628: Ukraine III

It is somewhat curious that over the last few days, the number of visits to this blog has plunged dramatically.  Could it be that with my 627th post concerning the two ghastly "holy warriors" who have been sent to gaol for a jolly long time, I have put people off?  Well I state here and now that I have no intention of moderating my opinions in order to make recognisance of their "(in)human rights."

So, on to today's rant.  This one concerns that megalomaniac, President Putin. 

What a neck this bastard has!  Does he imagine that we are so stupid as to believe that the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine are in such danger as to justify the invasion of a sovereign state by 6000 soldiers and their associated armoured vehicles? 

I wrote recently on this subject in speculative mode, suggesting that Putin might be grinding his teeth in the face of the Ukrainians daring to throw out their president, whose personal corruption would appear to be sufficient even to discountenance an African politician.

Being well aware of President Obama's weakness and lack of resolve, decent bloke though he is (think about the Syrian "red line" poison-gas farce for example) and the remarkable ineptitude of the European Union, Putin probably feels that he can get away with this just as he did in Georgia in 2008; after all nobody did anything about that did they?

I was wondering today how it is that Russia with a GDP roughly the same as Italy's, and therefore about 20% smaller than that of the UK can afford her enormous armed forces.  I suppose that this is achieved by the simple expedient of keeping most of the population poor.

Give that man a Nobel Peace Prize!

Until the next time.

Mali

As has been widely reported, the French have responded to the request for help from the Malian government in regard to the insurgency of Al Quaeda terrorists in Mali.

The situation is the subject of a United Nations resolution, and in consequence of this, the French are receiving assistance with logistics from the UK, the USA, Canada, Belgium, Denmark and Italy.  Additionally, troops from a number of Mali's neighbours, numbering in the region of 5000 are to help in repelling the terrorist insurgents.

I note that as usual, no help is apparently coming from those other permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China.  I wonder why?  Surely they do not support these incursions?  Certainly the Russians and Chinese are fairly robust when Islamic extremism appears in their bailiwicks... Are they afraid of upsetting some of their African client states I wonder.

Until the next time.

Ashamed and Disgusted

It is not that I am unaware of some (at least) of the realities of international diplomatic relations, but nevertheless, I am appalled that our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr William Hague, is proposing to abstain at a forthcoming vote at the UN in connexion with an upgrading of Palestine's status.

He would do better to demonstrate possession of some balls and remind the world that Israel has for nearly 45 years consistently ignored UN resolutions concerning the territories that it has occupied illegally and on which it condones the establishment of what are known as "settlements."

I carry no torch for the towel-headed bomb-throwers who believe that they have the authority of the Koran for their appalling acts, but equally, it is entirely unacceptable for the Israelis to behave as they have for over forty years towards the Palestinians.

Until the next time.

Please suggest a title!

Mr Geert Wilders. Source here

I am undecided so please suggest a title for this piece. Words that have occurred to me so far have been "cowards", "poltroonery", and "appeasers."

I am referring to the case where a democratically-elected Dutchman, Geert Wilders, was refused entry to the United Kingdom on the grounds that he might stir up trouble, because he has unfashionable views about Islamists. The Islamists showing their usual disregard for historical accuracy, or indeed any kind of accuracy, have labelled Mr Wilders a "fascist" which personally I do not believe he is. He has been accused of religious hatred. Actually whilst I wouldn't say I hate religion, I would be inclined to say that Religion of nearly every persuasion leaves me distinctly underwhelmed, based as it is on pathetic superstition. As the Marquis de Montaigne so wisely observed, "Man is truly stupid: he cannot make a worm, yet he creates gods by the dozen."

These events have shown the United Kingdom in a very poor light indeed - showing that there is a distinct lack of what the military used to call "moral fibre."

The Government in the form of Miss "Jacqui" Smith, Home Secretary, has been quick to criticise Mr Wilders. Unfortunately it is not long since the self-same government buckled under to the United States over the case of the British Guantanamo Bay prisoner , Binyam Mohammed who has said to have been been subjected to appalling torture with, if not the connivance of MI6, at least with the knowledge of two or perhaps more of its officers.

With this in mind, the British Government is in no position to attempt to occupy the high moral ground it seems to claim in the case of Mr Wilders. It should, for a start, ask itself whether it is responsible for running the country, or whether this important function is henceforth to be carried out only after seeking and obtaining the approval of the Islamists who perhaps represent 5% of the population.

Poltroons indeed! Apparently, "The Government remains committed to the principle of free speech."

What a joke.

News links here , here., here and here

UPDATE:  Here's a well thought-out piece on the subject from Charles Moore at the Daily Telegraph.

SECOND UPDATE:  Today the BBC has another story on this subject.  The key paragraphs are:

Lawyers acting for Mr Mohamed have campaigned for alleged evidence of his torture to be made public.

Last week, judges refused to order the disclosure of a summary of US reports on his detention, citing a threat to US intelligence-sharing with Britain.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones ruled that some parts of papers referring to Mr Mohamed should remain secret, following the threat from the US to halt the sharing of information on terrorism.

However, they said Foreign Secretary David Miliband believed there was a "real risk" that the potential loss of intelligence co-operation would seriously increase the threat from terror faced by the UK.

Mr Miliband later insisted there had been "no threat" from the US. 

And still more stinky stuff has come to light; this will run for a while I think.

Until the next time.