A possible solution for Iraq

Despite the best efforts of the US led coalition forces, peace in Iraq seems as far away as ever. Violence and deaths are, if anything, increasing, with no obvious end in sight.

An attempt has been made to set up a democratic government, but of course, this is split along sectarian lines, as indeed is the whole country. In effect there is now a civil war.

A valid point has been raised by General Sir Richard Dannatt:

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

If we take as a working assumption that Dannatt is correct, is it possible to salvage at least some beneficial results from this mess?

Add to this my observation that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible, certainly in the context of the Middle East.

Critics of this observation may point to the example of Turkey. However, Turkey is something of a special case, as it is a buffer state between the Christian world and the Islamic world.

As an aside, Turkey is far more useful to Europe in this role as a buffer state, than it is as a full blown member of the EU. Of course, it is possible for Turkey to enjoy the trade benefits of membership, without destabilising the EU, if it were to set up bilateral trade agreements. Switzerland has such agreements in place, but has not given up any sovereignty or border controls.

The people of Britain are becoming increasingly irate with the EU. Apart from the flood of nannying regulations, we contribute far too much financially, to support lazy Greeks and inefficient French farmers amongst others. The corruption within Brussels is unbelievable. The worst aspect is that we are now unable to deport criminals, or indeed have any say at all over the numbers of immigrants into Britain.

It is bad enough that we have had a flood of probably around a million eastern Europeans. Imagine the disruption if two million Turks arrive, to add to the two million Muslims already here. The security and social disruption implications are horrendous.

I suspect that if Turkey were to join the EU, Britain would soon leave. The majority of people that I have spoken to are fed up with the EU.

See: http://www.speakout.co.uk/

We should not under-estimate the importance of buffer states. Take the example of Tibet. It acted as a buffer between India and China. After its annexation by China, we saw quite quickly a war between India and China. History is likely to repeat itself, as China is working to divert rivers that currently flow from Tibet to India. India is then likely to divert remaining rivers from Pakistan to itself, causing considerable strife in the region. None of this would occur, if Tibet had been left alone.

That is an aside, but it may be that Turkey has a role to play in the future of Iraq. A role that is more important than any role within the EU.

So, returning to Iraq, we see that there are three main groupings: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle, and Shiites in the south.

So much ill-feeling and bloodshed have occurred now, that it is inconceivable that any meaningful integration can occur between these communities.

Incidentally, most peoples are comfortable amongst their own kind, which leads to less stress overall. It is simply human nature, and there is not necessarily anything sinister about it per se. This is as true in Britain as it is in Iraq. In the case of Britain, the Labour government are very much exercised by the parallel communities that now exist. They appear to have only recently noticed the phenomenon, when Home Secretary John Reid was berated by a Muslim, for daring to enter a Muslim area of a city.

True to Labour's socialist nonsense, they are now attempting to force integration, by obliging faith schools to take one quarter of pupils from different faiths. This is at a time when many such schools are over subscribed anyway. There has been much hostility to this plan from Muslim and Roman Catholic communities. The Church of England appears to be resigned to it, but they are rather spineless nowadays. See my posting: "Is the Church of England cursed by God?"

Unfortunately this Labour government appears to believe their own socialist propaganda, even though it has been discredited in the USSR, and is heavily modified now in China.

This aside serves to illustrate that it is not possible to force integration between communities who do not want it. In Iraq, this applies principally to the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.

You can now see where the argument is heading: The situation in Iraq would be much improved if the country was officially divided into three, with each area able to govern itself, and with carefully chosen borders. Of course, there would be some movement of populations into their own designated areas. However, with the help of coalition forces, it need not be as chaotic as the partition of India, for example. The numbers affected would be far fewer anyway.

Would it then be possible for each of the three regions to form stable democracies? It is a possibility. However, Islam is not compatible with democracy, and so the best that we could hope for is a pro-western regime in each. That may also be ambitious.

We need to have a sensible timescale for withdrawal of our troops. They have done a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. However, the political aims have always been unrealistic. That is not the fault of the troops however, and they cannot be blamed for the impossible situation.

So, in order to assist the timely withdrawal of troops, whilst having some hope of stability, it is necessary to involve, and co-operate with the surrounding countries. These are: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and not least, Iran.

President Bush may need to eat his words. It is somewhat ironic that he has attempted to impose democracy where it is unwanted.

The Shiites in the south have a strong affinity with the people of Kuwait. Would it therefore be possible to expand the borders of Kuwait, to incorporate all of the Shiite areas? This would include the city of Basra. The Kuwait army could then bring peace into that region, freeing up coalition forces for the more difficult central and northern regions. We should not expect the form of the Kuwait government to change, but it would be reasonable to ask that they ensure a consistent flow of oil. It may be that they would also agree to pay off the debt that was incurred during the Iran-Iraq war, using a proportion of the additional oil.revenue that they would enjoy.

The northern part, which is the Kurdish autonomous region should then be tackled. Turkey borders this area, and has long had strife within its own borders, with the Kurds demanding autonomy. Why not give it to them? Turkey would have to give up some land area, which together with the autonomous region, would form a new nation of Kurdistan. Handled carefully, it is possible that this new nation would be pro-western. With support from Turkey, it could even have a functioning democratic government. Of course, Turkey would lose some land, but it would be worth it for the possibility of peace. Widening the buffer zone with Europe would also be helpful, as missiles become ever more potent.

Finally, it would be possible to concentrate on the most intractable cenral region. Is it possible to do something imaginative for the long-suffering Palestinian people at the same time? My suggestion is that, as an interim step, a reasonably large area of land is placed under the protection of Jordan, for use by the Palestinian people. When they have become established, it could become a Palestinian state. Of course, it would need a water supply, electricity, and construction assistance. Ironically, it may be that Israel would be in a good position to help. The benefit for Israel would be that it is then seen in a more positive light by its Arab neighbours, whilst benefitting from an increased buffer zone. For this to work, it would be necessary for the Arab nations to recognise that the State of Israel has the right to exist. Israel has re-established itself in its ancient homeland. It was there long before Islam arose.

We in Britain should be justifiably proud of our role in the creation of the modern State of Israel. Indeed it should be seen as a privelige to have done so. Our support, unfortunately has been rather patchy, and the truth has been obscured by those forces that would destroy both Israel and Britain too. It is not to say that Israel is perfect however, but we in Britain can help by suggesting areas of improvement, as one friend to another.

Syria could play an important role in stabilising the Iraq area. It may be that the central area, including Baghdad, could become a semi-autonomous region of Syria. In return, Syria should recognise Israel, and cease its military posturing and support of terrorists. Giving up a claim to the Golan Heights would be a token of peace.

The Chinese word for crisis has also an aspect meaning opportunity. Iraq is clearly in crisis. With some imaginative and bold thinking, it should be possible to gain a number of significant benefits for the whole region. Simply walking away at this stage would inevitably result in massive bloodshed, and is not a sensible option.

Imposing a democratic government appears to be nigh impossible.

Involving the surrounding nations in a constructive way has some interesting possibilities.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

White flag

Britain's flag carrying airline, BA, has banned an employee from wearing a small silver crucifix.

Nadia Ewelda, an employee with seven years of service, has been told that she may wear it, provided that it is hidden. She was effectively forced to take unpaid leave.

This BA policy is inconsistent, since Muslim women are permitted to wear a headscarf, and Sikhs are permitted to wear a turban.

There is considerable support for Nadia Ewelda, from the Transport and General Workers Union, as well as from Peter Hain MP, (Northern Ireland Secretary) who has described the decision as "loopy". Ann Widdecombe MP, who is a devout Roman Catholic, has called on Christians to boycott BA.

There is an irony here, that appears not to have been pointed out:

BA (also known as British Airways), has a large Union Jack flag painted on the tail of each of its aircraft. This flag incorporates the cross of St George, a potent Christian symbol.

Perhaps BA would like to paint out the cross of St George, using white paint. However, there is also the cross of St Andrew, that may also cause offense. Why not just paint a white flag of surrender on each aircraft instead of the Union Jack?

It is highly unlikely that any religious group would find a small silver crucifix to be offensive, with the exception of some Muslims.

Is this simply a case of political correctness gone mad, or more worryingly, does Islam have a much tighter grip on Britain than has so far been acknowledged?

I do suspect the latter. The fact that Mosques have planning permission granted very easily, whilst it is nigh impossible to get planning permission to build a house, would support the latter case.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

The problem with the Quran

There are indeed a large number of verses in the Quran that are harmless, and also quite a number that are very praiseworthy.

My favourite is: "There shall be no compulsion in religion"

However, we must not be fooled into thinking that the Quran is tolerant. It is necessary to understand the concept of "abrogation". This means that the earlier, tolerant verses are superceded, and cancelled out by the later, violent verses.

The Quran states:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." Quran 2.191

Have a look at my earlier postings for examples. Abrogation is described in "The Pope is a genius!".

A consideration of Mohammed's career helps to explain how this concept has come about. His career is outlined in "The Pope calls for an end to Islamic violence, and churches burn".

It is unfortunately the case that the verses of greatest relevance, that is the later non-abrogated verses, call for non-believers to be slaughtered. I truly wish that it was not so, but sadly it is.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Veiled threat

We have seen some extraordinary scenes of politicians of both main parties criticising Muslim women for wearing veils.

Tradition dictates that Muslim women are restricted to work within the home, covering themselves modestly in public.

It does not bother me what they wear, and they can choose to cut themselves off from the rest of society if they so wish.

It is but a symptom of a much more serious issue: Islam is completely incompatible with modern democracy.

The Quran states:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Quran 5.51

So, messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron, how am I supposed to integrate with people who hold this view?

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

A man of integrity

General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, has spoken some uncomfortable truths. Uncomfortable, that is, for this Labour government. The Conservatives need not be too smug either, as they have also contibuted to the mess.

Whilst we have men of his standing, there is yet hope for the future of Britain.

Well done, Sir. Your honesty and courage are very much appreciated.




From the Daily Mail newspaper:
Sir Richard Dannatt : A very honest General
By SARAH SANDS
Last updated at 23:51pm on 12th October 2006

People thought that the new head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, would be a managerial, John Majorish figure, keen to do the Government's bidding.
Sir Richard's predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson, was a soldier from central casting, rugged and hard drinking, whereas Sir Richard looks like a barrister or a banker.
But within days of taking over at the end of August, Sir Richard, 55, returned from a trip to Afghanistan and quietly posed the question: "Is £1,150 take-home pay for a month's fighting in Helmand province sufficient?"
The Daily Mail took up the casual remark and campaigned for better pay for soldiers on operations. On Tuesday, Gordon Brown announced a tax-free bonus of £2,240 for troops serving in war zones.
Sir Richard then turned to the medical care of wounded soldiers, insisting on separate military wards.
He is considering changing tours of duty in war zones from six months to four months and planning to make Britain the home base for an expeditionary force, so pulling back from places such as Germany.
He is in the middle of replacing controversial patrol vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan with heavily armoured trucks, and is bringing together charities to improve the care of disabled or mentally ill former servicemen ("If we had a hand in damaging them, then we are responsible for them").
Further, he questions the validity of our continued presence in Iraq and is concerned by the decline in Christian values in Britain that has allowed Islamic extremism to flourish. Sitting in an armchair in his office at the Ministry of Defence, he declares simply: "I am going to stand up for what is right for the Army. "Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth. Leaking and spinning, at the end of the day, are not helpful." The honest soldier is a figure that frightens the life out of politicians. So far, the General has got his way, partly because of his tactful, unassuming manner. He may be an illustration of the adage that you can achieve anything as long as you do not want to take credit for it.
He talks soberly of the "military covenant" between a nation and its Armed Forces. "I said to the Defence Secretary (Des Browne) that the Army won’t let the nation down, but I don’t want the nation to let the Army down."
The case of a wounded soldier in Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham being abused by an anti-war civilian showed a breakdown of the covenant. I ask whether our returning soldiers may suffer the kind of rejection shown to Vietnam veterans.
"Iraq may be an unpopular war now and Afghanistan may be a misunderstood war," he says, "but the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are conducting those operations are doing their duty to their best ability. And I hope the British people never forget that our soldiers are doing what the Government requires them to do.
"That is why it is important that the story of what is happening in Afghanistan is told. It is important that Paras back on leave can go down to the pub and people will know what they have been doing. It should get out how difficult it has been, how dangerous, how tragic at times, and that they have done well." The treatment of soldiers in civilian wards shows society's lack of understanding of the needs of our troops.
"It is not acceptable for our casualties to be in mixed wards with civilians," Sir Richard says. "I was outraged at the story of someone saying: 'Take your uniform off.' "Our people need the privacy of recovering in a military environment — a soldier manning a machine gun in Basra loses consciousness when he is hit by a missile and next recovers consciousness in a hospital in the UK.
"He wants to wake up to familiar sights and sounds, he wants to see people in uniform. He doesn't want to be in a civilian environment. We exacerbate the culture shock." Sir Richard's lead in shining a light on the Armed Forces extends to the mission in Iraq. He says with great clarity and honesty that "our presence exacerbates the security problems". "I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.
"History will show that a vacuum was created and into the vacuum malign elements moved. The hope that we might have been able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start in 2003 has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and in Basra.
"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East.
"That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."
Sir Richard adds, strongly, that we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems". "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. "As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren't invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.
"That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."
He contrasts this with the situation in Afghanistan, where we remain at the invitation of President Hamid Karzai's government.
"There is a clear distinction between our status and position in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which is why I have much more optimism that we can get it right in Afghanistan."
There is a logistical as well as a moral reason for concentrating on the mission in Afghanistan. Sir Richard talked last month of the Army "running hot". Our troops are stretched to capacity. We have only one spare battalion. Almost everyone is going to end up serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
This, of course, will include the regiments of Prince Harry and later Prince William.
Sir Richard says a date has not yet been set for Harry's unit in the Household Cavalry to be deployed, but once it is, he will make a recommendation to the Queen about the Prince's circumstances and role.
"Currently the question has not been put to me and therefore no decision has been made. When his unit is ready for operation, his commanding officer will look at the situations he might find himself in."
Sir Richard will certainly take into serious consideration the wishes of the Princes.
"I would imagine both these young men, having opted to join the Army, would want to deploy in operation. I have got a son in the Army. He wants to be deployed with his people, so I would expect Harry and William to do the same." The accusing question put to Tony Blair by parents of servicemen and women is: would a politician send their own child to war?
Sir Richard's son, Bertie, was a platoon commander in Iraq. "He was in Iraq until a couple of months ago. It was tough: three of his contemporaries, young officers, have been killed. There is a lot of pressure on young commanders. When my son was deployed he got into some quite hairy situations. "I was a dad as well as being Commander in Chief. I am still a dad as well as being Chief of the General Staff. I wouldn't send an Army where I wouldn't send my own child.
"When I was younger, I wouldn't send people where I wouldn’t go myself. Sharing the risk is important. That is why the chain of command is so important."
Sir Richard has occasionally discussed with his wife, Philippa, whether to continue his career in the Army, but always found more reasons to stay than to leave.
"There are good reasons for joining, apart from Iraq, which is atypical. We have been deployed to bring a better life to people and on the whole we have done that well." With regard to Iran and North Korea, he believes in dialogue.
"Particularly with Iran — if we paint them into a corner I think that is being too simplistic. Dialogue and negotiation make eminent sense and military posturing doesn't."
The General is a practising Christian and this informs his views on the Army's role and place in society. He believes our weak values have allowed the predatory Islamist vision to take hold.
"We can't wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the Army, both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life.
"We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it. In the Cold War, the threats to this country were about armies rolling in. Threats now are not territorial but to the values of our country.
"In the Army we place a lot of store by the values we espouse. What I would hate is for the Army to be maintaining a set of values that were not reflected in our society at large — courage, loyalty, integrity, respect for others; these are critical things.
"I think it is important as an Army entrusted with using lethal force that we do maintain high values and that there is a moral dimension to that and a spiritual dimension.
"When I see the Islamist threat I hope it doesn't make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country. Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind. "There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I am responsible for the Army, to make sure that its moral compass is well aligned and that we live by what we believe in.
"It is said we live in a post-Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British Army." I ask what this means for Muslim soldiers and their allegiance.
"These are British Muslims who are also British soldiers. If they are prepared to take the Queen’s shilling they will go wherever the mission requires them to go."
As Para 3 Battle Group return from Afghanistan, they are being replaced by 3 Commando Brigade, incorporating the Royal Marines, who are especially trained for cold weather conditions.
Although 1,000 extra troops were sent to Helmand following ferocious assaults from the Taliban, only a small number were combat soldiers. For the next few months, there will be 5,200 British troops in Helmand and this will be re-assessed in the spring.
What will make a difference is the arrival of more heavily armoured vehicles. Sir Richard is open about the vulnerability of some of the vehicles his soldiers have been using, particularly in Iraq.
"The threats we have been facing in Iraq from last summer grew considerably. The sophistication of the mines and rockets used to attack our vehicles went up significantly."
Thus, 160 six-wheeled, four-ton armoured patrol vehicles are on their way to Afghanistan. There is also a 20-ton vehicle called the Mastiff ready for use in Iraq or Afghanistan. The controversial "snatch" Land Rovers, which give little protection, should be replaced. "Over time I want to modernise all patrol vehicles," says Sir Richard. "The snatch vehicles were getting old. They were originally developed for Northern Ireland. I want people to have adequate vehicles for the tasks they carry out." There is also a family of armoured vehicles called FRES (Future Rapid Effect System). The cost of this future equipment is £14 billion. Defence spending has traditionally been a low priority for the Treasury. It has never had the populist appeal of schools and hospitals. But the quiet, determined new Chief of the General Staff is hoping that the "military covenant" will prevail.
General Sir Richard Dannatt offers one of his deceptively impartial observations: "Twenty-nine per cent of government spending is on social security. Five per cent is on defence. Others can take a view on whether that proportion is right."






Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Censored?

Unfortunately my posting to the Conservatives website "Ten questions that the Conservatives must ask" had to be split into three sections, due to a size limitation of 500 words maximum.

However, all ten questions were present, together with the two hypertext links. This was fine for about half an hour.

Then the hypertext links were removed, together with questions 9 and 10.

Why? Maybe there is a simple technical reason, although links elsewhere on this site have been fine.

If you would like to read questions 9 and 10 please visit my blog. You may need to copy the address into your browser:
http://st-george-true.blogspot.com/

I hope that this is merely a technical problem. Democracy is too important to allow valid points to be censored.

NOTE: It was not censored after all, just a technical problem.

Freedom of speech

My earlier posting to the Conservatives forum had sections missing. It probably is a technical problem around the hyperlinks.

It is very pleasing to see that the Conservatives take freedom of speech seriously, unlike the Labour lot, who are morally bankrupt as well as financially bankrupt. They take liberties with our liberties.

If it had been censorship, I would have set that fearless champion of freedom of speech onto you, namely Ann Widdecombe MP. The Conservatives are very fortunate to have people of her calibre in their number.

I had a look at her website. It is clear that she has animal welfare close to her heart. Would it be possible to ask her to pursue the matter of the cruelty of Halal slaughter, and the labelling of food in hospitals, schools and restaurants? Please pass on my thanks to her in anticipation.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Ten questions that the Conservatives must ask

The Conservatives are doing a poor job in opposition. They fail to ask any difficult questions.

Here are ten questions that must be asked, preferably in the House of Commons. The answers should be published on the Conservatives website.

1. Of the Labour government ministers who make pronouncements on Islam (Kelley, Brown, Straw and Reid), how many have actually read the Quran?

2. Ruth Kelley appears now to be threatening to withdraw public funding from Islamic organisations in Britain that do not work harder to identify extremists. Her words are typical politician speak, and are not clear. Is she in fact proposing to increase funding to those organisations that show some willingness to co-operate? The Conservatives must press her to make her meaning absolutely clear.

3. Please obtain details of how much public funding has been given to Islamic organisations, over, say, the last five years. By details, I mean, how much money, on what dates. What are the names of these organisations, and what do they do? Have they submitted adequate accounts each year? What is the basis of their charitable status? How do we know where the money is ending up? Does it go to terrorist organisations? Give their website addresses, so that the British public can judge for ourselves whether we wish to continue funding such organisations.

4. In an opinion poll a few weeks ago, 53 percent of the respondents believe that Islam itself is a threat to Democracy. Why then should the majority pay any money at all towards any Islamic organisation?

5. The Muslim birth rate is much higher than the non-Muslim birth rate. Please ask the Office of National Statistics to calculate in which year the Muslim population is projected to exceed 50 percent of the total. That will be the new D-day, the day on which Democracy dies. Churchill would be appalled.

6. Please ask Kelley, Brown, Straw and Reid to define what exactly they mean by the term "moderate Muslims". As Reid has tacitly acknowledged, the second and third generations are far more radical than their parents. Reid is living in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that Muslim parents would report their son, even if they knew that he was preparing a bomb.

7. This Labour government has introduced a law banning the glorification of terrorism. The terrorists take their main inspiration from the Quran, which clearly states in numerous verses that non-believers must be killed. We must have a judicial review into whether the Quran meets the criteria of the glorification law. Can the Conservatives ask when such a review will take place? Would the Conservatives have the courage to ban the Quran, if they hold office in the future?

8. Most people in Britain are appalled by cruelty to animals. Halal slaughter is needlessly cruel. Halal meat is increasingly served in schools, hospitals, restaurants etc, without any labelling, even when the majority are non-Muslims. The Conservatives must press for proper labelling, and a non-Halal option must be given on the menu. Please ask the government why they permit such cruel methods of slaughter anyway. Their own advisers, the Farm Animal Welfare Council condemn it. http://www.fawc.org.uk/

9. How can Ruth Kelley say that only a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims are extremists? Around a quarter of them sympathise with the London bombers.

10. Why is the government giving preferential treatment to Muslims? Islamic bank accounts are the thin end of the wedge, and I am sure we would all like to pay zero interest on our loans too. A Muslim could borrow a sum of money at zero interest, and put it into an interest bearing account. Money for nothing, paid for by non-Muslims. Democracy is being destroyed before our eyes.

The Conservatives are failing in their duty by not asking difficult questions. Their colour is supposed to be blue, not yellow.

Our brave soldiers and airmen are giving their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. If only our politicians had just one tenth of their courage, we would get some answers. If the politicians had equal courage, we would also get some real action!

Britain is changing considerably under pressure from Islam.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

The Straw that broke the camel's back

Jack Straw, Labour MP and Leader of the House of Commons has infuriated Muslims.

His crime? Politely asking Muslim women not to veil their face when meeting with him.

We all know that communication between two people is partially verbal, but also significantly through facial expression.

What a mess this Labour government is making, and it seems likely that the next government, probably Conservative, will have to pick up the pieces.

If Mr Straw wishes to be re-elected, it is foolish to antagonise one quarter of his constituency.

The Conservatives must not however appease this violent minority. They will probably give up on Labour anyway and vote for the Lib Dems, effectively a wasted vote.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Is the Church of England cursed by God?

Here are two quotes from the New Testament.

"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away." Matthew 21:19-20

"He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:" Luke 13:6-8

We see today that the Church of England is but a shadow of its former self. The members of the congregation are typically over 60, and with few men attending. There are very few younger real men.

How can this be? Why has this once bold organisation become so effeminate? Is it perhapse cursed, and we see it withering away before our eyes, like the fig tree?

Can it bear fruit once more, if the soil is properly prepared?

How is it that Islam is expanding rapidly now in Britain, attracting many young men, amongst them a significant number who are willing to sacrifice their own lives?

Clearly Islam has many macho verses within its writings, and so it is hardly any surprise that it can easily attract young men.

But is not Christianity equally bold, albeit not in a murderous way? It is hard to see any evidence of such boldness at the present time. It is hard to credit that the people who attend Church actually believe what they say they believe in. Surely if they did, and were willing to do something about it, the Church of England, and Britain generally would be such a different place.

So how can the fig tree be provided with dung?

We should firstly realise fully that we are in the middle of a war, whether we like it or not. Perhaps some in the Church know this full well, but are too timid to say so.

The battle lines are not too promising either: On one side a bunch of elderly folk, mainly women, and on the other side a very large number of fearless young men with hatred in their hearts. At no time in history has a battle been won by an army of women, perhaps with the exception of the mythical Amazons.

In my opinion the Church must now make a stand. It has no choice. It must speak the truth, and preach against the bloodthirsty verses in the Quran.

Boldness has its own genius, and by taking these bold steps, there may be some surprising results. Yes, there will be attacks, and we should expect to see casualties. Those who speak out against Islamic terrorism can expect to receive serious injuries, even death. Numerous churches in Britain will be burned.

However, the surprising result would be that the Church would find itself with new authority, at the centre of relevance in the Britain of today. Another surprising result, following from this, is that the congregation would surely swell, with significan numbers of real men playing a very active role.

Far better to see a large and bold congregation, with the likelihood that a number of churches will be burned down, than for the congregation to wither away. In the latter case, the churches will certainly be bulldozed to make way for Mosques.

On the subject of bulldozers, the Church of England has withdrawn its investments from companies that support Israel. This includes Caterpillar, the company that supplies bulldozers to Israel.

For all of Israel's faults, does the Church of England really believe that God has lost interest in Israel?

"But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:6-7

So now in Britain, do you not know that there is a war on?

Truth and justice are the first casualties of war. Politicians will try to make out that every religion is the same, either through their ignorance, or their deceit. You in the Church of England know that this is simply not true.

So what must be your response? You must preach the truth, to the politicians and the public alike. You must teach about the bloodthirsty verses in the Quran. You must teach about the deceit at the core of Islam.

The fig tree may yet bear fruit, and this is its last chance. If it does not, it will wither and die, and so will this great nation likewise.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

The cruelty of Halal slaughter

Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and we cannot abide to see cruelty to animals.

Quite rightly, the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is active in bringing perpetrators to justice.

However, there remain some very cruel practices, perpetrated almost every day, and nothing is done about it. Indeed the practice is increasing rapidly.

This is, of course, the slaughter of animals for Halal meat.

Whilst the animal is fully conscious, its throat is cut. It can take two minutes to die, depending on the speed with which the blood is lost.

Here is a quote from the Farm Animal Welfare Council document 'Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing'

This report is Crown Copyright 2003 and can be downloaded from
http://www.fawc.org.uk/

"195. When a very large transverse incision is made across the neck a number of vital tissues are transected including: skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries,jugular veins, major nerve trunks (e.g. vagus and phrenic nerves) plus numerous minor nerves. Such a drastic cut will inevitably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal. We are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibilitysupervenes."

The practice of Halal slaughter should be stopped, on animal welfare grounds. However, it is increasing, since Halal meat is now used routinely in schools, hospitals and restaurants, (and also the Royal Navy) even though the majority who attend are not Muslims.

If Halal production cannot be stopped entirely, then as a minimum, the food must be clearly labelled as containing Halal meat. It must be possible for those who do not wish to support such cruelty to have an alternative meal on the menu.

It is against democratic principles that a minority should impose their wishes upon the majority, particularly as the majority are distressed by such actions.

Britain is changing considerably under pressure from Islam.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

It is just not Cricket

We appear to have a clash of cultures, leading to much bloodshed around the world. Such clashes involve not just the bombing of civilian targets by Islamic terrorists, but inevitably spill over to sporting events.

Not everyone follows the sport of Cricket, but it would seem that Islamic attitudes are having a significant impact here also.

Let me briefly explain the background, for those not familiar with the events at the Oval cricket ground on August 20th 2006.

At the time of the ball tampering allegations, the England team were batting, and the Pakistan team were fielding.

The two umpires were Darrell Hare (Australian) and Billy Doctrove (West Indian).

Ball tampering involves deliberately scratching the ball, which results in the ball moving in a way that is hard for a batsman to anticipate. Clearly, tampering with the ball is to the considerable advantage of the fielding team, in this case Pakistan.

It is unfortunately the case that Pakistan have over the years developed a reputation for ball tampering.

Darrell Hare is a typical, down to earth Australian, who brooks no nonsense on the Cricket pitch. He has had a very long career, at the pinnacle of international umpiring. He is a stickler for applying the rules of Cricket rigorously, without fear or favour. The world of Cricket owes him a great debt of gratitude for his work to raise the standards of the game. We can see from these recent events that such high standards are now doomed.

Of course, such an upholding of honesty and integrity will not endear an umpire to the players, particularly those players who seek to bend the rules. However, umpiring is not a popularity contest.

We can see that Islam is inherently dishonest, simply by this quote from the Hadiths:

"Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). " Hadith Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64

Of course, it is unfair to say that just because Islam is inherently dishonest, that every individual Muslim will also be dishonest. However, having some understanding of cultural backgrounds can help us to make sense of events. It is also true to say that not everyone who comes from a Christian background is necessarily honest, even though such a background is indeed inherently honest.

So what of the events at the Oval cricket ground?

Briefly:

1. The umpires had cause to suspect that the ball was behaving unpredictably.

2. Both umpires carefully examined the ball, and both of them concluded that it had been tampered with by the Pakistan team. Note that it is necessary for both umpires to be unanimous in the case of ball tampering.

3. A five run penalty was awarded against the Pakistan team, the ball was changed, and play resumed.

4. The game paused for tea, as usual.

5. Heated discussions then ensued within the Pakistan team, during the tea break.

6. The umpires and the batsmen returned to the pitch at the end of tea time.

7. The Pakistan team did not appear. They were twice asked to come out, but refused to do so on both occasions, in protest at the umpires' decision.

8. After waiting for eleven minutes, the umpires removed the bails from the stumps, indicating that the game was over, and that Pakistan had forfeited the game by refusing to play.

Play for the following day did not then occur of course, resulting in a considerable financial loss, as the tickets had to be refunded.

Two charges were then brought against the Pakistan team, and in particular, the captan Inzaman-ul-Haq:

Firstly, the charge of ball tampering, which they were disputing.
Secondly, the charge of bringing the game into disrepute, by failing to resume play after tea.

For the players, the first charge is more significant, since it calls into question their honesty. For the game of Cricket generally, the second is far more significant.

There was then a two day hearing, some weeks later, by the ICC, to consider these two charges. The results are:

On the first charge of ball tampering, on the balance of probabilities, and taking evidence from expert witnesses, the verdict is "not proven".

On the second charge of bringing the game into disrepute, the verdict is "guilty".

The Pakistan captain was then penalised with the minimum punishment possible.

Obviously, it is hard to comment on whether tampering did in fact occur, not being an expert in these matters, and having no opportunity to examine the ball myself.

Nevertheless, nobody comes out of this sorry affair terribly well.

It looks probable that the long and distinguished career of Darrell Hare may be over.

My main concern is that the role of umpires has been significantly undermined. It is unlikely that they will now have the courage to uphold the rules as rigorously, and Cricket is likely to slide into anarchy, as umpires seek to keep the Pakistan team mollified. Other teams are then likely to cause difficulties, if they see Pakistan being given unfair advantages.

The ICC has also lost the trust of its umpires, by making public a private communication from Darrell Hare. It would seem that he has been set up to be a fall guy. Far better to lose one umpire, than for another game to collapse in disarray, with all the financial loss of refunding tickets.

It may be that the ICC hopes that the affair is now over, but is it?

One wonders how the expert witnesses were selected, and in particular retired player Geoffrey Boycott. How independant was he as a witness? He writes a column in "The Daily Telegraph" newspaper.

A day after the ill-fated game, he wrote:
"It is not the first time that such allegations have been made against Pakistan. There were similar claims after a one-day international at Lord's in 1992 and Imran Khan, the great figure of Pakistan cricket, admitted in his autobiography that he had used a bottle top to tamper with the ball.
...
You have to remember that the Pakistan players are deeply religious and pray five times a day, so an allegation of cheating hurts them."

After the two day hearing, he wrote:
"After all this, there is a danger that whenever Pakistan make the ball reverse-swing, people will automatically think they must have been doing something to the ball. We all know there is a history there. Bowlers like Wasim Akram and Imran Khan have admitted that they used tampering techniques in the past.
Last year, though, England beat Australia with reverse-swing, used superbly by Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones. That was treated as fair play simply on the basis that they were white men. But it would be unfortunate if people went around assuming that Pakistanis cheat and white men don't."

It is a clear sign that someone has a weak argument when they imply that someone else is racist. It clearly has no bearing in the case of the ball tampering charge on this occasion, since the West Indian umpire was in unanimous agreement with Darrell Hare. This is clearly a nonsensical argument anyway, since, as far as I know, nobody is implying that other non-white teams (India or West Indies for example) have been ball tampering.

The other nonsense of course is to assume that just because someone is deeply religious, does not mean that they are thereby prevented from cheating. One also has to ask: What is the nature of that religion? As we have seen from the quote from the Hadiths, it is perfectly fine within Islam to cheat one's enemies. It would be interesting to know whether Geoffrey Boycott, or anyone else who makes such apologies for Islam, have actually read the Quran or Hadiths. Does Geoffrey Boycott know whether Wasim Akram and Imran Khan are deeply religious? His logic would imply that they are not.

It is a sorry sight to see the world of Cricket descending into anarchy. It is also a sad day when "The Daily Telegraph" newspaper prints such columns. As the leading quality newspaper in Britain, it is disturbing to see that its standards have slipped so far.

Nevertheless, in Britain we have a long tradition of freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. So even though I have some doubts about the way in which Geoffrey Boycott has castigated Darrell Hare, I support his rights to do so, in terms of his freedom of speech.

As Geoffrey Boycott was called as an expert witness in this case, however, it is perfectly valid to ask whether he approached that role with an open mind, or whether he had already decided in his own mind what the outcome should be. The quote from his earlier column in the newspaper would tend to imply the latter.

One wonders how the ICC selects its expert witnesses.

One wonders also whether there will be a legal dispute regarding which party is liable to pay damages for the financial loss resulting from refunding ticket sales. In which case, these issues will need to be fully examined in a proper court of law.

It is unfortunate that the action off the pitch is more enthralling than the action on the pitch.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.