Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

2 Comments

  1. In defence of lost causes, the message of this celebrity terrorism stuff is to not take it to seriously. Especially when someone says that they are a big celebrity? Okay no, celebrities do not hold powerful positions. Then again if you speak up against radicals fighting for equality as in fighting for an excuse to break the rules every one has to live by, then you could lose your job. Academic power is measured on 3 levels, a) can you provide jobs, b) can you provide institutional funding (grants), c) can you provide publication. And so celebrity power is very powerless in all these three domains. In an elementary sense who really stands for power.

    I don’t doubt that Al Baghdadi is sincere in his threats but he is questionable. When acting as a celebrity spokesperson you don’t follow the rules of weak vs strong. The weak don’t signal to the strong over here, here I am. I think there is a real danger that people who don’t understand war or combat and people making decisions when they don’t know how things can go wrong and talking about it with the same sort of language that we would use to describe office politics.

    Y’know so we get these woke talking points saying we won’t to save lives but we don’t want the terrorists to feel bad. So there probably needs to be a clean out of old inelegance staff and a moving forward so non of is old water boarding stuff and non of the old Obama drone policy and I think that Parliaments Security and Intelligence committee should do there jobs and appoint some one who is appropriate for the times because the laws aren’t the same as they where before 15/3.

    It’s just strange that people who don’t really have an operational understanding of terrorism would appoint people to head chief security positions and then opps sorry, turns out they don’t really know what they are doing for the last 20 years. Now we have big issues. We have China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Fiji.

  2. If it was Al Baghdadi after all, he said the attacks in Sri Lanka were for the last battle lost by IS in Syria.

    That contradicts earlier reports that were quoted by silly MSM here, saying, there were reports that it was a revenge attack for Christchurch.

    So who do we believe, a revitalised or revived from the dead IS leader Abu Bakr Al What is His Name, or the MSM, or whosoever?

    NO matter what we choose, we will be in trouble, one way or another, we are simply being misinformed on a massive scale. But most sheeples rather focus on day to day consumerism, their sports and entertainment, and chats with loved ones.

    Let the two legged sheep rule forever, the planet will die a century before climate change will even hit us.

Comments are closed.