Which is more important? On the one hand, we have the devastating personal tragedy of Fiona Pilkington, driven to the unlawful killing of her daughter and her own suicide, acts of desperation in response to the lack of police and official support against a regime of bullying from local thugs. On the other, we have Afghanistan. By common accord, the war is at a "decisive" state, with a very real risk of failure, made worse by strategic stasis in the White House. There, in what is being seen as a "remarkable parallel" with a turning point in the Vietnam War 44 years ago, Obama is to preside over a series of meetings that will determine whether the US will proceed with an escalation of the war or reduce the US military commitment there.

View full article here

We do if that government doesn't expect to have any power. What's the point in being serious about something you can't do anything about? Our politics have been hollowed out of power and all we have left is a ghostly PR machine.

It thinks therefore it's EU.

I was going so observe ..... just what therewaslight said. But I doubt I would have been as erudite.

My current parish council rarely comments on events outside the parish ans its neighbouring parishes. Why should a future Parish of UK council be different?

This woman killed her child. The child's Right to a Life with its other parent must not be considered. Obviously since women cannot be responsible for their actions she must have been 'driven to it'. Just another mother living off a child but unable to protect it.
That we live in a dystopian society, insouciant of the tragedies in its midst, comes precisely from the big lie that politicians in the Town Hall, Westminster or Brussels can 'care' for us, can be 'responsible' for society working.
One can only hope from the chaos of centralized systems failing there will grow local solutions.
I want to be proud to be British, but I look at our institutions and our attitudes with contempt.

Nowhere, currently, to post this without it being O/T...but it's too good to let go.

From Spiegel:



Dirndls????....die bayerische Burka???

The Pilkington tragedy...it is the UK y'know.

The other bit...al Jazeera & Xinhua are today what the BBC used to be...and ought to be...but again it is the Uk y'know

Conflicting concerns – there is a link, sort of.

Quote - “we have Afghanistan. By common accord, the war is at a "decisive" state, with a very real risk of failure”

There is also the failure in the Pilkington case, so both the armed services and the police are getting it wrong. Obviously the public would prefer the police then the armed services to get it right and in that order.

Recently you highlighted the work of Anthony King and Stephen Grey and so, rightly, criticised the army. In my opinion the failure of the UK police is even greater and more dangerous to the UK. The UK police are self serving inept and horribly expensive. It cost over £5 million to arrest Damian Green MP, he was not charged however. How bad is that?

Now let me see, the war in Afghanistan is being fought to win the war against terrorists at home - that is what is stated as the main reason for our being in that benighted country - a country that has always been at war with itself and others. The new American commander is talking of a "hearts and minds" campaign, harking back to Vietnam.

If we look back, then we see that America's defeat in Vietnam, led to America taking a very hostile attitude, nay vindictive attitude against all communist countries. Trade sanctions, limited contacts, severe curtailment of visas for East bloc countries, and many other restrictions, coupled with an arms race that the East bloc, deprived of Western technology, just could not compete with. This loss in Vietnam, and America's resulting harsh reprisals, eventually led to victory over the communist East bloc, as well as the Marxists within.

A similar question can be posed now. We are in a religious war, this time with with the Islamic bloc, but which cannot be acknowledged as such. We also have an enemy within, as we implicitly recognize that, by our stated purpose for the intervention in Afghanistan.

If we take the Vietnam war as a subset of the war with the East bloc, and the resulting end of the Cold war, the question arises, what will lead to victory at home - military victory or military defeat in Afghanistan?

You'd like to believe it's a war against the Islamic bloc but it isn't.

Repeat that to yourself. Did you know it's your goal to show that Al-Qaeda is not at war with you but Islam, even though Al-Qaeda says the opposite. Who do you believe?

I believe Al Qaeda wants to kill me because I'm not a towel head. I also believe my state is not at war with Islam, not here, not in Afghanistan because its elite says its not, and welcomes my enemy into the country and tells me to stop being racist and 'get on' and 'stop being Christian, didn't you know Jesus is a myth?'

The Western elite is atheist, illiberal and immoral. It is above all religion. It worships the number name: money. This elite opposes Al Qaeda, and anything else, including capitalism, only insofar as it makes them poorer. Individuals within the elite might honestly profess otherwise, and I'd believe them, but they don't have the power to change what is happening.

Nobody does.

The Western elite cannot be represented in the classic one evil hate figure because its powers have been spread across so many different institutions. That happened after WWII to stop modern war wrecking the Western economies... it worked for a bit but now it's got a mind of its own... this distributed intelligence is what makes it so creepy and difficult to pin down why things happen because there isn't always an individual to blame.

The Afghan War, sometime between 2001-2005 after Al Qaeda were knocked out, morphed into a job creation scheme for the Western elite: our 60 generals, bankers, developers, intelligence analysts. Don't forget all the tranzi non-jobbers employed in Afghanistan. There's even a positive feedback loop going on because the backward tribes we are fighting against are getting protection money which enables them to pay to disturb the peace.

Which of any of the elites involved in the conflict - on either side - would wish it to end - it's their job? It doesn't seem to benefit anyone except all those elites involved in it on BOTH SIDES... that's a really strange thing for a war.

We can believe what we like, whether we are at war with Islam or just alQaeda, or the Islamic bloc or Islam itself is at war with us. The situation as it stands, is that no one is willing to talk of these matters, as they are outside the limits of PC.

The situation that remains - we are at war with unnamed people, in unnamed organisations with unmentionable ideologies- but we are at war. The question, bearing in mind the analogy to the Vietnam war, is it wiser to lose the local war in Afghanistan, and then go on to win the global war.

Thereislight

I have to agree with you that the situation in Afghanistan is fast morphing into a "nation building" war. We are going to be there for decades, forever providing jobs, infrastructure, which the mujahideen will blow up - if for no other reason then their self-respect or living their culture ( and who are we to say that is wrong). This job creation is going to be not just for Afghans, but the vast bulk of the money will be for tranzis, and other bureaucrats.

Thereislight

I'm re-reading your comment. I thought I was being cynical, but compared to you I'm an innocent abroad. Good post BTW.

Just to make myself unpopular with some more people... I believe radical atheists are a greater enemy than moderate Muslims (a Muslim that is not out to create an Islamic state and force/intimidate people into conversion).

Therewaslight

How does one get to be a radical atheist, i.e., a fanatical believer in nothing.

I believe that the police force is now made up of recruits only interested in job security, the time when they were interested in protecting the public is long gone. I have zero respect for the police and think the whole useless organisation should cleared out from top to bottom, start again.

First to go should be the diversity gimmick, police should be recruited because they're best for the job, not to fill quotas for the politically correct dross. The tragedy of the Pilkingtons just highlights the uselessness of this organisation, and it's not just the Pilkingtons being sidelined. People I know had a bad experience on Saturday, 4 of their children, in their 20's were set upon by two car loads of thugs, they were kicked to bits, one managed to call their parents who made their way to them
it happened outside a shop and the shopkeepers didn't even call the police, they were laughing when the parents turned up.
The parents called the police and when they turned up they were not at all interested, they were more concerned that one
kicked to bits said that 2 car loads of pakis pulled up and steamed into them, they wanted to nick the one that said it, the mother called the copper a cowardly c***, and yes they were going to nick her too. In the end the police were told by the parents not to bother. They tried doing the right thing all to no avail, so now they will deal with it themselves, and believe they will, the thugs picked on the wrong people.

This is what it's come to, and I think many more people will take matters into their own hands because the police are now just useless articles who don't give a toss as long as they draw their pay & overtime at the end of each month. I feel sorry for those that do care but it seems they are few & far between.

Maybe they should ship the whole useless police force over to Afghanistan, to replace the soldiers, perhaps then they could grow some balls. Get rid of the human rights act and let the soldiers loose, not only on the thugs but also on the politicans, do-gooders and yes, the EU who have brought this down upon us all.

Radical atheists are an acid which erodes society. They don't stand for the family. For forgiveness. For anything that involves the community. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton the person who believes in nothing is one who will fall for anything.

To the extent radical atheists do 'stand for something' they tend to loudly try to convince as many people as they can that Christianity has the same moral code as Judaism and the warlike behaviour of Islamism, whilst ignoring the more deadly legacies of Communism.

Radical atheists are nearly a good match for fanatical Islamists. Not quite but nearly.