Friday August 12, 2005

South Korea backs North Korea

Anglosphere

This I did not expect: South Korea backs North Korea's nuclear programme:

"Our position is that North Korea has a general right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, for agricultural, medical and power-generating purposes," South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong Young said in an interview with the online news service Media Daum.

"In this, our position differs from that of Washington," he said.

Fine. Let's trust the DPRK to be peaceful and pull all US troops from the area and give the country its long-desired unification, even if it would cause the destruction of Seoul and a peninsula under Kim-Jung Il's rule.

It's probably much more important to protect Taiwan's independence from the Chicoms anyway.

Freedom of hate speech?

Anglosphere

Today, I agree with the bad guys! Sheikh Bakri Mohammed has been denied a return to Britain because of his hateful speeches and I most definitely think it's a bad decision. Quick introduction first. Like most of Britain, The Sun does not like the man for obvious reasons:

Bakri boasts of his aim to "see the Islamic flag flying over Downing Street" and sparked outrage by calling the July 7 suicide bombers the "Fantastic Four".

This week, Perry de Havilland of SamizData argued in favour of such bans:

The freedom to express yourself short of inciting violence does not threaten security but bolsters it: I want to know exactly who my enemies are by reading their freely spoken words. And when they cross the line and incite people to terrorism, I want the Government to do the one thing with my tax money of which I approve: protect me from these nutters by throwing them in jail or out of the country.

But this is where I disagree - I want protection from suicide bombers and crime, not hate speech. A friend of the sheikh:

"I think it's completely outrageous that the Government can exclude someone simply because they disagree with his views," Anjem Choudary, a close associate of Sheikh Bakri Mohammed, told Sky News. "It seems to be that this is a failure of the freedoms that you espouse."

I actually agree with Mr. Choudary. This ban is a complete failure. In a knee-jerk reaction to terrorist threats, the British government fails to actually take advantage of our own freedoms.

Consider this: right now we have an anti-secular, anti-British lunatic running around in Lebanon. Out of sight and out of control, possibly recruiting new terrorists right there. De Havilland might consider hate speech crossing the line, but I think hate speech is quite wonderful: it is by far the perfect source of intelligence. If we allow radical imams like Mr. Mohammed to open their mouths at home, Scotland Yard would know precisely what kind of audience is listening. Just by looking at queues in front of the mosques where these people preach hatred, it would know precisely which people might be inspired to actually cross the line and carry bombs into tube stations, London 2012 or Euro-bloody-tunnel.

Let them expose themselves. Please.

For those who like quiz posts

Personal

It's weekend, so I'm going to drop the politics for now: Charlotte posted a quiz and I'm reposting.

Sigh. That quiz was far too long, I wish I had noticed before I pasted and answered the darn thing.

Make time for me, Mr. President!

Anglosphere

Some of the news CNN is posting is seriously boring. Apparently gathering a mere 100 people is now sufficient to make headlines:

President Bush's motorcade, en route to a political fund-raiser near his ranch, passed Friday by the site of Cindy Sheehan's Iraq war protest where more than 100 people had gathered to support her.

Sheehan -- whose son, Casey, was killed five days after he arrived in Iraq last year at age 24 -- held a sign that read: "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

Probably because being present at a fund-raiser would actually make a difference for the stated purpose of the event, while a discussion with anti-war protestors would probably end without either party being satisfied. Wait, probably?

Sheehan met the president in June 2004 but said she deserves another visit since there have been so many revelations about faulty prewar intelligence since then.

Please. If the President had to personally talk to every single person who has a problem with the war in Iraq (), repeatedly, after every series of major developments, he'd get even less work done than than Bill Clinton during his hornier days.

We've had the debate on the intelligence. Mistakes were made and the case wasn't the best one that could have been made. But we are in Iraq now, doing good work from the start to be honest, and pulling out would be disastrous. Even the bloody UN agrees, as UNSC resolution 1618 condemns terrorism in Iraq and says this:

Calls on the international community to support fully the Government of Iraq in exercising its responsibilities to provide protection to the diplomatic community, United Nations staff and other foreign civilian personnel working in Iraq.

But I suppose the doves will claim that, just like 1441, the UN doesn't really mean it.

French reaction to Iran's nuclear activities

European Union

First Iran resumes its nuclear activities and then threatens the US and EU. The French reaction?

"We think that negotiations are still possible, in particular with the Europeans, under the condition that the Iranians suspend their activities," Douste-Blazy said.

They did, foreign minister. November last year. Then we talked for nine months and now they're back to what they've been doing secretly for the past 18 years. What else do the French regard as "possible"? Negotiations with Saddam Hussein? Adolf Hitler? Julius Caesar?

Rotterdam bomb threat a hoax

Urbanity

Mea culpa, the Rotterdam bomb threat was just a hoax:

Police in Rotterdam have arrested a 23-year-old man who is the main suspect in the investigation into a hoax bomb threat to the 'Monaco aan de Maas' Formula-1 race event last weekend. The man confessed, police say.

We should put this guy in jail for a while and then tell him it was just a hoax. By abusing and distracting security resources like this he's as much a national security threat as the people who would actually carry out such attacks. Not that I expect any serious action to be taken in a country where Samir Assouz walks freely.


© Copyright 1995-2007 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Powered by the delicious Kiki CMS! (#8/9)