An article in the infamous Huffington Post claims that Mr Cameron has made a pronouncement that free will is dead. Or at least he admits to having no free will himself and collectively applies that to the rest of Britain. He is reported to have said "We Have No Choice". Personally I think we do not possess the function that we call free will. I have (as have many others) debated the question of free will. There are many arguments against the existence of free will and sometimes, watching the behaviour of humans in world history, my tendency to conclude this is strengthened. I do actually think we have some functionality that does manifest itself as what we call free will and that is complex but one thing is for sure: authoritarians require free will to exist precisely to justify culpability of people they want to control. It's all very paradoxical. So what is David Cameron suggesting when he claims he has no choice but to fight? Well, he's abdicating responsibility and implying impunity for himself and the rest of Britain if they take their sophisticated military into another land and blow the hell out of a bunch of people (doubtless including children; those collateral darlings we so love to see splattered across the media to justify our outrage).
So in a satirical vein I proposed the alternative speech that was not reported by the press:
The full report of David CupCake's announcement...
[To camera] "We paid an actor named Trevor Slattery to masquerade as the evil 'Mandarin' in charge of a terrorist organisation called Ten Rings which we armed to the teeth (at great profit to ourselves) ... sorry, there's someone talking in my earpiece ...
[Speaking quietly to earpiece] What? Say again ... Wrong film? You say it's not Iron Man 3 - it's The New World Order? Ok ... sorry
[Back to camera] ... We paid an actor, trained by Mossad, called Simon Elliot to masquerade as the evil 'Al-Baghdadi' in charge of a terrorist organisation called ISIS which we armed to the teeth (at great profit to ourselves) to wreck Syria and now we want to arm the Kurds (at a wonderful profit for us too) to fight IS to give us an excuse to send our troops to fight and die for us to gain control of massive oil reserves in the Middle East.
[To earpiece] What? Don't tell them the truth? What ... sorry ... yes ... um you say IS is a threat to Britain? How? ... Sorry what? ... did you say 'cupcakes' ok ...
[To camera] Er ... Cupcakes.
That was the humorous take on it - now for something completely serious.
When I scanned the article the following quote shocked me. This sort of rhetoric is becoming more common and apparently more acceptable without question.
Almost 50 IS-related videos were among 28,000 pieces of terrorist-related material taken down from the internet, he added. Cameron said he hoped for a "new start" in Iraqi politics as newly-appointed prime minister Haider al-Abadi seeks to form an inclusive administration that will unite behind opposition to IS.
And he promised a concerted diplomatic push to secure the support of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey "and even perhaps Iran" to effort to counter the extremists.
My internal alarm bells rang. First of all the whole point of a democracy is that everyone gets to say their bit. So if a particular view is extreme and held by a few it is not a problem. If it is held by many then that is the whole point of democracy. You can't call controlling people's views democratic - it is dictatorship - by definition. So if 20 people want to walk around with ISIS flags that is called freedom. But it appears David Cameron, in consultation with a fatuous unqualified numbskull called Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (titicular aggrandizement or what?) can just announce that people will be arrested for carrying a flag. He goes on to emphasize "We are a tolerant people" which is clearly not true in his case. His reference to there being no room for poisonous extremism is ironic. My thoughts simply jump to Israel and wonder at the 'poisonous' and 'extremist' nature of that regime and David Cameron's support of them. People have every right to support Israel (not the UK Government but that is a different matter) and they have every right to support Palestine and even Hamas if they want. Hamas is demonised as a 'terrorist organisation' by the British Government but I have never encountered the idea that people should be arrested for carrying a Hamas or, indeed, a Palestinian flag. So the alarm bells ring; what is David Cameron afraid of? What is the British Government hiding?
The next paragraph goes on to say that they are censoring information on the internet. That is disturbing. Whatever happened to free speech? Why are the 'authorities' so afraid of ISIS and their views? He goes on to say the UK is seeking collusion with countries that some would consider terrorist in their own right. Are people still unaware that Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 attack? There is no reasonable doubt about that in the minds of people who research these things, only in the media controlled public domain. Well if 9/11 was a terrorist act that puts Saudi Arabia in the same frame. Interestingly it also puts the USA in the same frame since it was probably their money in the first place. And what of Egypt? They had a revolution to escape the grasps of a dictator and democratically elected a government which the military deposed shooting 800 of government supporters in a peaceful protest. Again, not mentioned much in the main stream media but in a report by Human Rights Watch they conclude Egypt’s actions likely constituted a crime against humanity, one of the worst violations of international law. Now would that be classed as terrorism? And my recollection is that Iran has been tarred by the label 'terrorist' by the UK Government in the past too. What's changed?
Although I am not a well informed political beast I am more than suspicious about the shenanigans and machinations of the UK (and US) government. My humorous 'speech by Cameron' refers to the film Iron Man 3 . If you haven't seen it you should. The Mandarin, a much feared ruthless leader of the terrorist organisation Ten Rings, turns out to be just a front man who is actually an actor paid for by the mad scientist Aldrich Killian in an attempt to get the US to buy his weapons. It appears, even in the main stream media, that there is much doubt and mystery about the self acclaimed leader of ISIS. He goes by the name of Al-Baghdadi which is known to be a nom de guerre. There is much speculation but his past does not indicate any radical nature or involvement. There is suggestion that his real name is Simon Elliot and he was trained by Mossad which is supported by an alleged Snowden leak. I am very sceptical about these claims but what they do illustrate is that there is no clarity in the official story to refute them. They also make a lot of sense - they are plausible.
Sometimes people tend to feel that these 'conspiracy theories' are so extreme and they can't imagine their own government (that they have strangely been indoctrinated to believe) would be involved in such utterly extreme clandestine illusion. But consider Iron Man 3, for example; who can imagine how that movie was made? We just assume that there are many creative minds, clever experts and much sophisticated technology to create a brilliant, coherent story with convincing special effects. Why would we imagine that governments, which have far more resources than Hollywood, couldn't or wouldn't use their resources to construct whatever illusion they required as the cultural conceptualisation of world affairs. Most people, on thinking about it, might actually feel it was a failure if they didn't. Given that there is virtually nothing nowadays to distinguish one illusion from another we have to look elsewhere to build our concept of the world. One way of doing this is to weigh up the plausibility of the stories. One thing, perhaps the only thing, we have to go on is our selves - our own experience and understanding of other people's behaviour and feelings.
Given that ISIS has been funded and armed by the US government for its activities in Syria then it is clearly not without connections. The same thing occurred with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; The CIA funded and armed a Saudi Arabian construction company to fight off the Russians who were invading. They set themselves up as Islamic freedom fighters living in the mountains and harassing the Russian military until they left. Osama bin Laden was later targeted by the USA as most wanted man in the world when it suited them. But for ten years they couldn't find this man! It seems far more likely, when they can send drones in to foreign countries and knock off anyone they wish without a trial, that the 'story' of Osama bin Laden was far more useful to them than killing him. Like a good soap opera what did they do when they wanted the story to end? They killed him off. Where was the evidence? They say they threw the body overboard. Is that plausible? The most wanted man in the world, hunted for ten years, the motive for any military action anywhere the US and the UK cared to venture, thrown overboard leaving no evidence? It is seriously implausible. In fact it is not true. I can say that with as much certainty as I can say there is not a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (that is a reference to Bertrand Russell's proposition) because it is neither provable nor disprovable and as such becomes irrelevant - the US government ensured that outcome - which leads to the strong implication that the fate of Osama bin Laden was not as purported by the US.
It seems Al-Baghdadi is another stooge planted by the Western Powers or "The New World Order" for the manipulation of the population for their own malicious agenda.
But when the great man David CupCake speaks out the British public all say "Aaaaaaah" like the little green men in Toy Story.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment