would be persuading voters to back Britain’s membership of the EU. This leaves to mind, is this a first inkling that even labour expects Brexit to become a reality? Whether that is true or not, this event has a direct bearing on the British population within this year, the CND rally has been going on for decades, so there would be another one next year. There is no other story beyond that. When you lead the labour party, it must be about the party, not about temporary ideology, because the CND is temporary at best and all ideological. I state that because there is no doubt that the UK would never instigate it, it would however respond if need be. Jeremy knows this (or he should not run the labour party). In all this I accept and understand that this is an option to rub elbows with people like SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Wood and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. Yes, those meetings make perfect sense, yet that means that none of them are really there for a CND rally. That is not an accusation, it is not wrong, but it leads to questions; questions that can slow down any election for a massive amount.

Two events all with issues of relevance, relevance from within those people from their point of view.

Now we take another gander, a gander towards the path of Saudi Arabia. Most people refuse to understand (read: accept) two elements. The first is that Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, a nation founded in 1932 by the House of Saud. The most important part here is that this is a Muslim nation, it is a nation of laws, in their case it was the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia in 1924 when King Abdul-Aziz made Shura a foundation of his government in order to fulfil the divine order by applying Shariah (Islamic Jurisprudence) and Shura as parts of it. So, we have a clear given, a monarchy that lives by Muslim rule of law, Shariah law. We might not comprehend, understand it or even accept it. But in the Nation of Saudi Arabia it has forever been law. I still do not understand how people go about trying to enforce their rules upon others. You see, when I hear these ‘moralists’ speak on how Sharia Law is so ‘barbaric’, they in equal measure forget that their own governments abandoned them as markets collapsed twice since 2004, no decent part of the involved parties went to prison and absolutely no laws were properly instigated and enforced against greed and in that regard, the least said about flawed corporate tax laws the better. In light of all this consider another fact that applies to the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, the previous assembly had 70% of its members with a PhD, 49% got their degree in the US and 20% from a University in Europe. So this is a group highly educated. Initially, going back to the beginning, the council was entrusted with drafting the basic laws for the administration of the country. Which is interesting as the US started in a similar way, a nation of laws under god (their Christian version). When we see the Shura council, we see in Article one “and following His Messenger Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH) in consulting his Companions, and urging the (Muslim) Nation to engage in consultation. The Shura council shall be established to exercise the tasks entrusted to it, according to this Law and the Basic Law of Governance while adhering to Quran and the Path (Sunnah) of his Messenger (PBUH), maintaining brotherly ties and cooperating unto righteousness and piety“, so as others judge the actions of Saudi Arabia, ask yourself, in the last 5 years alone, how many instances from large corporations and government have we seen, where ‘maintaining brotherly ties and cooperating unto righteousness and piety‘ were never part of any consideration? You only have to look at your pension plan, healthcare or deficits to see that ‘brotherly‘ is nowhere to be found.

This too is relevant to the entirety of the situation when we return to the honourable Jeremy Corbyn. Several sources stated “Jeremy Corbyn has called on David Cameron to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia after a United Nations report found the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen had “conducted airstrikes targeting civilians”“, based on what evidence would be my first question (not stating the validity of the UN), apart from that, Corbyn has a direct responsibility, you see, the UK had coffers that need to be filled, the UK has product that can be sold. We have seen how UK Labour was willing to spend money they never had, leaving the UK in massive debt. The last thing he should do is call for a suspension. Let me explain that part.

  1. This arms deal is not with some organisation like Hezbollah, it is a legitimate sovereign government of an established nation. The UK has every right to sell products to this nation.
  2. Whenever the west gets directly involved in any Middle Eastern event, it becomes a massive mess, in all this after half a decade, the west has done next to nothing regarding Syria, Europe has to deal with massive waves of refugees and there is no end in sight. Amnesty International knows this. They also know that Sharia Law is another matter, it is not for them to judge; it is for them to accept that the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia has every right to keep their own set of laws.
  3. Hezbollah and other players in Yemen are not part of an established government, they overthrew governments and the mess that followed has been ongoing ever since. In that light, there are too many question marks in too many places.

I believe that any Middle Eastern issue should be resolved by the Middle Eastern nations themselves. With escalation on the south border and firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia, they have every rights to protect themselves in any way they need to. That is also part of the equation. In that regard Islam 101 gives us two parts “Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors” as well as “Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers“. The next part is also from the Quran, but I am not sure whether this is Sharia: “The Quran sanctions violence to counter violence. If one studies history of Arab tribes before Islam and fierce fighting they indulged in one would be convinced that the philosophy of passive resistance would not have worked in that environment“. This is the kicker, we see that passive resistance was not a solution, because of the mess that Arab spring left the Middle East. In that Saudi Arabia has a right to counter its attacks, which means that we do not get to say too much on how a sovereign state defends itself. In addition, with the amount of ‘additional’ groups in Yemen, can we be certain who is who there?

But do not fear, Smith is here!

You see, I am very willing to join BAE and become ‘the’ sales person there (I know a person who would join me, so a team of 2 could be achieved), I will take a decent sales income and of course the 3.75% bonus on surplus sales and 3.25% bonus on sales targets reached. I reckon that I can sell the Eurofighter Typhoon military planes, with consultancy, training and guidance. In addition, I will be happy to provide for ammunition and ordnance. As stated, we Commonwealth nations need to stick together and I am happy to aid in the support and consultancy of those jets.

This now gets us to the final part ‘an arms embargo on the country over its bombardment of Yemen‘. What data is there? What evidence is there? We know for a fact that Hezbollah is there, that the Iranians are all over this, which is interesting as they are supporting the party overthrowing the legitimate government. So is there more? Is this perhaps an organised annexing of Yemen for Iran? The elements that gives value to that are indeed in play, whether this is a factual interpretation is not clear, too much data is not available to me, as well as too much time has passed from the start of all this.

And the final part in all this is “The vote does not force EU member states to comply“, which makes the EU a lame duck organisation. All that time and all these events for something that holds no real value. Now let’s take the headcount for a second. Oliver Sprague, a civilian with no political power, a person who leads by instigating those who have power and only in events where it is beneficial to those people could something possibly happen (not in this case though). Jeremy Corbyn, a political headpiece, but not one that is currently in office, he is merely in opposition and as such he is about visibility and branding himself (politically plugging is also a term that applies in this case). These two non-deciders are opposing a nation that needs commerce that needs to export as many of their products as possible.

In the defence of the two non-deciders I must add, from our values, we might have issues and it is nice that the UN is also about values, yet in all this, apart from condemnation there has been very little against terrorist elements. Of all the condemnations we have seen since Syria has a little issue in 2011, how much actions have been taken and for how many millions of Syrians has it been too late? Too many speakers for inactions, too little actions on economy and actual actions on the HRA (like the little addendum to article three I mentioned earlier).

So within the title of relevance seems to apply to too many people, it includes me as well, for the mere reason that my blog has no effect on the actions of the UK Foreign Office. It is just my view on the matter, like it was the view of Oliver Sprague, Jeremy Corbyn and the EU parliament. We are all simply non-deciders. The deciders are the currently elected UK government headed by David Cameron as well as the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, under King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. They both get to look at the ‘toothless’ response from the EU parliament, who might be entering their final sitting soon enough.

Our voices might sound nice, our words might read nice, but neither bring food to the table, which is the concern of the Conservative Party, one that they are actually addressing.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

With a little bit of Ruffalo

Paris is in turmoil, before we go out in rage and aggression, we need to realise that sometimes a spark comes from another direction, in this article realise the following from the beginning to the end of it. Mark Ruffalo who is regarded as a great actor and a nice guy should today be remembered as a great humanitarian and an excellent actor. 9 hours ago he stated on Twitter (@MarkRuffalo) “Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks“, which is very much to the point. Whether the word ‘intended’ or ‘expected’ or ‘feared’ should be used here is beside the point. It is not mere semantics and Mark hit the nail on the head.

Yet, what was this foolish act, to go after the one nation where liberalism is at the centre of life, ah, that might have been the reason all along, I am merely speculating!

I have never been about ‘mere speculating’ so let’s take a look at what we have (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates).

These were the attacks:

  1. The Bataclan, which is a theatre located at 50 boulevard Voltaire in the 11th arrondissement of Paris.
  2. Stade de France, the national stadium of France, situated just north of Paris in the commune of Saint-Denis.
  3. La Belle Equipe, a cafe on Rue de Charonne.
  4. Le Carillon, a bar-cafe at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
  5. Le Petit Cambodge, a restaurant at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
  6. Rue Fontaine au Roi

The other side of this coin (which is linked to all this) is that we see how certain Humanitarian groups are reduced to the jokes they should be. This shows exactly how Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was correct. The flotilla’s are stopped to slow down the massive intake of explosives and weapons into Gaza. The 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla attack was nothing more than some marketing ploy (as I see it). You see the direct reality is that goods are not stopped by Israel, goods are inspected by Israel before they go into Gaza. What makes this all such a bad joke is because:

  1. The blockade of the Gaza Strip imposed by Israel and Egypt

So BOTH Egypt and Israel are enforcing the blockade!

  1. As per May 2010, the list of imported items included 2 million litres of diesel fuel and gasoline, fruits, vegetables, wheat, sugar, meat, chicken and fish products, dairy products, animal feed, hygiene products, fabrics, clothing and shoes. You see, if that flotilla had nothing to hide, and if there were non-weaponisable articles in there they would have been inspected and the materials would have been delivered. This is what made the Humanitarian joke to say the least. They wanted to play a pissing game with a nation that had been under terrorist attack for decades. Now relate all that to what we saw that happened this weekend!

These seven attacks if we include Charlie Hedbo shows the issue, it shows terrorism. This is what Israel faced and those well intentional kids with their propaganda minds are now pushed onto a page of reality. Now they are all in disbelief, it is all about non-comprehension and blaming outside sources. Blaming it on a ‘few’ desperate minds.

Reality gives us a very different picture. It shows that many of you are not ready to face. It is a similar reason why I personally at time regard some members of the court to be ideological cowards (if it pleases the court). Yet, time is on my side, what people pushed for when they considered me to be overinflating the ‘risk’. Now we see the articles with issues I elaborated on for over 2 years. Now we see the Guardian with ‘Can international law meet the challenges of today’s lawless conflicts?’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/nov/14/international-law-yemen-syria-isis-conflict). I will elaborate my view of the courts later, but for now it is time to make one more step before we get back to Paris.

So, let’s get back to the political puppets, because they have a role to play in all of this. Perhaps you would like to remember March 9th 2015, where Greece’s defence minister Panos Kammenos threatened to ‘flood Europe with migrants, including Syrian jihadists’. So if any of the 8 cadavers are Syrian, will we see a request for the head of Panos Kammenos on a brass platter (the man is not worthy of silver)? Will we suddenly see more ‘apologies’ regarding poorly chosen words? As per 5 minutes ago, Sky News reported via Twitter that one of the bombers had a Syrian passport.

All these issues matter and they are all connected. We will see so many responses flooded on emotions and not enough on the cold light that logic brings. Logic must be ground to all this, no matter what kind of logic, but the unconditional need to eradicate all ISIS life. In this I do not oppose Mark Ruffalo and his need for humanity (as well as the need to instil it). I do not oppose or attack his values. He is a man of peace, or a man from peaceful times. There is nothing negative about it, I come from times of chaos and strife. I know what needs to be done. I might not be in any decent shape, but I was a crack shot, which means that up to 800 meters I can, I would and I am willing to cull the ISIS population as per immediate. In that I reckon the French must now realise that their brethren in Légion Etrangère, can and should now do what needs to be done, take the war to ISIS, wherever they are. This is what needs to be done and politicians on a global scale need to wake up and need to wake up fast.

If you doubt these words, then consider the following facts: 6 attacks required some planning, acquisition of goods (explosives, weapons and ammunition), they required transport and these elements needed to time the events, which implies support, funding and training. This is not some lone wolf club, this is clear evidence of orchestration and a larger support network that is now proven to be in France and possibly in additional EEC nations.

In this I will not oppose the call by Mark Ruffalo, but I will oppose the call by British broadcaster Rufus Hound who responded with a call for a peaceful response, You see, the theory of peaceful negotiations is partially valid when you deal with any established party that adheres to certain values (like not bombing civilians), in the case of a barbarian collective (people abstaining from evolution) the clear path is eradication. You might shy from this word, but the definite reality is that this world no longer has any place for certain extremism. The disavowed of any extremism is almost essential (yes, ironically that includes my view, which is currently based on realism).

Here we see the irony where realism is based on values we can no longer support, which is partially why Humanitarian values more and more stop being part of the reality of life. Greed got us part of the way and the rest was created through the intolerance of the enactors. So basically they heralded their own extreme eradication.

Is my view to extreme?

You might think that, but consider the costs of these events, not what is lost, but the funds these people needed to get the weapons and explosives. Getting into France, all those took time and money, places to store and places to collect all of this. Cars to move what is needed and to leave a false trail. All that supports the evidence of orchestration and intent. Even with the decent paying job I have, it would take 2-3 years to get all the funds required, so someone funded this. Which takes me back to the words of Panos Kammenos, given in utter stupidity so that he got some limelight, this is part of the realisation that there is more support and more funds. This needs to be halted, we must hunt and eradicate ISIS and their support engine. In my mind ANY bank executive who made short cuts to make their bonus, if they are found to be in support, strip their rights after which they get a fatal accident. I feel 99% certain that after the third ‘accident’, these greed driven idiots will suddenly grow morality (a fear of mortality does tend to do that).

How does all this get us back to Paris?

In part it is the European consequence to these attacks. Any refugee trail is likely to be halted completed. They were halted in British to some extent, but now we will see a massive change in movement and in addition we will see a massive rise in intolerance, which is to be expected but should not be allowed for. We will now face the humanitarian dangers America faced from 1941 onwards with their Japanese and Japanese-American heritage. The camps are a black blight on American society and even though it partially was able to get past that, Europe could face a similar stigma and Paris will be at the centre of all this. Two days ago, we saw the news stating ‘French political elites panic as Marine Le Pen Gains Ground‘, well if they were afraid 2 days ago, how will they react coming Monday morning? The most powerful quote in that article was “Ms. Le Pen can sense the feeling of distress across the nation as voters feel they have been abandoned to their fate by legacy parties allowing that influx – without consultation. They feel no affinity for the ‘multi-cultural’ France they believe is being foisted on them“, that feeling will escalate next week as the blame game starts, some of it might go towards Panos Kammenos, which implies that Tsipras might request the resignation of his slightly too outspoken National Defence Minister, my reasoning here is that if any evidence is found that the Syrian bomber came from Greece, the gloves come off completely and Greece will face ridicule they have never faced before.

Yet, Paris is only the beginning, having a history for being the cultural centre of Europe also means that an efficient transport system has been the foundation of France for some time (ignoring train delays at present). €132 gets me to Amsterdam in 3 hours, €23 gets me to Orleans in an hour. So as people are currently looking at the emotion, the chaos and the damage, there is little evidence that only 8 people would have been part of all this, as these people started their event, the rest of those teams could have moved onto ‘new’ targets. It will be up to DGSE and DGSI, both relying on BRGE to get to the core of some of this. Once military elements get involved it will become another matter entirely, in all this my initial advice is to Panos Kammenos to shut up and do whatever the French require of you. Now there is no evidence that these people went via Greece, but the words of Panos Kammenos will hang heavy in the air after these events in Paris. More important, how will Hungary and others react now? This now all heads back to Paris.

A Europe that needs to alter their view and legalities regarding extremism, the law was nowhere near ready to deal with this. The new French bill (at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/projets/pl2110.asp), seems to have a few issues, as per (https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/09/france-counterterrorism-bill-threatens-rights).

The quote “Under article 1, the interior minister could bar people from leaving France if there are “serious reasons to believe” they are planning to go abroad with the aim of “participating in terrorist activities, war crimes or crimes against humanity” or if authorities suspect they are traveling to a place where terrorist groups operate and in conditions conducive to their posing a threat to public safety upon their return to France. Once a decision is made, the person’s passport would be withdrawn and the person would be prevented from leaving the country“, So as we see Human Rights are complaining more and more regarding the fact that ‘the Bill Would Breach Free Movement and Expression‘, gives us in this day the reason for not taking Human Rights too serious. Some Human Rights organisations only have themselves to blame. The issues on Israel are one of the lighter examples. The fact that Human rights go against this (one of many objections) whilst we see objections towards ‘participating in terrorist activities‘ and the consequential ‘restriction of movement‘, we cannot take certain elements serious. Of course I am in this case also guilty of trivialising parts as there are a few more serious matters that might lead to questions to reflect upon. What we all forget that it is up to France to decide what is best for France. That realisation is part of the issue, where we see that Strasbourg is also all about rapers getting a chance for a family life with the child begotten through rape (a way to get a British Passport), now we see (in exaggerated terms) that terrorists should not be hindered in movement. That part is at the heart of the matter where both England and France are close to reject this Human Rights Act and it will further fuel both Brexit and Frexit.

Part of this is seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/french-intelligence-under-scrutiny-paris-attacks) where we see that French intelligence is now under scrutiny. The intelligence network has no resources to deal with the amount of data required to even possibly find any clue that something could be amiss. In all this we see the first responses from France. The most visible is Marine Le Pen, who only 13 minutes ago stated “For the sixth time in 2015, Islamist terrorism has struck our country. France mourns her dead and I mourn with her. I pay tribute to the dedication of our armed forces. France must determine who its friends are and who its enemies are. France’s enemies are those who maintain links with Islamism. Once and for all, France must recapture control of its borders. Islamist fundamentalism must be destroyed, radical mosques must be closed and radical clerics must be expelled. French terrorists must be stripped of their citizenship and banned from this country“. The ‘PROJET DE LOI, renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme‘ is only a first step, the question becomes, how will the surrounding nations react? The UK might be an island, but that benefit does not befall Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium. Where will this go for them? And the real true refugees, what will become of them? Questions that have no easy answer, yet at present, none seem to have any clear answers, which should worry the residents and citizens of many nations, including those that are not part of the EEC.

In the end Mark Ruffalo is completely correct with his statement, which is not corrected for the one part we forget, which is that ISIS has pronounced war on France, so what will you do? Hope for some kind of empty peace, or will you accept that this is a war and it must be answered with the military force it deserves and the lack of rules and rights that this opponent is not worthy of. Time will tell what will be their next act, yet I have a clear idea of what their opponents will do. They will express condolences, they will meet, talk and I expect that they will lack in actions, in resolve and in clear operational steps, which makes for a worry, because the lack of operational actions is not something that ISIS has. I will let you consider the events that were and how it will affect the times that come and feel free not to ignore the words of Mark Ruffalo.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military