Afghanistan.

Well, what can I say about this clusterfuck of a situation, other than it was entirely predictable. The past 200 years of history has proven that the Brits, the Russians and now the combined Western World can't tame that country.

I'll explain later why Afghanistan can't be tamed, but first let's pause an remember all of those men and women that lost their lives, or who were badly injured whilst on duty in that fly-blown, sandbox of a country. It's those people and their families that I have sympathy for today. Just what did they die for? Just why were our soldiers permanently maimed? To what purpose? 

Twenty years and several lives later and Afghanistan is returning to the status quo. 

The country cannot be tamed, because there are not enough people in the country to police every inch of it. The country is a disparate set of towns, separated by hundreds of miles. Armies can disappear into the wilderness and because they have no uniform, can travel at will around the country. When necessary they can form into organised groups and attack in force, only to melt into the wilderness again afterwards.

The other thing to understand is the Taliban, like other Muslim extremist groups, are actually looked on as more pious, more Muslim and therefore less pious Muslims can't resist them. Because to do so would be to go against a group that follows the teachings of Allah to a more extreme degree. The Taliban are better Muslims than those that have been corrupted by the West's values. Those the West call moderate Muslims, the favourite kind of Muslim for the Media.

It's exactly the same here in the UK with extremist Muslim groups and the child rape gangs. That's why they can flourish within the Muslim community. The extremists are following the Koran more accurately and to a more extreme degree than the lax Muslims that are "moderate". 

In the Muslim world, the extremists will always win out. It's built-in.

And so Afghanistan slips back to extremism. The Western World has failed, due to a lack of stamina. 

The sad thing is that we are now more at risk at home too. The extremists are here on our soil. Once Afghanistan and Iraq fall back to their default positions, the training camps will start up, the networks in the West will be activated. 

Emboldened by these "victories" you will see more atrocities on Western Soil. 

Mark My Words.

Who will be next to try their hand in Afghanistan? China maybe? There are resources to be had there and the country is virtually empty. China has no compunction about the excessive use of force in order to quell insurrections. The type of force required to win in Afghanistan. Although to do that, China would need to neutralise Pakistan. 

Both countries are nuclear powers, although I do have doubts about the effectiveness of the the Pakistani nuclear deterrent. I'd put money on China to win that bout if it came down to it.

So, let's see what happens next. Although we do need to grow balls and defend our borders and step up internal security. Not the creepy all-seeing security that makes criminals of everyone. But security forces targeted at those that would cause atrocities in this country.

Right now there are enough ex-Taliban fighters and sympathisers in the UK to cause an atrocity on the level of the Mumbai attacks. Just think what damage a group of gunmen could cause in a crowded London shopping street? Or (and the extremists have form for this too) a crowded shopping Mall? 

A handful of heavily armed fighters could kill hundreds of civilians. 

My advice is to avoid large shopping centres, especially in London and Birmingham for a while.

Those people we pissed off in the first hours of the invasions of Afghanistan, the people I've blogged about before will come for revenge.

When is a Vaccine not a Vaccine?

When it's a genetically modified Simian virus that doesn't stop you getting the virus it's supposed to prevent and it doesn't prevent transmission of the virus it's supposed to.

So, lets state the facts.

The government itself has stated the Covid-19 "vaccines" don't stop you getting the virus, nor do they stop you passing it to others. The "vaccine" actually just lessens the risk of you personally being hospitalised. 

So I'm a bit confused by the narrative that it's selfish not to get the vaccine. Especially when the only person it benefits is you. That's a fact. 

It's also a fact that you are more likely to die from the virus if you don't get vaccinated, but surely that's a personal choice. It's your informed choice to accept the higher risk of serious complications from covid-19 rather than accept injection of a  genetically modified simian virus into your body.

I'm also confused by the narrative that getting the vaccine makes you less transmissible, it makes you less likely to infect others.  That certainly isn't a fact. 

This then leads on to mandatory vaccination for people in certain jobs. Initially I'm talking about carers, many of whom themselves have health issues. So they cannot take the vaccine on health grounds. Should they be sacked because of a health issue? Even if they refuse vaccination on religious grounds, or just personal choice, should they be sacked?

Especially if they can get the virus, take it into a care setting and pass it onto their residents even if they have been vaccinated. Why is the vaccination mandatory?

Are we looking at low hanging fruit? Are we seeing the persecution of a section of society to test the reaction of the population? Are we seeing the persecution of poor, low-paid workers who can't afford to fight back in order to establish employment case law? Will we see the case law then rolled out to include the suspension or sacking of anyone for transgressions of arbitrarily established rules?

So the authorities don't like your health status? Sacked.

They don't like your Political stance? Sacked.

Don't like the words you are using on Social Media? Sacked.

Don't like the company you keep? Sacked.

Think it can't happen? Just extrapolate what is happening right now and understand that government NEVER uses legislation for it's original purpose, no matter how narrowly defined. 

The anti-terror laws have been abused, the violent porn laws have been abused, the offense laws have been abused, the communications act has been abused. ALL of those laws, all of that legislation has been used in way it wasn't originally intended for. Call it mission-creep, call it overstepping the mark; it still boils down to the abuse of law. 

The rules being proposed now essentially are work permits. You will not be permitted to work unless you fulfil certain criteria. Initially it's based on your vaccination status, but very quickly could include political status, mental health status, family status, loyalty to the party, loyalty to the state, eh comrade?

If the government gets away with mandating vaccinations or allowing discrimination against unvaccinated people, then we will truly deserve the tyranny that will follow.

Aliens

 No, not the decidedly iffy sequel to the marvellous original Movie, but actual, real, extra-terrestrial beings. 

Let me first state that I'm not delving into nutjob conspiracies here, I'm just discussing our reaction as a species to certain phenomena. 

It's a given that currently we do not have evidence of actual life from another planet. Let's just park that there. No. evidence.

But, the question arises: should we be looking for it? Not just the far-away stuff like exoplanets, but closer to home?

Yes, I'm initially taking about the Congressional report that was released in America a couple of weeks ago. It seems it raised more questions than answers. While it conformed that there are unexplained aerial phenomena, it didn't really explain why they had not be fully and properly researched before. It did say that maybe now is the time we start to fit better sensors, to better identify and classify (80's reference) whatever it is the pilots in the air and people on the ground are seeing.

Now, I know when I look at some of the videos and pictures available on the web, I can see straight away that the majority are no alien tech, or some such. More likely blurry FLIR pictures of target drones, or camera artefacts of light sources at night. 

But there are a few that cannot be explained, hence the conclusion that we need clearer pictures, more data and more importantly more funds. 

Not just on the Earth, there are objects in the Solar System that cannot be easily explained.

I listened to a podcast from the fascinating "Event Horizon" channel on YouTube interviewing Avi Loeb regarding Oumuamua, the now confirmed extrasolar object that came into the solar system, slingshotted round the Sun and then went back on it's way into deep space. 

He explained that although the chance were it was a chunk of rock from another solar system, there's the possibility it was something else. But without the ability to intercept such objects, photograph and closely analyse them, we will never know if they are anything more. It's all just speculation. And he's right. Taking the little green men out of the equation, Oumuamua exhibited properties that couldn't be explained by a chunk of rock. Oumuamua accelerated  away from  the Sun at a greater rate than a simple chunk of rock. Outgassing, solar capture, all have been speculated. But not confirmed. 

And it's that confirmation, that certainty that is necessary to inform science. If we had confirmed it was a chunk of rock, then we can confirm that chunks of rock can work like solar sails and accelerate, pushed by the solar wind. 

The problem is the cost of confirmation: the cost of making a rocket that can blast off from the earth, with a big package of advanced sensors that can once in space accelerate to the extreme velocities necessary to intercept an object crossing the solar system itself at extreme (for us) velocities. It's Rocket Science, but not the easiest Rocket Science.

Which brings us closer to home: certainly it's easier and cheaper to identify these terrestrial objects by using better quality cameras and sensors. So why don't we improve the quality of reporting? Comparatively, cost is not as high as identifying opjects in Space, so why not?

And if, by some massive quirk of fate we find alien objects, then fair enough. But even if we don't, we will have confirmed the mis-identification of what should be explainable phenomena. Hopefully it will make airspace safer.