The War on Terrorism was bound to lead to revenge attacks in the UK

Am I right in thinking and writing that if Tony Blair and the Labour Party had NOT participated in the War on Terrorism from October 2001, it would have been unlikely that we would have had the handful of horrific attacks by those few Muslim men who killed and injured UK men, women and children?

The failure of the Labour Party, called New Labour in the 90s and 00s to resist Western aggression, the militarisation of diplomacy and "Christian" war on "holy Muslim soil" by the West - was bound to cause revenge attacks on our own soil.  That has never been appreciated by our politicians and their advisers.  What do you think?

Fresh light on the story of the Good Samaritan

It seems that in the time of Jesus, the Jews and Samaritans had hated each other for 600 years.  "The Samaritans were descendants of the surviving Israelites of the northern kingdom who intermarried with the newly imported alien population after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC."  (The Lion Handbook to the Bible, p 497)  The Jews saw them as a heretical sect, especially after they built their own temple on Mt Gerizim.  Perhaps, the final straw of rejection and disdain.  It was a Jewish king who destroyed this temple in 128 BC.  Yet, the Jews and Samaritans had so much in common.  The believed and worshipped the same God and both accepted the Torah, the first five books of the Bible as their authority.  Both waited the coming of a prophet like Moses - the Messiah.

Do the people of Israel have a new set of Samaritans to hate?  The Palestinians or the Gazans or Hamas or the Iranians, perhaps?
Or, Jeremy Corbyn - the JC of Islington North instead of the JC of Nazareth?
Just as the Jews longed for a Messiah to overthrow their Roman rulers 2000 years ago, is the boot on the other foot today in that part of the holy land that the state of Israel has designs on - Judea and Samaria?
In other words, do the Palestinians, in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria, regard their Israeli occupiers in the same way that the Jews, 2000 years ago, regarded their Roman occupiers?
Is the state of Israel the new Rome for the people in the internationally recognised Occupied Territories, that many Jews and Christians call Judea and Samaria?
Is raising these questions so indicative of the new anti-Semitism on the Left in the UK today?

For 600 years, the people of Israel regarded the Samaritans as their enemy.  Yet, the Israelities had so much in common with this Jewish sect.  For the next 1900 years, the Jews were dispersed and, then in more recent centuries they were the subject of enmity from the West and from the Western Christian Church.  From 1948, the Jews regarded some Arabs, many Muslims, all Palestinians, every Gazan, Hamas en bloc and, the nation of Iran - all as their enemies.

When it comes to the Luke 10 story or parable of the Good Samaritan, is it acceptable to ask if Jesus the Jew was being deliberately provocative or even disloyal to his compatriots in putting his own religious leaders in such a poor light and, to cap it all, to put their enemy as the hero - the hated Samaritan?

He seems to have  been putting himself and his fellow Jews down and putting their enemies, the Samaritans on a pedestal to be admired.  Or, is there no significance in Jesus choosing a Samaritan as the hero?

Or, was Jesus giving an example of what it means, practically, to love your enemies, to do good to those who hate you, to bless those who curse you and to pray for your persecutors?

The story in modern dress
For the Judaeo-Christian nations today, is a modern day Samaritan, our 70 year old traditional enemy, Russia?  But we Westerners would call them the Bad Samaritan, of course but Jesus would see some good in the Russians and put one Russian in a story to put them in a good light.  Or is politicising the parables of Jesus unacceptable, for they are meant for personal, private holiness by individual, born again believers?

Or, does the West view the Robbers in the story as wicked Russia beating up our allies like Ukraine and occupying Crimea?

The 89 year old Father of my church and retired leader has wondered if the State of Israel is behaving as the robbers beating up the poor defenceless Gazans.  The 2014 July/August war killed over 2200 including about 500 children and the 2018 boundary protests killed over 140 Gazans and one Israeli soldier.

Who would you class as a modern day, walk on by, do nothing, priest and levite in the story?
Were we the priest and levite in knowing but doing nothing to save the Jews, the Roma and all the other minorities and outcasts in the 1930s and 40s in Nazi ruled Germany?

"And who is my neighbour?"
The shocking thing about this story is that we are being told that our neighbour is Hamas, Hezbollah, the suicide bomber, the terrorist, the Gazan and the Palestinian.  Our neighbour is our enemy to whom we are to do good.  But, never, the enemy is our neighbour!  Unfortunately, Israel has made enemies of some neighbours by giving nothing and wanting more.  Yet, it has made peace treaties with two of its neighbours - Egypt and Jordan.

from Clare Klocke: Inter-faith insights are wise

But me ,Susan and Rosanne has a good evening on the 28th  in the interfaith walk and talk on climate change.

Buddist chanting ,wise words out of the mouths of young sikh and a jewish  young adult 

and a great speech from a muslim woman .......Not to mention christian voices .

...Insights in how most religions view us as the custodians of "Mother Earth "

not as those who "will use   her until we lose her ".

.The link between the sin greed and materalism .

....HOPE is essential ( but not naivity .)

That coming together to fight climate change requires those of all nations and all beliefs and may actually by a way of promoting peace .

All in all an uplifting experience .

I only wish all religious(and non religious ) people were so open minded and full of sense .

A righteous foreign policy of constant killing and military intervention on foreign soil, in every year, for 101 years!

JUST KILL THE LOT OF THEM FOREIGN POLICY AND BE DONE WITH IT, YOU WIMP CORBYN.  No need to bother with the judiciary or any law apart from our victor's Law of the Jungle.  Of course, WE are untouchable.  (I am caricaturing right wing politics)

Today it has been announced that the murderer of our Western hostages in Muslim majority countries has been drone killed to keep the streets of Britain safe.  Yet, Islamic State rose to power out of the invasion of white armed forces, with the occupation of, and warfare on, Muslim majority countries.

The white, Western powers have been involved in the Middle East to ensure their supplies of oil, originally for their warships and war planes, for 100 years.  The War of Terrorism from 7 October 2001 in Muslim majority countries to the present day has been particularly provocative for some Muslims.  Now, their beheadings of Westerners and a Japanese man in the desert and their intention to bring about another Caliphate in Iraq/Syria has been equally provocative and unacceptable to the 'Christian' Westerners of NATO.  Hence, the killings must continue until Islamic State is eradicated - like the eradication of Communism, Nazism, Fascism and, before that, of German imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  After all, we can't have any rival upstart threatening our power and influence over the world.  And, of course, we only kill the individuals who pose a direct threat to us from 3,000 miles away - like Emwazi, shot to kill today, and threats from Saddam and his WMD in Iraq for all those years that Saddam was about to wipe us out before we finally did something.

Only the West knows Best and don't you forget it.

To be deadly serious, Corbyn is NOT a warrior, NOT a warmonger .  He does NOT believe in upping the violence to turn friends into enemies and, then, with more retaliation from our side, making even more ferocious enemies.

A Muslim perspective on beheadings

Yesterday, I met a most helpful Muslim man at the Wigtown Book Festival.  We had both been to hear the three panelists - Clare Short, Sir Menzies Campbell and Angus Roxburgh - talking about the 'New World Disorder'.

He told me about 'umna' that means affinity to explain that although there is hatred between Muslims, there is also so much on which they agree, that draws them together in a common bond - in affinity.

 

As there is between Jews and Muslims.

He explained that beheading in public is capital punishment that is meant to show that justice is being done in an open way, as well as to be a deterrence to show what happens if the law is broken.  The Christian West also has capital punishment with a viewing gallery for those invited.  My thought is this: with fatal injection, as has been reported on Radio 4, it is often done cruelly so that many minutes of suffering elapse before the convicted person eventually loses consciousness and dies.

I felt the most important point he said to me was that Western, 'Christian' fighters vapourise their fellow humans by fire and flame that can hardly be said to be more humane than a one-on-one, 'eyeball to eyeball', public beheading to

do justice according to Shariah law 

and, to deter similar crime.  My point is this: in addition, the West kills with no fear of injury for themselves that makes killing Muslims so painless for the Christians.  I would add that the Judeo-Christian world kills many times more innocent civilians and Muslim fighters than they kill of Americans, French and British - all of whom are combatants.  My thought: non Muslim, Western, non-combatants - two American journalists and two aid workers - are civilians but were killed to teach the West a lesson and in revenge for the Christians attacking them, first."

Such a pity but worth it when we didn't have to die!

We rushed to war on 4 August 1914.
Our intervention was premature, our army too small and, certainly, war was unnecessary when Germany had no intention of attacking Britain - until we attacked them.
The Cabinet knew it would fall, then lose power at the General Election, if it did not declare war on Germany - according to historian, Niall Ferguson.
Our war, much of its prosecution and the way it was resolved in 1919 was utterly stupid, especially the reparations and all the blame laid on Germany alone.
Germany nearly won in 1914, 1916 and, once more in 1918.  The beat Russia in 1917.
Violence, domination and control breeds more of all three, as we have seen off and on in Ireland for 800 years, in Israel/Palestine for 70 years - and, with the UK with our mighty victory minus magnanimity in 1919 that led to the second half of the European/Christian World War - in 1939, according to a former Conservative leader, Ian Duncan Smith.
UK has been engaged in warfare, somewhere in the world, for every single year for the last 100 years. Finally, in 2015 it seems, we may, finally live in peace and non-violence with all our neighbours in the world.
Even with the knowledge that 10 to 20 million people died horrific deaths in 4 years, nearly all Brits today still maintain this was such a pity but very necessary to stop Germany taking over some of our world control in 1914.  In 1914, a Germany far more democratic than the UK, too.
This is not a good example to set to the Muslim extremists/radicals of this day.
Ours is not a fine record.

To stop more Woolwich killings ...

... stop voting for the war parties, with their men of violence ready to unthinkingly obey their political masters and their policies to invade and occupy Muslim lands without the majority support of the UN Security Council.  We are the USA's biggest ally, supporter and most enthusiastic disciple of bringing freedom and democracy down the barrel of a gun.

It is universally accepted as being socially good behaviour for our young people to make a career in the armed services using violence as our country's official foreign policy in countries that have always left us alone and have never expressed a wish to invade and occupy us, as we have done with them.

Our men of violence must learn to restrain themselves and to be a better and more moral example to those of us who not in uniform.

Vote for the minority peaceful parties even if they have no hope of gaining power.  Support the peaceful men like the Austrian Foreign Minister who is stopping the EU arming the rebels in Syria as the UK and France want.  He said that "the European Union should remain a peace community."

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.

Bringing freedom, democracy and Western culture to those who don't know better

There is nothing wrong with us all (very nearly) voting for the war parties (doing it and fueling it) while our votes keep the war well away from our shores.  While we don't get killed, we must carry on supporting our heroes when they return in either body bags or upright, regardless of how many they have killed in defending us in foreign lands, on distant shores, thousands of miles away.

Let them carry on sorting out these weak, war torn and sorry countries so that they take on board our right and good way of doing things.

Of course, the West won the war against Western Nazism, next we won it against Soviet Communism and got them to introduce our capitalism.  We never beat Chinese communism but we just got them to introduce capitalism, anyway.  And, without bringing our capitalism down the barrel of a gun, like Mao tse Tung tried to do with his revolution!  Now we are winning the war against those Muslim terrorists who think they can challenge our Western, Christian presence on their holy Muslim soil.  We pay their masters good money for making much better use of their gas and oil than they would ever do!

It simply boils down to the fact that what we do - violent or not - is always morally right and our enemies violent opposition is always morally wrong.  We are the virtuous West against the Islamic terrorists.  The West just can't help being the winners, all along the way - at the expense of the rest of poor humanity!!

The West is simply best.

"I'm glad I'm not a woman or a homosexual in a Muslim country!"

Such was the comment of one pro-Israel Christian and friend of mine in a church meeting.  

It sounded as though he was pitying women who have the misfortune to be born a Muslim.  Unfortunately, I think that leads to some trying to improve their lot by bringing our own Western culture and true religion to them in their darkness.  They don't know any better but, rejoice - good news - we do!  We can help them on the road to enlightenment and freedom and appreciation of how the West does all things best.

Was he not overlooking how we each regard our own way of life as superior and the best.  Muslims regard the Christian West as being decadent and degenerate.  They don't want to be pitied or looked down on.  Just left alone, I think.

I do find it ironic (to put it gently) that a Western Christian should be so sorry for Muslim women when, for most of its life, women have been very much second class citizens in and out of the Church.  Only in more recent years, after 2,000 years, have women finally been allowed to take some leadership roles but, only in the Protestant churches.  Only since the Second World War were women awarded degrees in the UK!

Only in 1967, did we decriminalise homosexuality and it was no longer lawful to imprison them for homosexual acts.  The evangelical Church did nothing to bring about this reform.  At least, the churches followed secular society by welcoming the homosexual but, not what they see as the homosexual sin, nor allowing them into any influential position in their fellowships.

Islam and Christianity are similar in some of their beliefs - especially on women and homosexuality.  Both Muslims and Christians are children of Abraham, have Jesus Christ as a major prophet (Islam) or as fully divine and fully human (Christianity) and, both are very strong on having the one, true God.  Both faiths are patriarchal, are obstacles to championing women's rights and, certainly (but not my church), remain obstacles to women equality in church leadership roles.

All this yet, my friend and Christian is so glad that he is not a woman or a homosexual in a Muslim country.  He should be mighty glad he is not a woman or a homosexual in the UK!