Friday, October 13, 2006

Head of British Army says Islam undermines ‘our way of life’

The head of the British Army has launched a broadside against Tony Blair’s moral crusade in Iraq. He demands the withdrawal of British troops, or risk catastrophic consequences for both Iraq and British society. It is rare indeed for such a senior military officer to directly challenge the political authority, but General Sir Richard Dannatt is no managerial doormat; he is the sort of military leader who would make a fine head of state – a strategist with a clarity of communication that cuts through all the political waffle of the age, and manifests true leadership.

Although his context is clearly Iraq, where he warns that the presence of British troops ‘exacerbates the security problems’, his insights into the nature and objectives of Islam are illuminating. He perceptively observes that a ‘moral and spiritual vacuum’ permeates British society which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine ‘our accepted way of life’. By this, he means that Christian values are under threat in Britain, and that foreign policy is directly affecting the UK’s domestic security. He appears to be more than aware that the battle between the Dar al Islam and the Dar al Haab is a universal one, and believes that the West’s imposition of liberal democracy in Iraq is ‘naïve’. Indeed it is. Islam has no interest in the power of the people, and Muslim countries little respect for ‘foreign’ systems of government.

Sir Richard clearly perceives that to which our politicians are blind: the failure to support and promote Christian values is permitting the ascendancy of a predatory Islamist vision. He said: ‘When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country… Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind... We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it. It is said that we live in a post Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British army.’

He concluded: ‘I am going to stand up for what is right for the army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth.’

Cranmer says Amen, and prays for this man’s protection and blessing.

70 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

he is the sort of military leader who would make a fine head of government

Here's hoping !!

13 October 2006 at 09:17  
Anonymous The Labour Humanist said...

Since when was this guy paid to give bar room rants (sorry for the insult to bar room rants which are usually more reasoned than this interview) about the state of the country? And since when has it been ok for senior army figures to knock other people's beliefs and life stances. Texas is much more christian than britain, but is their culture betters than ours...it it heck!

13 October 2006 at 10:05  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Well Labour Humanist if a Govt ceases to take advice of its military commanders and imperils the army by its reckless disregard for lack of equipment and manpower I fully support the Head of the Army going public.

This is the BRITISH Army not the Blair Army and not that of the Labour Party.

13 October 2006 at 10:14  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Texas is much more christian than britain, but is their culture betters than ours

Having lived in Texas I do think it superior, yes.

13 October 2006 at 10:15  
Anonymous Colin said...

The Labour Humanist,

Your statement "Texas is much more christian than britain, but is their culture betters than ours...it it heck!" makes me feel sorry for you. Why?

Because it proves that propaganda still has a powerful effect on the human mind. Did you ever live in the USA?

I did and in my experience, the American people are the most civilized, kind and generous people in the world.

In the past, humanism was a liberation movement opposing the oppression by the State and the supporting propaganda of the Catholic Church. Labour is a socialist party. Socialism is a secular religious movement deifying the State and leading to new forms of oppression by the State. Therefore, a Labour Humanist is a contradiction in terms.

13 October 2006 at 10:54  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Aparently he has "the prime ministers full support"
So that's him toast then.

13 October 2006 at 14:31  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Sometimes God just makes sure that the right person is in the right place at the right time.

For a while now I have sensed that the stakes in the battle for belief have risen. We see daily assaults on Christian belief in the name of political correctness and for a while now, services like the police force have interpreted the government's wishes in this respect but it seems the tide is turning and the silent majority are silent no longer:


General Dannat said,

"When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country."

"Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind."

"There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in."

This moral and philosphical vacuum has to be filled. It does not have to be a Christian one for it could just as easily be an ultra-right wing one.

We are on dangerous ground when a senior military figure makes signals of this type, which are profoundly critical of the Government.

I am convinced that there will be a crisis. Twenty-five years ago the forces of a bankrupt, worn-out, morally bereft government were set against the Unions. The police action in those days was shameful. Are we now going to see history repeating itself? How many more Bible believing Christians will be arrested or threatened with arrest on trumped up charges before the righteous truth prevails?

The Islamist threat in this country has to be confronted. It will not go away. For the moment they have the tacit approval of the government, but even that is slipping.

We are at the beginning of a revolution. It may be bloody.

13 October 2006 at 15:31  
Anonymous Colin said...

Fruning Graplecard,

Could you please explain in more detail the meaning of your comments.

"This moral and philosphical vacuum has to be filled. It does not have to be a Christian one for it could just as easily be an ultra-right wing one."

Could you be more specific. National socialism is commonly identified with ultar-right wing. What do you mean by an ultra-right wing philosophy filling a moral vacuum?

"Twenty-five years ago the forces of a bankrupt, worn-out, morally bereft government were set against the Unions."

Are you talking about Margret Thatcher's government?

13 October 2006 at 16:35  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Colin.

Since we are talking about 25 years ago, imagine if I had said to you, twentyfive years ago, that Christians will be arrested for making the sign of the cross, displaying posters with Bible texts in the windows of their homes, arrested for quoting the bible, arrested for incitement to race hatred or questioned by police for espousing Scripture? All this has happened. It is happening today.

Either you would have nodded sagely and commented that this is merely a fulfilment of Scripture or you would have thought I was being melodramatic.

I am just pointing out that we can find ourselves in the grip of unimagined circumstances. Sixty years ago, Germany, now a civilised sophisticated society was condoning state genocide. Things change, often profoundly. As for ultra-right wing, I suppose I meant parties like the BNP. It does not take much of a leap of imagination to see people deserting the main parties in droves in the face of a national crisis. History testifies to the consequences of a weak government (which this one is) unable to deal with a single issue in a decisive and effective way.

As for the Unions under Thatcher, I am convinced that their power needed to be broken. What I am angry about is the way in which this was done. Violence and the use of agents provocoteurs to overthrow them was more like Stalinism than Thatcherism.

I hope this clears up my remarks.

13 October 2006 at 16:53  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Violence and the use of agents provocoteurs to overthrow them

with Stella Rimington's reward being made Head of MI5 and turning a blind eye to Muslim groups expelled from France building up in Londonistan............for Stella it was Unions and IRA..........no terrorists spoke Arabic or Urdu or Bengali or Punjabi - even though India complained about money being sent to Kashmir from Britain

13 October 2006 at 17:55  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Well, I kindof agree Labour Humanist (who he?) on this. The military must be subordinate to the political. When the roles are reversed, or the reversal is even hinted at, you move towards a military coup. In the UK, the military enjoys an inherent respect from the public in ways politicians can only dream of. If one becomes outspoken, he may well be tempted to stand for office. That would be a quasi-military coup - quasi because it's achieved democratically, but it still leaves government by the military.

13 October 2006 at 18:02  
Anonymous Colin said...

General Sir Richard Dannatt said: "We have got to speak the truth."

But what is the truth?

There seems to be a general consensus that Iran is trying to export Khomenei's Islamic revolution, is supporting and financing Islamists who want to conquer the West. Other major players in the Islamist movement appear to be Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

In other words, the situation is not much different from Hitler's fascist revolution and the other members of the fascist movement, i.e.Italy and Spain.

It has always been the strategy of the British military to fight its enemies on foreign territory to avoid a war on British soil. Furthermore, "divide et impera" (divide and rule) has always been the preferred British strategy which was successfully employed on the continent, in India etc.

What would have happened in WW-II if the British army would have withdrawn from the continent because a British general warned that the Army could 'break' if British soldiers are kept too long on the continent claiming that the presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" on the continent. We are in a German country and Germans' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. etc.

Would this have solved the problem the UK faced in regard to Hitler's fascist movement? Is it likely to solve the problem the UK is facing in regard to the Islamist movement?

What do we reply to strategists like Daniel Pipes and Osma ben Laden who are thinking that the war in Iraq between Sunnites and Schiits is dangerous to the attempted Islamic conquest of the West because it is the same old strategy "divide et impera" which GB politicians have employed in the past in the Islamic world (e.g. India & Pakistan, splitting up of the Ottoman empire in states with mixed ethnic populations such as e.g. Iraq).

What will happen if British and American troops completely pull out of Iraq? Islamists will feel victorious and focus their attention on the next move, i.e. to conquer Britain. Furthermore, since the majority of the population in Iraq are Schiits supported by the Iranian government it is only a matter of time until the Iraqian Sunnites are defeated and a United Iran-Iraq will emerge subduing the entire Middle East with the threat of its atomic weapons.

Would such a strategy bring more peace to the UK and its people or wouldn't the British Islamists return home after the victory and start the conquest of their home country just as the Islamists did after the defeat of the Russian army in Afganistan?

Wouldn't it be more successful to play the old 'balance of power' game in Iraq requiring only a small military effort because the Sunnite population mainly does the fighting?

Who says that the Islamist movement cannot be defeated? If they get stuck in an endless war without decisive victory, the Islamic youth will lose interest in sacrificing their lifes without success. The next generation might adopt a more successful strategy, e.g. to learn from the economic success of Western and Far-Eastern countries. Who would have ever thought that the Soviet Union would break down?

The General "lambasts Tony Blair's desire to forge a "liberal democracy" in Iraq as a "naive" failure". Are Tony Blair and George Bush really so "naive" or did they conceal their real intentions, i.e "divide et impera"? Isn't a General naive who thinks that politicians are always revealing their true intentions and never use deception? If TB and GWB want to use the old strategy "divide and rule", could they possibly appear on national television and tell the audience that they are planning to start a civil war in the Islamic world?

It seems to me that Tony Blair smarter than Richard Dannatt.

Fruning Graplecard,

Thank you for your explanations. Now, I understand better and agree with large parts of your statement.

13 October 2006 at 18:18  
Anonymous Colin said...

"It seems to me that Tony Blair smarter than Richard Dannatt."

Since it is hard to believe that a general doesn't know the major British strategy of the last centuries, I am wondering whether there might be an alternative explanation for Richard Dannatt's unusual behavior. It is possible that he cares less about the British military or the UK than about his career. He might be very smart and trying to save his job with the next PM by critizing Tony Blair. Interestingly, his criticism came after TB announced his exit from office as PM. God knows what GB might have promised him for putting pressure on TB.

13 October 2006 at 19:03  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If one becomes outspoken, he may well be tempted to stand for office. That would be a quasi-military coup - quasi because it's achieved democratically

Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister 1828 whilst still C-in-C of the British Army

Colin, you err.

The simple fact is that with 6 of 8 Infantry divisions fighting there is a major shortage of troops to fight. Deploying Paratroops to Afghanistan and then to Iraq leaves a major problem with training - now if Blair would bite the bullet and draft all 18 year olds he could expand the Army.

Otherwise there is a major shortage of fighting soldiers and Britain has the smallest Army since 1912 and cannot do what it is tasked with. Gordon Brown has set their budgets and 450.000 rounds of small arms ammo comes out of existing budgets. The Govt laid of 4 infantry battalions to save money.

You cannot stretch the Army this way or it will collapse, TA soldiers are being used in the front line but are leaving in droves as their employers fire them

13 October 2006 at 19:11  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

I have difficulty with the idea of equating British involvement during 1939-45 in Europe with the present position.

Firstly, in 1939 the population of Britain backed the government and continued to do so.
Secondly, we entered the war in Europe with the approval and the continued approval of fellow Europeans.
Thirdly, the Nazis continued a campaign of genocide, scorched earth and civilian casualties until the very end
Forthly, we were better organised to deal with the aftermath, unhampered by local resistance.
Fifthly, our ideological, philosophical and religous basis were broadly coalescent with the former Nazi occupied countries.
Finally, we imposed rigorous control upon the defeated country and swiftly brought the perpetrators to justice.

It was a just war as far as I can see. The Iraq catastrophe is not just and no amount of propaganda by this criminal government will change that.

13 October 2006 at 19:45  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

Naturally, it is possible that I err. Who can really be sure that anything reported in the MSM about the motives of any government or the people working for the government is correct. Many have their own agenda. In addition, history has often witnessed the failure of governmental plans. Therefore, it is entirely possible that politicians are far less sophisticated than they appear to me.

But isn't GB using his position to take over the power from TB by rallying the members of the Labour party and of the media against the most unpopular part of TB's politics?

"The Govt laid of 4 infantry battalions to save money."

Wasn't it GB who made this decision and what does he need the money for, for paying benefits to more rentseeking immigrants including those from Islamic countries or for paying French farmers via the EU or for financing the EU membership of Turkey? I don't know but somehow this decision doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Fruning Graplecard,

You correctly stated that "The Iraq catastrophe is not just" because all wars are unjust with the exception of wars of defense. And since Iraq neither attacked the USA nor the UK, the Iraq war is clearly an injust war. However, if I am trying to understand political decisions I am tempted to leave justice out of the equation since politicians seem to care more about increasing their power than about justice.

13 October 2006 at 21:12  
Anonymous Voyager said...

You focus so much on politics rather than the simple fact that men use guns to defend themselves from being killed and rather as Gladstone under-resourced General Gordon for his actions in Sudan, so current British governments have failed to equip properly for current warfare.

Frankly I do not care why, I just want it resolved - NOW.

If Brown has to go himself or Blair has to sell his firstborn son, I care not. I want guns, ammunition, helicopters, flying gun platforms, and soldiers ready to fight in Afghanistan.

If Blair has personally to repair the 8 Chinooks sitting in hangars, the Apache gunships that are awaiting repairs, or to recruit the 4 battalions from his son's schoolfriends, I don't care.................just get them into battle - NOW.

This is reality and not one this country is up to - a focus on words and silly posturing does not replace gun barrels when fighting and killing. This country is too abstract, killing men with bayonets is too real and I think it is time the country resourced what it wills rather than serving up men's lives so a country can squirt money in wasteful ways back home.

13 October 2006 at 21:31  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

"You focus so much on politics rather than the simple fact that men use guns to defend themselves"

Are you telling me that the once glorious British army has been sent into a war without having guns or other weapons to fight?

13 October 2006 at 22:09  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

You said: "You focus so much on politics rather than the simple fact that men use guns to defend themselves"

Are the following facts correct?

First, according to Wikipedia, the Regular British Army has a personnel of 107,730. In Iraq, the BF has 8,500 troops.

Second, 25,500 of the Regular British Army's personnel is sitting in Germany defending what? - The 1st Armoured Division is part of the British Forces in Germany and equipped with 300 Challenger 2 MBTs, 275 Warrior IFVs, 96 AS-90 Braveheart howitzers, 18 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, over 1,000 other armoured personnel carriers, and 11 Gazelle and Lynx helicopters according to another article in Wikipedia.

Third, according to the BBC, the British Forces is estimated to input 1.5 billion euros into the German economy.

In conclusion, the British army has the money, the personnel and the weapons. It's a political decision to let the British Forces sit in Germany instead of sending them to Iraq for helping to protect their comrades's lifes, isn't it?

13 October 2006 at 23:02  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Colin - it happens all the time.

As God is my witness, Her Majesty's forces took boots from dead Argentine conscripts (poor blighters, and they deserve our sympathies) in '82 - as they were of a much higher quality and helped defend against the horrors of trench foot which they were otherwise at risk of.

13 October 2006 at 23:07  
Anonymous Colin said...

Croydonian,

What is happening all the time, that British soldiers don't have the necessary equipment?

14 October 2006 at 00:03  
Blogger dearieme said...

General Sir Thingy had better watch out - soon rumours will begin mysteriously circulating suggesting that he once claimed travel expenses without handing over the bus ticket which he'd claimed he'd bought. Or the like. New Labour, New Lies.

14 October 2006 at 00:07  
Blogger Sceps said...

Even the Yanks call the SAS "the Borrowers"

14 October 2006 at 00:36  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Colin, look at the troops despatched to Afghanistan - Air Assault Brigade, this is light infantry. The Armoured Groups are in Iraq not Wikipedia.

Could you explain how to move an MBT from Germany to Afghanistan ?

What is missing is helicopters - Chinooks have a problem - Mull of Kintyre - avionics is crap so at least 8 Chinooks are grounded.

Soldiers fire ammunition - and need replenishment. Where are the stocks ? who gets them in ? Why are none of the aircraft gunships armoured like A-10s ?

Why do British officers buy medical kit from their own pockets ? Why do I meet mothers who buy clothing for their sons ?

Why did one of those living locally lose her husband because the flak jacket he had bought with his own money was ordered to be given to another soldier, and he was killed ?

Why doesn't Wikipedia protect a man in battle as much as Kevlar plates ?

Why does the SA-80 rifle jam in heat and dust ?

Why did Britain have exercises in Oman prior to Iraq which showed major kit problems ?

Why are armoured vehicles thin-skinned rather than blast-resistant ? Why are the German Dingoes not used ?

If you want to correlate your Wikipedia source with men fighting try this Blog

http://www.arrse.co.uk/

14 October 2006 at 07:13  
Blogger istanbultory said...

May it please His Grace that the contributor formerly known as "GC" has rechristened himself as istanbultory and is now possessed of a fully-functioning and virtuous blog of his own to boot.
Do grace us with your presence,sir.

I am with Frunning on this issue. If the political class fails to act honestly, as they have demonstrable failed to do throughout the crimminaly irresponsible Iraq debacle, surely it the duty of a respected public servant to speak the truth.

Although Blair has expressed his support for the head of the army, I fear that the high command of NuLabour are about to launch a decapitation operation against the general. No doubt skeletons in Sir Richard’s closet are being actively sought. I am with the General on this one....And not with Michael Portillo and Sir Malcolm Rifkind who argue that Sir Richard has crossed the line.

14 October 2006 at 11:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And not with Michael Portillo and Sir Malcolm Rifkind who argue that Sir Richard has crossed the line.

Now there are a couple of useless Tory Defence Secretaries - Volker Ruhe the German Defence Secretary used to call Portillo "Polly"

14 October 2006 at 14:52  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

This country could well benefit from a few years of military rule,to weed out who is with us and who is not,we are awash with enemies and parasites, and it is a healthy thing that this man can tell us the truth without it being manipulated by the anti English media and the treasonous bliar regieme.bravo!

14 October 2006 at 14:59  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Englishman
Lets not forget that we almost did get the benefit of a few years under military rule in the 1970's, again due to misrule by a group of marxist traitors calling themselves the Labour party.
Dissolve Parliament, shoot most Bishops and cheif constables and then Give the British forces a mandate of 10 years to turn this country around and we would be the most successful nation on earth.
Spiritually and materially.

14 October 2006 at 15:12  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

Thank you for more information on this issue and especially for the link.

I don't have the necessary information to known if the British soldiers in Iraq have sufficient guns, ammunition, clothing etc.

So let's assume that you are right in this regard.

This leads to the next question, who is responsible for that?

Isn't the Head of the British Army responsible for organizing the purchase and delivery of the required ammunition and clothing?
It is difficult to imagine that such military details are the responsibility of the Prime Minister. And if the Head of the British Army is responsible for not getting the job done to provide ammunition and cloths to his soldiers, shouldn't he rather be fired than honored?

If he isn't responsible for the disorganization of his army, why doesn't he demand more ammunition, clothes etc. in his interview.

Since when are wars won by generals proposing to go home instead of fighting because the enemy doesn't like us?

What are the arms of the enemy in Iraq? Guns, bombs and a few rockets. If the army goes home and the jihadist in the UK are using guns, bombs and a few rockets, were will the British army go home next? Will the Head of the British Army weep again because he is not loved, hand over the UK to jihadists and move the British army to America?

This man certainly hasn't the "Nelson touch". With such an attitude, Lord Nelson wouldn't have won the war against Napoleon and Winston Churchill wouldn't have defeated Nazi Germany. In consequence, Britons would now speak French or German.

Where is the "stiff upper lip" of the British population? If even the conservatives on this blog are in favour of surrender, Britons are on their way to learning the Arabic language.

And why not? Human history is full of examples for the reversal of oppression, because following a victorous liberation movement the former oppressors became the next victims.

14 October 2006 at 15:51  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Dissolve Parliament, shoot most Bishops...

Why, pray?

And why does the second of these occupy your mind with such priority?

14 October 2006 at 15:56  
Anonymous Colin said...

GC,

Congratulations for your own blog! There are a number of interesting topics such as

Royal turn-off

The Impotence of the Turkish Diaspora

Fear and loathing in Ankara...

Straight Talk... ( General Sir Richard Dannatt)

Gordo bounces back....


Everyone, have you already visited our good old friend GC at Istanbul Tory?

14 October 2006 at 16:07  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Leave off the Bishops, gentleman.
Military coups are hardly a barrel of laughs and I would hardly say blighty is in need of one. And Coups usually generate more long-term problems than they actually solve. Turkey has had three (and some reckon a fourth is looming) during the last 45 years. Result? Sweet Fanny Adams. Begging His Grace's pardon for the implied vulgarism.
What Blighty needs is a return to the tradition of the Conservative Party as the natural party of government....

14 October 2006 at 16:12  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Colin,
Thank you for your kind referral... and I do look forward to welcoming you chez moi. Together with all other interested parties.

14 October 2006 at 16:15  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Istanbul Tory
Johnny wogs idea of a coup is not the same as Tommy Atkins, what we require is a very British coup.
Mass repatriation of foreigners Marxists tied to a post and shot, including the ones in the clergy and a return to pre WW2 values, in fact a return to the values held by most people in 1963 prior to the Beetles and the Rolling stones.
If your Grace were still alive I would of course exempt you from execution, you seem like the kind of Bishop we need.

14 October 2006 at 17:27  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Isn't the Head of the British Army responsible for organizing the purchase and delivery of the required ammunition and clothing?

No. He is not. You should read up on the structure of the British Constitution. The CGS is not even part of the Ministry of Defence - he is the Head of the Army on the Chief of The General Staff. The whole principle of Civilian Control of the Military is that the Politicians have control of Military Budgets.

One Gordon Brown MP, PC is Second Lord of the Treasury; the First Lord of The Treasury is one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, MP, PC. The Secretary of State for defence is currently Des Browne, a Scottish Lawyer who was previously monkey to organd grinder Gordon Brown, as Chief Secretary To The Treasury.

In that capacity a 3-Year spending Plan was agreed with the MoD. Then the 1st Lord of the Treasury decided to invade Iraq, but did not order the Second Lord of the Treasury to fund it. So a series of additional payments were made for Iraq from the Contingency Reserve until Brown decided to make the MoD pay for Afghanistan out of existing budgets.

Since the MoD had no idea the First Lord of The Treasury planned to commit troops to Afghanistan it had not budgeted for this mission. It had also been buying Eurofighter and had a First Lord of The Treasury who wished to buy two aircraft carriers, which were also not budgeted.

To save money the Army budgets were cut. The lost MBTs and other armoured vehicles. The Treasury had decided to "tax" the assets of each department with an annual charge, so the MoD which keeps large stocks of equipment and ammunition in case of war started selling it off. This meant that army Surplus outlets had tonnes of flak jackets and Kevlar plates and armoured landrovers and other vehicles, which the MoD had to try and buy back from

http://tinyurl.com/yehghv

having sold them at £6000 they had to buy them back at 8-10 times the sale price.

The MoD was then stuck with a 3 Yesr Spending Plan which did not include Afghanistan and so hasd to start making Defence Cuts, each override on Eurofighter, Trident, A/C carriers meant headcount had to be reduced so 4 battalions of infantry were laid off, regiments combined, barracks sold, and military hospitals sold off.

Then training was cut back to rotate troops from Iraq to Afghanistan faster, and Territorials were drafted more frequently than permitted so their employers began firing them and the MoD hung them out to dry, so more TA soldiers quit.

There were TA soldiers - students in Afghanistan - one lost an arm. they had joined to pay their way through University.

The Treasury under Brown and Browne continued to look for savings from the military. eurofighter was important to the Unions - Amicus and T&GWU who fund the Labour Party, so it was a case of cutting back on the Army.

In addition there are seceral expensive projects like FRES which commit Army budgets for years to come to integrate the British Army into the European Military Structures and import Swedish and German and Italian military equipment


Unfortunately these pie in the sky projects, like the £800 million spent on Apache helicopters do little for the squaddie sitting behind a machine gun running low on ammunition and feeling the 50C heat realising that the Jihadis attacking him want to kill him, but he must consult with legal counsel before he responds and infringes the civil liberties or religious observances of the man trying to kill him.

In short the Govt won't care if he is dead, but it will move heaven and earth to prosecute him if he insults the man trying to kill him

14 October 2006 at 18:15  
Anonymous VOyager said...

http://tinyurl.com/upxub

Sector: Defence
Date: 19 July 2004
Source: Daily Telegraph
Link: www.telegraph.co.uk

The Chancellor is insisting that the Armed Forces save £2.63 billion a year in return for the extra £3.5 billion over three years promised last week.

But the “new” money will do nothing to prevent the swingeing defence cuts expected to be announced on Wednesday by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary.


ncrease in defence budget falls short of resolving woes

Sector: Defence
Date: 13 July 2004
Source: The Herald
Link: www.thehearald.co.uk

THE 1.4% budget increase in real terms for the Ministry of Defence announced yesterday by the chancellor will be dwarfed in a department with an immediate shortfall of £1.9bn and cost overruns of £3.1bn on future projects.

The rise over the next three years will almost certainly not save doomed regiments, provide lightweight, armoured vehicles, nor help to ease the burden of manpower-intensive operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.


Forces face spending curb despite budget rise

Sector: Defence
Date: 13 July 2004
Source: The Guardian
Link: www.guardian.co.uk

Widely expected increases in the defence budget of more than £1bn a year will not be enough to avoid cuts in planned spending by the armed forces, already suffering from overstretch.
This was the consensus among defence analysts as the chancellor disclosed that the cost of British military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan had so far reached £4.4bn - more than the total planned increase in the defence budget over the next three years.

The cost of those operations will continue to be paid by the Treasury's contingency reserves - not by the Ministry of Defence - said Gordon Brown.


Defence spending lower in real terms than before 1997

Sector: Defence
Date: 12 July 2004
Source: Financial Times
Link: www.ft.com

The defence budget is lower in real terms today than before Labour come to power in 1997 in spite of the additional commitments the military has taken on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is also set to remain lower as a result of today's spending review. If, as expected, the defence budget is increased by an annual average of about 1.25 per cent in real terms for each of the two new years covered by the review, at the end of the period it will be worth about 8 per cent less than in 2001-02.
Later this week the Ministry of Defence is expected to detail a programme of cuts in the army, navy and air force, reinforcing concerns about the armed forces being overstretched.


The Army would lose also four infantry battalions, bringing its strength down from 103,000 to 100,000, according to the report.

"We don't know the results of the spending review and nor does the Mail on Sunday," an MOD spokesman said. "I think this is purely speculative."


http://tinyurl.com/yhnbtf

Defence Secretary Des Browne has responded to claims in the 29 August 2006 issue of The Guardian newspaper that British troops are ill-equipped and that the defence budget is insufficient.

The bigger charge at the heart of Mr Moriarty’s article is that the defence budget is not large enough, and that "the climate of financial threat" generated by the Treasury has encouraged military chiefs to take on discretionary operations in order to justify their budgets. As a former soldier, he should know better than to think the chiefs of staff would deploy their people into operations they saw as inadequately planned or funded in order to please the Treasury – or anyone else for that matter.

Mr Moriarty is wrong to say we’re short of money or that the Treasury is demanding cuts. At the planning stage of the Afghan operation, I was at the Treasury. I know what the MOD asked for, and I know what it got. They are one and the same thing.

But we still have to stay within that budget, of course. And we have to make sure we get the most out of it. We are looking to "cut the fat" wherever we can to ensure that cash goes to the front line – something all departments do, if a little less literally. It’s not because we are short of money, it’s because it’s the right thing to do.

14 October 2006 at 18:29  
Anonymous Voyager said...

http://tinyurl.com/y7lf4g

Soldiers are paying with their lives for this incompetence

Escalating commitments, budget squeezes and big equipment programmes have left Britain's forces fatally overstretched

Michael Moriarty
Tuesday August 29, 2006
The Guardian


Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching our forces - the army in particular - beyond the limits of the assumptions on which their funding is based. This situation has arisen through a combination of the government's enthusiasm for use of the armed forces to support its foreign-policy aims and the failure of defence chiefs to adequately highlight the limitations of military force and to demand that the government properly resource its military ambitions. There is a real risk that the armed forces could fail in their politically appointed tasks, with terrible long-term consequences for both them and Britain's world standing.

14 October 2006 at 18:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kopernik

August 29, 2006 07:44 AM

It is time for the Defence Select Committee to take a hand and subpoena the head of British Land Forces to account for himself on the record.

It is time also for the House of Commons Committee to ask the Bundestag Defence Committee to undertake a review before German soldiers are deployed in Southern Afghanistan and to compare notes in a private meeting.

Then it is time for the Defence Secretary who as Treasury Secretary imposed a cash constraint on this mission to come and explain himself.

If there is going to be failure it is time to hang the chains around the necks of named persons at a high level so they can carry the burden

14 October 2006 at 18:35  
Anonymous Colin said...

Thank you so much, Voyager, for the detailed and important information about the BF.

It looks like the usual mess of a government enterprise, in this case the army. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. If this kind of mismanagement continues, the BF won't be able to protect its own homeland.

But if you were Head of British Army, wouldn't you rather sound the alarm, complain about the lack of support for the army in an interview and demand more weapons, soldiers and money than to propose to go home and hope for the best that the jihadists won't try to defeat Britain by employing the same tactics in the UK as in Iraq?

14 October 2006 at 18:56  
Anonymous Voyager said...

No. He wants the troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan.

WE do not have enough front-line fighting soldiers - he wants the troops from Iraq to be deployed to Afghanistan since NATO will not provide reserves. In Afghanistan they are fighting a real war.

The problem is simply the problem between Brown and Blair. Blair does not control Brown and so men pay with their lives as Blair commits troops and Brown refuses to pay for the mission.

14 October 2006 at 20:56  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Grafas Fruning Graplecard 1895 – 2006

Fruning Walpurgis Wenceslas Colin Frankopan Graplecard was born into one of the most influential and revered of families, on January 19th 1895 at his country estate just outside the regional capital Marijampolė. (Now His family can be traced back to medieval times and, indeed to king Mindaugas himself. Fruning’s ancestor, the Grand Hetman of Lithuania was responsible for introducing the concept of Schadenfreude to the populace of Sūduva / Suvalkija, today erroneously and recklessly attributed to the German language. A statue to Flatelall Graplecard has been erected in Bristol, by the local population, in recognition of their affinity with Schadenfreude.

In 1920, as a result of the Polish-Bolshevik war, Fruning fled to Belgium, then thought the better of it, and settled in London at Number 1 Ovington Square, SW3, and Number 9, The Ovaries, Scotton Pinkney until his death.

A keen frotteur, he spent many hours on the Bakerloo Line during rush hour and never missed Harrod’s sale, since it was just a short walk from his London residence.

During the Second World War, Fruning Graplecard trained spies and knitted balaclavas for the Women’s Land Army. In 1954 he was awarded the Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Commander’s Grand Cross) for services to naturism and the Hanseatic wool trade.

He wrote and published many articles and books, but is chiefly remembered for his collaboration with Hieronymous Gratenfliess on the The Incomplete History of the Art of the Funerary Violin.

In recent years, as his health declined due to an excess of wine and Macadamia nuts, he devoted himself to the occasional talk on semiotics, online tittle tattle and ill-considered tirades on dubious “blogs”. A bitter feud erupted between himself and an old associate, Sir Aubrey de Tocquaine, ending in de Tocquaine’s tragic death.

He entered hospital having succumbed to a surfeit of Lampreys but recovered, only to choke on a liquorice allsort. Despite passers by attempting the Heimlich manoeuvre (whom he fought off with the words “Get off me you despicable bugger”) he could not be resuscitated.

He is survived by his wife and erstwhile mistress the Grafienė Stacey Graplecard, the nude model, and his son, Jeremy Paxman, the broadcaster.

14 October 2006 at 21:07  
Anonymous archduke said...

i'm atheist and i entirely agree with the General. i do recognise the enormous contribution of Christianity to Western civilisation. it is , as the general says, the "underpining" of not only the British army, but of western society in general. One cannot avoid that fact.

The other thing to bear in mind is - if the British Army actually DID do a coup d'etat would the British populace be "outraged" about it? i think not. maybe Galloway and his Muslim followers would be, but the average Brit wouldnt be in the slightest - such is their contempt for Parliament nowadays.

and that is very dangerous - we could , in our lifetime, see the end of democracy in the UK. But having said that - would a military coup be something that leads onto a greater thing. something that prevents us from sliding into outright civil war and terrorism?

there is an awful lot to mull over - and the General is saying some things that we do really need to think about.

15 October 2006 at 00:24  
Anonymous archduke said...

"What is happening all the time, that British soldiers don't have the necessary equipment?"

it makes them stronger soldiers. less pampered. more incentivised to come up with their own solutions.

thats my take on it. and to be honest, the pinnacle of the Brit army is the SAS. even the Americans admit that they cant even get close to them. the SAS *are* the pinnacle of special operations - with the Israelis being a very close second... probably equal...

name another European country with something equivalent in fighting capacity and skill to the SAS.. you cant. not bad for a little island off the north west coast of Europe.

15 October 2006 at 00:29  
Anonymous archduke said...

may i add - i totally disagree with the idiotic decision to send troops out in Land Rovers , when there are far better armoured vehicles available. We should buy the best equipment - but we shouldnt over do it to such an extent that you end up with the cyborg warriors of the U.S. army.

there is a lesson from history in all of this - Waffen SS versus the Red Army. Who was better equipped? Who lost the war? Yes, i know , there are vastly more complicated arguments about this , but it was acknowledged by the S.S. at the time that the Red Army , despite its lack of equipment had an unreal ability to live off the land. The sheer nature of the over equipped S.S. made them more complacent, in a way. You could also fast forward to the example of the Vietcong verus the well equipped U.S. army.

15 October 2006 at 00:38  
Anonymous Voyager said...

thats my take on it. and to be honest, the pinnacle of the Brit army is the SAS

Of course - replace the British Army with 300 Paratroopers dressed as SAS men - who are pampered and not equipped with the SA-80 rifle but HK rifles. The poverty of modern Britain allows it to equip 300 men adequately, though their 8 Chinook helicopters are useless and sitting in hangars - they may be painted black but they cannot fly


Maybe we should scraop the Armed Forces and just employ scriptwriters and authors of penny dreadfuls to make us feel pride

15 October 2006 at 07:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

there is a lesson from history in all of this - Waffen SS versus the Red Army. Who was better equipped?

The Red Army by far - so much Lend-Lease and the huge output of T-34 tanks and artillery. The Red Army had the highest ratio of artillery to manpower of any army; and the troops brought in from the Far East once Japan attacked south at Pearl Harbour rather than through manchuria - released huge armies under Zhukhov which overwhelmed the German 6th Army.

Read Guy Sajer "Forgotten Soldier" for a flavour of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front, and remember many were Ukrainians fighting the Red Army and NKVD.

If you think the Wehrmacht was better equipped than the Red Army you are reading the wrong comics - it was not better equipped than France in May 1940 - France had more tanks, more aircraft in hangars and huge orders in the USA (transferred to Britain after June 1940)

15 October 2006 at 07:13  
Blogger istanbultory said...

It's reassuring to see that the government is so fully focused on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and not distracted by marginal inter-cabinet struggles.
Perhaps the Venerable Cranmer will be aware that Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary and Opus Dei member has delayed new gay rights legislation that would ban discrimination over the provision of goods and services. The measures would mean faith schools could not, for example, refuse to admit openly gay pupils. Our old friend, Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former curate is not very happy at the delay or possible exemptions included in the draft legislation...I am sure our troops are equally displeased.

15 October 2006 at 08:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The measures would mean faith schools could not, for example, refuse to admit openly gay pupils.

They cannot anyway since they have no right of selection.

The issue pertains to staff and to use of facilities. After all if a mosque refuses a Scientology group rights to use a taxpayer funded Community Centre (as in Tower Hamlets where EU and British taxpayer funds were used to pay for a mosque ......sorry "Community Centre")

15 October 2006 at 10:15  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

I have to thank you for providing me with so much important information.

"The problem is simply the problem between Brown and Blair. Blair does not control Brown and so men pay with their lives as Blair commits troops and Brown refuses to pay for the mission."

That's what I thought, too. However, I did not want to state it here since it is just my gut feeling without any supporting evidence.

"He wants the troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan.

WE do not have enough front-line fighting soldiers - he wants the troops from Iraq to be deployed to Afghanistan.."


Why should be Afghanistan more important than the containment of Iran in the Middle East?

The Middle East has been controlled for centuries by the Turkish army and later by the British whereas the Russian, British and Soviet armies have all been defeated in Afghanistan.

The warriors of Afghanistan are not endangering a major part of the world's oil supply but the expansion of Iran does. Not to mention Iran's export of the Islamic revolution, support of terrorism and atomic bomb.

Wouldn't it make more sense to withdraw from Afghanistan and concentrate instead on Iraq?

15 October 2006 at 11:16  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why should be Afghanistan more important than the containment of Iran in the Middle East?

Simply because Afghanistan is geographically more critical to Europe and that the war there involves fighting, which can be won. Iraq is simply sitting on bayonets, and as Talleyrand stated an army can do anything with bayonets except sit on them.

We cannot take on Iran. We are too weak. It is asymmetric warfare in that Iran can damage Britain but we can do little to Iran. It needs to provoke us to justify the Mullahs internally, but without us the Iranian regime could be in big trouble.

Iraq is a mess and has been since 1932, if they cannot run themselves by now it is pointless and we do not have the resources.Sometimes Britain will have to assess the mediocrity of its situation as a country unwilling to devote vast resources to military matters but seemingly keen to intervene everywhere.

You cannot will the Ends if you cannot will the Means. This country has skated on very thin ice for some time.

If people read the CGS Comments carefully - and remember his son is a Grenadier Guardsman, and Sarah Sands who interviewed him has a son in the Army too...............what he said was that Britain had a moral and spiritual vacuum.............that Islamism was rushing into that vacuum............that he did not want to break the British Army............

A Brigadier said recently that anybody joining the British Army today would likely spend his entire Army service in Iraq or Afghanistan...............only 25.000 men are available to fight as front-line troops............

So if the British Army became enfeebled as mothers urged sons not to join up, and a rout became a possibility in Afghanistan, and the British Army disintegrated..................just what would hold off the other Islamists in Britain as the police "services" proved unable to cope ?

At the peak in Northern Ireland.........a very small country...........we had 26.000 soldiers.............and no foreign wars........now we spend the lowest share of GDP on Defence since 1931 (2.1%) and have the smallest British Army (no Indian Army as in then) since 1912.

The CGS was looking at whether we might lose this country if we stay too long in Iraq and lose in Afghanistan............that is why political commentary has been muted

15 October 2006 at 14:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/5400080.stm



Concern over troops' equipment
As concern grows about heavy fighting in Afghanistan and mounting casualties in Iraq, File on 4 asks why British troops can't get the equipment they need.

15 October 2006 at 17:29  
Anonymous Colin said...

You said that "Afghanistan is geographically more critical to Europe" than Iraq.

Why? Afghanistan has no oil, no industry, no power and now weapons to threaten the UK? What can the UK possibly win there except protecting some new oil pipelines? See, the discussion on Instanbultory's blog.

The situation in Afghanistan is very similar to the situation in Iraq: a neighbouring country trying to expand its power by waging war on a democratic government and Western forces. The main difference is that Pakistan already has an atomic bomb whereas Iran is working on it and might be able to aquire rockets to launch atomic bombs on London. Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan have an interest in threatening the UK except for kicking the BF out of Afghanistan.

"Iraq is simply sitting on bayonets, and as Talleyrand stated an army can do anything with bayonets except sit on them."

Sitting on bayonets is a nice metapher. However, other metaphers might also apply, e.g. the metapher of modern-day knights sitting in castles and controlling the surrounding area by leaving the castles from time to time in shiny armour to help their peasants to defend the territory.

The report about a Giant U.S. "embassy" rising in Baghdad inside the heavily fortified Green Zone suggests that at least the Americans are planning to sit in the modern version of castles and its knights to leave the castles from time to time in shiny armour (tanks, helicopters) to help their Iraqian army to defend the territory. I don't know if it will work but forts were used by the American military in their war against the Indians and the fortification of castles and cities worked in the Middle Ages for centuries until the development of cannons able to destroy the protective walls. BTW, the Israelis are now building a "Chinese Wall" in order to survive in an hostile environment.

"A report by the Commons defence select committee, published in August, raised questions about the British Army and Ministry of Defence's preparedness for combat... The committee chairman James Arbuthnot said he was "disturbed" by the situation he encountered in Iraq" according to the BBC news "Concern over troops' equipment". It's a sign of moral deficiency on the part of the people responsible for the decision, to send British soldiers with dysfunctional arms and in unprotective vehicles into combat. Would they behave similarily if it were their own life or that of their children?

15 October 2006 at 17:50  
Anonymous Cinnamon said...

As if Christianity was a set of virtues and morals to be held up... just like Islam, this is kook stuff for people who need a cookbook instruction on how to live life because they lack in personal morals and thus need to be told what do do and what to think.

A countries religiosity is a measure of how uneducated and ignorant it is.

Cinnamon, who has yet to meet anyone religious who is intelligent and educated at the same time. (note the AND here)

15 October 2006 at 18:29  
Anonymous Voyager said...

GDP UK $1.500 billion
GDP USA $13.000 billion
Defence Spending USA $500 billion
Defence Spending UK $ 32 billion

% GDP USA 3.85%
% GDP UK 2.1%

So to increase to US %GDP would cost a further £14 billion each year which could be raised by increasing VAT to 21% say


Britain simply is not in the same league as the USA and is not interested in spending the money on defence - another reason why the CGS does not want to see the British Army destroyed

15 October 2006 at 19:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor cinnamon..........full of prejudice and beyond redemption

15 October 2006 at 19:52  
Blogger kris said...

Your Grace

Readers may recall Col Tim Collins made similar observations some time ago. Many retired American generals too have spoken out in the same vein. It is about time a serving senior officer stood up our boys.

15 October 2006 at 21:31  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Now the Royal Navy which has seen a 33% reduction in hulls since 1997 believes it could not enforce a blockade against N Korea without French or US air protection.

In fact we should do what was done in the 1920s - let Japan take on our role in the Far East. The 1902 Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty saw the Japanese Navy handling British matters when we were poor in the 1920s

16 October 2006 at 07:29  
Anonymous Cinnamon said...

Hey anonymous, the idea that I'm prejudiced is silly. If anything I'm 'postjudiced' having had many years of experience with people who have a permanent error condition in their brain that manifests in religiosity.

I can make a rational argument that iff a deity or deities exists, all religon is blasphemy even -- I got kicked out of religious education at 7 for making this point. It isn't rocket science, but is that simple that a small child can come to the conclusion with just a little bit of logical thought. So I hope I do not need to do any explaining to you... or perhaps... do I?

And of course I like religious people, but I am very aware of their limitations, that is all.

16 October 2006 at 15:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

iff a deity or

Do you mean to use "IFF" ? It is a logical operator which makes your sentence very interesting

16 October 2006 at 18:05  
Anonymous Colin said...

Cinnamon,

You wrote "As if Christianity was a set of virtues and morals to be held up... "

"I can make a rational argument that iff a deity or deities exists, all religon is blasphemy even -- I got kicked out of religious education at 7..."


Shame on you for questioning received wisdom and demanding proofs.

16 October 2006 at 20:29  
Anonymous Colin said...

Cinnamon,

Shame on you for preaching atheism not dissimilar to the nonsense of other atheists, e.g. the article Atheism and Liberty by the philosopher Georg Batz.

It seems that you agree with the claims of the latter that "Every baby is born as an atheist. Only during his growing up, it is drilled in religion (in our region Christianism and in other world religions other ideologies contempting humans such as Islam)."

"In the entire history of the last 2000 years, Christianism and liberal ideas were incompatible. Ever since the Christian church during the reign of emperor Constantine became state church, the church did everything to eradicate all dissidents. The campaign of annihilation of Christian religion against Jews, pagans, witches, gays, and many other groups continued until the 20th century, although the influence of the church on the state has been rolled back since the enlightment. The victims of Christianism are going into millions. Besides Stalinism, Maoism and National Socialism, Christianism is the greatest criminal ideology of humanity. Its victims cannot rise anymore. But their blood is screaming. Therefore, I want to be their mouth and together with Nietzsche (from the Antichrist) characterise Christianism as what today is Islam: the immortal blemish of humanity"

I am wondering whether he and you are aware of the Pope's recent lecture which clearly states, "listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding."

Do you really believe what this atheist wants us make to believe, "that the existence of God was already questionned by freedom-loving philosophers in antiquity, especially by Epicur (and his successors, the Epicureans, during all the centuries). It is a famous quote of Epicur which poses the Theodicy problem which keeps theologians still busy because they are unable to solve it: "God either wants to eliminate evil but cannot do it, or he can do it but doesn't want to do it, or he cannot and doesn't want to do it, or he wants and can do it. If he wants but cannot, he is weak which does not apply to God. If he can but doesn't want, he is grudging which is similarily alien to God. If he doesn't want and cannot, he is grudging and weak which isn't God either. If he wants and he cans, where does the evil come from and why doesn't he eliminate it?"

And it is even more outrageous to claim that "Voltaire and Diderot, Holbach and Helvetius, d'Alembert and others unveiled religion, especially Chritianism, as priestly deception." Furthermore, this atheist quotes from Betrand Russel's book "Why I am not a Christian": "The entire belief in God descends from the old oriental despotism. It is an idea unworthy of fee men ..A good world needs knowledge, kindness and courage; it doesn't need .. chaining of free intelligence by words which have been spoken a long time ago by ignorant men."

You do not believe in Betrand Russel's and other atheist's nonsense , I hope, such as his insulting remark "I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptic orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

Or Robert Ingersoll's stupid assertion: "Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give."

Or the quote from Lemuel K. Washburn's "Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays": "What a queer thing is Christian salvation! Believing in firemen will not save a burning house; believing in doctors will not make one well, but believing in a savior saves men. Fudge!"

Or finally, Voltaire infamous accusation: "What can we say to a man who tells you that he would rather obey God than men, and that therefore he is sure to go to heaven for butchering you? Even the law is impotent against these attacks of rage; it is like reading a court decree to a raving maniac. These fellows are certain that the holy spirit with which they are filled is above the law, that their enthusiasm is the only law that they must obey."

You should feel ashame if you believe in such destructive atheism since Western civilization is built and depends on Christian values. Let me cite again the Pope's lecture: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist."

16 October 2006 at 22:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Every baby is born as an atheist.

Untrue.

Every child of Muslim parents is born a Muslim not an atheist.

Judaism and Christianity use Baptism to show commitment to God; Mennonites do not accept Infant Baptism only Adult Baptism.

Your point is sweeping and nonsensical since you imply children are tabula rasa and that is alaso factually incorrect

17 October 2006 at 06:47  
Anonymous settler said...

Voyager, they say a restless body can hide a peaceful soul. I say it should be the other way round. What do you say?

17 October 2006 at 12:17  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Wordplay is fascinating but often only analytic a posteriori

17 October 2006 at 13:52  
Anonymous settler said...

Very fascinating indeed. A voyager and a settler both have distant goals. This brings me back to the original question.

17 October 2006 at 14:39  
Anonymous Colin said...

"Your point is sweeping and nonsensical since you imply children are tabula rasa and that is alaso factually incorrect."

Absolutely correct, voyager, it's already in the genes. I am glad that you refuted this nonsensical tabula rasa assumption.

17 October 2006 at 14:39  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Settler would do well to visit

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/

17 October 2006 at 16:23  
Anonymous settler said...

I did indeed travel to the aforementioned Station. It was a sight to behold, another world. A world hitherto unknown to settler. Pardon me, it begets more questions. Does a restless body hide a peaceful soul or does a peaceful soul hide a restless body? A voyager's perspective would be appreciated.

17 October 2006 at 19:50  
Anonymous Voyager said...

A voyager's perspective would be appreciated.

Engage your telemetry circuits and be very partient for any signals crossing the vast distances to the edge of this universe

18 October 2006 at 06:40  
Anonymous settler said...

Settler is of a very simple disposition. Wordplay as you say is indeed very fascinating but of what use are words if it's fathomless to the hearer.

18 October 2006 at 10:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older