No matter how pink they want it to look like, blue still draws to dark..

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: David Cameron's message is that Muslims are not wanted


Muslims and migrants are being used to distract people from the planned chaos implemented by this unpopular coalition. It is politicking of the worst kind

The Indenpendent – Monday, 7 Feb 20011

Not many dawns have passed since the sparky Tory chairwoman Sayeeda Warsi spoke up about the "dinner table" libelling of all Muslims, now routine, normalised, unremarkable, intimate, uncontested. I see and hear it, too – prejudices passed around with the balsamic vinegar or ketchup. Some Muslims deserve castigation and worse for the terrible things they do. I frequently denounce them in my columns. But sweeping, indiscriminate execration of any collective is abhorrent and must be confronted. Warsi did that, knowing her words would infuriate right-wing Tories who can't stand the brown little upstart.

Now, how will she react to her leader, who has amplified the small talk of bigotry and boomed it through a megaphone, perhaps to slap her down? I found Cameron's speech in Munich indefensible even though I completely agree with some observations and policy ideas. We discussed these two years back when we met in his office for over an hour. Self-exclusion, special pleading, women's rights, community oppression, anti-democratic attitudes, terrorism, the spread of Wahhabi Islam are serious problems and growing. Laissez-faire multicultural policies do not serve our times. State institutions should fund shared spaces, crossover ideas, openness and modernity. Many of us Muslims would be with David Cameron if his speech hadn't shown him to be selective, hypocritical, calculating, woefully indifferent to Muslim victims of relentless racism and chauvinism. He was speaking the words of white extremists but in posh. There was so much that was objectionable – where he spoke, what he said, the timing, the purposes loitering behind the fine façade of his personality.

By speaking out in Munich he allied himself with the ghastly Angela Merkel who delivered a similarly provocative sermon last autumn. Racism is rife in both countries; in both nations, millions of their own natives rigidly hold on to their languages and cultures. Think of those Germans who go abroad on holiday and stay in walled-off camps where only German is spoken. Countless Britons are similarly against integration with the people of unfamiliar countries they visit or migrate to. I would rather have my tongue chopped off than lose my mellifluous home languages. To learn and love English shouldn't mean the destruction of world languages, most of which we are lucky enough to have on our isles.

Remember the PM was at an international security council when he let rip – an outrage. Diversity is one of our greatest assets, an antidote to militancy not its cause. A new study by the Runnymede Trust in Birmingham shows young citizens are more bonded and at ease with difference than their elders in that multifarious city. As the speech progressed, you realised that Cameron's problem isn't cultural difference. It's the people whom marauding Christian Crusaders called "curs", wretched Mohammedans. Cameron isn't troubled by Hassidic enclaves, Orthodox Jewish dress codes, or their religiously sanctioned gender inequality and stubborn self-removal from mainstream societies. I have been rebuffed by a veiled Muslim woman and a Hassidic Jewish one when I tried to talk to their children. And the other day a young white mum told her daughter to come away from me, the "Paki". Moreover, those who only want to live with their own in white heartlands are thought to be no threat to integration – they are only doing what comes naturally. Little official concern is expressed about crimes committed by various non-Muslim ethnic groups against each other, against Muslims or white Britons. Even more disgracefully, Tories ignore racists who terrorise people of colour. How unfair is that?

Our PM, in effect, identified himself with the abominable English Defence League when he spoke up a day before the league marched through Luton shouting abuse. Are these the laudable British values we must embrace? Hot-headed Muslims will be even more convinced they are not wanted in the land of their birth.

The next charge: hypocrisy. This Government is enthusiastically funding schools for separatists – from snooty white middle-classes, to pedantic, purist Hindus, nutty, evangelical Christians, and introverted, uncompromising Muslims. How does that foster integration? Michael Gove has just been accused by Bradford City Council of encouraging segregation by funding a new free school started up by Ayub Ismail, who wants to ensure his pupils are not "absorbed into the dominant culture". Saudis are allowed by our Government to brainwash Muslims who are then despised. The Tory party's right and left buttocks move in different directions. Not clever nor consistent with the PM's Big Message of the week.

So why is he doing it? When politicians are in trouble they pick on "outsiders", put them into stocks so the people can turn on them and relieve their feelings of frustration. Andrew Lansley, now in charge of health, said shamelessly in 1995 that they were using the anti-immigration card because it played well with voters. Recently he blamed migrants for a rise in TB in Britain, a link that used healthcare concerns to whip up xenophobic panic. Cameron himself designed the disgraceful anti-refugee campaign for Michael Howard in 2005.

The German Marshall Fund has just published a comparative survey of attitudes to migrants in Western countries. Britons, noted The Economist, are shown up as a "mean-minded lot" – negative, hostile, paranoid. I don't believe that is the full picture. Britain is also uniquely receptive – which is why so many of us would not live elsewhere. But it is going through a seriously bad mood and Cameron is exploiting that.

I accept our citizens are unnerved by those British Muslims who make endless demands, are full of wrath and murderous plans, or choose ghettoisation. However, the widespread national unhappiness is created by policies pushed through by this Government. Muslims and migrants are being used to distract people from the planned chaos implemented by this unpopular coalition. It is politicking of the worst kind. Which is why it must be opposed vehemently. As the daughter of a survivor said to me at the Holocaust Memorial Day in January: "We Jews must look to our failings and crimes. But when outsiders try to use that for their devilish reasons, we know where we must stand." Me too.

The pig's in heat.

Michael Owen, far left, his pregnant wife Louise, far right; at John Terry and Toni Poole's wedding - 15.06.2007

Spot the major fail from John Terry's jacket. I can't begin to imagine the amount of sweat he produced on that day for it to soak up his shirt then his vest then go through his jacket. I mean, for crying out loud, those jackets are nowhere near thin! Nor is John Terry for that matter...

Maybe that's a sign that when you have a tendency to cheat on a weekly basis with everything that moves from Essex slags to your best friend's wife via strippers and groupies, you should not get married or you'll get nervous and will appear looking like a pig in heat in OK Mag.

I'm actually quite surprised the King of Love Rats' PR team didn't spot that and let the pictures appear in the paper. I don't what they did with the colour or the make-up but Michael's tan is horrendously bronze next to the more natural one he bears on the paps' pictures of that very day.

Thanks for his smile, though ^^

And the winner is...

Mrs Clinton for this comment after Khodorkosky's case outcome:

"Today's conviction ... raises serious questions about selective prosecution – and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations," said the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "This and similar cases have a negative impact on Russia's reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations."

I don't know if Mrs Clinton has but reading the Wikileaks cables and the recent development in Assange case show that the US are nowhere near a good place to judge other countries' reputation, political considerations and human rights oligations!

Well done, though, for winning the most self-righteous, hypocritcial comment of the year! What an achievement!

So, England lost the World Cup...again!

    I feel like reading the press in France after we lost the Olympic Games to London. That was exactly the same story of being “betrayed”, “stabbed in the back” by people who promised their votes and ended up voting for London. We had countless analysis by every journalist telling, showing us, proving us what a bunch of irrelevant, plutocrats they all were after France run a whole dossier and campaign saying we deserved the Olympic Games because we hadn’t had them for decades, that even if the Games are Greek, it’s a French man who brought them back to life. The arguments were that Paris was the most beautiful, welcoming, ready, prepared cities among all the ones in competition. That France was the most touristic country in the world so it would be anyone’s favourite place to go to for the Olympic Games: to compete or to attend.

    All based on bovine, down-looking on everyone else arrogance! And that’s exactly what England did. Yes, they are all plutocratic Popes whose only concern is to enjoy finally getting a grip of power, looking down on everyone else and make more money. But nothing much different from the ones who are running the FA, openly despising every other league in the world and whose only motivation is to find new ways to conquer new markets in Asia, for instance. Remember the Premier League match abroad from Scudamore who is now lecturing the FIFA?

    But I can’t believe the extends of insanity England reached to get votes: presents, free seats at the Olympic Games, free hotel rooms, free diners, free lunches…“Here’s the Queen's knicker drawers. Take whatever you want, it’s all yours!”…England went beneath itself, bending backwards, grovelling and battling eyelashes, sending David Beckham thinking the FIFA board would fall for him, his PR smile, dyed hair, scruffy looks like any other teenage girls and boys. And Prince William was very useful…very useful for the papers to say “How dare they lie to a prince?” Well England sent him there so he can kiss their bottom so I don’t think them supposedly lying (we don’t even know if it’s true) is the problem here.

    England’s naivety and desperation is beyond pathetic. At no point, England looked at themselves asking any question! No we’re still saying we were the best and we deserved it because all the others were crap!  It’s like looking at a 5 year-old throwing a tantrum because he was at one point promised (so HE says!) a biscuit but ended with nothing because another got it.

    Sorry, we are blaming the BBC for having good, truthful journalists who did a brilliant and necessary job of investigation but dared exposing the reality of FIFA. Realities the England Bid Team were happy to ignore.

Morning sickness

 

I had to wake up with that!

The Guardian will pay for this...

o_O

Pull your f*cking trousers up!

    Believe it or not, this is on purpose! This guy is from a boyband - yeah, I'm setting the bar quite low here. So he's from JLS: some kind of utter shite who look shite, wear shite, sing shite, talk shite and even breathe out shite! They're from X-Factor so now you know what I mean. I think they were Simon Cowell's choice which means they have the knees and the butt for everything now.

    Anyway, here he is - whatever his name is, getting our of his very expensive car looking like a perfect tart! That's fashion for you.

    One thing I have to say. The tit is wearing exactly what Beckham is wearing at premières and official galas but at least Dumb Bollocks never went all the way to think it was anywhere near...there's not even any words to describe what that guys thinks he looks like wearing his pants like that. Just to say that Dumb Bollocks might be the symbol of vulgarity and tartness but at least he knows where to stop.

    For now...

The ugly

 Believe me, she's real. You have no idea how many students I had when I was working in Blackpool, who came to school with the same fake tan, nails and hair.

And how many girls you see every night wearing the exact same outfit. I don't know what's worst: them thinking it's okay to look like that or the pikeys they actually attract looking like this.

It's quite sad.

I can't even begin to tell how many things are wrong in this picture. Starting by the two things holding hands in the middle...

Joan Smith: Hague's problem is sense, not sexuality

Rumours about the Foreign Secretary's love life have circulated for years, but it is using Ffion to prop up his story that is shocking


The Independent - Sunday, 5 September 2010

First, a little history: in 1999, a Conservative MP called Shaun Woodward was one of the party's frontbench spokesmen. When his leader, William Hague, committed the Tories to opposing the abolition of Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act – a notorious piece of legislation which outlawed the "promotion of homosexuality" – Woodward refused to toe the line. Hague sacked him and Woodward defected to Labour, where he enjoyed a meteoric rise and later became a cabinet minister.

Hague was unrepentant and a few weeks later he chose the Daily Mail, the traditional defender of "family values", to underline his support for Section 28. "It prevents, mainly through deterrence, public authorities from engaging in the sort of inappropriate activity that resulted in such public disquiet in the 1980s," he wrote early in 2000. When the Labour government finally got round to repealing Section 28 in 2003, Hague (no longer Tory leader) voted to keep it.

While there are grounds for thinking that Hague is conflicted, if not confused, on the issue of gay rights his extraordinary behaviour last week, when he issued a detailed statement about his marriage in an attempt to quash rumours that he has had gay relationships, suggests he is also confused about the boundaries between public and private life.

Hague is now a cabinet minister, occupying the grand suite of offices in King Charles Street, London SW1, from which the Foreign Secretary presides over Britain's relations with the rest of the world. It's hardly as though he starts each morning with an empty diary, but four days ago one of the top items on his agenda was the delicate matter of his wife's gynaecological history.

In a spectacularly misguided attempt to counter rumours about his sexual orientation, Hague revealed that he and his wife Ffion (they married in 1997) have been trying to have children and she has suffered a series of miscarriages. One consequence was a rash of features about the misery caused by miscarriage, but the dominant reaction was bewilderment and a degree of distaste.

If Hague was, as it appeared, using intimate details of his marriage to "prove" that he wasn't gay, it didn't seem to have occurred to him that many gay men get married and have children, a circumstance confirmed last weekend by an announcement from Crispin Blunt, a ministerial colleague. The Tory MP and prisons minister announced that he had separated from his wife of 20 years, with whom he has two children, and decided to "come to terms" with his homosexuality.

Clearly, a couple's reproductive history is not definitive proof of heterosexuality, which makes Hague's decision to expose himself and his wife in this way all the more perplexing. The Conservative Party is supposed to be more tolerant and sophisticated about sexual matters than it has been in the past, a shift signalled by David Cameron's public apology last year for his party's support for Section 28.

Would it matter a jot if Hague were gay, or indeed bisexual, given that there are increasing numbers of self-identified gay MPs and ministers at Westminster? This isn't 1984, when the decision of Labour's Chris Smith to come out as the country's first openly gay MP was rightly seen as brave and ground-breaking.

In that sense, it's hard not to see the Foreign Secretary's problems as largely of his own making. Rumours about Hague's sexuality have circulated at Westminster for years, and if he was troubled by them, it was hardly sensible to share hotel rooms during the general election campaign with a handsome young aide, Chris Myers.

It was even less sensible to appoint the same young man – he is only 25, and does not have obvious qualifications for the job – to a coveted post as one of his special advisers. Last week, Myers resigned, leaving Hague to observe testily during a press conference with the German foreign minister that his former aide was "fed up with the political world – and who can blame him?"

It wasn't the only occasion in the past few days when Hague appeared not to understand how he had got himself, his wife and Myers into this unhappy situation. At the heart of the matter isn't so much a question about his sexuality – he denies being gay and no one has to date produced any evidence to the contrary – but his inconsistent attitude to homosexuality. During his campaign to become leader of the Tory party, Hague unexpectedly supported the idea of gay marriage, and in his Daily Mail article a decade ago, he said he believed that the age of consent for gay people should be 16.

But in the very same article, he made it clear that he would impose a three-line whip on Tory MPs to ensure that they supported the homophobic Section 28. The gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was sufficiently incensed to reveal that Hague had responded to a letter from the pressure group OutRage! and "refused to support gay equality" on a whole series of issues.

Hague is described on websites as voting "moderately" against equal rights for gay people. Some of his remarks last week – he described the rumours about himself and Myers as "malicious" and denied that he'd ever had an "improper" relationship with a man – suggest that his personal views on homosexuality are out of step in a world where gay couples are able to celebrate civil partnerships. When the rumours about him were at their height, he had the option of facing them down, limiting himself to an unequivocal denial and getting on with his job. Instead, he added fuel to the bonfire with a tasteless and defensive overreaction.

These days, most of us don't mind whether politicians are gay or straight, but an incontestable fact has emerged from the most catastrophic attempt at damage limitation that British politics has seen for many a year. Now we know that the person who cares most passionately about the Foreign Secretary's sexual orientation is none other than William Hague.

William Hague

Hague is fag! Hague is a fag! Hague is fag! Hague is a fag! Hague is a fag!!

Deny that, you pillock! ¬¬

Pillars

I realised something: being attracted to legs is not just something straight guys do. I'm gay and I'm all about legs! I don't what it is but perfect long legs just drive me bonkers!

Let's see some examples of what's wrong and what's good.


These are legs with underdevelopped calves. This is horrendous! Especially with things like Beckham because he has thighs like every footballer: big but little calves. That's what we call "chicken legs". The top is big but the bottom isn't and the ankles are far too thin. Irk!



Michael Owen: These are perfect calves. There is continuity, homogeneity throughout the whole legs. Michael's shorter than average which could have easily made his legs for too big for his body but...he's perfect! :D



Which brings me to the whole legs themselves:

Cristiano Ronaldo: Horror!


Yes, the thighs aren't too big-ish ¬¬ That's why I like footballers or tennismen and not bikers. The bikers have really big thighs while football and tennis tend to work on the leg altogether.

But two things: the veins! That's awful. A little is alright when you barely see them but here it just looks like he's got worms stuck in all of them. And he shaves. Never shave the legs! Never. Ever. Ever! So yes! No swimmers either :-/


The two cases of perfect legs:

Frank Lampard: Strong, hairy (yes yes ^^), perfectly proportionned legs.



And he likes to show them ^^



Steven Gerrard: The case of tall legs. Same as Lampard, very masculine legs, but because they are long, everything is stretched beautifully without making them too thin.





We can see the veins but it's because there's not a single once of fat on Steven Gerrard, not because he caught some whatever tropical disease ^^'

Footwear and none-wear

Darling, what the hell happened with those shoes?

But I like what they are wearing ^^

Face collapse?

Dominic Cooper.

Aw dear, what the hell is going on with his face?

Gucci, Armani, Versace: shit kitch with mafia money!

Two countries. Two sets. Two ways to see fashion.

I'm French, I'm from the country that invented fashion. And I'm gay so I'm basically the epitome of the judgmental bitch and I'm about to bitch ^^

Because if there's one thing I hate it's moda: fashion made in Italy. I'll keep simple and go straight to the point: Italy's mode is cheap! It's for straight guys who believe they have to wear Armani to match their new Ferrari.

There is a big rivalry between France and Italy because both countries claim the leading place when it comes to fashion but also food, culture, history and yet I can't help but feel that everything coming from the other side of the Alps is vulgar.

There's something about Armani that spells footballers, cheaters, macho with little dicks and big cars married to some bimbos and massively cheating with stripper who all wear far too much perfume and make-up to match their hooker-like heels and occasional Elie Saab ostentatious dresses at a premiere where they flash their brand new breasts and fake tan in a far too outrageous cleavage they have done right before their holiday on a yacht they stationned for weeks in Saint-Tropez or Ibiza because that's the "place to be" even if it hasn't been for the past 20 years!

Armani and Italian fashion is for the kind of guys who will look like Berlusconi when they're old: ostentatious, vulgar, tasteless, too much, obvious, flashy and bling-bling. You never have to look far beneath the sleeve of an Armani jacket to find a 12 kilos diamond watch. After all, Armani sponsors Chelsea FC, had Beckham half naked to promote their underwear and, after they thought he was not cheap enough, they move to Cristiano Ronaldo. No comment!

Armani has set a target, they are pleasers: they need to appeal to the footballers and the guys who want to be like them, buy a Ferrari or a blinged customised golden Range Rover with their initials on the door, wheels and dashboard.

But I have to say that I like Valentino because he knows how to dress women with elegance. He looks like an old scrotum but at least he knows son métier and he doesn't try to follow a demand or a trent, he makes the trend.

That's what I like about French mode. Most of the designers are not pleasers, they have a clientèle but only when it comes to perfume and accessories. Chanel doesn't answer to a demand, Lagerfeld follows his mood, his creativity and doesn't go and sponsor some pretty faces with big ears and oh! too big egos at some award ceremony. His creation remains a trend-setter. Same for Christian Lacroix, Jean-Paul Gauthier, Yves St Laurent or Christian Dior.

They are the names of fashion, of class along with Givenchy, Olivier & Ted Lapidus, Christian Louboutin and Rochas. Not Versace, Gucci, Prada or Fendi who are only good at selling bags, belts and whory shoes to the enriched pikeys. Two houses in France decided to follow the trend and look where they are now: Vuitton (who imitated YSL intertwined letters) and Lacoste. éLet's appeal to the masses and sell baggy shorts and skater shoes" Well done...

My personal favourite are YSL, Chanel, Lacroix and Lapidus because all of them rhyme with class, simplicity and elegance in very different ways. I remember when I was a child and we could see some footage of Paris Fashion Week on tely at the end of the news. I loved the Autum/Winter collection with the gorgeous classy black and white dresses by Yves Saint-Laurent, the outrageously elegant colours of Lacroix, the way Chanel and Gauthier praise women's beauty with handsome aloofness from Chanel and delirious craziness from Gauthier.

Judge by yourself from the mood of the cities:

Here's Armani at the last Milan Fashion Week.




Here's Vivienne Westwood at the last Paris Fashion Week.



One is outrageously vulgar following the porn-chic trend.

The other one is simply cute and it's Westwood ^^

That was close!

Today, one of the most disturbing things was said to me by Lorna. We were having a pick-nick/barbecue on the beach and she said I didn’t like England because I keep on slagging it off. That got me thinking on my way back. Long walk: 45 minutes. With flip-flops, I hate flip-flops! They are for people who’ve given up!

I realised it was true. Since I came back here, I haven’t been feeling like I felt when I was in Stafford but mainly Blackpool: at home. And that gets me, very deeply so I can’t help but finding everything crap. I slag off England’s binge drinking, all the men walking around half naked at every single ray of sun, the slags all around, the dismal public services, the arrogance… And nothing positive can come to me.

Have those ten months in France really destroyed my special relationship with England?

I know I don’t like France more than England but I can’t help but feeling that somehow I might have made the wrong choice and now that I know I’m here for sure, I can’t stop thinking of leaving for somewhere better.

Has the dream died? Has the reality got me up? Have my eyes been open on the cruel reality of an agonising country riddled by desperation, sex and alcohol?

No.

No.

No.

And no!

It’s not England. It’s Portsmouth!

It’s not England I resent, it’s here. It’s like leaving in France but without the advantages of good doctors, good buses, good trains, good schools, good manners and sensible, clever people…I miss the North. I miss Blackpool, that’s the problem. People in the South are happy shaming the North only because it helps them to forget their own mediocrity, to put it into perspective by pretending there are worse people than them.

I miss the Northerners. They are funnier, wittier, more cynical but more welcoming, warmer, simpler and smarter. It’s the little everyday thing you don’t realise but who weight a lot in the scale because at the end they make your life better, more pleasurable. It’s the bus driver calling “Mate!” or the cashier calling you “Love”. It’s them saying “Cheers!” everytime and answering back when you say “Have a nice day” or “Take care”. It’s the simplicity of people who don’t show off, pretend to be better. There’s no arrogance, no insults, they don’t look at you like you are different in a bad way. They like you because you are different. They are some raging tits of course. Les cons sont partout there’s something in the North.

Portsmouth city is disgrace! It’s ugly (they blame the Germans for this, of course!), people are rude, insulting, men are pillocks, women are slags, when they are not drunk and they are arrogant. They are always looking down on you, they are cold and overbearing. They believe they live in some kind of paradise because there is (more) sun. The “English Côte d’Azur” I was said. God, I don’t like the French Riviera because it rhymes with boredom and old rich people but what an insult it is to compare Portsmouth to it!

And that sun! I came in England for a colder, more bearable weather. It hasn’t rained for over a month (but for ten minutes one morning) and the temperature hasn’t got below 25°C since the beginning of June. If I wanted that, I’d have stayed in France or gone to Spain!

And the university! That is even worse than Nanterre. Four times have I got to photocopy my passport for the same fatuous cow whose scale of incompetence is more than unbe-fucking-lievable!

The thing is about France is that you expect them to be incompetent so somehow you can do things by yourself. They are actually quite happy with you doing everything: calling the right people, running everywhere from buildings to buildings, offices to offices to find the scattered and lost pieces of what they were supposed to give you and put everything together yourself. Here in Portsmouth, they are driven by this complete inability to do anything right or on time, they lose everything and never work but you can’t do it yourself. They won’t let you, you’re not allowed to go and have a word with the guy who’s not doing anything.

These are small things but they make me seem like I don’t like England. And I have to do something about it very quickly or I am going to end up resenting the whole country.

°_°

This is so bad, it's actually damaged my soul!

Nauseous and sad

Do you know what this is?

This is David and Victoria Beckham's coat of arms. Yes. "Love Friendship", and it's gushing!

I'll let Stephen Fry comment on that: "As if they though there was not enough vomit in the world!"




But even more pathetic. This above. Brooklyn Beckham, 11 yo, whose parents are already tarting up.

The shirt half out is not a mistake, it's just because King-Lord Daddy David think it's cool to look like shit. It's the very nouveau riche style. You dress like a pickey everywhere you go, even official galas and premières because you can afford it (admire the irony) but you have a coat of arms because...well because you think it makes you...some thing. I can't say what it is because I genuinely don't know why they feel the need to have a coat of arms. My family has a coat of arms and we don'f feel like it makes us...that thing! It's burried somewhere deep in one of our attics and no one gives a damn!

I can't wait. I can't wait to see Brooklyn Beckham growing into some kind of masculine Paris Hitlon: useless, brainless, talentless and utterly irrelevant whory socialite tart who believes his name and coat of arms makes him...that thing!

But hey! He's public now, he's exposing himself to out bitchy eyes and seems to be happy about that so that's great, we can now all comment on his chubbiness, his girl name (I'll call him Brookes now. Becks and Brooks, brilliant!), his obessession for Daddy and the fact that, unlike what I've heard of his brothers who actually have talents (football and break dancing), he's just completely irrelevant!

Cesspit from Heaven.

This morning is the press:

"Bishop 'blames Jews' for criticism of Catholic church record on abuse"

So Catholic priests from all over the world are raping little children, the Vatican is covering it and refuse to act on it...and amazingly they found another way to blame the Jews!

My, they never change, do they?

The US hide it, we have to forward it.

I'm starting to become what I loathe in people. I'm starting to draw this pathological hatered of the US and I hate that even more because it's something I don't seem to have any control on.

Sure I like some part of it but it's always linked to open-minded sitcoms or music or basically just art which is probably the part of their identity they undervalue the most.

I've come to hate them without my brain but with my heart but it's dangerous but the heart is something you can't control whatsoever.

I hate them because of things like that. Every major power do the same but I think the US insufferable righteousness and ever moralising speech makes it even worse!

Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians

Footage of July 2007 attack made public as Pentagon identifies website as threat to national security

• Chris McGreal in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 April 2010 20.52 BST
• Article history

A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks today.

The footage of the July 2007 attack was made public in a move that will further anger the Pentagon, which has drawn up a report identifying the whistleblower website as a threat to national security. The US defence department was embarrassed when that confidential report appeared on the Wikileaks site last month alongside a slew of military documents.

The release of the video from Baghdad also comes shortly after the US military admitted that its special forces attempted to cover up the killings of three Afghan women in a raid in February by digging the bullets out of their bodies.

The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007. Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the video through a freedom of information request. Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.

In the recording, the helicopter crews can be heard discussing the scene on the street below. One American claims to have spotted six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone.

One of the helicopter crew is then heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.

The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. "Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.

After ground forces arrive and the children are discovered, the American air crew blame the Iraqis. "Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," says one. "That's right," says another.

Initially the US military said that all the dead were insurgents. Then it claimed the helicopters reacted to an active firefight. Assange said that the video demonstrated that neither claim was true.

"Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?" he said. "The behaviour of the pilots is like a computer game. When Saeed is crawling, clearly unable to do anything, their response is: come on buddy, we want to kill you, just pick up a weapon ... It appears to be a desire to get a higher score, or a higher number of kills."

Wikileaks says it will shortly release a second secret US military video showing the deaths of civilians in an attack in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has been seeking ways to prevent classified material appearing on Wikileaks, including through "criminal sanctions". Wikileaks has made public classified US army reports on weapons, military units and battle strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon report, reflecting the depth of paranoia about where Wikileaks is obtaining its material, speculates that the CIA may be responsible. But perhaps most embarrassing leak for the US defence department was that of the 2008 report itself which appeared on the Wikileaks site last month.

You don't believe it? Here's the video!



I know it's unspeakable. It's the US. It's Liberty for Iraquis just like it was Liberty for Vietnamese...

This comes from http://wikileaks.org/