Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

58 comments from readers

Carl Jones
13 August 2008 at 12:06

1. The power of theJewish lobby in British politics and media.

2. The truth behind 7/7.

3. Unchecked corruption in the City of London. Aspointed out by the out-going head of the FSA.

4. Why does Parliament and the PM have no idea what MI6 and the CIA do on the UK mainland...as illustrated in HoC questions.

5. The real purpose of the DNA data base and themaster race/programmed death/birth.

6. What NWO technology isbeing tested in South Wales, which is suiciding young people.

7. Why are the British police failing to prosecute Tony Blair for treason and war crimes.

8. Why does the British media twist the truth and tell bare faced lies.

9. The extent of Freemasonary within the British establishment.

10. Why did MI6 fail to monitor and investigate massive spikes in "put-options" prior to 9/11.

11. Why did the British government fail to investigate properly, the US shooting down of a RAF C130 North West of Baghadad, which led to the murder of some 70 British military, of which about 60 were SAS.

12, Why did the British assist Israel with its nuclear programme.

13 Blair`s hidden pre-political history.lol

I might come back with some more when I`ve got time. Will readers get to vote on these suggestions?

Derek Bennett
13 August 2008 at 12:59

I would rather the New Statesman investigated the serious problem of our EU membership and the destruction of the UK due to it.

Robert Powell
13 August 2008 at 13:01

I'm interested to know more about Carl Jones.

angrywelshman
13 August 2008 at 13:27

Oh god no!

willoyen
13 August 2008 at 13:34

public opinion on asylum is permeated eith and polluted by the tabloid view, with which the government falls in line. Lets have a reliable NS analysis...

Jonny Mac
13 August 2008 at 15:21

Whether "suicide" can ever be a transitive verb, as claimed by Carl Jones.

Oh, and how Carl Jones is a transparent NWO Jewish freemason MI6 stooge, and the extent of the sinster power he wields within the NS website comment threads.

Viscount Firm
13 August 2008 at 16:48

Would you mind finding out who in the picture is the real Prince of Wales. I'll take a guess that it's the fella on the right - looks like his great grandfather who was a close personal friend - but what do I know?

lavinia moore
14 August 2008 at 06:03

Two suggestions.

1. loss of liberties and privacy in the face of fear based obsession for controlling citizens, keeping more and more information on them and increasing legal contraints on their lives.

2. Population management.Why is the government afraid to notice the elephant in the room?

ozzerdibazio
14 August 2008 at 09:40

1 - Human Trafficking. Expose on modern day slavery all across the United Kingdom, and how deregulation, profit margins, strict immigration policy, and economic disparity fuel the hidden crisis. Gangmasters, people, and employers who exploit the vulnerable should be exposed and punished. Labour, sadly have let this problem slide, partly out of their hands, but funding for safe houses and a more regulated workplace could help alleviate the problem. Also relaxing lap dancing, and not getting a stranglehold of this careering sexualised country has not helped.

Anti immigration policy populists have also failed to realise that stricter laws just push the poor who want to migrate at any cost into irregular migration channels - Snakeheads ETC.

I believe it is time to really unveil the terrible consequences of a liberalised economy and how people have become commidified and how the right wind media would rather charicature immigration than realise the reality.

Serosch
14 August 2008 at 13:33

Investigation into the Friends of Israel Group.

Afrasiab
14 August 2008 at 13:35

Mr Bright, No.2, I see no mention of the Friends of Israel Group.

Martin Bright
14 August 2008 at 14:51

Some good comments here. The human trafficking suggestion is a good one.

Carl Jones
14 August 2008 at 23:19

Hello Bob darling....why are you so interested in ME?LOL

You may have watched The Matrix, I watched it with my son. I thought it was just a film, but while chatting with a City type, he used The Matrix as an analogy. The star of the movie is given a choice between two coloured pills, one pill will allow his life to continue as it is....like 99% of the British public today, the other pill brings reality, a reality far removed from the illusion spun by our NWO and its client media.

Of course, this is just a movie, but in my case, I had a father who was in the police and suffered under Freemason`s power. My father predicted John Stalkers resignation on the right week. However, I had a very happy life until 9/11 and sure enough, the world really did change for me....I still have a very happy life, but once you see/ are shown the light, there is no turning back.

I`m not particularly religious, but there is one lesson I will always live by.....I will not walk by, I will not cross over to the otherside of the road. Of course, with all this NWO lying and a complicit MSM, the people who walk the road don`t understand the events unfolding before their eyes, so as a general rule, they walk by.

BTW Robert, my motivation for helping out on the road of life has nothing to do with getting my pic in OK magazine. I`ve listed 13 topics for investigation, all of them are seriously important. But as we can see Mr Bright is voting for a "B" topic, a topic which in the grand reality, is just a tic on a hippos rump....id Martin was serious, he would suggest a "lockdown" in London`s most upmarket ghettoes where imported women are effectively kidnapped by the wealthy who hold their passports. Martin???

Carl Jones
15 August 2008 at 10:45

BTW, I could add more questions by a factor of 5. However, for now, I`ll add just one.

The NS should investigate the sinister motives of "Common Purpose".lol

http://www.stopcp.com/index.php

Maybe the NS doesn`t know what its supporting???

Martin Bright
15 August 2008 at 14:56

Lobbying made a strong start, but interesting to see that asylum has pulled ahead. Could it be an unassailable lead?

MaxDunbar
15 August 2008 at 15:09

Number 5. Future historians will recoil from our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers - it is the shame of a civilised nation.

MaxDunbar
15 August 2008 at 15:10

Alternatively, it might be funny to investigate Carl Jones.

david
15 August 2008 at 15:35

noone should suffer in UK in the 21st century. Brittain should give asylum seekers opportunity to work not to rely on bennefits.we running away from terror .why is UK giving AID to people outside its country living people in its country being destitutes

Carl Jones
15 August 2008 at 17:30

Martin Bright; what is the point of asking for reader suggestions if readers can`t vote for them?

Martin Bright
15 August 2008 at 18:38

Carl - we are leaving the original five up for a reasonable time and then we will make a decision about adding some more.

None of your suggestions yet qualify as they are not serious enough.

gcarth
15 August 2008 at 22:45

Martin Bright says "None of your suggestions (made by Carl Jones) yet qualify as they are not serious enough". Oh really!

Well, I can see at least two or three of Carl's suggestions that are really at least as important as those five you suggest.

Why shouldn't we discuss the subject of trying Blair for war crimes? That's a pretty serious and a valid argument isn't it?

Why shouldn't we discuss the power of the Jewish lobby in the media? They do seem to have disproportionate power in economic and social affairs as in the US.

Oh, and as Carl says; how about the unchecked corruption in the city of London?

Your proposal to investigate the state of British childhood is a pointless excercise unless you first investigate the state of British adulthood (or lack of it)

Britain is in a hell of a mess to put it politely, and the simple reason is because we allow our politicians to be in thrall to the US and big business and we keep repeating the mantra of economic growth and consumption when it is plainly unsustainable and is making more and more of us unhappy.

Another topic might be who and where are the moles in the media? Before you say I'm paranoid, I might remind you that ex-intelligence experts have asserted this, not me.

Pencils
16 August 2008 at 01:50

" None of your suggestions yet qualify as they are not serious enough."

That is EXTREMELY supercilious.

1. "The power of theJewish lobby in British politics and media."

That is a serious enough point for a list of senior academics and surgeons, to put their names to a call for an investigation.

2." The truth behind 7/7."

Is Martin Bright saying that the truth about this is now known, that there are no oddities about the official story, like the coincidence of a training operation for a terrorist attack with the real thing, same as 9/11. I freely admit I'm not up to speed on all this stuff, but I'm sure a lot of your readers have encountered questions, so would you not think it serious, if you feel that all questions have been answered, to share it with your readers?

3. "Unchecked corruption in the City of London. Aspointed out by the out-going head of the FSA."

Private Eye finds this serious enough to give it regular, and much lauded, coverage. What not serious?

4." Why does Parliament and the PM have no idea what MI6 and the CIA do on the UK mainland...as illustrated in HoC questions".

The only thing not serious about this is that it omitted mention of Mossad.

5. " The real purpose of the DNA data base and the master race/programmed death/birth" .

First part, " real purpose of the DNA database...", fine! The second part - I know what he's getting at, but admit it could be more focused.

6." What NWO technology is being tested in South Wales, which is suiciding young people."

I agree that this would have to be supported 'more extensively' to be considered serious.

7. " Why are the British police failing to prosecute Tony Blair for treason and war crimes."

Are you serious that this isn't serious?

8. " Why does the British media twist the truth and tell bare faced lies."

I believe that NS has given at least some token consideration of this topic, and the answer is well-known anyway, but 'not serious'?

9. " The extent of Freemasonary within the British establishment."

Certainly serious, and due for another airing.

10." Why did MI6 fail to monitor and investigate massive spikes in "put-options" prior to 9/11."

This was widely reported as happening on Wall Street, but I haven't seen ANY coverage of what happened in the City of London. So - VERY SERIOUS! References Carl?

11. " Why did the British government fail to investigate properly, the US shooting down of a RAF C130 North West of Baghadad, which led to the murder of some 70 British military, of which about 60 were SAS."

I've never heard of this, so VERY SERIOUS IF TRUE. References Carl?

12, " Why did the British assist Israel with its nuclear programme."

To be fair, I think this gets a regular airing, but hardly 'not serious'.

13 " Blair`s hidden pre-political history.lol"

Yes, I have often wondered at the media presentation of Blair's pre-history as a happy-go-lucky rock and roller. There seems to be very little info from 'people who actually knew him' - one old girlfriend is trotted out sometimes. If no-one knew him, why not? Have earlier acquaintances had their memories erased? VERY SERIOUS!

In summary, Carl's suggestions are at least 90% serious, and 70% ripe, even urgent, for discussion.

Derek Bennett's point too - there have been enough reports to show conclusively that EU membership has been, and will continue to be, a disaster for the UK. What needs discussion is why it is impossible for anyone who asserts UK interests to get anywhere in our political culture.

Forgive me for wondering if Martin Bright is really saying that 'serious' is off the table.

Martin Bright
16 August 2008 at 11:14

Please be sensible. I am talking about "investigations". Trying Blair for war crimes does not qualify. The influence of the Jewish lobby is pure anti-Semitism. The 9/11 idea is pure bonkers. Please keep within the realms of reality

Carl Jones
16 August 2008 at 19:41

Pencils, the were several MSM reports on the RAF C130`s altitude. Most of the references have been cleaned away, or edited.

However, the link below points to an altitude of 4000m, I believe this has been changed, because I remember the Newscientist quoting 19,000ft.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6950

The original article states the "crash footprint" was so large that the C130 exploded at 19,000ft, or higher.

The C130 had no time to mayday, they made no indication that they were under fire, or that a missile was inbound...no counter messures were deployed.

The final report said the C130 was flying at low altitude. I know from reading verious MSM reports at the time this was not true. The C130 was making a short 40 mile hop to a location North West of Baghdad and came down about halfway through this trip. The C130 is designed to climb and decend quickly, so no point in flying low. The only way for the authorities to wrap this up was to claim that insurgents shot it down.

We must consider the facts, this was a British plane carrying out an operation in US controlled Iraq. The US has plenty of its own planes, so this particular plane was likely carrying out a special forces operation.

I was tipped off that The Telegraph was going to tell the true story, but was gagged. Tony Blair appeared on BBC miday news crying his eyes out.....no wonder with upto 60 SAS dead and 10 crew!!!

It is my belief the C130 was shot down by a US plane at "point blank range".....this would cause the crew no alarm, the US plane drops behind and lets one go. I`m not even sure if the counter messures would operate with a missile being fired so close.

We all remember the rumblings of senior British military about the unsatisfactory working relationship between US and UK forces on the ground, it is my belief that these SAS forces were sick to the back teeth having to fight with the Americanos....they had no doubt complained, maybe threatened to break their silence....the US got wind of this and decided to gag them premenently.

There is no doubt that this RAF C130 was flying at an altitude beyond any insurgent capability. Couple this to the FACT that the crew gave no indictaion they were under attack.

Just as the British government has given the US more control over UK citizens (none evidence based extradition), the British govenment will sacrifice UK military forces to maintain the illusion of harmony.

The other day, a close Klinton aid was gunned down, a short time later, the alledged killer was persuded and shot dead by police......yeh, right, I really believe it.LOL

It costs a small fortune to train an SAS soildier and they lay their lieves on the line everytime they go on operation....so we don`t need the US murdering them, because their soldiers can`t abide with the basic rules of war.

We the public are the only ones who are just about free enough to fight for the welfare of our military forces. This is why this coverup needs to be investigated. I don`t expect the NS to investigate, but at least few more people know whats going on. See my next suggestion.

Mr Bright, "please be sensible"....don`t you mean, "please be safe"? The Met police are sitting on hard EVIDENCE that Blair is a war criminal. Anyone who has the basics of UK and International law explained to them will soon reach the conclusion that Blair committed treason and war crimes. Mark my words, Blair will never feel safe while he is alive.

The Jewish lobby is not anti-semitism....most Israeli`s want migrate to Europe, most want Isreal to join the EU, because they will partially escape the evile control axis of The City of London and Wall St......ORDINARY JEWS NEED PROTECTING FROM THE JEWISH LOBBY.....WE ALL DO. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism.

I won`t even respond to your 9/11 assertion, apart from the FACT that I didn`t mention a 9/11 investigation....

.....I mentioned an investigation into the MASSIVE SPIKES in "put-options" prior to 9/11. These put-options were in the companies based in the WTC and the airlines who alledgedly had hijacked planes involved in "alledgedly" hitting the WTC on 9/11. Both the CIA and MI6 monitor all financial trading and they are looking for spikes/rregular trading paterns.....its not rocket science to pin-point the WTC as a target. These irregular trades can be traced to financial institutions in London and Frankfurt and that key people (at the time) working in said FI`s had previousely worked for the CIA....oh yes.

At the time, this money making scam was blamed on al-Qaeda and specifically on Bin Laden....this was another NWO bare faced lie.LOL

Martin, "please keep within the realms of reality"....would that be your NWO constructed reality?LOL

The publc demands answers to these questions, or is the NS just another card in the NWO house of cards...."I couldn`t possibly comment"!LOL

antileft
17 August 2008 at 05:43

"I'm interested to know more about Carl Jones."

"Whether "suicide" can ever be a transitive verb, as claimed by Carl Jones.

"Oh, and how Carl Jones is a transparent NWO Jewish freemason MI6 stooge, and the extent of the sinster power he wields within the NS website comment threads."

"Alternatively, it might be funny to investigate Carl Jones."

I just want to echo these points- I'd like to know about Carl Jones' state of mind. It might also be nice to research whether there's a job available somewhere for him.

By the way Carl, I do love how everything fits into your fantasy. Its great :)

Aids? NWO. Iraq? NWO. A clinton aid dies? NWO. An earthquake in China? NWO. Tsunami? NWO. Global warming? NWO. You cant get a job? NWO. Your doctor wont keep giving you free treatment unless you stop eating so badly and do some exercise? NWO. The government cuts your benefits because you wont accept the jobs they keep offering? NWO. The NS deletes an anti-semitic post? NWO. The NS removes an old article that you were posting on? NWO.

Yup, investigate Carl Jones- there is so much we all want to know.

antileft
17 August 2008 at 05:47

LOL!

Morgan097
17 August 2008 at 16:58

antileft,

"Yup, investigate Carl Jones- there is so much we all want to know."

Betcha NSA and MI5 already hot on Carl's brown little tail. No wonder these boobs lost the war.

Carl Jones
17 August 2008 at 17:23

Out of work Jonesey is off to France tommorow for about 15 days.LOL I could continue to make comments from the Deux Sevres, but the family won`t be too impressed.LOL

Morgan097
17 August 2008 at 18:28

antileft,

What an unexpectedly quick exit for Carl! Guess the little Eichmann wannabe was so preoccupied with the thrill of at last having unsupervised access to the internet that he failed to calculate the logical consequences of his foolish bravado.

Pencils
17 August 2008 at 18:29

Carl Jones - great stuff on the SAS plane. I remember hearing about that now, but I didn't realise that there were 60 of them! That must be a huge blow to Britain's capabilities.

As to the 'choice': you'd have to have been living on Mars to not notice that, apart from Prince Charles, all these topics are covered regularly in all the mainstream media and tv, the current front-runner 'Asylum crisis', being the most covered.

This is as much a choice as is the 'choice' between the Labour, Tory, and Lib-Dem parties. The 'real' urgent topic for investigation is why, when a sizeable majority supports leaving the EU, and there is almost unanimity in wanting to maintain the NHS as a COMPLETELY public service, there is NO chance of getting a government that reflects the will of the people.

I wouldn't be surprised, if this gets a response, that I'm going to hear something along the lines of ' if government reflected the will of the people, we would have public execution of child-molesters on hearsay evidence...'

raggedyman
17 August 2008 at 21:28

In the run up to the Iraq War we were clearly let down by the Political Establishment insofar as the substantial opposition of the citizenry in this country to that ill-advised conflict had no effective political representation. This failure of course was further compounded by the Government's systematic programme of disinformation now fully and belatedly exposed to public scrutiny.

However is there not a case for arguing that the biggest failure of all was the liberal mainstream press whose objectivity, powers of critical thought, and innate skepticism all evaporated magically during those febrile days?

The media still seem oddly unchastened by their gross failures and failings that helped take a country into an illegal conflict and contributed substantively to global insecurity. Should we not, therefore, have the media investigate the media?

Perhaps a working title might be:

'The Bright That Failed'

Morgan097
17 August 2008 at 22:22

What's cookin', raggy?

I see the Iraq war in a different light.

Before the invasion, paleocon columnist Bob Novak, a loud, colorful, Israel-hating dinosaur, was the star attraction on a now-defunct, Sunday CNN political shoutfest called "The Capital Gang."

He was the only member of the panel who doubted the existence of nuclear weapons in Saddam's inventory. Every other panelist scoffed at what they all considered Novak's predictably pro-Arab opinion.

Before the war, every -- repeat --every western intelligence agency and even Russia, believed that Iraq possessed WMDs. Democratic ex-president Bill Clinton, whose eight years of access to the highest levels of US national security intelligence made him the most neutral of evaluators, publicly expressed his complete agreement. DCI (not Detective Chief Inspector, but Director of Central Intelligence) George Tenet called the certainty of the proposition a "slam dunk."

The accusation that US intelligence-gathering was negligent is perfectly valid; the accusation that Bush intentionally lied, knowing that no nuclear arsenal existed, is not.

On a different subject, why, raggy, do you suppose that so many apologists for the USSR appear never to have read either "The Light That Failed" or "Darkness At Noon"?

Martin Bright
17 August 2008 at 22:23

I'm afraid I have to admit failure on that one raggedyman, despite my best efforts

raggedyman
18 August 2008 at 00:41

As usual Morg I find myself somewhere between battered and badgered - but a tongue-lashing by your good self is always half welcome in these dull times.

You do me a great disservice - I have Koestler's complete works. I admire him greatly both as a man and as an author. His experiences as detailed in his magnum opus defined the man - life on his terms as his subsequent double suicide with his wife demonstrated.

Your remarks vis-a-vis Bush are difficult to take seriously: I am sure he gets his lines and he reads his lines as to whether they are true or not well here he puts great trust in Uncle Dick.

The struggle to get the Ruskies to sign up to the second resolution at the UN which would have given the Iraq Invasion a fig-leaf of legality suggests they were not that convinced. Nor were a great many others. Most relied on US intelligence; a mistake they seem reluctant to repeat.

The determination to go to war in Iraq brought both intelligence communities [US and UK] close to the point of internecine warfare. The effects of this are still reverberating and may yet have serious consequences. But it is Mr Blair and his dossier that should be singled out for particular opprobrium.

Of course our media was shamefully complicitous - but nothing compared to the US I understand.

I think the LA Times is worth consulting up to a point.

I like 'The Nation' also as it represents a nostalgic reminder of a time when people believed in something decent and honest.

raggedyman
18 August 2008 at 00:55

Bright:

Let's face it there was a time when journalists would have resigned rather than put up with the antics of Roger Alton and his sub-Lieutenant thwarting stories of merit even crossing the line, God forbid, into darkest Mordor and non-neutrality. This has been a milestone in the steady downward trend of modern day journalism - just as corroded by filthy lucre as our political system appears to be.

A lot of journalists let us down when it came to the crunch. They acquiesced rather than make a stand. Perhaps mortgages, school fees, and job security count more these days than truth or principles.

Johnsmith
18 August 2008 at 01:38

Who is the next victim after China's human rights records?

the answer is the UK

has the UK improved its human rights records yet or waiting 2012, to improve them?

Who knows

the UK has highly criticized China, don't we say:

CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME?

Thousands of asylum seekers are being tortured in the UK, for the sake of government voters and the failure of UK Asylum system, known as "not fit for purpose"

The world is watching and surely will react soon, who knew China's human rights issues were to make big headlines one day?

Let's wait and see

Morgan097
18 August 2008 at 04:33

raggy,

I meant neither to batter nor badger you (I won't speak for Rommel), only to convey my understanding of the leadup to invasion. I realize full well that yours is the received wisdom shared by most left wing critics of the war, just as mine is that of most US neoconservatives.

I in no way presumed to imply that you personally were unversed in the works of Koestler, only that those nostalgic for the old Soviet Union tend to ignore them.

R: Your remarks vis-a-vis Bush are difficult to take seriously: I am sure he gets his lines and he reads his lines as to whether they are true or not well here he puts great trust in Uncle Dick.

M: I didn't quote Bush; it just seemed so abundantly obvious to 90% of the US public that because Saddam was deliberately obstructing weapons inspectors, the only conceivable explanation must logically be his concealment of WMDs. A sane Saddam would have cooperated fully with inspectors and avoided the noose, but a sane Saddam would have been a contradiction in terms:

1. His admitted role models were Stalin and Hitler.

2. He ran a murderous, cruel and brutal authoritarian Baathist dictatorship

3. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and in '88 poisoned Halabja's Kurdish civilians with Sarin, Tabun, VX and probably mustard gas

4. He invaded Iran and Kuwait causing perhaps a million deaths.

5. He was developing atomic weapons before the first Gulf war, and had the scientists, engineers and technical expertise to resume his pursuit as soon as sanctions could be lifted.

6. He was financially subsidizing with large, well-publicized checks the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with large, well-publicized checks.

7. He corrupted practically every member of the Security Council (and anyone else in the vicinity) with $12 billion worth of bribes in the Oil-For-Food scandal, in a growingly successful effort to eviscerate sanctions;

8. Had he not been stopped when he was, Russia, France and China would have gladly ended those sanctions at once, permitting those three permanent SC members to resume their lucrative Iraqi commerce with a grateful Saddam, and once again providing his regime with the wherewithal to resume unhindered his quest for a nuclear capability , an invulnerable thumb on the oil spigot, and complete regional hegemony.

R: The struggle to get the Ruskies to sign up to the second resolution at the UN which would have given the Iraq Invasion a fig-leaf of legality suggests they were not that convinced. Nor were a great many others. Most relied on US intelligence; a mistake they seem reluctant to repeat.

M: Russia would never have agreed to a Security Council green light for the invasion of a client state, although it had duped the US into believing that it might do so.

NATO never even bothered to go to the SC before attacking Serbia because it knew that Russia would veto any resolution agreeing to war against another of its thuggish allies.

As I've repeatedly written, the UN is a thoroughly corrupt and useless institution, whose moral authority is nil. How many more scandals, massacres, Rwandas, Darfurs, and Zimbabwes are required before you realize this? And if you can name a single western intelligence service that seriously doubted the existence of Saddam's WMDs, please do so.

And lotus-eating western Europeans, with no significant military capability of their own, will always prefer appeasement to confrontation.

R: The determination to go to war in Iraq brought both intelligence communities [US and UK] close to the point of internecine warfare.

M: That'll be the day.

R: I like 'The Nation' also as it represents a nostalgic reminder of a time when people believed in something decent and honest.

M: raggy, raggy, raggy. The Nation is the most knee-jerk, leftist, anti-American publication on US newsstands. The twin towers were still smouldering when Katrina vanden Heuvel and her motley crew were wringing their hands, asking what America could do to earn bin Laden's forgiveness.

Aside from these few petty exceptions, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say!

antileft
18 August 2008 at 08:08

"The 'real' urgent topic for investigation is why, when a sizeable majority supports leaving the EU, and there is almost unanimity in wanting to maintain the NHS as a COMPLETELY public service, there is NO chance of getting a government that reflects the will of the people."

There's a pretty pimple answer, Pencils. Because opinion polls don't count: votes count. And not just votes- but votes after a serious debate in the country (not just in the tabloids), and in parliament.

The people also want to bring back capital punishment. So why not bring it back? Because the moment the country seriously starts talking about it, going over the options and potential results, theyll realise it's a very, very stupid idea. So no need for an investigation here- just a little logic will do.

Oh and Carl Jones, is your wife paying the trip to france? I thought so.

antileft
18 August 2008 at 08:49

Oh and morgan, while it's a relief to hear from someone who isnt a whining british leftie in these forums for once, why do you even bother with the ridiculous WMD argument? First, "WMD" is a very loose term and includes things which arent a serious threat to country's like ours with infinitely more deadly weapons (which is why the term was used). Indeed, we sell plenty of "WMD" to dictators all over the world. Second, are you seriously claiming that somehow a reason for bombing someone is "because they have nukes or something really dangerous"? Come on, that's a reason NOT to bomb someone! Surely, thats pretty obvious, isnt it?

And please dont tell me that somehow "they could give them to the terrorists" because that would show a complete lack of understanding of the secular arab nationalist movements. Besides which, you should know who sells the most weapons to crappy dysfunctional regimes. Weve cornered that market- no doubt about that.

Please keep slagging off these pathetic, lotus eating Europeans though. They sure are a bore.

antileft
18 August 2008 at 09:06

"4. He invaded Iran and Kuwait causing perhaps a million deaths."

Im so tired of hearing this too... Please leave out "Iran" next time. You know full well that we supported him in that. Indeed, that was the period when we sold him the most weapons. Bad, bad argument

And this one is pathetic too:

"2. He ran a murderous, cruel and brutal authoritarian Baathist dictatorship"

Honestly morgan, Im right wing too so youre a bit embarrassing here. You really shouldnt use arguments which are so lame. A "murderous, cruel and brutal authoritarian Baathist dictatorship" is pretty similar to the "murderous, cruel and brutal authoritarian wahhabist dictatorship" that we sell WMD to, or any of the other lousy regimes that America is friends with. So, its really not a reason. You shouldnt even put it- its like saying "well, Im out of ideas so Ill just chuck this in for anyone dumb enough to be unaware of all the crappy regimes we bankroll". I can understand in some circumstances using that argument- like when it's urgent and would prevent masses of killing (Zimbabwe or Sudan for example) but not 10 years after the massacre! That's just ridiculous! Turkey has killed plenty of kurds in that time- you wouldnt bomb them would you? So come on- quit pimping such a dumb war or use more serious arguments.

Carl Jones
18 August 2008 at 10:54

Hello my name is Helen and my husband Carl is paying for our holiday in France. Why this is of any concern to anybody else is beyond me and I find it very sexist that some of you assume that the man has to be the main breadwinner. We are now off to catch our plane.

Oh dear, now look what you`ve done, I`m in the dog-house again.LOL

raggedyman
18 August 2008 at 11:19

Morg:

Ah, I see we are into another area where we are unlikely to reach a consensus.

I think this is a timely moment to point out that I am neither left nor right in any meaningful sense. I believe that both Stalin and Churchill were, like Millie, terribly terribly modern. Hitler too for that matter.

I am more accurately though a true communist as I believe in grass-roots 'communities' as the best way to realise the 'good life'. But I believe also that evolution is preferable revolution in seeking this goal. A bottom-up rather than a top-down approach you might say. Grassroots movements, traditional communities, a more informed/empowered citizenry - back to a saner scale of living where, when people do behave badly (which they do some of the time but not most of the time), the consequences are proportionately less ghastly; less catastrophic from the point of view of human misery/suffering. I know what you're going to say: that growing a beard and wearing a woolly jumper is no defense against the evil ones. But I believe that one day the bewhiskered woolly jumpered ones will outnumber the evil ones and not before time if you ask me. They just need a bit of coaxing; to be tickled a bit with respectful exchanges of ideas rather than have their innards turned out by a Thermobaric Bomb.

Saddam saw himself above all as a new Saladin who would unite the Arab peoples into a single greater nation - the aspirations of a pan-Arabic nationalism that propelled the secular Baathist movement.

It was never going to be palatable to the Western Powers and much of the ensuing strife and misery in the region can be attributed to the desire of the Great Powers to thwart this project of Arab unification. Arab disunity has been the main guiding principle of the region's geopolitics. Thus Kissinger could say of the Iraq-Iran War - 'it's a pity both sides couldn't lose'. Baathism and Islam are potent unifiers and are feared in equal measure for this reason.

Nothing is murkier than the media disinformation and black propaganda over this region's troubled history. Just to take your one point concerning Halabja; here is the US War College's own conclusions after close examination of the eye-witness accounts and forensic data:

Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, closely studied evidences of "genocide in Halabja" has described his group's findings: "The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."

Iran and its Revolutionary Guard had taken the town with the help of partisan Kurdish guerrillas and held it for several months. The Iraqi counter-attack used Mustard Gas but as the War College also pointed out: this is an incapacitating agent that only results in death in 2% of cases. Perhaps the Iraqi attack on the town might be defended in the same way that NATO currently does in Afghanistan - that is by accusing the defenders of using civilians most egregiously as human shields. A typical tactic of evil ones I believe.

Clearly the US stirred the pot vigorously during the Iraq-Iran War assisting both sides (whatever happened to Olly North?) with WMD perhaps also 'inadvertently' facilitating the Iraqi Nuclear programme. When the US pegged out the Kuwaiti rabbit for the Iraqi fox in 1990 it was with the intention of fully neutralising the Iraqi Military threat and to prepare the way for change to a more congenial regime. The extent to which US bombing destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure including Water Treatment Plants and its dire consequences for the civilian population has never been fully reported in the mainstream press. But this bombing 'back to the stone age' and subsequent sanctions must account for many thousands of civilian lives - many would argue hundreds of thousands.

It was after a decade of such sanctions that we were supposed to believe that Iraq had rebuilt itself into a threat so great that 'doing nothing was not an option'. There were many in both the US and the UK intelligence community who viewed the talking up of the Iraqi threat by politicians with growing alarm - not least because of its potential to do great harm to the 'credibility' of bona fide intelligence work. You had the Plame/Niger affair whilst we had the shameful Dr Kelly episode.

If Bush has escaped impeachment it is likely that it is because neither political party in the US has any real appetite for a process that could do irreparable harm to their most revered political institution. In short another Nixon might have had people wondering if it was the system not the man that's all f**ked up.

Re: the UN

I know UN-bashing is a favourite past-time of neocons but the UN is generally only as effective as the sum of its parts - even if it is weighted generously in favour of certain parts. The US have cynically supported the UN when it serves their geopolitical interests and actively sought to sabotage it when it doesn't; and nothing is more illustrative of this than Rwanda where the US not only opposed increasing the peacekeeping force and expanding its mandate but actively campaigned to draw down the force during the height of the massacres. This was the moment when Richard Clarke at the NSA and orchestrator of US policy on the Rwandan crisis drew up his ignominious Policy on

Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations

(PDD 25) - effectively a doctrine of no troop committal except in the most extreme and verifiable of circumstances. It guaranteed that the killings would go on with US acquiescence. The fact that it assisted their sponsee, Kagame, into power may be purely coincidental.

raggy, raggy, raggy. The Nation is the most knee-jerk, leftist, anti-American publication on US newsstands.

yeah it's what we call 'mainstream' over here. You should read it occasionally in the interests of balance. Prospect and the WSJ can't possibly give you the rounded picture you know.

To quote a twentieth-century revolutionary of the modern:

'Earlier revolutions were against peasants, or nobility, or the clergy or against dynasties and their network of vassals, but in no case has revolution succeeded without the presence of a lightening rod that could conduct and channel the odium of the general masses'

And fear of course.

raggedyman
18 August 2008 at 11:30

antileft:

Bugger off mate. I enjoy fencing with Morgy because I believe that a man who lives with a badger can't be all bad - you on the other hand are clearly beyond redemption.

Morgan097
18 August 2008 at 15:50

raggy,

Your 11:30 directive to antileft is the funniest damn thing I've read all year.

Your answer to me was excellent, so it'll take me a while to respond to it properly.

But for God's sake, raggy:

never, never, never refer to yourself as a communist in any context. In the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans, the very word conjures up the specter of Stalin. As for trot, in the US the noun stands/stood for diarrhea (as in "galloping trots").

Morgan097
18 August 2008 at 16:44

And raggy,

Take a gander at the 10:54 Carl Jones post.

The no doubt prepubescent "Jones" - who else would assume the handle of a footballer? - would now have us believe that he's in fact an adult with a wife to defend him.

The more things change ...

Little nazi creeps apparently still dress up in drag to evade capture.

Morgan097
18 August 2008 at 18:43

antileft,

A: why do you even bother with the ridiculous WMD argument? First, "WMD" is a very loose term and includes things which arent a serious threat to country's like ours with infinitely more deadly weapons

M: As the Strother Martin character observes in Cool Hand Luke, "what we have here is a failure to communicate." Unlike the craven Bush equivocators, when I use the term WMD I mean one thing and one thing only: nukes. Substitute nukes for WMDs and my words should become comprehensible.

A: are you seriously claiming that somehow a reason for bombing someone is "because they have nukes or something really dangerous"? Come on, that's a reason NOT to bomb someone! Surely, thats pretty obvious, isnt it?

M: Just the opposite. The reason for bombing someone is to prevent that someone from developing the capacity to deliver those nukes. Now, that's "pretty obvious."

A: And please dont tell me that somehow "they could give them to the terrorists" because that would show a complete lack of understanding of the secular arab nationalist movements.

M: Apparently, you've swallowed the airtight compartmentalization nonsense whole. The operative Arab principle remains "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Terrorists form and dissolve marriages of convenience constantly. The Sunni 9/11 zealots were accorded safe passage through fiercely Shiite Iran on their way to attack their common enemy, the US. Iran similarly cooperates with its Hamas Sunni proxies against their common enemy, Israel. Until recently, the ostensibly secular Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades coordinated their attacks upon Israeli civilians with their Hamas counterparts.

A: Besides which, you should know who sells the most weapons to crappy dysfunctional regimes. Weve cornered that market- no doubt about that.

M: In an imperfect world, it regularly becomes necessary to choose between the lesser of two (or more) evils. Stalin wasn't my best buddy either, until the greater and more immediate threat of Germany came along. And the "crappy dysfunctional" regimes that the US arms rarely represent clear and present threats to western national security."

M: He invaded Iran and Kuwait causing perhaps a million deaths."

A: Im so tired of hearing this too... Please leave out "Iran" next time. You know full well that we supported him in that. Indeed, that was the period when we sold him the most weapons. Bad, bad argument

M: There occur conflicts in which we'd prefer that both sides lose. When we supplied Saddam against Iran, we regarded the latter as the more virulently hostile regional threat and acted accordingly.

M: "He ran a murderous, cruel and brutal authoritarian Baathist dictatorship."

A: Honestly morgan, Im right wing too so youre a bit embarrassing here. You really shouldnt use arguments which are so lame. A "murderous, cruel and brutal authoritarian Baathist dictatorship" is pretty similar to the "murderous, cruel and brutal authoritarian wahhabist dictatorship" that we sell WMD to, or any of the other lousy regimes that America is friends with.

M: My (non-exhaustive) list of reasons for invasion was specifically intended to provide overall context. No single explanation should be considered in isolation from the rest.

A: I can understand in some circumstances using that argument- like when it's urgent and would prevent masses of killing (Zimbabwe or Sudan for example) but not 10 years after the massacre!

M: Saddam's murderous rampages against his own Kurds and Shiites clearly indicated how he'd behave toward Saudis and other regional regimes once he could blackmail them with nukes. As I've stated, we seldom sell arms to those who present a clear and present danger to western security.

A: Turkey has killed plenty of kurds in that time- you wouldnt bomb them would you?

M: The PKK is a violent marxist terrorist organization which threatens Turkish civilians. If the Kurds (with whom I usually strongly sympathize) refuse to restrain the PKK, it unfortunately becomes Turkey's right to protect its own citizens.

A: So come on- quit pimping such a dumb war or use more serious arguments.

M: It was a necessary war that Rumsfeld almost sabotaged with his experimental minimalist military theories.

And antileft, it's a very odd conservative who opposes capital punishment.

Pencils
18 August 2008 at 18:57

Raggedy Man - I disagree; Morgan is proof that someone who lives with a badger(?) CAN be all bad! If he can find his way to this website, he can't be dumb enough to actually believe the stuff he's coming out with.

Morgan097
18 August 2008 at 19:35

Methinks that Pimples doth sulk because Morgan of Vegas hath insulted Carl of Riefenstahl, object of P's adolescent affection.

riza
19 August 2008 at 01:59

Suggestion for NS investigation - the privatisation by stealth of the NHS and how this is being driven by EU free market economic policy and directives, as well as our own government's belief in the private sector being best

antileft
19 August 2008 at 10:22

Alright then morgan, I understand. You and I arent going to ever agree about iraq... But there is one thing that we certainly will agree on... The need for raggedyman from the last century to explain to us how on earth his system could ever possibly work.

raggedyman, here's my question to you- the other commies in this forum have always been unable to answer it. Maybe you can?

Question: If we were all paid approximately the same amount, why would anyone work more than the bare minimum? I do hope that the answer doesnt involve gulags (the realistic answer), or "loving your fellow man" (the hippie fantasist answer).

Oh and pencils, much as I (like you) disagree with morgan on Iraq, at lease he is able to articulate an actual debate. Just coming in making some lame purile joke about badgers is pathetic, and makes you sound moronic at best. Perhaps you shouldnt bother?

Oh and Helen Jones, how is Carl paying for a holiday? What job does he do? And are into the NWO fantasy too?

Morgan097
19 August 2008 at 11:46

Jesus, raggy,

"lame," "purile," "pathetic," "moronic"?

I, for one, intend to make it a point not to be within five miles of Annabel's tonight.

raggedyman
19 August 2008 at 19:56

Bejaysus and begob is it not enough that I have the brother's insane ramblings to contend with and that infernal contraption of his that he insists on keeping in his bedroom?

Since you can't spell, seem a stranger to proper punctuation, have a tone best described as shrill, and know diddlysquat about 'commies' I am guessing you are in your early twenties or late teens.

Question: If we were all paid approximately the same amount, why would anyone work more than the bare minimum?

Thanks for asking this by the way - I've never seen the principal raison d'etre of communism put better or more succinctly. To work the bare minimum - it's sheer poetry. Also be careful: there are important differences between Marxism, Communism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Stalinism, and Communitarianism; of which the latter may more closely approximate to my personal world view.

Morgan097
20 August 2008 at 04:51

raggy,

Invest in a pair of noise-cancelling headphones.

Bose QC2s, if you can swing it.

MarkBin
20 August 2008 at 06:18

I think you should investigate whether Basra is really the 'happy city' the British Establisment recently claimed it was. We should not let this foreign policy crime die with the Labour government. We have a duty to the Iraqis to ensure the Western powers that be face full scrutiny of their despicable actions.

Morgan097
21 August 2008 at 23:37

To Martin Bright:

Why not investigate the part played by the British MSM in the al-Dura Hoax?

Truthsrevenge
01 September 2008 at 12:18

antileft: "Question: If we were all paid approximately the same amount, why would anyone work more than the bare minimum? I do hope that the answer doesnt involve gulags (the realistic answer), or "loving your fellow man" (the hippie fantasist answer)."

The answer is because you take pride in what you do. the problem with this is that there are now far too many jobs that it is nigh impossible to take pride in.

In days gone by you were the best at what you did because it meant you reaped the highest rewards ie - You were the best farmer because that meant you had the most grain at the end of the year.

The problem is there is little joy to be taken from being the best fitter of wingnuts to factory assembled garden furniture or the best filler of jam jars with jam (as i have been in the past) and therefore there needs to be some other motivation for undertaking such employment.

This manifests itself in the form of hard cash allowing you to better enjoy the time you're not at work.

In my opinion the problem we have now is the over commercialisation of society means the importance of economic gain is so overiding. it occurs at the expense of all else.

The bettering of society should be the aim of all political systems. i think that the Left (communism/ socialism) admirably holds this goal in high esteem, but lacks the mechanism with which to achieve it.

An individual following the Right (liberatarianism / capitalism) is unconcerned with this aim, but it is really the only way to get the very most out of people.

A combination of the two is therefore needed and a balance somewhere around that of the UK and other western EU countries seems to work as well as can be expected, but the pendulum is always swinging....

Truthsrevenge
01 September 2008 at 12:34

also anyone interested in truth in the mainstream media please check out my blog at truthsrevenge.blogspot.com

Chadwick
01 September 2008 at 12:48

Investigate who is behind the blatent lies and misinformation on asylum issues published by the Daily Mail (and sister newspapers). Also why our government include these racist views in their policies. (There may be a common denominator)

There is growing number of UK citizens who are beginning to see through these distortions and act to save these unfortunate human beings who come here in a desparate bid for protection.

The result of our imigration policies will be the general loathing for British people when they travel abroad. When people are treated as badley as we treat their citizens heaven help anyone who breaks their laws.