Saturday, October 28, 2006

The March of Religion

I went along to the re-enactment today of James Nayler’s ride into Bristol in October 1656 (part of the Bristol Radical History week). I knew nothing of Nayler before the radical history crew put the spotlight on him. It's an interesting tale; Nayler was a former soldier in the civil war who, after God spoke to him, became an itinerant preacher. Here are some of his radical ideas;

He said no man or King had a divine right to rule. He was a fighter for democracy...He spoke out against the slave trade, "Where can the innocent go out and not a trap laid to bring him into bondage and slavery?"...He criticised the wealthy for taking the common land from the people...He denied that the Bible was the word of God and said that people had the 'spirit of Christ' within them.

Far from being a lone voice, he connected with people and his ideas had resonance and were a threat to the rich and powerful;

Sent to London where he was the subject of a full Parliamentary debate for ten days, and found guilty of "horrid blasphemy," he received over three hundred lashes, a brand of the letter B on the forehead, and finally a red-hot iron through his tongue. He was placed in solitary confinement for three years in Bridewell until 1659. He died a year after this.

It was great to see important parts of our past being commemorated. Nice one Bristol Radical History people!

Shoot the Rich

I was reading the paper today and noticed this little snippit;

But the Communist MP Viktor Ilyukhin commented recently: "We need such fairs so that we can place snipers near by and shoot their visitors as parasites. None of them earned their money honestly. Such events are sheer savagery."

On the subject of having it in for the rich, Ian Bone's book 'Bash the Rich' is out now.

Monday, October 16, 2006

The Paradox of Iraq

Paradox 4: Sometimes Doing Nothing Is the Best Reaction

This paradox is, in fact, a criticism of another cardinal principle of the occupation: the application of overwhelming force in order to teach insurgents (and prospective insurgents) that opposition of any sort will not be tolerated and, in any case, is hopeless. A typical illustration of this principle in practice was a January 2006 U.S. military report that went in part: "An unmanned U.S. drone detected three men digging a hole in a road in the area. Insurgents regularly bury bombs along roads in the area to target U.S. or Iraqi convoys. The three men were tracked to a building, which U.S. forces then hit with precision-guided munitions." As it turned out, the attack killed 12 members of a family living in that house, severely damaged six neighboring houses, and consolidated local opposition to the American presence.

Paradox 7: If a Tactic Works This Week, It Will Not Work Next Week; If It Works in This Province, It Will Not Work in the Next

The clearest expression of this principle lies in the history of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the anti-occupation weapon of choice among Iraqi resistance fighters. Throughout the war, the occupation military has conducted hundreds of armed patrols each week designed to capture suspected insurgents through house-to-house searches. The insurgency, in turn, has focused on deterring and derailing these patrols, using sniper attacks, rocket propelled grenades, and IEDs. At first, sniper attacks were the favored weapon of the insurgents, but the typical American response -- artillery and air attacks -- proved effective enough to set them looking for other ways to respond. IEDs then gained in popularity, since they could be detonated from a relatively safe distance. When the Americans developed devices to detect the electronic detonators, the insurgents developed a variety of non-electronic trigger devices. When the Americans upgraded their armor to resist the typical IED, the insurgents developed "shaped" charges that could pierce American armor.

And so it goes in all aspects of the war

Sunday, October 15, 2006

My Tube...

Just getting into YourTube, and here's a bit of what's on my tube...

Refuse/Resist by the youth wing of Sepultura - great fun!

Drumcorps-02-04-06 (get ready for GoatLab!!! 1st Dec )

Venetian Snares @ BGMW-XIV - Live and lov'in it!

The Assdroids-snakes & ladders video ????

PS. Also please sign the petition!

We believe that after two hung juries – which are failures of the government to prove their case – that the it should end its persecution of the 5 Fairford protesters who tried to stop the war crimes of aerial bombardment of civilian areas during the Iraq war. The Fairford protesters were acting out of a human concern for the civilians of Iraq and morally (as well as legally) did a brave action.

The Fairford protesters are people who were arrested while trying to disarm USAF B52 bombers stationed at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire before the attack on Iraq in March 2003. They are nonviolent and accountable, attempting to prevent the deaths of innocent Iraqis in an illegal war.

Bliar should be in the dock!

Saturday, October 14, 2006

B52 Trial – Hung Jury!

This was the second trial of the B52 people that has failed to reach verdict. It's not a total victory, but it is great news as it's not a guilty verdict. There is a petition online that you can sign asking to end the legal persecution:

These results show that when this question is put to ordinary people (the Jury) many of them see the actions of the Fairford people as justifiable – to my mind a correct reading of the situation and akin to the principal set out in the Nuremberg trials. I'm no lawyer but here's what part of the Control Council Law No. 10 says is a war crime;

". . . Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious groups whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated."

Note that end bit - "...whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." This was there to stop the Nazi's wriggling out by saying they were obeying the law of Germany – laws the conveniently wrote. If we take this idea and flip it round it should also mean that those who move to stop ". . . Atrocities and offenses.. against any civilian population..." which the air campaign, cluster bombs, shock-and-awe and depleted uranium must surly be, then it is the right of people to stop this "...whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." - in this case Fairford in the West Country, UK.

On the subject of Iraq, I saw Question Time on TV and there were a couple of funny moments. Both involve the neo-labour stooge Vera Baird MP. When answering the question, are the occupation forces part of the problem she said that before the war, "everyone thought that Saddam has WMDs" – to the masses derision of the other panelists and audience. She re-qualified her statement to say that she means that all at the UN thought that Saddam has WMD's, again massed derision. Are these people living in a dream-world? There was loads of voices, such as Scott Ritter, the former Marine intelligence Officer and UNSCOM weapons inspector saying there were no WMD's – the UN's Hans Blix did not deliver a 'yes' verdict with his reports, it was a 'don't think so, but impossible to say for sure'. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to re-write our collective memories. It will not work. The second funny moment was when she called Tony Bliar a 'democrat' to the massed guffaws of the panel and audience.

Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff; "As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance." Even the British army want out. Iraq is a colossal fuck-up and it should be Bliar and his cohorts (including Brown, who, whatever he said in private, supported the war) should be in court for war crimes against the 655,000 dead of Iraq.

A good Iraq quote from (it's a snipit of a real chat room conversation);

[Blaxthos] i think we're ultimately responsible for the insurgency
[superdan] I wouldn't rush to cop to that
[Blaxthos] saddam didn't have political instability
[Blaxthos] chop chop a coupla hundred insurgents
[Blaxthos] kinda takes the wind out of sail
[superdan] I'm more likely to put the responsibility on the guy who pulled the trigger or ordered it
[superdan] yup
[Blaxthos] didn't bush command us to attack ?
[superdan] and he can be held responsible by the folks killed by US forces
[Blaxthos] but since we toppled their government (which kept the insurgents in check) aren't we responsible for the insurgency ?
[superdan] no
[turtle_] no way dude we will overpower them with our freedom
[superdan] haha
[Blaxthos] in legalese we call that proximate causation
[superdan] there should've been a better plan in place to prevent it, but that doesn't mean it's his fault
[Blaxthos] so you say it would have spontaneously occured if we hadn't gone to war ?
[superdan] no
[Blaxthos] can't have cake and eat it too
[Blaxthos] see also: scores of retired generals coming forth to say "we told him so"
[turtle_] we had a fantastic plan
[turtle_] it went something like "i believe we will be greeted as liberators"
[turtle_] but then they fucked it all up by not doing that

Monday, October 09, 2006


Here's a couple - Parasite pointed me to ACRNYM, who sounds great!!!! And a Drum Crops interview...

Keep rocking ///\\\!!!

PS. The next GoatLab is going to have DrumCrops live!!!! 1st Dec people.