Thursday, 4 February 2010

War is coming home.

Over at Anna Raccoon's place is an innocent looking collection of words that, when read in order, produce a very unpleasant message.

Our government intends to put armed military patrols on the streets of this country as a matter of routine. Why? Well, to combat terrorism, of course. If you Muslims thought racial profiling at airports was a terrible thing, wait until you are strip-searched in the street by men with guns.

It's not just the Muslims, naturally. Smokers, fat boys with burgers, anyone carrying a miniature of Famous Grouse, anyone who protests, anyone who looks a little odd and anyone wearing a St. George Cross is going to be investigated. But the Muslims will get the worst of it.

This 'terrorism' excuse just doesn't wash. The terrorists, what few exist, don't go around the streets being terrifying. They build bombs, but can't work out how to set a timer so they find a dope with no future and tell him to press the button when the big hand is on the nine. No amount of patrolling the streets will have any effect on this whatsoever. They aren't on the streets.

The only way to catch these terrorists is if law-abiding Muslims get to hear about them and pass the information to the police. Faced with the same military presence as their Afghan and Iraqi co-religionists, are they going to feel more or less comfortable with going to the authorities?

Army patrols on the streets will see the flow of information stop dead. Army patrols will give the terrorists all the recruits they could ever need. Army patrols are entirely the wrong thing to do for every reason you can think of. Except one. The small matter of keeping the population scared.

There's also the small matter of these soldiers being sent into wars without equipment. From the Chilcot blatherings, it emerged that the Tiny Blur wanted a quick victory in Iraq, but the Brown Gorgon was concerned that a quick victory would make the Blur powerful enough to oust him from the Treasury. The Gorgon held the finances. Would he have deliberately held back those finances so that Tiny's quick victory could not happen?

He's still cutting the military budget. He's building two aircraft carriers but being very cagey about whether he's buying any aircraft for them. They could end up being used as floating football fields.

Labour now say that no country could be expected to defend itself even though most countries have been managing to do that for a long time. We are to have a joint army with the French. Considering our history, the French would not have been top of my list. They haven't forgiven us for Agincourt yet. Nor for sinking all their ships in the last war. It's just the first stage of an EU army, of course, and the aircraft carriers won't be carrying British aircraft at all.

And yet he expects the military to be unswervingly loyal to him. To shoot the people who cheer them home, and to defend those who are responsible for the deaths and disfigurements they have witnessed. There might be a flaw in the politician's plan here.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. This is preparation for civil unrest. They know it's coming because they've been trying to provoke it for a very long time. That civil contingencies act is just waiting for the first brick to be thrown.

The thing is, when it comes to the crunch, whose side will the army be on?

13 comments:

Bugger said...

IEDs in Luton?

and that is only from the Brit Natz?

Anna Raccoon said...

Dear, dear, Leg-Iron

You must learn to look on the bright side of life - you see in addition to the news about the army patrolling our streets, came the press release from Aimsworth that in future military operations would be conducted in tandem with the French.
Last time that happened - 1066 and all that, we got an efficient banking system, gave up our mud hovels in favour of decent houses, wrote down our laws, and learnt how to cook.
The future is bright!
L'avenir est le français

Cold Steel Rain said...

I'd not worry too much about it. When I patrolled the streets of Catterick in the late 80's to provide a show of force to the PIRA, the Army didn't let us carry any bullets!

Captain Ranty said...

In the early 80's I got issued with a pick axe handle.

Catterick remained safe on my watch.

I never had to twat anyone with my lump of wood.

CR.

Mark Wadsworth said...

And if they don't send the army out, they'll use an EU-wide paramilitary police force to keep us quiet, the so-called Eurogendarmerie.

Leg-iron said...

Anna R - as long as we don't have to eat snails. Frog's legs I can cope with, they're like little chicken drumsticks, but I draw the line at eating something that leaves a slime trail.

Mark - that's the most worrying part. An armed force that regards the people as 'foreign' and has no allegiance to them. That's just like Iraq. An occupation.

Surreptitious Evil said...

Don't worry, we won't (erm, why is that the correct punctuation for the shortening of will not - surely it should be w'not?).

Trust Tommy Atkins and Jack Tar (and Air Chief Marshal Up Diddly-Up) - we are not quite as separated from the public (given that many of us are married to them) as you might think.

Worth having a word with Trixy in her day job ...

BTW - @CSR - one of my Sergeants once had and took the chance to get an RMP WO with a pick-elf. And was "good-egged" for it by the CO ...

Leg-iron said...

Surreptitous Evil - that's what I was thinking.

Another Labour miscalculation. They're good at those.

Furor Teutonicus said...

If they had REALLY thought about it, the LAST thing an unpopular dictatorship wants, is armed soldiers any where NEAR the streets, where they may actualy start getting the "wrong ideas" about who SHOULD be in charge.

Anonymous said...

Anna: The Normans were not - are not - French. They are Norman. The clue is in the name. Norman

Bugger said...

They were actually of Viking stock.

The clue is in the name

Norman
Norseman

John Byrnes said...

Last Tuesday, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!” Leon Panetta, CIA Director announced, “The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”
Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.

The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?
You can read more at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com

John Byrnes said...

Last Tuesday, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!” Leon Panetta, CIA Director announced, “The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”
Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.

The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?
You can read more at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com

opinions powered by SendLove.to