Saturday, 11 July 2009




BROWN, “All our troops being killed in Afghanistan is the right thing for the country. Just not this one.”

Writing to senior MPs - the others can’t read - Gordon Clausewitz insisted that the Talimen were on the run “And this is why they are killing so many of my troops, whose morale remains high as they die and are maimed in increasing numbers. It is a mark of how weak and primitive they are that they kill our chaps from some distance away and we can never catch them, it is because of these very tactics of theirs that we are so clearly beating them. It is the right thing to do. They will soon grow tired of killing all our soldiers and surrender”

“Our surviving troops are having a marked impact on the Taliban in central Helmand, will improve security for the population in the run up to the elections, only not in the UK, obviously, where we don’t need to have elections because I am doing the right thing.”

The escalating death toll has led to questions over the UK armed forces’ continuing presence in the country.

Brown said securing Afghanistan was essential to prevent the ‘return of the Conservatives, I mean al Qaida’. It is the only sol-you-shun.

He said: “While I know there are some who have questioned my sanity, I continue to believe I am the right man to save the world and, Mr Deputy Speaker, kill all the Talimen. Now is not the time for a sane person, no, Mr Deputy Spanker, fuck me, no. It has been a very difficult summer and it is not over. Indeed, it is only July. But if we are to deny Helmand to the Taliban in the long term; if we are to help Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat this vicious insurgency and prevent the return of the Conservatives - then it is vital that the international community sees its commitment through. And that is why, Mr Spanker, it is only UK troops who are doing the dying. And because other countries would string me up from a lamppost.”

Earlier today foreign secretary David Miliband, a bug-eyed alien, also stressed the importance of staying in Afghanistan saying the ‘future of Britain’ was dependant on victory. “The very future of the country depends on us denying Afghanistan to the Conservatives” mumbled the fourteen year old. “Just because the Talimen are killing all our soldiers does not mean they are winning, in fact it means they are losing, every death or maiming or blinding or evisceration or burning of a British soldier is a nail in the coffin of extremist Muslemism, not that there’s anything wrong with Muslemism, of course. We shall come to a point when, just as in Belfast, the Muslemists will have had enough of killing our young men and we will invite them to form a government. And then all the deaths will have been worthwhile. Only not for the soldiers obviously. Or their families. But the main thing is that we keep on sending them and they keep on getting killed; it is one of the great advantages of our special relationship with the United States, which, as you know, is where I buy my children, and as the prime minister says it is the right thing to do. Heil Hitler.”
Posted by Picasa


jaydeeaitch said...

Remember this from Futurama?

This is from Futurama

You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them, until they reached their limit and shutdown. Kif, show them the medal I won.

It's not funny when shit for brains Brown applies it to our forces. God I hate that man.

F*ck him.

jaydeeaitch said...

Oops, bad edit, but the message is clear and stands.

woman on a raft said...

On Wednesday at PMQs they will have to read out these names, and there may (God forbid) be more by then.

Cameron, when he does his response, should once again read out the names even slower, taking up as much of PMQs as possible. Then Clegg should repeat them.

I happen to think there is a just cause of war in Afghanistan (I'm open to correction), but even so, there is no point in going in without the troop numbers needed and equipping them to win.

It is ridiculous that having decided to fight a war, instead of the generals being allowed to get on with it, someone like Gordon is still able to dictate how many soldiers go. It isn't his business; if he wanted to direct troop actions, he should have joined the army (not that they'd have him.).

Swiss Bob said...

This government detests the army so one can understand their carelessness with soldiers lives but let us not forget all those military commanders, Jock-Strap for one that are bending over for the government in their willingness to carry out operations for which they are not equipped and which are bringing no benefit to anyone except arms dealers amd coffin makers.

There's more than one type of cowardice.

The Dyer's Garden said...

"Lord Malloch-Brown, who quits his ministerial post this month, told colleagues he had seen better “strategic thinking” in Latin America and southeast Asia than at No 10."

The more you democratize power, the more it begins to resemble those it governs. Chaotic, short-sighted, self-indulgent - that is what the people are, and that is what they get.

Mr Smith will no doubt accuse me of being nihilistic, dystopian, misanthropic, etc. So here is a simple test - let us see what proportion of those now calling for more equipment for the army would be happy to pay for it from their allowance for holidays, idiot electronics, tasteless, branded rags, and slow, suicidal gluttony. And I don't mean now, with the deaths in the headlines, but in a week's time when the people refocus on the all-important business of looking after number one.

Daisy said...

"Mr Smith will no doubt accuse me of being nihilistic, dystopian, misanthropic, etc."

Nothing so grand, I'm afraid. You're just a cunt, pure and simple.

call me ishmael said...

Mr The Dyers Garden you are being nihilistic, dystopian, misanthropic, etc.

You are also correct in every particular but the traits of what the late Bron Waugh called the modern briton, are not only those you list. People give blood, donate organs and respond to the incessant demands of the managerial charity bandits each and every time a natural disaster strikes some wogs somewhere, sffording career opportunities for every arsehole in Oxfam or Save the Children. People mentor, volunteer; the land, God help us, is awash with Worthy Retirees, bringing what they are pleased to describe as their expertise to managing canalsides, woodlands, animal and people and bird sanctuaries; that most of these people have spent forty years badly managing the poor on behalf of the rich does not entirely diminish their guilty efforts at community work, narcissistic and with an eye to Posterity's remembrance as many of them are. Vast swathes of the Unseen look after or are "carers," tending, year upon year, their own kin and others', frail, demented, incontinent; that many fall prey also to Consumerism's merciless media onslaught or to the lies of its servants in government and the press does not negate their efforts to be and do Good, rather than ill.

As with all questions, yours, about self-denial, depends on how it is framed and by whom; certainly none in government, or royalty or finance or the media could seriously propose restraint and our most prominent bloggers seem wedded to the trickle-up form of capitalism -if only the rich have even more Utopia will emerge (G von Fawkes, c/o the Pizza Parlour)

We have just seen President Obamalama, a corporation sponsored and wholly owned by USA, chiding his ancestral niggers that all can eat half a cow at one air-conditioned sitting but first they have to "sweat a bit" sell their arses to the Man, just like he done. Good Niggers Believe In Capitalism, specially those bits about slavery, the electric chair, maximum security shutdown for nine hundred and ninety nine years, Jim Crow rattling your cellbars, motherfucker, with his nightstick. But hey, that's America, and its us, not them, the mother of parliamentary democracy.

We must just do what we can, each of us, according to his ability to develop a climate in which such questions as "would you go without some shit so that others might live to fight for you another day?" can be seriously and honstly put. Climate change, that's what need, regime change, that, too.

The Dyer's Garden said...

"We must just do what we can, each of us, according to his ability to develop a climate in which such questions as "would you go without some shit so that others might live to fight for you another day?" can be seriously and honestly put."

Yes, that is precisely the problem: how does such a climate emerge when the tendency is to perceive everything in individualistic terms? For it cannot be imposed, it has to emerge.

For example, the Tories talk about encouraging "fraternity" by localizing responsibility, but very little is actually said about how that can be achieved anywhere, least of all in a globalized world where debt and profit - spiritual and financial - are so easy to export.

Communism, for all its faults, at least solved that problem at a stroke: you had to be nice to your neighbour, because you never knew if he was spying on you.

call me ishmael said...

Most people, Mr TDG, - aside from Col von Fawkes of the Israeli Defence Force, or the Tel Aviv Nazis as they are also known, who does it habitually - would agree that driving down the street whilst drunk is a bad thing; I don't know whether it took legislation to bring about that opinion or whether it is just a manifestation of Consumerism, that people value more highly their lives of addiction to Stuff than they did in the days when there wasn't so much Stuff for them to consume and even if there had been, opportunities for addiction - so-called credit- were less common and don't now want them snuffed out by drunken loudmouthed libertarian cod-Paddy partygoers. People's increasing revulsion at the drunk driver may be as a result of principle or of self-interest but revulsion has quite rightly emerged, where previously it was absent.

Conversely, few believe national or international government rhetoric about so-called drugs, many use them to no ill effect, many know users; those close to the frontlines of acquisitive crime see the deleterious effects of prohibition; philosophers, moralists and penologists question the intrusive over-reach of the criminal law and yet government repudiates the advice of its experts and attempts to control the uncontrollabe, perhaps in hock to Global PharmaCorp; there is no way of knowing the public mind and even if we could, government would act as it chose, regardless; in matters of public opinion versus two-party diktat the Shitmen will always fall back on their maxim that they must act according to their consciences/cocks/careers/retirement opportunities. Were "drugs," however, to be decriminalised, the likelihood is that, as with seatbelts and the breathalyser, most would soon see the senso of it, a climate, a consensus, would emerge; there would always be the retired airline pilot, for instance, ranting about his macho need to be untramelled by mortals' legislation but most, I suspect, would wonder what all the fuss had been about and maybe join their grandchildren in a toke or two.

The horns of the individual v. planetary dilemma which you cite are real and maybe there is no handful of sand to throw in the eyes of the bull whilst we leap free; maybe professor McLuhan was right and individual consciousness really IS an evolutionary dead-end; far too much conflict between members of the same family, neighbours in the same street, never mind races in different continents, for a tolerant and sustainable modus operandus to emerge.

It is towards McLuhan's view that this place leans, Chronicles of Ruin, yet worlds rise and fall, most "better" than those they replace. We see no difference, here, between Brown and Cameron, for there is no difference but many are the young who eschew all that Westminster-London-Paris-Moscow-Peking stuff and despise its shit-shovelling apparatchiks. It is they we shoud interrogate about the future, rather than each other, farting away, here, impotently, in cyberspace.

The Dyer's Garden said...

Quite right on the futility of interrogation. And I wish you were correct about drugs. But if you place a stimulating electrode in the right place within a monkey's brain, operated by a lever the monkey itself can press ad libitum, it will ignore everything else - food, water, sex - and press it repeatedly until it dies. This is what drugs like cocaine approach (in some), and there is no reason to suppose some future chemical will not reach it.

call me ishmael said...

...and if you demystify "drugs" and decriminalise them vast numbers will be diverted from a lifetime enslaved and significant numbers deprived of a profitable and at some levels murderous business opportunity. In some cultures people just whirl, don't they, to reach an altered consciousness, should we make that illegal, too? Whose fucking business is it what others imgest to make life bearable ? The nerve of some people, who do they think they are?

How dare a businessman/GP decree, which is what he does, that he owns his client's pain and that he and his brethren and governement alone, may medicate. Arseholes, all of them. I attended the trial of a woman dying from MS, busted by Old McBill and the Procuratot Fiscal for treating herself with some hash-dosed chocolates. Never mind fucking Russia, when you've seen a dying wraith, wheel-chaired into the court, flanked by two big fat coppers in body armour, tooled-up with coshes and teargas, gtaunted by some lawyer harridan, by some bent, oily bastard sherrif ( most of them, in Scotland) and when the trial collapses because of the national embarrassment of such images on TV, come back then, Mr The Dyers Garden, and tell me I'm wrong about the over-reach of the criminal law.

I am not talking about monkeys, I am talking about the Ownership of Pain, adults being able to medicate themselves as they see fit, even if -quelle horreur - they find a little pleasure in the process.

caesars wife said...

Crikey stanislav i thought we were having enough fun with Charles E Hardwidge . (makes note must not pick diadactict with stanislav )

however reading out names , they must do it , i think 3 were only 18yrs of age .

very sad , talimen not doing so good Alky Aida posted on there own website , "it was grave with many losses "

Afghan/Talimen must stop making society runing drugs that are a cheap weapon of mass distraction, even better because user buys the stuff to cost NHS loads when he/she says smack is "dr death". 90% of all Uk heroine comes from Afghanistan !

ime all for RHS shows but poppy garden with meandering path and , Drug making shed , with mules to transport over mountains to friends in pakistan and proper AK47 proped in corner and drone overhead , would win gold for realism

call me ishmael said...

tHANKS mR cw

I had not heard of Mr Hardwidge before but I have now googled his ouevre, so to speak, in which there is much to think about.

call me ishmael said...


Its ok, this is an asterisk free zone, fuck as much as you like; we are the Sultans of Swear.

Taranis said...

Maybe I have said this before, sir, but it bears repetition: you write very powerfully. Even on the occasions that I would expect to disagree with you, I find myself reconsidering my beliefs. You do yourself an injustice to describe what you do as "farting away, here, impotently, in cyberspace."

The Dyer's Garden said...

I said nothing about the criminal law, Mr Smith. Drugs policy is confused, certainly, as are the means of enforcing it.

My point is that drugs can and do hijack precisely that capacity for personal judgement you take to be the bedrock of humanity. That is what the monkey example is about, not denying anyone the ownership of his body but merely pointing out body and soul are not dissociable in the way you want them to be. If a drug changes you, it is not the same *you* that is taking the decision to stop or continue taking it. It robs you of the possibility of even talking about personal choice. And if you think media corporations manipulate the masses, wait till Jacko comes dusted with coke.

call me ishmael said...

Strange that we arrived here, having started with Flying Officer Snot.

My considered view, however, is that the idea of a "Drugs Policy" - insofar as it relates to what we might call recreational use of what they call prohibited substances and separate from the licensing of non-recreation-specific preparations for medical dispensation by the National health service, cancer drugs, laxatives, emollients and so on- is as revolting a concept as and is rooted in the same notions of Power as was burning people at the stake for clinging to one form of superstition over another. It is nobody's business how another chooses to alter his or her consciousness, least of all is it the business of the State; the attendant criminality of such activity stems, in the main, from it's very illegality and the opportunities it thus affords to organised crime; the medical consequences and in the case of narcotics they are significant flow, also, from the user being fleeced and short-changed by dealers cutting the product and by government ensuring that what is -in comparison with tobacco or alcohol or food addiction - a relatively safe activity becomes, underground, a filthy, insanitary and dangerous practice, easier to buy shells for a shotgun, easier for young teens to buy lethal alcopops, lethal tobacco, than for a heroin user to buy a tuppenny syringe.

But it isn't just heroin that Gordon and Obama - althought they welcome to their palaces rich junkies - want to control; it is Everything.

If, finally, a personal, bedrock judgement judgement leads one to use Remy Martin, another to Sister Morphine and yet another to ccontemplative hedge-trimming in order to bind the wounds of living then I, and you Mr TDG, should do nothing, save marvel at the wonder of it all. How people choose to get out of their heads, their historic and pre-historic invention and industry in this field, their determination to manufacture something, anything, to alter their perceptions is the abiding wonder of the world.

Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, let them get stoned and find God. Amen.

Daisy said...

"How people choose to get out of their heads, their historic and pre-historic invention and industry in this field, their determination to manufacture something, anything, to alter their perceptions is the abiding wonder of the world."

Some years ago I stayed for a while in a small village in northern Finland. If you wanted a drink, beer was about a tenner a pint, and if you fancied a wee dram it was locked and padlocked away in a cabinet with iron bars on the front, and you'd better have a second mortgage in hand to pay for it. What I couldn't understand was how so many of the locals, who were clearly by no means wealthy, were literally falling-down drunk by mid-afternoon, or even, in some cases, mid-morning. It turned out they all had a still in the cellar, and were busily converting the surrounding birch forest into wood alcohol.

The Dyer's Garden said...

I have to agree the uncertainty and hazard associated with obtaining drugs paradoxically contribute to their reinforcement. How could you resist having an affair in Iran, for example, knowing a stoning is in wait for you? Just imagine the thrill...

call me ishmael said...

I think we have covered that kind of getting stoned in earlier posts.

jaydeeaitch said...

Thank you Mr Ishmael

Fuck you Gordon Brown.

That didn't hurt a bit.