Much excitement on the towpath earlier. Max has a guest from America. He works at the embassy. His name is Oscar. He is a Scottie dog. And he has a brother who lives at the White House. Thats the place where the executive Movie Producer feller who produced the hit about Saddam Hussein lives.
Anyhow, Oscar says his brother, whose name is Barney, hates living there. He says his boss is a retard. He dropped him on his head on a concrete floor.
Barney runs away whenever he sees him coming.
And he has developed a dreadful smokers cough because the retards wife chain smokes.
Barney says its disgusting that he should be subject to this kind of dog cruelty. Especially when in effect he is the Country's first dog.
Us dogs on Riverbank say. SET BARNEY FREE .
The White house should not be above the laws put in place to protect creatures who have no voice of their own.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Islams Romeo and Juliet
Max, my German friend on the towpath, who is a large Rottwieler has a romantic heart, entirely at odds with his Germanic breeding.
He shared this fabulous love story with me. About this fellow who had been married 11 times, mostly to women who could help him in his career, and so not really for love, until finally, at the age of 52 he found true love. And after a 3 year engagement, the loving couple married. She was 9 at the time, so she must have really loved him.
I am a sucker for romantic stories, and so rather than take the cynical view that love across the age barrier between prophets and mere mortals raises issues fundamental to the credibility of Islam, I instead find myself celebrating the great love between the Prohet Muhammed and his beautiful bride Aisha.
Woof woof..........
Have you heard my new album of meeditation usic? Its here: http://www.andrewbrel.com/au.html
He shared this fabulous love story with me. About this fellow who had been married 11 times, mostly to women who could help him in his career, and so not really for love, until finally, at the age of 52 he found true love. And after a 3 year engagement, the loving couple married. She was 9 at the time, so she must have really loved him.
I am a sucker for romantic stories, and so rather than take the cynical view that love across the age barrier between prophets and mere mortals raises issues fundamental to the credibility of Islam, I instead find myself celebrating the great love between the Prohet Muhammed and his beautiful bride Aisha.
Woof woof..........
Have you heard my new album of meeditation usic? Its here: http://www.andrewbrel.com/au.html
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Africas Aid problem
Africa’s AID problem.
Its cold on the tow path at the moment. About zero degrees. And so our thoughts turn to warmer climes. Just this morning we were talking about Swaziland. Great weather there. So when we got back from our freezing walk, I googled Swaziland. (Googling is a bit like sniffing pee on the tow path – except you sniff out stories on the internet.)
Anyhow. Heres how Swaziland reinforces the African aid model.
Swaziland is poor. The population is around 1 Million. 70% of them live in dire poverty. Almost 40% have HIV/Aids and this is the highest proportion in the world. Swaziland received around 1 Million in Aid from Britain last year.
If you were the king of this castle, how would you spend your million pounds of British Aid?
Educating youngsters to help mitigate the Aids problem?
Perhaps treating HIV victims with drugs?
Providing work opportunities for the unemployed?
If you considered any of the above, you are not getting it. You are thinking like a westerner, and this I think is the biggest problem Africa has faced in all its years of falling victim to the curse of ‘AID’.
It’s not the African way.
Here’s what you would do if you were King of Swaziland. (Thinking like an African.)
First – marry 11 wives (The younger the better as it lessens the chances of them being HIV+)
Second – buy them each a new BMW – spending almost half a million pounds in this process.
It still leaves you with half a million to spend on something else, and of course King Mswati’s British education (Sherborne) will have made him aware that all he needs to do is ask for more, and it will come. The British public never tire of donating money for African excess if its sold to them by rock and roll quasi politicians, and in this case can be grateful that the fruits of their donations went in such a non violent undertaking, which is off course unusual in the context of African Aid and its final outcome.
And so, unlike the millions who die elsewhere in Africa following our Aid intervention, we can only salute King Mswati for his prescience in preventing this money going in militant endeavors by purchasing motor cars that help increase the happiness of 11 Swazi citizens.
Which leads us to ask:
Which kills more Africans. Aids or Aid?
Any one able to enlighten me can write a reply to this blog.
Woof woof from the frozen Tow path…. Wallace.
Its cold on the tow path at the moment. About zero degrees. And so our thoughts turn to warmer climes. Just this morning we were talking about Swaziland. Great weather there. So when we got back from our freezing walk, I googled Swaziland. (Googling is a bit like sniffing pee on the tow path – except you sniff out stories on the internet.)
Anyhow. Heres how Swaziland reinforces the African aid model.
Swaziland is poor. The population is around 1 Million. 70% of them live in dire poverty. Almost 40% have HIV/Aids and this is the highest proportion in the world. Swaziland received around 1 Million in Aid from Britain last year.
If you were the king of this castle, how would you spend your million pounds of British Aid?
Educating youngsters to help mitigate the Aids problem?
Perhaps treating HIV victims with drugs?
Providing work opportunities for the unemployed?
If you considered any of the above, you are not getting it. You are thinking like a westerner, and this I think is the biggest problem Africa has faced in all its years of falling victim to the curse of ‘AID’.
It’s not the African way.
Here’s what you would do if you were King of Swaziland. (Thinking like an African.)
First – marry 11 wives (The younger the better as it lessens the chances of them being HIV+)
Second – buy them each a new BMW – spending almost half a million pounds in this process.
It still leaves you with half a million to spend on something else, and of course King Mswati’s British education (Sherborne) will have made him aware that all he needs to do is ask for more, and it will come. The British public never tire of donating money for African excess if its sold to them by rock and roll quasi politicians, and in this case can be grateful that the fruits of their donations went in such a non violent undertaking, which is off course unusual in the context of African Aid and its final outcome.
And so, unlike the millions who die elsewhere in Africa following our Aid intervention, we can only salute King Mswati for his prescience in preventing this money going in militant endeavors by purchasing motor cars that help increase the happiness of 11 Swazi citizens.
Which leads us to ask:
Which kills more Africans. Aids or Aid?
Any one able to enlighten me can write a reply to this blog.
Woof woof from the frozen Tow path…. Wallace.
Monday, December 20, 2004
The Universal soldier
Here’s another African story from the towpath. You will need to use a little imagination.
Imagine if.........You saw some pictures of starving weepy eyed, fly covered African babies and someone told you to give money to help those starving babies…… You gave what you could and felt good about the help you were giving Africa. Say you even enjoyed the feel-good from buying a ‘feed the world’ record to help starving babies live without imagining the world ‘trivialise’ meant anything.
Now imagine that African Aid money all piling up and going to a number of African governments. Lets pick a few out of a hat. (On the basis that they represent impoverished African Countries capable of generating the images of Aids ridden starving babies that make for charitable aid). Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad.
Now lets imagine that empowered by this money the governments of those countries think to themselves ‘Aha. Wouldn’t it be a waste to give this money over to the poor an dying. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use this money to fund an army that can go out and show a profitable return.’
And what if these countries realised that the Congo (Democratic Republic that it is) contained tremendous mineral wealth. Mineral wealth they could not defend if distracted by the presence of foreign militia. Like a hyena scenting in the air the blood of weakening prey, what if these countries sent their armies into the Congo to destabilise whatever government was in place, to win a share of the mineral wealth for themselves.
And what if we then found out that the aid that we had given these Africans had enabled them to kill almost 4 Million Congolese (from a population of 60 million) in a 6 year period.
What if this was a true story. Wouldn’t you think the gruesome killing of almost 4 Million people in the last decade would be something you would be aware of?
And if that killing was directly (or otherwise) attributable to your African Aid dollar finding its way into the appropriate government agency would you not wonder if you had been duped in the matter of African Aid?
The wonderful organisation - The International Rescue Committee (http://www.theirc.org/) report that 3.8 Million Congolese have died in the past 8 years, and continue to die at the rate of 1,000 a day. That’s a world trade centre tragedy every 3 days or so.
What seems strangest to me is the disparity between the staggering volume of attention that the deaths in the 9/11 Towers incident generated, whilst, until you read it here, you probably didn’t have the vaguest idea that 3.8 Million Congolese (Mostly Women and children) have died horribly.
Which makes me wonder – what if media were controlled to such a degree that the power of those controllers of world media to affect the way the average person believes is complete. As I write this, there is more press speculation as to the name of Beckham’s new baby than why 3.8 Million died in the Congo, and why no one felt this information suitable for popular media interest. The worlds worst conflict since 1945 – and not worth a passing mention by the media. Why?
I could spend a lot more of my own free column inches going through it. But instead will just progress to the bottom line.
It’s to be found in a song by Buffy St Marie. The Universal Soldier. A sentiment echoed in other similar songs through the ages. The Beastie Boys touched on it with ‘Fight for the right’. Bob Marley in ‘Get up Stand up’. The point is if you do not develop your ability to think for yourself, there are those eager to ensure you never get to think at all. And without the ability to take personal responsibility your pathway to blissful ignorance will make you – in the words of Ms. St Marie ‘The Universal soldier and he really is to blame.’
Imagine that there really is a problem in Africa. And then imagine that there really are a number of ways in which an individual could offer help to those already making a meaningful difference.
In my view the Saint Bob - 'Band Aid' style of crisis aid management is clearly harming Africa. Imagine if that Band Aid money went to those governments who spent it on Armies to help kill 3.8 Million Congolese in the name of mineral rights.
And imagine if the powers of media were quite content to not promote the stories of how we allow millions of Africans to die in the name of mineral greed, a process that benefits numerous western companies to a massive extent, choosing instead to create a blind alley. A popular ‘Band Aid’ to create the lip service effect of making people believe the problem is already addressed by those who know. And in the meanwhile, 1,000 Congolese die daily. And just around the corner in the Sudan.......well........it hardly seems worth carrying on for all the difference bringing the subject of the dark continent to the table makes.
Incidentally the governments of Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad all deployed troops in the Congo by 1998, effectively funnelling the Congo’s huge mineral wealth (Gold and Diamonds) into their own coffers.
I have no idea which American companies have any interest in both the African governments responsible and the control of Western press, (or indeed how many shares the Bush family and friends hold in these companies) however I will not be surprised when this information comes to light.
Luckily for the hopes of mankind we have the inspired leadership of George Bush to help us address these concerns with the wisdom and insight they deserve, and so the temptation to leave matters in his capable hands seems irresistible. Or does Ms. St Marie paraphrase as ’He’s the Universal idiot and he really is to blame.’
Imagine if.........You saw some pictures of starving weepy eyed, fly covered African babies and someone told you to give money to help those starving babies…… You gave what you could and felt good about the help you were giving Africa. Say you even enjoyed the feel-good from buying a ‘feed the world’ record to help starving babies live without imagining the world ‘trivialise’ meant anything.
Now imagine that African Aid money all piling up and going to a number of African governments. Lets pick a few out of a hat. (On the basis that they represent impoverished African Countries capable of generating the images of Aids ridden starving babies that make for charitable aid). Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad.
Now lets imagine that empowered by this money the governments of those countries think to themselves ‘Aha. Wouldn’t it be a waste to give this money over to the poor an dying. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use this money to fund an army that can go out and show a profitable return.’
And what if these countries realised that the Congo (Democratic Republic that it is) contained tremendous mineral wealth. Mineral wealth they could not defend if distracted by the presence of foreign militia. Like a hyena scenting in the air the blood of weakening prey, what if these countries sent their armies into the Congo to destabilise whatever government was in place, to win a share of the mineral wealth for themselves.
And what if we then found out that the aid that we had given these Africans had enabled them to kill almost 4 Million Congolese (from a population of 60 million) in a 6 year period.
What if this was a true story. Wouldn’t you think the gruesome killing of almost 4 Million people in the last decade would be something you would be aware of?
And if that killing was directly (or otherwise) attributable to your African Aid dollar finding its way into the appropriate government agency would you not wonder if you had been duped in the matter of African Aid?
The wonderful organisation - The International Rescue Committee (http://www.theirc.org/) report that 3.8 Million Congolese have died in the past 8 years, and continue to die at the rate of 1,000 a day. That’s a world trade centre tragedy every 3 days or so.
What seems strangest to me is the disparity between the staggering volume of attention that the deaths in the 9/11 Towers incident generated, whilst, until you read it here, you probably didn’t have the vaguest idea that 3.8 Million Congolese (Mostly Women and children) have died horribly.
Which makes me wonder – what if media were controlled to such a degree that the power of those controllers of world media to affect the way the average person believes is complete. As I write this, there is more press speculation as to the name of Beckham’s new baby than why 3.8 Million died in the Congo, and why no one felt this information suitable for popular media interest. The worlds worst conflict since 1945 – and not worth a passing mention by the media. Why?
I could spend a lot more of my own free column inches going through it. But instead will just progress to the bottom line.
It’s to be found in a song by Buffy St Marie. The Universal Soldier. A sentiment echoed in other similar songs through the ages. The Beastie Boys touched on it with ‘Fight for the right’. Bob Marley in ‘Get up Stand up’. The point is if you do not develop your ability to think for yourself, there are those eager to ensure you never get to think at all. And without the ability to take personal responsibility your pathway to blissful ignorance will make you – in the words of Ms. St Marie ‘The Universal soldier and he really is to blame.’
Imagine that there really is a problem in Africa. And then imagine that there really are a number of ways in which an individual could offer help to those already making a meaningful difference.
In my view the Saint Bob - 'Band Aid' style of crisis aid management is clearly harming Africa. Imagine if that Band Aid money went to those governments who spent it on Armies to help kill 3.8 Million Congolese in the name of mineral rights.
And imagine if the powers of media were quite content to not promote the stories of how we allow millions of Africans to die in the name of mineral greed, a process that benefits numerous western companies to a massive extent, choosing instead to create a blind alley. A popular ‘Band Aid’ to create the lip service effect of making people believe the problem is already addressed by those who know. And in the meanwhile, 1,000 Congolese die daily. And just around the corner in the Sudan.......well........it hardly seems worth carrying on for all the difference bringing the subject of the dark continent to the table makes.
Incidentally the governments of Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad all deployed troops in the Congo by 1998, effectively funnelling the Congo’s huge mineral wealth (Gold and Diamonds) into their own coffers.
I have no idea which American companies have any interest in both the African governments responsible and the control of Western press, (or indeed how many shares the Bush family and friends hold in these companies) however I will not be surprised when this information comes to light.
Luckily for the hopes of mankind we have the inspired leadership of George Bush to help us address these concerns with the wisdom and insight they deserve, and so the temptation to leave matters in his capable hands seems irresistible. Or does Ms. St Marie paraphrase as ’He’s the Universal idiot and he really is to blame.’
Friday, November 19, 2004
‘Do they know its Christmas?’
Has Bob Geldof no shame. Have the poor of Africa not given him enough Christmas’s already? His last widely reported and highly profitable effort to transfer contents from the wallets of British pop music supporters to the Ethiopian warlords, (who clearly enjoyed live aid more than anyone, except perhaps those participants whose careers were built on that stage) worked well for Sir Bob. Providing a multi million pound fortune, the reputation of a ‘Saint’ and a knighthood.
And that was for what any basic research into the ways of African aid will show, ultimately causing more deaths than it sought to prevent. Certainly it’s difficult to disavow the notion that ‘Live aid’ money, as is symptomatic in the matter of western efforts to aid Africa, killed more hungry babies than it fed. One Million were at risk of starvation in 1985. UN statistics indicate Eleven Million at risk in 2004. Twenty years later its ten times worse.
How much did Live aid contribute to this increase? Whilst the first Live Aid moment could be interpreted as enthusiastic ignorance that coincidentally benefited a few individuals one can but wonder as to the reasoning this time around.
For whatever motives exist in the minds of Sir (saint) Bob and his cynically motivated band of publicity seekers, who clearly have limited familiarity with the perilous history of Africa’s association with Western aid, (beyond their management companies projections for target audience reach and its quantifiable sales effect on their audience perception), he invites the British public – whose tax dollars are already overworked in adding to the 100 000 Iraqi civilian casualties who will not be around at all this Christmas, to contribute further in helping wipe out yet more foreigners less fortunate than ourselves. And all the while remembering that Saint Bob and his mates are our guides to good conscience. At least Tony Blair doesn’t pretend that his version of foreign aid is intended as ‘help.
So when we raise this anthem of Sir Bobs ‘Do they know its Christmas’ to the top of our popular charts, and transfer sums of conscience money into so called African Aid, are we in fact contributing to the continuance of Africa’s tragic manipulation by cynical westerners motivated principally by their own profit?
Are we assisting Sir Bob in manufacturing famine in exchange for a Christmas moral feel-good. Bob enjoys another nice African payday while the hungry Africans get the same chance of anything improving in their world as a result of our efforts as on the last occasion our popular culture rallied to the cause.
Or are we just confirming that we are institutionalised in conformity to a point that whatever the popular trend suggests, no matter how nonsensical, we will follow.
The imminent popular success of this song should provide an interesting indicator.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
What happened in America?
I was walking down the Tow path earlier, having my afternoon inspection of the various pee points when I came across Max, the Rottweiler from Dresden, and Millicent, a feisty Scottie bitch.
They were discussing todays American election. And Millicent was trying to explain why Bush won. It went something like this. . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is a saying' You can never over estimate the public stupidity.'
Nowhere is this saying more true than in America at this time.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war
in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,
for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind
...And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch
and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed,
the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism,
will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
--- William Shakespeare
Many great writers - from Shakespeare and before have identified the key elements that enables the unscrupulous to bend the will of the masses to serve their purpose.
Things have not changed that much through mans history. And those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.
Remember Hitler was elected to government by a huge majority.
My own belief, said Millicent, is that people get the leaders they deserve.
In a poll taken of how the rest of the world would vote in a US election - Kerry won by a huge landslide.
A majority in the rest of the world sees George Bush as an idiot leader who has mismanaged his Countries resources - threatened world peace with his war mongering - squandered massive resources with his capitalist friendly anti environment stance and generally offended every English speaker who ever heard his inane ramblings. That is before we even start on the long term consequences of his 'profit for friends' war generating stance in foreign policy.
Any yet the American public voted him in?
This means a majority in America approve of what Bush stands for.
Who is this American public - and what share of the blame should they now assume for the consequences of this vote. A vote for George Bush is a vote for what?
Greed. Idiocy. War. Fundamentalist zealotry.
Bush won because there are more stupid Americans than not. He won the FAT vote. And the FAT Christian vote. And also the FAT CHRISTIAN greedy racist vote. That gave him the majority.
It is unlikely though that come the next election America will be better off for having elected Bush this time.
Bush won because America wants to invite terrorism to its shores. War creates jobs for the friends of Bush and his buddies. For Bush war is good. There is no profit in peace. War provides a common enemy. Americans - clearly being stupid - rely on the unifying effect that a common enemy provides. Bush is not the first leader to use the tactics of fear generation to bend the will of the masses.
The sad part in all of this is that we are in the year 2004. Mankind has made many advances in many areas - and yet - Americans - in 2004 are still STUPID enough to buy into this ignorance. And so this ignorance carries with it a consequence.
History shows us that those who invite war in are seldom disappointed..........
It was around then that my master made us leave...... so I dont know if Max killed Millicent or not.
They were discussing todays American election. And Millicent was trying to explain why Bush won. It went something like this. . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is a saying' You can never over estimate the public stupidity.'
Nowhere is this saying more true than in America at this time.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war
in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,
for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind
...And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch
and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed,
the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism,
will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
--- William Shakespeare
Many great writers - from Shakespeare and before have identified the key elements that enables the unscrupulous to bend the will of the masses to serve their purpose.
Things have not changed that much through mans history. And those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.
Remember Hitler was elected to government by a huge majority.
My own belief, said Millicent, is that people get the leaders they deserve.
In a poll taken of how the rest of the world would vote in a US election - Kerry won by a huge landslide.
A majority in the rest of the world sees George Bush as an idiot leader who has mismanaged his Countries resources - threatened world peace with his war mongering - squandered massive resources with his capitalist friendly anti environment stance and generally offended every English speaker who ever heard his inane ramblings. That is before we even start on the long term consequences of his 'profit for friends' war generating stance in foreign policy.
Any yet the American public voted him in?
This means a majority in America approve of what Bush stands for.
Who is this American public - and what share of the blame should they now assume for the consequences of this vote. A vote for George Bush is a vote for what?
Greed. Idiocy. War. Fundamentalist zealotry.
Bush won because there are more stupid Americans than not. He won the FAT vote. And the FAT Christian vote. And also the FAT CHRISTIAN greedy racist vote. That gave him the majority.
It is unlikely though that come the next election America will be better off for having elected Bush this time.
Bush won because America wants to invite terrorism to its shores. War creates jobs for the friends of Bush and his buddies. For Bush war is good. There is no profit in peace. War provides a common enemy. Americans - clearly being stupid - rely on the unifying effect that a common enemy provides. Bush is not the first leader to use the tactics of fear generation to bend the will of the masses.
The sad part in all of this is that we are in the year 2004. Mankind has made many advances in many areas - and yet - Americans - in 2004 are still STUPID enough to buy into this ignorance. And so this ignorance carries with it a consequence.
History shows us that those who invite war in are seldom disappointed..........
It was around then that my master made us leave...... so I dont know if Max killed Millicent or not.
Vote Bush
How did Bush win the election?
Who are the voters who disregarded the facts of Bush's miserable record in just about every category that determines leadership quality.
Here is my understanding.
The electorate is broken down into various target groups.
Along racial lines . Economic lines and so on. The Jewish vote. The Black vote etc.
Team Bush identified a new and growing area, and it was here that the election was won.
The FAT vote.
Fat people conform ideally to the stereotype of an 'opiated mass'.
Fat people - lacking self discipline - lacking self respect - dependent on massive daily doses of intake. As mindlessly addicted as any junkie. They are poor in character - socially dependent on low paid jobs to enable them to keep up their food habit. And best of all, they live in fear. Fear that they will not get to their next meal. They are non active - and so they watch more TV than healthy people. And this is ideal for programming them with TV imagery to reinforce their fear in a way that only President Bush can protect them from.
And because of this low nourishment fat inducing diet that defines them, their ability to exercise intelligent thought in anything beyond the next meal is a quality notably absent. As illustrated by the majority vote in the US election of 2004.
The Fat vote - sponsored by Macdonald's and Coca Cola.
The Fat people of America have spoken.
And you thought President Bush was an idiot?
Who are the voters who disregarded the facts of Bush's miserable record in just about every category that determines leadership quality.
Here is my understanding.
The electorate is broken down into various target groups.
Along racial lines . Economic lines and so on. The Jewish vote. The Black vote etc.
Team Bush identified a new and growing area, and it was here that the election was won.
The FAT vote.
Fat people conform ideally to the stereotype of an 'opiated mass'.
Fat people - lacking self discipline - lacking self respect - dependent on massive daily doses of intake. As mindlessly addicted as any junkie. They are poor in character - socially dependent on low paid jobs to enable them to keep up their food habit. And best of all, they live in fear. Fear that they will not get to their next meal. They are non active - and so they watch more TV than healthy people. And this is ideal for programming them with TV imagery to reinforce their fear in a way that only President Bush can protect them from.
And because of this low nourishment fat inducing diet that defines them, their ability to exercise intelligent thought in anything beyond the next meal is a quality notably absent. As illustrated by the majority vote in the US election of 2004.
The Fat vote - sponsored by Macdonald's and Coca Cola.
The Fat people of America have spoken.
And you thought President Bush was an idiot?
Friday, October 01, 2004
Winning the 'War on terror' by Wallace
I may be a dog, and so it takes awhile longer to figure things out than you humans, but I just worked out why there is a so called 'war on terror'.
The Islamic ‘folks’ are bombing America because America kills Muslims by paying the Israelis to do it on their behalf. To Bin Laden – bombing New York was the same as bombing Tel Aviv.
So there are two possibilities.
1. Keep pumping American dollars into Israel and keep providing a valid motive for all even minded people (and dogs) to recognise US complicity in world terrorism. This will keep the body count ticking over until – eventually – the second possibility.
2. Stop paying Israel. Recognise that they are committing deeply unacceptable human rights abuses, and withdraw all US support.
This will save the US many Billions of dollars on two levels.
The money they wont be giving Israel and the money they will save by effectively winning the war on terrorism in this way.
Distanced from Israel, the US will lose its ‘favoured nation’ status amongst the worlds leading terrorists, who, deprived of a target may well turn their attention to the rebuilding of Palestine and so on……
There you have it. How to win the 'war on terror' with one vote.
The Islamic ‘folks’ are bombing America because America kills Muslims by paying the Israelis to do it on their behalf. To Bin Laden – bombing New York was the same as bombing Tel Aviv.
So there are two possibilities.
1. Keep pumping American dollars into Israel and keep providing a valid motive for all even minded people (and dogs) to recognise US complicity in world terrorism. This will keep the body count ticking over until – eventually – the second possibility.
2. Stop paying Israel. Recognise that they are committing deeply unacceptable human rights abuses, and withdraw all US support.
This will save the US many Billions of dollars on two levels.
The money they wont be giving Israel and the money they will save by effectively winning the war on terrorism in this way.
Distanced from Israel, the US will lose its ‘favoured nation’ status amongst the worlds leading terrorists, who, deprived of a target may well turn their attention to the rebuilding of Palestine and so on……
There you have it. How to win the 'war on terror' with one vote.
What happens if Israel kills American soldiers?
Max, who you may already know is a Rottweiler, and a big fan of Bush, thinks Israel is a great example of how we should all live. He says they control the world.
This morning, walking in the beautiful autumn light, Max told us Israel can kill who ever they want, because no body will do anything about it. They can kill Palestinians and they even get to kill American soldiers without fear of censure.
Of course I told him this was nonsense. If the Israeli's attacked and killed dozens of American soldiers, they would be in trouble.
'Not so' said Max. 'Not only can they kill American Soldiers, they can kill who ever they want, and Americans will pay for the guns they use to do it.'
Well, you could have heard the laughter from the other dogs all the way to Thames Ditton.
Unfortunately for us, Max is right.
June 8, 1967. Israeli planes, supplied no doubt by US tax dollars, attacked an American ship - the USS Liberty, and killed 34 soldiers.
Quite possibly they attacked this US Intelligence ship because the USS Liberty was just 13 miles offshore from where Israeli soldiers were busy executing up to 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of War (US tax dollars going to more good use)and they feared the ship would discover their crimes.
( http://www.ussliberty.org )
Guess what happened to the Israeli's for that little Liberty with American lives?
Around another 42 Billion Dollars in Military Aid........
If I was an American soldier, I would be asking serious questions about America's relationship with Israel.
If I was an American taxpayer I would wonder about the way my money was being spent. Almost 50 Billion dollars of American tax dollars directed toward military support for Israel and resulting in 100 000 dead Palestinians seems to suggest.........
Max rules the towpath today. None of us smaller dogs can get a word in edgeways on this argument.
Does anyone know why America continues sponsoring the ongoing indiscriminate killings that Israel perpetuates on a daily basis? Surely they would not be paying for something they didnt want themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
