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 them.

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 behaviour allowed?

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 daughters.

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 dormant.

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 free world?

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 York possible.

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 the result.

Identity Cards

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 succeeded

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 of Afghanistan.

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.

Aircraft Precautions

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 guilty"?

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 court?

The Muslim court of 1,000 clerics could have then told the world whether Usama Bin Laden is guilty or otherwise based upon his plea.

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.

back