British voters remain indifferent to UK foreign policy even after public slaughter of British soldier in broad daylight on busy street

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/crc8cn/woolwich-the-untold-story

https://audioboo.fm/boos/1810413-anjem-choudary-there-is-a-war-against-our-brothers-and-sisters

I suppose most people still don't get it.

The men who murdered Rigby were terrorists and you suffer terrorism when you get some aspect of your foreign policy wrong.

Yep, I know the voter doesn't give a fuck about foreign policy. He will only vote for the party that he thinks will bribe him with the mostest.

No one but people who care about the principle of the thing would give two shits about foreign policy or vote for a party on the basis of its position on any aspect of foreign policy.

If it doesn't affect them, THEY DON'T CARE.

The British voter doesn't give a shit if anyone else is bombed to kingdom come as long as he gets all the goodies he thinks he ought to get. Winter fuel allowance and child benefit etc is more important to the voter than any atrocity committed on anyone else anywhere in the world by British soldiers on the instructions of British politicians.

The most they would do is kill a few Muslims and bomb a few mosques to show how much they hate Muslims, but they will still vote for the same old parties with the same old shit foreign policy come the next General Election.

There will therefore be more incidents of terrorism because the average voter will just huff and puff for a bit about those pesky Muslims and then carry on with their lives, until the next terrorist incident.

They do after all only have the intelligence of a snail and the memory of a goldfish.

UK foreign policy is beyond their ken. They only care about things they can see and touch and have very little interest in such things as the rightness and wrongness of UK foreign policy. They support "our" boys because they are "our" boys, whatever they do. It really is too much to expect them to read a book about Islam or Israel, because they are happy only to be told what to think about this and that by their tabloids and their leaders.

In this way they resemble illiterate people who call themselves Muslims who take as gospel everything their imam says about their religion and follow blindly, rather than read it themselves.

And this is the reason why most of these ignorant fuckers should be disenfranchised.

Oh, and quite a few people I know whom I would call friends are like that too, and I would fucking disenfranchise them all the same.

It is an uphill task being a terrorist, I fear. People here are so fucking thick that even when two terrorists kill a soldier in public in broad daylight and say why they are doing it THEY STILL DON'T GET IT.

The average voter doesn't care that that British soldiers go around killing Muslims in Muslim lands.

It doesn't bother them because they don't like Muslims.

The average voter is aghast and in a state of disbelief that someone should kill and be killed in the name of A CAUSE.

That is what they don't get.

They would never dream of doing something like that for people they don't know and have never met and will never meet as individuals.

The terrorist does it for THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING, while the average British voter really truly has no idea what a principle is, how it works and what it is for.

Omar Bakri in the Lebanon was saying that his Lebanese followers felt shamed by the dedication of the British Muslim terrorists which eclipsed their own, and have resolved to do better.

The clever thing about these preachers is that they only tell the truth. The Koran says X while the British do Y, which is the opposite of what the Koran prescribes, they might say.  Is it right for Britain to go around invading Muslim countries?  Does the Koran say go around invading other people's countries when you have suffered terrorism?  Does even the NATO treaty say so?

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Do acts of terrorism count?  Or was it envisaged that when NATO was formed its members only had the Soviet Union in mind and it was so obvious that they didn't even mention that an attack on one of them had to be made by a sovereign nation, not by some unidentified terrorist group?

Did the British invade the Republic of Ireland to take out the IRA terrorists?  Of course not.  They wouldn't dare.  Irish terrorists are white people living Europe while Muslim terrorists are usually brown people living in Asia.

All these preachers do, I believe, is show photos and videos of war casualties, point out all the verses of the Koran that the British go against, and invite their followers to come to their own conclusions on what if anything they should do about it.

Choudary I believe always precedes and ends his speeches reminding his listeners of the covenant of security, which basically says Muslims are not allowed to aggress against the government of the country they live in and by implication the people of that country too.

Interestingly, I had heard that one of the terrorists even chatted to someone running the BNP stall and was even considering voting BNP because the BNP was the only party in the land who opposed UK foreign policy.  I guess even they were not deluded enough into thinking that the BNP would ever be in a position to influence foreign policy within their lifetimes, so they decided to take matters into their own bloody hands.

I don't think these preachers directly incite anyone to commit acts of terrorism, but merely gloat when it does happen.

This is enough to keep the whole shebang going though.

You would have thought by now that we would get enough people calling for a proper debate about foreign policy but NO.  It really is like waking the dead.  If it doesn't affect them, they don't care.  Even if a British soldier is nearly decapitated by Muslim terrorists on a busy London street in broad daylight, the morally inert British just don't care. They have now turned the page even as we speak.

Why, the Evening Standard demonstrated that perfectly by how it treated this story at
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/killers-adebolajo-and-adebowale-found-guilty-of-hacking-soldier-to-death-outside-woolwich-barracks-9015567.html  It appeared in the lunchtime edition, but it was completely gone by the evening edition.  

Orwell Prize debate on the monarchy: ‘is it time to make monarchy history?’ OR Joan Smith is a fat arrogant old trollop and she is NOT better than the Queen

described as "babyish" by Peter Hitchens

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/events/orwell-prize-shortlist-2011-announcement-and-debate/

This was a debate of particular interest to me as I had been in a few spats with a number of Facebook friends recently.  It seemed outrageous that so many of the Liberal Left such as Martin Amis actually think they are better than the Queen.  Amis gratuitously insults her and the Royal Family for not having read any of his books and no one really thinks much about this curious phenomenon of Liberal Left writers who think themselves as several degrees above the monarch even as their own family morals are mired in filth and degradation.  In Martin Amis's case I am of course referring to the tragic life of Sally Amis described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Amis


Before it started I chatted briefly to David Cohen of the Evening Standard, who was on the longlist for the journalism prize.  He has very dark intense eyes which I found rather alarming, and his wife I found perfectly charming.  It was the first time he had entered for the journalism prize he told me.  He is not related to Nick Cohen, who was once my Facebook friend.

The debate was kick-started by the audience being asked to raise their hands by Jodie Ginsberg the Chair if they agreed with the proposition.  She observed that roughly a third put their hand up.  No attempt was made to ask the views of those who disagreed, or even the don't knows, or whether anyone had changed their minds after the debate.

Typical left-wing bias, I thought to myself.

The first speaker was Gerry Stoker who appeared to be neutral about the monarchy, drawing our attention to the third verse of God Save the Queen, and making the point that she reigns rather than rules.

The second speaker was Ian McLean pointed out that that in our tri-cameral system (Monarch, Lords and Commons) only one was elected and that was undemocratic and an injustice crying to the heavens to be avenged, apparently.

Joan Smith was wearing a very short dress and reminded me of a character in the the Kenny Everett Television Show.

"the pneumatic American starlet Cupid Stunt, for whom Everett coined the catchphrase "all in the best pahssible taste!", as "she" crossed her legs with an extravagant lack of discretion"

Nothing wrong with her legs, but any woman over a certain age who flaunts them in this distastefully distracting way must be single and looking, I imagine.  She even remarked perhaps with an attempt at flirtatiousness that Peter Hitchens would have been her ideal man were it not for the fact that he is wrong about everything.  Peter Hitchens is married, and has better sense than to be aroused by an arrogant fat trollop like her, I like to think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Smith suggests that no sensible man would touch her with a bargepole, not even the stupidest warmongering cunt of a  Labour politician who supports the war in Afraqbya, not even if he is called Dennis McShane ...

Smith attended the Queen's Garden Party, smiled and said hello to the Queen without observing the protocols curtsying first, so the Queen cut her dead.  That must have punctured her ego - about the size of a football stadium, probably - and from that moment on she thought the monarchy must be abolished.  One of her sillier comments was that our monarch should be elected and then, after seven years, another elected.  It doesn't have to be me necessarily, I think she also said, with a mockery of modesty.  If we did have a Queen Joan, I think the monarchy would be abolished pronto, so perhaps this is something the Republicans ought to consider.  It is possible that a Queen Joan would arouse the populace into such a fury that they will behead her, but perhaps the Republicans will consider it a sacrifice well worth making for such a noble cause.

Peter Hitchens said that he was making a point of smiling back at Joan Smith every time she smiles at him, to avoid the possibility of Joan Smith calling for the abolition of Peter Hitchens.

Said Peter Hitchens:

"You wouldn't know anyone who would approve of the monarchy, would you? And even if they did they wouldn't dare tell you."

This particular FemiNazi protocol.of Tory men making obeisance to Joan Smith by men was rather interesting and helps me warm to my theme that this country is having its face sat on and can no longer breathe, let alone complain intelligibly.   The men can only weakly gesticulate underneath her skirts and I can just make out their pathetically muffled cries.

Fear not O Men of Britain, Auntie Claire is coming to your rescue! Only Auntie Claire dares to say the things that need to be said about feminism that even the BNP are afraid to say!  

Sunder Katwala made the most surprising and heart-warming speech of all.  Being a Lefty he is a Republican but, being a democrat, sees that the abolition of the monarchy must be done only by majority consent which the Republican movement has signally failed to harness.  (I really do think if we want to abolish the monarchy all we have to do is substitute for just one month Elizabeth Windsor with Joan Smith and then sit back to see Britain arouse itself into a foaming ocean of Regicidal Republican Wrath ...

Non-whites Britons are more pro-monarchy than the white British citizens, he pointed out.  If we want to have a Republic, we would have to persuade the public.

Even with the help of four Republican newspapers: The Observer, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times, the Republicans still cannot win the argument, it was pointed out.

What is so wonderful about elections, Peter Hitchens asked, and a very good question it was too.  Someone else other than the Prime Minister should be able to recall Parliament, but he did not say whom.

I forget whom it was who said that "The monarchy is like the king on a chessboard - it doesn't do much but it means the difference between losing and winning."

Peter Hitchens said he is a monarchist and not a royalist, and therefore couldn't care less about the royal wedding.  Apparently, Charles was advised not to meet Peter Hitchens by one of his advisers.  I wonder why and by whom.  I do hope Charles will meet me one day and perhaps think of making me a dame, because I have so many lovely ideas for the monarchy, chief of which is to disestablish the unfit for purpose Church of England and to establish a new state religion called Anglican Islam which is based on Secular Koranism. They should hear me out, they really really should.

Once this is done I could step into be the High Priestess of Anglican Islam and basically just sort everything out for the benighted British and make them see light again.

Martin Bright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bright said Charles should not be made King because he is too political.

Someone rather spitefully suggested that the Royal Family's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act be revoked.

Ian McLean (in answer to Peter Hitchens' question "What has the monarchy ever stopped us from doing that we should wish to abolish it?") said that monarchy was an obstacle to freedom of religion and equality. Although I had a word with Ian McLean later, I never got to the bottom of it.  McLean (who is a Quaker) said it was an outrage that bishops in the House of Lords could forbid liberal Jews and Quakers from blessing civil partnerships in their liberal synagogues and their liberal friends' houses. Since it does say that in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination, I cannot quite see why even liberal Jews and Christians should wish to bless people who are committing abominations in the eyes of those who are Jews and Christians.

In any case, how is this the fault of the Queen?

Liberal feminist atheists have really gone mad with arrogance, I fear.   The awful frightening thing is that people like them are now in charge of the ship of state and would wish to destroy everything that normal sensible people hold dear just because they can and it amuses them to do so.  It is really really time they are stopped.