Monday, 1st October 2001
Terrorism And Tragic Tuesday
The Citizen's Declaration of Allegiance Is Essential
When World War 2 ended the politicians promised that it was the war
to end all wars. After so much misery and suffering the people believed
In keeping with so many promises by the elected representatives
of the people it was a false portent.
Today wars are spread all over planet Earth. Third World
countries where the people are starving, are spending very large sums
of money on weapons of destruction to settle inter-State conflicts,
yet heart-rending TV pictures regularly show the rest of the world the
dreadful plight of severely emaciated and suffering children and adults.
How in the name of humanity is this senseless and cruel
A Bullet Could Keep A Child Alive
We are plied by emotional advertisements by charities
that implore us to make a monthly donation of £15 per month to keep
a child in Africa. That is a similar cost of one bullet fired by a high-tech
gun. The cost of a bullet for some hand-held guns would keep a family
for a similar period.
We are assured that there is no money available in these
countries to relieve the dreadful suffering of people, and that is the
reason they are starving and deprived of basic human essentials. Yet
there is no shortage of money to buy expensive weapons of destruction.
This is a contradiction that insults the intelligence
of all decent people.
Why don't the United Nations and the charities spend their
time, and resources to right this gross indecency?
Tragic Tuesday, 11th of September 2001
On Tragic Tuesday, the 11th of September, war was declared
on civilisation, and America became the target by fundamentalist lunatics
who belong to the dark ages of history.
These brainwashed religious fanatics were responsible
for savaging something like 6,000 innocent people. An overwhelming majority
of these victims were American, but many other countries lost sons and
The disaster did not end there. The lives of many tens
of thousands more innocents were destroyed, perhaps for ever.
People who were in safe employment are now without jobs.
Businesses that were built on a lifetime of hard work, expertise and
many other personal sacrifices, now lie in ruins. All because lunatics
decided that their anachronistic and uncivilised way of life should
be imposed upon free thinking people.
Rhetoric containing the reasons for and against meeting
fire with fire has flowed like a tidal wave. Some suggestions are sensible.
Much of it has been nonsense.
Included in the nonsense are suggestions that because
the perpetrators of the carnage in New York are based in an inhospitable
country that affords natural defences against retaliatory military measures
then there is little we can do, and we have to allow vicious lunatics
to escape and plot further destruction to destroy us.
To ensure that there are no repeats of the carnage that
took place in the USA on Tragic Tuesday those responsible for the barbaric
acts have to be dealt with the only remedy they understand and that
is that, on this occasion, might is right.
To invoke the Queensberry Rules to deal with blood-lusting
savages is so naive that it is contemptible to even suggest it.
The American Secretary of State Colin Powell is the right
man for the job of leading the strike-back. Any decision he makes to
deal with the savages should be wholeheartedly supported.
Were The Intelligent Services Aware An Attack Was Coming?
The reason that billions of pounds are spent each year
on intelligence is because it is meant to avert that which happened
on Tragic Tuesday.
May be I am being too cynical but I believe the Intelligent
Forces worldwide know a great deal more about the movements of terrorists
than they care to admit.
If they were without knowledge that Muslim fundamentalists
were planning an attack on a Western country then why are billions of
pounds annually wasted on the intelligence services?
I would willingly accept that the magnitude of such a
well thought out and sophisticated attack on the USA took them by surprise,
but I am unable to believe that they were totally surprised and ignorant
that a strike was imminent.
We now know that the RUC in Northern Ireland had prior
knowledge of the Omagh bombing, and there are many other instances where
prior intelligence information on terrorist attacks was allowed to remain
The reason for this is because the world has to have bad
guys. Without them how will demands for greater defence budgets be agreed
in the USA Senate, the British Parliament and elsewhere throughout the
We are asked to believe that for humanitarian reasons
the war against Iraq was not properly concluded, and that with the highly
sophisticated equipment now available to the Intelligence forces and
the military it was not possible to destroy Saddam Hussein.
I don't believe it. My belief is that Saddam Hussein
is alive today because there was no more suitable 'bad guy' available
to take his place.
To support this theory I look to the time when the Head
of State of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Republic, Moamer
al Khaddafi (better known Colonel Ghaddafi of Libya) appeared to represent
a danger to the West, the most serious of warning was sent to him by
means of a guided missile which exploded in the house next to where
Head of State Gaddafi was living.
If the Western forces were able to bomb the next-door
house how come they did not bomb the actual place of residence of Colonel
Ghaddafi? The explanation is that the purpose of the allied strike was
meant to be the final warning - not an assassination.
The ominous message scored a direct hit because Colonel
Ghadaffi has played a far less strident role than of old.
If it was possible to get that close to Colonel Ghadaffi
how come the laser directed missiles were not able to slightly improve
on their accuracy and destroy Saddam Hussein? In my view the reason
is, as I have stated, they needed the 'bad guy'.
Fire Of Terrorism Must Be Extinguished
It is beyond question that the growth of terrorism has
to be stopped forthwith.
The current wave of terrorist attacks goes far beyond
the IRA methods and resources. The evidence suggests that the cooperation
of a country, or countries, was required to make the assault on New
Nevertheless, it was the failure of our politicians to
resolve the problems in Northern Ireland that has spawned the growth
of world terrorism.
I have always believed that the reason that there were
problems in Northern Ireland is because foreigners with self-interests
decided that Northern Ireland does not belong to Ireland.
How would we have reacted if a rich country like America
had taken the North of England away from us, and made it prosperous?
We are unable to agree with our partners in Europe to
give up the pound for the euro so you may imagine the reaction of the
whole of the UK to a takeover of the North of England.
The reason given that Northern Ireland should remain part
of the UK was because the people that lived in the province were a protestant
majority who wanted to remain part of the UK. This was a diluted answer
that was easily predictable. The question should have been put to and
answered by the people that make-up the whole of Ireland.
How is it possible that in a democratic society a province
of a country is able to answer for the whole of the country? Surely
Northern Ireland by its fixed attachment to the State of Ireland, and
the very nature of its name has to belong to Ireland.
No doubt this view may offend some people. Very often
the truth does offend
Would the United Nations have allowed Northern Rhodesia
to remain separated from the then named Rhodesia, and force Zimbabwe
to be confined to the East, South and West of that Country? In no way
would that have been tolerated in Zimbabwe or any other country given
the right to govern itself. So why should a remarkably well governed
Ireland be treated differently?
It was incumbent upon British politicians, and the United
Nations, to find an early solution to the Northern Ireland situation.
They failed miserably, and the growth of terrorism is
With that said let me make it quite clear that while I
may understand the IRA cause, in no way do I support their policy. It
is never right to make innocent people who have no control over a situation
pay for a decision made by others.
Sadly it has to be accepted that if violent attacks on
the mainland failed to activate the politicians to face reality then
what possible hope was there that passive Irish verbal pleas would have
Following upon the devastation in New York and The Pentagon
there have been wild suggestions in the desperate search for remedies
to halt terrorism. One unbelievable suggestion is that the introduction
in the UK of the Identity Card is the answer.
It defies belief that so-called intelligent people could
offer this as a solution. Were not identity cards mandatory in America
on Tragic Tuesday, and did they stop the atrocities? Therefore why should
they be effective in this country?
Identity cards will most certainly fail to be a deterrent.
As a former villain allow me to assure you that ID cards
will be a boost to villains of every category. It will give a false
sense of security to the public because every well-connected villain
that needs a false ID card will obtain one.
That is expert advice.
Are you already aware that there are hundreds of thousands
of forged driving licences in existence by way of one example?
Do you think for one moment that terrorists that have
the support of a country will not use the resources of that country
to forge near-perfect ID cards?
That these forgeries will not be used as currency to obtain
favours by the terrorists from others to assist their intention to cause
devastation and murder to innocent people?
Will not the deal offered by smugglers of asylum seekers
include a forged identity card in the package? Of course it will!
Citizen's Declaration of Allegiance Essential
If the government were truly serious about reducing terrorist
activities then a far better resolution would be introduce a Declaration
of Allegiance for every citizen of the UK to swear on oath and sign.
This would mean that any signatory to a Declaration of
Allegiance that is in breach of his/her sworn allegiance would place
in jeopardy the right to continue to be a citizen of this country.
In the present situation with regard to Muslims it would
protect the members of the Muslim faith who oppose the Muslim terrorists
responsible for the tragedies in the USA.
However, for those Muslims living in this country who
seriously offend decent people by their public support for the barbaric
lunatics who killed British people, and attacked civilisation it would
mean that they would have renounced there allegiance to this country
and consent formally to abandon their right to UK citizenship.
They would then be deported to any Muslim country of their
choice that would accept them; in the present case it is likely that
it would be Afghanistan.
It would also rid this Country of scum like the owner
of a shop in East End of London who is advertising in his shop window
for volunteers to join the forces intent upon a 'holy war'. Martin Samuels
reported this in the Daily Express and deserves to be commended for
daring to walk where angels fear to tread.
It would prove most interesting to see how many 'firebrand'
Muslims would elect to exchange the comforts of the UK, or for that
matter, the way of life in any country in the West, for the harsh regime
I believe the Taliban would be astonished at the denial
of public support from alleged British believers if this were the penalty
for their allegiance to another country that is seriously detrimental
to their homeland.
Non-Muslims who breach the Declaration of Allegiance should
also be deported. If no other country will willingly offer them asylum
then we should follow the shrewd lead of Australia and pay a country
in need of the money to offer asylum facilities.
The Australian government paid Papua New Guinea to afford
asylum that 'were fleeing from persecution and death threats'. It will
be interesting to see for how long will be the period that life in such
a desperately poor country like Papua New Guinea remains attractive
to the asylum seekers?
For the genuine asylum seeker the alternative facing them
in their country of birth is very much worse than anything that they
may encounter in their new sanctuary.
I fail to see how a Declaration of Allegiance would offend
anyone intent upon making the UK his home country. In fact it should
be the opposite, and be warmly welcomed by anyone that has respect for
our lifestyle and wishes to embrace our way of life by settling here.
It would further ensure that in the event of any world
conflict in which this country may be involved the first priority of
allegiance of every UK citizen would be to the UK.
For those that decide that their allegiance lies elsewhere
then they should have assisted passage to the country of their choice
or wherever they receive permission to resettle.
From an economic point of view this would prove far less
expensive than the seriously flawed Identity Card suggestion.
I also recommend that there should be a gap with room
for one person between the reinforced locked doors to the aircraft quarters
of the pilot. CCTV cameras should cover the entire area of every aircraft,
outside of the toilets, with monitors in every part of the aircraft.
There is no question that the President Bush team, which
is Premier League and Italian Series A soccer quality combined, have
acted with restraint. However, I am of the opinion that an immediate
response to show they meant very serious business was necessary. This
would have stopped the momentum of those who advocate passive pleading
with the ferocious people responsible for the outrage on the American
people and democracy.
I learnt the hard way that you are unable to reason with
rabid dogs. To try to do so will mean that kindness becomes recognised
as a weakness, and there will be more devastation and murders.
To listen to some of the people given space in the media
to air their misguided views you could be forgiven for believing that
America was the attacker, whereas in reality it was the victim of a
vicious attack by barbarians.
How Does Usama Bin Laden Plead?
My view is that to suggest that any unacceptable behaviour
on the part of America that justifies the recent killing of upwards
of 6,000 people in the USA on Tragic Tuesday is a criminal libel.
Others have to answer for this act of inhumanity, and
Usama Bin Laden is considered to be a major suspect.
Heavy demands have been made upon America, and their allies,
to disclose the evidence that shows Usama Bin Laden, the son of a Saudi
Arabian billionaire was the lead conspirator in the conspiracy to bomb
America. The allied government members that have seen this evidence
and have accepted it were democratically elected to make decisions such
as this. They therefore should have our support.
When the Taliban was asked to allow the extradition of
Usama Bin Laden they said that America would have to supply evidence
of Bin Laden's guilt and they would then ask a Muslim religious court
of 1,000 clerics to decide upon the validity of the request.
If it is true that this is how Muslin religion works
in practice then it has to be respected. However, if only because the
faith of Islam is in danger of being tainted by the accusation made
against Usama Bin Laden then why doesn't the Muslim court of 1,000 clerics
ask Usama Bin Laden a simple question of him: "Are you guilty or not
If as suggested that Usama Bin Laden is a devout believer
in Islam then surely he would not dare to lie to a Muslim religious
The Muslim court of 1,000 clerics could have then told
the world whether Usama Bin Laden is guilty or otherwise based upon
If he should admit his guilt then in keeping with
the Muslim denouncement of the outrage in America the court would have
no option but to allow Usama Bin Laden to be tried by an international
court of law.
If he maintained he was innocent and America produced
evidence that showed that Bin Laden was guilty the full force of punishment
ordered by a Muslim religious court should be carried out?
Judging by the severity of punishment for even misdemeanours
in Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries, then this should mean that
Usama Bin Laden would be entered into the past tense, and the world
rid of a moon-struck dog.
No one in his or her right mind is able to justify that
which happened in America. For those whose duty is to safeguard respect
for Islam then there is surely a duty to ensure the good name of Islam
is not compromised in any way.
All righteous thinking Muslims would surely welcome such
a clear display by their religious leaders that they abhor the massacres
that happened on Tragic Tuesday. For any Muslim religious leader to
support or even be obtuse on the tragedy that struck America is an insult
to his religious calling, and beneath contempt.
The entire civilised world has a duty to its citizens
to make certain that the reign of the barbarians has long passed into
history. The remedy should be swift and decisive. There is no alternative
that will be understood by those who are consumed by the intention to
destroy civilisation to accord with their crazy religious beliefs. End.