from Stop the War

 

Revelations about SAS killings in Afghanistan, revealed by the BBC's Panorama programme last week, only underline the brutal nature of that war and occupation. The disturbing new evidence brings to light scores of secret killings of unarmed people by the SAS. These were known about by senior figures in the British armed forces. There is evidence of war crimes. Stop the War demands that this evidence must now be used to hold those responsible for the atrocities.P We opposed the war in Afghanistan from the very beginning. Last year it ended with the return of the Taliban and the humiliating defeat of US, UK and allied forces. It was a catastrophe that must never be repeated.

Support Our Work - Join Stop the War Today

For the last two decades, Stop the War has opposed wars, sanctions and military interventions. We have tirelessly campaigned against the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, against the bombardment of Libya and Syria, against British involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. We campaign against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but also against NATO's expansion and demands for much higher military spending in its member states. Despite the recent attacks on Stop the War for our positions, we will continue to organise and campaign against wars, imperialism and NATO’s militarism.

The Guardian's 'Pick' - two readers' thoughts that I liked!

Having just read the Editorial, it states that the proposed dates for the US withdrawal were already known at the time of the June G7 conference. Had Johnson not been so preoccupied with trying to get out of the Northern Ireland protocol he had only signed a few months earlier, he might have made known his views to the US then. Instead, he is trying to play catch-up, again. It bodes badly for Cop-26.

Meanwhile, it seems Afghanistan is already suffering severe food shortages, partly due to the internal refugee problem. Surely some arrangement could be reached here? A few more million pounds/dollars is small change compared to the money already paid by western governments.

Whether we were for or against the invasion in the first place, we really do owe the ordinary people some compensation for all they have suffered by our governments’ actions. After all, enough of us voted the bastards in.

We live in vile times. The worst in my living memory. I was born in the late 1970s. I can say the 21st century has been the worst of my life. That is around half my time on earth. Mr. B.Liar is a big part of that. Wars, crony capitalism, selfishness, individualism and divide and rule culture wars are now running rampant. It is against this backdrop that hundreds of thousands lives lost in illegal wars are just 'meh' to many, as are 150k covid deaths, at least half of which were avoidable.

Despite problems in the 80s and 90s, we were making progress with multiculturalism culminating in Sir William Macpherson's report on institutional racism in 1999. Since then race relations have been set back by 30 years and Islamophobia has become normalised giving an acceptable expression to the racism within.

As for those who decry the 1970s, my dad was able to buy a large Victorian house in inner London as an immigrant factory worker in the late 1970s (white flight meant houses were cheap) and council houses were still being built. The NHS was better resourced and there were no higher education tuition fees.

FOUR Anglo-Afghan Wars: 1839 to 1842; 1878 to 1880; May to August 1919; Oct 2001 to August 2021

THE SECOND WAR WAS THE ONLY BRITISH 'VICTORY' but "several setbacks" and it led to their withdrawal.

Extracts from Wikipedia:

The 1839 war was one of the first major conflicts during the Great Game, the 19th century competition for power and influence in Central Asia between Britain and Russia.

With the exception of Emperor Paul who ordered an invasion of India in 1800 (which was cancelled after his assassination in 1801), no Russian tsar ever seriously considered invading India, but for most of the 19th century, Russia was viewed as "the enemy" in Britain; and any Russian advance into Central Asia, into what is now Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, was always assumed (in London) to be directed towards the conquest of India, as the American historian David Fromkin observed, "no matter how far-fetched" such an interpretation might be.

In 1878, the British invaded again, beginning the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

The second campaign ended in September 1880 when the British decisively defeated Ayub Khan outside Kandahar. A new Amir - Abdur Rahman Khan selected by the British, ratified and confirmed the Gandamak treaty once more. When the British and Indian soldiers had withdrawn, the Afghans agreed to let the British attain all of their geopolitical objectives, as well as create a buffer between the British Raj and the Russian Empire.^[12]

The end of the Second Afghan War in 1880 marked the beginning of almost 40 years of good relations between Britain and Afghanistan under the leadership of Abdur Rahman Khan and Habibullah Khan, during which time the British attempted to manage Afghan foreign policy through the payment of a large subsidy.^[11]

"Although the campaign was eventually brought to a successful conclusion, the British suffered several setbacks in their struggle to control the volatile country." FROM the National Army Museum at https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/second-afghan-war

... the British-Afghan War of 1919^[4] and in Afghanistan as the War of Independence,^[4] began on 6 May 1919 when the Emirate of Afghanistan invaded British India and ended with an armistice on 8 August 1919. The war resulted in the Afghans winning back control of foreign affairs from Britain, and the British recognising Afghanistan as an independent nation.^[5]

The root cause of the Third Anglo-Afghan War lies long before fighting commenced. For the British in India, Afghanistan was seen as a threat. The British worried about Russian intentions, concerned that an invasion of India could be launched by Tsarist forces through Afghanistan.^[8] This period became known as the Great Game. In an effort to negate this threat, the British made numerous attempts at imposing their will upon Kabul, and over the course of the 19th Century fought two wars: the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842) and the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878–1880).^[9][10]

Result	Treaty of Rawalpindi Afghan independence recognized by the United Kingdom

PfP Fighting for Climate Jobs means:

Spending/Jobs = greenhouse gases must mean we have to spend on jobs in the short term on the projects that will save greenhouse gases in the medium to long term.

Therefore, national infrastructure projects: HS2, trams like Metro, Sprint buses jobs do not meet this urgent golden rule. Nor does building, demolition, rebuilding jobs.  Nor do spending/jobs on luxuries, like above.  Nor, spending/jobs on Trident and armaments for our wars in Yemen, Afghanistan ...

Nor does built-in obsolescence jobs with even more waste and very high greenhouse gas emissions for yet more overconsumption - one of the main drivers of global destruction and ecocide.

Is Christian discipleship meant to embrace non-violence, justice and actually doing what Christ taught?

Doing our duty to Queen and Country; doing total discipleship to our God, JC1

Thinking about our nation's recent military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, is there one verse in one of Paul's letters that has a bearing on those trouble spots?  And another as, perhaps, a slight corrective to that one?  What could I be thinking of?!

What would be the mind of Christ in those situations?

How then does that apply to our own Christian discipleship?  Should it affect how we vote, how we write to or, even visit, our MEPs, MPs and councillors?

Hi Tim,

Thanks for all these thoughts on walks etc - we will look forward to seeing you by 9am Friday - we will bring our own lunch and so be ready for the off.

re: your thought for the day, your question about the 'mind of Christ' is a really good one; unfortunately He doesnt offer any soundbites on Afghanistan, Iraq, the Labour leadership etc!!!! (No soundbites but much teaching in the Gospels, Acts and in Paul's letters, don't you think, Peter?)  So we have to rely on the big picture of scripture as a whole I think.  Both the Old Testament and the gospels were written during tumultuous times politically and socially  from slavery in Egypt, warring nations, constant attempts to stamp out the people of God, the failure of the Jewish kings to meet expectations etc;. In the NT there is the total occupation and dominance of the Roman empire with all the injustice and inhumanity that accompanied it.  The apostle Paul made good use of his Roman citizenship and was not, of course, rebellious or revolutionary.  Unlike our Western governments and the public opinion that allows them to be so.  But only when it comes to weaker countries who can't hit back (apart from with terrorism).

When it comes to Romans 13 v 1-7, my commentary has: "The Christian and the state.  Though the Christian has no right to punish (12 v 19-21), the state does have that right and the Christian must respect it.  Paul's confidence that the Roman state is, on the whole, just and beneficent is matched in 1 Peter 2.13-17; 3.v13."

How is the mind of God and of his Messiah expressed? Constantly reconciliation with God through his Messiah is the theme, BEFORE reconciliation with our neighbour is possible. So the sermon on the mount (which most people take as great advice for life) is all about mourning our sin, hungering for God and His righteousness, seeking peace with God first, and only then can we live in our messy world loving our neighbour in need.

So I cannot expect a world that doesn't live under the lordship of Christ to follow his way any more than the OT Israelites, or NT believers could expect those around them to do. Should those who do live in the lordship of Christ follow His (non-aggression) way, however difficult or costly?  That doesn't mean I shouldn't do 'all the good I can to all the people I can just so long as I can', but I think it suggests that the main witness of Christian believers is to enjoy living under the lordship of Christ.- enjoying his world, his peace, his forgiveness, and do all I can to be reconciled with my 'neighbour'.

This may not be what you wanted to hear, as you are still in'campaigning' mode, but I think our world will remain messy until Christ comes again !!  But our own little, individual world should have the minimum mess (or hypocrisy) in it.

Every blessing Tim, and thanks again for all the prep for our time away.

Peter.

This has been sent only to you, Les but is one reply to what Peter wrote on the back of the sheet I gave you yesterday.

You are right.  It is campaigning but, as I see it, it is also, for me, doing my duty to Queen and Country and discipleship to my God (JC1).  "Give to Caesar those things that are Caesar's and to God those things that are God's."

I think, this kind of patriotism puts Jesus Christ first and is also in line with His Spirit that cannot possibly be about overthrowing foreign governments.  In this century alone, these have been Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria.  Last decade, our friends and allies (and our fellow believers) in the States had seven countries as part of their Project for the New American Century.  All to be overthrown to become democratic and American compliant.  All contrary to Titus 3 v 1 and Romans 13 - being submissive and obedient to rulers and authorities.  Especially, the Spirit of Jesus cannot be about bringing democracy down the barrel of a gun, as all three main political parties we vote for believe and do.  My pastor, Les Hardwick, told me that the corrective to complying with the wishes of the authorities is the verse in Acts, "Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men' " Acts 5 v 29.

Therefore, should Christian believers be voting for the main political parties who do war around the world, to try and keep Western compliant governments in power or, use military might to protect their vital strategic interests?  "Not by might, nor by power but by My Spirit says the Lord of hosts" Zechariah 4 v 6.

​Tim

Hi Tim 

Thank you for your e-mail in which you raise some very difficult questions.  In Matthew 24v6 Jesus said "You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.".He also spoke in chapter 25 of the need to look after the poor and hungry v 31 to 46.

The question of voting  has to be answered according to our own conscience accepting that someone else will act differently while following their own conscience. Not voting can open the door to  even worse forms of government     (there was a time when I would not vote.)

In September 2002 (15 February 2003) over one million people marched in London protesting against the war against Iraq, the war still went ahead!  The 1950s,saw many protests against  weapons of mass destruction, nothing has changed.  There seems little we can do! but we can feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, try to overcome poverty and vote for the party which seems most willing to tackle these issues!

Les

Thanks v much for these thoughts.

We need a much higher profile given to non violence, constraint not coercion, a new determination to eschew aggression, power, domination, colonialism, empire building, forcing our ways (and wars) on others.

A new determination to allow religious and political toleration, equality, justice tempered with mercy instead of constant punishment and revenge.  A rejection of hypocrisy in too much unethical foreign policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay.  A rejection of the all out war on Gaza that our side perpetrated in July and August of 2014.  A rejection of lying that allows some of our political leaders to say, "Of course, I will press the nuclear button" to send much of humanity to kingdom come.  Obscene riches to allow, with Trident, such disgusting behaviour by our leaders and, when poverty and inequality is so rife too!

"What we sow today we will reap tomorrow".  Mayhem, instability, civil war in the Middle East is now spreading, with revenge attacks, to our own Western nations that are bombing, missiling Syria and Iraq - and, for many more years to come.  Nearly all the politicians we vote for have unleashed the dogs of war, opened the Pandora's Box, well and truly stirred up a hornet's nest of anger and hatred against Israel and the West.

I must come round today to get the meter reading that Places for People want today.

Every blessing

Tim

CONGRATULATIONS!

​

Dear James and team

Congratulations for winning the vote last night.  When will you win our wars in the Meddle East?

After four years of war, when will your side overthrow Assad to install our democratically elected, Western sympathetic leader?

Your side overthrew the Russian sympathetic President Yanukovych in Ukraine to replace him with our man, Petro Poronshenko.  War in eastern Ukraine ever since.  When will you win that war, James?

Your side has now lost four wars against 'weak', 'powerless' Afghanistan since the first 1839-42 war.

Your side overthrew Saddam but lost everything else; certainly, lost the peace in Iraq.

Your side overthrew Gaddafi (the friend of Tony Blair for a time) but gained anarchy in Libya.

You allowed terrorists to drive us brave Brits out of Palestine in 1947 to install our Judeo-Christian State in the Muslim Meddle East in 1948.  Many wars, over 67 years, ever since.  A failed state in successfully turning its neighbours into enemies. 

Your side overthrew democratically elected Mosadeq in Iran to install our man, the Shah.  Success for a time but little love and respect for the West for doing so, ever since.

Your side overthrew democratically and fairly elected Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to put in our Western sympathetic military government in Cairo.

After this 100 year record of Western and Christian misbehaviour, no wonder a very small minority of Muslims are radicalised and are raging against us!

When will your side make it safe, once more for white faces to move freely in the Meddle East and Tunisia without fear of kidnap and death?

The 'Today' programme this morning said that, in the second year of bombing there have, so far, been 7,500 air strikes to wipe Islamic State off the face of the earth.  Yet, the mightiest military force the world has ever seen, is nowhere near winning.  What is so inept about our armed forces, please James?

Winning votes for war to take place far from our shores, is so easy in safe and secure UK.  Victory in wars to bring tolerance and peace throughout the Near East and Meddle East is never delivered by your side.  Not even in our own powerful and WMD armed Israel!

Best wishes for the start of some true success for your side in 2016.  You certainly need it.

Tim

West is best at overthrowing governments it calls regimes

Why should a government NOT be ruthless in putting down a rebellion?  Any UK government would be.  Even the good people of Scotland in 2014 had the fear of God put up them, if they dared to be so stroppy as to vote for independence from big brother England.  Our problem, in our so well meaning, we know what is best for you fortress, is supporting the rebels to overthrow their governments in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria.  And look where it gets us.

Is the West on the side of governments or rebels?

Why should a government NOT be ruthless in putting down a rebellion?  Any UK government would be.  Even the good people of Scotland in 2014 had the fear of God put up them, if they dared to be so stroppy as to vote for independence from big brother England.  Our problem, in our so well meaning, we know what is best for you fortress, is supporting the rebels to overthrow their governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria.  And look where it gets us.

(reply to David Blair article, 'Putin's Plan for Syria is a war without end', in the Telegraph on 2 Oct 2015)

Why always Iraq but never Afghanistan?

John Payne has quoted from Wikipedia, "A strong supporter of the Blair government, he supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq,[7]"

Am I alone in thinking that so many, rightly, condemn the Labour Party for attacking and invading Iraq but seem to excuse or even agree with the attack on, and invasion of, Afghanistan that began the War/Crusade of (not 'on', in my opinion) Terrorism on the 7 October 2001?

Afghanistan then got it in the neck from us upright, peace loving and law abiding Westerners for the next 13 years (to Dec 2014).  All this slaughter as revenge and punishment for having Al Qaeda in the country, who launched the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York.

Am I completely off beam in thinking like this?

Are we Brits really as bright as we think?

Millions of British and empire casualties in 4 years to stop Germany rivaling the British Empire with their own collection of countries ruled by Kaiser Bill.  Were we out of our minds?

It was not as though we were attacked first, either.  We were safe and sound, well away from all the action across the North Sea.

It was not as though we were in danger of being invaded.  And, we were never at risk of invasion throughout this four year idiocy.

Our army was far too small a band of five divisions to ever stop Belgian neutrality from being violated by the plucky Brits coming to their rescue to drive the German troops back to their own border.  The 1839 treaty was simply an excuse for doing what Churchill was desperate to do - go to war.  Throughout the mad month of July 1914, we failed to take the normal precautionary measures: to put our troops on the Belgian border with Germany; we failed to bring in conscription, failed to rearm.  In the 19th century, we had staid our hand and chose our own time to go to war on the mainland.  Even then, it was not unknown for us to break our international obligations, treaties and promises when it suited us.  The 1839 treaty was a less than honest excuse that the politicians put about to justify their idiocy.  It was not the reason for war.  And, we were not in danger of being attacked.

Yet, Asquith and Churchill somehow thought that our security was being threatened.  The Cabinet was wrong to take us to war.  Less than honest and competent - and war mongering, in my book.

In addition, according to historian Niall Ferguson (Feb 2014 'BBC History Magazine'), the Liberal government thought they had better go to war to prevent resignations that would then have brought in the Tory government.  What a disgraceful reason to send young men to war!  Even after more than four years, there was still so much unfinished business, resentment and even hatred after the one-sided Treaty of Versailles, that many historians believe it led to part two of the Great War in 1939.

Just as we all believed our security was being threatened after the attack on the twin towers in New York in 2001.  Millions then lost their homes, or became refugees or were injured and killed in the War of Terrorism against Arabs in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Was this fair and proportionate?  Or, are we the war criminals?

Complete withdrawal from Afghanistan - today!

4,000 Afghan soldiers killed this year, alone and 453 UK soldiers killed since 7 October 2001, Radio 4 announced.

Corruption is the greater evil than killing Commies and Muslims

Dear all

What some sons of Abraham get up to!

For what its worth, this is how I see things, after reading Simon’s blog about the Central African Republic (CAR).

ONE VERSION:

What a horrendous time for the people of the CAR.  I cannot possibly understand how the situation developed to such a frightening scenario of sectarian violence.  All I do know that the killings by Muslims must not make us even more anti-Islam or prejudiced, in anyway against Muslims we might meet.  It certainly must not make us even more determined to get our own back or, to extend the War of Terrorism in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014.

As regards political correctness, I think that being correct in every way is the only correct thing to be!  We could do with being religiously correct, too but then that means being loyal to the faith you were brought up in when we should be able to think things out for ourselves and to come to our own conclusions.

Being correct in every way means, I think, acknowledging that the Muslims have a better track record than the Christians when it comes to who does the least violence.

Being correct in every way means, I think, accepting that the Koran has no violence but the Bible has much.

Being correct means understanding that the Arab slave trade was much less extensive,  and brutal than the slave trade by the ‘Christian’ nations.

It seems to me that the Muslim countries look as though they are less avaricious, materialistic and less dominated by the ‘consume ever more’ mentality of the now very rich ‘Christian’ nations.

It is definitely the Western world, with those nation’s wars over their various empires, over the last two hundred years, at least, that has the worst record for man’s inhumanity to man.  The Western, ‘Christian’ world that includes America, is responsible for

• the killings of Africans that included Muslims during the vicious slave trade.
• decades of oppression and deaths of black people by the supposedly ‘Christian’ and advanced nations of the USA and South Africa.

• the persecution and killing of Jews,
• then, Communists in the countries of SE Asia as we fought for “our vital strategic interests”, capitalism and democracy against godless, evil Communism; and, now
• the latest horrors are perpetrated against Islam and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Both direct and indirect killings in, so far, twelve years of the war of terrorism in leaving a wasteland, mayhem and intermittent civil war in Iraq.
• Yet, Bush and Blair sincerely believed they were doing what God wanted in launching the War of Terrorism.  Just like the two Muslims who killed the soldier outside his barracks in Woolwich in 2013.  Except Bush and Blair have much more blood on their hands than the two Muslims, of course.  Abraham and his God and Allah have much to answer for.
• for years the West has threatened to attack Iran for wanting nuclear weapons to balance or match Israel’s arsenal and so deter an attack from them.
• this year, the Western powers nearly attacked Syria as punishment for a chemical attack in July.  Putin saved the day.  And, what an excellent article of his in the ‘New York Times’, too!

Yet, we get into such a state of indignation over the very much lower killings in the countries of eastern Europe that came under Stalin’s control in the wake of his help in defeating Nazism.  We honestly think USSR communism killed “millions of millions” of their own (Daily Mail Dep Editor, Jon Staefel, ‘Newsnight’ 2013) but we conveniently forget our own millions whose premature deaths we are responsible for! However, since we kill blacks and foreigners, perhaps that does not matter.

Therefore, not man’s inhumanity to man but ‘Christian’, Western inhumanity to the Muslims of this century.  How very ironic, how very thoughtless and hypocritical of us, how very unkind of us, how very reprehensible of us!

ANOTHER VERSION:

1. I do suspect (but there is no way of proving this) that down through the centuries, the adherents of the three dominant and influential Abrahamic faiths have been more responsible for killing their own than all the other faiths put together.

2. Muslims in my former workplace (I have now retired) tend to view their home of Britain as being founded and still based on the Judeo/Christian view of the world eg for many centuries the practices of Parliament on the centrality of the Bible and Christian belief and, especially, in the Coronation ceremony of our once all powerful, unelected and dictatorial and, too often, very badly behaved monarchs.  In other words, since we label all Arabs as Muslims, some Muslims do like to label all people in the West as Christians.  That is understandable.

3. The latest upsurge of violence between two largest branches of Abraham's family started with what the 'Christian' West called a declaration of war on the USA - 9/11.  The 11 September 2001.  Indeed, that Bible believing Christian who was saved from alcoholism by the Lord, President GW Bush called his launch of the War of Terrorism, a crusade.  For Muslims, the word, 'crusade' has the horrifying connotations of the first named Christian crusades against the Muslims some centuries ago.

4. That far wiser man of God, Bishop Desmond Tutu, commented on 9/11 as being an act of terrorism and not an act of war.  The implication being that the White House administration of the time, rather than seeing the attack on the twin towers as an opportunity to launch their 'New American Century Project' of violence and domination in the Middle East, should have used the courts of law to bring Osama bin Laden and the other surviving plotters to justice under American law in the USA and not to lock suspects up for years in Guantanamo Bay outside American law, in a state of limbo.  Many seem to be suspects picked up on a whim, provided they were Muslims.  Some remain in Guantanamo Bay without evidence against them and without trial.  No wonder we have many Muslim insurgents or terrorists fighting our brave, upstanding, heroic soldiers.

5. Rather than keeping within the law, we have seen both the very military powerful Jewish state of Israel and its financial backer and supporter, the 'Christian' state of the USA, both indulging in extra judicial assassinations of their enemies who are classed by both democratic states as 'terrorists'.  Exactly the same name was used to describe Nelson Mandela who narrowly escaped hanging for his crime against the state of South Africa.

6. Using the term ‘terrorist’ does help them to assuage their consciences in circumventing the far lengthier but inconvenient route of going down the legal avenues of using American law on US territory.  Or, in the case of Israel, Israeli law.

7. What is worse, the men of violence in both the Knesset and in the White House feel quite unable to even abide by the resolutions and mandates of the United Nations.  The UN, like the law, is another inconvenience that both the Western states, with sometimes Russia and China, simply ignore when it suits them!

8. No wonder we have constant war and mayhem in some parts of Africa, along with Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iraq and Afghanistan that we have liberated to enjoy the rich blessings of Western democracy, religion, culture and schooling for girls.

9. In addition, all these men of violence, some the sons of Abraham in the prosperous 'Christian' West (and not so prosperous 'Christian' Africa) or the 'Muslim' Middle East and Africa, make the very weapons that fuel these never-ending wars.

10. The Bible has much violence in the Old Testament (see NOTE, below); the Koran has none.  I have read every single word (practically) more than once in the Bible and literally every word in the Koran, once.

11. The Bible even has rules for waging holy war (Deut 20 v 1-20); the Koran has none.  The Koran allows self-defence but not pre-emptive attacks of so called ‘self-defence’ as the Israelis have done many times since their state was founded.  Founded, too out of many acts of terrorism in 1946 and 1947 to force the hand of the authorities to give them, and only them, the land.  The most unholy Holy Land, ever.

12. The centuries of the most shocking violence indulged in by the supposedly Christian Western European nations - and the United States of Aggression with its offshoot, Israel - all, in this century, set a very bad example to the warring factions in the Central African Republic.  Or, is it just human nature the world over, regardless of religious belief?

The time is well overdue for us good Christian men and women, the righteous of the Lord, to actually begin living up to the, admittedly, extremely difficult teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.  Or, if we cannot even attempt to do the non-aggression of being peacemakers instead of warmongers, how about abiding by UN mandates, international law or, just the law of our own lands?

​​

Or, if even that is beyond us, how about keeping to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?  This time, only thirty paragraphs of sound, common decency for us to attempt!

NOTE

The Bible is a contrast of ‘Thou shalt not kill’, yet also ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth’, to genocide as God told Israel to wipe the inhabitants of the Promised Land off the face of the map. From that to a loving God and His people are to love neighbour and to love enemies.  Perhaps, all that explains why atheist, agnostic and devout Christian believers all take part in warfare, and look up to our soldiers as heroes, as making the ultimate sacrifice, as noble service and, who so respect our soldier heroes (as my father in law did).  Nearly all vote for the three main political parties who are this century’s war parties.  For it is they who order the years of aggression, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, without any authorisation from the UN.

Which power bloc of humanity does the most killings?

Many thanks, John.  Sorry for this length - I just love to crystalise my thoughts in writing!

Which power bloc of humanity does the most killings - the Christian capitalist West or the Communists and Muslim extremists in the East?

I particularly liked 'Drop Medicines, not Bombs'.  Not just medicines but, for Afghanistan and Iraq from the War of Terrorism started on 7 October 2001, we would have been better off dropping 'bikes' not bombs!  By bikes I mean everything but handing out death and injury.  Parachute humanitarian aid in to these poor countries and never death dealing devices, unless authorised by the Security Council and never Congress and the US President.

My Christian discipleship also means doing what Paul advised, "Think of others as better than yourselves."  Hence, I am very unpatriotic in mischievously delighting to point out how it appears that the Christian West, down too many centuries (not just the 20th) has been the worst offender in killing other humans.  Death by all kinds of horrendous means that the West got to do first. From, just 1945:- use of WMD, Korea, the Kenyan atrocities in the 1950s, the West's wars against the Communists in many countries of SE Asia, extra judicial killings but, good news, we do seem to refrain from suicide bombing (I wonder why?  Of course, no need to when we have drones to keep us safe when killing!)

It seems, that it was not the Arab Muslims or the Communists who did the most killings (even when remembering but, never verified, Stalin's millions that he killed*).  For me, this is because of the European nation's responsibility for rounds one and two of the industrialised scale slaughter.  Known, by me, as the wild West's World War 1914 to 1945, with the interlude between 1918 and 1939.  20 million godless Communist Russians were slaughtered to help the Christian West defeat Nazism.  Nazism that came out of a Christian country, too!

I think it is unlikely that the Nazis would have risen to power if the West had not started the 1914 war.  The victors saw to it that vanquished Germany was treated without Churchill's much vaunted magnanimity.  German reparations meant that they had their noses rubbed in the dirt.  It was all a breeding ground for very angry, very patriotic, right wing, National Socialism.  Thus, the sequel in 1939.

We persist in thinking that the violent Communists and the violent Islamists are worse than ourselves because, quite naturally, we more carefully keep a record of their killings of us than that of our own of them - and, we never really like violence, of course; it is forced upon us!  In the last century, the 'Christian' Europeans even got their colonies to help in the slaughter to defend their mighty empires in the (so worthy) West's World War.

Hence, my boring and constant theme:- that I would like - shock horror - to hear, occasionally, a Christian preacher exhorting their flock to avoid arms manufacturing and the armed forces when it comes to a job.  Actually, I did hear Tony Campolo (on Friday 6 Sept at B'ham Christian Centre) do just that in the context of President Obama wanting to punish Syria for using chemical weapons in August.  Praise the Lord - and pass the ammunition!**

NOTES *"Ralph Miliband was a supporter of Marxist ideology that was being used to run governments in other parts of the continent and other parts of Europe which was responsible for an awful lot of terrible things, including millions and millions of deaths."  (Jon Steafel, Dep Editor of Daily Mail, on 'Newsnight', BBC2 on 1 October 2013)

** Christians might only vote for political parties that try non-violence or, at least, non-aggression and who abide by Security Council wishes or UN resolutions.  That means, for me, voting for none of the major three war parties.  Therefore, abstaining. 

Valiant attempts to justify our Fourth Anglo-Afghan War

Comments I heard on the 'Today' programme in June 2013.

What it was all for:-

£40bn spent and 444 soldiers killed.  Commander of the Task Force in Helmand gave the following comments.  It was in Britain's interests to fight.  All the armed forces have shown sacrifice and courage in fighting this war to improve national security in the UK.  We are proud of the soldiers' courage, of our achievements and the differences we have made made.

£40 billion is much less than building HS2 (over £50 bn).  444 soldiers killed is considerably less than the losses suffered by our great friend and ally in the Vietnam War to protect Western freedom and security.  That was 58,000 soldiers.  A masssive difference even if you count in the so noble and heroic sacrifice of the other Western soldiers killing and killed in Afghanistan.

We are certainly getting better at suffering fewer losses when we fight our wars against these pesky foreigners.  Thanks to drones that keep up the killing without us suffering anymore.  Just how it should be, of course.

Scotland's independence might just cut England down to size - but I doubt it!!

Scotland: Stop subsidising England's excesses.  Get your independence, Scotland!

I know that, from the opinion polls, Scotland distancing itself further from England seems a hopeless cause.  However, for what it's worth, these are my:  interesting/alternative/tendentious/horrifying/warped (delete as you wish)
thoughts on why I think Scotland would be sensible to separate from England and be its own sovereign nation within the EU and UN instead of the UK.

The big-hearted Scots* are subsidising London as the hub of the UK with continuing plans for Heathrow expansion, the very expensive Cross Rail and Thames Link project that opens in 2019 and, last year's London Olympics.

After more than one hundred years of an "essentially a Victorian rail network" (Chief Executive of Network Rail, Sir David Higgins on 8 January 2013 on the 'Today' programme), England has decided, rather late in the day, to modernise it, with the Scottish taxpayer helping to foot the bill.  Does Scotland have even one Victorian signal box?  England has 500 dating back to Queen Victoria and 300 are 1960s vintage! (same interview)

The Scots subsidised HS1 and, now, they generously help us out with HS2 that, again, gets nowhere near Scotland, even when fully completed.

Scotland should be most upset at subsidising England's armed conflicts on 23 nations since 1945 (Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' slot in the 'Today' programme.  Repeated, on another occasion, without disagreement from the other team members, by the Green Party panellist on Radio 4's 'Any Questions').**

No doubt, there are some in the English Defence League calling for pre-emptive, unmanned drone attacks of self defence on the Muslim militant extremists before they kill another of our brave soldier heroes.  Heroes home in barracks, on leave from protecting the people of Afghanistan from the real killers.  Scotland should disassociate itself from this barbarity by no longer funding England's unappreciated occupation of, and drone attacks on, foreign lands (a total of thirteen years, in punishment for 9/11, when we finally leave Afghanistan in 2014).

Scotland provides a most convenient haven for England's submarines carrying its independent nuclear deterrent. The Clyde Trident workers might be redeployed in future proofing your nation from the accelerating, enhanced greenhouse effect and the exhaustion of the planet's oil and gas reserves. The subs and nuclear missiles might be sent off to Barrow to give employment to the English, who will be left with digging a little deeper into their pockets with the Scottish taxpayer no longer bailing them out.

With independence, Scotland would no longer be contributing to the very many billions of pounds for the replacement for the Trident subs. Preliminary work on the replacement began when either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown was PM.

Scotland's power from water, wind and sun could be used just for themselves or sold to the English at great expense! A golden chance for you Scots to become Great Scot - instead of the phrase being used simply as an exclamation! Great Britain, minus Scotland, would be just a little less 'Great' and a little less able to act, in tandem with the US, as the continuing great power and policeman around the world to get its way.

We English, have such an over-inflated view of our importance to the nations of the world, that we cannot possibly do without Scotland to enhance our prestige and weight! Without Scotland, how can we possibly continue to punch above our weight in the world?  Even more crucially, the US might not regard us quite so highly with only little Wales and littler N Ireland in tow.  Our special relationship might be that little less special without Scotland.

For us English, all this independence malarkey is diminishing our size and greatness. Great Scot, it might even threaten our place as a permanent member of the Security Council. We certainly can't have that!

Let Scotland raise its own taxation for its own spending - that is all independence is - like the fifty other countries that have gained their independence from London since 1945 "and not one has expressed an interest in coming back under London's control." Alex Salmond on 21 May 2013 on 'Today'.

I think, Scotland's taxation is essential for England to continue to fund her excesses; it also makes her also responsible for the UK's most unfortunate, aggressive, domineering and provocative foreign policy in Muslim lands.  That certainly is an excess, to put it mildly!

Tim Weller

* "Over the last thirty years, in every single one of these last thirty years, Scotland per head contributed more in taxation than the UK average.  So that does indicate the financial and the potential financial strength goes over a long period of time."  Alex Salmond interview on the 'Today' programme, 21 May 2013.

** "Since 1946, the UK has engaged in more armed conflict than any other country with a total of 23 if you include Libya.  Do we conclude from this that we are a nation of warmongers or, a country that values peace and justice?"  Rhiddian Brook on Thought for the Day on 25 March 2011.