Jump to content


Phil Perry

Recommended Posts

Mr Cameron is trying to get a House of Commons majority to allow RAF aircraft to engage in bombing operations in Syria.


The situation in Syria at the m oment is very confused, and I would not try to explain it here. . .However, A very erudite friend has attempted to do so ( Thanks Sir,. . .I DO so wish I was clever enough to write this stuff. . .)


A highly restricted briefing document on Syria


President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).




But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called the Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).




So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and also giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) - which was good.




By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS – Islamic State - (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving Turkey guns to fight IS (which is good) whilst turning a blind eye to the fact that Turkey is buying oil from IS, but that is another matter.




Getting back to Syria.




So President Putin (who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi), has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking ISIS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing.




But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) and who are busy backing and arming the Rebels (who are also good).




Now Iran (who used to be bad, but since they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now considered good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.




So a Coalition of Assad (still bad), Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.




Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and they have to now accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).




So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than supporting IS, so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now possibly make them Good.




America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now Good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so America may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe (bad) or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).




To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)




Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.




So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also now, unbelievably, good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.


I hope that clears all this up for you. spacer.png



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil it sounds like the good the bad and the ugly all the makings of WW3

It HAS hasn't it ? ? ? seemingly those who pull the strings in the West never seem to learn by previous mistakes. . and, although that piece I posted has a wry, humorous flavour, it isn't really far off the mark.


Public opinion here in the UK is dead against further involvement, but as usual the PM just puts his fingers in his ears and sings LA LA LA LA. . .etc. . . I realy Don't want to see any RAF crews being beheaded on youtube thanks,. . . and if they are shot down ANYWHERE in Syria, that is likely to be the outcome. We should just let the yanks and the Russians get on with it, they're bombing each other's pets anyway, so it's just one big mess.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should just let the yanks and the Russians get on with it, they're bombing each other's pets anyway, so it's just one big mess.



All the good, bad and ugly analysis is great fodder for the newspapers and to keep the mug punters (you and I) off the REAL game. The real game is MONEY. It is all driven by profits for the armaments and oil industries. Those industries contribute just enough funds to just keep their tame politicians in power. Those industries have the financial wherewithall to bankroll their favorite pollites to an extent that their opponent parties would die on the vine, but they won't. The phrase "Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" pretty well sums up why.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way the middle east will come out of the situation that mainly Saudi money and influence has created without experiencing literally "Hell on earth"...

...and that's only the beginning, Nev. When Australia and the USA pulled aid money out of funding secular government schools in Indonesia, Saudi money filled the gap. They fund Madrassas which are bringing their medieval brand of Islam into one of the few tolerant Islamic countries.


That's millions of kids on our doorstep being educated to despise our way of life. Clever.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a photo in RAF museum Hendon of bombing Syria in about 1932 so they have had plenty of practice.

That, and the fact that we've been invading and bombing that part of the world for decades without any improvement (and in fact the situation has got markedly worse) should be enough evidence that doing more of the same is not the answer. This is why I know that the politicians are not actually trying to solve the problems, they are only doing what people who subscribe to simplistic solutions are clamouring for, but mainly the pollies are doing the bidding of those who profit from the conflict.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

An extract from The Great Book of Aeroplanes by GG Jackson Oxford University Press 1930.


During the more troublesome days in Irak, when it was necessary to maintain an airway between various military points in that rather desolate country, the native menace was a very real one, and it is not too much to claim that the gallant airmen took their lives in their hands in more ways than one each time they left the terminal of the airway. There was always the danger of engine trouble involving a forced descent, with, perhaps, a crash in the desert, while there was another danger in the possibility of being exposed in that waterless expanse of sand under the burning sun, supposing their water supplies had given out; and the greatest danger of all in the marauding tribes that looked upon white men and their machines as something which they must fight to the very last.


Had it not been that the natives were taught to respect aircraft, by the bombing of their villages when they did not behave themselves, the successful airways of the desert could never have been maintained. It is on record that along one airway the aeroplanes were repeatedly fired at by a tribe which could not be located because it was always on the move. It so happened, however, that the chief of the tribe met with a serious accident, and by good fortune he fell into the hands of the British. The airmen made no more to-do, but took the injured chief to the hospital at Bagdad. Here his leg was set, and he received every care and attention. This so impressed him that from being the greatest enemy of that desert airway, he became a firm and loyal friend to the airmen. No longer was it unsafe for the aeroplanes to fly over that part of the desert where his tribesmen were roving to and fro. He was a man of great force of character, and he insisted on his people treating the British aircraft with courtesy, and was often able to help the airmen when they were compelled to make a forced descent.


The number of troops which had to be maintained for the defence of Irak was enormous, and the cost very burdensome to the British Government. Transport was slow; troubles occurred with great frequency in all parts of a very large area, and it was difficult to move troops as quickly as was necessary because of the difficulty in providing for their supplies; but with the coming of the big troop-carriers these difficulties were largely surmounted. When news reached the commanding officer that trouble was threatened in an out-of-the-way part of the territory for which he was responsible, he would order out two or three troop-carriers, whose first duty would be to drop warning notes to those of the native chiefs who were creating trouble. In these notes it was intimated to them that unless they ceased their threats of war, and returned peacefully to their homes, the aeroplane would drop bombs on their villages. At first the warnings were disregarded, but when it was seen that the aircraft commanders were in deadly earnest, and did drop bombs, the natives began to understand that peace would have to be maintained.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHS is bad Phil and should be scrapped so that people are free to chose the health care that they want.


The Pension is bad, pensions are making it too easy for people to take off for Spain. If you want to live in Spain, do it on your own pound!


Cameron is a brave man and should have his war



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHS is bad Phil and should be scrapped so that people are free to chose the health care that they want.

The Pension is bad, pensions are making it too easy for people to take off for Spain. If you want to live in Spain, do it on your own pound!


Cameron is a brave man and should have his war

Thank you for your searching observations on the UK FT. . . bit off this topic BUT since you mentioned it. . . .


1) The NHS is BAD, mainly because it is overstretched due to a couple of decades of the Tony Blair "Open Doors" uncontrolled immigration policy, ( 1997 - 2010 - and followed on by Dave Camoron, the Heir To Blair, ans he once described himself. . .) "Quote" from the Blair Government < We are going to rub the noses of the Tories in Diversity >and by ridiculously over- staffed by leftie loonies who pay themselves management salaries which are far far too great, and seemingly couldn't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery whilst staarving the frontline medical staff of decent pay and much needed extra personnel as well as vital equipment and drugs. There is NOT ONE C.E.O. of ANY NHS area health Authority who does not get paid a heck of a lot more than David CAmern. . . with a gold plated index linked pension on top of all the performance bonuses etc. . .


2) The UK State pension is amongst the lowest in Europe. The State Pension is not a BENEFIT. It is paid for by "National Insurance" contributions which are deducted from wages and salaries throughout the working life of every working person. So if a pensioner decides to go and live in a warmer place such as Spain,. . .where the UK pension can be drawn,. . .then why not ? They paid for it. . .


3) David Cameron is neither Brave nor very clever it seems. . .he has apparently learned not one iota from the Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya experience . . .and has ABSOLUTELY NO exit strategy for the forthcoming "Let's bomb the barstards" HOC vote to be held this week. Also, only four Tornados could be found last week, to send out there to add to the eight already bombind in Iraq. . .MOD cuts you see,. . .no spares available,. . .engineers made redundant. . .etc. . . .


Anything else you'd like to know about what it is REALLY like living here, please don't be afraid to ask old boy what ?


Phil spacer.png ? ? ?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil you don't really understand why western democracies have such high immigration policies do you?


Once women in the west are free to chose between having children or working, a lot of them chose not to have kids at all, a lot chose to limit their reproduction significinatly, only a few go onto to become welfare fraudsters. Whereas, your poor migrants from shit hole countries with high infant mortality come from the culture of having large numbers of kids to cover the inevitable infant deaths is normal and encouraged. Working class women who have large families are revered in poorer countries but in the west they are portrayed as stupid, lazy and unworthy of state support. In Aus, only 60% of women have children, the UK wouldn't be far from that number, those that do chose mostly to have 2-3 kids, leaving the issue of an aging population and a declining workforce to pay the pensions of the idle grandparent class.


When you finally go to the old pilots home, chances are the guy wiping your asse will be some sort of non-anglo ethnic.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

FT you are a Fxxwit ,the migration policies started in the 60s when i lived there and it has got worse ,i left because the town i lived in was overun with cheap labour ie immigrants from pakistan and india and i just out of my apprenticship could not get a job, i paid National insurance till 1970 when i left for Aus, are you going to deny me my uk pension (extra tax hat i paid for my retirement) Labor Uk started the rot and now UK is a basket case Labor again , Phil come over to Aus pension isnt great (I am self funded and not a drain on the system here . FT one day you will be a senile old git in a nursing home and some person will be wiping your arse .



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gareth, In Aus we have a net migration of 200,000 ppl a year, mostly wealthy people or students who's parents are wealthy enough to pay the cost of a university education + visa, if each person brought in $200K in assets, that's approx $40B inflow of capital.


$40B every single year.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting historic perspective, PM. Some of the RAAF's first casualties were sustained in Iraq. Generations later an old Australia airman, when interviewed about the Mesopotamia Campaign, said they found the Kurds to be honourable people, but suffered constant thieving by local Arabs. It caused him great distress to be ordered to strafe Kurdish villages from the air. He felt they were attacking the wrong people- the perils of being just a pawn in Great Power politics.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Politics for Dummies


Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?


A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.


Q: But the inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction.


A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them.


Q: And that’s why we invaded Iraq?


A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.


Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?


A: That’s because the weapons are so well hidden. Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.


Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?


A: To use them in a war, silly.


Q: I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?


A: Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.


Q: That doesn’t make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?


A: It’s a different culture. It’s not supposed to make sense.


Q: I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.


A: Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.


Q: And what was that?


A: Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.


Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?


A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.


Q: Kind of like what they do in China?


A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.


Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it’s a good country, even if that country tortures people?


A: Right.


Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?


A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.


Q: Isn’t that exactly what happens in China?


A: I told you, China is different.


Q: What’s the difference between China and Iraq?


A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba’ath party, while China is Communist.


Q: Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad?


A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.


Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?


A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.


Q: Like in Iraq?


A: Exactly.


Q: And like in China, too?


A: I told you, China’s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.


Q: How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor?


A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.


Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t that help the Cubans become capitalists?


A: Don’t be a smart-ass.


Q: I didn’t think I was being one.


A: Well, anyway, they also don’t have freedom of religion in Cuba.


Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?


A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway.


Q: What’s a military coup?


A: That’s when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.


Q: Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?


A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.


Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?


A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.


Q: Didn’t you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?


A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.


Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?


A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.


Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?


A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men? Fifteen of them Saudi Arabians? hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.


Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?


A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.


Q: Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people’s heads and hands?


A: Yes, that’s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.


Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?


A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.


Q: Fighting drugs?


A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.


Q: How did they do such a good job?


A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.


Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s heads and hands off for other reasons?


A: Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread.


Q: Don’t they also cut off people’s hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?


A: That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.


Q: Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?


A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.


Q: What’s the difference?


A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers.


Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.


A: Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.


Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.


A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.


Q: Who trained them?


A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.


Q: Was he from Afghanistan?


A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.


Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.


A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.


Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?


A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.


Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?


A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now. We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn’t help us invade Iraq either.


Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?


A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.


Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn’t do what we want them to do?


A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.


Q: But wasn’t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?


A: Well, yeah. For a while.


Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?


A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.


Q: Why did that make him our friend?


A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.


Q: Isn’t that when he gassed the Kurds?


A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.


Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?


A: Most of the time, yes.


Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?


A: Sometimes that’s true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.


Q: Why?


A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America’s side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?


Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?


A: Yes.


Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?


A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.


Q: So basically, what you’re saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?


A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.


Q: Good night, Daddy.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ lobotomised by Fairfax. It's a shock but many things are happening in the world that you aren't being told about Marty. They decided it's for your good. spacer.png

Gnu, I know you probably can't see the irony, but that's the funniest thing you've ever posted.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...