Islam, World Peace and the Spark of Common Sense.

The state of world peace is maintained by a delicate balance. It is also maintained by a tolerance of the actions of others and an acceptance of beliefs that may not be your own. It is, often, as simple as respecting other people’s feelings.

Nothing seems to demonstrate this more than the recent publicity given to a small time US ‘preacher’ who threatened to burn copies of the Koran, outside of his church, in a demonstration against the 9/11 attacks and the Muslim faith. He is someone who has a tiny following but who has found headline status across the globe due to the reaction of the press, and public criticism of him made by the US president.

On the other side of this balance is the plan to build an Islamic Centre near the site of the fallen World Trade Center in New York. When so many died at the hands of people who claimed they were fighting in the name of Islam it is understandable some in the US are genuinely outraged.

The Imam responsible for the New York project claims it will supply facilities for all religions and support reconciliation of all faiths; critics claim it is an insult to the memory of those killed in the 2001 attacks.

There lies the balance.

If the preacher had carried out his threat, the repercussions would have been felt across the globe as Muslim radicals carried out reprisal attacks on Americans and American interests. The US would then be forced to respond in kind and the whole thing would escalate from such a small beginning to affecting a large part of the world.

Maybe, I missed out one of the most important ingredients in maintaining the balance of world peace - common sense!!

From a small spark comes conflagration!

Cutting Through UK Nuclear Deterrent With A Knife!

One of the headline grabbing arguments between the leaders of the three main political parties in this election has been the subject of our nuclear deterrent.

While the Liberal Democrats have been very vocal in saying it should be scrapped, both Labour and the Conservatives accuse Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, of being naive.

Sadly, though, they are all right.

We are about to invest billions of pounds into the renewal of a weapons system, which will hopefully never be used, when that money could be filling a large part of the financial hole, from which, we are trying to escape.

A nuclear weapons industry should never have been conceived. It is a technology that could have been harnessed for the good of all and not the destruction of a select few. It has split the world into those countries that 'have' and those that 'have not'. Sadly though, it was not only conceived; it was used.

Of course, those that 'have' justify their position by arguing it is a deterrent and we must maintain it because we are living in an age of terrorism and growing radicalism throughout the world.

The likes of Nick Clegg, they argue, are being naive in thinking otherwise. Unfortunately, I think they are probably right, although before they become too smug, it is worth pointing out the irony in their argument using a domestic parallel example.

The increase in knife crime in the UK has been rising steadily over the last few years with many teenagers losing their lives as a result. One of the arguments they use for being 'tooled up' with knives is that they carry them as a deterrent, in case of attack.

Have you spotted the irony?

Our authorities argue forcibly against such logic and say you are more likely to suffer as a result of carrying a knife.

So, how is it our politicians cannot see the same logic applies to having a nuclear deterrent?

It seems there will be no clear winners in this debate and the cost could, ultimately, be far more than we are prepared to pay!

Grounded Flights - Volcano or Conspiracy?

It seems unbelievable that almost every flight in and out of the UK has been grounded since midday yesterday.

According to the air traffic control body, Nats, flights will not be able to resume until at least 1300hrs tomorrow.

Apparently, the groundings are because of the danger of engine failure in the event planes fly into the path of dust from the ash of the volcano that erupted in Iceland last week.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been stranded both in the UK and abroad and many have have not been covered against financial loss by their insurance because of the 'act of God' clause in most policies.

I do not remember a single occasion in my lifetime when air travel has been totally suspended before; even after the 9/11 attacks, international flights to countries other than the US were not affected to this extent.

Of course, when things like this happen, conspiracy theories start to ferment. It seems this case is no exception, as even the nice woman controlling the checkout in my local Asda tonight, expressed the view that there 'must be more to it' and we were being kept in the dark by the government (which does not say a lot about our faith in our leaders).

It doesn't help when we hear that certain flights from Scotland and Ireland have now been allowed to resume. Iceland is nearer to both of those countries than either here or mainland Europe, so if they are out of danger, the cloud must already have passed over or missed them altogether.

If that is the case then why have we not been hit in the South yet? How come it is taking so long to drift the relatively short distance from Scotland down onto England?

Could there really be something more sinister going on?

So many questions without any answers but as they say in The X Files....The Truth Is Out There!

Update: Since writing this post on Friday, the restrictions on flights from Scotland and Northern Ireland have been re-imposed. Maybe they read my post LOL

'Terrorism' 'Liberty' And The 'Fear of Fear!'

Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, comprised of peers and MPs from all parties, has reached a conclusion that many of us formed a long time ago - the government’s response to the threat of terrorism in the UK far exceeds the probability of an incident.

The committee has questioned whether ministers could legitimately argue, nine years after the 9/11 attacks, whether a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” remained.

The government insists the threat from terrorism remains “real and serious”

A Home Office spokeswoman stated:

“The threat to the UK from terrorism remains real and serious and we are committed to doing all we can to protect our nation's security while protecting individual liberties using the proper safeguards.”

And therein resides the lie...

Individual liberties have been eroded massively since the turn of this century. A knee-jerk reaction, Anti-Terrorism Bill, was rushed through the commons after the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7. It was not properly drafted, or debated, and has introduced all sorts of restrictions on the ‘individual liberties’ we have been permitted to enjoy in recent years.

Local and district councils have used the bill as a ‘snoopers charter’, monitoring the recycling habits of residents within their boundaries, while tourists and photographers have been left open mouthed with shock, when stopped and searched by police officers for the potential terrorist crime of photographing public buildings. Refusal to comply with intrusive questions has often led to unjustified arrest. Nearly every time, the police officers themselves, do not understand the rights of individuals under the act.

Identity cards are still being discussed as a mandatory requirement for all of us residing in the UK and ministers use every opportunity to hype up the terrorist threat, to ensure we comply with their wishes to introduce even more controls over our everyday lives.

I have not bothered to go into the number of surveillance cameras operating in the UK since 7/7 or the diversity of their use, which cannot even be slightly justified by any terrorist threat.

I do not question whether the UK is a target from an act of terror in the foreseeable future. We have always been threatened by terror of one sort or another. The seventies were a far more dangerous period than that we are in now and it became a common occurrence to be within range of an IRA bomb going off in London. We were not, however, stopped in the streets for no reason, or surveilled by faceless camera operators while going about our daily lives.

I find it surprising that none of the mainstream political parties have mentioned the present erosion of our civil liberties as being something worthy of discussion in the forthcoming general election debates - or is it really that surprising?

Hitler’s Reich Marshall, Hermann Goering summed the politics up thus:

“…it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

It seems nothing has changed!!

Blair And Iraq - All In One Picture!

Having spent today following the reports of Tony Blair's historic grilling, yesterday, at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War, I was really not sure what impression I was left with.

Then, I saw the above picture in The London Daily News and it seemed to sum it all up perfectly!!

New 'Foolproof' Airline Security On Test!

Don't laugh......It could well catch on!"

Robin Hood And The Twitter Terrorist!

It’s a well known fact that Twitter is the place where terrorists the world over announce their intentions to commit another outrage. Well isn’t it?

Errrr actually no it’s not.

It is, instead, a place where millions of people the world over empty their heads by sharing thoughts that can sometimes be outrageous and stupid. It is not known for being a place of enormous intellect. It is communication in its simplest form - however irritating it can sometimes seem.

Unfortunately, no-one had told the officers of the South Yorkshire Police, who arrested a 26 year old man for tweeting, in total frustration at the effect the bad weather was having on his travel plans: "Robin Hood airport is closed," continuing "You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

A week after posting the comment, Paul Chambers was arrested at his place of work under the Terrorism Act and questioned for seven hours, before being released on bail.

He said "I would never have thought, in a thousand years, that any of this would have happened because of a Twitter post," and "I'm the most mild-mannered guy you could imagine."

He has since been suspended from his work, pending an internal enquiry and banned from Robin Hood Airport, in Doncaster, for life.

An expert on privacy laws and free speech, Tessa Mayes commented:

"Making jokes about terrorism is considered a thought crime, mistakenly seen as a real act of harm or intention to commit harm.

"The police's actions seem laughable and suggest desperation in their efforts to combat terrorism, yet they have serious repercussions for all of us. In a democracy, our right to say what we please to each other should be non-negotiable, even on Twitter."

Of course she is right.

No-one would ever dispute that we should take the threat of terrorism seriously but if we are to live in fear of being arrested everytime we make a misjudged comment or an attempt at a joke, then the terrorists have already won the war.

The police, of all people, should know the difference between a genuine threat and what is obviously nothing more than a foolish declaration of frustration.

Be careful what you say or you could find your self being apprehended by a right bunch of tweets!

Does Anyone Really Want To 'Find' Osama Bin Laden?

Unquestioning support for the presence of both our own and US forces in Afghanistan is rapidly dwindlng. As the number of troops returning from the country in coffins is increasing, our realisation of the difficulty of achieving a quick exit strategy is finally sinking in.

In the US, President Obama is, at present, deciding whether he can sell the idea to the American people, of sending another 30,000 troops to the region. It is a political 'hot potato' and a decision that I am sure is causing him many sleepless nights.

It seems, therefore, with somewhat fortuitously good timing, that a report from the US senate has been released stating that the world's most wanted terrorist figure, Osama Bin Laden, was allowed to escape capture from US troops in Afghanistan back in 2001. Of course, the report blames the previous administration for this unlikeliest of errors.

Suspiciously, the release of the report seems timed to re-light the fire in people's minds about the so-called leader of the dreaded Al Qaeda; the man said to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks and numerous other shocking terrorist outrages in various parts of the world.

What I have often wondered, is does anyone really want to catch this man? Does he even really exist?

It seems almost inconceivable, that in the age of the highly sophisticated and often secret technology freely available to the various security agencies, they have not been able to pinpoint the location of one mere mortal.

It raises the question of what they would they do with him if they did manage to capture him? He is the figurehead of an organisation with huge and sophisticated resources; he is not just the tribesman he is made out to be. His capture and trial would only increase his profile and would provoke huge terrorist outrages across the globe and increase the recruitment figures of the so called terrorist organisations.

Alternatively, if he were to be killed 'in battle' it is likely the same result would occur.

It is worth remembering that Osama Bin Laden has been a very useful tool for various governments over the last few years. He has become the world's 'Bogeyman'.

Both his name and the organisation he is said to lead, have been used by various western governments to promote a fear in our populations and allow them to introduce more control and restrictions on our personal freedoms. Without promoting such a fear, these measures would have been greeted with outrage.

Here in the UK, you are lucky to be able to go to the bathroom without being monitored by some nosey government employee following your every move on a surveillance camera.

In reality, the fear of any of us being involved in a terrorist incident far outweighs the probability. However, the perception is constantly promoted that we are all in imminent danger. Faced by this perception, we have knowingly allowed our democratic rights and personal freedoms to be taken away on the basis of what is really just a myth.

So I guess I really have to ask....does any government really WANT to 'find' Osama Bin Laden or is he of more political use remaining 'free'?

Make up your own mind!!

Director Of The FBI Is A Hypocrite!

Predictably, the outcry over the compassionate release of the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, has been loud and spoken malnly with an american accent.

Poor old Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, has been the main target. He claims to have made the decision to release Megrahi all on his own but as we all know it is very unlikely to have been allowed to proceed had it not been part of a much bigger political picture.

Poor old Kenny has, today, received a scathing letter from the director of the FBI in the US, Robert Mueller. In it he writes:

"Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of 'compassion'."

Hmm now where do we start on that one?

Megrahi's trial is generally accepted to have been, at best, controversial and was not tested in front of a jury but in front of a panel of three Scottish judges sitting in a 'neutral' country. Proof of the quality of the investigation normally rests on the evidence presented to the court and again this has been disputed with claims that some of the 'proof' was fraudulent or fabricated.

Sadly, Megrahi's release stopped his scheduled appeal, which would have tested all of the above and hopefully brought a more balanced judgement on the guilt of the accused.

But what could almost be the funniest part of the letter, if it was not so serious, is the part saying:

"Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law."

Remember this was written by a senior law officer in a country that has brought the word 'rendition' into the English vocabulary, where anyone suspected of actions that could be even remotely related to terrorism, were flown around the world while hooded and chained, were tortured by water boarding and worse, were mentally abused and held in a prison camp on foreign soil without due process of law or being formally charged with any offence - all for years on end.

If this is the definition of justice to which Mr Mueller refers then it is hard to know who is the greatest danger to the 'rule of law'.

To be able to criticise Mr MacAskill, the distinguished director of the FBI should first have made certain he was writing from the lofty peaks of the moral high ground.

If the recent behaviour of the US intelligence services is now seen as a benchmark for 'justice' then... stop the world..I want to get off!

Afghanistan - We Will Eventually Have To Talk!

My goodness, it has been three weeks since I last posted. I have been trying to think of a reasonable excuse for being so unreliable and have failed miserably.

During my 'downtime', more of our troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan and two more have died today.

Politicians of all parties have been making accusation and counter accusation about the lack of helicopters available to our military but none of them are owning up to the fact they have known for many months of the situation but have not wanted to be seen as the first to break ranks with the government. In short, they have first waited for the media to question the increasing number of deaths so they can capitalise on the public shock.They are spineless!

The government are, of course, still promoting the 'war against terrorism' excuse as being the reason for our presence in Afghanistan but no one has yet pointed out that all previous such situations have only ever been resolved by sitting around a table and compromising over beliefs and demands.

If anyone should ever doubt we talk to terrorists they should remember we have a number of MPs, with Irish accents, elected to the Commons - and who are claiming large amounts in expenses and salaries - who in the past, have been involved in what was perceived as being terrorist offences.

Indeed, even Nelson Mandela, who seems to be only a breath away from Sainthood in the minds of many, was himself branded a terrorist before being incarcerated for all those years. He is living proof that time changes our perceptions and we all eventually have to talk.

Meanwhile, a report in the Independent on Sunday has stated that our military action in Afghanistan has cost every man, woman and child in the UK, £190 since 2001. That money would have financed 23 new hospitals, 60,000 new teachers and 77,000 new nurses.

The cost of the lost human lives cannot, of course, be valued but it seems to me that any expected benefits from what has been described as "a war we cannot win", are unlikely to be worth the price we have so far paid!

Afghanistan - Is The Gamble Worth The Lost Lives?

In the space of a week, seven British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

UK Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has now admitted what we all know already.... that even more lives will be lost.

The total number of UK military personnel killed in the conflict is now 176.

The Defence Secretary justified our continued presence in Afghanistan by saying:

"for Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be made secure".

But is he right? Can we achieve anything approaching stability in the country and will it really make any long lasting difference to the security of the UK?.

Indeed, do most people in the UK even know where Afghanistan is?

Politicians are now starting to give various new reasons for our military presence but our main aim is, apparently, to defeat the Taliban and to stop Al Quaeda being able to operate from within the country. The only trouble with that aim, is that few of the terror organisations' permanent bases are within the borders of Afghanistan; they are operating, instead, from within neighbouring Pakistan and it is unlikely that situation will change in the near future.

We are, therefore, going to be gambling with the lives of our troops for years, if not decades, to come.

History has shown that the military might of most foreign powers has ultimately suffered defeat in Afghanistan.

If our politicians are to continue gambling, I just hope they can prove history wrong!

Extradition To US Without Evidence - Time For Change!

Yesterday, I was sent a request to sign a petition on behalf of a husband and wife living in Scotland, to stop their extradition to the USA.

Their names are Brian and Kerry-Ann Howes and they have four children. Their 'crime' is to have supplied two chemicals - both of which are perfectly legal in the UK - to drug rings in America, where it is said they were used in the production of the drug crystal meth - a form of amphetamine that has been crystallised to allow it to be smoked.

Howes had been selling chemicals over the internet for several years. The chemicals he supplied are commonly used in the production of pyrotechnics and for medical use. He always took the precaution of verifying delivery addresses and receiving payment by credit card. His business premises were monitored by Health and Safety officials. He was, by all normal standards, a genuine trader.

The US authorities, however, disagree and say he is part of a global drugs ring which operates bases worldwide.

I have no idea whether the Howes are drug dealers or are innocent of the allegations, but there lies the problem.

Since the letter of request for extradition to the US was presented, they have each spent over 214 days on remand in prison and both are now living under a curfew at home. They have not been officially charged with any crime and no evidence against them has been presented to a UK court. They are presumed to be guilty on the basis of a letter from the US authorities.

How has this come about? Because in the aftermath of the terrible events of 9/11, when the only exercise taken by government ministers was that provided by knee jerk reactions, home secretary at the time, David_Blunkett, signed the Extradition Act 2003 which removed the obligation on US law enforcement agencies to present British courts with prima facie evidence of an offence. All that is now needed, is a letter of allegation before proceedings commence; if they say you are guilty, we believe them without question.

What makes things even worse, is that the change was never debated in Parliament but, instead, was passed using Royal Prerogative.

The treaty is unjust, unethical, unconstitutional and just about every 'un' word you can think of. It undermines the basic principle of our justice system and plays into the hands of a country that has - over recent years - demonstrated its complete disregard for human rights by detaining and torturing people without trial.

As for the Howes, if they are extradited, their lives will be destroyed. Their children will be taken into care and Brian and Kerry-Ann face up to 20 years in a US prison. If they had been suspected terrorists, they could not have been held for longer than 28 days without charge. They have already been held for seven times this limit. They are, seemingly, the victims of a ridiculous law that needs to be changed.

So, without having been able to make a judgement based on anything other than word of mouth, I am going to sign the petition. This is not because I think the Howes are either innocent or guilty of the allegations but because I have always valued the fairness of justice and consider their treatment by the present system has been unfair. I am protesting to bring about a change to the present system and restore it to one based on evidence presented to our courts.

I wish them luck and for the sake of all our freedoms, I hope you do too!

President Flies Into Trouble In New York!

As stupidity goes, it must be right up there at the top of the table!

The decision to fly Air Force One - the US presidential plane - at low altitude over New York, accompanied by a fighter escort, understandably, caused a minor panic among some of the city's residents.

The horrific events of 9/11 are still fresh in the minds of most people and it is almost unbelievable that the US Air Force and the presidential staff, had not allowed for this obvious fact when planning such a flight.

The Mayor of New York was angry and stated that had he been consulted on the plan, he would have suggested it was a very bad idea.

So what was the purpose of a fly-past which caused so much concern? The US airforce wanted to photograph Air Force One flying against the New York backdrop.

Officials at the White House have now apologised and it has been confirmed the president was not on the plane.

It is, however, good to know that tax dollars are being seen to be spent so wisely!!